Gun Owners: What's Your Solution to this Problem?

I think no matter how bullet poof you make the law..

someone some where is still going to catch a bullet.

and the news will report it....

there are 300 million people in america

1 percent of our population is 3 million

so if 3 people died due to other idiots every day...

that is only 1 out of a million per day....

or one millionth of our population... with the nearest "whole" number being ZERO

if a million people walk down the same street... one of them is bound to fall down no matter what you do or what laws against falling down are in place.

you can put a fence in front of any cliff...

and still some idiot will fall off that cliff.... even if climbing the fence is illegal

you simply can not outlaw stupid.. and it can not be gotten rid of either.

there will always be example of stupid people doing stupid things and it will be on the news

do not let the news freak you out ey...

it is just simple math and overexposure to the news

if it happens every day... on most every street... kinda like speeding... then we have a problem

Cheers :)

They don't care. Like GM with the Corvair, it's just the cost of doing business.

Just a thought but why is it so difficult for our legal system to punish the individuals involved in committing violent crimes, instead of casting their net over entire groups of people?

I don't think there's a person alive who doesn't resent being penalized for something that they haven't done because of something someone else has done.

Having said that, a poster to one of the pro 2nd Amendments boards once pointed out that even in closed, surveilled and highly secured locations where guns are prohibited (our nations prisons), the inmates still obtain/manufacture weapons and crimes of violence still occur.

I realize that doesn't answer the question you posed but maybe it will help to illustrate where the problems lie.

you simply can not outlaw stupid,.. and it can not be gotten rid of either.

yeppers.....

you simply can not outlaw stupid.. and it can not be gotten rid of either.

No but we could make sure they have plenty of lethal products around and let nature thin out that part of the gene pool. Some people are too stupid to breed, we should let them determine who they are. /sarc.

Seriously, COS is right. We can not legislate stupid out of existence. The best we can hope for is to recognize it before it is fatal to someone else. Another example is the guy in his early 20s that shot his 18 or 19 year old friend in the face with an arrow, joking around. Then there are stabbing deaths and injuries. How should we regulate cutlery?

Just because all have the right, does not mean we all have the ability. A minimum in training, well regulated militia, should be the least of our requirements. Add to that a mental health review and criminal record review would be a good start and is needed in every state. There should be a minimum number of hours of instruction, marksmanship requirements and safety training and observation, before a permit is issued.

And given our mobility in today's world it is time for a federal permit system. One that lets the holder possess a handgun in all states and cross state lines with the weapon. States can have laxer standards but other states are then free to not honor their permits.

Tim, the idea of a national registry is very scary as is requiring people to be licensed in order to handle fire arms at all. These permits you want could very well end up being like the jim crow laws of old choosing who gets the fire arms and when, as well as telling the government exactly who has them. All states already require background checks, but the thing about the second amendment that is often ignored is that it is not just a right to bear arms, it is a right to have a means for revolution and protection from a totalitarian government. That is why the idea of a permit required to own or possess fire arms disgust me personally, it removes that right if the government gets to choose who does and does not have them.

. All states already require background checks

Just on dealer sales...private sales are totally unchecked.

Just on dealer sales...private sales are totally unchecked.

it is not the feds business what I buy and sell...

Alright, then people shouldn't get all pissy about straw-man sales and guns getting into the hands of the wrong people....eg Fast and Furious.

I'm sorry, you complain about background checks and then support Fast and Furious? People are upset about that because it looks really similar to the feds trying to fabricate evidence to support stricter gun regulations. You have to pick a side. Personally, I agree that is none of the feds business what I buy or sell, but I have a CHL which removes the background check requirement when I purchase a fire arm. Sadly, I do not think this government is going to get out of individuals lives anytime soon

I'm not complaining about background checks.

I own several firearms. I have mine legally and don't have a ccl simply because I dont need/want to carry one around.

I don't mind having my background checked, I'm 100% legit. I think much of the problem could be resolved by requiring checks ANYTIME one is sold.

I pay 35 bucks to have my @!$%# run now, I would have no problem spending the 35 when I buy one from another citizen.

Angry left, on a personal note I would recommend shopping around, there are several stores that offer free background checks with gun purchases, usually the smaller ones.

I do not think it is any business of the government as to what is sold or bought in between private citizens. I honestly don't think background checks are ok as they are, especially if the feds want to say ok to the known gun runners buying fire arms and shun responsibility when it costs an agent his life.

People are upset about that because it looks really similar to the feds trying to fabricate evidence to support stricter gun regulations.

They give me no reason to believe anything else. Anyone with any business sense (the cartels are essential huge, though illegal, businesses, after all) isn't going to pay more for a less capable product. Civilian "military style" rifles start at about $700, the military surplus rifles coming out of South America/Africa/etc. can go for under $100. The numbers just don't add up, there is no reason why legal gun shops in the U.S. would be their preferred source.

The primary source of weapons, outside the black market trade in weapons through China, South America, et cetera, is the US government-- not in programs such as Fast and Furious, but through the Mexican military, which we have armed with automatic weapons. Roughly 100,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted over the last decade, taking their military weapons with them for sale on the black market. Likewise, much of the cartels arsenals consist of weapons that are not and have never been available in the US market (RPGs and the like).

That said, there is a statistically significant, but not large, flow of guns from the US into Mexico. Fast and Furious did not create the network which took the guns into Mexico, nor did they create the individuals who purchased these weapons for that purpose. Straw purchases are a legitimate problem for law enforcement within the United States (as part of the supply of weapons which wind up in the hands of individuals who legally and legitimately have no right to own them) and in cross-border trade such as this.

Of course the federal government will play that up as being a larger problem than it is. This is what law enforcement does, in order to justify its existence. But that holds true regardless of who is in office. Fast & Furious was part of Project Gunrunner, for instance-- a Bush-era project which began in 2005.

