|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 9, 2016 20:43:56 GMT
I really do not see how more government will help. How long will the wait be when everybody has to get it. You would have another IRS level office. We know how well and fair they work. To most gun control activists, more government is the answer to all our problems. It's in their DNC DNA.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 10, 2016 2:06:41 GMT
I'm not sure if it is funny or pathetic. The gun control lobby seem act like paranoid parents who won't let their kids do anything lest they get bruised. While the pro gun lobby seem to act like children who have been told they can't play with their favourite toy.
The licence system would be federally implemented, but enforced at the State level. Indeed practically there would be no other way of making it work. States need to be able to fine tune exactly what each licence level would cover do as to stay consistent with existing laws, that in turn would mean each state would need its own division to track records and validate licences. (If a basic licence covered some types of rifle then the basic test would need to reflect this, likewise specific state laws regarding firearms would need to be covered) However to be useful and meaningful, to say nothing about simplicity of licences, the basic overall framework would have to be set up at the federal level. In terms of short term costs it would be a lot easier to expand one Federal agency to do this, then later expand that division of the agency and spin it off as its own agency. (Aided in both cases by the fact that the department isn't going to be a law enforcement one, enforcement resting elsewhere and as such you don't need to have personal who have anything close to the same degree of training as federal agents do).
You would need federal funding to put the system in place, but eventually licence fees would hopefully offset costs to limit the amount of money needing to be put in, or even result in it being self financing. (Before anyone starts screaming about paying for a licence I'd just point out that if you are willing to spend $100 for a gun then another $20 for a licence shouldn't be an issue.)
I'd imagine that the NRA and similar groups would be more than happy to help out with the teaching part of the licence, once they've stopped crying and sulking, especially if they are asked to come in and consult as to what is needed to be taught. This is, after all, more or less what they claim to do and be about anyway.
I'm also going to say, yet again, that this is NOT an answer to criminal usage of guns. This is about reducing injuries and deaths from owners who have no idea how to handle and own a gun without posing a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Gun crime is a different matter, with a licence only helping in allowing law enforcement to more easily identify illegal firearms.
Criminals aside the pro gun lobby should be in favour of such a system. They have long pointed out that guns are not dangerous in the hands of responsible owners, which is a reasonable point. If this is the case why not have a system that requires people to show that in advance? Why object to it?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 10, 2016 2:20:17 GMT
because it is a huge imposition to be required to produce a piece of plastic with an ID number on it when you want to buy a gun instead of hand filling a triplicate form and waiting for it to be processed through the agency currently in charge of background checks. or did you miss the implication that the licensing system eliminates the whole background check process, because the only check necessary is to confirm the validity of the license. - as the licensee has already had all the necessary checks. my thinking would be that the agency would be able to be funded by administrating the safety classes involved in promoting gun safety. - and by funding no longer necessary to administrate the current hodgepodge of processes used. or are you advocating to eliminate the current motor vehicle operator's license program because it is more cost effective to just wait until people get into crashes before you decide whether they can safely operate a vehicle or not? compare these two processes: do you have a license for the gun you want to buy? (Y/N) or Are you old enough to buy the gun you want to buy? (Y/N) have you been convicted of a felony? (Y/N) are you on probation for a non-felony crime? (Y/N) do you know how to operate a gun? (currently not allowed to ask) do you have a diagnosed mental illness that affects your ability to safely have a gun? (currently not allowed to ask) is there another reason why you would not be allowed to own a gun? (don't even know how to ask) again: you cannot get rid of rats by refusing to make any changes; and usually the first change a pest control person will recommend is to clean up the mess, so you can see what you are doing. and the reason for having an independent agency is that their ONLY job is keeping track of whether a person may legally own a particular type of gun or not. not what they own, not how many they own. only yes, they can buy that, or no they cannot buy that. I currently have a card I have to show whenever I want to buy a gun or ammunition. It's my FOID card and I see nothing wrong with that. Again, if you could press some magic reset button and all the illegally owned guns would disappear, then a more stringent vetting process for obtaining new guns would have some benefit. But unless we can get the 300 million guns that are already in circulation off the streets, you're just spinning your wheels. How about this. We allow all police to stop and frisk any suspicious person in an area that is known for a high rate of gun crime. If a gun is found on that person, not only is the gun confiscated, but the person is given the option of either serving 2 years in prison, or turning in two more guns off the street. Another program is to offer a reward for anyone turning in a gun to police, no questions asked. This has been tried in some areas and has worked. Not perfect, but it's a lot more effective at getting guns out of the hands of those that may use them, than trying to keep guns out of the hands of those that don't. If you have any other ideas of reducing the current gun base, I'd like to hear them. Then we can talk about stricter control on new gun purchases. how about not putting all our eggs in one basket. you can't solve complex math by only subtracting.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 10, 2016 2:23:17 GMT
