Gun ownership from a different perspective.

[Joe Fields]

To pre-empt any preconcieved notions of what this post is about, I want to be clear. I am not out to get your guns, nor do I want the government to try. I believe that trying to do so would meet with the same results as Prohibition. In fact, I believe that if you want an honest to goodness peasants with pitchforks revolution here, all the goverment has to do to spark one is to try and take people's guns from them.

That said, something that isn't touched on so much on General Discussion threads about firearms is the woefully inadequate universal conformity of required gun safety training from state to state. Some states do not require any gun safety training. Zero. You can get a permit to own a weapon and not be required to complete a gun safety training course. Other states, such as Maryland, for example only require a thirty minute online course to meet the state's gun safety requirement. To me, this is absolutely not acceptable.

Maybe guns don't kill people. But poorly trained gun owners, and gun owners with absolutely no safety training can and do. A study by the University of Washington reports that fully one-third of all gun owners have had no gun safety training. The report goes on to say that two-thirds of all gun owners did not lock their guns in their home with children living in the home. That is just a prescription for disaster, people.

I have known a significant number of gun owners throughout my fifty+ years on earth. I've lived all over the country and known, quite well, people from all walks of life. From what I have witnessed, I can only think of one person, who was a responsible gun owner, and that was my brother. Every one of those people I have known that own guns, except for two, were what most people would call normal and responsible people, EXCEPT when it comes to the use and abuse of firearms. The two exceptions I knew blew their brains out. One was a very good friend of mine. Now, is this because of a lack of knowledge about gun safety. I'm not sure, because I've never taken a survey of all the gun owners I have known, but I would be willing to say that it is a contributing factor.

If the gun lobby, self-defense advocates and the NRA are so eager to allow every law-abiding citizen the opportunity to carry a sidearm, then I believe they should also assume the responsibility of working with the federal government and state legislatures to adopt a uniform, rigorous,comprehensive gun safety course.

I can tell you from personal experience, that there are too many law abiding idiots out there who have the right to bear arms. I don't see why there would or should be any opposition to a uniform gun safety code.

link to article on gun safety training statistics.
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/02/21/gun-safety-training-should-be-mandatory/

[Longtooth]

1. You cannot attach such restrictions to the First Amendment

anymore than you can to the Second, or the Third, or the Fourth, or the Fifth, and on and on.

[Hugabear]

2. Nonsense

I think just about every state prohibits convicted felons from owning firearms. And many states have requirements on how firearms are stored, with many of them mandating trigger locks. Aren't these all restrictions?

[Longtooth]

4. Unconstitutional restrictions yes. SCOTUS will be addressing

one of you points very soon.

[rdenney]

139. I cant wait for the "Heller" case to kick gun-owners where they belong! Right in the @$$.

[maxidivine]

143. Trigger locks

which kind, the kind that is a loop of cable and prevents the gun from being used, or the kind that is built into the gun? Because most people who actually shoot their guns don't see any use for a built in lock, it is just an unneccessary addition to a firearm that will not prevent it's misuse and is likely to fail at the wrong time, leaving the owner with a very expensive paperweight.

No thanks, I think I will keep mine either completely locked up or locked and loaded.

[jakem]

5. The restriction could be said to be there already-

"well regulated" militia-

presumably people who are trained and capable...

[Longtooth]

7. You are using the current definition of "well regulated" not the

definition of the time in which that amendment was written. Meaning - in similar and or like fashion. They were supposed to have the same stuff.

[jakem]

16. fine by me. give em all a slingshot.

[Longtooth]

22. Slingshots are not firearms and not covered under the 2A. Firearms are.

[jakem]

27. oh for gods sake. they can have a .22 then. but that is all.

or maybe one of these?

[Longtooth]

30. Oh for gods sake. Just follow the constitution.

and the picture of the "minny" requires a special $200.00 tax as per the 1934 gun control act. Much of witch is unconstitutional.

[jakem]

34. leave witches out of it.

look, i am not necessarily anti-gun. but expecting some regulation of ownership is reasonable and necessary.


clinging to the constitution as unchanging truth is no comfort to the parents of dead children.

[Longtooth]

37. Look, we already have more than we should in regards of regulation.

What is being proposed is not reasonable or necessary. And to bring up the old "it's for the children" argument is disingenuous at best. If we were concerned with children's lives as the overriding point than we would be discussing areas other than firearms. Because there are many more children deaths by means other than firearms.

[jakem]

yeah. you convinced me.

not THAT many kids die from gun shots.


:wow:


look. i live in the boonies. my neighbor goes hunting daily within earshot of my property. doesn't bother me a bit. more power to him.

there is no rational argument against regulating guns. none.


if you can't be bothered to register and prove competence, then maybe you should not be trusted to own a gun.


don't trust the government? i'm with you! i would myself score an online copy of anarchists cookbook the minute shit hits the fan.

but no-one is taking your precious guns away. just making sure you aren't a complete jackass with it.

[Longtooth]

51. But you cannot constitutionally require it. It's just that simple.

All other reasons aside you just plain cannot do it constitutionally. It's just like the old voting test laws. SCOTUS said you cannot require a test in order to vote. It's the same thing.

As far as acting an ass with a firearm there are laws against that that ARE constitutional.

[Hugabear]

89. Ah, but you DO have to register to vote!

Doesn't that kind of count as regulating a right?

