Gun Controll question.

[R. Richard]

Okay so tell me why is mandating standardised training for everyone who wishes to own or carry such a bad thing?

Cat

Let me use a question to answer your question. How much will the standardized training cost and when will said standardized training be held?

If the standarized training costs $1,000 that is an impossible expense for many. If the standardized training is only held in a class that lasts all day during a normal working day, that rules out standardized training for many.

 

[TheEarl]

Let me use a question to answer your question. How much will the standardized training cost and when will said standardized training be held?

If the standarized training costs $1,000 that is an impossible expense for many. If the standardized training is only held in a class that lasts all day during a normal working day, that rules out standardized training for many.

Don't we make people pay to train and take tests in order to drive a car?

The Earl

 

[R. Richard]

Don't we make people pay to train and take tests in order to drive a car?

The Earl

No, people are not required to pay to train in order to learn how to drive a car. Some do, but others are taught by family or friends at essentially no cost.

I don't know how it is done in the UK, but here in the US the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is open on Saturday and a driving test may be taken on a non work day. The wait ot take a test is usually below an hour. The DMV does charge for issuing a driver's license, but the charge is WAY below $1,000.

 

[Weird Harold]

Don't we make people pay to train and take tests in order to drive a car?

The Earl

Not in the US. The only cost is for the license itself, it costs nothing to take the test and fail.

 

[kendo1]

Let me use a question to answer your question. How much will the standardized training cost and when will said standardized training be held?

If the standarized training costs $1,000 that is an impossible expense for many. If the standardized training is only held in a class that lasts all day during a normal working day, that rules out standardized training for many.

This would seem like a good way to limit numbers.

On a side note, driver training in the UK is typically £20-£25 per half hour. Most young drivers have around 10 to 20 lessons to become competent for the two part test (written and practical). Driving test waiting time can be from a couple of weeks to a couple of months.

 

[Liar]

Not in the US. The only cost is for the license itself, it costs nothing to take the test and fail.

I think there's a fee for the test in the UK, as well as here. But that's kinda marginal. And yes, you can take the test after only practicing driving with mom and pop, but whithout any professional training, you're pretty likely to fail it. Unless your mom or pop happens to be a driving instructor.

 

[Weird Harold]

If the standarized training costs $1,000 that is an impossible expense for many. If the standardized training is only held in a class that lasts all day during a normal working day, that rules out standardized training for many.

This would seem like a good way to limit numbers.

The thought process you just demonstrated is one of the biggest reasons gun control opponents oppose ANY kind of restriction on gun ownership -- aka the "tip of the wedge" argument.

Any law (especially one restricting ownership or use of anything) should be carefully crafted to eliminate any possibility of bureaucratic re-interpretation.

On a side note, driver training in the UK is typically £20-£25 per half hour. Most young drivers have around 10 to 20 lessons to become competent for the two part test (written and practical). Driving test waiting time can be from a couple of weeks to a couple of months.

After serving three years in East Anglia, I have to say that my experience is that English drivers are not noticibly better or more responsible than American drivers.

OTOH, Germany has similar expensive mandatory training and long waits for testing appointments and from a similar period of immersion in German traffic. I have to admit that Germans are, as a group, much better drivers and marginally more responsible drivers than either English or American drivers.

I don't know why expensive mandatory training works in one place and not in another, but that's pretty much the point of the observation: training and tested are only as good as the people being trained and tested allow them to be; If you train with the goal of passing a test, you only learn what's on the test.

 

[kendo1]

training and tested are only as good as the people being trained and tested allow them to be; If you train with the goal of passing a test, you only learn what's on the test.

Very, very true. And that is what has happened. You just have to look at the accident statistics to see this. If you survive long enough, you eventually do get better -most of the time.

