Tougher firearms laws won't mean fewer gun deaths [Letter]

[redeemed.man]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-gun-deaths-20131216,0,5196883.story

One guys take on the HQL. He appears to have a pretty moderate opinion on MD gun laws overall (He agrees with qualifying with a weapon before being issued a carry permit). I wonder if he believes we should have to be tested before being allowed to exercise our free speech? I doubt it. To the writers credit he does call MD out on the BS law. It is certainly a tax/fee on a constitutional right, and even more ridiculous it is a required background check to be issued a permission slip to be background checked in the future. Silly.

 

[callidus]

Interesting article. It's been proven time and time again that gun laws have very little to do with lowering violent crime, or even "gun deaths", however they measure that.

Take a look at the silly Brady Campaign - they released their 'report card' of states (I think MD was 4th), and the murder rate in their top 5 states was significantly higher than the rate in their bottom 5 states. Believe the same was true for violent crime as well. It's all fake science to try to make a political point.

 

[jrumann59]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-gun-deaths-20131216,0,5196883.story

One guys take on the HQL. He appears to have a pretty moderate opinion on MD gun laws overall (He agrees with qualifying with a weapon before being issued a carry permit). I wonder if he believes we should have to be tested before being allowed to exercise our free speech? I doubt it. To the writers credit he does call MD out on the BS law. It is certainly a tax/fee on a constitutional right, and even more ridiculous it is a required background check to be issued a permission slip to be background checked in the future. Silly.

I have no issue with showing proficiency when you get a CCW permit. SO I find your analogy lacking. I do have an issue with getting a HQL with finger printing and background check, so I can buy a gun and wait 7 days for a background check. Personally if you CCW you should be able to demonstrate clearing a jamb, loading and unloading, and understand when deadly force is an acceptible response and maybe hitting an actual target.

 

[teratos]

I have no issue with showing proficiency when you get a CCW permit. SO I find your analogy lacking. I do have an issue with getting a HQL with finger printing and background check, so I can buy a gun and wait 7 days for a background check. Personally if you CCW you should be able to demonstrate clearing a jamb, loading and unloading, and understand when deadly force is an acceptible response and maybe hitting an actual target.

I would agree with only the latter part of that. You have to understand when the use of deadly force is acceptable. Otherwise, a one-armed man would not be allowed to carry. He can load/unload very well and can't clear a jam.

 

[Blacksmith101]

If you carry a wheelgun do you have to show proficiency in clearing a jam also? What if you choose to carry a single shot, say cane gun?

Restrictions should be the same for all "RIGHTS" i.e. fingerprint for firearm means fingerprint for speech, HQL for handgun purchase means a Religion Qualification to attend church. It doesn't say certain inalienable rights some of which are more inalienable than others.

 

[redeemed.man]

I have no issue with showing proficiency when you get a CCW permit. SO I find your analogy lacking. I do have an issue with getting a HQL with finger printing and background check, so I can buy a gun and wait 7 days for a background check. Personally if you CCW you should be able to demonstrate clearing a jamb, loading and unloading, and understand when deadly force is an acceptible response and maybe hitting an actual target.

What you describe is not a right. Your description is that of a priveledge. The armed person should be trained as he/she sees fit not as the government sees fit. No other constitutional rights require training. I am all for training and do as much as I can and suggest others do as well. Our government places far too many unconstitutional requirements on us as it is.

 

[tapeman1]

What you describe is not a right. Your description is that of a priveledge. The armed person should be trained as he/she sees fit not as the government sees fit. No other constitutional rights require training. I am all for training and do as much as I can and suggest others do as well. Our government places far too many unconstitutional requirements on us as it is.

I'm of two minds on this. Philosophically I agree that no right should require a license or proficiency test to be exercised. But I also really hate the idea of untrained and unqualified knuckleheads carrying everywhere they go.

We've all seen people at the range doing incredibly stupid things with firearms. I'm not comfortable standing on a firing line with them. I'm certainly not comfortable standing in line at the grocery store with them.

 

[redeemed.man]

I'm of two minds on this. Philosophically I agree that no right should require a license or proficiency test to be exercised. But I also really hate the idea of untrained and unqualified knuckleheads carrying everywhere they go.

We've all seen people at the range doing incredibly stupid things with firearms. I'm not comfortable standing on a firing line with them. I'm certainly not comfortable standing in line at the grocery store with them.

