Arizona legalizes carrying concealed gun without a permit

[Broomstick]

[
In short, removing "unnecessary" guns (however you may define that) from Americans is going to be much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive that it was to do that task in Britain for cultural and historical reasons.

'It's difficult therefore we shouldn't attempt it'?

I think we should look at the cost to benefit ratio before forging ahead.

[gizmojumpjet]

Broomstick Again, I can't argue with tackling the root causes of crime, but that's not the question I asked. The question I asked is, why not do both?

You can't disarm the US citizenry because:

1) It would be unconstitutional
2) The People don't want to be disarmed
3) It would be political suicide for any political regime that instituted such a policy because of #2
4) It is very likely logistically impossible (Just how many SWAT teams do you think you'll need?)

"I need to hunt food to survive' or 'I need to kill vermin to stop them eating my crops' are valid reason. 'I think shooting up targets is a good laugh' while not overly objectionable is not a need.

You forgot "I need to shoot muggers in the face to keep from getting mugged" and "I need to shoot burglars in the face to stop them from burgling me" and "I need to shoot rapists in the face to keep from getting raped" and "I need to shoot armed robbers in the face to stop them from robbing me."

Oh, wait, we don't have to demonstrate a need in order to exercise our rights to keep and bear arms.

Tightening up gun laws isn't going to solve the root cause of crimes but it will save some lives. There's no reason you can't so that AND tackle the larger issues at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive aims.

Public sentiment is against tightening up gun laws; we've heard the arguments for gun control and rejected them as faulty. Banning guns that people don't "need," such as the "Assault" Weapons Ban had zero effect on crime. We recognize the fact that laws that impose burdens on the law-abiding citizenry which also have no effect on the criminal element are bad laws.

Banning guns simply doesn't make people safer, as Broomstick's Chicago example illustrates. Banning guns has the effect only of disarming the law-abiding citizenry and has no effect on disarming the criminal element. Our rights to own guns and to defend ourselves with them gives us parity with the criminals among us and has been shown to reduce crime. No good reason exists to take our guns away while many exist to support our ongoing right to arm ourselves and defend ourselves against those who would do us harm.

You're behind the 8 ball on this one. Hoplophilia has the momentum:

[Simon_Jester]

In short, removing "unnecessary" guns (however you may define that) from Americans is going to be much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive that it was to do that task in Britain for cultural and historical reasons.

'It's difficult therefore we shouldn't attempt it'?

Arguably, yes. All arguments against gun control are utilitarian: the people killed or injured by guns would be better off if there were fewer guns around, that sort of thing.

But with a utilitarian argument, you have to count costs. How much time and effort would it take to convince Americans that not only do they not need guns (which most Americans accept), but do not have a right to possess them if they wish to do so (which most Americans do not accept)? Are the advantages of accomplishing this actually worth the effort?

Sometimes, a logical reform that works in one country will fail in another- because the reform isn't compatible with the local culture. In which case trying to impose it from the top down by saying "you silly people, can't you see you ought to do X?" is a really stupid idea, and one that will force you to burn political capital for very little result.

[gizmojumpjet]

Arguably, yes. All arguments against gun control are utilitarian: the people killed or injured by guns would be better off if there were fewer guns around, that sort of thing.

That's funny, I've always seen gun control arguments as essentially emotional:

"It's so sad all these people are dead, if only those evil guns were off the street things would be better and people would be safer!"

"People don't need guns with scary-looking features like bayonet lugs and pistol grips and "large capacity" magazines!!!"

These arguments are constantly made even though things like CCW permits have been shown to reduce crime wherever they are implemented, bans on certain cosmetic features of rifles have not been shown to have any negative effect on crime.

[Coyote]

"I need to hunt food to survive' or 'I need to kill vermin to stop them eating my crops' are valid reason. 'I think shooting up targets is a good laugh' while not overly objectionable is not a need.

But again, you're looking at it from a "justify this need" based way of looking at things. In Europe, you cannot have a gun unless you convince the government you have a need.

In the USA, we see it as "a person can own a gun, and it is up to the government to prove that they can't or shouldn't."

We don't do this as a means of "Rar, American exceptionalism" or as a means to "piss off them thar yurpeans" but because we have a fundamentally different way of looking at the citizen-government relationship. The idea is, put simply, we can do what we please unless it is proven harmful, and then the government can step in and make rules.

We see murder as the problem, not gun ownership, because millions of other citizens own guns without murdering anyone-- and murder can be done without guns. So in our perspective, the government doesn't have the right to collectively punish everyone with gun because a few criminals --who should not have had guns in the first place-- kill people.

