For those that doubt the wisdom of a citizens right to bear arms

[mr d]

Hello

 

For those of you who not do believe it wise to allow citizens to possess firearms, read here to see just what a weapon can do to help stop crime.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061116/ap_on_fe_st/groin_shot

 

 

The grand and glorious comedy of life continues.

 

Mr D

 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

Added by Moderator Pangloss:

Mr D's question for your consideration is as follows:

In countries that allow citizens to possess fire arms should there be a test for a bare minimum level of intelligence for a person to own a firearm. And what would you propose that test to be?

 

Remember people can still possess a weapon but what level of competence, and in what area - plus what does your test consist of in written-verbal-physical or combination.

[Sisyphus]

Outstanding.

[Pangloss]

I've added Mr. D's supplementary question to the original post and reopened this thread because he wants his question to go in conjunction with the article he linked above.

 

Enjoy.

[bascule]

Do you have any information regarding whether or not the gun involved in this case was obtained legally?

[AzurePhoenix]

In countries that allow citizens to possess fire arms should there be a test for a bare minimum level of intelligence for a person to own a firearm. And what would you propose that test to be?

I wouldn't say a minimal level of intelligence, I know some hicks that you'd swear came from a long line of inbreeding who can handle their firearms quite effectvely and safely. I would suggest something more like a psyche eval, checking for agression levels, history of theft / criminal violence, paranoia, how well they react to panic-inducing situations, etc, and wrap up those who pass with something like a week's worth of mandatory training and safety classes before they can actually take their new bang-baby home.

[Sequence]

I agree, they need to regulate it. But if some of the people even heard you talking about gun control they would shoot you with their ilegal guns.

[ParanoiA]

I agree, they need to regulate it. But if some of the people even heard you talking about gun control they would shoot you with their ilegal guns.

 

 

Ok, I understand the regulation thing and where it comes from. I would agree under just about any other circumstance, except that the right to bare arms is a pillar of the American check and balance system.

 

It's more important to gaurantee the country the unrestricted access to raise arms against its government than it is to protect the citizens from idiot gun owners.

 

Stop and think about it. We all know that incrementalism can be drastic when time lapsed. If you start something like this, it could cause consequences not realized until 100 years down the line. The fate of country could literally be at stake. That's why it's an amendment - the 2nd one no less - 2nd only to free speech.

 

As the American psyche changes and evolves, the idea of what is competent and what is not could change to a perverted form that we had no intention of supporting. Slowly and incrementally, society could be disarmed leading to a government over the people, not by the people.

 

I know you think of gun-toting, beer drinking minority dragging hicks when you think of rights to bare arms, but the major majority of gun owners are responsible, ethical hunters with gun cases and lockers and strict rules about gun safety. Admittedly, this is more of a personal observation, but I've met far more responsible gun owners than idiots in my life and lived in the south, Oklahoma, for 32 years.

[AzurePhoenix]

I know you think of gun-toting, beer drinking minority dragging hicks when you think of rights to bare arms, but the major majority of gun owners are responsible, ethical hunters with gun cases and lockers and strict rules about gun safety. Admittedly, this is more of a personal observation, but I've met far more responsible gun owners than idiots in my life and lived in the south, Oklahoma, for 32 years.

I agree entirely with this bit at least, Smalltown folk and other people with similar mindsets or lifestyles with reasons to actually use their guns often are almost perfectly safe and responsible. It's city folk and suburbanites you can't trust. I'm not saying they're criminal or anything, only that a good proportion of them have a tendency towards idiocy.

[ParanoiA]

It's city folk and suburbanites you can't trust. I'm not saying they're criminal or anything, only that a good proportion of them have a tendency towards idiocy.

 

And I wonder if it's because there's really no way to practice and use them regularly like you can in more rural areas, or suburbia close to rural areas. If I lived in the city, I'm not sure how I'd ever get to a shooting range and teach my kids respect and safety within the fun of shooting holes in stuff. Yet, I would still have a firearm of some kind.

 

Another problem I see, is the glorification and over-rated mentallity towards handguns. Handguns have no practical use other than to kill living things really close up. Not practical for hunting. Not practical for home protection either since you need to be worried about high velocity rounds traveling through walls into rooms of innocent family members. It seems to be mainly practical for mobility as well as concealment. Only police officers and criminals have that need.

 

Now, I realize there are conceal and carry laws that require a class and I know several people that have done this so I guess that's ok, but really, shotguns and rifles should be the main firearms of law abiding citizens.

 

Shotguns for home protection and hunting, and rifles just for hunting. Those arms would still be more effective than handguns should our government turn against us too.

[insane_alien]

you should definately have a test to gain access to fire arms. i mean you need to have a license to drive(legally) and that isn't a machine that has a primary purpose of death. so why shouldn't you have a barrage of tests to gain access to a gun?

[ParanoiA]

you should definately have a test to gain access to fire arms. i mean you need to have a license to drive(legally) and that isn't a machine that has a primary purpose of death. so why shouldn't you have a barrage of tests to gain access to a gun?