And has been pointed out before, there are SCOTUS approved limits on the First Amendment as well. You can't commit libel, slander, or yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You cannot incite violence. You can't conduct human sacrifices, and claim it's part of your "freedom of religion".

[slackmaster]

92. Every new gun that has been sold in this country since 1968 has been registered

Gun Control Act.

[Hugabear]

93. So?

All you're doing is reinforcing the point that you can place restrictions and regulations on our Constitutional rights.

[slackmaster]

94. Sure, the exercise of all rights is subject to "reasonable" regulation

Differences of opinion about what is and is not reasonable lead to some lively exchanges.

[SteveM]

158. The further from your house, the greater the restriction...

If you take your gun from your house & property and go to the range, states/localities have restrictions on automobile storage.
If you go hunting, the state regulates not only what you can hunt, but with what (guns, ammo, magazine capacity, etc.).
If you carry a concealed weapon, the state can regulate, register and require training.

But if you are in your house, regulation in most states is minimal. The assumption here is that guns will be used for self-defense; hence, the government is prevented from requiring registration and regulation which might infringe on the Second Amendment. Keep in mind that registration, regulation, "melting point" laws, taxes and fees were used by the Southern states during Jim Crow (enforced in many states up to the time of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) in order to prevent/restrict blacks from keeping and bearing arms. You can see why there is so much resistance to any idea of registration/restriction. SEE: www.georgiacarry.org and scroll to Heller brief, a real eye-opener on the racist history of gun control, felt to this day.

It is difficult to reconcile the belief that the U.S. is sliding toward fascism with the advocacy of gun control.

[Two Americas]

123. as Democrats...

As Democrats, we have traditionally looked at the root causes of social problems and advocated for public programs to protect people and provide opportunities and justice and equality, and have not done what the right wingers do - reach first for the punishment model and merely treat symptoms. Attack poverty and injustice and inequality, and the gun violence problem will disappear.

Stable communities have far fewer or non-existent problems with gun violence, regardless of gun ownership - Canada for example, and many rural American communities. When there are no economic opportunities, as is the case for young males in African American urban communities, families, neighborhoods and communities break down and anger and resentment are rampant. In that social and political climate, violence rates go up. As Democrats, we should be advocating that the root causes are identified and attacked, and we should not compromise in any way on that with the right wingers. That means avoiding the "personal choice" arguments - that is libertarianism, even if the "choices" are supposedly "liberal" - rejecting the punishment model for managing people's behavior through fear and threats and a police state that will always oppress the poor and protect the well-off, and rejecting the modernism arguments that see the traditional values and principles of the party and the country as somehow inoperative or obsolete because "times are different." Times may be different, but principles and ideals are eternal. All of that modern do-gooder liberalism, which is libertarianism with an "organic" or "green" label slapped on as a fig leaf, is really gentrified suburban prejudice, and advances the interests of privilege and power for the few.

I'm clinging to the Constitution, myself, and not just the Second Amendment. There is no way to restrict gun ownership without also eroding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments protections and rights.

All Democrats should know the answer to gun violence, and it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or even guns, but rather with justice and economic equality, protections for workers and protection of public resources and the public infrastructure for the benefit of all.

The reason why the Second Amendment is so important to rural people is because of the historical context. Peasants - 99% of the people in Europe who immigrated here- were not allowed to own firearms. Poaching was a hanging offense, and hunting and self-defense were reserved strictly for the landed hereditary aristocracy. That, and ownership of one's own farmland to be independent and self-sufficient are what "freedom" meant to the oppressed people of the Old World. Many rural people see suburban liberals as a new aristocracy, as "haves" in a world of have-nots and have-littles, with the same tired old anti-common people prejudices and hostilities. It makes no political sense to play into that and ignore the haves versus have-nots dynamic behind the gun control debate and many other debates and liberal cause advocacy. It looks "liberal" from inside of the privileged white academic-corporate-suburban bubble, but is looks like arrogance and the prejudice of the "haves" to the rest of the country and the world.

[maxidivine]

144. Excellent post

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. A lot of people are killed with .22's.

Guess you don't care about those people.

David

[LanternWaste]

60. Which is completely open to individual interpretation

"...definition of the time in which that amendment was written."

Which is completely open to individual interpretation, and I just don't happen to trust the interpretations of most lay people...

[Longtooth]

63. If you need clarification then read the Federalist Papers.

That way you get it from the ones that wrote it and don't have to trust mere "lay people".

[LanternWaste]

68. But don't two-hundred plus year old tract...

But don't two-hundred plus year old tracts also have to interpreted for context, language and syntax...?

At least all the older classical American fiction and non-fiction I've read did. But then again, I'm probably not as clever as you and maybe you have the ability to interpret without error. I envy you.


"that way you get it from the ones that wrote it"
I'm not saying what side of the weapons-fence I'm on-- but damn... that's just bloody stupid.

[maxidivine]

145. How is it stupid

to reccomend you just go read the authors other works so you can have an idea of what they would have meant, and to trust yourself to understand english language, even if it is the english language of two hundred years ago? or is it only "experts" that can be trusted? seems awfully elitist to insinuate that only certain people could possibly know what they meant.

[beevul]

149. They want to interpret based on context...

They want to interpret based on context, until the context ceases to support their conclusion...