I'm not sure if it is funny or pathetic. The gun control lobby seem act like paranoid parents who won't let their kids do anything lest they get bruised. While the pro gun lobby seem to act like children who have been told they can't play with their favourite toy. The licence system would be federally implemented, but enforced at the State level. Indeed practically there would be no other way of making it work. States need to be able to fine tune exactly what each licence level would cover do as to stay consistent with existing laws, that in turn would mean each state would need its own division to track records and validate licences. (If a basic licence covered some types of rifle then the basic test would need to reflect this, likewise specific state laws regarding firearms would need to be covered) However to be useful and meaningful, to say nothing about simplicity of licences, the basic overall framework would have to be set up at the federal level. In terms of short term costs it would be a lot easier to expand one Federal agency to do this, then later expand that division of the agency and spin it off as its own agency. (Aided in both cases by the fact that the department isn't going to be a law enforcement one, enforcement resting elsewhere and as such you don't need to have personal who have anything close to the same degree of training as federal agents do). You would need federal funding to put the system in place, but eventually licence fees would hopefully offset costs to limit the amount of money needing to be put in, or even result in it being self financing. (Before anyone starts screaming about paying for a licence I'd just point out that if you are willing to spend $100 for a gun then another $20 for a licence shouldn't be an issue.) I'd imagine that the NRA and similar groups would be more than happy to help out with the teaching part of the licence, once they've stopped crying and sulking, especially if they are asked to come in and consult as to what is needed to be taught. This is, after all, more or less what they claim to do and be about anyway. I'm also going to say, yet again, that this is NOT an answer to criminal usage of guns. This is about reducing injuries and deaths from owners who have no idea how to handle and own a gun without posing a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Gun crime is a different matter, with a licence only helping in allowing law enforcement to more easily identify illegal firearms. Criminals aside the pro gun lobby should be in favour of such a system. They have long pointed out that guns are not dangerous in the hands of responsible owners, which is a reasonable point. If this is the case why not have a system that requires people to show that in advance? Why object to it? because if you allow there to be a rule limiting gun ownership, the liberals terrorists have won.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 10, 2016 10:30:17 GMT
I likes this idea a LOT... If you can carry the weapon, you can carry the licence...(Even if thats in a waterproof sturdy wallet somewhere to prevent damage whilst out hunting?..) Bit like driving a car again, its showing responsibility. No Licence?.. not having one on you whilst "In possession of" needs to be an offence eventually.
Again with the driving thing, the ADR licence, for Dangerous goods, I HAVE to carry the licence when valid at all times. Even when not doing ADR work..... If I need my Driving licence, I HAVE to carry the ADR..... Thats not just necessity in case I need to drive the ADR work, it law that as it is part of the driving licence, it must stay with the driving licence, at all times, whilst valid....
That doesnt mean it needs to be a visible badge on a string round your neck, or need to be produced by just "Any" interested party, I need to be able to produce it when necessary, by Official people who need to see it. Like Police. Or Ministry of Transport roadside checks, etc. My AvSec badge is a badge that needs to be visible all the time whilst on secured premises, thats different.
But back to firearms, you dont expect all Drivers to have a visible licence whilst they drive, but you expect them to have one available for Police officers to inspect.... so why not make firearms carriers carry their damn licence at all times?...
As for how to gain one. I have several licences for several things... Driving, and selling intoxicating liquor of all descriptions etc. Yes you MUST sit a written test to verify you can show a level of knowledge of safety, thats what licensing is all about, knowledge and proof of that knowledge, so Firearms must be the same thing. An "Interview", which in the cars of driving is a practical test, in Beer its a chat with the instructor during the licensing process and a day in court to attain the actual licence in front of the beak who issues such, so why not a day on the range showing not that you can hit a target, more that you cant miss, and hit an unintentional bystander....
