Do you support the second amendment?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We are not looking for iron-clad guarantees. It is enough if the certification raises the overall awareness and knowledge about safety issues

you just keep moving the bar

again this is the issue in a nut shell, i say ok mandatory training in school for all gun owners and non-gun owners and you come back with well i want re-training every so many years and now…
its certification.

i can have training without having to be re-trained later and i can have training without a pilot like certification which requires a review every 2 years

Strawman argument. I have not insisted on anything. I have proposed various things just to see what you guys find acceptable. So far none of the things I have proposed have you guys found acceptable. The only thing your side allows in mandatory training for everyone is school, with no requirement for anything at all after that. That does not answer my concerns about ensuring that all gun owners are trained. I have never moved the bar beyond that. I have not insisted on recurrent training. Recurrent certification - just passing a test - is acceptable, and always has been acceptable to me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We are not looking for iron-clad guarantees. It is enough if the certification raises the overall awareness and knowledge about safety issues. And it can do that. Just look at what pilot certification has done to the general aviation accident rate.

Can we start with certifying the gun ownership by criminals?

I think criminals are already very aware of how to secure their guns and avoid accidents. But why “start” with any one subset of gun owners? Why not make gun ownership without certification of safety training illegal? If you catch a criminal with a gun and he has no certification, then you have one more count you can add to his indictment (not that it matters, since his crime is probably a more serious count.) Remember, the suggestion about safety certification is not intended to stop crime. It is intended to stop accidents. And incidentally to make legal guns harder to steal, which ultimately has some effect on the supply of guns among criminals.

 

[upant]

upant:

LeafByNiggle:

If the so called “gun-grabbers” were to agree to having gun safety training classes in high school, would you agree to making such training a requirement for owning a gun?

you would not need the requirement if you make your safety classes required to pass the 9th grade (or some grade level)

In other fields with educational requirements, there are requirements for recurrent training, or at least recurrent testing. For example: drivers licenses, pilot licenses, medical licenses. There is no guarantee that someone who passed a course in the 9th grade learning how to handle 22mm. pistols and rifles is necessarily qualified to safely handle the plasma weapons (phasors?) of the 22nd century. Recurrent training is a must!

I have not insisted on recurrent training.

except you did above

now don’t feel bad this is the classic gun control strategy a little at a time

 

[JonNC]

I think criminals are already very aware of how to secure their guns and avoid accidents. But why “start” with any one subset of gun owners? Why not make gun ownership without certification of safety training illegal?

What percentage of gun incidents are the result of accidents, or negligent discharges? What percentage of law abiding gun owners are involved in these types of accidents or negligent discharges?

 

[JonNC]

Remember, the suggestion about safety certification is not intended to stop crime. It is intended to stop accidents. And incidentally to make legal guns harder to steal, which ultimately has some effect on the supply of guns among criminals.

So, once the certification is completed, all government records are expunged?
If not, then it appears that the real reason is a backdoor registry of gun owners. Registration is always a precursor for confiscation

 

[Theo520]

I’m not. I support voluntary buy-backs. So the rest of your post is moot.

buy-backs have proven to be a consistent waste of public money.

 

[JonNC]

Vonsalza:

I’m not. I support voluntary buy-backs. So the rest of your post is moot.

buy-backs have proven to be a consistent waste of public money.

It is an unconscionable misuse of public money.

 

[upant]

buy-backs have proven to be a consistent waste of public money.

all the state has to do is resell the guns and get some of the money back. depending on what is turned in they may turn a profit

 

[Theo520]

all the state has to do is resell the guns and get some of the money back. depending on what is turned in they may turn a profit

These programs are obligated to destroy what people turn in, and most of it is junk. The good stuff is mostly sold for above the ‘buy back’ price to interested buyers

Gun Buybacks Mostly a Waste of Time and Money, Experts Say

Weapon-buyback programs fail to get the right guns out of the wrong hands. Eliza Shapiro reports.

www.thedailybeast.com

Or this commentary is to the point

Let’s consider what we do know. While no peer-reviewed research proves buybacks prevent or reduce violent crime, there are studies demonstrating their ineffectiveness. For example, SUNY Buffalo State researchers analyzed the impact of five gun buybacks held from 2007-2012 and found that they do not work. In a recent news article related to gun buybacks, one of the researchers, Scott W. Phillips, an associate professor of criminal justice said, “Does it work? No…Should they keep doing it? I wouldn’t bother wasting their time.”

A separate study of buybacks in Milwaukee County concluded, “Handguns recovered in buyback programs are not the types most commonly linked to firearm homicides and suicides. Although buyback programs may increase awareness of firearm violence, limited resources for firearm injury prevention may be better spent in other ways.” Hint, enforce the laws we already have on the books and arrest and incarcerate those who criminally misuse firearms. Full article

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

But until an accident like I described happens . . .

.
Nobody wants or likes accidents.

But you do not surrender your Constitutional Rights founded upon accidents.

Accidents occur with police and military too.

If you want to disarm anyone (even incrementally) you disarm Governments based upon accidents (who do NOT have this right written into the Constitution).

I think that would be a bad idea for you to carry out, but if you insist on stripping away firearms rights (again. Even incrementally), begin with Governments–not citizens.

Then after you are done with that . . . THEN . . . come to the honest law-abiding citizens and perhaps we will THEN have the discussion.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

I have not insisted on recurrent training.

.
Why WOULDN’T you insist on that?

One firearm may operate substantially different from another. Five years from now there will undoubtedly be more changes at least with SOME firearms.

WHY try to impose certification at all and NOT do follow ups?

The fact is, if a citizen is arming himself (herself), it’s THEIR decision on how best to train and the need to re-train or practice. Not beaurocrats.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:

But until an accident like I described happens . . .
.
Nobody wants or likes accidents.

No, you change the Constitution first.

Accidents occur with police and military too.

If you want to disarm anyone (even incrementally) you disarm Governments based upon accidents (who do NOT have this right written into the Constitution).

I think that would be a bad idea for you to carry out, but if you insist on stripping away firearms rights (again. Even incrementally), begin with Governments–not citizens.

Disarming the government would be exponentially worse than disarming the citizenry.

LeafbyNiggle:

I have not insisted on recurrent training.

If someone fails the certification, they could certainly take training and try the test again.

The fact is, if a citizen is arming himself (herself), it’s THEIR decision on how best to train and the need to re-train or practice. Not beaurocrats.

Since their decision affects more that just themselves, it is the business of government to decide what sort of certification is necessary.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

No, you change the Constitution first.

Nope.

The Constitution stays put.

I have learned from our founding Fathers. Preserve our Constitutional freedoms.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

Since their decision affects more that just themselves . . .

.
As does infringing upon the Constitutional Rights of the citizenry.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

upant:

LeafByNiggle:

If the so called “gun-grabbers” were to agree to having gun safety training classes in high school, would you agree to making such training a requirement for owning a gun?

you would not need the requirement if you make your safety classes required to pass the 9th grade (or some grade level)

In other fields with educational requirements, there are requirements for recurrent training, or at least recurrent testing. For example: drivers licenses, pilot licenses, medical licenses. There is no guarantee that someone who passed a course in the 9th grade learning how to handle 22mm. pistols and rifles is necessarily qualified to safely handle the plasma weapons (phasors?) of the 22nd century. Recurrent training is a must!

I have not insisted on recurrent training.

except you did above

now don’t feel bad this is the classic gun control strategy a little at a time

When I wrote that about recurrent training, the prospect of certification testing was not on the table. But later I softened my position to propose certification in lieu of training. If I am moving the bar, I am moving it in your favor. Why complain?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:

No, you change the Constitution first.

You should also learn from our founding Fathers how they explicitly provided for a means to amend the constitution. If they intending that the constitution never be changed, they would not have written into the constitution how it could be changed.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

If someone fails the certification, they could certainly take training and try the test again.

.
This is a straw-man argument LeafbyNiggle.

Why?

Because I wasn’t alluding to people who “failed” the test.

I was alluding to people who PASSED the test.

And if they obtain a differing type of firearm, say five years down the line, people like you, will be clamoring for MORE rules, regulations, certifications, and other infringements.

And when another layer of more infringements occur, gun-grabbers who (before) have suggested THIS is where they will finally be satisfied, are nowhere to be found.

Why?

Because they will never be satisfied until the citizenry is transformed into subjects.

Because thinking as our forefathers did in this realm, is inimical to them.

MORE GOVERNMENT is what these people always want.

Political messianism.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

You should also learn from our founding Fathers how they explicitly provided for a means to amend the constitution.

No. The gun-grabbers should learn.

When Senator Feinstein says she wants (at least some gun) banning with 51 votes, how many liberals came out and said. . . .

.

“Well ACTUALLY Senator Feinstein, you need two-thirds of a Congressional vote, ratified by three-fourths of the states.”

.

Go ahead and show me a post where YOU said anything close to that LeafbyNiggle.

You know and I know it didn’t happen.

Why?

I can’t speak for you but from actions of others (which are louder than words) it is because of political expediency.

They are willing to sacrifice our Constitutional heritage that our forefathers bequeathed to us (often with their blood), for their “political-whims-de-jour”.

And I’ll have no part of that.

 

[Cathoholic]

By the way. I think the same is true concerning illegal search and seizure, freedom of speech, the freedom from housing military personnel in our homes, etc. etc.

You do NOT surrender your Constitutional Rights.

 

[upant]

If I am moving the bar, I am moving it in your favor. Why complain?

because the gun control organizations are on record stating that they will take away just a little at a time until their goal is achieved. pushing the ball uphill to break it loose helps it roll downhill faster and longer, once moved it can easy go the other way.

it is also von’s argument, some guns are already restricted what’s one more.

first it was the auto,then the semi for a while, next the bolt action will be targeted then no need for a gun at all.

not one inch