Firearms Regulations

[Tyndmyr]

Usually it's a tool that has extreme importance in modern society (like a car) or it's something that is not directly used to kill masses of people (like a computer game in which case the people made their choice as opposed to not making their choice to be gunned down en masse).

Having a backyard swimming pool is a lot more dangerous to your family than owning a rifle.I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool.

I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool.[/quote]

Accidental drownings, mostly. Kids wander into pool, get stuck, drown. There isn't really a big push to ban backyard pools, though. I mean, sure, folks will advocate for safe use, but nobody feels a need for licensing, registration, or banning for safety reasons.

However, the point is that pools contradict your statement. A pool can cause death pretty directly, and is not a necessary thing to most lives the way automobiles are.

Mass shootings are fairly rare overall. They just get a lot of attention because the individual incidents are large. It's something akin to airlines. Air travel is, objectively, pretty safe. Actual death rates are quite low compared to, say, driving. However, when an airline goes down, it's all over the news for ages, and it's a big deal, often with many deaths at once. Thus, you have a lot of people who are afraid of flying, but give zero fucks about driving a car, and often can't even be bothered to use the turn signals.

It's not an essential freedom (and certainly one that I wouldn't think would be worth the directly traceable cost in human life). Guns should really only be used for self defense in a large number of situations. If it were a hobby like skiing or something where the cause of other people's deaths (who didn't choose it) was so directly associable then maybe it would be harder to associate. But the fact is that guns do facilitate killing. They are necessary for self defense, but not a whole lot of other things.

First off, as already noted, firearm ownership is generally not correlated with murder. And of types of firearms, long guns kill a great deal fewer people than handguns do.

Well, what makes a freedom essential? Target shooting is a really popular hobby, and is an Olympic sport(though I notice the media rarely makes a hubbub about the US winning shooting events).

Would banning, say, football be acceptable? Football matches have frequently resulted in sports fans behaving riotously, and hurting or killing people, and damaging property. Even disregarding injuries on the field, sports fans often manage to be quite obnoxious and injurious to society. Why is sport shooting not considered an acceptable sport, even when the rest are?

[Tyndmyr]

It's the laws that punish legitimate, non criminal owners that are at issue.

Punish. An odd word. Used in its most broad sense, I presume. Like when I wasn't allowed a second chocolate biscuit in any given day as a child.

And if 'non-criminal' owners were sanctioned against their ownership by law, then they would be criminal by definition if they were still owners. (Like children of undocumented imigrants who are allowed to go through the process of legalising their status so long as they have no criminal record, but then get a record and are deporyed for breaking the immigration law. Was that a shoe I hear falling from the other foot?)


Ach! The situation is crazy enough. But for some reason I decided to write and post the above anyway.

The immigration system is probably not an ideal model for much of anything else. It's not even good at handling immigration, I'm not sure why we should want to use something similar for firearms.

The act of banning firearms would be the punishment. Essentially, folks who enjoy using firearms no longer can, because of the actions of different people entirely. If you can target laws to affect those who are, yknow, violent criminals without targeting presently law abiding folks, then you might have something. But without that, of course anti-gun folks are going to be seen as "anti-legitimate gun" people, not as anti-crime people. Because none of the things they are proposing are about crime.

[gd1]

They are used in some of the mass shootings, yes. Not all, though. Pistols show up as well. There isn't some defining line of pistols being safe or rifles not. I note that a previous firearm push was to ban pistols on the basis of folks not needing them, but of course, they'd be permitted to keep rifles. Or at least, that was the line at the time. So, of course, there's a lot of concern that if one were banned, and nothing changed, they'd simply come after the next target.

Banning rifles wouldn't do anything to fix the root causes here. Yes, it's true that in modern society, most of us don't have any need to hunt our own food. Doing that is definitely particularly foreign to an urban society. Hunting is definitely still big in the country, though.

The lock thing comes about as a result of an intersection of state and federal law. Both mandate a lock be purchased with the handgun. However, they mandate different kinds of locks. So, I end up buying two. Each law, taken individually, can be justified in that locks can be used for safety. However, the combined effect is irrational. There is indeed a tradeoff between locks and self defense accessibility, but in some cases, a lock is worth it. For instance, if you have small children in the house, you ought to properly secure your weapons. I don't have any kids, but I can open the safe fairly quickly, and I don't mind having a little bit of extra security, but locks and safe would also be largely redundant.

[quote][quote="Tyndmyr wrote:

Usually it's a tool that has extreme importance in modern society (like a car) or it's something that is not directly used to kill masses of people (like a computer game in which case the people made their choice as opposed to not making their choice to be gunned down en masse).

Having a backyard swimming pool is a lot more dangerous to your family than owning a rifle.I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool.

I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool.

[ucim]

I'm saying that a hobby and hunting are not worth it in exchange for peoples lives when the cause is so directly linked.

First off, you're quite quick to dismiss other people's hobbies. "First they came for the booksellers..."

Second, the cause is not so directly linked. Gun hobby deaths and gun hunting deaths don't even register compared with criminal gun deaths. So removing guns from criminals would be directly linked. Removing guns from hobbyists and hunters isn't. In fact, its resemblance to beef by-products is especially striking. You're being more than disingenuous in proposing this.

