That would be amusing

Wayne LaPierre and his ilk represent gun manufacturers who have managed to get more guns sold by appealing to the 2nd A "rights" people---BTW the 2nd A states the reasoning: a "well regulated militia..." and current gun owners don't meet the criteria. These NRA geniuses have turned their gun manufacturers' association into a place where any crazy with a loaded gun is welcome and has the right to as many guns and as much ammo as can be sold.

No doubt they're registered as a non-profit org, too, due to their "good works" in educating the public.

Like everything else in Wonderland, rules only apply to certain people (like most of us.)

If Wayne Le Pisseur were to attend a hearing, he'd be allowed to bring in several talking "pieces" with plenty of backup ammo (talking points).

We've allowed ourselves to become represented by a crazy group of goons. All we need now is for one of those GOP candidates to take over the Executive branch and subsequently the rest of the SCOTUS.

Typical repuke bullshit

Send poor young men to war but keep your own boys at home, that's the repuglican way.

This example in a nutshell reveals why the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment will be reversed sooner than gun nuts think.

... if you're interested.

A cardinal rule of carrying a firearm safely is not to handle it unnecessarily. You put it on and take it off at home, and you never touch it in between.

At a gun show, people will be handling lots of guns as they shop. If loaded guns are introduced into the environment, the possibility for confusion exists: "I thought this was the unloaded one," etc. This means that it is very important to make sure that no loaded guns are present so as the minimize the possibility of accidents like the one described.

Rules were broken and somebody got hurt.

Isn't the real problem people who do not handle guns "responsibly"?

Yeah....

Like an adult diaper.

How about leaving the weapon you don't need to carry around at home?

That works best for everyone.

Then what's the point?

We're not talking about plinking at cans in the back forty, or target shooting, here. We're talking about having something on you to rip through someone's flesh and hit vital organs. That's a weapon, to my mind.

I'm using the specific term for this one. Apparently that doesn't carry sufficient propaganda value for you.

They like to pretend it is for something other than killing or maiming, when they walk around town carting the things, but it's not. Threatening, maybe? Or playing the Tough Guy? They're not going to be shooting a moose on Main Street.

It's important to not forget--or to remember, in the first place (for some)--the kind of damage that a weapon that fires bullets can do.

People who advocate terms like "death machines" usually have that mindset.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

And people who use them as a substitute for personal deficiencies shouldn't be given a license to purchase one.

If people want to be part of a "well regulated militia," they can lose that fifty pounds of beer gut, get in shape, give up drugs, sign on the dotted line, and work for Uncle Sam or their state governor in the Guard.

"seem" to be.

You never asked for my POV. You just "seemed" to be guessing and snarking as you went.

I think you're in "Whoever smelt it, dealt it" territory with your last comment--don't be so quick to give away your own signature attitude:

I can only conclude, as I did originally, that you have no interest in discussion and only wish to propagandize in very general terms.

The problem as I see it is that you have a very narrow point of view. That is not a put-down, merely an observation. If you talk to those who have been in law enforcement, the military, of just the simple farmer/rancher who has had to deal with "varmints", you will realize that there is another completely rationale POV when it comes to fire-arms that is neither RW or "tough guy". That is not to say that the macho types don't exist, but imo they are the exception rather than the rule.

my two cents - just another point of view...

When people are strutting around Main Street, or school yards, or supermarkets, carrying weapons, the odds are good they think they're tough guys. And that's precisely the reason why they shouldn't be carrying weapons in the first place. That racist Zimmerman idiot is a perfect example of the tragic consequences of a buffoon with a weapon.

they're the very definition of gun humping COWARDS

I notice you like to toss around slurs, especially the term "coward." you do understand that name-calling isn't the best way to make a point? Or maybe you skipped kindergarten the day they taught manners.

That this isn't the wild west. Period.

Please be specific. What are you proposing?

Some semi-auto pistols will not fire if the magazine is ejected, which is the number one way people shoot themselves or their buddies or their children.

Many people are either unaware, or simply forget, that ejecting the magazine does not eject the round that is still chambered. After the magazine is ejected, the slide must be racked to eject that chambered cartridge.

Designing in an interposer that takes the gun out of battery when the clip is ejected would save a lot of lives. Yet you can be sure our do-nothing Congress would never legislate such a sensible move.

Another simple improvement would be a visible flag that indicates that a round is chambered. Many idiots figure that out by pulling the trigger.

These are design improvements that already exist and are proven, and add very little to the cost of a gun. Why they aren't mandatory is beyond me.

