Does any gun control make sense?

[JimDandy]

What makes sense to me:

Concealed carry permits

Really? What exactly is it that makes sense to you about trusting 80 million people to own a gun without breaking the laws with, including the ones about where and how you carry it, then giving them the exact same background check a second time, charging them another $50, to carry a piece of paper that says the people who were trusted not to shoot people but NOT carry them around are now trusted not to shoot people AND carry them around.

 

[ghbucky01]

Maybe he was referring to Arizona CC permits?

 

[born2climb]

..

 

[jeager106]

All I want to do here is clarify a couple points.
Re: "mentally ill & owing guns" The key word is "adjudicated".
A diagnosed Paranoid Skizophrenic can waltz into any gun shop & buy a firearm legally. The mentally ill person has not been adjudicated, that is ruled by an offical or court as mentally ill & or dangerously mentally ill.
Re: Domestic violence, 1st conviction is a misdemeanor.
Domestic violence does not mean a person who whacks a spouse.
It can be a person that spanks a child & was criminally charged with
"domestic assult" which later became domestic violence even well after the law prohibted gun ownership.
It does not extend to just GUN ownership either. A person convicted of such can't even own a bullet or part of a cartridge.
There were cases in which a person convicted of domestic assult 10 years prior to Bill Clintons adding D.V. to a Crime bill lost rights to own firearms.
One case in particular I remember. A man learned his 16 year old daughter was pregnant, smacked her rump pretty good.
The child complains to the school officials, Protective Services intervene, dad gets charged with domestic assult 10 years prior d.v. laws.
Dad chooses to simply plead no contest to avoid lawyer fees & 10 years later looses his right to own a firearm.
That just ain't even almost right!
Police officers & military personel lost jobs due to the Clinton "crime bill" years after the alleged assult occured.
Retroactive punishment.

 

[JimDandy]

can someone please explain why a man should NOT be allowed to own a firearm because he got caught with a gram of dried herbs?

Because we as a society determined only members of society have these rights.

Because we as a society determined people who have that handful of dried herbs willingly left society, and surrendered those rights.

This does not make them subhuman, it makes them outside of society.

 

[TDL]

To the OP, here is the main issue:

What happens when these "common sense" gun control measures do not reduce our gun violence (you know the basket used of suicides and not controlling of other means of murder) rate to that of Australia or the UK?

Do we say, well we need stronger measures, or do we say gun control doesn't work and we need to repeal the measures?

Now onto specifics:

I would like to see a strengthening of NICS to allow doctors to report patients they feel are mentally unstable.

Why to just the NICS? In santa Barbara, while 90% of the press reports make it seem like just a shooting, half the murdered were killed with knives?

So why NICS and guns when the science shows that commitment, involuntary institutionalization is what reduces murder?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22072224

Why NCIS only when you may be stabbed? Maybe I should know if a roommate, or coworker has depression? Autism spectrum? Anger issues?

And if doctors can report people and reduce their rights even if they are not adjudicated dangerous, wont LESS people go to the doctor? I would be much less inclined to do so and would be less inclined to send my kids to a mental health professional knowing there maybe some permanent reduction federal record.

I fully understand the argument that criminals will ignore gun laws. My main thought is preventing mentally unstable people to from walking into a gun store and legally acquiring a firearm. Now if said unstable person stole a firearm or illegally obtained it, no law or regulation would stop that.

Again what is the definition of mentally unstable? Someone who has sought treatment for anywhere on the spectrum?

And again what is the evidence this would have any efficacy whatsoever?

The other issue is training. As I have mentioned, there is absolutely NO training requirement for buying a deadly weapon and in most states, no proof of capability.

And is there some evidence that training reduces murder? An iota of evidence? Some of these murders are very well trained and some not. Where is the evidence that training reduced murder?

Would training reduce suicide?

So you must mean safety training only due to the amount of accidents. The fact is accidents among legal firearms owners are actually miniscule. Almost all of the accidents are in the homes of criminal owners anyway (if you notice the "studies" on firearms deaths at home, assiduously refuse to apply the key control of whether the firearms owning home was also the home of a drug dealer or gang member, despite copious evidence that most of this is in fact criminals leaving their guns around or their families being shot when one drug dealer robs another).

Are we going to require training for bike riding, or other activities, or pools, which kill more people than household members of non criminal gun owners?

 

[44 AMP]

What is "unstable?

And, what is "dangerously unstable?"

And, what gives you, me, a doctor, the right to decide, let alone the ability to decide correctly?