Lastly, I question whether it is worth it to allow people to enjoy guns at a such a high cost in life so directly lost.

In light of the above, I question whether it's worth it to allow people to enjoy tennis, since football players incur such a high cost in life so directly lost.

Jose

[gd1]

I'm saying that a hobby and hunting are not worth it in exchange for peoples lives when the cause is so directly linked.

First off, you're quite quick to dismiss other people's hobbies. "First they came for the booksellers..."

Second, the cause is not so directly linked. Gun hobby deaths and gun hunting deaths don't even register compared with criminal gun deaths. So removing guns from criminals would be directly linked. Removing guns from hobbyists and hunters isn't. In fact, its resemblance to beef by-products is especially striking. You're being more than disingenuous in proposing this.

Lastly, I question whether it is worth it to allow people to enjoy guns at a such a high cost in life so directly lost.

In light of the above, I question whether it's worth it to allow people to enjoy tennis, since football players incur such a high cost in life so directly lost.

Jose

Just this hobby in particular. And as I said, people know the risks with tennis and football. Allowing guns as a hobby is rolling the dice with the lives of others.

Removing access to guns by making a category like rifles disallowed reduces the likelihood of those guns being used in crimes because law enforcement can screen them out more readily. Seatbelts don't prevent all deaths, but they help and police check to make sure you are wearing one.

If it helps, I don't have a problem with archery. Not nearly as easy to kill people with.

[Tyndmyr]

Quote's broken.

The important difference here is that people know the risks and can choose to avoid them with a pool or football. Someone with a gun isn't exactly something you can know the risks in advance or avoid. It's other people deeming the risks to you as acceptable in exchange for a hobby (which is mainly a problem because of how directly related guns are to the loss of life caused). Also, with football events it is reliably possible to have well positioned security well in advance. A person could have a gun anywhere.

Technically, freedoms aren't essential to life, but they are important to quality of life. I can accept football in spite of the terrible injuries involved because the people choose to play. Guns as a hobby is just too much loss for too little reward and most importantly against people who were unwilling participants in loss situations.

Lastly, I question whether it is worth it to allow people to enjoy guns at a such a high cost in life so directly lost.

Not really. I mean, I suppose I could, as a non-football player, or fan monitor the local game schedule, and avoid being anywhere in the area whenever a game is being played in case of riot. However, that's not really me choosing risk. Not being into football, I genuinely have no idea which games result in rivalry and riot, and the whole causing a hubbub over a football game is baffling to me, but it is a thing. But anyways, there is absolutely no guarantee that only those who have chosen the risks will suffer the consequences. Riots are kind of bad at that.

Yeah, yeah, the folks on the field chose to play. Unfortunately, fans often misbehave off the turf, and even outside the stadium for some decent radius around it. I understand that this is true of various other forms of sportsball as well, depending on country and culture. Other sports present some level of risk to bystanders or surrounding people as well. A race where a car crashes into the crowd is an unfortunate accident, but we don't ban auto races.

And me buying a rifle doesn't actually present a risk to anyone. In fact, shooting sports as a whole do not. The mass shootings are not done by competitive shooters. Most of those chaps have never been to a range, and those few who have mostly do so a handful of times prior to the event by way of preparation. They're generally not sportsmen, either. The vast, vast majority of people don't appear to want to murder a whole bunch of other people. It's really only a tiny sliver of humanity.

Assuming you even could ban all rifles, and those lads are doing mass shootings with pistols instead, what have you really achieved? You keep talking about the cost, but you fail to show how your plan would actually avert it. It does precisely nothing to detect or stop shooters in advance, all it does is maybe, at some point, impact the exact sort of weaponry they use.

If it helps, I don't have a problem with archery. Not nearly as easy to kill people with.

I mean, you can tell an aspiring athlete that snowboarding is banned, but it's okay, they can compete in cross country skiing instead, and I doubt they would be terribly happy about it. They're entirely different sports.

[gd1]

Quote's broken.

The important difference here is that people know the risks and can choose to avoid them with a pool or football. Someone with a gun isn't exactly something you can know the risks in advance or avoid. It's other people deeming the risks to you as acceptable in exchange for a hobby (which is mainly a problem because of how directly related guns are to the loss of life caused). Also, with football events it is reliably possible to have well positioned security well in advance. A person could have a gun anywhere.

Technically, freedoms aren't essential to life, but they are important to quality of life. I can accept football in spite of the terrible injuries involved because the people choose to play. Guns as a hobby is just too much loss for too little reward and most importantly against people who were unwilling participants in loss situations.

Lastly, I question whether it is worth it to allow people to enjoy guns at a such a high cost in life so directly lost.

Not really. I mean, I suppose I could, as a non-football player, or fan monitor the local game schedule, and avoid being anywhere in the area whenever a game is being played in case of riot. However, that's not really me choosing risk. Not being into football, I genuinely have no idea which games result in rivalry and riot, and the whole causing a hubbub over a football game is baffling to me, but it is a thing. But anyways, there is absolutely no guarantee that only those who have chosen the risks will suffer the consequences. Riots are kind of bad at that.

