• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

Proposal:

Federal rules should form a minimum standard.  Individual states should have some freedom to make changes of their own  Access to this system is blocked to anyone who has committed a violent felony for 10 years per violation, and they stack.

Creation of an independent Federal Firearms licensing Authority, to be supported by licensing fees and government if necessary.  It is a nonprofit corporation run in the public interest, but not under the command and control of the Executive Branch.  Its exclusive function is to grant federal gun-related licenses and run federal background checks.  All other government agencies are to cooperate with this agency are not allowed to duplicate its work and must defer to its authority

  • keeps an encrypted database of background checks, current licenses and other information as needed to administer laws.  Police and government must have a valid warrant or congressional subpoena to look at information and must have a separate one for each individual.
  • Disclosing database information without a warrant is a felony, , fines, jail time, blah,blah, blah
  • Government may not surveil this agency, interfere with its normal operation or compile lists that in any way duplicate this agency's.  Felony, fines, jail time, blah,blah, blah for anybody involved.
  • Individuals may request activity sheets which detail if government has been asking about them.  Government may have specific queries temporarily sealed by court order.

Rules for semi-automatic and slower-firing weapons at or under 10Kg unloaded weight.  (Casual sport and self defense)

  • May be purchased with a certificate of having passed a basic gun safety class within the previous two years, plus a background check, plus a minimum waiting period, no exceptions.  The internet is everywhere people.  There's no excuse.
  • Weapons may not be modified in any way such that a trigger pull fires more than one round.
  • Magazines for such weapons may not be sold with a higher capacity than 10 rounds.
  • Ammunition may not be sold that has increased body armor penetration.

Rules for weapons under 10KG in weight and accessories not covered above (Enthusiast)

  • Illegal without a Restricted Weapons license.  Can't use someone else's license, other commonsense stuff, violators get Felony, fines, jail time, blah,blah, blah
  • Having a Restricted weapons license enables the purchase of Restricted weapons and accessories with valid confirmation of the license.  No "yes" means no.  Restricted items include but are not limited to
    • Automatic weapons 10Kg or under
    • Magazines with a capacity above 10 rounds
    • round types not listed above.
    • modifications to semiautomatic weapons 10KG or under to make them fire faster
  • Purchaser is responsible for any damage or loss of life related to items purchased using the license.
  • Private sale of Restricted stuff are identical to those of a new sale.  The parties must use a 3rd party broker to run background checks, hold weapons for cooling off periods etc.  Once the selling party releases control of the Restricted stuff, they are no longer responsible.
  • Must renew license each year or certify that all Restricted items have been sold or destroyed.

Rules for weapons over 10Kg unloaded weight (military grade)

  • You need a damn good reason to want a working one of these.  Exceptions include museums and very SERIOUS private collectors.  Not going to go into detail here because it's really outside the scope of the current discussion.  Just note there are some special cases I'm not covering.

National Concealed Carry License

  • Only covers carrying Self Defense grade weapons.  Wearer is licensed with one weapon.  Additional weapons are licensed individually
  • Valid within the borders of the US, supersedes state carry laws.
  • Issued after owner demonstrates ability to shoot well, good knowledge of state and federal laws that have jurisdiction within 50 miles of their residence, knowledge of safety and maintenance.
  • State law may restrict concealed carry on transports such as (but not limited to) planes, busses and trains.
  • A concealed carry does not mean the licensee can ignore reasonable "gun-free zone" rules or laws.

Moratorium

  • For the next 10 years, no law may be introduced, regulation changed or introduced or executive order enforced that impacts the 2nd Amendment or laws pertaining to it without a 60% consenting vote from both houses of Congress, or 50% congressional vote plus president's signature
  • After 10 years the threshold drops to 55%, or 50% congressional vote plus president's signature.

