Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345952 times)

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #951 on: April 26, 2016, 12:57:25 PM »
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.[3]

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.[

And how many of those were committed by CCW holders? You said yourself you're worried about the people who are "legally packing."

No northwestie, don't get started.    They're libertarians dude.

No, I am not. You can take your assumptions elsewhere.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #952 on: April 26, 2016, 01:15:56 PM »
Why be worried?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xi9pyQ2MFsE/U8gvekvNe2I/AAAAAAAACbg/LuFupWQadHM/s1600/Gun_deaths+v+guns+chart.jpg

And, again, if you take suicides out of the numbers it'll be far lower. Stop cherry-picking data and use the correct statistics. Eliminating gun deaths by restricting guns won't eliminate the majority of those deaths. France and Japan have a far higher suicide rate than the US with much stricter access to firearms.

And if you're going to use statistics to show a trend, show the trend in context: declining homicides as a percentage of the population.

Also, no one has rebutted the fact that gun control, both in our country and outside (UK, Canada, Australia, etc), has not had any meaningful impacts on curbing gun violence.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 01:20:00 PM by Yaeger »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #953 on: April 26, 2016, 02:23:18 PM »
No, I agree.  There's noting wrong with having firearms accessible to the mentally ill or those prone to suicide.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #954 on: April 26, 2016, 02:35:57 PM »
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.[3]

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.[

And how many of those were committed by CCW holders? You said yourself you're worried about the people who are "legally packing."

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #955 on: April 26, 2016, 02:38:18 PM »
It just seems so logical that we should have MORE firearms -- then this would act as a deterrent.  The collateral damage, I'm sure, would be insignificant.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #956 on: April 26, 2016, 02:41:33 PM »
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.[3]

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.[

And how many of those were committed by CCW holders? You said yourself you're worried about the people who are "legally packing."

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #957 on: April 26, 2016, 02:52:17 PM »
Poignant

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #958 on: April 26, 2016, 02:54:45 PM »
Red herring.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #959 on: April 26, 2016, 03:18:58 PM »
It just seems so logical that we should have MORE firearms -- then this would act as a deterrent.  The collateral damage, I'm sure, would be insignificant.

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. More guns in the US HAS coincided with less crime, for decades.

Red herring.

Agreed, he's just a sore loser that resorts to an ad hominem when his points are all debunked. This is why arguing with close-minded liberals (based on the broad anti-conservative/Republican comments he's made) is like pissing into the wind, they're not likely to change their opinion no matter the body of evidence in front of them. Despite what he says he's not willing to consider that he might be wrong.

I'd be all for mandating gun safety education in public schools in lieu of gun control. I think it's an important topic that all of our children need and would address a lot of his concerns.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #960 on: April 26, 2016, 03:31:32 PM »
Still haven't picked up a AR-15 yet.  I'm leaning toward a Colt 6920.  After catching up on this thread I feel the need to go ahead and get it.  And I'm also a pilot and plane owner and would defiantly not like something like the FAA to be in control of anything.

This is a good choice, good quality at a nice price point.  I wouldn't put it in the tier 1 category (LWRC, Noveske, Knights, etc.) but it's a solid tier 2 rifle especially for the money.  I would also consider Daniel Defense if you can find one at a similar price to the Colt. 

Allen Farlow

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Age: 61
  • Location: USA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #961 on: April 26, 2016, 03:39:58 PM »
Total number of deaths by firearms in the United States in 2014:  12,586
(http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014)

Total number of deaths by motor vehicles in the U.S. in 2014: 32,675
(http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts)

What is anyone doing about motor vehicle control? We already register them... just saying...

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #962 on: April 26, 2016, 03:45:04 PM »
It's a joke, not an ad hominem attack.    Calm down.

I'm not a sore loser, I'm just questioning why I walked into another debate with people who essentially don't support regulation of dangerous products.    Safety education in schools, really?    I'm fairly certain that I already went through that in the early 80s.     I could put up a thousand arguments, and debunk all of your points and we'd still be right here.

I feel like an alcoholic that needs to hit a meeting right now.    Enjoy the brain damage my progressive friends.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 04:02:39 PM by greaper007 »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #963 on: April 26, 2016, 03:47:22 PM »
Total number of deaths by firearms in the United States in 2014:  12,586
(http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014)

Total number of deaths by motor vehicles in the U.S. in 2014: 32,675
(http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts)

What is anyone doing about motor vehicle control? We already register them... just saying...

