United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Rapid]

Actually you have…see definition to liberty above.

This is a complex debate, and "liberty", in this context, is an abstract issue... not something which can be simplified down to a dictionary entry. Yes, the literal meaning of liberty is to not have anyone controlling you. It can be used in that context to define things such as having the liberty to criticize the government. No one ever uses it in a context of total liberty though. You cannot have total liberty as that would mean that you would be living in an anarchy... and as anyone who's lived in a quasi-anarchy (e.g., Somalia) can tell you, when everyone acts like they're free to do whatever they want, there's actually very little liberty to go around. So, sometimes we end up agreeing on restrictions to our liberties, but these restrictions are acceptable when (and only if) they are there to maximize the liberties of law-abiding people.

No disagreement there, but do you know what those duties are?

I do, but you also have to understand that we have a duty to curtail our own liberty (or those of our fellow citizens) when it starts to infringe on that of other people's. If that means temporarily losing the right to bear arms because you've committed a serious enough crime or you're deemed to be a potential danger to others, then that's what it takes.

In both cases, it's either because you've made terrible choices or because you might not be able to help yourself from doing terrible things. When a person loses their right to bear arms... for a good reason like the above... then the liberty of ten folds of others to live freely, without fear, is guaranteed. It's the utilitarian choice.

Okay so you are saying we should send these types of people to prison for a period, allow them back into the population, and then say “oh by the way you can’t do any of this now”? Who is going to enforce it? Why let them out in the first place if they are not able to be trusted with their liberty? I am on the extreme other end to be honest, people who cannot be trusted with their liberties because their crime was so extreme, they should in fact, be put to death. Why keep someone alive, who we know will commit the same crimes? Why pay to keep them imprisoned if we know they can never be released?

So, your solution is to lock up all the mentally ill, and keep everyone who's ever committed a serious crime in prison forever? Some kind of liberty that is. First of all, there are many mentally ill patients who don't need to be in institutions. That being said, they can't handle certain responsibilities, which is why they can't be trusted with certain things, such as the right to drive vehicles... or own a highly deadly weapon.

It's better to take a few liberties away from them than to take ALL of their liberties away from them by locking them up. America and Europe already tried the whole institutionalize/lobotomize-all-the-mentally-ill thing before. Might want to check the history on how that turned out.

Okay so you are saying we should send these types of people to prison for a period, allow them back into the population, and then say “oh by the way you can’t do any of this now”? Who is going to enforce it? Why let them out in the first place if they are not able to be trusted with their liberty? I am on the extreme other end to be honest, people who cannot be trusted with their liberties because their crime was so extreme, they should in fact, be put to death. Why keep someone alive, who we know will commit the same crimes? Why pay to keep them imprisoned if we know they can never be released?

We've made enough advances in criminology to know that rehabilitation is the only solution to many of our problems. I'm not talking about some of the stupid decisions which are regularly taken to release dangerous people back into the public (the people responsible for releasing these reoffenders should be put into prison instead). I mean the kind of normal people who go to prison for something committed in the heat of passion, or the people who actually have a chance of getting back to a normal life.

I don't see the problem with a system where when someone applies for a gun but has a criminal record, said details would have to be considered to determine whether it would be wise to sell that person a gun. This type of system doesn't affect normal, law-abiding citizens at all. Only criminals have to pay for the consequences of their previous actions, and they should already consider themselves lucky enough to have been given another chance in society.

Society isn't black and white... there are many shades of grey between the people who are responsible enough to live in society with their full rights, and those who are a danger to the public and should never be let out.

If my neighbor is diagnosed as psychopath, I expect him to be committed to a mental health treatment facility, by the courts, and treated for his/her illness. I do not expect to see that neighbor again until they have been successfully treated for said illness.

I gave an extreme example to make a point, but like I said, there are plenty of other mentally ill patients who shouldn't really be institutionalized but who aren't exactly responsible enough to have certain rights. There are tons of people who fall into this category, and locking them up would do zero good because they're already properly integrated into society.

However, I really don’t see how suspending his/her liberty, while not institutionalizing him/her is supposed to make me safe.

Because these people are of little or no danger to you in 99.999% of cases and situations. Give them a gun, however, and that could quickly change. I mean, you might as well be arguing for babies to have the right to bear arms. They're obviously not responsible enough, so does that mean that we should lock them up too? Or are they only 'dangerous' if you give them the right to do something which comes with responsibilities they obviously can't handle?