On that, First day on the range when I was in Air Cadets at the age of around 13, we were given our first attempt at .303 Enfield. They guy at the other end scored an 8 on his first shot, on the next-door target?... All weapons down as we recovered from the laughter at his "Bloody hell" outburst, he didnt expect the kick to be that bad. We had all had the .22 practise, and my Cat can kick harder than those, but the .303 Enfield is a unforgiving beast that proves the laws of motion... and for every action in a split second... a bruise?. So saying that, some basic firearms range training is a must.
The NRA, cant they be bought on board in some way?.. cant they be asked to use their own extensive network to help provide "safe" training for those that need it?... (Obviously paid for...) Who better to be able to provide the necessary knowledge and safety training. This could work out as beneficial to them.
And by the way folks, thanks for not letting me get my backside kicked for getting this thread in trouble....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 10, 2016 15:24:54 GMT
I likes this idea a LOT... If you can carry the weapon, you can carry the licence...(Even if thats in a waterproof sturdy wallet somewhere to prevent damage whilst out hunting?..) Bit like driving a car again, its showing responsibility. No Licence?.. not having one on you whilst "In possession of" needs to be an offence eventually. Again with the driving thing, the ADR licence, for Dangerous goods, I HAVE to carry the licence when valid at all times. Even when not doing ADR work..... If I need my Driving licence, I HAVE to carry the ADR..... Thats not just necessity in case I need to drive the ADR work, it law that as it is part of the driving licence, it must stay with the driving licence, at all times, whilst valid.... That doesnt mean it needs to be a visible badge on a string round your neck, or need to be produced by just "Any" interested party, I need to be able to produce it when necessary, by Official people who need to see it. Like Police. Or Ministry of Transport roadside checks, etc. My AvSec badge is a badge that needs to be visible all the time whilst on secured premises, thats different. But back to firearms, you dont expect all Drivers to have a visible licence whilst they drive, but you expect them to have one available for Police officers to inspect.... so why not make firearms carriers carry their damn licence at all times?... As for how to gain one. I have several licences for several things... Driving, and selling intoxicating liquor of all descriptions etc. Yes you MUST sit a written test to verify you can show a level of knowledge of safety, thats what licensing is all about, knowledge and proof of that knowledge, so Firearms must be the same thing. An "Interview", which in the cars of driving is a practical test, in Beer its a chat with the instructor during the licensing process and a day in court to attain the actual licence in front of the beak who issues such, so why not a day on the range showing not that you can hit a target, more that you cant miss, and hit an unintentional bystander.... On that, First day on the range when I was in Air Cadets at the age of around 13, we were given our first attempt at .303 Enfield. They guy at the other end scored an 8 on his first shot, on the next-door target?... All weapons down as we recovered from the laughter at his "Bloody hell" outburst, he didnt expect the kick to be that bad. We had all had the .22 practise, and my Cat can kick harder than those, but the .303 Enfield is a unforgiving beast that proves the laws of motion... and for every action in a split second... a bruise?. So saying that, some basic firearms range training is a must. The NRA, cant they be bought on board in some way?.. cant they be asked to use their own extensive network to help provide "safe" training for those that need it?... (Obviously paid for...) Who better to be able to provide the necessary knowledge and safety training. This could work out as beneficial to them. And by the way folks, thanks for not letting me get my backside kicked for getting this thread in trouble.... here, if you are hunting, you have to have your hunting license and your game tag on your person (until you get the animal at which point the tag is required to be appropriately marked and in some cases, secured on the animal's person) (hunting license being proof of payment of the hunting fee) claiming carrying a license is an unaccountable burden is a false premise. on the Enfield story, one of my great entertainments is letting people shoot my shotgun. I forget the exact numbers, but its muzzle energy is a generous multiple of the muzzle energy of the .44 magnum.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 10, 2016 20:05:39 GMT
Even though I like the licensing idea, I have to say I'm with GTCGreg on his point that it isn't the biggest issue right here and now.
While many people do get injured and killed by legal guns, it's nothing compared to the amount of people injured or killed by illegal guns, so getting those off the streets should be the first order of business.
Requiring a license that proves proficiency makes as much sense for guns as it does for cars, but if I had my hand on the till that would either fund a new licensing system or a greater effort to get illegal guns off the street, there's no doubt which one I would choose right here and now. I'd solve the biggest problem first and the biggest problem isn't the legal guns right now. That can wait a little while longer.
