Why guns need to be licensed and owners need training

[Gameface]

The vast majority of Americans drive, so driver's educaiton is a good use of money, I think we agree there. What is the actual percentage of people that wind up handling a gun ("contact" is very unspecific) in a way that such training woulod improve their safety? I actually said the training would probably be a good use of money if 80% of the populace benefitted from it, so I'm not sure why you responded that I think it would be an unqualified waste of money. If only 20% of the populace benefit, do you think it would be a good use of money? Why?

We both agree that the right to bear arms should have limitations. Is there a reason you consider proper licensing and training to lead to an unacceptable loss of freedom? Could you be more specific about why?

I have the impression you are having a discussion someone who holds different views than I do, but using me as a proxy.

As chance would have it (chances increased by recent events I suppose) NPR was talking about gun control again today. Surveys conducted indicate 47% of Americans have a firearm in their home or on their property, 37% of Americans are direct owners of a firearm. Numbers are based on people who volunteer the information to survey takers.

I may be guilty of assuming you hold the far left anti-gun line on this issue. I apologize.

 

[Scat]

It may not have, but licensing is proof of training. This incident may have occured, but similar incident will be less likely to occur.

No, licensing is simply registering a firearm so that the government knows who has it. Getting a carry permit is where the training comes in so I ask again, how would licensing prevent this situation?

 

[Stoked]

Seeing One Brows comment about how many actually handle guns...(I really need to log in before looking at threads to save my soul from the mind numbing idiocy)

Gun owner statistics place the number of gun owners at 47% of America.

https://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

That is just gun ownership. So in my case that 1 person turned into 4 people... I think it is safe to say that a majority of Americans have or will handle a gun.

Interesting...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

America has 30 more guns per resident than the #2 nation Serbia. Just the sheer amount of guns may make mandatory gun training worth the expenses.

On the flip side that just ensures that the horrible people such as Mr. Page, Mr. Loughtner and the Aurora shooter have actual gun training and are more effective with it.

 

[Stoked]

No, licensing is simply registering a firearm so that the government knows who has it. Getting a carry permit is where the training comes in so I ask again, how would licensing prevent this situation?

The logical answer to that question is no.

 

[One Brow]

Kind of like automobiles, right? That's why people rarely suffer injury or death involving an automobile.

Do you think the rate of car accidents would be unaffected if there were no driver's training (hint: insurance companies don't)? Training/lecensing reduces the rate of accidents, but nothing can eliminate them completely.

 

[One Brow]

As chance would have it (chances increased by recent events I suppose) NPR was talking about gun control again today. Surveys conducted indicate 47% of Americans have a firearm in their home or on their property, 37% of Americans are direct owners of a firearm. Numbers are based on people who volunteer the information to survey takers.

I may be guilty of assuming you hold the far left anti-gun line on this issue. I apologize.

No worries. I've never handled a gun, but I've never seen a solid argument for banning them (or not banning them), so I don't think I'm really pro-gun or anti-gun.

47% seems high enough to have some sort of basic safety training, although probably less than the 9 weeks of driver's education training. 37% seems small enough that any additional training for owners should be at the owner's expense.

 

[One Brow]

No, licensing is simply registering a firearm so that the government knows who has it. Getting a carry permit is where the training comes in so I ask again, how would licensing prevent this situation?

Sorry, I did not realize the terminology was different between guns and cars. Thank you for focusing on the terminology rather than the concept.

 

[One Brow]

Seeing One Brows comment about how many actually handle guns...(I really need to log in before looking at threads to save my soul from the mind numbing idiocy)

It's both funny and sad that, after months, you're still so hurt by our exchange.

Someone should get you a tissue.

 

[Stoked]

It's both funny and sad that, after months, you're still so hurt by our exchange.

Someone should get you a tissue.

It is amazing that you still think you are important enough to actually affect my mood. Delusions of grandeur. You are on ignore because more often than not you are here to BS and grandstand instead of ever actually dicsussing things in an honest attempt to discuss instead of throw around insults in a sad attempt to sound intellectual.