9,967 of those motor vehicle fatalities were alcohol-related. 3500 people drown in pools annually, too.  If alcohol and pools were to be heavily restricted, we could potentially save more lives than are lost to guns. Please note that I am not saying that this means gun deaths are not a problem, but if the true interest is in saving lives, the focus should be much wider than it is.

Side note, I do think that driver training requirements in the US are abysmally low.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #964 on: April 26, 2016, 03:53:39 PM »

I'mean not a sore loser, I'm just questioning why I walked into another debate with people who essentially don't support regulation of dangerous products.   

There are very few arguing for no regulation, I'm certainly not.  I do, however, like the regulation to provide some sort of cost benefit analysis. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #965 on: April 26, 2016, 04:21:30 PM »
It's a joke, not an ad hominem attack.    Calm down.

I'm not a sore loser, I'm just questioning why I walked into another debate with people who essentially don't support regulation of dangerous products.    Safety education in schools, really?    I'm fairly certain that I already went through that in the early 80s.    I could put up a thousand arguments, and debunk all of your points and we'd still be right here.

I feel like an alcoholic that needs to hit a meeting right now.    Enjoy the brain damage my progressive friends.

Speculative evidence.

It is interesting that you've labeled me as Libertarian, now Progressive...I can't help but wonder what's next!

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #966 on: April 26, 2016, 04:42:41 PM »
Poignant

Ouch!  That's going to leave a mark.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #967 on: April 27, 2016, 04:09:44 AM »
Poignant

Not sure if that word means what you think it means, but that graphic is pretty damn funny. Thank you for sharing.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #968 on: April 27, 2016, 04:18:39 AM »
It just seems so logical that we should have MORE firearms -- then this would act as a deterrent.  The collateral damage, I'm sure, would be insignificant.

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. More guns in the US HAS coincided with less crime, for decades.

Wait wait wait wait wait....so guns sales have skyrocketed, applications for concealed weapon permits have gone through the roof, states are loosening gun laws left, right and center, the federal government is doing the same.....AND we're getting SAFER!?  Isn't that exactly what EVERYBODY wants!?  Why do gun-fearers not understand that America is having its cake and eating it too? It's not like its a secret; it's covered in every statistic available on gun violence.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #969 on: April 27, 2016, 07:28:18 AM »
Poignant

Not sure if that word means what you think it means, but that graphic is pretty damn funny. Thank you for sharing.

Sad, because it's the way these conversations always go.     I was trying to advocate for a gun ownership position that allows people to have the hardware of their choice if they're able to clear some community safety standards.     Just like we do with every other dangerous product.

Yet the conversation always devolves into a give nothing , there aren't really any problems with guns (like mass shootings, or being a kid thats trying to survive the summer on the s side of chicago) and you just don't understand freedom.

It's a joke, but it's accurate, and that makes me sad.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #970 on: April 27, 2016, 07:49:41 AM »
Poignant

Not sure if that word means what you think it means, but that graphic is pretty damn funny. Thank you for sharing.

Sad, because it's the way these conversations always go.     I was trying to advocate for a gun ownership position that allows people to have the hardware of their choice if they're able to clear some community safety standards.     Just like we do with every other dangerous product.

Yet the conversation always devolves into a give nothing , there aren't really any problems with guns (like mass shootings, or being a kid thats trying to survive the summer on the s side of chicago) and you just don't understand freedom.

It's a joke, but it's accurate, and that makes me sad.

you're willfully misrepresenting the point of everyone you're arguing against here. 

Allen Farlow

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Age: 61
  • Location: USA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #971 on: April 27, 2016, 07:54:38 AM »
Well, if we have to 'clear some community standards' that's not really freedom now, is it?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #972 on: April 27, 2016, 08:23:19 AM »
Poignant

Not sure if that word means what you think it means, but that graphic is pretty damn funny. Thank you for sharing.

Sad, because it's the way these conversations always go.     I was trying to advocate for a gun ownership position that allows people to have the hardware of their choice if they're able to clear some community safety standards.     Just like we do with every other dangerous product.

Yet the conversation always devolves into a give nothing , there aren't really any problems with guns (like mass shootings, or being a kid thats trying to survive the summer on the s side of chicago) and you just don't understand freedom.

It's a joke, but it's accurate, and that makes me sad.

Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation and enough murders that you are bringing it up as an example of why more gun control is needed.  I realize you'll blame Indiana and the surrounding states, but with 300M guns in US, criminals will always find guns and/or a way to kill people.  The people most affected by the things you propose are law abiding citizens.

