• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun Control Proposal

Polaris said:
Non-starter. Even leaving the 2nd Amendment aside, it requires that a certain portion of the population are not equal under the law based on age and gender.
Click to expand...
If the offenders were equally distributed between ages and genders, that might be an argument. But the offenders are overwhelmingly under-65 white males, so it makes sense to focus on that demographic.
 
arthwollipot said:
If the offenders were equally distributed between ages and genders, that might be an argument. But the offenders are overwhelmingly under-65 white males, so it makes sense to focus on that demographic.
Click to expand...

You sure that's a precedent you want to set?
 
What's wrong with presuming white males without criminal records should be allowed to own an unlimited number of firearms? Is there any other technology in the world where we must first demonstrate competence??
 
Cain said:
What's wrong with presuming white males people without criminal records should be allowed to own an unlimited number of firearms?
Click to expand...
Fixed.

Cain said:
Is there any other technology in the world where we must first demonstrate competence??
Click to expand...
:confused:

You think these shootings are tragic accidents?
 
Noztradamus said:
On the verge is not over it.
Click to expand...

It's not even "on the verge". Guns are legal property in the USA, provided you don't fit some fairly limited criteria. When people talk about taking guns, they are talking about taking other people's property. This property is frequently used to protect families and livelihoods (again, wild animals are an issue in many rural parts of the USA, so it's not just defense against humans). This is a very real threat to the victims of such tactics.

The United States is a country that drank on principle when a bunch of busy-bodies without enough real tasks to do attempted to shove their brand of morality down our throats. Anyone surprised at the reaction of folks who enjoy guns to outright threats simply isn't paying attention to the culture they're trying to rule.

arthwollipot said:
If the offenders were equally distributed between ages and genders, that might be an argument. But the offenders are overwhelmingly under-65 white males, so it makes sense to focus on that demographic.
Click to expand...
Right on! And black men commit more violent crime than white men; may as well lock them up, too, just to be safe, eh? Men commit more rapes than women (well, at least according to public perception), so may as well castrate the lot of 'em, right? I mean, we're talking SAFETY here!

See the problem?

Cain said:
What's wrong with presuming white males without criminal records should be allowed to own an unlimited number of firearms?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're getting at here. Can you please clarify?

Is there any other technology in the world where we must first demonstrate competence??
Click to expand...
Not that I'm aware of. There are technologies you can't operate in certain venues without first demonstrating competence, and there are certainly requirements within particular groups that exceed federal and state requirements (for example, my family required me to pass the hunter safety course when my grandfather gave me my first gun--they wouldn't give me ammo otherwise). You can own a car whenever, but you can't drive the car on public roadways until you've demonstrated a level of competence.

There are technologies where the manufacturer won't sell the device without a demonstrated level of competence on the part of the purchaser. When my alma matre tried to purchase a type of mass spec they had to have the lab inspected and someone tested for competence before they'd sell to the university. That was to protect the manufacturer, as errors on the part of the tech may be misattributed to the machine, making the seller look bad.

I like the criteria "Is it intrinsically dangerous to innocent people?" A nuclear weapon, or even a substantial rocket, can kill a lot of people just by the nature of the device--it's hard to make those things safe, and when they have problems they can kill people without any human involvement. Large amounts of black powder can, as well, particularly if it gets old. (I'm using some relative terms here because they're necessary--someone in the middle of nowhere in the Antelope Valley could blow up forty acres without killing anyone but himself, while someone in an apartment in NYC couldn't blow up forty feet without killing six people in most cases.) A gun, in contrast, is NOT intrinsically dangerous. A gun is inert, and cannot fire without human intervention. I've had a few loaded weapons pointed at me and never thought anything of it--I was the closest mobile thing capable of pulling a trigger to the weapon by far, and I was looking down the barrel. Bullets are the same--the powder charge in a bullet isn't going to go off by itself. Thus, they are not intrinsically dangerous. Thus, if something bad DOES happen with them, we must look for a HUMAN agent that caused it. Someone, simply put, screwed up royally.
 
Cain said:
What's wrong with presuming white males without criminal records should be allowed to own an unlimited number of firearms? Is there any other technology in the world where we must first demonstrate competence??
Click to expand...
How about the 50 hours of supervised driving my kids have to do before they can even be eligible to take their driving test?
 
