Please insure your 2nd amendment rights!

[Shogun]

Perhaps we can move on to discussing how lame ass the Kellerman study was.


as posted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9715182&dopt=AbstractPlus

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't know what you think I am completely wrong about. In fact, I am not sure what this post is talking about. I wasn't suggesting anything like what you appear to think I was suggesting. The debate only focused on the appropriateness of an analogy that MM used. I can understand if you might have misconstrued the last series of posts. It would have been easy to misinterpret them unless you went back a few pages and read through them all.

The analogy fails because of the simple fact that one is found not to legally have a license to drive that does not mean they get arrested, no matter HOW this is discovered. If one is found to not legally be allowed to own a weapon they ARE arrested, no matter how this was discovered.

Further it does not work because the simple act of driving a car does not result in police checks for licenses, BUT the act of openly carrying a weapon is grounds all by itself to be stopped questioned and checked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The analogy isn't nearly important as the basic question: should there be restrictions on gun ownership for people who have not committed intentional crimes? I am undecided on this, and I doubt I can add to what has already been discussed many times in so many other threads.

This should help you answer your question:
Should there be [prior restraint] restrictions on [any right] for people who have not committed intentional crimes?

 

[ReillyT]

The analogy fails because of the simple fact that one is found not to legally have a license to drive that does not mean they get arrested, no matter HOW this is discovered. If one is found to not legally be allowed to own a weapon they ARE arrested, no matter how this was discovered.

I don't think this is relevant to his analogy in any way, but in any event, it is only a matter of degree. If you are caught driving without a license, you get a ticket, which is a form of punishment by the state. Other violations receive different forms of punishment. Okay.

Further it does not work because the simple act of driving a car does not result in police checks for licenses, BUT the act of openly carrying a weapon is grounds all by itself to be stopped questioned and checked.

I don't think we are talking about openly carrying weapons. In most states, I think that is illegal anyway unless you have a special permit. However, once again, that has nothing at all to do with his analogy or the point he is trying to make.

 

[ReillyT]

This should help you answer your question:
Should there be [prior restraint] restrictions on [any right] for people who have not committed intentional crimes?

There is a lot of begging of questions going on there, but phrase it however you like.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't think this is relevant to his analogy in any way, but in any event, it is only a matter of degree. If you are caught driving without a license, you get a ticket, which is a form of punishment by the state. Other violations receive different forms of punishment. Okay.



I don't think we are talking about openly carrying weapons. In most states, I think that is illegal anyway unless you have a special permit. However, once again, that has nothing at all to do with his analogy or the point he is trying to make.

It has everything to do with it. You have droned on and on about how the police can not easily discover if some citizen should own a gun or not. How it is so much easier to check driving licenses.

 

[ReillyT]

It has everything to do with it. You have droned on and on about how the police can not easily discover if some citizen should own a gun or not. How it is so much easier to check driving licenses.

No, the point was that there are not currently systems available to monitor whether someone is allowed to use a gun, not own a gun. There are more systems/opportunities to monitor whether people have driving licenses. This question relates back to the appropriateness of the analogy.

However, even though you have completely missed the point of the back and forth between M14 and I, you are still wrong if you believe that it is equally easy to determine whether someone is carrying a gun or driving without a license. The standards for searching the person are higher than the standards for stopping an automobile - to say nothing of the opportunities present to stop drivers for small infractions. I have been pulled over several times. I have never been frisked.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, the point was that there are not currently systems available to monitor whether someone is allowed to use a gun, not own a gun. There are more systems/opportunities to monitor whether people have driving licenses. This question relates back to the appropriateness of the analogy.

However, even though you have completely missed the point of the back and forth between M14 and I, you are still wrong if you believe that it is equally easy to determine whether someone is carrying a gun or driving without a license. The standards for searching the person are higher than the standards for stopping an automobile - to say nothing of the opportunities present to stop drivers for small infractions. I have been pulled over several times. I have never been frisked.

First lets be clear... You can not legally USE a gun if you can not legally OWN a gun. In a lot of States you CAN legally OWN a working functional car with out having the legal right to USE said car. In my state you can not buy a new car without insurance, I do not recall if I was required to prove I was a licensed driver. Again you can not register a car without insurance but I do not recall if you have to be licensed to register it.

Further again, the mere possession of a car is not grounds to check one for a license. While the mere possession of a gun IS grounds to be checked if you legally can own one, whether you have a legit reason for having it where you do and can result in a search of your person.

Further there are restrictions on owning a weapon. And even more on owning a hand gun. There are restrictions on buying ammunition as well. There are restrictions on where and how you store weapons especially if you have children.

When you buy a car you fill out financial paper work, when you buy a gun you fill out legal paper work that indicates your LEGAL right to own and possess a weapon, in the case of handguns you must get a permit from a local sheriff before you can even get to THAT step. A car you can buy and drive off the lot the same day, a handgun you must wait 5 days.

