Hand gun ownership in the U.S.

[Haversack]

Viola wrote: "One is for fighting...?"

A bit of Basic Training doggerel. You have to unlearn it if you go through Fort Sill or Woolwich.

Haversack,
Former Red Leg.

 

[carebear]

Actually, my concept of a machine gun being "more dangerous" has more to do with controlling the weapon while firing it in automatic mode than in actual output. Someone not trained or experienced in using an automatic weapon would tend to wander off target with the rounds flying indiscriminately. This is one reason the AF trains most of it's personnel to use their M-16s in either semi-auto or "burst" mode, which limits you to three rounds per trigger pull.

Do you consider that there should not be any limit as to size/type of firearm that can be legally owned? How about legally carried?

Cheers,
Tom

Firearm? Nope. As long as a person follows the safety rules and the law all firearms are equally safe. If the safety rules or laws against violent crimes are violated all firearms are equally dangerous.

If someone causes another person harm through negligence or crime with ANY tool that person should be punished for the offense, the tool is almost meaningless.

Setting some arbitrary "this is too dangerous" fails on logic and actual evidence. Either people will obey the law or they won't, there is no way to prevent someone from deciding to do whatever they want. All you can do is maintain a situation where everyone else has at least the opportunity to protect themselves.

There are over 200 million guns lawfully in private hands in this country, from single shot target .22's to cannons and quad-50 truck mounted machineguns.

99.999% of those legal firearms (those held by non-prohibited persons), don't and won't cause any harm at all to anyone.

Again, "gut feelings" and "conventional wisdom" cannot be used as decisive on a topic like this, where not only crime and public policy but the actual foundations of our system of government are the topic. We have to use science and logic.

What studies and logic demonstrate, time and time again, is that restricting access to firearms, of any kind, by the law-abiding will have no statistically significant impact on the negative things (crime and accident) that can happen with weapons. All it can do is set in motion a series of greater and greater restrictions on personal freedom in a vain search for "security".

What works is educating people and punishing offenders (rehabilitating if possible).

As far as "full auto" goes, what situation can you come up with where a person is firing their MG, legally, where having the muzzle rise is an issue where it wouldn't be with a semi? After all, fast semi fire causes muzzle rise as well. If you can't control one you can't control the other.

If they're shooting it in the streets without justification they are already breaking the law, if they are shooting it on a range there should be no harm, unless they violate a safety rule and you don't ban something because one person might violate the rules or you'd be banning everything.

If they are packing a submachinegun for defense, which is legal in some states, and they negligently shoot an innocent because they didn't learn to control their weapon they are undoubtedly the kind of person who wouldn't have learned to shoot a handgun properly as well. And again, the studies on lawful defensive use of handguns by civilians show almost no incidences of wrongful death.

As far as "negligent Joe Sixpack" (which is an arrogant mindset BTW) swinging by the store to buy an MG if the NFA was repealed, or even get the stamp and register one if the GCA '86 were overturned and the registry opened up again, they are not the cheapest things in the world and buying ammo by the case gets spendy. The people who buy them will have to find places to shoot them, and those are getting fewer. As a practical matter they are fun but more of a pain for most folks. it is likely any buyers will be aficianados who spend a little more time and effort on practice, like the specialty weapons now.

 

[Tango Yankee]

General Questions:

Should an individual be required to take formal gun safety training, pass a test, and obtain a license prior to being allowed to purchase/own a firearm?

Should refresher training be required?

Why or why not?

 

[warbird]

One is for fighting...?



-Viola

[bad] naughty naughty. :eusa_clap lol

 

[RIOT]

Should an individual be required to take formal gun safety training, pass a test, and obtain a license prior to being allowed to purchase/own a firearm?

In most instances that is what is required in owning a firearm. Unless you have prior Military or Law Enforcement experience then you pass go.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

I would just like to take a short commercial break to thank the Bartenders for all thier hard work. Threads like this are fun but I'm sure that they keep them on thier toes!