"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.billofrights.org


The context is that the second amendment is a restriction on governmental power - that prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people not the militia - to keep and bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, as the preamble makes clear.


It is just a game they play, and simply attempting to discredit and/or impeach any "context" that leads to a conclusion they disagree with is what you can expect. Even if the context comes from the Bill of Rights itself.

[bean fidhleir]

101. Actually, it meant "trained to a common standard" since the lack of a common set of expectations was

a problem during the war. The idea that it only meant common armament makes no sense, since common armament does nothing to induce skill and unless the armed person is skillful, what's the point?

I'm very much a whole-BOR zealot, and I don't think there's anything in the Second or the supporting documentation that would disallow making people demonstrate their competence, with the proviso that if they can't they either undergo training til they can, or they give up their weapons and stop being a potential danger to the public.

[slackmaster]

8. But the law defines the militia as essentially the entire population

presumably people who are trained and capable...

Congress has largely abandoned its Constitutional obligation to organize, arm and discipline the militia.

[unpossibles]

12. but there are such restrictions to the First

you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theatre to use the most famous. Libel and slander are also not allowed.

[Longtooth]

15. You CAN yell fire in a theater.

And should if the IS a fire in a theater.

[slackmaster]

Or if you are an actor in a play in which the script directs you to yell FIRE!

:D

[Longtooth]

24. LOL, Good point.

[unpossibles]

31. um, no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California

if speech is threatening or attempts to create chaos or an uprising it has generally not been considered protected.

[Longtooth]

35. I guess we should outlaw reckless use of firearms then. Oh, we already have.

[unpossibles]

57. you seriously cannot tell the difference?

or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?

If I say something beyond my rights - libel, slander, create danger, whatever - the odds of you surviving my verbal attack are pretty high.

If I shoot someone in the face through ignorance or neglect or anger, not so much. Then again I am not Cheney.


Look, I am not anti-gun at all, but I don't get why so many are so against the idea of more responsible and educated gun use, including proving said responsibility and education on purchase. Seriously.

[Longtooth]

61. It is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. Look. . .

I'm not saying that a person shouldn't be responsible with a firearm. I'm saying that it is unconstitutional to prove it with a permit, and it is.

[unpossibles]

97. ok, I guess we'll just have to disagree

I'm not saying I want to remove people's rights, although that is how you see my position. I just would like to see more people learn what they are doing, which is not unreasonable, and happens with anything else which is potentially dangerous. Hell, it would strengthen pro-gun arguments because there would hopefully be fewer accidents, right?

[SteveM]

159. Actually, the incidence of children injured/killed by guns has been in decline...

for a number of years. The National Safety Council reports that casualties due to gun accidents are well behind drowning, electrocution and other causes, and are falling faster than any of the surveyed categories. Seems folks are taking responsibility without more government restriction. BTW, when I and my brothers were kids, not all of our guns were locked up. We had our own for self-protection. And knew how to use them. Our parents were comfortable with that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. They are both illegal so what's your point.

You are talking about restricting rights because something may happen. Kind of like banning newspapers because they may commit libel.

David

[maxidivine]

146. Then why don't you advocate

for standardized training as a part of high school? If you really and truly want people to be responsible, safe and educated in their use and possession of firearms, then wouldn't you agree that the best way to ensure that all gun owners fulfill those standards would be to teach everyone, regardless of whether they will ever own a gun or not, the proper way to handle a firearm without harming themselves or others through negligence and unfamiliarity?

I am a huge advocate of making at least basic firearms safety a required part of the curriculum, for both public and private schools, if the class were to take one slot for a half a school year there would be ample time to impart all the safety knowledge neccessary and give some time actually handling real firearms (absent ammunition, not everyone pays attention in class) so that students would be capable of safely determining the status of a firearm they for whatever reason stumble upon and unload it as well. There are only so many ways to unload a gun, it would be quite simple for a class to impart enough knowledge that every student who took it would be capable of safely handling a firearm, even if they never fired one.

[bean fidhleir]

102. Some confusion there. The law is about protection from liability for consequences

If there are no consequences, there is no liability. A person can't be jugged for "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater" as long as nothing happens when they do. If something does happen (injury, death) then the jugging is for the *outcome* not the act.

[DailyGrind51]

104. The city of Chicago gets around the First Amendment, at least regarding hand guns, by

prohibiting the registration of hand guns within the city limits.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. The Heller decision should be out any day now.

Then we'll see what SCOTUS has to say about Chicago's ban. How's that ban working out anyway?

David

[Blackeye101]

142. On the money

Your 100% right on the money.

[slackmaster]

3. Your post is thoughtful and I appreciate it but don't entirely agree

Most states don't require a permit to own a weapon. Most require a permit to carry one concealed in public. Of those, the amount of training required varies from none to the equivalent of a 2-unit college course. That disparity may be more of a problem in some places than in others. Vermont allows concealed carry without any kind of permit or training, yet has one of the lowest rates of violence.

Basic gun safety training can and IMO should be offered in public schools, much as they teach about dangerous drugs, driving, and sex practices. Most parents are not qualified to teach it themselves. I was fortunate to have a dad who was a qualified instructor. But as fewer people have real experience, fewer parents are able to pass that knowledge on to their children.