 

Because access to a machine that carts you around isn't central to maintaining a free government by the people.

[insane_alien]

don't see how guns are central either.

[AzurePhoenix]

don't see how guns are central either.

Some people think that if the government goes Sadam on us, rifles and shotguns will give us a fair chance against the United States Armed Forces

 

Frankly I don't think the hypothetical possibility of a potential future American Revolt justifies an irresponsible spread of deadly weaponry to countless people who shouldn't even be allowed to own weed-whackers. It shrugs off and sacrifices all the people getting hurt or robbed or otherwise negatively affected NOW all for a paranoid possibility.

[ParanoiA]

don't see how guns are central either.

 

Well, united kingdom residents might not see it because your government has always been thrust upon you. You may like the current state of affairs, but history doesn't share your perspective. Our government is our own creation by the very people it is for and built with the direct implication of limiting and controlling its total power. Gun ownership, gauranteed by the constitution is central to that.

 

When your citizens are armed, even against a ridiculously formidable military, it effects the balance of power. It keeps the idea of your government turning on you from ever really becoming an idea, if you know what I mean. Competence legislation applied to central amendments of the constitution is a dangerous precedent. You could theoretically do the same thing with freedom of speech. Only the "competent" can practice free speech - thereby establishing a way to filter out the rebellious.

[ParanoiA]

Some people think that if the government goes Sadam on us, rifles and shotguns will give us a fair chance against the United States Armed Forces

 

Frankly I don't think the hypothetical possibility of a potential future American Revolt justifies an irresponsible spread of deadly weaponry to countless people who shouldn't even be allowed to own weed-whackers. It shrugs off and sacrifices all the people getting hurt or robbed or otherwise negatively affected NOW all for a paranoid possibility.

 

Actually they would. Think that out AP. 300 million people in this country - at least 100 million are men. Of those, at least 20 million are old or young enough to fight. Of those, at least half can be armed - that's 10 million armed men. 10 million out of 300 million people - that's being VERY conservative.

 

So, 10 million armed americans versus a military that will have to bomb and send in ground troops like a third world country. Or, perhaps they just go in on the ground from the very beginning. They're still going to destroy the infrastructure of most of the country before they could claim victory.

 

That's quite a commitment. China didn't even like slaughtering all of those "unarmed" students in Tiananmen Square and that was easy pickings.

 

An armed society contributes more by its presence than it does by exercising its function.

[Sisyphus]

But there are reasonable limits, right? I mean, you wouldn't be in favor of allowing private citizens to build nuclear weapons, would you? Or buying anti-aircraft missles? And as for WHO should be allowed, should a retarded schizophrenic be sold an uzi? Should a suspected terrorist be allowed to carry an RPG into Times Square? Should anyone?

 

See, I agree with the principle, but I think it becomes ridiculous when it's inflexible. There IS a pragmatic balance that must be struck. If you're worried about a slippery slope, then, well, too bad. The extreme positions simply are not options, so you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

The analogy in free speech might be the famous "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. It can be legislated since the immediate danger of permitting it is simply too high. Well, that sort of question becomes much more prominent and occurs much more often when you're talking about machines designed to be as dangerous as possible to other people. I don't think some basic reasonable limits, including guarantees that the possessor is not obviously an immediate danger, are too much.

[ParanoiA]

But there are reasonable limits' date=' right? I mean, you wouldn't be in favor of allowing private citizens to build nuclear weapons, would you? Or buying anti-aircraft missles? And as for WHO should be allowed, should a retarded schizophrenic be sold an uzi? Should a suspected terrorist be allowed to carry an RPG into Times Square? Should anyone?

 

See, I agree with the principle, but I think it becomes ridiculous when it's inflexible. There IS a pragmatic balance that must be struck. If you're worried about a slippery slope, then, well, too bad. The extreme positions simply are not options, so you have to draw the line somewhere.[/quote']

 

Ok, you've made this point several times and yet, retarded people don't buy uzi's. No one has built an atomic bomb in their back yard - or at least it hasn't gone off yet. So, I think the extremism lies in your analysis, not in the Amendment.

 

These things aren't happening today and yet we have no competency test. Believe me, I understand your point as it pertains to anything else, but central checks and balances to our system is nothing to be toying around with.

 

What we need to be doing, is prosecuting gun owners for unsafe practices. We need to encourage respect and understanding for weaponry, rather than scaring everybody away from them, which seems to be the liberal tactic.

 

Ever seen somebody use a table saw that's scared to death of it? They are most likely to hurt themselves - severely. Fear is not respect. Fearless is also not respect. When those people get behind guns, it's the same thing. They hurt innocent people or they hurt themselves. Promote responsible gun ownership and safety, rather than fear and legislation.

 

Take a look at sweden. I believe every male is required to join the military and is issued a rifle upon completion of their service - I've even heard they're required to keep their rifle. Any country that decides to invade them has to deal with the fact that virtually every house in that country has a gun in it and a person that knows how to use it. Their government knows that too. And they don't have near the problems with idiot gun owners like we do - if at all.

