Shooting instructor dies after being accidentally shot by girl

[Kulindahr]

You entirely missed the point. Gun laws are completely and utterly inadequate; that gun owners are often able and willing to follow them is a direct result of them being so slack. I never once mentioned the number of laws being broken relevant; in fact, it's not, because they're not breaking any laws. The laws are so loose they don't need to, and forgive me for my concern about this!

It's absolutely insane that civilians be allowed to carry firearms around in public. It's absolutely terrifying that we allow this (it's also terrifying that they're fucking wearing a goddamn gun on their hip! Third world country, much?). Nothing about that makes anyone feel safe or comfortable. Brandishing of firearms in public should be a criminal offense, on par with shouting "fire" in a theater. It's an unnecessary and dangerous extension of the right to "own and bare arms". They have no place for civilians in public life.

Shooting at a range, fine. Keeping a collection of antiques in your basement, fine. Hunting, fine. Creating anxiety and distress in public, absolutely not.

You just give a pass to gun owners who, in 21 states, need no license to carry a loaded gun in plain sight (by the way, SC is not one of those states, open carry is prohibited). Over 40 states issue concealed carry without discretion, so long as the criterion are met (the criterion are painfully permissive). That either of these is true is absolutely unthinkable.

That laws don't stand to scrutiny, and yet you uphold the false notion that be a "law abiding citizen" is something to stride for in gun ownership. Maybe if the laws were respectably strict that would be the case. But right now, that is definitely not the case and I certainly do not trust "law abiding citizens" blindly.

*****************

The right to participation in government is more important than the right to own firearms. Actually, I really don't think it's a right at all, more of a tradition that's been kept alive by misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

So basically you're endorsing paranoia as a legitimate foundation for laws, and using that to deny the exercise of a basic human right. You're telling me that those kids I protected should have been molested, that the gal I know who defended herself should have been raped, and that all the other people who have not been victims because they had the means to protect themselves should have been victims.

I don't know what laws you think could be stricter to stop the criminals -- by definition, the criminals don't obey laws. But you want to punish the non-criminal and leave the criminal free to do as he pleases. You could have a curfew at sunset -- criminals seem to prefer doing things after dark -- but that, too, would be punishing the law-abiding. We already have laws against rape and assault and such -- just how much stricter would you like them to be to make them "respectable"?

 

[Kulindahr]

Please explain how this fits into your "classical liberal" bubble.

Advocates for tyranny should always be excluded from government.

Hmm. Considering that one of the basic purposes of a firearm is to grant the user greater power, I'd say they're being used quite correctly.

Misuse of a firearm would entail accidently shooting your own foot.

Misuse of a firearm is any application that initiates force against someone else.

 

[mikemizanin729]

By that "reasoning", kids should never be allowed in swimming pools, rivers, or bathtubs.

Stupidity is its own reward. That death was not the fault of the Cricket.

Kids should NOT be allowed guns.

Seriously, what are you on ..???

 

[Kulindahr]

Kids should NOT be allowed guns.

Seriously, what are you on ..???

So you don't care about the safety of kids, as long as they don't get guns -- gotcha.

 

[mikemizanin729]

Do you honestly expect a five year old to know when to use the gun...????


Even when trained too..?? I can't take this seriously.

 

[mightbe]

So basically you're endorsing paranoia as a legitimate foundation for laws, and using that to deny the exercise of a basic human right. You're telling me that those kids I protected should have been molested, that the gal I know who defended herself should have been raped, and that all the other people who have not been victims because they had the means to protect themselves should have been victims.

I don't know what laws you think could be stricter to stop the criminals -- by definition, the criminals don't obey laws. But you want to punish the non-criminal and leave the criminal free to do as he pleases. You could have a curfew at sunset -- criminals seem to prefer doing things after dark -- but that, too, would be punishing the law-abiding. We already have laws against rape and assault and such -- just how much stricter would you like them to be to make them "respectable"?

Fine. Then shouting fire in a crowded theater is obviously within my first amendment rights as a citizen, and an oppressive ruling has infringed on my read to speak.

