Do you feel the need to be unarmed and defensless while camping?

[Longrange308]

JWP58, Let me reiterate. I don't see the proliferation of guns as conducive to creating a society that is intrinsically less violent, but again, that is just my opinion.

Let me also say again, there are millions like me that don't wish to see good citizens separated from their ability to own and carry any weapon they chose to carry. I simply feel it is imperative that those people be required to do so safely. To that end, training and certification will go a long way to ensuring those with the tools to kill, use them properly. For their safety and also to protect YOUR right to carry. The irresponsible gun owners will be the bad apples that erode that right, not the anti-gun crowd.

I actually applaud your decision to carry, don't feel threatened that you do, but assume you're like the many responsible owners who have been trained, and continue to be trained, on its proper use. Look how many people in this world can't change lanes and use a turn signal at the same time. Humans are inherently prone to gaff. I simply think it would be wise if anyone in possession of a deadly weapon have at least the basic understanding of how to use it properly. In many states, no training, permits or certifications are required. That...could be improved upon.

Regarding my comment about fewer guns in circulation, I don't see that as a bad thing. I'm still not advocating that those capable of responsible gun ownership shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. However, we're probably too liberal with those requirements. For example being listed on a national terrorism database doesn't preclude anyone from owning a gun. There are lots of areas whereby stricter regulations would only serve to protect both responsible gun owners and non-gun owning citizens alike.

There's plenty of logic in both the pro-gun audience and within segments like mine, which are not "anti-gun," but advocate for a more prudent level of regulation, one that not only protects the rights of citizens, but their safety as well, as best as possible.

Keeping this within the scope of this topic. The US has a dire problem with violence. Even then, some of us lucky enough to live and travel where we do, don't feel the need to carry. But, I do feel we could do more to make the public safer AND still allow people like yourself to enjoy gun ownership to the fullest. If that means you fill out a few more forms, take a few more hours of training, and prove you're capable of the responsibility....what's the big deal?

I'd be willing to do it. Maybe I'd be a more responsible gun owner than you. [just teasing.]

In response to your comment about having to have training to own and carry a gun, I would like to ask you a simple question. Do you feel any apprehension whatsoever when you are around a police officer that is armed? Uniformed or not, on duty or off?

The reason why I ask you this is simple. I have been around law enforcement for 20 years now, in a training capacity in both firearms and drivers training for much of it. I can honestly say, without hesitation that the majority of police officers are less well trained than the average gun owner that I meet at the public shooting range with their family. Police officers are typically required to attend a minimum two firearms qualifications per year. Most police officers do not train, practice or even care about their firearms proficiency until it is time to qualify. Many suffer and struggle because of it. Even with the resources at their disposal (free range time, free ammo, free weapons maintenance, easily accessible trainers, etc) they become lazy and passive.

Consider this with your assessment on who should have more training. It really does blow the mind.

 

[Longrange308]

When self regulation fails GOV policy gets created. Gun owners today should have the highest interest in smart gun policy given the view or perception is that the hands off self regulation is not working today. Of all interested parties gun owners should have the most invested and interest in establishing policy that works and ensures that their right to bear arms remains as such. Amendments can be made to the constitution if the demand to do so is great enough. The gun policy we have today is not working and needs major work if your to reverse the growing public interest to fix it be it fixes fun owners do not want or more logical more acceptable fixes that begin to address the issue.

If it is not working, then please explain to me how historical gun violence is on the decline, not the rise???

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

[Christophe Noel]

But your desire to own and ride a motorcycle is a privilege, not a constitutional right, that specifically states "Shall not be infringed"
.

As others have said, Constitutionally provisioned as it is, we still have applied restrictions to gun ownership. The question here is: Have we applied enough, or the right restrictions.

Regarding your inclusion of law enforcement, I'm more than aware that not all officers are good officers, proficiency with their weapons only a part of that. However, I have close friends here in AZ who bought a gun, a box of ammo, carry it daily, and have never, not for a day, or an hour, taken a single training class. That can't be good for anyone.

That isn't really all that hard to understand, is it?

 

[Ray_G]

No one is going to flame you for expressing a coherent and well articulated point of view (or if someone does, they won't be taken seriously). I will say that I disagree with your view that there are "masses" of firearm owners who are danger to society. Out of curiosity, who are these firearm owners you are talking about? I assume you are referring to legal owners and not criminals.

