# I got an "F" on my report card!



## Grenadier (Sep 6, 2007)

...and darn proud of it, too!

http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=AL

More proof that the Brady Campaign doesn't do their homework.  Even though they claim that Alabama is a "may issue" state for CCW, nobody that I know who properly fills out the forms, goes through the background checks, and gets a clean result, ever gets denied, provided that they behave well.  

Oh well, at least they refused to give us their "extra credit" award...

Thus, they gave my state the wrong grade, as we should have had the coveted "F-" mark.


----------



## bydand (Sep 6, 2007)

Darn it all, Maine only got a D-, and Michigan got a D+.  Why couldn't "my" States get a F also?  Where did we go wrong.


----------



## lkblair (Sep 6, 2007)

Wow.  I am stunned that Texas got a D-.  I would've thought we'd have an F or F-.  Oh well, at least it's not any higher. 

Lisa


----------



## Dave Leverich (Sep 6, 2007)

That site makes me grumpy, idiots.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 6, 2007)

As if we were children to be graded on our civil rights.

Pompous inbred swine.


----------



## SeanKerby (Sep 6, 2007)

FL got an F+....It's almost like Christmas


----------



## BrandiJo (Sep 6, 2007)

ack Nebraska got  B- 

and Or (where we are moving) a C- ... ​


----------



## Blindside (Sep 6, 2007)

I'm going to have to send my "home" states into remedial lessons, WA got a D+ and WY an F.

I'm so disapointed...


----------



## grydth (Sep 6, 2007)

Naturally,  The Peoples Republic of New York got a B+

:barf:  x 1000


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 6, 2007)

bydand said:


> Darn it all, Maine only got a D-, and Michigan got a D+. Why couldn't "my" States get a F also? Where did we go wrong.


 

Michigan's "A's" for the Juvenile brought it up. Also the requirement of having a permit for ownership. Note: You go down and request the form, fillit out and they give you a card to buy a gun with in a short term period. I think two weeks.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 7, 2007)

Currently, they give Missouri a D+  

However, we recently (8/28) passed a Castle Doctrine bill that also includes language to eliminate the idiotic "permit to acquire a hangun" requirement.  It also protects people against civil liability if their use of force was justified.

I'm sure once the brady ***** site gets updated info, our grade with go UP to an F


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 7, 2007)

> Child-Safety Locks
> Must locking devices be sold with guns?     No



Is nothing sacred. What greater assault on the second amendment than to promote safety. How do you all live under this oppression.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 8, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> Is nothing sacred. What greater assault on the second amendment than to promote safety. How do you all live under this oppression.


 
There is a difference between _promoting_ safety and _requiring_ that trigger locks be sold with a firearm or that the weapon have a built in locking device.  Or for that matter, requiring firearms to be stored either disassembled or unloaded and secured with a locking device (as in Washington D.C.).

I'm all for safe handling and storage of firearms but what good does it do if someone that keeps a weapon for self-defense purposes is required to render the weapon unuseable?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 8, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> There is a difference between _promoting_ safety and _requiring_ that trigger locks be sold with a firearm or that the weapon have a built in locking device.  Or for that matter, requiring firearms to be stored either disassembled or unloaded and secured with a locking device (as in Washington D.C.).
> 
> I'm all for safe handling and storage of firearms but what good does it do if someone that keeps a weapon for self-defense purposes is required to render the weapon unuseable?



I'm talking about the trigger locks themselves. They're not inherently a blight on anyone's rights. The people I know who own guns tend to own more than one, several weapons in many cases. My thinking is that you can only fire one or two at a time. I've only been to the handgun range in my neighbourhood once (We have them in Canada), where they only let you shoot one gun at a time. So, why not lock up the ones you aren't using?

If one is licensed to carry a handgun, then it stands to reason that s/he wouldn't use the trigger lock while carrying it. There is no good reason for that same person not to have the weapons s/he has left at home, unattended, locked up tight. 