Yeah, yeah, the folks on the field chose to play. Unfortunately, fans often misbehave off the turf, and even outside the stadium for some decent radius around it. I understand that this is true of various other forms of sportsball as well, depending on country and culture. Other sports present some level of risk to bystanders or surrounding people as well. A race where a car crashes into the crowd is an unfortunate accident, but we don't ban auto races.

And me buying a rifle doesn't actually present a risk to anyone. In fact, shooting sports as a whole do not. The mass shootings are not done by competitive shooters. Most of those chaps have never been to a range, and those few who have mostly do so a handful of times prior to the event by way of preparation. They're generally not sportsmen, either. The vast, vast majority of people don't appear to want to murder a whole bunch of other people. It's really only a tiny sliver of humanity.

Assuming you even could ban all rifles, and those lads are doing mass shootings with pistols instead, what have you really achieved? You keep talking about the cost, but you fail to show how your plan would actually avert it. It does precisely nothing to detect or stop shooters in advance, all it does is maybe, at some point, impact the exact sort of weaponry they use.

If it helps, I don't have a problem with archery. Not nearly as easy to kill people with.

I mean, you can tell an aspiring athlete that snowboarding is banned, but it's okay, they can compete in cross country skiing instead, and I doubt they would be terribly happy about it. They're entirely different sports.

You know when a game will be. You know where the stadiums are. If you really want to you can live a good distance from those things. Also, you can check what the security is like and just stay near them.

Again, people know the risks of watching auto races.

You are not a risk with a rifle, but some people are. You do not need a rifle. Disallowing rifles reduces access to those guns for the people who are a risk.

Pistol wounds are much less impactful than rifle wounds. This means a harder time killing a large number of people. Pistols also don't have the range of rifles as per Las Vegas. No one ever knows when a seat belt or speed limit saves their life, because if they do you won't know. However, they're generally thought to be helpful in saving lives. Stats may or may not indicate it, but it's a hobby being weighed against unwitting loss of life in a direct manner. That's just the way it is.

I'm okay with nascar and snowboarding. If they make the purge an Olympic sport I would have a problem with it.

[Tyndmyr]

You know when a game will be. You know where the stadiums are. If you really want to you can live a good distance from those things. Also, you can check what the security is like and just stay near them.

Again, people know the risks of watching auto races.

The same is true of crime, to a large extent. One can alter their odds of being a victim to a very large degree by engaging in similar habits.

But in practice, someone's getting hurt. It isn't solving the problem. It's just avoiding it, and allowing someone else to be a victim.

You are not a risk with a rifle, but some people are. You do not need a rifle. Disallowing rifles reduces access to those guns for the people who are a risk.

A. Why should you decide what I need?
B. Disallowing rifles doesn't reduce access a whole helluva lot. Guns are the sort of thing that last for an extremely long time. The US has more guns than people. Getting access to a gun, or even to a rifle specifically, is not particularly hard. Laws restricting individuals has some effect, but the overall supply is huge. Passing a law won't ultimately change it much.

Pistol wounds are much less impactful than rifle wounds. This means a harder time killing a large number of people. Pistols also don't have the range of rifles as per Las Vegas. No one ever knows when a seat belt or speed limit saves their life, because if they do you won't know. However, they're generally thought to be helpful in saving lives. Stats may or may not indicate it, but it's a hobby being weighed against unwitting loss of life in a direct manner. That's just the way it is.

I'm okay with nascar and snowboarding. If they make the purge an Olympic sport I would have a problem with it.

Rifles generally shoot larger calibers than pistols, true. This helps for defensive purposes as well as offensive uses. Pistols do not have a very long accurate range, but the vegas shooting was literally shooting at a crowd. Accuracy was...not really important. Also, that dude had giant piles of money, and gave zero fucks about the law. I doubt a no rifles ban would have really mattered to him. If he'd wanted to convert pistols to rifles, he could have.

Mass shootings are also not generally long ranged affairs. Vegas was an outlier here. In most cases, the ranges are trivially close, the shooter has selected victims that are generally unable to fight back, and the shooter is willing to expend multiple rounds(and has basically no pressure forcing him to not). How dangerous a specific round is ends up being mostly irrelevant. The same outcome happens regardless. Some fairly high-death scenarios have resulted from pistol-only events, such as the Virginia Tech shooting.

Sure, sure, in a hypothetical matchup of a pistol vs a rifle, all things being equal, the rifle has the edge usually. But in armed vs entirely unarmed, it's...not even vaguely fair, regardless. The delta doesn't matter.

It can matter in home defense against an armed intruder, though.

[ucim]

Just this hobby in particular. And as I said, people know the risks with tennis and football. Allowing guns as a hobby is rolling the dice with the lives of others.

You are so completely missing the point that I think it's deliberate.

How many gun hobbyists have gone on a murderous shooting spree? The answer is pretty close to zero; probably identically equal to zero. Gun hobbyists do not pose a murderous threat to humanity. They just don't.

And banning tennis because football players cause riots is asinine. Similarly, banning gun hobbyists because murderers use guns is equally asinine. We could just as well ban personal computers because terrorists look up bomb plans on the internet.

Guns are already out there. Stopping responsible people from owning them isn't going to stop irresponsible people from getting them. The problem needs to be solved from a different angle.

Jose

[gd1]

This is looking a bit dicey so I'd rather not go further.

