…but there’s no way to weed them out without wrongly violating the rights of those who should.
I understand that this statement may be offensive to some. In the firearm world, some fully invest themselves in an absolute interpretation of the Second Amendment: that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I, too, believe that the Second Amendment is important and affords an individual right to own firearms…albeit with a few asterisks. Most notably, I think some people should not have access to firearms.
It is relatively easy to argue that violent felons should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. It’s perhaps just as easy to argue that those convicted of domestic violence should also not be allowed firearms. Those who would argue against these points will certainly not agree with anything else I have to say, but they’re entitled to their opinions.
After having worked in a gun store for a little while, I came away with the sincere belief that not everyone should own firearms. It’s not a matter of education or experience – yes, at some point, everyone is new to firearms. It’s a matter of attitude and inclination. Some people just don’t care enough to keep and use their guns in a responsible manner which minimizes risk to others and respects public and private property.
I’m not convinced that mandatory training and safety courses will be of much help; even if they’re forced to attend, these people won’t retain much or any of the information that’s passed to them. Someone with the right attitude – of affording firearms the respect they deserve as tools capable of causing harm when misused – will seek out this information without being forced to do so. Novice or expert, it’s the willingness to constantly use firearms in a safe and responsible manner that is important. Yes, perhaps some people just need a little nudge in the right direction. But others will never come around.
It would be easy to say that maturity brings the responsibility which should be required to own firearms, but that just isn’t the case. Men well into middle age – hunters and homeowners who don’t identify their targets – have misused firearms, with the end result being the tragic death of others. Young people may also be at fault in these cases. The unintentional death of innocent people is the most egregious example of how the actions of those who shouldn’t own guns impact others, but the minor actions of irresponsible people are far more common.
Take, for example, those who find humor in destroying public property – from road signs to national park entrance signs to the roof pictured above. Perhaps it’s just youthful idiocy which will eventually be outgrown, but every person without a dog in the gun rights/gun control fight who drives by a sign defaced with a shotgun may potentially become anti-gun. Did the Founding Fathers intend for the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to destroy public property?
How, though, are we to weed out the undesirables on a massive scale? The bottom line is that we can’t. We can’t readily identify those who won’t be responsible with firearms any more than we are able to identify those inclined to drive under the influence of alcohol. We can punish them after the fact, but that won’t prevent their transgressions in the first place. Theoretically, we could have government commissions screen those who would and would not be allowed to own firearms, but that isn’t acceptable to me considering the abuse which would inevitably result, and the inability of the government to perform the task in the first place.
This is the fundamental difference between those who want to restrict firearm ownership and those who don’t. Should we punish the majority for the actions of a minority? I don’t think so. But firearm owners should be mindful of those who act with reckless disregard when they handle or shoot their guns – and do what we can to correct their actions before innocent people are harmed.
The marine from the web link is from a town I work in. Going into the local gunstores to pick up parts usually has me pretty uneasy with how most of the window shoppers handle the firearms they look at. Sadly people will complain about strict range officers and with that at lease remove the negligent users before they may harm others or themselves. Exellent write up.
I attended an Appleseed Project with my son this past weekend, and safety rule #4 was “watch the people around you to be sure they’re following the basic firearm safety rules, and say something if they’re not.” Considering there are attendees of all skill levels, I thought this was really great, and they maintained a safe firing line the entire weekend.
Very well said. Obviously I wasn’t there but that knucklehead with the shotgun may just need a dressing-down and some some training. That approach worked for me.
Well said. This has been my basic thought for several years now. I am currently a NRA R.O. and work at a range and weather I am in my uniform or not I don’t hesitate to correct peoples safety issues. Example: The guy looking down the barrel of his loaded 1911 with the safety off, hammer back, an booger hook on the bang switch.
I agree with you Andrew. The same case could be made for automobiles. There are many more irresponsible drivers in this nation than irresponsible gun owners. Each year, 17,000 americans are killed by drunk drivers.
What is most peculiar, car ownership is not a constitutional right. However, it has a much larger economy around it than firearms.
In my opinion, gun ownership is a right that everyone in America is entitled to. However, a person can lose that right if they are irresponsible. The way the law works, I and I agree with it, is that each of us has that right until we do something to lose it. Much of the debate is centered around what those things are that can take the right away.
Agreed, firearm ownership is a right, but always in question thanks to the ever present 10% who don’t care, haven’t trained enough to care, or been involved in a tragic accident that compelled them to care more.
Sadly, these may not even be issues if the govt spent more time on firearm safety PSA/awareness than creating more useless rules to ineptly regulate an expanding market.
Andrew,
I agree with you absolutely. I know you are in Arizona alot and you are welcome at the Scottsdale Gun Club anytime. I have been the buyer there before we opened it and if you are in town come on by. If you ever need anything please contact by email and keep up the great work on the blog, a bunch of us enjoy reading your work.