That said, as soon as the number of illegal guns had been brought down to manageable levels, I wouldn't hesitate to introduce the licensing system, because not only might that help in reducing the amount of accidents, but if you required every gun sold to be registered both with serial number and a ballistics test before the owner got it, it might reduce the amount of strawman purchases in the future, further reducing the amount of illegal guns in circulation.
EDIT: As I delved into this whole illegal guns in America thing a while back, the statistics clearly showed that one of the most used ploys for making strawman purchases in states with strict gun control laws is to simply claim that your newly purchased weapon was stolen and to only do so if it's involved in a crime. With the licensing system (once it's introduced after, or at least while an extra effort is being put into getting rid of illegal guns), introduce hefty fines for failing to store your weapon securely and failing to report it stolen as soon as you find out.
If the law quite simply states that your weapon must be either on your person (or at least within sight of you at all times) or securely locked away while not in use, then a would-be thief would have to either break into your home/car or physically assault you to get to your firearm. That would leave evidence of theft behind, which would be extremely difficult (or at least costly) for strawmen to replicate every time they want to sell a gun illegally.
Likewise, imposing a hefty fine for failure to report a firearm stolen would force them to report thefts as soon as they've made the sale, instead of it being an "afterthought" when the gun turns up in a violent crime case. Even if they do succeed in convincing authorities that their guns have been stolen, someone should take note when they've lost the third one in as many months.
At the very least, this should jack up the price on guns obtained through strawman purchases considerably, as the risk involved in selling them becomes greater, which would in turn limit how many people can actually afford to obtain a firearm that way.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 10, 2016 21:10:58 GMT
I likes this idea a LOT... If you can carry the weapon, you can carry the licence...(Even if thats in a waterproof sturdy wallet somewhere to prevent damage whilst out hunting?..) Bit like driving a car again, its showing responsibility. No Licence?.. not having one on you whilst "In possession of" needs to be an offence eventually. Again with the driving thing, the ADR licence, for Dangerous goods, I HAVE to carry the licence when valid at all times. Even when not doing ADR work..... If I need my Driving licence, I HAVE to carry the ADR..... Thats not just necessity in case I need to drive the ADR work, it law that as it is part of the driving licence, it must stay with the driving licence, at all times, whilst valid.... That doesnt mean it needs to be a visible badge on a string round your neck, or need to be produced by just "Any" interested party, I need to be able to produce it when necessary, by Official people who need to see it. Like Police. Or Ministry of Transport roadside checks, etc. My AvSec badge is a badge that needs to be visible all the time whilst on secured premises, thats different. But back to firearms, you dont expect all Drivers to have a visible licence whilst they drive, but you expect them to have one available for Police officers to inspect.... so why not make firearms carriers carry their damn licence at all times?... As for how to gain one. I have several licences for several things... Driving, and selling intoxicating liquor of all descriptions etc. Yes you MUST sit a written test to verify you can show a level of knowledge of safety, thats what licensing is all about, knowledge and proof of that knowledge, so Firearms must be the same thing. An "Interview", which in the cars of driving is a practical test, in Beer its a chat with the instructor during the licensing process and a day in court to attain the actual licence in front of the beak who issues such, so why not a day on the range showing not that you can hit a target, more that you cant miss, and hit an unintentional bystander.... On that, First day on the range when I was in Air Cadets at the age of around 13, we were given our first attempt at .303 Enfield. They guy at the other end scored an 8 on his first shot, on the next-door target?... All weapons down as we recovered from the laughter at his "Bloody hell" outburst, he didnt expect the kick to be that bad. We had all had the .22 practise, and my Cat can kick harder than those, but the .303 Enfield is a unforgiving beast that proves the laws of motion... and for every action in a split second... a bruise?. So saying that, some basic firearms range training is a must. The NRA, cant they be bought on board in some way?.. cant they be asked to use their own extensive network to help provide "safe" training for those that need it?... (Obviously paid for...) Who better to be able to provide the necessary knowledge and safety training. This could work out as beneficial to them. And by the way folks, thanks for not letting me get my backside kicked for getting this thread in trouble.... here, if you are hunting, you have to have your hunting license and your game tag on your person (until you get the animal at which point the tag is required to be appropriately marked and in some cases, secured on the animal's person) (hunting license being proof of payment of the hunting fee) claiming carrying a license is an unaccountable burden is a false premise. on the Enfield story, one of my great entertainments is letting people shoot my shotgun. I forget the exact numbers, but its muzzle energy is a generous multiple of the muzzle energy of the .44 magnum. You find it "entertaining" to give people a high recoil firearm? That is part of the problem right there. I started with .22 then .30 Carbine then 30.06. I was ready for each increment in power and recoil. Giving a .303 to someone unprepared is a really bad idea. The NRA already is very active in education, has 10's of thousands of volunteer educators. There is no excuse for not getting the training you need.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 10, 2016 22:43:54 GMT
The NRA already is very active in education, has 10's of thousands of volunteer educators. There is no excuse for not getting the training you need. Except for the obvious excuse at the root of this debate: "There is no law that says I have to" BTW, I totally agree with you on the incremental training thing. Giving a shotgun to someone who's either never fired a weapon, or at least nothing bigger than a .22 or a 9mm - without providing them with any training in how to use said shotgun - is equivalent to placing the keys to a tank in the hands of a person who's never driven anything bigger than a lawnmower and saying, "Go nuts!".
