Mr. Cope’s Cave: The Stupid Things That Gun Nuts Do | Cobweb | Boise Weekly:
(May 12, 2014) [quote .. not Geek Words]
Just this past Friday, I explained how I like to extend certain subject matter into open-ended series, if for no other reason than so often, the same stuff comes up again and again. Said another way, shit doesn’t just happen; it happens over, and over, and over.
Nowhere is that more true than in the sphere of American gun nuttery [emphasis added], and it’s no mystery why. In fact, I consider it a guiding principle of human nature, as basic to understanding the behavior we see around us as knowing that those who abuse drugs often have addictive personalities, or that fat people have a tendency to eat more than slim people do.
As simple as I can make it, this guiding principle would read: Not only do stupid people do stupid things, they never learn to stop doing them.
As this principle relates to gun nuts, how many times do we have to hear of some guy showing his piece off to friends with the assurance, “Don’t worry... it’s not loaded,” seconds before he puts a slug through his ceiling—if he’s lucky—or his wife’s head (if he’s not)?
The Second Amendment takes notice that all Americans have the right to "keep and bear arms".
Unfortunately some people are unable to responsibly exercise this right.
This is also true of the First Amendment rights recognized by the Constitution. Some people are completely incompetent to speak in public, and for one simple reason:
They are idiots.
SPEAKING OF IDIOTS:
The First Amendment preserves the right of "The People" to express themselves freely, even when their speech addresses "unpopular" opinions. For example, burning the American flag is protected speach, according to the Supreme Court.
And I think the court was right, in this interpretation. You may not like the image of people burning the flag ... I don't either .. but the flag is a symbol. And .. well, they're idiots; what can you do?
Folks burn a flag in protest of the nation which is so free that they get away with it, and they don't even get a poke in the nose. At least, they are not harassed by jackbooted storm troopers sent by their government to stop protest which some people consider offensive.
By example, here's a guy who rails against the Second Amendment because it allows idiots to possess firearms, even when they are incompetent.
And it doesn't even make me want to poke him in the nose.
Because you know what? He's right.
I train people in firearms safety (in the USPSA context); now and then I see people who make me cringe because they are inadequately trained, or insufficiently skilled, to be safe shooters under pressure. It's never because they are actually idiots, but because they don't know how to safely handle their pistols. Yet they think they are ready to attempt to enter a stressful, moderated environment with limited skills.
I don't have time, during classes, to teach them how to handle their guns safely. So I try to correct the most egregious gun-handling habits. When they perform a maneuver in a manner which is unsafe to others (more often, unsafe to themselves), I stop them and give them immediate feedback. Then they try again, until they get it right.
The process is often frustrating to the shooter. We call it "Good Training". Wish we had time to give them more of it, but instead we just refer them to a Basic Handgun training program, which is designed to deal with
The good news is that this specific environment is self-regulating: those people who don't quickly develop good gun-handling skills are weeded out by the process of Match Disqualification. Some people process the feedback, and decide that they're not all that interested in being 'closely monitored'.
About half of the people who take the class never attend a match; a smattering of those who do, and who are disqualified at their first match (often during the first stage of the match), also seek to find less demanding competitive sports.
Actually, that's about 99% of the people who have not independently developed good gun-handling skills.
The good news is that this weeds out most of these unfortunate people, and may encourage them to seek training. The bad news is that not all of them are willing to accept the judgement given by their own experience. This doesn't mean that they are incompetent people; it only means that some people just shouldn't have a gun ... either because they are unwilling to learn the skills, or because their personality is not up to the grave responsibility.
They either learn, or they quit coming to matches. The feedback mechanism works, at least in the field of competitive marksmanship.
Getting back to the "gun owners are idiots" article:
Yes, the author is correct in saying that some people should not be allowed to own guns! It's just like "some people should not be allowed to drive cars", although the 'right to drive' is not on the same level as the "right to keep and bear arms".
But the author of the original article keeps coming back to his theme of depicting "gun nuts" as incompetents.
And this just pisses me off.
Why?
Mostly, I'm irritated because the person who wants to compete with a firearm is among the 90%
["they" can make up their statistics, I can make up mine] of shooters who are responsible gun owners. The cited article completely ignores the "good"; instead, it emphasizes the "bad", for the sole purpose of making a political point.
As long as we all understand that authorial bias, I have no problem with the article.
After all, I'm a Gun Nut. I'm not a Liberal!
