Missouri Legislature upholds 'Stand Your Ground,' concealed carry law — requiring no

[Thefishguy77]

The question is not whether cars or guns kill more people but if driver's ed reduces auto accidents. A cursory look through google results says it does. Some results say the reduction is significant some say it is less significant. But the reduction is there.



Do you know that your first amendment rights are restricted when the health and safety of the public are a concern? Your rights end when they impede on the safety of others. Letting completely untrained people carry guns publicly is a safety hazard. I'm not saying don't let people carry guns. I'm saying lets make sure they can do it in a relatively safe manner before we send them off.

We can get in to the constitutionality of those laws restricting your right and if they followed article 5 of the constitution to do so but that another topic. So please explain how insurance will pay for a accidental shooting? Let's say you pay $100 a month for coverage. 1200 a year. An ambulance ride is $10,000. So insurance won't be able to touch it. Also if you think insurance companies won't try and get out of paying in any technicality they can you have another thing coming. Well do you really think it was a good idea to walk down that street after dark. You know how dangerous it is. Will criminals be forced to buy insurance. After all how many legal gun toting people make bad shots annually? Seriously use your Google fu and come up with that number to justify you training needed and insurance a good idea stance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thefishguy77]

Your Hoplophobia should not impair my ability to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. Sorry. If I am islamaphobic because I do not feel safe when a large group of Islamic refugees is dumped in my area the same logic applies to you. And no I can not imagine telling the refugees to get insurance to protect me from them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elan_]

We can get in to the constitutionality of those laws restricting your right and if they followed article 5 of the constitution to do so but that another topic. So please explain how insurance will pay for a accidental shooting? Let's say you pay $100 a month for coverage. 1200 a year. An ambulance ride is $10,000. So insurance won't be able to touch it. Also if you think insurance companies won't try and get out of paying in any technicality they can you have another thing coming. Well do you really think it was a good idea to walk down that street after dark. You know how dangerous it is. Will criminals be forced to buy insurance. After all how many legal gun toting people make bad shots annually? Seriously use your Google fu and come up with that number to justify you training needed and insurance a good idea stance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every single one of those arguments applies equally to auto insurance. Every single one. Do you feel auto insurance is wrong? Do you think it's a bad idea? Do you think it's ineffective?

I don't have any idea what you're talking about with this refugee business. Where did that come from? It would seem this has become some sort of political argument to you. This refugee nonsense doesn't really have any effect on whether I think people who carry guns should be required to pass some sort of safety litmus.

So you think that someone who is not only pro gun but pro concealed and open carry and owns a gun himself has an "irrational aversion to weapons"? Maybe you don't know what irrational aversion means?

 

[JayceeP]

Yeah... as much as I was told to not get my sources from the media... the rhetoric coming out of this thread is exactly the same.

Being proficient has nothing to do with just how well you can shoot in high stress situations and how much ammunition costs (lol really?). I don't see a problem with proper training being required to operate and own a gun. We do the same for many other things as already mentioned I.e cars. Never mind high stress situations. What about safe handling and safe storage? What about transporting? What about knowing how to properly clear jams? Etc etc. It might be common sense but the lack of it can be fatal. I don't want my neighbours laying guns around their homes, driving around with guns in their cars, or walking up and down the street armed if they haven't demonstrated some basic proficiency on owning and shooting firearms. Basic standards won't eliminate ALL of that but, if that is the logic, then what is the point of any law in the first place?

I believe in gun ownership... but I am also ok with having to take a course to be able to buy guns. I think I also agree with the idea that assault rifles and handguns should require additional training and scrutiny of would-be buyers. Once you pass the requirements you are good to go.

 

[Ol'Blue]

I'm confused. What you're saying is victims of rape, armed robbery and "a host of others" can't think their life is in immediate danger? I don't know about you but if I were getting raped I'd be pretty certain my life is in some measure of danger.

The point I'm getting at it simple. What what level of Felony is it ok to use force or deadly force for you? It's not armed car jacking when you have no idea if you will live or die so at what point is it ok to use force?

 

[Thefishguy77]

Every single one of those arguments applies equally to auto insurance. Every single one. Do you feel auto insurance is wrong? Do you think it's a bad idea? Do you think it's ineffective?

