America's Gun Violence

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

Are Obama's executive actions going to drive the gun violence numbers down?

Well I think the theory is , since he is closing or narrowing one area that some criminals were buying guns from , yes. In a way it brings this regulatory rule already in place closer to the 21st century with the proliferation of internet sales.

May even help prevent some of the suicides too.

Last I checked it was against the law to ship a handgun from person to person across state lines so If you aren't a federal firearms dealer then you are braking the law by sending or buying. Internet sale or classifieds it is illegal already.

dudeman

Every "gun for sale" ad I've seen online requires a transfer via an FFL holder. I know if I were going to sell a firearm, I would absolutely do it through an FFL. Transferring it out of my name and ensuring that the potential new owner is legally allowed to own guns is a no brainer.

dudeman

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

Do you mean a proficiency exam?

Sure.

Some states have hunters safety courses and some others have a proficiency test for obtaining a CCW permit but to my knowledge, there aren't testing requirements for owning a gun.

HughFreakingDillon

one thing I didn't like about Obama's action is that it said something, and I'm paraphrasing here, about the medical system sharing mental health information with whomever is administering the background checks. this is incredibly dangerous in that it will cause even fewer people to come forward to their medical professional about their mental health issues.

ldent42

HughFreakingDillon said:

one thing I didn't like about Obama's action is that it said something, and I'm paraphrasing here, about the medical system sharing mental health information with whomever is administering the background checks. this is incredibly dangerous in that it will cause even fewer people to come forward to their medical professional about their mental health issues.

Also for the precedent it sets. I'm not a fan of forced medical disclosure except in the case of possible contagious disease where it becomes a health risk (ie informing past partners when you've been diagnosed as positive) which is hardly the same thing.

ldent42

dudeman said:

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

Do you mean a proficiency exam?

Sure.

Some states have hunters safety courses and some others have a proficiency test for obtaining a CCW permit but to my knowledge, there aren't testing requirements for owning a gun.

So let's assume that this is accurate for all states (just for the sake of argument.) Is that something that you gun owners would consider an acceptable change? With the exception of active duty servicemen, law enforcement officers, etc. anyone who wants to buy a gun has to show a license which they have to obtain by passing a test? Mind you in my head the test is more to do with safety and maintenance than shooting accuracy. Though I certainly wouldn't oppose a bare minimum for accuracy - but I'm thinking more like demonstrating that you know how to keep it in fully functioning order and stored with the safety on or whatever the fuck doesnt make it "just go off by accident"

I mean I don't think that sounds unreasonable.

HughFreakingDillon

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

Do you mean a proficiency exam?

Sure.

Some states have hunters safety courses and some others have a proficiency test for obtaining a CCW permit but to my knowledge, there aren't testing requirements for owning a gun.

So let's assume that this is accurate for all states (just for the sake of argument.) Is that something that you gun owners would consider an acceptable change? With the exception of active duty servicemen, law enforcement officers, etc. anyone who wants to buy a gun has to show a license which they have to obtain by passing a test? Mind you in my head the test is more to do with safety and maintenance than shooting accuracy. Though I certainly wouldn't oppose a bare minimum for accuracy - but I'm thinking more like demonstrating that you know how to keep it in fully functioning order and stored with the safety on or whatever the fuck doesnt make it "just go off by accident"

I mean I don't think that sounds unreasonable.

it would make absolute sense. but the gun lobby would NEVER go for it. they'd probably go for longer wait times over testing.

"safety should know no skill level!" would be the selling tagline.

dudeman

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

Do you mean a proficiency exam?

Sure.

Some states have hunters safety courses and some others have a proficiency test for obtaining a CCW permit but to my knowledge, there aren't testing requirements for owning a gun.

So let's assume that this is accurate for all states (just for the sake of argument.) Is that something that you gun owners would consider an acceptable change? With the exception of active duty servicemen, law enforcement officers, etc. anyone who wants to buy a gun has to show a license which they have to obtain by passing a test? Mind you in my head the test is more to do with safety and maintenance than shooting accuracy. Though I certainly wouldn't oppose a bare minimum for accuracy - but I'm thinking more like demonstrating that you know how to keep it in fully functioning order and stored with the safety on or whatever the fuck doesnt make it "just go off by accident"

I mean I don't think that sounds unreasonable.

I don't think it sounds unreasonable, either. People used to be taught firearms safety by their families, like fathers teaching their kids about guns. That's how it was for me and most of my shooting friends.

Times are a little different now, though. Some people don't have a friend or relative that is available or able or willing or knowledgeable enough to teach them so there are some folks who just buy a gun and hope for the best. If these people want to carry a firearm concealed outside their home or hunt, they must complete a class/training program, though.