Tony Tarantino
There is a spot outside my town where I often shoot. A few years ago a group of people pulled up and proceeded to shoot several rifles over me and the group I was with onto the mountain side.
There’s never a broad spectrum solution to something like this. I would look for solutions that have the possibility to “reduce” the chance of stupidity.
I would like to see the states that issue CCW permits to expand on education on firearms handling, not just the legal aspect. Of course it’s not going to work on the idiots. Nothing ever does. It could help the ones with some sense of responsibility and reason though. In this case, you’re not imposing anymore gun control than you are already doing with a CCW permit, but you do have a captive audience.
Take what you can get….
Great article. I think as a community we are not particularly good at policing ourselves – there’s definitely an attitude amongst some gun owners to “mind your own business”. God forbid you suggest to another gun owner that maybe it’s a good idea to secure their shotgun by the door in a quick access safe so their 3 year old can’t play with it, or maybe it’s not a great idea to chop down the barrel of their AK without an SBR stamp. Unfortunately for most people, guns will be something cool to have around, rather than a responsibility.
We could have a society that doesn’t promote hooliganism and narcissism, but that’s not going to happen any time soon.
The only point I would add is that punishment after the fact does have effect on crime rates. It takes time, but drunk driving and even texting and calls while driving are significantly lower. I do not want to see blanket presumed guilty infringement of rights, but aggressive enforcement and notable punishment of misuse and negligence of firearms, to include the handling of firearma while under the influence, may help to improve the situation.
i wish the same sort of prudence would be shown in the voting booth
Great write up. I think more local ranges should offer safety courses. Maybe with some sort of incentive program. For example come take our one day safety course and recieve half off on admission on your next range trip. I frequent a range on the rural outskirts of stockton CA, a pretty rough town, and have literally moved lanes and or distances to simply “get away” from some shooters. Being waved by a AK that looks like a prop from the movie water world is never fun.
As the proprietor points out, it can’t be done without violating intolerably the rights of most of us. Liberty isn’t always pretty.
The strongest strategy to this end does seem to be gun owners holding each other accountable. Having been around firearms and their owners, I have also reached the conclusion that firearms, being powerful objects, appeal to many people who attempt to use power to fill a void in their own character. It is unfortunate, then, that many who should be relied upon to provide accountability would resort to doing so without the least amount of tact or genuine personal concern.
The gun world needs more gentlemen.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.
– Thomas Jefferson
I have to disagree. This attitude has resulted in various laws such as the The Gun Control Act of 1968.
I understand you do not like the behavior. I donât like it either. Itâs a right or itâs a privilege to which the government can attach conditions. Unfortunately, weâre at the point where the population buys into the notion of attaching conditions to a right is within Congressâ power.
Nice write up, I have seen a few of those suiuations & have no problem being vocal about an idiot being an idiot.
I am in AZ also on the lowes west side. Any good free spaces out here to shoot? I just received a new .458 SOCOM upper & I am itching to get some time on it (In a few weeks when my ammo comes in…..SHEEESSSH! Weeks for a few boxes…. but I digress… How bout it? I am Self/Unemployed & $ is tighter than I like.
After looking at the AZ map by BLM looks like it’s a range or nothing, Fire restrictions….
I always get a laugh out of the firearm photos accompanied by stacks of money, booze and marijuana. Usually right next to a photo of the owner pointing a gun at the camera or worse, their head. I’ve seen it first hand at the range along with video of mag dumps. Those always get a few onlookers.
As a 24 year old who has in interest in firearms, I find it hard to get friends into the hobby or find other likeminded guys my age. The very rare times I do, a scene from step brothers plays out. “did we just become best friends?!”
Age =/= Maturity.
here’s a couple proactive ideas:
1) a hotline for *only* FFLs, range owners, gunsmiths, trainers, and concealed carry permit holders to flag the reckless, the mentally ill, and the emotionally distressed. there could be a difference response to each – training/yelling, examination/seizure, and counseling.
2) some kind of public interdiction that is softer touch – ie, a call from a therapist as opposed to a visit from the county sheriff or a SWAT team. add procedures for suspending gun rights that has an automatic return date unless the state meets a high bar of evidence (ie, criminality, suicidal intent, schizophrenia). could use a jury of FFLs.
3) tax-subsidies for buying gun safes and training courses.
I agree that we as a community need to be more proactive about flagging dangerous behavior. I try to do it in a polite but stern way. I have become a member of a private club as the public range that I used to go to has become just plain scary. There is no RO present, the range is “monitered” by web-cam. It works when everyone there is responsible but at the same time I have been down-range hanging targets and looked back to see people handling firearms on the line. I wanted to storm back and give them a piece of my mind but I figured that they would respond better and be more likely to learn if I treated them more respectfully.