Personally, I think the main issue with regard to this topic of guns and criminality is the so-called War on Drugs ™. If we shifted from interdiction to treatment, and legalized relatively harmless "drugs" such as marijuana, the profit motive would dissolve, along with much of the violence.

It's Mrs S to you Steve...I'm not a gun ban advocate. And have No idea how you deduced that from my comment. There are no one way or the other deal when it comes to human behavior. I do advocate more training in the use of handguns. It's not a toy though I've known some that treated their gun like one.

When I read about legislators that promote handguns in all places and then get busted for a DUI (TN State Legislator 2011) with a loaded handgun in the console, there's were the sorta repsonsible turn irresponsible comes from.

Both of my sons did get training, and not just the here's how you clean a gun kind. Which has stood both in good stead. When the youngest went in the Navy, it didn't take him long to get his little pin to put on his uniform for a handgun. Oldest didn't go in the military, but he knew how to hunt responsibly and generally didn't care for a handgun.

My dad trained me with handguns, rifle and knives. I like knives :)

The three year old? Is he a criminal?

Do we need to answer that? First of all if you are looking for a simple answer, I think you are going to be sorely disappointed. I would suggest that answers to the question have absolutely nothing to do with guns. I for one don't believe guns kill people, people kill people. The gun is just a tool.

Case in point, last week in Miami a man robs a small store and because of existing gun laws, the robber did not have a gun. Instead he used a hammer to smash in the head of the store owner after squirting the store owner with an unidentified liquid, apparently to blind the victim momentarily.

If anybody believes that to remove all the guns will stop the killing, they are mistaken. What is the goal here? Get rid of guns or stop the killing? You have to answer that first. More people are killed by cars in this country in a day than by guns in what, month, months, pick a time frame. Most auto deaths are by accident too, not on purpose, so which is inherently more dangerous?

Why do you seem to think it was an accident that a veteran was killed by accident in the article I cited?

Where did I say that was an accident? It is Lebowsky with a Y

-10 points for reading comprehension.

If you would like to have a conversation that would be great, but I see no need to be insulting.

You didn't say it was an accident. But you compared my examples in the original post to car accidents.

Again, when I re-read my post #3.3, I fail to see what you are talking about.

When I talk about guns, there are gun accidents and then there are the criminal acts committed with guns and I try to address them separately.

We need a solution that saves lives and protects our freedoms. Is there such a thing?

Short answer to this question would have to be "no such thing". The key thing to remember is that our rights come with a price. We enjoy the right to exercise our rights without punishment unless or until we infringe on the rights of others. That means that until a person infringes on the rights of another, that person has a right to exercise his/her 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear.

Consider free speech. We enjoy the right to free speech, but if we yell "fire" in a crowded theater, we may be punished for infringing on the rights of the other theater-goers. What we can't do is curtail the right of free speech for anyone who might yell "fire" in a theater.

Right. So we shouldn't require driver licenses? No driver education? No traffic enforcement? I guess you would ignore gun deaths because people die daily in their vehicles?

Actually, that's an apples/oranges argument. Because driving is not a Constitutional right, licensing drivers is acceptable. Licensing any one of our Constitutional rights is absolutely unacceptable.

The three year old? Is he a criminal?

No the gun owner is for leaving it in a location that a 3 year old could get a hold of it long enough to pull the trigger. And where is the trigger lock?

As for the bar incident, would it be better if he knifed him? How about pepper spray and then stomped his head in? Or waited outside and ran him over as he left the bar? Or any number of other ways that a sick individual can maim or kill? Don't get me wrong. I am in favor of throwing the book at this guy, maximum penalty that can be imposed. But I don't think there is any law that can prevent these events from ever occurring. And I am in favor of rigorous training programs for all working firearms. It should be much more stringent than getting a drivers license.

And I am in favor of rigorous training programs for all working firearms. It should be much more stringent than getting a drivers license.

Training programs to carry (analogous to driving a car) or to own one (analogous to owning a car? Remember that, while driving a car requires training and licensing, simply owning one requires nothing of the sort; all you need for that is money. In addition, there is nothing at all in the Constitution about a right to own cars (or their 18th Century equivalent). Keep in mind that a requirement for training only gun owners implies a permit system. The power to issue permits to whomever the government chooses contains the power to deny such permits for whatever reason the government chooses. The power of the government to deny ownership of firearms is severely limited to convicted felons, the mentally ill and children, all easily definable groups using objective criteria. Now you wish to add a fourth group, those who have not passed a government mandated and government run class. I can see that one now; there will be one training facility for the entire country capable of handling 25 people at a time with two classes per year. The cost is $100,000 to take the class. Of the 25 people who take the class, 1 will pass (he probably bribed a politician). Soon, no one will permitted to own firearms unless they are very wealthy and well connected politically. This is essentially the system in Washington DC (before the Heller Decision), Chicago, California and Massachusetts (and to a large extent in New York). Do you really want to give politicians the power to set up something like that? That's what they would do if they got the chance. Strict adherence to the Second Amendment doesn't give them that chance. I think my solution is better; require firearms safety training for everyone who wishes to graduate from high school, whether they ever choose to own a gun or not, in much the same way that First Aid training is now required for graduation in many school districts.

Now you wish to add a fourth group, those who have not passed a government mandated and government run class

Sorry I can't seem to remember where I said the government would have anything to do with the training. Maybe you could point that out to me? I seem to recall that an organization that I belong to has an extensive training program and education program to promote safe gun use. That organization is the NRA and my brother had to pass their marksmanship test before he could get his carry permit in Texas. So ooooooow better be afraid of the big bad government. Of course there is another organization I belong to call SHOTS that does much the same for kids locally. And of course many rod and gun clubs handle the mandated training and marksmanship programs for getting your first hunting license in NY where I live. And none of these seem to have dampened the demand for firearms or hunting licenses.

I think my solution is better; require firearms safety training for everyone who wishes to graduate from high school, whether they ever choose to own a gun or not, in much the same way that First Aid training is now required for graduation in many school districts.

