Fourteen things everyone should understand. Particularly journalists.
14 thoughts on “Guns”
None of this is ever going to make any difference to me because I live in the UK where permits for just about any type of firearm except a shotgun (a little easier) are just about impossible to get. In fact, I would be very much in favour of legalising gun ownership in the UK with one proviso; proper training ought to be compulsory – training of a difficulty at least on a par with training for a driving license. After all, although cars can and do kill people under incompetent or intoxicated control they aren’t actually designed to do so; guns are. But it simply isn’t going to happen.
I would also like to offer a caveat to the often-repeated mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. In fact, although it doesn’t happen often, a gun can kill someone if it is particularly dirty, badly maintained, old and and in poor condition (such as badly worn internal parts) or partially blocked. I suspect that many guns, those kept in bedside cabinets “just in case” for example, are in fairly dangerous condition.
Sure, keeping your firearm in good condition is common sense. Unfortunately, common sense isn’t actually all that common.
But Britain was a much safer place when anyone could buy a gun over the counter with no questions asked, and carry it if they had ten shillings to buy a license from the Post Office. Admittedly that was before the rise of institutionalized enstupidification in the government schools.
The main reason I haven’t bought a gun since moving to Canada is that I’d have to find time and money to do all the training required here. Well, that and because I expect the next lefty government to ban Tavors for being ‘ugly, nasty, baby-killing guns’.
I agree with licensing of the gun owner to the same standard as a drivers license holder, a gun can be as deadly as a car if controlled by an idiot.
I think you’re wrong about there being a significant danger from guns being “dirty, badly maintained, old and in poor condition (such as badly worn internal parts) or partially blocked” kept in a drawer and rarely used they’ll age very slowly, if used often the user is going to get to know their firearm and maintain it. partially blocked how? Chucked into a muddy puddle and not cleaned??
licensing of the gun owner to the same standard as a drivers license holder
What does that even mean? Firing a gun has very little in common with driving a car.
The gun-control lobby uses that line all the time. If they were serious, they would describe the sort of training they want instead of using a vague, meaningless analogy. (Of course, that would require actual knowledge of guns.)
There is *no* requirement that drivers to be licensed in order to operate an automobile. Driver’s licenses are required to operate automobiles *on public roads*, but you can drive whatever you like on your own property. There are plenty of farm kids who learn to drive tractors before they get their licenses.
So, if we applied “the same standard,” the law would only apply if you intend to fire your gun on public property — which I suspect is not the standard you are hoping for.
I think the article covers the skills that gun owners should have quite nicely, there are 6 to 7 hundred accidental gun deaths in the US each year, each obviously a result of someone not handling a gun with the care the article advocates.
there are 6 to 7 hundred accidental gun deaths in the US each year
600-700? Do you have any idea how many deaths automobile accidents account for? (Remember, that’s the “standard” you aspire to.)
Gun accidents account for 0.2 deaths per 100,000 people — a rate that has been dropping for decades.
Auto accidents account for 10.7 deaths per 100,000 people.
So much for scare talk. Contrary to anti-gun propaganda, safety training is already available to the general public, and it works. Better than driver’s ed, apparently.
I think the article covers the skills that gun owners should have quite nicely
The article did not claim that gun owners lack adequate training. You did. But you can’t say what training you would consider adequate?
FYI, many Americans who are already trained in gun handling and safety by the government. They’re called police officers. Since they’re trained to government standards, they must be safer than civilians, right?
Wrong. The accident rate for police officers is appreciably *higher* than the rate for civilians.
One minor nitpick, I believe police officers are also civilians, as they do not serve in the military.
Which then means I don’t understand the constitutionality of allowing police officers access to full auto weapons that the main populace doesn’t have.
The problem with that approach is that cars on private property don’t usually stray onto public roads unless the driver makes them do so. The same applies to guns – but not to bullets.
This reminds me of a fairly recent case in which a householder defended his property (a suburban house) from an intruder, using a gun. He fired six or seven times and hit the intruder once. Where did all the other bullets go?
He fired six or seven times and hit the intruder once. Where did all the other bullets go?
And a government-mandated course would change that, how? Do you think police officers, who are trained by the government, always hit their targets?
