Another mass shooting...

[Belsnickel]

Just saw a random thought posted by someone in Facebook: in some states, you have to go through more training to handle food than handle a firearm.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2015, 03:31 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote:  But instead we teach victimhood. You're a victim. You can't do anything because you're a victim. Don't fight back. Don't express your anger. 

I think you have this argument backwards.

Wouldn't teaching people to fight back lead to even more shootings?

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-02-2015, 03:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just saw a random thought posted by someone in Facebook: in some states, you have to go through more training to handle food than handle a firearm.

I don't get this line of thinking.

The problem is not that this mass shooter didn't know how to use the safety lock or clean his barrels. And I really, really hope they're not saying the shooter needed target practice.

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 04:02 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I don't get this line of thinking.

The problem is not that this mass shooter didn't know how to use the safety lock or clean his barrels. And I really, really hope they're not saying the shooter needed target practice.

I know some people think that some sort of training should be required before having a firearm and that would reduce the chances of people like this with firearms.

My contention with things like this in discussions about gun control is more about the unintentional discharges, the unsafe handlings, etc. Those incidents make up a significant portion of firearm related injuries in our country, and all of them can be prevented.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2015, 04:02 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I don't get this line of thinking.

The problem is not that this mass shooter didn't know how to use the safety lock or clean his barrels. And I really, really hope they're not saying the shooter needed target practice.

Perfect example of the difference between the "mass shooting" problem and the "gun deaths" problem.

More training requirements would probably save ten times more lives per year than the total number of people killed in mass shootings every year.  So it is a major issue when talking about "gun deaths", but since it would not have much effect on "mass shootings" people dismiss it.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(10-02-2015, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think you have this argument backwards.

Wouldn't teaching people to fight back lead to even more shootings?

Not if you teach them to handle things properly. 

Instead you bottle things up. 
Or you place blame elsewhere.
On an ideal or belief. 

You don't handle problems the way they should and they fester. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-02-2015, 04:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Perfect example of the difference between the "mass shooting" problem and the "gun deaths" problem.

More training requirements would probably save ten times more lives per year than the total number of people killed in mass shootings every year.  So it is a major issue when talking about "gun deaths", but since it would not have much effect on "mass shootings" people dismiss it.

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

So that would take care of a significant portion of gun deaths. The problem is that nobody in the current Congress is going to push for anything like this; you can already hear the Tea Baggers asking "WHO'S GUNNA PAY FOR IT HMM?!"

Plus, as you mentioned, it still doesn't take care of the homicides, so that would be only one part of the solution.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(10-02-2015, 04:15 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Got it, thanks for clarifying.

So that would take care of a significant portion of gun deaths. The problem is that nobody in the current Congress is going to push for anything like this; you can already hear the Tea Baggers asking "WHO'S GUNNA PAY FOR IT HMM?!"

Plus, as you mentioned, it still doesn't take care of the homicides, so that would be only one part of the solution.

Most everyone I know who has guns, would be more than willing to foot the bill for that sort of class themselves. 

[RoyleRedlegs]

(10-02-2015, 03:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just saw a random thought posted by someone in Facebook: in some states, you have to go through more training to handle food than handle a firearm.

Food borne illnesses would probably be more dangerous 

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 04:18 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Food borne illnesses would probably be more dangerous 

Still interesting to think that less training is needed for something intended to kill versus something intended to nourish.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-02-2015, 04:17 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Most everyone I know who has guns, would be more than willing to foot the bill for that sort of class themselves. 

Then they should make that clear to their Congressional leaders.

If you're wanting to make training legally mandatory for gun ownership (and I'm warm to the idea myself), Congress will, unfortunately, have to get involved.

Out of curiosity, anybody know the NRA's position on this?

[RoyleRedlegs]

(10-02-2015, 04:20 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Then they should make that clear to their Congressional leaders.

If you're wanting to make training legally mandatory for gun ownership (and I'm warm to the idea myself), Congress will, unfortunately, have to get involved.

Out of curiosity, anybody know the NRA's position on this?

I'm sure if the NRA sponsored the classes and got part of the proceeds, they'd love it. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 04:23 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I'm sure if the NRA sponsored the classes and got part of the proceeds, they'd love it. 

I don't think so. The NRA cares more about the firearms industry than the owners. Anything that could restrict purchases like that would be something they would likely come down against.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(10-02-2015, 04:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Still interesting to think that less training is needed for something intended to kill versus something intended to nourish.

If you figure in WHEN most of the laws for food handling were enacted, I'd be willing to say that it was a much larger concern. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2015, 04:15 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Got it, thanks for clarifying.

So that would take care of a significant portion of gun deaths. The problem is that nobody in the current Congress is going to push for anything like this; you can already hear the Tea Baggers asking "WHO'S GUNNA PAY FOR IT HMM?!"

Plus, as you mentioned, it still doesn't take care of the homicides, so that would be only one part of the solution.

The people taking the classes would pay for it, but you got you to work "Tea Bagger" into another thread so congrats on that.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-02-2015, 04:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think so. The NRA cares more about the firearms industry than the owners. Anything that could restrict purchases like that would be something they would likely come down against.

Yeah, that's what I suspect... Unless, as Red said, they were gonna make money off of it. Which I don't see any reason why the NRA should receive that kind of a government hand out.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-02-2015, 04:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The people taking the classes would pay for it,

Wait. So now in order to buy a gun, people would also have to shell out (how many hundreds?) to take a class before they could even legally use it?

This is sounding less and less plausible...

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 04:29 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Yeah, that's what I suspect... Unless, as Red said, they were gonna make money off of it. Which I don't see any reason why the NRA should receive that kind of a government hand out.

Well, most firearms safety courses are taught by NRA certified instructors, so if the demand for these instructors increased and the number of safety course materials being purchased from them increased, they would see a rise in their revenue. But, since that revenue pales in comparison to the revenues from the firearms industry I doubt there woul dbe enough of an incentive for their loyalties to be shaken.

[BmorePat87]

So what happens with regulations once more 3D printers are out there?

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2015, 04:31 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Wait. So now in order to buy a gun, people would also have to shell out (how many hundreds?) to take a class before they could even legally use it?

This is sounding less and less plausible...

They have to pay for classes for conceal carry let people take classes to buy a gun.  It won't reduce murders, but it could reduce accidental shootings.  Some gun places may offer the classes for free as a competitive edge.