On a side note I absolutely HATE that people shoot through the roofs of pavilions. I suspect that it is most often intentional but you are right that either way it’s scary. Without even commenting on the safety issues it is just really damned impolite. Here in NE Ohio we get a lot of rain and snow and when the roof is peppered with bullet holes it makes for a soggy day at the range (after someone made the effort and paid the price to provide a shelter for all of us)…
You and I have a fair amount in common. although I am a bit older, having left the Navy as an FMF assigned HM2 in 1989. I’m sorry, but while I understand fully where you’re coming from, I am an absolutist when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
Yes, there are plenty of morons out there, and when there’s no RO, it is every gun owner’s responsibility to put dangerous gun handlers in line. I have ZERO tolerance for being “painted” with someone’s muzzle, empty or not. Ditto for other acts of outright stupidity or even plain carelessness. My tone will depend on the offense and the attitude of the offender.
However, while not yet a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, I am no fan of ANYTHING mandated by the government. I don’t know about your experience as a Corpsman, but I learned that not everyone appointed or elected above me had my Rights in mind.
My first experience was at age 10, firing my late father’s M1 Carbine. He taught me right. I have two children, a Marine Lieutenant attending flight school and a 19 year old daughter in college. I took away the “mystery” of guns, as did my Dad. They knew they could handle a firearm anytime they liked, provided they asked me first, then demonstrated ensuring an empty weapon, muzzle discipline etc. The only reason I locked my guns up was that I knew that my firearms could likely end up in the hands of one of their playmates….and that is a BAD thing.
Introducing the government into the mix is never good, IMHO. Here in New York, I was chastised at a town range for referring to my M4-gery as a “weapon”. The RO yelled, not even politely explained, that it is a “sporting arm”. Sorry, but while I may use my AR or my G3K in some sporting activity, it is not the primary purpose of either of those two particular firearms. When the PC police mentality creeps into old RO’s who should know better, I am disgusted.
you realize that the whole convicted felons can have rights taken away is an itegral part of constitution right? therefore all arguments against that premise are arguments aginst a provison of the constituion
Andrew, Your article about firearms safety was well thought out, well developed, and well stated. I support your sentiments on the matter of firearms safety.
M.M., NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Rifle Instructor, Range Safety Officer, & Iraq combat veteran.
Samuel, are you suggesting that because convicted felons can have their Rights taken away, it gives the government carte blanche to do so when “IT” chooses. You’d do better to remember that the government governs “by the consent of the governed”. It is additionally, far from fact that convicted felons can have their Rights taken away. While incarcerated, certainly, but once they’ve paid their debt to society, not every jurisdiction continues to deprive these individuals of those Rights.
The mere fact that we have the largest prison population, per capita, in the entire world, not the industrialized world, but the ENTIRE world says more about who you should fear. I don’t remeber who said it and am paraphrasing, but it’s along the lines of “you can tell a great deal about a nation by the way it treats its prisoners”. Read the “The Gulag Archipelago” and you may get some measure of where we are headed.
No, law-abiding citizens CANNOT have their Rights taken away. I will fight to the death to defend that premise.
Pretty much agree with your article. Here in New Zealand we have pretty full on screening for long gun licenses along with a compulsory 2 hour safety class and multi choice test (That contains sufficient information for someone who new nothing about guns before the course to know how to safely use long guns after passing the course). I have observed NO correlation between safe/unsafe long gun handling/attitude and Age, Income, Experience, Education, Upbringing or Background. I have found people who participate in competitive shooting events tend to be pretty good but I think that has more to do with the fact that people with poor attitudes towards firearms safety are not the kind of person who is going to enjoy following the procedures/ruling of a shooting competition so prefer to do there shooting informally were no one is there to point out they are acting like a dick head and need to pull there head in.
I am one of the people that has been prohibited for life to owning a firearm because I was arrested once for misdemeanor domestic violence12 years ago that had nothing to do with me beating up a wife or girlfriend. It was a heated argument between me and my dad and I made one wrong move. I regret the fact that I did what I did, “we made up the next day” and I regret now in life finding out all the things i missed out on. At 22 years old I couldnt join the army because of it, becoming a police officer or armed security forget it, and just enjoying shooting on weekends or the piece of mind of home defense all gone. Im a firearms enthusiast and im sure I know allot more about firearms than the average person does. I agree that violent criminals and felons do not have any business owning any guns, but it pisses me off how black and white the laws are made and theres no way around it or to get it expunged either
Sorry, Matt. That sounds like a load of horse-hockey to me. It was 12 years ago and at some point, there should be an expiration on such things. When folks have paid their “debt” to society, they should have their Rights restored. Personally, I’m not convinced that Rights should be taken away with theexception of when actually convicted and incarcerated. I feel for you. It’s b.s.
I wouldn’t advocate illegality, but I wouldn’t want to live in this country without a firearm, either. Difficult choice.
thanks
AGREED Mr. Tuohy. Agreed.