I have no problem with this, but then I am not vehemently opposed to my kids ever touching a gun. Are you willing to strip those parents of their tights by forcing every kid to have gun safety training. I could see this as part of the "well regulated militia" clause in the 2nd amendment.

Tim, you are wrong on the laws regarding the Texas CHL. The Texas DPS administers that test, not the NRA. Often the same people licensed to to teach those classes are also NRA instructors because it is the same demographic. Regardless, all the Government has to do is set the requirements above any standard already in place. Look at WI, who although they recently passed a concealed carry law, went and got advice from the federal Government, the DOJ specifically on the requirements they should have. The DOJ then set forth what looked like reasonable requirements, however the documentation they required was more than any other state and any current program at the time had. While private firms have since made the necessary changes to their curriculum, this type of arbitrary rule making is what we could expect from a federally required license and the results would be similar to There They Go Again's prediction. With the government choosing who is armed.

Polka, people said much the same thing about cars when they were first driven. Over the decades though laws have been put in place, driver's training etc. More solutions need to be found, because as usual, nothing is cut and dried.

More solutions need to be found, because as usual, nothing is cut and dried.

No solutions exist that can reduce the amount of accidental deaths and the malicious use of firearms. We have the freedom to own them. It is in the Constitution. The right to own firearms may not be infringed. To infringe on this freedom for our "safety" is a big problem. Arrest those that allow their children to accidentally kill others but don't try to limit the ability to own firearms because of these accidents.

Wouldn't it be better though to ensure that there was better gun training than arresting those people. They're letting people outta jail the way it is for overcrowding. I'm not advocating 'limiting' just Training.

Polka I agree with you for the most part, certainly on the rights side. But if we look at gun accidents separate from criminal acts involving guns, accidents can be prevented or at least reduced by training and instilling good habits. That is the gun owners responsibility that comes with the right. As mentioned earlier, 3 year olds should not be able to access guns, but that has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with the owner.

I'm not advocating 'limiting' just Training.

That is good but owners of firearms are responsible for the actions of anyone that uses their firearms unless they are stolen.

Exactly that's why there's the Federal law that a convicted felon cannot be in a home with a gun or in a car with a gun. And felon's go back to jail for 2 years if caught.

And I know for a Fact that civilians will tell you it's not a law, that their relative can stay in their home and they can keep the guns in plain sight. This is the kind of situation where people need to Know the law and that takes training.

You really might as well give up; the Second Amendment supporters really do love their right to bear arms more than they do public safety and my right to life.

Our freedoms are very important. Limiting our rights to own weapons for self-defense will not improve public safety or your right to live.

Although I must say, I'd prefer to defend myself from an attack with oak chair than a Magnum .357...

I hope you are able to do so throughout your life. I couldn't defend myself physically.

Polka14

Our freedoms are very important. Limiting our rights to own weapons for self-defense will not improve public safety or your right to live.

Polka, may I kindly say this? : I like reading your posts at Newsvine. Really. However, I do feel that you tend to be... somewhat ideological... with your presentation. I myself value flexibility. I don't believe that most things in this world are either/or, black-or-white, good vs. bad.

I support the "Right to Bear Arms," but don't agree that it's an excuse for the Firearm Anarchy that far too many gun supporters seem to promote.

People who don't own guns, or even those who oppose gun ownership, are protected by the guns of others. Criminals don't know who have the guns. If you think this to be untrue, put a sign in your window stating that you oppose gun ownership. The right to own a gun makes it a more dangerous world for criminals. If you oppose gun ownership, share your views with the world by placing a sign in your yard. I will do the same, except my sign will say I support gun rights and the second amendment. If everyone did this, it would be clear which victims the criminals prefer.

I support the "Right to Bear Arms," but don't agree that it's an excuse for the Firearm Anarchy that far too many gun supporters seem to promote.

I don't know anyone that advocates for firearm anarchy. I know others and myself only advocate for the right to own firearms. The right among those other rights in the Constitution that are inherent rights gained from birth and can't be taken away by government. The right to own firearms are very important. We can't rely on others to help us from danger. We can only rely on ourselves for protection.

I've never had a problem with 911 or the response...

I've never had a problem with 911 or the response...

I wouldn't rely on the blue shirts. I don't own firearms but I would repel criminals from my home with a knife before I would call for their help. And I would recommend more isolated people to own firearms because the blue shirts take time to arrive to capture actual criminals and/or use the taser against the homeowner.

Polka, I live 4 blocks from the police station. They've created a nice friendly neighborhood. :)

And yes, I know how to use a knife. If they get that close to me in my house, they won't need an ambulance.

Polka, I live 4 blocks from the police station. They've created a nice friendly neighborhood. :)

Must be no Occupy protests in your neighborhood. The government forces hate Occupy.

And yes, I know how to use a knife. If they get that close to me in my house, they won't need an ambulance.

I don't know how to use a knife with efficiency but I would try to use one notwithstanding that fact before I call the blue shirts to help me. The only reason I don't buy a firearm is because I have no training with them and wouldn't know how to operate it.

Here. Can you speak this?

People who don't own guns, or even those who oppose gun ownership, are protected by the guns of others.

Your statement demonstrates the heroic mythology that a certain segment of the Second Amendment proponents promote, that they are our last, best defense against all of the nasties of the world just waiting to take advantage of them or otherwise oppress them. 'My gorsh, I'd better not break and enter, one of these home owners might have a gun!' 'We'd better not send in the Black Helicopters, someone might resist us with their incredible gun!'

Rather immature attitude, IMO.

I used to live directly across the street from a police sub-station. My van was broken into, twice, parked directly beneath a streetlight directly across from the police station. A nearby neighbor had his home broken into and about $30,000 worth of musical instruments and gear stolen. The girl two doors down from me was carjacked at gunpoint. Police managed to arrive in only ten minutes-- well after assailant and car were gone.

