🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <77dntr$931@flatland.dimensional.com>,
Ben Cantrick <mackys@dim.com> wrote:
>>As far as the training requirements, are there NRA certification classes like 
>>this currently available here? 
>
>  I know there are some in Boulder, since I took a handgun safety class
>a while back. Admittedly, there was no mention of the laws surrounding the
>legal use of deadly force, 

The NRA offers a Personal Protection class, with a syllabus that includes 
a perusal of the relevant local + state laws guided by a lawyer followed 
by a question and answer session. 

>  Anyway, if there are handgun training classes up here in the PRB, I
>imagine there must be some in Denver somewhere.

Contrary to popular belief, the PRB is _extremely_ diverse.  Although
the darker skin colors aren't in abundance, political views range from
communism to those who espouse armed resistance against a tyranical US 
government (that's present tense).

>>Yes, and from what I've heard, only a very tiny number of people in the other 
>>states have had theirs revoked, so most people have handled it pretty well.
>
>  Only a tiny minority of people steal, murder, rape, blow up federal
>buildings full of innocent government employees, etc, etc, etc... That
>doesn't make it right, nor does it mean we shouldn't legislate against it.

Only a tiny number of firearms are used in crimes.  That doesn't mean
we shouldn't legislate against them.  Only a tiny number of people 
commit crimes at night.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't institute
curfews for everyone.  It's called prior restraint, and is an anathema
to our freedom.

My posessing a gun or car keys while drunk has no effect on anyone (that's
not entirely true.  In the winter, I've slipped on ice, fallen on my keys,
and left a nasty yellow/black/blue/purple bruise.  Drunk friends have fallen 
down, and would have hurt themselves if they landed on metal keys and guns)
and there should be no laws preventing it.  If I am stupid/evil enough
to engage in dangerous behavior, we already had laws on the books concerning 
brandishing,  discharging firearms within city limits, reckless endangerment, 
and manslaughter to punish me.

Conversly, Suzanne Chase was beaten to death with a baseball bat a few blocks 
from where I live, at night when I may be returning on foot from an evening of 
pool with a few bears.  Prior restraint laws like no-guns and alcohol may 
kill me or let the thugs close enough for all practical purposes (Paul
Kelly will never be gainfully employed, and is doomed to spend his 
remaining decades living with his parents or in a home for the mentally 
disabled).

>  I really can't agree that it's only apathy and authoritarianism that's
>driving gun control. Some gun control, maybe, but probably not all of it.
>I think people have good reasons to want gun control. If nothing else,
>simply to protect their own life and liberty.

Ignorance and prejudice play some part.

All of the peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate that 
liberal firearms laws either reduce violent crime or have no correlation
to crime.  In spite of this, the mass-media (the Associated Press is 
the worst.  If you look at their articles, you'll note that anything 
anti-gun gets coverage; while the works of Lott, Kleck, etc are ignored.  
You'll also see that anti-gun articles have supporting quotes from respected 
politicians and doctors, while the opposition views are limitted to 
sour-grapes remarks "their research methods are bogus"  "I own guns, 
and it won't make a difference") and certain politicians (Boxer, Clinton, 
Feinstein, Schumer) push an anti-gun agenda with a self-destructive 
(Clinton's bouncing HR3355 back to congress until they conceeded and 
included the so-called "assault weapon" ban gave the Republicans control 
of House and Senate) religious fervor.

>(And I'd probably be
>one of them, come to think of it. The idea of repealing *all* gun control
>laws is simply not something I think would be good.)

Why not?  

If a criminal owns a gun, it has no effect on you unless he uses it;
thus comitting a felony.  If a non-criminal owns a gun, it has no 
effect until he abuses it; which is also a crime (brandishing, 
discharging a firearm within city limits, reckless endangerment,
criminal negligent, manslaughter, etc).

We have serious penalties for firearms abuse which aren't
"gun control laws." and will remain on the books once gun
control is repealed.

If some one kills you with an "assault weapon," or handgun, 
you are just as dead if you were killed with a model 96 (as in
1896, the first year of production) Mauser; and it's murder 
either way.  Murder is good for the death penalty or life
in prison.

Although I don't <yet> own any single-shot guns, I'm a big 
fan of single action revolvers.  You open up the loading gate,
put the hammer on the loading notch, eject a round, load a 
round, skip a hole, eject a round, load a round, repeat four
times, close the gate, pull the hammer to full cock, and lower
it.  After drawing, you cock the hammer.  The barrel sits 
way above your hand, so the recoil acts on a long lever and 
sends the muzzle sky high after you squeeze the trigger.  You
wait for it to settle down, cock it (helping the cylinder along
if it's sticky), and repeat the process.  With
five shots, extremely slow reloads, and a slow rate of fire
you tend to make each shot count rather than sending a stream of bullets 
down range.  Most criminals miss.  Those that do hit people only 
manage a 25% fatality rate.  Assuming you could force them to use 
the primitive handguns enjoyed by enthusiasts, they'd need to 
learn how to shoot them.  If you manage to restrict hanguns 
enough to discourage the criminal element, you'll force them
to use knives (stabbings are more lethal than handgun wounds)
or long arms (which are both more lethal and easier to shoot.  With
some pistols, if I've slacked off for a few months, I can't keep all my 
shots on the paper at 15 yards.  After three years of shooting nothing 
and three of handguns exclusively, I returned to rifles and while sighting in 
my new rifle with metalic sights I put five rounds into a 5/8" circle at
fifty yards.  I let a friend in the same situation try it out at
100 yards, and none of his shots landed outside the 7 ring.).  If anything, 
disregarding the effect of gun-ownership and concealed carry on violent 
crime rates, laws against high capacity magazines and handguns make our 
streets more dangerous.

For the most part, criminals aren't stupid.  They've weighed the 
costs of their chosen vocation (periodic vacations with the government
picking up three square meals a day and cable television.  One of 
my former roomates did time, and said "It was a lot like summer camp,
although we couldn't leave.  Come to think of it, we couldn't leave
there either.") against the benefits (a substantial income, no
taxes, flexible hours) and made a prudent career move.  Police
are required to follow an escalation of force.  If a crook gets
caught and complies with a vocal warning, that's all they suffer.
If they run and are tackled, pain compliance techniques do the 
trick.  If they put an armed citizen's life in danger, their 
life may be forfeit on the spot.  In states with liberal CCW 
laws, being shot is a real risk, and the criminals switch to tourists, 
and/or property crimes which don't threaten their (and your) safety. 
Permitless CCW gives everyone the benefit of the doubt in 
criminal's minds.

>>Another infringment of the 2nd Amendment. Why can't we do things by 
>>encouragement instead of always trying to dictate to people? Have some 
>>propaganda commercials about how good an idea it is to get training, and the 
>>schools could even pay for them. Let the fees for the classes pay for the 
>>commercials.
>
>  Because people are generally rationally lazy and ignorant. If we don't
>require something, there will be people who don't do it. 

Assuming prior restraint is acceptable, doesn't it make more sense 
to target the areas where the death toll is highest?  According to the 
National Safety Council, in 1995 there were 43,900 motor vehicle fatalities, 
10,600 poisonings, and only 1,400 firearms accidents.  Shouldn't we have 
mandatory driver education before we get our licenses, and chemical handling 
courses before the supermarkets can sell us household cleaning supplies?

>will always be the people who claim they're too busy, or those whose
>ego makes them think they already know how to safely handle a gun despite
>evidence to the contrary. 

Gun safety is pretty simple.  When I learned to shoot at eight or 
nine, they taught me the following

	1.  Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot
	2.  Don't point your gun at anything you don't want to destroy
	3.  Be sure of your target (including what lies behind it)

It's not rocket science.  Breaking either of the first two in a way
that endangers people is enough to send you to jail if the police 
catch you and the morgue if you meet up with an armed citizen instead.

>These "ignoramouses" and "cowboys" are exactly
>the ones who need training to educate them. 

Some states (Vermont) allow concealed cary without a permit. Many
(including Colorado) allow open cary without one.

The mass-media jumps all over studies (Dr. Wintemute's recent
piece of propoganda) and sob-stories (the California crook out on 
parole after serving less than half his attempted murder sentence
who killed the decorated war veteran, policeman single father of a 
seven year old boy) which portary guns and gun ownership in a negative
light.  If there was a problem with untrained individuals wearing
guns in public, you'd read about it in the Denver Post and see it on CNN.  
You haven't, because there isn't.


>So unfortunately we have to
>dictate that everyone take classes just to catch the idiots. It's stupid,
>but I can't think of any better way.

Madatory education would save a few lives.  It would also claim a few,
directly in incidents like those in states with waiting periods where women's
abusive husbands/boyfriends have been paroled from prison, the women were 
threatened, the police refused the protect them, they were unable to legally 
acquire a gun, and their estrange lover murdered them in cold blood.  I don't
consider that acceptale.

Treat guns like any other tool: no restrictions on posession, and 
appropriate penalties applied to misuse.  

10% of Americans use illegal drugs, some without letahl overdoses, and 
drug education is nearly universal in our schools.  50% of all 
households own guns, gun accidents can be fatal, and gun safety training 
is non-existant in our schools outside the rural areas which retain 
hunter safety as a phys-ed offerring.  Fixing this discrepancy would be a 
fine idea.

-- 
Some animals are more equal than others.
Email: drew at poohsticks dot org	Home: http://www.poohsticks.org/drew