The article cited calls for mandatory training to simply own a gun. That doesn't square with the perception held by about 75% of the population that owning a firearm is a protected civil right - This according to the president of the Brady Campaign in a recent statement anticipating their side losing the DC v. Heller case in the Supreme Court - see http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1 . Requiring some kind of subjective evaluation or license to excercise a right is not going to go over well with a large number of people.

You don't require training before someone can vote. Many people feel the same way about owning a gun.

[Joe Fields]

10. You are required to have safety training to handle dangerous chemicals,

aren't you? A person needs to be HAZMAT certified. Correct? Same thing with driving a car. One has to read a state driving manual and learn about the safe handling of an automobile, then must pass a test to prove their understanding. Why should a dangerous consumer product, such as guns be any different?

[slackmaster]

13. There is no enumerated right to have dangerous chemicals or to drive a car in the Constitution

One has to read a state driving manual and learn about the safe handling of an automobile, then must pass a test to prove their understanding. Why should a dangerous consumer product, such as guns be any different?

I am not aware of any state that requires any training, testing, or even a driver's license to simply OWN a car.

Most states DO require a permit for people who wish to carry a gun in public.

[Joe Fields]

19. And in most states, only a form needs to be filled out, in order to

get a permit.

There is nothing in the constitution that states that people shouldn't be required to pass a safety course, in order to own a gun, either.

Why cling to the constitution on the issue of gun safety. Why are you so against it? This post of mine has nothing to do with the constitutional right to bear arms. It has everything to do with public safety and a common sense approach to gun ownership. And please tell me, who would own guns and not use them?

[Longtooth]

26. The 2A is very clear. To require a permit to use it is unconstitutional.

[Joe Fields]

56. Your agument is moot, since most states already require gun safety classes,

and citizens comply.The issue has already been settled. Therefor, the argument is the degree of gun safety education and uniformity throughout all fifty states.

[Longtooth]

59. You are mistaken. Very few states require a license to OWN a

firearm. Most require a safety course to hunt, or to carry a concealed firearm. Both of which are constitutional. But to require a license/permit simply to OWN a firearm is not constitutional.

[Joe Fields]

72. Not a license, but a permit, yes. And if you want to get into

conceal carry laws, then almost all states that allow it DO, in fact require a license. I believe that is roughly forty two states, give or take a state.

[slackmaster]

74. No, very few states require a permit to OWN a gun

http://www.stategunlaws.org/

[Joe Fields]

77. Not true. More than one third of the states require a permit for handguns.

[slackmaster]

79. Goalpost move, but that might be true

I'll go ahead and count from the Brady Campaign's PDF file and get back to you.

[slackmaster]

80. Nope, you're not even right about that - 39 states have no training or permit requirement

The following states require some kind of training and/or a permit to purchase a handgun:

CA
CN
HI
IL
IA
MA
MI
NJ
NY
NC
RI

11 is nowhere near 1/3 of 50.

You're wrong, Joe.

Source: http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/pdf/scorecard/2007/2007_state_scorecard.pdf

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. So we went from most to one third.

Which is it?

David

[Tejas]

150. That's the 2ND time I've seen this

in this thread.

"many states" and "most states".

Can you show a list of states that require these classes/courses? I'm really not aware how many do or don't.

[slackmaster]

39. You can't blur the distinction between federal and state authority

Why cling to the constitution on the issue of gun safety. Why are you so against it?

Joe, seriously, I am one of the biggest gun safety advocates on DU. I preach it, I practice it, I have taught it to more than 100 people, kids and adults, over the last 20 years or so.

I also recognize that the federal government has no authority to impose any kind of training or permit requirement for a person to be able to own a gun. That is up to the states. My state, California, has a minimal, no, chickenshit safety requirement for buying a handgun.

This post of mine has nothing to do with the constitutional right to bear arms. It has everything to do with public safety and a common sense approach to gun ownership.

Those two issues cannot be disentangled. Most members of the public believe they have a constitutional right to own guns. Regulating the manner and places in which guns can be used is another issue, but it's still up to the states and generally not within the purview of federal authority.

And please tell me, who would own guns and not use them?

A gun collector.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. My dad owns firearms and never uses them.

He's largely disabled and can't go to the range and shoot anymore. He has given many of them to my brother and myself, but he still keeps a couple. Your proposal will restrict people from buying guns therefore it is affected by the second amendment. Why do you cling to the constitution on the issue of unlawful search and seizure? After all the government has your best interests in mind and if they were allowed to search and seize without cause they would catch a lot more criminals and get a lot of drugs and guns off the street. It would help if it's all about society and peoples safety, besides if you aren't a criminal you don't have anything to worry about. It will just be a slight inconvenience to be stopped by the police and be searched occasionally. I've got an idea how about we just keep the constitution like it is.

David

[maxidivine]

148. Yes, it is a form that gets filled out

But it isn't "only a form", it is a form which holds the filler criminally liable for any untrue statements, and is basically a release allowing the authority who receives the form to do a total background check on the individual. And most states DO require training to be completed and a certificate proving completion to be turned in with the form. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but the way you are looking at it, yes it is "only a form" that is filled out to get a permit. That is all it takes from the indivdual who is requesting a carry permit, they must complete an approved course and then they must fill out a form. But the work doesn't stop there, that is just where the permit applicant's work ends.

[Longtooth]

18. You do NOT have to have a drivers license though.

You can buy a car and have it towed to you private property and turn you 12 year old loose with it if you want. No license, no insurance, no state tags and it's all perfectly legal. If you want to operate that vehicle on public roads that's a different story. So, if you want to keep your analogy correct then you can regulate the carrying of arms in public, but not in private use.

