I've heard and read a lot of things about guns lately, particularly in the aftermath of Aurora. On one side are people talking about how on Earth assault weapons became relegalized. On the other are people who say that if there were citizens carrying legally in that theater, it would have been over a lot faster and with fewer people shot.
I may be a liberal who has never thought about owning a firearm, but I understand that not all those advocating carrying guns are jerks looking for their version of the OK Corral. They're making a point about public safety. My wife had a conversation with an old friend of hers about this, a friend who carries, and he talks about how much training he needed to go through before he could carry concealed legally. He also talked about how if he ever got into a situation where he had to pull out his weapon without firing it, he had to call the cops and wait for them, because otherwise he was brandishing a weapon illegally. A friend of mine on OS once told me he's headed off violence by pulling aside his jacket so a potential assailant - well, likely assailant in that case - would get that he was armed, and that when a crime is prevented along those lines, it doesn't end up in any statistical records. We have no idea how often this happens. It might happen a lot.
The overall issue is public safety, really on both sides of the argument. We know the arguments in favor of more regulation of and less access to firearms: that a gun you own is often turned against you in a crime, that kids (and some adults) are killed by firearms accidents in the home, that a lot of crimes of passion happen where a person is shot by someone he/she knows in part because the gun was handy (think Marvin Gaye, shot by his father). And no, we don't have evidence that if a gun isn't handy, the same people will kill with something else.
Aurora doesn't happen often. When it does, there are a lot of deaths at once and a whole lot of headlines, but the Auroras of the world don't really make a statistical difference. I'll put this another way:
Odds are that you would have been very safe if you'd been on an airplane on September 11, 2001. You wouldn't think so, but there were thousands and thousands of jets in the air and, out of those, four went down. That's Aurora, and the Auroras don't add up to the accidents and homicides that happen all the time.
There's a piece of information I don't have that would really help me get closer to a suggestion: I don't know how many people (or what percentage of that population) who carry legally have accidents with their firearms or use them in crimes, particularly crimes of passion.
If that percentage is really low, then maybe we ought to take a look at this issue from a different direction. The question becomes: Does serious training make a big difference, or enough of a difference?
If it does, then maybe we ought to concentrate more on regulating users than regulating firearms. Still regulate both, but shift the concentration. We issue driver's licenses. You can't legally drive on public property without one, as a matter of public safety. Firearms also are a matter of public safety.
I would expand the training requirements to more than just concealed. I'm less concerned with what kind of gun you own than with how safety-minded and trained a shooter you are. Say that you can't operate a firearm outside of a prescribed environment (like a range) if you aren't a licensed shooter. To all those who say: "I was trained about gun safety thoroughly and I trained my kids that way" I'd say "Fine. Let's make sure everyone is, so that people with firearms know what they're doing and respect them like you do."
That doesn't involve taking away guns any more than driver licensing involves taking away cars.
There are people who will answer that they don't think it's a good idea for the Federal Government or State governments to know who is licensed to shoot in case there ever is cause for a revolution. I'm afraid that ship has sailed. They already have all sorts of records on us, including drivers' licenses.
There are people who don't like more regulation on principle, saying we're living in a nanny state. Sorry, but if you want to carry, I want something raising the odds that allowing you to won't in the long run involve harm coming to me or my family, not necessarily by deliberate crime but by someone overzealous catching us in a crossfire.
There are advocates of gun control who would accuse me of being stark raving nuts for being willing to discuss this. However, if gun owners really are right about proper training, and insisting on training across the board reduces the number of in-home accidents and deliberate homicides with firearms to a greater extent than, say, a liberalized policy about carrying concealed increases the number of people shot by licensed owners, we come out ahead.
Coming out ahead is the best criterion here. I am not married to any given road or vehicle to take us to that destination.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
aim
onislandtime
fernsy
john guzlowski
Abrawang
James M. Emmerling
Salon.com
Comments
I apologize for providing my own first comment, something I ordinarily avoid, but I thought I should be considerate under the circumstances.
Lezlie
I personally, dislike firearms and don't have a gun. However ...
1) My brother "carries" (legally) and ran a gun store out in east L.A. for several years. He's a responsible person and when my sons go out on overnight hikes with him in desolate areas where mentally-compromised, aggressive homeless, and/or other undesirables MAY lurk, I'm glad he and his gun is with them
2) PRESENTLY, I'm physically-imposing and most punks most likely are dissuaded from wanting to mug me. However, as I get older, I can see that my current physical advantage will abandon me at some point and I may consider carrying a firearm (legally and after rigorous training).