With regard to mass shootings, any death is awful but there were less than 400 people killed in mass shootings last year.  1 is too many, but things like banning black rifles won't impact this number in any meaningful way.

Lastly, while we are on the topic of violence take a look at this

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

There were 12,253 murders in the US during 2013.  3800 of those were committed without guns.  Do you seriously believe banning guns will eliminate the 8500 murders committed with guns?  If 1/3 of the murders are committed without guns presently, I suspect murderers will find another tool if guns are removed from the equation.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #973 on: April 27, 2016, 09:21:14 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.    Just like I had to get a type rating to fly as a captain in a Saab 340.    My dad has guns and I spent a portion of my life carrying an M-16 around.    I have a familiarity with firearms.

What I'd advocate for is something like the Swiss system where most houses have an automatic weapon sitting in the hallway closet.   Anyone that wants to have guns should do some military service or training and then continually re qualify with their equipment.     We could have some sort of double blind registry that was maintained by a civilian organization.    Certain hardware could only be purchased with the proper certificate.    I'd like to see this program controlled by a non-governmental entity that advocated for citizens.

Because, the problem with guns doesn't really stem from the people on this thread.     I'm going to assume that none of you are angry ex-spouses, mentally incompetent or fail to train with your weapons on a regular basis.   However, a sizeable percentage of gun owners are bad gun owners.    They don't properly secure their weapons and allow things like Newtown to occur.     We don't have a tight registration system, so thugs in Chicago can get their 21 year old girlfriend to make straw purchases for them (something I was approached about during my misbegotten youth).    Or they're crazy or have an anger problem.

We have 100,000 shootings a year with a third of the population as gun owners.    About 800 million passengers fly on airliners a year in 2013, only 9 died.   Planes used to fall out of the sky a lot, once we acknowledge that this was an unacceptable problem we really brought those numbers down and everyone can still ride as a passenger on a plane if they want to.    We could do something similar with guns.   

That's my point, not the same tired gun ban arguments that most on the left spew out.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #974 on: April 27, 2016, 09:25:45 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.    Just like I had to get a type rating to fly as a captain in a Saab 340.    My dad has guns and I spent a portion of my life carrying an M-16 around.    I have a familiarity with firearms.

What I'd advocate for is something like the Swiss system where most houses have an automatic weapon sitting in the hallway closet.   Anyone that wants to have guns should do some military service or training and then continually re qualify with their equipment.     We could have some sort of double blind registry that was maintained by a civilian organization.    Certain hardware could only be purchased with the proper certificate.    I'd like to see this program controlled by a non-governmental entity that advocated for citizens.

Because, the problem with guns doesn't really stem from the people on this thread.     I'm going to assume that none of you are angry ex-spouses, mentally incompetent or fail to train with your weapons on a regular basis.   However, a sizeable percentage of gun owners are bad gun owners.    They don't properly secure their weapons and allow things like Newtown to occur.     We don't have a tight registration system, so thugs in Chicago can get their 21 year old girlfriend to make straw purchases for them (something I was approached about during my misbegotten youth).    Or they're crazy or have an anger problem.

We have 100,000 shootings a year with a third of the population as gun owners.    About 800 million passengers fly on airliners a year in 2013, only 9 died.   Planes used to fall out of the sky a lot, once we acknowledge that this was an unacceptable problem we really brought those numbers down and everyone can still ride as a passenger on a plane if they want to.    We could do something similar with guns.   

That's my point, not the same tired gun ban arguments that most on the left spew out.

You are arguing that an unfamiliarity with firearms is the problem - how will making everyone more proficient reduce the murder count?  I agree that training is important, but this should reduce accidental shootings -- I don't see how it would have an impact on reducing murder or suicide rates.

You keep bringing up airlines - faulty comparison.

That said, if I could qualify with and then buy anything I wanted, I'd be thrilled.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 09:33:16 AM by JLee »

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #975 on: April 27, 2016, 09:44:44 AM »
How is it a faulty comparison?    They're both objects that are simple to master but difficult to recover in tenuous situations.     If anything, keeping a plane flying in bad weather or with mechanical situations is more difficult than keeping a bullet from entering an innocent person.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #976 on: April 27, 2016, 09:49:32 AM »
How is it a faulty comparison?    They're both objects that are simple to master but difficult to recover in tenuous situations.     If anything, keeping a plane flying in bad weather or with mechanical situations is more difficult than keeping a bullet from entering an innocent person.