[Joe Fields]

23. What you just described is called child endangerment, and it IS

against the law.

Why oppose public safety, and a common sense approach to gun ownership?

[Longtooth]

28. No it is not. And is an argument for another thread. Why are you

opposed to following the constitution?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. You are completely wrong.

I've known kids younger than 12 that were driving vehicles on farms for years. Parents are almost never charged when their kids are injured on vehicles on private property.

David

[maxidivine]

147. Too bad hazardous chemicals

Are not a constitutionally protected right, too bad driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, and too bad guns are not just a "dangerous consumer product". Whats dangerous is releasing career criminals 44 years early. Let's start with that little issue and making firearms safety a mandatory part of school and many incidents will not happen.

[varelse]

78. This is a good idea too

Basic gun safety training can and IMO should be offered in public schools, much as they teach about dangerous drugs, driving, and sex practices. Most parents are not qualified to teach it themselves. I was fortunate to have a dad who was a qualified instructor. But as fewer people have real experience, fewer parents are able to pass that knowledge on to their children.

[panhead1961]

6. Mandatory training is a great idea

To receive your hunting license in NH you must complete an NRA safety course. Not enough emphasis on the safety but a decent attempt. There is nothing wrong with mandatory training. I have conceal permit which required 2 days of training and a full background check. I did both with bo reservations. Gun safety is responsibility all should be willing to accept.

[Longtooth]

9. Not to simply OWN a firearm. You cannot

impose a training requirement to vote can you? "Gun Safety is a responsibility all should be willing to accept." Yes, but not to be imposed.

[Joe Fields]

14. A vote is not considered to be a hazardous consumer product.

Dangerous chemicals are, and so are automobiles. In both cases safety training is required, and tests must be passed, in order to handle them. Why should the ownership of a firearm be any different, since it surely must be considered a potentially dangerous consumer product?

[Longtooth]

21. Because the ownership of a firearm is a RIGHT recognized

in the second amendment. The other examples of yours are not.

[Joe Fields]

25. With rights come responsibilities.

[Longtooth]

32. Yes, but not permits.

[Joe Fields]

43. The permit just guarantees that you know how to use it properly.

it doesn't keep you from having the right to own a gun, unless of course you are too stupid to pass a gun safety course, in which case, you would be too stupid to join a "well regulated militia."

[Longtooth]

50. You cannot require a test on a Constitutional right. This was tried with voting

and SCOTUS struck it down. It could easily be said, and was, that if you're too stupid to pass a voting test then you should not be able to vote. Thankfully SCOTUS struck those laws down. The same thing applies to the second amendment. You cannot constitutionally require a permit to own a firearm.

[Joe Fields]

58. no constitutional requirement needed, evidently.

As I said before, most states already require gun safety. The question is, how much to require and uniformity throughout all fifty states.

[Longtooth]

65. As I said, you are incorrect. Very few. . .

states require permits to OWN a firearm. Safety courses for hunting and carrying concealed firearms yes, but not for simple ownership.

[Joe Fields]

69. Approximately half the statesDO, in fact.

[slackmaster]

73. Joe, that is just plain incorrect and I have proof right here

Don't take it from me - See what the Brady Campaign has to say about it.

http://www.stategunlaws.org/

[Joe Fields]

81. I stand corrected. Wickipedia showed sixteen states.

This link shows eleven.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits

This is for the purchase of handguns.

Still, 20 percent of the states are more than just a few.

[slackmaster]

82. Add MN and NE to my list and I get 13

So about 75% of states do NOT require a permit to purchase a handgun.

Even more require no permit to purchase long guns.

[Tejas]

151. Thank you, the DIS-information babbled in

this thread was bordering on outright lies. Again, comes as no surprise that if antis repeat a falsehood enough times the sheeple will believe it.

[benEzra]

156. Still wrong. The purchase permit requirement in most states is a background check, not a license.

For example, here in NC, a handgun purchase permit merely says you have a clean record an are of "good moral character" (an anachronism from the Jim Crow era, when NC was looking for a way to prohibit people of color from lawfully buying handguns).

A NC carry permit is a license; just like a driver's license, you have to take a class, meet the requirements, demonstrate basic competence, and pay a lot of money in fees to get one.

[unpossibles]

11. in video form

http://gizmodo.com/5016199/gun-unsafety-video-shows-exactly-how-not-to-fire-a-gun

[tularetom]

17. Would you grandfather in all current gun owners?

Because if you didn't this proposal would go over like a turd in a punch bowl.

It would be completely unworkable to try to require all current gun owners to take a safety course.

And it would be meaningless to require it only of new gun owners.

[Joe Fields]

36. If current gun owners have passed some type of gun safety course already,

then they should be exempt. Current gun owners who have had no state certified training should be required to do so.

[Longtooth]

38. So you'd be in favor of ex-post facto laws?

[Joe Fields]

44. It would only be ex-post facto, if all owners were required.

[Longtooth]

52. Which is what you've advocated in this thread.

[Joe Fields]

62. Show me where in my thread I advocated that.

I have stated no such thing.

[Longtooth]

66. From post 36

"Current gun owners who have had no state certified training should be required to do so."