Why should jurisdictions enforce this? Why not? A gun permit, as I've said before, does not equate to a membership in Mensa. We have to tell people to wear seat belts and crash helmets; we have to tell people to fence in their swimming pools; we even have to tell people to pick up their dog poop. It is not a great stretch of imagination -- to me -- that a government might remind its citizens, as a matter of public safety, that they ought to secure weapons that are not being used. And sometimes that calls for somewhat heavy-handed measures, which still fall far short of actually banning weapons.

My overall point is that we cannot rely upon people to make sensible choices regardless of what their rights are.


----------



## bydand (Sep 8, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Michigan's "A's" for the Juvenile brought it up. Also the requirement of having a permit for ownership. Note: You go down and request the form, fillit out and they give you a card to buy a gun with in a short term period. I think two weeks.




I know I was pleasantly surprised when we moved back in 2004 and when I went to register my handguns, they didn't even blink an eye when I told them I already had them in my possession.   I was expecting them to have a conniption fit, because when I left the State years before, it was Nazi-America when it came to handguns.   I am looking forward to moving back next Summer and getting back home!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 8, 2007)

bydand said:


> ...it was Nazi-America when it came to handguns.   I am looking forward to moving back next Summer and getting back home!




bydland,

I'm not going on the attack, but I would like to offer a different perspective. 

Bear in mind, I live in a country that has far fewer guns per capita. Furthermore, while there is a debate here about the rights of gun owners and the relative merits of gun control, there is no constitutional language here upon which to make the argument for gun ownership. Simply, it's a different culture, so please accept my comments in that context.

While we have fewer guns, we are seeing spikes in gun crime, especially involving youth and gangs. We're starting to get drive-bys and such here in Toronto with greater frequency. Our stats seem small when compared to many comparably-sized US jurisdictions, but that doesn't really matter. Everyone I know is pretty concerned about the problem. That's probably because I'm a teacher, and I would like to see all my kids grow up.

I consider myself to be pro gun control -- in my country -- which sometimes gets me labeled as anti-gun on US forums.

There are a lot of people like me, in the USA, Canada, and all over the world. We're not anti-gun nuts, or anything of the sort. I just don't believe that many problems get solved by adding more guns to the mix. From my perspective, I think my country has all the gun control it can reasonably expect to have. Those controls don't change the fact that there are people who think it's appropriate or reasonable to brandish weapons and terrorize the innocent.

Several years ago a previous federal government mused about banning all handguns, with mixed reviews. Personally, I wouldn't miss them, but I doubt that would make my kids any safer. Recently, the Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, renewed his call for a city-wide ban on handguns. I'm pro gun control, but I disagree with him because it is already illegal to carry a hand gun here -- civilian carry permits are virtually unheard of. It's also illegal to point weapons and people and shoot them. So all we would accomplish is to criminalize gun owners without actually stopping a bullet.

I also know this to be a fact. An extensive report by the RCMP a couple of years ago, released to the media through the FOI act, tells us that slightly less than half of weapons seized from criminals were formerly the property of law-abiding gun owners. This tells me three things: (1) The pro-gun lobby in my country cannot blame all gun crime on the vast trafficking of illegal weapons from the USA into Canada. (2) The pro-control movement here cannot pretend that further controls will stop all forms of gun crime. (3) Not all gun legal owners are reliable, responsible, or immune to having their weapons stolen and used to hurt others.

So, to that extent, I understand the efforts of citizens who ask their government to impose gun safety on jurisdictions, even where it becomes inconvenient for gun owners. 

Respectfully, the word, Nazi, in that context, does not apply.


----------



## bydand (Sep 8, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> Bear in mind, I live in a country that has far fewer guns per capita. Furthermore, while there is a debate here about the rights of gun owners and the relative merits of gun control, there is no constitutional language here upon which to make the argument for gun ownership. Simply, it's a different culture, so please accept my comments in that context.