Also, most of the people I know that are willing to shell out for a gun are also willing to shell out for range time, personal instruction or advanced training. There are a lot of shooter safety and proficiency courses available to those willing to seek them out. Most areas have a range or gun club with regular classes and events for all levels of shooters. For many of us, having a gun is only the beginning. Knowing how to use it appropriately, safely and proficiently is the rest.

So, training is available and a lot of people (myself included) take advantage of that. I wouldn't have any issues with taking a test to prove my ability to safely and responsibly own, store, maintain and use firearms if it became a mandatory, federal requirement.

ldent42

dudeman said:

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

Do you mean a proficiency exam?

Sure.

Some states have hunters safety courses and some others have a proficiency test for obtaining a CCW permit but to my knowledge, there aren't testing requirements for owning a gun.

So let's assume that this is accurate for all states (just for the sake of argument.) Is that something that you gun owners would consider an acceptable change? With the exception of active duty servicemen, law enforcement officers, etc. anyone who wants to buy a gun has to show a license which they have to obtain by passing a test? Mind you in my head the test is more to do with safety and maintenance than shooting accuracy. Though I certainly wouldn't oppose a bare minimum for accuracy - but I'm thinking more like demonstrating that you know how to keep it in fully functioning order and stored with the safety on or whatever the fuck doesnt make it "just go off by accident"

I mean I don't think that sounds unreasonable.

I don't think it sounds unreasonable, either. People used to be taught firearms safety by their families, like fathers teaching their kids about guns. That's how it was for me and most of my shooting friends.

Times are a little different now, though. Some people don't have a friend or relative that is available or able or willing or knowledgeable enough to teach them so there are some folks who just buy a gun and hope for the best. If these people want to carry a firearm concealed outside their home or hunt, they must complete a class/training program, though.

Also, most of the people I know that are willing to shell out for a gun are also willing to shell out for range time, personal instruction or advanced training. There are a lot of shooter safety and proficiency courses available to those willing to seek them out. Most areas have a range or gun club with regular classes and events for all levels of shooters. For many of us, having a gun is only the beginning. Knowing how to use it appropriately, safely and proficiently is the rest.

So, training is available and a lot of people (myself included) take advantage of that. I wouldn't have any issues with taking a test to prove my ability to safely and responsibly own, store, maintain and use firearms if it became a mandatory, federal requirement.

I think this is how it is for driving as well, for many people. I'm very much thinking along those lines. You learn however you learn, but there should be some federally regulated 'proficiency exam' in which you demonstrate that you are competent enough to not be a danger to the public. I would imagine that it would be a minor, one time inconvenience for current owners to go get their license, but if you are a law abiding responsible gun owner, then I would imagine most people would have a similar response of 'yea fine I'll take the test.'

Boom! Dudeman and I just solved America's Gun Violence

Seriously though, I would expect such a program to have all the same holes as the driver's license program does. People can still acquire cars without a license and illegally drive them without a license, and not everyone who has a license is fit to be driving. Drunk driving is illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing it every day etc etc etc. But I think something as simple and this, which is not a major hindrance to gun aficionados, which makes reasonable allowances for special circumstances such as military service and law enforcement, would be worth implementing even if it only prevents a small number of lunatics from getting their hands on a gun.

mcgruff10

You guys know I m very pro 2nd amendment and I have zero problems with people taking some sort of gun safety/education course before owning a gun. It s scary as shit being next to someone at the range or in the field that have zero idea on how to safely handle a firearm.

gimmesometruth27

mcgruff10 said:

You guys know I m very pro 2nd amendment and I have zero problems with people taking some sort of gun safety/education course before owning a gun. It s scary as shit being next to someone at the range or in the field that have zero idea on how to safely handle a firearm.

you are a rational and responsible person, so of course you would have no problem with education/safety classes. we don't agree on a lot of things, but i really respect you for saying this. i know that it is not the nra way, but i am glad that you agree that it is the right way.

PJfanwillneverleave1

mcgruff10 said:

You guys know I m very pro 2nd amendment and I have zero problems with people taking some sort of gun safety/education course before owning a gun. It s scary as shit being next to someone at the range or in the field that have zero idea on how to safely handle a firearm.

You feel this way in a controlled environment.
Imagine how us non-gun folks feel when people carry them around like candy in public.

ldent42

mcgruff10 said:

You guys know I m very pro 2nd amendment and I have zero problems with people taking some sort of gun safety/education course before owning a gun. It s scary as shit being next to someone at the range or in the field that have zero idea on how to safely handle a firearm.

jnimhaoileoin

Thank you Jon Snow

https://youtu.be/JNlFps28fqE

JWPearl

jnimhaoileoin said:

Thank you Jon Snow

https://youtu.be/JNlFps28fqE

matthew 26;52
matthew 10;28

mcgruff10

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

You guys know I m very pro 2nd amendment and I have zero problems with people taking some sort of gun safety/education course before owning a gun. It s scary as shit being next to someone at the range or in the field that have zero idea on how to safely handle a firearm.

You feel this way in a controlled environment.
Imagine how us non-gun folks feel when people carry them around like candy in public.

Excellent point bud. I never thought of it that way. Damn, that s scary as shit. I ve been hunting/shooting for 30+ years and I think I d even be nervous to carry in public.

dudeman

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

You guys know I m very pro 2nd amendment and I have zero problems with people taking some sort of gun safety/education course before owning a gun. It s scary as shit being next to someone at the range or in the field that have zero idea on how to safely handle a firearm.

You feel this way in a controlled environment.
Imagine how us non-gun folks feel when people carry them around like candy in public.

Unless you live in a state where open carry is legal, the only people legally carrying guns have passed background checks, taken a class and proven their ability to safely carry a gun. I read a study that found that citizens with CCW permits are among the most law abiding people....more so than those in law enforcement.

Criminals carrying guns, on the other hand, are out there, too. The problem here is that criminals aren't going to follow the rules. They're not going to take a test or prove themselves responsible with firearms. So, we get to the argument that any new gun laws will only serve to punish law abiding gun owners.

This is exactly why many Pro 2A people don't want new laws. There is also fear that some types of laws would lead to a national gun registry and ultimately, confiscation.

As to the comparison of passing a gun safety test and a driving safety course, driving a car isn't a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. This is the backbone of the Pro 2A side.

dudeman

JWPearl said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

Thank you Jon Snow

https://youtu.be/JNlFps28fqE

matthew 26;52
matthew 10;28

These people are ridiculous. Both of them.

Edit: The guys in the video, not the Matthews.

rgambs

dudeman said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

You guys know I m very pro 2nd amendment and I have zero problems with people taking some sort of gun safety/education course before owning a gun. It s scary as shit being next to someone at the range or in the field that have zero idea on how to safely handle a firearm.

You feel this way in a controlled environment.
Imagine how us non-gun folks feel when people carry them around like candy in public.

Unless you live in a state where open carry is legal, the only people legally carrying guns have passed background checks, taken a class and proven their ability to safely carry a gun. I read a study that found that citizens with CCW permits are among the most law abiding people....more so than those in law enforcement.

Criminals carrying guns, on the other hand, are out there, too. The problem here is that criminals aren't going to follow the rules. They're not going to take a test or prove themselves responsible with firearms. So, we get to the argument that any new gun laws will only serve to punish law abiding gun owners.

This is exactly why many Pro 2A people don't want new laws. There is also fear that some types of laws would lead to a national gun registry and ultimately, confiscation.

As to the comparison of passing a gun safety test and a driving safety course, driving a car isn't a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. This is the backbone of the Pro 2A side.

This is where it jumps the bounds of rationality and reality.

HughFreakingDillon

dudeman said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

You guys know I m very pro 2nd amendment and I have zero problems with people taking some sort of gun safety/education course before owning a gun. It s scary as shit being next to someone at the range or in the field that have zero idea on how to safely handle a firearm.

You feel this way in a controlled environment.
Imagine how us non-gun folks feel when people carry them around like candy in public.

Unless you live in a state where open carry is legal, the only people legally carrying guns have passed background checks, taken a class and proven their ability to safely carry a gun. I read a study that found that citizens with CCW permits are among the most law abiding people....more so than those in law enforcement.

Criminals carrying guns, on the other hand, are out there, too. The problem here is that criminals aren't going to follow the rules. They're not going to take a test or prove themselves responsible with firearms. So, we get to the argument that any new gun laws will only serve to punish law abiding gun owners.

This is exactly why many Pro 2A people don't want new laws. There is also fear that some types of laws would lead to a national gun registry and ultimately, confiscation.

As to the comparison of passing a gun safety test and a driving safety course, driving a car isn't a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. This is the backbone of the Pro 2A side.

it doesn't hurt law abiding citizens. the laws would be put in place to punish those caught without a licence.

to me, the right to bear arms is a ridiculous right. it's not a basic human right, like freedom from discrimination or freedom of speech. you could put the "right to drive a car for the means to flee an oppressive government" in there and it would make as much sense to me as the right to bear arms.

a rule made by men under a completely different context hundreds of years ago is not an argument. in fact, it's quite the opposite. it's weak, as it shows there is no real reason for people to be able to own one other than the ammendment itself.