Anti gun(crime) laws

[BerettaCougar]

Most people here will agree that we need for people to be safer with guns for us to maintain our current level of gun freedom and possibly gaining more freedom as gun owners.

What are some gun law suggestions or alterations to current laws that you think would help our cause?

[Kreyzhorse]

Enforcing the laws that are currently on the books would be a good place to start.

[Standing Wolf]

What are some gun law suggestions or alterations to current laws that you think would help our cause?

We don't need more laws, and haven't in decades. We need to enforce the Second Amendment—period.

[NavyLT]

Every state should be required to provide a means of carrying a firearm in public without any license required. Arizona, Alaska and Vermont are three examples. Washington State comes close - you can open carry without a license, except in a vehicle, where the gun must be unloaded without a license.

What we do NOT need are any more restrictions, such as requiring training to carry a gun, which is where it seems the OP would like to go... or maybe I am just reading too much between the lines.

[WARRIOR I]

Required training is a contentious issue here as well, NavyLT. And its
prevented reciprocity between SC and a lot of other states. My only problem
with doing away with the requirement is the number of igmoos I've seen
attending CWP classes who should never be allowed to TOUCH a firearm.
So what do you do about the issue of those individuals who absolutely cannot (will not) learn to safely handle firearms ?

[divil]

I know it will probably never happen but I'd like to see gun safety as a mandatory school subject for kids! I remember being taught how to cross the road safely in school as a child. This was considered necessary because people get run over and killed when they don't observe the safe way to cross the road. Since a lot of people shoot themselves, and others accidentally, it stands to reason that we should prepare people more.

Even if the have no interest in shooting, and have conscientious objections to using guns, they may still someday find themselves in a situation where they have to pick up a gun and make it safe. You can't avoid guns nowadays just because you don't like them - they're out there, like it or not.

A lot of people advocate compulsory training for anyone who wants to buy or own or carry a gun; I don't agree with that because it's just another form of control; all they have to do is keep making the certification process for trainers harder and more expensive until eventually people can't afford it. And will be no constitutional protection to prevent that.

Instead, make it the government's responsibility to train people! Just my 2 cents

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by WARRIOR I

So what do you do about the issue of those individuals who absolutely cannot (will not) learn to safely handle firearms ?

I will commit the sin of answering your question with a question...

What issue? In states such as Washington, Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina and probably a couple that I have missed, where no training is required to carry a gun, it just isn't an issue. People in those states are not going around accidentally shooting each other. At least not that any statistics can verify.

[Brian Pfleuger]

NavyLT is quite correct.

It is an issue in theory that does not translate to reality.

[knight0334]

I agree with NavyLT..

Pennsylvania has no training requirement at all, and we have the most licenses issued of all the states. ...we dont have licensees running around having accidents or any of the other feared events that anti's bring up.

[Webleymkv]

In states such as Washington, Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina and probably a couple that I have missed, where no training is required to carry a gun, it just isn't an issue.

You can add Indiana to that list.

Also, I rather like divil's idea. I've long thought that something along the lines of the firearms instruction recieved in a hunter safety course would be a good thing to teach in schools. I fail to see how it would be any more offensive than sex ed, darwin, or any of the other controversial subjects that are addressed in schools today.

[Sefner]

There is an old story about a dangerous 4 way stop in a particular county where people died a lot. There were tons of signs, flashing lights, and such warning drivers of the intersection. Whenever there were more accidents the county added more signs to make the intersection "safer". But more and more people died. Then they called in an expert in these sort of things. He came in, and immediately removed all of the signs except for the four stop signs. No more "INTERSECTION X FEET" signs every 50 feet, no more flashing lights. The result? No more traffic deaths. Why? Because people realized that they now had to be careful with the intersection, that no longer did they have all of these government-placed signs and flashing lights that allowed them to just assume that everyone else would see the intersection and be safe. They could no longer ignore the responsibility that they had for their own safety now that the signs (which remember, where put in place by the government to make things so much safer) were no longer there to "protect" them. People approached the intersection with caution, made sure to use their blinkers, and were much more courteous to other drivers.

