On 2/25/2018 10:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 6:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 1:00 AM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 00:40:44 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/24/2018 5:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:10:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/24/2018 3:55 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 03:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:



I don't read it that way.

He states that although violent crime is down 7 percent the
rising
number of deaths in young people is alarming.

"We're seeing kids younger and younger with handguns,"
Commissioner
Evans said. "They're shooting at each other, that's why we
have to work
harder to keep those kids out of that lifestyle."

He also states that half of the incidents are gang related
shootings.

Not too many gang members legally purchase firearms, I
don't think.


Maybe you get an extra 3 years if caught with a firearm and
do not have a
gun safety certificate.Â*Â* Need a certificate as a minor to
drive a boat in
a bunch of states

Most of the time the gun charges get dealt away to get the
conviction
on the more serious charge. In Florida that is not always so
tho. We
had a woman here charged with aggravated assault that might
have been
dealt away with a couple years or even probation but the gun
charge
made it mandatory 20 years.


I am saying you need to pass a gun safety course before being
able to buy a
firearm.Â*Â* Military service would qualify.Â*Â* Hunter safety
course would
qualify.Â*Â* CCW course would qualify.

I am all for training but what training? In Florida it seems to be
more legal than practical. They spend most of the time telling you
can't really shoot anyone and then talk about basic firearm
safety,
how to carry your weapon,Â* how to secure your weapon etc.
The other extreme would be going to Gunsite but that is up in five
figures for the comprehensive courses.
I am afraid the lefties would call that "murder school" because
it in
99% tactical.
I would certainly agree CCW courses could be more extensive.
Like most
things government mandated they just tend to be superficial.

It is like when people tell me drivers are "tested". Yeah when
they
were 16 they demonstrated they could drive around some cones
without
hitting any and parallel park. From then on for the next 60 to 80
years it is just send in a check. Some states do an eye test
but far
from all and if your eye doctor gives you a note you can duck
that.
Florida renewed my mom's license and she was dead.



The permit course I took was only 4 hours of instruction and an
hour on
the range.Â* That's it.Â* Instructors must be NRA certified and
that's the
minimum course required for a permit.

My son and his wife took a much more extensive course here in MA
before
they moved to SC.Â* I've forgotten how long it was exactly but
they went
2 or 3 evenings a week for over a month.


The guys who teach here are usually off duty or former cops. I
suppose
that is why it is so heavy on the law.


The one I had was a retired cop.Â* He got his NRA certification and
teaches the course as a part-time retirement job.Â* His course was
sprinkled with many "lawful" suggestions including encounters with
police, what to say and what not to say.




I would like to see a more hunter safety course type training.Â*Â* We
had
maybe 8 hours classroom and a 1/2 day at the range.

That may be more than the military gets if you are not in the army or
the marines.


Air Force b@sic we got one day inside with safety and aiming and
breaking
down the weapon and a day at the range.Â* If you were going to posted
in a
shooting area, they told us we would get lots more training later.



Same with the Navy back in the old days. Those who went on to become
Gunner's Mates received more extensive training later.

The ships I was on often held training and shooting exercises for
everyone on the helicopter deck while at sea.Â* We got to try just
about everything in the small arms locker.

Today's Navy includes more extensive training in firearms evenÂ* in
basic training.


How extensive?


Certainly not as extensive as the Marines or Army recruits but more than
I experienced back in 1968. Navy recruits today must qualify with a 9mm
(Glock) and a shotgun, although according to my son and son-in-law they
also used a M4.

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/navy-weapons-qualification-course.html

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 06:59:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/25/2018 1:00 AM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 00:40:44 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/24/2018 5:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:10:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/24/2018 3:55 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 03:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:



I don't read it that way.

He states that although violent crime is down 7 percent the rising
number of deaths in young people is alarming.

"We're seeing kids younger and younger with handguns," Commissioner
Evans said. "They're shooting at each other, that's why we have to work
harder to keep those kids out of that lifestyle."

He also states that half of the incidents are gang related shootings.

Not too many gang members legally purchase firearms, I don't think.