Thanks Again!

Carry on.

 

[carebear]

Should an individual be required to take formal gun safety training, pass a test, and obtain a license prior to being allowed to purchase/own a firearm?

Should refresher training be required?

Why or why not?

No.

First off that would be an infringement on a Constitutional Right not currently required for exercising, say, the right to worship, speak or vote. The standard for allowing the State to require permitting (to infringe) is "compelling public interest".

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, comparing states that require training and permitting to states that do not, whether for purchase or concealed carry show there is, in fact, no evidence that required training or licensing causes any change in either accident or criminal use of firearms (look at the stats for different states with CCW requirements).

Think of it this way, just like tragic house fires or epic pile-ups on the freeways, with modern media we hear about tragic accidents with firearms, especially involving children, all the time. What doesn't get reported is that without any mandatiory training or licensing of any kind firearms accidents have been dropping for decades even as the number of firearms in circulation has increased exponentially.

I do support people getting trained, heck, that's what the NRA's primary purpose was until they were forced to go into politics in response to attacks on law-abiding people. They still offer free training to whoever wants it. In fact, I'd love to see the rules of basic firearm's safety be taught in schools (even if you hate guns it would be good to know how to be safe around one rather than pretend they don't exist), but I do not support mandatory training in any way. It just isn't necessary nor apparently effective.

Making laws that don't do anything simply because they make people feel good is not how our system is supposed to work.

 

[carebear]

In most instances that is what is required in owning a firearm. Unless you have prior Military or Law Enforcement experience then you pass go.

[huh]

Not in most of the United States. As long as you pass your NICS check you typically walk out the door with your firearm, no training or permit/license required.

The number of states that require a permit to simply purchase or possess a gun can be counted on 2 hands. The number that require registration of each firearm owned is about the same.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

[huh]

Not in most of the United States. As long as you pass your NICS check you typically walk out the door with your firearm, no training or permit/license required.

The number of states that require a permit to simply purchase or possess a gun can be counted on 2 hands. The number that require registration of each firearm owned is about the same.

That's the way it is here in Ohio. A quick phone call to make sure the customer is not a nut, and away ya go with the ordnance.

 

[carebear]

That's the way it is here in Ohio. A quick phone call to make sure the customer is not a nut, and away ya go with the ordnance.

The only places I can think of off the top of my head where you have to get a permit to purchase (though I'm pretty sure there are more) are Illinois with its FOID and New York City.

I'll poke around at http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits.

I underestimated., looks like Permit to Purchase of some kind is required in:

Connecticut
DC
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Mass
Mich
Minn
Missouri
Neb
NJ
New York State, and
North Carolina

Note that some of those don't require any particular training nor are they restrictive once you have them.

 

[RIOT]

[huh]

Not in most of the United States. As long as you pass your NICS check you typically walk out the door with your firearm, no training or permit/license required.

The number of states that require a permit to simply purchase or possess a gun can be counted on 2 hands. The number that require registration of each firearm owned is about the same.

Ok, I stand corrected. Not in most States. But it is effective here in my State where you have to have your license/permit in your body at all times even when transporting from home to range. It serves it's purpose.

 

[carebear]

Ok, I stand corrected. Not in most States. But it is effective here in my State where you have to have your license/permit in your body at all times even when transporting from home to range. It serves it's purpose.

Except that NYS doesn't have lower incidences of firearms accidents or violence than states without any permits or training required whatsoever.

It, statistically, doesn't have a purpose. Unless of course the people of New York are somehow essentially different from the residents of, say, Vermont which has never required the law-abiding to have a permit to purchase, possess or even carry concealed weapons.

It's a worldview clash, either people should be trusted with freedom until they prove they can't handle it (libertarianism / classic liberalism) or they should have to prove responsibility to some sort of authority before liberty is deigned to be granted to them (statism / authoritarianism).