One is a mode of transportation.  One is a weapon.  Your emphasis appears to be that "training will solve the problem" -- were the 9/11 hijackers untrained?  How is a firearm "difficult to recover in tenuous situations"? I'm no ATP, but I've landed a C182RG in a crosswind and that was more complicated than plinking cans with my Ruger 10/22.

A more accurate comparison would be airplanes to cars (which kill over 30,000 people annually).

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #977 on: April 27, 2016, 10:08:10 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.   


I believe you argue the current CCW training classes (in most states) aren't enough despite the low incident rate.  How much training would you envision for a CCW to carry a 9MM? 

With regard to your pilot comparison, it's unfair to compare professional pilots to citizen gun owners.  Amateur pilots have a much higher incident rate than airlines for miles flown yet we still allow them to fly. 
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 10:14:22 AM by Midwest »

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #978 on: April 27, 2016, 10:09:44 AM »
Training is twofold.    Unfamiliarity is a serious problem, I believe you said that you're ex LEO, I went through OCS in the Marine Corps (dor'ed before you ask) and I've seen seen some really bad habits at civilian ranges, I'm sure you have too.    I've also seen my redneck family members keep loaded weapons in the open around children.      These people need some more training.     Two, mandatory training would allow instructors to spot potential crimminals, crazies and terrorists and red flag them for further investigation.     I used to train a lot of foreign pilots, (the 9-11 high jackers trained 10 miles up the road from my school).    After 9-11, every instructor had to go through training to spot potential terrorists.    It seems to have worked fairly well.

You're right that alone this won't reduce the murder and suicide rate, that's another issue which needs to be dealt with through community mental health and poverty reduction programs.    Every gun owner should be lobbying Congress to implement more spending in these areas.    However, having to qualify with a weapon would make you come into contact with more officials.   That would potentially allow them to spot people who might be suicidal.     My wife is a psychologist, the threshold for determining suicidality is fairly specific and simple.

Training would also reduce the murder rate because as you know, most crimminals are essentially lazy.    Beyond your occasional psychopath, they're probably not going to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a gun.

Based on your responses, I don't know why we wouldn't allow someone like you to own an M-16.    Especially used surplus built after 1986 that should cost $500 instead of $20,000.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #979 on: April 27, 2016, 10:45:10 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.   


I believe you argue the current CCW training classes (in most states) aren't enough despite the low incident rate.  How much training would you envision for a CCW to carry a 9MM? 

With regard to your pilot comparison, it's unfair to compare professional pilots to citizen gun owners.  Amateur pilots have a much higher incident rate than airlines for miles flown yet we still allow them to fly.

I'm not sure.   There would probably be a graduated certificate  based on hours trained and testing.    Then specific endorsements for more highly sensitive areas like schools, courthouses or say packed concerts.     Maybe 40 hours of training with a written and practical exam could be considered a license to learn.    You could carry in relativery low density areas or in locations like your car.    LEO's and ex military would also be able to test out immediately if they chose.

Yes, general aviation is considerably less safe than airlines.   Beyond pilot ability and oversight, the equipment simply isn't as good at the GA level on the whole.    However, the FAA and NTSB continually evaluate the cause of GA crashes and change requirements and training based on statistics and individual findings.    Pilots are also continually evaluated throughout their career, and the FAA offers lots of free training material for pilots at all levels.    From seminars to emails.    This does reduce the incidences of accidents and incidents for GA.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #980 on: April 27, 2016, 10:55:13 AM »
How is it a faulty comparison?    They're both objects that are simple to master but difficult to recover in tenuous situations.     If anything, keeping a plane flying in bad weather or with mechanical situations is more difficult than keeping a bullet from entering an innocent person.

One is a mode of transportation.  One is a weapon.  Your emphasis appears to be that "training will solve the problem" -- were the 9/11 hijackers untrained?  How is a firearm "difficult to recover in tenuous situations"? I'm no ATP, but I've landed a C182RG in a crosswind and that was more complicated than plinking cans with my Ruger 10/22.

A more accurate comparison would be airplanes to cars (which kill over 30,000 people annually).

They're both tools, tools require training and practice.    You've plinked cans since you were 9 years old, I'm sure you're better at it than me.    I got to the point as an instructor that I could land a plane by simply telling a student (who had never flown the plane) what sort of adjustments to make while I stared out the side window.

The classic example with a firearm is a noise heard in the middle of the night.    Do you have the training necessary to go from a dead sleep to identifying a robber from your spouse?    That's a difficult situation that's hard to recover from.

