Gun Ownership is a Privilege, Not a Right

[jimbob]

I'd be willing to concede training as a requirement if, and only if, the states paid for it. PA does it right, in order to get a hunting license you have to take a short hunter safety course. It's free.

However, I don't have any reason to believe that such training courses will improve anything involving crimes or firearm fatalities. The problem is not that citizens are handling their guns unsafely.

And the US posters complain that the Europeans are proponents of the nanny state?

Do you have state-funded driving lessons?

Actually in the UK when the driving test was introduced, it was applied only to those who started to drive after a certain date - when I started to drive in the 1990s there were still elderly drivers who had never needed to take a driving test.

I guess something similar could be applied in the US if one wanted to minimise disruption.

 

[shawmutt]

And the US posters complain that the Europeans are proponents of the nanny state?

Do you have state-funded driving lessons?

We have a motorcycle safety course that is paid for by the state, I'm not sure about the cars.

 

[Kestrel]

Some good points. Thank you.

Data on household ownership of firearms and reasons for owning guns were collected as part of the International Crime Victims Survey. The US is a clear outlier when compared to other first world industrialized democracies.

 

[Kestrel]

Actually in the UK when the driving test was introduced, it was applied only to those who started to drive after a certain date - when I started to drive in the 1990s there were still elderly drivers who had never needed to take a driving test.

The same was true in the US. My grandfather took his first driving test at age 92 after moving to Colorado. Up to that point, he had never needed to take a test.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'd be willing to concede training as a requirement if, and only if, the states paid for it. PA does it right, in order to get a hunting license you have to take a short hunter safety course. It's free.

However, I don't have any reason to believe that such training courses will improve anything involving crimes or firearm fatalities. The problem is not that citizens are handling their guns unsafely.

A short comment here.
Every state that I am aware of which issues CCPs requires ( among other things) a certificate indicating the applicant has successfully completed a firearms training course. The standard regimen is an NRA certified course, which (IMO, and I am an expert on the subject), is a very good entry level program. AT least one state (Georgia) will accept a DD-214 (Military Discharge Certificate) provided that it is under Honorable Conditions, and specifically indicates completion of a firearms training program.
In short Bisquits requirement of training indicates only that he has not bothered to acquire the minimum amount of study to make a comment that is anything but personal opinion not based on fact.
You are most correct: the problem is not that citizens are handling their guns incorrectly ( and I am referring to CCW holders).
By far CCW holders are the safest, most law abiding citizens in the country. The VPC, probably the most fanatic anti-gun group in the US reports that in a five year period there were 370 deaths in the US attributable to CCP holders. That's out of a little more than 8 million CCP holders. Worse the VPC is very vague about how many of that 370 were justifiable shootings.
It doesn't take a PhD in Mathematics to figure this one out. 8million holders, 370 deaths, 5 year time frame (that's 74 deaths per year).
Got a calculator?

 

[Dcdrac]

Bottom line is there is going to be a tightening up of Gun regs in the US once all the horse trading in Congress is done, realistically speaking it is only now down to matter of what form they take, I suspect a few loophole will closed as a bare minimum.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

That nicely punishes current and new law-abiding gun owners.
What do you propose for those who are already armed and not law-abiding? Lacking a realistic solution to that I find your proposal a non-starter.

How is that punishment? ETA: I have not proposed banning any gun, ammo, clip, or magazine. I have proposed education, training, and licensing. How is creating better, smarter gun owners a punishment? We have a right to bear arms but a responsibility to do it intelligently.

Ah, but you did.

Mandatory training, licensing, and qualifying for gun owners would be a great start. Lets teach people about guns and instill a respect for them instead of our current glorification of them. Then ban everything except single shot bolt action hunting rifles from leaving the home for any extended period. If you are taking your guns to the range you go straight there and straight home where they are locked in a safe. If you absolutely have to carry a gun with you at all times then you need a damn good reason and a whole lot of training and qualifying.