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 10, 2016 23:59:13 GMT
Gun control is actually about two somewhat different issues. The first is illegal guns or those used to commit crimes. The second is the overall safety of guns in the hands of the population.
The pro gun lobby focus on the second, tending to ignore that gun training is not compulsory nor is there anything to stop people buying guns that are too powerful for them. While pretending that dumping more guns in circulation would somehow solve the problem of the first.
The control lobby in contrast focus on the first and try to pretend this has something with the second.
The reality is that the second is the easier of the two to deal with, and increasing the number of responsible owners is likely to not only reduce accidents but also to reduce the number of stolen guns available. In fact it might well reduce the total number of guns in general circulation as people might be less likely to buy on impulse, sometimes because they might realise that shiney gun they like the look of is to powerful for them. Or simply because their licence doesn't cover that type of weapon.
Dealing with the second part should allow confusion between these two different elements to be separated more easily. Allowing more serious discussions to take place as to how to deal with gun crime. It would also put in place a framework around which initiatives can be more easily be formed, or existing initiatives enforced more easily.
In the UK one of the things you have to prove before getting a licence for any gun is that it will be locked away when not in use. This wouldn't be remotely practical for all firearms due to the huge number of owners. However requiring such proof for the higher level licences would be more realistic. Especially things like assault weapons.
Ballistic testing of all guns prior to selling them is utterly impractical. Not only would this require testing on a scale far beyond the capability of every lab in the US combined. But rifling gradually changes as the gun is fired, plus it would be easy to circumvent by replacing the barrel unless you also test fire each and every barrel. Keep in mind that ballistic testing done in investigations works on the not unreasonable assumption that a gun used to commit a crime will not have been fired enough between the crime and recovery of the gun to affect the rifling all that much.
A better idea would be to require the serial numbers of guns to be recorded and linked to a specific licence at the point of sale. A licence would have to be produced when buying a firearm, and as this would be a federal licence a simple scan would reveal if that licence actually covers the gun being bought. This would prevent someone from crossing into a different state to buy a firearm their licence wouldn't cover where they actually live.
In the UK the laws regarding car insurance, tax and licences allow police to take cars off the road there and then if no evidence can be produced at the roadside that you have them. Tying the serial numbers of a gun to a specific licence would allow police to do much the same, based on the principal that people might not be able to provide a licence for legitimate reasons on occasion. Meaning they can check the serial number, then ask for another type of id to verify the person you are talking to is actually the owner and licence holder as easily as checking if the person driving a car is the owner.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 11, 2016 0:45:25 GMT
Gun control is actually about two somewhat different issues. The first is illegal guns or those used to commit crimes. The second is the overall safety of guns in the hands of the population. The pro gun lobby focus on the second, tending to ignore that gun training is not compulsory nor is there anything to stop people buying guns that are too powerful for them. While pretending that dumping more guns in circulation would somehow solve the problem of the first. The control lobby in contrast focus on the first and try to pretend this has something with the second. The reality is that the second is the easier of the two to deal with, and increasing the number of responsible owners is likely to not only reduce accidents but also to reduce the number of stolen guns available. In fact it might well reduce the total number of guns in general circulation as people might be less likely to buy on impulse, sometimes because they might realise that shiney gun they like the look of is to powerful for them. Or simply because their licence doesn't cover that type of weapon. Dealing with the second part should allow confusion between these two different elements to be separated more easily. Allowing more serious discussions to take place as to how to deal with gun crime. It would also put in place a framework around which initiatives can be more easily be formed, or existing initiatives enforced more easily. In the UK one of the things you have to prove before getting a licence for any gun is that it will be locked away when not in use. This wouldn't be remotely practical for all firearms due to the huge number of owners. However requiring such proof for the higher level licences would be more realistic. Especially things like assault weapons. Ballistic testing of all guns prior to selling them is utterly impractical. Not only would this require testing on a scale far beyond the capability of every lab in the US combined. But rifling gradually changes as the gun is fired, plus it would be easy to circumvent by replacing the barrel unless you also test fire each and every barrel. Keep in mind that ballistic testing done in investigations works on the not unreasonable assumption that a gun used to commit a crime will not have been fired enough between the crime and recovery of the gun to affect the rifling all that much. A better idea would be to require the serial numbers of guns to be recorded and linked to a specific licence at the point of sale. A licence would have to be produced when buying a firearm, and as this would be a federal licence a simple scan would reveal if that licence actually covers the gun being bought. This would prevent someone from crossing into a different state to buy a firearm their licence wouldn't cover where they actually live. In the UK the laws regarding car insurance, tax and licences allow police to take cars off the road there and then if no evidence can be produced at the roadside that you have them. Tying the serial numbers of a gun to a specific licence would allow police to do much the same, based on the principal that people might not be able to provide a licence for legitimate reasons on occasion. Meaning they can check the serial number, then ask for another type of id to verify the person you are talking to is actually the owner and licence holder as easily as checking if the person driving a car is the owner. Didn't think that far ahead on ballistics, but you're right. Far too much work with far too many ways to get around it, so that's out. As for the rest, just to sum up, what I get from what you're saying about licensing is that by implementing it now and thus providing adequate assurance to even the most avid anti-gun ranter that legal gun owners are in fact also responsible gun owners (and the few that turn out not to be are easily found and prosecuted), the hope is to take the focus of the debate away from legal gun owners (they've all got licenses now, so they're obviously not the problem) and shifting the focus of the gun debate to illegal guns, which we all agree represent a much bigger problem that can't be solved by stricter gun control laws. By doing this, law makers and law enforcement officers can then say, "We've taken measures to ensure that legal gun owners are also safe gun owners, but people are still getting shot in our streets. Can we now PLEASE focus on the ACTUAL problem of illegal guns and leave these law abiding citizens alone?!" Am I in the ballpark of what you're trying to get at?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2016 1:36:01 GMT
The NRA already is very active in education, has 10's of thousands of volunteer educators. There is no excuse for not getting the training you need. Except for the obvious excuse at the root of this debate: "There is no law that says I have to" BTW, I totally agree with you on the incremental training thing. Giving a shotgun to someone who's either never fired a weapon, or at least nothing bigger than a .22 or a 9mm - without providing them with any training in how to use said shotgun - is equivalent to placing the keys to a tank in the hands of a person who's never driven anything bigger than a lawnmower and saying, "Go nuts!". This is people who have fired long arms before. I'm just cruel, not sadistic. (and they've seen me shoot it, so they know what they're in for - sorta)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2016 1:41:03 GMT
Gun control is actually about two somewhat different issues. The first is illegal guns or those used to commit crimes. The second is the overall safety of guns in the hands of the population. The pro gun lobby focus on the second, tending to ignore that gun training is not compulsory nor is there anything to stop people buying guns that are too powerful for them. While pretending that dumping more guns in circulation would somehow solve the problem of the first. The control lobby in contrast focus on the first and try to pretend this has something with the second. The reality is that the second is the easier of the two to deal with, and increasing the number of responsible owners is likely to not only reduce accidents but also to reduce the number of stolen guns available. In fact it might well reduce the total number of guns in general circulation as people might be less likely to buy on impulse, sometimes because they might realise that shiney gun they like the look of is to powerful for them. Or simply because their licence doesn't cover that type of weapon. Dealing with the second part should allow confusion between these two different elements to be separated more easily. Allowing more serious discussions to take place as to how to deal with gun crime. It would also put in place a framework around which initiatives can be more easily be formed, or existing initiatives enforced more easily. In the UK one of the things you have to prove before getting a licence for any gun is that it will be locked away when not in use. This wouldn't be remotely practical for all firearms due to the huge number of owners. However requiring such proof for the higher level licences would be more realistic. Especially things like assault weapons. Ballistic testing of all guns prior to selling them is utterly impractical. Not only would this require testing on a scale far beyond the capability of every lab in the US combined. But rifling gradually changes as the gun is fired, plus it would be easy to circumvent by replacing the barrel unless you also test fire each and every barrel. Keep in mind that ballistic testing done in investigations works on the not unreasonable assumption that a gun used to commit a crime will not have been fired enough between the crime and recovery of the gun to affect the rifling all that much. A better idea would be to require the serial numbers of guns to be recorded and linked to a specific licence at the point of sale. A licence would have to be produced when buying a firearm, and as this would be a federal licence a simple scan would reveal if that licence actually covers the gun being bought. This would prevent someone from crossing into a different state to buy a firearm their licence wouldn't cover where they actually live. In the UK the laws regarding car insurance, tax and licences allow police to take cars off the road there and then if no evidence can be produced at the roadside that you have them. Tying the serial numbers of a gun to a specific licence would allow police to do much the same, based on the principal that people might not be able to provide a licence for legitimate reasons on occasion. Meaning they can check the serial number, then ask for another type of id to verify the person you are talking to is actually the owner and licence holder as easily as checking if the person driving a car is the owner. Didn't think that far ahead on ballistics, but you're right. Far too much work with far too many ways to get around it, so that's out. As for the rest, just to sum up, what I get from what you're saying about licensing is that by implementing it now and thus providing adequate assurance to even the most avid anti-gun ranter that legal gun owners are in fact also responsible gun owners (and the few that turn out not to be are easily found and prosecuted), the hope is to take the focus of the debate away from legal gun owners (they've all got licenses now, so they're obviously not the problem) and shifting the focus of the gun debate to illegal guns, which we all agree represent a much bigger problem that can't be solved by stricter gun control laws. By doing this, law makers and law enforcement officers can then say, "We've taken measures to ensure that legal gun owners are also safe gun owners, but people are still getting shot in our streets. Can we now PLEASE focus on the ACTUAL problem of illegal guns and leave these law abiding citizens alone?!" Am I in the ballpark of what you're trying to get at? That, and there is a reasonably easy means to accomplish it. we have a defined problem and a defined solution. we can put those together, and be able to quantify the results. as for ultimately registering the guns to the owners - the NRA will fight that tooth and nail on the grounds that it is a slippery slope from there to jackbooted thugs kicking down their doors and taking their guns away.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 11, 2016 1:42:16 GMT
Except for the obvious excuse at the root of this debate: "There is no law that says I have to" BTW, I totally agree with you on the incremental training thing. Giving a shotgun to someone who's either never fired a weapon, or at least nothing bigger than a .22 or a 9mm - without providing them with any training in how to use said shotgun - is equivalent to placing the keys to a tank in the hands of a person who's never driven anything bigger than a lawnmower and saying, "Go nuts!". This is people who have fired long arms before. I'm just cruel, not sadistic. (and they've seen me shoot it, so they know what they're in for - sorta) If they're surprised by the kick, they sorta didn't really know what they were in for, did they?
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 11, 2016 1:48:58 GMT
Didn't think that far ahead on ballistics, but you're right. Far too much work with far too many ways to get around it, so that's out. As for the rest, just to sum up, what I get from what you're saying about licensing is that by implementing it now and thus providing adequate assurance to even the most avid anti-gun ranter that legal gun owners are in fact also responsible gun owners (and the few that turn out not to be are easily found and prosecuted), the hope is to take the focus of the debate away from legal gun owners (they've all got licenses now, so they're obviously not the problem) and shifting the focus of the gun debate to illegal guns, which we all agree represent a much bigger problem that can't be solved by stricter gun control laws. By doing this, law makers and law enforcement officers can then say, "We've taken measures to ensure that legal gun owners are also safe gun owners, but people are still getting shot in our streets. Can we now PLEASE focus on the ACTUAL problem of illegal guns and leave these law abiding citizens alone?!" Am I in the ballpark of what you're trying to get at? That, and there is a reasonably easy means to accomplish it. we have a defined problem and a defined solution. we can put those together, and be able to quantify the results. as for ultimately registering the guns to the owners - the NRA will fight that tooth and nail on the grounds that it is a slippery slope from there to jackbooted thugs kicking down their doors and taking their guns away. The way I see it, the US has a supposed gun problem and an actual gun problem. Supposedly, legal gun ownership is the problem and that's taking up most of the debate. The actual problem is all the illegal guns that are not and will never be registered anywhere, no matter what laws are in place, until they turn up when a crime is committed and the cops get their hands on them. Debating the supposed problem is preventing the solution of the actual problem, so if you can get the supposed problem out of the way, maybe the actual problem will become more obvious to the people denying its existence. Licensing legal gun owners takes care of the supposed problem, leaving only the actual problem of illegal guns to handle.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2016 2:16:56 GMT
That, and there is a reasonably easy means to accomplish it. we have a defined problem and a defined solution. we can put those together, and be able to quantify the results. as for ultimately registering the guns to the owners - the NRA will fight that tooth and nail on the grounds that it is a slippery slope from there to jackbooted thugs kicking down their doors and taking their guns away. The way I see it, the US has a supposed gun problem and an actual gun problem. Supposedly, legal gun ownership is the problem and that's taking up most of the debate. The actual problem is all the illegal guns that are not and will never be registered anywhere, no matter what laws are in place, until they turn up when a crime is committed and the cops get their hands on them. Debating the supposed problem is preventing the solution of the actual problem, so if you can get the supposed problem out of the way, maybe the actual problem will become more obvious to the people denying its existence. Licensing legal gun owners takes care of the supposed problem, leaving only the actual problem of illegal guns to handle. right now US gun laws are a huge sloppy mess. a license program that is consistent from state to state, as our driver's license program is, will allow cleaning up a lot of that mess, as well as reducing the problem of incompetent gun owners and even, to a degree, making strawman selling a bit less common. and yes, it will also make it pretty clear that responsible owners are not the problem people scared of guns think they are.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 11, 2016 2:18:59 GMT
It is about control... Then there is the useless but totally fun like Spaceballs the Lower
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2016 2:24:28 GMT
This is people who have fired long arms before. I'm just cruel, not sadistic. (and they've seen me shoot it, so they know what they're in for - sorta) If they're surprised by the kick, they sorta didn't really know what they were in for, did they? but I gave them the opportunity to gain an understanding.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 11, 2016 2:35:11 GMT
The way I see it, the US has a supposed gun problem and an actual gun problem. Supposedly, legal gun ownership is the problem and that's taking up most of the debate. The actual problem is all the illegal guns that are not and will never be registered anywhere, no matter what laws are in place, until they turn up when a crime is committed and the cops get their hands on them. Debating the supposed problem is preventing the solution of the actual problem, so if you can get the supposed problem out of the way, maybe the actual problem will become more obvious to the people denying its existence. Licensing legal gun owners takes care of the supposed problem, leaving only the actual problem of illegal guns to handle. right now US gun laws are a huge sloppy mess. a license program that is consistent from state to state, as our driver's license program is, will allow cleaning up a lot of that mess, as well as reducing the problem of incompetent gun owners and even, to a degree, making strawman selling a bit less common. and yes, it will also make it pretty clear that responsible owners are not the problem people scared of guns think they are. You going to do the same for the press and speech? Need a license to make sure you say the responsible things, and don't offend anyone? How about voter education? Maybe only those with some kind of training should vote? The government can determine who can vote based on this training. At one point you needed to own property to vote. Basically had to have skin in the game. Maybe we should go back to that or some kind of poll tax to assure only "responsible" voter cast their vote. We need common sense voter reform? Even with experience training and knowledge, accidents happen. An unintentional discharge can happen to anyone in a moment of inattention. You cannot regulate that, nor can you legislate common sense. That is essential, how long has murder been illegal?
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 11, 2016 2:39:16 GMT
If they're surprised by the kick, they sorta didn't really know what they were in for, did they? but I gave them the opportunity to gain an understanding. What is the risk of that understanding? We are talking about something that can injure or maim or kill in seconds. That rifle have a scope? Now they need ten stitches. The first few times I let someone fire full auto I have control of the gun. I gradually allow them more control as they learn what to expect. Some have never fired on their own. I do not want to die while having fun. As an aside when everyone refers to "assault rifle" are you using the classic definition or the political definition? Classic definition (actually a class 3 NFA rifle). Defined by the MP-43/44 Sturmgewehr 1) intermediate ammunition (between pistol cartridge and rifle cartridge) 2) detachable magazine fed 3) select fire (semi auto/full auto or burst)
|
|