chuckakers 426 #26 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote What exactly do you think such licensing will accomplish? Streamline bureaucracy. Eliminate waiting periods. Reduce firearms in the hands of criminals. Reduce improper useage of firearms. Increase gun safety (and education). Reduce state restrictions on licensed owners (for example, allow someone with the federal license to own full capacity mags, even if they live in California). My question was aimed at Quade, but since you replied... 1. I doubt anything the government does will streamline anything. Same with waiting periods. 2. How will licensing reduce the number of criminals with guns? If criminals want guns, they buy them on the black market or steal them, neither of which will be better controlled by forcing law abiding citizens to be licensed. 3. I agree that a better educated gun owner is a safer gun owner, and licensing processes do include gun safety education. However, the intentional misuse of a gun - as in the case of the gun range mom - won't be any better served by it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 April 9, 2009 Quote I doubt anything the government does will streamline anything. Same with waiting periods. The first time I bought a handgun, I had to wait 15 days. Last time I bought one, the wait was about 3 minutes. I think the NICS has been a pretty successful program, both for reducing/eliminating waiting periods and otherwise. Quote I agree that a better educated gun owner is a safer gun owner, and licensing processes do include gun safety education. However, the intentional misuse of a gun - as in the case of the gun range mom - won't be any better served by it. Sure, but just because it won't solve all problems doesn't mean it won't help with some problems.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #28 April 9, 2009 >2. How will licensing reduce the number of criminals with guns? It would have helped prevent the incident with the gun range mom, which inspired this poll. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #29 April 9, 2009 Quote To me it seems like licensing of owners IS the way to stop a number of things from falling through the cracks... It also occurs to me that it would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals via the gun show loopholes... Yeah, because look at how successful driver's licenses are - only 37,000 died in traffic accidents last year, probably about a third of which were from drunk drivers. Yeah, all those driver's licenses and all that driver's education did wonders for auto fatalities! How about licensing alcohol drinkers? Want to buy a beer? Show me your drinker's license! How about licensing voters? Want to vote? Show me you're a legal citizen who is well-educated on current events and the political system! Criminals don't give a damn about licensing laws - they ignore them. All such a process would do is put innocent people in legal trouble, due to paperwork technicalities. Illinois has a FOID - firearm owner's ID card, but that doesn't stop Chicago from being one of the worst murder spots in the country. And some of those recent mass murderers WERE licensed to own the guns they used in their shootings. That should be enough demonstration right there that this idea is useless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #30 April 9, 2009 Quote >2. How will licensing reduce the number of criminals with guns? It would have helped prevent the incident with the gun range mom, which inspired this poll. I'm actually not sure that it would have, unless we extended it to include gun rentals (which is is probably a good idea, but which Quade hadn't mentioned). Assuming some sort of mass license system (like Wendy and I have been throwing back and forth), then we'd be able to check licenses, see that the range customer's license had been revoked, and not rent to her.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #31 April 9, 2009 Quote That should be enough demonstration right there that this idea is useless. It depends on your goals. If the license was a 50 state CHL/CCW permit, then it would probably help reduce criminal violence by letting more responsible gun owners carry. The real goals, from my point of view, would be creating a nationwide CCW, eliminating waiting periods, and bringing the light of 2nd amendment freedoms to backwaters like California.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #32 April 9, 2009 Quote >2. How will licensing reduce the number of criminals with guns? It would have helped prevent the incident with the gun range mom, which inspired this poll. How do figure that? Having a licensing requirement wouldn't stop her or anyone else from getting a gun. Criminals and whack-jobs could care less about legal requirements. They'll just work around them through theft or the black market.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #33 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote >2. How will licensing reduce the number of criminals with guns? It would have helped prevent the incident with the gun range mom, which inspired this poll. How do figure that? Having a licensing requirement wouldn't stop her or anyone else from getting a gun. Criminals and whack-jobs could care less about legal requirements. They'll just work around them through theft or the black market. That doesn't mean that making things harder for them isn't a reasonable goal. Enforcing existing laws might not make it impossible for criminals to get guns--but it'd still be a good start.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #34 April 9, 2009 Quote Yeah, because look at how successful driver's licenses are - only 37,000 died in traffic accidents last year, probably about a third of which were from drunk drivers. Yeah, all those driver's licenses and all that driver's education did wonders for auto fatalities! snip Quote That should be enough demonstration right there that this idea is useless. If you seek absolutes, yes. Nothing will absolutely stop everything, every time. However, a no reasonable person in his right mind would ever suggest that removing the requirements of drivers' licenses and laws against drunk driving would ever IMPROVE the current situation. Clearly the licenses and laws DO have an effect.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #35 April 9, 2009 Quote However, a no reasonable person in his right mind would ever suggest that removing the requirements of drivers' licenses and laws against drunk driving would ever IMPROVE the current situation. Well, if you want to start another thread, I'd be happy to make that argument. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #36 April 9, 2009 >Having a licensing requirement wouldn't stop her or anyone else >from getting a gun. "I want to rent a gun to use on your range." "Sure thing. Got your license?" "Uh . . . no. I . .. uh. . . .lost it." "Hmm. Well, come on back when you find it!