Gun Ownership question: A poll.

[LadyTevar]

As Nitram is so often amazed by, I am one of the few NRA-raised people who happen to agree there should be some regulations on gun ownership, and the current ones don't always work.

I'd like to see some kind of gun safety course or test given by knowledgeable authorities before a person buys/owns his first gun. That makes sense to me.

I don't mind a waiting period before I purchase a gun, because I know how several WV pistols have made their way to NYC and other high-crime areas. One was used in a cop-killing, and caused a huge stink here in WV when they tracked the gun shop down. If the gun shop had paid more attention when the mule purchased the pistols (on the advice of the large black male in gang colors beside her), that pistol may never have left the shop. (The mule was a drug addict, doing it to help pay off her habit. She had a clean arrest record.)

[Josh]

A waiting period doesn't stop smuggling in any meaningful fashion. I object to waiting periods precisely because they impede the ability to purchase a weapon for someone most likely to need it, namely the estranged wife of an abusive husband.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Option C: Guns should only be allowed if you can prove yourself competent in their use, storage, and maintenence.

I concur with this too. Considering the potential accident could happen due to incompetence of gun-handling, I think there should be some sort of 'gun ownership license' where the applicants need to pass certain tests to get one --you know, something like driver's license.

Furthermore, gun ownership license can be categorized into particular levels. For instance, category A for handguns, category B for rifles, category C for military-grade small arms (ie assault rifles), etc. Thus, it is possible for hobbysts and enthusiasts to own the assault rifles of their dream, provided they have proven their competence. On the other hand, less "gun-competent" people can still have a decent mean of self-defence.

[Josh]

Furthermore, gun ownership license can be categorized into particular levels. For instance, category A for handguns, category B for rifles, category C for military-grade small arms (ie assault rifles), etc. Thus, it is possible for hobbysts and enthusiasts to own the assault rifles of their dream, provided they have proven their competence. On the other hand, less "gun-competent" people can still have a decent mean of self-defence.

There's no practical distinction at work between handguns and rifles to require different licensing stages, and that includes the semiautomatic assault rifle clones. The entire 'assault weapon' issue is a manufactured hoax created and driven purely by political purposes.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

There's no practical distinction at work between handguns and rifles to require different licensing stages,

Oh I see.

What I mean by licensing stages is for firearms that have practical distinction, so if handguns and rifles are practically the same, then they don't require different licensing stages.

However, I believe things like M-60 GPMG should require a higher licensing stage. Well who want to buy a M-60, one may ask. But remember that there are also people who buy watercooling and quad-SLI video cards and such.

[Josh]

Okay, I've had a bit of time to compile my primary objections to the notion of the 'licensing and training' argument.

My first objection to the training and licensing requirement is that it is essentially classist. Currently, the cost for a basic NRA certification in simple gunhandling is around 40$. This includes something like four hours of classroom instruction as well as test-firing of weapons with no competency requirement. Adding in the actual qualification component as Texas does for its CCW raises the price to ~70$ in Texas. This is neglecting the cost of the licensing component (250$ for a Texas CCW, I believe.)

Creating a global training and licensing requirement would skyrocket these prices, and quite frankly make legal possession of a firearm very problematic for the people who really need them the most, namely the people who live in poor and often crime-ridden areas. Furthermore, we do return to such scenarios as the one I mentioned above, where the need for self defense is quite immediate.

So unless you're going to have the government providing this training and not charging (or only charging minimal prices) for the licensing, you're essentially rendering firearms into something of an elitist possession right off the bat.

Secondly, what is the demonstrable purpose? To take the car comparison, gun accidents occur at a far lower rate than car accidents. Among children, gun accidents rank behind swimming pool accidents, despite years of the Brady Campaign offering sexy figures like 365 dead babies a year.

Prevention of criminal misuse? This returns us to the age-old conundrum of firearms control- why would criminals obey such requirements? They don't get CCWs. They typically aren't even legally allowed to possess firearms in the first place due to felony priors.

Essentially, a firearms licensing scheme is DRM for guns- little impediment to criminals, a hassle for legitimate owners.

