Right, arm's bared...

[Dartz]

Alternatively, in the US, ten people per 100,000 are shot dead every year. As opposed to 5 in Canada. 1 here, and 0.25 in the UK

The statistics are muddy and can generally be made to say what people want them to say.

Either way, the 'UK is over there' is not considered a valid reason for gun ownership. That's what the army is for. If anything, the fact that Britain is over there is exactly why our restrictions are so tight. There's a whole section of the population who will merrily trip off a nice little terrorist war like a bunch of Yahoos, who generally think the Troubles were a Good Thing. There're armed organisations still in operation that're effectively treasonous to the state......
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Morganite]

Do any of the gun owners you know carry their guns around because they feel it's the right thing to do?

I think the main problem with the "need to have a suitable purpose" thing is that it would be either hilariously abusable, or hideously abusable. Here's the two ways I can see it going...

-If what they say matches the approved list, the requirement is satisfied. The contents of this list will become known before well before the law goes into effect, and people will say the correct things regardless.

-If the issuing authority likes what they say, the requirement is satisfied. The system will be rife with corruption and nepotism, since this basically amounts to 'if I feel like it'. See as an example California, where "make a big donation to the sheriff's reelection fund" is often cited as an effective way to get a concealed carry permit.

If we want a system that won't be massively broken, the criteria need to be objective. Proper storage in theory could be, but I'm not entirely sure I trust regulators to get that one right. Training, on the other hand, gets no arguments from me, as long as the requirement is feasible. I haven't heard about anyplace actually trying to use prohibitively expensive training requirements to create a de facto ban, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it.

I still stand behind my position that the average untrained gun owner is a net positive influence on the safety of their community.

As for the culture thing... care to elaborate? Most times I see that come up, it's from the "violent media and games cause crime, oh noez!" crowd, and it sounded to me like you were with me in the "that's complete bullshit" crowd.

The statistics are muddy and can generally be made to say what people want them to say.

And I just don't buy this either. That's like saying "the scientific method is muddy" etc. Yes, statistics can be inaccurate or corrupted in various ways. That's why you need to look at the methodologies and assumptions involved, and decide if you feel you can trust the people who came up with them. But if you just say "people can lie with statistics, throw them all in the crapper", you're giving up on an incredibly powerful tool for determining what is actually going on in a situation.

-Morgan.

[LynnInDenver]

Do any of the gun owners you know carry their guns around because they feel it's the right thing to do?

None of them do so, to my knowledge. I know my dad keeps his under lock and key as any responsible gun owner should be expected to.

I think the main problem with the "need to have a suitable purpose" thing is that it would be either hilariously abusable, or hideously abusable. Here's the two ways I can see it going...

-If what they say matches the approved list, the requirement is satisfied. The contents of this list will become known before well before the law goes into effect, and people will say the correct things regardless.

-If the issuing authority likes what they say, the requirement is satisfied. The system will be rife with corruption and nepotism, since this basically amounts to 'if I feel like it'. See as an example California, where "make a big donation to the sheriff's reelection fund" is often cited as an effective way to get a concealed carry permit.

If we want a system that won't be massively broken, the criteria need to be objective. Proper storage in theory could be, but I'm not entirely sure I trust regulators to get that one right. Training, on the other hand, gets no arguments from me, as long as the requirement is feasible. I haven't heard about anyplace actually trying to use prohibitively expensive training requirements to create a de facto ban, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it.

This would be the main sticking point with such, yes, and I'm pretty sure would be the key weakness that the NRA would use to try to torpedo the whole idea.

As for the culture thing... care to elaborate? Most times I see that come up, it's from the "violent media and games cause crime, oh noez!" crowd, and it sounded to me like you were with me in the "that's complete bullshit" crowd.

I do believe that blaming the media is "complete bullshit" (I compared the NRA's statement to asking that we completely gut the first amendment before even looking at the second amendment at all). However, there is a definite group of people that seems to feel there is little to no training needed for guns, or is making assumptions about their potential use, such as for self defense (which requires training so that, if you need to, you can get the gun out, pull the trigger, and put your assailant down with two shots, both hitting). On the other side of the coin are the people who think that guns are absolutely not needed in our society by anyone (never mind the issue with areas that we've completely removed the predators and hunters have taken the niche, or areas where people are living near wild animals).
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[robkelk]