Your idea effectively guts the 2nd Amendment.It also flies in the face of the US Supreme Court ( see DC vs Heller) This is nothing more than a word game on your part.
If all firearms except single shot hunting rifles must be kept in a locked safe, how are they to be employed for the lawful use of defending one's person, loved ones, home or business? Do home invasion crews have a "three minute rule" that I am unaware of?
How do you defend yourself from a car jacking?
How do you protect yourself or an innocent third party during an attack on the street?
You claim that it is the pro 2nd Amendment faction that sits on a rhetorical perch and refuses to address compromise, but in fact, as your posts clearly indicate, your idea of addressing the issue in an objective manner actually consists of knuckling under to your draconian ideas of gun control that are based purely on hysterical, illogical reaction.
This is further demonstrated by your lack of including any reasonable, logical explanation as to how this would affect lawful use more than unlawful use.
Careful now, that perch you're sitting on is beginning to wobble.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Bottom line is there is going to be a tightening up of Gun regs in the US once all the horse trading in Congress is done, realistically speaking it is only now down to matter of what form they take, I suspect a few loophole will closed as a bare minimum.

I'm curious. How is any tightening up of the gun regs, even the tightest of them, going to reduce crime?
We currently have more gun regs than you can shake a stick at. They've been expanded and expanded regularly for the last 80 odd years, and not a single one of them can be factually proven to have made any demonstrative difference. This may come as a surprise to you but criminals, by definition, have a disregard for the law.

 

[Dcdrac]

UK has tight gun controls and only 0.3% off all crimes here invovled a firearm in 2010/2011

 

[Bikewer]

There's the rub, eh? I can see that increased regulation and training might well have an effect on perhaps accidental shootings, which are often due to utter incompetence (and alcohol).
But to think that this would have any effect on gun-related crime seems fantasy at best. Criminals don't purchase weapons through legal channels, register them, or do anything of the sort.
As pointed out many times during these threads, many of the perpetrators of various mass killings and rage killings and whatever were legally in possession of the firearms used, or they were legally in the possession of a family member.
The people involved in the "going postal" type of rage killing are often normal, stable, responsible citizens who "snap" under the viscisitudes of life. They may have had weapons for many years prior and used them only for perfectly legal purposes.

This is likely to be the case with suicides as well... Most people with suicidal ideation do not tend to go out and go through the process of legally buying a firearm... They tend to use what's available. If there's a gun around the house and they are serious, then that's what they are going to use.
No gun? Hanging or driving into a bridge abuttment or whatever is pretty handy as well.

I seem to recall some highway-safety expert surmise that perhaps 20% of single-car accidents involving "structures" may be suicides. They are almost never classified as such, unless the individual leaves a note.

 

[Dcdrac]

Source figures for UK firearms offences

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

"
Summary
The latest quarterly crime statistics for England and Wales for the period to September 2011 were released in January 2012.1
Provisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year.
Detailed information relating to firearm offences is published in annual bulletins by the Home Office and Scottish Government.2 The headline data for 2010/11 is summarised below:"

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

UK has tight gun controls and only 0.3% off all crimes here invovled a firearm in 2010/2011

If that was a response to my post above, then you are either being disingenuous or are woefully misinformed.
You mention only crimes involving a firearm as if they were the only crimes that exist.
In fact Britain has the worst crime problem in Europe, worse even than in the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

So again, how does disarming lawful citizens reduce the crime rate?

 

[lionking]

If that was a response to my post above, then you are either being disingenuous or are woefully misinformed.
You mention only crimes involving a firearm as if they were the only crimes that exist.
In fact Britain has the worst crime problem in Europe, worse even than in the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

So again, how does disarming lawful citizens reduce the crime rate?

Citing the Daily Mail any time over anything is an automatic fail.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Citing the Daily Mail any time over anything is an automatic fail.

So is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. It doesn't matter if the Daily Mail consists entirely of a skyscraper full of monkeys arbitrarily smacking the keys to a word processor, you must refute the finding of the article, not the author.
Apparently they are not the only news source who has come to the same conclusion:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html
http://www.ukcrimestats.com/National_Picture/

Worse for your case, the UN study they refer to is online.
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html

The Daily Mail may be a rotten newspaper, but as we say here in the US," Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut."

 

[RandFan]

I'm curious. How is any tightening up of the gun regs, even the tightest of them, going to reduce crime?
We currently have more gun regs than you can shake a stick at. They've been expanded and expanded regularly for the last 80 odd years, and not a single one of them can be factually proven to have made any demonstrative difference. This may come as a surprise to you but criminals, by definition, have a disregard for the law.

Then what is the purpose of the law?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So again, how does disarming lawful citizens reduce the crime rate?