[Joe Fields]

70. But not current gun owners who have. You conveniently left that part out.

[Tejas]

152. So you're against refresher courses? Updated courses? n/t

[tularetom]

49. Sounds good but how are you going to find them?

How are you going to require them to take the training? And what would you propose doing should they refuse to be trained? Take their guns away?

Don't misunderstand me. I have no objection to gun safety. I own several dozen firearms. Every one of them except one is locked in a safe unloaded. The one that is not is kept somewhere where only my wife and I know and there is not one round in the chamber or the magazine. All ammunition is kept in a separate safe.

I would have no objection to voluntarily attending gun safety refresher courses. In fact I probably will find one and attend since I am retired. I strongly object to mandatory courses.

[jody]

20. Passing a test for a driver's license apparently does little to reduce deaths due to autos.

Accidental Deaths from National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Rank Age 1-85
1 MV Traffic 43,521
2 Poisoning 23,592
3 Fall 19,638
4 Unspecified 6,529
5 Suffocation 5,152
6 Drowning 3,500
7 Fire/burn 3,259
8 Natural/ Environment 2,430
9 Other Land Transport 1,529
10 Other Spec., classifiable 1,475
11 Pedestrian, Other 1,150
12 Other Transport 1,132
13 Other Spec., NECN 1,020
14 Struck by or Against 871
15 Firearm 788
16 Machinery 755
17 Pedal cyclist, Other 227
18 Cut/pierce 90
19 Overexertion 11

[Joe Fields]

29. But can you fathom just how many more auto related deaths there

would be, if no one were required to pass a safety test to get their license? If anyone who turned sixteen could just start driving with no instruction at all?

[Longtooth]

33. Your car analogy is specious as I've pointed out.

[jody]

40. Do you have proof that passing a driver's license test reduces accidental deaths due to autos? n/t

[Joe Fields]

45. Oh for god's sake. grow a fucking brain.

[slackmaster]

47. Uh oh, Joe has just lost it

Summon the lawgivers.

[Longtooth]

53. Touchy, Touchy there. Calm down and be more rational.

[Joe Fields]

64. It was an appropriate response, given such a moronic question.

[Longtooth]

67. Um no, you just plain lost it.

[Joe Fields]

71. Believe me, you'll know when I lose it. That wasn't even close.

I have no use for ignorant questions. Again, it was an appropriate response to a thoroughly moronic question.

[slackmaster]

75. You think the rest of us have infinite patience for ignorant statements?

Very few states require any kind of permit to own a gun.

[Joe Fields]

83. Incorrect information from Wickipedia is far different than a

question that asks what proof there is that there would be more deaths on the roads, if no one had to take a drivers license test. Come on, you cannot seriously equate the two. I checked other sites and the correct number is eleven states. And whether it is eleven or sixteen, it is still a significant number of states that require a permit, so the constitutionality argument has been settled. Which brings us back to the original thesis, that calls into question the amount of safety training needed and the uniformity of it.

I won't argue the constitution angle. It has already been addressed by eleven states. And if you wish to discuss conceal carry laws, then more than 80 percent of the states require a license and safety training.

What is so bad about making sure that citizens are safe?

[slackmaster]

84. Civility is a requirement of participation on this board

If you don't like what someone is posting, you can use the Ignore button or just deal with it.

BTW I have met Jody in person. He's a class act. You could benefit from paying attention to what he has to say.

[Joe Fields]

86. I dealt with it.

I am civil to people who offer reasonable discourse.

[slackmaster]

90. Reasonableness is subjective

Just look at all the disagreements about what people consider to be "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership in this thread.

[MicaelS]

155. Really?

I am civil to people who offer reasonable discourse.

With YOU defining what is reasonable...
Just like you're in favor of reasonable restrictions on guns, right, where once again YOU are the sole arbiter of what is "reasonable".

Just like rightists are in favor of reasonable restrictions on abortion.
Or reasonable restrictions on free speech with their laughable free speech zones. Bush and Cheney are big fan of those.

Not to mention all those anti-porn zealots across the spectrum in favor of reasonable restrictions on that aspect of speech.

That pesky Fourth Amendment comes to mind. No knock warrants and sobriety checkpoints are just so reasonable...to some Stormtroo...er LEOs.

Unfortunately even SCOTUS has fallen into the trap of what is reasonable, and what is not. The Constitution is not a buffet where you can pick and choose those parts your like and reject those you don't.

The thing about "reasonable restrictions" is that so little reason is involved, it's usually about emotion.

It's like the adage about common sense.

"Common sense isn't very common."

[jody]

85. I take your answer as a no. Just more anti-gun unsupported assertions. n/t

[Joe Fields]

87. Are you serious? Are you for real?

Did you even READ my post? I think not.

[jody]

91. Your OP lobbied for a "uniform, rigorous,comprehensive gun safety course". I pointed out that

drivers of motor vehicles must pass a test to receive a license but accidental deaths involving motor vehicles still is the number one cause of death.

How many states require a "uniform, rigorous, comprehensive motor vehicle safety course" as a prerequisite to obtaining a drivers license?

If you are serious about reducing accidental deaths, then why not work on the top five; 1 MV Traffic, 2 Poisoning, 3 Fall, 5 Suffocation, and 6 Drowning?

Perhaps you should reread your OP and make certain it says what you wanted it to say.

As to your experience, I suspect many DUers can easily match your claimed knowledge of firearms and experience with them.