I think the main problem with the "need to have a suitable purpose" thing is that it would be either hilariously abusable, or hideously abusable. Here's the two ways I can see it going...
-If what they say matches the approved list, the requirement is satisfied. The contents of this list will become known before well before the law goes into effect, and people will say the correct things regardless.
-If the issuing authority likes what they say, the requirement is satisfied. The system will be rife with corruption and nepotism, since this basically amounts to 'if I feel like it'. See as an example California, where "make a big donation to the sheriff's reelection fund" is often cited as an effective way to get a concealed carry permit.
If we want a system that won't be massively broken, the criteria need to be objective. Proper storage in theory could be, but I'm not entirely sure I trust regulators to get that one right. Training, on the other hand, gets no arguments from me, as long as the requirement is feasible. I haven't heard about anyplace actually trying to use prohibitively expensive training requirements to create a de facto ban, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it.

This would be the main sticking point with such, yes, and I'm pretty sure would be the key weakness that the NRA would use to try to torpedo the whole idea.

Considering how much money the NRA has, they could subsidize any "prohibitively expensive" training...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[LynnInDenver]

robkelk wrote:

Considering how much money the NRA has, they could subsidize any "prohibitively expensive" training...

I think they would ultimately have to accept that. The sticking point that would really make them dig in the heels would be any sort of "intended purpose" requirements, especially if it takes "self defense" off the table.

Not that they won't dig in their heels. I'm pretty sure their corporate masters (yes, I just went there) would prefer that everyone from newborn to grave were required by law to own one or more guns.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[khagler]

such as for self defense (which requires training so that, if you need to, you can get the gun out, pull the trigger, and put your assailant down with two shots, both hitting). 

Years ago I jumped through the hoops to get a concealed carry permit, which does involve taking a class. It focused on legal aspects (both laws regarding self defense and what to expect if you ever have to use your pistol), how to avoid trouble in the first place through awareness and common sense, and a strong reminder of one of the basic rules of firearms safety: know your target and what's behind it, because in real life bullets are often not stopped by interior walls, car bodies, or people. There was no need to teach people how to shoot, as everyone taking the class already new. At the end, they had us fire our pistols at silhouette targets to demonstrate that we could indeed shoot straight.

[Dartz]

Arguably, it's the position of 'Sherrif' being abused there. In fact, it satrikes me that the position of Sherrif as it is in many US jurisdictions would be horrifically easy to abuse, especially on the local level.

While here all you have to put down on the page is 'Rabbits eating my grain/cows/straw' and get a statement of good character. Is that so hard? And yes, that can be abused in the other direction. But it still acts as a filter strong enough to ensure that it is extremely rare for legimately held weapons to be used in the commission of a crime.

And in this case, I would argue that statistics drawn from wikipedia do tend to be pretty damned muddy, when on another pages it's showing that the gun murder rate per 100k people in the States is ten times that here. Or for that matter, that our homicide statistics are inflated by including certain kinds of road traffic fatalities.

I originally planned to compare both countries, by comparing gun deaths to road traffic fatalities. Here, it's about ten percent. (20 V 200). In the US.... which has higher rate of road traffic fatalities per 100,000 than we do, deaths through firearms are expected to pass deaths through automobile (And I don't even know if that doesn't include suicides.) within the next few years. Statistics are great little things that can be spun any which way they need to be.

I can play the more emotive 'statistic' that more people died in one school in one hour, than in one country in one year. And then point out that these events aren't even an aberration. This has happened repeatedly. Multiple times this year in fact.

The idea that a constitution cannot be changed, or must remain sacrosanct is far more dangerous, however. I mean seriously. Are people that bloody closed-minded.

A gun is a useful tool. It shoots rabbits. Foxes. Bears. Hunting is a valid sport. Grey squirrels are a pest. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'd even push the boat out and say that there're valid reasons for owning an AR or AK rifle of some stripe. But is it really that hard to add a little qualifier in there that owning something that can kill people comes with certain responsibilities? To be proficient, to actually secure it, and to be responsible for the weapon the same way you're responsible for a dog, or your car....

I mean really. The whole point of living in a society is that you get certain rights, and have certain responsibilities to that society in return? It's no coincidence that the Court's service uses the register of electors to send out notices for jury service. Don't want to do jury service, then don't vote. You can attain privileges like a drivers license that represents certain trusts society has placed in you because you're a Good Person and demonstrated that you can in theory operate something capable of killing people safely. This privilege can be revoked if you get caught proving you can't.