I also feel pretty secure that you may not see banning guns as "punishing" people, and would be puzzled by the notion. But here, restricting everyone who is law-abiding because of the actions of a few criminals is seen as collective punishment, and unjustifiable. It would be like bringing back Prohibition --banning alcohol-- because of drunk drivers.

You can kill a person with your bare hands or a like you said a frying pan. Guns just make it a hell of a lot easier. If you make things harder, then even if the rate of attempts remains constant. The rate of successful murders is bound to decrease and hence less deaths.

Many also feel that gun make it easier to defend yourself, as well, and again we have it engrained in us that a person has a natural-born right to defend themselves from attack. You can find reports of legal, defensive gun use used to thwart crimes frequently-- so again, the argument is made that the gun is not the problem, but rather who is using it, how, and why. Since the only people likely to be affected by a gun ban would be the law-abiding gun owners, the only thing that would be accomplished would be to make the still-armed criminals' jobs even easier.

Plus, at this stage, a universal gun ban in America would be "too hard"-- in the sense that it would be logistically impossible for the police to carry out. The police can barely keep a lid on the criminals we have now; imagine tens of millions of gun owners being made into criminals overnight by a new law. Sure, some would turn their guns in because of the law, but many would not, and what are you going to do? Especially since these people really had not done anything wrong to begin with? The law would either have to be ignored, making it useless and a mockery, or it would have to be aggressively enforced, and you'd have a real problem then. People would not be rebelling because they're anti-government Tea party crazies, they'd be rebelling because the government --from their point of view-- turned on them and declared them "criminal" for their political beliefs.

[Crazedwraith]

1) It would be unconstitutional

I hear you can actually change or 'amend' the constitution. In fact isn't it a change or 'amendment' to the constitutional that gives you the 'right' to your guns?

I can concede its probably impossible to remove all guns from the american populace but that isn't the be all end all to proper gun control. Like I said people who need them should be able to get them. People who don't could have ridiculously high conditions to meet before they can get guns of recreational purposes.

[Coyote]

1) It would be unconstitutional

I hear you can actually change or 'amend' the constitution. In fact isn't it a change or 'amendment' to the constitutional that gives you the 'right' to your guns?

Actually, we can, and in fact it is because of one of those past amendments that people are so careful about introducing an Amendment based on some social fad or trend based on emotion rather than science. In the 30's we had Prohibition, the ban of all alcoholic beverages in the United States, and it was --as you can imagine-- a dismal failure. It had been driven by church groups, mostly, who felt that alcoholic consumption was sinful and felt that if alcohol was banned, the nation would become more godly or something.

I can concede its probably impossible to remove all guns from the american populace but that isn't the be all end all to proper gun control. Like I said people who need them should be able to get them. People who don't could have ridiculously high conditions to meet before they can get guns of recreational purposes.

The best gun control, I think, is to ensure that everyone who buys a gun is trained in their use, proper storage, and their legal responsibilities. I personally would not mind registration, but that would be almost impossible to pass because registration lists were used in the past in some states to create a list of gun owners, and those lists were used to round up guns when gun bans were later placed into effect. So because of the duplicity of past gun registry laws, no one will trust a registry now.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Arguably, yes. All arguments against gun control are utilitarian: the people killed or injured by guns would be better off if there were fewer guns around, that sort of thing.

That's funny, I've always seen gun control arguments as essentially emotional:

"It's so sad all these people are dead, if only those evil guns were off the street things would be better and people would be safer!"

"People don't need guns with scary-looking features like bayonet lugs and pistol grips and "large capacity" magazines!!!"

These arguments are constantly made even though things like CCW permits have been shown to reduce crime wherever they are implemented, bans on certain cosmetic features of rifles have not been shown to have any negative effect on crime.

I would like to jump in here on the whole "Gun Control" issue with the following... While I LOATHE guns, and really REALLY do not like them, not for a second do I think they should be either "banned" nor do I think that taking all guns away would reduce crime.

What I DO think, is that guns should have the same restrictions, rules forced safety measures as something like a car...

All cars today have 101 safety features and designed up the wazoo to keep them from killing people. You have car companies actively competing for various prizes of "Im safer then you" Compare that with the gun industry right now, were it is basically all about trying to make it as easy as possible for your average hick to get a gun, ANY gun, and nothing else.

