From 9 AM to well after 1 PM, we got useful information from the front lines. Discussing media relations, Tom Gresham and Malia Zimmerman noted among other things that ranting against liberals is counterproductive, because in their collective experience they’ve found that as many as 30% of liberals are pro-gun, and it’s never wise to insult potential allies. There was a three-man panel on dealing with anti-gun media bias. Herb Stupp advised appealing to reporters’ and editors’ sense of fairness: “I appreciate your interest in this issue. Have you considered how many lives are saved by guns?” Herb noted that big city papers often have an ombudsman who handles complaints about press bias. “Speak to the editor if you can’t get through to the reporter,” he advised, “and look for columnists who are friendly or open-minded to the issue.”
Don Irvine from Accuracy In Media (AIM) noted that of 216 stories on gun policy analyzed in the first thirty days after Sandy Hook, eight out of nine favored “gun control.” CBS was the worst with a 22:1 ratio. “Make judicious use of Twitter and Facebook” was his advice. “This is how today’s journalists get their news,” he said.
Charles Heller of Liberty Watch Radio, who does three talk shows in Arizona, advises gun rights advocates to make themselves information resources to journalists. Tell them, “We will get you information,” and follow through with solidly researched material.
Tim Schmidt of the US Concealed Carry Association came out strongly for permitless carry. He spoke of having to kiss the ring of the king for an inalienable right, and saw permits as “goofy little concealed carry cards.”
John Fund of National Review celebrated the recently announced resignation of Eric Holder. His take: Democrats are taking the popularity polls and voting predictions, and wanted a new AG in place before a Republican-controlled Senate would have to approve his replacement. Fund noted that one out of ten House Democrats voted to find Holder in contempt of Congress. With document production now having been compelled by the Court in the Fast and Furious matter, he sees the Holder departure as “getting out of town ahead of the sheriff.” Fund contends that Eric Holder is/was the worst Attorney General in US history. When it is pointed out that Nixon’s AG, John Mitchell, went to prison, Fund counters that Mitchell was sentenced there for things he did as Nixon’s campaign manager, not anything he did as Attorney General.
After the conference, on his Gun Talk radio show, Tom Gresham gave the best answer as to why this conference was held in anti-gun Chicago. Alan Gottlieb’s Second Amendment Foundation funded the lawsuits that won concealed carry for Illinois, and handgun ownership rights for Chicagoans. Gresham explained simply, “It was a victory lap.”
Next year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference, the thirtieth, will take place the last full weekend of September 2015 in super-gun-friendly Phoenix. Attendance is no charge and you can pack your pistol without need for a permit. Hope to see you there.
I agree that a percentage of liberals are “closet” gun rights believers, and have posted in the past my belief that maybe even a majority of liberals are also gun owners. My problem with them is I also put them in the same category of a Southern Baptist who preaches the evil of alcohol and the virtues of total abstinence, but still enjoys a cold beer in his own back yard, knowing that he can handle it. What’s ok for him is not good for the masses.
I would have much more respect if these liberal 2a supporters would come out of the closet and give voice to their beliefs.
I agree that a percentage of liberals are “closet” gun rights believers, and have posted in the past my belief that maybe even a majority of liberals are also gun owners. My problem with them is I also put them in the same category of a Southern Baptist who preaches the evil of alcohol and the virtues of total abstinence, but still enjoys a cold beer in his own back yard, knowing that he can handle it. What’s ok for him is not good for the masses.
I would have much more respect if these liberal 2a supporters would come out of the closet and give voice to their beliefs.
the main question regarding the conference’s location, for me, is not Chicago but the physical aspect of it. what’s the benefit of having an annual meeting that requires people to dedicate a weekend, incur travel expenses, inconveniences and be physically present? it’s not exactly a family reunion where people benefit from the physical attendance.
it’s fairly obvious now that internet broadcasts can be much less costly, less time consuming, and far more outreaching than by physical means.
if the conference was primarily broadcast over the net, it could be produced in a private location to cut down on sponsorship costs such as location rental. the video could even be shot at multiple locations, further reducing the hosts’ expenses.
it would reduce the per-person cost from 100s of dollars to a few bucks. if the broadcast is in the form of pay-per-view, it would re-route the money, spent by the audience, from the airlines, cities (anti-gun or otherwise), etc and put it directly into the pockets of the host(s).
it would probably increase the “registration” count from 700s to 7000+
it would eliminate the need for live attendance — people are increasingly used to on-demand media.
also, in this case, it would avoid/reduce single physical mishaps (the ATC event) that would affect audience attendance.
i would even go further to say that because of the above reasons, it would be possible to increase the frequency of the conference to more than once a year; allow continued centralized discussions; allow centralized release of follow-ups from the hosts; lots more i that haven’t thought of.
the main question regarding the conference’s location, for me, is not Chicago but the physical aspect of it. what’s the benefit of having an annual meeting that requires people to dedicate a weekend, incur travel expenses, inconveniences and be physically present? it’s not exactly a family reunion where people benefit from the physical attendance.
it’s fairly obvious now that internet broadcasts can be much less costly, less time consuming, and far more outreaching than by physical means.
if the conference was primarily broadcast over the net, it could be produced in a private location to cut down on sponsorship costs such as location rental. the video could even be shot at multiple locations, further reducing the hosts’ expenses.
it would reduce the per-person cost from 100s of dollars to a few bucks. if the broadcast is in the form of pay-per-view, it would re-route the money, spent by the audience, from the airlines, cities (anti-gun or otherwise), etc and put it directly into the pockets of the host(s).
it would probably increase the “registration” count from 700s to 7000+
it would eliminate the need for live attendance — people are increasingly used to on-demand media.
also, in this case, it would avoid/reduce single physical mishaps (the ATC event) that would affect audience attendance.
i would even go further to say that because of the above reasons, it would be possible to increase the frequency of the conference to more than once a year; allow continued centralized discussions; allow centralized release of follow-ups from the hosts; lots more i that haven’t thought of.
I like your idea, KiA, and have just taken the liberty of passing it on to the right party at Second Amendment Foundation.
Thanks!