The simple fact is that no one can know, with absolute certainty what goes on inside another person's head. Those who believe they do are deluding themselves.

People do have patterns, and for some things, one can be fairly confident, but absolute certainty is a delusion.

Yes, I do believe that a high degree of confidence is sufficient for action to be taken, and this is why we have courts to determine such things.

People lie. I cannot think of any kind of evaluation of a subject's mental state and abilities that does not include the subjects responses. And those responses could be lies.

And even if they are not, the evaluator makes a judgment, and that could be a lie.

IF you make it easier for doctors to report "unstable" people, and action bet taken on that alone, you WILL get a number of "false positives". People usually focus on "fewer people will go to the doctor if you do this..", but what about the other side(s) of that coin?

People will go to the doctor and LIE. Some doctors will LIE. Some, in good faith, will make mistakes. And its rather difficult to prove a negative.

PROVE to me that you are not dangerous!? Right. How?
"false positives" will clog the system, after all, everyone has the right to their day in court.

How many people who are not dangerous, will have their lives impacted, disrupted, or possibly destroyed, in the hopes you will catch a few who actually are dangerous? What is the cost/benefit? And don't fall into the trap of weighing "potential" (promised) benefits against actual costs.

Simply look at the mass shooters histories. Some have been clear expressions of what they later went and did. Some have been "peace, love, granola"...all sweetness and light, until they went on their killing spree.

Uncle Max may think he is Aunt Mae, he's "unstable". But in every other regard, he's "normal", and neither Max, nor Mae is dangerous. Should he be reported, locked up, rights denied, etc., until he is adjudicated?

Or maybe Max walks out of his hearing fully cleared, and then sees that a the sign that Aunt Mae should begin her God given mission to send sinners to hell?

My point is, you just can't KNOW, and using the miles wide brush of "unstable" as your standard just isn't going to get you what you think it will.

Some of the greatest artists in many fields, throughout history, including recognized geniuses fit into the "unstable" category.

And what about those, who are "stable" and just evil? They lie to the docs, too....

 

[kilimanjaro]

Jim Dandy wrote :

"What exactly is it that makes sense to you about trusting 80 million people to own a gun without breaking the laws with, including the ones about where and how you carry it, then giving them the exact same background check a second time, charging them another $50, to carry a piece of paper that says the people who were trusted not to shoot people but NOT carry them around are now trusted not to shoot people AND carry them around."

We all get to own as many guns as we want, but when we carry them in public there are going to be rules, and a permit is about as benign as it gets, at least in Shall Issue states. Folks need to spare us the 'shall not be infringed' purity, the Supreme Court has said states can regulate the public use and display of firearms and there you have it.

About half of all firearms transfers are by inheritance or private sales. No background checks there, unless some Probate attorney insists on one, assuming the guns are even mentioned in the will, which is not commonly done. How about those who have access to guns belonging to others in their homes, or is already a felon or some such. Think they should be able to walk around with a concealed weapon without some kind of a check?

If you think this country trusts the 80 million gun owners not to shoot people, think again.

I have a CCW permit, and the list of permit holders in this state is swept daily or weekly to catch the ones who did something that should deny them the right to carry in public. 35 years of permit status, for me, means a background check well over a thousand times. Couple that with checks for purchases, FFL03s, and the total is approaching two thousand checks. To me, after the first check, the public has been wasting their money, at least on me and the 99.9975% or whatever the number of fellow gun owners is, anyway. I agree it seems to be a bit much, but it's the system we have and it's pretty benign here, so 'infringement' is not a good choice of words to use.

We have to accept a certain amount of regulation or we are going to lose it all.

 

[Hunter Customs]

We have to accept a certain amount of regulation or we are going to lose it all.

I have to disagree with the above, we have had more and more regulation and we are still losing.
So I do not see how any gun regulations has help at all.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are still losing - then how to explain the AWB sunset and the vast majority of concealed carry states?

Yes, there is tons of anti rhetoric and the usual suspect states have passed draconian laws that their majority anti population support. But most of the country has resisted that. Even the anti states there is significant push back as in Colorado.

If we don't blow it - like with the Chipolte Two - progress has been on our side.

 

[stephen426]

I hate to say this, but all of your stats about reduced gun violence would not mean squat if it was one of your loved ones killed. I value my liberties and rights as much as the next guy, but I simply refuse to believe that random gun violence should be the norm and that we are powerless to reduce it.

There are an estimated 14,000 - 19,000 accidental shootings every year, with an average of 600 of these accidental shootings resulting in death. Many of these may be from carelessness, but some form of mandatory safety training should improve safety.