Frankly, the notion that the police will make everything better and/or stop crime, combined with the dismissive attitude suggesting that guns are not a last defense against crime (or autocratic tyranny) is a bit disturbing. Yes, firearms (and training) have actually saved lives. Yes, an armed populace is a deterrent to government repression. No, firearms do not magically whisk these things away.

There may be a bit of heroic mythology engaged in by some gun supporters, but it certainly isn't any more silly than the utter naivete of some gun detractors.

'We'd better not send in the Black Helicopters, someone might resist us with their incredible gun!'

A very good point. An armed population was likely a far more compelling force against tyranny when the Constitution was being written. Still, Gaza comes to mind. One side has a vastly superior capability to inflict lethality, the other has mostly stones. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why one party dominates the other in that scenario. BTW NV'ers, please don't use the aforementioned as an opportunity to bring up the topic of the Middle East; the reference was only used because it is an obvious example of armed vs unarmed conflict.

As I've said, if you don't believe that gun ownership deters criminals, put a sign in your window stating your position on gun-control. If you think that telling criminals that you are unarmed is a bad idea, you are accepting the protection my ownership of guns offers you. If you advocate the elimination of gun ownership by the citizenry but won't put up the sign, you are a hypocrite. And, If you have no way of refuting this argument other than name calling............................................ Rather immature attitude, IMO. Yes, I stole that from you Uthaclena. I give you full credit for that one.

If you think that telling criminals that you are unarmed is a bad idea, you are accepting the protection my ownership of guns offers you.

That's an extremist, utterly nonsensical statement. One's choice to not own a gun could, and frequently does, indicate their acceptance of gun ownership/usage on the part of local, state and/or federal agencies whose duly-authorized mandate is to protect the population. While there are both pragmatic and philosophical concerns as regards a gun-toting population, let's be clear: the idea that every ignorant, excitable moron should have a God-given right to possess lethal firepower, and that it's a good thing for society, reflects an almost total lack of coherent thought. Given your reasoning, we'd all be better off if we "accepted your protection" in the form of you owning 50-cal automatics, RPG's and shoulder-fired Stinger missiles. I wonder why those devices are not generally available?

In the end, the issue boils down to real-world scenarios and a little common sense. Truth be told, though, I personally wouldn't trust you with a BB gun!

One's choice to not own a gun could, and frequently does, indicate their acceptance of gun ownership/usage on the part of local, state and/or federal agencies whose duly-authorized mandate is to protect the population.

Afraid not. The Supreme Court has already ruled that police agencies have no duty at all to protect citizens. You're on your own for personal protection. All the police are required to do is come in afterword, scrape up the bodies, write a report and try to catch the criminal later.

Uthaclena

Here. Can you speak this?

People who don't own guns, or even those who oppose gun ownership, are protected by the guns of others.

Your statement demonstrates the heroic mythology that a certain segment of the Second Amendment proponents promote, that they are our last, best defense against all of the nasties of the world just waiting to take advantage of them or otherwise oppress them. 'My gorsh, I'd better not break and enter, one of these home owners might have a gun!' 'We'd better not send in the Black Helicopters, someone might resist us with their incredible gun!'

Rather immature attitude, IMO.

It's not the owning of guns specifically that's being referred to, it's when a state passes laws to allow concealed carry that makes even those not carrying safe[r] because then the criminals don't know if their prospective victim(s) may have the ability to resist their efforts with lethal force.

Concealed Carry Statistics
Liberalized Concealed Carry Laws

i told you, there is no solution. humans make mistakes. mistakes WILL happen. even if you confiscated every gun in America, things like this will STILL happen.

by the way, i own many guns and nobody will ever die because of a weapon i own. guaranteed!

You don't have to own a gun. The RIGHT to own a gun still protects you. A criminal who might want to make you his victim knows that EVERY person is a potential gun owner. All I ask of anyone who wishes to end my right to own a gun is to place a sign in their yard stating their position on gun-rights. When the criminals don't have to guess about who owns guns, they will choose their victims wisely. Eventually it will become clear who the preferred victims are. I will be able to keep my gun locked safely in it's case in the safe in the basement.

independentbychoice

by the way, i own many guns and nobody will ever die because of a weapon i own. guaranteed!

Can you really guarantee that? I hope so. But, will no thief will ever get your collection? No drunken teenager will ever "pretend" to play Russian Roulette with one of your guns? Again, I do hope that your guarantee can hold.

bilweeler,

i have no choice but to accept it, nor does anyone else. take all the guns you want, things like this will still happen. drugs are outlawed, yet any addict can get their drug of choice anytime they want. outlaw guns and you'll create a huge black market, inviting more crime, while criminals with a nasty bent will still be able to get a gun and the law abiding citizen won't.

uthaclena,

my guns are locked up in a safe that you'd need explosives to get into. they only come out when i use or clean them and they never leave my sight. so yes, i guarantee my guns will never be involved in a crime.

independentbychoice

uthaclena,

my guns are locked up in a safe that you'd need explosives to get into. they only come out when i use or clean them and they never leave my sight. so yes, i guarantee my guns will never be involved in a crime.

Fair enough! :-)

It's not infringing on your rights

I think it would be infringement on the right to own firearms. If something is a right then it can't be undermined by demanding requirements to engage in that action.

.

Listen, I am no anti gun liberal wing nut. I am a former active duty Marine with combat time. I own several firearms and love each and every one of them. I hunt multiple seasons in multiple states.

I know how to use mine, I know how to be safe and not to shoot anything I am not intending to shoot. I don't think it is asking too much to get a "license" that shows competence and ability.

We have the right to free speech, but there are still rules....I can't get on prime time commercial televison and say @!$%# or @!$%#, you can't show a boob on television...there are regulations and stations get licensed (fcc or whatever), it's not considered an infringement.