Again, good post.
You may very well be right. I'm by no means sure you aren't. There are two potential answers to that argument:
1. If you were required to be trained to purchase, access to guns on the part of criminals might be compromised, and
2. As is argued by some gun owners, people carrying legally might be able to counteract more of these crimes.
I'm not placing any bets on my second point, but I've recently learned about various kinds of training for specifically those instances.
I may be full of it. I may be opening the door for more Trayvons, though I doubt it. The possibility exists that, as some gun owners claim, one of the biggest problems is that people aren't sufficiently trained to respect firearms. What would happen if they were?
It wouldn't work univerally; it couldn't. But could it work in the aggregate? Sure. We could see a significant reduction in, for example, accidental firearms injuries and deaths.
It's largely a moot point because I don't think most gun owners want increased regulation, even the ones who are careful about training. However, if people claim training is the issue, let's at least call the bluff it if is one.
Joisey,
Thank you. I want to reduce the number of deaths by firearms in the United States but I am not married to any particular means. If a solution that is not typically liberal presents itself and works, I'll support it.
There are places in the world where firearms per capita isn't correlated with firearm crime. Israel is a prime example because of near universal conscription. All sorts of people have military weapons in the home out of necessity but their firearm crime rates don't begin to approach ours.
r./
Rated.
As I've said already, this might be moot, but...
If the grandparents had gone through the kind of training I'm talking about, would they have left a loaded handgun in the house at all? For people who really are trained, and some are trained in returning fire in emergencies (I've learned about this stuff recently - it is not from my world), one of the things they're trained to do and even compete in doing quickly as part of the sequence is load the gun because it is assumed for safety reasons that the magazine isn't kept in the weapon.
I doubt the husband, if properly trained, would have fired a handgun under those circumstances.
So I'm saying: If you couldn't own, carry, shoot without supervision unless you'd had fairly serious training, would we see a reduction in crap like this by virtue of the training itself? Responsible gun owners would say Absolutely, it's the irresponsible owners who give us a bad name. (That's functioning as a quote, I'm not an owner.)
Jonathan,
Not suggesting universal confiscation under any circumstances.
In a perfect world I would agree with you. I certain agree about the small boy, dead now because of a lack of "control" over the handgun. The abusive husband is a white collar successful business owner who has had gun training. Many perpetrators of domestic violence are living in nice houses in the suburbs nursing their control issues.
I like the idea of very very very strict gun regulations. I don't think anyone outside law enforcement should be able to own certain types of firearms. The hysteria of the NRA needs to be overcome. It would be nice if our representatives would at least start openly addressing the issue.
You raise a lot of more or less important questions.
I'm not an American, it's not your international politics which is affecting me, and so I feel hesitation.
Still, I'll come back with some thoughts.
For now, there's one statistic, which is very clear (without saying that it should define politics)
In other countries disagreements are settled.
In your country disagreements are settled.
It happens that in USA more than wherever guns are used to settle a disagreement.
It seems to me prove that, when weapons are available, they are used to empower positions.
If the Aurora guy had to have completed special training just to purchase an assault rifle AND had to provide a documented reason for needing to own such a weapon, I think he would have done all that in time to carry out his plan -- because it was planned. No gain there.
In response to Jon's comment (and I know he is hardly alone on his position) I believe that as long as there are guns that shoot something other than air from their barrels, some people will use them for killing and maiming. Yes, that means that legitimate gun enthusiast would be penalized and I don't much like that either. But there ARE other ways to shoot at targets (archery is one) if that is truly what the motivation is for owning a weapon. And when I lose that argument, I would move on to "well how about we ban handguns, leave the long guns alone and make it a felony for a civilian to be in possession of any kind automatic or semi-automatic rifle."
Lezlie
I am all for rigid licensing and training. Guns will never be gathered in their entirety nor will the government ever be able confiscate them.
From stones to drones...mankind has always had their weapons of choice.
Weapons don't kill without a man or woman to throw, fire, bomb, fly, impale, stab, poison or shoot. Mankind is not very kind. Peace is elusive.
People kill for different reasons. But there is only one acceptable circumstance and that is self defense when there is no other recourse. Protection of property doesn't count.