 

The idea is to give something to get something.  Restrictions tighten for self defense uses but open up for enthusiasts.  Gun owners concerned about being on lists know that at the very least, the lists aren't in easy reach of the government.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Creation of an independent Federal Firearms licensing Authority, to be supported by licensing fees and government if necessary.  It is a nonprofit corporation run in the public interest, but not under the command and control of the Executive Branch.  Its exclusive function is to grant federal gun-related licenses and run federal background checks.  All other government agencies are to cooperate with this agency are not allowed to duplicate its work and must defer to its authority

  • keeps an encrypted database of background checks, current licenses and other information as needed to administer laws.  Police and government must have a valid warrant or congressional subpoena to look at information and must have a separate one for each individual.
  • Disclosing database information without a warrant is a felony, , fines, jail time, blah,blah, blah
  • Government may not surveil this agency, interfere with its normal operation or compile lists that in any way duplicate this agency's.  Felony, fines, jail time, blah,blah, blah for anybody involved.
  • Individuals may request activity sheets which detail if government has been asking about them.  Government may have specific queries temporarily sealed by court order.

In addition to criminal penalties, mishandling, receiving or possessing database information is considered a violation of 2nd Amendment rights.  Those responsible may be sued by anyone whose information is mishandled.  The US government waives its usual "you can't sue me." privilege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you proposed sounds reasonable, the idea being that gun owners should earn the right, prove that they are competent in their handling and basically give a fair warning that abuse will not be taken lightly.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Gun owners concerned about being on lists know that at the very least, the lists aren't in easy reach of the government.  

I can't help but think that the main resistance to there being a registry and background checks/psych evals is because those people have details that would prevent them from getting licensed, past weapon related felonies, anger management issues, etc, and there's just enough of them to be a vocal minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scotty said:

What you proposed sounds reasonable, the idea being that gun owners should earn the right,

What have you done to earn the right to speak freely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

What have you done to earn the right to speak freely?

Speaking freely doesn't kill people nearly as directly, immediately, or irrevocably as guns do.  What did you do to earn the right to drive a car?  The rights of everyone around the people who want to drive a car, or own a gun, have to be given some respect too.  Your right to swing your fist stops a reasonable distance from my face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don Edwards said:

What have you done to earn the right to speak freely?

That comes with it's own set of expectations, and freedom of speech tends to get abused quite a bit with the "I can say whatever I want and you can't stop me" mentality but at least freedom of speech also allows people the right to deal with the jerks. It's not so much earning the right to speak, but earning the respect of others so that your words are heard and not ignored. That can't really be applied to the second amendment the same way. There's safety to consider with regards to guns, and any weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

What have you done to earn the right to speak freely?

The Moderator: I cannot speak for others here but personally I have followed politics, voted in every election I could, fulfilled my societal duties and served in the armed forces of my homeland. People fondly imagine freedom of speech as a divinely granted gift. It is not. It was purchased by our ancestors at a high cost in blood, toil, sweat and tears, and maintained by the efforts of their descendants -- now including me. I am well aware of the debt I owe to not only my ancestors but also to those who will follow me and thus I gladly pay that price.

There is no right to bear arms in my homeland. I do not wish to argue the merits of something born from a culture considerably different from mine. Nonetheless, I feel comfortable saying that it is necessary to make an effort to sustain any rights, even those enshrined in law, as they may all too easily wither and die if they are not fought for. Thus, one does indeed earn one's rights -- by guarding the freedoms we have inherited and working to better the injustices that still haunt us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

There is no right to bear arms in my homeland.

Just a quick question: isn't there a constitutional duty for you to bear arms for at least a short period of your life in your homeland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

Just a quick question: isn't there a constitutional duty for you to bear arms for at least a short period of your life in your homeland?

