Clevfan4life Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Without periodically proving they are sound of mind and body? Like if their hands shake too much or something do we really want that operating a firearm? ESPECIALLY ccw's.... Discuss☕️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 No problem with limiting gun ownership for certain, uh, groups that seem to have more problems with guns? Discuss. PS suicide rate has what to do with qualification to own a pistol? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Shouldnt we protect old people from themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Nope. That's one situation in which someone is truly making the decision concerning their own body. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 I see what you did there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Dicey situation. Old people need to protect themselves and gun ownership is a constitutional right. It can't be treated like when grandma gets too slow of reflex to drive the car and has her license revoked. Driving a motor vehicle isn't constitutionally protected. I wouldn't want to be defenseless as a soft target geezer because my hands are shaky thus I had gun ownership taken from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Dicey situation. Old people need to protect themselves and gun ownership is a constitutional right. It can't be treated like when grandma gets too slow of reflex to drive the car and has her license revoked. Driving a motor vehicle isn't constitutionally protected. I wouldn't want to be defenseless as a soft target geezer because my hands are shaky thus I had gun ownership taken from me. But if dimentia were to set, like "u know who, then u have the possibility of like the mailman getting blasted or the gas man.....any number if people that migjt legally be allowed to approach the premises. But lets firget about home def for a moment as i agree thats a tricky one unless the children ir the wife go to the authorities and say the person has lost their minds. Lets talk about ccw's......should lnt old people have to pass like a tinfoil test to prove they dont see deep state martians around every corner that prompts them to draw down and start swat turning around corners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 But if dimentia were to set, like "u know who, then u have the possibility of like the mailman getting blasted or the gas man.....any number if people that migjt legally be allowed to approach the premises. But lets firget about home def for a moment as i agree thats a tricky one unless the children ir the wife go to the authorities and say the person has lost their minds. Lets talk about ccw's......should lnt old people have to pass like a tinfoil test to prove they dont see deep state martians around every corner that prompts them to draw down and start swat turning around corners? Well being mentally unsound allows for some rights to be given up. (Ex: MR people have a legal power of attorney who makes decisions for them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 So bringing people in for a visit every year or so after a certain age is not a bad idea if they wish to continue having a CCW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 First, let's define "old". Is it someone over the age of...say 35? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Without periodically proving they are sound of mind and body? Like if their hands shake too much or something do we really want that operating a firearm? ESPECIALLY ccw's.... Discuss☕️ It would be better to require an across the board qualification. As to not target a specific group. That in and of itself should be a state issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 First, let's define "old". Is it someone over the age of...say 35? If it were my call there would be a tin foil test. like start hard core clowning on a bunch of conspiracy theories and watch the perspiration build.☕️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 It would be better to require an across the board qualification. As to not target a specific group. That in and of itself should be a state issue. Once i get my ccw i have zero issue periodically requalifying. But thats only for ccw's. I consider walking around armed quite possibly the biggest responsibility and "privilege" this country bestows on citizens. Owning firearms in ur home is the inalienable right, walking around concealed is the privilege imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Once i get my ccw i have zero issue periodically requalifying. But thats only for ccw's. I consider walking around armed quite possibly the biggest responsibility and "privilege" this country bestows on citizens. Owning firearms in ur home is the inalienable right, walking around concealed is the privilege imo Have an elderly gentleman in his 80's in my neighborhood and a few years ago someone busted out his bedroom window in the early morning and was trying to enter his house. He yelled he had a gun and when the intruder still kept trying to climb into the window he fired a couple shots at him which did the trick and the intruder fled from the scene. When police arrived they found a roll of duct tape and a can of mace on the ground by the window. Although he didn't hit the intruder all he needed to do was fire a couple of shots in his direction to make him flee. It is not so much the elderly need to be accurate shots but just to be able to have a weapon available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Have an elderly gentleman in his 80's in my neighborhood and a few years ago someone busted out his bedroom window in the early morning and was trying to enter his house. He yelled he had a gun and when the intruder still kept trying to climb into the window he fired a couple shots at him which did the trick and the intruder fled from the scene. When police arrived they found a roll of duct tape and a can of mace on the ground by the window. Although he didn't hit the intruder all he needed to do was fire a couple of shots in his direction to make him flee. It is not so much the elderly need to be accurate shots but just to be able to have a weapon available. I'm good with most of this but there is still the possibility those rounds can hit someone other than a intruder. That's why making this type of thing age specific is a bad idea. Incompetence with a gun is incompetence with a gun regardless of how old the person behind the trigger is. The qualification/training should not only determine profiency but should also highlight a working knowledge of ballistics and how their particular weapon system functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 I'm good with most of this but there is still the possibility those rounds can hit someone other than a intruder. That's why making this type of thing age specific is a bad idea. Incompetence with a gun is incompetence with a gun regardless of how old the person behind the trigger is. The qualification/training should not only determine profiency but should also highlight a working knowledge of ballistics and how their particular weapon system functions. Yep. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 I talked a long time ago here about ccw carriers perhaps having to prove tjey can fire their gun accurately enough while their heart rates are pegged, simulating the adrenaline dump of a combat situation. I was scoffed at by the usual tits tthat uselessly flatulate around this board. But now we're moving in that direction arent we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 I talked a long time ago here about ccw carriers perhaps having to prove tjey can fire their gun accurately enough while their heart rates are pegged, simulating the adrenaline dump of a combat situation. I was scoffed at by the usual tits tthat uselessly flatulate around this board. But now we're moving in that direction arent we? Even in a full bore, intense shooting seminar you won't be able to simulate an actual combat situation. Paper and steel targets are not shooting back. So getting grandpa amped up for his one sided war with Cardboard McBadguy is kinda useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Even in a full bore, intense shooting seminar you won't be able to simulate an actual combat situation. Paper and steel targets are not shooting back. So getting grandpa amped up for his one sided war with Cardboard McBadguy is kinda useless. Run way over there than run bsck, now pick up this here pistol and shoot them targets. It isnt complicated. Is this going to affect the fat and out of shape hillcunts? U damn right. Is it a 100% guarantee that the individual in question will handle his firearm properly in a real combat situation?.....no ofc not. But its the best idea going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 no. someone in a wheelchair can't run. Their minds and arms work fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 no. someone in a wheelchair can't run. Their minds and arms work fine. Theres ways for people in wheelchairs to get their heart rates up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Having a gun is the great equalizer. It means elderly persons who don't have the physical strength to protect themselves can have that ability with a firearm. If they are in their right mind there is no valid reason to take away gun their gun rights especially when to do so leaves them vulnerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 I talked a long time ago here about ccw carriers perhaps having to prove tjey can fire their gun accurately enough while their heart rates are pegged, simulating the adrenaline dump of a combat situation. I was scoffed at by the usual tits tthat uselessly flatulate around this board. But now we're moving in that direction arent we?Not really. It was a stupid fucking idea before assuming you'd have to inject somebody with the same heart rate inducing medicine as a chemical stress test. And if so everybody who gets a driver's license should take that. You know heart rate goes up when a car pulls in front of you blah blah blah.WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Not really. It was a stupid fucking idea before assuming you'd have to inject somebody with the same heart rate inducing medicine as a chemical stress test. And if so everybody who gets a driver's license should take that. You know heart rate goes up when a car pulls in front of you blah blah blah. WSS i said nothing about a chemical stress test. As i mentioned, run over there and run back...then pick up a gun and show us what you got. It's really not complicated. Your comparison to operating a motor vehicle is flawed per usual. Here i'll point it out for you. The ONLY time you ever pull your gun out of it's holster is for "go time". Hundreds of millions of people operate motor vehicles every day and while ur right, heart rates obviously do spike in crash situations....the vast majority of ones time spent in a vehicle is under low stress situations. EVERY SINGLE time you pull a gun out of it's holster because it's go time....ur heart is skyrocketing and then accuracy goes out the window. I've explained this before it's just common sense. Do i have any hope it will happen? No of course not, fat old geezers would revolt that they can't walk around strapped even though they can't read a giant billboard 15 yds away. But in my world, if you wanted to walk around an urban setting strapped you'd have to prove a few things first. This is what liberals are talking about when they say the constitution does not and cannot cover todays modern world. I want to be clear this is for CCW's only. When it comes to having firearms in your house, that's the inalienable right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 The ONLY time you ever pull your gun out of it's holster is for "go time" Cleve ****************************** wrong. for practice. For putting away. For cleaning. The argument doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 The ONLY time you ever pull your gun out of it's holster is for "go time" Cleve ****************************** wrong. for practice. For putting away. For cleaning. The argument doesn't work. that's at the range or at home, OBVIOUSLY those are not the times I'm talking about. You pull your gun out on the street as a ccw carrier you may only do so if you feel your life or the life of another is in IMMINENT danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 yes, but that doesn't mean anybody needs a stress test to have a ccw license. Your idea about that is silly, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 yes, but that doesn't mean anybody needs a stress test to have a ccw license. Your idea about that is silly, that's all. I guess self defense has a weight limit. Fat people lose constitutional rights after a certain weight. Michael Moore must be well over the limit for the first amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 it's about socialist need for more and more $$$$$$$$$$$$ to buy utopia. Seattle's law, i.e., that taxed a "gun violence" tax.... https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/seattles-gun-violence-tax-week-tom-greshams-gun-talk/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=9697510b83-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-9697510b83-20770865 mmgw "tax" how many miles you drive tax, ammo tax, gun tax, fees, licenses, fines, all the better to leftists/dems/progressives/liberals... to use money as a weapon while they also get more ...money. Endless cycle of endless excuses for controlling everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.