I'm all in favor of gun education in schools. Hell, if the gov't wanted to foot the bill, they could offer free seminars on firearms ownership on a weekly or monthly schedule that they could even require FFL dealers to post (though most would post them voluntarily anyway.)

However, I believe things like M-60 GPMG should require a higher licensing stage. Well who want to buy a M-60, one may ask.

I'd love to have one myself, y'know. But those are already heavily regulated and require quite exhaustive background checks and licensing fees.

[frigidmagi]

Thing is KAN, an M-60 is not something you can lug around causally, it's a damn large heavy ammo chowing monster of a gun.

Assualt riles like the M-16 and the AK-47's you can but they do not spew out an unending stream of ammo, the M-16 for example does not, NOT, fire on full auto. The military version has semi automatic (one trigger pull, one bullet) and burst (1 trigger pull, 3 bullets). Burst is worthless in regards to actually hitting a target in my opinion. Some marines disagree with me.

AK-47s can fire full auto but cannot be belt fed, limiting them to 30 rounds at a time. It's usually best to underload magazines by 2 rounds to avoid jams. While they much less common in a AK then M-16 they can still happen. Double feeds for example are when 2 bullets get loaded at once into the chamber.

[Josh]

Automatic weapons fire has a very, very limited range of application. Admittedly, one such application would be in keeping with criminal misuse, namely hosing a crowd with lead.

However, the main danger from somebody hosing down the neighborhood lies in stray rounds, unless they actually know what they're doing with the damned piece.

One of the funnier developments out of the Rodney King riots was in the sudden upgunning of the Crips and Bloods after they raided the gun stores. They tried a few drivebys with their new, mighty semi-auto AKs. Imagine, if you will, a driveby committed from the back seat of a moving car...

Homeboy cranks off a round. Everyone in the car is immediately deafened by the extremely loud noise in the confined space. As recoil pushes the weapon backwards, our hero, stunned and dismayed by this unexpected development, clenches his finger and pulls the trigger again. BAM. At this point, he's waving the damn thing around the interior, firing stray rounds into the upholstery and his accomplices.

I've not ever bothered looking for primary sources, but I heard through the cop grapevine that this wasn't an uncommon occurrence for about six months after the riots, until they decided that AKs really sucked for drivebys.

[Cynical Cat]

Okay, I've had a bit of time to compile my primary objections to the notion of the 'licensing and training' argument.

My first objection to the training and licensing requirement is that it is essentially classist. ~snip~
So unless you're going to have the government providing this training and not charging (or only charging minimal prices) for the licensing, you're essentially rendering firearms into something of an elitist possession right off the bat.

Bullshit, unless your going to argue car ownership is classicist.

Secondly, what is the demonstrable purpose?

Responsible use of any deadly machinery whether it is a car, a forklift, or a gun. Fatalities aren't the only measure of firearms accidents. I know two people maimed by preventable gun accidents.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

My first objection to the training and licensing requirement is that it is essentially classist. Currently, the cost for a basic NRA certification in simple gunhandling is around 40$. This includes something like four hours of classroom instruction as well as test-firing of weapons with no competency requirement. Adding in the actual qualification component as Texas does for its CCW raises the price to ~70$ in Texas. This is neglecting the cost of the licensing component (250$ for a Texas CCW, I believe.)

Wait, I didn't know about this before. Why it is so expensive to get a gun certification, particularly when compared to, say, driver's license?

My hypothetical gun ownership license scheme is actually based on the assumption that the tests and certification is relatively cheap and affordable by everyone --something as cheap as driver's license or such.

However, I believe things like M-60 GPMG should require a higher licensing stage. Well who want to buy a M-60, one may ask.

I'd love to have one myself, y'know. But those are already heavily regulated and require quite exhaustive background checks and licensing fees.

Heh. I want to have a polished one in my living room, but Indonesia just doesn't allow guns. :sad:

[Josh]

Bullshit, unless your going to argue car ownership is classicist.

I'd argue that people are far more likely to have a pressing life and death need for a firearm than they are a car.

I would also add that one actually requires not one iota of licensing to own a car, just to operate it on public roadways. Much the same, most states do license carry of firearms on one's person, which I happen to agree with.

