Yay, another guntard incident

http://www.inquisitr.com/1745325/soldier-wife-shooting/

So I guess blind fire is considered safe by your gun owners? This sort of person is too high strung and stupid to be around a gun. In a responsible society with gun owners we would now take away her guns as she has proven she is spazmatic when using them. But in our irresponsible gun owning society we will probably see her told she did the right thing and given her gun back. Seriously, you need to see your target when you shoot.

I'd say her actions were heroic. On level with gturner's fathers' friend's when he had to deal with a disgruntled coal miner by shooting blindly through a closed door. At least her story rings true. Inside doors are hollow and wouldn't stop a BB gun.

No, we cant mandate training and licensing because, reasons. Guntards must have freedom to be guntards. If not, gunforge will have their weapons expropriated. Or something.

I would say this has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with stupidity.
How about the millions of gun owners who wouldn't blindly shoot?
Okay there is Joe "shotgun!" Biden but not many more.

I see you've got out that broad brush again and aren't afraid to use it.
BTW the biggest factor here is Fayetville - if you aren't stupid or crazy when
you move there you will be by the time you leave.

Gun counters and walmart. I think you're fighting a losing battle.

Wouldn't training help? Why not mandate this before allowing the purchase of a gun? Gun stores would love it.

All the training and licensing can't help stupid people. Have you driven a car lately?
Never seen anyone doing stupid things? Just what I thought......

People too stupid to pass the licensing requirements don't get a gun. It is possible to have higher standards.

Hasn't worked well for driving, but the alternative (no driving tests) would be worse.

Tererun wants to take away guns from women so they can be easily violated.

It hasn't worked well for driving because the US, as a society, has decided that everybody should be allowed to drive. I disagree with that notion, but as long as it is the overriding view, we will have lax standards. Gun standards are even more lax. Both should be tightened significantly.

In Switzerland they make you get a psychological exam before being allowed to take the driving test the fourth time.

In France it took me a year to get a license. This was after having driven in the states for 16 years and France for 1 year (they allowed us to drive on our US license for that long). We took classes once a week for about 6 months. Most people didn't pass it the first time. It was a longish exam, maybe 30 minutes of slides we had to answer multiple choice questions. What is the difference between two children on a warning sign, two children with a briefcase, and the direction they are facing? Pay particular attention to the state of traffic lights. What does a yellow light in the intersecting lane imply? What is wrong with the picture: rear foggy lights on with wet road?

Once passing the written exam you had to schedule a driving test. We met our driving examiner on a back street in Cannes. This test lasted almost an hour and took us on every imaginable road. Tiny city roads to the autoroute. The instructor who rode in the back seat was amazed the examiner passed me (I left my hand on the shifter during 2nd without returning it to the wheel).

Pretty much all of Western Europe is like that. But the ironic part is if you are in the military (or other work related situations) you can take the simple abbreviated test (with no road test!)
and drive your happy ass all over the place. My point being if you drive around for several years without taking all the lessons and hard tests without incident
what is the fucking point of making you do it all over again? You have proved yourself - will driving suddenly get harder the second your visitor's driving license expires?

The point in France was that Colorado didn't recognize French DLs, so they didn't recognize CO st licenses.

I see, but my point was if you have already been driving for a year you should be grand-fathered.
I'm thinking every state should recognize French/German/Swedish/etc. licenses because of the stringent
process they went through to drive in their countries. Their worst drivers are more skilled than our best in many cases.
They may drive like maniacs, but they know what they are doing.

When I was in Germany (in the military) I saw THE STUPIDEST license requirement ever. If you already have a drivers license from any state
(including Alabama where they give them out at the hospital with your birth certificate) you can take the abbreviated class and get a license to drive
all over Europe. But if you come there with no license you will never ever drive there. So, you have to fly back to America, get a state license (any state)
fly back to Germany and you can take the simple test like everyone else.

In that each state has different requirements to get a license, other countries have to consider which state you're from. If I recall, at the time if I had held a SC DL, I wouldn't have had to go through the ordeal (employer paid the expenses) of going to driver school and taking the test. SC would allow French people to get a DL without taking a test. CO did not. It was about 2 hours per week for 6 months plus a couple days off work. This was before the EU (1990).

Ask Packard what it takes to get a fishing license in Germany.

Live by the gun, die by the gun. The guntards almost always end up hurting either themselves or a member of their family instead of their imagined intruder.

A psych exam! Now there is a good idea which some of us have actually advocated before. Of course, as always gunfire was against largely because they know so many of them are mentally unfit and/or couldn't pass a test showing they know what the gun laws are.

To be fair, they mostly end up hurting no one. It's just that when someone does get hurt, it's overwhelmingly likely not to be a bad guy.

Of course, with many millions of guntards in the country, "mostly end up hurting no one" leaves a whole lot of room for hurting a whole lot of people.

Oh I know - I fished in Germany. But being military I only had to have a two week class. One of the test questions was "is it the male or female carp that
has a convex anus?" Well I don't eat carp and I sure don't eat carp anus. And they have more fishing rules than you could ever imagine. Every single
aspect of fishing is regulated down to the last detail. Leave it to Germans to such every little shred of fun put of a simple activity.
But the actual Germans have it rough. They have to go through extensive and costly training and the fishing license test is only given once a year - and it has
a very high failure rate. By the time you get a license you have about the equivalent of an Associate Degree.
And you can't take your kids fishing - unless they are smart enough to take the training and pass the tests.
Thus a dad can't teach his kids how to fish - only the state is allowed to do that!!
Contrast that with my daughter still in her diaper sitting on my lap with her little Barbie Zebco rod + reel
reeling in bluegills all by herself. Damn I'm glad to be American.

I prefer the slap the money down on the Walmart counter and take your free copy of the rules with you.

Generalize much? Guntards ALWAYS end up hurting themselves etc.etc? Well that's an accurate statistic I must say.

That makes sense...seeing as how the person hurting someone is overwhelmingly likely to be the bad guy.

Except, no, you are completely wrong. A house with a gun in it is many, many, many times more likely to have that gun used in eit her a suicide or an accident than it is to ever be used in self defense. That has been linked to numerous times and it is an absolute truth even if you don't like it.

Numerous times and ALWAYS are two different things entirely. As for suicide if your heart is set on it not having a gun won't stop you.
My next door neighbor used a his car exhaust and a garden house.

I believe it...and the vast, vast, vast majority of those are suicides. I'm on record as saying suicidal people shouldn't own guns.

It doesn't matter how they do it. It doesn't change the FACT that a gun in the home is many, many, many more times likely to be used on someoNE who lives in the home than on any intruder. FACT.

If they're suicidal.

So you would support, say, mental health screening before getting to buy a gun? I admit that wouldn't cover all cases but it would be a good start. Especially if we teamed it up with, say, universal background checks to prevent known criminals also from buying guns.

I would support universal background checks. As for the health screening, is there some kind of test that can pinpoint people who are suicidal? If there is, then I'm wondering why we aren't using them for a variety of things.

And again that depends on the individual gun owner. Sorry, stupid people will always be among us:
keeping toddlers in hot cars, leaving campfires unattended, mixing cleaning products and creating poison gas, etc.etc.

Yes, mental health screening would be fine - they can screen you at the DMV when you get a driver's license and share the data.
BTW when you buy a gun these days they run a criminal background check on you. Criminals know this and buy their guns
from other criminals, generally stolen from average citizens.