Tywin et al.

Guns, The 2nd Amendment and the Legitimacy of Their Necessity

401 posts in this topic

I agree with other posters that this topic should have it's own thread. I know you ladies and gentlemen have had this discussion numerous times in the past, but considering two of the most active threads in GC are about gun incidents in the U.S. and another is about Terrorism in Paris that resulted from multiple attacks involving guns, it's probably best to funnel the conversation surrounding guns into one location. Please try to keep the discussion polite and respectful. That doesn't mean you can't be highly critical of other people's opinions, but check your name calling and penis jokes at the door. And yes, the godless, freedom hating Eurocommies and Australian gun grabbers are more than encouraged to participate (ok one joke :rolleyes:).

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So getting away from what the constitutional system in the US says - I'd love to hear what pro-gun folks would want as far as an ideal solution. For me, my ideal would be the following:

  • Mandatory gun training in public school with a very well vetted trainer. Schools would not have firearms of any sort on the property and all training would be done offsite.
  • Anyone can own a gun, provided that they have not been convicted of a felony violent crime and they pass a background check.
    • The background check could check for mental illness, but would have to be limited in scope.
  • In addition to the background check, everyone must be licensed to fire a weapon. This will have rules similar to drivers licensing, where your vision and mental acuity would be checked every 5-10 years and you would have to reregister. 
  • You would be required to carry insurance for any weapons you own. Insurance would depend on the type of weapon as well as the situations of your house. 
  • All firearms are to be safely secured when not in direct use. Failure to do so is an automatic crime in addition to whatever else is done with the firearm. 

I realize a lot of this isn't constitutional; I don't care. I suspect strongly that a large chunk of actual gun owners would be totally fine with these rules, as they do these things anyway. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So getting away from what the constitutional system in the US says - I'd love to hear what pro-gun folks would want as far as an ideal solution. For me, my ideal would be the following:

Really? You think "a large chunk of actual gun owners" would be fine with registration and licensing and mandatory insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So getting away from what the constitutional system in the US says - I'd love to hear what pro-gun folks would want as far as an ideal solution. For me, my ideal would be the following:

  • Mandatory gun training in public school with a very well vetted trainer. Schools would not have firearms of any sort on the property and all training would be done offsite.
  • Anyone can own a gun, provided that they have not been convicted of a felony violent crime and they pass a background check.
    • The background check could check for mental illness, but would have to be limited in scope.
  • In addition to the background check, everyone must be licensed to fire a weapon. This will have rules similar to drivers licensing, where your vision and mental acuity would be checked every 5-10 years and you would have to reregister. 
  • You would be required to carry insurance for any weapons you own. Insurance would depend on the type of weapon as well as the situations of your house. 
  • All firearms are to be safely secured when not in direct use. Failure to do so is an automatic crime in addition to whatever else is done with the firearm. 

I realize a lot of this isn't constitutional; I don't care. I suspect strongly that a large chunk of actual gun owners would be totally fine with these rules, as they do these things anyway. 

 

I'm good with that, but a rider would need to be put in that this information gathered would not be used to form a tracking system that would be later used to take them away.  I know that sound silly, but for some reason the big thing that people bitch about when registration comes up (I register all my weapons) is the kind of mutant registration act paranoia.  That they will use that data to come a take the shit way at some point. 

 

I would also make the mental health check very limited.  A shit ton of people that own guns are on meds, and they aren't crazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You think "a large chunk of actual gun owners" would be fine with registration and licensing and mandatory insurance?

From the folks I've talked with? Yeah. The biggest sticking point would be the insurance, but I suspect that would be reduced pretty cheaply for those who showed less risk and their actuarial tables did so. Most gun owners I know have been pretty responsible by and large, and this wouldn't be anything that they didn't already endorse or do themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You think "a large chunk of actual gun owners" would be fine with registration and licensing and mandatory insurance?

Well they're already "fine" with registration by necessity. It's like a mandatory 3-5 sentence for having an unregistered gun in most states, isn't it? I really like the licensing idea. Make it akin to the DMV in terms of wait and service and I have to imagine you would discourage a fair percentage of folks from even bothering. Not so sure about the insurance bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm good with that, but a rider would need to be put in that this information gathered would not be used to form a tracking system that would be later used to take them away.  I know that sound silly, but for some reason the big thing that people bitch about when registration comes up (I register all my weapons) is the kind of mutant registration act paranoia.  That they will use that data to come a take the shit way at some point. 

 

I would also make the mental health check very limited.  A shit ton of people that own guns are on meds, and they aren't crazy. 

I think you could make it clear that guns could not be taken away from someone, period, and make that a basic right. (at that point the firearms might be illegal because someone isn't licensed, much like someone can own a car but not have it taken away due to licensing). 

The mental health check I was thinking was that someone could not be given a firearm if they had been medically shown to be a danger to themselves or others from mental illness, and make it really, really limited in scope. I don't have it on me, but I believe there are already laws that indicate this sort of thing. It would have to be a medical diagnosis of something like violent schizophrenia or psychosis, not just depression - though I think someone who had suicidal ideations and or acts might be a reasonable person to restrict as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kalbear,

I support Gun rights but do not own a firearm.  I'm good with the training, registration, and licensure provisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun training through schools?  I'm not okay with that.  Our education system has enough issues without adding on something that is,  essentially, unnecessary in society.  Or at least,  it should be unnecessary.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could make it clear that guns could not be taken away from someone, period, and make that a basic right. (at that point the firearms might be illegal because someone isn't licensed, much like someone can own a car but not have it taken away due to licensing). 

So what's the point then?

Obviously the kind of mass confiscation scenario trotted out to argue against registration is unlikely to happen for the foreseeable future in the US but surely the idea for even a very low key registration and licensing programme would be to take away the guns of people who are actually determined to be a danger to others by whatever method?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the point then?

Obviously the kind of mass confiscation scenario trotted out to argue against registration is unlikely to happen for the foreseeable future in the US but surely the idea for even a very low key registration and licensing programme would be to take away the guns of people who are actually determined to be a danger to others by whatever method?

The primary point is not to take away guns that are deemed a danger as things change - it's to take away people. The primary goal is to make everyone a safe gun owner and make it as safe as we can. A secondary goal is to make guns far less thoughtless than they are in the US, and require a fair amount of entry into getting a gun first. A third goal is to encourage proper gun use and change the view of society towards guns as being either totally awesome or totally evil, and instead make them kind of boring. 

Licensing and registration can be used to help track crimes and things like that associated with the guns, which will help, but it's certainly not the goal to take them away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun training through schools?  I'm not okay with that.  Our education system has enough issues without adding on something that is,  essentially, unnecessary in society.  Or at least,  it should be unnecessary.

 

 

I disagree.  I would LOVE a mandatory "life skills" class.  I'm talking safely changing a tire, laundry, some budgeting, basic gun safety, tool safety, etc.  

I don't think the schools should remotely be responsible for training proficiency in firearms, but a basic safety and knowledge course, (safeties, how to safely transport, how to verify unloaded, basic safety rules, etc.) I think would be highly useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun training through schools?  I'm not okay with that.  Our education system has enough issues without adding on something that is,  essentially, unnecessary in society.  Or at least,  it should be unnecessary.

 

I think that in the US it is necessary. It can be assumed that people will at the very least encounter a firearm in their lifetime, and a very large minority of the US will actually have a firearm. I understand the objection. I figure the NRA can pay for it. (said in my best Trump voice)

If you're curious, I'm modeling a lot of this off of countries where this has worked - Switzerland and Israel. Both of which have everyone have some familiarity with firearms and both of which have very little gun violence. 

And the Swiss one is also an interesting one, because their gun laws are specifically with the notion of making everyone an able-bodied member of the militia - you know, what the 2nd amendment actually says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So getting away from what the constitutional system in the US says - I'd love to hear what pro-gun folks would want as far as an ideal solution. For me, my ideal would be the following:

  • Mandatory gun training in public school with a very well vetted trainer. Schools would not have firearms of any sort on the property and all training would be done offsite.
  • Anyone can own a gun, provided that they have not been convicted of a felony violent crime and they pass a background check.
    • The background check could check for mental illness, but would have to be limited in scope.
  • In addition to the background check, everyone must be licensed to fire a weapon. This will have rules similar to drivers licensing, where your vision and mental acuity would be checked every 5-10 years and you would have to reregister. 
  • You would be required to carry insurance for any weapons you own. Insurance would depend on the type of weapon as well as the situations of your house. 
  • All firearms are to be safely secured when not in direct use. Failure to do so is an automatic crime in addition to whatever else is done with the firearm. 

I realize a lot of this isn't constitutional; I don't care. I suspect strongly that a large chunk of actual gun owners would be totally fine with these rules, as they do these things anyway. 

 

I agree with this and would also like limited magizine size.  Can't see any reason for more than 5. (what I'd really like is single shot, but there is no way that would ever be considered).

 

Edited by Lany Freelove Strangeways
lack of typing skillz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary point is not to take away guns that are deemed a danger as things change - it's to take away people. The primary goal is to make everyone a safe gun owner and make it as safe as we can. A secondary goal is to make guns far less thoughtless than they are in the US, and require a fair amount of entry into getting a gun first. A third goal is to encourage proper gun use and change the view of society towards guns as being either totally awesome or totally evil, and instead make them kind of boring. 

Licensing and registration can be used to help track crimes and things like that associated with the guns, which will help, but it's certainly not the goal to take them away. 

Ok, I'm perhaps not the target audience here, being from the UK I'd be horrified if someone suggested moving towards your list of suggestions as a basis for our gun laws, but that strikes me as nuts. You could have a person the authorities reasonably believe to be a danger to others and they could know they have a collection of guns but can't take them away? I don't know what the laws are in all the states in the US but a quick search suggests in most cases that would actually be reducing the current levels of gun control the US already has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this and would also like limited magizine size.  Can't see any reason for more than 5. (what'd really like is single shot, but there is no way that would ever be considered).

I'm fine with limited mag size personally, but I don't think it solves much. Magazines are pretty easy to make and pretty easy to get around. It is something of a barrier though, so it's probably fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this and would also like limited magizine size.  Can't see any reason for more than 5. (what'd really like is single shot, but there is no way that would ever be considered).

 

I'd say 10.  My deer rifle holds 6 (5 in mag, one in chamber). I also believe my shotgun is 6.  I know people who want more than that when hunting boar or coyote.  

And target shooting with a .22 would be ridiculous with a 5 round mag...

ETA:  Maybe a restriction contingent on caliber?  10 rounds in a 30-06 would be ridiculous.  10 rounds in a .22 doesn't feel like enough.

Edited by JonSnow4President

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun training through schools?  I'm not okay with that.  Our education system has enough issues without adding on something that is,  essentially, unnecessary in society.  Or at least,  it should be unnecessary.

 

 

I learned to shoot in school.  We had an indoor range in our school's basement (but I was in JROTC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm perhaps not the target audience here, being from the UK I'd be horrified if someone suggested moving towards your list of suggestions as a basis for our gun laws, but that strikes me as nuts. You could have a person the authorities reasonably believe to be a danger to others and they could know they have a collection of guns but can't take them away? I don't know what the laws are in all the states in the US but a quick search suggests in most cases that would actually be reducing the current levels of gun control the US already has.

Well, most people aren't ever going to want to have a law that basically says 'we're going to take away your legal stuff because you might be a danger, even though you haven't committed a crime or anything yet'. If you believe they are going to commit a crime you arrest them for conspiracy. 

Most of the laws are on par with what exists in most harder core states, with the exception of mandatory training and licensing. Both of those are unconstitutional (which is why I prefaced it with saying that I know this is unconstitutional). 

Another good law to go about this is to increase the penalties for crimes committed or planned to be committed if firearms (legal or otherwise) are going to be used. So if you have intel that someone is going to go on a shooting and catch them, they'll not only get an attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder charge, they'll also get something like 'intent to use a destructive force' or something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say 10.  My deer rifle holds 6 (5 in mag, one in chamber). I also believe my shotgun is 6.  I know people who want more than that when hunting boar or coyote.  

And target shooting with a .22 would be ridiculous with a 5 round mag...

I know many people will disagree with that.  I even do :P  But I think it a fair compromise. 

Yes, target shooting would be a PITA, but what is a little inconvience compared to the fact that many would like the right denied completely?  It is a compromise position.

Maryland has already limited magizine size to 10, not sure if any other states have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.