There is. A portion of all healthy males of age 18 must serve in our armed forces. This portion is filled by volunteers if possible but in the case of shortfall draftees are selected by lot. I was a volunteer. In case of conscientious objectors, they may choose to serve either in the Civil Defence (our version of FEMA, basically) or fill positions in civilian organisations deemed to be important to the state. There is an important exception to the above, however. Any male who completes either a medical degree or a degree in dentistry must serve for two years in armed forces clinics with an automatic commission as second lieutenants after having completed Basic. (This used to include veterinarians as well, but they were let off the hook after the Army discontinued the use of horses and pack animals. We have one regiment of mounted Hussars left but they employ either volunteers or civilian veterinarians.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

There is. A portion of all healthy males of age 18 must serve in our armed forces. This portion is filled by volunteers if possible but in the case of shortfall draftees are selected by lot. I was a volunteer. In case of conscientious objectors, they may choose to serve either in the Civil Defence (our version of FEMA, basically) or fill positions in civilian organisations deemed to be important to the state. There is an important exception to the above, however. Any male who completes either a medical degree or a degree in dentistry must serve for two years in armed forces clinics with an automatic commission as second lieutenants after having completed Basic. (This used to include veterinarians as well, but they were let off the hook after the Army discontinued the use of horses and pack animals. We have one regiment of mounted Hussars left but they employ either volunteers or civilian veterinarians.)

I'm curious, how do they deal with doctors who are too overweight or otherwise physically unable to complete Basic training?  Or is Basic much less physical than it is here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

I'm curious, how do they deal with doctors who are too overweight or otherwise physically unable to complete Basic training?  Or is Basic much less physical than it is here?

That is dealt with during the initial physical examination. If an M.D. -- or anyone, for that matter -- is judged incapable of completing Basic due to health reasons, they are exempted from military service. I believe it is called the 4-F classification in the US. Otherwise they go in. In borderline cases the recruit is usually cut some slack due to the essential nature of medical personnel. I do know that my own father was given a discharge after a training accident that caused a hairline fracture of his spine and almost cost him the use of his legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I still wonder how they treat something like obesity.  The attitude that it's a moral failing or a deliberate choice has been so pervasive for so long, and the past hundred years plus of scientific research so completely rejected and ignored, that there's still a tendency for naturally athletic people to think they can bully or shame obese people into becoming "fit" (really meaning thin) by sheer physical exhaustion and starvation.  And then, of course, they're made to feel even more ashamed and unworthy when they inevitably fail. It would make so much more sense to have MDs who clearly wouldn't be able to pass Basic, for whatever reason, serve their country by serving in military training centers, hospitals away from the front lines, and other places where being a good grunt isn't so important, rather than rejecting them completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 9:18 AM, CritterKeeper said:

Speaking freely doesn't kill people nearly as directly, immediately, or irrevocably as guns do.  What did you do to earn the right to drive a car?  The rights of everyone around the people who want to drive a car, or own a gun, have to be given some respect too.  Your right to swing your fist stops a reasonable distance from my face.

This is at least partly flawed in that there is no Constitutional Right to Drive.  It is a privilege that can be given or take away entirely at the whim of the States.  In 40 years, states may abolish driver's licenses for humans entirely and demand people utilize AI-driven vehicles exclusively.  There are many ways that law could fail, but constitutionality is not one of them.

Licensing as a precondition to any kind of gun ownership would have to pass a US Supreme Court test.  At the very least SCOTUS would be asked whether licensing of this sort would put an "undue burden" on the 2nd Amendment and would have to rule "no it doesn't."  There's a good argument to be made for "yes it does".  Licensing, as I have noted before, can be used to create that undue burden in the same way poll taxes and literacy tests were used to create an undue burden on black voting in the South.

Moreover, Free Speech can still lead to harm all the way up to loss of life.  Directness or indirectness of the threat is not that important.  The Supreme Court has hard limits on what a government can do thwart free speech and what kind of speech government can address.  The Obama Administration went outside those boundaries by harassing its political opponents.  Some were put on terrorist watch lists and others were audited by the IRS where practical.  Either action could have and should have been challenged under the First Amendment, but that stuff takes time to push through the courts and is expensive to do, so it may never have been done.

Now, then.  You have a pretty complete idea of what gun legislation I would support and what I find acceptable and not.  Can you now answer "where does it end?"  What would constitute 'enough" gun restrictions to you?  What constitutes "too much?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 8:36 PM, Scotty said:

I can't help but think that the main resistance to there being a registry and background checks/psych evals is because those people have details that would prevent them from getting licensed, past weapon related felonies, anger management issues, etc, and there's just enough of them to be a vocal minority.