I don't have any idea what you're talking about with this refugee business. Where did that come from? It would seem this has become some sort of political argument to you. This refugee nonsense doesn't really have any effect on whether I think people who carry guns should be required to pass some sort of safety litmus.

So you think that someone who is not only pro gun but pro concealed and open carry and owns a gun himself has an "irrational aversion to weapons"? Maybe you don't know what irrational aversion means?

Auto insurance and gun insurance are not the same. You have the right for your travel to not be impeded. It mentions nothing about wagons, buggies, planes,or any other mode of transportation.

2nd amendment is right to bear arms aka firearms. You can try to argue muskets vs centerfire/rimfire but that's a different argument


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thefishguy77]

Every single one of those arguments applies equally to auto insurance. Every single one. Do you feel auto insurance is wrong? Do you think it's a bad idea? Do you think it's ineffective?

I don't have any idea what you're talking about with this refugee business. Where did that come from? It would seem this has become some sort of political argument to you. This refugee nonsense doesn't really have any effect on whether I think people who carry guns should be required to pass some sort of safety litmus.

So you think that someone who is not only pro gun but pro concealed and open carry and owns a gun himself has an "irrational aversion to weapons"? Maybe you don't know what irrational aversion means?

Sorry quoting you twice here.

As a conceal carry person can you draw and fire your weapon in a high stress situation? Say like my example above run wind sprints and then do push-ups? How about fire 7 shots then make a reload. Do you think you could shoot well enough to complete a proficiency exam. Say over 90% on target in a high stress situation? Getting insurance doesn't account for your missed rounds that go down range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JayceeP]

Sorry quoting you twice here.

As a conceal carry person can you draw and fire your weapon in a high stress situation? Say like my example above run wind sprints and then do push-ups? How about fire 7 shots then make a reload. Do you think you could shoot well enough to complete a proficiency exam. Say over 90% on target in a high stress situation? Getting insurance doesn't account for your missed rounds that go down range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't get this logic. Are you saying no sort of standard is required because most people can't operate like a Navy Seal? How does this example support the idea that some sort of standard is not required? As I mentioned above, what about safe storage, transportation, handling? What about clearing jams? Proficiency isn't about being a sharp shooter. What's wrong with having a basic standard demonstrating competence?

 

[Thefishguy77]

Well the only 2 items that pertain to conceal carry are clearing jams and handling. Handling and clearing jams are both widely varied items. As to safe storage and transportation that is state to state laws. In Washington concealed means concealed in terms of handling. In transportation what state are we takin about? Washington, no loaded long guns in a vehicle. Pistols as long as they are concealed and under control of the carry permit owner then that's fine. California pistols unloaded and locked ammunition locked up separately and then stored in an area not accessible to the passenger compartment.

As to safe storage that depends on where you live and who you live with. It's not a one size fits all thing at all. So what standards would make you feel better about other carrying guns near you. If there are standards that you think should be met then please specify your ideas.

Not everybody needs to be Special Operations certified to carry. But each person needs to know their own abilities and limits. The average engagement is inside of 7 yards that's 21'. Can you draw your weapon before your attacked I guess not I can't. First and foremost your common sense and alertness is your best defense in a bad situation. Then your hands then your sidearm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JayceeP]

Coming up with a firearm safety course is not all that hard. Maybe it's something that has to be created Federally since the right to own guns is guaranteed federally. Or, maybe the NRA could develop it. Why not? If something like that doesn't already exist in the US... that is actually scary.

It doesn't need to be overly complicated. The counter-arguments to common sense rules seem to stem from fear that people like me want to take your guns away when I openly state I support gun ownership. It doesn't have to be black and white

I can buy a 9mm, a .45, or an AR-15 (with magazine limits) in Canada if I really want to. BUT I have to take what's called a restricted firearms course.... and this course is intended to demonstrate to my fellow citizens I know what I am doing and that I am not a maniac, and that I at least know how to responsibly own and use firearms. It's not perfect, and moderately intrusive, but that's ok. "Normal" guns like shotguns and generic rifles face less scrutiny. Still requires a course but you can walk in with your firearms licence and buy such firearms any time no questions asked (because the licence you have in your hand answers any questions the seller needs to know).

