|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2016 3:08:13 GMT
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? if people start beating each other to death with newspapers, maybe. or actually talking people to death instead of just figuratively. voter education? absolutely. administer an Intelligence test. if it comes up negative, they don't get to vote. accidents can still happen even with experience and knowledge, that is true. but they happen a lot less often. in our regional news, a guy accidentally shot his child in the head while cleaning his .45 ACP. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 11, 2016 7:40:44 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? Yes. It would help remove what is a reasonable concern, but also a distraction from the larger issues regarding deliberate use of firearms. That is something that is far harder to deal with. A licence doesn't remove the right to own a gun. It just adds a responsibility to others with that right. Anyone who thinks that they don't or shouldn't have such a responsibility is not someone anyone should want to have a firearm. You wouldn't be happy at an unlicensed, untrained driver on the roads. So why should anyone be happy at untrained gun owners? And while such training is available through groups like the NRA its not compulsory at present. Heck, the NRA could probably increase its membership if it's running such courses. Note that you'd probably want to require the licence be renewed every few years, just so people don't forget the basics. You'd certainly want this for the higher licences, and probably more frequently. Some jobs might also come with automatic licences, after training, such as police and former military personnel who might not be required to pay for a licence - providing no dishonorable discharges and the like, while others might entice people to apply by offering courses for licences even if the job has nothing to do with firearms. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 11, 2016 8:03:57 GMT
Actual Problem....
You know suspect is a possible hazard to public health.
You know they may own a Firearm.
"But I didnt do nuffin' officer"
And until they actually harm someone, ....
Supposed problem is that the police "Didnt do anything abut that nutcase before".
They would have, but as they didnt do nuffin' officer, the current law enforces their right to own a firearm.
If someone has a "Suspect" history, like any minor crimes that sort of indicate they are a risk, they can remove the Licence.
If they then dont behave, they can be arrested for owning before they get to shoot someone...?..
Many nut cases have been shouting off on social media lately.
If you even remove them from the streets, someone gets their kid coming home tonight?...
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 11, 2016 9:55:15 GMT
accidents can still happen even with experience and knowledge, that is true. but they happen a lot less often. in our regional news, a guy accidentally shot his child in the head while cleaning his .45 ACP. Which makes for a perfect example of why people should be required to have training before being able to legally own a firearm. The most basic of all training would have taught that guy that a gun should only be loaded when you intend to fire it. Most cops I know don't even walk around with a cartridge in the chamber while on duty, unless there's good reason to believe the specific assignment they're on might require it. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 11, 2016 10:18:16 GMT
accidents can still happen even with experience and knowledge, that is true. but they happen a lot less often. in our regional news, a guy accidentally shot his child in the head while cleaning his .45 ACP. Which makes for a perfect example of why people should be required to have training before being able to legally own a firearm. The most basic of all training would have taught that guy that a gun should only be loaded when you intend to fire it. Most cops I know don't even walk around with a cartridge in the chamber while on duty, unless there's good reason to believe the specific assignment they're on might require it. The cops I see at the airport who are now armed, have the safety on at all times, and are extensively trained in how NOT to use the weapon. Many of them have Tazer, and would much prefer to use non violent methods, but they carry the gun "For the looks of it", basically, its saying "Dont mess with us". Most of them are real nice guys, they have a deep understanding of how the airport works, and are quite happy to be of help as much as they can. They do not enjoy the fact they have to carry weapons. They just hate the day when they may need it. I have experience through my Father of a lot of tactical Aid group personnel, down at the police range, they are keen to be seen as protection rather than a deterrent. But they also were keen on training. The guards posted at some camps for RAF, "Relished" the chance to waive a weapon about... MP's, White-caps, what ever you want to call them, I do hope they have improved the standard these days, as what I got were egotistical bullies in many cases.... They could see I was RAF, they could see it was genuine, they even know who I was because they saw me yesterday, but even so, "Jobsworth", "Identify yourself and state reason for visit".... A "Hello you again?.. lets get this paperwork out of the way as quick as possible so we dont delay you" would have gone down a lot more friendly, and indeed when I did get that friendly treatment, having to pass over the gate pass and documents was somehow not as grating. Training would show that its not how you threaten the people by waiving a weapon, it how you offer the choice of "Behave or I will use deadly force" as a last resort?.. Some people, of course, the ones who run from the police and crash cars through peoples property and through other people causing massive damage deserve to be hauled out of a broken window at gun point and fed a tarmac breakfast, but I will always argue that defence is NOT offence in the first instance. Guns worry me. The sight of an armed person when there is no apparent need for a very public display of a "look at me" gun holster on the belt?... I find it worrying that they cant trust anyone unless they have that display going on. Especially when I sort of know they may never have fired a shot in anger, or even with any accuracy. If I should accidentally trip over their foot, will it end with an earful of gunmetal?.. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 11, 2016 11:57:10 GMT