That's not my understanding.  What I get is a strong distrust of government and its ability to become toxic and invasive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Now, then.  You have a pretty complete idea of what gun legislation I would support and what I find acceptable and not.  Can you now answer "where does it end?"  What would constitute 'enough" gun restrictions to you?  What constitutes "too much?"

I will venture an answer that should very much be taken with a grain of salt as I am not a US citizen. To me the ideal would be a reduction in or complete prevention of the mass shooting events that are becoming so appallingly frequent as well as a mandatory increase in gun safety that would make gun accidents, especially those involving children, much less likely. Your own suggested legislation seems to me not a bad starting point. Adding in mandatory gun safety classes in grade school might not be a bad idea. Possibly legislation that makes it illegal to employ guns as means of intimidation. Showing up in numbers and heavily armed at some political flash point to frighten people should be a no-no.

But to me it would end once legislation has successfully put the brakes on the current wave of mass shootings and gun accidents. If I may be permitted to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln I would put it like this, "If I could end this wave of gun violence by banning all guns I would do so, if I could end gun violence without banning a single gun I would do so, if I could end gun violence by banning some of the guns I would do so." Ultimately the objective is to create a safer and better world, I deem. Banning all guns strikes me as impractical and unconstitutional. Intelligent legislation that targets the worst trouble spots seems to me the way to go rather than sweeping and poorly thought out bans. And personally I think the worst trouble spots may be an absence of background checks as well as an appallingly lax idea of gun safety. I have heard stories of gun owners that put their weapon down loaded and without the safety on for 'just a moment' only to have an unnoticed and precocious child eagerly pick it up, point it at someone and go 'bang' while pulling the trigger, and that sort of incident must be preventable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I have heard stories of gun owners that put their weapon down loaded and without the safety on for 'just a moment' only to have an unnoticed and precocious child eagerly pick it up, point it at someone and go 'bang' while pulling the trigger, and that sort of incident must be preventable.

The best known prevention for that - because everyone is occasionally careless - is the Eddie Eagle program of gun-safety training for very young children. "No. Stop. Go. Tell." Studies have shown that it has a profound effect - in the desired direction - on children's tendency to play with real and real-looking guns. In fact, it has that effect on the tendency of children who haven't been through the program to play with guns while in the presence of those who have - a sort of herd immunity.

(It doesn't achieve perfection, of course. Nothing humans do can be relied on to achieve perfection.)

Most of the most vociferous proponents of more anti-gun laws in the US are fervently opposed to this program. Because it was created, is funded, and is promoted by the National Rifle Association.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

(It doesn't achieve perfection, of course. Nothing humans do can be relied on to achieve perfection.)

I am not asking for perfection, merely for improved gun safety. I have heard of the Eddie Eagle program and thought it sounded sensible. I still believe that following up on it with a more detailed grade school class might not be the worst idea. I am not entirely sure how one should define a minimum standard of gun safety but it should be possible to devise one that is easy to remember, implement and train into a habit for gun owners. The standard in the Danish Army and Home Guard for storage when not in use was to remove the bolt from the weapon and lock up weapon and bolt separately. (Methods may differ depending on weapon, I suppose. I was blessed with an M1 Garand. It was on the verge of being phased out and we only still had it because we were paramedics and obviously were at the very end of the line when it came to upgrading. But I loved that thing so much. I am almost willing to swear that you had to work at it to miss when you shot it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I will venture an answer that should very much be taken with a grain of salt as I am not a US citizen. To me the ideal would be a reduction in or complete prevention of the mass shooting events that are becoming so appallingly frequent as well as a mandatory increase in gun safety that would make gun accidents, especially those involving children, much less likely. Your own suggested legislation seems to me not a bad starting point. Adding in mandatory gun safety classes in grade school might not be a bad idea. Possibly legislation that makes it illegal to employ guns as means of intimidation. Showing up in numbers and heavily armed at some political flash point to frighten people should be a no-no.

