Beavah

In 2013, we're re-issuing a silly cardboard 3-part form? I reckon da old one was just fine. The time they spent on this should have been spent on fixing ScoutNet so that cardboard multi-part forms can be dispensed with. There would be much rejoicing. Beavah

that idea still suffers from the same weakness that gun 'bans' suffer from, namely, that crooks and crazies don't often pay much attention to laws. Well, insurance wasn't my idea. I read it in The Economist and through it out there to see what I could catch with that bait. Personally I think there are a number of flaws, but it's an OK thing to kick around. We're able to work da insurance angle pretty well with cars, eh? That involves quite a bit more registration and tracking than currently available with firearms. I think again that da issue is that there are multiple issues. No solution is goin' solve all da problems. Right now, we still see a lot of damage from guns used by or obtained from relatively ordinary, law-abiding citizens. If encouragin' them to be responsible reduces that damage substantially, that's a start. If yeh think about da mom of the Sandy Hook shooter, a purchase restriction on ammunition or additional weapons based on having insurance in place may well have made her be more thoughtful. She wasn't goin' to have ready access to black market stuff. Instead of layin' in all those guns, perhaps she would have been content with a good handgun and spent da rest of da money on a bunker filled with canned food. Bob

Yah, jblake47, I return to "get a grip." . And please, please, don't ever counsel Citizenship in da Nation MB. Executive orders and decisions are part of da normal process of government. We have an Exectuive Branch to execute, eh? An executive order is nothing more or less than the CEO giving instructions to his subordinates. That's what we elect a president to do, eh? To run da executive branch as its leader and boss. Orders to the Joint Chiefs as Commander in Chief are a form of executive order. So is declaring that federal workers have a vacation day on December 31 because New Years falls on a Tuesday. Of the two, da risk of "dictatorship" comes more from da first than the second, I reckon. Beavah

Hiya jamesprepatrip! Good question. Are yeh talkin' about a Cub Scout pack or den outing? Boy Scout troop? Venturing Crew? They're pretty different. I don't do much work with cubs any more (that was always Mrs. Beavah's thing anyways ), so I'll let someone with more recent cub scout experience answer that. For Boy Scouts, the boy leaders should be handlin' most of the logistics for campouts, eh? A good troop might have some adults coaching the younger boy leaders in the process, but it's stuff that they can handle. Loading cars, making directions & navigating, figuring out car assignments, even deciding budget and such. Most troops (but not all), the adults do handle the money/reimbursement, and have some set procedures for how they handle payin' for gas and such. So in terms of your questions, for Boy Scout troops, I'd say: 1) the boys do it how they see fit. 2) the boys do it how they see fit. 3) the troop has some standard procedures for handling, but they'll vary by troop. Sometimes boys will bring cash to give their driver, sometimes the driver will submit receipts for reimbursement, sometimes there won't be any reimbursement, or only for the fellow who drives the trailer, etc. For Venturing Crews, just put down "the youth should handle it" for everything. Are there any online tools / software that any of you use to help with this process? Scouts use Google maps a lot. What sort of online tools are yeh thinkin' of for da other stuff? One thing I've seen a couple troops do to great advantage is send out "driving statement balances" along with scout account balances. Can be as simple as "average miles driven in the last year per family" and "miles your family has driven". Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I gotta agree 100% with Eagledad. While da pro-abortion folks have become fond of da tactic of querying pro-lifers on "what about rape?" because it raises hard issues, there are hard issues that go da other way, eh? What about parents who don't want to have girls, and so abort them? Are yeh saying that's OK, because boys are better? What about the dads? Shouldn't they have a say? What about kids with mild disabilities? Are yeh really saying it's OK to kill off the disabled? How about aborting because the child isn't smart enough? Doesn't look big enough to play football? Will be the wrong eye color? As we improve genetic screening, do we really want a policy of abortion on demand? American parents are gettin' older every year, eh? Gettin' married later, havin' kids later. Sometimes, they find they can't. I've known several wonderful, kind, generous couples who would have chewed off their right arms for a chance to adopt an "unwanted" child. It is a profound poverty to decide that a child must die so that you can avoid being temporarily inconvenienced. Beavah