 

[One Brow]

It is amazing that you still think you are important enough to actually affect my mood. Delusions of grandeur. You are on ignore because more often than not you are here to BS and grandstand instead of ever actually dicsussing things in an honest attempt to discuss instead of throw around insults in a sad attempt to sound intellectual.

I don't try to sound anything. If I were making an effort, there would not be typos in my post. Thaks for the unintended compliment.

As for whether I affect your mood, your continued need to insult me, months after the incident and after I am on your ignore list, is all the evidence required that you're still hurt. By comparison, I've been directly insulted by several posters (including you), and don't bring it up in threads out of the blue, because those insults have been long forgotten.

Your bluster is somewhat amusing, but I'd be happier if you just got over it.

 

[Scat]

Sorry, I did not realize the terminology was different between guns and cars. Thank you for focusing on the terminology rather than the concept.

The terminology is the same for cars smart guy. When you license and register a car you are simply providing the state with information about your car. It has nothing to do with getting training on how to drive said car.

 

[One Brow]

The terminology is the same for cars smart guy. When you license and register a car you are simply providing the state with information about your car. It has nothing to do with getting training on how to drive said car.

When you drive a car, you need to have a license to drive, which has nothing to do with the license for the car. The driver's license shows you have acheived some minimal knowledge a bout how a car works, traffic, etc. As you pointed out, the equivalent for carrying a gun is called a permit. Again, thank you for focusing on the terminology rather than the notion of required training to carry the gun, smart guy.

 

[Gameface]

The problem I have is not that I don't think training is essential to safe firearms ownership, it's that firearms ownership is tied (this is my opinion) to one's right to their own life. I believe that you completely own yourself, free and clear. You are also completely responsible for your own welfare. As a result it is your right to defend your life. Firearms are bar none one of the most effective tools for self defense when faced with a direct physical threat. Therefore I support the right of all people to utilize that tool in their own defense. So while I believe VERY strongly in the need to train with firearms and gain proficiency with them if you choose to own them I have a very hard time making that a requirement.

A second, and significantly less concerning issue for me is that training, licencing, certification requirements could be used to deny "undesirables" a right to firearms. Much like a poll tax or voter competency requirements limit a person's ability to participate in their own government, firearms licencing and certification limits and individuals ability to defend their own life and potentially limits who can defend themselves against a tyrannical government, which is the basis of the second amendment.

If there were basic firearms safety courses required in public schools I feel we could accomplish everything that licencing sets out to accomplish while not providing the possibility that certification and licencing could create limitations on who is allowed to posses a firearm.

 

[Stoked]

The terminology is the same for cars smart guy. When you license and register a car you are simply providing the state with information about your car. It has nothing to do with getting training on how to drive said car.

You do not even have to be legally able to drive your car to register/license it.

 

[Stoked]

The problem I have is not that I don't think training is essential to safe firearms ownership, it's that firearms ownership is tied (this is my opinion) to one's right to their own life. I believe that you completely own yourself, free and clear. You are also completely responsible for your own welfare. As a result it is your right to defend your life. Firearms are bar none one of the most effective tools for self defense when faced with a direct physical threat. Therefore I support the right of all people to utilize that tool in their own defense. So while I believe VERY strongly in the need to train with firearms and gain proficiency with them if you choose to own them I have a very hard time making that a requirement.

A second, and significantly less concerning issue for me is that training, licencing, certification requirements could be used to deny "undesirables" a right to firearms. Much like a poll tax or voter competency requirements limit a person's ability to participate in their own government, firearms licencing and certification limits and individuals ability to defend their own life and potentially limits who can defend themselves against a tyrannical government, which is the basis of the second amendment.

If there were basic firearms safety courses required in public schools I feel we could accomplish everything that licencing sets out to accomplish while not providing the possibility that certification and licencing could create limitations on who is allowed to posses a firearm.

I do not htink firearm profeciency courses/training should be required to own one. I have that right free and clear. Period. Undebatable.

