Anti gun legislation

[MP@HOME]

The Constitution protects our right to arm ourselves, not our obligation to arm everyone. At some point, it is completely reasonable to draw the line. Kids don't need to be around guns without supervision, nor crazy people, nor criminals who have a past history of violence.

Why is it such a big deal to require a proficiency test? How is that hurting anyone?

Kids (under 18 yo )can not buy a gun.
Mentally Disabled (crazy people) can not own guns.
Criminals can not have guns.
It is already illegal.
Proficiency test? ,illegal under the Second Fourth and Fifth amendments
maybe also under the First amendment

 

[xtatik]

It The MMPI is speculation and thus I reject it as a valid determining factor in the denial of rights or privileges.

There is nothing speculative about the results of the MMPI. If you're schizophrenic or suffer at a disordered level from any mental illness it'll be revealed. That's all it does. It decides nothing.
If certain disorders are deemed by society to be dangerous then we decide whether or not to preclude them. The test doesn't do this.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Kids (under 18 yo )can not buy a gun.
Mentally Disabled (crazy people) can not own guns.
Criminals can not have guns.
It is already illegal.

Yes. My point was to demonstrate that there are already "infringements" on the second amendment that we see as making perfect sense.

A Dogmatic argument about never infringing on second amendment rights ignores this. There is always room for interpretation and room to apply common sense.

Thats where I was going with that...

 

[xtatik]

The distinction is that the instructors would make the judgment based upon his *actual behavior* not based upon *speculation about his possible future behavior*.

In many cases, schizophrenic, bipolar disordered behaviors, and suicidal tendencies may already be being manifested by these people. They just haven't breached the law with their behavior yet. This leaves the gun counter salesman to determine the persons fitness as he weighs his options as to whether or not he wants to make the commission. How well do you think that will go?

 

[Wyowanderer]

You know, we could amass huge lists of where our government doesn't work and where it does. I don't think that argument goes anywhere in the long haul. Every day you're the beneficiary of a whole lot of government programs. As much as I like dirt roads, there are times when concrete and asphalt roads come in handy....not to mention many other services.

Asphalt roads aren't protected in the Constitution, either. But just because the gov't does a passable job at getting roads built has nothing to do with its ability to keep the "right" people in firearms. I bring it up to underscore the govt's ineptitude in running nearly anything.

I mentioned earlier, that as much as I despise the NRA (more for their under the table lobby work), I'd like to allow them as much say in the matter as is reasonable. Obviously, law enforcement and maybe military expertise could be involved as well. And, right in there with them arm-wrestling (more like kicking and screaming) could be the anti-gun groups. Frankly, I wouldn't care...lock them up in a padded room and don't let them out until they learn to compromise and act like reasoned adults. We could let them out when they have a reasoned method for resolving this issue.
Obviously, I'm over-simplifying things here, but this is what I'd have in mind. There would be a great deal of work involved and it would take some time.

Can you give examples of this "under the table lobby work"? I thought illegal lobbying was illegal.

As far as LEO's and military conducting the "training" I'm against it. One doesn't need to look far to see cops or soldier who behave badly while doing their jobs; aren't they trained and tested?
Training and testing as a requirement do little than make some "feel" good.

 

[Wyowanderer]

Yeah, sure, right up until the minute they don't...as in the case of law abiding citizen Jared Loughner.
(Actually, you can insert any name you'd like here. Sadly, there are plenty to choose from.)

So we require training because someone MIGHT break the law?
It's really scary living in a free country, but I'll continue to trust those around me until they prove they can't be.

 

[Wyowanderer]

C'mon now. This is a discussion. I respect your opinion and deem it important enough to dignify a response. You are right, I just want it my way. I want to keep my assault rifles instead of losing them to yet another dumb gun ban. Thats what this thread is about, alternatives to weapon bans. Its one of those things that there have to be alternatives to before the liberal axe comes down.

Then respond, don't ignore my questions.
But lets say you get what you're after, and everyone is tested. Then someone who passes goes berserk and kills a bunch of folks- then what? Stronger tests? More tests? It never ends.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

Here is some great, eye opening statistics. Facts that are backed up with research. Information you will rarely see in the media.

It's in PDF form, but well worth the reading. Has to do with strict(er) weapon laws, registration, confiscation, crimes, etc.


http://www.gunfacts.info/

 

[xtatik]

Asphault roads aren't protected in the Constitution, either. But just because the gov't does a passable job at getting roads built has nothing to do with its ability to keep the "right" people in firearms. I bring it up to underscore the govt's ineptitude in running nearly anything.

It's apparent there may be some other reasons for your position on this issue. You present them in a not-so-subtle way. But, I don't want to bring politics into this. I have my problems with the way our government handles certain issues, but I don't share your completely dismissive attitude.

Can you give examples of this "under the table lobby work"? I thought illegal lobbying was illegal.

My Mom worked as a lobbyist for the AARP in DC for 26 years and more recently in the state of Idaho. I doubt I could get her to chime in here, but I think you'd be shocked at what she'd have to say about the myriad ways money and favor can make its way to an intended target. I think you'd be more shocked to know who's got got the most to give and who takes the most.
Suffice it to say....it happens....a lot.

As far as LEO's and military conducting the "training" I'm against it. One doesn't need to look far to see cops or soldier who behave badly while doing their jobs; aren't they trained and tested?

Again, you're reaching, generalizing and being generally dismissive of anything associated with our government. We get the theme.
I'm sure there are more than a few from among those military and LE ranks on this board that would disagree with you.

 

[dwh]

There is nothing speculative about the results of the MMPI. If you're schizophrenic or suffer at a disordered level from any mental illness it'll be revealed. That's all it does. It decides nothing.
If certain disorders are deemed by society to be dangerous then we decide whether or not to preclude them. The test doesn't do this.

It is not the test itself that is the issue. The issue is how it is used.


Absolutely Undeniable Fact: The test cannot predict future behavior.

The results of the test can be interpreted in order to *speculate* about future behavior. If the test determines that someone is antisocial or depressed, then fine, that can be accepted as a fact.

However, to MAKE USE of that fact *requires* speculating about what that particular person -might- do. But being antisocial or depressed is NOT evidence of intent to commit a crime.

To use such a test to deny someone rights or privileges is to circumvent the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty". We cannot punish someone simply because they *might* do something wrong - after all, any of us might - or even because they fall into a group that has a higher statistical probability of doing something wrong.

We must wait until the wrongdoing actually occurs.


And then there is also the issue of when is the test administered. Do we condone arbitrary random testing of the citizenry? No, certainly not. There must be a reason.

And what is the normally accepted reason? That the person has ACTED. A judge can require someone be tested - but not just anyone, it has to be someone who has DONE SOMETHING.

Attempting to exercise a constitutional right is not a crazy act and is not a justification for REQUIRING mental competency testing.

No private citizen should be required to submit to mental testing if they haven't done anything wrong.

 

[dwh]

In many cases, schizophrenic, bipolar disordered behaviors, and suicidal tendencies may already be being manifested by these people. They just haven't breached the law with their behavior yet.

If they haven't broken the law, then it's no one's business but theirs and their doctor's.

This leaves the gun counter salesman to determine the persons fitness

No, that's not his place.

If the person is acting within the law when making the purchase, it is not up to the salesman to make any determination except whether he personally will take some action such as refusing to sell or reporting aberrant behavior to the authorities.

But if there is no aberrant behavior at the time of the sale, then there is nothing for the salesman to determine.

 

[dwh]

So we require training because someone MIGHT break the law?

Personally, I'm in favor of requiring training. Not because someone might break the law, but because they might screw up while handling a dangerous piece of equipment.

I'll trust others not to do something bad deliberately, but I'll never trust them not to screw up and do something accidentally. Training helps minimize the risk of a novice screwing up in some epic and tragic way.

