From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Rehashed idea?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Oct30.161948.26760@cci632.cci.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:12:24 GMT

<In article <1992Oct30.161948.26760@cci632.cci.com> sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:

<	   I've gotten quite a bit of email on this, and have read all of
<   the followups.  Most of them have brought up legitimate holes, some
<   of which I knew before I posted.  I never said this was a perfect
<   solution, only another possibility that I thought would at least be
<   more useful than the Brady Bill (at least it requires the person
<   purchasing a particular firearm to receive training in the safe use
<   of that firearm.  This is something that *I* believe is a must.  You
<   are free to disagree.)  Maybe its just too much coffee, but this post just 
<   pushed the wrong button.

	What problem is solved by this, please?

 <  In article <1992Oct28.190941.17313@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
 <  >In article <1992Oct23.162834.28957@cci632.cci.com> sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:
 <  >>
 <  >>	Has anyone ever considered the idea of firearm licensing?
 <  >
 <  >	Only about 478,393,661 times, why?

<	   I haven't seen it before.  


<I realize that doesn't mean it hasn't
<   happened, just that I haven't seen it.  Since I was unaware that such a
<   discussion had occurred before, I thought it might be an interesting
<   topic of discussion.  Anything wrong with that?

	If one is going to comment on current law and "solutions"
	to the "gun problem", it is wise to know what the law
	is and what has been tried (and failed...) before.

<   >>	IMHO, this has several advantages:
<   >>
<   >>	1) ...an automobile license requires the individual
<   >>	   to take a course in the proper use of the vehicle (I think
<   >>	   it's 4 hours, now) and take both a written and a usage test.
<   >>	   This way, if the course and tests are structured properly,
<   >>	   it can be guaranteed that the person knows how to use the
<   >>	   firearm safely.
<   >
<   >	One need not take a test to buy a car.  A 10 year old child
<   >	could buy a car.  The parallel you have attempted to draw fails
<   >	completely on this point.

<	   True, but one does have to take a test to DRIVE that car, and
<   I think the police might frown on the 10 year old driving without a
<   license.  

	Not on private land, as has been pointed out on t.p.g.
	at least 50 times since June 1, 1992.

<Does this mean the 10 year old shouldn't be able to buy a
<   car?  No, but obviously he won't be able to enjoy it much without
<   adult help (and what parent would hand the keys to a car over to a 
<   10 year old without being around anyway?  Sounds a little irresponsible
<   to me.)

	Shrug. Name a place in the US where anyone under the age of
	18 can legally buy a firearm.

	Name a place in the US where anyone under the age of 21
	can legally buy a handgun.

<   >>	2) Different classes for different types of firearms (ie,
<   >>	   shotguns, rifles, pistols,....all the way up to full
<   >>	   automatics! :-) with the appropriate courses and tests for
<   >>	   each classification.
<   >
<   >	Justification?  A gun is a gun is a gun.  If you know how to safely
<   >	handle one, you know how to safely handle them all, particulars of
<   >	each type's safety systems aside.

<	   So taking my Austrailian SMLE apart is the same as my .357 King
<   Cobra?  Reloading my SMLE is the same as reloading my King Cobra?  I
<   assume you also think that a pump shotgun works the same as a Glock, and
 <  that their means of acheiving their intended goal is exactly the same, right?
 <  Also, do you hold your pistol the same way you hold your rifle?

	The safety rules are the same. 

<	   The principles may be the same, but the execution can be different.

	What is this classification intended to "solve", please?

	If the answer is "firearms accidents that are fatal",
	just how many of those occur per year, please?

   >>	4) Revenue.  Enough said. (When has the government ever been
<   >>	   reluctant to take money from our pockets? :-)
<   >
<   >	And you are advocating they take MORE??  Are you nuts or just a
<   >	Communist? 1/2 :)

<	   Well, if I was Communist I would have switched the word "people"
<   for "government".  :-)

	The power to tax is the power to destroy....

<   >>	5) In a similar vein as automobiles, have the appropriate
<   >>	   penalties for the misuse, or unlicensed use, of firearms.
<   >
<   >	This is almost not worth dignifying with an answer.  There are already
<   >	hundreds, if not thousands of laws that deal with misuse of firearms.
<   >	Adding more to the heap will not do anything to help any perceived
<   >	problems associated with such misuse if the courts are not willing
<   >	to impose proper sentencing for such crimes.

<	   Ok, I wasn't very clear here.  How about SIMILAR stiffening of
<   the penalties, LIKE what has been done for drunk driving?
	
	What are the penalties for killing someone else
	with a firearm? Are they greater than drunk driving?

	Federal law (passed by NRA in 1986) madates a 5-YEAR
	Federal prison term for anyone who commits a "drug
	crime" while possessing a firearm.

	Bartley-Fox in Mass. mandates a 1-year prison term
	for merely possessing an unlicensed firearm.

	Again, commenting on the current law suggests that
	one know what the law is...