However I think that to carry one on my person in my everyday life should require some basic training. I do not need to have SEAL level efficiency with it but I should be secure enough that I won't blow off my own foot trying to get it into my holster. I also think proper holsters should be required to carry. None of that tucking it in your pants crap.

 

[Gameface]

I do not htink firearm profeciency courses/training should be required to own one. I have that right free and clear. Period. Undebatable.

However I think that to carry one on my person in my everyday life should require some basic training. I do not need to have SEAL level efficiency with it but I should be secure enough that I won't blow off my own foot trying to get it into my holster. I also think proper holsters should be required to carry. None of that tucking it in your pants crap.

I agree that a carry gun needs to be carried safely. Just like it is unlawful for a concealed carry permit holder to pull the gun out and waive it around, I think it should be unlawful to toss a gun into a purse, pocket, or waistband without a holster. I'm not aware of a safe way to carry a loaded gun without a holster.

 

[margodydek]

Had this discussion recently: If you went to a movie the day after the shooting in Colorado, would you feel safer knowing that everyone in that theater had a gun?

 

[Stoked]

Had this discussion recently: If you went to a movie the day after the shooting in Colorado, would you feel safer knowing that everyone in that theater had a gun?

I'd feel safer knowing I had a gun.

 

[Gameface]

Had this discussion recently: If you went to a movie the day after the shooting in Colorado, would you feel safer knowing that everyone in that theater had a gun?

Yes and no.

One, I think a lot of pro-gun folks talk big. They act like they just can't wait for some punk to break in their house so they can put two in the chest and one in the head. It gives non-gun owners a bit of the heebie-jeebies hearing crap like that, in my opinion. But in reality concealed carry folks have shown restraint and common sense when faced with real-world situations. For instance, at the Gabby Giffords shooting a person there went to their car and retrieved their gun. They did not use it, however. They said afterwards that they feared they might hit an innocent person and that it might add to the confusion and that they might be mistaken for the shooter and shot by another gun carrier or police.

So in that way I think a theater full of concealed guns might not have made much difference at all in the Dark Knight shooting. At least, that's what I would hope. It was a very poor situation for a gun carrier and potential vigilante. The darkness, chaos, the number of people in such a small space. Anyone who whipped out a gun and started returning fire should be arrested, in my opinion. Unless, of course, they had an absolutely clear shot at what was undeniably the person shooting innocent people. A fear, one I share, with concealed carry is that the person shooting the shooter might be mistaken as the armed criminal by another concealed carry permit holder, or that an undercover officer might be mistaken as a criminal by an overzealous gun carrier. But people are smart, regardless of how stupid your typical random jackass may seem. In these life and death situations we forget about our gun loving or gun hating political stances and try to do what we can to survive and do so without hurting other innocent people.

The numbers as far as misuse of firearms and firearms accidents is remarkably similar between concealed carry permit holders and police officers...with a slight edge in favor of concealed carry permit holders. Police accidentally kill the wrong person at a rate very similar to concealed carry permit holders. So, as far as that's concerned I'd be no more afraid of sitting in that theater with legal gun carrying citizens than I would to sit there in a theater of uniform wearing police officers.

Many people get the notion that armed citizens will act like wild west cowboys and have a righteous shoot-out flinging lead in every direction until nothing is left moving. I think that is a complete fantasy.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

But 100% of Americans have a right to posses firearms and whether one chooses to own a firearm or not they may come into contact with a firearm at some point. Just for health and safety purposes a course in the basic operation of various firearms, firearms safety, firearm risks and possible consequences (think blood on the highway, but for firearms), and minimal proficiency training.

You seem to be for limiting people's freedom in regard to firearms and see loss of freedom as a reasonable "price" to pay for the dangers of firearms, but actually teaching people how to be safe with firearms is a waste of money?

How do requiring licensing and training result in loss of freedom? No one is prohibited from owning a gun. Society imposes all sorts of requirements for people to exercise rights, such as voter registration, assembly permits, business licensens, etc. Gun ownership is not so special that it alone deserves some blanket exception from prudent and reasonable regulations.