next »

[allbutfoundajob]

You cannot buy a car in most states without a driver's license.  Period.  Get your facts straight.

That is not a fact. 

You can not legally drive a car on public roads without a license.  That is a fact. 

However, no license is needed to own or drive a car on private property.

[allbutfoundajob]

Thank you for the lovely compliment.  I care about the right of the people to overthrow the government, which is how I read the Second Amendment.  I do not care about your desire to shoot people with your Glock.  You do not have that right.

I do have the inherent right to defend myself and kill someone who is trying to kill me.  I also have the inherent right to kill government agents who are working for a tyrranical government.

[oldadjunct]

Thank you for the lovely compliment.  I care about the right of the people to overthrow the government, which is how I read the Second Amendment.  I do not care about your desire to shoot people with your Glock.  You do not have that right.

I do have the inherent right to defend myself and kill someone who is trying to kill me.  I also have the inherent right to kill government agents who are working for a tyrranical government.

In the American tradition "inherent" usually equates to "God given", even in the Enlightenment/Deist thinking of the Founders.  So then, where is it, exactly that God says you can kill?

[oldadjunct]

FYI:

Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock to Cho in March. The serial number had been scratched off, but federal agents traced it to the store using a receipt found in Cho’s backpack.

“It was a very unremarkable sale,” said Markell, who did not handle the sale personally. “He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won’t sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious.”

Markell said it’s not unusual for college students to make purchases at his shop as long as they are old enough.

Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, according to federal officials. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.

“To find out the gun came from my shop is just terrible,” Markell said.

from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18170761/ (emphasis added)

[busyslinky]

“To find out the gun came from my shop is just terrible,” Markell said.

The rest of the quote from Markell....

"but I don't feel responsible."

[dolljepopp]

People are not required to take a test and get a liscence prior to purchasing a car and driving a car.  People are required to take a test and get a liscence prior to driving a car on PUBLIC ROADS.  Most states require a person to apply for and receive a permit priot to having a concealed weapon. 

And all I am suggesting is that a strict application and permit practise, based on training and certification be extended to and required for firearm purchases.  I don't personally believe that is an infringement or curtailment, simply an insistence that the "right," as interpreted to mean individual gun ownership, come with mandated responsibility.

Clearly, we disagree.

So shoot me...

[john_proctor]

This post is a long one, and anecdotal.  I've stayed out of this one so far.  I'm not going to engage in it further.

The debate always ends up with someone yelling "ban all guns" and someone else yelling something about prying things from their cold, dead fingers.

It becomes inane.  Even among academics (who should know better forms of discussion and debate).

I am a gun owner.  I grew up among a family of hunters.  I grew up among a family of military veterans and law enforcement officers.  I fired my first gun at the age of 8; I have been a shooter for nearly 30 years.

My principle three firearms are - a bolt action .22 competition rifle, Russian made (Vostok) and fitted to my body; an Italian made (Bianchi) double-barrelled (over and under) 12 gauge shotgun modified with custom counterweights, again to fit my body; and a competition grade semiautomatic 9mm handgun - are all for competition shooting.

I am highly trained in gun safety and marksmanship.  I still shoot often.  Frankly, I'm simply surgical with the Vostok.

These firearms are all stored in a locked steel cabinet inside an interior closet in my home.  They all have trigger locks.  The rifle is stored with bolt (and therefore, firing pin) removed; the handgun is stored with the action disassembled (an old, make-sure-you-cleaned-it technique of storage that enhances safety).  All ammunition is stored in a separate locked steel safety box (which is also fireproofed).

Both cabinet and box are in the depths of the closet, behind my golf clubs, tennis rackets and, normally, an avalanche of camping gear.

These are sporting items.

My point?  One most certainly can own firearms for recreational purposes and manage them in ways that are not threats to the community or household.  One most certainly can have legitimate, law abiding reasons for owning firearms.

I do not hunt (though I did as a teen), but I don't see the situation would different if I did.

And the right to own these firearms is constitutionally protected.  It simply is.

