Do you support the second amendment?

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

Whatever has the least impact on gun owners and still ensures knowledge of safety issues is fine . . .

.

This is good (if you mean it) LeafbyNiggle.

.

And we ALREADY have this.

It is self-decided practice, training, etc. The gun owner himself (herself) makes these decisions.

And I have no issue with that.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

The “morphing” of my position is making it easier and easier on you gun-lovers.

.
Already the rhetoric suggests otherwise.

To go from “certification” to certification WITH “recurrent training” is not "making it easier (unless you are suggesting the gun owners decides when, how much, how often, to what extent, etc.

And WHY THIS . . . .

.

The “morphing” of my position is making it easier and easier on you gun-lovers.

.
Instead of THIS . . .

.

The “morphing” of my position is making it easier and easier on you freedom-lovers and supporters of the Constitution…

.
We see a lot of Hollywood “gun-lovers” that seem to have issues with the Constitution and have no qualms about “evangelizing” doing away with Second Amendment protections Citizens Are Afforded (The proverbial “Hollywood types” I am alluding to Are NOT “freedom lovers” and they are not “lovers of the Constitution” from how they practice. But they love guns. Their personal gun collections guns for Government, and guns for their personal armed guards.).

(This kind of misappropriation just reinforces to proponents of the Constitution, that gun-grabbers just can’t seem to understand the mindset of a free citizenry instead of being mere subjects.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

Whatever has the least impact on gun owners and still ensures knowledge of safety issues is fine . . .

Of course you don’t have any issue with that, because it does not satisfy the bare minimum requirement of ensuring that every gun owner is trained in safety. So it offers me nothing on my request.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And WHY THIS . . . .

The “morphing” of my position is making it easier and easier on you gun-lovers.

Hey, if you can call me a gun-grabber, I can call you guys gun-lovers. I’ll stop if you will. Deal?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

it does not satisfy the bare minimum requirement . . .

.

So you WERE talking about inventing yet another new Government program!

.

it does not satisfy the bare minimum requirement . . .

.

It does not satisfy the bare minimum requirement . . . ACCORDING to WHO!!??

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, you got me there!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:

it does not satisfy the bare minimum requirement . . .

According to to anyone who wants to ensure that gun owners know how to keep and use their weapons safely. But if this is not a concern of yours I can understand why you would oppose anything like that. A class in 9th grade does not ensure that.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

Hey, if you can call me a gun-grabber, I can call you guys gun-lovers. I’ll stop if you will. Deal?

.
I don’t mind being called a gun-lover. It’s wrong but it’s a “shoulder-shrugger” to me.

The problem with it, is the term is not really descriptive.

As I said, there are Constitutional activists that love their guns, and others that are pretty neutral about guns, and even others who don’t even like guns for themselves.

As I also said, the NRA has NON-gun owning members too for example.

So reducing them down to “gun-lovers” doesn’t go far enough to describe them.

But with “gun-grabbers” the term is descriptive.

Gun-grabbers always deny it (I’ve even heard Senator Feinstein deny she fits that description).

But it is, what it is. And gun-grabbing–even incrementally–is . . . well . . .it’s gun-grabbing.

But yes for YOU LeafbyNiggle, I’ll try to remember that and try NOT TO refer to YOU in this way.

I have great respect for you LeafbyNiggle and do not want to alienate you.

But the policies? . . . It’s “Gun-grabbing” if it’s anything that infringes upon our citizens.

 

[JonNC]

Of course you don’t have any issue with that, because it does not satisfy the bare minimum requirement of ensuring that every gun owner is trained in safety. So it offers me nothing on my request.

I think I asked previously, and I don’t recall seeing an answer. What are the statistics on negligent discharges in the United States?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Of course you don’t have any issue with that, because it does not satisfy the bare minimum requirement of ensuring that every gun owner is trained in safety. So it offers me nothing on my request.

I think I asked previously, and I don’t recall seeing an answer. What are the statistics on negligent discharges in the United States?

Your question goes to the issue of cost-effectiveness of various measures. I make no claim that safety training classes or certification is cost-effective. In fact I’m not seriously proposing either one of them. I propose them only hypothetically to illustrate a point and respond to someone’s proposal that we have gun safety classes taught to all in school. Actually I think that if anyone would propose that, they are proposing something that would cost more than safety certification for only those who need it - those who intend to own guns. Despite the fact that there are more guns in the US than people, it is also a fact that only 36% of American households own guns. Then consider that in such a household, usually only one member of the household is the responsible gun owner who would need safety certification. If we take the average household size as 3 people, that means that 36/3 = 12% of Americans would actually need to be certified. And if most of those already know the safety rules and procedures, they would be able to pass the test with no additional formal classes. So maybe a 15-minute multiple-choice test given like a written drivers test. Cheap, compared to holding classes for everyone in school. So if you are going to question the cost-effectiveness of gun safety efforts, start by questioning the cost-effectiveness of the most expensive proposal - classes for all in school.

 

[JonNC]

Your question goes to the issue of cost-effectiveness of various measures. I make no claim that safety training classes or certification is cost-effective.

My question goes to the fact that there is no need for such a mandatory requirement, as the incidents are statistically minute.

Oh, and the ulterior motive some in the anti-2nd progressive left have, that being a backdoor registry

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Your question goes to the issue of cost-effectiveness of various measures. I make no claim that safety training classes or certification is cost-effective.

My question goes to the fact that there is no need for such a mandatory requirement, as the incidents are statistically minute.

Which is another way of saying that safety training is not cost-effective, like I said.

 

[upant]

I make no claim that safety training classes or certification is cost-effective. In fact I’m not seriously proposing either one of them. I propose them only hypothetically to illustrate a point and respond to someone’s proposal that we have gun safety classes taught to all in school. Actually I think that if anyone would propose that, they are proposing something that would cost more than safety certification for only those who need it - those who intend to own guns.

so another gun control truth comes out: safety isn’t the real issue.

the idea of teaching eddie eagle and gun safety in schools is too reduce accidental deaths/injuries among children. the side benefit is that eventual owners will already know how to handle a gun safely.

gun control only controls the poor!

not one inch

 

[JonNC]

Which is another way of saying that safety training is not cost-effective, like I said.

It would be if I had said it was not cost-effective. But since I didn’t say that, that’s not what I said.
I said it is unnecessary, and for some a backdoor attempt at registration.

 

[Theo520]

Showing an eddie eagle video every year in elementary and then talking about it has virtually no cost

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I make no claim that safety training classes or certification is cost-effective. In fact I’m not seriously proposing either one of them. I propose them only hypothetically to illustrate a point and respond to someone’s proposal that we have gun safety classes taught to all in school. Actually I think that if anyone would propose that, they are proposing something that would cost more than safety certification for only those who need it - those who intend to own guns.

so another gun control truth comes out: safety isn’t the real issue.

the idea of teaching eddie eagle and gun safety in schools is too reduce accidental deaths/injuries among children. the side benefit is that eventual owners will already know how to handle a gun safely

But…JonNC said that the incidents of accidental shootings was miniscule. I think you should take this criticism up with him, not with me. I was not the who who said it was unnecessary to worry about gun safety.

Showing an eddie eagle video every year in elementary and then talking about it has virtually no cost

Not true. A hour of school time costs plenty. The teachers still have to be there. The building still has to be maintained. The other material they would have been learning has to be made up for somehow. I would think that a multiple choice test given at the DMV to 12% of the population and scored by computer - that s what can be done at virtually no cost.

 

[upant]

I was not the who who said it was unnecessary to worry about gun safety.

I would think that a multiple choice test given at the DMV to 12% of the population and scored by computer -

which is it? does everyone need gun safety or just gun owners?

what about the kids killed because they don’t know anything about guns except what they see on tv.

this is one time the grabbers are right. 1 kid saved is worth the cost of teaching them in school about gun safety.

 

[Theo520]

Not true. A hour of school time costs plenty. The teachers still have to be there. The building still has to be maintained. The other material they would have been learning has to be made up for somehow. I would think that a multiple choice test given at the DMV to 12% of the population and scored by computer - that s what can be done at virtually no cost.

gun safety merges well with other types of safety that should be discussed.
They talk about sexual assault and probably about dangerous chemicals. It all fits together with how they should respond and contact an adult. An hour could include all the safety topics, you don’t need an hour for each…

There would be virtually no cost to add gun safety to the annual training.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

I propose them only hypothetically to illustrate a point and respond to someone’s proposal that we have gun safety classes taught to all in school.

.
That’d be me.

I’m the one who proposed gun safety in schools from the NRA (as we ALREADY HAVE in some schools).

Complaints about lack of gun education by leftist gun-grabbing people are constantly heard by freedom supporters.

Then when Constitutional supporters suggest gun safety for the children, including practical-use testing (the kids get to put theory into practice with the help of trained NRA safety supervision), the liberal activists balk at it.

Cost prohibitive?

Ask the NRA experts to come in on a volunteer basis and re-assess it later. See how that goes. That will help with costs.

Many of the Concealed-Carry people are great American-loving citizens. Likewise the NRA members.

Many of these people have ALREADY been doing volunteering such as this for various scouting groups, altar servers, oppressed and threatened women needing urgent help getting started with proper firearm usage, etc. over the years.

These “gun-lovers” (for the most part) are GREAT citizens and happy and willing volunteers–often at their own personal expense for ammo, gun-cleaning supplies, targets, range fees, etc.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cath13:

.

If the guy was from a foreign country with a funny sounding last name and different religion we would be all over it, But, we do love our guns.

.
This seemed like a cheap shot to me. It seems you are using deaths of people to advance your political agenda.

Actually a thread HAS been begun on this already. Some people here are just hearing about this (as I just did).

Perhaps it would be good to “be all over” judging other people’s motives and not implying they are xenophobic unless . . . they support whittling away from our Second Amendment.

Why politicize the deaths of these church goers Cath13?