Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Requirements for obtaining a CCW permit are set at the state level, and they vary in the amount of training required. (I'm not familiar with Idaho's requirements, so please don't assume I'm slamming Idaho here.)
But also just because someone has had training doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually APPLY that training. Think of all the lousy licensed drivers out there - they passed both a written and driving test, but you'd never know it from the way they drive.
Gun safety rules are extremely simple, but absolutely rigid - they must be followed 100% of the time. This shows why.
CWP training is VERY limited.
A purse is not a holster. It's not even remotely secure with multiple small children, either. Why someone would carry their firearm in the #1 thing that someone is likely to snatch if they WERE to be targeted for robbery is beyond me.
This is a rare and sad result of using a purse as a holster.
I'm waiting for someone who considers himself a "gun rights' activist" to argue that we should send the two year old to prison for murdering his mother since "guns don't kill people, only people kill people".
Who the hell needs a gun at the grocery store in a state like Idaho for crying out loud?
It was the mother's fault, and she would have been on the hook if the bullet had struck someone/something else. As it was, she is still on the hook. The 2 year mentality could not not have met the definition of Mens Rae, nor could they have reasonably foreseen the results of their actions, and thus could not be punished by law for either premeditated murder, or negligent homocide, regardless of their age (presuming we assume a 30 year old mentally retarded person with the processing of a 2 year old, if you want to argue that age was the only factor causing people not to call for their trial).
You carry a firearm everywhere you go, if you want, where legal. I'm pretty sure people have been threatened with loss of life or limb in grocery stores in Idaho before. The police won't do anything but write up paperwork over your dead body. That said, she had to get into/out of the store, implying a parkinglot, and she didn't just teleport there, either, implying a drive, etc. etc. and maybe other stops. Perfectly reasonable to be armed, not reasonable how she chose to go about it.
Please cite the section of the Constitution where gun owners are required to have training or a license. The founding fathers did not require any kind of proficiency with firearms, in fact they specifically said the right will not be infringed. A requirement for a licence or any kind of training would infringe upon those that didn't have a license or training.
So does the fact that I have to wait months and months and pay hundreds of dollars to own some of the things I have, but that's the facts.
When the founding fathers created that document, most people were proficient with and understood firearms.
That said, I am not a fan AT ALL of "requiring" anything to own a firearm (except for criminals with violent convictions, etc.). However, I think it sure would be nice if people used common sense and got some sort of education and training before arming themselves.
-They would be safer
-They would be more apt to successfully hit their target should they need to fire on someone/something
-They would be more likely to USE their firearm when warranted, and not when unwarranted.
For me, a CWP course was just the beginning of the training I went and sought. If I am going to arm myself, I think that military/police standards are the bare minimum to shoot for, and consider them "I'm not a hazard to others or myself" material, not indicative of actually being proficient in the least. I would feel more comfortable if others did the same, but again, America is a country that is willing to give up some safety in favor of freedom, and I am okay with that trade-off. "It is better for 100 guilty to walk free than 1 innocent to be imprisoned" somewhat applies, here.
Didn't something like this just happen a few weeks ago? A 2-yr-old found a gun on the floor at home, in the living room (wtf?!), and shot his mom dead with it?
Is anyone seeing the writing on the wall here? I guess everyone thinks, "that would never happen to me".
Guess again.
It's obvious....guns don't kill people, 2 year olds kill people.
What in gods name in Idaho would substantiate such a ridiculous statement??? I am sure someone will come up with a statistic to refute it, but last I knew, no-one ever defended themselves from paranoia with a gun.
In this case it was so "reasonable" that the woman died....with her own handgun. Darwin Award candidate, for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCookie
Just...how??? Forget the safety settings. HOW, do you take a gun in your purse to Walmart along with a 2 year old, stick him in the shopping cart, and then let him play with the purse that has a gun in it??? How are these people allowed to reproduce?? Honestly, yes it's sad that the woman died, but I would've been a lot sadder if that gun ended up shooting an innocent bystander (or the child or another child!) instead. At least this way no one else suffered due to this woman's lack of brains.
Didn't you read where such behavior is "perfectly reasonable"?
Thankfully it was a gun nut dying from their own beliefs. But yes, it could have been an innocent bystander who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
...and I will lay odds that the "grieving" dad DID NOT go home and remove all the guns from the house/vehicle/self.
What in gods name in Idaho would substantiate such a ridiculous statement??? I am sure someone will come up with a statistic to refute it, but last I knew, no-one ever defended themselves from paranoia with a gun.
In this case it was so "reasonable" that the woman died....with her own handgun. Darwin Award candidate, for sure.
Didn't you read where such behavior is "perfectly reasonable"?
Thankfully it was a gun nut dying from their own beliefs. But yes, it could have been an innocent bystander who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
...and I will lay odds that the "grieving" dad DID NOT go home and remove all the guns from the house/vehicle/self.