They are mandatory in some states. They are good in theory. The problem with idiot-proofing is that there's always a bigger idiot. Mechanical devices can add layers of safety, but they are no substitute for safe handling.

but it sure seems we are trying.

Back in the old days,incompetents tended to take themselves out of the gene pool.

Specifically related to guns, the necessary training and skill practice is not gonna apply to the bad guys who intend to do harm, or the idiots who harm themselves or others by being stupid.
sadly, the NRA wants to cement itself to a position that does not allow stupid to be addressed.

There is always a "reason" for the mind numbing inconsistency of right wing bullshit.

This kind of "exception" to something they scream about as the most important thing in the world is the same was with everything else.

Point stands ...

The moron shot his friend with a gun he just bought at the gun show, not a loaded one he brought from home:

He bought it at the gun show and then loaded it. Either that, or it was sold loaded. Either way, it violates the "no loaded guns" rule.

I was replying to Conch, who suggested the "keep it holstered" rule even at home. I would go further, and say no ammo or loaded guns in rooms where unloaded guns are being handled.

If guns sold at the show must be unloaded and stay unloaded until you leave, then the "No Loaded Guns" rule is about general safety--acknowledging the danger of having ANY loaded gun there.

If their only concern was gun mix ups, as you initially asserted, and in light of God's proclamation to always have a loaded gun on you, why wouldn't the rule be that all guns sold at the show must come loaded? That would certainly prevent mix ups AND allow the gun enthusiast immediate access to a loaded weapon, as God and the Constitution intended--so they can blast away at the evil gubmint on split-second notice!

No chance of confusion then, and if you're too big of a fraidycat to be around loaded guns, what kind of a 2A supporter are you?

By the standards of gun fans, the event would be so po-lite that Miss Manners would swoon.

Trying the trigger, for example, would become impossible. But you knew that, didn't you?

Loaded guns are dangerous in many situations, and "gun free" zones do make sense.

Complete with bogus stats to lend it an air of authority.

Reality has a pro gun control bias.

I'd like to see that citations, please. Then we can discuss the accuracy of the stats.

Since when does the NRA have authority over the CDC?

Since the NRA gets politicians to do its bidding. The NRA wanted that research ban, and got it in 1996, with Bernie Sanders shamefully voting with the Republicans in favor of the ban.

It's like you're reading from the same NRA memo.

... when they are at a loss for counterarguments. It's so predictable that I'd have to call it a "talking point."

If not, what are you saying?

Japan has a higher incidence of suicide than the US, and very few cases of their cases involve guns...

what's the incidence of murder/suicide or murder compared to the US?

Suicide sadly ends the life of one person. So, in Japan, are there mass shootings like we have?

to SunSeeker is that the availability of guns does not automatically equate to a higher rate of suicide.

someone else's suicide, although tragic, doesn't kill me.

You said it yourself... "Loaded guns are dangerous when they are carelessly handled".
Well my friend, a gun can be carelessly handled almost anywhere. Take your pick of the many places. You've already shown us they can be handled carelessly at a gun show, and that is a place where one would expect to find those most knowledgeable about guns. If there is a chance they can be handled carelessly at a gun show, then they can certainly be misused in a school, a theater, a daycare, a workplace, a church etc.


P.S.
I would like you to tell your idea to the NRA, the one about gun-free zones making sense when there are armed police around for protection. I think you may have something there, but something also tells me they wouldn't go for that.

This, of course, is not a perfect world. Even though guns should not be misused at the places I mentioned, it doesn't mean they won't be. Sometimes the best practice is to just keep guns out of the wrong places, just like gun shows do.

It's ironic that the gun show folks are willing to suspend a person's right to carry during one of their events because they understand the risks, but are perfectly willing to ignore risks that exist in other places. Rather hypocritical since there are tons of shootings that occur in this country just by the fact that a loaded gun was available in the wrong place.

Here are a couple of examples of why guns should not allowed in certain places. These are not mass shootings. They are the types of situations that would not have happened if a gun hadn't been present. Again, loaded guns are dangerous in many situations, and gun-free zones can often make sense.

A theater-
Ex cop shoots guy in theater for texting
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/ movie theatre

A college-
Shooting at Blinn College:
http://totalfratmove.com/argument-over-beer-pong-rules-leads-to-shooting-death-of-blinn-college-student/

A community center-
Young child finds gun left in a community center restroom. This one did not result in a shooting, but created a dangerous situation-
http://www.wcti12.com/news/gun-found-in-bathroom-by-fouryearold-child/34914464

... unnecessarily. Every example you cite is user error or outright criminality. Without unnecessary or unlawful handling, there is no risk.