Maybe I am a bit ignorant, but I believe as part of my duties in sustaining my liberties, is providing protection for myself and family. Thus I keep a gun on me at all times, in case one of my neighbor (or anyone for that matter) turns out to be a homicidal psychopath. Furthermore, It becomes a non-issue if everyone would take personal responsibility for their own and families safety and arm themselves.

This is great and all, but unless you've developed a way to clone yourself, then you can't possibly be there with your family (every member of it) at all times. And even when you are, you can be flanked. Not to mention that many other people just aren't proficient enough to protect their families properly, without even going into the topic of what other collateral they could cause (e.g., see cases of people protecting their homes but accidentally killing family members). Those aren't excuses though; people should always be ready to take their protection into their own hands. However, because of all that, it'd be nice to just limit deadly situations in the first place.

And to reiterate one last time, I only believe in enforcing proper safe-keeping, the reporting of missing weapons, and restrictions against those who aren't responsible enough to hold the right to bear arms. Everything else goes. I actually wish that more people would/could own firearms (whether pistols or full blown assault rifles), carry concealed, etc.

Anyway, I guess I can sum up my point by just saying that this whole 'give me total, unrestricted gun rights or nothing' is total fantasy (spoiler: you'll never get your way) which will do more harm to gun rights than anything else. We live in a society, and in a society we need to make compromises. Gun owners should be the first to show themselves responsible and willing to impose certain restrictions if it protects the liberties of others (at no cost to themselves, apart from the criminals who already made their choices and those who can't hold those responsibilities).

Anyone who truly cares about gun rights, and who can see this looming danger over the horizon, needs to know that the only way to protect gun rights is by being realistic. Otherwise, the anti-gun people will grow much, much larger in strength. More and more people on the fence will go over to them (you're already getting influential pro-gun people going over the fence), and then you'll be left with close to nothing, unless gun owners really start supporting intelligent efforts which could limit senseless killings without fundamentally infringing on the crucial right to bear arms.

 

[Gypsy]

Morgan is a tool.

How many times can it be said...an armed society is a polite society. If a shooter knows there is a gun restricted area, he/she has not much to worry about at least for the first several minutes of the shooting spree. If he/she knows one or several people could be carrying it may deter their actions. I'd take those odds.

 

[JBS]

The bottom line is assault rifles amongst the population equals a form of empowerment that guarantees the ability for citizens to revolt, foment revolution and reclaim a runaway government, were such a thing to ever occur. The very fact that the population is heavily armed acts as a deterrent to any coup or conspiracy.

But let's redefine the debate here for a moment. What is the justification for seizing assault rifles? Lay out the rationale. Saying they aren't needed isn't good enough. You do not seize from the population whatever is arbitrarily deemed necessary. If that were the case, in it's purest form, such an argument would render the population as authorized to possess only food, water, and shelter since only those three are "necessary" for survival.

 

[Chopstick]

I came across this tidbit when I was on Google looking for something else. Does anyone know the outcome if any? Was this a straw purchase? How is it that Sarah Brady, THE gun control advocate would buy a gun and then give it to someone else, I wonder?
http://gunowners.org/pr0203.htm

SPRINGFIELD, VA - Gun Owners of America today awarded Sarah Brady's son, Scott, an honorary one-year GOA membership.

"Now that Scott Brady is the proud owner of a high-powered 'sniper' rifle, he will most certainly need a fuller understanding of the Second Amendment than he ever received at home," said Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America.

In her recent book, Sarah Brady admits to having engaged in a straw purchase when she bought a .30-06 on her son's behalf, allowing him to avoid the required criminal background check.

"We congratulate Scott for keeping his name 'off paper.' Because the gun was bought under his mother's name, he completely avoided the NICS registration system. This means authorities will never know he has the sniper rifle, a benefit which reduces the possibility that his gun could ever be confiscated by authorities.

"Registration and confiscation have been problems even in this country. New York City registered long guns in the mid-1960s, after promising those registration lists would never be used to confiscate the guns," Pratt said. "But in 1991, Handgun Control, Inc., supported the city when it banned many of the very guns which were previously registered. Some homes even received visits from police, who confiscated the banned firearms from the clutches of non- compliant gun owners."