This is an actual story but I couldn't find the link. Regardless, much like Aesop and his fables, this makes the point: Guns are a thing to be treated with respect for your own safety. Once the government starts making all of these laws in an attempt to make us "safer" we start losing the respect of the responsibility that we as gun owners have. We cannot assume that the government, by means of laws and regulations, can make us safer in this aspect. It begins with the healthy fear of what unsafe behavior can result in. The Four Laws of Gun Handling have prevented more deaths then any government policy, ordinance, or regulation can ever prevent.

[BillCA]

I see the question posed by BerettaCougar as farsighted. He's attempting to look ahead and short-circuit one of the next claims of the anti-civil rights crowd. If our rights were expanded on Aug 1 to include open carry without a permit in all 50 states, we'd likely see a rise in negligent discharge "incidents". These would be pointed out by the Brady's et al., as "evidence" that gun carry must be restricted to "trained" individuals.

Originally Posted by Krezyhorse

Enforcing the laws that are currently on the books would be a good place to start.

Disagree. First, we need to run the 20,000 or so existing laws "on the book" through a constitutional filter set on a "medium" setting. Reject those that are a clear violation of rights -- permits to own/purchase, one-gun-a-month laws, waiting periods, safe-gun lists, gun-free-school zones beyond line of sight, so-called safe-transport laws, etc.

From a strict constitutional perspective, laws should only reign-in the unacceptable behavior with firearms, such as displaying a gun in a rude, angry or threatening manner or discharging a firearm inside the city limits. You can't limit worshippers to reading only 10-pages a day or gag theatre goers because they might yell fire. So why hamstring people because they might shoot their gun from a moving car window?

Law changes:
Laws cannot prevent crimes, only deter. We can't prevent the determined nor the stupid from committing illegal acts. We can, however, make certain acts very expensive and/or subject to a loss of rights.

Deliberate acts - shooting at a sign, waving your gun around, etc. - are already covered by laws in most areas. We may need to revisit the penalties and punishments for these acts.

Negligent acts - What we do for negligent or stupid use of guns is a steep slope. Your first incident (no injuries) gets you a strong slap - say a $750 fine, mandated to complete a training course in 120 days and loss of carry rights for six months. If that doesn't wake you up and you have another negligent act, you pay a $1500 fine and lose your carry rights for 18 months. If you still haven't learned on your 3rd negligent act, you don't deserve to own weapons.¹

Limited civil liability - If the victim of your bullet is/was a criminal threat and the shooting is justifiable, then no civil suit should proceed against you.² If your shooting was "in immediate self defense" (i.e. you're facing a potentially lethal attack) and a bullet strikes a 3rd party the criminal is responsible for civil damages. ³

Training vs. Education:
First, I think we should have mandatory firearms education that begins around age 10 (4th grade). Start with the basics and safety rules. We teach youngsters the dangers of jaywalking, electrical outlets and a lack of personal hygiene at these ages so this should work about the same. Progress the training through high school, adding American history of guns with the early Liberty of the country up through moral, legal and ethical use of a firearm by the Junior year of high school.

All of that could be done without firing a single shot. That's education.

Training would be an elective in schools, requiring a parent's agreement. It would require certain things of the student (grade average, lack of disciplinary actions, etc.) It would only cover safe handling, storage, cleaning and basic marksmanship, probably with 22s.


¹ If your negligence causes injuries, you lose your carry rights for 18 months. If it happens again, you could become a prohibited person. And civil trials will likely force you to pay for the person's injuries which can get really expensive.
² There may be exceptions here but very few.
³ Just like when a robber's accomplice dies while committing the crime and the robber is charged with the accomplice's murder. Certain conditions may apply - e.g. "spray and pray" in a crowded metro subway station.