Now then, do we have a right that should come with responsibilities. Or do we have a privilege that should be earned.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[LynnInDenver]

A gun is a useful tool. It shoots rabbits. Foxes. Bears. Hunting is a valid sport. Grey squirrels are a pest. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'd even push the boat out and say that there're valid reasons for owning an AR or AK rifle of some stripe. But is it really that hard to add a little qualifier in there that owning something that can kill people comes with certain responsibilities? To be proficient, to actually secure it, and to be responsible for the weapon the same way you're responsible for a dog, or your car....

Now then, do we have a right that should come with responsibilities. Or do we have a privilege that should be earned.

I believe it is a right... but it comes with very significant responsibilities because of the type of the tool it is. This should include the responsibility to know when it's appropriate to actually own one (I like to bring in my own meat/protect my farm animals against predators), versus when it's not (I think I can only be safe inside the city limits when I carry a weapon).


Unfortunately, because gun makers have their claws in, there's a constant attempt to hold back coupling that right with the responsibility it's supposed to come with.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[robkelk]

While here all you have to put down on the page is 'Rabbits eating my grain/cows/straw' ...

You have a problem with rabbits eating your cows?

And here I thought Monty Python and the Holy Grail was fiction...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Morganite]

This would be the main sticking point with such, yes, and I'm pretty sure would be the key weakness that the NRA would use to try to torpedo the whole idea.

I'm betting it's the weakness that everyone everywhere would be using to try and torpedo it, because it's that big a one.

There was something similar in the TVT gun thread. One of the posters wrote up a list of what their "in a perfect world" gun laws would be. One of the items was for psychological screening. The problem is, no one seemed to be able to come up with an implementation that would work properly - it always incentivized either approving everyone or approving no one, both of which are obvious failure conditions.

However, there is a definite group of people that seems to feel there is little to no training needed for guns, or is making assumptions about their potential use, such as for self defense (which requires training so that, if you need to, you can get the gun out, pull the trigger, and put your assailant down with two shots, both hitting).

Is that really such a large group? I'm not sure. I heard someone put the NRA into that category once, but since one of the big things they do is training, that doesn't seem quite on.

(Also, why two? When I see a specific number mentioned it seems like it's usually 5-7, but more often it's a situation-dependent expression of some form.)

The sticking point that would really make them dig in the heels would be any sort of "intended purpose" requirements, especially if it takes "self defense" off the table.

I'm pretty sure that'd make a lot of people who aren't members of the NRA dig in their heels. It's the second best reason to own a gun in my book.

Seriously, why are you convinced that it doesn't work? Because there's a lot of examples of it in fact doing so out there.

I'm pretty sure their corporate masters (yes, I just went there) would prefer that everyone from newborn to grave were required by law to own one or more guns.

A more sane variant has been done. Unsurprisingly enough, it did not dissolve into an orgy of violence and bloodshed.

Oh, and school teachers in Utah have allowed to carry guns at school (if they have a concealed carry permit) since 2001. Also no orgy of violence and bloodshed.

Arguably, it's the position of 'Sherrif' being abused there.

Quite right. But what can you do? You could hope with all your might that people would stop abusing the policy, but changing to a policy that's less abusable would probably give better results.

(And I don't even know if that doesn't include suicides.)

It probably does. It's an effective way to inflate the numbers. NHTSA data shows 30,196 fatal crashes in 2010, with 32,885 fatalities. The "Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence" has a page saying guns were used in 11,078 homicides in 2010. I suspect that number includes those shot during the commission of a crime. Either way, guns have a loooong way to go to catch up with that. (Especially if traffic cameras become more common.)

I can play the more emotive 'statistic' that more people died in one school in one hour, than in one country in one year. And then point out that these events aren't even an aberration. This has happened repeatedly. Multiple times this year in fact.

There are also countries with less total population than Newtown, Connecticut. If your goal was to provide an example of a misleading statistic, you came up with a good one.

The idea that a constitution cannot be changed, or must remain sacrosanct is far more dangerous, however. I mean seriously. Are people that bloody closed-minded.

It's been done. If people want to try it, they know how to do it.

-Morgan.

[LynnInDenver]

I'm betting it's the weakness that everyone everywhere would be using to try and torpedo it, because it's that big a one.

There was something similar in the TVT gun thread. One of the posters wrote up a list of what their "in a perfect world" gun laws would be. One of the items was for psychological screening. The problem is, no one seemed to be able to come up with an implementation that would work properly - it always incentivized either approving everyone or approving no one, both of which are obvious failure conditions.