I read a different article on the same thing earlier in the day and my take away from that was the administration would act with or without Congress. Who knows. A different article by whom I wonder? No doubt one that dropped the explanatory previous paragraph. By accident, I'm sure. If yeh put on your thinking cap for half a sec, would that make any sense at all? Seriously, folks. Get a grip. How much frothing at the mouth conspiracy nonsense are yeh really goin' to buy? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Not sure where Beavah got his info about Texas Concealed Carry Permit holders Yah, that was posted earlier on, perdidochas. Page 3 of this thread. It's based on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of da statistics you mention. See http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300807 Beavah

I'm not sure I found your list of "notions" Beav. If I'm looking at the correct post, your thoughts on insurance and liability seem like the Civil Litigator Full Employment Act of 2013. Yah, we've got a lot of parallel threads goin' here. I posted that here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=375659&p=14 (top posting) You're referrin' to another thread where I just brought up da notion that made an appearance in The Economist and Forbes, on the merits of requiring private insurance. The Economist article is here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/gun-control-0 I agree with yeh that it would have to be accompanied by a doctrine of strict liability for gun ownership. That is to say, if yeh own a gun and that gun is used in a crime for any reason (including theft of an unsecured weapon), you are personally liable. In other words, yeh don't have to establish negligence. Buy a gun, and you're liable for whatever use it's put to, by anybody. I asked before about the legal liability of an unsecured gun and I still don't understand that. I tried to reply to that here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=376164&p=4 (bottom posting) B

It's called an analogy and it is fairly accurate. People unfamiliar with guns want to ban ones that have an assault weapon appearance. Kind of like banning people based on their appearance (color), it's a stupid idea by narrow minded people. It's also a tactic used by da NRA and other lobbying groups, eh? Yeh steer legislation toward appearances and away from substance. Yeh negotiate amendments or "compromise" language that leads to large loopholes which make da legislation ineffective. Beavah

IMHO, there is no way to stop crazy shooters from obtaining guns and killing without being much more restrictive than what anybody (outside of Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer) would find reasonable. But would yeh agree that this is a testable hypothesis, perdidocas? Rather than just a matter of opinion? Yeh see, I think what yeh say is true. If some fellow wants to get a gun, he probably can. Just start breaking into houses or stealing lots of women's purses in areas of high gun ownership. I just don't think that's relevant. We can't prevent all of these things from happening, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to try to prevent some of these things from happening, eh? Or from makin' it harder for the perps, or easier for the cops. And I reckon a fairly substantial fraction of that list happen or are made worse by immediate access to firearms. Certainly road rage. Perhaps much suicide (includin' mass shooting/suicide). Attacks on workplaces after a job loss. Those things we might be able to affect. Nope, we can't prevent the fellows who are determined to commit planned armed robbery of da bank from getting firearms, but they're just a fraction of da firearm related deaths and injuries. Maybe we can prevent the mentally unbalanced young man from having ready access to da tools for mass murder of kindergarteners. And if we're lucky, maybe along da way we can make it a little bit harder for the bank robbers too. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... jblake47, did you read the piece? Nuthin' like dissolving da branches of government was being proposed. A paragraph mentioned three steps being discussed. One was making firearms trafficking a felony, which would require legislative action. Da other two steps were what I mentioned above, which (properly) require only executive action. The author of da article correctly indicated that. I'm not quite sure how any rational human being takes an accurate statement by a third party author about da proper division of authority within da U.S. Constitutional system and gets from there to worries about "dictatorship" or "Third World Dictators". What's more, none of da three proposed items were at all offensive. Firearms trafficking should be a felony. I think we want better data integration with the background check system, don't we? So that criminals don't get guns? And punishing people for lying on those forms just seems like a reasonable part of that, but probably too expensive to do for an extended period. Did yeh have any real objection, other than your bizarre prejudice that anything President Obama does must be leading to dictatorship no matter what the evidence really is? You are correct sir, sorta like Obamacare n'cest pas? Yah, absolutely. And like da financial reform bill. Both are messes that got taken over in substantial part by lobbyists. Beavah

Yah, Eagledad, did yeh read the piece? The paragraph before the line you quoted said: Other recommendations to the Biden group include making gun-trafficking a felony, getting the Justice Department to prosecute people caught lying on gun background-check forms and ordering federal agencies to send data to the National Gun Background Check Database. So the line you quote is correct. Increasing the Justice Department's priority on prosecuting people lying on background check forms and ordering federal agencies to integrate more data with the background check database can (and should) be done as a matter of ordinary executive prerogative. Or were yeh asking me about da overall approach? On da overall approach, I'd say it's too early to say, eh? They're just out talkin' to people at this point. I'm always concerned by railroad-style policymaking, because it tends to lead to poor policies. I understand the political realities that lead to such approaches, but I wish everyone would proceed more slowly and thoughtfully. That requires folks to behave like fellow Americans workin' on a problem, rather than politicians, so I'm never hopeful. Beavah

Yah, TwoCubDad, I hear yeh. I said when this got started that da worst mass-killing of school kids was done in the 1920s with farm explosives. On a per-capita basis, da risk is low, which is why neither armed guards nor training teachers to carry are reasonable policies to pursue. Rather than waste money on armed police in the schools, those police should be out on da streets where 98% of the crimes against kids are committed. With yeh there 100%. School boards that waste taxpayer money in that way should be fired. For da same sorts of reasons, fearfully purchasing your own weaponry to defend your family against such a small risk when suicides and accidents with those guns are more likely isn't particularly rational. I agree there, too. I think it should be discouraged, because those folks are unlikely to have da background and discipline to be safe and maintain proficiency. At the same time, deaths of kids are tragic, and our rate of these things vastly exceeds that for any comparable first-world country (almost none of which have armed guards or teachers in their schools). That suggests that we can take significant steps to mitigate that risk using other methods, don't yeh think? This gets back to sailingpj's list, eh? There are different problems. Yeh brought up suicides, so I'll rejigger the list a bit. * Accidental shootings * Suicides * Criminal activity / criminal enterprises. * Opportunity crimes / spontaneous anger / rage. * Mental health / mass shootings / sprees. Of course they overlap a bit. With da exception of criminal activity / criminal enterprises, all da other categories are primarily committed with legally obtained firearms that are ready-to-hand. Nobody seems to really have a grasp on da provenance of the firearms used in the third group, but it seems reasonable to believe that a fair number come from straw sales usin' the private sale loophole, theft of unsecured weapons and the like. As far as I know, law enforcement ain't seein' that many guns smuggled in, eh? The guns used in crimes are primarily of domestic provenance. So it's not unreasonable to guess that well-implemented access restrictions of some kind could potentially make a significant dent over time that could save tens of thousands of lives. Similarly, it's not unreasonable to believe that a more proactive and better implemented mental health system could also have similar effects, and address other issues not encompassed by these statistics. Da challenge is to craft such approaches in ways which will actually be effective, without causin' too much imposition on hobbyists or others, and in ways that can be paid for privately or publicly. Part of that is resisting lobbyist pressure to create nice-sounding but ineffective regulation, which is an approach da industry has long pursued. Some solutions might be hard, others more expensive than we're willing to pay for, others might be practical and help a bit. We just shouldn't start off with "NO!". I'm nowhere near competent to come up with a mental health protocol with respect to firearms (or airplanes), even if I did read a few journal articles. But I'd like those folks to take a considered look at it. It's certainly not perfect for aviation, but we have far fewer folks kill people because of medical problems in aircraft than do so with cars (on a per-user basis), so that suggests gains are possible. In the mean time, other approaches like higher levels of training/proficiency will likely lead to improvements. JoeBob agreed with many of my off-da-cuff notions (in this thread or da other thread). What do you think of them? Beavah