I will cede that rifles to protect against tyranny isn't something I'm decided on one way or the other. So there's that at least.

[Tyndmyr]

I will cede that rifles to protect against tyranny isn't something I'm decided on one way or the other. So there's that at least.

Even if we set that aside, surely the sport has some value?

I mean, sure, you wouldn't know it to look at the news, but records such as "first woman to medal in six consecutive Olympics" are set in the shooting sports, because it's particularly egalitarian. Record-holder is US, even. Very, very little media time. She is, of course, an advocate of the NRA.

In 2016, 30.24 mil Americans engaged in the sport of target shooting*. Skiing and Snowboarding combined get maybe a third of that participation. Football and baseball are both at about half the participation numbers of shooting.

It's certainly America's most popular sport to actually participate in.

*https://www.statista.com/statistics/191962/participants-in-target-shooting-in-the-us-since-2006/

[CorruptUser]

I just want to say I find it really effing weird that a person can be legally allowed to buy a gun but not beer...

[ucim]

Yeah, on the surface it seems so. But a gun doesn't alter a sane person's mind the way beer does.

Young people can be taught (and hold) good morals. Beer can undo that.

Jose

[CorruptUser]

Holding a gun either alters your mind, or you shouldn't be allowed to hold one. It's not a toy or accessory, it's an extremely dangerous tool.

[ucim]

Holding a gun either alters your mind, or you shouldn't be allowed to hold one.

How so?

At least, how so that is not so for any other consequential activity? Getting into the pilot seat of an airplane should "alter your mind", in that you become in that moment more aware of the consequences of your actions, but that only happens if your mind is ready in the first place.

OTOH, beer chemically alters the brain, whether you are "prepared for it" or not.

Jose

[CorruptUser]

Exactly like getting behind the controls of an aircraft, or even the wheel of a car. But operating an aircraft isnt a right. You need to go through a large amount of training to do so. Even a car at least requires proving basic competency with the local DMV. Yet we don't for firearms.

I know, second amendment and all, but could we please have a basic competency test for firearm ownership?

[ucim]

Exactly like getting behind the controls of an aircraft, or even the wheel of a car.

Neither alters your mind. Beer does. Directly. Beer affects how you think about other things, such as driving cars.

But operating an aircraft isnt a right. You need to go through a large amount of training to do so.

Because if you don't know how to operate an aircraft, and attempt to do so, you will kill people without meaning to. That's not the problem we have with guns. Accidental firearm deaths do happen on occasion, but the primary thing is the deliberate firearm deaths. Competency isn't the problem. Training does not address the problem. Attitude does.

Don't be blinded by the desire to "do something!"

Oh, and we don't have a competency test for car ownership. Or even aircraft ownership.

Jose

[Tyndmyr]

I just want to say I find it really effing weird that a person can be legally allowed to buy a gun but not beer...

It's also weird that a person can legally sign up to go die for their country, but not buy a beer.

And Europe is a lot more liberal on alcohol consumption, yet hasn't devolved into a hellscape. Maybe the US just has a lot of really antiquated and unhealthy viewpoints on alcohol? *stares at blue laws in general*

Exactly like getting behind the controls of an aircraft, or even the wheel of a car. But operating an aircraft isnt a right. You need to go through a large amount of training to do so. Even a car at least requires proving basic competency with the local DMV. Yet we don't for firearms.

I know, second amendment and all, but could we please have a basic competency test for firearm ownership?

In practice, we basically do treat car ownership like a right. A district that adopted a "good and substantial reason" test for driver's licenses, like some jurisdictions have for firearm carry licenses, would be extremely odd.

Many areas do in fact have firearm classes, and may couple taking them with acquiring additional rights. The NRA puts a good deal of money into conducting classes, and there used to be a healthy system of safety training in many schools until gun banners largely destroyed this in the Clinton administration. I grew up in Minnesota, and at about twelve you'd go take a safety course(which allowed you to get hunting licenses and stuff after completion). I did mine in the range in a school basement, as was normal at the time. Turning schools into "gun free zones" largely axed those ranges and their attendant courses. Courses still exist elsewhere, but if you want everyone to actually be safe, having a standard cultural expectation of taking the safety class at a standard, young age, works pretty well.

So, yeah, if you want to know why gun safety training looks irrationally different from driver's ed, you have the gun banners to blame.

[Mutex]

Are there any states where you have to pass a mandatory safety test before you can own a gun?

And you could still have gun safety courses at school without doing them in the school itself. It's not like students do their driving safety course in the school corridors either. Blaming gun control advocates for the lack of safety courses is a bit of a reach. I'm sure gun control advocates are in favour of gun safety courses provided you're not doing them in schools.

[Tyndmyr]

Are there any states where you have to pass a mandatory safety test before you can own a gun?

No. The same is true of owning a car.

However, using a car or a gun often requires a test. Exceptions for both exist, such as driving on private property, but in practice, people purchase both with the goal of using them, and getting training is quite normal. So, while it's entirely legal to buy a car or a gun without passing any test or doing any training at all, it is odd.

And you could still have gun safety courses at school without doing them in the school itself. It's not like students do their driving safety course in the school corridors either. Blaming gun control advocates for the lack of safety courses is a bit of a reach. I'm sure gun control advocates are in favour of gun safety courses provided you're not doing them in schools.