Psychological screening could cause many problems. Depending on where you draw the lines of "too crazy to carry" and "sane enough to carry", it could be used to literally shove various bits of the U.S. population out of gun ownership... and could be expanded into other things.
This doesn't mean we don't need the health system to remain as it is... nor our way of handling mental instability. But that's really a separate (but equally important) discussion that needs to happen.

Is that really such a large group? I'm not sure. I heard someone put the NRA into that category once, but since one of the big things they do is training, that doesn't seem quite on.

Many individuals who are part of the NRA are going to be responsible gun owners.
Regarding training, there was a bit I read from an interview with Ben Browder, who played John Criton in Farscape. He grew up in the South region of the U.S., has been around guns his whole life, complete with training and respect for same. When he got into acting, and I presume this has been all sets, but notable in America with a gun culture, the number of people who DO NOT KNOW HOW TO HANDLE GUNS. It frightens him every time he sees it.

Part of education with guns is safe, proper gun handling... to the point that, handed a gun YOU KNOW IS FAKE, you still treat it as if it is loaded. (Rule #1 of gun safety: The gun is ALWAYS loaded, ALWAYS.)

(Also, why two? When I see a specific number mentioned it seems like it's usually 5-7, but more often it's a situation-dependent expression of some form.)

"Double Tap" is where I got that from.

If you take more than 2 bullets to take someone down, either the person was armored, or you'd better hope your target wasn't in front of something you didn't want 3-5 bullets to go into...

I'm pretty sure that'd make a lot of people who aren't members of the NRA dig in their heels. It's the second best reason to own a gun in my book.

I'm not so sure, but then, even with training, I'd fumble about trying to get the damned thing out unless I was wearing it on my hip.
I usually follow other methods for "self defense". Namely, I stay away from areas and situations that I'd need to use violence to get out of.
Yes, I realize some people out there have no choice but to live in an area where they know they could suffer a home invasion by someone hyped up on adrenaline, drugs, or just plain insanity. I'm still not convinced that it's 100% the best thing to have a gun around for defense, particularly, again, without training in it's use.

Seriously, why are you convinced that it doesn't work? Because there's a lot of examples of it in fact doing so out there.

I know it won't work for me, mostly because I don't like to hurt people. And I've known several people in the past that, rather than being the "last resort" option in their toolbox, would pull out that "self defense" gun in a BAR FIGHT WITH FISTS.

A more sane variant has been done. Unsurprisingly enough, it did not dissolve into an orgy of violence and bloodshed.

Given the drop in the crime rate before the law went into effect, I'm not sure it's 100% of the cause of the continuing drop. On the other hand, I hope they included mandatory training with that law. And I bet it includes registration of at least firearms bought there, and requirements for reporting a stolen weapon.I'm not saying that the gun itself is a bad thing. The place didn't explode in violence. But I'm dreadfully uncomfortable with any mandatory purchase requirements like that. Particularly since I'd have the additional purchases to make like a gun safe and a gun box to transport it in on the way to the gun range to keep myself maintained.

Oh, and school teachers in Utah have allowed to carry guns at school (if they have a concealed carry permit) since 2001. Also no orgy of violence and bloodshed.

No, I don't expect any such orgy of violence and bloodshed with that. Mostly because any that would take advantage, if they have a concealed carry permit, would have at least a decent idea of things like keeping it secure, when to not use it, etcetera.
Most of my point is that, right now, it's too easy for someone, with no training at all, no indication what he's in for, to go into a shop, plunk down the money, undergo the background check, and walk out with a gun in hand for "self defense"... a "self defense" that has a higher odds than it should that, when it gets pulled out in that mythical "held up in the alley" scenario, will possibly injure the owner or a nearby innocent before the criminal.
And, really? If I had to cherry pick ONE thing I wanted out of the whole thing, in terms of "not an absolute ironclad no clauses right to own a gun", would be a requirement for training. Which would involve having to get licensed.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[robkelk]

And this discussion of licensing and training has been shown to be irrelevant, at the cost of the lives of two firefighters in upstate New York.

Quoting from the article:

He was released in 1998 and forbidden to possess firearms.

No amount of training or licensing is going to stop somebody who flouts a condition of parole...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[khagler]

"Double Tap" is where I got that from.

If you take more than 2 bullets to take someone down, either the person was armored, or you'd better hope your target wasn't in front of something you didn't want 3-5 bullets to go into...

Not necessarily. Pistols aren't especially effective weapons, and it's not unheard of to need more than two shots to stop someone who isn't armored. 