 

[jamespowers]

It's a worldview clash, either people should be trusted with freedom until they prove they can't handle it (libertarianism / classic liberalism) or they should have to prove responsibility to some sort of authority before liberty is deigned to be granted to them (statism / authoritarianism).

In short, this is all what it comes down to.
I am looking to see how we can trust people with hands and feet because more people are killed and injured every year with these weapons than any other according to the latest Statistical Abstract of the United States and CIA World Book of Facts.

Regards,

J

 

[Undertow]

In fact, I'd love to see the rules of basic firearm's safety be taught in schools (even if you hate guns it would be good to know how to be safe around one rather than pretend they don't exist)

:eusa_clap Agreed in full. It used to be taught in schools during gym class. Kids need to have an understanding of one of the more prolific tools known to humankind, even if they will never come into contact with a firearm. I know how to drive a manual, but I don't own one nor does anyone I know. However, I wanted to learn how to drive one before I learned an automatic just in case a situation arose.

I can tell you that in Iowa, a permit to purchase only pertains to handguns. You're required to drive down to your county sheriff's office, fill out an app for a permit to purchase and wait about a week. It comes in the mail and you're covered for a year. You can't have had any felonies, domestics, not even drinking charges; you have to be pretty clean.

To purchase shotguns and rifles, stores verify you're not whacko, but no one does a thing at a gun show. You're not required to register shotguns and rifles. We are not a class III state so we aren't allowed to purchase or own sound suppressors, automatics, explosives or certain types of body armor (although I think we can have regular Kevlar vests up to class IIIA).

 

[carebear]

:eusa_clap Agreed in full. It used to be taught in schools during gym class. Kids need to have an understanding of one of the more prolific tools known to humankind, even if they will never come into contact with a firearm. I know how to drive a manual, but I don't own one nor does anyone I know. However, I wanted to learn how to drive one before I learned an automatic just in case a situation arose.

I can tell you that in Iowa, a permit to purchase only pertains to handguns. You're required to drive down to your county sheriff's office, fill out an app for a permit to purchase and wait about a week. It comes in the mail and you're covered for a year. You can't have had any felonies, domestics, not even drinking charges; you have to be pretty clean.

To purchase shotguns and rifles, stores verify you're not whacko, but no one does a thing at a gun show. You're not required to register shotguns and rifles. We are not a class III state so we aren't allowed to purchase or own sound suppressors, automatics, explosives or certain types of body armor (although I think we can have regular Kevlar vests up to class IIIA).

Correction, for those who might think this constitutes a "loophole". There is no mandatory Federal NICS (background) check for private party sales, just like any other private party sale, at any other location, of any other inanimate object. Particular state laws may still apply.

Firearms purchased from a licensed gun dealer always require a NICS background check and must conform to all other Federal laws, wherever purchased.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Apparently the NRA no longer provides free training, though they do point you to people who provide the training for a fee that seems to run between $50 to about $125 with most being in the $100 or so range. At least, in Ohio. The one basic pistol course offered anywhere near me is $100. That's from the NRA web site.

I wouldn't think that requiring training would have an effect on criminal use.

But your basic argument against requiring training is that 1. It's a Constitutional right therefore there should be absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on obtaining or carrying firearms, and 2. We have statistics that prove it wouldn't matter anyway.

Statistics. Well, we all know how statistics can be used by either side of an argument. What they don't show is how many accidents were avoided due to proper training.

Situations change. I doubt very much the Founding Fathers envisioned a future where firearms are not an integral part of daily life for most people and therefore it would not be uncommon for someone to never touch a gun. I doubt they would urge that person to be allowed to purchase a gun and figure it out on their own, hoping they didn't hurt themselves or someone else in the process. But since they didn't foresee it, it's not important.

We require some training and licensing for other activies, such as driving a car or cutting hair, though the training for driving in the U.S. is laughable. When the Constitution was written personal transportation was your feet or a horse, perhaps a horse or horses pulling a wagon or carriage. Basic transportation was taken for granted. Do you think that, if they were able to foresee the automobile becoming the standard mode of basic transportation and the fact that operating one is considered a priviledge and not a right, they would have written into the Constitution the basic right to owning and using your own transportation?

