Skip to main content

View Diary: Question for Gun Owners: Do you Have a Portable Defibrillator in Your House? (206 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Proficiency has to do with skill as opposed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, theatre goon, Crookshanks

    to what you listed which are actually prerequisites or things that are required as a prior condition to being able to vote. The only thing you would need to be proficient at to vote would be punching a hole, pulling a lever or touching a screen.

    You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

    by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:55:12 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I know what you mean (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, a2nite

      - but registering and showing up to vote do require proficiency in language and organization before you ever get to the point of exercising your right to vote.

      The prerequisites to exercising the right to vote are intended to reduce the potential for some voters to create a menace (confusion, vote fraud) when they exercise their right to vote. We can't just vote in any precinct because restricting the exercise of the right geographically provides sufficient public benefit - e.g. polling places can prepare for an estimated number of voters.

      Our current loose gun policy doesn't require anyone to be even minimally proficient in firearm mechanics, or laws and regulations that govern the use of lethal force, yet we allow them to walk around in society armed and ready to exercise their right to self defense.

      I think that's backward, and that competency to exercise the right to self defense reasonably includes demonstration of ability to handle a firearm and use a firearm without creating a menace to others, and could require foundation training in firearm mechanics, safe storage and introductory training in federal and local laws surrounding the separation of alcohol and firearms and the use of lethal force.

      I think I would support tax payer funded training for new gun owners and would support a test in lieu of training for experienced gun owners who can document their prior experience, e.g. military, LEO, HS rifle team. It could be class specific, hand guns, vs. long guns, single/double shot vs. magazine fed, etc.

      We are setting people up to fail by letting them buy any gun without any training/experience at all.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:12:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I might, might be able to get on board (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, Crookshanks

        with such requisites for concealed or open carry, but not for simple ownership. I know that the state I live in requires you to pass a written and practical exam for concealed carry. I doubt it would be difficult but that's because I believe that the people who get concealed carry permits more than likely already have a certain level of skill when it comes to the mechanics and laws of firearms.

        You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

        by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:30:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll concede (0+ / 0-)

          that some forms of ownership carry much less risk than others.

          E.g. someone who only owns a rifle for hunting could have a lower training requirement in the laws/regs re the use of lethal force, and it could be folded into the hunting license. IOW, if their rifle remains locked up at home it poses very little risk to the public, and they would receive/show proficiency in the law if and when they next apply for a hunting license. If they already had the training in the past 5 years they would be waived. Etc.

          I used to assume that concealed carry permits meant something, and in some places they still do. But I read recently that many jurisdictions have no procedures for revoking a permit when someone becomes a prohibited person. I don't think relying on voluntary compliance is working very well in that regard.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:21:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh? (3+ / 0-)
            But I read recently that many jurisdictions have no procedures for revoking a permit when someone becomes a prohibited person.
            Where did you see this, and what locations were stated?  This is news to me.

            Your hate-mail will be graded.

            by PavePusher on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:06:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't recall exactly (0+ / 0-)

              Probably hear on daily kos, and I don't recall anything more specific than that, so I can't be sure of it at all.

              My last sentence is in reference to the number of women who get shot after a protective order is issued. Voluntary compliance is not working for that population of prohibited persons.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:16:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'll further agree that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          having a collection of antique guns is not likely to pose much risk to the public.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:30:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  We are NOT setting anyone up to fail when (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero

        They buy a firearm. They are making that choice.
        I as one taxpayer already pay to subsidize stuff I don't like like the MIC. I'm not going to support my tax dollars be used to train adults in that use. If they want to learn & get paid to learn, they can join the armed forces or become a mercenary.

        We don't want to pay for k-12 school or prisons or the government we deserve because too many of us hate each other so much.

        We pay for all of this gun violence with increased usage of emergency services, police, trauma centers.

        That has a resounding NO from me.

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:34:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, we do pay a high price for our (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          failure to reduce the harms of gun violence.

          My comment wasn't clear. I'm coming from a harm reduction perspective similar to those places that provide needle exchange. And similar to the logic that originally prevailed when we as a civil society decided to intervene to reduce the HIV infection. Yes, providing free testing and means tested treatment was/is expensive, but it was/is a lot less expensive than simply leaving people living in high risk households to fend for themselves.

          My potential willingness to subsidize it some from practical considerations. I don't think the 2A includes any right to create a menace, but if SCOTUS ruled that requiring competency and training in the law did violate the 2A, then I'd be willing to invest some money in harm reduction.

          I'm sorry comment wasn't clear. The people I see us setting up for failure are those who get shot by a gun in the home of a negligent gun owner. And it's my opinion that some negligent gun owners wouldn't manage to complete the training, and then LEOs have a mechanism to remove guns from that home, where the gun owner lacks the attention span to own/store/use a gun without creating a menace.

          We shouldn't have to wait for someone to get shot.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 07:59:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site