Responsible use of any deadly machinery whether it is a car, a forklift, or a gun. Fatalities aren't the only measure of firearms accidents. I know two people maimed by preventable gun accidents.

And what percentage of preventable accidents would be prevented by mandatory training? What would be the percentage that would be required in order to justify a massive expansion in architecture of the process, as well as the expense and complication? How many idiots, already too stupid to realize they are holding a deadly weapon capable of killing or maiming someone by applying a few pounds of pressure and are already too stupid to seek out schooling as simple as asking the clerk for how to operate the weapon safely (which the vast majority of gun store clerks are willing to explain, as well as direct prospective buyers to any number of readily available training courses) are going to be inspired to follow proper safety protocols?

Training in no way guarantees that someone will operate a weapon safely. I once was about three feet to the left of having my head blown off by a guy fresh from Army AIT (Advanced Individual Training, the post-boot camp course.)

Again, I favor making gun education as freely and widely available as possible, and mandatory in schooling.

Edit- *gets out the meat cleaver*

[Josh]

Wait, I didn't know about this before. Why it is so expensive to get a gun certification, particularly when compared to, say, driver's license?

The NRA cert isn't required for ownership. It qualifies one for a Florida concealed carry permit, but not Texas, which requires more extensive training.

As for why the licensing itself is so expensive (at least in Texas, where a drivers license is fifty bucks) I don't know. The situation is actually inverted here, because drivers education ran something like three hundred bucks when I took it, compared to fifty for the license.

My hypothetical gun ownership license scheme is actually based on the assumption that the tests and certification is relatively cheap and affordable by everyone --something as cheap as driver's license or such.

That would eliminate the cost aspect somewhat (although it would completely necessitate the government subsidizing the training). But I still fail to see the need.

[Cynical Cat]

Bullshit, unless your going to argue car ownership is classicist.

I'd argue that people are far more likely to have a pressing life and death need for a firearm than they are a car.

Not my family. Never had a life or death requirement for a gun, but a car several times. Everyone made it just fine, thanks.

I would also add that one actually requires not one iota of licensing to own a car, just to operate it on public roadways. Much the same, most states do license carry of firearms on one's person, which I happen to agree with.

That's because a car is dangerous to other people on public roadways and a minimal danger on private property.

And what percentage of preventable accidents would be prevented by mandatory training?

Don't know, haven't implemented it. We do know that there are some people who will behave irresponsibly regardless and we do know that there are some people who will behave responsibly, even if it goes beyond what is legally required. We don't legalize drunk driving because a fair number of evil fucks do it. We send them the message don't do it and then bust them (although not hard enough). We can encourage a culture of responsible ownership with the group that falls in the middle with training and licensing. Seatbelt use jumped between the seventies and eighties because of a change in North American culture regarding there use. That the system isn't perfect isn't a reason not to do it as nothing is perfect.

[Josh]

Not my family. Never had a life or death requirement for a gun, but a car several times. Everyone made it just fine, thanks.

Well, if you want to get into dueling anecdotes, I can provide several with regards to pressing needs for self-defense weaponry, and only one immediately comes to mind where possession of a vehicle was the actual difference between life and death. You live somewhere where street crime and home invasions are uncommon. There are many people who do not enjoy such a luxury.

Furthermore, living as I do in probably the most gun-saturated region this side of Somalia, I've known precisely one guy who has managed to get nailed in a preventable shooting incident.

(Twice, as it happens, and given that for many, many reasons he should have known better in both cases, he's precisely the sort of idiot I was talking about for whom no amount of education would suffice. He also passed CDL and company combination vehicle driving tests with hazmat training that I guarantee was far more comprehensive and strenuous than any quickie gun safety course would be, so it wasn't for lack of mental capability.)

That's because a car is dangerous to other people on public roadways and a minimal danger on private property.

Okay, I'll grant that. Does one require a permit and training to operate the other equipment you've mentioned? I don't know about Canukistan, but I can buy a forklift and zip it around without training or license. Or a tractor. Not to mention a swimming pool. Or a bathtub and an electric radio. I could buy some ammonia and chlorine in order to produce Junior's missing WMDs, too. There was a funny story at Something Awful a while back about a guy whose stepmother nearly killed him by filling the toilet with bleach to clean it, and so when he deposited his ammonia-laden urine within, he produced enough gas to nearly knock him out before he got to the door. That would equal half of your shooting incidents.