This should already be illegal.  It should constitute assault.  But then US police have been way too lax in enforcing the law in the case of political protests.

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

But to me it would end once legislation has successfully put the brakes on the current wave of mass shootings and gun accidents. If I may be permitted to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln I would put it like this, "If I could end this wave of gun violence by banning all guns I would do so, if I could end gun violence without banning a single gun I would do so, if I could end gun violence by banning some of the guns I would do so." Ultimately the objective is to create a safer and better world, I deem. Banning all guns strikes me as impractical and unconstitutional. Intelligent legislation that targets the worst trouble spots seems to me the way to go rather than sweeping and poorly thought out bans. And personally I think the worst trouble spots may be an absence of background checks as well as an appallingly lax idea of gun safety. I have heard stories of gun owners that put their weapon down loaded and without the safety on for 'just a moment' only to have an unnoticed and precocious child eagerly pick it up, point it at someone and go 'bang' while pulling the trigger, and that sort of incident must be preventable.

The problem here is without a clear idea of how much is too much restriction, the Second Amendment will continue to be eroded a little bit at a time.  It's a "death of a thousand cuts" answer that will lead to an activist-driven total ban, which is the only thing you have said would be too much.  There will be barely anything left by the time a true total ban will be in place.  This is why the moratorium part of my proposal is important.  It stops the death of a thousand cuts

Your goal of "putting the brakes" on mass-shootings and gun deaths is noble but also undefined in practical terms.  You're never going to eliminate these things,  just reduce them.  Even a total gun ban won't eliminate mass-shootings as the wave of terrorism across Europe these last few years amply demonstrates.  So you have to do that nasty inhuman things of asking how many deaths is acceptable.  Saying "none is acceptable" leads directly to death of a thousand cuts.   We have to ask if this change some group of activists and media figures are screaming for is really going to do anything or if it's just "never letting a good crisis go to waste".

There is also a question of trust.  Setting an indistinct and ultimately unachievable goal combined with putting a low emphasis on 2nd Amendment rights means you can have completely good intentions and be swept up in each frenzy of gun restrictions to come down from those who really do desire a total gun ban.  Your good intentions could not amount to anything useful to me.  You do not mean to but you are essentially saying "you get what little rights (if any) that remain when we finally finish the gun control crusade."  Which, given the activist mindset of always pushing and never accepting anything but total victory means I can expect to be left with nothing.  This is why I was on about the activist mindset so much at the start of this discussion.

The central thesis by which most gun control legislation operates seems to be, "guns are the problem".  Eliminate guns and everything will be fine.  I tend to think this is a faulty assumption similar to Prohibition or the War on Drugs, but as long as that is the received wisdom, we are at a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

It's a "death of a thousand cuts" answer that will lead to an activist-driven total ban,

 

24 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

There will be barely anything left by the time a true total ban will be in place.....

We have to ask if this change some group of activists and media figures are screaming for is really going to do anything or if it's just "never letting a good crisis go to waste".....

...and be swept up in each frenzy of gun restrictions to come down from those who really do desire a total gun ban.  Your good intentions could not amount to anything useful to me.  You do not mean to but you are essentially saying "you get what little rights (if any) that remain when we finally finish the gun control crusade."  Which, given the activist mindset of always pushing and never accepting anything but total victory means I can expect to be left with nothing. 

*sigh* I see the straw men are still the preferred targets in this debate.  I'll leave you to attacking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

 

*sigh* I see the straw men are still the preferred targets in this debate.  I'll leave you to attacking them.

Not straw men.

If you think so, explain how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

This should already be illegal.  It should constitute assault.  But then US police have been way too lax in enforcing the law in the case of political protests.

The problem here is without a clear idea of how much is too much restriction, the Second Amendment will continue to be eroded a little bit at a time.  It's a "death of a thousand cuts" answer that will lead to an activist-driven total ban, which is the only thing you have said would be too much.  There will be barely anything left by the time a true total ban will be in place.  This is why the moratorium part of my proposal is important.  It stops the death of a thousand cuts.