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #37 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote >2. How will licensing reduce the number of criminals with guns? It would have helped prevent the incident with the gun range mom, which inspired this poll. How do figure that? Having a licensing requirement wouldn't stop her or anyone else from getting a gun. Criminals and whack-jobs could care less about legal requirements. They'll just work around them through theft or the black market. That doesn't mean that making things harder for them isn't a reasonable goal. Enforcing existing laws might not make it impossible for criminals to get guns--but it'd still be a good start. Maybe I'm confused. I thought you were talking about a licensing requirement other than whatever is in affect now. If that's the case, you aren't talking about enforcing existing laws, you are talking about making new ones. Either way, creating/enforcing licensing laws existing or otherwise will do nothing to make getting a gun illegally any harder. You can license all the law abiding citizens you want and register all the guns on the planet and there will still be gun theft and the black market. Creating a paper trail to the guns rightful owner or making people jump through hoops to own one legally will do nothing to stop or reduce that. Doing something for the sake of not doing anything isn't helpful, especially if it's the government doing it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #38 April 9, 2009 Quote >Having a licensing requirement wouldn't stop her or anyone else >from getting a gun. "I want to rent a gun to use on your range." "Sure thing. Got your license?" "Uh . . . no. I . .. uh. . . .lost it." "Hmm. Well, come on back when you find it!" Nutjobs will simply buy a gun on the black market. Why do you refuse to accept that fact?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #39 April 9, 2009 >Nutjobs will simply buy a gun on the black market. This woman didn't. She walked into a gun range, rented a gun and killed her son and herself. Facts can be annoying things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote I doubt anything the government does will streamline anything. Same with waiting periods. The first time I bought a handgun, I had to wait 15 days. Last time I bought one, the wait was about 3 minutes. I think the NICS has been a pretty successful program, both for reducing/eliminating waiting periods and otherwise. Most of that gain came from moving away from California, not because of NICs. The 'efficiency' gain to CA is that the 15 days dropped to 10. You're kidding about the streamlining, right? You've moving from a system where you are screened only when doing purchases, to a system that requires continuous renewals and would be used continuously. That's a huge increase in scope. Accepting that is like the short sided bikers who accepted health insurance mandates for the choice to not wear a helmet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #41 April 9, 2009 Quote This woman didn't. She walked into a gun range, rented a gun and killed her son and herself. This is obviously an epidemic. Hundreds of people every year. Not every year? How about hundreds of people killed in a murder suicide with a rented gun at a gun range ever. How about tens of people? No again? Damn, facts can be annoying.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 April 9, 2009 Quote >Nutjobs will simply buy a gun on the black market. This woman didn't. She walked into a gun range, rented a gun and killed her son and herself. Facts can be annoying things. And in the absence of that option, she drives her car (with her son in it) to the river. If the end goal is preservation of life....that's a bit harder. Me ... I oppose the notion of a barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #43 April 9, 2009 >This is obviously an epidemic. No one, other than your strawman, claimed that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #44 April 9, 2009 >And in the absence of that option, she drives her car (with her son in it) > to the river. Right - and taking away her driver's license (because she was certifiably mentally ill) could have made that less likely. It couldn't have stopped her, of course. She could have stolen someone's car and done it anyway. It just would have made it harder. And, of course, given the choice it's better to be in a car sinking in a river than have a big hole in your head. Not that either one is a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #45 April 9, 2009 My strawman? Nope. Personally I'm for the expansion of personal rights, not the limiting and not with bigger government.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #46 April 9, 2009 >My strawman? Nope. Yep. AggieDave sez: "Hundreds of people every year." Looks like straw and padding to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #47 April 9, 2009 Quote Right - and taking away her driver's license (because she was certifiably mentally ill) could have made that less likely. As a side note, I think you under estimate how many people drive with either no license or with a suspended license. In Texas its called DWLI (Driving While License Invalid). It was such a problem that the charge was lowered recently from a Class B Misdemeanor (same level as a first offense DWI) with an enhanced charge of Class A to, to a Class C (same level as speeding or running a stop sign) for a first offense. This was due to the clogged County Courts with the Class B and Class A charges. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I think Dallas County was averaging something like 1000 cases a month before the change in the law.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #48 April 9, 2009 >As a side note, I think you under estimate how many people drive >with either no license or with a suspended license. Agreed. Which is why I said it would make it less likely rather than make it impossible. No licensing scheme can stop people from abusing guns, cars or airplanes - but driver's and pilot's licenses do help keep some of the scarier people away from where they can hurt other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybill 22 #49 April 10, 2009 Mr. Quade, Safety classes, licensing?? Who do you think you are, Bobby Rush from IL???? My dad taught me to shoot guns when I was 8 years old, we had gun safety and marksmanship when I was in the Boy Scouts, Boys of Woodcraft in the Woodman of the World, Civil Air Patrol and not to mention training in the proper handling of firearms and both high and low explosive ordnance when I was in the Navy!! Now at the ripe old age of 63 you say I'm going to have to take gun safety classes again to get a license???? Dude, the line is drawn in the sand and I ain't goin' to no stinkin classes!!! Got that!! If you want to come sit at my feet and take notes on gun safety feel free but I ain't givin' no lectures!! From the looks of things you been hangin out in CA too long, things are a bit different elsewhere, like here in NC!! Your fantasy Emerald City is a bit much. Your UTOPIA IS THE OPIATE OF YOUR LIBERAL MIND!!!!! BTW, you got to share what you been smokin' seems like good stuff Man!!!!!SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #50 April 10, 2009 Quote Most of that gain came from moving away from California, not because of NICs. At risk of dating myself, the first time I bought a handgun was before the NICS.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