According to published press reports, Sarah Brady's straw purchase may have been illegal under Delaware law.

 

[Marine0311]

My Congressman has yet to reply back. I replied the first time back to him in the style of JBS, JAB and Rapid.

I disagree, and I can see it coming over, with mass punishment type of laws. The focus should be on mental health, rather than firearms themselves. I do agree that no right should be absolute however one restriction leads to another, and another, and another which would infringe on the rights of those who obey the law and, I am sure, value the Constitution.

 

[AWP]

I can see it coming over, with mass punishment type of laws.

Marines should be used to that.

"Some asshole in Okinawa did something on libo and we're locked down for it?"
"Yeah."
"We're in North Carolina."

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

This is a complex debate, and "liberty", in this context, is an abstract issue... not something which can be simplified down to a dictionary entry. Yes, the literal meaning of liberty is to not have anyone controlling you. It can be used in that context to define things such as having the liberty to criticize the government. No one ever uses it in a context of total liberty though. You cannot have total liberty as that would mean that you would be living in an anarchy... and as anyone who's lived in a quasi-anarchy (e.g., Somalia) can tell you, when everyone acts like they're free to do whatever they want, there's actually very little liberty to go around. So, sometimes we end up agreeing on restrictions to our liberties, but these restrictions are acceptable when (and only if) they are there to maximize the liberties of law-abiding people.

I think this really where the disconnect is, if the words written down are not of the proper definition (as you imply) than how is anyone supposed to really know what they mean? I disagree with you on the premises that the constitution is written in such a way that it must be decoded to understand its true meaning. It actually is spelled out in plain English, so that the common man can understand it. You were spot on with your other post “your liberty stops where another person’s liberty begins” but what you are failing to realize is that Justice is no determined by the masses, it is decided by the court and a small group of the individuals peers.


I do, but you also have to understand that we have a duty to curtail our own liberty (or those of our fellow citizens) when it starts to infringe on that of other people's. If that means temporarily losing the right to bear arms because you've committed a serious enough crime or you're deemed to be a potential danger to others, then that's what it takes.

Okay but if they are not in a prison, what is going to stop them from obtaining that weapon through illegal means. If the person is a criminal and can’t be trusted in society than no amount of laws restricting gun ownership will stop them from getting a gun.

In both cases, it's either because you've made terrible choices or because you might not be able to help yourself from doing terrible things. When a person loses their right to bear arms... for a good reason like the above... then the liberty of ten folds of others to live freely, without fear, is guaranteed. It's the utilitarian choice.


No that is false security, they are not any safer, they are not anymore protected.

So, your solution is to lock up all the mentally ill, and keep everyone who's ever committed a serious crime in prison forever?

If they cannot be TRUSTED in society, then yes, or put to death.

Some kind of liberty that is.

Its called justice.

First of all, there are many mentally ill patients who don't need to be in institutions. That being said, they can't handle certain responsibilities, which is why they can't be trusted with certain things, such as the right to drive vehicles... or own a highly deadly weapon.

Again if they cannot be trusted than why let them out?

It's better to take a few liberties away from them than to take ALL of their liberties away from them by locking them up.

That is silly, it's kind of like having a drivers license with restrictions. Who is going to enforce them?

America and Europe already tried the whole institutionalize/lobotomize-all-the-mentally-ill thing before. Might want to check the history on how that turned out.


We've made enough advances in criminology to know that rehabilitation is the only solution to many of our problems. I'm not talking about some of the stupid decisions which are regularly taken to release dangerous people back into the public (the people responsible for releasing these reoffenders should be put into prison instead). I mean the kind of normal people who go to prison for something committed in the heat of passion, or the people who actually have a chance of getting back to a normal life.

Again it comes down to the individual having the trust of the people to remain in society. We have judges, lawyers and jury’s who decides if someone can be trusted. If they cannot be trusted, then adding restriction but unsupervised to a person who cannot be trusted is simply stupid.

I don't see the problem with a system where when someone applies for a gun but has a criminal record, said details would have to be considered to determine whether it would be wise to sell that person a gun.

I do, because that persons rights are either restored or they are not. Some ATF or FBI agent should not be able to decide that, again that is for the judge and jury to decide. If someone is in prison, on probation/parol than they rights have not been restored. However, if they are now free from all restrictions (i.e. they paid for their crime and are now trusted again), why would we not allow them to own a gun?

