Gun Control and Regulations

You're the one who assumes all I mean are rifles. Any tricked out boomer of any kind — stick, hand, granade, sea mine, canary yellow tank... I'm not especially picky.

If you can't justify it and mostly use it for cosmetic psychological reasons — fee it.

Have I finally got through to you?

And, no: there won't be good numbers on this aspect of likely culture-changing things. There's a reason for that.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jul 5th 2019 at 8:07:27 PM

No, that argument is still a non-starter. You’re trying to regulate based on personal taste and armchair psychology.

Are you proposing people come in for a psychological examination every time they modify their gun to make sure it’s above board? I’m sure that will be super useful at stopping impulse purchase homicides.

And this:

That’s just nonsensical. What, are we going to start taxing every object someone owns just because they like it?

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 5th 2019 at 12:16:16 PM

Maybe have some sort of progressive registration fee based on number of guns owned? Like, if you have only one or two, the fee will be minimal, but it goes up for each additional gun you try to register. I'm just trying to figure out a fair way to curb gun-hoarding tendencies while not completely disallowing avid collectors from doing so if that's their thing.

That might just be folded into the gun insurance idea, which is something I can really get behind.

Insurance is a good idea. We already require ranges to have insurance, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to require owners to have it too.

Yup. Wish to reduce your insurance? Proof of due care and attention, plz! Proof of use! Proof you can store it!

Oh, it's in the beside table drawer and you haven't looked at it in ten years or checked the ammunition? There's a hike on that.

You painted it purple yourself using a spray can? Guess what... there's a hike on that... unless you turn it in for scrap today!

Got proof of safe usage? Took a defensive driving course? Insurance goes back down. You spray painted it purple but have never been in an accident or gotten a ticket? No big deal. Hell, when it comes to guns if you keep it in a drawer and never touch it because it’s the only gun you own and it’s purely for defensive purposes that would probably be a mark in your favor.

Face it, you’ve got a personal bias against certain types of guns and are basing your proposal on that. And that bias has nothing to do with the reality of gun violence.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 5th 2019 at 12:35:23 PM

I'm a Brit. I'm allowed to be biased against DIY purple handguns of backfiring, gummy badness.

Or "So, when, exactly, was the last time you were anywhere near a bear, boar or moose? Never? OK, then — there's a hike on that."

Sorry, but that’s utter bullshit.

And I would hope you could recognize that one person’s biases aren’t the best source of legislation.

You’re mixing your examples here too. Are you okay with someone owning a tactical rifle as long as it’s well maintained and safely used?

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 5th 2019 at 12:39:47 PM

A farmer or gamekeeper who has all his paperwork ducks in a row and who has a rifle? No probs. Why would I have?

Somebody in the middle of Swindon who doesn't have even a have a hunting license or membership of a gun club? Get it away from them! Don't care what it is!

Strangely enough, I'm fine with working guns. I'm fine with leisure shooting. If you want to prove you're a hardarse through a winter triathlon, have at it... you crazy-fit bugger. As long as you're legal.

Reminder: I did grow up in South Africa. I understand the need for a rifle. And a hand gun.

But, the middle of Joburg ain't Aliwal North.

And, I've witnessed Barbie dolls and Komando Cools "looking after" their handbag guns and penis extensions. <winces>

I don't have a gun. I've used air rifles. An AK47 — once. It scared the hell out of me and I really shouldn't have been made to do it. Mainly because I've had no real training. But, it was hilarious (for the boys who pressured me into it — and, no: I still couldn't tell you how they got hold of it).

Happy now?

I know some of the crap a scary-lax gun culture can pull. Most of those boys (farmer's kids) did know better than what they did. But, fourteen and below bullying a city girl? Yeah: bad choices.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jul 5th 2019 at 9:09:07 AM

Now you’re just prevaricating.

If someone in an average suburban neighborhood wants to own a tactical rifle, and they store it safely in disassembled components with no ammo in the house, service it appropriately, and shoot it at an insured and accredited range on weekends, should they be able to do so?

They’re not being unsafe. Their insurance would be low. You just don’t personally approve of their hobby, and are basing your proposal off that.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 5th 2019 at 12:59:09 PM

I'm not saying "everybody with a gun is unsafe". What I am saying is "more people are unsafe with guns than we like to admit".

Answer the question. Should that person be allowed to own that gun?

Because you weren’t advocating for an insurance scheme, or anything on a case by case basis, you were advocating for punitive measures leveled against anyone who owned a weapon with “tactical” features.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 5th 2019 at 1:09:10 AM

That's your continued interpretation of what I said, yes. I have clarified in several ways, even if I bounce about a bit. As I am wont to do.

Please note: I'm not heavily into guns. For a host of reasons. I also think the British and Japanese ways beat the South African and American ways. But, I like the Swiss, too (even though the suicide figures are still a worry, and more equality is needed when it comes to conscription and service).