Well, lets ask the question another way...lets just say that you hack someone off. I mean, really hack them off. Someone bigger and meaner than you are. If you're not carrying a firearm, what do you do when this person that perceives that you cut them off follows you to the Wal-Mart parkinglot?
Okay, maybe that's a bit "what-if" and you don't want to think about things like that, so lets talk about something that did happen in Idaho.
Here is some nasty news...criminals don't care what state they are in, and don't care where they are, and sometimes, a firearm is the only equalizer you have.
Quote:
A 17-year-old boy was arrested this morning following an attempted holdup of a coffee stand in Coeur d’Alene in which the barista pulled a gun on the would-be robber.
A plainclothes deputy sheriff for Kootenai County was in the area of the robbery serving civil papers when a radio broadcast went out alerting officers to the incident.
The robber had a gun in the attempt to take money from Sunshine Espresso at Ironwood Drive and Government Way, but left without getting any cash.
The barista, Michelle Cornelson, said the robber showed a handgun and demanded money, but when a vehicle pulled into the lot for an order, it caused the robber to lower his gun, according to Coeur d’Alene police.
She told police she used the distraction to grab her own weapon and point it at the robber, ordering him to leave.
The plainclothes deputy spotted a male walking in the 200 block of East Locust Avenue about two blocks from the robbery, and held the suspect at gunpoint until other deputies arrived. The suspect was armed with a handgun, according to sheriff’s Major Ben Wolfinger.
The suspect’s name was not released because he is a juvenile, Wolfinger said. He was booked into the county juvenile detention center.
I picked a story in which noone had to die, and two firearms were used without having to be fired, to first stop an armed robbery, and then apprehend the suspect.
If it can happen at a coffee shop, it can happen to a mom in Wal-Mart.
Inquiring minds want to know, and this is purely a question of mental-exercise, but what would you do if someone kicked your door in and decided that they were going to kill you? Or got out of their vehicle in front of you at a traffic light and decided to drag you out of yours and do who knows what? I promise that there are plenty of people out there who could kill you with their hands, or barring that, their hands and a tire iron. So...I suppose you just go through life hoping that doesn't happen, and if it does, well, you'll make the news and hopefully they catch the guy. See, noone can prepare for EVERYTHING, and you're okay with those risks...that's fine, I'm okay with you taking that "risk". But you don't really have the right to be telling me what risks to take, either. I choose different risks than you, and you choose different risks from others. They have proven that firearm ownership prevents more deaths in American civilian life than they cause, though, so from the statistical standpoint, you're position is bunk., per the CDC and IOM.
This is beyond tragic. No one other than law enforcement officers like police should possess and carry guns, not even BB guns IMO. I can't even imagine how the little boy would feel when he is old enough to realize what had he done to his own mom. Really sad.
This is beyond tragic. No one other than law enforcement officers like police should possess and carry guns, not even BB guns IMO. I can't even imagine how the little boy would feel when he is old enough to realize what had he done to his own mom. Really sad.
So by this same logic since no one besides law enforcement should carry guns that means the criminals will follow and put down their weapons. "Really really" good logic here. When a robber breaks into your house and intends to harm you and your family the police are a phone call and 15-30 minutes away. Is this what you really want?
This is beyond tragic. No one other than law enforcement officers like police should possess and carry guns, not even BB guns IMO. I can't even imagine how the little boy would feel when he is old enough to realize what had he done to his own mom. Really sad.
It is sad and tragic.
Another thing that is sad and tragic is someone who is irresponsible with a firearm, who does not have the fortitude or ability to use one to defend themselves, and thus feels that it's the responsibility of another man or woman to respond to their desperate plea for help and come rescue them (hopefully before they are raped or murdered)---A man or woman with the firearm that they refuse to own, and feel that their neighbors shouldn't own, either.
This is someone who wishes to place both the responsibility and burden of preserving their life and well-being on another individual, either for lack of competency, or confidence. Both of which can be cured, as is evidenced by the opinion that some people, not being "born" as police officers, have indeed overcome such things so as to allow them to do what this person refuses to do for themselves.
Indeed, just because YOU refuse to be responsible for maintaining the gold standard of self-preservation (which make NO mistake, IS VIOLENCE, even you agree with this, believing the police who respond to your cries for help SHOULD HAVE FIREARMS...), do not go around thinking that people like myself will adopt or accept your stance. You are free to rely on others, as you indeed pay taxes, but myself and many others like me are self-reliant to the extent that we can be, and hope to do our part in preserving our lives and wellbeing.
Of course you will complain that 1 person out of 350+ million just died due to that mentality, which, is partially true, and also partially because she was incompetent with the use/storage of her weapon. However, these were things that SHE CONTROLLED. You do not control when someone decides it's your time to be a victim, and your recourse is significantly weaker than mine will be, or yours could be.
Food for thought, you are your immediate keeper, how will you keep (or not keep) yourself?
Consider how many criminals kill themselves or immediately throw down their weapons---even "mass shooters"---as soon as confronted with armed police or civilians, while they were content to keep shooting up until that moment of confrontation. I can cite numerous examples if you can't Google it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