The 9-11 highjackers should have been stopped by the FBI after the instructors training them made reports.    That was a failure of the system that wouldn't happen today because we've adjusted systems and training relative to events.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #981 on: April 27, 2016, 11:15:14 AM »
I also think we should have similar training for cars, with endorsements for things like large suvs or towing.    Penalties need to be higher for enfractures also.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #982 on: April 27, 2016, 11:38:31 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.   


I believe you argue the current CCW training classes (in most states) aren't enough despite the low incident rate.  How much training would you envision for a CCW to carry a 9MM? 

With regard to your pilot comparison, it's unfair to compare professional pilots to citizen gun owners.  Amateur pilots have a much higher incident rate than airlines for miles flown yet we still allow them to fly.

I'm not sure.   There would probably be a graduated certificate  based on hours trained and testing.    Then specific endorsements for more highly sensitive areas like schools, courthouses or say packed concerts.     Maybe 40 hours of training with a written and practical exam could be considered a license to learn.    You could carry in relativery low density areas or in locations like your car.    LEO's and ex military would also be able to test out immediately if they chose.

LEO's in my state need 60 hours of firearms training.  I suspect we are not an outlier regarding the # of hours.  LEO's encounter potential shootings on a much more frequent basis than the average citizen.

Our CCW class is 12 hours and includes both classroom and practical.  Despite the low number of hours, incidents with CCW holders are low.

While more training is good (I'm looking at additional training because it's fun and I enjoy learning), I think you are setting the bar unnecessarily high.  The impact of such a high bar will be that many are simply priced out of the market due to time and financial constraints.  As I said earlier, you need to to a cost benefit analysis when limiting freedoms. 

You seem to be on the side that more regulation is better despite the costs.  If incidents are low with 12 hours, why do we need 40?  With regard to CCW holders in states that require training and a background check, you seem to have a solution in search of a problem.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 11:40:31 AM by Midwest »

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #983 on: April 27, 2016, 11:43:27 AM »

Training would also reduce the murder rate because as you know, most crimminals are essentially lazy.    Beyond your occasional psychopath, they're probably not going to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a gun.


A BJS study done in 2004 interviewed inmates with criminal convictions for crimes involving firearms, only 11% admitted to purchasing a gun in a retail setting. Right around 37% said they got the gun from a family member or friend by either purchasing it, borrowing it, or as a gift, and 40% admitted to getting their gun via less than legal means (from drug dealers, theft, etc.).

Similarly, in a recent Politifact article they noted:
"Philip Cook, a professor of economics and sociology at Duke University...and colleagues Susan Parker and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago interviewed 99 inmates of the Cook County Jail in Chicago. Of the 70 inmates who had possessed a firearm, only 2, or 2.9 percent, had bought it at a gun store. The report found that percentage was in line with the findings of the Chicago Police Department when it traced weapons seized from suspected gang members."

Based on those statistics, your proposed training and regulations probably won't do much in the way of preventing criminals from getting guns. It also doesn't necessarily help the suicide rate as mentioned above. So your proposals would likely have little to no effect on the number of firearm deaths and be regulation for the sake of regulation, something everybody should oppose.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #984 on: April 27, 2016, 11:45:21 AM »
You're completely ignoring the big picture. We've shown again and again that regulation doesn't change the market, it's not as enforceable as airplane regulation. This is shown as it's easier to control a commercial industry requiring significant infrastructure (like planes) vs a private industry like firearms. Policy is very dependent on the ability to regulate and enforce the policy. If you can't enforce it, especially on something as easily producible as firearms, good luck. Also, please be aware that people change behaviors based on controls implemented. Increasing the costs and ability to purchase a firearm will push more private trades under the table and increase the black-market on firearms.

Here's something that's pretty sweet, make your own guns in your garage for cheap. The government can't stop or control it:
https://www.ghostgunner.net/

The UK, Canada, Australia have all failed to impact gun violence with legislation. It's unacceptable to promote a reduction in liberty for no gain to society other than that liberal placebo of paternal protection.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #985 on: April 27, 2016, 11:50:05 AM »
Training is twofold.    Unfamiliarity is a serious problem, I believe you said that you're ex LEO, I went through OCS in the Marine Corps (dor'ed before you ask) and I've seen seen some really bad habits at civilian ranges, I'm sure you have too.    I've also seen my redneck family members keep loaded weapons in the open around children.      These people need some more training.     Two, mandatory training would allow instructors to spot potential crimminals, crazies and terrorists and red flag them for further investigation.     I used to train a lot of foreign pilots, (the 9-11 high jackers trained 10 miles up the road from my school).    After 9-11, every instructor had to go through training to spot potential terrorists.    It seems to have worked fairly well.

