Yay, GUNS!

[StringJunky]

The ones on the extremes are generally emotionally motivated enough to express their point of view...s/he who shouts the loudest gets heard and counted. The trouble with a balanced sensibility is that it doesn't make political waves hence, probably, the apparent polarisation.

Edited January 28, 2013 by StringJunky

[john5746]

No they are for hunting, sport, fun, and protection...

They are toys brought by Santa

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Who-knows-Maybe-youll-find-a-Bushmaster-AR-15-under-your-tree-some-frosty-Christmas-morning.html

As a gun owner I feel very much disenfranchised in this national debate, where are the people who are not gun lovers or gun haters? People who simply have guns for practical purposes?

I really don't know what your talking about. The national debate I have seen so far starts with the idea that people should be able to hunt and protect themselves in their homes. I see far more unreasonable arguments from the more guns side.

[Moontanman]

They are toys brought by Santa

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Who-knows-Maybe-youll-find-a-Bushmaster-AR-15-under-your-tree-some-frosty-Christmas-morning.htmlI really don't know what your talking about. The national debate I have seen so far starts with the idea that people should be able to hunt and protect themselves in their homes. I see far more unreasonable arguments from the more guns side.

 

 

Possibly I am conflating the anti gun sentiments here with the national debate. I do get gun control propaganda from the Democrats that are against things like concealed carry and gun ownership in general not to mention that useless idea that the style of a weapon has anything to do with the actual killing power.

 

I can say that almost all the people I do know that have military style weapons are ex military and seem to have an attachment that has more to do with nostalgia than wanting the deadliest weapon.

 

There does seem to be a bit of a masculine issue connected with military style weapons as though prohibiting them would some how emasculate males or maybe more accurately that somehow possessing such a weapons makes you more of a man or allows you to show off your manhood, possibly similar to having the fastest car or highest 4X4.

 

I am by no means claiming to be an expert on this but over the years i have noticed that some men do seem to connect their masculinity to certain objects that convey the illusion of personal power. Guns, to some, seem to satisfy this need to "show off", but I don't think the majority of people who own guns do so as a power display but the ones that do seem to be making the most noise about it.

 

I do think there is room for a middle ground and that both sides are ignoring the majority of the people who actually own guns...

[john5746]

I do think there is room for a middle ground and that both sides are ignoring the majority of the people who actually own guns...

Do you consider Obama's proposals to be closer to the middle ground or the high mark? I think more will need to be done, but waiting for perfection means doing nothing.

 

I would like to see more concentration on ammunition. Being able to trace it, taxing the shit out of it to pay for all this stuff we need to do to keep innocent people safe and keep up with everyone's mental health status, etc.

[Moontanman]

Do you consider Obama's proposals to be closer to the middle ground or the high mark? I think more will need to be done, but waiting for perfection means doing nothing.

 

I would like to see more concentration on ammunition. Being able to trace it, taxing the shit out of it to pay for all this stuff we need to do to keep innocent people safe and keep up with everyone's mental health status, etc.

 

 

I get crap like this all the time...

 

 

Taxes on ammunition will only hurt those who use guns for completely legal activities, I doubt a connection can be made that making ammunition difficult to purchase would have stopped the school massacre or any other shooting but it would be a problem for those who shoot regularly and those people are most likely to be in control of their guns. But I agree we need some sort of licensing programs, a license to own a gun gun should be at least as difficult as driving license. I can see some sort of mandatory insurance to own a gun.

 

Requiring some sort of mental health check is a no brainer from my point of view, if you fear a mental heath check before owning a gun then your mental health is in doubt IMHO...

[Iggy]

Sometimes it feels like polarization is the only thing our political system is good at...

 

'The Hitch' had a good line on that. He would ask Israel Shakak how things were going in Israel and the Dr. would say "there are encouraging signs of polarization".

 

Justice Sotomayor on the daily show a few nights ago had a good line too. Let me look it up so not to botch it..."If you want to be a part of history, then you know that the force of your ideas and the strength of your expression is what lasts". That was her line on a polarized supreme court.

 

I don't think polarization is the problem. If Piers Morgan thinks assault weapons are the cause then he has every right (and duty) to scream 'bloody murder' immediately after, or indeed before, the Newtown massacre. Likewise if Rigney wants to protest hundreds of years of tradition and law being threatened when DC bans handguns, or whatever the case may be.

 

And don't even get me started quoting Mr. Miyagi, "Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, SQUISH".

 

Yeah, polarization isn't the evil it's looked down on as.

[John Cuthber]

Once again Mr Obama's plans are being talked about.

One thing he did was remove the block on research into gun safety that was introduced by the Republicans.

They introduced it with the backing of the NRA.

