East_TN_Patriot

I totally understand, and generally agree with your point, but I never suggested the Feds should require training. I would expect that to be a state by state decision. I really wouldn't have a problem with mandating some mechanism to assure that people demonstrate minimal competency for possessing a firearm, which would include proof of training through any number of sources, such as training in the military, law enforcement, CCW classes, hunter safety classes, Boy Scouts, Appleseed, or similar recognized shooter training. It's getting to a point where we have to create some sort of solution or we will be subjected to federal restrictions that are much more harsh.

OK, I get your point and don't necessarily disagree, but exactly what class do they teach kids to have sex and take drugs?  

And herein lies the conundrum. We complain about all of the unsafe morons we encounter and say how they shouldn't own a firearm, but we fight against any efforts to require gun owners possess some level of knowledge and skill before owning a firearm. Until we can effectively address this issue as gun owners, we will not see an end to the push to regulate access to firearms though bans and mag capacity limits. I'm almost to a point where one must demonstrate the ability to properly handle, maintain, store, and use a firearm. When the Second Amendment was written, the majority of the population had some reasonable level of experience handling firearms. Also, a single shot musket or a revolver was a bit less of a safety issue than a Glock since it took a bit more effort to load and fire. I know this approach is unlikely to be popular with many here on TGO, but we require people to demonstrate safe driving skill and knowledge of traffic laws before being allowed to legally operate a vehicle. Many, including me, are suggesting that people should be required to demonstrate some basic understanding of American government before being allowed to vote. People now have to take a hunter safety class before getting their hunting license. In discussing this with my wife the other night, she reminded me of the negligent discharge I had with my first firearm that I obtained when I was 18. Although it seems common sense to me now, I didn't check the chamber when I picked it up and fired a shot off through my TV, my bedroom wall, the sofa in the next room, and the bookshelf on the other side of the room. Fortunately nobody was injured. I had never really handled a gun before, had not been taught gun safety, and yet was able to buy a rifle and take it home. I don't pretend to suggest that such an approach would eliminate all negligent uses of a firearm, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

Well, it's not a "class" really.  It's a national criminal justice professional organization and an extracurricular activity.  The ACJA holds the competitions at their conferences.  This year's national conference is in Valley Forge, PA.     Looks like that place is about half way between Knoxville and Harrogate.  I'll see what kind of facility they have available.  Thanks for suggesting that place.  I was just sitting here thinking that I could stop in Mike's Gun Shop in Tazewell and ask them.  I'm afraid to do that because it seems like I end up buying something every time I am in there.  

I am in the process of starting a chapter of the American Criminal Justice Association at Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate and one of the cool perks of membership is that the ACJA hosts handgun competitions at their national and regional conferences.  Obviously, several students are interested and although it will be a tough thing for me to do, I guess that I have to tough it out and help put this together.  ;)   So, with that said, can anyone suggest a firing range near Harrogate that I could contact and try to work out some arrangement with them for using it for training and practice?  All of the stages are at 25 yards or less.   If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd sure appreciate it!

Here is the response I received from ORSA:   So based on that, the issue was that the coordinator failed to follow-up and clarify questions that the ORSA board had.  Perhaps I am reading into it too much, but my sense from that email is that people were annoyed with the lack of follow-up.  I'm not sure if it would be worth another crack at it or not.  

Actually, it more than likely wouldn't.  We have added more and more mandatory minimum sentences since the 1980s and have put so many Americans in prison that we have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, but the effect on the crime rate has been minimal.  That said, a so-called "assault weapon" ban and mag capacity limit won't help either.

Ok, what I found says that he was smuggling these firearms into the US through Canada and he is also being investigated in Cnada for firearms related crimes as well. There was a search warrant, evidence was collected, and I strongly suspect that an indictment will be coming in short order. I am confident time will show this is far from being a federal government retaliation for posts on Facebook.

Well, maybe I am looking at two different cases. Let me double check. EDIT: Ah yup, I screwed up. Different case. Thanks for pointing that out. My quest for updated info continues.

Police departments and individual officers don't get reward money, it's unethical and most times illegal, so the point of the story is moot.

Like she always said, guys do it all the time.

I know police officers who think you have a legal requirement to notify if you are carrying.  I feel that it's none of the officer's concern whether I am carrying and I do NOT notify them, but will be cooperative and honest if they were to ask.  Being a former police officer myself, I know that it's not the permit holders that they need to worry about, but based on my own personal experiences, I know how some officers over-react at the very mention of a firearm in the vehicle.  I have personally watched officers draw their sidearm on honest people who volunteer the information trying to be helpful.  I have seen in person, and on TV, officers take a weapon screw around with it trying to make it safe, drop them and the mags, etc.  I'd rather take the risk of letting the officer get annoyed that I didn't volunteer should they ask than risk getting some walking attitude with a badge pull their gun on me or drop my $600 carry pistol on the pavement.  After spending 10 years in the profession and having students who are now in the profession, I wish I didn't feel that much distrust of police officers, but it is what it is.  

