The "Gun Show Loophole" and Other Myths

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I can't speak for him, but for my part, I would offer some perspective to those statistics. They say that between 2007 and 2011, an average of 62 children 14 and under were accidentally killed with firearms. By contrast, I would point out that according to the CDC, there were over 22,300 accidental deaths from all causes in that age group in that time frame. Of course, most of these are going to be traffic accidents, but I'd also point out that roughly 3,600 are from accidental drowning and another 398 in the 'pedal cyclist' category. These two things together account for almost 20 times the number of accidental deaths in that age group as compared to firearms, but no one thinks anything of letting their kids go swimming or ride a bike.

Of course, I'm certainly not arguing that a kid that age should have access to a firearm as they do a bicycle. I'm simply saying that anytime, in a population of 300 million, you're going to have some fatal accidents with objects or activities that are potentially dangerous. You're never going to totally eliminate it, but reduced to a standard rate, we're literally talking about 1 in a million here (62 incidents in a 0-14 population of 60+ million). Statistically speaking, I don't know that you're going to get it to go much lower than that without resorting to drastic measures. That being said, I do believe there should be a legal responsibility for the parent in those cases where their firearm was stored irresponsibly.

a reply to: HighFive

You still have to use an FFL transferr otherwise the former owner can get you arrested or dump a gun used in a crime on you.

To be straight forward: I own guns and I use them for sport (shooting at the range)
So if someone reads my post, keep it in mind.
My american friends, how about this:

What if someone, who wants/thinks he needs a gun, has to join a weapons club (shooting range), train regulary for one year, either 12 times regulary(1x á month) or 18 times unregulary in a timeframe over 12 months.

If the captain of the shooting range gives his ok (meaning he trusts you in handling the gun, because he supervised your training) you can take a short written exam. Then you can enlist yourself for getting a specific gun model (for example Beretta 92FS,I like it´s angle), buy it and register it. If you are under 25 years old, you have to get the OK from a psychologist, attesting everyone that you are not a nutcase and can be trusted with a gun.

You then can take it home but you might get visits here and then to proof that you store the weapon unaccessible to other people (so accidents are almost impossible) But there was a amok run in a school in Winnenden by a 15 year old who got the gun from his fathers bedroom drawer. If you do not excercise this, it cannot function of course.

How about this? This is how it´s handled here in Germany.
We have considerable low gun crimes, police here did not even fire more rounds last year then I have stashed up in my vault.

So the recipt is:

1. Regular training or you will loose your gun license card (and the gun)
2. You get validated over a course of 12 months to be trusted with a gun or not.
3. If you are under 25, you also have to talk to a pyschologist for 2 hours, showing him why you want or need the gun and what your stance on the weapon is. (Sport, collecting (if collecting, you have to give a reason and timeframe or make of the weapons you want, not just "collecting")
4. Apply for a specific model you choose, no full auto, no 5.7x28mm cartridges, has to do with your reason (sport, collecting, hunting)
5. Order/buy your weapon and register it.
6. Buy weapons vault with seperate lockable ammunitions box or an extra vault for the ammunition.

(7). Keep excercising (you show a reason) to keep the permit and be prepared for surprise checkups of you vault. Makes sure you store it right and only accessible by you.

8. If you get busted while you do anything that shows a lack of responsibility (get into a fight, drive drunken and so on) Your permit is on risk. Mine was, after I punched someone trying to pick up a young kid (suspicous guy was suspicous and it turned out I was right, -> known pedophile, it´s in the RANT forum). The situation was later cleared in front of judge and I could keep my permission because the situation was a little bit more complicated then just "You punched someone out of nothing".

Why I think it´s a good practice
Everyone, that buys a gun, went through training and theoretics.

How I got my guns:
12 months of training, small (laughable if prepared) test, make a good picture in front of the captain.

What differs me from someone who walks up into the store and buys one (even after some waiting time and a background check)?
If I get my personal gun to take with me and handle without oversight, I know how it works, how to handle it and what danger it bears 100% and the guy who handles me the gun also knows.. Someone got to knew me a little bit over the course of 12 months and not just by judging over the counter table.

How I store my guns
Locked up in a vault, seperated from ammunition

What I do if someone breaks into my house
Turn on lights, shout that I call police and then I call police.
Then I lock myself up with anyone who´s in the house, with my gun as a last resort.
All cards are on my side when the burglar tries to enter the room, he has to be in front of the door.
If he tries, I will empty the clip into the body center zone after warning him. I, as a weapons owner must be able to determine the situation and rather not use the gun if possible.

Everything else that he might steal or break is insured anyways. Who cares?
If you do not have insurance or cannot afford, do you want to get into a gun fight in your drywall houses with family in it risking not only your life but the life of neighbors? Or take the "blame" for not wanting to KILL someone.

Because when I read some posts here, people forget that "taking out" "feeding some lead" is actually KILLING a person.
99.99999% of those people do not even know what they will have to deal with mentaly. Saying you will pull the trigger and actually doing it, and living with the consequences are seperate things.

However, if someone wants to answer, It would be nice adress my numbered points above first, before commenting on the lower part of this post.


So I´m really curious to all the die hard pro gunners: What do you think? Could mandatory training BEFORE being able to buy a gun the solution to some accidents and shootings? I dare to say, yes -in every case-.

a reply to: verschickter

Here's the rub:

People who go through the proper channels and are willing to submit to things like training and evaluations do not commit crimes with their firearms anyway.

The people who do commit crimes with firearms will not submit to any of the things you mentioned.

a reply to: Answer
Yes, that´s the common perception. And logic. Why is it then that the gun crimes in Germany are so low compared to the population. We have a huge influx of criminal imigrants, too.

Edit: Could it be that the vast amount of guns that went dark were in private hands before but got "lost" or "stolen"?
If the mindset of all the people able to own a gun (and sell it under the desk) was narrowed down to the sane ones, would that not prevent gun crimes on a level, too? Yes sure, some black sheeps will always slide through the gate.

See, I´m all for "fun with guns" (with propper handling).

a reply to: Answer

You are absolutely correct, of course. Perhaps the point being made is that the better trained the honest population is with respect to firearms, the better off everyone would be. There is no stopping the bad guys from getting and using guns, but that does not mean that better gun safety and training would be wasted on the general population.

Not everyone has the opportunity for family or military to provide familiarity with firearms.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Answer

Speaking of statistics, what do you make of this?

Innocents Lost

I see a document that's heavy on emotion and light on factual comparisons and logic. I expect nothing less from Moms Demand Action.

You have to consider how the data is misrepresented in every article you read. Whenever you see a "statistic," my advice is to research an unbiased source like the CDC to see what the data truly says. When adults 18-20 are included in the "children killed by a gun" statistic, that's hardly presenting an honest picture.

Gun control groups are ridiculously bad about cherry picking their statistics and presenting out-of-context data. When you say "X number of children are killed by guns every year!" it sounds bad until you realize who they're lumping in with "children" and you compare the numbers to other causes of death. It's easy to make something sound like a horrible epidemic when there's no context.

For example:

-Citing the CDC, ABC reports that 1,337 people under age 18 died from gunshot wounds in 2010.

-When looking at ages 1-14, which the CDC actually classifies as children, there were 369 gun deaths in 2010.

-the network uses “kids and teens under age 20″ to calculate the number of “children” hospitalized from firearms injuries.

-It is likely that a detailed breakdown of the Yale data would show the majority of gun injuries involved individuals older than the young children featured in the “20/20″ report. The vague presentation of the data on both deaths and injuries leaves a number of questions unanswered: Do the numbers include suspects shot by police officers? What about 18-year-olds who are shot while serving in the military? How many of the injuries and/or deaths are crime-related? Do they include suicides?

-Citing CDC statistics, ABC reports that 98 “kids under age 18” died from accidental shootings in 2010, which is actually “trending down from 150 deaths in 2000 and 417 in 1990.” That means there has been a radical drop in accidental shootings from 1990 to 2010.