There are still safety courses elsewhere, sure. But the fact remains that they choked off one of the largest traditional venues for teaching said courses. That's pretty direct responsibility, and it's a result of the desire to attack gun culture. https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/01/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke/

Anyways, getting rid of firearms clubs and safety classes in schools* hasn't made anyone safer. Safety classes didn't turn into mass shooting incidents, and in fact, school shootings have largely become a problem after society started excluding such programs from schools. Making schools into "gun free zones" has not made them safer from firearms. My training took place in the 90s, but there's been a pretty consistent trend on the part of gun-banners to target guns in schools as a problem, even when those guns have literally nothing to do with mass shootings.

*Sure, sure, off school ranges are still a thing, but if you exclude a sport from school grounds, you're obviously disadvantaging that sport, and civilian marksmanship program numbers show it. Dropping numbers, the JROTC swap from actual firearms to pellet rifles, etc.

Edit: I should note that a "school zone" is not quite the same thing as a school, as it includes a halo around the school as well. If you happen to say, live in that area, your rights are a bit screwed. Incidentally, this is an excellent reason to vote against any new school funding, expansions, or the like in your area.

[Mutex]

Are there any states where you have to pass a mandatory safety test before you can own a gun?

No. The same is true of owning a car.

However, using a car or a gun often requires a test. Exceptions for both exist, such as driving on private property, but in practice, people purchase both with the goal of using them, and getting training is quite normal. So, while it's entirely legal to buy a car or a gun without passing any test or doing any training at all, it is odd.

What exactly are you talking about when you say "use" a gun? What percentage of gun owners take a safety test?

Anyways, getting rid of firearms clubs and safety classes in schools* hasn't made anyone safer. Safety classes didn't turn into mass shooting incidents, and in fact, school shootings have largely become a problem after society started excluding such programs from schools. Making schools into "gun free zones" has not made them safer from firearms. My training took place in the 90s, but there's been a pretty consistent trend on the part of gun-banners to target guns in schools as a problem, even when those guns have literally nothing to do with mass shootings.

I couldn't find any stats on the number of accidental gun deaths in schools, but the overall number of accidental gun deaths in the US appears to have been declining. So even if mass shootings are up, it could be the case that restricting gun from crowded places like schools saves lives. I know gun ownership has been increasing at the same time, but I understand that's mostly people who already own guns hoarding more because they're scared restrictive gun selling laws are coming.

[Tyndmyr]

There are wildly differing numbers on that. Mother Jones claims as many as 4 in 10 receive no formal safety training, but you can get far higher or lower numbers depending on where you look. Many carry licenses require training, so one can presume that carry licenses in those states represent some lower bar. Some training may not be listed anywhere as "formal". I taught classes as a job for a summer camp once. I'm pretty confident that nobody ever bothered to track those classes, and I was never surveyed about it. Wasn't state mandated or a big organization like the NRA, so I don't think it'd be represented in any numbers.

There are also a *lot* of training courses available. So, presumably they have a good market. They simply wouldn't be that popular otherwise.

Pew's probably the best source I can find. Nice and neutral, and while it may not be perfect, it's probably the best available, and it lists about 70% as having taken training. Owning more firearms is positively correlated with having taken training. It's also more common in the younger generation, with older folks having embraced formal training somewhat less.*

*http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-of-gun-safety-and-the-key-responsibilities-of-gun-owners/

Anyways, getting rid of firearms clubs and safety classes in schools* hasn't made anyone safer. Safety classes didn't turn into mass shooting incidents, and in fact, school shootings have largely become a problem after society started excluding such programs from schools. Making schools into "gun free zones" has not made them safer from firearms. My training took place in the 90s, but there's been a pretty consistent trend on the part of gun-banners to target guns in schools as a problem, even when those guns have literally nothing to do with mass shootings.

I couldn't find any stats on the number of accidental gun deaths in schools, but the overall number of accidental gun deaths in the US appears to have been declining. So even if mass shootings are up, it could be the case that restricting gun from crowded places like schools saves lives. I know gun ownership has been increasing at the same time, but I understand that's mostly people who already own guns hoarding more because they're scared restrictive gun selling laws are coming.

What's your proposed causality on that? Gun ownership is doing great, with sales steadily spiking through the entire Obama era. So it can't really be a result of fewer guns.

Source on gun ownership being only a result of hoarding?

[EdgarJPublius]

I know gun ownership has been increasing at the same time, but I understand that's mostly people who already own guns hoarding more because they're scared restrictive gun selling laws are coming.

This case is made by some number of polls, but every other indicator points to the rate of gun ownership increasing.Record numbers of Concealed Carry Permits are being issued, ownership among women is becoming increasingly common, the rate of NICS checks has been increasing year over year, The firearm's industry has posted record profits almost every year since Obama was elected, and again last year despite Trump's election crashing firearms prices to a ten year low.
It's hard to think of a scenario where decreasing gun ownership rates can co-exist with all these other indicators. "Fewer people buying more" is not a recipe for record setting profits in any economic model I'm aware of.
Pretty easy to imagine why people would lie about gun ownership to a stranger calling them up and asking though.