Real 'gun control' for the purposes of reducing both crime and accidental deaths.
*"Mandatory safety training classes before buying a gun." Virtually 3/4th of all aspects of getting a Drivers license is how NOT to run into someone else on the roads. Taking a driving corse focuses immensely on NOT doing stupid stuff. Implementing mandatory safety corses before getting a gun might not stop people form doing stupid things, but you could at least say you warned them...
*"All guns should come with a gun lock, standard." No one would buy a car without a seatbelt these days, why do we sell guns without a mandatory way to keep someone from using it?
*"All guns should be registered." Thats right, I said it. Let the gun nuts shriek about this sort of thing being done "so the gov'ment can take our guns!" its stupid and a baseless argument. Every car in the nation has a License plat, if its stolen, you can track it, if its used in a crime, it can be found. Forcing all guns to have a license and be registered in a national database means you could track a gun no mater who has it or who steals it.
*"Reinstall a 5day waiting period on guns" Time and again it is shown many acts of violence are done in the heat of the moment and without thinking. SOmeone getting fired, getting screwed over, going crazy etc... Forcing someone to wait, to sit down and THINK for a good 5days before buying a firearm gose a long way to cutting down on impulse shootings (at least for people who don't already own a gun)

There, I realize those are all rather wishful thinking and most likely would never be implemented in Gun loving America, but I don't think a single item on that list is unreasonable or detrimentally impedes someone who is serious about having a gun and being "A good Law abiding citizen"

[Coyote]

Real 'gun control' for the purposes of reducing both crime and accidental deaths.
*"Mandatory safety training classes before buying a gun." Virtually 3/4th of all aspects of getting a Drivers license is how NOT to run into someone else on the roads. Taking a driving corse focuses immensely on NOT doing stupid stuff. Implementing mandatory safety corses before getting a gun might not stop people form doing stupid things, but you could at least say you warned them...

I like the idea of not just training, but also classes on legal rights and responsibilities.

*"All guns should come with a gun lock, standard." No one would buy a car without a seatbelt these days, why do we sell guns without a mandatory way to keep someone from using it?

At the moment, this is largely a feel-good measure. Gun locks can lock on a firearm that is loaded, and provide a false sense of security that leads to an accident. Also, if one reason for owning a gun is to have it ready in case of a criminal attack, it does no good to have a lock on it. I can see having locks on guns that are stored, and leaving one unlocked for personal security, but of you have guns in a gun safe it is really just a redundant measure.

*"All guns should be registered." Thats right, I said it. Let the gun nuts shriek about this sort of thing being done "so the gov'ment can take our guns!" its stupid and a baseless argument. Every car in the nation has a License plat, if its stolen, you can track it, if its used in a crime, it can be found. Forcing all guns to have a license and be registered in a national database means you could track a gun no mater who has it or who steals it.

I don't mind registries in principle, but unfortunately the paranoia about registry lists actually are based on fact. Gun bans in Hawaii, California, and New York (for example) all were based off of gun registry laws that were passed earlier-- under the promise these registries would be used for criminal tracking, and not to round up guns for bans. Each time, the gun owners trusted the gun-control corwd, and each time they got betrayed. You'll have a very, very hard time convincing gun owners of a registry now, and that is because of the trust that was burned up in these earlier cases.

Now, with the Heller decision, and the Constitutional right for an individual person to own a firearm upheld, such a gun ban based on registry is probably open to challenge, legally. People will want to wait and see how the Chicago case turns out first. Some of the dissenting opinions in Heller said that a Constitutional right for individual firearms ownership and carry does not preclude registry. We'll see.

*"Reinstall a 5day waiting period on guns" Time and again it is shown many acts of violence are done in the heat of the moment and without thinking. SOmeone getting fired, getting screwed over, going crazy etc... Forcing someone to wait, to sit down and THINK for a good 5days before buying a firearm gose a long way to cutting down on impulse shootings (at least for people who don't already own a gun)

This is another pointless feel-good measure that delays a right for no justifiable reason. However, if such a thing were to pass, it would really only be logical to put a waiting period on the first gun purchase. Once a person has one gun, it's kind of pointless to restrict the next one.

How many murders are "crimes of passion" anyway? Does anyone have any statistics?

There, I realize those are all rather wishful thinking and most likely would never be implemented in Gun loving America, but I don't think a single item on that list is unreasonable or detrimentally impedes someone who is serious about having a gun and being "A good Law abiding citizen"

Actually, right now a goodly many millions of people own guns and are doing just fine already, really. And the one thing that would help, really --the registry-- was botched by the gun-banners in their zeal.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Crossroads a quick point:

*"All guns should come with gun locks."
While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, your analogy is rather off. I'd say the safety and trigger guards (do any guns even lack these in modern times?) are closer to the seatbelts in your analogy. I'd say that any kind of ignition, save pushbutton without any security measures, are a better comparison for a trigger guard. I think you're partially mixing up security and safety, though I admit there is some overlap in certain areas of car design.