Only life counts.
Very good post Kosh.
Let's just make them as commonplace as car keys and stop this silly discussion. The issue isn't guns, it's how people feel about them and forget training. Training may save a few lives but it does nothing for the big problems like in the cities or the things that have happened recently in public places. My thoroughly uneducated take on the fiercely firm belief that everyone should have a gun on the counter to guard the chicken in every pot is rooted in how we feel about each other and our country. And it's not good. There's not a cohesive feeling. There's no reason to think society might be better without them when you feel like society is the enemy.
Let's just make them as commonplace as car keys and stop this silly discussion. The issue isn't guns, it's how people feel about them and forget training. Training may save a few lives but it does nothing for the big problems like in the cities or the things that have happened recently in public places. My thoroughly uneducated take on the fiercely firm belief that everyone should have a gun on the counter to guard the chicken in every pot is rooted in how we feel about each other and our country. And it's not good. There's not a cohesive feeling. There's no reason to think society might be better without them when you feel like society is the enemy.
Carrying legally in a theater, to diminish the effects, raises questions. Nurses with guns, because of the hospital shooting, schoolboys with guns, because of the school shooting(s)?
The police itself are questioned on this phenomenon: there's a lot of complaining, certainly in USA, about cops using their guns in resolving problematic situations. These men/women are really trained in the use of it.
Do you know the story of Walt Wawra, a Michigan police officer? Just a few days ago - It speaks volumes.
An arm doesn't make you feel safer: you carry it because you feel unsafe. The decision to use it has to be in time - as long as you feel safe you don't decide.
But Wawra demonstrates: you need to feel “unsafe” in time to make sense of carrying your gun.
I do not like stories to be introduced into statistics. I know a lot of stories. Now and then I check ... it appear to be stories.
Still, if your friend had demonstrated to carry a hatchet, would that have made a difference?
A gun probably helps you when some poor burglar arrives at your house. What about real criminals?
In Holland it was a regulated user who went berserk.
So, the discussion here is now on regulation – with the same intent, the same reach and purport ... and the same emotions and frustrations as your discussion.
Why are people shot?
If someone tells me: I've a gun, it's your choice, you run or I'll shoot you - then there will be no need for shooting. I'll run.
So, why is there so less choice, and so much shooting?
I also don't hang out with gun enthusiasts, though I know a few who take gun-husbandry (if you will) very seriously. They tend to be libertarians, and against violence. I also know that having a ranch or land out here can be very rural (no police, no real roads, no cell phones), and a gun is a day to day survival necessity for managing livestock (putting down sick animals) and protection of life, property and said livestock. Those folks also tend to take gun-husbandry very seriously. I would feel safe around most of them. They might own a few guns, they might go to the range a lot or have target practice on their property. I know someone owns my guns, statistically speaking, and my sweetie's guns, because we don't have them.
The people that scare me are the ones who own a gun because they have a belief in the constitutional right to kill other people in defense of property (like that guy that murdered the unarmed salesman who came on his property while he was out, and saw him walking away and pulled into his driveway and shot him twice, the second time in the head "for effect", in Florida last week). It doesn't matter what kind of training they do or don't have in gunsmanship. They would kill you with a crossbow or a steak knife or a grenade if it was handier. They look for problems and a reason to harm. Regardless of the actions of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman was looking to cause harm. Maybe not death, but harm. He created the conflict, and then justified his means. Don't bring a gun, hard to start a gun fight.
My feeling is, do I not have a constitutional right to not be killed by them, while they are brandishing weapons, discharged purposefully or accidentally? AZ started a law some years ago that makes it a crime to discharge a weapon in a public place, because people who were shooting into the air and otherwise accidentally killed a girl with a falling bullet. Now, if a bullet goes off anywhere within certain zones, their is a radar (or something) system that triangulates that and can pinpoint the location. It won't stop the murder/shooting, but it may stop the criminal. Unfortunately, they are not stopped when they should be- early in life, when they show cruelty to animals, other children, family members. It isn't a crime to be a violent person, it is only a crime when you are caught and convicted as an adult.
Mark Bittman writes on food for the New York Times, and I recommend him for that, but the other day he wrote about guns. The piece was excellent. I'll provide the link. Some of this noteworthy comments were these: "Since 9/11, 33 Americans have been killed by “terrorists”; roughly 150,000 Americans have been killed by non-terrorists: that is, your run-of-the-mill murderers. Murder, like the leading cause of death — heart disease — is often preventable, through regulations, education and medical intervention."
