Gun Owners are their own worst enemy

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by Menel

mandatory training and safety courses: this would not have prevented Newtown massacre. There are very few accidents, and a massacre is NOT an accident. This is a good policy to bring new people into the firearms community who are apprehensive and scared to own a gun. But most firearms stores already run their own training programs. Why create needless bureaucracy and tax payer expendature!?

What if those training courses taught something about storing your weapons so they aren't easy to steal? I will admit that I haven't read an article that said how the guns used in this shooting were stored before being stolen, but I doubt they were kept locked up...

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by Merkava_4

I disagree with you on that. I believe people who are mentally ill who have been receiving the proper medical treatment for a long period of time can be responsible gun owners just as well as normal people can.

As long as they take their medication, miss a few days and they are insane again.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Menel

OK tell me how that would have prevented Newtown. Weapons were purchased completely lawfully by a good person from a big box retailer. All I's dotted and T's crossed.

How is that a solution that would prevent a future Newtown?

No existing gun legislation, or stuff being talked about here could have stopped Newtown...

Ultimately, this was a personal responsibility failure of the Mother...she knew her son had issues, and simply should not have had firearms in the home. Don't want to go into details on my personal life here, but lets just say that in the past Ive had situations where firearms had to leave the house because of relatives who had mental health issues.

Bottom line is had that kid should have been in a mental institution this never would have happened.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Merkava_4

I disagree with you on that. I believe people who are mentally ill who have been receiving the proper medical treatment for a long period of time can be responsible gun owners just as well as normal people can.

First, let me clarify that I am not talking about people who are mildly depressed due to "life situations", or people who are bi-polar.

I am talking about people who have a severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, or who exhibit clear signs that they are disturbed...I've known at least one person who was diagnosed as a schizophrenic in his early 20's. Over the past 20 years he has gotten better, and is able hold a job, but is still a little out there. There is no way in h_e_l_l I would want to be in the same room with him if he had a weapon..Best way I can describe it is to him, guns are truly toys.

Also, there is alot of talk going on right as to just what these medications, particularly SSRI's are affecting people. There are many who think there is a link to these drugs and outbursts of violence and irrational behavior.

As for mandatory training, sure it would be another level of bureaucracy, and maybe even a year ago I would have been opposed to such a thing, but the fact is many males seem to have a natural "gun gene" that gives them an automatic understanding of firearm safety and use.

Were this the case, than the guy in my home state of PA who accidentally shot and killed his toddler while entering his vehicle with a weapon he failed to clear properly would have his child today. Again, this would apply to first time buyers only....

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

What if those training courses taught something about storing your weapons so they aren't easy to steal? I will admit that I haven't read an article that said how the guns used in this shooting were stored before being stolen, but I doubt they were kept locked up...

Can I ask, as someone not privvy with US gun law, is there not a requirement that your firearms are kept in a secure, locked safe of some sort?

If not, why not? It's hardly like ANYONE needs to have it sitting around the house.

[725032]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Huzzah!

I'll hoist a scotch tonight to celebrate.

Abusing alcohol to celebrate firearms comments

How ironic

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by glocke12

First, let me clarify that I am not talking about people who are mildly depressed due to "life situations", or people who are bi-polar.

I am talking about people who have sever mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, or who exhibit clear signs that they are disturbed...I've known at least one person who was diagnosed as a schizophrenic in his early 20's. Over the past 20 years he has gotten better, and is able hold a job, but is still a little out there. There is no way in h_e_l_l I would want to be in the same room with him if he had a weapon..Best way I can describe it is to him, guns are truly toys.

Also, there is alot of talk going on right as to just what these medications, particularly SSRI's are affecting people. There are many who think there is a link to these drugs and outbursts of violence and irrational behavior.

As for mandatory training, sure it would be another level of bureaucracy, and maybe even a year ago I would have been opposed to such a thing, but the fact is many males seem to have a natural "gun gene" that gives them an automatic understanding of firearm safety and use.

Were this the case, than the guy in my home state of PA who accidentally shot and killed his toddler while entering his vehicle with a weapon he failed to clear properly would have his child today. Again, this would apply to first time buyers only....

A very valid post.


A few simple requirements really shouldn't be an issue. This could all be done in the form of a simple firearms license, with a few requirements to obtain one.

