As long as our country breeds people like this

[Retired AF Dem]

I will keep my guns.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-slayings16jun16,0,2952826.story?coll=la-news-state

[tandot]

1. Probably a freeper. He read to many of their hate-filled messages about

Hollywood and Michael Moore on freerepublic.com and acted on it.

[BushHater2004]

129. But Michael Moore preaches gun control

We just need to riducle them.

[iverglas]

2. are you seriously suggesting

that the Hollywood screen writer and his neighbour did NOT have guns?

Hell, I thought all rich people and celebrities did.

They were probably Democrats, too, the hypocrites ...

[Bowline]

110. Where were the police?

These citizens were obviously tax payers. Where were the police? Aren't they supposed to "Serve and Protect"? Where the hell were they when the two victims were being brutally sliced up by this homicidal maniac?

[iverglas]

114. where were their parents??

It's the parents' fault. They failed to instil a sense of personal responsibility in these people. If they had, the ones who are now dead would have known better than to sit (or lie) around their house without a loaded firearm in their hands.

What we need is more parental responsibility. Somebody should sue those bastards.

[Quint57]

120. You're kidding right?

The police have no duty to protect you. In most metropolitan cities the police are holding anywhere from 5 to 10 calls waiting for the first available to respond.

[library_max]

3. So you can draw and fire your guns in your sleep?

Otherwise, WTF good would they have done you?

[Hrumph]

38. Where did it say they were murdered in their sleep?

Yes, it did say "sometime after 1:00 a.m. Sunday" but that doesn't mean they were sleeping. It's not uncommon for me to be up past 1:00 and I know others who are the same way. Also, I didn't see anythin describing the method of entry. It's an awful stretch to say that just because this happened in the wee hours of the morning that the victims were, in fact, sleeping when they were murdered.

Given just a few seconds, yes, I can be armed and prepared to defend my life or the lives of my family.

[library_max]

69. Well, I guess some of us might be sitting up at 1 am,

fingering their triggers, watching shadows, and listening for suspicious sounds. I guess the rest of us who actually sleep during the night are pretty stupid, since now and then one out of two hundred million of us gets killed in his or her sleep.

[TX-RAT]

70. Come on L-M He had to pull guard duty.

[Hrumph]

81. Nah, nobody ever stays up

watching the late movie. Neither is it possible for someone to wake up at the sound of a door being kicked or a window being shattered. Again, it didn't say what the method of entry was.

[Columbia]

4. Ban kitchen knives!

Who needs em anyway? They'll just be used against you.

[turnkey]

5. I was really concerned about this story...

Until I noticed it came from California!

[library_max]

22. Yes, you can filet meat and slice vegetables with a handgun.

I hear a sawed-off shotgun is the easiest way to peel an orange.

[Hrumph]

33. Peel? No. But it works great as a juicer! n/t

.

[CO Liberal]

6. And As Long As People Keep Guns....

...I will be in favor of reasonable gun control measures to keep them out of the wrong hands.

[el_gato]

7. As if criminals give a shit about gun control laws

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

9. go cry to someone who gives a shit

You just don't like the point i'm making.

boo fucking hoo

I guess the gun grabbers are all upset over the DU polls
showing how little support the gun grabber agenda has here.

[CO Liberal]

12. Gato, Gato, Gato...

"Reasonable gun control" has nothing to do with your illusions of "gun grabbers" out to take away your guns. Unless you're willing to stop these diatribes, we cannot have a logical discussion....

[el_gato]

20. Boring

Reasonable gun control is just code words. It's just like the anti-abortion crowd wanting reasonable abortion controls.

Nobody is buying that bullshit except your fellow anti-gun jihadists.

[library_max]

24. When's the last time you saw the phrase "reasonable abortion controls"

in any pro-life literature? The analogy is simply ridiculous, and the name-calling repudiates itself.

[el_gato]

25. it's called "partial birth abortion" incase you haven't noticed

classic incrementalism

[CO Liberal]

26. More Like Classic Apples and Oranges

Used when a pro-gunner runs out of arguments.

[el_gato]

28. Your just upset that most DUers are not gun-control freaks

nevertheless, incrementalism is the name of the game for the gun-grabbing control freaks

[CO Liberal]

40. And It Sounds Like You're Just Plain Upset

Period.

[el_gato]

44. I'm having a great time actually

[iverglas]

14. that's some advice you might want to consider

You just don't like the point i'm making.

On the contrary.

Since what you said was pretty much self-evident, to the point of being tautological -- criminals don't care about laws -- I don't know what point there would be in my not "liking" it. I'd whole-heartedly agree with it. So what's to not like?

The point *I* was making, on the other hand, was that your point had nothing whatsoever to do with CO Liberal's point.

Maybe if you move your lips while you read what he wrote again, and then read what you wrote, you'll hear the difference.

Maybe you'll just type another pointless and false accusation.

Who knows?