Take it or leave it.

Would I ever have a gun? Nope: not with my brain fog. I don't have a car, either — see CFS and brain fog. I am one of those who shouldn't qualify to drive, but who legally can do so, since there is no law currently preventing me.

Yet, I don't drive. I can't trust my cognition and reflexes (for good reason). At least I'm aware I can't; many people shouldn't, but do get behind the wheel without realising how dangerous they are.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jul 5th 2019 at 9:23:48 AM

Even more prevarication. You’re talking in circles at this point. Not only that, but you’re now claiming to have little knowledge of guns on top of an already stated bias against them.

Here’s the exact quote from you:

Now, to use the above example: if someone owns a tactical firearm, but stores it safely, maintains it appropriately, and only fires it at an accredited range that they are a member of, is there an issue?

Under an insurance-based scheme, their insurance would be pretty low. But you weren’t proposing an insurance-based scheme.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 5th 2019 at 1:20:04 AM

Because I assumed we were talking government only. In short, a system having to do an insurance-fee style assessment of risk using fees.

When insurance came up, fine with it.

It's not great. I'd push for full Britain, given my druthers. But, you guys really can't do that, thus I can snipe sardonically from the side jokingly suggesting it from time to time. With no real belief you can actually do it. Or any real confidence in the numbers you have about yourselves.

Well, I'm going to quit it here. Because we're doing the talk-past-each-other thing where we miss what the other is getting at. And, I'm fading.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jul 5th 2019 at 9:35:14 AM

You weren’t advocating for an insurance-fee style assessment of risk, though.

I’m all for an insurance system. Risk assessment, yes. Making people check in every so often, totally. But I can’t see regulating based on cosmetic features being anything but ineffectual, other than as a tool to punish hobbyists.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 5th 2019 at 1:47:54 AM

DBB I'll note that I think even requiring insurance so that if someone gets accidentally (or on purpose) shot is a fine thing, but that it's the person that should be insured not the gun.

Also regulating cosmetic features like a gold finish is moronic and a excellent example of what I'd consider to be rather stupid when it comes to gun laws.

I'd argue a major feature of bad gun control is banning aesthetic features that don't actually impact the deadliness of the firearm. One argument I'd make in particular is that some "tacticool" features are theoretically things that make the gun safer for the user or more ergonomic. Also, can you come up with a good definition of "tacticool"? It seems like a fairly arbitrary term.

At this point there are so many ways around cosmetic bans they’re almost pointless. They’re just not effective legislation.

For example, the two main things cosmetic bans cover are pistol grips and vertical foregrips. There are dozens of pistol grip workarounds on the market, like the Ares SCR I linked on the last page, and the most popular foregrip on the market at the moment is angled and doesn’t even legally classify as a VFG.

I’d also argue that suppressors need to be made easier to get. They’re a godsend when it comes to shooting safety.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 5th 2019 at 3:36:31 AM

I like the idea of mandatory insurance for gun owners, let the insurance companies establish the actuarial risk in a fair and valid manner. But on the other hand, it isn't just about raw statistical risk. For better or for worse, people are frightened by mass shootings more than randomly being shot at home. That may not seem rational, but human beings are not rational. That's why we have more safety regulations pertaining to the design, maintenance and operation of commercial aircraft than privately owned automobiles. Human nature isnt going to change, so owning a weapon having a frightenting potential to kill a lot of people all at once is going to come with a premium of some kind. That's why I think it's more important to license the owners of semi-automatic weapons than those with mechanical actions. But I don't want it to become a ban, either. You can have your AR-15 with the extended magazines and laser aim finders, but that will come with some additional paperwork is all.

And it should go without saying that while gun owners might or might not be required to tell the government what weapons they own, everyone should always be required to report selling a gun to someone. This would primarily affect gun retailers, and would help restrict third party sales to criminal gangs. Failure to report means you are legally liable for any crimes committed with that weapon.

Edited by DeMarquis on Jul 6th 2019 at 8:16:54 AM

Do you have to say who you are selling it to? If so, then it's a de-facto registry.

I fail to see why a registry is seen as such a great evil, we have a registry of cars, we register our houses and so on.

It just comes across as people wanting criminals to have access to guns, as the only people impacted by a registry would be criminals, either in the form of people who aren’t allowed guns or in the form of people who supply guns to those who aren’t allowed them.

"Do you have to say who you are selling it to? If so, then it's a de-facto registry."

Correct, although that's not really the point. It's intended to prevent regulated weapons from ending up in the hands of people not qualified to own it, such as criminal gangs. The databases are kept by the retailers, not the government, so using them as a means to confiscate the weapons of law abiding citizens would be complicated and difficult, although I suppose the police could gain access to the records with a court warrant.

It's due to the fear, unwarranted or not, that registration would make it easier for the government to take guns away from people.

Weird. How else do you regulate the use of anything?

And, I'd trust government over industry any day of the week.