You're right that alone this won't reduce the murder and suicide rate, that's another issue which needs to be dealt with through community mental health and poverty reduction programs.    Every gun owner should be lobbying Congress to implement more spending in these areas.    However, having to qualify with a weapon would make you come into contact with more officials.   That would potentially allow them to spot people who might be suicidal.     My wife is a psychologist, the threshold for determining suicidality is fairly specific and simple.

Training would also reduce the murder rate because as you know, most crimminals are essentially lazy.    Beyond your occasional psychopath, they're probably not going to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a gun.

Based on your responses, I don't know why we wouldn't allow someone like you to own an M-16.    Especially used surplus built after 1986 that should cost $500 instead of $20,000.

Unfamiliarity is a serious problem, yes -- but it is not the cause of murders and suicides, which comprise the vast majority of firearm-related deaths. Relying on a lay person to determine mental health is a recipe for disaster, and also invites a massive amount of liability on the part of anyone relied upon to make that determination.

How is it a faulty comparison?    They're both objects that are simple to master but difficult to recover in tenuous situations.     If anything, keeping a plane flying in bad weather or with mechanical situations is more difficult than keeping a bullet from entering an innocent person.

One is a mode of transportation.  One is a weapon.  Your emphasis appears to be that "training will solve the problem" -- were the 9/11 hijackers untrained?  How is a firearm "difficult to recover in tenuous situations"? I'm no ATP, but I've landed a C182RG in a crosswind and that was more complicated than plinking cans with my Ruger 10/22.

A more accurate comparison would be airplanes to cars (which kill over 30,000 people annually).

They're both tools, tools require training and practice.    You've plinked cans since you were 9 years old, I'm sure you're better at it than me.    I got to the point as an instructor that I could land a plane by simply telling a student (who had never flown the plane) what sort of adjustments to make while I stared out the side window.

The classic example with a firearm is a noise heard in the middle of the night.    Do you have the training necessary to go from a dead sleep to identifying a robber from your spouse?    That's a difficult situation that's hard to recover from.

The 9-11 highjackers should have been stopped by the FBI after the instructors training them made reports.    That was a failure of the system that wouldn't happen today because we've adjusted systems and training relative to events.

The incidents which your suggestions focus on are not the ones that cause the most deaths. How many gang murders are there vs how many misidentified intruders? I understand that some of your suggestions would have a positive impact, but the situations in which they would be beneficial are rare in comparison to everything else.

Also, the crime rate for existing CCW holders is about the same as that for law enforcement officers. I don't see how increasing their standards dramatically is going to make much of an impact, given the low rate they're already demonstrating.  The people who are following current laws are not the problem (which makes sense, given that law-abiding people don't generally commit murder).

One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #986 on: April 27, 2016, 12:22:10 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 12:24:18 PM by Midwest »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #987 on: April 27, 2016, 12:22:44 PM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.   


I believe you argue the current CCW training classes (in most states) aren't enough despite the low incident rate.  How much training would you envision for a CCW to carry a 9MM? 

With regard to your pilot comparison, it's unfair to compare professional pilots to citizen gun owners.  Amateur pilots have a much higher incident rate than airlines for miles flown yet we still allow them to fly.

I'm not sure.   There would probably be a graduated certificate  based on hours trained and testing.    Then specific endorsements for more highly sensitive areas like schools, courthouses or say packed concerts.     Maybe 40 hours of training with a written and practical exam could be considered a license to learn.    You could carry in relativery low density areas or in locations like your car.    LEO's and ex military would also be able to test out immediately if they chose.

Yes, general aviation is considerably less safe than airlines.   Beyond pilot ability and oversight, the equipment simply isn't as good at the GA level on the whole.    However, the FAA and NTSB continually evaluate the cause of GA crashes and change requirements and training based on statistics and individual findings.    Pilots are also continually evaluated throughout their career, and the FAA offers lots of free training material for pilots at all levels.    From seminars to emails.    This does reduce the incidences of accidents and incidents for GA.

