PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

Lonewolf_50 6th Aug 2015 15:14


Originally Posted by Toadstool (Post 9072875)
Elijah Walker death: 11 year-old boy charged with manslaughter after shooting three-year-old - Americas - World - The Independent

Is there too much of this, or will the usual suspects just point to it being a demographic?

Firearms accidents due to mishandling (or leaving firearms about for kids to get at) are not confined to any demographic.

The "I didn't know the gun was loaded" problem was taught to me as a cautionary tale when I was a boy, in the 1960's. We heard the occasional story back then about kids finding firearms and doing something stupid with them, resulting in hurt or death.

Note 1: my parents didn't keep firearms in the house, but we still got the story since some of our neighbors had firearms in their homes.

The first gun one could use in our house was when I was about 13 and Dad purchases a pellet pistol for us to target shoot with/plink cans. A few years later, I got an air rifle, pump, (.177 Crossman bb/pellet) which I practiced with now and again.

Dad made me demonstrate all proper handling precautions before I was allowed to use either. (He'd been in the Army in the '40's and was in the USAF reserves).

Note 2: My uncle and aunt in Oklahoma kept firearms in their house, and taught my two cousins proper firearms safety. No accidents there.

Lesson learned? Properly handled, firearms aren't dangerous. Improperly handled, and you get sad news stories like the one you linked to.

It's a very old story.

obgraham 6th Aug 2015 15:16


Is there too much of this, or will the usual suspects just point to it being a demographic?
Yes there is too much of this, and yes, the usual suspects from across the pond will rehash the same tired harangues.

Toadstool 6th Aug 2015 15:41

Lonewolf I completely agree.

RG mentioned something interesting in the other thread about some sort of weapon handling test completed yearly.

Would it be possible for say, shooting ranges, police ranges, any sort of range to have qualified personnel who carry out a yearly Weapon Handling Test on an individual. Similar to an MOT in the UK, whereby the examiner then electronically submits that said individual is safe to have a weapon?

I enjoy my regular trips, on business, to the States and go to a range most times. Even now I carry out NSPs on the weapon that I am about to use. It must be my time in the military where I had to submit to a twice yearly weapons handling test.

Is this something too difficult to do and maintain? Perhaps then that may assuage those liberals/huggy fluffs/people who don't like innocents getting shot and killed.

in the case of the tragedy that occurred, the parents or those whose weapon was used should be charged and tried with manslaughter and be given the maximum penalty. If this is done in all cases, perhaps it would then make those muppets, who can't keep their weapons safe, think about gun safety.

BOING 6th Aug 2015 16:44

There are two aspects of firearm training we need to consider.

The first is actually the use of the firearm ie can I hit what I am aiming at. The skill for this is fairly non-perishable, you may get a bit rusty with lack of practice but it would be apparent if you had poor skill in this area since you could be asked to make a practical demonstration of ability. This aspect checks that if you shoot your firearm you would possibly hit your target but more importantly you would not injure by-standers.

The second aspect, and the one we are really interested in here, is the ability to store, carry and use the firearm safely. Unfortunately this is much more difficult to check since a testee can easily parrot the simple rules of firearm safety to pass the test but actually totally ignore those rules for the rest of the year. I imagine that most serious gun owners would pass the test honestly and practice what they were taught but there are going to be those who forget the inconvenient rules as soon as they leave the test range and these are probably the people that would have had an accident in any case..

This is not an argument for no testing but a warning that to get the effects desired may take more thought than is imagined.


Would it be possible for say, shooting ranges, police ranges, any sort of range to have qualified personnel who carry out a yearly Weapon Handling Test on an individual. Similar to an MOT in the UK, whereby the examiner then electronically submits that said individual is safe to have a weapon?
Sorry to seem to be always suggesting problems but we should know the difficulties facing any proposal.

Installing a new firearms range is very difficult in urban and suburban areas of the US. In fact many ranges are being forced to close due to community pressure and real-estate development. The result of this is that police ranges have a very high percentage of use time and it is unlikely that range time would be available for civilian use. Police ranges might also face insurance difficulties. (However, the ranges may be available in rural areas).

After a growth period it may be that ranges would be built to specifically to cater for testing traffic. Free enterprise at work.

Another point is that actual firearms training may not be required as often as safety training and this training could simply be carried out in a classroom.

Lonewolf_50 6th Aug 2015 16:45


Originally Posted by Toadstool (Post 9072958)
Lonewolf I completely agree.

RG mentioned something interesting in the other thread about some sort of weapon handling test completed yearly.

The NRA and various local police agencies offer firearms safety and handling courses for people interested. They are quite good. Most places that will sell you a firearm know where the local courses are offered, in my experience.

I don't think anyone needs more than an initial, if it's comprehensive, and involves a couple of practical events at a local firing range.

Every rule or law that one arrives at costs something to enforce and implement. Do we want to expend the resources on a law that amounts to common sense? That becomes a philosophical and political debate in a hurry. I also don't see the rate of accidental death from these occasional cases as a big enough problem to get all draconian over.

The place to nail the educational benefits is at the point of sale. Most of firearm safety is an educational / training matter.

ExXB 8th Aug 2015 06:32

I've been angry at similar reports (kid finds Dad's loaded gun and shoots self/other) in the past. Many of these are accompanied with the news that prosecution (of the irresposible adult) isn't intended because 'the family has suffered enough)

In this case, we hear nothing about the irresponsible gun owner, just about an irresponsible system that sees three criminal charges laid agaist someone still qualified for a chidren's fare.

My god, madness reigns.

Seldomfitforpurpose 8th Aug 2015 20:50

The father should be getting a mandatory 10 stretch for being a complete and utter knob, but no doubt that does not sit well with his constitutional rights.

Land of the free or land of the seriously screwed up :suspect:

Fox3WheresMyBanana 10th Aug 2015 15:59

Reasons you might want a gun (kept in your bedroom) in the mountains - there's a large Grizzly in your kitchen

Grizzly bear shot dead inside Kimberley home - British Columbia - CBC News

n.b. for the sensitive, there's a picture of the dead bear.

flydive1 10th Aug 2015 17:43

Yes. And I hope you keep an inflated life raft in your bedroom.

Here a good reason to do it.

Heavy rain causing flooding on Lansing area roads

;)

Hempy 6th Oct 2015 05:40

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k1...sfyocs7pi.jpeg


The gun fondlers are happy with the stats, as long as they keep their 'manhood'. Don't bother..

SASless 6th Oct 2015 05:44

After a multi-year hiatus from this Forum.....I see the same cast of characters are still holding forth with the same arguments about guns, gun owners, gun laws, and so on and so forth.

Fortunately, our Laws have actually gotten a bit more lenient, violent crime has gone down as Gun Sales have gone up, and the Bamster only has about 400 days left in office and it shall take far longer than that to do away with the Second Amendment.....no matter how much the Bamster would like to see it done.

The Gun Industry must love the Bamster as its profits have soared under his Regime.

Way to go Barry....great job!

ExRAFRadar 6th Oct 2015 07:17

If only the 8 year old had a weapon on her at the time she could probably have defended herself.

Bloody stringent gun laws, they cost an 8 year old her life.

Peter-RB 6th Oct 2015 08:57

Hey,

here in the UK we have strict Gun Control laws, and any type of Pistol/handgun is banned and no one can get hold of them not even to be an Olympic Pistol shooter, in reality only the Police and the Military have side-arms type weapons,..... oh, I nearly forgot,.. a lot if not all of the Bad Guys can always get em for that special contract or job that needs doing urgently..!! :=

Hempy 6th Oct 2015 09:19


Originally Posted by SASless
After a multi-year hiatus from this Forum.....I see the same cast of characters are still holding forth with the same arguments about guns, gun owners, gun laws, and so on and so forth.

and the same number of senseless mass murders are still taking place as they were when you started your enforced 'multi-year hiatus'. How odd..

SASless 6th Oct 2015 10:12

Enforced....don't you mean by choice?

bcgallacher 6th Oct 2015 11:11

SASLESS - The number of firearm deaths seems to be reducing as the number of gun owners is also falling - the increase in sales is due to people who already possess firearms purchasing more. We in the UK seem to have the same situation. The danger to society is not the number of guns as such but the number of gun owners - a nutcase is just as dangerous whether he owns one or ten guns.

Pinky the pilot 6th Oct 2015 11:24

And the last time I read any stats of gun ownership here in Australia;

Since the Port Arthur Shootings and the subsequent tightening of Gun laws, the number of Gun owners has risen substantially and the total number of privately held firearms exceeds that which was held prior to John Howard's efforts.

I think it 'mazing!:hmm:

Oh BTW; Can anyone tell me where and how a 15 year old, unlicenced shooter can obtain a handgun which he subsequently uses to murder an innocent Civilian Police Employee?:confused:

Peter-RB 6th Oct 2015 11:35

Hey Sasless,

It seems a long time since you and I stood in a field at Whalley next to the Kirkham Huey, almost a lifetime gone by.. I hope you are keeping well...!