Personally I think the following would be a fairly acceptable list of requirements to obtain a firearms license:

- Must have two character statements from non-family members (e.g a form/piece of paper saying "I know this guy - he's ok and I dont think he's a nutter). This would need to be from two unrelated people such as a neighbour, and your boss, and they must have known you for at least, say 3 years (to stop people finding a random person to sign it)

- Persons with a history of violence within the last 10 years will not be allowed a license, period.

- Must provide a secure, locked safe which the weapon is to be stored in.

- Persons with a history of mental illness would first need to be assessed depending on the severity of their illness, and at a doctos discretion may be denied the right to a firearms license.

---

Another thought is to have different license types. Say a 'basic protection license' for a simple handgun, a 'recreational license' which would allow slightly heavier weaponry for recreational use only, and a full license.

The idea being that it would require more checks for a recreational license, and even more checks for a full license (e.g attend a training session).

This really shouldn't be a problem for anyone - once you've got your license you've proved that you are a decent person, and capable of owning a firearm.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

A very valid post.


A few simple requirements really shouldn't be an issue. This could all be done in the form of a simple firearms license, with a few requirements to obtain one.

Personally I think the following would be a fairly acceptable list of requirements to obtain a firearms license:

- Must have two character statements from non-family members (e.g a form/piece of paper saying "I know this guy - he's ok and I dont think he's a nutter). This would need to be from two unrelated people such as a neighbour, and your boss, and they must have known you for at least, say 3 years (to stop people finding a random person to sign it)

- Persons with a history of violence within the last 10 years will not be allowed a license, period.

- Must provide a secure, locked safe which the weapon is to be stored in.

- Persons with a history of mental illness would first need to be assessed depending on the severity of their illness, and at a doctos discretion may be denied the right to a firearms license.

---

Another thought is to have different license types. Say a 'basic protection license' for a simple handgun, a 'recreational license' which would allow slightly heavier weaponry for recreational use only, and a full license.

The idea being that it would require more checks for a recreational license, and even more checks for a full license (e.g attend a training session).

This really shouldn't be a problem for anyone - once you've got your license you've proved that you are a decent person, and capable of owning a firearm.

That goes a little bit too far I think...Especially "character reference" part...

Here in Pennsyltucky, when we apply for a concealed carry permit, we need to list character references. For a few reasons I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable asking people to do this and explaining why. First off, I don't want people knowing my business, and secondly, the majority of the people I know these days and am friendly with are non-gunowners.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by glocke12

That goes a little bit too far I think...Especially "character reference" part...

Here in Pennsyltucky, when we apply for a concealed carry permit, we need to list character references. For a few reasons I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable asking people to do this and explaining why. First off, I don't want people knowing my business, and secondly, the majority of the people I know these days and am friendly with are non-gunowners.

I cant see anything wrong with a character reference. Unless you've got something to hide whats the problem with it?

(I'm genuinely asking here as I'd like to know why it would be considered too far - not trying to poke holes)

[Zombie Acorn]

Only chance of that happening is if the members of congress are as ignorant about gun terminology as some of the people on these forums.

----------

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Can I ask, as someone not privvy with US gun law, is there not a requirement that your firearms are kept in a secure, locked safe of some sort?

If not, why not? It's hardly like ANYONE needs to have it sitting around the house.

When you live in a rural area you more likely than not have a gun hanging in the back of your truck window or behind the seat.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I cant see anything wrong with a character reference. Unless you've got something to hide whats the problem with it?

(I'm genuinely asking here as I'd like to know why it would be considered too far - not trying to poke holes)

I haven't known anyone for more than three years who is not family. Secondly why should I have to have friends tell the government that it's OK for me to have something they can't tell me I can't have? Privacy has very little to do with something to hide and much to do with not announcing/sharing your plans with people.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Can I ask, as someone not privvy with US gun law, is there not a requirement that your firearms are kept in a secure, locked safe of some sort?

If not, why not? It's hardly like ANYONE needs to have it sitting around the house.

This is largely regulated at a state level and so there is a lot of ambiguity. Some states do require it where as others have looser requirements and others don't mention it at all.

And this needs to become a central issue as does education...both are closely related. Many, many children die each year because people are stupid in how they store their firearm and they are stupid for not teaching their kids about gun safety (usually because they don't know it themselves).