I like your idea, KiA, and have just taken the liberty of passing it on to the right party at Second Amendment Foundation.
Thanks!
If everyone had showed up at the event, that had registered, I don’t know where they would have been seated. As you know Mas, I was seated in front so I got a bird’s eye view. You forgot to mention that Malia Zimmerman was hot, hot, hot. I saw you taking her picture, don’t deny it!
By far you were the best speaker. You knew your material, had no notes and new how to use your voice to project emotion.
On the other hand Alan Gottlieb was the worst speaker, in my humble opinion. I am sure he is a very smart guy, very knowledgeable, obviously an excellent organizer and fundraiser. However, he spoke with his mouth too close to the mike and since the mike did not have a wind screen on it, you had that constant popping sound like he was spitting on the mike. He also spoke too fast and his words ran together and were hard to follow or maybe I am just too slow to hear. When he and Chris Knox had their little discussion, or argument, Mr. Gottlieb had an annoying habit of making a statement and then backing away from the mike, doing a little pirouette and then looking out and beaming like he had just struck the mother lode. Because, I wear glasses with one lens blacked out people stare a lot as he did to me. But, they also don’t realize that I also get a good look at them. I will have to replay that tempestuous discussion, from my flash drive, just to find out what the hullabaloo was all about.
Mas, as you know we had a free boxed lunch on Saturday. I ate everything except an apple. After staring at the apple for hours I had laid out a plan of what to do with it. I had formulated a plan to make an award with it to the best firearms teacher in the industry. Yes, I was going to place the apple on the podium just as you got to it for your speech. But then I looked at it from an observer’s perspective. Someone might think it was a bomb, someone might think I was going to throw it and lastly since you were cocked and locked to give your speech you probably wouldn’t appreciate the gesture, so I left the apple on the table and I am sure someone made good use of it.
Lastly, Mas, you would be proud of me, as every night I tore up the bottom of the bed for a quick egress should the zombies attack during the night. My Kahr, an extra magazine and high intensity flashlight were beside me.
If everyone had showed up at the event, that had registered, I don’t know where they would have been seated. As you know Mas, I was seated in front so I got a bird’s eye view. You forgot to mention that Malia Zimmerman was hot, hot, hot. I saw you taking her picture, don’t deny it!
By far you were the best speaker. You knew your material, had no notes and new how to use your voice to project emotion.
On the other hand Alan Gottlieb was the worst speaker, in my humble opinion. I am sure he is a very smart guy, very knowledgeable, obviously an excellent organizer and fundraiser. However, he spoke with his mouth too close to the mike and since the mike did not have a wind screen on it, you had that constant popping sound like he was spitting on the mike. He also spoke too fast and his words ran together and were hard to follow or maybe I am just too slow to hear. When he and Chris Knox had their little discussion, or argument, Mr. Gottlieb had an annoying habit of making a statement and then backing away from the mike, doing a little pirouette and then looking out and beaming like he had just struck the mother lode. Because, I wear glasses with one lens blacked out people stare a lot as he did to me. But, they also don’t realize that I also get a good look at them. I will have to replay that tempestuous discussion, from my flash drive, just to find out what the hullabaloo was all about.
Mas, as you know we had a free boxed lunch on Saturday. I ate everything except an apple. After staring at the apple for hours I had laid out a plan of what to do with it. I had formulated a plan to make an award with it to the best firearms teacher in the industry. Yes, I was going to place the apple on the podium just as you got to it for your speech. But then I looked at it from an observer’s perspective. Someone might think it was a bomb, someone might think I was going to throw it and lastly since you were cocked and locked to give your speech you probably wouldn’t appreciate the gesture, so I left the apple on the table and I am sure someone made good use of it.
Lastly, Mas, you would be proud of me, as every night I tore up the bottom of the bed for a quick egress should the zombies attack during the night. My Kahr, an extra magazine and high intensity flashlight were beside me.
The apple was a nice thought, Randy, and I appreciate it. Hell, I’m just glad when the audience doesn’t throw tomatoes…
The apple was a nice thought, Randy, and I appreciate it. Hell, I’m just glad when the audience doesn’t throw tomatoes…
Tim Schmidt of the US Concealed Carry Association came out strongly for permitless carry. He spoke of having to kiss the ring of the king for an inalienable right, and saw permits as “goofy little concealed carry cards.”
I’ve heard these rants before, and I’ve been accused of being less than faithfully RKBA because I’m a CHL instructor. Philosophically, I agree with permitless carry, I just wish the folks who are so down on CHL would acknowledge what licensed carry has accomplished.
Tim Schmidt of the US Concealed Carry Association came out strongly for permitless carry. He spoke of having to kiss the ring of the king for an inalienable right, and saw permits as “goofy little concealed carry cards.”
I’ve heard these rants before, and I’ve been accused of being less than faithfully RKBA because I’m a CHL instructor. Philosophically, I agree with permitless carry, I just wish the folks who are so down on CHL would acknowledge what licensed carry has accomplished.
it’s never wise to insult potential allies
I sure wish the “open carry long guns” folks would catch up with that.
it’s never wise to insult potential allies
I sure wish the “open carry long guns” folks would catch up with that.
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the idea of permitless carry, not so much for the fact that I think you should have to “kiss the ring” in order to have a gun, but for the fact that a permitting process generally involves some sort of training on firearm safety. I see the permit as a certificate that “yes, this person has at least some instruction on how not to accidentally blow holes in others.”
As someone who knew nothing about gun safety (or guns in general) until my training to get a concealed carry permit in MA, I greatly appreciated the course that taught me how to ensure nobody will get hurt with my firearm. Without that requirement, I could “learn as I go,” but likely I would have elected to take the class anyway, being who I am. I’m not so sure about everyone else.
So a question: is there some way to require people who carry concealed (or openly for that matter) have some modicum of gun sense without a permit system?
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the idea of permitless carry, not so much for the fact that I think you should have to “kiss the ring” in order to have a gun, but for the fact that a permitting process generally involves some sort of training on firearm safety. I see the permit as a certificate that “yes, this person has at least some instruction on how not to accidentally blow holes in others.”
