This is so funny to me for some reason. Not sure how I missed it until now:http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/aug/ ... vancouver/
Clark County's prosecutor said Tuesday he will dismiss a firearms-related charge against a Vancouver man who said he was merely taking Vice President Joe Biden's advice on how to defend his property from car prowlers. Instead, the man will be prosecuted for obstructing a police officer.
Jeffrey C. Barton, 53, made international news when he told journalists: "I did what Joe Biden told me to do. I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air."
That is a reference to the vice president's answer to a question in February 2013 about home defense. Biden responded that Americans don't need to own semiautomatic weapons because a couple blasts from a shotgun will scare off intruders.
Politicians say a lot of stupid things, and the entries under 'Biden, Joe' are pretty rich. But I have to say, this one takes the cake. To me, this is only bested by the Congressman who was worried that Guam would tip over and capsize if too many people were put on it.
PensFanInDC wrote:A person NEEDS some training to drive safely. I've had no firearms training and I can safely take my rifle to the range and practice my shooting without hurting myself or anyone else.
Without wading into the merits of the argument your friend put forward, I always find this to be an absurd position to take. The notion that anyone can simply know how to operate a gun safely without some sort of training or instruction is nonsensical, and I don't want to be anywhere within 3,000 feet of someone wielding a firearm who believes this. There is nothing about the operation of a firearm that is instinctive other than pointing it. Breathing, sight picture, trigger pull, target background (is it safe to shoot?), all of this stuff is learned.
dodint wrote:I guess my hang up is the the distinction between gun ownership and concealed carry. I'm guilty of often thinking of them as the same thing as for me in practice it is. Gun ownership should be as easy as possible. I think the barrier to entry for concealed carry should be higher, specifically a proficiency in weapons handling should have to be demonstrated. In NC we do 8hrs of training and have to hit a target to pass.
Car ownership isn't much different. Anyone can buy a car. But to get to use it in public you have to pay some fees and demonstrate proficiency through examination. So if your buddy is making a comparison between concealed carry and a drivers license I think it's a pretty good analogy.
I would like there to be a national registration for CCW. If an eligible citizen wishes to sign up for the program, you submit to a background check (a real one, like you take for federal employment), fingerprinting, 2-week wait period, mandatory successful completion of training of higher-than-basic level, the whole nine yards. But in return, that federal CCW means universal acceptance in the 50 states, and it also allows you to buy more exotic stuff that is ordinarily prohibited in most jurisdictions. I would sign up for that in a heartbeat.
And you can also use it as a voter ID card. Bam. Two birds.
ffemtreed wrote:On the surface of it, Required training sounds good, but when you look at the data there are very very very very few accidents from CCW holders compared to the number of CCW holders out there. Mandating training is solving a problem that doesn't exist and potentially infringing on a constitutional right.
I would like to know if the data show whether or not CCW holders voluntarily take advanced training absent a legislative imperative. Because in my mind, someone who applies for a CCW is (generally) someone who takes their shooting seriously. They (again, generally) have a higher appreciation of the responsibility of what it means to be armed in public. That paints a picture of someone who at the very least spends a lot of time at the range improving their skills. But it also implies someone who is willing to improve those skills through professional instruction.