What are these "certain places" and "many situations" where guns are uniquely dangerous to the public? You might as well admit that you want to ban all gun carry in public. That is very clear. The "gun free zone" concept is merely an attempt to do this piecemeal and incrementally.

"What are these "certain places" and "many situations" where guns are uniquely dangerous to the public?"

Let me list some:

1- First, any place that serves alcohol could obviously fit in the "certain places" category. A good responsible gun owner knows that alcohol and guns don't mix. I think it would be safe to say that guns in the hands of customers in such establishments could be considered dangerous. People don't always drink responsibly, why would we want to trust them to carry a gun responsibly at the same time they are drinking. This would be any bar, restaurant, or night club that serves alcohol. There's millions of places right there. We could also extend this to sporting events and festivals where alcohol is available for sale.

2- Court houses are, and should remain, "gun free". Emotions run high in court houses, and people are often tense when in them. Guns in the hands of the public in court houses could very easily create a "situation where guns are uniquely dangerous".

3- Fitness gyms might want to be "gun-free" since carrying one while working out would not only be dangerous but totally silly. People who bring guns to such places would have to unnecessarily handle their guns while changing clothes. This could lead to an accident. Also, guns would need to be stored away from the gun owner in a locker or such, and security during storage would not always be guaranteed.

4- Certain highly charged events that are controversial in nature should be gun-free. Things like a Neo-Nazis rally or march, where they demonstrating in a public place, practically inciting the public. A rule of no guns in the demonstration area and/or parade route is not unreasonable in such a situation.

I'm out of time, but I'm sure there are more.

... than your previous references to "a school, a theater, a daycare, a workplace, a church etc." All of these have been targets of spree killers, and I can't see the justification for banning carry by competent and vetted civilian carriers.

Here are my responses to your suggestions.

1) I don't agree that guns should be banned wherever alcohol is served, but I'm comfortable with a ban on consumption of alcohol by people carrying. Many non-drinkers congregate in restaurants and other places where alcohol is served.

2) I agree about courthouses. They provide armed guards to guarantee the safety of occupants, and many of them provide locked storage for people's firearms.

3) I'm mixed on the sports clubs. It is possible to safely change clothes without unholstering the gun, but I'm also uneasy about the security of firearms in gym lockers.

4) Not sure on this last. For participants and protesters, yes, but many of these events impinge on large public areas. I don't think we can reasonably or justifiably limit carry so broadly.

This may seem silly, but I don't think it's any better to force carry on someone than it is to ban carry on someone. In other words, I would not be comfortable in a dark theater full of loaded guns in the hands of who knows who. Others may feel safer with everyone and their brother packing, but not me. Human error abounds. Yes, theaters have been targeted by mass shooters, but I think things would eventually prove worse having everyone armed.

I am not totally against carry, however. I think it should be up to the venue. It is with the gun shows. Just as a gun show can ban loaded carry( trying to avoid human error), if a theater doesn't want its customers armed (trying to avoid human error), the owners of the theater should be able to make that decision. If there is such a demand for “armed theaters”, then others could open to accommodate the carry people. It could create healthy competition.

Last edited Thu Dec 10, 2015, 04:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Nobody is being forced to carry. I don't know where you live, but it's very likely that you encounter armed people every day and don't know it. I feel as comfortable with concealed carriers around me as I do with cops, because a lot of -- not all -- cops are casual and sloppy in their gun handling, and also are far more likely to draw their gun in scenarios where a concealed carrier wouldn't, simply due to the nature of the job.

Private venues are absolutely entitled to ban carry if they want. Public spaces where people must go should not be able to unless they provide armed security and a facility for people who are carrying to check a gun, as many courthouses do.

Just my opinion, and I want to thank you for the calm and respectful way that you have expressed yours. I'm sorry if I offended you by jumping to any conclusions earlier.

Reminds me of the cop who accidentally shot himself in an elevator because he was screwing around with his weapon when it should have been holstered.

thanks for clarifying

SGT P

...handle their weapons in a Macy's. Uh-huh. And well behaved toddlers would never pick their noses. It's not the cream of the crop I worry about.

More training for concealed carry permit holders? Sounds good to me.

Not just the teachers.

The magical mystical gun is a talisman against harm. Carrying one creates an invisible bubble of protection around the "wearer". They are completely safe.
TWO guns create TWICE the protection.... so you know that 10 will create tenfold protection for when the Russians come for you wives and daughters!

It's tragically..... er... I mean MAGICALLY wonderful! And a god give right! (not a privilege provided by the government) because Jesus and the Holy Ghost invented gun powder..... in China....


So it's not only a magically delicious breakfast cereal.... it's also an ancient Chinese secret!