That leads to the responsibility and accountability. There needs to be more legal accountability for negligence. Furthermore, there needs to be mandated education so people understand what is and is not safe firearm storage. There are gun safes that can be accessed in under a second from a fingerprint or fast numeric code which unlocks a springed door on the 'gun vault'.

If something is not done about this negligence, it will harm responsible gun owners in the long run. And if someone is unwilling to, doesn't know how, and/or doesn't want to know how to properly store a firearm, then they have no business purchasing one in the first place.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I haven't known anyone for more then three years who is not family. Secondly why should I have to have friends tell the government that it's OK for me to have something they can't tell me I can't have? Privacy has very little to do with something to hide and much to do with not announcing/sharing your plans with people.

This is exactly my point...There are few people that I consider myself to have known long enough (who are not co-workers) that I would ask for a character reference from. I am not about to impose a request like that upon my co-workers. It puts both parties in an uncomfortable position.

Also, as I said before, Im really not interested in making my personal business public...

[vrDrew]

I really wish responsible gun owners, including sportsmen and people with a legitimate interest in owning firearms for self-protection, would band together and get out front of this issue.

The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate reason for any civilian to own a high-capacity semi-automatic weapon. Hunters of birds, deer, or other small game don't squeeze off ten or fifteen rounds at their prey. Generally speaking, if you don't hit your target with the first shot, it will run or fly out of range.

Likewise, you don't need a semi-automatic bullpup rifle to defend your property. The sort of high-velocity rounds such weapons fire can travel thousands of yards downrange. Meaning if you miss your target, there is a high-probability of killing or injuring some innocent bystander down the street - or in the next town.

For personal defense, the best weapon - regardless of your level of training or physical condition - would be a shotgun loaded with buckshot. The "spread" of pellets makes it much more likely you are going to hit your target with the first shot. And yet the small mass of buckshot makes it extremely unlikely to cause collateral damage downrange. Failing that, a revolver (which is generally limited to six or eight round magazines) would be preferable. Revolvers are far less likely to jam than semi-automatics. And a crazed shooter is likely to far less damage if he has to stop and reload every six or eight shots. And, again, the much lower muzzle velocity of a revolver means missed shots are much less likely to injure innocent people downrange.

Responsible gun owners ought to welcome restrictions on how legitimately purchased weapons are stored in private homes and property. They don't want their weapons stolen by intruders and used against them. And they don't want children or family members killing themselves (intentionally or otherwise) with their weapons.

The gun-control debate is currently being steered by childish, deluded wannabe "Rambos". People who are so stupid as to think that a real-world gunfight is like they see on TV. And that, despite never having been trained or experienced in a real-world firefight, that they would cooly return fire in a manner similar to the most elite military and police units.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by vrDrew

I really wish responsible gun owners, including sportsmen and people with a legitimate interest in owning firearms for self-protection, would band together and get out front of this issue.

The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate reason for any civilian to own a high-capacity semi-automatic weapon. Hunters of birds, deer, or other small game don't squeeze off ten or fifteen rounds at their prey. Generally speaking, if you don't hit your target with the first shot, it will run or fly out of range.

Likewise, you don't need a semi-automatic bullpup rifle to defend your property. The sort of high-velocity rounds such weapons fire can travel thousands of yards downrange. Meaning if you miss your target, there is a high-probability of killing or injuring some innocent bystander down the street - or in the next town.

For personal defense, the best weapon - regardless of your level of training or physical condition - would be a shotgun loaded with buckshot. The "spread" of pellets makes it much more likely you are going to hit your target with the first shot. And yet the small mass of buckshot makes it extremely unlikely to cause collateral damage downrange. Failing that, a revolver (which is generally limited to six or eight round magazines) would be preferable. Revolvers are far less likely to jam than semi-automatics. And a crazed shooter is likely to far less damage if he has to stop and reload every six or eight shots. And, again, the much lower muzzle velocity of a revolver means missed shots are much less likely to injure innocent people downrange.

Responsible gun owners ought to welcome restrictions on how legitimately purchased weapons are stored in private homes and property. They don't want their weapons stolen by intruders and used against them. And they don't want children or family members killing themselves (intentionally or otherwise) with their weapons.

