Thanks. You saved me from typing exactly what you did.mr.72 wrote: I'm not TexCaboCat but I'll respond.
It is a moot question.
It is not the government's role to interfere with one's rights, and it isn't any of your business. If you want to be pushy and come off as being a gun snob, elitist, or just a jerk when interacting with other gun owners, then that is your right. Likewise it's every ignorant fool's right to ignore you and continue doing whatever they do.
However, there's no merit to any institutional regulation of firearms awareness, safety, or even the holy grail of field stripping your pistol, whether the institution is government regulation or merely social stigma. Whatever regulation you put into effect will have the ultimate effect of alienating those unwashed masses from gun ownership in general. Certainly if gun ownership and self defense appears to be a tedious and time consuming hobby then fewer people are going to engage in it.
Someone on this forum once said not to give advice, because wise men don't need it and fools won't take it. However in this case I am afraid that truly wise people will reasonably decide that guns are too much trouble if even well-meaning gun owners are pressuring them to learn to maintain their own weapons as some kind of minimum standard for ownership. Fools will just do it anyway. So wouldn't we rather have more wise people with dirty guns out there vs. just fools?
The point is that whether you like it or not, keeping and bearing arms are our rights. This is the only specific property right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We cannot require any regulation of this right, however well-meaning or however intent on encouraging safety and security, without infringing it. Certainly we still do this, and it is still over the limit as it is. You do not fix the current problem of infringement of this right by adding even more infringement.
For further discussion, I think it can be noted that CHL classes are often attended by new gun owners or those new to the concept of using a handgun for self defense. I do not have any statistics to back this up, just a gut feeling, but I figure it is not like driving school where the primary determinant of entry to the class is simply coming of age. I believe it stands to reason that many of these beginners, or first-time gun owners, may not be skilled in the use of their guns, and may lack the ability, skill, or even the awareness of maintenance requirements concerning their firearm.
I might suggest, if we accept that having a CHL is necessary for concealed carry, that the requirements should be reduced as thus:
1. $25 fee
2. pass the written test
3. submit to background checks, license issued contingent on the same requirements as we have now with the exception of the debt requirements (property taxes, child support, student loans) which are absurd
4. temporary license, good for 60 days, is issued when the fee is paid and the test is passed, and the final license arrives in the mail after background checks are complete and supersedes the temporary license.
If we were to adopt this process for acquiring a CHL, I think it would have the following effects, which would alleviate your concerns about firearms awareness:
1. You would never be witness to the firearm handling proficiency of CHL applicants
2. More people would get a CHL, and it may become quite routine. I suspect the numbers would not be 1% or 2% of the population but more like 25%.
3. With a CHL within easy reach, far more people would own defensive handguns, including many thousands who are mechanically inclined, good teachers, and generous people who will help educate and train the others on gun handling and care
It is my belief that the onerous requirements for obtaining a CHL are at least partly responsible for both the lack of firearms awareness and handling skills of the general populace, as well as the lack of defensive firearms ownership of the average person. I believe these factors contribute heavily to the snobbery and elitism among CHL holders (not pointing fingers at you specifically, but there are some) and firearms owners, and also contributes to the fear of firearms ownership amongst the average citizen. Increasing the requirements, either in cost, time or training requirements, only tends to exacerbate these problems.
IMHO.
And FWIW, I am intentionally ignoring the political aspects of CHL in TX and the unfortunate means by which laws must be changed.
We can play semantics all you want, but I do believe your understand what I mean by elitist in my previous post but if not I will explain:yahoshua wrote:
Elitism doesn't quite seem to be the issue here:
e·lit·ism Audio Help /ɪˈlitɪzəm, eɪˈli-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-tiz-uhm, ey-lee-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism Audio Help (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2. A.The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
B. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
You seem to be pretty vocal about the issue TexCaboCat, so what are your suggestions on improving awareness of firearm safety and proficiency if regulating it via CHL classes or Public School Education is something you consider as ineffective/intrusive?
When you, or someone else feels that other people don't deserve the right to carry based on "your perceived superiority" on how gun owners should be able to field strip or operate their weapons I would call that "elitist". Who are you or anyone else to say I have to meet certain criteria to be able to own something that the Constitution of the US already allows us to do? I would call anyone who felt that they are more deserving than someone else of a Constitutional right because of what "they" perceive as being more qualified then I would call that an elitist thought. You can call it what you want, but it does not change the fact that one has or will be willing to deny another's rights because they have deemed another citizen not up to their own standards. Now, if you break the law and abuse that right, then it can and shall be taken away. That is called self responsibility, and it works.
yahoshua wrote:
You seem to be pretty vocal about the issue TexCaboCat, so what are your suggestions on improving awareness of firearm safety and proficiency if regulating it via CHL classes or Public School Education is something you consider as ineffective/intrusive?
I am vocal because it drives me nuts to see people giving our rights up so easily and it saddens me greatly. I understand the point of safety and the true concern some have and agree with that concern. With that being said, our rights of gun ownership will not be infringed upon for any reason (they already have been trampled on enough). Not only will more regulation not work, it only leads (albeit very slowly) to the ultimate demise of our right to gun ownership voluntarily by gun owners. The answer to this problem is, again, self responsibility. If you have a gun and don't train, prepare, properly maintain, store etc....then you will and should be held severely accountable if anything bad happens that is deemed your responsibility, by a court of law. I don't believe that punishing the law abiding citizens is the way to do it. In my mind it is the exact same problem we have with the anti-gun people trying to get guns out of the law abiding citizens, when we know that the criminals will keep there's. We all on this forum would agree that line of thought is not only stupid but dangerous. I would summit that more regulations against honest citizens is no different and would have no effect in making concealed carry any safer. Holding irresponsible concealed carry citizens responsible when they do break the law will send a message of the seriousness of carrying and will make it a safer practice over time without infringing on our Constitutional rights.
By the way, I am not against more classes or public education. We can all take those classes as "we" see fit, not when the "government" see's fit. In fact, I plan on taking many more classes to help me increase my ability to protect myself and my family. If I believe it is my responsibility to defend myself then it is my responsibly to prepare myself, too. Regulation, will not prepare an idiot and you can't make an idiot prepare, but regulation will always diminish the rights of the people. Every single time.
Excellent discussion.
