Gun Control

[Kung Wu]

Molly?

Only the ones with mullets.

[MoValley John]

Up to my ears in prairie dogs.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

you will have gained nothing at all because those same nutcases will still forget to take their meds or get recruited by ISIS and perform the same horrific act using a different method.

All methods are not equal.

A terrorist with a nuke is much more dangerous than a terrorists without one. The guy without one won't just "perform the same horrific act using a different method". He may do something bad, but the impact would be greatly lessened. Same applies as we work down the spectrum of weapons. Of course someone who is fully committed to murder will find *some* way to kill people (or at least try to kill people), but the fatality rate will vary greatly based on what is available to him.

(Note: This post has nothing to do with the process of deciding where to draw the line. That's a much tougher issue. I merely wanted to correct the flawed logic that I hear time and time again that says "it makes no difference, they will just find another way". Of course it makes a difference)

[Kung Wu]

All methods are not equal.

A terrorist with a nuke is much more dangerous than a terrorists without one. The guy without one won't just "perform the same horrific act using a different method". He may do something bad, but the impact would be greatly lessened. Same applies as we work down the spectrum of weapons. Of course someone who is fully committed to murder will find *some* way to kill people (or at least try to kill people), but the fatality rate will vary greatly based on what is available to him.

(Note: This post has nothing to do with the process of deciding where to draw the line. That's a much tougher issue. I merely wanted to correct the flawed logic that I hear time and time again that says "it makes no difference, they will just find another way". Of course it makes a difference)

If the guy in Nice had used an AR-15 only, I suspect the death count would have been much less. The alternative isn't always better, sometimes it's worse. It's impossible to know the net result.

[wufan]

All methods are not equal.

A terrorist with a nuke is much more dangerous than a terrorists without one. The guy without one won't just "perform the same horrific act using a different method". He may do something bad, but the impact would be greatly lessened. Same applies as we work down the spectrum of weapons. Of course someone who is fully committed to murder will find *some* way to kill people (or at least try to kill people), but the fatality rate will vary greatly based on what is available to him.

(Note: This post has nothing to do with the process of deciding where to draw the line. That's a much tougher issue. I merely wanted to correct the flawed logic that I hear time and time again that says "it makes no difference, they will just find another way". Of course it makes a difference)

I agree with the premise here. Not all weapons are equal, but to suggest banning assault rifles while allowing regular rifles is nonsensical as they are equivalent. It's only applicable if you are discussing non-equivalent weapons. Assault rifles, regular rifles, and handguns are all equivalent at the same caliber. To arbitrarily exclude one of these items goes against the premise of your argument.

[Steeleshocker]

So what would you like to be taught in this class?

What would the test be to demonstrate competency?

If you are former law enforcement or military does your prior firearm training count?

During renewal, do you have conduct refresher training?

Why do you just require this just for carry and conceal? Why not a precursor to purchasing a firearm?

What was taught before? If imagine some combination of gun safety, the uses and laws related to the conceal carry license, what to be aware of should you use your firearm in public, possible liabilities, etc. I'm no expert, but those would be reasonable topics for such a course.

As far as competency, it would be a demonstration of accuracy at a specified range with the weapon that will be used for the conceal carry. This demonstrates the owner safely handles the weapon. I don't see this as something that should involve very high bar. Just that the person knows how to handle the weapon and can safely fire it at the target while not spraying bullets all over the place.

Since I would expect weapons training is varied in the military depending on role, even military should take the course and demonstrate via live fire. Let's be honest, who doesn't want to shoot their gun. It's not exactly a high bar.

As for renewal I don't know if the class requires repeating. Maybe just a refresher test (like a driver's license test, only shorter). Competency should probably be demonstrated again. I have no idea what an appropriate interval would be. 3 years? 7? 10?

As for licensing, I don't think it should be required for items outside of conceal carry. In those cases the weapon is intended for home defense or recreational shooting (range, hunting, private property) and as such would limit the potential collateral damage.

I'm not an expert on this, by any means, but I think reasonable steps to ensure safe operation of weapons is appropriate. Maybe bits of my thinking may be flawed, but I believe some reasonable training and licensing could be done without it being excessively burdensome.

[wufan]

What was taught before? If imagine some combination of gun safety, the uses and laws related to the conceal carry license, what to be aware of should you use your firearm in public, possible liabilities, etc. I'm no expert, but those would be reasonable topics for such a course.

As far as competency, it would be a demonstration of accuracy at a specified range with the weapon that will be used for the conceal carry. This demonstrates the owner safely handles the weapon. I don't see this as something that should involve very high bar. Just that the person knows how to handle the weapon and can safely fire it at the target while not spraying bullets all over the place.

Since I would expect weapons training is varied in the military depending on role, even military should take the course and demonstrate via live fire. Let's be honest, who doesn't want to shoot their gun. It's not exactly a high bar.