Tut, tut. Back to da ad hominem stuff again Eagledad? Consider just engagin' in da discussion, rather than petty insults about da person. For the record, I have never, not once, been an advocate of tax and spend on these forums (or anywhere). I've been an advocate of payin' our bills, though. Right now we can't pay our bills, either nationally or in many municipalities and school districts, eh? So when yeh propose a $10 billion plus new federal program, yeh have to propose what new revenue you're goin' to use to pay for it. That's da way citizenship and government work, eh? If yeh feel such action is important, yeh agree to tax yourself to pay for it. Yah, it's true we can learn from other nations, eh? But perhaps we shouldn't start with da one nation that is effectively in a war zone pursuing a policy of occupation and apartheid. Maybe we should consider startin' with the dozens of wealthy first-world nations like ours that do not have anywhere near the problem we do. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I don't think I ever made that assertion, JoeBob. That's da straw man yeh keep puttin' up, not da Beavah. What I'm pokin' fun at is da silly irrational fear being espoused. Some folks here in talkin' about da risks they need to defend against are really just spinning yarns, eh? They sound a bit like that nitwit Alex Jones who made a fool out of himself this week. Having a well-trained hobbyist who maintains proficiency carry a gun around (for fun or fashion) doesn't bother me. It's one of da reasons I've been a strong proponent of "shall-issue" laws for concealed carry. I'm an EMT as a hobbyist, eh? I keep it up from days on a rural VFD largely because of da Scouting stuff I do. I maintain proficiency at about double what's required for my license in terms of continuing ed and actual practice. But I don't have any fantasies about rescuin' people with advance techniques, or steppin' into the mass casualty incident to save the day. I'm not doin' it because I believe society is in imminent danger; I'm not stockpiling medical supplies or specialty equipment; I'm not packin' a military field trauma medic's kit. Da risks in Scouting aren't high, and are typically all da usual stuff - adult cardiac events, cuts and scrapes and da occasional simple fracture or concussion. The long term outcomes aren't likely to be affected by my presence or absence. I don't "need" to do it. It's just a hobby, eh? I do it because I enjoy it and because some of the stuff I do is remote enough with a higher than average risk, but mostly because it helps me do a better job teachin' first aid. If you're a firearm hobbyist with that approach, I'm right there with yeh. Maintain proficiency, do it as a hobby because it interests you, it makes yeh a better instructor, whatever. I'm one of those too, eh? At least when it comes to hunting or shotgun sports. Get and maintain da training for the level you're interested in, understand and work with and within da systems set up by your fellow citizens. No problem. If yeh start to have fantasies about intervenin' with firepower in a mass casualty incident, if you're doin' it because yeh feel society is coming apart or you're afraid of rioters in East Nowhere, if you're stockpiling specialty equipment or ammo or think yeh need military gear for anything other than hobby use, if yeh aren't willing to get and maintain da training that matches your gear or intended use, if yeh aren't willing to work with and within da systems set up because yeh feel that's kowtowing to da tyrannical guvmint... well, that sort of thing makes me uncomfortable. We have wannabe EMTs too, eh? They can be a bit dangerous. Beavah

As for teachers getting trained, I was reading where Israeli teachers have been trained with firearms for many years to deter terrorist. I dont know the details behind their training and how the schools handles firearms, but I remember the first place the US went to look for ideas in preventing another 911 was Israel. However, my teacher son thinks an armed policeman is all schools really need. Yah, it's important to remember that Israel has mandatory military service for everyone, eh? Service which has a strong component of terrorist prevention training, and where everyone of certain ages is a reservist (required to have a service weapon in their home, I believe, as well as engage in regular reservist drill). At the point when all of our teachers have a mandatory two years of military training for handlin' firearms in crowded, confused situations, with ongoing drill and proficiency checks in a strict and professional chain of command, I've got fewer worries about 'em being armed. Now, da cost of that is goin' to be huge. So, what taxes are yeh going to dramatically increase to pay for it? Da Israeli income tax rates are higher than the U.S., particularly at higher income levels, plus a national 17% VAT and a hefty corporate tax. However, my teacher son thinks an armed policeman is all schools really need. He'd be in da minority, and is probably unionized, eh? Cost estimates for this were in da $10 billion per year range, not includin' the additional insurance costs for da school (insurers generally prefer gun-free schools as being more safe from a liability perspective). Are yeh willing to add a $25 tax per year on every owned firearm in order to pay for it? Or perhaps a tax on ammunition? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, you're mistakin' straw men for what is really satire of an absurd position. There's really a big difference, but yeh have to appreciate satire. Nonconformist beliefs are fine, to a point. After a point, they become mental illness. Havin' seen too many dead kids, I think it's appropriate to restrict firearm access for folks who demonstrate signs or symptoms of mental illness. Some point further along than that, mental illness merits involuntary commitment. Close as I can tell, everyone from da NRA spokespeople to moderate liberals is comin' to agreement on this. They "must" work hard and sacrifice for the collective. Yep, as a moral "must". What do yeh think da Scout Oath and Law are? They are promises, bound by honor, to service. If yeh are an honorable man, yes, you "must" do your duty. You "must" strive to live by the Law. You "must" endeavor to help other people at all times. "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." - 1 John 3:16-18 "The collective?" The "collective" is our family, our community, our nation. Our brother and sister scouts and scouters. We promised them duty and sacrifice and service on our very honor. "Must"? Absolutely. That is the Mission of Scouting. It's what we stand for. Beavah

