This time no one was killed.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...ly-fires-shot-at-Walmart/UPI-45371343147222/?
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...ly-fires-shot-at-Walmart/UPI-45371343147222/?
Why guns need to be licensed and owners need training
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Boondocksaint27
Active Member
I don't think you will find anyone arguing that a responsible gun owner trains with his/her weapon.
How would licensing the weapon have prevented this?
DutchJazzer
Banned
training shouldn't be mandatory.
it's called evolutuion
stupid people have always died of stupidity. it should be ones own repsosibility
it's called evolutuion
stupid people have always died of stupidity. it should be ones own repsosibility
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf
Read page 16...oops.....
Guy is an idiot for running and deserves some kind of criminal charge.
@boondock he knows that but chooses to ignore it as it does not fit his narrative that we are all out of control, gun waiving, racists.
You forgot the bigots and misogynists.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
One, then how are you still among the living? Two, you mean like the Jews?
It may not have, but licensing is proof of training. This incident may have occured, but similar incident will be less likely to occur.
If 80% of the population are gun owners, it would probably be a good use of money. If 20% are gun owners, probably not.
Also, that's probably a state issue.
it should go without saying...
ok, I'll admit to not really knowing much about legal topics, but isn't there some sort of age restriction on owning a gun (or any property for that matter)
What percentage of gun owners are going to be part of the school-age population?
But 100% of Americans have a right to posses firearms and whether one chooses to own a firearm or not they may come into contact with a firearm at some point. Just for health and safety purposes a course in the basic operation of various firearms, firearms safety, firearm risks and possible consequences (think blood on the highway, but for firearms), and minimal proficiency training.
You seem to be for limiting people's freedom in regard to firearms and see loss of freedom as a reasonable "price" to pay for the dangers of firearms, but actually teaching people how to be safe with firearms is a waste of money?
You must be 18 to own any firearm and 21 to own a handgun. There is no age limit on how old you have to be in order to use a firearm.
The concept of the training wouldn't be to teach people how to be good at using firearms. The training would be for awareness and safety.
Just as it was considered a requirement for the population to be educated in order for them to effectively participate in democracy, I would say that firearms education is a requirement for people who have access and a "god given" right to own firearms. The right to own firearms isn't going away, so let's equip people to use that right responsibly.
Still too expensive?
Just as it was considered a requirement for the population to be educated in order for them to effectively participate in democracy, I would say that firearms education is a requirement for people who have access and a "god given" right to own firearms. The right to own firearms isn't going away, so let's equip people to use that right responsibly.
Still too expensive?
There is no evolutionary way to prevent yourself from standing next to someone whose gun accidentally goes off.
I wasn't going to bother to respond, but then someone took this seriously. Ugh!
The vast majority of Americans drive, so driver's educaiton is a good use of money, I think we agree there. What is the actual percentage of people that wind up handling a gun ("contact" is very unspecific) in a way that such training woulod improve their safety? I actually said the training would probably be a good use of money if 80% of the populace benefitted from it, so I'm not sure why you responded that I think it would be an unqualified waste of money. If only 20% of the populace benefit, do you think it would be a good use of money? Why?
We both agree that the right to bear arms should have limitations. Is there a reason you consider proper licensing and training to lead to an unacceptable loss of freedom? Could you be more specific about why?
I have the impression you are having a discussion someone who holds different views than I do, but using me as a proxy.
If only 20% of the populace benefit, maybe. I had to pay for my own driver's education lessons. I didn't, and don't, see that as some burden on my ability to get a license.
Did you have the details of a program in mind? Outside of details, how could I unreservedly support, or condemn, such education?
Kind of like automobiles, right? That's why people rarely suffer injury or death involving an automobile.