As someone who knew nothing about gun safety (or guns in general) until my training to get a concealed carry permit in MA, I greatly appreciated the course that taught me how to ensure nobody will get hurt with my firearm. Without that requirement, I could “learn as I go,” but likely I would have elected to take the class anyway, being who I am. I’m not so sure about everyone else.
So a question: is there some way to require people who carry concealed (or openly for that matter) have some modicum of gun sense without a permit system?
As a liberal but also a person who carries I can tell you that the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Rights are very important for both groups. Gun proponents would do well to embrace the liberal method of getting votes. Explain things and show how it benefits them. Often the pro gun folks are very negative and that turns off liberal, progressive voters.
As a liberal but also a person who carries I can tell you that the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Rights are very important for both groups. Gun proponents would do well to embrace the liberal method of getting votes. Explain things and show how it benefits them. Often the pro gun folks are very negative and that turns off liberal, progressive voters.
As a liberal but also a person who carries I can tell you that the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Rights are very important for both groups. Gun proponents would do well to embrace the liberal method of getting votes. Explain things and show how it benefits them. Often the pro gun folks are very negative and that turns off liberal, progressive voters.
“John Fund of National Review celebrated the recently announced resignation of Eric Holder. His take: Democrats are taking the popularity polls and voting predictions, and wanted a new AG in place before a Republican-controlled Senate would have to approve his replacement.”
I believe that there is a much more ominous reason for Holder’s resignation at this time. There will likely be a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy before Obama’s term ends. He (Obama) will appoint Holder to the Supreme Court. Can you imagine the decisions that would come from Holder, even long after Obama is gone?
“John Fund of National Review celebrated the recently announced resignation of Eric Holder. His take: Democrats are taking the popularity polls and voting predictions, and wanted a new AG in place before a Republican-controlled Senate would have to approve his replacement.”
I believe that there is a much more ominous reason for Holder’s resignation at this time. There will likely be a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy before Obama’s term ends. He (Obama) will appoint Holder to the Supreme Court. Can you imagine the decisions that would come from Holder, even long after Obama is gone?
In AZ we still have a two tier system. First a concealed permit is no longer required to legally carry a weapon. Law was changed because if a person can openly carry a weapon safely withoug a permit, then a permit is superflous. Police were generally of the opinion that they have to always be on watch for persons with weapons permit or no. Second, for those that wish a permit is still available. Training is required. Permit holders choose so in order to carry in other permit required reciprocal states and to avoide the dial up checks when purchasing a firearm.
The isssue of safety training is generally handled by holding people responsible for ND or brandishing firearms according to state laws on the books.
In AZ we still have a two tier system. First a concealed permit is no longer required to legally carry a weapon. Law was changed because if a person can openly carry a weapon safely withoug a permit, then a permit is superflous. Police were generally of the opinion that they have to always be on watch for persons with weapons permit or no. Second, for those that wish a permit is still available. Training is required. Permit holders choose so in order to carry in other permit required reciprocal states and to avoide the dial up checks when purchasing a firearm.
The isssue of safety training is generally handled by holding people responsible for ND or brandishing firearms according to state laws on the books.
The whole required training issue is one of those where common sense does not reflect empirical data. For example, John Lott has found little evidence that required training reduces accident rates nor crime rates despite conducting one of the most comprehensive examinations of how law affects death and injury by firearms. It seems counterintuitive until you think about it. Irresponsible people will behave irresponsibly. Thus, someone who does not value gun safety (or even wise decisionmaking in general) will probably not value safety after “training”. Every driver in the nation is taught and required to know that drinking and driving is illegal–drivers still drink and drive as well as being very unsafe in other practices (following too close, trying to beat redlights, etc.). Would more drivers drink and drive without drivers license training? Possibly, but given that stringent penalties do not deter some people from doing so, it would have little effect on such behavior by generally irresponsible people.
Second, a responsible person will behave responsibly and seek out such training regardless of whether it is required or not. For example, a responsible person will read the manual on their firearm and know how it operates. Even if you purchase a used firearm, you can readily find manuals for it (unless the most obscure) online today. Second, You Tube has countless videos that even have included our host for this comment section explaining how to safely handle weapons and operate them. Last, but not least, extensive libraries of printed material in books and magazines (much of which is free online) and for purchase videos cover safety. For this reason, I personally believe after reviewing data and empirical research such as by Lott that required training for gunowners probably helps some folks but will fail to reduce aggregate state or national rate of accidental gun deaths nor homicide rates.
If that was all that was involved, I would probably not care–however, as Lott mentions, required training will reduce the number of people who hold permits by making it more expensive in time and money for them to do so. Thus, people who may need a gun right now but cannot acquire one until after “training” to do so will be at risk. Thus, it is certainly possible that any lives saved by a training requirement are counterbalanced by those lost by people who needed guns but were not able to acquire them because they could not acquire the training necessary to do so. Thus, the aggregate levels of people dead might not change but the nature of the individuals will.
Initial permitting schemes, particularly the Sullivan laws pioneered in NY and later used as a model for England’s laws were specifically designed to prevent the “wrong” people from acquiring firearms. Similar schemes in the South were aimed at preventing blacks from acquiring firearms etc. Eventually, fewer and fewer, people in these jurisdictions were the “right sort of person”–even now, in MA, the local police has the power to block someone as not “suitable” from owning a firearm. Quickly referencing MA laws in particular, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/03/10/want-gun-license-massachusetts-much-depends-where-you-live/04SFWtTEpGdtEHm5mTQuSO/story.html, indicates a regime that changes your constitutional rights from town to town based on local police whims. It can take up to six months, according to Massachusetts newspapers to get a license to carry.
Far too many people compare firearms to driver licensing. It is a bad analogy. How many people go through live fire training where others are shooting at them? Note, we do this every day when driving a car–we instinctively speed up or slow down to maintain an interval between cars and react based on other drivers movements. “Live drive” exercises take place every day and I guarentee that many of the other drivers on the roads do not have a license or a valid one. Second, how many of people must retake drivers examinations every time that they renew? How many people actually know how their car operates? When was the last time, you went through your drivers’ manual on ABS versus standard braking. How about driving that 1 Ton dually “assault” truck? Does the local police determine whether you are “suitable” to drive?