That said:

I have absolutely no problem registering those firearms (if required.  I owned all three of these when I lived in Manhattan).  I see no problem whatsoever  with a national standard for background checks and training requirements.  There is not a single, legitimate reason (I do not recognize as legitimate any specious "slippery slope" arguments) not to make gun ownership at least as onerous as automobile ownership.  I have all necessary licenses to own my firearms.  I am willing to submit myself to waiting periods and even onerous background checks (frankly, my application for a credit card often involves more disclosure).  I have a permit to carry (concealed and otherwise) which I secured to have full redundancy for transport of my firearms to and from the target range.

These laws, themselves, do not keep my gun ownership "responsible."  Indeed, I exceed all regulations for safety.

These laws, however, insure that the average citizen, whom I frankly don't fully trust, uphold a modicum of gun safety and be subject to public supervision.

Finally, anyone who owns a firearm for "home protection" but does not have intense training in the use of a firearm for self defense (note the italics.  I mean something more than gun safety or competent marksmanship) is a hollywood-addled fool and a potential danger to themselves or their household.

From a family of cops and soldiers, I would argue that the conditions surrounding home defense - instantaneous decisions made about the use of deadly force - are not those the private citizen is inherently capable of addressing.  Police and military spend years training and retraining and they still make mistakes. 

Further, one's basic ability to actually use a gun in self defense (particularly a handgun) requires years/decades of specialized training.  Emergency conditions - with one's blood pumping, adrenaline flowing, often poor visibility and a moving target - is absolutely NOT an inherent talent nor the same thing as target shooting (with ideal conditions for visibility, etc.).

99% of private citizen gun owners simply not that good with a gun for self defense.  I'm damn good with my guns on the target range.  I'm grabbing a nine iron (and a cell phone) for self defense first.  Even more, proper, safe and reliable storage techniques (which I describe above) mean that it would simply take too much time to get the firearm ready for self-defense.

Cops can't be accurate with deadly force outside of 10 meters or so.  Soldiers don't even try.  They use fully automatic carbines; sidearms are for the ultimate, last-ditch defense (just short of using a knife or a stick).

Statistically, your gun is far more likely to be used for a suicide or crime against you.

It is not time to remove all guns from private ownership.  It is time for frank assessments regarding their use and role.

[helpful]

Thank you John. I just have one question, why can't your guns be locked up in the same way at the target range or gun club?

[case_insensitive]

People are not required to take a test and get a liscence prior to purchasing a car and driving a car.  People are required to take a test and get a liscence prior to driving a car on PUBLIC ROADS.  Most states require a person to apply for and receive a permit priot to having a concealed weapon. 

And all I am suggesting is that a strict application and permit practise, based on training and certification be extended to and required for firearm purchases.  I don't personally believe that is an infringement or curtailment, simply an insistence that the "right," as interpreted to mean individual gun ownership, come with mandated responsibility.

Clearly, we disagree.

So shoot me...

FWIW, these things vary widely by state, and sometimes by county and sometimes by city.

My homestate, for example, is a right to carry state.  You don't have to have a concealed carry permit in order to purchase or own a gun because in this state you have the right to have one in your home or farm, or if you are a business owner to have one in your business. That is you have the right to defend yourself on your own property.  This is a right be default, no permit needed.  If you want to carry a gun (and it'll have to be concealed) outside of those places, you have to have a concealed carry permit. This is given by the Sheriff in the county of your residence, so there are some counties where the local sheriff makes it harder to get a permit than in other counties.  My homestate doesn't currently require training. This state (like some others) has an even clearer "right to bear arms" in it's state constitution than the right given in the US Constitution.

However, I have lived in states that do require training.  Some states require a lot of specific training (not just safety) and others require less.  Mostly this sort of thing is determined by the constitution of the state in question.

Some states make it so hard to get a permit that you can't even buy a gun.  In some states/cities/counties, you must prove you NEED it before you can buy one.  In some you must get the permit before you can purchase a gun.  This is somewhat at the whim of the local gov't official in charge.  This varies widely.

This above is in reference only to handguns, since long guns are not "concealable," and only to semi-automatic (and revolvers and etc) handguns (i.e. guns for personal protection) and certainly not to "assault weapons" and full-auto weapons which are very strictly controlled by the Federal government. 