Maybe you get an extra 3 years if caught with a firearm and do not have a
gun safety certificate. Need a certificate as a minor to drive a boat in
a bunch of states

Most of the time the gun charges get dealt away to get the conviction
on the more serious charge. In Florida that is not always so tho. We
had a woman here charged with aggravated assault that might have been
dealt away with a couple years or even probation but the gun charge
made it mandatory 20 years.


I am saying you need to pass a gun safety course before being able to buy a
firearm. Military service would qualify. Hunter safety course would
qualify. CCW course would qualify.

I am all for training but what training? In Florida it seems to be
more legal than practical. They spend most of the time telling you
can't really shoot anyone and then talk about basic firearm safety,
how to carry your weapon, how to secure your weapon etc.
The other extreme would be going to Gunsite but that is up in five
figures for the comprehensive courses.
I am afraid the lefties would call that "murder school" because it in
99% tactical.
I would certainly agree CCW courses could be more extensive. Like most
things government mandated they just tend to be superficial.

It is like when people tell me drivers are "tested". Yeah when they
were 16 they demonstrated they could drive around some cones without
hitting any and parallel park. From then on for the next 60 to 80
years it is just send in a check. Some states do an eye test but far
from all and if your eye doctor gives you a note you can duck that.
Florida renewed my mom's license and she was dead.



The permit course I took was only 4 hours of instruction and an hour on
the range. That's it. Instructors must be NRA certified and that's the
minimum course required for a permit.

My son and his wife took a much more extensive course here in MA before
they moved to SC. I've forgotten how long it was exactly but they went
2 or 3 evenings a week for over a month.


The guys who teach here are usually off duty or former cops. I suppose
that is why it is so heavy on the law.


The one I had was a retired cop. He got his NRA certification and
teaches the course as a part-time retirement job. His course was
sprinkled with many "lawful" suggestions including encounters with
police, what to say and what not to say.




I would like to see a more hunter safety course type training. We had
maybe 8 hours classroom and a 1/2 day at the range.

That may be more than the military gets if you are not in the army or
the marines.


Air Force b@sic we got one day inside with safety and aiming and breaking
down the weapon and a day at the range. If you were going to posted in a
shooting area, they told us we would get lots more training later.



Same with the Navy back in the old days. Those who went on to become
Gunner's Mates received more extensive training later.

The ships I was on often held training and shooting exercises for
everyone on the helicopter deck while at sea. We got to try just about
everything in the small arms locker.

Today's Navy includes more extensive training in firearms even in basic
training.

Yup, the same is true in the CG. In boot camp we had a day or two at
the range but most of it was standing around because they only had
about 8-10 guys with live rifles at a time. We got a quick "this is
the 1911" thing but nobody shot one. It wasn't until I got on a ship
and lived with the gunner's mates that I got any real small arms
training. I spent a lot of time in the armory, learning how to take
them apart and put them back together with the GM3 on board.
He had to know, I just wanted to know. We raced putting the various
weapons together in "cave dark" situations. (close the door and it
really gets dark in an interior compartment). We could both put a M2
together and head space it in the dark in a couple minutes. We had a
1911 down to less than a minute starting with the parts in a box in
field strip condition.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants. But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:14:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/25/2018 10:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Today's Navy includes more extensive training in firearms evenÂ* in
basic training.


How extensive?


Certainly not as extensive as the Marines or Army recruits but more than
I experienced back in 1968. Navy recruits today must qualify with a 9mm
(Glock) and a shotgun, although according to my son and son-in-law they
also used a M4.

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/navy-weapons-qualification-course.html

All of the Coasties I see on the water are carrying a sidearm and you
have to qualify to do that.

On 2/25/2018 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 06:59:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/25/2018 1:00 AM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 00:40:44 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/24/2018 5:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:10:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/24/2018 3:55 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 03:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:



I don't read it that way.

He states that although violent crime is down 7 percent the rising
number of deaths in young people is alarming.

"We're seeing kids younger and younger with handguns," Commissioner
Evans said. "They're shooting at each other, that's why we have to work
harder to keep those kids out of that lifestyle."

He also states that half of the incidents are gang related shootings.

Not too many gang members legally purchase firearms, I don't think.


Maybe you get an extra 3 years if caught with a firearm and do not have a
gun safety certificate. Need a certificate as a minor to drive a boat in
a bunch of states

Most of the time the gun charges get dealt away to get the conviction
on the more serious charge. In Florida that is not always so tho. We
had a woman here charged with aggravated assault that might have been
dealt away with a couple years or even probation but the gun charge
made it mandatory 20 years.