Appreciate the response. For the sake of discussion I'd simply say go to any large gun show on any given weekend and take a hard look at folks and/or head to a range where at least folks are practicing but how much skill are they exhibiting? More on that in a moment throughout my response.

That objection aside, I've at times thought about enacting weapons testing/certification for firearms owners as well. However, I've always recognized two big issues with this concept:

1) Weapons certification, and even some introductory training, does not make a person more responsible or wiser. If you've spent any time in the military, you'll know what I'm talking about. Every service man and woman is trained and educated on weapons employment, but there are still plenty of them that I wouldn't trust in combat or even to safely conduct a live fire training exercise. Training may make a civilian firearms owner more educated on weapons employment/safety, but the responsibility with which they use that firearm will depend on their own personal code, behavior and decision-making process. Also, I see plenty of "licensed" drivers who seem to have all but forgotten the basic rules of the road. That issue is borne out by the fact that annually there are over 30k deaths and over 2 Million injuries as a result of car accidents (alcohol-related and otherwise)...so training and certification definitely isn't permanent for everyone.

Even if certification & training can't make a person wiser that isn't a good reason not to do it. The driving analogy bears it out here, the worst drivers seem to me to be the ones that are overconfident and some distance from their education/certification. (*I would note that the # of deaths associated with automobile accidents, akin to the # of deaths associated with heart disease illustrates that gun violence may not be so significant as to require any kind of real public action campaign-but I'm play devil's advocate in this thread so I'll pack that away)

) Weapons certification cannot become a strict, weeding out process for prospective firearm owners. They key part of the 2nd Amendment is that it "shall not be infringed." I already see outrageous wait times (year long at least) and high licensing fees for getting a pistol permit in my own state of NY; my own personal theory is that the state does this to discourage firearm ownership. Subjective on my part maybe, but I don't want to see additional measures that inhibit or restrict the average citizen's ability to get and own firearms.

Those two issues aside, you bring up an interesting point and certainly one worth discussing. IMO, as long as there are realistic expectations, I could potentially see a certification program having a place in American society.

So for the sake of argument I'll point out you can't cherry pick 2nd Amendment verbiage. The 'shall not be infringed', due to the beauty of commas in the English language, hangs out at the end and while Heller & McDonald convey an interpretation of individual ownership now that is a fairly recent interpretation-and doesn't negate state level regulation (Heller for example focuses solely on the right for a handgun as a home self defense weapon, not on whether someone can regulate concealed carry and the like). My point is merely that the 2nd Amendment as a whole is subject to broad interpretation and the modern incarnation could be adjusted if the country felt like those who chose to have weapons should have a bit more regulation in their 'militia.'

But that's just some stirring of the pot from my end!
r-
Ray

 

[AzTacoma]

The anti-gun crowd needs to accept the simple fact that the cat is out of the bag... and has been for 200+ years. It's our culture, our tradition, part of who we are, and enshrined into the Constitution. There's no going back from here.

The anti-gun crowd also needs to accept the simple fact that creating more restrictive laws will only make things more difficult for law abiding citizens within the legal market, but will do virtually nothing to stop criminals or crime in general.

The best solution to deal with gun violence is to continue forward progress in the areas of education, economics, and anti-violence/crime social change. The significant crime drop since its peak in the late 60s and early 70s, and the especially large dip in the 90s, was due to a variety of factors... none of which had anything to do with gun control. In fact, gun ownership and usage has only gone up during that period of time. Focusing on the guns is shallow thinking by people predispositioned to believe a government rule can fix anything. Such people lack any creativity and are unwilling or unable to tackle to deeper issues at play and simply jump on the perceived "easy answer."

 

[plainjaneFJC]

As others have said, Constitutionally provisioned as it is, we still have applied restrictions to gun ownership. The question here is: Have we applied enough, or the right restrictions.

Regarding your inclusion of law enforcement, I'm more than aware that not all officers are good officers, proficiency with their weapons only a part of that. However, I have close friends here in AZ who bought a gun, a box of ammo, carry it daily, and have never, not for a day, or an hour, taken a single training class. That can't be good for anyone.

That isn't really all that hard to understand, is it?

The answer is we have applied too much. You have to understand that if anyone agreed to some sort of "testing" or "restrictions" that those could be changed over time to suit the feelings of a politician or bureaucrat. What starts as testing to make sure you can hit a target eventually turns into you only get to transport your gun to go shoot at a target.

 

[JWP58]

Do you think the state should require mandatory parent training? Cooking classes (people burn down their homesite every year )? What about mandatory field training in order to camp in national forest, since people get lost and die? Chainsaw training? Life can be dangerous, the state can't change that.

Say no to the nanny state.

I hope one day suppressors, sbr's, sbs's, will be obtainable without a tax stamp, its ridiculous. I feel that we already have far too much firearms legislation, especially in cesspools like Cali, Chi-raq, and other liberal hells where crime is sky rocketing.

 

[mvbeggs]

...However, I have close friends here in AZ who bought a gun, a box of ammo, carry it daily, and have never, not for a day, or an hour, taken a single training class. That can't be good for anyone.

That isn't really all that hard to understand, is it?

No, and now I am beginning to see why you have taken the position you have.

Your friend/s are fools.

 

[Dalko43]

The right to bear arms can still have licensing requirements, skills test, every x months along with firearm inspection. If you dont have your firearm, dont have it secured etc then your license and ability to bear arms should be placed on hold till you can prove that your a responsible gun owner.

There already is a licensing requirement for pistol owners in many states. I agree training/certification of sorts is a valid idea worth discussing, but when you start talking about annual skills test and firearms inspection, you're essentially turning the right "to bear arms" into a privilege that the government can take away at its own discretion. The government doesn't allow citizens the right to freedom of religion or freedom of press on the condition that it is inspected every so often. It is an inherent right that all citizens have; if it is deemed, after the fact, that a citizen abused said right, the government can take action...the same should theoretically hold true for the right to bear arms.

I dont know any gun owners who would disagree with that and most would welcome it. Even gun owners are not happy with how things have become regarding untrained, unskilled people easily having firearms. My oldest child is just reaching the age where going to friends houses unattended is happening. I ask those parents if they have firearms in the house. If they say yes or refuse to answer Or explain I simply suggest that my child invite the kid to come to our house instead. I own and store off site. Others I know either do the same or have a serious gun safe locked down zero guns accessible unless you know the combo or finger print. I lost too many friends as a kid to found unsecured guns ending up in a childs hands. I'll never forget the day I caught the neighbor kids many yrs younger than I running around out side with their dads loaded .45 playing with my little brother. I took the gun, called my dad. The neighbor kids dad was over seas for a week. My dad tracked him down talked with him. He had no idea his two 10yr olds had found his gun. When he got back my dad took him to a storage facility where he stored it and two hunting rifles. I, my brother or one of his kids easily could have been shot and killed from that level of stupidity.

I totally agree that firearm owners need to exhibit a certain level of responsibility, especially around kids or people who are otherwise unfamiliar with how to safely handle firearms.

That being said, masses of "untrained, unskilled" firearm owners is not the reason why gun control is such a hot topic nowadays. Nor do unintentional gun deaths constitute a large number of deaths relative to how many people die in other types of accidents or from crimes. The issue has to do with criminals getting access to firearms...the law-abiding citizens you are referring to, trained or untrained, are not the problem. Of course more training and responsibility on the individual gun owner's part is never a bad thing, but to suggest that such law abiding gun owners are part of a big crisis we are facing nowadays is just not realistic.

 

[Christophe Noel]

No, and now I am beginning to see why you have taken the position you have.

Your friend/s are fools.

My position, one I'm not forcing on anyone, was formed over the course of my 44 years. It is periodically reinforced by examples, those three particular friends only a small portion of them. While they're otherwise great people, their staunch interpretation of the 2nd Amendment without being paired to good judgement...does make them foolish. I agree.

Again, I don't feel the need to carry and don't want to see anyone else deprived of the ability to do so. If we have differing opinions, it is that I don't see our current regulations as being smart or effective. That's all. There is no derision for those who don't hold my opinion and I respect the process by which Americans get to voice their concerns, champion their causes, and hope to make the country a better place to live.

 

[Dalko43]

By this, I think the unchecked sale of weapons on the private sector needs to be controlled. The same goes for gun show sales.

Private gun sales are a major loophole for criminals, though it is illegal to sell to a known criminal. The question which needs to be resolved is how does a private citizen determine whether or not a prospective buyer is a criminal or not. A simple call-in system, like the NICS system used by gun vendors would suffice for that purpose.

Gun show sales by vendors/companies are still checked by Federal Firearm Licensing (FFL) system. However, private individuals are allowed to make sales and purchases without any background check, which is the case for them everywhere else. So there really is no "gun show" loophole, but rather a universal private sales loophole.

I mostly think it is prudent for gun owners, handling devices with lethal potential, should be required to complete a significant level of training and demonstrate their competency. I also think misuse of a firearm should carry stiffer penalties. If we can lock up some poor dude for a decade for having ten joints in his pocket, we should do the same for someone who discharges a weapon recklessly. Which happens in my little hamlet all the time.

As I have noted earlier, conceptually I don't disagree with some of these proposals, though I think their actual implementation would require some careful planning and consideration (to insure they don't become a means of restricting additional firearm ownership). But I also think we are focusing on smaller problem, while blatantly ignoring the elephant in the room. Irresponsible but legal gun owners are not the major problem we are facing; it's criminals, who shouldn't even have firearms to begin with. Putting more restrictions and/or conditions on legal firearm ownership is not going to inhibit criminals at all.

Also, who gets thrown in jail for 10 years for having ten joints in his pocket?

I do think anyone with a desire to own such a weapon should prove they are worthy of the priveldege, and it is just that. The 2nd amendment says you have the right to be armed, it doesn't say you have the right to a mini-gun and a flame thrower.

The 2nd amendment is a right not a privilege. That's a distinction with a difference.

Flamethrowers, fully auto machine guns, rocket launchers are not intended for personal use/defense, even in the military. They are crew-served weapons employed at the fireteam, squad, platoon, company or even battalion level. A M4 carbine or 9mm Beretta are firearms intended for personal use, which is why the are and should remain available for civilian ownership.

The duplicitous argument about criminals and their disregard for gun laws is a weak one and can be turned on its ear in many ways. Just because people speed, that doesn't imply speed limits are not worth having.

There are laws against speeding; similarly there are laws against using your firearm improperly. You can't shoot over roadways, you can't threaten some with a firearm (unless its self defense), you can't use it to rob or coerce someone, you can't carry a firearm into sensitive areas (schools, government buildings, ect.).

I think what is duplicitous about your argument is that you are asking that we put more of a burden and more restrictions on what legal firearm owners can and can't own or do. It wasn't a law abiding citizen who went into San Bernardino and shot all those people; it wasn't a law abiding citizen who started shooting people at Umpqua Community College. It's not law abiding citizens who are killing dozens of young men in Chicago and other cities every year. Most of your recommendations are focusing on the supposedly irresponsible and untrained law abiding owners, but they aren't the ones going out and killing scores of people, intentionally or inadvertently. It's the criminals we need to focus on.

Gun safety is extremely important. I don't think you give enough credit to the countless owners who do take gun safety and education very seriously. Even if there are a good number of gun owners who don't take such issues seriously, they are not the cause of the epidemic of deaths/violence we have seen as of late. So why are you so focused on them?

 

[Dalko43]

So for the sake of argument I'll point out you can't cherry pick 2nd Amendment verbiage. The 'shall not be infringed', due to the beauty of commas in the English language, hangs out at the end and while Heller & McDonald convey an interpretation of individual ownership now that is a fairly recent interpretation-and doesn't negate state level regulation (Heller for example focuses solely on the right for a handgun as a home self defense weapon, not on whether someone can regulate concealed carry and the like). My point is merely that the 2nd Amendment as a whole is subject to broad interpretation and the modern incarnation could be adjusted if the country felt like those who chose to have weapons should have a bit more regulation in their 'militia.'

The 2nd Amendment, as all other amendments, is open to interpretation. And the Supreme Court's most recent interpretation reinforces it as an individual right, which did in fact overturn some state level firearm regulation (DC previously had a ban on hand guns).

Prior to this ruling, there were a whole bunch of Supreme Court rulings which solidified firearm ownership and established the legal precedents for the Heller VS DC case.

You can also refer to some of the letters and documents written by authors of the Constitution. They did not include the "right to bear arms" simply for hunting or having a local militia to call up for national defense. They included it because they recognized the potential for tyrannical rule (a very relevant and real threat in that time period) and wanted to safeguard against it.