Again, thanks for the civility shown by all. I know this topic can get rather heated.

 

[Tom Servo]

There are an estimated 14,000 - 19,000 accidental shootings every year, with an average of 600 of these accidental shootings resulting in death. Many of these may be from carelessness, but some form of mandatory safety training should improve safety.

Or maybe they're misreported suicide attempts. Bob loses his job, and his wife leaves him. He gets blasted on fortified wine that night and has a "cleaning accident." Makes it easier for his wife to collect on the insurance if it's an accident.

Frankly, I've seen the mandatory training in a few states. It won't do much.

 

[Kirkpatrick]

The doctors who might be the ones to make background checks hard to pass, are by and large, strongly anti-gun. Check with the AMA's stance on guns. Theses aren't really "sensible gun control" groups of people, they are fundamentally, against the idea of private individuals being able to own guns, especially hand guns.

Remember, they don't have to make you legally adjudicated to stop you from getting a gun. They can just make it very hard for you to pass a back ground check. A doctor probably wouldn't lie and say that the court needed to take away your rights in a hearing. But I'm not so certain how many doctors and mental health professionals (therapists and counselors, like the kind working for your company or working for the high school) wouldn't put something in the paperwork if they suspected the only thing it would do is make it more difficult to get a gun.

So yeah, if you asked the AMA who and who shouldn't have a gun, they have already made their position clear.

 

[s3779m]

I hate to say this, but all of your stats about reduced gun violence would not mean squat if it was one of your loved ones killed.

. I agree, but I would feel the same way if she died in a car wreck that was not her fault, or in any of a number of other mishaps that were not her fault. We can not prevent misdeeds of others, however I can make sure she is driving a very safe car, is very aware of what is going on around her and is CARRYING.

 

[Evan Thomas]

There are an estimated 14,000 - 19,000 accidental shootings every year, with an average of 600 of these accidental shootings resulting in death. Many of these may be from carelessness, but some form of mandatory safety training should improve safety.

I very much doubt that mandatory safety classes would make much difference to this. I think Tom is right that many of these deaths are in fact suicides (as is the case for "single car accidents," BTW).

In addition, a great deal of carelessness comes from the belief that the basic safety rules don't apply to "experts:" "I know what I'm doing, so it's safe for me to ....... [fill in the blank]." That, and brain farts. Mandatory training will fix neither of these.

 

[JimDandy]

and a permit is about as benign as it gets, at least in Shall Issue states.

Benign and makes sense are not the same thing.

Folks need to spare us the 'shall not be infringed' purity,

At no time did I mention "Shall not be infringed".

About half of all firearms transfers are by inheritance or private sales.

Have a source for that number, as it's even higher than the 40% number cited (and relatively recently debunked by the Washington Post) by the study conducted at the beginning of the implementation of Brady.

How about those who have access to guns belonging to others in their homes, or is already a felon or some such. Think they should be able to walk around with a concealed weapon without some kind of a check?

Are you suggesting a CCW permit requirement somehow prevents those who are prohibited from firearms from illegally carrying around a firearm (it's illegal for them to possess in the first place)?

The sum total of what I said is that it makes no sense to require people who can legally have a firearm in their home to jump through another legal hoop to carry it around, as the fact that they can legally possess it implies no reason not to trust they won't break the law with it.

Can you give me ANY scenario where someone is safe to have a firearm in a holster on their belt while in their home, but is too dangerous to be trusted with it in a holster on their belt on the street in front of their home? What is the magical property of their home's exterior walls that forces them to act in a safe and sane manner while inside that does not apply while they are outside?

 

[stephen426]

@JimDandy

Can you give me ANY scenario where someone is safe to have a firearm in a holster on their belt while in their home, but is too dangerous to be trusted with it in a holster on their belt on the street in front of their home? What is the magical property of their home's exterior walls that forces them to act in a safe and sane manner while inside that does not apply while they are outside?

There are plenty of scenarios Jim. Within the confines of one's home, the damage from stray shots are fairly limited (except for your neighbors). When around the general public, I would hope someone knows a shoot/no-shoot situation and has the sense of mind to be aware of what is BEHIND his target. I have witnessed so much poor gun handling at the range including sweeping muzzles and **** poor marksmanship. While my intention is not to trample on anyone's constitutional rights or limit their ability to defend themselves, I thoroughly believe that people should know how to safely handle a gun if they are going to carry it in public.

