Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: If a CCW applicant has to take classes and pass tests... [View all]Straw Man
(6,622 posts)11. Yes.
Understand what exactly? How each gun works?
Or what potential damage guns can do when used to shoot people?
Or what potential damage guns can do when used to shoot people?
If they can't understand the functions of the weapons in question, then they can't understand what they are regulating and why. A case in point is the NY SAFE Act, which banned "muzzle breaks," something that does not exist, when what they meant to ban was "muzzle brakes." (Some tried to claim it as a spelling error, which is even more disturbing.) Essentially, what they were trying to ban is "a scary-looking thing that goes on the end of a gun barrel," with no cognizance at all of the function of said device, which is designed to reduce the effects of recoil and thereby make the gun more manageable to shoot. This has absolutely nothing to do with "potential damage guns can do when used to shoot people," as any with a modicum of technological knowledge would understand.
New Jersey's ban on hollowpoint bullets is another case in point. Hollowpoint bullets cause more tissue damage than full metal jacket projectiles do. Therefore they are more dangerous and should be banned, right? Except that full metal jacket bullets are far more likely to pass through their initial targets and strike someone or something behind that target, which is precisely why police don't use them. The are also more likely to penetrate deeply enough to strike vital organs (as opposed to causing tissue damage and blood loss) and are therefore more likely to cause an injury that will eventually prove fatal but will not necessarily stop an assault in a timely matter. The result is a lose-lose situation: dead victim and a dead assailant.
Legislators spend far too much time politicking and far too little time educating themselves on the issues at hand. Most of the signatories of the NY SAFE Act had not read it. That is inexcusable.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I vote yes, and add that LEOs should have to pass constitutional literacy tests.
NYC_SKP
Aug 2014
#1
And do you think the legislators all know how to fly planes and how they work?
Starboard Tack
Aug 2014
#8
Maybe it's like the Manhattan Project and the decision to bomb Hiroshima
Starboard Tack
Aug 2014
#20
Antigun types tend to not know what they're talking about and/or embrace ignorance
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#18
See? There ya go being confrontational. Lacing your reply with commentary insulting to
flamin lib
Aug 2014
#25
Your post #25 has three problems: 1)I insulted no one- the groups mentioned are...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#62
No, they don't say no one should have guns. You are parroting the NRA which you
flamin lib
Aug 2014
#69
As long as those owners are pre-approved by TPTB, and use only 19th C. technology
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#71
The jibes of the politically ineffectual are more amusing than stinging
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#78
Will you also be willing to apply this system to other dangerous rights, or equipment?
oneshooter
Aug 2014
#89