Ah, I see JP has posted. My story is somewhat similar to his in essentials, though not in all the details. Certainly, no one coming into my home (even in my absence) could make off with one of my guns.  That's part of responsible gun ownership. 

The truth of the matter is I have had more safety training and possibly more marksmanship training than most of the police I know.  Scary, but true.  And, I haven't had that much!

Ask your police friends how often they are required to practice shooting and how often the practice realistic shooting scenarios (i.e not just standing still, without cover, and shooting at an immovable target).  You'd be surprised how much some of your local police don't get in training.  This is especially true if you do not live in one of the most major cities.  At some universities, campus police have even less training.  I think this trend was mostly true in the past, though. Today, many U-police depts are now attached to local police or require a certain amount of experience for applicants. And, post-9-11, many have upped their training requirements to deal with terrorist attacks and other unusual situations we all would never have imagined some years ago.

[john_proctor]

Thank you John. I just have one question, why can't your guns be locked up in the same way at the target range or gun club?

The one I currently use for the majority of my shooting has limited storage facilities.  I'm on the waiting list.

When I lived in New York, that's where I kept them.

I should also add, I one other firearm in my home (for which I do not have ammunition); it is an antique and was my grandfathers.

[extinct]

I don't want to live in a culture where carrying a weapon is considered normal behaviour.

I personally would rather die trying to preserve freedom, than live in the tyyrannical world where it is considered abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.

I personally would rather die trying to preserve freedom, than live in a tyrannical world where it is considered abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.

[rowan1]

My father was a long time member of the NRA.  He hunted every year since he was a child.  He grew up in rural Wyoming and Colorado. He was a naval officer and supervised the lock down of his base in California after Kennedy was shot - he was in charge of distributing arms to the soldiers on the base.  He has won marksmanship awards. 

We grew up with guns in the house, secured in much the same manner as JP describes his guns.  Both my brother and I were taught how to clean and load a gun and taught that were we ever to touch one without my father present we would be facing a serious problem sitting and lose all our privileges for an unspecified time - that threat worked when we were kids.  As a child I knew where the guns were stored but had no idea where the ammo was.

My brother had to complete hunters safety before my father and grandfather would let him have his first gun.

My father had a loaded pistol in the drawer of his bedside table.

My brother came home unexpectedly from college, hadn't called because he had planned on arriving the next day but he and his friends decided to drive through the night.

My father blew a hole in the wall feet away from my brother's head, he realized who was standing in the hallway and pulled his shot just in time.

My father had the pistol destroyed the next day.  He no longer has handguns in the house.  His hunting rifles, when he still hunted were kept in a storage facility except during hunting season.

The issue of gun control is not about denying people the right to bear arms, it is mandating that people who want to have guns have the training and knowledge to keep them safe.  And even then, accidents can occur.  My dad and my brother got lucky.  Other people are not so lucky.

[allbutfoundajob]

I personally would rather die trying to preserve freedom, than live in a tyrannical world where it is considered abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.

So in your world, people are are freer when they have fewer freedoms? 

Does that mean that the Chinese are freer than Americans because they have fewer freedoms than Americans?  Nothing like the presky liberties of free speech, private property and gun rights to get in the way for preserving freedom.

[case_insensitive]

Thank you John. I just have one question, why can't your guns be locked up in the same way at the target range or gun club?

Do you want to trust someone else to be safer than you are with your guns for which you are responsible?  Other's might have access to your guns without your knowledge. I wouldn't want to go there...

Plus, it removes any ability to defend one's self in one's home if your guns are locked away and off premises.  They are only fancy toys, then.

[helpful]

I personally would rather die trying to preserve freedom, than live in a tyrannical world where it is considered abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.

So in your world, people are are freer when they have fewer freedoms? 

Does that mean that the Chinese are freer than Americans because they have fewer freedoms than Americans?  Nothing like the presky liberties of free speech, private property and gun rights to get in the way for preserving freedom.

You have a pretty skewed version of freedom if you include gun rights.
We are not talking about gun rights here, we are talking about the need to license gun ownership and the need to have training in order to own a firearm.
Why, I ask you , do we require more of people to drive a car than to own a gun?