 

If guns are so safe and useful, why not allow the research to prove it?

 

Or perhaps they were worried that they had something to hide.

In any event, since we are scientists here, I'm sure we all agree that the best way to find out what we should do is via research.

So, does everyone support the reinstatement of the CDC's budget for research in this field?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729013.000-a-shot-at-the-truth-about-gun-violence.html

Edited January 29, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

I see no reason what so ever not to do the research...

[Iggy]

So, does everyone support the reinstatement of the CDC's budget for research in this field?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729013.000-a-shot-at-the-truth-about-gun-violence.html

 

Clearly the Center for Disease Control's gun budget needs spent on the upcoming zombie apocalypse.

 

Otherwise, there is a vast conspiracy aimed at labeling gun ownership a disease and thus probably willing to fund this study in the first place.

 

I wouldn't doubt that both could be true, but I'd be extremely reluctant to accept a third option.

[overtone]

 

The national debate I have seen so far starts with the idea that people
should be able to hunt and protect themselves in their homes.

I've seen a loud and prevalent faction in the national debate that grants no such accomodation - that regards hunting as barbaric, home or person defense as illegitimate (- - - you are x times likelier to shoot your kids by accident than shoot a burglar etc etc - - ), gun owners in general as psychiatrically unstable and dangerous, and ownership bans on almost all guns as reasonable public policy goals.

 

 

But I agree we need some sort of licensing programs, a license to own a
gun gun should be at least as difficult as driving license. I can see
some sort of mandatory insurance to own a gun.

Two problems with the comparison: you are not required to obtain any kind of a license or insurance to simply own a car, any number of cars, or operate any or all of them on private property, regardless of the risk to yourself or others present;

 

and car operation is not a Constitutional right. License and insurance requirements for owning basic "militia" level firearms would be comparable to similar requirements for assembling in the street, speaking and writing at will, or refusing unreasonable police search of one's bedroom.

 

The precedent established, in other words, would be significant beyond the issue of guns.

[Iggy]

Two problems with the comparison: you are not required to obtain any kind of a license or insurance to simply own a car, any number of cars, or operate any or all of them on private property, regardless of the risk to yourself or others present;

 

and car operation is not a Constitutional right. License and insurance requirements for owning basic "militia" level firearms would be comparable to similar requirements for assembling in the street, speaking and writing at will, or refusing unreasonable police search of one's bedroom.

 

The precedent established, in other words, would be significant beyond the issue of guns.

 

Oh sweety, The fact that you don't know that firearms must be purchased with license in many places is so cute. You're arguing against something that is already established, but only needs more competent control with such blissfulness. It's endearing.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Iggy

[overtone]

Oh sweety, The fact that you don't know that firearms must be purchased

with license in many places is so cute. You're arguing against

something that is already established, but only needs more competent

control with such blissfulness. It's endearing.

An example of an American "place" in which one must purchase a license and insurance to possess (not "purchase") a firearm of any kind would be of some contribution to the thread.

 

It would have some distant relevance to my post, as well.

 

Which your reply, as is becoming customary with you, did not. You appear to be confused about the argument posted. Maybe reread, with more care?

Edited January 30, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

An example of an American "place" in which one must purchase a license and insurance to possess (not "purchase") a firearm of any kind would be of some contribution to the thread.

 

It would have some distant relevance to my post, as well.

 

Which your reply, as is becoming customary with you, did not. You appear to be confused about the argument posted. Maybe reread, with more care?

 

I reread it and it was even more endearing. A list of which states require purchase permit / owner's license / registration for firearms is on the wikipedia page 'gun laws in the US by state'. Without looking I can tell you that DC is an example. They are brutal with their gun laws.

[John Cuthber]

You reread it and didn't notice that this

"place" in which one must purchase a license and insurance to possess (not "purchase") a firearm of any kind "

isn't the same as "A list of which states require purchase permit / owner's license / registration for firearms"

 

And cited this " wikipedia page 'gun laws in the US by state'."

Which is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

and doesn't mention insurance at all.

 

 

No wonder you think the CDC is a B-movie conspiracy: you just aren't paying attention to the world.

[Iggy]

You reread it and didn't notice that this

"place" in which one must purchase a license and insurance to possess (not "purchase") a firearm of any kind "

isn't the same as "A list of which states require purchase permit / owner's license / registration for firearms"

 

And cited this " wikipedia page 'gun laws in the US by state'."

Which is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

and doesn't mention insurance at all.

 

 

No wonder you think the CDC is a B-movie conspiracy: you just aren't paying attention to the world.