Here is where OGE is consistent. He (and the Catholic Church) has an absolute position and makes no exception. I don't agree with his political solution but I do understand that he is being consistent and honest about this. If "all life is sacred" then that is an absolute that cannot be breached without violating whatever is there to 'back up' the idea of sacred life in the first place. You can't stake out an absolute position like this, then attempt to weasel out of it when it gets uncomfortable, AND claim to honest about it. I respect OGE's honesty. Yah, perhaps. Or perhaps there is a second threshold between what we believe is morally right and what we believe da state should punish. OGE's Catholic Church once experimented with having the state enforce doctrinal purity. I reckon they still feel strongly that their doctrinal positions were (and are) morally right, but they came to a realization that that particular moral right was not somethin' that the state should be empowered to enforce. They moved to a position of freedom of conscience on those issues. Christian folks should try to convince people of da rightness of their doctrine through evangelization, not state inquisition. I personally believe that an individual human's life begins at conception, or as close to that as makes no nevermind. I'm reasonably well convinced of that, though one must always be humble before God and His creation. That's not to say I necessarily agree that I want da state engaged in some sorts of enforcement actions. It strikes me that cases of rape, incest, and risk to da mother's life are matters where evangelization and loving support are called for, not state intervention. Same with a young lady who has just discovered that her indiscretion has led to a surprise. We are called first and always to charity, not to judgment. For me, I think if both sides would stop shoutin' at each other long enough to be thoughtful, most of us could agree that da state's definition of the start of life might be best set the same as the state's definition of the end of life, eh? Heartbeat and brain activity. We Christians should be humble enough to recognize that we don't know when a person is "ensouled" by the Almighty, and that perhaps da soul joins the body when da conditions are right, just as it departs when the conditions are not. More importantly, though, we should recognize that limits on the power of the state are a wise and prudent thing that we should have learned by now from our history, eh? Christ never invoked Caesar to enforce God's law. He called on people to change their hearts. That's truly the way of Christians. Such a definition allows a bit of time for a young woman to struggle with da moral questions without fear of the state, where the example and love and care of folks can make all the difference in a personal choice. At da same time, it would afford considerably greater protection for unborn children at the ages when most of us start to think of this more as a choice of convenience. Leave a self-defense exception in place for da full pregnancy when the life of the mother is at risk, which I believe even da Catholics recognize (though they might promote da parent sacrificing for her child as the higher calling). Beavah