As for renewal I don't know if the class requires repeating. Maybe just a refresher test (like a driver's license test, only shorter). Competency should probably be demonstrated again. I have no idea what an appropriate interval would be. 3 years? 7? 10?

As for licensing, I don't think it should be required for items outside of conceal carry. In those cases the weapon is intended for home defense or recreational shooting (range, hunting, private property) and as such would limit the potential collateral damage.

I'm not an expert on this, by any means, but I think reasonable steps to ensure safe operation of weapons is appropriate. Maybe bits of my thinking may be flawed, but I believe some reasonable training and licensing could be done without it being excessively burdensome.

This is all pretty reasonable. There are varying degrees to this, and so long as the licensing process is intended to teach safety/competence rather than being used as a way of restricting gun ownership, then I'm all for it.

This is similar, IMO, to showing proof of residence when voting...it's a right that comes with responsibility.

[SB Shock]

What was taught before? If imagine some combination of gun safety, the uses and laws related to the conceal carry license, what to be aware of should you use your firearm in public, possible liabilities, etc. I'm no expert, but those would be reasonable topics for such a course.

Kansas requirements to get a CHL
8 hour instruction (minimum)
Introduction and overview handguns and gun safety
Kansas legal law on use of deadly force
Preparedness on using deadly force
Written test (don't have to pass - more for reinforcing information - you keep going until you get all questions correct)
Range Qualification (25 rounds, 18 on target to pass) - 5 at 3 yards (one handed), 10 at 7 yards, 10 at 10 yards

Overall, the Kansas licensing does not provide an undue burden. But I think there is misconceptions about it - it is not TRAINING ANYBODY TO PROPERLY CARRY & CONCEAL. So I am amused when people freak out about that people can now carry in state without training - well there never was training, but to inform individuals on what Kansas law and legal issues are with carrying a weapon.

As far as competency, it would be a demonstration of accuracy at a specified range with the weapon that will be used for the conceal carry. This demonstrates the owner safely handles the weapon. I don't see this as something that should involve very high bar. Just that the person knows how to handle the weapon and can safely fire it at the target while not spraying bullets all over the place.

I think people are kidding themselves if people think standing in a range lane putting holes in a target is proof of competency. I have seen many people who can do this, but are not competent in carry a weapon. It would probably be a little burdensome to require somebody to go through a training class on their 300 degree simulator at Gander or to demonstrate the ability to draw/move/shoot in a indoor or outdoor range - but it you want some level of proficiency that what you really are talking about.

Since I would expect weapons training is varied in the military depending on role, even military should take the course and demonstrate via live fire. Let's be honest, who doesn't want to shoot their gun. It's not exactly a high bar.

Everybody in the military has to demonstrate ability to safely handle weapon and qualify with it each year. Whether it is handgun or rifle doesn't make much difference, though with the rifle you have to demonstrate longer range. Some states use DD-214 or DD-256 to show weapon competency as part of the licensing process.

As for renewal I don't know if the class requires repeating. Maybe just a refresher test (like a driver's license test, only shorter). Competency should probably be demonstrated again. I have no idea what an appropriate interval would be. 3 years? 7? 10?

Kansas law is renewal every 4 years. No additional training, only background check to ensure your record is clean. I know guys who retake the carry and conceal class near renewal just as a refresher on the state law.

As for licensing, I don't think it should be required for items outside of conceal carry. In those cases the weapon is intended for home defense or recreational shooting (range, hunting, private property) and as such would limit the potential collateral damage.

In kansas, before you can get a hunting license you have to take hunter safety education class. Some states require completion of hunter safety course or completing a firearm safety class for getting carry license. Most firearm accidents happen at home and not carry related. Personally, I don't think it would be bad thing to require a person who buys a weapon to either show a certificate of completing NRA safety class, hunter safety or other firearm safety class offered at various ranges.

I'm not an expert on this, by any means, but I think reasonable steps to ensure safe operation of weapons is appropriate. Maybe bits of my thinking may be flawed, but I believe some reasonable training and licensing could be done without it being excessively burdensome.

Personally I believe it really about personal responsibility. It is up to a person to seek out the proper type of training and to decide how much range time they need to keep proficient. Anybody who carries (w/ or without a permit) should consider reading Andrew Branca book on the Law of Self Defense. It is important to understand the legal truth and myths about responsibly carrying a weapon.

Second, if you want to carry & conceal - I would get permitted. It is important that you understand the law and the Kansas registration will get you that. This also gets you reciprocity (meaning your license is recognized in other states). Also being licensed allows you to not be in violate federal school zone law, For example - if you carrying and are driving or dropping of your child at school, and you get stopped in school zone, if you don't have CHL, then you have violated federal Gun Free Zone Act. If you have your CHL in kansas, then this would not be a violation. There are a lot of school zones out thee.

[Steeleshocker]

That's good information, but if the course offers no training on conceal carry then that should be added. The other items you mentioned are all useful as well.