The gun-control debate is currently being steered by childish, deluded wannabe "Rambos". People who are so stupid as to think that a real-world gunfight is like they see on TV. And that, despite never having been trained or experienced in a real-world firefight, that they would cooly return fire in a manner similar to the most elite military and police units.

This struck a cord with me.
In the Netherlands members of gun clubs are discourage from reading to many of the American Gun/Shooting Magazines. They are of course not banned outright.

Especially American Handgunner. and the writer Massad Ayoob is seen as a bad role model for a responsable gun owner shooter.

http://allyoucanread.com/top-10-gun-magazines/

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Can I ask, as someone not privvy with US gun law, is there not a requirement that your firearms are kept in a secure, locked safe of some sort?

If not, why not? It's hardly like ANYONE needs to have it sitting around the house.

Some states may have requirements like that, but I don't know of any that do. I live in California which I know has some of the strictest laws and I have a lot of friends who just have guns sitting around the house without anything to lock them up.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Menel

OK tell me how that would have prevented Newtown. Weapons were purchased completely lawfully by a good person from a big box retailer. All I's dotted and T's crossed.

How is that a solution that would prevent a future Newtown?

How can you be against mandatory training to own a weapon? In a previous post, you said "this would not have prevented Newtown." But, it very well could have. The lady who had the guns could have had absolutely no idea that she should have had them properly hidden/stored/locked away, especially if she has someone with mental illness in the house. Teaching and training would have given her this knowledge.

You might like to think that everyone out there who is not mentally ill is perfectly capable of owning and controlling a firearm without any training whatsoever, and will do the right things with them. I don't follow that line of thinking at all. I don't trust most people with a spatula, much less a gun. But some people, and it seems like you may be included in this, think that gun ownership in and of itself shows responsibility and a safety-concious individual. Completely false line of reasoning. There are also a LOT of people who I would never, ever want to have a gun in their possession all the time, but who are fully mentally sane, and don't have criminal backgrounds.

I don't support a full-out ban. But I do support heavy required training in the use and storage of firearms, and maybe a common-sense and competency test of some sort.

Originally Posted by vrDrew

The gun-control debate is currently being steered by childish, deluded wannabe "Rambos". People who are so stupid as to think that a real-world gunfight is like they see on TV. And that, despite never having been trained or experienced in a real-world firefight, that they would cooly return fire in a manner similar to the most elite military and police units.

This is pretty much my thought on the matter. There are way too many people out there who I don't think could actually handle a gun in any sort of real-life emergency scenario, who the pro-gun lobby seems to think should be armed at all times.

[Menel]

Originally Posted by vrDrew

The gun-control debate is currently being steered by childish, deluded wannabe "Rambos". People who are so stupid as to think that a real-world gunfight is like they see on TV. And that, despite never having been trained or experienced in a real-world firefight, that they would cooly return fire in a manner similar to the most elite military and police units.

Many gun enthusiasts who train themselves, and compete in IDPA competitions can out outperform most 'professional'. They have a passion for it and aren't being paid, in fact the opposite, they are spending their own resources to better themselves.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Menel

OK tell me how that would have prevented Newtown.

If prevention is your benchmark for enacting a law or regulation then no law or regulation could every be enacted. If you could point to any law that in itself prevents an act from occurring, please do so.

The expectation is not that prevention will occur.

The hope is that a reduction in incidents will occur.

And seeing how devastating these incidents are, that seems to me a worthy goal to achieve.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I like your points. Many people think of gun owners as a single, united group. That's anything but the case. And C&R guys are in their own little world of Civil War reenactments and shooting rifles that take half the afternoon to load.

And the refusal to compromise is problematic. The reality is a lot of people die from firearms unnecessarily. So complete apathy and a refusal to do anything isn't okay. You have to give some to take some and we aren't seeing that. We can do better.

Given the extremism today and the refusal to compromise, the only solution that I see to this problem is a Constitutional Amendment to delete the Second Amendment. Ratification will be tough. A few states like Texas may have to be expelled from the Union to get the required supermajority of states. What's the "smilie" for cynicism?

Oh By The Way, a .30-06 bolt action is perfectly adequate for deer hunting or any other legal and sane activity. As far as I am concerned, anyone needing to exercise their Second Amendment Rights with an AR-15 should move to Somalia and see how they actually like it in real life.