This type of system doesn't affect normal, law-abiding citizens at all. Only criminals have to pay for the consequences of their previous actions, and they should already consider themselves lucky enough to have been given another chance in society.

We already have this in place. It dosent stop anything or change it.

Society isn't black and white...

No but our laws are.

there are many shades of grey between the people who are responsible enough to live in society with their full rights, and those who are a danger to the public and should never be let out.

Not really, they are either trusted or they are not.


I gave an extreme example to make a point, but like I said, there are plenty of other mentally ill patients who shouldn't really be institutionalized but who aren't exactly responsible enough to have certain rights. There are tons of people who fall into this category, and locking them up would do zero good because they're already properly integrated into society.

Again trusted is trusted...Either we do or we dont, if we don't they have no reason to be out in society. Making added gun laws wont stop them from getting a gun, or a knife, or picking up a rock, etc.

Because these people are of little or no danger to you in 99.999% of cases and situations. Give them a gun, however, and that could quickly change. I mean, you might as well be arguing for babies to have the right to bear arms.

Really?

They're obviously not responsible enough, so does that mean that we should lock them up too? Or are they only 'dangerous' if you give them the right to do something which comes with responsibilities they obviously can't handle?

Parents make that choice until they become a legal adult.

This is great and all, but unless you've developed a way to clone yourself, then you can't possibly be there with your family (every member of it) at all times.

I did, hints my children and the reason I choose to teach them young about guns vs hiding them and living in fantasy land.

And even when you are, you can be flanked.

The world is not perfect, we do the best we can.

Not to mention that many other people just aren't proficient enough to protect their families properly, without even going into the topic of what other collateral they could cause (e.g., see cases of people protecting their homes but accidentally killing family members).

You do not get to decide that.

Those aren't excuses though;
Yes they are excuses.

people should always be ready to take their protection into their own hands. However, because of all that, it'd be nice to just limit deadly situations in the first place.

WTF? Dude did you really write that?

And to reiterate one last time, I only believe in enforcing proper safe-keeping, the reporting of missing weapons, and restrictions against those who aren't responsible enough to hold the right to bear arms. Everything else goes. I actually wish that more people would/could own firearms (whether pistols or full blown assault rifles), carry concealed, etc.

1) you can't enforce "safe keeping" you can only punish those who did not follow the law.
2) people already report stolen property, if they know about it. A lot of if's...
3) like probation, parol or being in prison (they already are not allowed to buy guns) but again it has not worked.

Anyway, I guess I can sum up my point by just saying that this whole 'give me total, unrestricted gun rights or nothing' is total fantasy (spoiler: you'll never get your way) which will do more harm to gun rights than anything else. We live in a society, and in a society we need to make compromises. Gun owners should be the first to show themselves responsible and willing to impose certain restrictions if it protects the liberties of others (at no cost to themselves, apart from the criminals who already made their choices and those who can't hold those responsibilities).

I disagree, and I don't see why my rights should be restricted (I am not the one who broke the law). I already have it my way. So lawful gun owners should restric themselves for crimes they did not commit? Nah, I will fight to keep my rights.

Anyone who truly cares about gun rights, and who can see this looming danger over the horizon, needs to know that the only way to protect gun rights is by being realistic fighting for those rights.

Fixed it for you.


Otherwise, the anti-gun people will grow much, much larger in strength. More and more people on the fence will go over to them (you're already getting influential pro-gun people going over the fence), and then you'll be left with close to nothing, unless gun owners really start supporting intelligent efforts which could limit senseless killings without fundamentally infringing on the crucial right to bear arms.

Man we just need to agree to disagree at this point.

 

[SgtUSMC8541]

NY is screwed... I have a "friend" in the AG office they said it looks like the NY Law will get passed. All pre-ban mags are gone. All 10 round mags for pistol and rifle are gone... all mags down to 7 rounds max. AR rifles may get outlawed by name. No selling of AR type rifles or transferring of them. You die, the state takes them.

 

[parallel]

You die, the state takes them.

I'd move in a heartbeat.