So urce

a reply to: Answer
Biased. Loaded the pdf, first page, background recognized, brain communicated to me: "Prepare to get some parental-buttons pressed if you scroll down".
You are right with that, I would not trust those "statistics" either to be honest.

BUT

In Asheboro, North Carolina, a 26-year-old mother was cleaning her home when she heard a gunshot. Rushing into the living room, she discovered that her three-year-old son had accidentally shot her boyfriend’s three-year-old daughter with a .22-caliber rifle the parents had left in the room, loaded and unlocked.
In Fayette County, Pennsylvania, a two-year-old toddler took his stepfather’s pistol out of his mother’s purse and shot himself in the head while the adults were in another room.
And in northeast Houston, when his mother stepped away for a moment, a five-year-old boy picked up a loaded rifle and accidentally shot his older brother in the back. 3 In all three incidents, adults left loaded and unlocked guns easily accessible to children.

In all three incidents, here in Germany, you can bet those people would never be able to get a gun (again) without going trough heaps of papers, psychologic validatings. And rightly so.

Edit: Why is it always the mothers fault in those three incidents? To strike more fear into every mother who´s surrounded by a weapon. If you ask me.

Why does someone has a rifle loaded and unlocked standing around in the house? As that small bolt lever action would cost you so much time when it really comes hard on hard. With a rifle in a house also a good idea.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Answer
Yes, that´s the common perception. And logic. Why is it then that the gun crimes in Germany are so low compared to the population. We have a huge influx of criminal imigrants, too.

Edit: Could it be that the vast amount of guns that went dark were in private hands before but got "lost" or "stolen"?
If the mindset of all the people able to own a gun (and sell it under the desk) was narrowed down to the sane ones, would that not prevent gun crimes on a level, too? Yes sure, some black sheeps will always slide through the gate.

See, I´m all for "fun with guns" (with propper handling).

Germany has a low crime rate overall so simply comparing gun violence is a drop in the bucket and you have to consider the bigger picture.

Look at differences in education, unemployment, and most importantly: culture. The vast majority of murders in the US are committed by black criminals against other black criminals in poor parts of large cities. Mass shootings in public places are an anomaly that are hardly worth discussing simply because A) they're impossible to prevent and B) they account for a tiny percentage murders.

I'm out. Wow.

a reply to: verschickter

Also, in all 3 of those incidents, there was severe negligence on the part of the parents.

Moms Demand Action want you to focus on the gun as the problem but if those 3 kids had pulled a knife from a drawer or fallen into a pool, nobody would be calling for something to be done about the object that lead to the injury or death.

The simple fact is this: people who know nothing of the gun culture and consider guns to be "bad" and "scary" see absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be banned. It is akin to idiots calling for Islam to be banned because they're scared of terrorists... even though all rational people know that terrorists make up a tiny percentage of the followers of Islam. People outside the gun culture don't realize that it is a hobby and lifestyle for millions of people while also serving as a form of self defense and self preservation. The anti gun crowd basically has the mindset of "I don't like it or see a purpose for it so I don't think anyone should have it." That mindset is insensitive and discriminatory but I'm always met with a dismissive attitude when I put it that way. Basically, the opinions and lifestyle of millions of lawful gun owners are somehow irrelevant to the discussion.

originally posted by: Leonidas
I'm out. Wow.

What part of the discussion do you suddenly have a problem with?

My facts about black on black inner-city crime are the only possible issue I can figure that would have caused you to run away.

My point in bringing that up is that there needs to be a focus on the true causes of violence. We need to determine why this is happening and how to fix it. Even if guns were eliminated tomorrow, there would still be crime-ridden cities full of violence.

I personally want to see every man, woman, and child prosper. I'd prefer it if there was nowhere in the country that people were scared to walk down the street day and night. Too many people are focused on the tool used instead of the causes of crime. It makes as much sense as going after drugs instead of the causes of addiction.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: Answer

You are absolutely correct, of course. Perhaps the point being made is that the better trained the honest population is with respect to firearms, the better off everyone would be. There is no stopping the bad guys from getting and using guns, but that does not mean that better gun safety and training would be wasted on the general population.