During the last decade, around 400,000 people died from auto accidents–about 6000 from accidental firearms using WISQARS from the CDC. Now, both auto accidents and accidental firearms include an unknown number of suicides that are included as accidents. Simiarly, auto accidents and accidental firearms deaths also include those who are unlicensed drivers or illegal owners of guns (felons) or children. An unknown percentage of people are both responsible and prudent by having licenses and training but are in the wrong place at the right time. Additional training probably would have little to no effect on these such as a recent tragic loss of an experienced . So, we are faced, with an unknown number of people that would live if more training was required. At the same time, an unknown number of people might die if more training in either case was required. Generally speaking, if no net positive benefit for society can be shown, then why adopt a law. When dealing with constitutional issues such as the 2nd Amendment and the natural right to self defense, then mandatory training laws substantially burden these rights as liberty rights of the individual outweighs the state’s power to regulate.
BTW, I have lived in a state that required training and one that does not for a handgun carry permit. Not much difference anecdotally in accidental gun deaths. According to Wisqars, the state (GA) without training has a lower rate than the state with training (AR). Playing around with Wisqars, you see little obvious correlation between training regimes and those that do not have such a requirement in accidental gun deaths.
Mas, sorry about the long post, but I am becoming more and more troubled about laws being based on “common sense”. I would prefer that laws be based on empirical evidence than the “even if it saves one person” rationale. Fools do foolish things regardless of the law, good people will occasionally do foolish things, laws often do not distinguish between the two despite the differences in culpability.
The whole required training issue is one of those where common sense does not reflect empirical data. For example, John Lott has found little evidence that required training reduces accident rates nor crime rates despite conducting one of the most comprehensive examinations of how law affects death and injury by firearms. It seems counterintuitive until you think about it. Irresponsible people will behave irresponsibly. Thus, someone who does not value gun safety (or even wise decisionmaking in general) will probably not value safety after “training”. Every driver in the nation is taught and required to know that drinking and driving is illegal–drivers still drink and drive as well as being very unsafe in other practices (following too close, trying to beat redlights, etc.). Would more drivers drink and drive without drivers license training? Possibly, but given that stringent penalties do not deter some people from doing so, it would have little effect on such behavior by generally irresponsible people.
Second, a responsible person will behave responsibly and seek out such training regardless of whether it is required or not. For example, a responsible person will read the manual on their firearm and know how it operates. Even if you purchase a used firearm, you can readily find manuals for it (unless the most obscure) online today. Second, You Tube has countless videos that even have included our host for this comment section explaining how to safely handle weapons and operate them. Last, but not least, extensive libraries of printed material in books and magazines (much of which is free online) and for purchase videos cover safety. For this reason, I personally believe after reviewing data and empirical research such as by Lott that required training for gunowners probably helps some folks but will fail to reduce aggregate state or national rate of accidental gun deaths nor homicide rates.
If that was all that was involved, I would probably not care–however, as Lott mentions, required training will reduce the number of people who hold permits by making it more expensive in time and money for them to do so. Thus, people who may need a gun right now but cannot acquire one until after “training” to do so will be at risk. Thus, it is certainly possible that any lives saved by a training requirement are counterbalanced by those lost by people who needed guns but were not able to acquire them because they could not acquire the training necessary to do so. Thus, the aggregate levels of people dead might not change but the nature of the individuals will.
Initial permitting schemes, particularly the Sullivan laws pioneered in NY and later used as a model for England’s laws were specifically designed to prevent the “wrong” people from acquiring firearms. Similar schemes in the South were aimed at preventing blacks from acquiring firearms etc. Eventually, fewer and fewer, people in these jurisdictions were the “right sort of person”–even now, in MA, the local police has the power to block someone as not “suitable” from owning a firearm. Quickly referencing MA laws in particular, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/03/10/want-gun-license-massachusetts-much-depends-where-you-live/04SFWtTEpGdtEHm5mTQuSO/story.html, indicates a regime that changes your constitutional rights from town to town based on local police whims. It can take up to six months, according to Massachusetts newspapers to get a license to carry.
Far too many people compare firearms to driver licensing. It is a bad analogy. How many people go through live fire training where others are shooting at them? Note, we do this every day when driving a car–we instinctively speed up or slow down to maintain an interval between cars and react based on other drivers movements. “Live drive” exercises take place every day and I guarentee that many of the other drivers on the roads do not have a license or a valid one. Second, how many of people must retake drivers examinations every time that they renew? How many people actually know how their car operates? When was the last time, you went through your drivers’ manual on ABS versus standard braking. How about driving that 1 Ton dually “assault” truck? Does the local police determine whether you are “suitable” to drive?
During the last decade, around 400,000 people died from auto accidents–about 6000 from accidental firearms using WISQARS from the CDC. Now, both auto accidents and accidental firearms include an unknown number of suicides that are included as accidents. Simiarly, auto accidents and accidental firearms deaths also include those who are unlicensed drivers or illegal owners of guns (felons) or children. An unknown percentage of people are both responsible and prudent by having licenses and training but are in the wrong place at the right time. Additional training probably would have little to no effect on these such as a recent tragic loss of an experienced . So, we are faced, with an unknown number of people that would live if more training was required. At the same time, an unknown number of people might die if more training in either case was required. Generally speaking, if no net positive benefit for society can be shown, then why adopt a law. When dealing with constitutional issues such as the 2nd Amendment and the natural right to self defense, then mandatory training laws substantially burden these rights as liberty rights of the individual outweighs the state’s power to regulate.
BTW, I have lived in a state that required training and one that does not for a handgun carry permit. Not much difference anecdotally in accidental gun deaths. According to Wisqars, the state (GA) without training has a lower rate than the state with training (AR). Playing around with Wisqars, you see little obvious correlation between training regimes and those that do not have such a requirement in accidental gun deaths.
Mas, sorry about the long post, but I am becoming more and more troubled about laws being based on “common sense”. I would prefer that laws be based on empirical evidence than the “even if it saves one person” rationale. Fools do foolish things regardless of the law, good people will occasionally do foolish things, laws often do not distinguish between the two despite the differences in culpability.