 

[R. Richard]

To pull the driver testing bit back into the gun control argument, let me tell you of the driver test in Lancaster [California, not England.] For whatever reason the people giving the driving test in Lancaster didn't want people to pass the test the first time. Thus, they would direct the driver being tested down a street that intersected a walled, blind alley. Do you know what California drivers are supposed to do when they see a blind alley intersecting the street they are driving on? Neither did the non-natives, at least the first time.

The point I an trying to make is that the gun control test can be made practically impossible to pass, at least the first time. This is another fear of the anti-gun-control people.

 

[SeaCat]

One big problem with standardized training/qualification is that it is a one-size-fits-all solution.

The training that a gun collector needs is diffeerent from the training a target shooter needs is different from the raining a big game hunter needs is different from the training a bird hunter needs, is different from the training a self-defense concealed carrier needs.

Even if you set-up multiple classes of qualification you only create a bureaucratic nightmare instead of a one-size-fits-nobody situation.

All of that of course ignores the "who decides" argument.

Existing laws against negligence and/or public endangerment are IMHO sufficient to deter, or at least deal with, irresponsible and/or incompetent gun owners.

Harold you have a valid point, one that I have wrestled with for a while.

The only answer I can give is to make it a stepped type of training, (as I mentioned earlier in the thread.) Make a standard, basic liscence for owning and transporting. This is mainly just safety training. (Something sadly lacking.)

Firearms liscencing can be done just the way Drivers Liscences are done. You get a basic drivers liscence, which allows you to drive your car. After that there are specific liscences for School Busses or Human Transport, for over the road hauling and for Motorcycles.

I'm not going to go after the neglicence and liability laws. (I'm not happy with many of them.)

As for who does the choosing, well that would be the people who we put in control now wouldn't it? Right now it would fall under the perview of the B.A.T.F.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

Let me use a question to answer your question. How much will the standardized training cost and when will said standardized training be held?

If the standarized training costs $1,000 that is an impossible expense for many. If the standardized training is only held in a class that lasts all day during a normal working day, that rules out standardized training for many.

That would have to be established when they set this up. The cost of the liscence as well as the timing of it is something that would have to be decided. I it is done correctly and enough people support it and make their demands known then the costs and timing should be in the same areas of Drivers Liscences.

Cat

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

My apologies if someone has posted this and I missed it:

11 Year Old Girl with Shotgun Fends Off Dangerous Intruders.

If she had not defended herself what do you think would have happened?

I say, "Nice shootin', Kid."

 

[sister76]

My apologies if someone has posted this and I missed it:

11 Year Old Girl with Shotgun Fends Off Dangerous Intruders.

If she had not defended herself what do you think would have happened?

I say, "Nice shootin', Kid."

Good post. Nice to hear something good can come out of kids with access to guns. We usually only hear the stories with negative outcomes.

 

[R. Richard]

My apologies if someone has posted this and I missed it:

11 Year Old Girl with Shotgun Fends Off Dangerous Intruders.

If she had not defended herself what do you think would have happened?

I say, "Nice shootin', Kid."

Well, let's see [assuming that the story info is correct.] Obviously her father left a shotgun and ammo where a mere child could get at them. The child did get at the lethal weapon and the ammo and, as a result, two men are dead. Of course, going on the outcome of a previous home invasion by the same two men, the girl should not have had access to the lethal weapon and would very probably have been raped and then murdered.

 

[Weird Harold]

The only answer I can give is to make it a stepped type of training, (as I mentioned earlier in the thread.) Make a standard, basic liscence for owning and transporting. This is mainly just safety training. (Something sadly lacking.)

...

As for who does the choosing, well that would be the people who we put in control now wouldn't it? Right now it would fall under the perview of the B.A.T.F.

So what level of training and licensing does Cloudy require for the fully functional heirloom over her fireplace?

How much is it going to cost my daughters to inherit my guns?

As for "who decides," are you really comfortable with putting the federal bureaucrats responsible for the Waco debacle in charge of certifying who can own guns?

 

[rgraham666]

So what level of training and licensing does Cloudy require for the fully functional heirloom over her fireplace?

How much is it going to cost my daughters to inherit my guns?

As for "who decides," are you really comfortable with putting the federal bureaucrats responsible for the Waco debacle in charge of certifying who can own guns?

Are you comfortable with the likes of Timothy Mcveigh and Ted Bundy having easy access to assault weaponry?

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Well, let's see [assuming that the story info is correct.] Obviously her father left a shotgun and ammo where a mere child could get at them. The child did get at the lethal weapon and the ammo and, as a result, two men are dead. Of course, going on the outcome of a previous home invasion by the same two men, the girl should not have had access to the lethal weapon and would very probably have been raped and then murdered.

The child was also obviously well and properly trained in the use of that firearm. That is where the danger of guns lies, when guns are accessable by those who don't have the training.

It almost seems to me that you would prefer she were raped and killed and the two dead criminals had the chance to live a free and happy life robbing and killing.

 

[Liar]

Are you comfortable with the likes of Timothy Mcveigh and Ted Bundy having easy access to assault weaponry?

Before the "everyone should have a tank" people reply to this, I'd like to point out that Tinothy McVeigh had easy access to manure. And that was pretty much all he needed.

Other than that, I get that you're saying.

 

[Weird Harold]

Are you comfortable with the likes of Timothy Mcveigh and Ted Bundy having easy access to assault weaponry?

Since neither are remembered for attrocities commited with an assault weapon, no I don't have a problem with them having had easy access to them (or in McVeigh's case having actually owned several.)

Also, since (legal) "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than any other firearm, I'm not in favor of making any such distinction when it comes to restricting access. Fully automatic "assault weapons are already restricted and have been 1935.

In the end, the question of whether McVeigh, Bundy, or any other serial killer or mass-murderer having "easy access" to firearms is irrelevant to the debate because whether guns are legal or not, such people will find "easy access" to whatever weapons they desire -- such as fertilizer and deisel fuel or knives and silk scarves.

The relevant question is how much "easy-access" responsible law-abiding citizens should have to anything they might wish to own that doesn't present an inherent threat to public health and safety.

 

[R. Richard]

The child was also obviously well and properly trained in the use of that firearm. That is where the danger of guns lies, when guns are accessable by those who don't have the training.

It almost seems to me that you would prefer she were raped and killed and the two dead criminals had the chance to live a free and happy life robbing and killing.

If it seems to you that I have some problem with the child defending herself then you completely misunderstand my position.

It seems likely that the child was well trained in the use of at least a shotgun. As to 'properly' trained, I doubt it. If I read the gun control people correctly, 'proper' training would have to be done by some sort of [probably scumbag] 'certified' trainer. The cost of such training might be beyond the ability of a young girl to pay. The scheduled time for said training might well conflict with the young girl's school schedule.

However, per the gun control people, you have a minor child using a firearm. I believe [correct me with reference if I am wrong] that the gun control people don't want minor children to have access to firearms. It seems that they would prefer that the young girls be raped and murdered by two criminals whom the police might not choose to arrest because, up until the rape and murder, they were just illegal aliens.

The young girl fired what I would call a warning shot that apparently took one criminal in the stomach/groin area. That is where I would have put a warning shot, given the fact that many criminals now have body armor. The gun control people would prefer that she first blow a hole in a wall of the house [fucking insane!]

The second criminal also died as a result of the young girl's markswomanship.

I regret the need for a young girl to use a firearm in self defense, at close quarters. However, the two ass holes she killed left the world a better place for their deaths.

 

[R. Richard]

Are you comfortable with the likes of Timothy Mcveigh and Ted Bundy having easy access to assault weaponry?

As has been pointed out, McVeigh did have access to assault weapons. Bundy at least mostly bludgeoned or strangled his victims. I would be confotable denying Bundy access to, perhaps tree limbs, if you would just tell me a practical method. As to denying Bundy access to his hands, if you would just tell me a practical method.

 

[SeaCat]

If it seems to you that I have some problem with the child defending herself then you completely misunderstand my position.

It seems likely that the child was well trained in the use of at least a shotgun. As to 'properly' trained, I doubt it. If I read the gun control people correctly, 'proper' training would have to be done by some sort of [probably scumbag] 'certified' trainer. The cost of such training might be beyond the ability of a young girl to pay. The scheduled time for said training might well conflict with the young girl's school schedule.

However, per the gun control people, you have a minor child using a firearm. I believe [correct me with reference if I am wrong] that the gun control people don't want minor children to have access to firearms. It seems that they would prefer that the young girls be raped and murdered by two criminals whom the police might not choose to arrest because, up until the rape and murder, they were just illegal aliens.

The young girl fired what I would call a warning shot that apparently took one criminal in the stomach/groin area. That is where I would have put a warning shot, given the fact that many criminals now have body armor. The gun control people would prefer that she first blow a hole in a wall of the house [fucking insane!]

The second criminal also died as a result of the young girl's markswomanship.

I regret the need for a young girl to use a firearm in self defense, at close quarters. However, the two ass holes she killed left the world a better place for their deaths.

R. Richard,

I was going to send you a PM about these comments but instead I decided to do this.

Show me your proof. Show me where those in favor of gun control don't wish a minor to have access to firearms. Show me how these same people would have preered to see this young woman, or any young woman raped and killed rather than her defending herself. Show it to me in black and white with references please.

Now as for the comments about the price of the training being out of her ability to pay. Who is it that brought up the fees for the training and on their own decided they would be more than the common person could afford to pay? The same with the testing.

Yes R. Richard we do have problems here. We have problems that do need to be addressed. Part of this is our government and part of it is in our general society. There are many things we need to change, not least of which is the perception that violence is not just accepted but has no consequences. Also there is the perception that Police, or Scum Bags as you so love to call them, are out to enforce the law as they see fit. What people do not see or wish to see is how they are hobbled by the courts and the Justice System that i supposed to be supporting them. The Police or Scumbags are there to enforce the laws. They do not write them nor do they prosecute infractions against these laws. (Yes before you bring it up I know there are a number of innefective or outriht corrupt Police Officers out there. They bring down all of the rest who have to work even harder to enforce the laws.) So how do we fix this?

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

I don't think a lot of people want it fixed, Cat. Not really.

It would require paying a personal price both in changed attitudes and actions, as well as in money. They aren't willing to pay that price.

 

[SeaCat]

I don't think a lot of people want it fixed, Cat. Not really.

It would require paying a personal price both in changed attitudes and actions, as well as in money. They aren't willing to pay that price.

Unfortunately Rob I agree with you. At least with the points about the change in attitudes and actions. (I'm not sure about the price.) It would take a complete change in mindset.

Cat

 

[R. Richard]

R. Richard,

I was going to send you a PM about these comments but instead I decided to do this.

Show me your proof. Show me where those in favor of gun control don't wish a minor to have access to firearms. Show me how these same people would have preered to see this young woman, or any young woman raped and killed rather than her defending herself. Show it to me in black and white with references please.

From Wikipedia:
The original GCA prohibits firearms purchase and ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list was in contradiction between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, and led to great confusion. This list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is:

Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa.
Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)
[Anyone who is under the age of 18 for a shotgun or rifle, or under age 21 for a handgun. (See 18 U.S.C. § 922 (b)(1).)
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons."

Child Access Prevention (or CAP) Laws hold gun owners responsible if they leave guns easily accessible to children and a child improperly gains access to the weapon. Eighteen states have enacted standard CAP laws: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In addition to the 18 standard CAP laws, Kansas courts have held that gun owners may be held civilly liable for leaving guns easily accessible to children; Maine has a "child endangerment" statute that references children under 16 obtaining firearms and requires gun stores and gun shows to post signs warning gun owners that they may be prosecuted if they leave firearms where children can access them; and Montana holds adults/guardians responsible if a child under 14 possesses a firearm in public without adult supervision.

OK Cat, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (b)(1 says that a minor child under the age of 18-years-old can't buy a shotgun or rifle. The same child must wait until age 21-years-old to buy a handgun. Given the circumstances of the 12-year-old girl we are discussing, she is not permitted to buy a self defense weapon, because she is too damn young, in the opinion of Congress. In many states, her father would have been in violation of the law because he allowed his 12-year-old daughter to have unsupervised access to a loaded weapon [12 guage shotgun.] I claim that a 12-year-old girl, trained to use a shotgun could defend herself against two criminal aliens, one of whom is reported to have a .45 caliber handgun. My evidence is the girl we are discussing. Now, apprently you, Congress and the scumbags believe that there is some way the 12-year old girl in question could defend herself against two criminal aliens, one of whom is reported to have a .45 caliber handgun, without the 12-year-old girl having access to a loaded firearm. Could you please explain [have your Congressperson or your Chief of Scumbags explain] just how the 12-year-old girl could defend herself wirthout having access to a loaded firearm. TIA.

Now as for the comments about the price of the training being out of her ability to pay. Who is it that brought up the fees for the training and on their own decided they would be more than the common person could afford to pay? The same with the testing.

In 1913 [a year that will live in infamy] the US government started the income tax. The maximum tax rate was 7% on incomes over $500,000. By 1952, the maximum tax rate was 92% on incomes over $400,000. Once a government starts taking money, they develop urgent needs for still more money. Yes, there are citizen revolts that sometimes trim back the rate of seizure, but it is mostly a hand to hand struggle. The 'tax' on gun training would be a lot more difficult to fight than the income tax. To give you some idea, in 2002, NYC raised the city tax on cigarettes to $1.50 a pack.

Yes R. Richard we do have problems here. We have problems that do need to be addressed. Part of this is our government and part of it is in our general society. There are many things we need to change, not least of which is the perception that violence is not just accepted but has no consequences. Also there is the perception that Police, or Scum Bags as you so love to call them, are out to enforce the law as they see fit. What people do not see or wish to see is how they are hobbled by the courts and the Justice System that i supposed to be supporting them. The Police or Scumbags are there to enforce the laws. They do not write them nor do they prosecute infractions against these laws. (Yes before you bring it up I know there are a number of innefective or outriht corrupt Police Officers out there. They bring down all of the rest who have to work even harder to enforce the laws.) So how do we fix this?

Cat

The obvious answer is fairly simple on the surface. 1) The Chief Scumbag announces that in one week, his scumbags will begin enforcing ALL of the written laws in his jurisdiction [this is what they are supposedly hired to do.] 2) The citizens storm City Hall to complain that they are not gonna' have a man with a flag [days] or a lantern [nights] walk in front of their car while it is operated in the public streets, they are not going to turn themselves in for catching a bass or a carp on Sunday, etc. 3) The Chief Scumbag then asks the citizens, "OK, what laws do you want enforced and which not?" [Power to the people!] 4) The people have no idea. Some want guns, some want no guns. Some want bass or carp on Sunday, some not. 5) The Chief Scumbag resigns because the job is a fraud on the face of it [not bloody likely!] 6) The people who actually run the political jurisdiction appoint a new Chief Scumbag who continues the previous fraud [actually the same fat ass hole who was Chief Scumbag before.] 7) The people begin to bitch because the scumbags aren't enforcing the particular laws they want enforced and are enforcing laws they don't want enforced. 8) The people who actually run the jurisdiction ignore the public. 9) The people who actually run the jurisdiction call in a despicable, depraved individual with a .475 Wildey and a 10 gauge shotgun and tell him, "Cinch it down boy, but not too many casualties. Don't worry about the doughnut place, the scum . . ., ah police got that taken care of." Those who call the tune tax the people to pay the piper.