Again speaking only for myself and as a stranger outside looking in, I found your proposed legislation a good starting point for discussion -- including the moratorium. Democracies are made of compromises. They may leave everybody unhappy in the end, but as long as everybody is no more unhappy than they can live with, the compromises will allow society to endure.

I would find a reduction in gun deaths down to twenty percent or ideally ten percent of the current level to be a good target to aim for. Perhaps that is unachievable, perhaps not.

One thing I think we could both agree on is that any gun control legislation should be carefully examined by a bipartisan think tank that includes profilers, firearms experts and law enforcement specialists. If we get only one go at it every ten years, we had better get it right or as close to right as possible the first time. I am not particularly interested in having the law formulated by people who cannot tell the difference between semi-automatic and automatic, or between a bullet and a cartridge.

How is that for a start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Again speaking only for myself and as a stranger outside looking in, I found your proposed legislation a good starting point for discussion -- including the moratorium. Democracies are made of compromises. They may leave everybody unhappy in the end, but as long as everybody is no more unhappy than they can live with, the compromises will allow society to endure.

Sometimes it's the hassle of having to adjust to change is what keeps people from wanting any changes to be made, more often than not, once people have made the adjustment, they find that things are nowhere near as bad as they thought it'd be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Again speaking only for myself and as a stranger outside looking in, I found your proposed legislation a good starting point for discussion -- including the moratorium. Democracies are made of compromises. They may leave everybody unhappy in the end, but as long as everybody is no more unhappy than they can live with, the compromises will allow society to endure.

I would find a reduction in gun deaths down to twenty percent or ideally ten percent of the current level to be a good target to aim for. Perhaps that is unachievable, perhaps not.

One thing I think we could both agree on is that any gun control legislation should be carefully examined by a bipartisan think tank that includes profilers, firearms experts and law enforcement specialists. If we get only one go at it every ten years, we had better get it right or as close to right as possible the first time. I am not particularly interested in having the law formulated by people who cannot tell the difference between semi-automatic and automatic, or between a bullet and a cartridge.

How is that for a start?

It's a good start.

Education would probably bring down accidental gun deaths the most.  I'm wary of it as a precondition for buying any gun (if nothing else it incentivizes selling the most certificates for the least education) but it's on the table.  As I posted replying to Scotty, any measured response takes time, which means resisting the "Do something now!" impulse. 

Important questions are still unanswered in the wake of Vegas, such as how the shooter evaded detection as a problem case, which we need to know before we figure out how to plug that hole without creating too many false-positives. 

How do we target the people who are problems and leave alone the people who aren't?  No system is going to be perfect.  Any system we create is going to falsely point at some people and miss some others.  It may well be that buying too many guns over too short a time should be a red flag to be paid attention to.  Even here some care must be taken.  Depending on how the system works, psychological examination of a potential buyer could be used as a way of blocking gun access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vorlonagent said:

It's a good start.

Education would probably bring down gun deaths the most.  I'm wary of it as a precondition for buying any gun (if nothing else it incentivizes selling the most certificates for the least education) but it's on the table.

I must hasten to add that I did not mean education as a precondition for gun ownership but as a more general measure introduced in grade school (for example) to instill a greater sense of caution in children -- a caution that will hopefully stay with them in their adult lives. Guns are a fact of life. Not teaching children about them in the hopes they won't encounter one is like not teaching them to swim so they won't risk drowning.

When I speak of safety procedures, I simply mean drilling them into the heads of owners until they become automatic. A routine similar to the Eddie Eagle one we already discussed, devised after the KISS principle. Like, do not just set a gun down, lock it down. Always check if safety is on before setting gun down. Have firing chamber be empty. Just make it so that you need a minimum of two steps to fire the gun before you set it down, always. (I do not intend the aforementioned to be the procedure, I am merely tossing ideas out for what could be in it -- it needs to be simple and effective.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now