 

[parallel]

Man, I just shake my head these days with so many people passionately debating on how to achieve the unachievable. This is a flawed world, one would say by design if your faith is the same as mine, and that will NEVER change by the doings of man. Even if you believe that we are just a mistake of biochemistry, the fact remains that there will ALWAYS be evil in this world and evil can only be defeated by force. Infringing on the rights bestowed to us by birth in the futile attempt to stop evil people from doing evil things is a recipe for even MORE of the same.

 

[Casimir]

Man there have been a lot of posts about this, and I know I'm chiming in late.

A couple of things that I wouldn't be opposed to discussing as a requisite to gun ownership/concealed carry

1: better instruction than is currently available in most CCW classes. I don't know about other states, but the classes that I've seen at civilian ranges or been part of in this part of Texas were terrible at minimum. Sure, on paper they look like they would be 'acceptable' in the eyes of a regulatory agency, but I've witnessed people show up with a 38 revolver and a box of 9mm shells. When their shooting is put to the test they're sort of 'coached' into shooting bare minimum to get their CCW and leave the range feeling empowered. I think that's dangerous.

2: I don't think it would be unreasonable to require some type of hard storage such as a combination or biometric safe. It's a good idea to begin with and one that any responsible person ought to exercise, but I would bet money that there are a shocking number of folks who don't. *this is not to say that the gun MUST, by law, be locked up at all times as it might appear. I have a safe and I keep my personal weapon within arms reach when I'm at home and lock them up when I leave the house sans the one on my person. I don't have kids either, so it's easier for me.

3: I also don't think it would be unreasonable to require some basic type of insurance.

4: Based on some of the skill (or rather, lack thereof) of most of the people I've worked with or shot with for recreation, I am not opposed to annual, or preferably, semi annual or even quarterly qualifications of some sort to assess the skill level of a CCW holder.

5: In addition to #4, I think if someone wants to carry on their person in public they ought to go through some type of stress shoot program. Standing on line, 20 yards from a target max, not moving and having to hit a man sized target and being allowed to miss excessively would never compare to an actual incident. What is it something like 50% of accuracy and fine motor skills is degraded under duress?

I'm purposely not referring to issues having to do with the second amendment and mental health. They've been beat to death so far and anything I might have added has already been covered. The above are just some things I wouldn't be opposed to discussing with some type of lawmaker.

As far as 'assault rifles' are concerned, I am in total agreement with everyone on here that is pro rifle: They weren't designed solely for 'sporting' or hunting purposes and they absolutely serve a purpose in civilian hands.

I'm most fed up with the way media and ignorant lawmakers are approaching this issue. I'm sure many of you have noticed that the majority of anti-gun people don't know shit about the weapons they are trying to ban and are reacting out of emotion and 'boogey man' tactics. Our media is mostly to blame.

 

[parallel]

The problem with Congress is that we have Congressmen (and Women) who think things like; putting more troops and equipment on the island of Guam might... CAPSIZE the island. As you probably already know that was said at a House Armed Services Committee by Congressman Hank Johnson. THIS is who we're supposed to believe know what's best for us.

 

[moobob]

I read a report a while back that said easy gun availability increases murder rates, but not the overall violent crime rate.

I can believe that. I also don't give a shit. If we have to put up with a higher violent crime rate in exchange for having more freedoms than just about anywhere else in the world, I'll take it. Plus, being a crime victim is largely voluntary. People have the option to arm themselves, don't, and wonder how a mass murderer can off almost 30 people.

 

[Casimir]

The problem with Congress is that we have Congressmen (and Women) who think things like; putting more troops and equipment on the island of Guam might... CAPSIZE the island. As you probably already know that was said at a House Armed Services Committee by Congressman Hank Johnson. THIS is who we're supposed to believe know what's best for us.

you're kidding? I suppose this illustrates another major problem in the US...there is an enormous disconnect between the people and the politicians. They (the politicians) basically believe and do whatever they want under the guise that it's 'for the people', however the people have very little to say about it. On another note, too many people in the US are of the mind 'Well, nothing I can do about it' and just shrug off major issues.

Watching the movie 'The Campaign' earlier kind of had me shaking my head. Ya, it's a funny movie, but it's not far off the mark in terms of some of the crap these guys did to one another and what they truly represented (mostly Farrell's character)

 

[policemedic]

NY is screwed... I have a "friend" in the AG office they said it looks like the NY Law will get passed. All pre-ban mags are gone. All 10 round mags for pistol and rifle are gone... all mags down to 7 rounds max. AR rifles may get outlawed by name. No selling of AR type rifles or transferring of them. You die, the state takes them.