 

[BlackWorksInc]

The only thing about that bothers me about the whole thing is that I still think you should be required to take a state paid training course when getting your concealed to familiarize carriers with laws, expectations, responsibilities of being a CCW holder. I see too many people who barely know which end goes bang these days to feel entirely comfortable with those uniformed running around with a live weapon.

Other than that, I am glad that constitutional rights are being upheld.

 

[Elan_]

Auto insurance and gun insurance are not the same. You have the right for your travel to not be impeded. It mentions nothing about wagons, buggies, planes,or any other mode of transportation.

2nd amendment is right to bear arms aka firearms. You can try to argue muskets vs centerfire/rimfire but that's a different argument

I don't understand your argument against the comparison to auto insurance. It's an applicable comparison because of the expense of potential mistakes made while driving. The people that want to participate in the potentially expensive and deadly activity of driving contribute to a kitty. The kitty pays out when a mistake happens that could have astronomical costs. You can apply that to carry insurance.

Yes, the second amendment is the right to bear arms. And the first amendment is the right to free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can you? Like I said, the government restricts even your constitutionally guaranteed rights when exercising those rights infringes on the safety of others. People carrying guns is a safety issue. You cannot deny there is a safety concern with gun ownership and carrying.

I argue we should make sure people who carry do so in a safe and reasonable manner. You can argue the details about how we make sure until the cows come home, but arguing against the entire concept of increasing public safety through mandatory training is shortsighted at best, woefully negligent at worst.

 

[Dark Lord]

The only thing about that bothers me about the whole thing is that I still think you should be required to take a state paid training course when getting your concealed to familiarize carriers with laws, expectations, responsibilities of being a CCW holder. I see too many people who barely know which end goes bang these days to feel entirely comfortable with those uniformed running around with a live weapon.

Other than that, I am glad that constitutional rights are being upheld.

I stopped reading responses at page 3 (per Tapatalk) and skipped to the end, and read this which means we're still debating training. Here's my take on this:

I understand that some people have no business carrying firearms, but it's not the government's business to dictate what level of training someone needs to be responsible with a firearm. It's that person's responsibility to seek the training they need, and if they are irresponsible with it, they will face their own consequences. I think all people should go through some sort of training before they decide to carry a firearm, I just don't think the government should make it a law.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[-JD-]

Coming up with a firearm safety course is not all that hard. Maybe it's something that has to be created Federally since the right to own guns is guaranteed federally. Or, maybe the NRA could develop it. Why not? If something like that doesn't already exist in the US... that is actually scary.

It doesn't need to be overly complicated. The counter-arguments to common sense rules seem to stem from fear that people like me want to take your guns away when I openly state I support gun ownership. It doesn't have to be black and white

I can buy a 9mm, a .45, or an AR-15 (with magazine limits) in Canada if I really want to. BUT I have to take what's called a restricted firearms course.... and this course is intended to demonstrate to my fellow citizens I know what I am doing and that I am not a maniac, and that I at least know how to responsibly own and use firearms. It's not perfect, and moderately intrusive, but that's ok. "Normal" guns like shotguns and generic rifles face less scrutiny. Still requires a course but you can walk in with your firearms licence and buy such firearms any time no questions asked (because the licence you have in your hand answers any questions the seller needs to know).

It may come as a shock to some of the OT regulars but I actually have my Canadian restricted firearms license. While its better than nothing, I definitely feel that the 'course' required could have been a bit more in depth. But something seems to be better than nothing.

 

[Hepar]

I stopped reading responses at page 3 (per Tapatalk) and skipped to the end, and read this which means we're still debating training. Here's my take on this:

I understand that some people have no business carrying firearms, but it's not the government's business to dictate what level of training someone needs to be responsible with a firearm. It's that person's responsibility to seek the training they need, and if they are irresponsible with it, they will face their own consequences. I think all people should go through some sort of training before they decide to carry a firearm, I just don't think the government should make it a law.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I would love to live in a country where people had the level of personal responsibility that you speak of. But that is a massive fantasy world. Why do you think The majority of various non-gun related regulations and restrictions exist? And it's definitely something that can and does have a large effect on not just the gun owner themselves, but to many that surround them.

 

[Dark Lord]

I would love to live in a country where people had the level of personal responsibility that you speak of. But that is a massive fantasy world. Why do you think The majority of various non-gun related regulations and restrictions exist? And it's definitely something that can and does have a large effect on not just the gun owner themselves, but to many that surround them.