Just sign me tired and sad.

[vrDrew]

Originally Posted by Menel

Many gun enthusiasts who train themselves, and compete in IDPA competitions can out outperform most 'professional'.

The IDPA has a membership of about 15,000, out of a total US gun ownership of probably 60 to 80 million.

"Professionals" (ie. military and police officers) are not self-selected. They have to pass rigorous physical and mental screening processes before even being allowed on the training ground. Moreover their performance is regularly reviewed, and that any sign of mental instability, criminal behavior, or physical deterioration is grounds for them being relieved of the right to carry weapons on the job.

If you would like to argue that ownership or possession semi-automatic (or other quasi-military grade) weapons be restricted to civilians who had passed strict background checks and qualified by tests administered by organizations such as the IDPA (but which would still be subject to State or Federal inspection and oversight) - then I would wholeheartedly support you. But if you wish to argue that, just because some civilian shooters are skilled, any yahoo with a credit card can walk out of a Wal-Mart with the means of committing mass mayhem - then you are going find little agreement among reasonable people.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Merkava_4

I disagree with you on that. I believe people who are mentally ill who have been receiving the proper medical treatment for a long period of time can be responsible gun owners just as well as normal people can.

It has to be on a case-by-case basis though because no two people are the same. We still know very little information about the human brain, what effects it, what causes mental illnesses, etc. Hell, what is "mental illness" anyways? It's such a broad spectrum here. You can have people will full-blown schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, etc all the way down to someone who much more common things like depression and social anxiety. Mental illnesses are probably the most complicated issue being studied my modern medicine and we probably know less than 10% (this might be a high estimate) of what there is to know about them.

The broad generalizations of the "mentally ill" in the wake of this tragedy is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by MacNut

As long as they take their medication, miss a few days and they are insane again.

Stop with the gross generalizations.

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Oh By The Way, a .30-06 bolt action is perfectly adequate for deer hunting or any other legal and sane activity. As far as I am concerned, anyone needing to exercise their Second Amendment Rights with an AR-15 should move to Somalia and see how they actually like it in real life.

Exactly. The crying from some (not all, and not specifically this forum) gun nuts that the 2nd amendment is basically a free for all is a ridiculous notion.

We have "freedom of speech" but you can't go in to a crowded theater and yell fire if there's no fire.

There are and should be limits to the "right to bear arms". A intercontinental ballistic missile with a thermonuclear warhead is still considered "armament" but it's not like you can own one of those.

[prostuff1]

Originally Posted by Merkava_4

I disagree with you on that. I believe people who are mentally ill who have been receiving the proper medical treatment for a long period of time can be responsible gun owners just as well as normal people can.

Nope, once you are diagnosed I would not allow that person to ever buy a firearm. I don't care whether or not you have been cleared and found "mentally" fit again or not.


And this is coming from a person that has his CCW and believes in a persons right to own firearms.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by prostuff1

Nope, once you are diagnosed I would not allow that person to ever by a firearm again. I don't care whether or not you have been cleared and found "mentally" fit again or not.

What "mental illnesses" are you referring to here? Or are you just generalizing like everyone else?

For an example, there's a huge difference between a bipolar schizophrenic and someone who's depressed because their girlfriend broke up with them.

I get why you wouldn't want someone with the former to ever have access to a firearm, but the latter? Once they move on, find a new girlfriend, and get married, they still shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm because 10 years prior they had depression for a bit of time?

This is why these broad generalizations of "mental illness" don't help anything.

[prostuff1]

Originally Posted by zioxide

What "mental illnesses" are you referring to here? Or are you just generalizing like everyone else?

For an example, there's a huge difference between a bipolar schizophrenic and someone who's depressed because their girlfriend broke up with them.

I get why you wouldn't want someone with the former to ever have access to a firearm, but the latter? Once they move on, find a new girlfriend, and get married, they still shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm because 10 years prior they had depression for a bit of time?

This is why these broad generalizations of "mental illness" don't help anything.

Agreed, broad generalizations don't help and I did not mean to make my post sounds like that.

The kinds of mental illness I am talking about are the bipolar/schizo, etc kind. I am no where near smart enough to provide a comprehensive list but hopefully I clarified my first post a little bit.