 

[xtatik]

It is not the test itself that is the issue. The issue is how it is used.


Absolutely Undeniable Fact: The test cannot predict future behavior.

The results of the test can be interpreted in order to *speculate* about future behavior. If the test determines that someone is antisocial or depressed, then fine, that can be accepted as a fact.

However, to MAKE USE of that fact *requires* speculating about what that particular person -might- do. But being antisocial or depressed is NOT evidence of intent to commit a crime.

To use such a test to deny someone rights or privileges is to circumvent the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty". We cannot punish someone simply because they *might* do something wrong - after all, any of us might - or even because they fall into a group that has a higher statistical probability of doing something wrong.

We must wait until the wrongdoing actually occurs.


And then there is also the issue of when is the test administered. Do we condone arbitrary random testing of the citizenry? No, certainly not. There must be a reason.

And what is the normally accepted reason? That the person has ACTED. A judge can require someone be tested - but not just anyone, it has to be someone who has DONE SOMETHING.

Attempting to exercise a constitutional right is not a crazy act and is not a justification for REQUIRING mental competency testing.

No private citizen should be required to submit to mental testing if they haven't done anything wrong.

Well, having read your other posts as well as this one, I have to admit you present a reasonable argument against the psych eval. However, I still think it would be the most effective at averting these types of crimes. But, the costs may be too high, and I'm not talking money. Need you to know I struggle sometimes when presenting these arguments as well, but do so to get it out there, and get it discussed.
Your training and accreditation process (not dismissing others who have mentioned the idea here) might have more merit. Baby steps, I guess.
I think it would serve to discourage those with demented or suicidal tendencies as well. The up side benefit would be a whole lot more people with an awareness of safety and consequence.
I guess the next 400 post thread will cover acceptance, adoption and implementation.:coffeedrink:

 

[MP@HOME]

Personally, I'm in favor of requiring training. Not because someone might break the law, but because they might screw up while handling a dangerous piece of equipment.

I'll trust others not to do something bad deliberately, but I'll never trust them not to screw up and do something accidentally. Training helps minimize the risk of a novice screwing up in some epic and tragic way.

Training is a personal choice,also going out and shooting people is very
different from an accident, if You really care about preventing accidents
there are more accidents involving swimming pools ,bikes ,buckets of water,
bathtubs,than with firearms.

 

[dwh]

Training is a personal choice

True.

I don't think it should be, I think it should be mandatory.

I think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. But only AFTER they've shown they can do it safely.

,also going out and shooting people is very
different from an accident, if You really care about preventing accidents
there are more accidents involving swimming pools ,bikes ,buckets of water,
bathtubs,than with firearms.

Also true.

Cars are probably the worst though - as I pointed out earlier in this thread. Despite the draconian gun laws in the UK, almost 3000 *children* were killed in the UK by cars in 2008.

In the U.S.:

"In the United States during 2005, 1,335 children ages 14 years and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes, and approximately 184,000 were injured. That's an average of 4 deaths and 504 injuries each day."

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm

Here's some more interesting stats:

Selected Causes of Death, Ages 0-19, per 100,000 Population (2006)

Unintentional Injury 11,674 14.2
Motor Vehicle 7,006 8.5
Drowning 1,077 1.3
Fire/Burn 495 0.6
Poisoning 839 1.0
Suffocation/Strangulation 1,164 1.4
Firearm 154 0.2

http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm


So obviously, cars (and blankets) kill a hell of a lot more children accidentally than guns. And that is true both in the U.S. (not so much gun control) and the U.K. (lots of gun control). If the goal is to protect people, especially children - then gun control is not the answer. It's a red herring. SIDS alone kills about the same number of children as both accidental and homicidal with guns.


Other than protecting myself from unskilled wankers, and the rare nutjob, I'm not all that interested in protecting adults from each other. I *am* however *very* interested in protecting children.