It reduces the rate of gun specific crime. It is why the UK with the worst crime rate in europe has less than one person in ten thousand killed by a gun, as oppossed to the three point something people per ten thousand who die in gun related crimes in the US.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Then what is the purpose of the law?

Apparently there is none. The argument seems to be that criminals will ignore it so...er.... ???

 

[Biscuit]

In short Bisquits requirement of training indicates only that he has not bothered to acquire the minimum amount of study to make a comment that is anything but personal opinion not based on fact.

You want some facts? The state of AZ dropped any and all requirement for a legal gun owner to carry concealed. Heck you can even take guns into bars here. No training, no licensing, no requirements. This was done through laws written by the NRA and ALEC. I don't know a single gun owner, myself included, that thought this was a good idea, do you?

Despite your condescending and all out rejection of my proposals I have been familiar with guns, gun laws, and gun training for nearly 2 decades now. I see you have no actual objection to requiring gun training and safety courses. You simply oppose any and all changes to how guns are acquired as a matter of principle.

that is anything but personal opinion not based on fact.

As for this gem, you asked me for my personal opinion on how gun laws should be changed and you promised to listen. Instead you fault me for providing my personal opinion on how we should approach the problem. How very honest of you.

 

[Biscuit]

Ah, but you did.


Your idea effectively guts the 2nd Amendment.It also flies in the face of the US Supreme Court ( see DC vs Heller) This is nothing more than a word game on your part.
If all firearms except single shot hunting rifles must be kept in a locked safe, how are they to be employed for the lawful use of defending one's person, loved ones, home or business? Do home invasion crews have a "three minute rule" that I am unaware of?
How do you defend yourself from a car jacking?
How do you protect yourself or an innocent third party during an attack on the street?
You claim that it is the pro 2nd Amendment faction that sits on a rhetorical perch and refuses to address compromise, but in fact, as your posts clearly indicate, your idea of addressing the issue in an objective manner actually consists of knuckling under to your draconian ideas of gun control that are based purely on hysterical, illogical reaction.
This is further demonstrated by your lack of including any reasonable, logical explanation as to how this would affect lawful use more than unlawful use.
Careful now, that perch you're sitting on is beginning to wobble.

I like how you ignore the part in the first sentence that said, "...Would be a great start." You then ignore the last sentence that said you could could carry if you have a reason and additional training. You still failed to show how education and training is a punishment.

Does wearing blinders on your perch help you balance better?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

It reduces the rate of gun specific crime. It is why the UK with the worst crime rate in europe has less than one person in ten thousand killed by a gun, as oppossed to the three point something people per ten thousand who die in gun related crimes in the US.

I'm not sure I follow you Tom.
Could you provide us with some statistics that support your conclusion?
I think it would be very easy to show where the rate of gun specific crime was reduced by a total ban in a country where there was no massive number of privately (legally) owned firearms to begin with, as the reasoning seems circular. If you ban arsenic, it's pretty likely that you will reduce the number of murders by arsenic, especially if very few people have any arsenic in the first place.
But does it lower the overall number of murders by poisoning, or just result in the poisoners choosing a different substance to commit their crime?
If your assertion is correct, then there should have been a marked drop in the violent crime rate that can be attributed to the reduced number of firearms, especially legally owned ones ( which were effectively reduced to 0).
But you assert that the crime rate in Britain is the worst in Europe. Was Britain some sort of abattoir before the ban?
I'd really like to see your evidence.
Also, in regards to the crime stats in Britain, a few years ago the British authorities came under fire for drastically under-reporting the rate.
It was pointed out that (unlike here in the US) British crime figures were based on final disposition ( here they are based on reported incidents as each crime is required to be listed on a form known as an FBI-UCR, or Uniform Crime Report). British authorities tended to report burglaries as vandalism, further altering the stats if used for the purpose of comparison. Worse, they were alleged to have falsified clearance rates by coercing false confessions from persons already serving time in prison.
These allegations must have had some basis in fact, as in 1998, the British Home Office changed the system. In 2000 the crime stats showed that the official street crime rate in London doubled over the previous year.
And lastly, how does the situation in Britain have any relevance to our situation. Here we have millions of guns already in circulation. Even if you were able to prove a drastic drop in British violent crimes after the ban, how would you go about taking the guns out of the hands of criminals who already have them here in the US?