[GoneOffShore]

42. Stop feeding it.

It will only get bigger.

[Longtooth]

41. I do agree with license for cars when operated on PUBLIC roads.

And I'll agree with licensing for the carrying of arms while in PUBLIC (CHLs anyone?). But a vehicle that remains on private property does not need registering nor does the drive have to have a license. That analogy is bogus.

[jakem]

46. good thing bullets dont cross property lines.

[Longtooth]

55. There are already CONSTITUTIONAL laws against that.

No crossing property lines and/or public roads. That is reasonable and more importantly, constitutional.

[jody]

88. I made no analogy. I stated a fact that drivers who pass tests to drive autos cause the greatest

number of accidental deaths, in fact 55 times the deaths involving firearms.

Take out any motor vehicle accidental deaths on private property and the number of accidental deaths involving motor vehicles will still greatly exceed those involving firearms.

[mainegreen]

48. I'd have no problem with gun safety being taught in public schools.

Along with civics, basic health/CPR, and basic finances.

Schools are moving away from preparing kids for life and teaching them responsibility.
It's too bad.

[L0oniX]

96. They teach it in Boy Scouts. That's where I got my first gun safety course.

[aikoaiko]

54. Let's make gun safety and usage classes part of public education

:applause:

[varelse]

76. K&R

I agree with every WORD of the OP (and that's rare for me) :)

[L0oniX]

95. Just like a drivers license, a person should go through a training course on gun safety...

as a requirement for handgun ownership. My wife wants us to have handguns in our childless home because we've had so many home invasions where the people got killed. I told her she has to take the safety course. I am going to upgrade to a concealed weapons permit which makes it mandatory to take the course. It only costs $65 and the CW license cost $145 and that is a lot cheaper than what it costs to buy most handguns. If you can afford a handgun then you should be able to pay for the safety course. I'm all for proper training in gun safety. Criminals need not apply.

[Joe Fields]

98. Thank you for that very rational response.

That is my whole point. If you own a gun, or are wanting to purchase one, there is nothing insane about being made to go through a gun safety course.

[slackmaster]

99. You don't need a license to OWN a car, only to use it on public roads

Why do people have so much trouble getting this point? The cars/guns analogy only goes so far, then it becomes useless.

[ColbertWatcher]

105. But it's not useless.

You said so yourself.

You don't need a license to own the car (or gun), but to use one in public, perhaps it wouldn't be so far fetched to require some kind of licensing.

The distinction you made between owning (Constitutionally protected) and using one in public is interesting to say the least.

Hell, anyone can own dental or surgical tools. No law against that.

[slackmaster]

109. Do you realize that most states already require a license to carry a gun in public?

Concealed or not.

[ColbertWatcher]

110. So, what's the problem then?

Not to sound like an ass, but it seems like we agree.

[slackmaster]

116. No, we don't quite agree

The federal government has no power to require licensing or training for someone who wants to own a gun, and that is as it should be.

[ColbertWatcher]

118. Right, there is no licensing for ownership, but...

...for using one in public, there should be.

Which is what I thought we agreed on.

[slackmaster]

119. OK, if you put it that way

:hi:

[ColbertWatcher]

121. I meant to put it that way the first time! LOL!

But, I have to work my way around all those pesky words.

:hi:

[Joe Fields]

106. If you or anyone else buys a handgun, do you honestly believe that

they will never use it at some point in time? Like, maybe to practice with it, so that they get used to the recoil, maybe become a better aim? My point is, There is an automatic assumption that any gun purchased will probably be used. You have something against gun safety? You know, many of you talk about your constitutional right. Well, I have one, too. It's called, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have the right to feel safe on the streets. I have the right not to be shot by some idiot who has never had a gun safety class in his life.

Guns are made for killing, period. They are designed to be a deadly consumer product. Everyone who purchases one should have to go through rigorous safety instruction. There is absolutely no logical argument against this public safety issue.

[slackmaster]

108. As I noted in reply #39, it's not unusual for gun collectors to own guns that they never fire

I have handguns, rifles, and shotguns that I have never fired and have no intention of ever firing. I also own handguns, rifles, and shotguns that I use for recreational shooting and training.

[Joe Fields]

111. And just how are we supposed to know that?

As I said in my earlier post, it must be assumed that any handgun purchased will be used. It's not at all unreasonable for gun owners to have to take a gun safety course. As my post noted, one third of all gun owners have never had a safety course. There is no excuse for that.

[slackmaster]

115. Actually Joe, it's none of your business

It's not at all unreasonable for gun owners to have to take a gun safety course.

Yes it is.

It's not unreasonable to require concealed weapons permit holders to pass a gun safety course.

[Joe Fields]

120. It is my business.

It's my business, if I am a hiker.

It's my business, if I am a bird watcher. It's my business if I am a camper.

It's my business, if I am a fellow hunter.

I have hunted a few times in my life, and on more than one occasion, I have had buckshot whizz past me. It is a very uncomfortable feeling. But not nearly as uncomfortable as having half of your face blown off, as a friend of mine had happen, by his father, while out hunting, or more recently, by a grandfather in Texas, who accidently killed his son, while out hunting with an AK47.

There are people who go to dumps to target practice with side arms. They throw bottles in the air, then try and hit them. Where do those rounds go? They can travel a fair distance. I have seen idiots at outdoor parties shoot off guns, where alcohol is present. Yes, it is my business.