Think about a situation where a concealed weapons permit holder is in a hold-up situation while at a restaurant or convenience store. I would not want that guy playing hero and start firing hot lead in my direction unless the bad guy already started firing shots. What about the mall shootings? Say a new permit holder decides to be a hero and shoots anyone he sees with a gun. Maybe the off duty cop that was trying to gain a better position to take out the bad guy gets shot.

I don't understand why people feel like driving is such a privilege. In many cities, it is a necessity due to poor public transportation. If people drive on public roads, I expect them to know how to handle themselves. If they violate those laws repeatedly, they should (and do) lose their right to drive. I will reiterate that the vast majority of us here on TFL are gun enthusiasts and much safer than your average Joe. Shooting is a hobby and passion for many of us here. I'm not sure of these reasons are enough for you Jim.

 

[Tom Servo]

Think about a situation where a concealed weapons permit holder is in a hold-up situation while at a restaurant or convenience store. I would not want that guy playing hero and start firing hot lead in my direction unless the bad guy already started firing shots.

Tell me when that's happened. Is there a rash of CCW holders going Rambo in public places? If not, why make things harder on everyone?

If we start passing laws on things that might happen, things take a dark turn.

What about the mall shootings? Say a new permit holder decides to be a hero and shoots anyone he sees with a gun. Maybe the off duty cop that was trying to gain a better position to take out the bad guy gets shot.

Again, I'm not aware of such a thing ever happening. In fact, a mall shooting may have been stopped by a CCW holder in Clackamas, Oregon. It's also worth mentioning that he kept his cool and never fired a shot.

 

[stephen426]

Tom,

My response was directed at Jim's comments. Just because someone legally owns a gun does not make them a good guy, especially since many people on here would prefer NO restrictions whatsoever. At the risk of sounding like an elitist, I would prefer that people demonstrate some kind of proficiency and demonstrate safe handling if they are to be carrying a firearm in public. That is merely my opinion, hopefully of which I am still entitled to have on this forum.

The situation in Clackamas, OR ended well and the permit holder showed great restraint. I have seen plenty of immature gun owners to assume they would take the prudent course of action. That is the reason I would like some sort of course for new gun owners that taught safe gun handling and gun storage. I would also like to see some sort of live fire training and some basic level of competence demonstrated for carrying a weapon in public. I don't care if I get booed off the stage. I don't care if I sound elitist. If you can't drive worth a damn, stay off the roads. If you can't hit the broad side of a barn, don't endanger others. Be responsible enough to get training and learn to shoot.

 

[JimDandy]

There are plenty of scenarios Jim. Within the confines of one's home, the damage from stray shots are fairly limited (except for your neighbors). When around the general public, I would hope someone knows a shoot/no-shoot situation and has the sense of mind to be aware of what is BEHIND his target. I have witnessed so much poor gun handling at the range including sweeping muzzles and **** poor marksmanship. While my intention is not to trample on anyone's constitutional rights or limit their ability to defend themselves, I thoroughly believe that people should know how to safely handle a gun if they are going to carry it in public.

I'm sorry I'm not following you. What makes someone "going Rambo" in a convenience store less dangerous than in their own home where more than a person or two would be, considering neighboring houses, and apartments? Or do you just have some serious angst for your neighbors?

What exactly does being fingerprinted and paying an extra 50 bucks do to prevent this? Your state may require training but mine doesn't. And there's some evidence the neighboring state of Oregon doesn't get any safer by requiring training for their permit. Their accident rates are about the same last I heard.

I thoroughly believe people shouldn't have any alcohol at all if they're going to drive. But the law doesn't say that. I thoroughly believe that people shouldn't be racist, insensitive, or rude. But they have a right to be, and I don't get to require them to take a good manners class or carry around a permit to speak to other people. Nor does such a permit ensure they would act responsibly with their words.

But the end result is, you still haven't explained why John Q Public is safe and sane in his house, but not in on the street right outside his house just because of a little card in his wallet. Instead you tried to allow he wasn't safe and sane in his house, but it wasn't a big deal because you don't live next to him somehow.

Edit To Add:

My response was directed at Jim's comments.

And Tom's comments were a response to yours, which you completely glossed over. Your answer was a whole lot of "I heard so and so did such and such" and "What about aliens with ray guns!!!!" anecdotal or hypothetical "What If" crap. What if nobody ever shot anybody ever. Even when they deserved it. Well now Concealed Carry Permits are REALLY unnecessary aren't they?

It's real easy to defend an idea when you can make up hypothetical's to support the idea, rather than ACTUAL supporting data.