So you think you know the 2nd Amendment

[freein05]

Bae and Alan what do you think about my comment that there are too many gun owners. I do not think more restrictions on the purchase of firearms will do any good. We need to insure that those people who purchase them know how to properly use them safely. They should be able to demonstrate their ability to safely use them and understand the laws governing the use of firearms. This should be an ongoing program. I am a good example. I have not shot a firearm in so many years I do not feel i could safely handle one. My age also plays a part in this.

Most important their firearms have to be stored in a gun safe or a place where a bad guy can not get there firearms when not in use. Most bad guys do not have the money to purchase a firearm or would not pass a background check.

[Alan]

Bae and Alan what do you think about my comment that there are too many gun owners.

I think there are too many illegal gun owners, people who are underage, are felons, have been convicted of domestic violence, etc. I'm all in favor of using existing laws to limit their access to weapons of any kind.

If you're advocating placing limitations on law abiding citizens ability to own a weapon, then no, I'm not in favor.

[Tradd]

What I find terribly ironic about the whole thing: there have been large numbers of young people killed in Chicago this year, probably mostly by guns. But it's in the inner city and gangs are involved (some of those killed have been innocent bystanders), so while it's been in the news, it's not the topic of the gun debate. But when you've got cute little kids and teachers/administrators who tried to save them, well, that gets the gun-control people up in arms.

Chicago had a handgun ban (unless you owned one before the ban went into effect) for decades. Doesn't seem to have much effect, as the gang bangers and other criminals still got their hands on guns and used them to kill each other and innocent bystanders. The Chicago handgun ban was struck down in the last couple of years by the Supreme Court, but it's still been difficult for the average person to legally own one (bureaucratic red tape).

[freein05]

I think there are too many illegal gun owners, people who are underage, are felons, have been convicted of domestic violence, etc. I'm all in favor of using existing laws to limit their access to weapons of any kind.

If you're advocating placing limitations on law abiding citizens ability to own a weapon, then no, I'm not in favor.

I am not advocating putting a limit on lawful citizens ownership of firearms but that they must demonstrate an ability to us them safely, know the laws governing their use, and state how they would store them safely. I feel very strongly about the storage of firearms when not in use. I would guess most bad guys do not buy their weapons. They steal them.

Edited to add: I think these are common sense laws and even better than banning certain types of weapons.

[bae]

Free - on your points:

I am greatly in support of firearms safety training. I am an instructor myself in multiple disciplines, and spend a fair bit of time teaching both new and experienced folks. That said, the level of training required to simply own and safely operate a firearm is quite minimal, and can be accomplished in very little time. I think this level of safety training should be part of the K-12 curriculum in this county, perhaps as part of the health education program or the phys-ed program.

I would not be in support of *mandatory* training for adult purchaser of firearms. The accident rate doesn't support the likely expense of time and resources, most people are quite capable of safely dealing with firearms, as the data shows. Mandatory training for *using* firearms in some ways I am fine with - Hunter's Safety programs have a great track record of reducing accidents of all sorts for hunters (like, dying of exposure...).

States that have no training requirement for concealed carry permits do not seem to have higher rates of firearms misuse by permit holders than states that impose expensive, lengthy training and testing requirements, so I conclude that such programs serve primarily to increase the cost of carrying a firearm, and impose a barrier to entry on exercising a constitutional right, and so I am not in favor of those sorts of programs. A very light-weight one, perhaps, but there's still the civil rights issue - we don't require literacy tests for voting anymore, or require passing a grammar test before using the Internet...

I am sort of fine with laws requiring safe storage, except for the rather patronizing thinking that leads people to presume to tell other people what to do in their own homes, and the lack of analysis presented showing cost/benefit justifying this intrusion. I am a fan of safe storage. I keep every one of my functioning firearms locked up in vaults, except for the ones I am using. But I'd not want the government telling me how I had to secure my tools, anymore than I like the government telling me how big my windows can be, how large my toilet tanks can be, what kind of light bulbs I can buy, or how big a soda I can purchase.

[Spartana]

I am not advocating putting a limit on lawful citizens ownership of firearms but that they must demonstrate an ability to us them safely, know the laws governing their use, and state how they would store them safely. I feel very strongly about the storage of firearms when not in use. I would guess most bad guys do not buy their weapons. They steal them.

Edited to add: I think these are common sense laws and even better than banning certain types of weapons.

I agree that these are common sense laws and are better then banning certain types of firearms, but as far as storage issues or the issue of too many gun owners I disagree. If someone can meet whatever safety and legal requirements we have, then I don't feel that they should be banned from purchasing a firearm - or more then one firearm if they already have one. I have 4 myself (down from a higher number after I gave up sport/hobby shooting and sold some), and my sister (who carries an AR-15 and a Glock .9mm for her job) has many more. We are both safe law abiding citizens and I don't feel that my right to own a firearm - or 10 - should be limited without due cause. As far as storage, well again I feel that, without children in my home and as a single female who, up until recently, lived alone, I shouldn't have to lock up my firearms. If someone wants to break in and steal them, having them in a safe probably won't make that much of a difference as they'll just take the safe.

[Woodhaven]

I agree that these are common sense laws and are better then banning certain types of firearms, but as far as storage issues or the issue of too many gun owners I disagree. If someone can meet whatever safety and legal requirements we have, then I don't feel that they should be banned from purchasing a firearm - or more then one firearm if they already have one. I have 4 myself (down from a higher number after I gave up sport/hobby shooting and sold some), and my sister (who carries an AR-15 and a Glock .9mm for her job) has many more. We are both safe law abiding citizens and I don't feel that my right to own a firearm - or 10 - should be limited without due cause. As far as storage, well again I feel that, without children in my home and as a single female who, up until recently, lived alone, I shouldn't have to lock up my firearms. If someone wants to break in and steal them, having them in a safe probably won't make that much of a difference as they'll just take the safe.

Which is why it is advisable to bolt the safe to the floor and wall. Mine's not going anywhere.

[Spartana]

Which is why it is advisable to bolt the safe to the floor and wall. Mine's not going anywhere.

Well because mine are for home and personal protection (2 of them are - shotgun and handgun) it doesn't make too much sense to lock them up so I can't get to them fast :-)! But I have a killer attack dog (20 lbs of fury :-)!) to deter would be thieves and I do hide them well when I am away.

[Woodhaven]

Well because mine are for home and personal protection (2 of them are - shotgun and handgun) it doesn't make too much sense to lock them up so I can't get to them fast :-)! But I have a killer attack dog (20 lbs of fury :-)!) to deter would be thieves and I do hide them well when I am away.

Totally understood. I am certain you are a responsible gun owner, like the majority of us.

[The Storyteller]

The problem I see with the training and law abiding citizens arguments are that most of the mass shooters we have seen recently knew a great deal about their weapons, and were law abiding citizens.

Until they weren't.

I have always found them to be weak arguments.

I also find most of the home protection arguments supporting assault weapons weak. People don't need semi automatics that can fire off 100 rounds without reloading to protect their home. They also don't need an arsenal to protect it. Those are just excuses to own lots and lots of toys, and prop it up with the constitution. It won't hurt people to own a few less of a particular kind of toy.

Or any, of some.