[slackmaster]

122. Stupid kills, but once again you are talking about examples of irresponsible USAGE

Ownership is not the same thing.

BTW - People shooting sidearms in the dump are probably breaking at least one law, and most states already require proof that you have passed a safety course before they will issue you a hunting license.

Usage of firearms is already regulated in most situations. If it's not regulated enough for your taste in your state, talk to your state legislature about it.

[Joe Fields]

124. Of course. And with mandatory gun safety training, stupid won't kill nearly as much.

[slackmaster]

125. So take it up with your state legislature

The federal government has no authority to mandate training.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

136. Damn I'm jealous.

Has that cat had a safety course slack?

David

[slackmaster]

157. Samantha the Beast is much bigger now, and guards my vegetable garden

She brought me a live, uninjured mouse last week. I tried to give it back to her, but she was too busy looking for more and couldn't be bothered.

I let the mouse go in another part of my yard. It had been through too much for me to kill it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

134. Your true colors are showing.

You wrote, "I have the right to feel safe on the streets. I have the right not to be shot by some idiot who has never had a gun safety class in his life."

Where are those rights enumerated?

How does my gun ownership affect your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

You, "Guns are made for killing, period."


Guns are made to fire projectiles. I don't kill a thing with my guns, don't ever intend to, don't ever hope to. I do like to target shoot though. You don't have to find constitution logical just realize it's the law of the land.

David

[pipoman]

138. Well, not really..

I have the right to feel safe on the streets. I have the right not to be shot by some idiot who has never had a gun safety class in his life.

There is no such right as a right to "feel" anything. What makes you feel safe may be a safety class. What makes someone else feel safe may be a top to bottom ban on firearms. Feelings are not a right. As for the second sentence, a gun safety class will not keep you from being shot by some idiot as idiots, by definition, wouldn't be much effected by any amount of education.

Guns are made for killing, period.

There are those who would completely disagree with this statement. Some of them can be found here:

http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/index_uk.asp?SportCode=SH

[L0oniX]

126. I don't know anyone who buys a car and doesn't use it.

[slackmaster]

140. I know a man who collects Packards

Last time we spoke he owned five of them, and had never driven three of those.

Actually it's been several years, and his vision is probably too far gone for him to drive anything now.

Should his Packard collection be confiscated in the interests of the "greater good", or would that just amount to a needless exercise of arbitrary authoritarian power?

[ColbertWatcher]

100. Hmm...

...interesting perspective.

I immediately thought of drivers' licenses, but read some of the replies and remembered gun ownership is Constitutionally protected.

But, maybe a smart-assed way around this would be to make training or licensing only required for a person who owns a gun that is not a musket.

Constitutional originalism and all.

[Joe Fields]

103. I like your way of thinking.

[ColbertWatcher]

107. That's the first time anyone has ever said that...

...without editing in a disclaimer!

[SteveM]

160. Oh, you're using a printing press, too? Wait till the ink dries (nt)

[Irreverend IX]

129. Maybe we should require training and licensing...

For anyone who uses the Internet, or owns a copier, or a cell phone or any other communication tool that didn't exist in 1776. After all, we can't have people broadcasting their ideas around the world without proper government oversight.

[ThomWV]

112. What one earth would give the state the right to require training before buying anything at all?

You are not required to complete any kind of training to buy a car, a sword, a nail-gun, or any one of a huge number of explosives. So what on earth would give the state the right to require training before buying a gun, or anything else for that matter?

[Joe Fields]

113. Why on earth would you be against public safety?

[slackmaster]

117. False dilemma

:nuke:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. Why are you against freedom?

[zanne]

114. THIS BELONGS IN THE GUN FORUM. nt

[iiibbb]

137. I appreciate you meaning... and I would even go to a training class

voluntary or not...

... but you do realize that these classes and testing would be geared to the lowest common denominator, and would unlikely prevent a stupid person from being stupid.

[Boomer 50]

141. It's the same with a car.....

You don't need a license to purchase, own or use a car when on private property. However, you do need a license to drive on public roads.

My issue with your suggestion is that history has shown that people that have absolutely no qualifications on the matter at hand are usually the ones that mandate the level of training and education.

I could only accept this idea if the people that instituted the level of training were industry members and firearms trainers. Not one entity such as the NRA but a plethora of qualified individuals from different walks of life. Oh, and no politicians can be involved in the training criteria AT ALL.

Now, if you are wanting to mandate training to exercise an enumerated right outlined in the Bill of Rights, then that won't float at all.

Oh, and if you even want to think that this idea would go anywhere at all, you'd have to give the gun owners something huge to get their backing. Repealing ALL bans on firearms based on type, caliber, function, looks, etc. would be a start. Eliminating the BATFE all together in the firearms field would probably get you the support you'd need for this.

[Tejas]

153. blanket statement = fail

there are too many law abiding idiots out there who have the right to bear arms


Good luck.

[DemOkie]

154. Wow, I sorta agree with you Joe

That said, I still have to side with Wickerman as to the training requirement to purchase. I know a great many collectors that have a heart attack if they even thought about shooting their guns.

I do agree that safety and proficiency training should be available to all, starting in school. Perhaps a program to build and staff ranges in all states would be a good place to find common ground for those on both sides of the RKBA issue?