How easy is it to actually get a hand gun/rifle in the US, for here even for shotguns the rules are so very strict, you are really checked out re your past history, and Driving offences, even the number of speeding tickets can bar a person from holding any type of Shogun, true rifled barrelled rifles are even more strictly controlled no handguns whatsoever, down to even where will you use them, you need a Quack to certify you have had not psychotic behaviour problems EVER , also a Lawyer man who must have known you at least 10 years, the area to shoot over is checked physically, and all permissions are also checked, with any Firearm certificate you are also limited to the total amount of ammo you can buy and how much you can store, so it is really tight, do you have anything similar over the pond?

Peter RB Lancashire

SASless 6th Oct 2015 12:35

Yes it has been a very long time since those good days!

I am tickled Pink to see the Huey and Loach flying as they are and admire Phil and everyone involved in that effort as they are doing a marvelous job keeping those aircraft going and so beautiful.

Now as to your question...... "How easy is it to actually get a hand gun/rifle in the US?".

Hard question to answer really as we have Federal Laws, State Laws, County and City Ordinances that all differ and vary in their effect upon the ability of One to Legally Purchase a Rifle, Shotgun, or Pistol.

I shall limit my answer to my State alone.....for Rifles and Shotguns....all I have to do is walk into my favorite Toy Store and plunk down my money, my Drivers License, and fill out the Federal ATF Background Check Form. After I fill out and sign the form, the Clerk confirms my ID Data and verifies I have properly filled out the form. He then does an FBI National Background Check by Computer and if I am cleared by the FBI, he then records the Weapon Data with the ATF, takes my money, gives me my ID back, gives me the Rifle or Shotgun and out the Door I go.

For a Handgun purchase, I have to go down to my local Sheriff's Office (County Level Law Enforcement) apply for a Pistol Purchase Permit, wait five to eleven days for them to do a Background Check (identical to the Federal Check), then pay them Five Dollars for the Permit and proceed to the Gun Store. At the Gun Store I have to go through the exact same process as with the long guns except I have to wait three days to pick up the Hand Gun after being approved by the Federal Check.

If I have a Concealed Weapons Permit....I can do not have to have the Pistol Permit and can pick up the firearm immediately. The Back Ground check for the CCW Permit counts for the Sheriff's Background Check but I still have to be approved by the FBI.

In my State every Transfer of a Handgun....be it an inheritance, gift, loan, or sale....the Buyer must have either a CCW Permit or a Pistol Purchase Permit and a Copy must be given to the Seller/Transferer for record keeping purposes.

That means....I cannot give my Minor Nephew a Handgun until he is old enough to qualify for a Pistol Purchase Permit.

I can go to a Gun Show and buy longing with no back ground check being required if that purchase is from a private person and not a Business.

I can go out on the street and buy an illegal firearm from any criminal with no checks, records, or receipts of any kind.

Thus....you can see that no matter how careful we try to be....Criminals shall always have access to firearms just as they do in the UK. It is the Law Abiding person that is hampered by all the Laws.

ExXB 12th Oct 2015 15:27

At least the have the balls, {cough} to know what is dangerous, and what is not ...

Texas university students to protest gun law with dildos - BBC News

KenV 12th Oct 2015 20:40


Would it be possible for say, shooting ranges, police ranges, any sort of range to have qualified personnel who carry out a yearly Weapon Handling Test on an individual. Similar to an MOT in the UK, whereby the examiner then electronically submits that said individual is safe to have a weapon?
Yes this would "be possible". But it would almost certainly violate the Constitution. The constitution makes gun ownership an individual right. The government can't force someone to prove they qualify for that right, because that would be an infringement which is prohibited. The burden of proof must be on the government to prove an individual has forfeited that right, either by virtue of having committed some crime, or by virtue of incompetence. (mental or emotional disability.)

However, carrying a gun in public can be regulated. Thus in most jurisdications one must qualify for and obtain a carry permit to carry in public. In my opinion if the regulations for obtaining a permit are so onerous that it becomes on infringement then those regulations are unconstitutional. That has not yet been tested in the courts.

Seldomfitforpurpose 12th Oct 2015 21:15


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9145648)
The constitution makes gun ownership an individual right.

Didn't the Constitution once upon a time make the ownership of slaves an individual right? Did it not also once upon a time remove an individuals right to partake in alcohol?

The Constitution can be changed guys, where there is a will there is a way :ok:

chuks 13th Oct 2015 09:15

SFFP, you should take the trouble to look this sort of thing up first.

The right to own slaves was left to individual states to legislate, when some banned it, but others allowed it, when slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for legislative purposes, to the political advantage of slave-holding Southern states. Slavery later was abolished in the Confederacy by the Emancipation Proclamation issued by the Federal Government, when this was an obvious infringement of "States' Rights."

Two Constitutional amendments, the 18th and the 21st had to do with the consumption of alcohol. The 18th prohibited that between 1920 and 1933, and the 21st specifically repealed the 18th.

The problem here is that there's very little political will to amend the Constitution in a way that changes the 2nd Amendment, for reasons already discussed at great length. So while there is, of course, a way, at this time we lack the will. The pro-gun lobby is quite powerful compared to the anti-gun lobby, and various gun atrocities seem to have only a short-term effect on the national consciousness.

You could make a slight parallel with the way that there is no absolute speed limit on the German Autobahn, if you like. Every so often there is a rather grisly high-speed crash, one that might well have been prevented by such a speed limit as we have in the States, usually 55 mph, but there's no noticeable will for putting such a limit in place; the price of not having a limit is not seen as being too high. In the same way, the price of having lunatics get their hands on firearms in the States is not seen as too high.

A German looks at America and thinks that "Those Amis are crazy about guns!" and an American looks at Germany and thinks that "Those Germans are crazy about their cars!"

All that you guys commenting from abroad are achieving is to pose atop your little moral dung-heap crowing very, very loudly. Every society has its short-comings, when one very obvious one for the States is the way that we are, arguably, over-supplied with guns. We are deaf to domestic criticism on this point, effectively, yet you think that comment from outside is going to change anything?

SASless 13th Oct 2015 09:36

http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.co...tory-chart.jpg

ExXB 13th Oct 2015 09:42

Chuks.

From wiki:


The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. In Congress, it was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, and by the House on January 31, 1865. The amendment was ratified by the required number of states on December 6, 1865. On December 18, 1865, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed its adoption.

The Thirteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution 61 years after the Twelfth Amendment. This is the longest interval between constitutional amendments.

KenV 13th Oct 2015 12:19


Didn't the Constitution once upon a time make the ownership of slaves an individual right?
No, it did not. Slave ownership was never a right. It just was not prohibited by the Constitution until the 13th amendment.


The Constitution can be changed guys, where there is a will there is a way
That is true. But that's a totally different argument. The question asked was can there be "a yearly Weapon Handling Test on an individual." The answer to that question is "No, because it would violate the 2nd amendment."

If the question is "Can the 2nd amendment be repealed?" then the answer is, "Of course it can."

Which must lead to the follow up question, "Does the US electorate want the 2nd amendment repealed?" The answer to that is a very resounding NO! It has NOTHING to do with "will". The statement "where there is a will there is a way" reveals a total ignorance of the US electorate AND the way the US government is organized. Those two together make repeal of the 2nd amendment exceedingly improbable.

KenV 13th Oct 2015 12:23


Slavery later was abolished nation-wide by the Emancipation Proclamation issued by the Federal Government,
No, not really. The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY applied to the southern states which had seceded from the union. It was not until the 13th amendment that slavery was federally abolished nation-wide.

747 jock 13th Oct 2015 14:06


No, it did not. Slave ownership was never a right. It just was not prohibited by the Constitution until the 13th amendment.
If it was not a right, why then is there a section of the Constitution which basically states that anyone "held in service" escaping to another state will be returned back to the person that they were working for?
I realise that the word "slave" isn't specifically mentioned, but I can't think of another group of people who would fit the definition of people "held to service or labor"

Article IV

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
In other words, any slave that escapes shall be returned back to their rightful owner.

chuks 13th Oct 2015 14:15

Gee ....
 
I guess I should have looked that one up, eh? I forgot that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion, not to the whole of the Union. Lincoln had to be careful in moving against slavery, not to provoke slave-owning states that were pro-Union, even though the writing was on the wall for them as well. It was only in the South, though, that slavery was an essential component of their business model, pre-secession.

The South held about 3.5 million slaves in 1860, while the border states held less than 500 thousand, and the value of the slaves was often more than the value of the land and the implements on a Southern plantation, although about half of the plantations were small, with fewer than 20 slaves.

There were also indentured servants to think about: white people, usually, held in a temporary form of servitude, who had a legal obligation to continue to serve a master. They also fell under that Article IV, so that it was not just black slaves. Running away from a master was just like "jumping ship." Once you had signed or made your mark, you were property!

Part of the intent of that Proclamation must have been to practice a form of economic warfare, since much of the wealth of slave-holders was in the form of their slaves. The fact of most of those slave-holding states being in rebellion must have solved the problem of how to abolish slavery while paying compensation for loss of property. This is something that we also find in the consideration of removing guns from private ownership, of course, how to pay for all those guns.

