XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Murff"  wrote in message   
   news:lke062$42j$3@dont-email.me...   
   > On Tue, 06 May 2014 20:51:51 -0400, Scout wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Murff"  wrote in message   
   >> news:lkb5n7$42j$1@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   >>> My personal view is that private firearms ownership is perfectly fine,   
   >>> either for recreational use or where social norms warrant it, for   
   >>> personal defence. However such ownership and use carries with it a   
   >>> responsibility much like that attendant on driving motor vehicles or   
   >>> flying aircraft. And therefore that private firearms ownership warrants   
   >>> some form of test to demonstrate competence and suitability.   
   >>   
   >> In theory I would agree with this. However, there are several issues   
   >> with such a suggestion in actual practice.   
   >>   
   >> 1) Those opposed to guns have shown their willingness to distort,   
   >> pervert, modify, alter or otherwise use such mandates to restrict,   
   >> limit, prohibit firearms ownership even for suitable people right up to   
   >> imposing de facto bans for everyone. (ref Chicago and Washington DC)   
   >>   
   >   
   > That is true. But what that lobby fails to recognise is that by such   
   > distortions they're driving the polarisation of the argument as opposed   
   > to persuading anybody.   
      
   Oh, they did persuade people and managed to get such laws enacted....and   
   then showed the public that the real objectives of the anti-gun crowd were   
   something different than what they advertised and that the fears of the   
   pro-gun crowd were well founded.   
      
   > All that does is to convince the more paranoid   
   > (and noisier) pro-gun lobbyists that their fears are well-founded.   
      
   It's not just the 'paranoid' lobbyists, but anyone who looks objectively at   
   the laws that have been misused, abused, or perverted to accomplish gun   
   control measures far beyond any intent of the law.   
      
   >> 2) The overwhelming issue of crimes with firearms are NOT from those who   
   >> legally own and possess firearms, but rather by those who are already   
   >> prohibited by law from such ownership or possession.   
   >   
   > I know that. Those who legally own and possess tend to understand safety,   
   > develop competence, take classes and so on. OTOH - reference above - anti-   
   > gun hysteria threatens law-abiding owners with mis-targetted sanctions   
   > that clobber them rather than the criminals. So law abiding owners have   
   > no choice but to oppose those sanctions and get tarred as gun nuts by the   
   > antis.   
      
   So why would you propose that we need more such sanctions (ie testing) of   
   people who aren't the source of the problem.   
      
   Further, I might point out that the overwhelming source of the problem isn't   
   due to accidental activities that endanger people....but deliberate criminal   
   action.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >> 3) Statistically competence can be shown by the general population of   
   >> gun owners by referencing the very low and falling accidental gun   
   >> injury/death numbers and rates.   
   >   
   > It can be experienced empirically by going among them at ranges, when   
   > hunting, and so on and noticing safe behaviour.   
      
   So again, why call for testing when there is little to no evidence that it's   
   either necessary or will address the real problem?   
      
      
   >> 5) Finally, it provides a mechanism by which the government can chose to   
   >> eliminate our right to keep and bear whenever it suits them.   
   >   
   > It doesn't have to.   
      
   It's inherent in the fact that you have to obtain governmental   
   authorization.   
      
    I don't know what shooters do regarding insurance in   
   > the US. But it would be possible for example for a private initiative to   
   > recognise classes and the like as part of an insurance scheme.   
      
   If so then there is no need to involve government in that, much less have   
   them mandate such testing be performed.   
      
   > That   
   > happens here: in my pheasant syndicate you have to be insured, and you   
   > have to display safe gun handling. Being insured and showing evidence of   
   > qualifications in game handling gets me authority to shoot over other   
   > peoples' private land, including at night, at no cost. The government has   
   > nothing to do with it.   
      
   Fine, and as long as it's voluntary and non-governmental then I don't have a   
   problem with it. But that didn't seem to be what you were asking for.   
      
      
   >> No, the overwhelming issue is one of controlling criminals. Where   
   >> existing gun control laws are strictly enforced, and punishments for   
   >> violations actually imposed, criminals are quickly removed from the   
   >> streets and violent crime rates of all sorts drop significantly. Ref   
   >> Project Exile and similar programs   
   >   
   > ... which looks very much like advocacy of anti-gun measures of the New   
   > York variety.   
      
   No, more like the advocacy of law enforcement measures of the Richmond, VA   
   variety.   
      
   IOW, we don't need more gun control laws. We simply need enforcement against   
   those who break the laws that already exist.   
      
   Which, I will note NYC still doesn't really do.   
      
   > That is a far more direct threat to the Second Amendment   
   > than your point 5 above.   
      
   No, because enforcement of laws against using a gun in crime doesn't violate   
   the 2nd. Where you tell innocent law abiding people they can't even own a   
   gun...that's a 2nd Amendment violation.   
      
      
   >> The issue isn't that legal owners are such a problem, but rather we   
   >> generally refuse to hammer those who are the problem when they are   
   >> caught misusing a firearm in crime.   
   >   
   > I disagree. I think the problem is that you don't catch them.   
      
   Actually we do. The gun charges are often among the first to be dropped or   
   plea bargained away.   
      
   Proof provided by programs like Project Exile show that we do catch them,   
   and when we actually enforce these laws and prosecute them for those   
   violations....violent crime drops drastically. Why? Because those who engage   
   in violent crime are 1) either behind bars for longer periods of time or 2)   
   aren't as willing to risk the longer prison terms and switch to crimes which   
   carry less actual punishment.   
      
   > Or at least   
   > that they don't believe you'll catch them.   
      
   They may...but when you put them away for the federal mandatory minimum of 5   
   years just for the firearms offense...it doesn't really matter what they   
   believe. But strict enforcement and actual prison terms being served have   
   shown to produce a significant impact either way.   
      
   > One of the reasons for the   
   > decline of capital punishment was that whilst in theory its severity   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)