[Ryan Thunder]

I don't mind registries in principle, but unfortunately the paranoia about registry lists actually are based on fact. Gun bans in Hawaii, California, and New York (for example) all were based off of gun registry laws that were passed earlier-- under the promise these registries would be used for criminal tracking, and not to round up guns for bans. Each time, the gun owners trusted the gun-control corwd, and each time they got betrayed. You'll have a very, very hard time convincing gun owners of a registry now, and that is because of the trust that was burned up in these earlier cases.

Wait, wait, wait... So its bad if the government keeps track of weapons because it could use that information to enforce the law later? Did you just write that with a straight face? XD

[Shroom Man 777]

What's wrong with a gun ban?

[Ritterin Sophia]

What's wrong with a gun ban?

Why should we have a gun ban?

[[R_H]]

What's wrong with a gun ban?

Did you not read the past couple of pages in this thread?

Think of how many guns are in America, now think of what it would cost to confiscate them. Think of all the Tea Party nutters, and others that would not take kindly to the government confiscating their firearms and how they would react to a ban.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I like the idea of not just training, but also classes on legal rights and responsibilities.

Perhaps the single biggest thing that makes me feel 'most' gun owners really DON"T care about gun saftey is the steel hard refusal for ANY sort of mandatory safety classes. Gun owners love to go on and on about being 'law abiding citizens' yet when it comes to gun laws, they turn into shrieking monsters at ANYthing that keeps them from guns. If these people actually cared about being 'law abiding' then they shouldn't mind taking extra steps to ensure they are good gun owners. Again I go back to comparing guns to cars. If you have a car accident, you are forced to take safety classes and might have your license taken away, if you have a Gun accident, well, nothing happens.

At the moment, this is largely a feel-good measure. Gun locks can lock on a firearm that is loaded, and provide a false sense of security that leads to an accident. Also, if one reason for owning a gun is to have it ready in case of a criminal attack, it does no good to have a lock on it. I can see having locks on guns that are stored, and leaving one unlocked for personal security, but of you have guns in a gun safe it is really just a redundant measure.

Here, I guess I am looking for a system that if your kid comes across your gun, he needs something to 'unlock it' weather its a physical lock you put around the trigger mechanism or something else that needs a key. It may be a largely 'feel good' measure, but I would like to think, done properly, it would help reduce gun accidents.

I don't mind registries in principle, but unfortunately the paranoia about registry lists actually are based on fact. Gun bans in Hawaii, California, and New York (for example) all were based off of gun registry laws that were passed earlier-- under the promise these registries would be used for criminal tracking, and not to round up guns for bans. Each time, the gun owners trusted the gun-control corwd, and each time they got betrayed. You'll have a very, very hard time convincing gun owners of a registry now, and that is because of the trust that was burned up in these earlier cases.

Now, with the Heller decision, and the Constitutional right for an individual person to own a firearm upheld, such a gun ban based on registry is probably open to challenge, legally. People will want to wait and see how the Chicago case turns out first. Some of the dissenting opinions in Heller said that a Constitutional right for individual firearms ownership and carry does not preclude registry. We'll see.

This is another pointless feel-good measure that delays a right for no justifiable reason. However, if such a thing were to pass, it would really only be logical to put a waiting period on the first gun purchase. Once a person has one gun, it's kind of pointless to restrict the next one.

I don't know where to find immediate studies on the effect of a waiting period, but I agree that it should only apply to first time gun owners. You are right, if you already own a gun then the possibility for 'A crime of passion' already exists. Again I feel its one more thing that couldn't 'Hurt' but might help.

Actually, right now a goodly many millions of people own guns and are doing just fine already, really. And the one thing that would help, really --the registry-- was botched by the gun-banners in their zeal.

A nation wide gun registry would probably do more to cut down on gun violence then almost anything else in America, and you are quite right that the closest we came to having it, rather then going slow and a little at a time, it was jammed through and led to an immediate and a permanent backlash against it.

What's wrong with a gun ban?

Why should we have a gun ban?

It depends on what guns you ban.

Personally I feel in favor of banning guns that "have no practical use outside of mass murders" A simple handgun is fine for 90% of people who want 'self defense' a simple rifle is fine for 90% of people who want to hunt.

Buying Military grade machine guns, handheld automatics, and high caliber armor piercing ammo etc, are things that can't be defended outside of 'wanting to actively kill people' and should be banned to most people.

[Simon_Jester]

What's wrong with a gun ban?

Nothing, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think anything is wrong with not having one, either. In the US, a gun ban would be a huge pain in the ass to enforce, even if we got enough support for it in the first place, which is unlikely. It's just not worth it, if you ask me.

That's funny, I've always seen gun control arguments as essentially emotional:

"It's so sad all these people are dead, if only those evil guns were off the street things would be better and people would be safer!"

"People don't need guns with scary-looking features like bayonet lugs and pistol grips and "large capacity" magazines!!!"

Now, see, those weren't emotional arguments until you put a bunch of fake nonsense into them to make them sound emotional. Which is dishonest.

"People dying is bad" is not an emotional claim. We generally agree, as a matter of logic and principle, that it is better to be alive than to be dead. "People who get shot might not have died if there weren't as many guns around" is not an emotional claim either.

You're putting a fake emotional load onto an argument that doesn't have one, because for you the gun control issue is an emotional one... because someone has proposed to take away things you desire, or feel entitled to.

Now, I'm not saying you should be barred from having these weapons you want. But don't try and pretend that the people who do think so are a bunch of stupid crybabies. They aren't. They're just people who don't really see a need for Joe Average to have a bunch of tools that serve no useful purpose except killing.

The fact that they do not see this as a need does not mean they are panicking or calling guns evil.

I hear you can actually change or 'amend' the constitution. In fact isn't it a change or 'amendment' to the constitutional that gives you the 'right' to your guns?

I can concede its probably impossible to remove all guns from the american populace but that isn't the be all end all to proper gun control. Like I said people who need them should be able to get them. People who don't could have ridiculously high conditions to meet before they can get guns of recreational purposes.

Why? I mean, you present this as if it's an obvious matter of logic that people should be barred by the state from having guns unless they are extraordinarily sound individuals. Could you explain the logic to me? It doesn't seem like it takes an extraordinarily stable person to not decide to murder people, after all. Very few people go around killing others, guns or no guns.

Are you sure this isn't a cultural thing on your part, the same way that "everyone ought to be able to have guns if they want to" is on gizmo's part?

I don't mind registries in principle, but unfortunately the paranoia about registry lists actually are based on fact. Gun bans in Hawaii, California, and New York (for example) all were based off of gun registry laws that were passed earlier-- under the promise these registries would be used for criminal tracking, and not to round up guns for bans. Each time, the gun owners trusted the gun-control corwd, and each time they got betrayed. You'll have a very, very hard time convincing gun owners of a registry now, and that is because of the trust that was burned up in these earlier cases.

Wait, wait, wait... So its bad if the government keeps track of weapons because it could use that information to enforce the law later? Did you just write that with a straight face? XD

That's not the problem. The problem is that the people who create the database are saying "OK, we're going to create a database. Just a database, a harmless one. It doesn't really affect you, just fill out this form and you can be on your way."

Which would be fine... except that ten years down the line a new law is passed that uses the existing information to round up the guns in the database. It's the creation of those new laws that raises the objection. So you have people complaining about the database because it will make it easier for future gun control advocates to ban the weapons outright.

That law is not currently on the books, and could not be enforced without the database. But with the database, it becomes easy to enforce such a law. So if the ban is undesirable, so is the database that makes the ban possible... or so the argument goes.

[Shroom Man 777]

What's wrong with a gun ban?

Why should we have a gun ban?

Well, apparently the political realities of America make such a thing unfeasible. But as a concept, stringent regulation of guns is not one without merit as it does work in Europe. Of course, the political realities of Europe are different as well. But guns, inherently, are not some kind of necessity that humans need to have, and the civilian populace (be it law-abiding civies or law-breaking ones) do not need guns at all and can work perfectly fine without them. Considering that the source of criminal firearms is firearms that are being sold in the civilian sector (unless the criminals stole them from police/military lockers), then banning or severely restricting the proliferation of guns in the civilian sector sounds pretty, um, sound. This, and a more efficient socialized police force, would do good in cutting down gun-related crimes.

Did you not read the past couple of pages in this thread?

No, I did not. It was a reflexive typing. I don't know, maybe for a second I wasn't in the Philippines but was actually in Singapore and I turned into ray245? Who knows?

Think of how many guns are in America, now think of what it would cost to confiscate them. Think of all the Tea Party nutters, and others that would not take kindly to the government confiscating their firearms and how they would react to a ban.

Of course such a policy would not work in such a wonderfully prosperous and gun-fertile land such as the USA. But in a place like... say.... Swaziland or Lower Volta, it might work, for the benefit of society.

Nothing, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think anything is wrong with not having one, either.

Guns aren't a necessity and are weapons. Why should weapons be easily available to the civilian population, where less savory (criminal) elements will obtain them and will generally find more uses for them than law-abiding citizens (who generally don't need guns at all anyway)?

In the US, a gun ban would be a huge pain in the ass to enforce, even if we got enough support for it in the first place, which is unlikely. It's just not worth it, if you ask me.

Well, in the US, making people pay slightly more monies in taxes so the government can improve living standards by giving more people medicines and hospital care, would be a huge pain in the ass to enforce, even if we got enough support for it in the first place, which is unlikely. It's just not worth it, if you ask me.

It is a good concept and works in places like Europe and Antarctica, but in the face of American political randome altarnate realty RARs, meh. Screw it.

PS - I think people overvalue their guns (and bibles) too much. Look at what I have in my house though:

[gizmojumpjet]

I would like to jump in here on the whole "Gun Control" issue with the following... While I LOATHE guns, and really REALLY do not like them, not for a second do I think they should be either "banned" nor do I think that taking all guns away would reduce crime.

What I DO think, is that guns should have the same restrictions, rules forced safety measures as something like a car...

You do not have a right to own or operate a car. You do have a right to own and operate a firearm in the US. Saying that because we require training to drive a car, a privilege, we should therefore have mandatory firearms training misses the point that gun ownership is a right.

All cars today have 101 safety features and designed up the wazoo to keep them from killing people. You have car companies actively competing for various prizes of "Im safer then you" Compare that with the gun industry right now, were it is basically all about trying to make it as easy as possible for your average hick to get a gun, ANY gun, and nothing else.

Those stupid community groups, all about trying to make it as easy as possible for your average urban black to vote. HOW DARE THEY!!!

Real 'gun control' for the purposes of reducing both crime and accidental deaths.
*"Mandatory safety training classes before buying a gun." Virtually 3/4th of all aspects of getting a Drivers license is how NOT to run into someone else on the roads. Taking a driving corse focuses immensely on NOT doing stupid stuff. Implementing mandatory safety corses before getting a gun might not stop people form doing stupid things, but you could at least say you warned them...

In an ideal world, sure, it would be lovely if everyone who owns a gun had some safety training, but there are a number of problems with this:

1) Who will provide the training?
2) What standards will be used to determine their suitability for the role?
3) What will the curriculum be, exactly? Because gun safety is actually really simple. There are four rules. They're very simple. Learning them and abide by them will keep you safe. I question how beneficial any sort of mandatory training would actually be on gun crime statistics. As you've pointed out, driver's education classes are required in order to get one's license, but the most dangerous people on the road are new drivers in whose minds the lessons learned in these classes must necessarily be the freshest.
4) Will enough instructors be available to serve the demand? If not, does that mean people don't get to buy guns until sufficient instructors become available?
5) What will the training cost and how long will it take?
6) What will the availability be? If I live in a low population area, might I wind up being required to travel all the way to the County Seat, so to speak, in order to avail myself of this mandatory training?

All of these are problematic in and of themselves from a logistical standpoint, but mandatory gun safety training is even more onerous because no sort of mandatory training is required to exercise any of my other rights.

I'm not required to take a communications class in order to exercise my right to free speech, and I'm not required to take a civics class in order to exercise my right to vote.

I'm not entirely sure any sort of mandatory training would stand up to a SCOTUS challenge because it is in very many ways similar to the poll taxes of the past: obstacles set in the way to discourage people from exercising their Constitutional rights.

*"All guns should come with a gun lock, standard." No one would buy a car without a seatbelt these days, why do we sell guns without a mandatory way to keep someone from using it?

Are you talking about trigger locks, or internal locks that can be deactivated with, say, a key or a magnetic ring? The latter sorts of measures are problematic; they increase the complexity and decrease the reliabity of the firearm. As for the former, the last gun I bought that didn't come with a trigger lock of some sort was a Mosin Nagant manufactured in 1941. Most police departments will give you a trigger lock for free, or so I've heard. The lack of trigger locks isn't responsible for gun crime.

*"All guns should be registered." Thats right, I said it. Let the gun nuts shriek about this sort of thing being done "so the gov'ment can take our guns!" its stupid and a baseless argument. Every car in the nation has a License plat, if its stolen, you can track it, if its used in a crime, it can be found. Forcing all guns to have a license and be registered in a national database means you could track a gun no mater who has it or who steals it.

While I don't believe and have never seen any support for the argument that gun registration has any effect on reducing gun crime, and while I think that it does indeed set the stage for government abuse, I don't see any Constitutional argument against it.

*"Reinstall a 5day waiting period on guns" Time and again it is shown many acts of violence are done in the heat of the moment and without thinking. SOmeone getting fired, getting screwed over, going crazy etc... Forcing someone to wait, to sit down and THINK for a good 5days before buying a firearm gose a long way to cutting down on impulse shootings (at least for people who don't already own a gun)

I wholeheartedly concur with Coyote on this point.

Gun owners love to go on and on about being 'law abiding citizens' yet when it comes to gun laws, they turn into shrieking monsters at ANYthing that keeps them from guns.

People tend to get upset about what they perceive as an infringement on their rights. People even get upset about infringements on rights they claim to have but do not seem to appear in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Opposing infringements upon that right doesn't turn one into a "shrieking monster" any more than opposing infringements on speech, religion, or the protection against self-incrimination turns one into a "shrieking monster."

[[R_H]]

Perhaps the single biggest thing that makes me feel 'most' gun owners really DON"T care about gun saftey is the steel hard refusal for ANY sort of mandatory safety classes. Gun owners love to go on and on about being 'law abiding citizens' yet when it comes to gun laws, they turn into shrieking monsters at ANYthing that keeps them from guns. If these people actually cared about being 'law abiding' then they shouldn't mind taking extra steps to ensure they are good gun owners. Again I go back to comparing guns to cars. If you have a car accident, you are forced to take safety classes and might have your license taken away, if you have a Gun accident, well, nothing happens.

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
—Jeff Cooper

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
—The National Rifle Association, The fundamental NRA rules for safe gun handling

1. Assume every firearm is loaded.
2. Control the muzzle direction at all times.
3. Trigger finger off trigger and out of trigger guard.
4. See that the firearm is unloaded. PROVE it safe.
—The Canadian Firearms Program uses the concept of The Four Firearm ACTS

I'm not liscensed to operate a flipping motor vehicle, yet I have no problem with those four very simple rules, and being vigilant about following them. I doubt it's more difficult operating a motor vehicle in a safe and compentant manner. Perhaps tying the ability to own firearms to possession of a driver's liscense is the way to go?

Here, I guess I am looking for a system that if your kid comes across your gun, he needs something to 'unlock it' weather its a physical lock you put around the trigger mechanism or something else that needs a key. It may be a largely 'feel good' measure, but I would like to think, done properly, it would help reduce gun accidents.

Or you could teach the children how to act properly around firearms? I touched power tools long before I ever touched a firearm, but I've managed to keep breathing and remain in possession of all my appendages.

I don't know where to find immediate studies on the effect of a waiting period, but I agree that it should only apply to first time gun owners. You are right, if you already own a gun then the possibility for 'A crime of passion' already exists. Again I feel its one more thing that couldn't 'Hurt' but might help.

Could you define a "crime of passion"? Could you provide statistics that firearms cause the most deaths in "crimes of passion"? If someone implusively kills another, which I think how the whole "crime of passion" term gets thrown around, wouldn't people just use whatever they can find to kill?

A nation wide gun registry would probably do more to cut down on gun violence then almost anything else in America, and you are quite right that the closest we came to having it, rather then going slow and a little at a time, it was jammed through and led to an immediate and a permanent backlash against it.

Why not use the money to subsidise the safe storage of firearms? So that they don't get stolen and get used to commit crime (in the worst case).

Personally I feel in favor of banning guns that "have no practical use outside of mass murders" A simple handgun is fine for 90% of people who want 'self defense' a simple rifle is fine for 90% of people who want to hunt.

Buying Military grade machine guns, handheld automatics, and high caliber armor piercing ammo etc, are things that can't be defended outside of 'wanting to actively kill people' and should be banned to most people.

The majority rifle caliber munition (especially the common stuff like .30-06, .308 and .223) has better armour piercing abilities than say .38, 9mm and other common pistol calibers. Secondly, Sea Skimmer in one of other threads similar to this one, provided references that machine guns and legal automatic weapons are basically non-factors in gun crime.


But hey, lets ban (fast) cars, SUVs, fast-food and everything else we don't agree with, understand or like.

[Uraniun235]

People tend to get upset about what they perceive as an infringement on their rights. People even get upset about infringements on rights they claim to have but do not seem to appear in the Constitution.

The Constitution specifically says that just because certain rights aren't listed doesn't mean that those rights don't exist.

[Shroom Man 777]

You do not have a right to own or operate a car. You do have a right to own and operate a firearm in the US. Saying that because we require training to drive a car, a privilege, we should therefore have mandatory firearms training misses the point that gun ownership is a right.

Who gives a shit about what the Constitution of Spartafreedomerica says is a right or a privilege? Cars are utilities used for transporting people to and fro places of work, play, home and shit. They have legitimate everyday non-destructive purposes and uses. What use does a gun have? When not in use, it's a paperweight, when in use it's either used to kill people, shoot at useless targets, or shoot at useless animals.

If the Shroomanian constitution says that owning shoes is not a right but a privilege, and that owning rocket launchers or flamethrowers is a right enshrined by retarded laws, does this make it less retarded? More retarded? No. It's just retarded. Like the Spartafreedomerican Constitution. LOL.

[Crazedwraith]

Why? I mean, you present this as if it's an obvious matter of logic that people should be barred by the state from having guns unless they are extraordinarily sound individuals. Could you explain the logic to me? It doesn't seem like it takes an extraordinarily stable person to not decide to murder people, after all. Very few people go around killing others, guns or no guns.

Are you sure this isn't a cultural thing on your part, the same way that "everyone ought to be able to have guns if they want to" is on gizmo's part?

Alright, this is a fair enough point but I have this cultural thing on my part that compels me to think that you can't be too careful when it comes to letting people play about with things that have the sole purpose of killing things. Just one of those silly little things, I suppose.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why? I mean, you present this as if it's an obvious matter of logic that people should be barred by the state from having guns unless they are extraordinarily sound individuals. Could you explain the logic to me? It doesn't seem like it takes an extraordinarily stable person to not decide to murder people, after all. Very few people go around killing others, guns or no guns.

Are you sure this isn't a cultural thing on your part, the same way that "everyone ought to be able to have guns if they want to" is on gizmo's part?

Alright, this is a fair enough point but I have this cultural thing on my part that compels me to think that you can't be too careful when it comes to letting people play about with things that have the sole purpose of killing things. Just one of those silly little things, I suppose.

It is a right, enshrined by law. Whereas a vehicle with legitimate livelihood/transportation uses is a fucking PRIVILEGE! You limey fuck! You just want to get our guns away so you can come down here and stab us in the dick with teaxes (tea + taxes geddit)!

PS - that picture is misleading.

We have acquired three more M4 carbines recently.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Well, apparently the political realities of America make such a thing unfeasible. But as a concept, stringent regulation of guns is not one without merit as it does work in Europe. Of course, the political realities of Europe are different as well. But guns, inherently, are not some kind of necessity that humans need to have, and the civilian populace (be it law-abiding civies or law-breaking ones) do not need guns at all and can work perfectly fine without them.

Sp again, why is it a good idea to have a gun ban? You're thinking of it from outside of our perspective which is the government does not step in unless it's necessary. As any American can tell by looking at a number of countries in Europe, gun bans are unnecessary in order to deter crime and from our own experience entirely futile.

Considering that the source of criminal firearms is firearms that are being sold in the civilian sector (unless the criminals stole them from police/military lockers), then banning or severely restricting the proliferation of guns in the civilian sector sounds pretty, um, sound. This, and a more efficient socialized police force, would do good in cutting down gun-related crimes.

Actually, it's weapons stolen out of law abiding citizens houses or smuggled into the country.

[Shroom Man 777]

Sp again, why is it a good idea to have a gun ban? You're thinking of it from outside of our perspective which is the government does not step in unless it's necessary. As any American can tell by looking at a number of countries in Europe, gun bans are unnecessary in order to deter crime and from our own experience entirely futile.

I guess if Americans really cannot be parted from their guns, then Americans really cannot be parted from their guns. In other countries' experiences, gun bans were not futile. But they are not America.

Considering that the source of criminal firearms is firearms that are being sold in the civilian sector (unless the criminals stole them from police/military lockers), then banning or severely restricting the proliferation of guns in the civilian sector sounds pretty, um, sound. This, and a more efficient socialized police force, would do good in cutting down gun-related crimes.

Actually, it's weapons stolen out of law abiding citizens houses or smuggled into the country.

[/quote]

Exactly. They did not steal from law-enforcement or military, they obtained weapons that were circulating in the civilian sector. Because of the easy availability of guns in the civilian sector, this translate to easy availability of guns for criminals.

As for smuggled into the country guns, I bet they were stolen from the civilian sectors of other countries too and not stolen from foreign law-enforcement or military sectors. If those countries had gun bans and restricted civilian sector firearms, then this proliferation of weapons in the criminal sector may be decreased. Maybe.