Which makes for a perfect example of why people should be required to have training before being able to legally own a firearm. The most basic of all training would have taught that guy that a gun should only be loaded when you intend to fire it. Most cops I know don't even walk around with a cartridge in the chamber while on duty, unless there's good reason to believe the specific assignment they're on might require it. The cops I see at the airport who are now armed, have the safety on at all times I'd be extremely worried about their level of training if they walked around with the safety off! What I was talking about was cops walking around with their weapons holstered, fully loaded mag in, safety on, nothing in the chamber. If they need to draw, they'll have to pull back the slide to load a cartridge, which in itself can be an effective deterrent. Back when I was in the army, we did the same thing when we were on guard duty. If a threatening situation arose, the levels of escalation on our part were: 1: Verbal orders to stand down, possibly physical restraint of assailant 2: Draw weapon - repeat verbal orders 3: Load weapon - repeat verbal orders 4: Fire warning shot - repeat verbal orders 5: Deadly force This was the textbook method. Of course we all understood that a situation could escalate quite quickly from step 1 to step 5 and trained for that as well. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2016 14:48:13 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? Yes. It would help remove what is a reasonable concern, but also a distraction from the larger issues regarding deliberate use of firearms. That is something that is far harder to deal with. A licence doesn't remove the right to own a gun. It just adds a responsibility to others with that right. Anyone who thinks that they don't or shouldn't have such a responsibility is not someone anyone should want to have a firearm. You wouldn't be happy at an unlicensed, untrained driver on the roads. So why should anyone be happy at untrained gun owners? And while such training is available through groups like the NRA its not compulsory at present. Heck, the NRA could probably increase its membership if it's running such courses. Note that you'd probably want to require the licence be renewed every few years, just so people don't forget the basics. You'd certainly want this for the higher licences, and probably more frequently. Some jobs might also come with automatic licences, after training, such as police and former military personnel who might not be required to pay for a licence - providing no dishonorable discharges and the like, while others might entice people to apply by offering courses for licences even if the job has nothing to do with firearms. also, consider the license satisfies the background check requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2016 14:53:25 GMT
The cops I see at the airport who are now armed, have the safety on at all times I'd be extremely worried about their level of training if they walked around with the safety off! What I was talking about was cops walking around with their weapons holstered, fully loaded mag in, safety on, nothing in the chamber. If they need to draw, they'll have to pull back the slide to load a cartridge, which in itself can be an effective deterrent. Back when I was in the army, we did the same thing when we were on guard duty. If a threatening situation arose, the levels of escalation on our part were: 1: Verbal orders to stand down, possibly physical restraint of assailant 2: Draw weapon - repeat verbal orders 3: Load weapon - repeat verbal orders 4: Fire warning shot - repeat verbal orders 5: Deadly force This was the textbook method. Of course we all understood that a situation could escalate quite quickly from step 1 to step 5 and trained for that as well. here, the state of readiness of the weapon is directly prescribed by the assigned task of the bearer. if you look closely, during parades, no weapons have magazines affixed. in comparison, a police officer on duty will have his weapon in such a condition that it can be readied to fire in one motion. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2016 14:53:56 GMT
Which makes for a perfect example of why people should be required to have training before being able to legally own a firearm. The most basic of all training would have taught that guy that a gun should only be loaded when you intend to fire it. Most cops I know don't even walk around with a cartridge in the chamber while on duty, unless there's good reason to believe the specific assignment they're on might require it. The cops I see at the airport who are now armed, have the safety on at all times, and are extensively trained in how NOT to use the weapon. Many of them have Tazer, and would much prefer to use non violent methods, but they carry the gun "For the looks of it", basically, its saying "Dont mess with us". Most of them are real nice guys, they have a deep understanding of how the airport works, and are quite happy to be of help as much as they can. They do not enjoy the fact they have to carry weapons. They just hate the day when they may need it. I have experience through my Father of a lot of tactical Aid group personnel, down at the police range, they are keen to be seen as protection rather than a deterrent. But they also were keen on training. The guards posted at some camps for RAF, "Relished" the chance to waive a weapon about... MP's, White-caps, what ever you want to call them, I do hope they have improved the standard these days, as what I got were egotistical bullies in many cases.... They could see I was RAF, they could see it was genuine, they even know who I was because they saw me yesterday, but even so, "Jobsworth", "Identify yourself and state reason for visit".... A "Hello you again?.. lets get this paperwork out of the way as quick as possible so we dont delay you" would have gone down a lot more friendly, and indeed when I did get that friendly treatment, having to pass over the gate pass and documents was somehow not as grating. Training would show that its not how you threaten the people by waiving a weapon, it how you offer the choice of "Behave or I will use deadly force" as a last resort?.. Some people, of course, the ones who run from the police and crash cars through peoples property and through other people causing massive damage deserve to be hauled out of a broken window at gun point and fed a tarmac breakfast, but I will always argue that defence is NOT offence in the first instance. Guns worry me. The sight of an armed person when there is no apparent need for a very public display of a "look at me" gun holster on the belt?... I find it worrying that they cant trust anyone unless they have that display going on. Especially when I sort of know they may never have fired a shot in anger, or even with any accuracy. If I should accidentally trip over their foot, will it end with an earful of gunmetal?.. TASER = Thomas A Swift's Electric Rifle. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 11, 2016 17:29:44 GMT
Yes. It would help remove what is a reasonable concern, but also a distraction from the larger issues regarding deliberate use of firearms. That is something that is far harder to deal with. A licence doesn't remove the right to own a gun. It just adds a responsibility to others with that right. Anyone who thinks that they don't or shouldn't have such a responsibility is not someone anyone should want to have a firearm. You wouldn't be happy at an unlicensed, untrained driver on the roads. So why should anyone be happy at untrained gun owners? And while such training is available through groups like the NRA its not compulsory at present. Heck, the NRA could probably increase its membership if it's running such courses. Note that you'd probably want to require the licence be renewed every few years, just so people don't forget the basics. You'd certainly want this for the higher licences, and probably more frequently. Some jobs might also come with automatic licences, after training, such as police and former military personnel who might not be required to pay for a licence - providing no dishonorable discharges and the like, while others might entice people to apply by offering courses for licences even if the job has nothing to do with firearms. also, consider the license satisfies the background check requirement. Applying for a licence would include a background check. This might actually make things easier for responsible owners to buy a new gun, since those states that require background checks when buying would be checking the licence on which such a check has already been made. This probably wouldn't result in those states no longer requiring checks or waiting periods for guns. But they may be willing to drop the length of time you need to wait. It would also, of course, mean that weapons that don't currently require background checks would automatically have them. Another nod towards the control lobby that pro gun groups shouldn't really object to. Although some will just to further the impression they are whining children. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 11, 2016 17:57:51 GMT
One of the advantages to the long wait times, though, is that they offer a "cooling off" period.
The idea is that since it takes a few days for background checks to be run anyway, it would prevent people from purchasing weapons in anger for immediate use. That is, someone who's angry when they go buy the gun on Monday might have calmed down considerably when they go to pick it up on Friday.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 11, 2016 20:10:15 GMT
One of the advantages to the long wait times, though, is that they offer a "cooling off" period. The idea is that since it takes a few days for background checks to be run anyway, it would prevent people from purchasing weapons in anger for immediate use. That is, someone who's angry when they go buy the gun on Monday might have calmed down considerably when they go to pick it up on Friday. Somehow, I think such a person would be angry again about something by Saturday. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 11, 2016 21:27:53 GMT
I'm re-posting this here since it's relevant to the discussion on the use of guns in America. A National Review writer has decided to play "devil's advocate" concerning the Oregon siege.The writer discovered a series of incidents in Oregon wherein federal agents have, indeed, been pressuring ranchers and farmers to sell their properties, including at least one incident in which spiteful officials deliberately diverted water away from several properties in order to render them incapable of functioning. This discovery, sadly, supports the hypothesis that what the government is doing to the Hammond family may well be yet another forced land grab. In that sense, the Bundy crowd may actually have a point buried behind all of their rhetoric. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 11, 2016 22:09:45 GMT
A little side note to the gun debate. Any idea who the largest purchaser of explosives is next to the Department of Defense?