The Founding Fathers, as far-seeing as they were, were not infallible. To claim they were, or to act as though they were, is fallacy. One only has to look at what their definition of who was eligible to vote to see that.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[carebear]

Apparently the NRA no longer provides free training, though they do point you to people who provide the training for a fee that seems to run between $50 to about $125 with most being in the $100 or so range. At least, in Ohio. The one basic pistol course offered anywhere near me is $100. That's from the NRA web site.

I wouldn't think that requiring training would have an effect on criminal use.

But your basic argument against requiring training is that 1. It's a Constitutional right therefore there should be absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on obtaining or carrying firearms, and 2. We have statistics that prove it wouldn't matter anyway.

Statistics. Well, we all know how statistics can be used by either side of an argument. What they don't show is how many accidents were avoided due to proper training.

Situations change. I doubt very much the Founding Fathers envisioned a future where firearms are not an integral part of daily life for most people and therefore it would not be uncommon for someone to never touch a gun. I doubt they would urge that person to be allowed to purchase a gun and figure it out on their own, hoping they didn't hurt themselves or someone else in the process. But since they didn't foresee it, it's not important.

We require some training and licensing for other activies, such as driving a car or cutting hair, though the training for driving in the U.S. is laughable. When the Constitution was written personal transportation was your feet or a horse, perhaps a horse or horses pulling a wagon or carriage. Basic transportation was taken for granted. Do you think that, if they were able to foresee the automobile becoming the standard mode of basic transportation and the fact that operating one is considered a priviledge and not a right, they would have written into the Constitution the basic right to owning and using your own transportation?

The Founding Fathers, as far-seeing as they were, were not infallible. To claim they were, or to act as though they were, is fallacy. One only has to look at what their definition of who was eligible to vote to see that.

Cheers,
Tom

I didn't say there shouldn't be training, I said that under the Constitution as written requiring it on the Federal level doesn't work because, based on the available science, it doesn't rise to the legal level required to authorize a Constitutional restriction. That's Con Law.

Since driving is in fact currently defined as a privilege and is under the jurisdictions of the several states there are fewer restrictrions on what regulations can be put in place. Ditto for cutting hair. In those cases the several states have determined that there is a palpable effect on safety that justifies licensing.

If something has no palpable effect, requiring it is wasted time, effort and resources and distracts from things that actually do have real effects.

As far as the studies go, you are welcome to do your own research and explain why states with otherwise equal laws but with no training required have the same amount of accidents as states that do require training. If training reduces accidents, the rates would be different. That is exactly how you demonstrate there aren't a statistically significant number of accidents prevented; it's not "statistical trickery" that's just raw numbers.

Remember that not everything is or should be a Federal issue.

 

[carebear]

And again, the question is, do we trust people with freedom until they prove they aren't responsible or do we force them to appeal to an authority for permission to live?

Look at how our system is set up, it defines what the government can't do to restrict individuals, it doesn't list what the people can.

 

[Fatdutchman]

I do not believe in licensing rights. They no longer then are rights, but priveleges, granted by government, and able to be revoked by any caprice of the government.

Now, before anyone says "well, we license drivers don't we?". States license drivers only for their USE OF THE PUBLIC ROADS. You do not need a license, nor anything else to own an automobile. Go down to your local dragstrip this weekend, and you will see several cars there that are unlicensed and unregistered!

I've always wanted a machine gun, but could never afford one. It would have to be a BAR too....

They have a yearly machine gun shoot somewhere here in KY, where folks come from all around and bring their mg's from Skorpions to vehicle mounted Gatling guns (which are actually not machine guns, by the way).

 

[Harp]

I've always wanted a machine gun, but could never afford one. It would have to be a BAR too....

...shave-and-a-haircut-twobits; Barber.