Not everyone has the opportunity for family or military to provide familiarity with firearms.

I don't argue that point, at all. In fact, I often train people in the use of firearms because it's extremely important.

I just don't believe that requiring state-sanctioned training to purchase a firearm is kosher.

a reply to: Answer
And I can tell you the exact reason why this could be the way it is.
Very good that you brought up the islam example.

I suppose a big part of the people who know that not every muslim is a terrorist, would like to see the muslims standing up against their religious members. So what do these millions of lawful gun owners do against the problem on their side?

You see it like "they" do not want you to have a gun. You feel threatened. But "they" feel threatened because they saw enough idiots with guns.

a reply to: Answer
Why? Can you tell us the bad sideeffects?

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Answer
And I can tell you the exact reason why this could be the way it is.
Very good that you brought up the islam example.

I suppose a big part of the people who know that not every muslim is a terrorist, would like to see the muslims standing up against their religious members. So what do these millions of lawful gun owners do against the problem on their side?

You see it like "they" do not want you to have a gun. You feel threatened. But "they" feel threatened because they saw enough idiots with guns.

Every gun owner I know is 100% supportive of harsher sentences for criminals who use guns. Every gun owner I know is 100% supportive of enforcing the current laws. Every gun owner I know, when there's a murder committed with a gun, says "fry the bastard."

What we don't support is the passage of additional laws that will do nothing to help the problem but will only infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. The anti-gun politicians have shown time and again that they aren't concerned with reducing violent crime, they're only interested in having more control.

Why? Can you tell us the bad sideeffects?

The training is dumbed down so much as to be ineffective anyway. Many states require training before a concealed carry permit is issued but the training is so terrible that most people don't actually learn anything. Hunter safety courses are required before hunting licenses are issued and they do teach a bit about firearm safety but that doesn't prevent people from being stupid with guns after they've bought them.

Negligence is not a trait of the untrained. It is a result of complacency and/or carelessness. All people are "trained" how to drive a car before they receive a license but the majority still drive like idiots and disobey traffic regulations. Training classes also cost money and that is a hurdle for some to be able to exercise their rights even if the person has been around guns since childhood. Requiring a lengthy training class would have the same negative side effect as waiting periods: making it impossible for a person to get a gun when they have an urgent need for self defense. A person doesn't have to prove that they have mastered the English language before they can exercise their first amendment rights. People don't have to prove that they have a basic understanding of the US political system before they exercise their right to vote.

a reply to: Answer

I see you have dodged my earlier question about your made up statistic in the OP. No bother.

I don't argue that point, at all. In fact, I often train people in the use of firearms because it's extremely important.

Why is it important?

a reply to: MrMasterMinder

I've decided to focus my efforts on people who have actual questions and want to discuss the topic rationally. You made it clear in your first post that you weren't interested in either. I stated what I thought of your input on the matter and those posts were removed by a moderator because I implied that your opinion is hopelessly skewed thanks to your country's treatment of the issue.

It's better that we agree to disagree and go about our merry way. I have decided that I will not engage with anyone from the UK when the topic is guns.

originally posted by: Answer
Every gun owner I know is 100% supportive of harsher sentences for criminals who use guns. Every gun owner I know is 100% supportive of enforcing the current laws. Every gun owner I know, when there's a murder committed with a gun, says "fry the bastard."

Talking and acting are different shoes. I mean, I can say too, every muslim I know is 100% supportive against muslim terrorists. Being supportive does not mean you give support.

originally posted by: Answer
The training is dumbed down so much as to be ineffective anyway. Many states require training before a concealed carry permit is issued but the training is so terrible that most people don't actually learn anything. Hunter safety courses are required before hunting licenses are issued and they do teach a bit about firearm safety but that doesn't prevent people from being stupid with guns after they've bought them.

Negligence is not a trait of the untrained. It is a result of complacency and/or carelessness. All people are "trained" how to drive a car before they receive a license but the majority still drive like idiots and disobey traffic regulations. Training classes also cost money and that is a hurdle for some to be able to exercise their rights even if the person has been around guns since childhood. Requiring a lengthy training class would have the same negative side effect as waiting periods: making it impossible for a person to get a gun when they have an urgent need for self defense. A person doesn't have to prove that they have mastered the English language before they can exercise their first amendment rights. People don't have to prove that they have a basic understanding of the US political system before they exercise their right to vote.

