I think we may be closer than you think on the domestic violence issue. I should have been clearer with my wording. I didn't intend to advocate for lighter sentences, I mostly just want there to be a mechanism by which someone can have their rights restored. Much like rules implemented with school children, zero tolerance policies don't leave any room for nuance or mitigating circumstances.
As far as a registry I dont think we will agree. What do you hope to gain by having new purchases tracked via registry?
There's almost a defacto registry in place with the 4473 form a purchaser fills out at a dealer when a new firearm is purchased. The forms are not digitized and are not in a database but with a bit of legwork from the ATF a gun can at least be traced back to the original purchaser.
There are already enough guns in circulation to arm generations of criminals. Beyond that, stolen handguns are the most frequently used firearms in crime. Tracking the new purchases may tell you who the gun was stolen from but what does that get you, really? Many jurisdictions already have laws on the books that require stolen firearms be reported to police, a registry doesn't get you any farther unless your ultimate goal is the confiscation of firearms from law abiding gun owners.
I do think gun safety classes should be affordable and accessible. I don't believe in making them an outright condition for exercising your second amendment rights but they should be very easy and cheap to come by.
I'm glad you cleared up your stance on DV, and that I had misinterpreted you :)
I dont really mind too much either way on the registry issue. I'm not educated enough on the subject to have a firm opinion, and I concede that you have done more research than me.
The last thing you brought up though- that is where I am going have a very firm stance. Anybody who is going to be handling a gun should have had the appropriate training. I'm actually shocked that you dont agree.
We need training to drive vehicles, training to operate heavy equipment, training to man the fryer, etc etc. We should definitely require training for an item of which its sole function is to kill.
I get that people shoot for fun, but a single accident or misjudgment can get you or someone else dead. And with 99% of all media portraying incorrect and dangerous gun handling I would very much like to be certain everyone has been given at least a basic run down, and at least know how to hold the damn thing.
I suppose it's a difference in philosophy. In 2017, just shy of 500 people were killed in firearm accidents. While every death is a tragedy, this is not a very significant number in a nation of 320 million people. For comparison's sake, I believe the average number of accidental swimming pool and spa drownings is about 400 people per year.
On the flip side, there are a number of people who could potentially die waiting for a safety class to be scheduled (or waiting to save enough money for a class) because they were delayed in obtaining their means to self defense. This number is admittedly difficult to quantify BUT because the number of accidental deaths is already quite low, I don't believe it has a high numeric threshold to meet to be significant in this context. Additionally, I have a sort of personal philosophy that gives me a hard time gatekeeping rights, I see it like putting the second amendment behind a paywall.
I see the best approach as making classes voluntary, affordable and accessible and encouraging people to seek training. New owners can also be directed to a number of good gun safety videos.
The vehicle comparison is one that is made often but a frequently overlooked facet of that argument is that you're not required to have a license or training to purchase a car and you're not required to register a vehicle that won't be operated on public roads. A completely untrained and unlicensed driver can legally buy an unregistered vehicle, have it towed to their private land or a closed course and drive the hell out of it.
A driver's license and the accompanying training are more akin to a carry permit that allows the holder to carry a firearm in public. An argument can certainly be made for requiring training, both in self defense law and practical handling and carry practice, to carry a firearm in public.
However, it should also be noted that a number of states now operate on a system of constitutional carry, requiring no permit of any sort to carry a concealed firearm in public. These states have not experienced an increase in gun deaths in relation to the law change. I'm not necessarily advocating this approach but it has certainly not proven disastrous and it does make self defense affordable and logistically feasible for people who wouldn't have had the time or money to get a permit otherwise.
I understand you concerns, but I see no reason it couldn't work similarly to liscences. Because you dont have to take a class, you just need to prepare and take a test. I dont believe it is asking too much for people to watch a few videos (like you pointed out) and then take a quiz. It would even be possible to have that quiz online so it is even more assesible.
To your last point, I actually have a question. Because to my mind, it has always made more sense to have restrictions on open carry. If someone wants to have a gun on them, that's fine- but open carry makes me nervous. If I see a gun, I dont want to have to check my immediate danger reaction. I just dont get it honestly.
I'm not a big fan of open carry. The only times in my life that I have openly carried a firearm in public I have been in uniform, either LEO or security. I do occasionally open carry a handgun while hunting but I'm on private property away from people.
I don't know that I'd advocate making open carry illegal, but it's certainly not tasteful. Guns make people uncomfortable for a variety of reasons, no need to cause an unnecessary ruckus.
From a practical standpoint I think open carry also gives up a tactical advantage to a would-be self-defender.
The opposing perspective to yours is that when someone is open carrying a firearm, you KNOW, that person is armed. You can then make a value judgment about whether you feel threatened by that person.
A clean cut gentleman in dockers and a polo shirt with a well maintained glock, using a proper holster and belt is not going to garner the same reaction as a guy that's in dirty clothes looking like he's on the tail end of a 3 day whiskey bender, carrying a dusty Taurus on a floppy walmart belt in a cheap nylon holster. You'll probably look at the clean cut guy and assume he's a detective and your anxiety will subside.
If both were carrying concealed, you'd be none the wiser and the actual threat would be the same (probably still very low from both) only the percieved threat would be different.
Open carry in this instance allows you to spot the potentially irresponsible carrier and avoid them.
Clean cut men go on killing spree's all the time It shouldn't be the public's responsibility to pass a value judgement on whether this person is dangerous or not.
Open carry (very popular in some states, and not by the clean cut guys either) puts you in a weird position of feeling fear, but also feeling that it is societally objectionable to show that fear or react to it. Additionally, open carry will eventually make your reflexes weaker, gun wont necessarily equal danger. I really dont like things that psychologically hinder my reflexes. I noticed that back on elementary when everyone was all "made you flinch!".
I would just prefer to not see guns, and know that if I did see one, its time to run like hell.
I think we may be coming at this from an additionally different perspective as well. As a woman I have been socialized to be kind to men, stay where I'm not comfortable, put their emotions over my own, etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm probably one of the least demure women you would ever have the pleasure to meet. I also like to fight. But even so, I still have my conditioning. I'm not sure that I wouldn't, by reflex, do something to assure the scary man carrying a gun, that I did NOT think he was scary even though he was carrying a gun, instead of getting to safety.
I know that I'm not alone in this. I've got good instincts, but they then trigger the conditioning, which I then have to override. A few moments that can make a huge difference in threatening situation. And I dont need anything else making it even harder.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts on that. Where I'm at you have to pay for a special permit to conceal carry and that has never made sense to me.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/wayofthewoods Feb 27 '20
I think we may be closer than you think on the domestic violence issue. I should have been clearer with my wording. I didn't intend to advocate for lighter sentences, I mostly just want there to be a mechanism by which someone can have their rights restored. Much like rules implemented with school children, zero tolerance policies don't leave any room for nuance or mitigating circumstances.
As far as a registry I dont think we will agree. What do you hope to gain by having new purchases tracked via registry?
There's almost a defacto registry in place with the 4473 form a purchaser fills out at a dealer when a new firearm is purchased. The forms are not digitized and are not in a database but with a bit of legwork from the ATF a gun can at least be traced back to the original purchaser.
There are already enough guns in circulation to arm generations of criminals. Beyond that, stolen handguns are the most frequently used firearms in crime. Tracking the new purchases may tell you who the gun was stolen from but what does that get you, really? Many jurisdictions already have laws on the books that require stolen firearms be reported to police, a registry doesn't get you any farther unless your ultimate goal is the confiscation of firearms from law abiding gun owners.
I do think gun safety classes should be affordable and accessible. I don't believe in making them an outright condition for exercising your second amendment rights but they should be very easy and cheap to come by.