No problem!  I live just a few miles from Canada and know what you guys do go through there to own a firearm.




> I consider myself to be pro gun control -- in my country -- which sometimes gets me labeled as anti-gun on US forums.



I'll admit it, this made me laugh right out loud! :lfao:



> From my perspective, I think my country has all the gun control it can reasonably expect to have. Those controls don't change the fact that there are people who think it's appropriate or reasonable to brandish weapons and terrorize the innocent.



There will always be those who use every method at their disposal to harm, or frighten those who they see as weaker.



> I also know this to be a fact. An extensive report by the RCMP a couple of years ago, released to the media through the FOI act, tells us that slightly less than half of weapons seized from criminals were formerly the property of law-abiding gun owners. This tells me three things: (1) The pro-gun lobby in my country cannot blame all gun crime on the vast trafficking of illegal weapons from the USA into Canada. (2) The pro-control movement here cannot pretend that further controls will stop all forms of gun crime. (3) Not all gun legal owners are reliable, responsible, or immune to having their weapons stolen and used to hurt others.
> 
> So, to that extent, I understand the efforts of citizens who ask their government to impose gun safety on jurisdictions, even where it becomes inconvenient for gun owners.
> 
> Respectfully, the word, Nazi, in that context, does not apply.



I left these points from your post because I feel they are the main ones (my edit only, not saying they are the same as you would pick).  I think it comes down to what would be the least hurtful for innocent people.  If more than 1/2 of the weapons used in crimes came from sources other than law abiding citizens, one would have to draw the conclusion that those would still be have been available and used to commit those crimes.   By reducing the number of firearms in the hands of citizens, you remove a big question mark on the part of the criminal.  If I was going to break into and rob (or worse) you can bet your last dollar I am going to pick the place that is LEAST likely to have a firearm.  As you said, it is just a different culture we come from, even though there is only a few miles separating our countries.  As a Canadian comic I watched once mentioned "If you put a uniformed police officer out in front of a sports arena after a game and he raised his hand for people to stop, In Canada the whole crowd would stop, in the US maybe the guy right in front of him would stop, the rest would wonder what somebody else did."  The reason the crowd (a very good mix of Canadians and US citizens) found it so funny, is that we all could see he was probably right.

I used the term Nazi from the aspect of taking away rights from law abiding citizens.  While you do not have the written constitution wording of our 2nd amendment in Canada, we DO here in the States. The manner the State of Michigan used to employ when issuing CCW permits to its law abiding citizens a few years ago was borderline unconstitutional.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 8, 2007)

bydand said:


> I used the term Nazi from the aspect of taking away rights from law abiding citizens.  While you do not have the written constitution wording of our 2nd amendment in Canada, we DO here in the States. The manner the State of Michigan used to employ when issuing CCW permits to its law abiding citizens a few years ago was borderline unconstitutional.



Fair enough, and thank you for reading my long-winded diatribe. I didn't think your were being malicious in the use of the word. I've had my beliefs about guns compared to Nazism in US-forums when I wasn't even attempting to challenge anyone's perceptions of the Second Amendment.

As I said, for my part, I think we've taken gun control just about as far as we can realistically in my country. We need to get serious about smuggling, no question. We need to enforce laws that we have if we're concerned about violence. Theft of handguns has cost lives, so I support the national handgun registry in principle, as long as it is secure. Just because my neighbour feels safer with a gun in his kitchen drawer doesn't mean I have to.

As for US laws, I just want to clarify that I never attempt to dictate to Americans what they should do. Personally, I think it's a little late in the game to think that guns could be controlled south of the fortieth -- it would kind of like controlling socks. I certainly sympathize with those who are concerned with safety and good sense.

And I do appreciate your response.

Thanks,


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 9, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:
			
		

> My overall point is that we cannot rely upon people to make sensible choices regardless of what their rights are.