Further a felony is no longer the only thing that legally bars you from owning a weapon. ANY family dispute that results in a police report even a misdomeaner will now bar you, even if you were not the abuser from owning weapons.

There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of laws on weapons. Last count was over 20000 laws on owning, possessing and using weapons.

 

[ReillyT]

First lets be clear... You can not legally USE a gun if you can not legally OWN a gun. In a lot of States you CAN legally OWN a working functional car with out having the legal right to USE said car. In my state you can not buy a new car without insurance, I do not recall if I was required to prove I was a licensed driver. Again you can not register a car without insurance but I do not recall if you have to be licensed to register it.

Okay.

Further again, the mere possession of a car is not grounds to check one for a license. While the mere possession of a gun IS grounds to be checked if you legally can own one, whether you have a legit reason for having it where you do and can result in a search of your person.

Okay, although if you don't suspect that someone is carrying a gun, it won't provide a basis for searching them... but okay.

Further there are restrictions on owning a weapon. And even more on owning a hand gun. There are restrictions on buying ammunition as well. There are restrictions on where and how you store weapons especially if you have children.

Okay.

When you buy a car you fill out financial paper work, when you buy a gun you fill out legal paper work that indicates your LEGAL right to own and possess a weapon, in the case of handguns you must get a permit from a local sheriff before you can even get to THAT step. A car you can buy and drive off the lot the same day, a handgun you must wait 5 days.

Okay.

Further a felony is no longer the only thing that legally bars you from owning a weapon. ANY family dispute that results in a police report even a misdomeaner will now bar you, even if you were not the abuser from owning weapons.

Okay.

There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of laws on weapons. Last count was over 20000 laws on owning, possessing and using weapons.

Okay. All nice to know. None of it relevant to the discussion that was taking place, but nice to know anyway.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay.



Okay, although if you don't suspect that someone is carrying a gun, it won't provide a basis for searching them... but okay.



Okay.



Okay.



Okay.



Okay. All nice to know. None of it relevant to the discussion that was taking place, but nice to know anyway.

Totally relevant. Comparing car licensing procedures to gun ownership is retarded. If it were as easy to get a gun as it is a car license you might have a point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Totally relevant. Comparing car licensing procedures to gun ownership is retarded. If it were as easy to get a gun as it is a car license you might have a point.

I'm ALL for treating guns as we do cars:

You dont need a license to:
-buy a car
-own a car
-drive a car on provate property
-transport a car on public property

Yont dont need to register a car to:
-buy it
-own it
-drive it on private property
-transport it on publc property

In fact, the only time you need licensing/registration is when you drive the car on public property.

So, if we treat guns like cars, the only time we need a license for a gun or to register that gun is if we USE it on public property.

I'm OK with that.
I doubt the 'we require a driver's license' people are.

 

[ReillyT]

Totally relevant. Comparing car licensing procedures to gun ownership is retarded. If it were as easy to get a gun as it is a car license you might have a point.

But for the fact that the analogy dealt with restrictions based upon (primarily) prior conduct you might be right.

I have never bought a gun, but isn't it pretty easy? I didn't think you had to take classes or anything. Don't you just go in, pay for it, wait for a background check and pick it up in a couple of days? Is there a Driver's Ed. for gun ownership?

Nonetheless, this wasn't the point of his analogy.

 

[Bern80]

It has everything to do with it. You have droned on and on about how the police can not easily discover if some citizen should own a gun or not. How it is so much easier to check driving licenses.

Even for someone like me, who thinks gun ownership laws should be extremely loose, there is a level of common sense that should indicate it is far easier to get a car out of the hands of an irresponsible driver than it is to get a gun out of the hands of an irresponsible gun owner.

The reason being one action is more observeable than the other. it is far easier for law enforcement officials to see and observe irrespsonisble drivers than it is to observe irresponsible gun owners. I should be one of those intuitively obvious things and I think that's really the point Reilly is trying to make.

 

[Bern80]

I also think people on both sides are missing the point in comparing cars and guns.

It has nothing do with which is a right and which is a priviledge. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to enforce laws with regard to boths.

The point is in the objects themselves. If you were to set up an experiment where put a car and an unloaded gun next to each other and asked 1000 people which they should be more afraid, i think we know how the answers would skew. That more people are afraid of the gun.

yet the are both completely inanimate objects. Neither can cause anyone any harm unless acted upon. Even when acted upon they both still need other ingredients to be used. A car can't drive without gas. A gun can't fire without a bullet. Both are quite capable of causing great harm. Just one miscalculation or moment of inattentiveness with regards to both can be fatal.

yet for despite the evidence that far more car accidents occur daily and more deaths occur yearly, for whatever reason we are more afraid of guns. I find that extremely ironic considering the government essentially has to tell all of us we're safe enough to drive, yet we can own guns without such a similar test.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Even for someone like me, who thinks gun ownership laws should be extremely loose, there is a level of common sense that should indicate it is far easier to get a car out of the hands of an irresponsible driver than it is to get a gun out of the hands of an irresponsible gun owner.

The reason being one action is more observeable than the other. it is far easier for law enforcement officials to see and observe irrespsonisble drivers than it is to observe irresponsible gun owners. I should be one of those intuitively obvious things and I think that's really the point Reilly is trying to make.

Absolutely Ludicrous. We do know who are "irresponsible" gun owners as soon as they ARE irresponsible. Meanwhile irresponsible car drives can and do remain on the road until they amass enough POINTS to temporarily pull their license.

Unless your now claiming we should have an intelligence test to own a weapon. Who gets to write this test? Who gets to grade it? Who gets to decide what answers are acceptable and what are not? AND who is going to repell the 2nd Amendment to make such a test legal?

 

[ReillyT]

Absolutely Ludicrous. We do know who are "irresponsible" gun owners as soon as they ARE irresponsible.

That isn't true. You only know of an irresponsible gun owner when he shoots or kills somebody. However, much like an irresponsible driver can run a stop sign and not hurt anyone, an irresponsible gun owner can do a number of things which will never get reported but which pose a public (or private) risk.

Unless your now claiming we should have an intelligence test to own a weapon. Who gets to write this test? Who gets to grade it? Who gets to decide what answers are acceptable and what are not? AND who is going to repell the 2nd Amendment to make such a test legal?

Easy tiger... he wasn't claiming anything of the sort. He was just trying to explain to you the rather simple point I was making. Don't fault him for trying to help you along.

 

[Bern80]

Absolutely Ludicrous. We do know who are "irresponsible" gun owners as soon as they ARE irresponsible. Meanwhile irresponsible car drives can and do remain on the road until they amass enough POINTS to temporarily pull their license.

Unless your now claiming we should have an intelligence test to own a weapon. Who gets to write this test? Who gets to grade it? Who gets to decide what answers are acceptable and what are not? AND who is going to repell the 2nd Amendment to make such a test legal?

Your'e still missing the point. You honestly beleive it is ludicrous to think there is a better chance of witnessing someone mishandle a car than midhandle a gun?

that is the point i'm trying to make. Is a cop, or anyone more likely to see someone misuseing a gun or misusing their car?

Again I think this is essentially what Reilly is trying to get at. We have two objects: guns and cars. One is perceived to be more dangerous than the other, guns (that may or may not be valid, but it's the perception) yet it is easier for law enforcement officials to prevent and enforce crimes where cars are concerned than it is prevent and enforce gun crimes. The rationale being since it is perceived to be the more dangerous object it should be made easier to prevent and enforce gun crimes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That isn't true. You only know of an irresponsible gun owner when he shoots or kills somebody. However, much like an irresponsible driver can run a stop sign and not hurt anyone, an irresponsible gun owner can do a number of things which will never get reported but which pose a public (or private) risk.



Easy tiger... he wasn't claiming anything of the sort. He was just trying to explain to you the rather simple point I was making. Don't fault him for trying to help you along.

Bull shit . Be specific.... no unsupported claims, list some things that endanger the public with a gun owner. And then explain how these things can or should be addressed.

Screw up with a gun and your going to jail. Except repeated drunk driving or murdering people with a car, your not going to jail generally and your not going to lose your license FOREVER.

 

[ReillyT]

Bull shit . Be specific.... no unsupported claims, list some things that endanger the public with a gun owner. And then explain how these things can or should be addressed.

Screw up with a gun and your going to jail. Except repeated drunk driving or murdering people with a car, your not going to jail generally and your not going to lose your license FOREVER.

Okay... a hunter nearly (or accidentally) shoots another hunter while hunting grouse. There is not injury (or the injury was accidental), so there is either no report that this ever happened or no crime was committed so there is no basis for restricting the owner. Nonetheless, the situation is dangerous. A gun owner is cleaning is gun and it accidentally goes off. A parent leaves a gun where a child could find it and play with it. All dangerous. All the result of negligent and careless behavior. No crimes. Possibly nothing reported. Possibly no one ever knows about it.

I don't necessarily think that these things should be addressed, but MM's analogy was that where there is evidence that someone uses a gun in an unsafe manner - even if there is no crime - there should be some regulation to prevent future accidents.

 

[Bern80]

Bull shit . Be specific.... no unsupported claims, list some things that endanger the public with a gun owner. And then explain how these things can or should be addressed.

Screw up with a gun and your going to jail. Except repeated drunk driving or murdering people with a car, your not going to jail generally and your not going to lose your license FOREVER.

I have one perfect example. In my hometown a young man was posing with a gun for his girlfriend who was an amateur photography. For one of the shots he pointed the gun directly at the camera, the gun was loaded, chambered, with safety off. We know that because the man accidentally shot the woman and killed her.

Now suppose the gun hadn't gone off. Despite being completely irresponsible in pointing a loaded gun with the safety off at a person, what crime would have been committed? The answer is none.

Again the point is you can do irresponsible things with both guns and cars. Many of which won't result in death. many of things short of wounding or klilling someone with a car are illegal. Almost nothing is with regard to a gun.