I really don't have any other idea on how to limit accidents, you can make punishments as severe as you like, but accidents will still happen....and we will never get rid of gun crime.

It takes a responsible, aware person to be safe with a firearms...there are very few people that I would walk in front of if they were carrying a loaded weapon.

Angry Left-532262

I alwasy thought it odd that I have to take a test to show that I have the required knowledge to drive a car, but I can go buy a gun without too much trouble.

I think many of the "accidents" could be avoided with some basic gun safety lessons and shooter "education".

AL, completely agree. Hey, let the NRA give certified gun safety courses, you bet! Heck, I loathe guns, but have been thinking, if I can drive a car or use a computer, why don't I know how to safely shoot a gun? Maybe in 2012!

That's just not true. All rights are regulated. No right is absolute. Even the 2nd Amendment refers to a "well regulated" militia.

The second amendment is applied to the People in addition to the idea of a general assembly of an armed force. The bill of rights doesn't limit our freedoms and doesn't grant freedoms. It limits government from limiting our natural rights that exist independent of any human law or artificial government.

We have the right to free speech, but there are still rules....

Those rules are unconstitutional. They violate the Bill of Rights.

I don't think it is asking too much to get a "license" that shows competence and ability.

It is always a good thing to demonstrate competence but it should be optional. The Bill of Rights has no asterisk at any amendment.

Angry Left,

You and several others seem to be mismatching the right to own a gun by comparing it with the right to drive a car. True, you do need training and a license to drive a car. You do not, however require either training or a license to purchase or own a car. Purchasing or owning a firearm does not, in most places require training or a license, however, the correct analogy to driving a car is actually carrying that firearm in public, for which you most certainly do require both training and a license. Would training and severe indoctrination in safety reduce accidental deaths due to the careless use of firearms? To some extent it probably would. Would it eliminate such accidents? Of course not; firearms are machines and, like any other machine, when humans interact with them, accidents will happen. In other words, don't expect miracles. The problem with government required training for firearms ownership is that, after the government requires such training, it will then see to it that such training is unavailable or fantastically expensive (remember that the power to license is the power to destroy). Once it is placed within the purview of the government to license gun ownership, the Second Amendment is effectively destroyed.

The previous paragraph outlines the problem and shows how the obvious solution, licensing and training requirements, would lead to removal of Second Amendment rights. I do, however, have a solution that meets both of Biwheeler's criteria. It would essentially require that everyone (not just gun owners or potential gun owners) be trained in the safe and effective use of firearms (with the safety message drummed in very heavily). How to do this? Almost all school districts in the country require passing a Health class for graduation from high school. Almost all of those Health classes have a section on First Aid (taught by the American Red Cross for a small fee to the district). What is needed is a Federal law requiring that all school districts in the country require passing a course in firearms safety and handling as a requirement for graduation and that such a course is to be provided by the district as part of their regular curriculum. It should also be required that the course be taught by people certified to teach firearms safety and handling who should not be governmental employees. As it happens, there is an organization (analogous to the Red Cross in First Aid training) which has lots of certified instructors and which has been offering such training (both privately and to any school district that requests it) for 120 years. That is the great demon NRA, totally hated by gun grabbers everywhere, because they don't put up with the "guns are inherently evil nonsense.

You can easily see the obvious advantages to requiring such a course for graduation. It would no longer be necessary to think about requiring such a course to purchase a gun. All that would be needed is to show your high school diploma since you must have had such a course before you got that diploma. Those who didn't graduate, would have to show that they had successfully passed that course, in school or elsewhere. The government couldn't restrict Second Amendment rights by making such courses unavailable or too expensive since they would be required, available and free (for the student) in any high school in the country. It wouldn't discriminate specifically against gun owners since everyone would have to have taken the course. What it would do is to meet your problem of lack of training causing accidents without requiring government interference. Even better, once those people were trained, we would see a great lessening of the insane terror many people have of a few pounds of metal and wood. Most such anti gun terror comes from ignorance and that excuse would no longer be available.

Is this solution just for the long term? Would it take decades to show results? From the time that law was implemented, the first such graduates would be coming into the gun market within four years. In thirty years, virtually all gun owners would have had that training.

Firearm training should certainly not be mandatory for all American students. It isn't necessary to train all students in something that they may likely not engage in during their lives and is optional for those that do engage in owning a firearm. It sounds like official government training in anticipation of the restoration of the draft. Owning a firearm is a right. Not a privilege and we should never need government permission to use or carry them at any time that we want.

Firearm training should certainly not be mandatory for all American students. It isn't necessary to train all students in something that they may likely not engage in during their lives and is optional for those that do engage in owning a firearm. It sounds like official government training in anticipation of the restoration of the draft. Owning a firearm is a right. Not a privilege and we should never need government permission to use or carry them at any time that we want.

But what about that "well-regulated" clause in the 2nd Amendment? Couldn't that be construed to mean that all members of the citizens militia (meaning all of us) need to be "well-regulated" or "well-trained"?

That's just not true. All rights are regulated. No right is absolute. Even the 2nd Amendment refers to a "well regulated" militia. Well, allow me to point out two fairly important things that are touched on by this assertion of yours. The first is that all rights are NOT regulated, in the sense that you seem to mean the term. In the vast majority of cases, the government is prohibited from prior restraint.

The second is that you mistake the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated militia". That phrase means, precisely, "a body of the populace well-trained to arms", not "a quasi military organization controlled or regulated by the government". It also happens to be the condition which the 2nd Amendment seeks to create, by securing to the people the right to keep and bear arms.

Third, you say that my rights end where yours begin. I agree with this. It is the essential function of government to mediate the tension of conflicting rights. But then you go on to say that I can own a gun, but cannot use it to deprive you of your life. This is, in fact, utterly incorrect. From a pragmatic standpoint, I can do that under any circumstance; the government's only option is to punish my usurpation of your right, after the fact. Also, there are plenty of instances where the government must look in a neutral fashion at my depriving you of your life-- for instance, if I shoot you to prevent you from harming me bodily. Again, the government's position is to weigh the conflicting rights and render a decision as to which takes precedence.