And if something this stupid actually becomes law, the gun companies need to sack up and follow Barrett's example. When CA banned 50 BMG, Barrett said fine...we're not selling you any, and we're not servicing any rifles you already have (this included municipal PDs like LAPD).

They could also simply change their business model and level the playing field. For example, if Glock is forced to sell pistols with 7-round magazines, then it would probably be cheaper to only make one type of magazine instead of both a low-capacity and normal capacity magazine. So, here you go NYPD...enjoy those 7-round mags. What's good for the goose...

 

[0699]

I'm going to throw out an extreme thought to try and make a point. Bear with me...

Man there have been a lot of posts about this, and I know I'm chiming in late.

A couple of things that I wouldn't be opposed to discussing as a requisite to gun ownership/concealed carry

1: better instruction than is currently available in most CCW classes. I don't know about other states, but the classes that I've seen at civilian ranges or been part of in this part of Texas were terrible at minimum. Sure, on paper they look like they would be 'acceptable' in the eyes of a regulatory agency, but I've witnessed people show up with a 38 revolver and a box of 9mm shells. When their shooting is put to the test they're sort of 'coached' into shooting bare minimum to get their CCW and leave the range feeling empowered. I think that's dangerous.

2: I don't think it would be unreasonable to require some type of hard storage such as a combination or biometric safe. It's a good idea to begin with and one that any responsible person ought to exercise, but I would bet money that there are a shocking number of folks who don't. *this is not to say that the gun MUST, by law, be locked up at all times as it might appear. I have a safe and I keep my personal weapon within arms reach when I'm at home and lock them up when I leave the house sans the one on my person. I don't have kids either, so it's easier for me.

3: I also don't think it would be unreasonable to require some basic type of insurance.

4: Based on some of the skill (or rather, lack thereof) of most of the people I've worked with or shot with for recreation, I am not opposed to annual, or preferably, semi annual or even quarterly qualifications of some sort to assess the skill level of a CCW holder.

5: In addition to #4, I think if someone wants to carry on their person in public they ought to go through some type of stress shoot program. Standing on line, 20 yards from a target max, not moving and having to hit a man sized target and being allowed to miss excessively would never compare to an actual incident. What is it something like 50% of accuracy and fine motor skills is degraded under duress?

I'm purposely not referring to issues having to do with the second amendment and mental health. They've been beat to death so far and anything I might have added has already been covered. The above are just some things I wouldn't be opposed to discussing with some type of lawmaker.

As far as 'assault rifles' are concerned, I am in total agreement with everyone on here that is pro rifle: They weren't designed solely for 'sporting' or hunting purposes and they absolutely serve a purpose in civilian hands.

I'm most fed up with the way media and ignorant lawmakers are approaching this issue. I'm sure many of you have noticed that the majority of anti-gun people don't know shit about the weapons they are trying to ban and are reacting out of emotion and 'boogey man' tactics. Our media is mostly to blame.

All your numbered items above, now make them apply to the 1st Ammendment. Still sound good?

And for those of you that argue free speech never killed anyone, I would argue that the Communist Manifesto, the Declaration of Independence, the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, and Mein Kampf killed more people than all the guns in the US put together...

 

[JBS]

Casimir:

Before I reply, just know there's nothing personal here, no disrespect, but definitely disagree with most of your post.

1: better instruction than is currently available in most CCW classes. I don't know about other states, but the classes that I've seen at civilian ranges or been part of in this part of Texas were terrible at minimum. Sure, on paper they look like they would be 'acceptable' in the eyes of a regulatory agency, but I've witnessed people show up with a 38 revolver and a box of 9mm shells. When their shooting is put to the test they're sort of 'coached' into shooting bare minimum to get their CCW and leave the range feeling empowered. I think that's dangerous.

If it is "dangerous" then statistics should back up your opinion. They do not. I would rethink my opinion.

If there are "shit" instructors, they are probably outnumbered 1000-to-1 by decently qualified, enthusiastic instructors, themselves dedicated to firearms. And the statistics support that statement. A sea of "shit" instructors would yield weekly or monthly news reports of CCW classes with accidental/negligent shootings in them. These classes run 7 days a week all over the country. Where are the news reports?