150 thousand people since September of 2001. Now, we consider the nearly 3000 killed on September 11, 2001 to be so traumatic that it has caused us to reconsider how we do almost everything in society. We take shoes off at the airport and armed pilots. We increased surveillance of American citizens through wire tapping, etc. We have changed banking regulations so that deposits of 10,000 dollars or more is investigated, and on and on. The changes to society that we have endured and have been willing to endure are virtually endless. This is not to saty that 9/11 was not traumatic. Of course it was. We did in fact lose more than 3000 people in a day. We lost peace of mind. We waged war on two countries for a over a decade when you place them back to back, over 9/11. Since 9/11, fifty times as many people have been killed and we insist on not only making a reasonable change, we arguably seek to go further in the direction of that which caused the problem, the access to guns and ammunition which is specially designed for killing humans. Not for sport. Not for food. Assult weapons, and huge magazines are for quickly killing humans in large numbers.
It is important to not that the guns used in Milwaukee and Aurora were bought legally. The two assailants were clearly insane. Our laws, and our silly fixation on gun ownership maked it easier for these lunatics to acquire guns legally. yes, making it illegal would not prevent these from happening absolutely, but it would reduce them. The arguments for good government and/or for increased safety with the availability of more guns is contradicted by circumstances in the U.S. and other nations like ours. Read Bittman's piece with the following link.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/mark-bittman/
I'll be back to comment on this more at length- I'll probably post a reply- I feel you are entirely correct to focus on "user" licensing rather than "gun " licensing.
I and many of my friends in the NRA would go so far as to love to see Gun safety as a (required?) course in middle school- ( The reasoning is along the lines of driver training- if you live in our civilization, you need training in the tools of civilization- ESPECIALLY the dangerous ones. Requirement to pass a course in the use of guns as part of civilization before one is allowed to purchase a gun? Shouldn't be a problem- So long as it is offered truly as mastering the TOOL( as one would with driver's ed) in a setting of 10 to 14 year olds ( when they are most apt to both appreciate and NEED such training, semi pre macho High school)
Those who did not wish to own guns, need not buy or own any. But they would be trained.
A corollary to this is that anyone who wishes to vote should be offered and trained thoroughly in the rights and responsibilities of being a part of our US government as even so little as only a voter- A certification of completion of training would be required in order to vote. ( I know this has been tried- but follow the corollary- at one time our schools provided such training- few seem to anymore. )
lastly, and consider this as a serious proposal and thought- I feel that their is the need for a one to two year period of "National Service" fore each citizen, probably most easily fulfilled on HS graduation. (Ala Israel) Militia training if you will, Humanitarian relief emergency training if you will not. ( Certainly not political brainwashing ala "Americorps"- The T-Partiers would rather see their kids drafted into the Marines)
Thoughts? Like I said, I'll be back
Great Post and Rated
In my humble opinion, anyone purchasing any kind of firearm should have to take a gun safety course that would include the safe handling and operation of the firearm he or she intends to purchase. I know there are people who would despise such a requirement and think that it was the end of civilization as we know it.
The problem with typical gun safety training is that the training does not include information on specific weapons. For example, there are many different kinds of handguns, and they don't all work the same way. Just because a guy knows how to handle the revolver he bought 20 years ago doesn't mean that he knows how to safely handle a Glock or a Sig. Some guns have external safeties; some don't. Modern guns have drop safeties; older guns don't. Some guns can't be fired when the magazine is removed; some can be. Given the differences between guns, and the potential consequences if something goes wrong, we shouldn't necessarily assume that the buyer of a gun knows how to safely handle and operate the gun. How many Glock owners have had unintentional discharges by forgetting about the round still in the chamber after the magazine was removed, or by neglecting to keep their fingers out of the trigger guard?
Another factor is that living situations and gun accessories change over time. For example, a single guy who has had guns for years might need to rethink his gun storage if he's married and now has young children in the home. Gun safes and locking devices change over time, and so it doesn't hurt to be aware of the latest technologies related to gun safety. Holsters change over time, and some holsters are better than others for concealed carry. So I don't care if the guy was born with a gun in his hand and has been a Navy Seal for 20 years. Everyone should have a safety course, even just a refresher, when buying a firearm.