To suggest that the 2nd Amendment, as an individual "right," is a relatively new and mostly unique interpretation of our Constitution requires us to ignore the historical context from which this nation was born.

 

[MTSN]

However, I have close friends here in AZ who bought a gun, a box of ammo, carry it daily, and have never, not for a day, or an hour, taken a single training class. That can't be good for anyone.

That isn't really all that hard to understand, is it?

That truly is scary. IMO It seems most people here in Colorado either grew up with guns and loves them, or they have little to no experience with them and hate them. I didn't grow up around guns and had quite a bit of anxiety around them for a long time because I didn't understand how they work. I spent time a couple of years ago with a buddy who is an absolute fanatic, and he took me shooting a bunch and taught me quite a bit on how they work and how to be safe. It piqued my interest, although I still had quite a bit of anxiety because I thought "hey this is my buddy who's never been in the military or had LEO background, so he could be teaching me wrong".

So, I went and found the best range and training facility around (owned by former special ops guys and run by them along with competitive shooters, former LEOs, etc.) and took several classes including range safety, basics in handgun ownership, legal aspects of ownership I and II, how to pick the right gun for you - all were classroom taught with no shooting. Then I went back and did a weapon selection class where you can try several out, then Pistol I, Pistol II, CCW, and followed it up with renting about 15 guns and picked the brains of every guy at the range asking for advice and help along the way before I picked out one to buy. I probably in total did 10 various classes, shot well over 20 guns, put 2,000+ rounds downrange and spent over a year reading and researching before I bought anything (Sig P229 was what I eventually landed on). I go back to the range for practice/fun about 2x per month, and I try to take a class every 2 months or so to keep up on top of things.

I felt like not having the advantage of growing up with guns I needed to do whatever possible to develop an appreciation for the power, responsibility and potential danger they afford, so it does bother me that other people do not put forth at least as much effort to become a responsible owner. I feel like regardless of what the law mandates, it is incumbent on anyone who is interested in gun ownership to go through the steps of learning how they work, how to be safe, understand the legal implications of actions taken with a firearm and make wise decisions in employing them for whatever use they intend. I am usually quite leery of imposing more restrictions or laws on most things due to the fallible individuals who write and enact those regulations, but I think it's imperative each person take their individual responsibility seriously and avoid putting others in harms way. PS - that was an unfortunately long way of saying I think your friends need to get more training because they're probably more a liability than anything at this point.

 

[JWP58]

, it is that I don't see our current regulations as being smart or effective. .

Because law abiding people can still purchase firearms? Because law abiding citizens haven't been punished enough for the actions of CRIMINALS?

You keep speaking of this "gun show loop hole". Care to explain this? Because I've bought firearms at gunshows, and every single time I filled out a 4473. Or are you simply referring to private party gun sales? Individual to individual? Because as im sure you're aware that happens at far more places than just "gun shows"...right?


I have a new personal belief, since people kill other people with automobiles.....we need to restrict the sales of automobiles. I mean anyone can just go buy a car! They don't even do a background check!!! Private sales should be banned, because who knows if they are selling to a criminal that's going to go kill someone with that car!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2014/traffic-deaths-decline-in-2013

32k people died in auto crashes in the USA in 2013. That's just too many. Think of how many people would've been saved by closing the private party sale loop hole, and requiring background checks. Maybe one day people will put their own selfishness aside and go to the side of "greater good".


Yes that sounds absurd and completely asinine because it is, just like the gun control agenda of "lets punish the law abiding citizens!!" mantra.

 

[jeep-N-montero]

Carrying a gun introduces another risk. This discussion has talked about threats and risk, but no one has brought up the risk of accidents when guns are around. There are probably better stats on guns accidents than on animal attacks.

True story: Three hunters were in the field hunting deer. Father, son and a friend. The friend heard a gun shot, then shortly followed by a ungodly cry. The friend went to the sound of the wailing and found the father holding his dead son. The father had accidentally shot his son. Friend told the father he would go for help and took off. A couple of minutes later he heard another gun shot. He returned to find the father had shot himself over his grief. Sad story but true.

The Darwinist in me would ask why the dad was not intelligent enough to know that his son was not an animal or wasn't practicing proper gun safety in the first place??