Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

I disagree, they are directly related, especially regarding the 'as they fall outside the scope of use of a firearm' bit. The protected status of firearms under the US Constitution is a legally granted right not a physical constraint on the operation of firearms. At the will of the US people any physical item can be granted the same legal protections as those granted to firearms and of course at their will those protections can be removed.

Point is whether possession of firearms is protected or not under the Constitution has zero impact on the safe usage of those firearms. Safe usage comes down to the choices made by the user and nothing else. And included in those choices are decisions about training/safe handling, transport and securing of firearms (so that untrained/unauthorized persons can't access them) etc. Licensing - if used applied is simply an extension of that process as it documents the owner has achieved a basic level of competence in the above - as per driving.

Now we both know that for constitutional reasons most of the above - at least on a national basis are off the table in the US. A situation that, barring a Constitutional amendment is is unlikely change. But regardless of that fact any shooter worth their salt wants the people he goes shooting with or near to be competent and safe. And all of the above assists with that - you get better safer shooters, which stats show would save far more lives in the US than any ban on assault rifles ever would. But as always its a matter for the US to decide not anyone else.

 

You are correct that the safe usage of firearms is completely the up to the choices and decisions made by the user; The user must accept responsibility and total ‘accountability’ for their actions.
However, it is impossible to mandate an owner or user to handle a firearm safely by virtue of a training requirement. People may get some level of training and are required to show they can pass a test to be granted the ‘privilege’ of a license to drive on public roads, yet, that doesn’t guarantee they will drive safely, obey the law, and not do stupid things that endanger others...
Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, and people have successfully defended themselves for hundreds of years without formal training requirements. However, they still have a responsibility if they choose to own/carry a gun. I conduct firearms training, and while I don’t advocate mandatory training, I do encourage people to voluntarily accept the responsibility for training themselves if not for their safety, but for others around them.
People generally pass a test to get a driver’s license, but most of their learning comes from gaining experience driving. Even then, how many know their limits... driving in difficult weather situations, know what to do if their car begins to slide on ice, know when they exceed the speed for road conditions, maintain their cars for safe operation, know at what point their consumption of alcohol or other compromises their ability to drive safely, etc. If they cause an accident leading to damage of property or life and limb of others they are potentially criminally and civilly accountable. The same applies to gun usage. Or, anything dangerous, like chain saws, ladders, and even swimming pools.
If gun safety was the major concern of the GSA’s, given the unlikelihood they will be successful in eliminating them from private hands, you’d think if they were sincere about saving lives they would advocate for gun safety and gun law training in our schools rather than terrorizing children for chewing a pop tart into the shape of a gun and emulating what they see in video or games marketed to them by the leftist elites in the industry making their fortunes peddling their products.

 

Simple semantics argument by you again. Youse people look at firearms in a sporting way almost exclusively. The "scope" of firearm use in the U.S. (which you are speaking of) is partly that as well. But, unlike us here in the states, youse people hardly even consider personal defense of yourself, your family, or your friends and neighbors. That falls outside of your "scope" of the issue.
When we are defending ourselves from the bad guys, we couldn't care less if our shooting buddies (assuming one has shooting buddies which are not necessary in this country) are well and safely trained. And licensing has no bearing either. Xenamnes is correct in saying, "They cannot be discussed in the same topic since they are not related to the subject", which is part of the entire "scope" of firearm use in which he is referring to.
If you really want to discuss what firearm use and Constitutionality of the use in the U.S. is, perhaps you should consider what the "scope" of the issue is and what is actually important to us. So far, all you're doing is projecting the values of a practically unarmed public where it's generally illegal to use firearms in the manner in which they were actually (totally) intended to be used. That part of the "scope" is foreign to you and your Australian ilk.
And here's yet another fact for you to consider...
The mere presence of a firearm that STOPS a crime from occuring is at a rate estimated to be somewhere around 1.5 to 3 MILLION times a year in this country. Even the most liberal/progressive bean-counting "think tanks" (like PEW research and the CDC to name a few) believe it is somewhere in that range as well. That's thwarting a crime from happening without even firing a shot.
I don't know how that relates to the actual percentage of crime/crime that is averted here. But I also wonder how it relates to the percentage of crime/crime averted in your country and/or the range/rate it is used as well. I'm guessing the number of times would be pretty low (maybe negligible) considering the law(s) that make your people somewhat personally defenseless against violent crime.