Have you forgotten about Australia? Look at the crime rates, look at the number of guns used in violence, the number of armed robberies that have occurred. Granted, Australia is an island and that makes sensible actions easier, but there's nothing stopping us from curtailing an influx of foreign firearms (organized criminals would be forced to source them from outside eventually). The vast majority of gun-related crimes don't originate from organized crime.

I say nip it in the bud. Limit the number and type of firearms that may be produced or imported into the US, require genuine reason or genuine need to purchase certain classes of firearms, severely limit access to the rest, and require anyone wishing to own or use a gun of any kind to have a license. Firearms for hunting, sport (as in trap shooting) and collecting are more legitimate uses than self-defense, and must therefore be given greatest accessibility. Handguns should be among the most heavily restricted classes for civilian use. They are the most versatile and therefore among the most dangerous. They are also the easiest to conceal, store, and steal, given their size.

The number of illegal or heavily restricted firearms will be much larger than the number of legal or semi-accessible ones.

Most firearms that are acquired illegally are stolen from private homes and, less often, dealers. The number of guns smuggled over the border is relatively small, and is often on behalf of organized crime, not general criminals. If there are fewer guns among the populace, then the number of stolen guns will decrease exponentially, and therefore the number of gun-related crimes. I suggest a large-scale buyback.

I propose that registered gun owners that suddenly find themselves in possession of a firearm without proper licensing must: A. acquire the necessary licenses (if an ordinary civilian cannot, by law, own or operate that gun, see B. and C.), complete with a probationary period, regardless of prior experience (it will be necessary to immediately weed certain types of people out), B. permanently disable the weapon (i.e. for collection) or C. let the government buy the guns from you at top-dollar (as with imminent domain) within 2 years of the date that it became law.

 

[Rolyo85]

Only America thinks guns are a basic human right. And it's hilarious that a gun nut would talk about using paranoia as a legitimate foundation for law. Like, really? Ironic doesn't even begin to cover it.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

To people questioning why gun enthusiasts are paranoid of 'reasonable' gun control legislation; would you be paranoid of far-right figures calling for 'reasonable' restrictions to abortion, gay rights, women's rights, etc.? I believe there are additional things we can do, as a society, to reduce gun violence, but people in this thread have expressed a desire to confiscate my legal property due to the actions of others. How do you expect me to respond to that in any way other than a complete rejection of any proposal coming from that source?

I don't feel voluntary late-term abortions should be legal, but you're not going to see me stand with Tony Perkins or Ted Cruze to do any thing about them. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

 

[mightbe]

See, you misunderstand. I have no desire to confiscate your legal property. I seek to limit the number and types of guns that ordinary civillians can legally own and operate. It would be illegal to own or operate any fun without the proper licenses.

I'm offering three major options: if it can be owned and operated legally and an ordinary civilian may acquire a license for it, then you may do so within a generous grace period; if if an ordinary citizen cannot own or operate said device (and I'm thinking separate licenses for ownership and operation) then you may either disable the weapon (or have somebody do it for you) and present it to the relevant authorities to prove that it's been rendered permanently inoperable, also within a generous grace period; if you don't wish to disable the weapon it may be purchased at top-dollar by the U.S. government, also within a generous grace period.

Those who have registered firearms 6 months before the end of the grace period who have not acquired proper licenses nor disabled them (the license for a disabled gun will be far less difficult to acquire, as it cannot be operated and is therefore "safe") will be given a warning. At the end of the grace period, those guns will be fined (because ownership of the weapon without a proper license will be a legal offense) with the understanding that they must still turn the guns over within 180 days (at this point, the buyback and the licensing grace period will have ended, but you must still turn in the weapons to the relevant authorities. If you should begin the process of acquiring an ownership and operating licenses before the end of the grace period and will likely receive them before the end of the 180 days, you will not be fined. If you should fail to acquire the license before the end of the 180 days you will be given the remainder of the 180 days to turn the weapons over without the option to sell them to the government; you may have the weapon disabled during this time only if you were in the process of attaining a license at the end of the grace period. Weapons disabled after the grace period that were owned by persons not seeking to acquire a license will face a large fine.) At the end of that 180 days, those weapons in violation (I.e., unlicensed and usable) will be confiscated by use of warrants.