[kraigwy]

Originally Posted by WARRIOR I
So what do you do about the issue of those individuals who absolutely cannot (will not) learn to safely handle firearms ?

You cannot legislate against STUPID, but you sure as hell don't want any silly rules punishing others, and there is no way to separate out the stupid in making laws.

[ADB]

BerettaCougar, you're asking two different questions. Your title talks about gun crime, but the body of your post talks about safety.

[44 AMP]

we need for people to be safer with guns for us to maintain our current level of gun freedom .....

NO, We DON"T!

The level of actual accidents is at an all time low (except for really stupid people carrying GLocks without holsters).

Once upon a time, around a half century ago, gun safety was taught in many schools. Some schools had rifle teams. The rifles (.22s) were kept on school grounds, usually in the school building. Secured often only by a locked door. They weren't stolen, they weren't used in shooting rampages. Today you can't have a gun within so many hundred feet of a school, unless its inside your house, or you are just driving past.

Mandatory training seems to be a good answer, until you look at reality. And the reality is that in locations that have anti-gun individuals in positions of authority, they use mandatory training requirements to refuse fun ownership/carry permits, by reducing/making difficult/expensive training opportunities. Look at what happened to the push for allowing commercial airline pilots to be armed!

Licensed, tested, medically cleared pilots, already trusted daily with the safety of hundreds of lives, were forced to pass even stricter "psychological" testing, had to attend "training" on their own time, at a single remote location, and on top of all that rules requiring the firearm to be "secured" in a complicated mechanism, and yet handled frequently for "safety checks" were enough to make most people simply give up on the idea. And that was the whole point behind the regulations in the first place.

Mandatory training, run by the govt, is a BAD IDEA!

Using accurate statistics (not Handgun Control's version of everyone under 25 being a "child", etc. ) shows that backyard pools, bathtubs and even doctors are more dangerous to children than actual accidental shootings. However, thanks to the news media, actual accidents are repeated almost endlessly in the news (and Internet), making it seem like that they are much more common than they actually are.

There is one form of "training" that is overlooked way too often, and it is bad training. The "training" we get 24/7 on TV and movie screens. Not only is it almost always bad gun handling, the very fact that our entertainment is full of guns and people getting shot (only to appear next week, next day, or next hour in a different show, completely unharmed) has to have a subconscious effect.

Add to that the changes in law that have made the real (as opposed to the statutory)penalties for robbery/assault/fighting, etc. the same as those for shooting someone, or nearly so, might also have something to do with the willingness of criminals to shoot victims (and even police) that wasn't as common decades ago.

Sure, there lots more to it, like the general lack of respect for individual rights and property, the decline in education, inner city crowding, poverty, hopelessness, selfishness, etc.... pick any and all that seem to fit, I can't say you are any more wrong than I am right. But it isn't accidents that give the public the fear of people owning guns, no matter what they might say in front of a camera when asked. Its something else.

We don't need laws to make us safer, we are plenty safe enough, and there is no need nor good reason for laws which punish the innocent.

It is the deliberate use and misuse of firearms that is the problem, both in reality and in public perception. And no amount of mere laws will change that!

[azyogi]

I never thought I would say this but I agree with some form of mandatory training. Only the mandate is for it to offered, at no or tax deductable cost, by the government. [ammo to be sold at govt. cost] No one would be required to take it just open the state, and federal training sites and allow the people to take advantage the experience of all the professionally trained gun handling government employees. Have a contest, vote the the unsafe off the ranges, and award the best marksmen, and safest students DCM or other retired government weapons. Basically, vastly expand the DCM program. Voluntary for the people to attend, mandatory that the government provide it. A well ordered [regulated] militia means one that can shoot strait and safe.

[SVO]

if we are going to have mandatory training, then make it mandatory for every man, woman, and child to take the training. Even if they don't plan to own a gun.