Chuck todd on meet the press to panel can you name a democrat who lost to a republican because they were not pro gun control enough? Because I can name you plenty who have lost for being to pro gun control! in virginia pro gun candidates were targeted by bloomberg they won. In colorado gun control legislatures were voted out. I hope mrs. clinton won't be defeated over gun control.

Over prisons for profit then?

Or maybe lax baking regulation?

There's the ballyhooed contention that when "a bad guy with a gun" decides to do harm - the hoped for "good guy(s) with a gun" will quell the mayhem with their quick response and super-accurate shooting. So if 99% of the show attendance is bearing unloaded arms - WTF is the value of that???

I know - I know - no deranged or volatile sorts would go to a gun show to buy their weapons. They check for halos before they let you in.

Can't you just SEE a spray of gunfire opening up in an exhibition hall and all the attendees calmly and coolly fiddling with boxes of bullets and magazines?

When you congregate with a bunch of death tool worshipers, figure not everyone's playing with the same deck of cards.

and that is that there is no cardinal rule.

I can't count how many cardinal rules gun nuts have quoted that are not only not followed, but actively held in disdain by gun owners.

They are window dressing to make people feel better about gun safety.

If there were cardinal rules, you wouldn't see responsible and trained gun owners:

- Glock Knee'd
- Shot by toddlers
- Shot while cleaning guns
- Shot by a drunk (usually themselves)
- Shot by friends
- Shot by family
- Shot by gun instructors
- Shot by gun instructees
- etc, etc, etc.

Why does the rule exist at gun shows? Because the dealers realize people are idiots, and can't be trusted to handle loaded weapons in close quarters. They want to go home at the end of the day. Allowing loaded guns greatly increases the odds of accidental shootings.

Just because some choose not to follow the rules doesn't mean that the rules don't exist, or that the rules are ineffective.

Your list shows the classic examples of what happens when the rules are not followed.

with criminal sentences when they aren't followed. We do that with cars and a thousands of other violations.

As it stands, they aren't rules. They aren't cardinal. They are merely best practices with no enforcement or oversight. I'll bet most don't even get mentioned in training, at least they weren't when I took it.

You want the right to carry a tactical weapon with no manual safety? Fine, but spend a few years in jail if you shoot someone for not following the cardinal rules.

I'm not taking away your right to a gun, just your freedom when you aren't responsible.

Does that make you feel more at ease? Doubtful, you are likely happier when you can point to a fictitious rule and say it wasn't followed. Sure, someone died or was maimed, but hey, it was just an accident.

as well as man-slaughter on up to murder 1.

Many having already been prosecuted under these statues.

I would have no trouble treating the negligent gun-owner the same way we treat drunk drivers who injure others.

-let alone a LOADED GUN. You can't even have your gun loaded if the gun range is in "cold" mode.. WTF are they afraid of?? There are a bunch of guns there and they're AFRAID of some guy with an UNCOVERED, possibly LOADED GUN??

A holstered gun is considered safe. It is not considered safe to have a gun in your hand except when the range is "hot" and you're on the firing line. When the range is "cold," there may be people downrange setting targets. At such time, no guns should be handled.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

or shoot center mass if a minority walks too close. Oh, and they spout a bunch of white wing garbage too.

all the shooting ranges ive been to had a variety of people, and no one discussed politics.

they emphasized safety, any one caught misbehaving was kicked out immediately.

all instructors teach to shoot center mass.

I go to a range in northern Virginia and it hosts all sorts of different people and there's zero discussion of politics. And safety is definitely emphasized.

check out this vid.

Nothing will change the fact that when people walk around with a gun, in a public space, you are asked to trust them (well no one actually ask either, I'm told my opinion doesn't matter), a stranger, that they won't kill me or someone I care about with it. That is a hell of a lot of trust. You can spare me the license and safety course as that does little to mitigate the risk I am being asked to have in stranger. A hard lesson on trust gone bad that mother of that 7 year old learned about recently.
I don't want to have to constantly have to wonder if that asshole walking into taco bell with a gun on his hip and a rifle over his shoulder is here to kill everyone or just a burrito. Or that if I look at him "funny" he won't decide to "fear for his life" and kill me. Because, in many states, all he needs to say is "I feared for my life" and started shooting. No burden of proof just a "genuine" fear. What makes it genuine? Because they said so.

There are billions of human beings that go their whole lives never needing or wanting a gun. The real world is not a "B" western.

Then there'd have been at least another guy violating the rules of the show

There will probably be some justification by the NRA for the guy having the loaded gun
Maybe they'll Cheney him. The friend should apologize for having been shot