(Which I'm not making light of, just pointing out.)

Don't know, haven't implemented it. We do know that there are some people who will behave irresponsibly regardless and we do know that there are some people who will behave responsibly, even if it goes beyond what is legally required. We don't legalize drunk driving because a fair number of evil fucks do it. We send them the message don't do it and then bust them (although not hard enough). We can encourage a culture of responsible ownership with the group that falls in the middle with training and licensing. Seatbelt use jumped between the seventies and eighties because of a change in North American culture regarding there use. That the system isn't perfect isn't a reason not to do it as nothing is perfect.

No, but the question is this: is the cost equal to the reward? As I pointed out, there are any number of dangerous items and industrial equipment one can own and use without any sort of licensing or training. The fact is, any element of freedom carries with it a certain degree of danger and one has to decide what the tradeoff is in terms of acceptable losses.

To take the car comparison, I actually find this rather an interesting thing. Now, I'll start off by stating that I'm not creating a strawman for anybody who has made the comparison here, but the way it has been presented to me before was in the fashion of 'If one has to be licensed to operate something so mundane as a car, why not license them for something so dangerous as a gun?'

Now, we all know that the death and injury rate stemming from improper usage of automobiles vastly dwarfs that of the death and inury rate resulting from improper use of firearms.

(Defining improper use as unintentional or stupid, as compared to malicious misuse, which as I pointed out earlier isn't something that would be contained by a licensing scheme.)

This, in spite of the fact that cars are faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more heavily regulated than firearms. Drivers are licensed. Vehicles are inspected on an annual basis. Public education campaigns are carried out continuously. There are consequences for operating a vehicle under the influence of controlled substances. I'd wager that law enforcement man-hours are vastly more devoted to vehicular enforcement than any other single item.

One could only imagine just how vast and grotesque the death and injury rate with vehicles would be without all these efforts. It's patently obvious that at least in American society, automobiles are many times more dangerous to public well-being than firearms, and hence worthy of such a massive licensing and enforcement scheme. Firearms, on the other hand, tend to be singled out among a plethora of deadly items that surround us because they're weapons, and people feel that there is a problem and we need to do something to contain it.

Finally, I'll point out that I've been advocating the most cost-effective method of disseminating general firearms education available. Make it an element of public education, and within a generation you've exposed the vast majority of the American public to the training.

[SirNitram]

Finally, I'll point out that I've been advocating the most cost-effective method of disseminating general firearms education available. Make it an element of public education, and within a generation you've exposed the vast majority of the American public to the training.

1) Because that works so well with science that we have completely eliminated Young Earth Creationism.

2) Because there is absolutely nothing else of worth to spend time on in public education.

Dripping. Fucking. Sarcasm.

[Mayabird]

I sometimes wonder if this wouldn't even be an issue if people stopped looking at guns like they were some sort of magic talisman of good or evil. It's a tool like any other. It's specialized and a bit more deadly than a lot of other tools, but it's still a tool.

[SirNitram]

I sometimes wonder if this wouldn't even be an issue if people stopped looking at guns like they were some sort of magic talisman of good or evil. It's a tool like any other. It's specialized and a bit more deadly than a lot of other tools, but it's still a tool.

That's really the point of my position: Just learn to use the tool safely.

You can't really stop gun crime by ramping up gun control laws. You can't. You can enforce them better, you can work on border security, but you can't stop the gun violence that route. What you should do is save lives in the primary way you can make a difference, by making sure people aren't improperly storing, maintaining, or using them. This gun control can accomplish.

[Cynical Cat]

Not my family. Never had a life or death requirement for a gun, but a car several times. Everyone made it just fine, thanks.

Well, if you want to get into dueling anecdotes, I can provide several with regards to pressing needs for self-defense weaponry, and only one immediately comes to mind where possession of a vehicle was the actual difference between life and death. You live somewhere where street crime and home invasions are uncommon. There are many people who do not enjoy such a luxury.

This would be relevant if I was trying to take away your guns. I'm not. In a gun saturated environment, such as yours, it is even more important that as many people as possible handle them safely.