You talk around the problem. Funny you do not see it yourself.

-The ineffective training. What do the pro gunners do against it? Want good reputation on that? Sit together and work out a training plan. Submit it, talk to each other.

-Stupidity with guns directly falls back to bad training. If I read your sentence, you appologize for the bad c-carry training and the bad hunting training, while the real problem is respect and "the right to bear arms" for everyone.
Back in those days, weapon culture was not like now. See back in my days it was not like now. Being a hunters child, I came into contact with powerful weapons as a child. You knew it´s not a toy.

-Reading about those hunter coarses. I tell you something. Hunting is the art of killing the right animals fast and nearly painless if you are able to. Only selecting out the weak ones. Shaping and keeping together the balance.
Thats what hunting is in Germany. Extensive weapon knowledge. One-kill shots and you are embarassed if it was not one. Because the animal deserves a fast death, when it has to perish for human reasons. Afterwards you thank the forest for the animals, you put them on pine tree leaves. An animal life is actually worth something here.

My impression about hunting in america (posts, Youtube): Get some coarses, get a gun/crossbow, shoot at everything that moves. Of course not everyone is doing it like that and I think no serious hunter would post kill shots online. But that´s the impression you get.

-My training did not cost one cent. It´s how you set it up. I pay something like 8€ a month and that goes into renting the place and such things. Training is free. It´s not like you have a personal trainer be there for you 24/7. No. It´s the supervisor supervising and other club members.

It must be a problem over there with moronic people, seriously. Of course you see idiotic people on the streets here too but like you describe it, US of A must be full of self centered asshole-drivers. Maybe it´s because they are allowed to drive from the age of 16

A last one because I really smiled at your logic here:

Training classes also cost money and that is a hurdle for some to be able to exercise their rights even if the person has been around guns since childhood. Requiring a lengthy training class would have the same negative side effect as waiting periods: making it impossible for a person to get a gun when they have an urgent need for self defense.

You cant be serious. Do you want me to tell, training classes are off the discussion table because someone would not get a gun fast enough for his "urgent need for self defense"? Really? Beside that I cannot imagine one situation where you would have the urgent need for self defense with a gun and then get it fast enough at the store to "defend" yourself.

My logic: If someone is around guns from childhood on, I suppose, they have the time for the training course before the urgent need for self defense (spawned by being threatened by a gun, otherwise, you could use something else) arises.
And if someone is new to guns and suddenly feels the urgent need for self defense, TRAINING is the one thing that enables you to use the weapon.

It´s like you just want the status quo, regardless if there are things to be done better.

Edit: And the point about the money for training. It´s like someone who buys a Ferrari and mocks about tire prices and fuel consumption.
Yes, you will say it´s for self defense. Others say it´s for killing and robbing you.

I feel like that will never change in the USA so don´t worry. To late. To much guns in the country.

originally posted by: verschickter
Talking and acting are different shoes. I mean, I can say too, every muslim I know is 100% supportive against muslim terrorists. Being supportive does not mean you give support.

Ok, how?

Those of us who are politically active are too busy paying attention to bad legislation and correcting false information to do much else. The second a politician proposes harsher punishment for offenders, we'll be behind it.

It's the same as your Muslim argument. How can the Muslim community do anything against terrorists unless they fly to the Middle East and take up arms against them? Are you advocating that gun owners embrace vigilante justice and actively hunt down criminals?

You talk around the problem. Funny you do not see it yourself.

-The ineffective training. What do the pro gunners do against it? Want good reputation on that? Sit together and work out a training plan. Submit it, talk to each other.

Good training is expensive. A lot of people aren't willing to pay good money for good training so they go to the cheap classes instead. Even though the trainers have to pass a certification program to teach the concealed handgun class, that doesn't stop them from slacking off and teaching the bare minimums needed to pass.