Bullets are not dogs or horses. They don’t “stray.” They follow precise trajectories determined by the laws of physics and the operator’s inputs — just like cars.
You present a false dichotomy: government-mandated training versus no training. (Much like those who assume it’s either government space exploration and no space exploration.) In fact, there’s a wide range of options offered by the private sector. And they work — as shown by the fact that armed civilians are *less* likely to miss, hit the wrong personal, or shoot themselves than government-trained police officers.
You started this discussion by acknowledging have no experience with guns. If you were wise you would have stopped there. Instead, you offer opinions on what gun laws should be. Rather like someone who has never driven a car going off on traffic laws.
Unfortunately, that’s the usual pattern in gun control debates.
That’s the point, isn’t it? “If used often”. How many are?
I confess to having little or no data about the prevalence of ancient weapons lying around (great-grandad’s WWII issue pistol, great-great-grandad’s WWI issue rifle that he “lost” before demobilisation…) but there must be some. Yes, I know really old guns are valuable but they also aren’t as robust as modern ones even if in brand-new condition. I remember reading somewhere that modern shotgun shells shouldn’t be used in 19th century weapons, for example.
Of course, you need the right ammunition for older guns. That does not mean they’re in any way defective — they just aren’t designed for modern powder. But you’re talking 1800’s, not World War II. I have a Winchester 1866 carbine and an 1873 Single Action Army revolver. Neither is chambered for modern ammunition, but with the right cartridges, they’re as reliable as any modern design.
But not many people buy such guns to keep by the side of their bed.
Maybe you should stop offering opinions on a subject which you acknowledge having no experience with?
Or if your new shells are steel shot rather than lead. Don’t want to ruin the barrel of your antique.
I am not a gun smith but I think most of the things you were talking about happen when a gun is used but not cleaned.
I don’t know who to listen to, people who don’t know anything about guns or a smoking hot gun nut.
“I’ve been carrying a pistol for most of my adult life. I have lived in three states during that time, one of which had a mandatory training class and qualification course (TN) and two which did not (GA and IN). I have not observed any noticeable difference in the quality of shooting ability, legal knowledge, or safe gun handling among the populations of the three states.”
I guess someone could do a study or google the stats state by state.
None of this is ever going to make any difference to me because I live in the UK where permits for just about any type of firearm except a shotgun (a little easier) are just about impossible to get. In fact, I would be very much in favour of legalising gun ownership in the UK with one proviso; proper training ought to be compulsory – training of a difficulty at least on a par with training for a driving license. After all, although cars can and do kill people under incompetent or intoxicated control they aren’t actually designed to do so; guns are. But it simply isn’t going to happen.
I would also like to offer a caveat to the often-repeated mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. In fact, although it doesn’t happen often, a gun can kill someone if it is particularly dirty, badly maintained, old and and in poor condition (such as badly worn internal parts) or partially blocked. I suspect that many guns, those kept in bedside cabinets “just in case” for example, are in fairly dangerous condition.
Sure, keeping your firearm in good condition is common sense. Unfortunately, common sense isn’t actually all that common.
But Britain was a much safer place when anyone could buy a gun over the counter with no questions asked, and carry it if they had ten shillings to buy a license from the Post Office. Admittedly that was before the rise of institutionalized enstupidification in the government schools.
The main reason I haven’t bought a gun since moving to Canada is that I’d have to find time and money to do all the training required here. Well, that and because I expect the next lefty government to ban Tavors for being ‘ugly, nasty, baby-killing guns’.
I agree with licensing of the gun owner to the same standard as a drivers license holder, a gun can be as deadly as a car if controlled by an idiot.
I think you’re wrong about there being a significant danger from guns being “dirty, badly maintained, old and in poor condition (such as badly worn internal parts) or partially blocked” kept in a drawer and rarely used they’ll age very slowly, if used often the user is going to get to know their firearm and maintain it. partially blocked how? Chucked into a muddy puddle and not cleaned??
licensing of the gun owner to the same standard as a drivers license holder
What does that even mean? Firing a gun has very little in common with driving a car.
The gun-control lobby uses that line all the time. If they were serious, they would describe the sort of training they want instead of using a vague, meaningless analogy. (Of course, that would require actual knowledge of guns.)