 

I don't know what you're trying to imply with the first burst. I didn't mention insurance in post 511, nor when I proposed the idea back in post 271, which I'll quote for your ease:

 

 

I agree, and I think the tone by which we regulate the guns that aren't outright banned would be key. If it were as hard to buy a handgun as it is to get a license to drive a class 3 truck that would be a big improvement. Mandatory keylocks, safety training, random surprise inspections, holding gun owners and manufactures civilly liable for misuse (the proceeds of which could fund massive gun buyback programs to remove illegal guns from the streets)... a person can think of a dozen things quicker than they can be typed. More stringent regulations I say

 

Nonetheless, if you want to discuss insurance as Moontanman brought it up, and overtone objected, I'm more than willing. It wouldn't be a constitutional problem to have mandatory firearm insurance as was implied. This article explains.

 

I would be opposed to it for practical reasons. Those for whom insurance would be the most expensive (high risk) would be far more likely to obtain and keep unlicensed firearms because they couldn't afford it. Irresponsible people would have an incentive to hide their arsenal which would be a very unfortunate result and extremely difficult if not impossible to avoid.

 

 

Thank you for giving a proper link to the title of the wikipedia article I gave.

 

 

To understand why the CDC zombie apocalypse joke was funny you can watch this (starting at 1:00):

 

CDC Zombie Apocalypse Statement

[overtone]

 

"An example of an American "place" in which one must purchase a license and

insurance to possess (not "purchase") a firearm of any kind would be
of some contribution to the thread."

 

.A list of which states require purchase permit / owner's license /
registration for firearms is on the wikipedia page 'gun laws in the US
by state'.

So you pass, on that. I can't find any either.

 

 

It wouldn't be a constitutional problem to have mandatory firearm insurance as was implied. This article explains.

Uh, that article is - let's say - not quite authoritative? The task is not to find some blog entry making assertions you happen to agree with, but to actually handle the issue of Constitutionality that confronts the US when attempting to curb and regulate gun ownership.

 

Here's a quote from that article:

An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would
get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able
to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and
domestic violence would have a similar problem." Robert Cyran and Reynolds Holding
write that mandatory liability insurance is a measure that could pass
Supreme Court muster where other restrictions might fail: "[T]here’s
a strong argument that damage caused by firearms gives the government a
'compelling interest' to require insurance, the test for infringing a
constitutional right."

So we would face not only a 2nd Amendment problem, but a violation of the equal protection clause as well - something the linked article doesn't even seem to recognize.

 

[Iggy]

So you pass, on that. I can't find any either.

 

Yes, I pass on answering your strawman.

 

You said "license or insurance" and I emasculated your comment's barely existent reasoning by addressing the former. Would you like to pass on the question of which "place" my claim (firearms must be purchased with license in many places) contains the word insurance?

Edited January 31, 2013 by Iggy

[overtone]

 

Yes, I pass on answering your strawman.

You said "license or insurance" and I emasculated your comment's barely existent reasoning by addressing the former.

I said license and insurance,

 

and my post was addressed to the difficulty of attaching expense or obstacle to a Constitutional right - one could possibly get around the license difficulties (say by making it free and "shall issue" upon background check) , but the problems with insurance appear insurmountable.

 

But I'll bite - if you are addressing any part of my posting at all, you are claiming to have an example on hand of at least one political region or area in the US where one must obtain a license to possess any firearm. It would be a contribution to the thread to present this place, so that we can take a look its laws and see if they are likely to withstand Constitutional challenge.

[Iggy]

 

 

You said "license or insurance"

I said license and insurance,

 

 

You said both. First sentence of the post contains the phrase I quoted.

 

You keep doing what the Romans called 'ignoratio elenchi'.

and my post was addressed to the difficulty of attaching expense or obstacle to a Constitutional right - one could possibly get around the license difficulties (say by making it free and "shall issue" upon background check) , but the problems with insurance appear insurmountable.

You make clear again that you don't know licensing is mandatory in some states. You remind me of Wesley Snipes arguing that income tax is unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried.

But I'll bite - if you are addressing any part of my posting at all, you are claiming to have an example on hand of at least one political region or area in the US where one must obtain a license to possess any firearm. It would be a contribution to the thread to present this place, so that we can take a look its laws and see if they are likely to withstand Constitutional challenge.

You want to see if they're likely to withstand constitutional challenge? Priceless.

 

In New Jersey one must obtain a "Firearms Purchaser Identification Card" from your local police department before you can legally buy (or possess or transport) even a spring loaded BB gun, and the FID will cost you more than the BB gun.

 

Here is Hawaii HRS 134-2,

 

"No person shall acquire the ownership of a firearm, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, registered under prior law or by prior owner or unregistered, either by purchase, gift, inheritance, bequest, or in any other manner, whether procured in the state or imported by mail, until the person has first procured from the chief of police of the county of the persons place of business or... residence... a permit to acquire the ownership of a firearm as prescribed in this section."