Gun owners who are active on forums DO talk about it and DO tell each other which classes are best. Every problem you're talking about comes from the overly casual gun owner who has no experience with guns, buys one, gets the bare minimum training (if any), and then gets complacent with the gun. You're talking about issues that we, as gun owners, can't enforce.

-Stupidity with guns directly falls back to bad training. If I read your sentence, you appologize for the bad c-carry training and the bad hunting training, while the real problem is respect and "the right to bear arms" for everyone.
Back in those days, weapon culture was not like now. See back in my days it was not like now. Being a hunters child, I came into contact with powerful weapons as a child. You knew it´s not a toy.

Yes, and many children are raised that way now. There have always been people unfamiliar with guns who are never introduced properly.

-Reading about those hunter coarses. I tell you something. Hunting is the art of killing the right animals fast and nearly painless if you are able to. Only selecting out the weak ones. Shaping and keeping together the balance.
Thats what hunting is in Germany. Extensive weapon knowledge. One-kill shots and you are embarassed if it was not one. Because the animal deserves a fast death, when it has to perish for human reasons. Afterwards you thank the forest for the animals, you put them on pine tree leaves. An animal life is actually worth something here.

My impression about hunting in america (posts, Youtube): Get some coarses, get a gun/crossbow, shoot at everything that moves. Of course not everyone is doing it like that and I think no serious hunter would post kill shots online. But that´s the impression you get.

There is a small minority of hunters who behave that way but most are more like your example of German hunters. I'm sure there are bad apples in Germany, as well. We all have our idiots.

-My training did not cost one cent. It´s how you set it up. I pay something like 8€ a month and that goes into renting the place and such things. Training is free. It´s not like you have a personal trainer be there for you 24/7. No. It´s the supervisor supervising and other club members.

Training here is not free. Ranges charge fairly high monthly fees for memberships which, again, is prohibitive to some people who need the practice. Most ranges in my area charge a minimum of $15 per person, per hour to shoot. Some are much higher. The average "introduction to handguns" sort of course is $100 or higher in this area and even the NRA's basic handgun course is $75.

As far as I know, there are no free training courses.

It must be a problem over there with moronic people, seriously. Of course you see idiotic people on the streets here too but like you describe it, US of A must be full of self centered asshole-drivers. Maybe it´s because they are allowed to drive from the age of 16

Yes. Germany is known to have some of the best drivers in the world because of the difficult licensing process. In the US, any moron can get a license to drive.

You cant be serious. Do you want me to tell, training classes are off the discussion table because someone would not get a gun fast enough for his "urgent need for self defense"? Really? Beside that I cannot imagine one situation where you would have the urgent need for self defense with a gun and then get it fast enough at the store to "defend" yourself.

People died during the 4 years that the US attempted a 72 hour waiting period on gun sales. It was most often women who were victims of domestic violence that were threatened and tried to get a gun but were killed while waiting. Yes, it has happened.

a reply to: verschickter

To sumarize it:

I think you have something called like American Gun Association. If all the trainings are so bad and it´s a common opinion, why does the big AGA (let´s call it like that) not support better training? I mean it can not be in anyones interest to give someone a weapon for self defense but not take the time to teach it the right way. The association should do more constructive work (training, information) instead. As long as it´s not a straw puppet for the firearm industry to push hard on gun sales and nothing else.

I´m just not understanding it. Instead of working towards a goal, no side wants to move an inch it seems. Even if it would safe lifes and do good.

Edit: Saw you replied..
Yes ok, but what does a gun cost? More than the course if you want a decent one. The reason for casual gun owners is that it´s "casually easy" to pick up one, while here it´s a serious thing. That falls directly to "I have the right to own a gun". Yes, keep that right but make it mandatory to have at least 2 hours training. It will not only help defending yourself and not kill others nearby. I mean, what´s the gun worth if you´re not hitting the target. Most gun fights also happen to be close at first. Suddenly the bad guy has two guns. OOOPS.

My hairs stand straigt up if I recall that YT-channel where to old guy (very sympathic) recalls situations he had at the shop. "pew-pew" types. Will search for it again.