That would be Disney World in Florida.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 12, 2016 7:38:18 GMT
I'm re-posting this here since it's relevant to the discussion on the use of guns in America. A National Review writer has decided to play "devil's advocate" concerning the Oregon siege.The writer discovered a series of incidents in Oregon wherein federal agents have, indeed, been pressuring ranchers and farmers to sell their properties, including at least one incident in which spiteful officials deliberately diverted water away from several properties in order to render them incapable of functioning. This discovery, sadly, supports the hypothesis that what the government is doing to the Hammond family may well be yet another forced land grab. In that sense, the Bundy crowd may actually have a point buried behind all of their rhetoric. That is not playing devils advocate. playing devils advocate would be exploring the long list of trouble the elder bundy son has been in with the law, or that the hammond family actually did do something that triggered a mandatory minimum sentence, or look into whether an armed force moving into a federal facility really WAS against the law. not saying, "look I'm being a devils advocate and Obama is STILL bad." |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 12, 2016 7:40:31 GMT
A little side note to the gun debate. Any idea who the largest purchaser of explosives is next to the Department of Defense? That would be Disney World in Florida. well, considering they set off more every night than have been set off in some wars... |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 12, 2016 8:38:26 GMT
I'm re-posting this here since it's relevant to the discussion on the use of guns in America. A National Review writer has decided to play "devil's advocate" concerning the Oregon siege.The writer discovered a series of incidents in Oregon wherein federal agents have, indeed, been pressuring ranchers and farmers to sell their properties, including at least one incident in which spiteful officials deliberately diverted water away from several properties in order to render them incapable of functioning. This discovery, sadly, supports the hypothesis that what the government is doing to the Hammond family may well be yet another forced land grab. In that sense, the Bundy crowd may actually have a point buried behind all of their rhetoric. That is not playing devils advocate. playing devils advocate would be exploring the long list of trouble the elder bundy son has been in with the law, or that the hammond family actually did do something that triggered a mandatory minimum sentence, or look into whether an armed force moving into a federal facility really WAS against the law. not saying, "look I'm being a devils advocate and Obama is STILL bad." so why is it that if one is wrong the other must be right? Why can't they both be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 12, 2016 8:54:38 GMT
I remember my own orders as similar with the caveat that if they fire first ignore all that and "Shoot that mother(beeping sound) (more beeping) down and make sure they dont get up again..."
We also had the instruction that if you even got a glimpse of the full inside of a barrel and believed imminent threat with "Clear and present danger" use of a soft tissue non-lethal shot was preferred as "We may wish to ''Interview'' the subject afterwards"...
Including this here as it sort of fits...
I had this discussion on the morality of having to shoot someone who may be "Confused"
Yeah its wrong, but, when you cant make good of the situation, being less wrong than the other person .....
How do you calculate that?.
In the case of the Bundy thing, whats good for local populace?... sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
When building a new motorway close to me, some people lost property on Compulsory Purchase orders, "Land grab" by Govt if you will.
Yes it was bad for the few, but the majority of people gained a better road network......
If the land in question is "For the greater good", how can you stand in the way?.. especially when you are being "paid off" (By govt handouts) for the loss of use?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 12, 2016 10:34:14 GMT
Two things to remember about land grabs in the US. First there is in US history examples of the government grabbing land using dirty tricks not because the government needed it, or because the local population benefited from that. But because businesses bribed government officials. Added was the habit of offering less than the land was worth.
Second is that land may have been owned by families for several generations. It is ironic to consider that while the US is a younger country there is probably a larger percentage of the population who've owned land for several generations than in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 12, 2016 14:31:47 GMT
When some people hear the word politician, they automatically think corruption. When others hear the term "big business" they assume greed and unrestrained capitalism. And when some of us hear "big government" we automatically think power grab and abuse of power.
There are valid reasons why people think this way.
|
|