Realistically, I would make the grace period be 18 months to 2 years. That gives PLENTY of time to take the necessary steps towards become a legal, gun-owning civilian (for when the time the law is in full force and effect).

Those in possession of the proper licenses at the time of the law being first implement (ie, with the grace period) for weapons that will continue to be legal for civillians to own and operate will be required to meet the new, more stringent critieria. This means that all gun owners must be re-licensed if they wish to continue owning and operating their attainable firearms after the end of the grace period. They have until the end of the grace period to begin or acquire the necessary licenses. Thus, if one fails the first time, they may retry and retry until the end of the grace period. It will still be legal to own and use firearms as per the current laws and regulations until the end of the grace period, when the new standards take effect and are being enforced.

That's my proposal.

I don't want to take anybody's property away. In fact, it would be quite wonderful if every gun owner was able to abide by this (though many will have relinquish firearms, it will still be legal to own and operate certain types of them, assuming the proper licenses are acquired, or in the process of, by the end of the grace period).

Everyone will be held to the same standards. No exceptions.

Strictly speaking, every right has its limits (this setup would not be unconstitutional per se, it depends on the SCOTUS whenever it's being challenged. Which will happen, regardless). It's time that this was applied to gun ownership.

I don't hold anyone accountable for the actions of others; but everyone must be treated equally under the law. It's quite apparent that the current law is too relaxed to be held in confidence.

It's not a punishment, it's a redefinition, and a sensible one. Don't law-abiding gun owners want to affirm their statements? This is a way to do that. Meet the new standards. Be model citizens. Celebrate the new law as keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of the inexperienced.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

I could get behind liscencing, but certain things are non-negotiable.

Class 3 firearms must remain legal to own with the current regulations already in place. These weapons are ungodly expensive for those with a class 3 listens as it is, and legally purchased c3 weapons are not used for criminal activities. If somebody wants to drop more on a full-auto SCAR-17 than they would a used car, and can pass the incredibly thorough background check, then there is no reason to bar them from doing so.

Same with big-bore rifles. A Barret will set you back at least 10k, and it cost 5 bucks a pop to feed the 20 pound rifle. Show me a gangbanger robbing a liquor store with such an unwieldy weapon or drop them from the negotiating table.

Make a 2nd endorsement for handguns if you must, but that is the extent of it. Semi-autos and standard capacity magazines remain legal.

Pistol caliber carbines remain untouched.

There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'. A semi-automatic magazine-fed rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge that looks black and scary is no more dangerous than the exact same thing dressed up in wood. Muzzle brakes, threaded barrels, picatinny rails, folding stocks, and whatever other accessories do not change the inherent function of the firearm.

Semi-auto and bolt action military surplus remains legal, as do civilian varients of military firearms.

The government must bring the NRA in for consultation on the training curriculum for those getting liscensed, and for the qualification of instructors. I'm not fond of the NRA politically, but this is not something that I trust to somebody who's never handled a firearm in their lives. It also avoids situations like abortion clinics in Texas, where the standards are so artificially high no clinics can legally operate.

Concealed carry laws remain unchanged, as does the Castle Doctrine.

No limits on the number of firearms one can own. Tell me why a person should be able to own few but not many, and who gets to make that distinction? I own 7 currently, and I certainly don't think that is too many.



I agree that a person without training shouldn't be able to purchase a gun, the same way a person without training shouldn't be able to drive a vehicle. I will fight any attempt, however, to ban what is currently legal or to force people to disable their legally owned firearms those are complete non-starters. As a law abiding citizen the number and types of weapons I legally own is nobody's business. The legal uses I have for these weapons is also nobody's business, nor do I share any responsibility for those who use or own firearms illegally.

 

[mightbe]

Anything that is designed with military use is to be specifically military. Ie, no civilian ownership outside of collectors who've permanently disabled them or had them permanently disabled. Usage is negotiable within exceptionally tight restraints.

The number of firearms you can own depends entirely on what they are, and whether or not they are operational.