For years Maryland has had no "proficiency" requirement and the incidents you appear to be concerned with have not occurred. PA has no proficiency requirement and they do not have the incidents you are concerned about with any frequency. VA relaxed the requirement so that an online course qualifies you for a permit and again the same thing they do not have the incidents you worry about. I think the reason for that is that most people who are willing to submit to the background investigation, fingerprinting, etc. that is necessary to obtain most state handgun permits are responsible law abiding citizens and not the knuckleheads you worry about. Believe me I know the type, I bring long guns when I shoot at MSAR just so I can shoot on those lanes away from the handgun renters who hold the gun sideways as they spray bullets down range with no attempt at proficiency. Those folks will not apply for permits, provide fingerprints, etc. they will simply carry anyway, so who are we protecting by making it harder for law abiding citizens to carry? The knuckleheads will carry anyway. I would much rather it be relatively easy for the law abiding to do so. You have likely been in the grocery store next to people carrying in Maryland legally before 10/1/2013 (you just didn't know it) and they did not have to pass a proficiency test in the past yet you still made it out alive. An armed society is a polite society. People that value rights make decisions that could impact those rights carefully. I would bet my life that most MDS members with MD handgun permits self included are LESS likely to escalate a situation when we are carrying because we value our rights.

 

[Benanov]

I've had this conversation with a lot of people, mostly Democrats.

Right now as it is the people who seek out to exercise a right will for the most part use it in a responsible manner - as in the people who seek out getting a CCW/CPL/CWP/etc in a shall-issue state are self-selecting and will do the research.

Wherever you draw the line with an objective test ("shall issue") between requiring proficiency and allowing people to carry weapons there will always be people on the 'wrong' side of the line. Period. If you're too permissive, you give licenses to people who most people agree should not have them. If you're too restrictive, you deny rights to people to defend themselves. If you strike a balance, you get people on both sides.

A subjective test ("may issue") can work around this a bit, except that it relies on human judgement and that's quite easily influenced to allow for abuses based on group membership. This is why we like shall issue.

This is why a lot of conservatives (myself included here) don't like codifying these sorts of firearms restrictions into law. A lot of people who grow up with guns get trained properly in how to use them and how to respect them. It's nearly impossible to codify that sort of training and gun culture into law in any sort of meaningful way.

 

[tapeman1]

I've had this conversation with a lot of people, mostly Democrats.

Right now as it is the people who seek out to exercise a right will for the most part use it in a responsible manner - as in the people who seek out getting a CCW/CPL/CWP/etc in a shall-issue state are self-selecting and will do the research.

Wherever you draw the line with an objective test ("shall issue") between requiring proficiency and allowing people to carry weapons there will always be people on the 'wrong' side of the line. Period. If you're too permissive, you give licenses to people who most people agree should not have them. If you're too restrictive, you deny rights to people to defend themselves. If you strike a balance, you get people on both sides.

A subjective test ("may issue") can work around this a bit, except that it relies on human judgement and that's quite easily influenced to allow for abuses based on group membership. This is why we like shall issue.

This is why a lot of conservatives (myself included here) don't like codifying these sorts of firearms restrictions into law. A lot of people who grow up with guns get trained properly in how to use them and how to respect them. It's nearly impossible to codify that sort of training and gun culture into law in any sort of meaningful way.

This is why I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I don't trust government to make laws appropriately. Especially when they are restricting the Constitutional rights of citizens.

On the other hand, I'm surrounded by morons.


What to do?

What to do?

 

[redeemed.man]

This is why I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I don't trust government to make laws appropriately. Especially when they are restricting the Constitutional rights of citizens.

On the other hand, I'm surrounded by morons.


What to do?

What to do?

Looks like your signature sums it all up: "I would rather accept the danger of living free than suffer the oppression of living safe."

 

[AntiGun]

This is why I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I don't trust government to make laws appropriately. Especially when they are restricting the Constitutional rights of citizens.

On the other hand, I'm surrounded by morons.


What to do?

What to do?

I'll tolerate the necessity of showing being able to handle a firearm and hit a target as long as I can actually carry without undue burden of G&S.

 

[tapeman1]

Looks like your signature sums it all up: "I would rather accept the danger of living free than suffer the oppression of living safe."

I know.

I'm so conflicted.

 

[FrankZ]

Look to the states that are constitutional carry, do they have all these issues with people carrying and doing stupid things because they weren't required to get training?

I think that should answer things.

 

[redeemed.man]

Look to the states that are constitutional carry, do they have all these issues with people carrying and doing stupid things because they weren't required to get training?

I think that should answer things.

AGREED, AGREED, AGREED!!!!

 

[redeemed.man]

I'll tolerate the necessity of showing being able to handle a firearm and hit a target as long as I can actually carry without undue burden of G&S.

I don't like it but I too am willing to deal with it. Of all my permits Florida had the most stringent standards (live fire, fingerprints, etc.) before I got a MD permit as a business owner. For MD I felt like I was putting together my life story in answering the questions in that application packet.

 

[osterizer]

I don't have any hope that politicians who push gun control laws will be persuaded against them by mere facts. If they were, the evidence that what they're doing is ineffectual would have stopped them long ago, even if "and bear arms" was too complicated to understand. These laws are attractive because they are easy, actually reducing violent crime is hard, and people who vote for said pols don't understand or consider the difference important. Post Newtown, I discussed the push for new AWBs with a quite intelligent colleague of mine, and in response to my pointing out the statistics, he replied, "but we have to do something!"

Sigh.