[Mutex]

There are wildly differing numbers on that. Mother Jones claims as many as 4 in 10 receive no formal safety training, but you can get far higher or lower numbers depending on where you look. Many carry licenses require training, so one can presume that carry licenses in those states represent some lower bar. Some training may not be listed anywhere as "formal". I taught classes as a job for a summer camp once. I'm pretty confident that nobody ever bothered to track those classes, and I was never surveyed about it. Wasn't state mandated or a big organization like the NRA, so I don't think it'd be represented in any numbers.

There are also a *lot* of training courses available. So, presumably they have a good market. They simply wouldn't be that popular otherwise.

Pew's probably the best source I can find. Nice and neutral, and while it may not be perfect, it's probably the best available, and it lists about 70% as having taken training. Owning more firearms is positively correlated with having taken training. It's also more common in the younger generation, with older folks having embraced formal training somewhat less.*

*http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-of-gun-safety-and-the-key-responsibilities-of-gun-owners/

Ok well, even the better end of that range is a lot higher than the number of people who own cars with no driving license. Other countries with a high rate of gun ownership, such as Sweden and Norway, have mandatory firearm training courses before you can own a gun. Would you be in favour of that?

Anyways, getting rid of firearms clubs and safety classes in schools* hasn't made anyone safer. Safety classes didn't turn into mass shooting incidents, and in fact, school shootings have largely become a problem after society started excluding such programs from schools. Making schools into "gun free zones" has not made them safer from firearms. My training took place in the 90s, but there's been a pretty consistent trend on the part of gun-banners to target guns in schools as a problem, even when those guns have literally nothing to do with mass shootings.

I couldn't find any stats on the number of accidental gun deaths in schools, but the overall number of accidental gun deaths in the US appears to have been declining. So even if mass shootings are up, it could be the case that restricting gun from crowded places like schools saves lives. I know gun ownership has been increasing at the same time, but I understand that's mostly people who already own guns hoarding more because they're scared restrictive gun selling laws are coming.

What's your proposed causality on that? Gun ownership is doing great, with sales steadily spiking through the entire Obama era. So it can't really be a result of fewer guns.

Source on gun ownership being only a result of hoarding?

I know ownership is doing great, I addressed that possible causation in my post, along with my musings on why I don't think it's related either way. I have no source for the distribution of the new guns, but more guns in general doesn't necessarily mean there's more guns in places they can cause accidents. I'm suggesting that if laws restricting guns from public places such as schools is correlated with fewer accidental gun deaths, the former could be the cause of the latter.

[Tyndmyr]

There are wildly differing numbers on that. Mother Jones claims as many as 4 in 10 receive no formal safety training, but you can get far higher or lower numbers depending on where you look. Many carry licenses require training, so one can presume that carry licenses in those states represent some lower bar. Some training may not be listed anywhere as "formal". I taught classes as a job for a summer camp once. I'm pretty confident that nobody ever bothered to track those classes, and I was never surveyed about it. Wasn't state mandated or a big organization like the NRA, so I don't think it'd be represented in any numbers.

There are also a *lot* of training courses available. So, presumably they have a good market. They simply wouldn't be that popular otherwise.

Pew's probably the best source I can find. Nice and neutral, and while it may not be perfect, it's probably the best available, and it lists about 70% as having taken training. Owning more firearms is positively correlated with having taken training. It's also more common in the younger generation, with older folks having embraced formal training somewhat less.*

*http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-of-gun-safety-and-the-key-responsibilities-of-gun-owners/

Ok well, even the better end of that range is a lot higher than the number of people who own cars with no driving license. Other countries with a high rate of gun ownership, such as Sweden and Norway, have mandatory firearm training courses before you can own a gun. Would you be in favour of that?

As laws go, it's among the less objectionable ones. However, I have concerns about mandatory training in the current environment, as it is frequently used as a way to basically price people out of the market. Make the requirements strict enough, and expensive enough in money/time off work, and it can act as a de-facto ban. DC's handgun law approached this, with only a single firearms establishment remaining in a de facto monopoly.

An investigative write-up of it was done at https://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jul/12/miller-new-guide-getting-gun-dc/, and illustrates how burdensome the cumulative regulation can be.

So, at the present time, and for the current US legal environment, I'd wish to oppose any additional regulation in my jurisdiction. I might be more amenable to working something out if my state's congresspeople didn't so routinely overtly state their desire to choke off gun ownership, refer to anyone carrying a gun as a criminal waiting to happen, and if they hadn't passed laws specifically exempting themselves from these burdensome regulations. But, with all that, it's pretty hard to take any new suggestion as actually being in good faith.

I couldn't find any stats on the number of accidental gun deaths in schools, but the overall number of accidental gun deaths in the US appears to have been declining. So even if mass shootings are up, it could be the case that restricting gun from crowded places like schools saves lives. I know gun ownership has been increasing at the same time, but I understand that's mostly people who already own guns hoarding more because they're scared restrictive gun selling laws are coming.

What's your proposed causality on that? Gun ownership is doing great, with sales steadily spiking through the entire Obama era. So it can't really be a result of fewer guns.

Source on gun ownership being only a result of hoarding?