Rifles, shotguns, and air rifles would constitute the lowest class. Nothing semi-automatic here. A general license only allows a civilian to own one, though one can apply (along with increasingly stringent storage and safety criteria) to own more after a probationary period of 6 months, with no theoretical limit (granted that one must wait a further six months for each successive firearm. No limit for deactivated (with no requirement for training).

Antique firearms, if operational, would have have slightly more stringent storage and safety requirements. Older firearms are less predictable and more prone to accidents, though getting a license would not be any more difficult than the above category. A license for antique firearms ownership/usage is good for any number antique firearms (no limit).

A separate class for semi-automatic. Both ownership and licensing would be severely restricted. Ordinary civilians, outside of collectors, occupational shooters and primary producers, will be unlikely to obtain a license without proof of genuine need. Those licensed have no limit on the number they may own (because they will be quite unattainable for the vast majority of civilians). So-called "civilian variant" of military firearms fall under this category.

Handgun sales and ownership would be among the most tightly controlled. No civilian may personally own more than 1 operational handgun at any time (again without proof of genuine need). Handguns constitute the greatest liability, both to the owner and society. They are easily stolen, often used against the owner in home entries, easiest to conceal, and the kind most often used in domestic violence. Licenses to operate would be similar to the lowest class.

None of the above have any limit for the number of deactivated weapons one may own, though I would call for a separate storage license for any more than 5 firearms.

No magazines holding greater than 10 rounds.

Fully automatic self loading firearms are banned outright. (along with machine guns, artillery and bazookas). Deactivated are legal. Separate storage license.

Nobody is *forcing* anybody to disable their legally owned firearms. Bare in mind, they will cease to be legally owned firearms if the owner cannot acquire the proper credentials by the end of the grace period. At which point, they'd be fined, and be required to either turn them over to the authorities (without the option of the government buy-back at top-dollar), sell them to somebody who is licensed (if the firearm in question is indeed legal to own for some, then they could attempt to sell them to a dealer), or disable them within 180 days.

Who wants someone without (or is unable to acquire) the proper licenses owning a working submachine gun? No one! But they have the option to sell to a non-government entity or person that is licensed (or to the government within the 2 year period, which I would say is obligated to purchase any firearm presented to it within that 2 years, though only if the seller legally owns the gun. Any illegally owned guns presented will simply be confiscated).

Banning anything that is currently legal is non-negotiable? WTF? That's like saying I won't start any more fires, but you have to let the ones I already set burn without interference.

The number and types of weapons you own is in the public interest. That doesn't mean anyone can simply ask a government agency to divulge what and how many you own, simply that the government must know, and know the intended uses. If it's for hunting, it must be registered as a hunting weapon. If it's for clays, then it must be registered as a sport weapon. If it's for shooting targets on a range, it must be registered. If it's for personal defense (if so, you must present proof of genuine need and have it approved), then it must be registered as such. If it's inoperable, it must be registered as inoperable. Some of those categories would allow for mixed-use firearms, in which case it must be registered for all its intended uses.

 

[Rolyo85]

Also there's quite a bit of difference between far right nutjobs (ironically - the biggest defenders of gun rights) and the people talking about gun control. Both on a moral and intellectual level.

ALSO, drawing a parallel between guns and gay rights is crass, to say the least.

 

[bankside]

Actually, mandatory gun buybacks are the way to go. It worked in Australia.

 

[Stardreamer]

Actually, mandatory gun buybacks are the way to go. It worked in Australia.

Actually a recent look at the numbers involved in the buyback programs showed significant differences between the numbers of guns estimated to be in the country and the far lower number that was actually turned in. The government covered that discrepancy up by simply retroactively changing the original estimates downward and declaring victory. It is considerably likely that most of the gun owners in Australia still possess their firearms.

 

[bankside]

Actually a recent look at the numbers involved in the buyback programs showed significant differences between the numbers of guns estimated to be in the country and the far lower number that was actually turned in. The government covered that discrepancy up by simply retroactively changing the original estimates downward and declaring victory. It is considerably likely that most of the gun owners in Australia still possess their firearms.

cite.