In either sense, however, you seem to be contending that my right to own a weapon conflicts with your "right" to be free from all risk, and I do not agree that the latter is actually a right of any sort, either explicit or implicit in the Constitution's outline of governmental authority.

Firearms and their use seldom equate to simple black and white equations.

Couldn't that be construed to mean that all members of the citizens militia (meaning all of us) need to be "well-regulated" or "well-trained"?

There is no unorganized "citizen militia" in modern times so that particular phrase has no meaning today. The amendment is applicable to the People for our own personal defense.

AL, completely agree. Hey, let the NRA give certified gun safety courses, you bet! Heck, I loathe guns, but have been thinking, if I can drive a car or use a computer, why don't I know how to safely shoot a gun? Maybe in 2012!

I could only agree with this if a) the government was exercising it's privelege of regulating (training) the militia (us) without the government keeping records of who has/hasn't taken the course and b) ownership of firearms was not contingent on whether or not this course was taken.

There is no unorganized "citizen militia" in modern times so that particular phrase has no meaning today. The amendment is applicable to the People for our own personal defense.

Actually, according to Title 10 of the US Code, there is still a definition of the unorganized militia in place today, and the militia is us. They (the government) can train us, they can arm us, but they can't infringe on us.

There is no unorganized "citizen militia" in modern times so that particular phrase has no meaning today. This is incorrect. See 10 U.S.C. § 311.

Firearm training should certainly not be mandatory for all American students. It isn't necessary to train all students in something that they may likely not engage in during their lives and is optional for those that do engage in owning a firearm. It sounds like official government training in anticipation of the restoration of the draft. Owning a firearm is a right. Not a privilege and we should never need government permission to use or carry them at any time that we want.

Polka,

I think you might be mistaken about the type of training I'm talking about. Training in anticipation of a draft would be marksmanship training; this would strictly be safety training. It would not include anything but what not to do with a gun (direction of muzzle, finger off trigger, etc.) and how to safely unload it. I think that the analogy with First Aid (already required for graduation in many districts) is a very close one. Most people never need to use First Aid but, if the need ever arises, the students who have had the required course are trained for it. In fact, I would envision a "required for graduation" course simply called Safety which would embody a lot of things (much the way today's high school "Health" classes do). Since one semester of high school puts the students in any one class for roughly 80 hours, I could see a First Aid/CPR course, a Firearms Safety course, an Electrical Safety course, a Fire Safety course and several others dealing with the hazards that students might encounter during their lifetimes, all in that one semester. There could even be regional variations for part of it. For example, California might teach a segment on how to survive earthquakes while Florida schools would teach hurricanes and the Midwest schools would teach about tornadoes. These are all things that any well educated adult should know and that all too many do not. Notice that I did not include Driver Education or Baby Handling since they have already established courses of their own. This would not equate to government permission to purchase a firearm since it could safely be assumed after a few years that any high school graduate (a large majority in most places in the country) would have had that training. If you made it a course taken in the Freshman or Sophomore years, you would even get the dropouts since most States require that you be at least 16 before you're allowed to drop out. There is even a precedent for this; for many years the Federal government made it a requirement that all school districts in the country teach a one semester Civics or American Government course and make it a requirement for graduation.

TTGA,

The high school class sounds like a good idea. I'd like to see what "they" have to say when gun classes start going in places like South Central LA, South Detroit, and Jersey high schools.

Ulthaclena, I strongly encourage you to consider getting some sort of training in fire arms. Personally, I think it is something every one should at the very least know how to do. I have several friends who were anti-gun before they went shooting for all sorts of reasons from they thought a fire arm could go off on its own to the idea that you had no control over where the bullet ends up and all sorts of other notions. After shooting, a lot of them decided that their fears were largely unfounded, I can not speak for all of them but that seems to be a fair summary for most of them. Who knows, with a little training and range time, you very well could enjoy it. But be forewarned, shooting has the potential to become a a very expensive hobby if you get bit by the bug, I have a savings account specifically for guns and ammo.

I'm comfortable just knowing that we have the right to arm ourselves, and because I believe that rights come with responsibility, I am responsible for my own protection, as are you. If you chose not to arm yourself, and become the victim of a violent crime, well, it's your fault. That's what the second amendment is for. You chose to ignore it, and those are the consequences. I can live with that. You think someone else should be responsible for your safety, so you have revealed yourself. You are obviously anti-gun. Yes, I could link you to that evidence, but there's no point. You will simply ignore it.

Bilweeler, Kennesaw GA. passed a law requiring all head of house holds own a firearm and keep it at home. They also have one of the lowest crime rates in the US.

The Second Amendment says "Shall Not Be Infringed", but it also says "Well Regulated".

And the Supreme Court in the Heller case said that the "Well Regulated Militia" part means nothing. It is a personal right of citizens and not of State Militias.

Well said!

To date, I've always considered the gun violence/accidental death issue from the perspective of mathematical probability--as in the more firearms one puts into the hands of the general population, the more deaths--accidental and otherwise--will inevitably result. Given that mindset, my opinion has been that any substantive decrease in the guns-to-population ratio should have a favorable impact on "unjustified" (for lack of a better term) firearm deaths.

Even if my hypothesis is sound, your argument is compelling: I can't really think of any practicable scenario whereby the total number of guns in the populace is appreciably reduced.

Thus, I don't think we can "prevent" these deaths except by, each of us, taking care not to place others in danger by our actions, and taking care not to place ourselves in danger as a result of the actions of others. It's not a perfect solution, but then nothing is.

You're probably right. Still, why am I more depressed now than just a few moments ago?

Franklin, the FBI has reported a record number of gun sales in the past few years, should that not result in a growing number of these accidental discharges resulting in deaths if your hypothesis is correct?

I'm also curious if you would include criminal acts into your unjustified firearms death count?

Nobody likes a gun pointed at their face while they're trying to read!

What I meant is that one of the basic rules of gun safety is to never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill or destroy.

When you show someone the business end of your firearm it generally means you're about to pull the trigger, unless they immediately cease & desist whatever threatening act caused you to drawn it in the first place, or are begin to retreat/de-escalate the situation (backdown).

The fact that it's only a photo doesn't negate the message.

Well I wasn't suggesting that you remove it, it's just that you made the comment in your article about irresponsible gun owners and the photo demonstrates something that one should never do - point a gun at someone unless you're under threat of imminent bodily harm or death.

The fact that it's done virtually and can't actually inflict harm is understood but can still be construed as a threat in some situations (I'm not referring to this instance specifically)

The other side of the issue though is that many people have only seen movies or games in which guns are fired, used to threaten or kill others and in my opinion don't really understand the lethality or the irreversibility of their use, much in the way that children just don't think things through.

I don't believe in traumatizing people in order to change their behavior but our world is somewhat sanitized in the way we are presented negative information.

Telling someone to be careful because if they're not X Y & Z will happen isn't quite as effective as letting them hear the bang/boom of the weapon as it's being fired, see the fire shooting out of the barrel, and then observe the results of the target down range after having been thoroughly demolished.

For some people, I would imagine most, experiencing that instills a new found respect for firearms as a weapon and the damage they can do. It did for me even though I had been in the presence of them before, but never one which had been fired.

For others, it instills fear I suppose, but if fear keeps them from partaking then perhaps that's a good thing.

All that being said, I still appreciate the sentiment of your comment and thank you.

and then observe the results of the target down range after having been thoroughly demolished.

As a matter of fact Mariyam, that's one of training tools used in the hunter safety classes around here (Michigan). The student draws a face on a melon trying to make it look like his best friend (that part doesn't usually work that well unless his friend looks like Charlie Brown). The student then is taken back to the 25 yard line and told to fire a shotgun slug into the melon. He (or she) is then taken up to the impact point, the destroyed melon is pointed out to them, and they are asked if they ever want to see their best friend look like that because of something they did. It's amazing how much these kids pay attention to the safety rules after that.

There They Go Again

and then observe the results of the target down range after having been thoroughly demolished.

As a matter of fact Mariyam, that's one of training tools used in the hunter safety classes around here (Michigan). The student draws a face on a melon trying to make it look like his best friend (that part doesn't usually work that well unless his friend looks like Charlie Brown). The student then is taken back to the 25 yard line and told to fire a shotgun slug into the melon. He (or she) is then taken up to the impact point, the destroyed melon is pointed out to them, and they are asked if they ever want to see their best friend look like that because of something they did. It's amazing how much these kids pay attention to the safety rules after that.

That's a good thing in my opinion except the only people likely to experience such things are those who are concerned about firearm safety and/or firearm safety for their children to begin with.

That leaves out a good portion of the population and before anyone asks, no I don't think anyone should be forced to participate in firearm handling and training if they have moral or other personal reasons against doing so.

Yet on the other hand, by being passive, in a sense while they may not be contributing to the problem, neither are they helping to resolve it.

bilwheeler

Do you have numbers (such as those I provided on DUI) to support that this is the norm ?

bilweeler

I still see these as exceptions rather than the norm

For instance in 2007

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
• Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
• Diabetes: 71,382
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
• Septicemia: 34,828

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2007, tables B, D, 7, 30 [PDF - 555 KB]

ANd here are the 2009 numbers

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db64.pdf

...rigorous background checks for handguns, limited concealed carry licenses and restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic weapons

More rigorous than what we have now? If so, in what way?

What limitations would you place on concealed carry that isn't already in place?

Automatic weapons are very heavily restricted.

As semi-automatic means "discharges one round per pull of trigger" what extra precautions do you feel are required than what we have now and why?

Lordfluffy

I did not say "more rigorous", you did so you tell me what it means.

I did not say more limitations on concealed carry, again you did so you need to figure it our.

I personally have hand guns, bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns and do not feel the need for magazine fed rifle as a sporting weapon, but maybe that is just me.

bilweeler

One death by accident or in purpose is too many, whether the weapon used is a gun, a bow and arrow, a car or a boxing glove - are more strident regulations required on all of those (and other things) as well as on guns?

For example over 32,000 dies in automobile accidents in 2009, perhaps we need more stringent controls and background checks on people before they can buy a car. /s

Responsible gun owners, who obey the laws and follow the regulations need not be punished for the actions of others who do not

Thanks for the feedback

Do you see 30,000 deaths annually as an acceptable norm?

I assume that you're referring to the statistic from the link you provided above, yes?

Well, let's look at that more closely.

55% of those deaths were suicides. That is, in fact, not acceptable. However, it would be ridiculous to think that those people were suicidal because they had access to a firearm or would not have sought to end their lives in another fashion.

What that tells me is we need better access to health care and to alleviate the things that cause people to despair and take their own lives, such as economic situation.

40% of those were homicides. While the number of homicides is also an unacceptably high one, again, we can't assume that the guns caused this.

Furthermore, what we don't have is the ratio of defensive gun uses (which may or may not including firing the firearm, much less hitting anyone) to homicides by firearm, a statistic that would very much help us determine if the use of a firearm resulting in homicide is anomalous or if it is the norm.

The number of accidents listed is small enough to be anomalous by any measure.

Again, the problem isn't the firearms; it's the people. And until you change them, the tools are almost irrelevant.

Oh, and I'd like to point out your link gets it's statistics from sources with a pretty firm bias. One of the problems with this debate is there is a dearth of objective information, on both sides of the issue.

I did not say "more rigorous", you did so you tell me what it means.