It's easy to imagine that without secession, slave-holding might have persisted for a much longer time in the USA. It's hard to imagine something as traumatic as secession that should cause action on gun ownership, since almost all gun attacks, while individually quite awful, are isolated events, and some of the bloodiest, such as "Waco," were perpetrated by the Federal Government itself.

KenV 13th Oct 2015 17:57


If it was not a right, why then is there a section of the Constitution which basically states that anyone "held in service" escaping to another state will be returned back to the person that they were working for?
There were many forms of legal servitude at that time, some voluntary. This article simply said that anyone declared property by the laws of one state (NOT by federal law) remained property in that state despite being physically in another state. This article gave no one the right to own slaves, but enforced property rights across state lines.

KenV 13th Oct 2015 18:01


I guess I should have looked that one up, eh? I forgot that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion, not to the whole of the Union. Lincoln had to be careful in moving against slavery, not to provoke slave-owning states that were pro-Union, even though the writing was on the wall for them as well.
My interpretation is different. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order. Lincoln's authority for that order extended only to the rebellious states. He had no authority to issue such an order in the non rebellious states except on federal property within those states.

ExXB 13th Oct 2015 18:24

I cannot believe we are discussing the legality of 'ownership' of another human being.

Welcome to my ignore list.

KenV 13th Oct 2015 19:32


I cannot believe we are discussing the legality of 'ownership' of another human being. Welcome to my ignore list.
Some folks take offense at the darndest things.

chuks 13th Oct 2015 20:09

So, Ken ...
 
I guess we won't be sending Mr X an "If I had known this was going to happen, I would have picked my own cotton!" tee-shirt for Christmas, huh?

You are probably correct, about the Emancipation Proclamation.

Should we tell him about Juneteeth, "Watermelon Day"? Liberals ... huh.

KenV 13th Oct 2015 21:22


Well, glad to see the usual lefties ready to pronounce inanimate objects as evil and spontaneously aroused to murder and mayhem.
I must own some exceptionally lazy firearms. None of mine, not a one, have ever taken it upon them selves to find something/someone to shoot or pulled their own triggers. Should I be concerned?

obgraham 13th Oct 2015 22:49


Originally Posted by ExXB (Post 9146590)
I cannot believe we are discussing the legality of 'ownership' of another human being.

Must be great to live in a country so sure of its purity that it has never felt the need to discuss or question any of its past history.

con-pilot 13th Oct 2015 23:16


Originally Posted by obgraham (Post 9146856)
Must be great to live in a country so sure of its purity that it has never felt the need to discuss or question any of its past history.

Noticed that as well did you. ;)

419 13th Oct 2015 23:43


I cannot believe we are discussing the legality of 'ownership' of another human being.
What is wrong with discussing something that happened 250-300 years ago? something that at the time was accepted by a fair few people worldwide.

Many countries had a slave trade,
Many countries had the death penalty or transportation to penal colonies for the most minor of offences,
Many countries had work houses where people worked and died in almost slave like conditions,
Not to mention the tens of thousands (possibly millions), killed in the crusades.
Etc
Etc.

Discussing history, however bad that history, isn't a bad thing if it helps people learn from the mistakes of the time.

con-pilot 13th Oct 2015 23:49


Originally Posted by 419 (Post 9146892)
What is wrong with discussing something that happened 250-300 years ago? something that at the time was accepted by a fair few people worldwide.

Many countries had a slave trade,
Many countries had the death penalty or transportation to penal colonies for the most minor of offences,
Many countries had work houses where people worked and died in almost slave like conditions,
Not to mention the tens of thousands (possibly millions), killed in the crusades.
Etc
Etc.

Discussing history, however bad that history, isn't a bad thing if it helps people learn from the mistakes of the time.

I agree with you 100 percent, to ignore history is to repeat that history.

Tragically the world is repeating the evil of slavery today.

Slavery Today Free the Slaves


There are tens of millions of people trapped in various forms of slavery throughout the world today. Researchers estimate that 21 to 36 million are enslaved worldwide, generating $150 billion each year in illicit profits for traffickers.
I wonder what these poor slaves of today think about gun control?

Seldomfitforpurpose 14th Oct 2015 06:19


Originally Posted by con-pilot (Post 9146895)
I wonder what these poor slaves of today think about gun control?

Possibly something along the lines of 'if that guy controlling us did not have access to a gun my family and I could probably get away' and no doubt that's what they thought 250 years or so ago 👍


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:24.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.