For concealed carry the training needs to be more extensive. I would consider 32 hours of training to be the minimum. This would involve 16 hours of training in the legal aspects of the use of lethal force in self defense, and 16 hours on the gun range. Classes on shooting while moving, night shooting, and weapon retention are also appropriate for continuing education for the person with a concealed carry permit. Again, I know a lot of people would gripe about that, but someone who wants to walk around town with a modern deadly weapon on his hip needs to know the fundamentals of the proper and appropriate use of that weapon.
People can argue about various gun regulations, but so far I've never heard a good argument against training.
http://jpfo.org/rabbi/rabbi-archive.htm
The second amendment is the second amendment for a reason. The first amendment safeguards against the control of information dissemination being placed in the hands of unscrupulous profiteers whose only motive is to serve their corporate masters, such as we now have here in America with 5 or 6 media conglomerates monopolizing the narrative. America, Israel, and Great Britain are edging closer and closer to a three front nuclear war with Iran, China, and Russia with the passing of each day. Yet the ever dissembling media chooses to give more coverage to Tom Cruises divorce. We are told that our only choice in the next election shall be either psychopath A or psychopath B. Vote for your preferred color psychopath. You are obligated by the laws of God and everything man holds sacred about life to possess the fire power that will prevent a scenario of the city's of the earth being turned into deserts of green glass on the whims of the inbred monsters who you better believe will be entrenched deep within their underground bunkers when the Satan and Minutemen missiles start flying. The second amendment is a remedy for those who would violate the first amendment. Of course the globalists want your guns those 400 million state of the art assault rifles are the real inconvenient truth and as long as they are in the hands of brave Americans who know that their only allegiance is to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all their elaborate plans for a New world Order where they shall rule over a compliant horde of animated mannequins whose only purpose for existence will be to serve them will come to naught. I love it when OS “liberals” babble on about gun control. Picture Billy Bob handing over his AK47 to Bill Beck because Bill Beck “doesn’t like guns” or for that matter picture the millions of armed rednecks complying with any of the simian “soldiers” that the UN will try to use to enforce their “treaty”. I got bad news for you “liberals” the military is composed almost completely of Billy Bobs kin. The first shot a UN soldier fires on American soil will be the beginning of a story that will end where every globalist and their collaborators end up on the wrong end of a hangman's noose.
Kosher you say the government knows who has the weapons. You could not be more wrong. You are talking about pistols and even with pistols I have yet to meet a criminal who has a registered Glock. And I know a lot of criminals. There are caches of assault rifles and ammo stockpiled all over this country. The Arianna Huffington liberals on OS are a very tiny minority who are shrinking in numbers every day largely due to there unmitigated acceptance of the Aurora fiasco exposeing them for the brain washed media created Helots that infuriate every patriotic American every time they open their propaganda spouting mouths. As Bob Dylan once said “your and idiot babe it’s a wonder that you still know how to breath.”
Now lets talk a little about Aurora and the Sikh temple shootings coincidentally enough coming right at the time when Dubya’s puppet president and his side kick Mrs. Wild Bill Clinton are ratifying the UN declaration of war on the American people. And by the way anyone who thinks the UN is some kind of altruistic organization created to propagate world peace should be reading Ezili Danto’s blog to understand just how they have honed their genocidal practices in Haiti.