Interesting proposal. Since knowing how to be safe around firearms is a skill that would benefit almost everyone in a society awash in guns, would you agree that it would be beneficial if these classes were taught in school? Then all citizens would learn how to be safe around firearms, would know the storage requirements and consequences of not following basic safety regulations, would be reasonably skilled to safely use firearms and the monetary and time costs of such intensive training would not be prohibitive to lower-income persons.  Kinda like driver's education is taught in school; make it mandatory and widely available to ensure that this important information is shared with as many people as possible.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #988 on: April 27, 2016, 12:28:46 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #989 on: April 27, 2016, 12:33:01 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.
I would see that as reasonable if the penalty for selling to someone who failed was high enough.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #990 on: April 27, 2016, 12:36:46 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.

So every time I loan a gun to a friend, I need to run a background check or face charges?  No thanks.  FWIW, I know my friends aren't felons and would not sell to someone I don't know without an FFL.

From a practical perspective, FFL keep paperwork and a book.  How would non-FFL's document all this?

I think you achieve most of the benefit by putting and enforcing a a firm limit on sales by non FFL's.   Straw purchases are hard to prosecute but proving transfers above the set amount would seem to be easier.  Set a limit, publicize the limit and enforce the limit. 

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #991 on: April 27, 2016, 12:51:04 PM »
Why be worried?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xi9pyQ2MFsE/U8gvekvNe2I/AAAAAAAACbg/LuFupWQadHM/s1600/Gun_deaths+v+guns+chart.jpg

And, again, if you take suicides out of the numbers it'll be far lower. Stop cherry-picking data and use the correct statistics.

Yup.  Suicides are a HUGE percentage of the gun deaths in the USA.

After that, most are due to the insane DRUG WAR.  Gangs of criminals who provide drugs killing each other over turf.  Or battling with the police.  In both cases, any related deaths of thugs, cops, or innocent bystanders are a direct result of the failed "War on Drugs."

Note:  If drugs weren't illegal, you wouldn't need the Mexican and Colombian mafia, and the Bloods and Cryps, selling them.  End the insane "Drug War" and you make a massive dent in the number of gun deaths overnight.

That would be far more effective than taking guns away from honest, law abiding citizens like myself who are no threat to anyone who isn't kicking down my front door at 3 am...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #992 on: April 27, 2016, 01:07:18 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.

So every time I loan a gun to a friend, I need to run a background check or face charges?  No thanks.  FWIW, I know my friends aren't felons and would not sell to someone I don't know without an FFL.

From a practical perspective, FFL keep paperwork and a book.  How would non-FFL's document all this?

I think you achieve most of the benefit by putting and enforcing a a firm limit on sales by non FFL's.   Straw purchases are hard to prosecute but proving transfers above the set amount would seem to be easier.  Set a limit, publicize the limit and enforce the limit.

If you know your friends aren't felons, no need to check them. The law reads that you are responsible for that weapon; it only becomes an issue when someone who isn't allowed to have a weapon uses it for a crime.

The paperwork would be kept by the background check place. "I'd like to sell a Ruger 10/22, number abc123 to Joe Smith." That gun then becomes Smiths. No need for an FFL, or even and individual, to keep paperwork.

The issue I have with FFL's being required is that forces me, and the party I'm selling to, to drive to an FFL.  If I want to transfer to my dad, or my friend, or my uncle, it could be 2-3 hours one way for them to drive to a dealer. Seems completely inefficient, just for the dealer to dial a phone number and read a sheet of paper. I can handle that.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #993 on: April 27, 2016, 01:11:58 PM »
I would see that as reasonable if the penalty for selling to someone who failed was high enough.

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) - fines up to $250,000 and 10 years in prison is the current law. In my opinion that's a good place to anchor.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #994 on: April 27, 2016, 01:54:42 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.

So every time I loan a gun to a friend, I need to run a background check or face charges?  No thanks.  FWIW, I know my friends aren't felons and would not sell to someone I don't know without an FFL.

From a practical perspective, FFL keep paperwork and a book.  How would non-FFL's document all this?

I think you achieve most of the benefit by putting and enforcing a a firm limit on sales by non FFL's.   Straw purchases are hard to prosecute but proving transfers above the set amount would seem to be easier.  Set a limit, publicize the limit and enforce the limit.

If you know your friends aren't felons, no need to check them. The law reads that you are responsible for that weapon; it only becomes an issue when someone who isn't allowed to have a weapon uses it for a crime.

The paperwork would be kept by the background check place. "I'd like to sell a Ruger 10/22, number abc123 to Joe Smith." That gun then becomes Smiths. No need for an FFL, or even and individual, to keep paperwork.


If the FFL or you don't keep a record of the check, how do you prove it happened unless you have a central registry on the firearm.  When you get a background check now, it is my understanding the FBI doesn't keep a record of the firearm.  The FFL keeps the record on the transfer. 

I wouldn't support a registry because it has too much possibility for abuse.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #995 on: April 27, 2016, 02:06:08 PM »
If the FFL or you don't keep a record of the check, how do you prove it happened unless you have a central registry on the firearm.  When you get a background check now, it is my understanding the FBI doesn't keep a record of the firearm.  The FFL keeps the record on the transfer. 

I wouldn't support a registry because it has too much possibility for abuse.

Agreed, if the government tries to keep a firearm registry it's a non-starter. Just like if they attempt to push gun control legislative or regulation costs to the manufacturers or the consumer.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #996 on: April 27, 2016, 02:48:46 PM »
Why not a double blind registry system where people's weapons are assigned a number that isn't associated with that name?    That way if someone is caught with a weapon they would have to produce a number or pass phrase that would associate them with that weapon.     No more straw purchases, or underground deals.    Transfers could be made through a website or phone number with a weapon's serial number and your unique number.    No need for

I had to pay for drivers ed (I think it was $400 in 1995) and it was at a private school.    I don't see why you can't offer something like that for teenagers, though I'm not sure how helpful it would be for someone that couldn't purchase the item until their 18th or 21st birthday.    Perhaps they could start building hours for training at that point.

I know you guys will hate this, but I think the only way we could really impact gun violence and accidents, is with a certificate system which was the sole means of obtaining weapons.    If you can't pass the basic class, you can't buy a gun.    If you can, you can keep going and buy whatever you qualify on.   Again, it should be run as a joint government civilan venture to prevent abuse.    If someone proves their safe, sane and competent then they have a weapon.    Once they've done more specific training, they can use better equipment in places that require more skill.

JLee, lay people evaluate people's mental health on a daily basis.    They don't determine them sane or insane, they just tell someone above them that this guy is acting strange and we shouldn't let him do ___ without checking him out.    It was a big part of my flight instructor training, and reporting someone's strange behavior to the FAA didn't open me up to liability.    There's also a series of mental health questions on the medical examination.   

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #997 on: April 27, 2016, 03:20:20 PM »
Why not a double blind registry system where people's weapons are assigned a number that isn't associated with that name?    That way if someone is caught with a weapon they would have to produce a number or pass phrase that would associate them with that weapon.     No more straw purchases, or underground deals.    Transfers could be made through a website or phone number with a weapon's serial number and your unique number.    No need for

I had to pay for drivers ed (I think it was $400 in 1995) and it was at a private school.    I don't see why you can't offer something like that for teenagers, though I'm not sure how helpful it would be for someone that couldn't purchase the item until their 18th or 21st birthday.    Perhaps they could start building hours for training at that point.

I know you guys will hate this, but I think the only way we could really impact gun violence and accidents, is with a certificate system which was the sole means of obtaining weapons.    If you can't pass the basic class, you can't buy a gun.    If you can, you can keep going and buy whatever you qualify on.   Again, it should be run as a joint government civilan venture to prevent abuse.    If someone proves their safe, sane and competent then they have a weapon.    Once they've done more specific training, they can use better equipment in places that require more skill.

JLee, lay people evaluate people's mental health on a daily basis.    They don't determine them sane or insane, they just tell someone above them that this guy is acting strange and we shouldn't let him do ___ without checking him out.    It was a big part of my flight instructor training, and reporting someone's strange behavior to the FAA didn't open me up to liability.    There's also a series of mental health questions on the medical examination.   

Nothing you propose will impact gun violence. It hasn't worked abroad, it won't work here. Stop trying to punish, or place additional burdens on, responsible owners for crimes they're not committing.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #998 on: April 27, 2016, 05:05:41 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

Do you transfer the title of your car to anyone who borrows it? You could still loan one without transferring ownership.

There's no way to enforce a limit without paperwork, though.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #999 on: April 27, 2016, 05:28:30 PM »
It's interesting.  The gun lobby is always complaining that we should first enforce existing laws.  But get this - the ATF is not allowed to have an electronic database of gun ownership- thanks to congressional lobbying, instead - they have been relegated to a hall of manila folders thanks to the NRA.  Yea -- great.  So I agree - paperwork isn't needed - a 20th century solution is available.


A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke's Medical Center studied the statistics of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.

They said they carried out their study because of what they said are seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.

"I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats," Bangalore said. "We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the last year or so. A lot of claims are made…so we wanted to look at the data and see if any of this holds water."

They concluded that more guns do not make people safer.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 05:32:56 PM by Northwestie »