[overtone]

You said both. First sentence of the post contains the phrase I quoted.

Can't find that - you didn't quote, is the problem. Post number?

 

 

You want to see if they're likely to withstand constitutional challenge? Priceless

So nothing on insurance, the motivating topic, and three tries is the charm.

 

We turn to the less problematic "license" - and you posted a couple of plausible things carefully called "permits": your first adult contribution to the thread.

 

They are state laws. New Jersey's is described by Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey thusly:

owner license required / long guns: no handguns: no

The permit for purchase in New Jersey is lifetime, it is "shall issue", it requires no test of competence or use or any other discriminatory imposition, it covers all ordinary rifles etc (and a somewhat more detailed and onerous one covers handguns) - so that might clear even a serious Constitutional challenge, as providing no significant barrier to gun ownership and being equally enforced under the law.

 

It is not an example of an ownership license requirement, and even less is it in any way comparable to a driver's license (the thread, remember?) for gun ownership/possession.

 

Hawaii is a more serious example. One must obtain a permit to posses any modern firearm (anything made after 1899). This is described as a "license" by Wiki (my general standard of standard vocabulary, unless obviously screwed up).

However it appears to involve merely an unusually thorough background check, an owner supplied mental health affadavit, and registration any particular firearm. No competency test, no proof of need or training or other justification, and no serious expense is involved; it is apparently shall issue, and it is lifetime - attributes not generally possssed by "licenses", and in particular an important (almost defining) characteristic of a driver's license (the comparison, if we recall), although the semantics are debatable.

 

Let's stipulate that Hawaii's law could, possibly, pass a serious Supreme Court challenge. - especially if it were shown that it was equitably enforced.

 

So as noted above, in my posts, it may be possible to get some kind of actual gun ownership license past even a reasonable Supreme Court, at the State level, if it imposed no serious burden and applied equally to everybody.

 

However: imposing serious burdens unequally appears to be the motive behind the gun license push - never mind the insurance bugwallow - and the push is Federal, so that kind of legislation looks like it would make nobody happy except the middle ground majority of reasonable people.

Edited January 31, 2013 by overtone

[Moontanman]

This is an example of just how much stupid is in control of our government...

 

[Iggy]

I think, to be fair, If McCarthy were the NY senator rather than Gillibrand, gun control would have a much better shot.

[hypervalent_iodine]

This is an example of just how much stupid is in control of our government...

 

 

 

Well, she's obviously wrong to assume that no one could buy guns simply because they're illeagal, however there is some obscure truth to this statement, since it may effectively hinder / prevent criminals from obtaining them. Certainly, it would do something to stop the mass shootings using Dad's gun collection, but I think also that at least some and possibly even a majority of criminals are not so motivated to commit a crime using firearms that they would be willing to overcome any obstacle in order to get them.

 

And I mean, it's a lot easier to conceal a bunch of meth to deal on the streets than it is to conceal a bunch of guns for a similar purpose.

[Moontanman]

My point was more about how silly things get when you think you need to say something but do not give any thought to what you are actually saying.

 

Illegal guns are very easy to get, probably about as easy as buying meth we just don't hear of illegal gun dealers being busted the same way we hear of meth dealers being busted. Not long ago a huge drug bust was made in my town. The guys car contained several different types of illegal drugs from meth to heroin and guns... The news showed the huge drug cash displayed on a table, several pounds of various drugs but the bust also netted about 2 dozen guns of various types, mostly semi auto machine pistols. The value of the drugs and their impact on society was elaborately explained but the guns were just a side bar only described in passing.

 

Illegal guns is a huge problem, often drugs are exchanged for guns, guns originate in states where guns are easy to get and I-40 is a pipe line for drugs coming from up north and guns coming from down south.

[overtone]

Well, McCarthy is not a Senator - she is a Representative in the House. She is a Democrat, and so her power in Congress is limited to minortiy Party influence in the House. And methamphetamine is in fact available from my local drugstore, in the proper forms and by prescription - and the ingredients of black market meth are even more widely found, on store shelves all over the place. So that poster there is a bit - - confused? - - -

 

She was a life long Republican, btw, before her husband and son were shot in one of these perennial mass public shootings we Americans have grown to accept.

 

And I don't know if the quote on the poster is accurate and in context (not much credibility there, after the word "Senator"), but it is far from the stupidest thing said by a member of the House - about guns or anything else.

 

So that is an odd choice for illustration of US governmental stupidity. Maybe it's the stupidest thing said by a Democrat?