 

Factually incorrect. Matters such as firearm licensing, firearm registration, mandatory training and other related topics have absolutely nothing to do with either firearms safety, of legal firearms use. At best they are nothing more than a false sense of security, provided to an ignorant public who believes governmental paperwork will serve to protect them from physical harm.

The simple truth of the matter is that safety cannot be enforced. If an individual has no interest in exercising basic common sense, and is prone to acting in a reckless, dangerous manner with no regard for the well being of others, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to make them act in a responsible manner, no matter how many legal restrictions are attempted. It is nothing more than a complete waste of time, a waste of finite resources, and it provides no benefit for what is invested.

Part of being related to the solution, rather than the problem, ultimately comes down to recognizing both that certain proposals are useless, and that more governmental paperwork does not translate into greater public safety.

Government policy to try and address what is ultimately a matter of individual human behavior cannot and does not make anyone safer. It does nothing more than authorize specific prosecution for specific crimes after the fact, long after the victims are already dead.

 

The clear and obvious issue, however, is the right to keep and bear arms, like the right to free speech and the right to the free exercise of religion, etc, does not originate with the state and thus, the state has no standing to issue a license for the basic exercise of same.

The state -can- require a license for the use of public property while exercising those rights, with time/place/manner restrictions pursuant to the safety of the public as well as those exercising said rights, but that's not the same thing.

 

Xenames, training to use and properly secure your firearm when not is use has everything to do with safety - yours, your immediate family's and the general public's. Mandatory requirements or not, backed by licenses and registration proving you have passed an approved handling course or not. Safety is safety, end of story. You can argue for or against the need for government imposed regulations covering these issues but what you cannot do is argue that safe handling/storage etc of firearms are in and off themselves unnecessary and don't make a difference. They do.

It also follows that the more people there are following safe handling and storage principals (govt imposed or otherwise) the fewer deaths and injuries there would be. And I don't need to get into a battle over statistics to prove this.

 

TOG its a given that the 2nd Amendment impacts on the points we are discussing. And as I noted on a couple of previous posts any discussion about training, licensing, storage and other potnetial safety measures etc has to recognize there is little or no likelihood of any such provision ever being implemented barring Constitutional reform. That doesn't stop people debating the potential benefits or if you prefer upsides/downsides of reform were it possible.

 

I take all your points regarding the above including of course the fact that ownership of the firearms is a supported right under the constitution which renders most discussions regarding potnetial reforms/safety measures hypothetical at best. I would note that referencing the car analogy again however that while yes people get their experience behind the wheel after getting their license and yes temperament/natural ability etc will always impact on how safe a driver someone is regardless of whether they are licensed or not. This does not in and of itself invalidate the basic concept.

I think you must admit that the purpose of a drivers license is not to guarantee the person receiving it is a highly competent driver. Rather its to state that the person receiving it has achieved the basic minimum standard of knowledge/experience required before being allowed on the road. It is not a guarantee that they will always be safe drivers once they are licensed. The same argument applies with regards to any theoretical firearms licensing scheme were one ever to be implemented in the US. A basic handling test etc and license will never make someone a good/safe shooter. All it does is guarantee they have achieved a basic level of competence. And yes the user has to accept responsibility, I'm doubt however that's a lot of consolation to all those killed or seriously injured as a result of bad firearms technique. But again of course the situation is what it is.

 

Again noted. (Whats with the youse people BTW?). To clarify, yes the right to bear arms is legally protected under the US Constitution so to be absolutely clear any discussions along the lines we are having here are are purely theoretical. Secondly the benefits of having a firearm available in a life threatening self defense situation is obvious. That said a lot of your response seems to be based on the presumption I was somehow arguing for disarmament. I wasn't, end of story. What I was doing was putting forward an argument in favor of better training, security and safety when it comes to firearms. In that scenario a license to own/carry a firearm implies nothing more than a acknowledgment by the State that the person involved has a basic knowledge of firearms safety. End of story.

What licensing in this context does NOT imply is any kind of State mandated right to bar citizens from access to firearms for any other reason. Not their race, their gender, their political leanings or religion etc. or any other variable you might imagine. Just one thing and one thing only - do they have a basic level of competency. Now you can agree with that proposition or not (in your case not). But what you can't argue is that its a call to disarm the populace because that not what it is, unless you your posit that the vast majority of the US population couldn't learn to pass a basic safety course, which I don't believe for a moment. Literally anyone can pass a basic firearms course with some elementary coaching. So the argument that licensing potentially disarms someone is also incorrect - all it does is oblige them to learn.

As far as you argument goes about 'shooting buddies' that is irrelevant - unless one or more of those 'buddies' is present when the need to potentially use lethal force arises. Then the competence of the person using that firearm becomes very important, especially if third parties (i.e. not the aggressor) are in the immediate vicinity. Is having access to a firearm in that situation good? - obviously yes. Well having access to a firearm AND at least a basic level of competency when doing so is even better. Or do you disagree?

I also don't disagree with your point about the presence of a firearm preventing a potential crime, stats on this are extremely hard to compile but there is certainly anecdotal evidence that this is true. However again - not arguing for disarmament or a ban, oh and its not about not semantics either.

 

Again. The simple truth of the matter is that safety cannot be enforced. If an individual has no interest in exercising basic common sense, and is prone to acting in a reckless, dangerous manner with no regard for the well being of others, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to make them act in a responsible manner, no matter how many legal restrictions are attempted.

Without the cooperating and corresponding human element being willing to go along with requirements, said requirements are nothing more than an illusion, and do nothing more than provide a false sense of security to those who do not know any better. The prohibition against murder is an example of such a fact.

 

The 2nd doesn't have anything to do with what I said - the entire concept of the state requiring someone to obtain a license for the basic exercise of their rights is entirely foreign to our form of government.

The state has no more standing to issue, much less require, such a license than I do for the commercial use of Darth Vader.

 

The ability to exercise a right - any right - cannot be tied to a demonstration of state-defined competence.

 

Which situation is “what it is”?
In the US you can buy, own and operate a vehicle on private property without a license. Obtaining a driver’s license to drive on public roads is considered a privilege, not a Constitutional Right as the RKBA.
Included virtually every new firearm are a few things, first, standard lists of gun safety rules (5-12 depending on the source), instructions specific to the safe operation and maintenance of the gun, and a means of locking the gun unauthorized use. For used guns, the same can be easily obtained from many sources.
Much of what is provided with a new gun is little different than that provided with any commercial product given the liability concerns of most manufacturers ( in the US). Owners are encouraged/expected to assume personal responsibility and accountability for safe use of any product, including learning how to use and operate the products safely.
So, beyond that, I will ask you the same question I have asked many times in various threads without answer in this forum, of those that mindlessly advocate advocate for mandatory training and licensing of gun owners (note, of course many states have requirements for training to obtain CCPs), what specifically should be be tested? What specifically should be the minimum? Then too, what specifically should be considered for obtaining a CCP?
When I am asked by people what I would recommend they should consider for their personal training, I have specific recommendations for every level knowledge/experience; Hell, after 60 years of experience, knowledge accumulation, and more, I am still learning, training and experimenting.
Recently a poster shared qualification requirements for one LE agency, elements of which I would criticize, but that is another discussion. What would you consider the minimum requirements that should be mandatory?

 

Well, one thing is missing. Every barrel of every gun gun should have stamped with an arrow pointing to the muzzle and the words “the bullet comes out here”.


Yep, it’s loaded....Lol

 

Just a reference to the fact any discussions about firearm reform of any kind remain just that 'discussions' given the legal environment.

I'll just point out that what follows is strictly my opinion, based on my experience and is an outline only. (If we start going over the specifics of what constitutes good firearms training we'll be going 24/7 for days.)

So in board outline only: Safe shooting 101;

- Separate courses for handguns and long arms (since the bio-mechanics are entirely different);

Theory
- brief synopsis of the relevant State laws as they apply to responsible use;
- basic principals of safe storage and security (at home/traveling etc );
- basic principals of safe shooting;
- simple test on the above (these are people trying to qualify with firearms not pass their LSATs)

Practical
- loading/unloading/making safe; * Note easy to say, somewhat harder to do in practice given no-one on the course is likely to be armed with the same firearm - but doable if the class size/instructor ratio is not unrealistic.
- safe care and maintenance;
- couple of sessions of range time under review (excepting appalling performance no requirement for accuracy at distance etc) limited to safety breaches with as many re-sits as they need.Barring the misfortune of having someone like the Einstein in your picture above on the course there should rarely be the need for a res-sit.

Re-qualification on the above the above every 5 or so years with proof of (a little) range time during that period nullifying this requirement.

Other than that not much. Let private instructors working for gun stores and clubs or the NRA etc or appropriate local officials (so access is easy) run and sign off on the tests. By all means advertise the existence of other specialized or 'advanced' courses like self defense, target shooting etc but those would of course be voluntary. Keep it simple and practical.

 

And yet there are arbitrary defined limits set in place regarding the right to vote - you must be over 18 or alternately cannot do so in some States if serving a sentence for a serious crime if older than 18. Yes, I know the age of 18 is a reasonable yardstick for determining competence in lieu of any other means but it is still a limit imposed under the Constitution. Under 18? not competent to vote, over 18 ? yes you are.

 

TOG6 is talkin' apples, Mon.

Is there a big citrus industry in your neck of the woods?

 

Pick any fruit you want. It doesn't matter. My point still stands. Either all the rights defined under any constitution are equally valuable/important or none of them are important at all. You don't get to 'pick' (as in fruit - staying with your analogy) one as more important than another and then say that particular right must never be subject to competence based proscriptions. The question was whether or not a right can be 'tied to a demonstration of state-defined competence' as TOG put it. I simply pointed to one right in (this case the US Constitution ) that was tied. Which I would argue means others rights can (not necessarily should), in theory be bound to some demonstration of competence as well - should that be the will of the electorate.

 

Should the right to vote require demonstrating knowledge of the candidates and issues? Seems that was tried once with literacy laws and determined to be unconstitutional.

 

A test before you can vote about those topics? I would suggest no, you have voluntary voting after all. If someone who is entitled to vote can't be bothered acquiring knowledge about the candidates or issues in an election there's next to zero chance they will vote anyway. However if they are first gen Americans then they will have been required to pass a citizenship test. And if they were born in America then the education system should have given them a basic knowledge of the US Political system anyway, at least in terms of the Constitution, the roles of the Congress, Senate and Electoral College and the President etc. Passing a basic exam at the end of high school on the topic would cover it.

 

These are limits inherent to the right to vote and thus does not compare to a requirement to gain a license for the exercise of same.

 

This is correct.
The state does not have standing to issue a license from the exercise of a right - any right - because rights do not originate with the state.

And the answer, in the US, is no.

Setting a legal age to exercise a right is not the issuance of a license to exercise that right or a demonstration of competence of same.
Forcing a prospective voter to prove he can read and understand the issues he is about to vote on, is.

 

Like I said, Apples and oranges.

Your "yardstick" using age is an idiotic notion that doesn't even deserve a response.

Consider yourself fortunate that I gave you one.

Then you'd be arguing with yourself on that issue. (You seem to be good at that anyway.

Maybe rights aren't really rights where you come from. In a Republic, they are. (So much for your worthless argument.)

What part of, "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you and your ilk FAIL to understand?

 

HUH???

HUH??? (Again)

Do they even have to do requal? Every few years as well? Like you and your ilk require (Or want to require) for firearms "training"?

Ask just about ANYONE under 35 or 40 in this country what it takes for a bill to become a law or who has the power to generate a tax bill and see the response that you get.

Or ask the same crowd why there are seasons or why our sky looks blue to us on a cloudless day and see that "deer in the headlights" stare back at you.

 

I am lucky. Your unique 'outrage' vibe when anyone who dares disagree with you is illuminating Chopped. Don't get it from other posters like TOG or An Taibhse.

Just so its nice and clear for you. When I say - 'rights can (not necessarily should), in theory be bound to some demonstration of competence' I'm saying you have the option to do this. Not must 'can' OK. All constitutions are living documents - amenable to revision at the will of the people. So why when I acknowledge this fact in regards to certain ideas I raised am I arguing with myself? Anyone suggesting any type of reform has to acknowledge they are optional.

Oh there are rights here to. For the next bit? I can only assume labeling an opponents ideas as 'worthless' without explaining why saves you time in your busy schedule.

Again you don't get to pick which parts of the Constitution (any constitution) you 'like' at a given moment and ignore the rest. The 'right's contained in both US and Australian Constitutions are subject to amendment and interpretation by the Courts. In your case 'shall not be infringed' refers to those rights as they exist currently within the document. Add to those rights, delete certain rights or amend existing rights, it doesn't matter that phrase still stands. What it doesn't do is act as a magic charm against change.