Of course it's not at all possible that this guy was a licensed FFL dealer who illegally imported, exported, and sold firearms.  It's not like this would be the first time a dealer would have made illegal firearms transactions.  There was one in my town in Florida who owned a large gun shop and firing range and was arrested for illegally buying and selling NFA weapons, posted, "sold," and took payment on firearms listed on GunBroker that he didn't own, and engaged in a wide variety of illegal activities.  The sources listed here are two pro-gun blogs, so their perspective is dubious until the official story comes out.  I will withhold judgement either way for now. EDIT:  Disregard my last.  After posting the above, I did a quick web search for updated info and here is what I found:   Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/30/agents-raid-new-mexico-gun-store-in-gun-smuggling-case/#ixzz2LDPNyRcE   So much for the TTAG claim that he is a "kitchen table dealer" who does "everything - everything - by the book," and so much for the claim that the DHS seized all of his guns and didn't even file charges.   And before people yell about the liberal media, notice this story came from FoxNews.  

  This type of voting behavior is not limited to progressive liberals.  It's applicable to the vast majority of voters in America (easily 75% or more).  People simply do not vote based on a candidate's record.  They vote based on party loyalty, candidate rhetoric, and for the person they think has the best chance of beating the candidate they dislike the most.  

I too originally thought this was a "knee-jerk reaction" to the Sandy Hook shooting, but the more I have read and thought, I am convinced this is no knee-jerk reaction.  Rather, the anti-gun crowd is taking full advantage of what they see as an opportunity to pass legislation they have wanted for over 20 years.  When the VP admits that the policies they are proposing will have no significant effect on gun violence, you know that this is only an exercise in exploiting a tragedy for political gain (just so I'm clear, both major parties regularly do this).   I would like to see Magpul stick to their guns on this, but I'm afraid the cost would be so massive that any bone that gets thrown to them will be good reason for them to stay put.  I'm not sure how I will react if they do that.  Unless some other folks step up, there will come a point where there will be nobody left to boycott that has products worth owning.  I think that Magpul would have an opportunity to take a financial hit now, but establish a reputation for being a stand-up company that would pay off over the long haul.

Yup, OS hit the nail on the head!

There doesn't appear to be anything especially wrong with the study itself, but the problem lies in how the results are interpreted.  Here is the key point from the results section:       In other words, this study found what criminologists already know about the majority of gun violence, and have know for over 20 years: most gun violence is perpetrated by low-income inner-city youth who are disproportionately minorities and engaged in criminal activity like the illicit drug trade and gang activity.  Where their analysis falls apart is they suggest the findings for the group they study is applicable to the public at large. This is a problem we call a "ecological fallacy" where the researcher tries to apply characteristics of a unique group to the population at large.  The researchers here allude to this in their limitations section, but not fully.  This what happens when people who are not trained as social sciences try to explain social phenomena like gun crime.  I see similar problems happen when economists - including John Lott - try to do the same thing.  Low-income urban youth tend to be part of a very unique sub-culture in American society where violence is a very common and expected part of daily life. It's simply inaccurate to compare the experiences of these individuals to the experiences of people who do not live in this social environment.  This would be like doing a study of gun violence in Afghanistan and saying that most victims of gun violence tend to be involved in military operations, so that is proof that possessing a firearm increases the likelihood of being killed by a firearm.

Have they tried the Oak Ridge Sportsman's Association?  They have a great 1000 yard range.  I would think they would be all about one of these. I guess I can contact someone there and see.   EDIT: OK, I just sent them an email.  I'll keep people posted about the response. 

That hasn't worked for me.  The last WM I stopped at was even out of shotgun shells!  :blink:

  I do have a set of compact binoculars in a pouch in my larger kit.  I figure they could come in handy to spot critters and bad guys.

Yeah, that's basically uncalled for. I've never been a big customer of LT, but that definitely makes me think twice about buying from them again. That confirms that any complaints would very likely be met with insults.

Wish they would do one in east TN.

I think the letter sucks. Magpul needs to come to Knoxville. :-)

Interesting commentary, but I think the author made a huge leap in logic to make the argument work. It assumes that the Founders intended the people to use arms as a first resort in the face of government overreach, not a last resort, which is the intent as explained in the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were always clear that the political process and courts are the primary means for addressing grievances against the government, not armed force.

I already know want he will say. Rich people suck, guns suck, Republicans suck, I inherited this mess, I'm going to stimulate the economy, I'm going to create jobs, look how great I am. The Dems will swoon, the Reps won't, the media will talk about how wonderful the speech was, they will exploit some victims for political gains and then dispose of them tomorrow, and Fox News will talk about how crappy the speech was. I'll keep watching Big Bang Theory.