<   >>	The problems, as I see them, would be:
<   >>
<   >>	1) What do you do about all the people that currently own
<   >>	   firearms? (My throw on this is to give them 12-18 months
<   >>	   from the time the program is put into action to get a
<   >>	   license.  A "probation period", if you will.  If they've
<   >>	   been practicing proper technique, it shouldn't be difficult
<   >>	   for them to pass the tests.)
<   >>
<   >>	2) Licensing requirements.  What should be included in the
<   >>	   requirements, and who should define what they should be?
<   >>	   The state?  The feds?  The state with fed guidelines?
<   >
<   >	Defacto gun bans can be easily instituted this way.  Make the
<   >	tests too hard, too expensive, or simply refuse to offer the
<   >	classes and tests.

<	   So what's the difference? 

	The difference between a gun ban and no ban should be
	obvious.

<I'll grant this, but we have to watch 
<them real close now, too.  

	That is a given. How does handing more power to
	the enemies of freedom "solve" anything?

<And it's not like they couldn't make it
<   real difficult for us using the existing laws, either.

	Explain, please?

<   >>
<   >>My intent was to introduce an idea (or rehash an old one)
<   >>that I think is more useful than the Brady Bill.  
<   >
<   >	Well, as I have said several times in the past, there should be no
<   >	requirements for buying ANY firearm except that you are not currently
<   >	under criminal debt and have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent.
<   >	The only type of gun that should be illegal to possess is one that is
<   >	stolen property.

<	   While I agree with the stolen property bit, I must disagree with
<   the rest.  How do you judge mental incompetence, and who should judge?
	
	A judge, obviously, in a hearing. That's what 
	"adjudicated mentally incompetent" *means*, by
	definition.

<  Should all who are receiving psychological therapy be banned from owning
<   a firearm, or just a few?  What about people who have received treatment,
<   and have been pronounced "cured" by their therapist?  Should my right
<   to arms be removed if I get a speeding ticket?  What about a parking
<   ticket?

	Ironic it is, that a proponent of licensing is concerned
	about these issues, especially the last two; such pickiune
	things have been used by bureaucrats in police uniforms
	to decline applications for firearms permits.

<	   I must also say that *some* form of mandatory firearms education
<   *is* required.  

	Why, please?

<While I think people have the right to own a gun, I've
<   seen far too many people handle weapons recklessly.  Most often these are
<   people that own a cabinet full of firearms, and have never received any
<   form of training beyond the simple stuff the dealer voluntarily gives
<   when the guy purchases the firearm.  This, IMHO, is not sufficient.

	Do you often generalize about people you do not know,
	or only some?

<   >	I also do not believe that a licensing system would accomplish
<   >	anything of value to this society and wopuld potentially be very
<   >	harmful.  When laws regarding the misuse of firearms are properly
<   >	formulated and enforced, the vast majority of the problems generally
<   >	cited (however distortedly) by the anti-gun lobby would disappear.

<	   Maybe you can believe the anti-gun lobby will wither away like the
<   Wicked Witch of the West, but I can't.  

	SOME people seem to believe that the anti-freedom lobby
	can be bought off by giving up our rights a bit at a time.

	This is similar to the old Russian sleigh ride; perhaps
	we should throw  "owners of Colt Pythons" to the wolf
	pack next?

<They'll find something else to
<   fight with (let me give you a little hint:  Try the word "accident".)

	HINT: The number of fatal firearms accidents is lower
	now than it has been for over 30 years.

	Question: how many such accidents occured in 1990?


< No, I wasn't being simplistic.  I understood several of these points
<before posting.  I wrote in a simplistic fashion in order to try to get
<people to *discuss* this or other possibilities.  I suppose I *was* naive for 
<expecting so much.

	Given that licensing and registration have been abused
	in such places as Rhode Island, New York City, Cincinniti,
	Ohio, Kalifornia and so forth (all examples from the 1970's
	and/or 1980's, btw) it is naive to expect that a proposal
	to make such abuse nationwide would be welcomed.

<Mandatory firearms training should be required.
<   I've watched too many people at the local gun shops handle the weapons
<   poorly (and allow their *kids* to handle them poorly, too.  I watched a
<   kid pick a .22 out of a rack and point it directly at his brother.  The
<   father just watched.  It made me sick.)  These people are nothing but an
<   accident waiting for a place to happen, and I *certainly* don't want them
<   happening around me.

	Mandatory training will "solve" this problem?


<	   Ok, the licensing bit was a bit extreme, but I can't see how
<   to get around the training issue.  As it is I hate to go to the range
<   on weekends.  Not because its crowded, but because I simply do not
<   feel safe around some of the people out there.  Granted, its not everyone
<   that needs this type of training, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the
<   ones who know how to handle their firearms to get a refresher once in
<   a while, too.

	And when the only refresher course offered in NY State
	is scheduled once per year, with 20 slots open and
	one must apply in person in Albany to take it....that
	won't bother Owens, now will it?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns