Anti gun legislation

[Klierslc]

Yeah... but one can live without guns. That's the big argument here. We are willing to put up with people dying on the roads every year because we need to get around and there is no better way yet. We need plumbing to live in cities.

People survived for thousands of years without any of the above, but right now, guns would seem to be the tool that has the fewest practical uses.

Also the only tool mentioned that is specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Hear him.
While nails can definitely be used to kill human beings they are very good at building houses. I might be so bold to say that their primary function is to build a house. Likewise, a gun has many functions but here again, I might be so bold to say that their primary function is to kill human beings and therefore deserve special consideration under the law.

It is my opinion that the reason we have so many ineffectual laws is that our ineffectual law makers intend it to be so, less they offend a lobby group with the power to end their career. Will of the people be damned.

How do you define primary function? The thing that a tool is most used for? I would venture to say that in the US, MANY MANY more guns are used for target shooting than anything else, and that hunting comes in second. Killing human beings (not including the wars) comes in at the bottom of the list. Probably slightly more common than hammering nails....Yes, I have hammered a few nails with the butt of a revolver...

Much like a fire extinguisher. But you wouldn't dream of neglecting to have one for the unlikely time you need it.
You're right- one CAN live without guns, so long as the infrastructure that brings your food to you and protects you is intact.
Just because the firearm is the least practical tool you have doesn't mean you don't need one.

I agree.

 

[cnynrat]

Where have you been?

Sadly, this thread has morphed into just another pro-gun v. anti-gun thread. Not at all what the OP intended it to be.

Seems I needed to be more clear, but my point was that your comment about Borregowrangler's post was, to use his word, condescending. He made a statement that I find obvious on the face of it, namely that people who believe that gun control laws will prevent violent crime are unreasonable. One can debate why they might be blind to the simple logic that the prospect of being found guilty of a gun law has little affect on people that are not concerned about the prospect of being found guilty of a capital crime, but the logic is so basic as to be self-evident.

The OP and others, as well as myself were presenting ideas that would net people who are mentally unfit to own a gun in the first place...not the common criminal scenario you depict. We've already established and agreed that certain types of mental illness would deem a person unfit to understand the consequences of their intended crimes.

I agree with the principle that there is a class of people in society that should not be allowed to possess guns. Generally speaking, that class would consist of those convicted of crimes of violence and those judged to be mentally ill. I think the specific instance that prompted this discussion tells us more about how we deal with the mentally ill in current society than it does about the state of our gun laws. Since the 1970's we've stepped back from earlier practices by which the mentally ill were identified and treated. I think that's the real problem here, not that we need to place more barriers in the way of gun ownership. It's another example of how in an effort to avoid infringing on the rights of a small minority (the mentally ill), we deem it acceptable to infringe on the rights of a much larger population (all normal American's who should be able to enjoy their second amendment rights).

We've covered a lot of ground in this thread with issues of psych evaluation, mandatory training and certification. I think all have merit, and I'm convinced these methods could have stopped most cases where the mentally ill turned to a gun to make their point. Most of the recent cases involved guns that were legally purchased. I don't think these individuals would have made it through the process.

All of these proposed measures have the effect of transforming a fundamental right into a privilege. You may find that to be reasonable, I do not.

 

[xtatik]

I agree with you. The entire debate rests on a false premise, namely that with just the right set of carefully crafted gun laws we can prevent violent crime.

No, I think the premise is that with the right set of gun ownership requirements we can prevent or reduce certain types of gun related violent crimes. No false premise here.
You start off right in narrowly defining our discussion. But, you went to diarrhea at the end.

 

[cnynrat]

But, you went to diarrhea at the end.

Clever.

 

[xtatik]

Seems I needed to be more clear, but my point was that your comment about Borregowrangler's post was, to use his word, condescending. He made a statement that I find obvious on the face of it, namely that people who believe that gun control laws will prevent violent crime are unreasonable.

Well, again I'm sorry, but I found his statement to be equally condescending. I don't think there is a single person in this discussion who believes that if guns were banned completely, we'd see an end to violent crime. However, I do believe we'd see a marked reduction in the number of gun related violent crimes....and this was the OP's point. Now, I've taken to extreme here in making my point, because no one here is advocating gun bans.
The key word is reduction, not prevention as such, and certainly not eradication.
The OP was looking for ways to divert the heat from responsible gun owners. He was looking for suggestions on how to create distance and distinction between law-abiding gun owners and the nut jobs. He was not looking for the onslaught of "do-nothing" rhetoric.

 

[xtatik]

First off, I'll preface by telling you I have also dismissed this idea of psych eval's. This was discussed some time back in this thread. Personally, I think it would be the least painless (hassle) to complete and would definitely be the most effective at netting most of the nuts who have purchased a gun legally, then abused the right. There were some good arguments on both sides of this idea. There were some pretty lame ones as well. My thought in the end is that it would be too costly on an emotional level for this country. There a re millions of Americans who have taken this test in order to get jobs, join military, so on. But, the second we were to ask these very same people to take the test for this reason, they would suddenly freak out for no good reason.

If there are no right or wrong answers, and no passing or failing, then how do you determine if someone who took the test is fit to exercise their right to bear arms. By default would not the administer of the test be the one to set parameters to determine if one was "normal"?. Who gets to determine normal anyway?

I don't determine, neither do you. It's a we thang. This has all been talked about in this thread but, our society has already determined what does and doesn't makes sense on similar issues where a disability might preclude privilege or right.

I have read up on the test(in layman's terms, not an in depth scientific study). From what I've read, yes it will determine if someone is schizophrenic or bi-polar or have any of a few different mental illnesses. It will not however determine someones state of mind some time down the road. We've all heard of someone who was kind and charitable, giving and loving suddenly snap and hurt someone else. Do you not think that a persons answers to the MMPI might be different if administered the day their first child is born than the day said child gets hit by a car?

I agree, in order to truly be effective it would require regular re-testing.

In the end, I have had guns in my home and access to them since I was a child. Despite my "councilors" beliefs I have never gone on a rampage. I have never assaulted someone to make myself feel better. And I have certainly not endangered anyone in a manner that would deem me unfit to function in society.

Again, I've already stated my case for and ultimately against the psych eval. But, I think you'd be surprised at the outcome of this test. I was schooled long before "zero-tolerance" was a concept. Things have gotten a lot more litigious in recent years and these behaviors may have been deemed unacceptable by your time, but most of the behaviors you've described were engrained in guys my age as being the responsible or civic thing to do in each case. Despite the tough guy stuff, I don't think the test would reveal you for being anything other than what you describe. I don't think you'd have a problem.

 

[fangars]

Wish I had time to read this whole thread but I have other fish to fry.
One statement made early on in this thread was something about people who see things in black and white.
It seems perfectly rational in academic discussions to see the value of the gray areas between two opposing points of view, however, if you draw a line between two opposing points and one of those points is white and one of those points is black and everything in between is the gray area then what dictates whether the gray area has any value to an individual will be what exactly are those two points representing.
Lets say on one end the white point represents Liberty, and on the other end, the black point, represents Tyranny.

What is gray but different shades of Tyranny in such a spectrum?

On this particular spectrum, I am an extremist.

 

[AYIAPhoto]

would definitely be the most effective at netting most of the nuts who have purchased a gun legally, then abused the right.

The problem is that those "nuts"(loughner/Cho/Klebold/Harris) are statistical outliers. They make the news and sell copy. The majority of gun crime is either a crime of passion(not really gonna see it coming) or more likely criminal on criminal. The brady campaign and HCI are well known for padding their numbers of "children" murdered with guns by counting 22 year old gangbangers involved in turf/drug fights.

millions of Americans who have taken this test in order to get jobs, join military, so on. But, the second we were to ask these very same people to take the test for this reason, they would suddenly freak out for no good reason.

I have no right to work without the consent and under the terms set by my employer. I do however have a quantified and documented right to "keep and bare arms". I a right I and others here hold dear, just as journalist or preachers hold the first.

I don't determine, neither do you. It's a we thang.

And there is the problem. Who gets to determine who makes up the panel that judges. We are guaranteed a jury of our peers. Criminals aided by smooth talking lawyers slip through the cracks, it is an imperfect system but undoubtedly the best we have. An appointed bureaucrat or panel there of, judging arbitrarily set standards passed down by yet another appointed bureaucrat is is not fair nor just.

This has all been talked about in this thread but, our society has already determined what does and doesn't makes sense on similar issues where a disability might preclude privilege or right.

The blind are not barred from owning a car/boat/jet, they are simply barred from operating them in public space. If Stevie Wonder wants to crash a boat around on his own private lake or a car around his own demolition derby arena there is nothing to stop him. Common sense may say it's not a great idea, but it is still his right. His money, his property...his choice. Owning a car/boat/jet is not a privilege but a right. operating it in a public space is a privilege.
I am all for concealed carry permits. I believe that carrying in a "public" space is a privilege. I do however think that just like driving, it should be universal. If I have proven capable of operating a vehicle in one state, I am not required to get multiple licenses for every state I travel. There is an amendment which covers the "full faith and credit" of my license. I am not however required to be licensed nor registered to own a car in any state.

I agree, in order to truly be effective it would require regular re-testing.

There in lies the biggest problem. If testing is administered by the government, fees would be required. Dot-gov employees aren't known to work for cheap, let alone free. Regular testing becomes a poll tax, something deemed unconstitutional long ago. You can not tax someone for their right to own a typewriter/press/dictionary/thesaurus, nor can you tax someone for their right to be safe from illegal search and seizure. If you need to pay a tax(something that NEVER decreases) in order to exercise a right, it is no longer a right.

Again, I've already stated my case for and ultimately against the psych eval. But, I think you'd be surprised at the outcome of this test.

That is one area where I can not see us agreeing. I have much more faith in people, in the end, to rise to the occasion. I do not however, nor do I think I ever will, have faith in the government to seize some strand of control and not weave it into something abominable.

 

[ColoradoBill]

The problem is that those "nuts"(loughner/Cho/Klebold/Harris) are statistical outliers. They make the news and sell copy. The majority of gun crime is either a crime of passion(not really gonna see it coming) or more likely criminal on criminal. The brady campaign and HCI are well known for padding their numbers of "children" murdered with guns by counting 22 year old gangbangers involved in turf/drug fights.I have no right to work without the consent and under the terms set by my employer. I do however have a quantified and documented right to "keep and bare arms". I a right I and others here hold dear, just as journalist or preachers hold the first.And there is the problem. Who gets to determine who makes up the panel that judges. We are guaranteed a jury of our peers. Criminals aided by smooth talking lawyers slip through the cracks, it is an imperfect system but undoubtedly the best we have. An appointed bureaucrat or panel there of, judging arbitrarily set standards passed down by yet another appointed bureaucrat is is not fair nor just.The blind are not barred from owning a car/boat/jet, they are simply barred from operating them in public space. If Stevie Wonder wants to crash a boat around on his own private lake or a car around his own demolition derby arena there is nothing to stop him. Common sense may say it's not a great idea, but it is still his right. His money, his property...his choice. Owning a car/boat/jet is not a privilege but a right. operating it in a public space is a privilege.
I am all for concealed carry permits. I believe that carrying in a "public" space is a privilege. I do however think that just like driving, it should be universal. If I have proven capable of operating a vehicle in one state, I am not required to get multiple licenses for every state I travel. There is an amendment which covers the "full faith and credit" of my license. I am not however required to be licensed nor registered to own a car in any state.There in lies the biggest problem. If testing is administered by the government, fees would be required. Dot-gov employees aren't known to work for cheap, let alone free. Regular testing becomes a poll tax, something deemed unconstitutional long ago. You can not tax someone for their right to own a typewriter/press/dictionary/thesaurus, nor can you tax someone for their right to be safe from illegal search and seizure. If you need to pay a tax(something that NEVER decreases) in order to exercise a right, it is no longer a right.That is one area where I can not see us agreeing. I have much more faith in people, in the end, to rise to the occasion. I do not however, nor do I think I ever will, have faith in the government to seize some strand of control and not weave it into something abominable.

X2 on all points. very well stated.

 

[007]

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/Modifiedmurderchart.gif

I imagine a "war on gun ownership" would have about the same effect as prohibition or the war on drugs. More violence would result because disputes in a black market don't go to collections or take a legal recourse at all - They turn to violence.