I was thinking about all the shit I can do now that I'm 18 and I figured I should get a gun license just because I can. I'm not the kind of person who should have a gun, but the novelty and insight into the system might be worth the license fee. So I went to the Mass.gov page on firearms licensing, and learned that 14 year olds can apply to carry shotguns and rifles that aren't high capacity. But don't worry, they have to wait until they're fifteen to actually get the license.
And MA is generally considered restrictive of guns...
That's more restrictive than Kentucky. As far as I know (IANAL), there's no restriction on who can fire or hold a gun long as there's supervision, and no licensing to buy guns.
I was thinking about all the shit I can do now that I'm 18 and I figured I should get a gun license just because I can. I'm not the kind of person who should have a gun, but the novelty and insight into the system might be worth the license fee. So I went to the Mass.gov page on firearms licensing, and learned that 14 year olds can apply to carry shotguns and rifles that aren't high capacity. But don't worry, they have to wait until they're fifteen to actually get the license.
And MA is generally considered restrictive of guns...
That's super restrictive. You can't open carry in MA without a license to carry. That means you can't go hunting with a 1 shot rifle without a license. That's unlike almost any other state in the USA. That is one of the most restrictive set ups in the US.
You can get a license to carry as a 15 year old, you can't purchase one. That allows a son or daughter to go shooting with a parent and actually hold the gun. It doesn't mean you can buy one.
Even then between 15 and 17 it's with parental consent only.
According to Mass law any pistol with the ability to accept a magazine with more than 10 rounds can't be held unless you have the license that you can only get at 21. So I can't let my kid shoot any of my pistols because by design almost all semi auto pistols can have a larger capacity magazine designed for them. It doesn't mean you do have an 11 round magazine, just the possibility that an 11 round magazine could be inserted.
That's way more restrictive than almost every other state in the USA.
If I had a kid and I wanted to go target shooting I don't them to have a special license just to carry the gun (I'm in Oregon).
So yeah, Mass has more restrictive gun laws than almost anywhere and letting your kid handle a shotgun at age 15 is not some kind of whack job pro gun loophole.
And that is why we end up so far apart when it comes to talking about guns. I started shooting small .22 cal rifles at YMCA camp, I think the first gun I shot was when I was 8 or 9 years old. It was done safe, I got good instruction and it was fun.
You think it's nuts for a kid to go shooting with his parents, that someone who does that is crazy? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's my understanding of what you said.
I think it's nuts that you think it's nuts. I think it's nuts that you think MA requiring a license to even hold a gun isn't strict enough.
I don't actually think your nuts, but I fundamentally disagree with you and I can't see any way that will change.
So that leaves us so far apart I don't think we can even have a dialogue, what middle ground could we ever reach?
Only handguns and fully-automatic weapons need to be licensed in MI.
Well kind of. They changed the handgun permit system. If you're buying from a dealer you just have to go through the federal stuff and michigan registration, but I think that's all done for you now. For private handgun sales you still need to go down to the sheriff's office and do a little 10 question test and whatnot to get a one time use purchase permit, unless you have a concealed pistol license.
For full auto its just the federal NFA laws: $200 tax stamp, paperwork, background check, police signoff (if you don't have a trust), must have been registered pre-1986. And prepare to pay out the ass for it of course.
And yeah, a lot of states allow people under 18 to shoot but generally not purchase. Sometimes it's just technically your parent's until you turn a certain age, others you can own it but only if it was given to you by a family member. There's a lot of kids who hunt. I mean shit we had hunters safety at school in like 7th grade.
@AaronC if your kid is responsible enough you outta get a Heritage Rough Rider or some other cheaper single action .22 revolver that you can let them shoot should you decide to. Can't argue about magazine capacity with that. That or just a little co2 bb gun.
You think it's nuts for a kid to go shooting with his parents, that someone who does that is crazy? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's my understanding of what you said.
I don't think it's crazy for a kid to go shooting with his parents. I think it's crazy for the gun to leave the range.
What is the point of "open carry" and why is it important?
Stated, rather than tacit, allowance of bearing arms. And because we've determined it to be a right of the people.
In that case should open carry not be controlled at the federal level rather than the state level or is there something with US states having more legislative power in this regard?
What is the point of "open carry" and why is it important?
Stated, rather than tacit, allowance of bearing arms. And because we've determined it to be a right of the people.
In that case should open carry not be controlled at the federal level rather than the state level or is there something with US states having more legislative power in this regard?
That's... murky, at best, water. Some people say the fed has more power, some say the states have more power. The Constitution only provisions the right to bear arms, regulation of such has historically primarily been at the state level, besides some federal firearms bans.
You think it's nuts for a kid to go shooting with his parents, that someone who does that is crazy? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's my understanding of what you said.
I don't think it's crazy for a kid to go shooting with his parents. I think it's crazy for the gun to leave the range.
I'm not trying to be obtuse so bear with me. What does that mean? A kid can only shoot at a range, he can't go hunting with a gun, can't go to the woods by himself if he lives in an area where that's no big deal, and go target shooting? Can't hunt with an adult? Can't plink at cans with his .22?
@AaronC if your kid is responsible enough you outta get a Heritage Rough Rider or some other cheaper single action .22 revolver that you can let them shoot should you decide to. Can't argue about magazine capacity with that. That or just a little co2 bb gun.
If I had a kid. I'd love to take my spawn shooting and do some responsible shooting, but it hasn't happened yet.
I'm not trying to be obtuse so bear with me. What does that mean? A kid can only shoot at a range, he can't go hunting with a gun, can't go to the woods by himself if he lives in an area where that's no big deal, and go target shooting? Can't hunt with an adult? Can't plink at cans with his .22?
Under the current system, I don't trust the adults to know gun safety well enough to supervise a child with a firearm.
Hmm. Have you actually spent time around gun owners at a range or on private shooting sessions?
Safety is a big deal and most people follow the steps with the rigor of a pilot preparing for takeoff. I trust them more than I do parents who let their kids take dirt bikes to the backwoods.
But that's beside the point. Most states have less regulations than Mass, and in no way is Mass letting youths have more access to firearms than the majority of other places.
I grew up being sent in the backwoods by myself with a pellet gun and was trusted to not fuck shit up.
If tour argument is teach anyone to shoot but only on ranges with established safety I'm not against that reasoning on basis of providing a safe, controlled environment to train in. But i dont think it really matters to restrict that so heavily to being the only place it is legal: if I have ample property then I should see no reason not to use it for shooting sport so long as I am safe. If I have hunting lands I should be able to take a youth hunting and fishing. (I personally do neither activity)
If someone is being unsafe in that respect, we'll have to be reactive to finding out. Trying to hold everyone back because a tiny group of people might fuck up is not the way to go. Even if it feels risky.
Do get a liscence and do learn gun safety and do learn how they work and do respect the forces involved and if more people did that, we could keep things simple and not get the government involved with regulating what we can do.
It's like drones, no reason the FAA should have had to impose what it did, but people gave them reason and now there's more red tape to fuck around with, just to fly a model plane in your backyard or at the local field. Is anyone safer now? Nope. But there is more of a system in place and a whole extra agency to take a slice of the pie in order to process those who do fuck up.
If someone is being unsafe in that respect, we'll have to be reactive to finding out. Trying to hold everyone back because a tiny group of people might fuck up is not the way to go. Even if it feels risky.
I'm not okay with being reactionary to death. Measures need to be preventative. I cannot have a dialogue without that being the premise.
Yeah but to be preventative to what point? If we drive down the slippery slope of taking every reasonable measure to be preventative to potential death as a result of human factors then guns are on the list but so are tons of other things. The main question is where to draw the line, and backing it up with numbers that demonstrate a real, not precieved, problem... and then an experimental approach to finding solutions that balance autonomy with reduction in risk.
Sans a thorough and measured approach to that, my vote is the path of least restriction is a good one. Less likely to cause new problems that way, and people will likely trend towards self preservation and self regulation over time.
A few people have died in paintball from air tanks blowing off when kids modify them against all warnings and efforts to prevent it mechanically. It's rare, and the communities try to educate the members. It's that or see airtanks regulated to either be banned or require a licence just to handle them, even though millions of kids and adults successfully use the air tanks every year largely unregulated and only basically trained.
If we wanted to try and be proactive we could establish regulations and process and say you can only use CO2 tanks at the field with supervision of a ref. But no. That'd completely too much work to curb the demonstrated risk of handling these tanks. Even though if one were to only hear of the risks they'd think it crazy anyone is alive at all.
If there are regs that support an activity and provide for public safety and aren't overly restrictive, they can be good. Its just a matter of sometimes the best balance of things you can do is warn, educate, and provide deterrents to misuse. Works for tons of stuff.
I was gonna type out a snarky response about car deaths dwarfing all firearm deaths in the US every year and how clearly we don't have enough regulation... but snark isn't helpful.
In 2013 the FBI reported that more people were killed with hammers and fists than with shotguns and rifles combined. Maybe you support registration of people who buy hammers? Mandatory safety training for everyone who can make a fist?