.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

You have to know that every one of those proposals are DOA at the federal level. It would take either a constitutional ammendment, or a dramatic reversal of the past few decades of SCOTUS rulings for any of those policies to pass constitutional muster. If something as simple as expanded background checks failed in Congress after 20 kids got killed, do you honestly believe a proposal to turn large swaths of this nation into felons will get anywhere close to serious debate? Realistic goals are what should be discussed, and honestly even liscencing without individual firearm registration is a pie-in-the-sky notion.

The biggest reason I won't compromise on bans of ANY kind is simply because I don't have to. People saw that the implementation and sunset of the AWB had virtually no impact on declining crime rates, so it's hard to get people fired up for something they know won't solve anything. Random shootings, while tragic, won't spur the same reaction on this country as it did in Australia. Every time some psycho kills a bunch of people everybody gets full of piss and vinegar, at least until the next bout of celebrity shenanigans makes everybody forget all about it. People have already forgotten about this 9 year old uzi story, Newtown is ancient history by now. Where is the political capital you need to force these policies upon the US?

 

[mightbe]

So you disregard a good idea because you think it will never happen. Hmph. What were you saying about gay marriage 10 years ago, hmm?

In this way it feels appropriate to link the two. I don't think that it would happen fast or even relatively soon. But I do see it eventually happening.

There gun lobby sees nothing reasonable about negotiation. They are beyond reach. They will not be changing their attitude any time soon.

Which makes them perfect scapegoats when a big enough incident actually happens. Bigger than anything we've seen in Newton, Aurora, and probably more even worse than Columbine. It'll happen. I'm pretty confident that one day there will be an absolute and total disaster that will have enough impact to actually set things into motion.

If and when support for gun control grows, politicians will eventually be under political pressure to make change.

I don't see the current stalemate lasting indefinitely. The Republicans are still being shaken by the possibility of splitting; the Democrats will hopefully recognize this and grow some balls.

 

[Kulindahr]

To people questioning why gun enthusiasts are paranoid of 'reasonable' gun control legislation; would you be paranoid of far-right figures calling for 'reasonable' restrictions to abortion, gay rights, women's rights, etc.? I believe there are additional things we can do, as a society, to reduce gun violence, but people in this thread have expressed a desire to confiscate my legal property due to the actions of others. How do you expect me to respond to that in any way other than a complete rejection of any proposal coming from that source?

I don't feel voluntary late-term abortions should be legal, but you're not going to see me stand with Tony Perkins or Ted Cruze to do any thing about them. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

Exactly. How would everyone feel if, because of some horrible wreck on a highway, a legislature imposed a ten-day waiting period for buying a car?

What I find truly interesting is that firearms are already far more regulated than automobiles, and that liberals scream and whine about how they need to be more regulated, when it's right-wingers who actually enforce the laws we have. Just look at the record of federal enforcement; under Democrats in the White House, prosecutions dwindle; under Republicans, they soar. It certainly appears that, as with the "Fast and Furious" fiasco, Democrats are trying to encourage the criminal use of firearms so they can try to stomp on the innocent.

"Reasonable" is a word used to avoid discussing the fact that firearms are already regulated far beyond the level of infringement. Maybe we should start being "reasonable" about -- taken from above -- abortion, and require a background check before allowing one, making every abortion doctor have an expensive federal license, etc.

 

[Kulindahr]

Only America thinks guns are a basic human right. And it's hilarious that a gun nut would talk about using paranoia as a legitimate foundation for law. Like, really? Ironic doesn't even begin to cover it.

It's the liberals using paranoia as a foundation for law. Firearm violence is down, approaching a historical low, yet liberals scream about how dangerous guns are at the same time the number is steadily increasing.

The reality is that America is one of a few countries which acknowledges that there is a right to self-defense. Other countries pay it lip service, but a right unable to be exercised is no right at all. Telling someone who is 5' 5" tall and 120 pounds, or someone who is elderly and able to walk only with mechanical assistance, that they have a "right" to self-defense but can't be allowed the tools to actually make a defense is no different than Mormons telling gays they have the "right" to marry because they, too, can choose a woman.

