[Guns] Incredibly stupid civilian shoots at shoplifter.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Naw, I don't think a psych exam could have done it. What it is, is that you get normal people who join message boards like AR15 and their equivalent communities in real life, and they basically psych each other up into pulling their guns during the slightest moment of adrenaline, because of this meme that you must draw and shoot on vigorously trained instinct, that you've got to shoot to kill the moment you think there's a threat or else you won't have a chance. The reality is that most self-defence cases involve fisticuffs already being exchanged or a fairly large buildup. And, of course, that going for the kill and then claiming "I was frightened" is basically how American law operates, but there has to be some kind of actual cause, which these people forget.

It's relatively easy, psychologically, to kill in the heat of the moment. It's why crimes of passion are an entire category, and they're not indicative of mental illness. The problem is that this guy of course was part of that draw-instantly, kill-instantly community of particularly fanatical people who should not be allowed CPLs. Detecting them though would basically require discriminating against people based on an ideology and I'm not sure it would be constitutional. I see them as a real problem in the firearm owner community, but the only way to screen for it I think would be a particular series of leading questions on how you'd act in a self-defence scenario.

There is one way to do it. You dont need leading questions and you do not need to discriminate based on ideology.

What you do is you set forth a series of scenarios in which a gun may be drawn. The exam then asks a series of questions at the end of each scenario about what is and is not acceptable. The scenarios must rotate though exams (so the same ones are not always used), or could even be proceduraly generated in batches (if it can be done for random quests in Daggerfall....) such that the same scenario can be used repeatedly, with minor details tweaked etc.

The questions at the end:

Is drawing a gun legally acceptable under these conditions?

Is it permissible to fire a warning shot under these conditions?

Is it permissible to kill under these conditions?

Will you be civilly liable for damages under these conditions if you shoot a gun?

Will you be criminally liable for damages under these conditions if you shoot a gun?

The answers are always binary. Yes or No. Have say, ten of these questions.

If they miss one, they fail the exam.

[aerius]

There is one way to do it. You dont need leading questions and you do not need to discriminate based on ideology.

What you do is you set forth a series of scenarios in which a gun may be drawn. The exam then asks a series of questions at the end of each scenario about what is and is not acceptable.

It would be so easy to get through that system that it wouldn't be funny. Think driver licensing road test. How many people throw the rules right out the window as soon as they get the piece of paper? Congratulations, the guy has answered all the questions correctly. Will he apply that in real life? Fuck no. Suppose I'm a sociopath. I'll write down the right answers for the test, get my gun and concealed carry license, then promptly go on a shooting rampage. The test would never pick up on the fact that I'm a murdering psycho. Only way to pick up on that is what they did to me at my former job, and that's a full psych evaluation with a series of interviews and other stuff by trained personnel and even then it's hardly foolproof.

[Simon_Jester]

Do both?

The test at least weeds out actively delusional idiots who didn't get the training.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There is one way to do it. You dont need leading questions and you do not need to discriminate based on ideology.

What you do is you set forth a series of scenarios in which a gun may be drawn. The exam then asks a series of questions at the end of each scenario about what is and is not acceptable.

It would be so easy to get through that system that it wouldn't be funny. Think driver licensing road test. How many people throw the rules right out the window as soon as they get the piece of paper? Congratulations, the guy has answered all the questions correctly. Will he apply that in real life? Fuck no. Suppose I'm a sociopath. I'll write down the right answers for the test, get my gun and concealed carry license, then promptly go on a shooting rampage. The test would never pick up on the fact that I'm a murdering psycho. Only way to pick up on that is what they did to me at my former job, and that's a full psych evaluation with a series of interviews and other stuff by trained personnel and even then it's hardly foolproof.

Different solutions to different problems man. A written test is not about dealing with the sociopath problem. A written test is to weed out/educate well-meaning but ignorant/stupid people who are a danger to themselves and others, not because they are evil, but because they dont know what the correct thing to do is.

[Mr. Coffee]

When are people going to learn that you can't legislate crazy?

It would be expensive as all hell to conduct comprehensive psychological screening for CCW permits. I already know at least one of you is going to say "but, Uncle Coffee, why not make the person that wants a CCW pay for the screening?" Congrats, now you've made so lower income law abiding citizens can't afford it. What about the state or federal governments pay for it? We can't even get those assholes to pay for mental healthcare as it is, what makes you think they can pay for several hundreds of thousands of new applicant, never mind the several tens of millions of assholes that already have permits? Here's the fun part, even if you somehow manage to get psychological screening for CCW permits off the ground there's still no guarantee it will work.

Even better, it still wouldn't be an obstacle for a determined sociopath bent on shooting people. For example that school in Connecticut couple months back. The shooter wasn't even old enough to purchase firearms. Instead he killed his mother and used her guns to shoot the places up. Same shit with those two tools that fucked up Colombine. Crazy fucks determined to kill people will find a way.

