New Georgia gun law...

[cnynrat]

Cnynrat,

You make excellent points and I appreciate your candor. You've brought up some ideas I did not consider and I'd like to continue talking about it. Let start by saying I think you're right, it wouldn't work because it would leave a large demographic at a huge disadvantage which just won't work - it would be a catch 22 and wholly unfair to certain people

1) the magnitude of the problem is really about attempting to minimize accidents caused by negligent discharge or operator error. The training would be an attempt at prevention to eliminate some of those accidents - potentially

2) If training saved one life it would be enough. I think that it would. As far as criminals go, they do what they want regardless of the absence of law or its enforcement. Remember back when AIDS hit the scene, the 80s/early 90s, wide spread fear, it was epidemic and costly. Schools decided to make condoms available in school and require sex education as part of the curriculum. The theory was if that prevented one person from getting AIDS, it was well worth ruffling a few feathers who thought actually discussing sex ed would promote promiscuity. So if a skills training course for gun owners avoided some accidents or saved some lives at the risk of arming some future criminals, it would be worth while - that was the idea

3) I think anyone can become a criminal. I think the average criminal will continue to weigh the odds of getting caught not the consequences. So do I think criminals with gun training will prove to be more dangerous? If that is the question then yes, I do think that is a part of the product of wide spread training. On the other hand do really dangerous people who decide to be criminals already engage in post purchase instruction? I don't know but if they do the training program would be a moot point right? But the average offender? I'd say no probably not

Look at a place like Savannah GA, it's about 200-250K people, last I looked ( 10 years ago or more ) they averaged about 1.5 murders a week. That's high for that size city. Many of those are random muggings turned into murder by druggies. In a place like Savannah I think the citizens would benefit greatly from gun instruction and familiarizing themselves with areas of the city to avoid at night. Guns are popular in Savannah culture and for good reason

You can minimize some crime by correct and effective enforcement of some laws but others rise and fall for different reasons. Like petty theft, murder, home entry, rises with the influx of things like addictive drugs, heroin, meth, etc. The economy might see petty crime and domestic violence rise, training courses might help the average law abiding Jane and Joe be better prepared for some unfortunate circumstances as opposed to just handing them a weapon and hitting the streets.

Remember there are no limits on what a gun training course could use as part of it's content - what is lawful when it comes to defense, what risks, etc how about just some good commonsense strategies that cops and savvy experienced instructors might teach about identifying potentially dangerous behaviors/people/etc. I don't know, just thinking off the top of my head

at the end of the day you're right, what began as a practical idea really starts looking more like bureaucracy at the end of the day and is prohibitive to certain people for various reasons

what do you think?

Zoo -

I think by and large I am in agreement with this. It seems like the benefits of training fall into a few possible categories:

First, by learning the 4 fundamental safety rules it teaches you to be a safe gun owner. I can't imagine owning a gun and not knowing these backwards and forwards, but I recognize not everyone fits that mold. These skills are primarily to the benefit of others - those you might accidentally injure (or worse) should you have a negligent discharge. On top of the 4 basic safety rules I might add they need to know how to operate their gun.

Second, if you are serious about owning a gun for self defense, you need to learn some marksmanship skills and practice them regularly. Especially with a full dose of adrenalin running through your body it takes a fair amount of skill to shoot well enough to defend yourself, particularly with a handgun. These skills primarily benefit the gun owner. If he/she doesn't develop or maintain the necessary skill level, they may fail at self defense, but chances are they won't hurt someone else.

Third, there is training on the laws surrounding owning a gun and using it within the law. This is important, but mainly benefits the gun owner.

So I think the first set of benefits is the most important, primarily because the lack of those critical skills is likely to result in injury (or worse) to someone else. The others I'd be willing to leave to gun owners to pursue or not as they see fit. Obviously, my personal view is you need all that training to be a responsible gun owner, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to mandate the second two as a precondition to owning a gun.

We have some requirements here in Ca that address the first set of issues. To buy a handgun you have to get a Handgun Safety Certificate, which involves taking a multiple choice test. The test fee is $25, and testing is widely available (most gun shops have someone who is certified to administer the test). The test covers basic firearms safety, and a smattering of questions about CA firearms laws. My wife, who at the time had zero firearms experience, took the test cold without studying and passed with one question wrong (I think 70% is a passing score). She is brighter than the average bear, but still this is an indication of how easy the test is - mostly common sense stuff. The card is good for 10 years, so in theory the fee can be amortized over many handgun purchases. When you purchase a gun you are required to demonstrate how to verify that the gun is unloaded while observing safe gun handling skills (finger off the trigger, don 't point the gun at something you aren't willing to destroy, etc.). I have absolutely no problem at all with the demonstration requirement - there is no cost, and I really can't object to having to learn and demonstrate the basics of operating your firearm before you take it home. I am ambivalent about the HSC. I doubt there are many that are in the market for a handgun that can't afford the fee, and the test usually can be taken at the same place you are buying the gun, so it's hard to see how it would infringe on very many people's ability to purchase a handgun. My only reservation stems from the observation that it's so easy to pass that I wonder how effective it really is. But then, I suppose it does weed out those that really do have no business owning a handgun.

In the end it's all about balancing the benefits to society against the imposition on what we consider to be a fundamental right. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the legal principal is that the government must demonstrate a "compelling interest" before regulating a fundamental right. Tough to judge sometimes where that line should be drawn, and different people will reach different conclusions. I am OK with these provisions of CA firearms law (there are other CA firearms laws that I have big problems with), but I know there are gun owners that object to even these requirements. From what I've seen of Chicago's new law, I think it's way over the line and deliberately designed to discourage firearms ownership.

I'll have to leave the discussion at this for now. I've got the FJ and the trailer packed and am headed out for a weekend camping in the mountains.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

And in California, the state can screw with you if they want to. I received a firearms owner safety certificate in the 1990's (when they were first required), and then when I wanted to buy another handgun (in 2000) I had to pass yet another test, with another fee, and demonstrate my gun handling abilities as you describe.

What was wrong with the first class? Further, I received a California approved and offered hunter's safety certificate in the 1970's which actually did FAR more to teach me firearms safety than either of these certificates in the gunstore. I could afford the extra fee, but what of people who couldn't? Are their rights denied because they can't afford them? How is that different than a poll tax?

All California would have to do to screw with lawful ownership of firearms is stop printing the cards....when the current supply is exhausted, no more... and the state would have their fiscal incompetence to blame ("Can't afford to print any more right now"). California's 'leaders' have demonstrated that they are willing to bend the laws as much as possible (the requirements for an approved gun safe....the approved gun list...etc) and even when the laws are overturned in federal court (in 5 years) the people behind this criminal denial of civil rights wouldn't be held personally responsible, and for 5 years or more (how long has the Nordyke v. King case been dragging on? Since before Y2K?) those rights are denied, and innocent people, unprotected by the state, will die.

Responsible firearms ownership is one thing. Mandating state approval to exercise a basic human right is another.

 

[Wyowanderer]

And in California, the state can screw with you if they want to. I received a firearms owner safety certificate in the 1990's (when they were first required), and then when I wanted to buy another handgun (in 2000) I had to pass yet another test, with another fee, and demonstrate my gun handling abilities as you describe.

What was wrong with the first class? Further, I received a California approved and offered hunter's safety certificate in the 1970's which actually did FAR more to teach me firearms safety than either of these certificates in the gunstore. I could afford the extra fee, but what of people who couldn't? Are their rights denied because they can't afford them? How is that different than a poll tax?

All California would have to do to screw with lawful ownership of firearms is stop printing the cards....when the current supply is exhausted, no more... and the state would have their fiscal incompetence to blame ("Can't afford to print any more right now"). California's 'leaders' have demonstrated that they are willing to bend the laws as much as possible (the requirements for an approved gun safe....the approved gun list...etc) and even when the laws are overturned in federal court (in 5 years) the people behind this criminal denial of civil rights wouldn't be held personally responsible, and for 5 years or more (how long has the Nordyke v. King case been dragging on? Since before Y2K?) those rights are denied, and innocent people, unprotected by the state, will die.

Responsible firearms ownership is one thing. Mandating state approval to exercise a basic human right is another.

That's the problem, Sun. You're trying to use logic and fact to overcome fear and feelings. Some folks arent mentally prepared for freedom, and can't stand others to have freedom either.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

That's the problem, Sun. You're trying to use logic and fact to overcome fear and feelings. Some folks arent mentally prepared for freedom, and can't stand others to have freedom either.

Yeah. Fuds....

 

[YJake]

That's the problem, Sun. You're trying to use logic and fact to overcome fear and feelings. Some folks arent mentally prepared for freedom, and can't stand others to have freedom either.

Wow, that certainly describes the situation very well. I may have to borrow that!:coffeedrink:

-Jake

 

[Outback]

you kind of prove the point though

a gun can't do anything else, as oppose to your other examples

certainly, outside of "plinking" it exists to kill - what other use does it have? you won't ring dinner bells with a 357, you're not going to cut thick brush with a 12 gauge

Not true at all. A Firearm is a tool. It can be used to kill but it can also be used to protect. Now a woman can protect herseflf from the most hardened sexual predator. In this case if it its used to kill then so much the better. But Most thugs will run.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

you kind of prove the point though

a gun can't do anything else, as oppose to your other examples

certainly, outside of "plinking" it exists to kill - what other use does it have? you won't ring dinner bells with a 357, you're not going to cut thick brush with a 12 gauge

Not true at all. A Firearm is a tool. It can be used to kill but it can also be used to protect. Now a woman can protect herseflf from the most hardened sexual predator. In this case if it its used to kill then so much the better. But Most thugs will run.

Facts to a statist, liberal, gungrabber are as kryptonite to Superman......

 

[Z O O R O P A]

actually I think I'll just retire from this thread and future ones like it and say thanks to those who kept the discussion respectful and to SunT and others for sharing information


anyway,

hope everyone had a nice weekend

 

[Outback]

I hope you did too. Take care.

 

[Overdrive]

I just went through the "trouble" of reading 6 pages to find out people have retired from this discussion. Darn.

I will still put out some food for thought. On the notion of "Because a training requirement would save at least one life, it should be mandatory."

Think about our population of VERY senior citizens...those in their upper 80's and 90's... I read many, many news articles where the senior citizen likely saved their own life by shooting dead a home intruder. Like it's been said earlier, guns really aren't that hard to use effectively. (Yes, believe it or not, there are humans out there that will prey on 95 year olds living alone.)

However, had there been a training requirement, these same 90 year-olds probably would NOT have gone to get the training, due to cost and logistics, and feeling like they may not pass, etc.

So, I say having a training requirement would COST LIVES. I'm serious.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

I just went through the "trouble" of reading 6 pages to find out people have retired from this discussion. Darn.

I will still put out some food for thought. On the notion of "Because a training requirement would save at least one life, it should be mandatory."

Think about our population of VERY senior citizens...those in their upper 80's and 90's... I read many, many news articles where the senior citizen likely saved their own life by shooting dead a home intruder. Like it's been said earlier, guns really aren't that hard to use effectively. (Yes, believe it or not, there are humans out there that will prey on 95 year olds living alone.)

However, had there been a training requirement, these same 90 year-olds probably would NOT have gone to get the training, due to cost and logistics, and feeling like they may not pass, etc.

So, I say having a training requirement would COST LIVES. I'm serious.

Possibly, but we have to remember, most of the folks who are now our 'senior citizens', grew up with firearms.

Whether for hunting, or in the service, etc.

Back then, guns were more common, as were responsible parents.

But you are correct, most seniors now in that age group, probably wouldn't have gone to get the training.

 

[Overdrive]

Agree with the above. But if we put a law in place that says you can't have a loaded gun without the proper training, I doubt if there would be an exception for senior citizens; and some of those seniors would then unload and put away the peacemaker for fear of violating the law.

 

[Wyowanderer]

Possibly, but we have to remember, most of the folks who are now our 'senior citizens', grew up with firearms.

Whether for hunting, or in the service, etc.

Back then, guns were more common, as were responsible parents.

But you are correct, most seniors now in that age group, probably wouldn't have gone to get the training.

Regardless, training approved by the Gov't shouldn't be required.
And what happens when that same government wants every firearm owner to have "continuing training"? THEN is it a burden?
Nah, guns are pretty easy to operate safely. Every new one comes with a manual, and most used ones have copious amounts of literature available for "training".

 

[Wyowanderer]

I just went through the "trouble" of reading 6 pages to find out people have retired from this discussion. Darn.

I will still put out some food for thought. On the notion of "Because a training requirement would save at least one life, it should be mandatory."

Think about our population of VERY senior citizens...those in their upper 80's and 90's... I read many, many news articles where the senior citizen likely saved their own life by shooting dead a home intruder. Like it's been said earlier, guns really aren't that hard to use effectively. (Yes, believe it or not, there are humans out there that will prey on 95 year olds living alone.)

However, had there been a training requirement, these same 90 year-olds probably would NOT have gone to get the training, due to cost and logistics, and feeling like they may not pass, etc.

So, I say having a training requirement would COST LIVES. I'm serious.

Let's not forget others as well. The poor might not be able to spend money and time for ammo and range time, let alone training. But a shotgun in the hand of someone defending their living space is often enough to dissuade an attacker. And don't forget, the police aren't Constitutionally required to protect you. That duty falls to the individual in a free state.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

Regardless, training approved by the Gov't shouldn't be required.
.

I agree with you 100%. I was just concurring with Overdrive, that if it training was mandatory, seniors most likely wouldn't bother. (or it would be structured to make it impossible for them to pass)

Let's not forget others as well. The poor might not be able to spend money and time for ammo and range time, let alone training.

This is exactly what Chicago is doing. Making it all but impossible to meet the proper 'requirements'. And there is no way the 'average' citizen will be able to do it.

Knowledge and training are the best tools out there, for everything.

But when it comes to firearms, I agree, the government has no biz in it.