The whole required training issue is one of those where common sense does not reflect empirical data. For example, John Lott has found little evidence that required training reduces accident rates nor crime rates despite conducting one of the most comprehensive examinations of how law affects death and injury by firearms. It seems counterintuitive until you think about it. Irresponsible people will behave irresponsibly. Thus, someone who does not value gun safety (or even wise decisionmaking in general) will probably not value safety after “training”. Every driver in the nation is taught and required to know that drinking and driving is illegal–drivers still drink and drive as well as being very unsafe in other practices (following too close, trying to beat redlights, etc.). Would more drivers drink and drive without drivers license training? Possibly, but given that stringent penalties do not deter some people from doing so, it would have little effect on such behavior by generally irresponsible people.
Second, a responsible person will behave responsibly and seek out such training regardless of whether it is required or not. For example, a responsible person will read the manual on their firearm and know how it operates. Even if you purchase a used firearm, you can readily find manuals for it (unless the most obscure) online today. Second, You Tube has countless videos that even have included our host for this comment section explaining how to safely handle weapons and operate them. Last, but not least, extensive libraries of printed material in books and magazines (much of which is free online) and for purchase videos cover safety. For this reason, I personally believe after reviewing data and empirical research such as by Lott that required training for gunowners probably helps some folks but will fail to reduce aggregate state or national rate of accidental gun deaths nor homicide rates.
If that was all that was involved, I would probably not care–however, as Lott mentions, required training will reduce the number of people who hold permits by making it more expensive in time and money for them to do so. Thus, people who may need a gun right now but cannot acquire one until after “training” to do so will be at risk. Thus, it is certainly possible that any lives saved by a training requirement are counterbalanced by those lost by people who needed guns but were not able to acquire them because they could not acquire the training necessary to do so. Thus, the aggregate levels of people dead might not change but the nature of the individuals will.
Initial permitting schemes, particularly the Sullivan laws pioneered in NY and later used as a model for England’s laws were specifically designed to prevent the “wrong” people from acquiring firearms. Similar schemes in the South were aimed at preventing blacks from acquiring firearms etc. Eventually, fewer and fewer, people in these jurisdictions were the “right sort of person”–even now, in MA, the local police has the power to block someone as not “suitable” from owning a firearm. Quickly referencing MA laws in particular, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/03/10/want-gun-license-massachusetts-much-depends-where-you-live/04SFWtTEpGdtEHm5mTQuSO/story.html, indicates a regime that changes your constitutional rights from town to town based on local police whims. It can take up to six months, according to Massachusetts newspapers to get a license to carry.
Far too many people compare firearms to driver licensing. It is a bad analogy. How many people go through live fire training where others are shooting at them? Note, we do this every day when driving a car–we instinctively speed up or slow down to maintain an interval between cars and react based on other drivers movements. “Live drive” exercises take place every day and I guarentee that many of the other drivers on the roads do not have a license or a valid one. Second, how many of people must retake drivers examinations every time that they renew? How many people actually know how their car operates? When was the last time, you went through your drivers’ manual on ABS versus standard braking. How about driving that 1 Ton dually “assault” truck? Does the local police determine whether you are “suitable” to drive?
During the last decade, around 400,000 people died from auto accidents–about 6000 from accidental firearms using WISQARS from the CDC. Now, both auto accidents and accidental firearms include an unknown number of suicides that are included as accidents. Simiarly, auto accidents and accidental firearms deaths also include those who are unlicensed drivers or illegal owners of guns (felons) or children. An unknown percentage of people are both responsible and prudent by having licenses and training but are in the wrong place at the right time. Additional training probably would have little to no effect on these such as a recent tragic loss of an experienced . So, we are faced, with an unknown number of people that would live if more training was required. At the same time, an unknown number of people might die if more training in either case was required. Generally speaking, if no net positive benefit for society can be shown, then why adopt a law. When dealing with constitutional issues such as the 2nd Amendment and the natural right to self defense, then mandatory training laws substantially burden these rights as liberty rights of the individual outweighs the state’s power to regulate.
BTW, I have lived in a state that required training and one that does not for a handgun carry permit. Not much difference anecdotally in accidental gun deaths. According to Wisqars, the state (GA) without training has a lower rate than the state with training (AR). Playing around with Wisqars, you see little obvious correlation between training regimes and those that do not have such a requirement in accidental gun deaths.
Mas, sorry about the long post, but I am becoming more and more troubled about laws being based on “common sense”. I would prefer that laws be based on empirical evidence than the “even if it saves one person” rationale. Fools do foolish things regardless of the law, good people will occasionally do foolish things, laws often do not distinguish between the two despite the differences in culpability.
BTW, my previous post is based on some preliminary research that I have been conducting off and on for several years. I teach constitutional, administrative, and criminal law at a university and have published and reviewed peer reviewed articles in academic journals although not on guns particularly. By necessity, I spend a lot of time gathering data and conducting empirical (data driven) research.
Not to flatter Mas or anything, but generally I have found, despite owning considerable printed material authored by Mr. Ayoob and closely reviewing that material, that I have not been able to yet contradict definitely any of his expressed opinions on firearms and their usuage (or his expert legal opinions for that matter on such things as using reloads for self defense). He is truly is an expert in this field. If he comes out for mandated training, I would review my decision simply because of the breadth of training experience that he has. Feel free to contradict me anytime as I would probably learn something new.
BTW, my previous post is based on some preliminary research that I have been conducting off and on for several years. I teach constitutional, administrative, and criminal law at a university and have published and reviewed peer reviewed articles in academic journals although not on guns particularly. By necessity, I spend a lot of time gathering data and conducting empirical (data driven) research.
Not to flatter Mas or anything, but generally I have found, despite owning considerable printed material authored by Mr. Ayoob and closely reviewing that material, that I have not been able to yet contradict definitely any of his expressed opinions on firearms and their usuage (or his expert legal opinions for that matter on such things as using reloads for self defense). He is truly is an expert in this field. If he comes out for mandated training, I would review my decision simply because of the breadth of training experience that he has. Feel free to contradict me anytime as I would probably learn something new.
Following wg’s post, CA has become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown signed Tuesday, 30 September.
The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May 2014 near the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Here is more information:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/california-gun-restriction_n_5910560.html
Following wg’s post, CA has become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown signed Tuesday, 30 September.
The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May 2014 near the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Here is more information:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/california-gun-restriction_n_5910560.html
wg, I assume your response was in part to my post.
I have not done much research elsewhere, but I can tell you that the gun laws in MA are definitely not ideal. I wasn’t suggesting that MA’s permitting system as a whole would be what everyone should adopt, but the requirement to take a gun safety course is something I thought was a reasonable part of it. What it SHOULD be is that if you take the class, and aren’t disqualified via a background check, you should get an unrestricted LTC. As of now, you have to “justify” your need to the police chief, and they can “on a whim” deny you a permit or add severe restrictions to your ability to carry. Although, things have changed recently (after the article you referenced) to make things a little better (they previously did not have to disclose the reasoning for adding a restriction, now they do, and you can appeal this in court). Some (most?) towns, though, are full shall-issue, but that’s still up to the PC discretion, it should be mandated.
There is definitely some truth to the statement that irresponsible people will behave irresponsibly regardless of training. But ignorance is a factor, as is laziness. To require a training course may be too much, but at least some sort of test to verify you understand the gun safety rules is something I think every state should have. I want responsible, knowledgeable adults to be able to own and carry guns. Responsibility we can try to teach, but we can’t guarantee it. But ignorance is a problem we can easily fix.
I also find state-to-state comparisons very dubious, as I think does Lott. A state’s gun culture can be a tremendous factor on the effectiveness of gun laws, as can many other factors. It’s better to compare states before and after certain restrictions are added or lifted. For example, VT has very low accidental gun death rate, but everyone there takes hunter safety training as a kid, and grows up with guns as a normal part of their lives. But this doesn’t mean VT’s almost non-existent gun laws would be a good fit for present-day NY or MA, 2 states on its borders. NH might be OK with it.
wg, I assume your response was in part to my post.
I have not done much research elsewhere, but I can tell you that the gun laws in MA are definitely not ideal. I wasn’t suggesting that MA’s permitting system as a whole would be what everyone should adopt, but the requirement to take a gun safety course is something I thought was a reasonable part of it. What it SHOULD be is that if you take the class, and aren’t disqualified via a background check, you should get an unrestricted LTC. As of now, you have to “justify” your need to the police chief, and they can “on a whim” deny you a permit or add severe restrictions to your ability to carry. Although, things have changed recently (after the article you referenced) to make things a little better (they previously did not have to disclose the reasoning for adding a restriction, now they do, and you can appeal this in court). Some (most?) towns, though, are full shall-issue, but that’s still up to the PC discretion, it should be mandated.
There is definitely some truth to the statement that irresponsible people will behave irresponsibly regardless of training. But ignorance is a factor, as is laziness. To require a training course may be too much, but at least some sort of test to verify you understand the gun safety rules is something I think every state should have. I want responsible, knowledgeable adults to be able to own and carry guns. Responsibility we can try to teach, but we can’t guarantee it. But ignorance is a problem we can easily fix.
I also find state-to-state comparisons very dubious, as I think does Lott. A state’s gun culture can be a tremendous factor on the effectiveness of gun laws, as can many other factors. It’s better to compare states before and after certain restrictions are added or lifted. For example, VT has very low accidental gun death rate, but everyone there takes hunter safety training as a kid, and grows up with guns as a normal part of their lives. But this doesn’t mean VT’s almost non-existent gun laws would be a good fit for present-day NY or MA, 2 states on its borders. NH might be OK with it.
wg, I assume your response was in part to my post.
I have not done much research elsewhere, but I can tell you that the gun laws in MA are definitely not ideal. I wasn’t suggesting that MA’s permitting system as a whole would be what everyone should adopt, but the requirement to take a gun safety course is something I thought was a reasonable part of it. What it SHOULD be is that if you take the class, and aren’t disqualified via a background check, you should get an unrestricted LTC. As of now, you have to “justify” your need to the police chief, and they can “on a whim” deny you a permit or add severe restrictions to your ability to carry. Although, things have changed recently (after the article you referenced) to make things a little better (they previously did not have to disclose the reasoning for adding a restriction, now they do, and you can appeal this in court). Some (most?) towns, though, are full shall-issue, but that’s still up to the PC discretion, it should be mandated.
There is definitely some truth to the statement that irresponsible people will behave irresponsibly regardless of training. But ignorance is a factor, as is laziness. To require a training course may be too much, but at least some sort of test to verify you understand the gun safety rules is something I think every state should have. I want responsible, knowledgeable adults to be able to own and carry guns. Responsibility we can try to teach, but we can’t guarantee it. But ignorance is a problem we can easily fix.
I also find state-to-state comparisons very dubious, as I think does Lott. A state’s gun culture can be a tremendous factor on the effectiveness of gun laws, as can many other factors. It’s better to compare states before and after certain restrictions are added or lifted. For example, VT has very low accidental gun death rate, but everyone there takes hunter safety training as a kid, and grows up with guns as a normal part of their lives. But this doesn’t mean VT’s almost non-existent gun laws would be a good fit for present-day NY or MA, 2 states on its borders. NH might be OK with it.
You may find state to state comparisons dubious but even a before and after study of a state given the relatively low number of accidental deaths and misreporting of the cause of death probably would not give you an answer whether the training usually given to CHL holders reduces accidental gun deaths. Problems with such study are prior knowledge as given through family, general cautiousness and responsibility of the individual, how often the person actually accesses the gun (more handling, more chances for accidental discharge, whether the weapon and/or ammunition and their safeties are working properly, the ease of accidental discharges when the weapon is dropped (long guns in particular but some handguns),etc. Thus, a relatively rare event (accidental gun death) coupled with the inability to give a truly controlled experiment requiring placebos (fake guns), random assignment, etc. means that you will never be able to establish statistically that state mandated safety training actually improves safety for any given individual and as Lott specifically mentions at the state (aggregate level) as well.