All the usual suspects, candidates for the hangman's noose, are using their ill begotten media podium to scream for a ban on assault rifles. NYC’s criminal third term mayor, Rupert Murdoch, and the minions of George Soro's zombies. An unholy alliance that would send shivers up the spine of Satan himself. Now this is all very nice if you are an Arianna Huffington Liberal who by the way probably doesn’t even own a gun anyway. But the right wing, who do own guns, is not buying any of it. Nobody is going to register their assault weapons, on the chance that an obviously corrupt government, will confiscate them, on the premise that the Joker is going to get us all if we don’t. This is probably the most outlandish act since Senior had his best friends son shoot Ronald Reagan, and said it was over an actress. Really now the whole Aurora episode was depicted in a Batman comic in 1986. An unemployed and broke student of questionable sanity attacked a movie theater full of imbecils that were waiting to see, what was it Batman number 363? He was wearing approximately 20,000 dollars worth of assault equipment and coincidentally knew how to use it all? Said shooter also wired his apartment with sophisticated explosive devices and then told police he did so after meekly surrendering to them? We won’t even talk about the eyewitness’s who say there were shots and tear gas canisters (tear gas?) coming from different directions and that someone got a call on his cellphone then opened the side exit and ‘Holmes” and his accomplices burst in shooting. As of yesterday the Enquirer was admitting that there had to at least have been one other accomplice. Extra gas masks were found in the parking lot and one of the degenerates tried to grab a 13 year old girl, I guess he figured it was a party favor, and drag her out into the parking lot. I guess she fought back a little to hard (contrary to popular belief spread by Hollywood government agents are not exactly feared martial artists) so he gutted her at the back door. We won’t talk about all the discrepancy's between the mainstream medias account of Columbine and what was being relayed through the Denver Post and Denver Rocky Mountain News.* But the biggest red flag of all is this is 13 years and about 13 miles away from Columbine itself. If you don’t know what 13 means to a master Qabalist (to which the Free Masons have pretensions of being) then I suggest you check the appendix’s to my Skinwalker post. It is the most important number period. And they so like to mark their work like so many dogs peeing on trees. Coming as a precursor to Obama and Clinton's most blatant act of treason yet the signing of a UN treaty banning assault weapons this is almost laughable if it wasn’t so deadly serious. Nobody's giving anybody their guns Mr. government agent if you want them you will have to come and get them.
This was a psyops operation. Oh and by the way the guy in the picture is Russian. I've been around Russians long enough to know one when I see one. The real Holmes was just set up as the patsy and is probably being held somewhere in a CIA safe house. Why? Because now Dr. Holmes brilliant algorithms can be doctored by him to prove the banks had no culpability in the Libor scandal. You do know what the sword of Damocles is don’t you? It should also be mentioned that Holmes son was one of only 6 students selected to participate in a graduate project funded by DARPA dealing with mind control. You do not set a patsy up in one week. You sometimes spend years cultivating them.
This also just in:
From AFP the oldest news agency in the world:
“US investigators were hunting for answers on Monday after a former psy-ops soldier attacked at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and killed six people before he was shot dead by police.
Officials identified the slain suspect as Wade Michael Page, a 40-year-old white male formerly attached to the US Army base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina as a “psychological operations specialist.”
Page served between April 1992 and October 1998, and was a qualified parachutist who received two good conduct awards and a National Defense Service Medal but never won significant promotion.
FBI agents and local police were investigating Page’s supposed address in Cudahy, a suburb of Milwaukee just four kilometers (2.5 miles) north of the suburban Sikh temple that was targeted in Sunday’s attack.”
Also many witness’s to the Sikh temple shooting say there were four shooters all dressed in black (these guys think their ninja’s I can’t wait to have it out with these assholes!).
*You will find them in David McGowan's; ‘Anatomy of a School Shooting’ a piece in a book entitled ‘You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths’ which is a massive compendium of the best and most well known authors in America’s take on the media circus.
I work with engineers who can design all kinds of mechanical and E/M equipment. In my science fiction head, I sometimes ask, Can you design a device that would, though Magnetic energy, shut down the firing mechanism of many guns? I get the far out there look.
One guy, I'd once thought would fire back, saying, What're you asking, could we make something that will blow up in the shooter's hand?
Yet that would be a gun, too, I guess. You see, guys, this is in our DNA -- it's not leaving any time soon. But we wonder where it will go before we make the right move ... Thanks for sharing.
Highly Rated>>>>>
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
There are too many comments to answer individually. I'll try to address them globally:
That increased regulation wouldn't prevent crime or accidents entirely is obvious. The question is whether it would reduce them.
Of course everyone's concerned about the visible events, the Auroras and the Sikh killings, but that's not where the numbers are. We won't prevent the big ones like that but we might prevent enough small ones.
I don't like the extent to which people own guns but whether or not people keep them is not up to me. If I can't control that, what can I control? This post is about such a suggestion.
Yes, children die in gun accidents, but that's one area where increased training would blatantly reduce that number. If people were more concerned about storing guns, locking them up, locking up ammo, and keeping the guns unloaded, we'd have fewer accidents. There's basically no alternative.
I'm not sure my concept is possible even if we were to determine that it is sensible.