The training I had was to fire two shots, then pause and evaluate: "Did I hit him? Did it work? Does he have any friends?" If you hit someone twice and he's not even visibly affected, then try for a head shot.

[LynnInDenver]

No amount of training or licensing is going to stop somebody who flouts a condition of parole...

Well, no, it won't... however, if the weapons were not reported stolen, yet belonged to someone else, they can be held accountable. "So why did you not report the theft when it occurred?"

This is part of the idea behind training and licensing. Ideally, it ups the cost just enough to keep one from getting a gun and then loan it to their friend "who's had some legal troubles". Now, admittedly, the key restriction (convicted of felonies) is slightly problematic given the way there's been an increase (downward creep in terms of severity required to qualify) in the numbers of crimes considered felonies, but that's an entirely new problem.
Train people. Make them responsible for it in a very legal way. The problem won't go away overnight (it never does). And you will still have people who will get guns that shouldn't have them... but the idea should be to reduce the cross-section of the ways one can get a gun for questionable purposes.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[Morganite]

Psychological screening could cause many problems. Depending on where you draw the lines of "too crazy to carry" and "sane enough to carry", it could be used to literally shove various bits of the U.S. population out of gun ownership... and could be expanded into other things.

Yep. Someone might have brought that up if they hadn't gotten to the large-scale failure modes first, and then the conversation moved on to something else. Still think it's not necessarily a bad idea in principle, but I don't know if there's any good way to make it work.

(Rule #1 of gun safety: The gun is ALWAYS loaded, ALWAYS.)

I thought it was "Never point it at anyone you aren't willing to kill."

If you take more than 2 bullets to take someone down, either the person was armored, or you'd better hope your target wasn't in front of something you didn't want 3-5 bullets to go into...

I'm led to believe it's a bit more involved than that. Apparently, any individual shot actually has a pretty high chance of not hitting anything immediately critical, and particularly with small calibers* shock alone will not do the job without more hits. The type of ammunition used makes a major difference too.

*I'm led to believe .22 caliber is very popular with people who enjoy target shooting, due to the extremely low cost of ammunition and the only mild recoil. But the same things that lead to those traits make it not all that great for stopping an assailant.

I usually follow other methods for "self defense". Namely, I stay away from areas and situations that I'd need to use violence to get out of.

Does that even count as self defense? '.'

And I've known several people in the past that, rather than being the "last resort" option in their toolbox, would pull out that "self defense" gun in a BAR FIGHT WITH FISTS.

Sound like the kind of people who shouldn't have guns. ^.- But I think that sort of person is in the minority.

But I'm dreadfully uncomfortable with any mandatory purchase requirements like that.

I too generally consider it a waste of time (among other things) to make someone who doesn't want a gun own one. I'm not certain, but I think when I first heard about the place (a few years ago or so), they mentioned some people there who, having no desire to have a gun, kept it locked away on an essentially permanent basis. That doesn't do anything useful for anyone. Still, they provide a valuable example case.

I do think a certain amount of universal *training* would be a good idea though.

a "self defense" that has a higher odds than it should that, when it gets pulled out in that mythical "held up in the alley" scenario, will possibly injure the owner or a nearby innocent before the criminal.

I don't know. I've seen some statistics related to those things, but they've all been about CCP holders, who generally have had to meet a somewhat more stringent set of requirements. None for the set of gun owners who don't have such a permit.

Of course, if someone has a gun handy enough to pull out when they're in an alley, they might themselves be committing a crime if they don't have some kind of permit or other... laws seem to vary wildly on the point.

Training is one thing we definitely agree on.

No amount of training or licensing is going to stop somebody who flouts a condition of parole...

Well, that's not really what they're *for*. The sort of stuff we're talking about is mainly focused at which behaviors we want to encourage or discourage in the law-abiding. I don't expect any direct effect on criminals.

-Morgan.

[LynnInDenver]

Yep. Someone might have brought that up if they hadn't gotten to the large-scale failure modes first, and then the conversation moved on to something else. Still think it's not necessarily a bad idea in principle, but I don't know if there's any good way to make it work.

It will remain a thorny issue until mental health is no longer stigmatized... and we have a much better handle on what constitutes "functional in society" and "you need to be limited for everyone's sake".

I thought it was "Never point it at anyone you aren't willing to kill."

I've heard that one... usually coupled as #2 to the "it's ALWAYS loaded". The always loaded is certainly specific to gun handling assumptions.

I'm led to believe it's a bit more involved than that. Apparently, any individual shot actually has a pretty high chance of not hitting anything immediately critical, and particularly with small calibers* shock alone will not do the job without more hits. The type of ammunition used makes a major difference too.

*I'm led to believe .22 caliber is very popular with people who enjoy target shooting, due to the extremely low cost of ammunition and the only mild recoil. But the same things that lead to those traits make it not all that great for stopping an assailant.

Odds are anyone buying a gun for "self defense" is buying something other than a .22 anyway. But every round you put "downrange" has to go somewhere if it misses the target.

Does that even count as self defense? '.'

It does in terms of avoiding having to test the "actual situation". Self defense isn't always about how you respond in the moment... or, in other words, never start a fight, which does include avoiding situations where you might have to finish one.

Sound like the kind of people who shouldn't have guns. ^.- But I think that sort of person is in the minority.

I'm also not friends with that sort these days anyway. They tend to come with other baggage.

I too generally consider it a waste of time (among other things) to make someone who doesn't want a gun own one. I'm not certain, but I think when I first heard about the place (a few years ago or so), they mentioned some people there who, having no desire to have a gun, kept it locked away on an essentially permanent basis. That doesn't do anything useful for anyone. Still, they provide a valuable example case.

I don't want to own a gun right now, mostly because I live in an apartment complex, renting, so other people are considered to have access to my living space. So I have a significant requirement to really be sure the guns are absolutely secure (combination locked SAFE, for instance). Plus, I'd probably need to make sure that the apartment management does KNOW I have a gun, and that does prevent "security by obscurity".

I do think a certain amount of universal *training* would be a good idea though.

A training requirement would do wonders for a lot of this, definitely.

I don't know. I've seen some statistics related to those things, but they've all been about CCP holders, who generally have had to meet a somewhat more stringent set of requirements. None for the set of gun owners who don't have such a permit.

I expect that the numbers would be telling in terms of the number of criminals that get more guns... although I also expect that some of those numbers would actually be low. Usually, if you want a gun for self defense, and want to be legal about it, you'd want to get a CCP anyway.

Of course, if someone has a gun handy enough to pull out when they're in an alley, they might themselves be committing a crime if they don't have some kind of permit or other... laws seem to vary wildly on the point.

And even with a permit, there's going to be a serious criminal inquiry again... not to mention the "excessive force/wrongful death" lawsuit that would occur, even if it was in defense against a violent crime.

Training is one thing we definitely agree on.

Very much. I've heard of a lot of incidents over the years that would probably have been averted with training. Including significant incidents of self-injury, like failing to automatically assume that the gun is ALWAYS loaded.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[robkelk]

(Rule #1 of gun safety: The gun is ALWAYS loaded, ALWAYS.)

I thought it was "Never point it at anyone you aren't willing to kill."

That's Rule #1 of Firearms Usage...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ECSNorway]

No amount of training or licensing is going to stop somebody who flouts a condition of parole...

Well, no, it won't... however, if the weapons were not reported stolen, yet belonged to someone else, they can be held accountable. "So why did you not report the theft when it occurred?"

When did it occur? A month before the shooting? A year? An hour? Do we at all know?
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[robkelk]

No amount of training or licensing is going to stop somebody who flouts a condition of parole...

Well, no, it won't... however, if the weapons were not reported stolen, yet belonged to someone else, they can be held accountable. "So why did you not report the theft when it occurred?"

When did it occur? A month before the shooting? A year? An hour? Do we at all know?

No data yet...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

No amount of training or licensing is going to stop somebody who flouts a condition of parole...

Well, no, it won't... however, if the weapons were not reported stolen, yet belonged to someone else, they can be held accountable. "So why did you not report the theft when it occurred?"

This is part of the idea behind training and licensing. Ideally, it ups the cost just enough to keep one from getting a gun and then loan it to their friend "who's had some legal troubles". Now, admittedly, the key restriction (convicted of felonies) is slightly problematic given the way there's been an increase (downward creep in terms of severity required to qualify) in the numbers of crimes considered felonies, but that's an entirely new problem.

Train people. Make them responsible for it in a very legal way. The problem won't go away overnight (it never does). And you will still have people who will get guns that shouldn't have them... but the idea should be to reduce the cross-section of the ways one can get a gun for questionable purposes.

I will support that. Make them train and do an annual refresher. The gun range folks will definitely support that. If you own and operate a dangerous piece of equipment ( what do you think a gun is?), you'd better be a qualified operator.
  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell