U.S. gun control suggestion

Generally, I think the better solution than banning is just making sure people are responsible gun owners. The problem is, people like the NRA make gun owners look like raving paranoia-filled nutcases who shouldnt be ever allowed near a gun.

While strong anti-gun people look like raving safety zealot Think of the Children! types even more annoying than the Religious Right...

Recreational use isn't hampered by gun control laws, it's just more annoying to the sane responsible people for picking up handguns and such. Also possibly more expensive. It also probably means you can't have sex with your modified AR-15 each night because it's locked up in a secure vault.

Rebel use only makes sense if you can have well run regulated militias. I would say that the second amendment is an argument that the Federal government cannot block a state's right to run a militia, or if you wanted to really extend it, block a community from forming their own militia. However, supreme court rulings have already shot the idea (I think, though someone might want to confirm) but I think it's more reasonable for the second amendment to be amended to be about allowing militias, not mass gun ownership. Nobody is going to be defeating the Federal military with handguns and shotguns. You'll need full fledged RPG-7s, anti-tank guns, mass rockets, vehicles and good training. That comes from a militia not basic individual gun ownership.

Self-defence is an idiotic argument. More people die from gun accidents and legal guns being stolen than lives saved by having a gun. It's a net negative result.

That's an argument for mandatory gun safety courses.

Your civil liberty to own a gun is not infringed by making sure you're not a fucking idiot and know how to use it. Stop complaining and take the course, or no guns for you, because other people have the civil liberty to not take a bullet from some dumbass who can't learn to point his gun down range and only down range.

The firearms safety course should be free of charge (you shouldn't have to pay to exercise your righs: Poll taxes are unconstitutional). It should cover the essential subjects, such as: Don't point your gun at things you don't want to shoot, keep your finger off the damn trigger unless you intend to shoot, and don't shoot at random in populated areas?

Well, I forgot make sure the gun is unloaded before storing/cleaning it, but that's pretty much the drill.

There's no reason why it should last more than a day.

edited 6th Oct '11 3:54:03 PM by SavageHeathen

Citation Needed. Gun crime does not claim more than 156,000 lives a year. (Cars and cigarettes do.)

edited 6th Oct '11 3:51:31 PM by MajorTom

Eh, if they could do it comprehensively in a single course, I'd accept a single course.

I don't want people skimping because they're impatient selfish fucks, though. If it's to be done in a single class, it should be done right.

I guess it would also make accidents involving guns much easier to get after people over, since now you can't claim ignorance...

Edit: I seriously doubt guns kill more people yearly than, say, car accidents.

Some 175,000+ people were killed in car accidents between 2000 and 2008. Compare to about 6,000 soldiers in both Middle Eastern wars in the same period. I would find it ludicrously amusing if gun-related violence that isn't criminal in nature came anywhere near the car accident number...

edited 6th Oct '11 3:53:26 PM by USAF713

which of course is the cutoff for regulation somehow in Tomworld.

I'm against registration for one single reason: In the event of civil unrest/revolt/revolution, the database would enable a tyrannical government to do to gun owners what they did to al-Awlaki. Even in normal times, the database would enable government to conduct surveillance on gun owners: People shouldn't be subjected to discriminatory surveillance solely for exercising their rights.

Some accidents can't be prevented. Let's say you're a hunter taking a shot at a deer, and you fail. The stray bullet goes on to hurt a hunter a few hundred yards away.

edited 6th Oct '11 3:57:16 PM by SavageHeathen

In the event of armed revolution people with guns are de facto combatants, and therefore fair game.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the revolution is a legitimate military movement and the government can fight them like an army, or they aren't, and the government can treat them like the unruly citizens they technically are.

Sure. But that also means that one should probably check targets before firing. I.e. scope in behind the target as well as on the target, just to be sure...

edited 6th Oct '11 3:58:36 PM by USAF713

Let's not forget that at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, the most common personal firearms were flintlock muskets. Most people, particularly those in the country, owned at least a couple for hunting and personal defense. One person with a musket isn't much of a danger. One person with a Glock 19 is potentially much more dangerous.

So if we want to talk about the "intent" of the drafters, they probably had no problem with you owning a musket. How they would treat today's automatic firearms is anybody's guess. But I don't think they would have a problem banning private ownership of cannons or explosives.

In any case, banning manufacture wouldn't do anything. I'd go with requiring a background check and test of competency to get a license to own anything more than a shotgun or hunting rifle, and additional requirements for a concealed-carry permit.

I always make sure to keep my cannons clean and polished, and keep the six-pound cannonballs locked in my basement magazine when not in use. I only have my cannons for home defense and recreational shooting, after all.

I have a friend who owns a cannon. He fires blanks when we're at camp staffing to wake us up.

I would just extend the competency tests and licensing to all guns, personally. Shotguns and rifles are still lethal weapons...

And one person with a big rig loaded with a gasoline tanker-trailer is much much more dangerous than anyone with a G19. (Think about what happens if you manage to set that tanker off in a BLEVE, they don't call it blockbuster for show.)

~looks at dad~

Yeah... tanker trucks are several orders of magnitude above guns on the "shit that needs to be watched" list...

Savage, the situation you propose is ridiculously unlikely. And in the event of revolution, I'd say that they're watching everyone because hey, it's a fucking revolution, regardless of gun ownership. (Seriously, they're unlikely to be watching simply because of gun ownership.) For the most part, people aren't watched for excercising a right like owning a gun; they come under surveillance if something goes wrong.

And obviously, some accidents can't be prevented. But we should do our best to cut down on those. You can name all the most unlikely scenarios in the world, and I won't disagree that they can't happen. I'm still going to push for responsible gun ownership and licensing. Also, why should gun operation classes be free? Driving classes aren't, but they aren't particularly expensive either. The people teaching the classes need to get paid for their work, after all. (And need money for all other expenses it takes to run such a class.)

Quite right. Now, is it easier to get your hands on a tanker truck full of gasoline, or an automatic pistol? Your basic idiot criminal in a major city can get a pistol. Not so much for the gasoline truck.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:15:54 PM by Lawyerdude

@ tom

You realise they regulate the materials that can make up a car bomb right?

edited 6th Oct '11 4:15:00 PM by breadloaf

...it's not that hard to get a truck. Getting a trailer and license to operate is ridiculous, though, and for good reason.

Yeah... the classes really couldn't be free. Well, if they were free, it would just come out of tax dollars, so, either way...

The truck. You simply steal the damn thing when its loaded. Go ahead, go rob somebody with an automatic pistol and try to take his while not getting drilled with live bullets.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-guns-usat_x.htm

...unless that's significantly (250,000+) higher than the rate of stolen cars, I'm not impressed in the slightest by it...

Well the point would be that we regulate cars but not guns based on this assumption that everybody who tries to steal a gun gets shot up. Except this shows 170k guns stolen per year, with only 70k recovered per year. That's not a low rate by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, I'm all for regulating guns to about the same level we regulate cars.

Once again, something being a legal right does not mean its unassailable if regulation serves the public safety and health...

I think our right to public safety and health is more important than the right to bear arms. We have to keep in mind that this was implemented in a time when fear of Britain trying to take us back over wasn't entirely unreasonable, and in a time when the average person was far more likely to encounter wild animals. Back then the right to bear arms was about ensuring the people's public safety. These days we're in more danger from our fellow citizens on a regular basis than from outside forces. Regulation is appropriate in this day and age.

^ Incorrect. Your rights trump the right to public safety. Why? Free speech is the most dangerous right of all, it starts wars, rebellions, practices genocide and racism and drives people to do these acts, yet we embrace free speech despite the danger. Such is the proper way of things.