 So regardless of what their rights are, they are not sensible enough exercise them? The government knows best and must save us from ourselves? We can't make our own decisions?
Whether you meant it that way or not, that's the way it comes across and is probably the reason that your opinions are not favorably received.

Given that we're from different countries with cultural and legal differences regarding the ownership and carrying of firearms by private citizens, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Just suffice it to say that there are many of us, myself included who believe that "shall not be infringed" means just that. As a result any attempt by "big brother" to meddle with our 2nd Ammendment rights (even if it's in the interests of so called "public safety") really ticks us off. Why? because it is the nature of government to try to gain more and more control over people's lives and these "sensible measures" ALWAYS lead to more restrictions.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 9, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> So regardless of what their rights are, they are not sensible enough exercise them? The government knows best and must save us from ourselves? We can't make our own decisions?
> Whether you meant it that way or not, that's the way it comes across and is probably the reason that your opinions are not favorably received.



Essentially, yes. I believe that goes on all the time. In your country, as in mine, we are told to wear seat belts and how fast we can drive. We put crossing guards in school zones because we cannot trust in legally, licensed drivers observe traffic laws. Depending upon past criminal behaviour, we can be told that we can't have guns legally. Even our rights to free speech have boundaries.

The difference, I suppose, is that many Americans see gun ownership not merely as a right or privilege, but as a _Constitutional _right. That's a very important cultural difference, which no doubt influences the way I talk about this issue.


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 10, 2007)

It still comes down to a matter of personal choice, regarding how one wishes to implement whatever safety measures he wants to implement, in his own household.  

There is no "one size fits all" method that will work for everyone.  This is why the attempt to force people to buy trigger locks is a worthless one at best.  

People who don't want to install the trigger locks simply will not install them, even if they were forced to buy them.  The locks are usually weak, and can serve no other real purpose anyways, which is why it is a waste of money.  

Furthermore, there are people who simply have no need to install trigger locks.  Folks who live alone, for example, have no reason to put trigger locks on their firearms.  

Some people may say "well, what if those guns get stolen?"  To that I'll say this: what's going to stop a criminal from using a bolt cutter or a simple hammer and punch to defeat a trigger lock?  

In the end, it comes down to the individual firearms owner to use whatever safety methods are appropriate for his particular household.  The most important safety will always be the one between the ears, and no number of mechanical failsafes will ever trump this.


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 10, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> So, why not lock up the ones you aren't using?


 
What if your first choice of firearm is rendered unusable?  Wouldn't it be nice to be able to grab a backup that's readily available?  



> Why should jurisdictions enforce this? Why not?


 
Because it's simply unenforceable.  Unless you propose having governmental agents barge in on people's homes, and doing spot checks on people who tend not to cause trouble (law abiding firearms owners), you simply end up with an impotent law.  




> A gun permit, as I've said before, does not equate to a membership in Mensa.


 
The overwhelming majority of law-abiding firearms owners, and especially those who have concealed carry permits, have a much lower crime rate amongst them, than do those who aren't in the above categories. 




> We have to tell people to wear seat belts and crash helmets


 
But not when they aren't using them.  Furthermore, any such seat belt or crash helmet laws are most likely invalid when you're operating a vehicle on your own private property.  I do know that here in the USA, you are not required to even have a vehicular registration in such cases.  



> My overall point is that we cannot rely upon people to make sensible choices regardless of what their rights are.


 
Actually, firearms owners are some of the most responsible people, when it comes to obeying the laws.  Furthermore, accidental death by firearm is so low (in the USA, fewer than 900 people total, including, 90 children, died as a result of firearms accidents in the year 2000, according to the National Center for Health Statistics), that the above mentioned law is unnecessary.  

Some more interesting notes about the year previous to the one mentioned:

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm


As you can see, the law is more of a solution looking for a (non-existent) problem, not the other way around.


----------