Actually, you said "rigorous". As I don't think you were intending to imply that the background checks done now to own a firearm are done anything less than diligently, I thought the modifier appropriate. Should I take it that you don't find the current level of background check to be rigorous at all?

I did not say more limitations on concealed carry, again you did so you need to figure it our.

You used the phrase "limited concealed carry licenses". If that doesn't imply concealed carry with limitations, then we are speaking very different versions of the English language.

I personally have hand guns, bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns and do not feel the need for magazine fed rifle as a sporting weapon, but maybe that is just me.

Which is fine, though I believe you mean a rifle with a detachable box magazine; I assume that your firearms hold more than one round at a time (my bolt action deer gun does), in which case it has a magazine, it's just internal.

And while I appreciate your candor, you have not answered any of my questions. You've listed what you feel are reasonable restrictions, but only in the most vague of terms. Please explain what restrictions you feel should be in place that are not already.

LCAV, like VPC, is an avowedly anti-gun rights group. I'd take any statistical information coming from them with a large grain of salt, and cast an eye about for whatever information that they're leaving out of the equation. And as LordFluffy said, counting up only negative outcomes involving the use of firearms while ignoring any positive outcomes result from firearms ownership is simply an attempt to tilt the table in favor of restricting gun ownership. I've seen more than a dozen estimates of defensive uses of firearms. The numbers range from about 800,000 annually on the low end to about 4 million on the high end. John Lott's estimate (which conveniently nearly splits the difference) seems fairly credible, at a hair over 2 million uses annually. Assuming that we include all suicides in the figure of 30,000 deaths annually due to firearms (and I'd agree with LordFluffy that this is unwarranted, but wish to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt), the non-lethal defensive uses of firearms outweighs the lethal uses (of all sorts) of firearms by very nearly ten to one. If even one out of ten of those defensive uses saves a life, the "cost" to society in lives is equaled by the "benefit".

Just sayin'...

As are the canned responses of the gun control crowd.

As are the canned responses of the gun control crowd.

Whatever bilweeler believes about guns... He did ask a perfectly legitimate question... and addressed it to "responsible" gun owners...

Do any "responsible" gun owners out there have any ideas about how to reduce these gruesome incidents without infringing on the 2nd Amendment?

So Gaileoin... if you are a "responsible" gun owner... Do you have any suggestions???

if you are a "responsible" gun owner... Do you have any suggestions???

See my post here: #3.8. And yes, I do consider myself a "responsible" gun owner...not "responsible" for the actions of other gun owners, and more than a car owner is "responsible" for the actions of other car owners, but responsible for how/what I use my weapons for.

Gun control:
The ability to hit the target intended.

That is the only gun control I believe in.
More people are killed by so many other things, that it is just silly to try to go after the guns without going after the cars, alcohol, cancer, and all those other things that kill a LOT more people than the odd gunshot. Most of those can be more easily be controlled than they are but you never hear anything about them.

So Gaileoin... if you are a "responsible" gun owner... Do you have any suggestions???

Mr. bilweeler asked for suggested solutions to an issue for which he knew there was no cut and dried answer, or should have if he's given any objective thought and consideration to the question of the use of guns. According to Mr. bilweeler he has written other articles on the issue of guns. That being the case he has had ample opportunity to form a thoughtful opinion about how to deal with the issue without asking for suggestions on newsvine where it seems membership for the most part is of liberal left persuasion. By posting his article on newsvine, I believe he knows he will get comments for the most part that confirm his own personal feelings with regards to the issue. It then naturally follows that he has something to talk about with others of like persuasion, who may or may not be newsvine members and he can then get much personal satisfaction talking about how he posed a question to the pro-gun people and not a one could give a satisfactory answer to his question. Then, I believe, it is possible for him to belittle the comments he does get by saying, "I've posted on guns before and the canned responses (from the right) are quite predictable." When anyone makes a remark of that nature, It leads me to believe that they are looking for self-validation and really have no interest in what others have to say contra to his or her own beliefs and opinions. Such a remark is directed at all those (including me) who heartily accept pro-gun rights and is meant to dismiss or disavow the opinion of gun owners as unimportant and ill considered.

Now, to me, you seem to take exception to my statement "As are the responses from the gun control crowd." Yet when your man makes virtually the same statement, but directed to gun owners, you seem pious and reverential toward him and even jump to his defense. Your acceptance of virtually the same statement directed at those you disagree with and your rejection of the statement from the opposing side, I believe, goes to credibility and seems to indicate impulsive emotional reactions as opposed to reasoned and considered thought.

By the way, my thoughts on the subject are stated in Post #8

That being the case he has had ample opportunity to form a thoughtful opinion about how to deal with the issue without asking for suggestions on newsvine where it seems membership for the most part is of liberal left persuasion.

As a person of left-liberal persuasion and a gun owner, what does this have to do with the issue? And by most accounts I am left and more liberal than most of the people you think of as left and liberal.

Mr. bilweeler introduced the liberal left catergorization.

Thanks, I didn't see bilweelers post about right wing. I hoe bilweeler reads my comment above, then.

Self defense is the justification for gun ownership. I understand.

A justification, not the justification. Hunting and target shooting are just as viable reasons. As is the simple desire to own one.

But guns are rarely used in self defense, partly because the presence of a gun deters the attacker.

A. The statistics on defensive gun uses are less than perfect in methodology, but conservative estimates still put the use at somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
B. The presence of a firearm deterring a situation is, at least in my opinion, a valid defensive use.

The vast majority of the casualties are results of preventable accidents, negligence, domestic violence, and assorted anger issues.

Actually, by the statistics you provided above, the vast majority are suicides. Accidents were in the very small minority.

Do you have any statistics that support this statement of which I'm not aware?

But I waste my time and yours; no minds are changed on this subject.

Then why write an article at all?

One of the things that does concern me about the debate over gun control is how little of it is based on rational discourse and how much of it is based upon opinion, heresay and preconception.

But thank you for the thoughtful response.