In any case, the dumbfuck from the op article probably isn't a sociopath. Most likely he's an inexperienced shooter that watched to many movies. What's needed is a standardized training program that covers everything from basic marksmanship and gun safety to use of force laws followed by both a written and practical exam. Give the instructors the authority to drop obviously dumb/crazy people from the course and make the tests simple pass/fail where if you fail you have to repeat the entire program and you only get three tries to get it right or you're barred from obtaining a CCW for ten years.

[Zwinmar]

But what is "standard basic marksmanship and gun safety?" Every show I watch, everything I see on the news showing gun fights shows, in my not so humble opinion, amateurs. Fingers on triggers, not looking through their sights, not knowing basic movement formations, being retarded during room clearing. Not to mention not ensuring who/what their target is and what is beyond it.

When it comes down to it I tend to trust no one with a weapon until proven otherwise. Even Cops because, annecdotally, I have seen their version of room clearing and it is preposterous and will only result in their own deaths.

But, at the same time, I have to consider my own training. How many people even think its plausible to be accurate at 500 yards with iron sights any more?

[Mr. Coffee]

But what is "standard basic marksmanship and gun safety?"

Basic marksmanship... can you use you weapon proficiently enough to hit what you are shooting at? It's not that hard of a concept. The US military can teach this to several thousand high school graduates every year, so maybe take notes on how they do it and apply it to training civilians.

As far as firearms safety goes there are only four rules to follow. Keep your finger off the trigger until you got a sight picture and ready to fire, never point a gun at anyone or anything you aren't willing to shoot, be aware of your target and what's behind it, and always treat a gun as it were loaded/always check to make sure it is or isn't loaded. Congrats, now you know gun safety.

Every show I watch, everything I see on the news showing gun fights shows, in my not so humble opinion, amateurs. Fingers on triggers, not looking through their sights, not knowing basic movement formations, being retarded during room clearing. Not to mention not ensuring who/what their target is and what is beyond it.

If you already knew this then why did you ask what gun safety is? Like I said, this is easy to learn stuff. Also, no shit fuckers in movies and tv shows generally show unsafe firearms use. Hollywood almost never gets that shit right.

[madd0ct0r]

, never point a gun at anyone or anything you aren't willing to shoot,

see, the dumbfuck in the op was following that rule.

[Terralthra]

, never point a gun at anyone or anything you aren't willing to shoot,

see, the dumbfuck in the op was following that rule.

That's why the actual rule quoted most often is "Never point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy."

[Kamakazie Sith]

, never point a gun at anyone or anything you aren't willing to shoot,

see, the dumbfuck in the op was following that rule.

Those rules are designed to prevent accidents and does not apply in this case since it is obvious the person in the OP was very willing.

[Torben]

I suppose we'd need to add a fifth rule. Ensure the use of force is justifiable. Rather than something like "Der, I just wanted to make sure you could find the car."

[Simon_Jester]

That should fall under 'don't point the gun.'

The problem is this one bozo being willing to shoot when he shouldn't, not us needing to obsess over the details of a rule of thumb.

[EdgarjPublius]

When are people going to learn that you can't legislate crazy?

It would be expensive as all hell to conduct comprehensive psychological screening for CCW permits. I already know at least one of you is going to say "but, Uncle Coffee, why not make the person that wants a CCW pay for the screening?" Congrats, now you've made so lower income law abiding citizens can't afford it. What about the state or federal governments pay for it? We can't even get those assholes to pay for mental healthcare as it is, what makes you think they can pay for several hundreds of thousands of new applicant, never mind the several tens of millions of assholes that already have permits? Here's the fun part, even if you somehow manage to get psychological screening for CCW permits off the ground there's still no guarantee it will work.

It's generally the same problem as terrorist screening procedures at airports. An infinitesimal proportion of the population are actually psychopaths, so any screening system that is less than perfect (read as: any screening system) will 'catch' more people who aren't really psychopaths than it would ever catch actual psychopaths.

It may be hard to believe, but even total morons aren't that well represented in the population. There are more than a million Florida CCW permit holders and these kinds of idiotic stories are not that common.

[Spoonist]

How many people even think its plausible to be accurate at 500 yards with iron sights any more?

Lots of people. They mistake their effectiveness with a rifle on the target range with what they could similarly do in a live situation. Its also a case where people get older and get poorer eyesight but still think they can shoot with iron sights like when they were in their twenties.
I'd guesstimate that this accounts for a lot of hunters hurting their prey instead of killing it.

[Mr. Coffee]

I'd guesstimate that this accounts for a lot of hunters hurting their prey instead of killing it.

It that and/or they're not using enough gun to reliably make a kill and/or fight or flight is super effective and the critter runs half a mile or more despite having the contents of it's thoracic cavity sprayed all over a tree. Those two reasons are precisely why I never use anything smaller than .308 Winchester during deer season.

Also, teaching someone to hit a target at 500m is pretty easy. How easy?



So easy this guy taught a ten year old to hit targets at 1000 yards. Marksmanship is the easy part of teaching people how to be safe and responsible gun owners.