Believing the government can solve all our problems is a massive fantasy world.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

Believing the government can solve all our problems is a massive fantasy world.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Agree with you 100%.

 

[Thefishguy77]

I don't understand your argument against the comparison to auto insurance. It's an applicable comparison because of the expense of potential mistakes made while driving. The people that want to participate in the potentially expensive and deadly activity of driving contribute to a kitty. The kitty pays out when a mistake happens that could have astronomical costs. You can apply that to carry insurance.

Yes, the second amendment is the right to bear arms. And the first amendment is the right to free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can you? Like I said, the government restricts even your constitutionally guaranteed rights when exercising those rights infringes on the safety of others. People carrying guns is a safety issue. You cannot deny there is a safety concern with gun ownership and carrying.

I argue we should make sure people who carry do so in a safe and reasonable manner. You can argue the details about how we make sure until the cows come home, but arguing against the entire concept of increasing public safety through mandatory training is shortsighted at best, woefully negligent at worst.

Ok I will try one more time. If the yelling fire thing was put to a vote of the legislature then voted on by the states as well then it is constitutional. It is article 5 of the constitution. Every American citizen should read it.

As to the comparison between driving. Your right to travel shall not be impeded. Walking and horseback were the main forms of travel but it doesn't even give a example.

The right to bare arms if clear and the continuation of a well regulated militia back it up. It is in reference to firearms. Muzzle loaders were the common firearm at the time but it was a firearm.

Until it has been modified via article 5 of the constitution it can not be infringed upon. Story but that's the law according to the 10 amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlackWorksInc]

I stopped reading responses at page 3 (per Tapatalk) and skipped to the end, and read this which means we're still debating training. Here's my take on this:

I understand that some people have no business carrying firearms, but it's not the government's business to dictate what level of training someone needs to be responsible with a firearm. It's that person's responsibility to seek the training they need, and if they are irresponsible with it, they will face their own consequences. I think all people should go through some sort of training before they decide to carry a firearm, I just don't think the government should make it a law.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The problem is people who are irresponsible and who should seek training don't and then when they do get punished those of us who are responsible get lumped in with them when the opposing side wants to talk gun control.

Same thing with cars, because some twat with a 4,000lbs sedan killed a family because facebook read more important than paying attention to the road; now I have to deal with their consequences.

Personally, comprising a bit and having the state pay for a 8hr training course before they give me my paper to carry whatever I want, when I want is only a nuisance. And if ur keeps cross eyed drunk Jim Bob Jimmy from shooting his piece in the air because his team lost and he's drunk, I'm okay with that compromise. At least until we reduce the stupidity we create some.

 

[Hepar]

The problem is people who are irresponsible and who should seek training don't and then when they do get punished those of us who are responsible get lumped in with them when the opposing side wants to talk gun control.

Same thing with cars, because some twat with a 4,000lbs sedan killed a family because facebook read more important than paying attention to the road; now I have to deal with their consequences.

Personally, comprising a bit and having the state pay for a 8hr training course before they give me my paper to carry whatever I want, when I want is only a nuisance. And if ur keeps cross eyed drunk Jim Bob Jimmy from shooting his piece in the air because his team lost and he's drunk, I'm okay with that compromise. At least until we reduce the stupidity we create some.

That's what baffles me the most. I can completely understand the stance of not wanting more government restrictions and regulations in regards to gun control. Where I am at a complete loss is where people think that having more people carry guns around in public is a good idea.

I am 100% on board with more CCW's for those who are trained be it off-duty LEO's, ex-military (although there probably should be some protocol if they have seen combat) and anyone else who has gone through some extensive training. But if anyone thinks it's a good idea that every Tom, Dick and Harry should walk around with a gun who's only training has been watching the Magnificent Seven a few times is just asinine to me. Go to any local college bar on a busy night. You honestly think even having 10% of those in there carrying a gun is a good idea?

If I knew that those carrying in public had a certain amount of training, I would not only be on board with that, but would be more comfortable with my day to day activities. If there were places where I knew a good chunk of people there were carrying and had zero training in order to do so? I would avoid those places like the plague.

Incidents where one side is carrying a gun vs ones where both sides are have two completely different dynamics and potentials for catastrophic outcomes.