Actual Common-sense

Albeit with a side order of a”I’m a gun owner but…” and of course the condescension that the NRA wouldn’t support punishing people who actually misuse firearms, or that the laws he wants generally already exist, or would represent a loosening of the existing laws.

The post proposes (after a lot of political bumph) in a fairly sane way, that the NRA’s safety rules┬ábe enacted as federal law and that be it. And, shockingly enough, that safety education be left to a free market, not forced.

Punishing the people who actually misuse a tool, and leaving the innocent users in peace. It’s a radical idea whose time has come, I say.

I can quibble with some of his details (the safe storage requirement he wants is a little too much pre-crimey for me), but it’s a hell of a lot better than anything I’ve seen come out of anti’s recently. And a lot of it should be done by enacting uniform state laws, not action at the federal level. And a lot of his anecdotes would not be changed by changes in law, but by changes in culture – that people be prosecuted for negligent discharges, not allowed to call it an accident and go on. But that’s a problem with drunk driving (his comparison) as well. I have no issues with treating NDs as DUIs, assuming we don’t go to MADD-level idiocy. And he doesn’t mention that the reduction in DUI was achieved not only be increased penalties and enforcement, but by PSAs and other societal education.

6 Responses to “Actual Common-sense”

  1. terraformer says:

    Umm, rule #3 would be a deal breaker for any sort of carry. The NRA rules are range rules, not daily use rules. While the direction is the right one, the execution is wrong. The NRA rules for safety are tailored solely for range use.

    • Ian Argent says:

      As I said, I quibble with the details. In this case, #3 would behoove one to keep the weapon unloaded unless it is being prepared for self-defense. And, note that Jim Wright does not insist on the letter of that rule being followed in his prescriptions, unless the safe storage requirement counts. He mostly goes off the 4 rules and uses the NRA’s safety rules to expand on the subject.

  2. I see a thing happening with the haters, they seem to slowly be taking things from our side, and claiming them as their own. It’s not always obvious, but it’s there. Just look for it, and you’ll see what I mean.

  3. Brad says:

    I glanced a little at his content. He is quite full of himself, that’s for sure. He whines about pro-gun blowhards, yet he it invites it with his own overwrought hyper-aggressive tone.

    He brags about all his experience and all his guns, yet he seems shockingly unaware of how bad the laws are in anti-gun states. Of course he is, he lives in Alaska. Maybe he would have a better appreciation for the rest of us if he lived in some New Jersey hellhole instead.

  4. CarlosT says:

    Not horrible, but still completely unnecessary. If you want to hold people accountable for NDs, then there are laws on the books in every jurisdiction that will serve the purpose. Is there anywhere in America where they do not have a version of criminal negligence? Or reckless endangerment? Or criminally negligent homicide? Through absolutely zero legislative effort, you could start enforcing these laws today in ways that would be completely justifiable and fair.

    Just as one example, in Washington state an ND that wounds someone could be prosecuted as assault in the third degree, a class C felony

    RCW 9A.36.031
    Assault in the third degree.

    (d) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm;

    An ND in public that doesn’t hurt anyone could be prosecuted as reckless endangerment, a gross misdemeanor:

    RCW 9A.36.050
    Reckless endangerment.

    (1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.

    The “not amounting to a drive-by shooting” bit is because that’s be broken out into a separate crime for sentencing purposes.

    There’s a lot of grandstanding that goes on in the anti-gun community about fixing laws or getting new laws passed. It’s all BS. If they’re really serious about making responsible behavior the standard, then there’s no place in the country that doesn’t already have the tools to make it happen right now.