I know ownership is doing great, I addressed that possible causation in my post, along with my musings on why I don't think it's related either way. I have no source for the distribution of the new guns, but more guns in general doesn't necessarily mean there's more guns in places they can cause accidents. I'm suggesting that if laws restricting guns from public places such as schools is correlated with fewer accidental gun deaths, the former could be the cause of the latter.

How? I can observe that ice cream sales and murder rates are correlated, but without a proposed causality, why should anyone believe that either causes the other?

[Mutex]

I couldn't find any stats on the number of accidental gun deaths in schools, but the overall number of accidental gun deaths in the US appears to have been declining. So even if mass shootings are up, it could be the case that restricting gun from crowded places like schools saves lives. I know gun ownership has been increasing at the same time, but I understand that's mostly people who already own guns hoarding more because they're scared restrictive gun selling laws are coming.

What's your proposed causality on that? Gun ownership is doing great, with sales steadily spiking through the entire Obama era. So it can't really be a result of fewer guns.

Source on gun ownership being only a result of hoarding?

I know ownership is doing great, I addressed that possible causation in my post, along with my musings on why I don't think it's related either way. I have no source for the distribution of the new guns, but more guns in general doesn't necessarily mean there's more guns in places they can cause accidents. I'm suggesting that if laws restricting guns from public places such as schools is correlated with fewer accidental gun deaths, the former could be the cause of the latter.

How? I can observe that ice cream sales and murder rates are correlated, but without a proposed causality, why should anyone believe that either causes the other?

I mean, I thought the connection between "fewer guns in crowded places" and "fewer accidental gun deaths" would be pretty obvious.

[Tyndmyr]

How? I can observe that ice cream sales and murder rates are correlated, but without a proposed causality, why should anyone believe that either causes the other?

I mean, I thought the connection between "fewer guns in crowded places" and "fewer accidental gun deaths" would be pretty obvious.

Why would that be obvious? Crowded spaces are not where accidental gun deaths happen. Of the school carry states(seven total, IIRC) we have...zero cases of them.

In children, accidental firearm deaths occur almost entirely at home. Someone carelessly leaves a loaded firearm out, and an unsupervised child plays with it. The next most common area, though far more rare, is hunting accidents, which tend to occur in the woods.

In neither case does it seem like schools have much of anything to do with it either way.

[Mutex]

You're talking about now, right? And you don't have to reduce deaths in the most common situations to reduce deaths (although obviously that is probably going to be more effective). Given that most accidental gun deaths happen with young people, keeping guns out of schools seems sensible.

[Tyndmyr]

Now, before, doesn't matter. Accidental deaths to shootings at school are effectively zero percent. You can't really reduce zero.

Accidental shootings of children, 89% happen at home.

The drop was about 50% of the total.

If you'd like to explain how you can cause a 50% reduction in the total by affecting an impossibly slender proportion of 11% of the total population, knock yourself out.

[Euphonium]

Ban all guns.

Guns are instruments of oppression, and so are incompatible with individual liberty.

[Thesh]

Guns are instruments of oppression

So are televisions.

[mcd001]

Ban all guns.

Guns are instruments of oppression, and so are incompatible with individual liberty.

So are all tools, like screwdrivers and wrenches. Ban them, ban them all! Then we will be free!

[Soupspoon]

Ban drums! Drums are instruments of percussion!

[Tyndmyr]

Ban all guns.

Guns are instruments of oppression, and so are incompatible with individual liberty.

This has more weight when one is discussing what arms the police ought to carry. Heavily armed police and military(when used as police) can indeed oppress people. Oppression can happen when the individual has extremely little power, and the government has an extremely large amount. It's not a coincidence that authoritarianism frequently aligns with oppression. The nature of authoritarianism is to concentrate power in the hands of few, thus leaving those beneath relatively dis-empowered.

So, yeah, you might want to say that police ought to carry weapons no different from the people they serve. In an area where guns are uncommon, perhaps police should not commonly carry guns. In an area where guns are common, perhaps they ought to carry guns, but roughly the same kind as is common in the populace, refraining from tanks, grenade launchers, and the like.

But you will never solve oppression by taking from the common man.

[Euphonium]

Ban all guns.

Guns are instruments of oppression, and so are incompatible with individual liberty.

This has more weight when one is discussing what arms the police ought to carry. Heavily armed police and military(when used as police) can indeed oppress people. Oppression can happen when the individual has extremely little power, and the government has an extremely large amount. It's not a coincidence that authoritarianism frequently aligns with oppression. The nature of authoritarianism is to concentrate power in the hands of few, thus leaving those beneath relatively dis-empowered.

The state is not the only fount of oppression.

[addams]

I'm going to equate Gun ownership with Car ownership, again.
I do live in a rural area. Here, some people use guns for food.

Every single one of them SHOULD be registered.
(Sorry to SHOULD on your parade)

For law abiding people to hunt with a gun, those people need a license and a permit.
I am flabbergasted at the restrictions placed on hunters. They go along, year after year.

I have a friend that bags a Bear for food most years.
She was telling me, her permit might run out before she 'got' one.

"How Can This Be??" I hollered.
"The dang things are a nuisance!"

Then she started telling me The Rules.
Crap...Registration is Easy for people that are used to a Lot of Rules!

I know another woman with a lot of cars.
She MUST keep them registered and she is responsible for what they do.