There is *no* requirement that drivers to be licensed in order to operate an automobile. Driver’s licenses are required to operate automobiles *on public roads*, but you can drive whatever you like on your own property. There are plenty of farm kids who learn to drive tractors before they get their licenses.
So, if we applied “the same standard,” the law would only apply if you intend to fire your gun on public property — which I suspect is not the standard you are hoping for.
I think the article covers the skills that gun owners should have quite nicely, there are 6 to 7 hundred accidental gun deaths in the US each year, each obviously a result of someone not handling a gun with the care the article advocates.
there are 6 to 7 hundred accidental gun deaths in the US each year
600-700? Do you have any idea how many deaths automobile accidents account for? (Remember, that’s the “standard” you aspire to.)
Gun accidents account for 0.2 deaths per 100,000 people — a rate that has been dropping for decades.
Auto accidents account for 10.7 deaths per 100,000 people.
So much for scare talk. Contrary to anti-gun propaganda, safety training is already available to the general public, and it works. Better than driver’s ed, apparently.
I think the article covers the skills that gun owners should have quite nicely
The article did not claim that gun owners lack adequate training. You did. But you can’t say what training you would consider adequate?
FYI, many Americans who are already trained in gun handling and safety by the government. They’re called police officers. Since they’re trained to government standards, they must be safer than civilians, right?
Wrong. The accident rate for police officers is appreciably *higher* than the rate for civilians.
One minor nitpick, I believe police officers are also civilians, as they do not serve in the military.
Which then means I don’t understand the constitutionality of allowing police officers access to full auto weapons that the main populace doesn’t have.
The problem with that approach is that cars on private property don’t usually stray onto public roads unless the driver makes them do so. The same applies to guns – but not to bullets.
This reminds me of a fairly recent case in which a householder defended his property (a suburban house) from an intruder, using a gun. He fired six or seven times and hit the intruder once. Where did all the other bullets go?
He fired six or seven times and hit the intruder once. Where did all the other bullets go?
And a government-mandated course would change that, how? Do you think police officers, who are trained by the government, always hit their targets?
Bullets are not dogs or horses. They don’t “stray.” They follow precise trajectories determined by the laws of physics and the operator’s inputs — just like cars.
You present a false dichotomy: government-mandated training versus no training. (Much like those who assume it’s either government space exploration and no space exploration.) In fact, there’s a wide range of options offered by the private sector. And they work — as shown by the fact that armed civilians are *less* likely to miss, hit the wrong personal, or shoot themselves than government-trained police officers.
You started this discussion by acknowledging have no experience with guns. If you were wise you would have stopped there. Instead, you offer opinions on what gun laws should be. Rather like someone who has never driven a car going off on traffic laws.
Unfortunately, that’s the usual pattern in gun control debates.
That’s the point, isn’t it? “If used often”. How many are?
I confess to having little or no data about the prevalence of ancient weapons lying around (great-grandad’s WWII issue pistol, great-great-grandad’s WWI issue rifle that he “lost” before demobilisation…) but there must be some. Yes, I know really old guns are valuable but they also aren’t as robust as modern ones even if in brand-new condition. I remember reading somewhere that modern shotgun shells shouldn’t be used in 19th century weapons, for example.
Of course, you need the right ammunition for older guns. That does not mean they’re in any way defective — they just aren’t designed for modern powder. But you’re talking 1800’s, not World War II. I have a Winchester 1866 carbine and an 1873 Single Action Army revolver. Neither is chambered for modern ammunition, but with the right cartridges, they’re as reliable as any modern design.
But not many people buy such guns to keep by the side of their bed.
Maybe you should stop offering opinions on a subject which you acknowledge having no experience with?
Or if your new shells are steel shot rather than lead. Don’t want to ruin the barrel of your antique.
I am not a gun smith but I think most of the things you were talking about happen when a gun is used but not cleaned.
I don’t know who to listen to, people who don’t know anything about guns or a smoking hot gun nut.
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2015/02/it-would-literally-be-impossible.html
“I’ve been carrying a pistol for most of my adult life. I have lived in three states during that time, one of which had a mandatory training class and qualification course (TN) and two which did not (GA and IN). I have not observed any noticeable difference in the quality of shooting ability, legal knowledge, or safe gun handling among the populations of the three states.”
I guess someone could do a study or google the stats state by state.