That's because a car is dangerous to other people on public roadways and a minimal danger on private property.

Okay, I'll grant that. Does one require a permit and training to operate the other equipment you've mentioned? I don't know about Canukistan, but I can buy a forklift and zip it around without training or license.

In BC, you're not supposed to be using those on the job unless your checked out in them. Labor laws to cut down on the number of nasty accidents, which do occur when you have forklifts and heavy loads zipping around with people around.

Finally, I'll point out that I've been advocating the most cost-effective method of disseminating general firearms education available. Make it an element of public education, and within a generation you've exposed the vast majority of the American public to the training.

Schools have enough to do (and aren't doing it well enough, thanks for helping up an already damaged system W.) without teaching firearms handling. And while a gun is a widely used tool and quite relevant to the daily life of rural residents, that's not the case for people living in other places.

No where in this entire discussion has the issue of taking guns away from people come up, except for the hard core pro-gun crowd. Stop bringing it out. No one is coming anywhere close to it. A gun is a dangerous tool that people want to carry in crowded areas and feel they may need to use with other humans about. The responsible thing to do is make sure that anyone who is carrying one has at least been acquainted with the idea of responsible gun ownership, maintenance, and storage.

[Josh]

This would be relevant if I was trying to take away your guns. I'm not. In a gun saturated environment, such as yours, it is even more important that as many people as possible handle them safely.

You're not trying to take away my guns. You're just proposing to make it harder for the poor to get hold of them by adding licensing and training fees to the expense of purchase.

In BC, you're not supposed to be using those on the job unless your checked out in them. Labor laws to cut down on the number of nasty accidents, which do occur when you have forklifts and heavy loads zipping around with people around.

I'm well aware of the dangers of forklifts. They're one of the myriad reasons why trucking is always competing for the top spots on the on-the-job fatality rankings.

We have similar requirements for workplace training, but depending on the complexity of equipment it's generally maybe a safety video and a little hands-on on how to manipulate the equipment. Totally different than a licensing regimen such as you are advocating. Furthermore, there is no training requirement or licensing for private use, nor even operating them on the roadway so long as proper signage is utilized.

Also, does this include the farm machinery (tractors and suchlike used on private farms)?

Also, would you advocate this for such items as riding and self-propelled lawnmowers? They cause numerous injuries and the occasional fatality.

Schools have enough to do (and aren't doing it well enough, thanks for helping up an already damaged system W.) without teaching firearms handling. And while a gun is a widely used tool and quite relevant to the daily life of rural residents, that's not the case for people living in other places.

So if one bureaucracy is ineffectual, we'll create another one that will magically not be?

Frankly, schools teach enough useless bullshit like Home Economics. A simple one-week course in firearms safety such as the one I received in JROTC prior to our actual shooting quals is not a huge imposition nor budgetary drain. This wouldn't be an actual shooting course (though if I had my druthers that would be available as an elective), it's a simple 'this is a gun, don't point it at folk you don't intend to shoot.'

No where in this entire discussion has the issue of taking guns away from people come up, except for the hard core pro-gun crowd. Stop bringing it out. No one is coming anywhere close to it.

Excuse me? The only point I've brought out about actual deprivation of firearms is in the case of people who cannot afford the training and licensing fees, or may be in a time-critical situation where they can't wait three weeks for the next class to come open.

Stop acting like I'm a paranoid militia nutter, thanks.

A gun is a dangerous tool that people want to carry in crowded areas and feel they may need to use with other humans about.

Again, we have CCWs for street carry. Outside of Vermont and Alaska, this is a licensed and tested procedure. I advocate this because carrying a firearm in public is innately more complicated than keeping one around the house. The only real change in shall-issue carry that I'd geek for is a hardship waiver on licensing fees.

The responsible thing to do is make sure that anyone who is carrying one has at least been acquainted with the idea of responsible gun ownership, maintenance, and storage.

Again, CBA. Is the improper usage of firearms killing and/or maiming a sufficiency of people as compared to other commonly available items? Is this worthy of creating a new Federal agency costing billions of dollars as well as directly charging billions more from the pockets of over a hundred million American gun owners?

Remember, I approach this from the 'Government is a necessary evil' standpoint. We don't go around adding new Federal bureacracies for shits and giggles.

Furthermore, any government powers will eventually be abused and contorted away from the original intentions, good or ill though those intentions be. Therefore, it is in our best interest to only make such expansions of governmental power as are absolutely vital to the general well-being of the public and the state.

In that vein I do have the concern that the Brady Campaign types would use this in their never-ending campaign of incrementalism, but I've not used that particular concern as a basis for this argument, instead bringing up the other reasons I oppose it, which I stand by as being valid and pertinent to the topic.

Edit- Quote tags.

Edit edit- Fuck you for keeping me up to midnight last night. I got three hours of sleep on account of this jolly good time. You owe me a drink, pal.

[Cynical Cat]

You're not trying to take away my guns. You're just proposing to make it harder for the poor to get hold of them by adding licensing and training fees to the expense of purchase.

Boo hoo. I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on a gun, how dare you make me spend a few bucks making sure I'm a responsible gun owner. We can say that about cars as well.

So if one bureaucracy is ineffectual, we'll create another one that will magically not be?

Frankly, schools teach enough useless bullshit like Home Economics. A simple one-week course in firearms safety such as the one I received in JROTC prior to our actual shooting quals is not a huge imposition nor budgetary drain. This wouldn't be an actual shooting course (though if I had my druthers that would be available as an elective), it's a simple 'this is a gun, don't point it at folk you don't intend to shoot.'

Not every place is urban Vancouver where not even gun loving self defence junky ex Canadian military guys feel the need for guns (I have such a nice circle of friends). Not every place is rural Texas, where guns are all over the place. Why the fuck should the underfunded school system, which is collapsing all over inner cities in the US, divert even more resources to giving wannabee gun owners free shit?

Excuse me? The only point I've brought out about actual deprivation of firearms is in the case of people who cannot afford the training and licensing fees, or may be in a time-critical situation where they can't wait three weeks for the next class to come open.

Stop acting like I'm a paranoid militia nutter, thanks.

Stop acting like one. They can afford guns and ammo, but not a safety test? Please.

Furthermore, any government powers will eventually be abused and contorted away from the original intentions, good or ill though those intentions be. Therefore, it is in our best interest to only make such expansions of governmental power as are absolutely vital to the general well-being of the public and the state.

Yes, you're not at all sounding like a paranoid militia type. And I would think your opinion of the wonderfulness of not having the government do shit for the people would have changed at least a little after having to deal with having Caz's mom hold her health insurance coverage over her head.

In that vein I do have the concern that the Brady Campaign types would use this in their never-ending campaign of incrementalism, but I've not used that particular concern as a basis for this argument, instead bringing up the other reasons I oppose it, which I stand by as being valid and pertinent to the topic.

Yeah, no paranoia.

Edit edit- Fuck you for keeping me up to midnight last night. I got three hours of sleep on account of this jolly good time. You owe me a drink, pal.

I don't buy paranoids drinks. They always think I'm trying to poison them.

[Josh]

Boo hoo. I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on a gun, how dare you make me spend a few bucks making sure I'm a responsible gun owner. We can say that about cars as well.

Or a hundred bucks for a used shotgun, which could well be the product of two months worth of saving on paychecks if you're living on the edge.

Not every place is urban Vancouver where not even gun loving self defence junky ex Canadian military guys feel the need for guns (I have such a nice circle of friends). Not every place is rural Texas, where guns are all over the place. Why the fuck should the underfunded school system, which is collapsing all over inner cities in the US, divert even more resources to giving wannabee gun owners free shit?

Our school system isn't underfunded, it's got a fucked distribution system for its funding. Nevertheless, it's got the infrastructure necessary to best disseminate this sort of education.

As for why it should be done, it's not just prospective gun owners we're talking about here. We're also talking about educating people in general on the topic so that if they ever happen to handle one, they're less apt to shoot themselves in the foot.

Amazing how you'll down one system and advocate the creation of another. Why not fix the first one and use it for what it's intended for, fucking educating the public?

Stop acting like one. They can afford guns and ammo, but not a safety test? Please.