Unregistered guns are, just, STUPID!
It makes reporting their theft harder.

Once you have reported your car or gun was stolen,
Your liability for its behavior changes.

Don't leave your keys in the ignition.
Keep guns in a Safe!

What is this Hour Delay Bull-Shit?
Even if it was true, it'd be fine.

It takes more than an hour to get ready to go hunting.
If you are hunting on a whim, you are doing it Wrong.

Other countries with a high rate of gun ownership, such as Sweden and Norway, have mandatory firearm training courses before you can own a gun. Would you be in favour of that?

Yes! Yes, I would!

Before I could legally ride a Motorcycle, in my state, I was required to take a Three Day Training Course.
ech...There is a way of getting a Motorcycle Endorsement on one's Driver's License without the Training.

It's harder and less useful than the TEAM OREGON Training.
http://team-oregon.org/endorsement/

ok...Think about it! Just Think!
I know it's hard. Do it anyway!

The Fact is, I would get a $2,000.00 fine for riding a Motorcycle without proper training;
Yet; You can let your Seventeen year old use, without restriction, an F-ing Shotgun!

[Tyndmyr]

Unregistered guns are, just, STUPID!
It makes reporting their theft harder.

Not really. It's a phone call to the cops and a police report either way.

What is this Hour Delay Bull-Shit?
Even if it was true, it'd be fine.

It takes more than an hour to get ready to go hunting.
If you are hunting on a whim, you are doing it Wrong.

Other countries with a high rate of gun ownership, such as Sweden and Norway, have mandatory firearm training courses before you can own a gun. Would you be in favour of that?

Yes! Yes, I would!

I'm not much of a hunter, but an hour delay time-lock on anything would be obnoxious. It means that every time you participate in your hobby, it must be preplanned. If a vehicle had a one hour delay on it, I wouldn't want that vehicle, even though most of the time I know when I'm driving well in advance.

It would royally screw me over if I ever needed it without the delay. It'd also be annoying even if the delay were manageable, as now I have to remember to start that well in advance of needing it. There is pretty much nothing in my life that would be improved by the addition of a time-lock.

[cphite]

Unregistered guns are, just, STUPID!
It makes reporting their theft harder.

Not really. It's a phone call to the cops and a police report either way.

The primary benefit of registration, at least in terms of law enforcement, is being able to tie a specific firearm to a specific owner after it's been used in a crime.

In terms of reporting one stolen, it would make it easier to return a stolen weapon to it's rightful owner once it has been found; but it has no effect on the ability to report the theft, nor on any investigation to actually find the weapon. In cases where a weapon is recovered and the owner is unknown - and the weapon is not evidence - they're generally sold, destroyed, or absorbed by the department.

Other countries with a high rate of gun ownership, such as Sweden and Norway, have mandatory firearm training courses before you can own a gun. Would you be in favour of that?

I support the second amendment, and believe in the right of citizens to own and carry firearms; but I would support a requirement to receive training before a person can carry one. Training should include basic operation of the firearm - how to load it, unload it, clean it, and store it; and should also include how to safely carry and use the weapon, as well as covering the laws regarding the carrying and operation of the weapon.

I'm not much of a hunter, but an hour delay time-lock on anything would be obnoxious. It means that every time you participate in your hobby, it must be preplanned. If a vehicle had a one hour delay on it, I wouldn't want that vehicle, even though most of the time I know when I'm driving well in advance.

Not at all interested in any sort of delay time-lock.

It would royally screw me over if I ever needed it without the delay. It'd also be annoying even if the delay were manageable, as now I have to remember to start that well in advance of needing it. There is pretty much nothing in my life that would be improved by the addition of a time-lock.

One of the main reasons I have weapons at home is for protection - and people can cite whatever stats they want, I've personally experienced two attempted break-ins so frankly the odds against it happening don't interest me anymore. I am happy that neither situation ended with bloodshed - but I'm also happy that, had I needed to defend myself, that option was available.

[reval]

Yes, many states have training requirements for carrying and using firearms, and it is important to distinguish that from ownership requirements.

For example, in Minnesota a permit to carry a firearm in public requires training and qualification. Similarly, getting a hunting license requires hunter safety training (except for people born before 1980 who are grandfathered - I guess back then people were born already knowing about gun safety?) So in practice the only place you can have a gun without training is at your home or business, at a range, or in transit, unloaded and in a closed case.

The only part of this that bothers me is when "training" gets downgraded to "watching a video", which I don't consider training. I want to hold the line at in-person training with real live teachers. This is serious stuff and deserves serious training.

[LaserGuy]

Yes, many states have training requirements for carrying and using firearms, and it is important to distinguish that from ownership requirements.

For example, in Minnesota a permit to carry a firearm in public requires training and qualification. Similarly, getting a hunting license requires hunter safety training (except for people born before 1980 who are grandfathered - I guess back then people were born already knowing about gun safety?) So in practice the only place you can have a gun without training is at your home or business, at a range, or in transit, unloaded and in a closed case.

The only part of this that bothers me is when "training" gets downgraded to "watching a video", which I don't consider training. I want to hold the line at in-person training with real live teachers. This is serious stuff and deserves serious training.

What's the purpose of open carry, exactly? The United States is basically the only country in the world that allows this under any circumstance.