[blume357]

has to give it to you at no cost and everyone must take it.

the solution is simple to the original question... start removing laws from the books... adding more laws, as has been explained by example, will not fix anything.

the problem is we elect people and call them 'law makers' thus they feel impelled to make more laws... one day our whole society is going to be crushed by the weight of the laws we keep writing.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Licensed, tested, medically cleared pilots, already trusted daily with the safety of hundreds of lives, were forced to pass even stricter "psychological" testing, had to attend "training" on their own time, at a single remote location, and on top of all that rules requiring the firearm to be "secured" in a complicated mechanism, and yet handled frequently for "safety checks" were enough to make most people simply give up on the idea. And that was the whole point behind the regulations in the first place.

Is that not one of the finest ever examples of governmental stupidity? Of course, these same pilots, the guys... you know, that could fly the plane into the ground should they so choose.... are also not allowed to carry a pocket knife with them, but when they sit down in the cockpit there's an axe mounted on the wall next to them.


No, the premise of the OP is seriously flawed. Typical of modern thinking, that the government should protect us from ourselves. Seriously flawed. Government involvement is almost universally bad.

[ZeSpectre]

So what do you do about the issue of those individuals who absolutely cannot (will not) learn to safely handle firearms ?

It tends to be a self correcting problem (I'm not making a joke here BTW).
Just like those folks who absolutely can/will not learn to operate a motor vehicle safely, it always catches up with them and then falls under the umbrella of the other laws that they violate in their unsafe behaviors.

I understand the desire to prevent tragedy, but sometimes that's part of the price for maintaining rights and freedoms.

[WARRIOR I]

I cannot believe that I'm this far out in the cold on this one. On the one hand, as a pilot I'm quite familiar with the FFDO program, which was
engineered from the very beginning to DISCOURAGE aircrew from wanting
to carry firearms. So I do see the potential for abuse in any government
mandated training program.
At the same time, I still think some basic training and education, however
its administered, is essential for anyone to be armed for self defense. If
only to undo the 'education' people have been getting for decades by our
entertainment media.

[ZeSpectre]

At the same time, I still think some basic training and education, however its administered, is essential for anyone to be armed for self defense.

Once upon a time "social approval/disapproval" would have been a fine mechanism for this.

John Smith goes to buy a gun
Gunshop guy "you got some training with firearms?"
John Smith "um, no"
Gunshop guy (and other customers present) "Good Lord man, why not?"

But that sort of thing fell by the wayside when guns became a "dirty little secret".

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by WARRIOR I

I cannot believe that I'm this far out in the cold on this one.

You aren't out in the cold. There are lots of people who feel exactly the same way as you do. You are just looking in the wrong place for agreement!

When you truly guarantee someone the right to do something, such as vote or carry a gun, you cannot only protect that right for a certain class of people. Once you do that it becomes a privilege that only an elite group of people can enjoy.

For instance, carrying a firearm on the person for self protection in states like Oklahoma and Texas... there is no right to carry a firearm in either Texas or Oklahoma. Both states require a person to pay and obtain a permit to do so. It becomes a privilege extended only to that group of people willing to pay for it.

The same would be true of requiring a person to pass mandatory training in order to carry a firearm - it would cause that act to become a privilege extended only to those able and willing to do so.

I like the excellent suggestion that azyogi came up with. If training is such a concern, then give it to everybody in 6th grade. The only down side to that is that the government would regulate it so much that it could not be unbiased training. They would teach things like keep the gun unloaded and locked up always, except when on the range or hunting. They would not teach anything about having the gun ready for self defense use.

[WARRIOR I]

Yeah, and I don't know how this demonization of firearms, and by association,
firearms owners, ever got started in the first place. It suddenly just became
unfashionable (uncool) to own guns, especially handguns for some reason.

[Sensai]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what's so difficult to fathom about "shall not be infringed" !!