IF we were going to talk about something that would cut down on the number of firearm homicides we should focus on handguns, not rifles and shotguns.
In 2013 the FBI reported that more people were killed with hammers and fists than with shotguns and rifles combined. Maybe you support registration of people who buy hammers? Mandatory safety training for everyone who can make a fist?
This principal flaw in that argument is that hammers are improvised weapons, i.e. objects whose intended use is not killing or hurting people.
I was gonna type out a snarky response about car deaths dwarfing all firearm deaths in the US every year and how clearly we don't have enough regulation... but snark isn't helpful.
I'm afraid of drunk drivers, I'm afraid of police I'm afraid of these suicide machines I'm afraid of a wreck on the highway like that song by Bruce Springsteen
I'm afraid of texting and my ADD I'm afraid this will trigger my anxiety I'm afraid of becoming the next road casualty.
IF we were going to talk about something that would cut down on the number of firearm homicides we should focus on handguns, not rifles and shotguns.
I wasn't going after homicides, I was going after accidental deaths. You seem to be under the impression that I think shotguns and rifles are more dangerous. I know they aren't, but they're the ones that 15 year olds can get in MA. If 15 year olds were able to get handguns I'd be magnitudes more afraid to leave my house.
In 2013 the FBI reported that more people were killed with hammers and fists than with shotguns and rifles combined. Maybe you support registration of people who buy hammers? Mandatory safety training for everyone who can make a fist?
Let's break this down to numbers. 318.9 million people live in the US. I'm going to assume that the number of people in the US without hands is negligible. The number of homicides with blunt objects and "personal weapons" (hands, feet, head if you can pull it off I guess) combined was about 1100 in 2013. This means that there is one death by bare hands every ~289,000 people. To contrast, firearm homicides are 8,454, seven times the number of blunt objects and personal weapons, despite only one third of the country owning them. So, if ~106 million people are generating 8,454 deaths, then there's one death for every ~12,500 people. That's a %2300 percent difference.
To contrast, firearm homicides are 8,454, seven times the number of blunt objects and personal weapons, despite only one third of the country owning them. So, if ~106 million people are generating 8,454 deaths, then there's one death for every ~12,500 people. That's a %2300 percent difference.
There is a major problem with this: how many people own guns that the government and polling agencies are not aware of? How many of the gun deaths are criminals being shot by criminals using illegal weapons? How many of these deaths would be prevented by harsher regulation?
To contrast, firearm homicides are 8,454, seven times the number of blunt objects and personal weapons, despite only one third of the country owning them. So, if ~106 million people are generating 8,454 deaths, then there's one death for every ~12,500 people. That's a %2300 percent difference.
There is a major problem with this: how many people own guns that the government and polling agencies are not aware of? How many of the gun deaths are criminals being shot by criminals using illegal weapons? How many of these deaths would be prevented by harsher regulation?
That's a great question. I wonder if maybe we could answer it by having some sort of central database that tracks guns or something. Maybe if people registered their legal weapons we could cross reference and answer these questions?
How do you propose to register the millions of rifles and shotguns in this country? No matter that we don't have any data on who bought them in the first place, how do you compel people to register without putting such a beauraucratic burden on the goverment and financial/time burden on owners that your scheme accomplishes nothing at great expense and frustrates only legal and responsible gun owners?
We have people register the millions of vehicles in this country. Why should firearms be any different? Going to the DMV is a great expense and places a financial/time burden on me, but I don't think that should exempt me from registering my car. If you want to own a firearm, nut up and spend more than a little bit of effort to register.
Hell, the Government is mandating people register their toy drones!
Having the ability to register still does not mean that all, or even most, guns will be registered. How will such a situation prevent irresponsible/criminal firearm use? How will you make sure the currently unregistered guns are registered? I'm not against the idea in theory, it's just unrealistic and accomplishes nothing at this point.
A task being difficult does not mean it is not the right thing, or even impossible to do properly. Stop making excuses.
The "right thing" is not an inneffective waste of time that provides a false sense of security and doesn't actually stop crime. You've failed to provide even one argument that could convince me that what you envision is anything but security theater + new .gov revenue stream.
Having the ability to register still does not mean that all, or even most, guns will be registered. How will such a situation prevent irresponsible/criminal firearm use?
It means that police who encounter ANY person with an unregistered gun cab take it away and charge them with a serious crime immediately and without any other reason. Anyone using an unregistered gun in a crime is completely fucked. Anyone using a registered gun in a crime either is completely fucked, or completely fucks whoever bought the gun for them.
Comments
And MA is generally considered restrictive of guns...
You can get a license to carry as a 15 year old, you can't purchase one. That allows a son or daughter to go shooting with a parent and actually hold the gun. It doesn't mean you can buy one.
Even then between 15 and 17 it's with parental consent only.
According to Mass law any pistol with the ability to accept a magazine with more than 10 rounds can't be held unless you have the license that you can only get at 21. So I can't let my kid shoot any of my pistols because by design almost all semi auto pistols can have a larger capacity magazine designed for them. It doesn't mean you do have an 11 round magazine, just the possibility that an 11 round magazine could be inserted.
That's way more restrictive than almost every other state in the USA.
If I had a kid and I wanted to go target shooting I don't them to have a special license just to carry the gun (I'm in Oregon).
So yeah, Mass has more restrictive gun laws than almost anywhere and letting your kid handle a shotgun at age 15 is not some kind of whack job pro gun loophole.
You think it's nuts for a kid to go shooting with his parents, that someone who does that is crazy? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's my understanding of what you said.
I think it's nuts that you think it's nuts. I think it's nuts that you think MA requiring a license to even hold a gun isn't strict enough.
I don't actually think your nuts, but I fundamentally disagree with you and I can't see any way that will change.
So that leaves us so far apart I don't think we can even have a dialogue, what middle ground could we ever reach?
For full auto its just the federal NFA laws: $200 tax stamp, paperwork, background check, police signoff (if you don't have a trust), must have been registered pre-1986. And prepare to pay out the ass for it of course.
And yeah, a lot of states allow people under 18 to shoot but generally not purchase. Sometimes it's just technically your parent's until you turn a certain age, others you can own it but only if it was given to you by a family member. There's a lot of kids who hunt. I mean shit we had hunters safety at school in like 7th grade.
@AaronC if your kid is responsible enough you outta get a Heritage Rough Rider or some other cheaper single action .22 revolver that you can let them shoot should you decide to. Can't argue about magazine capacity with that. That or just a little co2 bb gun.
Safety is a big deal and most people follow the steps with the rigor of a pilot preparing for takeoff. I trust them more than I do parents who let their kids take dirt bikes to the backwoods.
But that's beside the point. Most states have less regulations than Mass, and in no way is Mass letting youths have more access to firearms than the majority of other places.
I grew up being sent in the backwoods by myself with a pellet gun and was trusted to not fuck shit up.
If tour argument is teach anyone to shoot but only on ranges with established safety I'm not against that reasoning on basis of providing a safe, controlled environment to train in. But i dont think it really matters to restrict that so heavily to being the only place it is legal: if I have ample property then I should see no reason not to use it for shooting sport so long as I am safe. If I have hunting lands I should be able to take a youth hunting and fishing. (I personally do neither activity)
If someone is being unsafe in that respect, we'll have to be reactive to finding out. Trying to hold everyone back because a tiny group of people might fuck up is not the way to go. Even if it feels risky.
Do get a liscence and do learn gun safety and do learn how they work and do respect the forces involved and if more people did that, we could keep things simple and not get the government involved with regulating what we can do.
It's like drones, no reason the FAA should have had to impose what it did, but people gave them reason and now there's more red tape to fuck around with, just to fly a model plane in your backyard or at the local field. Is anyone safer now? Nope. But there is more of a system in place and a whole extra agency to take a slice of the pie in order to process those who do fuck up.
Sans a thorough and measured approach to that, my vote is the path of least restriction is a good one. Less likely to cause new problems that way, and people will likely trend towards self preservation and self regulation over time.
A few people have died in paintball from air tanks blowing off when kids modify them against all warnings and efforts to prevent it mechanically. It's rare, and the communities try to educate the members. It's that or see airtanks regulated to either be banned or require a licence just to handle them, even though millions of kids and adults successfully use the air tanks every year largely unregulated and only basically trained.
If we wanted to try and be proactive we could establish regulations and process and say you can only use CO2 tanks at the field with supervision of a ref. But no. That'd completely too much work to curb the demonstrated risk of handling these tanks. Even though if one were to only hear of the risks they'd think it crazy anyone is alive at all.
If there are regs that support an activity and provide for public safety and aren't overly restrictive, they can be good. Its just a matter of sometimes the best balance of things you can do is warn, educate, and provide deterrents to misuse. Works for tons of stuff.
In 2013 the FBI reported that more people were killed with hammers and fists than with shotguns and rifles combined. Maybe you support registration of people who buy hammers? Mandatory safety training for everyone who can make a fist?
IF we were going to talk about something that would cut down on the number of firearm homicides we should focus on handguns, not rifles and shotguns.
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaw, that's just crazy talk.
Hell, the Government is mandating people register their toy drones!