 

[Kulindahr]

See, you misunderstand. I have no desire to confiscate your legal property. I seek to limit the number and types of guns that ordinary civillians can legally own and operate. It would be illegal to own or operate any fun without the proper licenses.

I'm offering three major options: if it can be owned and operated legally and an ordinary civilian may acquire a license for it, then you may do so within a generous grace period; if if an ordinary citizen cannot own or operate said device (and I'm thinking separate licenses for ownership and operation) then you may either disable the weapon (or have somebody do it for you) and present it to the relevant authorities to prove that it's been rendered permanently inoperable, also within a generous grace period; if you don't wish to disable the weapon it may be purchased at top-dollar by the U.S. government, also within a generous grace period.

Those who have registered firearms 6 months before the end of the grace period who have not acquired proper licenses nor disabled them (the license for a disabled gun will be far less difficult to acquire, as it cannot be operated and is therefore "safe") will be given a warning. At the end of the grace period, those guns will be fined (because ownership of the weapon without a proper license will be a legal offense) with the understanding that they must still turn the guns over within 180 days (at this point, the buyback and the licensing grace period will have ended, but you must still turn in the weapons to the relevant authorities. If you should begin the process of acquiring an ownership and operating licenses before the end of the grace period and will likely receive them before the end of the 180 days, you will not be fined. If you should fail to acquire the license before the end of the 180 days you will be given the remainder of the 180 days to turn the weapons over without the option to sell them to the government; you may have the weapon disabled during this time only if you were in the process of attaining a license at the end of the grace period. Weapons disabled after the grace period that were owned by persons not seeking to acquire a license will face a large fine.) At the end of that 180 days, those weapons in violation (I.e., unlicensed and usable) will be confiscated by use of warrants.

Realistically, I would make the grace period be 18 months to 2 years. That gives PLENTY of time to take the necessary steps towards become a legal, gun-owning civilian (for when the time the law is in full force and effect).

Those in possession of the proper licenses at the time of the law being first implement (ie, with the grace period) for weapons that will continue to be legal for civillians to own and operate will be required to meet the new, more stringent critieria. This means that all gun owners must be re-licensed if they wish to continue owning and operating their attainable firearms after the end of the grace period. They have until the end of the grace period to begin or acquire the necessary licenses. Thus, if one fails the first time, they may retry and retry until the end of the grace period. It will still be legal to own and use firearms as per the current laws and regulations until the end of the grace period, when the new standards take effect and are being enforced.

That's my proposal.

I don't want to take anybody's property away. In fact, it would be quite wonderful if every gun owner was able to abide by this (though many will have relinquish firearms, it will still be legal to own and operate certain types of them, assuming the proper licenses are acquired, or in the process of, by the end of the grace period).

Everyone will be held to the same standards. No exceptions.

Strictly speaking, every right has its limits (this setup would not be unconstitutional per se, it depends on the SCOTUS whenever it's being challenged. Which will happen, regardless). It's time that this was applied to gun ownership.

I don't hold anyone accountable for the actions of others; but everyone must be treated equally under the law. It's quite apparent that the current law is too relaxed to be held in confidence.

It's not a punishment, it's a redefinition, and a sensible one. Don't law-abiding gun owners want to affirm their statements? This is a way to do that. Meet the new standards. Be model citizens. Celebrate the new law as keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of the inexperienced.

"No desire to confiscate legal property" -- what a twisted bit of mendacity! No, you just want to make perfectly ordinary property illegal, and in doing so strengthen the hand of the criminal against the innocent.

Not a single "gun control" proposal does anything at all but punish the innocent. Almost no firearms law on the books does anything but burden the innocent. But even those which hit the criminal, Democrats prefer not to enforce -- they'd rather be like Bill Clinton, crowing delightedly that a hundred thousand felons were kept from getting firearms at licensed stores, when no effort whatsoever was made to actually prosecute those felons, no effort was made to enforce the laws they broke by even trying to buy firearms. No, by the record, Democrats want criminals to be treated with respect, but ordinary citizens to be treated like trained animals required to jump through arbitrary hoops.