Requiring some gun safety class when purchasing wouldn't get any opposition from me.

I still think it's worth having everyone licensed that wants to conceal carry.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I agree with the premise here. Not all weapons are equal, but to suggest banning assault rifles while allowing regular rifles is nonsensical as they are equivalent. It's only applicable if you are discussing non-equivalent weapons. Assault rifles, regular rifles, and handguns are all equivalent at the same caliber. To arbitrarily exclude one of these items goes against the premise of your argument.

I made no comment on how to rank the spectrum of weapons aside from putting nukes at or near the top. Your opinion on the relative differences between "assault" rifles and "regular" rifles does not change the premise of my argument. My point was merely that of course it makes a difference if you can limit access to more dangerous weapons and force terrorists down the chain to less dangerous weapons. It is stupid to say otherwise, yet I hear it all the time. The fact that people are not in 100% agreement about where specific weapons should fall on such a ranked list takes nothing away from the obvious larger truth that not all weapons are the same.

[wufan]

I made no comment on how to rank the spectrum of weapons aside from putting nukes at or near the top. Your opinion on the relative differences between "assault" rifles and "regular" rifles does not change the premise of my argument. My point was merely that of course it makes a difference if you can limit access to more dangerous weapons and force terrorists down the chain to less dangerous weapons. It is stupid to say otherwise, yet I hear it all the time. The fact that people are not in 100% agreement about where specific weapons should fall on such a ranked list takes nothing away from the obvious larger truth that not all weapons are the same.

I was commenting based on currently proposed legislation to ban assault rifles. Your argument doesn't support that ban as assault rifles are not more dangerous than regular rifles.

[shox1989]

Kansas requirements to get a CHL
8 hour instruction (minimum)
Introduction and overview handguns and gun safety
Kansas legal law on use of deadly force
Preparedness on using deadly force
Written test (don't have to pass - more for reinforcing information - you keep going until you get all questions correct)
Range Qualification (25 rounds, 18 on target to pass) - 5 at 3 yards (one handed), 10 at 7 yards, 10 at 10 yards

Overall, the Kansas licensing does not provide an undue burden. But I think there is misconceptions about it - it is not TRAINING ANYBODY TO PROPERLY CARRY & CONCEAL. So I am amused when people freak out about that people can now carry in state without training - well there never was training, but to inform individuals on what Kansas law and legal issues are with carrying a weapon.




I think people are kidding themselves if people think standing in a range lane putting holes in a target is proof of competency. I have seen many people who can do this, but are not competent in carry a weapon. It would probably be a little burdensome to require somebody to go through a training class on their 300 degree simulator at Gander or to demonstrate the ability to draw/move/shoot in a indoor or outdoor range - but it you want some level of proficiency that what you really are talking about.



Everybody in the military has to demonstrate ability to safely handle weapon and qualify with it each year. Whether it is handgun or rifle doesn't make much difference, though with the rifle you have to demonstrate longer range. Some states use DD-214 or DD-256 to show weapon competency as part of the licensing process.



Kansas law is renewal every 4 years. No additional training, only background check to ensure your record is clean. I know guys who retake the carry and conceal class near renewal just as a refresher on the state law.



In kansas, before you can get a hunting license you have to take hunter safety education class. Some states require completion of hunter safety course or completing a firearm safety class for getting carry license. Most firearm accidents happen at home and not carry related. Personally, I don't think it would be bad thing to require a person who buys a weapon to either show a certificate of completing NRA safety class, hunter safety or other firearm safety class offered at various ranges.



Personally I believe it really about personal responsibility. It is up to a person to seek out the proper type of training and to decide how much range time they need to keep proficient. Anybody who carries (w/ or without a permit) should consider reading Andrew Branca book on the Law of Self Defense. It is important to understand the legal truth and myths about responsibly carrying a weapon.

Second, if you want to carry & conceal - I would get permitted. It is important that you understand the law and the Kansas registration will get you that. This also gets you reciprocity (meaning your license is recognized in other states). Also being licensed allows you to not be in violate federal school zone law, For example - if you carrying and are driving or dropping of your child at school, and you get stopped in school zone, if you don't have CHL, then you have violated federal Gun Free Zone Act. If you have your CHL in kansas, then this would not be a violation. There are a lot of school zones out thee.

I agree. I think the old law was not burdensome and did help people understand the law as well as give them very basic gun safety information. I hope most people go ahead and get the permits anyway. I do feel like the cost may cause a few people to not do it.

[MoValley John]

On my way home from a prairie dog shoot. The rancher that hosted us was in the process of hanging these signs on his fences and entrances.
20160722_111742.jpg

[DwShock]

Mass Stabbing in London, killed an American. Time to ban all Knives. From pocket to kitchen. Better even eliminate the dreaded plastic butter knife. More regulation is needed now.

[shock]

What are the death rates among the incarcerated? They don't have guns, but inmates are still killed.