Yah, seriously SR540. Are yeh advocating gunning down a 12-year-old girl in a middle school classroom in front of her friends? Yeh really think a competent school teacher is goin' to do that? I reckon every teacher out there would put their life on the line to try to contain a desperate 12 year old girl in a non-fatal way. Not to mention da chain of improbable events you're tryin' to posit. She charges forward but da other adults don't grab her from the side and behind? The adults left all the other kids in the room within easy reach? She manages to hit da carotid artery despite da defensive act? Then, covered in blood and fully engaged with a desperate adult, she manages to pull free, avoid da other adults, outrun and corner another student who for no particular reason is still there, and without other 7th grade boys tacklin' her from behind? Were there space aliens too? Even then, there would be only one or two victims. That same 12 year old with a semi-auto handgun can wreak a heck of a lot more havoc. As has been reported here repeatedly, a firearm is a force multiplier that makes da 12 year old equal to or greater than several adults in a way that a knife cannot. Da same reason it's useful for defense is the reason it's much worse in da wrong hands. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... Why don't yeh ask your PLC to look into it and do what they want? Seems like da right sort of thing for a project for interested and tech-savvy youth leaders. B

Mandatory life sentences for those who commit assault with a weapon. Don't have to worry about recidivism any more... But do have to worry about costs, eh? So are yeh willing to increase your taxes in order to pay for all that prison time? So let's start there with, say, nonappealable death penalty for murder or attempted murder. Limiting appeals is based on da presumption that da court made no errors in reaching a verdict. As da advent of DNA testing in rape/murder cases has demonstrated, our record at gettin' it right da first time isn't always that great. Always go into writing legislation imagining that da legislation will be applied to yourself. If falsely accused, are yeh willing to bet your life on everyone gettin' it right on the first try? How about when your kid is accused? Willin' to bet his life? How 'bout when da prosecutor plans to run for mayor? Yep, and Beavah you're right that the situation could have been defused even quicker with less danger to all, had one of the restaurant patrons had a weapon. Really? Da two LEOs on the scene opted not to fire until they had run the perpetrator into a contained environment. Are yeh really suggesting that a surprised amateur is goin' to whip out his pistol in a crowded mall restaurant and successfully disable a mobile, active shooter across da room in da midst of a horde of screaming and scurrying civilians? Are yeh completely daft? A responsible citizen carrying is never goin' to take that risk. And someone who actually believes he should be shootin' away should never be allowed to carry. Beavah

The security of myself, my family, and my property rely on my freedom to be as well as, or better, armed than those who would threaten it. Nah, they really don't. Leastways, not outside of Hollywood films. Da security of your family depends on bein' part of a strong community, not on your firepower. It relies on institutional supports from a strong church community, from alert and caring neighbors, from good schools, from a healthy and free economy supported by appropriate regulation. It relies on da availability of medical care and emergency services and shared infrastructure like potable water and safe food. It relies on faith, and prayer, and da hard daily work of buildin' and maintaining a marriage that lasts. Callooh talks about innumeracy, and if there's one clear example of innumeracy it's da level of fear a mess of suburbanites seem to have over armed folks threatening their family and property. Da real threats to families are very, very different. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... "communitarian society"? "government monitoring system"? references to gulags? I wonder if yeh are listening to yourself Callooh Callay? I find myself wishin' for a video to see if yeh are actually deliverin' all that with a straight face. Yah, lots of kids are hurt by child abuse by a parent or guardian. But we as a society responded with a whole raft of special legislation, haven't we? Federal law creating monitoring and data sharing and clearinghouses. State laws making child abuse and neglect the only crime where reporting of even suspicion is mandated at least for professionals. Special investigative agencies to look into allegations and determine parental fitness. Government officials empowered to take emergency custody of children or permanently remove 'em from their parents. Civil immunity for folks who report in good faith. Are yeh proposing that sort of legislative response for firearms? Mandatory reporting of suspicions? Special agencies empowered to seize guns and ammo? Seems like your approach would make most of da gun control liberals look pretty timid by comparison. I hate to break this to you, but Scouting from its very beginning to the present has been part of the "more community minded mindset" yeh seem to be referring to so disparagingly. We have taught around the world for generations now that individuals must work hard and sacrifice in service to others and the community. Every patrol outing teaches boys that they have to give some things up to be part of a bigger group - that they might not get their favorite meal every time, that they have to take a turn at doin' things they don't want when the group needs 'em to, that they have to rely on others and be relied upon. Scoutin', like any community, comes with restrictions to liberty and doin' what yeh please. It's called Citizenship. America seeing more of its scout-aged children killed by bullets than any ten other countries outside of a war zone is a tragedy that shouldn't be ignored. Good citizens respond to stuff like that. Responsible gun owners do, too. Beavah

Despite tons of money spent on education and commercials, there are still tons of people that choose to drive drunk. Yah, good point. All I was tryin' to say is that it is considered socially acceptable (even admirable) to take the keys away from a friend so as to limit da risk of a DUI fatality. But it's not considered socially acceptable to take the guns away from a friend so as to limit da risk of a firearms fatality. In both cases the risk may be small (lots of drunks make it home just fine), but our attitudes about intervening are different. I'd just like to see us change our attitudes a bit. Beavah

Gun control advocates have a proven history of mission creep Yah, that's sorta true. Of course, over the last 15 years or so we gun rights advocates have also had our mission creep, eh? Repeal da assault weapons ban. Allow firearms in da National Parks. Overturn handgun laws in big cities with handgun crime problems. State by state we've seen expansions of what is allowable - carrying in saloons where it was never allowed before, increased gun show sales to avoid background checks, expansion of "shall issue" laws for CCW. Now folks introducing bills to eliminate gun-free zones and encouragin' da second grade teacher to go loaded to the fingerpainting activity. Plus calls along the way for arming packsaddle's (frequently sleep-deprived and intoxicated) college students. That's a lot of mission creep on our side, eh? At least as viewed from da other side. So I think as gun owners we should lead da conversation about what we feel is responsible for gun owners, rather than wait for enraged fellow citizens to try to legislate and us just saying "no!". I think additional restrictions on high-capacity magazines, some sorts of weapons, some specialty ammo and such are just fine, along the lines you suggest. Perhaps not an all-out "ban" but mandated insurance and higher levels of screening. Laws about securin' firearms against theft or unauthorized use by others seem reasonable. Yeh can unlock your gun when yeh get home to defend against da rabid wolves, but when yeh go out to dinner and a movie yeh lock it up instead of leaving it out. Closin' the gun show and private sale background check loophole seems reasonable now that electronic systems make it fairly easy to do, eh? Da exception was written back before cell phone data and such. Strengthening firearm education and proficiency should be somethin' we and the NRA are at da forefront of, eh? I've got no problem with mandatory training and recurrent demonstrated proficiency, for example. Hunter education courses have been proven quite effective, so clearly appropriate education and training works. Da expectations for proficiency and training should match the intended use and nature of the tool. If yeh want to carry a concealed semi-auto in crowded places for protection then yeh should be able to demonstrate a semi-professional level of skill and judgment in handlin' your firearm in scenarios in such places. I'd be in favor of a no-alcohol, no-judgment-altering drugs rule. If yeh have a loaded gun in your possession and any booze in your system, it gets treated seriously. Jail time and loss of your firearms on da first offense. Movin' firearm ownership into a strict liability framework might also be called for, eh? Each of us should have enough personal responsibility to accept strict liability for da consequences of our ownership and handling of our firearms. If that means we have to purchase insurance to guard against catastrophe, so be it. No different than purchasing homeowner's insurance to guard against fire. We intend to be responsible about wiring our house or havin' a fire in da fireplace, but we still pay for da fire department and fire insurance. That shouldn't upset us, it's just bein' responsible. What's more, some of these things in combination can help change da pop culture, which I think we all agree has moved far away from what any of us would consider responsible portrayal of firearm ownership. Da biggest thing still, though, is findin' a reasonable way for docs, school teachers, and others to report on acute or chronic mental conditions which make handlin' a gun imprudent. Maybe somethin' like da reporting regimen we have for child abuse and neglect, eh? Mandatory reporters to a confidential agency which is empowered to halt sales until it does a more thorough background review and interview. None of that seems particularly onerous to da rights of gun owners. Some of it might actually help; da rest would show our fellow citizens that we care more about them and the nation than we do about our hobby. In turn, we'd re-earn da respect and support of most of 'em. Yah, and we should stop our own mission creep. Not everyone should have a gun everywhere, as YouTube demonstrates. Beavah