2: I don't think it would be unreasonable to require some type of hard storage such as a combination or biometric safe. It's a good idea to begin with and one that any responsible person ought to exercise, but I would bet money that there are a shocking number of folks who don't. *this is not to say that the gun MUST, by law, be locked up at all times as it might appear. I have a safe and I keep my personal weapon within arms reach when I'm at home and lock them up when I leave the house sans the one on my person. I don't have kids either, so it's easier for me.

How do you enforce that? Home inspection? DANGEROUS idea with 5,000 pages of new legislation required to establish dimensions, accessibility, material density, and all the other horseshit minutia that bureacracy loves to cultivate.

3: I also don't think it would be unreasonable to require some basic type of insurance.

You must be in possession of statistics that state this is a national problem? Shootings where medical care can't be obtained? Or are you talking about liability? Again, then you must have data that is compelling you to hold this position. Opinions that are not supported by data are merely emotional knee-jerk reactions of the type that has sustained this gun debate for days now on our 24/7 media. We, as professional military, LEO's, and security professionals, should be more responsible.

4: Based on some of the skill (or rather, lack thereof) of most of the people I've worked with or shot with for recreation, I am not opposed to annual, or preferably, semi annual or even quarterly qualifications of some sort to assess the skill level of a CCW holder.

This is insanity. There are concealed carry holders who carry featherweight hammerless 6 shot "ABSOLUTE LAST STAND" pistols in their purses, designed to be used at a range of 24 inches, as they are being pushed to the ground by a rapist. NOBODY needs to go to the range 4 times a year to practice how to point a pistol like this and squeeze the trigger. It's idiot proof. You point, and shoot.

We have 55,000 people a year that die in alcohol related accidents every year, and 27 people shot in a random nutcase shooting. If you really want to save lives, why don't you call for drunk driving classes for all registered drivers every 3 months?

5: In addition to #4, I think if someone wants to carry on their person in public they ought to go through some type of stress shoot program. Standing on line, 20 yards from a target max, not moving and having to hit a man sized target and being allowed to miss excessively would never compare to an actual incident. What is it something like 50% of accuracy and fine motor skills is degraded under duress?

Again, think about the 110 lbs. woman with a 2-shot Derringer in her purse. She's got that weapon as an absolute LAST resort, without the psychological makeup to engage an active shooter in a shopping mall/theater. She's legally carrying with the sole, express purpose of whipping it out as she is being tackled in a deserted parking lot by a rapist, and all the training she needs is how to make it go "boom".

Many of the standards you are referring to belong in the security industry, not in the public sector. It's just not needed, would be an enormous burden, and as evidence of that, I submit to you the total and complete absence of any statistics suggesting that Concealed Carry permit holders are just lighting up Circle-K's and Applebees with poorly placed shots.

Reality is it's just not happening.

 

[SgtUSMC8541]

And if something this stupid actually becomes law, the gun companies need to sack up and follow Barrett's example. When CA banned 50 BMG, Barrett said fine...we're not selling you any, and we're not servicing any rifles you already have (this included municipal PDs like LAPD).

They could also simply change their business model and level the playing field. For example, if Glock is forced to sell pistols with 7-round magazines, then it would probably be cheaper to only make one type of magazine instead of both a low-capacity and normal capacity magazine. So, here you go NYPD...enjoy those 7-round mags. What's good for the goose...

They might also try to push micro-stamping as well. Kimber and Remington have both said they they will move from NY if it goes through.

 

[rockclimber]

I read a report a while back that said easy gun availability increases murder rates, but not the overall violent crime rate.

I can believe that. I also don't give a shit. If we have to put up with a higher violent crime rate in exchange for having more freedoms than just about anywhere else in the world, I'll take it. Plus, being a crime victim is largely voluntary. People have the option to arm themselves, don't, and wonder how a mass murderer can off almost 30 people.

Can you elaborate on how one might extrapolate "having more freedom than anywhere else in the world" from being able to purchase and own guns legally and with relative ease?

 

[TH15]

The NRA is having their big news conference right now. I think the guy is doing a good job, and he's gotten a few shots in at the media right to their face.
A woman did jump up with a sign and started screaming that the "NRA has blood on their hands" and to ban assault rifles. She was swiftly escorted out.

He's calling for Congress to put armed police officers in every school in the nation.