[AzurePhoenix]

Take a look at sweden. I believe every male is required to join the military and is issued a rifle upon completion of their service - I've even heard they're required to keep their rifle. Any country that decides to invade them has to deal with the fact that virtually every house in that country has a gun in it and a person that knows how to use it. Their government knows that too. And they don't have near the problems with idiot gun owners like we do - if at all.

And I'm certain every person who owns one knows how to use it properly, which is the meat of my proposal. The other bit of the psyche eval and violent criminal history check is just good common sense. Like Sissy aid, either extreme of total gun-freedom to a total-gun ban goes too far, there has to be a middle ground.

[ParanoiA]

And I'm certain every person who owns one knows how to use it properly, which is the meat of my proposal. The other bit of the psyche eval and violent criminal history check is just good common sense. Like Sissy aid, either extreme of total gun-freedom to a total-gun ban goes too far, there has to be a middle ground.

 

I didn't realize that anyone here was promoting total gun-freedom nor a total-gun ban. I thought the discussion here was a competency test. I don't like the government authoring a competency test. A competency test is far more likely to be subjected to biased tampering and manipulation on an incremental scale.

 

Perhaps a psychiatric evaluation could still be objective with respect to gun ownership if it is the same psyche eval used for other things unrelated to gun ownership competency, but I'm not sure I like that either.

 

It sets up the citizen to have to prove themselves to its government rather than the other way around. Most of our legal process assumes the rights of the citizen is given and the government has to prove itself justified to trump the rights of that individual.

[AzurePhoenix]

It sets up the citizen to have to prove themselves to its government rather than the other way around. Most of our legal process assumes the rights of the citizen is given and the government has to prove itself justified to trump the rights of that individual.

I'm just one of the sorts who thinks "rights" should be trumped by common sense and practicality. It seems clear to me that a person who has a history of spouse-beating, or who's robbed a few gas stations shouldn't have guns, and if such folks feel that their rights are being infringed on by having to have some sorta of check into their character and background to ensure they aren't downright likely to hurt people, I say screw their feelings and do the logical and responsible thing anyway.

[ParanoiA]

I'm just one of the sorts who thinks "rights" should be trumped by common sense and practicality. It seems clear to me that a person who has a history of spouse-beating, or who's robbed a few gas stations shouldn't have guns, and if such folks feel that their rights are being infringed on by having to have some sorta of check into their character and background to ensure they aren't downright likely to hurt people, I say screw their feelings and do the logical and responsible thing anyway.

 

 

I believe convicted felons, certainly violent felons, are not allowed firearms for some period of their life, if not permanently. I would agree, in a heartbeat, for a competency test for anyone who's been convicted of a crime or upon release of psychiatric facilities.

 

There's a way to enforce a competency test on those who've "earned" it, through their stupid behavior, without impacting the law abiding citizenry and jeopardizing the framework of our government. Perhaps using conviction and mental history could work.

[Pangloss]

Some people think that if the government goes Sadam on us, rifles and shotguns will give us a fair chance against the United States Armed Forces

 

Seems to be working in Iraq, doesn't it?

 

 

(I can't believe nobody beat me to that....)

[ParanoiA]

Seems to be working in Iraq, doesn't it?

 

 

(I can't believe nobody beat me to that....)

 

I'm embarrassed to say I never saw it coming...good one though

[AzurePhoenix]

Seems to be working in Iraq, doesn't it?

I have to admit, I have the faulty outlook of a person with an itchy nuke-finger. I don't have the patience for a responsible, non-atomic war \o/

[Mokele]

rifles and shotguns will give us a fair chance against the United States Armed Forces

 

As Pangloss noted, it sure worked in Iraq. And Vietnam.

 

It shrugs off and sacrifices all the people getting hurt or robbed or otherwise negatively affected NOW all for a paranoid possibility.

 

The 'paranoid possibility' is actually how this country was formed.

 

Also, how will restricting legal gun ownership prevent people getting hurt of robbed? I know it's a cliche, but criminals don't follow the law. Look at the UK; the gun crime has only gotten worse, and the police departments can't retain new hires because nobody wants to face armed criminals with nothing but a stick unless they're Bruce Lee. Hell, it didn't even work out well for him.

 

Aside from that, knives are deadly too; even if guns were eradicated, criminals would use knives and it would be the same situation. And believe me, you can do a *lot* with a knife.

 

There IS a pragmatic balance that must be struck.

 

Agreed. As much as my own artillery weapons would advance my goals of becoming Emperor Mokele I, that's precisely why they should be avoided. I think a good general rule is "if it's military hardware, you shouldn't have it."

 

No one has built an atomic bomb in their back yard - or at least it hasn't gone off yet.

 

Google "Radioactive Boy Scout". It wasn't a bomb, but a *KID* with enough ingenuity managed to create a *working* nuclear device without anyone knowing.

 

As for the insane, not all crazy people are gibbering on the streetcorner. A sociopath looks like anyone else, as do most schizophrenics, between episodes.

 

 

Personally, I find guns distasteful, but I don't object to people owning them. I'll take a nice pair of Katars, myself.

 

Mokele