If banning guns works.....

[u3b3rg33k]

I mentioned nothing about restricting access to firearms. You want to buy one for hunting? home defense? Fine, go ahead. But to carry one concealed in public should require training and a level of proficiency. That is in no way a violation of your right to own a weapon.

Really? 3rd graders with guns? Sure, what could go wrong. Lets take money away from math, english, science, reading and instead build firing ranges at all the schools and give kids guns in gym class.

I agree though that driver's ed here is far too lax. As is the training required for CCW.

Good, thorough training never hurt anyone. It's ALWAYS beneficial. Why some people are opposed to it is beyond me :loco:

The 2nd amendment says keep and bear, not just keep.

I have no problem with education on firearms. What makes you think 3rd graders can't handle firearms? No one is proposing that you should let them run around at recess with loaded handguns. That's a far cry from teaching them to handle a firearm safely. I've personally witnessed 8 year olds safely operate .22LR rifles at a range that teaches kids every year, and they have had zero firearm related injuries in their 89 years of operation.

Words can be dangerous as well, yet we teach kids to read, speak, and (less often these days) to be polite.

[dkbmxer002]

i learned how to fire a gun when i was 6-8 years old. i'm damn glad my father taught me.

[z31maniac]

I'm sure it varies slightly state by state (aside from TX of course lol), but what does it take to get a CHL? I know you have to pass a "safety class" and a background check, but what's involved with the class?

In OK, it's a fucking joke.

A few hours of classroom time. Then 25 rounds at 3 yards and 25 rounds at 10 yards, only have to hit the target. And of course, show you can handle a gun without shooting yourself or others.


I believe OK has "reciprocity" with 34 other states when it comes to CCW.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I really enjoyed the work it took to get mine here in rural Idaho.

$50.00 for the class at the local emporium, then the below. Very quick when there are so few people in your State to overcrowd the system.

http://www.usacarry.com/idaho_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

[mrsleeve]

MrSleeve, how is the DirtySixes reasoning flawed? Because you're reading his comments and applying an american bent to them? His reasoning works perfectly well for the country he lives in. Describing them as flawed when you've never lived or even visited that country is erroneous at best.

I missed this


Ray its flawed because its counter intuitive to human nature, not nation of origin or residence.

While yes the general society and customs do have a huge impact on this particular topic, it still does not change the basic human conditions that are common to all of us.

We are all subject to the ill will of others that wish to try and take from/harm those of us that are not so uncivilized. Having the ability to defend your self from such intentions is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, if you govt recognizes it or not.

Jefferson said it much better than I, I forgot to mention the 1st time that this is something Jefferson quoted from Italian Marquis Beccaria, from his "Commonplace Book". And Jon Addams used when defending the actions of the British after the Boston Massacre ( I know this is US history and has little bearing on OZ,). But the fact remains that these points transcend time and are as important and carry as much importance today as they did 230 years ago or even 2000 years ago. No amount of complexity and modernization and progress will change the basic human rights to be free, and retain the ability to stay that way.

Gun laws Only disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most scarred laws of humanity the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. These laws are not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts and not by thoughtful consideration- Thomas Jefferson 1764

Manic: How is that a joke, that range test is nearly identical to most Police range qualifications. As you should not be engaging targets at more than 30' anyway. As that nearly negates the use of deadly force (unless you are being fired on) and you are not in immediate danger to life and limb. Now that does not mean you cant have the weapon clear of the leather and have bead drawn on a Potential threat, in fact you better be close to that point if your gonna use it. As the average human can cover 25' in 1 second form a dead stop.

Its not a joke, you have shown proficiency with the weapon and can handle it in a safe manner, the class has given you the legal implications of carry and the use of deadly force (thats what the class is really about). Thats gets you the basics, but you I do agree to a point that many dont put the range time in and think the class and permit is the end of it.

[shiftbmw]

Open-carry is legal in many states, have you ever actually witnessed it?

This is going to be different coming from me, but I'm actually against open-carry. I think you are in entirely the wrong state of mind if you wish to walk around in public OPENLY with a gun.

I don't understand why you would:
1. Want to attract that type of attention.
2. Freak everyone else out.

The guy sitting next to you at dinner *may* be carrying a gun, but if you didn't know you wouldn't think about it. If you saw the gun out in the open, it would make most normal people uncomfortable.

I think most people would prefer not to, but if you can't legally carry concealed, can carry legally open, and you feel the need to carry...