In addition, the absence of any countervailing death that would be caused (and the number is greater than zero if we just look at the accidental discharges during such training itself) plus those who were discouraged from self protection by additional barriers such as cost, time, and general problems with the additional procedures require (range time, embarassment at failing or appearing klutzy, arrogant instructors, etc.). Thus, you won’t be able to truly account for second and third order effects (such as these) on the simple law of requiring mandated training. These are simply the limits of social science and public policy today, we do a bad job on first order effects due to reliance of massive statistical studies, cannot ethically nor legally do most controlled studies of public policy, effect sizes are relatively small on many policies, and we cannot account for most second and third order effects at all because we simply do not nor can easily acquire such data.
The courts have recognized this and this is why most laws are given the benefit of the doubt through the rational basis test. That is does the legislature have a rational reason for the law (not that the legislature is correct nor whether the legislature was wise). Could legislators or individuals believe that a training requirement is necessary? Yes, one could rationally conclude that. However, one could just as easily conclude that training requirements as generally required by states do not make society safer and have at best no effect at the aggregate level (or even a negative effect overall). Both of these assertions are impossible to prove but at the aggregate level–it appears that state mandated training does not measurably decrease accidental gun deaths for chl requirements. In general, if the situation is tied, my personal preference is that ties go toward more freedom which is the only way individual responsibility can ever truly be bulit. One last point, the gun community does more than its share of trying to build a culture of gun safety which tends to diminish in the shadow of state requirements. It would be interesting to note whether the prevalence of NRA’s Eddie Eagle programs teaching children basic knowledge of gun safety in schools or CMP youth shooting programs are greater or not depending on mandated training requirements by the state.
This may be because a selection effect exists because CHL owners are generally more prudent in the first place as evidenced by lack of criminal records, seek out training whether a requirement exists or not, etc. and thus demonstrate a higher level of responsibility in general. Through the gauntlet of all the current requirements, many unsafe people probably are screened out of the sample.
Guns and their possession are one of the most regulated items in the United States. Every year the BATF compiles federal and state laws which run to hundreds of pages. In addition, many localities in some states also have their own ordinances which purport to regulate guns. Other than alcohol perhaps, guns are some of the most regulated items around. Do some of those laws have a good basis and have made us safer, yes. Can you say that of most of the gun laws and regulations, probably not.
As a thought experiment, imagine that each voter, every time they vote, must fill out a form 4473 for voting. Would this burden the right to vote? Yes. Would it decrease voting participation, yes. Would we end up with a more responsible electorate? maybe. Imagine if then people were prosecuted for making errors on that statement. Note, that most of the things prohibited on 4473 also affect your eligibility to vote. Would the courts hold it to be constitutional–and the answer is no as Voting, just like firearm ownership, is protected by a constitutional amendment and laws/regulations that unduly burden the exercise of those rights is regarded as unlawful.
I will leave this as a last comment, there is a logical fallacy that holds what is true at the individual level must also true at the aggregate or vice versa.
BTW thanks Steven S. for bringing up hunter safety courses, it appears that the NSSF has a study somewhere on that. It would be useful information for my research.
You may find state to state comparisons dubious but even a before and after study of a state given the relatively low number of accidental deaths and misreporting of the cause of death probably would not give you an answer whether the training usually given to CHL holders reduces accidental gun deaths. Problems with such study are prior knowledge as given through family, general cautiousness and responsibility of the individual, how often the person actually accesses the gun (more handling, more chances for accidental discharge, whether the weapon and/or ammunition and their safeties are working properly, the ease of accidental discharges when the weapon is dropped (long guns in particular but some handguns),etc. Thus, a relatively rare event (accidental gun death) coupled with the inability to give a truly controlled experiment requiring placebos (fake guns), random assignment, etc. means that you will never be able to establish statistically that state mandated safety training actually improves safety for any given individual and as Lott specifically mentions at the state (aggregate level) as well.
In addition, the absence of any countervailing death that would be caused (and the number is greater than zero if we just look at the accidental discharges during such training itself) plus those who were discouraged from self protection by additional barriers such as cost, time, and general problems with the additional procedures require (range time, embarassment at failing or appearing klutzy, arrogant instructors, etc.). Thus, you won’t be able to truly account for second and third order effects (such as these) on the simple law of requiring mandated training. These are simply the limits of social science and public policy today, we do a bad job on first order effects due to reliance of massive statistical studies, cannot ethically nor legally do most controlled studies of public policy, effect sizes are relatively small on many policies, and we cannot account for most second and third order effects at all because we simply do not nor can easily acquire such data.
The courts have recognized this and this is why most laws are given the benefit of the doubt through the rational basis test. That is does the legislature have a rational reason for the law (not that the legislature is correct nor whether the legislature was wise). Could legislators or individuals believe that a training requirement is necessary? Yes, one could rationally conclude that. However, one could just as easily conclude that training requirements as generally required by states do not make society safer and have at best no effect at the aggregate level (or even a negative effect overall). Both of these assertions are impossible to prove but at the aggregate level–it appears that state mandated training does not measurably decrease accidental gun deaths for chl requirements. In general, if the situation is tied, my personal preference is that ties go toward more freedom which is the only way individual responsibility can ever truly be bulit. One last point, the gun community does more than its share of trying to build a culture of gun safety which tends to diminish in the shadow of state requirements. It would be interesting to note whether the prevalence of NRA’s Eddie Eagle programs teaching children basic knowledge of gun safety in schools or CMP youth shooting programs are greater or not depending on mandated training requirements by the state.
This may be because a selection effect exists because CHL owners are generally more prudent in the first place as evidenced by lack of criminal records, seek out training whether a requirement exists or not, etc. and thus demonstrate a higher level of responsibility in general. Through the gauntlet of all the current requirements, many unsafe people probably are screened out of the sample.
Guns and their possession are one of the most regulated items in the United States. Every year the BATF compiles federal and state laws which run to hundreds of pages. In addition, many localities in some states also have their own ordinances which purport to regulate guns. Other than alcohol perhaps, guns are some of the most regulated items around. Do some of those laws have a good basis and have made us safer, yes. Can you say that of most of the gun laws and regulations, probably not.
As a thought experiment, imagine that each voter, every time they vote, must fill out a form 4473 for voting. Would this burden the right to vote? Yes. Would it decrease voting participation, yes. Would we end up with a more responsible electorate? maybe. Imagine if then people were prosecuted for making errors on that statement. Note, that most of the things prohibited on 4473 also affect your eligibility to vote. Would the courts hold it to be constitutional–and the answer is no as Voting, just like firearm ownership, is protected by a constitutional amendment and laws/regulations that unduly burden the exercise of those rights is regarded as unlawful.
I will leave this as a last comment, there is a logical fallacy that holds what is true at the individual level must also true at the aggregate or vice versa.
BTW thanks Steven S. for bringing up hunter safety courses, it appears that the NSSF has a study somewhere on that. It would be useful information for my research.
WT, it is Clayton Cramer’s contention and he has done a considerable amount of research that you can find online that the increase in shooting rampages has coincided with the decrease in confinement for severe mental illness–state after state has made it significantly more difficult to confine someone for severe mental illness since the 1960’s. Others have suggested that the increase in these rampages are side effects from pharmaceuticals inappropriately given to teenagers such as anti-depressants. Others such as David Grossman have claimed First Person Shooter (FPS) video games and consumption of other violent media desensitize youths regarding violence against others. Last, but not least, others blame culture of today emphasizing violence, narcissism, availability of guns, etc. Last, but not least, some blame media saturation reporting making it more attractive to potential mass murderers to go out in a blaze of media glory. Virginia Tech murderer, Norway murderer, and Sandy Hook murderer, at the very least, wanted their horrific rampages to be so repulsive that media would plaster their names and speculations about why they did it in wall to wall coverage.
On shooting rampages, I really do not have a good feel for these. Rampage type shooting events are very rare events statistically (despite the apparent ubiquity of them), the statistical reporting of such is not good data (is a father wiping out their entire family a rampage? etc.), and historical records have a lot of gaps. My personal beliefs (and I stress belief) is that all of the above may have effects and they may actually reinforce each other. A person who with severe mental issues such as the Sandy Hook murderer then seeks out violent media and is reinforced by such (and it is unclear about his medications but many have side effects as noted that promote suicidal thoughts and actions) and which take the form of a rampage. However, not every teenager will do so because individual choice still matters and one cannot really go into someone’s head and predict who will seek out needed help and who will not before something tragic happens.
Our systems have adjusted in other ways, for example, randomly choosing any particular jail today, will have a significant number of individuals whose condition would have required them to be in custody of a mental unit in the 1950’s. We are beginning to also realize that some medications do not work the same with children or teenagers as they do with adults, and some have sought to call out the media and entertainment industry with its fascination regarding violence. The first requires states to reevaluate how difficult it is for families to have someone involuntarily committed for evaluation and/or treatment. This is a difficult balance because many mentally ill are really only at risk to harm themselves and most represent no threat to the average person. Second, the FDA is disfunctional and its safety studies requirements must be revised to reflect problems with rare bad side effects. Last, government has very little role due to the First Amendment, but we as consumers have a responsibility to be wise consumers.
Life is short, why consume trash? Media companies put this stuff out because people like to watch/read/participate (video games). No buyers, no trash. Read a book for a change, watch a romantic comedy, go to the range, join a fraternal organization, get into politics, learn a new trade, travel, volunteer, enjoy your family. How many people on their deathbeds feel that they would have been more fulfilled by playing another video game, watching more TV or movies, etc. Thus, the key to our culture is in our hands.
WT, it is Clayton Cramer’s contention and he has done a considerable amount of research that you can find online that the increase in shooting rampages has coincided with the decrease in confinement for severe mental illness–state after state has made it significantly more difficult to confine someone for severe mental illness since the 1960’s. Others have suggested that the increase in these rampages are side effects from pharmaceuticals inappropriately given to teenagers such as anti-depressants. Others such as David Grossman have claimed First Person Shooter (FPS) video games and consumption of other violent media desensitize youths regarding violence against others. Last, but not least, others blame culture of today emphasizing violence, narcissism, availability of guns, etc. Last, but not least, some blame media saturation reporting making it more attractive to potential mass murderers to go out in a blaze of media glory. Virginia Tech murderer, Norway murderer, and Sandy Hook murderer, at the very least, wanted their horrific rampages to be so repulsive that media would plaster their names and speculations about why they did it in wall to wall coverage.
On shooting rampages, I really do not have a good feel for these. Rampage type shooting events are very rare events statistically (despite the apparent ubiquity of them), the statistical reporting of such is not good data (is a father wiping out their entire family a rampage? etc.), and historical records have a lot of gaps. My personal beliefs (and I stress belief) is that all of the above may have effects and they may actually reinforce each other. A person who with severe mental issues such as the Sandy Hook murderer then seeks out violent media and is reinforced by such (and it is unclear about his medications but many have side effects as noted that promote suicidal thoughts and actions) and which take the form of a rampage. However, not every teenager will do so because individual choice still matters and one cannot really go into someone’s head and predict who will seek out needed help and who will not before something tragic happens.
Our systems have adjusted in other ways, for example, randomly choosing any particular jail today, will have a significant number of individuals whose condition would have required them to be in custody of a mental unit in the 1950’s. We are beginning to also realize that some medications do not work the same with children or teenagers as they do with adults, and some have sought to call out the media and entertainment industry with its fascination regarding violence. The first requires states to reevaluate how difficult it is for families to have someone involuntarily committed for evaluation and/or treatment. This is a difficult balance because many mentally ill are really only at risk to harm themselves and most represent no threat to the average person. Second, the FDA is disfunctional and its safety studies requirements must be revised to reflect problems with rare bad side effects. Last, government has very little role due to the First Amendment, but we as consumers have a responsibility to be wise consumers.
Life is short, why consume trash? Media companies put this stuff out because people like to watch/read/participate (video games). No buyers, no trash. Read a book for a change, watch a romantic comedy, go to the range, join a fraternal organization, get into politics, learn a new trade, travel, volunteer, enjoy your family. How many people on their deathbeds feel that they would have been more fulfilled by playing another video game, watching more TV or movies, etc. Thus, the key to our culture is in our hands.
Comments are closed.