I'd need to see evidence that people who don't have a gun handy would use something else, a knife for example, to kill. Though logic might dictate that the tool doesn't matter, guns are convenient, more detached, and suggest killing by their availability. It's possible that a gun takes the impulse to violence and magnifies it such that under other circumstances a killer would hit his/her victim rather than shooting. In other words, I'm not sure that the argument that guns don't in and of themselves contribute to extreme violence holds water.
I'm not disputing that we need to do something; quite the contrary. I'm just wondering if what we need to do is follow a different strategem. While the gun owners don't want their guns regulated, I'm suggesting we make thorough training mandatory in exchange for liberalizing the varieties of guns available and see if that results in fewer people shot. If the owners are right, they've put their money where there mouths are and we've got fewer people shot. If they're wrong, we have proof that they're wrong, and we can show the argument they made didn't work, so regulate everyone more.
What if you see someone approach with what appears to be a crow bar. Is that a shooting situation? What is they are hitting someone else with it? Is that a shooting situation? What if that crowbar is actually rubber? Is that a shooting situation? What if they just snatch someone and appear to be pushing them into a van with the sliding door open? What of that person is deaf? How do you communicate that you will shoot them? What if you pull your gun on a person who is being stuck up by someone else, and you are not aware of that person yet?What if the person shoots while running away? (Yes, I have seen this happen)
What sort of rounds are supersonic and what sort are sub sonic? What difference does it make to the shooter with regard to civil liability? What are the different types of rounds good for? What sort of rounds do assassins prefer and why? What are the performance characteristics, and why is that important to you as a gun owner?
I owned guns, and I was good with them when I had them. I owned a canyon course record as a rookie. I was responsible with them, and I was proficient. As comfortable as I was with them as a professional, they are not worth the trouble as a civilian.
Our minimal gun laws in this country are absurd. No civilian needs an assault rifle or a handgun. If George Zimmerman had been carrying a deer rifle or a shot gun, Travon Martin would probably be alive today. And if Zimmerman did manage to shoot Martin with a long barrel gun, not even our local moronic apologists could claim self defense. We dont need more guns and more types of guns. We need fewer if any at all. That's my view.
Of course we need fewer, but at this point we're not particularly close to getting fewer. So the question becomes: How do we increase safety if we have trouble getting fewer? As far as I can see, by making training a whole lot more universal and a whole lot more extensive. It may be the best available alternative, if it is in fact available.
At the moment, we're not likely to win equipment-based gun control battles, so I'm wondering if we can get anywhere with a different tack.
I never claim to be right unless I am. I claim to be right about facts, not opinions. I can win arguments on points and style, but I never deny or ignore relevant facts. If you're complaining, it's because you didn't have your factual ducks in a row.
Speaking of RW00, he and I had a fun time discussing the intent of the 2nd amendment. That was facts and opinions with friendly snark and other elements of enjoyable argument. Sometimes there's no "right" answer, just a more persuasive argument.
Which reminds me of one of my sayings:
The "bully" in a rock fight is the guy with the better aim.
How's that for poetry?
What I'll add to this post is that if America ever got to the point where it was perceived to be likely, or odds-in-favor-of, that a given person was carrying a weapon, criminal tactics would evolve.
Instead of pulling a gun and asking for your cash, there would be a rise of incidents where they just plug you in the head and pick your pockets.
Criminals almost always have the element of surprise. You may dream of doing some Jackie Chan move and shooting your assailant, but the more likely outcome is they rob you of your gun also.
I own a shotgun, but mostly use it to scare off coyotes when they start howling too close to the house.
You were right, brought in the Curse of the PJ's
Knows about everything, has done nothing.
Wank away, oh great one
Don't let my indifference spoil your stroke.
The key "compromise here" is the trading of honest to goodness Gun safety, use, self defense, tool courses in middle school, followed by your firearms permit, allowing you to buy any weapon up to squad served. ( course you can register your squad)
Makes the point of gun registration moot, for practical purposes, officials and Law Enforcement Professionals can just assume they all are. So can the burglars and muggers.
A stint of militia training after high school, and we are about as "gun safe" as we are going to get. Just another tool of good government, like requiring that kids actually learn how our government works, so that they can vote intelligently.
The solution to "Gun Safety" is the same as for Auto safety. Train everyone.
Sorry if our exchanges stung you, but you were factually incorrect--The Founders weren't libertarians. The rest of your arguments involve way too much of your self created theories to interest me. I can't think of anybody...and I'm not the only one to note this...that wants to argue your unique "philosophy."
You shouldn't "out" kosh like that. He does you the favor of thinking you're pretty smart. I know better.
You might notice a comment is missing. I saw it and told HRdR I wanted to pull it. It originally showed up as a PM concerning an entirely different topic. I had two objections to it as a comment:
1. It had zero to do with this topic
2. If I was going to go through the inconvenience of watching a minor fight on my blog (though actually in this case you were perhaps the least insulted party), I wanted it to be at least on topic.
No, they're not the same objection.
Anyway, if no one's proposing shooting each other, it's probably irrelevant.
Now I remember why I usually ignore you.
Kosher actually does you the favor of thinking you are capable of engaging in social intercourse, where all I've ever seen you do is jerk yourself off while crowing lustily.
I'm willing to let it go at one round each -Kosher doesn't want a fight here and I don't blame him. Come on over if you want to continue this - I haven't had a good pig wrestle in a long time, (Not that you're any good at it) - I will delete anything you post off topic on any of my serious posting- I'll put one up just for you .
Anyway, I apologize, Kosher, I'd forgotten how things come out of the woodwork.
I am serious about the possibility of trading Universal Gun Training and certification for User licensing- the concept that carries over is one of Self Defense ( from Bullies, if you will) you don;t really need a gun, but you do need the will and the attitude. Instill that in kids and they'll take care of their own bully problems. without resorting to getting a gun.
No Bill only criminals should have them.
And talk about dissembling nonsense. Not one person on here has addressed the real issue that I raised. Americans do not have assault rifles to hunt deer and the majority don’t even own them for home defense. Assault rifles are the counter balance inserted into the constitution against government tyranny. And don’t tell me they didn’t have assault rifles then. The state of the art weapon then was the Kentucky long rifle and every American who wasn’t a eunuch owned one. The performance of that gun is the very reason America is no longer a British colony.
If some want to be fascist cop who gets his kicks by knocking the teeth out of his handcuffed prisoner and emptying a can of mace into the face of an inoffensive woman then you dam sure better make sure you are armed just as well as that sadistic pig. By sticking to your liberal talking points you manage to package your treason as some kind of altruistic concern for the well being of the American people. Professional helots love to spout off inane arguments like there were 30,896 in 2006 but how many rapes, assaults,, and violent crimes were prevented by guns. The NRA has an answer for everyone of your idiotic statistics. And Bill I’m not really interested in your law enforcement credentials. Did you ever face down a mafia captain who was there for the specific purpose to kill you in the VIP room of the Café royal at three O'clock in the mourning? But I won’t allow myself to be dragged into your Huffington Post alternative reality. That’s why nobody of any substance takes liberals seriously anymore. You have all made me almost ashamed to admit I am a Socialist. The issue here is the hundreds of millions of people who were killed by there own government in the last 100 years because they had no means of fighting back. One more time read the Rabbis link. He has a very good name for it; ‘The Mother of All Stats The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas’
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
well said
If you could take me down, you would. You tried, failed, and still resent it. That was some time back, but you can't let it go. If you had the chops, you'd simply look for an opportunity to take me on over some issue instead of offering prissy gratuitous slaps. Re-read that last sentence. Read it once again.
'nuff said.
It's really too bad he can't find anyone who wishes to play with him anymore, but he really has become quite excellent at playing with himself.
The pig wrestle is open- come on over
Do me a favor - don't go for the last word.
Jack,
I read what the rabbi says. However, there's a lot of information missing. What we know, assuming his figures are accurate, is that there are a series of instances where gun regulation and oppression have shown up in the same countries. Here's what we don't know:
Whether similar regulations have been in place in a bunch of countries without oppression. Without that information, there is no shown correlation.
Whether these regulations have had any significant effects on gun ownership. Were these populations normally inclined toward gun ownership like the US is or did most people in these countries avoid owning guns anyway?
Whether these regulations had any significant effect on those people inclined to bear arms to resist their oppressive governments. In other words, the general population may have obeyed the law but those who actually wanted to fight the government may not have.
Regulations are one thing, the responsibility to own firearms in case we have to resist the government is something else. Frankly, if that's what you're after, then the basic thing I'm suggesting, and the thing that HRdR talks about making truly universal, is the most logical course of action: Educate everyone about firearms to a serious extent and rely on education rather than regulation for public safety.