The Shrike said:
How about the 50 hours of supervised driving my kids have to do before they can even be eligible to take their driving test?
Click to expand...

But that's just to be authorized to drive specific types of vehicles on public roadways. You can drive as much as you want on private land, at least in some states, without a license, and you can drive a fair number of vehicles without a license as well (bikes, some tractors, etc, though it depends on the roadway).
 
Noztradamus said:
OTOH gunbanners have frequently used the Ken Ham: "If I owned a gun nothing would stop me from killing people"
Click to expand...

Really? I have never heard that in my life.

Do they word it differently because when I search on the entire phrase or even parts of that phrase I don't get much beyond this thread as results?
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Really? I have never heard that in my life.
Click to expand...
I know a guy like that, when concealed carry was finally passed here he was spitting (literally!) mad about it, predicting the usual blood on the streets and gun battles over parking spots and such, and how he'd probably shoot people if he had a gun. Of course this was from a bar stool, but the guy was completely unhinged. I think there's a certain amount of projection that goes on with some gun control types.

But he owns no firearms as far as I know, so he knows his own limitations.
 
Ladewig said:
I think the OPer was trying to distinguish transporting, which would be done with with a lockbox, and carrying, which involves having a loaded weapon readily available on one's person. If so, then your examples are all classified as transporting and would require some locking device ( I don't know if the OPer would consider trigger locks or cables acceptable for transporting).
Click to expand...

Ladewig is correct. Things like routine maintenance would also obviously be allowed.
 
Ziggurat said:
None of this argument is relevant to mass shooters, which is one of the primary problems this proposal was designed to address. If you're going to engage in a mass shooting, you really aren't going to care about a gun possession offense escalating your punishment. That's going to be maxed out already by the very nature of the crime you're going to commit, and in many cases won't even be relevant since many mass shooters don't intend to (and don't actually) survive.
Click to expand...

Actually, point B _is_ addressing that. In all cases I've ever heard of, that didn't involve some organized terrorist organization, they just took whatever gun they or their parents had, or which was trivial to get. Outside the USA, the latter doesn't seem to apply.

People don't seem to be the kind of criminal masterminds that will find and befriend some smuggler and get some smuggled guns, especially WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY NOT TICKING RIGHT.

There's this notion from the USA gun lobby that somehow all criminals (or crazy people) will just get guns anyway, because THEY'RE CRIMINALS, DUH!!!!1111eleventeen and it's just silly. The whole point of guns being hard to get legally in some countries is that you don't have shops on the street corner and at WalMart selling guns to whatever emo teen comes asking for one. Even if you have absolutely no problems with breaking all laws ever passed, starting from Hamurabi's code all the way to the present day, it's still actually kinda hard to find someone ELSE who's willing to break the law for a perfect stranger, who might well be an undercover cop. They also don't have a big sign at the door that says "Russian mafia gun smuggler." You kinda have to find them and convince them that it's not going to bite them in the ass.

Now I'm not saying it's impossible. Hell, with enough effort, you can even get one legally. But most criminals tend to actually be about as sharp as a bowling ball, and most people who are batcrap crazy or just had a major mental breakdown aren't exactly the movie kind of crazy super-genius either.
 
Is the current supreme court interpretation of the second amendment that it refers to the right to self-defense (using a gun), or the right to ownership of a gun, or both?

I admit that my OP was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I was somewhat surprised to find that my proposal is seen as rather liberal by various posters from non-USA countries.

If I changed my criteria from a blanket category (women, elderly and infirm) to some kinds of means test would the be better? I.e. you need to prove a need (as well as capability) to carry for defense? Or is that pretty much already what is in place?
 
Last edited:
DarthFishy said:
Is the current supreme court interpretation of the second amendment that it refers to the right to self-defense (using a gun), or the right to ownership of a gun, or both?

I admit that my OP was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I was somewhat surprised to find that my proposal is seen as rather liberal by various posters from non-USA countries.

If I changed my criteria from a blanket category (women, elderly and infirm) to some kinds of means test would the be better? I.e. you need to prove a need (as well as capability) to carry for defense? Or is that pretty much already what is in place?
Click to expand...
Do you have to prove a need to exercise 1st Amendment rights?
 
WildCat said:
Where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...
My apologies - I am in error. I should have said that the majority of ideologically motivated mass shooters are under-65 white males. To imply that the majority of shooters in general were of that demographic was a mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom