Surely it was your rifle not your gun? Unless this is just an extended penis metaphor?
(Just busting your balls on the “this is my rifle / this is my gun” chant, if that wasn’t obvious :p)
Yeah it was obvious. Good one. 
Serious question: what are pistols called if the term “gun” is restricted to stuff like artillery? Sidearms?
I think enhancing weapon discipline, training and accountability would be awesome. Anything that actually achieves those goals, I would be for.
However, I thought personnel were generally prohibited from carrying on base. I thought sidearms were stored in the armory. Seem to recall reading a lot about that.
Double: they are pistols. Rifles and pistols, they are.
Hentor: correct, weapons are stored in the armory, or were back when I was in, 80s & 90s. They are then issued for training and when we’re in the field and not in garrison, that’s when we lived with them, 24/7 for days or weeks.
Another point besides training is repeated certification. You can develop the good habits but if they’re not practiced regularly they degrade. I’ve seen this in myself.
Cool, thanks.
Maybe he just really likes Steve McQueen movies. Have you considered that?
I did, in fact! The spelling might suggest thar. However, I’ve only really encountered him in discussions on guns, and not Steve McQueen or Mustangs, so I made a guess as to his motives.
I could see requiring anyone who owns a gun to have to report for “militia” duty, which would consist of a training and certification class. If they pass, they’re certified for the next 4-5 years. If they fail, they have to keep coming back every month until they get it right. If they’re caught lying about owning a gun, they get a big fat fine and the maximum non-felony sentence (12 months iirc).
I like that. I might argue for more frequent recert, but let’s agree to agree at the moment.
I see one problem, though. How do we know who needs to be reporting for training or for recert?
Steve McQueen, who was also a Marine.
(hey that rhymes!)
Of course it is. People are objecting to the people legally carrying concealed weapons because its dangerous but we see that the people who end up carrying concealed weapons are more law abiding that the general population.
Where does anyone imply that getting the license makes people law abiding? I think most people on the gun rights side would say that the effect was in the opposite direction. Law abiding people are the ones who tend to get CHL licenses. Just like law abiding people are the ones who are going to be most affected by gun bans.
This is another example of you using insults to try to bolster your argument.
At this point it is clear that you are just pissed that your side has such poor arguments even thought you just “KNOW” your side is right.
Lets say all that is true (and I don’t think that it is), how does that change the fact that all the hand-wringing on your side over giving people the legal right to carry a concealed weapon is silly because the people who actually end up exercising that right are more law abiding than the general population, by large margins? Why do you need to control for anything?
OK, so lets say that the pudgy white suburbanites that end up getting CHL licenses are the most criminal minded ones and they are more dangerous than the average pudgy white suburbanite (but still more law abiding than the general population). So what? If you are arguing against giving people the right to carry concealed in public, who gives a shit if the people who choose to do so are all wealthy and are on average more criminal minded than other wealthy people (there are a lot of “ifs” in there that I don’t necessarily agree with, I doubt there is any income based study of CHL license holders but around here a lot of the CHL holders are veterans or )? Why do you have to look beyond actual effect when determining whether CHLs are danglaw abiding or not?
You are trying to inject variability (into a question that does not care about your variables) to undermine a fact that you find inconvenient. If you weren’t so impotent it would be annoying but coming from someone in your position its kinda cute (in a yapping chihuahua sort of way).
But only in a “its a good first step” sort of way
You basically want to ban the private ownership of guns and are resistant to stopping short of that. Sure you’ll take whatever you can get for now but your ultimate goal is a total ban.
Heck I see it after just a couple of months away from a range.
Everybody who owns a gun. Heck we could make it part of the licensing process under a licensing and registration regime.
I would agree to this. A gun is a powerful and potentially dangerous tool. Owners need to show proficiency in safely handling them, to include managing emotions and adrenaline in potentially unsafe tactical situations, the decision to deploy your rifle/pistol (it is NOT a gun!) or not, and then how to control it when under stress. We can all hit black on paper in tight groups on the range (well, some in the classes were all over the place - scary), but under stress and when your heart is pumping, will you act and react appropriately?
I, for one, hope I never have to find out.
And the California HSC, Handgun Safety Certificate, for example, is a joke. I’ve taken CCW classes in NV, FL and TX, and there are wide variances in training and proficiency standards. The instructors do a good job and they are sincere, but the requirements they train to are not sufficient. IMO, anyway.
These will not eliminate accidental deaths by shooting but I believe they would result in dramatic improvement. There will never be zero deaths, unfortunately.
In principle it would apply to everyone, except for those exempted or disqualified. One class of exemption would be people willing to swear that they don’t own a gun and don’t plan to get one, who promise to notify the testing agency if they do acquire a gun, and the aforementioned penalties for so swearing falsely.
It’s just that this would require a registration process. This seems to be a nonstarter with the NRA and their devotees. Or at least the nutters who post on the internet on this topic.
I am heartened to hear such strong advocacy for accountability.
@Dumuri: it would be shorter if you just wrote, “I do not understand stats.” The third variable problem as about as basic as it gets. You clearly don’t grasp it; there’s no way you’ll understand anything more complicated.
By the way, controlling for a third variable doesn’t increase variability, dummy. Imagine the whole population and think about the variability in height. Now introduce a new variable: gender. Have I increased the variability in height? Fucking imbecile.