A hundred bucks for a shotgun. Ten to fifteen for a box of shells. Compared to probably three hundred on top of the expense for a licensing scheme that you have no solid data to support, just a certainty of its necessity.

Ever lived paycheck to paycheck?

Yes, you're not at all sounding like a paranoid militia type. And I would think your opinion of the wonderfulness of not having the government do shit for the people would have changed at least a little after having to deal with having Caz's mom hold her health insurance coverage over her head.

Yes, my observation that governments will fuck the systems they manage into the ground is purely the product of paranoia. Haven't they done a great job with education? I believe you were just waxing eloquent about it.

I'm not a fucking anarchist either, and you damn well know that. I concede that the government is necessary in certain functions, but believe that it should be held in check to prevent unaccountable bureaucracy from bloating itself to Jovian proportions. Real fucking paranoid nutter material there.

Yeah, no paranoia.

You're right. I should totally fucking trust the people who have lied about every stance they've taken and have milked every unfortunate tragedy in blatant tearjerking attempts to create hysteria.

Or is distrust of political advocacy groups and politicians who are endorsed by them only count when they're eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil conservatives? I'm sure you'd be happy to have Ralph Reed in Harper's cabinet.

I don't buy paranoids drinks. They always think I'm trying to poison them.

I'd trust you with my booze, my cats, and my woman. However, you're doing a fine fucking job of poisoning the discourse.

[Cynical Cat]

Amazing how you'll down one system and advocate the creation of another. Why not fix the first one and use it for what it's intended for, fucking educating the public?

Yes, because adding something as controversial as gun handling to the mix when it has so many problems (Like No Child Left Behind and the inner city nonfunctionality) that are far more urgent.

A hundred bucks for a shotgun. Ten to fifteen for a box of shells. Compared to probably three hundred on top of the expense for a licensing scheme that you have no solid data to support, just a certainty of its necessity.

Ever lived paycheck to paycheck?

Yes, I have. Where is this three hundred magic dollars coming from? Talk about pulling bullshit out of thin air.

Yes, my observation that governments will fuck the systems they manage into the ground is purely the product of paranoia. Haven't they done a great job with education? I believe you were just waxing eloquent about it.

I'm not a fucking anarchist either, and you damn well know that. I concede that the government is necessary in certain functions, but believe that it should be held in check to prevent unaccountable bureaucracy from bloating itself to Jovian proportions. Real fucking paranoid nutter material there.

I'm not the one who is saying its magically incompetent to do this. And however fucked US public education is, its still better than no public education at all and far less fucked than US private health care.

I'd trust you with my booze, my cats, and my woman. However, you're doing a fine fucking job of poisoning the discourse.

The "government can't be trusted to liscence guns"(but it can for cars and defence apparentely) and "three hundred dollars liscencing fee" out of the blue and you're accusing me of poisoning the discourse? Please.

[Stofsk]

This would be relevant if I was trying to take away your guns. I'm not. In a gun saturated environment, such as yours, it is even more important that as many people as possible handle them safely.

You're not trying to take away my guns. You're just proposing to make it harder for the poor to get hold of them by adding licensing and training fees to the expense of purchase.

So what?

[frigidmagi]

Stosfk the poor are usually the ones most likely to need guns for self defense. To be blunt, people who earn enough to live in gated communities and install top of the line security systems are less likely to need a gun then say a college student living in a downtown apartment. (US Campus are strictly weapons free. To carry a weapon onto campus grounds is in fact a crime.)

[Stofsk]

Stosfk the poor are usually the ones most likely to need guns for self defense.

They're also the ones more likely to commit crimes using a gun. Statistics and personal experience agree with me, although you're also right.

Which is why I said 'So what?' to Petro, because I don't think this is a necessary argument.

To be blunt, people who earn enough to live in gated communities and install top of the line security systems are less likely to need a gun then say a college student living in a downtown apartment.

I accept that, and know full well that being wealthy means living comfortably and secure, while being poor has with it terror and uncertainty and worry.

I also think it's foolhardy to rely on a gun for self defence without necessarily having the training to use it responsibly. If a someone feels a pressing need for self defence and requires a gun to that end, then surely training and being conscious of safety can only aid in this priority?