I am saying you need to pass a gun safety course before being able to buy a
firearm. Military service would qualify. Hunter safety course would
qualify. CCW course would qualify.

I am all for training but what training? In Florida it seems to be
more legal than practical. They spend most of the time telling you
can't really shoot anyone and then talk about basic firearm safety,
how to carry your weapon, how to secure your weapon etc.
The other extreme would be going to Gunsite but that is up in five
figures for the comprehensive courses.
I am afraid the lefties would call that "murder school" because it in
99% tactical.
I would certainly agree CCW courses could be more extensive. Like most
things government mandated they just tend to be superficial.

It is like when people tell me drivers are "tested". Yeah when they
were 16 they demonstrated they could drive around some cones without
hitting any and parallel park. From then on for the next 60 to 80
years it is just send in a check. Some states do an eye test but far
from all and if your eye doctor gives you a note you can duck that.
Florida renewed my mom's license and she was dead.



The permit course I took was only 4 hours of instruction and an hour on
the range. That's it. Instructors must be NRA certified and that's the
minimum course required for a permit.

My son and his wife took a much more extensive course here in MA before
they moved to SC. I've forgotten how long it was exactly but they went
2 or 3 evenings a week for over a month.


The guys who teach here are usually off duty or former cops. I suppose
that is why it is so heavy on the law.


The one I had was a retired cop. He got his NRA certification and
teaches the course as a part-time retirement job. His course was
sprinkled with many "lawful" suggestions including encounters with
police, what to say and what not to say.




I would like to see a more hunter safety course type training. We had
maybe 8 hours classroom and a 1/2 day at the range.

That may be more than the military gets if you are not in the army or
the marines.


Air Force b@sic we got one day inside with safety and aiming and breaking
down the weapon and a day at the range. If you were going to posted in a
shooting area, they told us we would get lots more training later.



Same with the Navy back in the old days. Those who went on to become
Gunner's Mates received more extensive training later.

The ships I was on often held training and shooting exercises for
everyone on the helicopter deck while at sea. We got to try just about
everything in the small arms locker.

Today's Navy includes more extensive training in firearms even in basic
training.

Yup, the same is true in the CG. In boot camp we had a day or two at
the range but most of it was standing around because they only had
about 8-10 guys with live rifles at a time. We got a quick "this is
the 1911" thing but nobody shot one. It wasn't until I got on a ship
and lived with the gunner's mates that I got any real small arms
training. I spent a lot of time in the armory, learning how to take
them apart and put them back together with the GM3 on board.
He had to know, I just wanted to know. We raced putting the various
weapons together in "cave dark" situations. (close the door and it
really gets dark in an interior compartment). We could both put a M2
together and head space it in the dark in a couple minutes. We had a
1911 down to less than a minute starting with the parts in a box in
field strip condition.



We did a little more with the 1911s. We actually had to "qualify" by
firing them at the range. Wasn't very difficult. I think it was more
to introduce everyone without any handgun experience to safety issues.

On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants. But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than what
he's been told or heard. He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others. He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.

On 2/25/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:14:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/25/2018 10:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Today's Navy includes more extensive training in firearms evenÂ* in
basic training.


How extensive?


Certainly not as extensive as the Marines or Army recruits but more than
I experienced back in 1968. Navy recruits today must qualify with a 9mm
(Glock) and a shotgun, although according to my son and son-in-law they
also used a M4.

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/navy-weapons-qualification-course.html

All of the Coasties I see on the water are carrying a sidearm and you
have to qualify to do that.



My grandson recently passed his qualifications for boarding team member.
The qualification process is more than just being issued a Glock with
authorization to carry it. It's more like attending a police academy,
learning all the pertinent laws and rights of those boarded.

He's currently underway on his cutter doing drug intervention patrols.
Just left GTMO and a liberty call in San Juan. Should be back home in
April sometime. Looking forward to hearing of his adventures.

On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit on
it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than what
he's been told or heard.Â* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.Â* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.Â* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.Â* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:41:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.


I had proposed a higher age requirement, at least 21, unless the individual had an honorary
discharge DD 214.