The Shadow undoubtedly does. And I can make a good guess.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

30. smoke a-swirlin'

The POINT is that the laws you love so much don't work.

The point is that the laws *I* love are the laws that actually keep firearms away from criminals -- that are directed at the law-abiding, not the criminals. My cognitive skills are just fine, as I suspect yours are; your short-comings seem to be of another order.

I, you see, don't love laws that say "criminals may not have firearms", the laws that you are intent on pretending CO Liberal was talking about. Nobody's talking about 'em except you, my dear boy.

And I'm just not at all fond of people who think (or pretend they think) that saying that such laws don't work especially well to stop criminals from using firearms to commit crimes is some kind of response to proposals for measures to keep firearms away from criminals, or to reduce the risk of firearms being used by anyone else to cause harm.

Your straw is starting to rot. You might want to get a fresh supply before you gag on the stench. It's bad enough out here. If you manage to get it all out of your ears, or to do whatever else might be needed for you to respond coherently and in good faith to what is actually said, do feel free to give it a shot.

[el_gato]

45. Try reading instead of ranting sometime

Distinguishing between the intent of a law and the actual effects of the application of the same law is not that hard to do.

[CO Liberal]

10. As the Stories in the "Guns in the News" Threads Attest....

...criminals aren't the only ones who shoot and kill others.

[Lamorat]

11. Last I checked

Shooting someone not in defense is a criminal act.

Therefore, they are criminals when they do it. Unfortunately for the gun grabbers, this is still a free society where you're innocent until proven guilty.

[CO Liberal]

13. But They May Be Law-Abiding Citizens...

...until the instant they pull that trigger. That's why we need reasonable gun control measures to keep guns away from felons, the mentally ill, and those with personal histories of violent behavior.

[OpSomBlood]

15. Agreed.

I think effective background checks are reasonable, although quantity limitations (like "one gun a month" or whatever) are not.

And I don't think background checks are very effective against black market purchases.

[Township75]

17. Well put...

despite seeing it proclaimed yesterday in the GD forum, I haven't seen anyone here suggest that there should be no background checks.

It is good to see someone else against 1 gun a month laws as well. It will be easy for someone to go on a shooting spree with only one gun, and a crap load of mags to constantly reload.

[Township75]

16. Everything you support...

is already covered in existing laws. It is illegal for felons, the mentally ill, those with violent histories, those with drug problems and more to purchase, own, or carry a firearm.

Despite this, I bet you want more gun control.

[CO Liberal]

21. You Would Lose That Bet

Other than extending the AWB and stopping the insanity of concealed-carry, I'm not out to grab anyone's guns - just keeping them away from those who shouldn't have them.

[Lamorat]

34. Concealed carry

sigh.. It's such a good thing, and you fight it. Useless.

If the AWB dies and CCW keeps on spreading, it won't affect you at all except give you fear.

For me, those things actually do cost me money and cost me my safety. Just leave our gun laws alone and allow CCW and leave the AWB as it was, sunsetting in September.

[CO Liberal]

77. I Disagree

CCW is a bad idea. I see no reason for its spread, other than mass insanity.

And I see no need for more high-power weapons in circulation.

[OpSomBlood]

41. Can you document the rise of shootings by CCW holders?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'd just like to know your basis for considering concealed-carry to be "insanity."

Can you demonstrate that states with concealed-carry laws have had increases in violent crime as a direct result?

[T Town Jake]

98. Hell...

...I just got through CCW for three hours this evening and managed, somehow, to struggle through it without causing mayhem in the streets...</sarcasm>
When, oh when, will we cease hearing about how every state which has CCW is one Gunsmoke episode away from having daily Dodge City style shootouts from the gun control crowd? It has yet to happen in any state that has adopted CCW laws, but the gun control crowd keeps peddling that tired line. I won't be holding my breath waiting on that demonstrably untrue rhetoric to stop, but one can always hope. Facts can be stubborn things, after all...

[CO Liberal]

101. There Is Still The Potential for Mayhem...

...the more guns you have in circulation. That's why many of us consider the spread of CCW to be insanity.

[Hrumph]

107. Your fear is irrational.

Just like people who are afraid of flying. Yes, there is the possibility that a plane might go down. Still, it's an extremely low order of probability. Their fear is unjustified, but they're welcome to it. It doesn't affect me and I don't care until they start trying to ban civilian air travel because of the possibility that a plane may fall on someone's house or that children may be killed in plane crashes.


The only tool required for mayhem is the intent. I'm waiting for a reasonable suggestion on how we can reduce that.

[iverglas]

112. there goes Dr. Armchair

Your fear is irrational. Just like people who are afraid of flying. Yes, there is the possibility that a plane might go down. Still, it's an extremely low order of probability. Their fear is unjustified, but they're welcome to it.

There are undoubtedly people who are irrationally afraid of flying.

However, the fact is that some planes *do* go down. Everyone who flies has taken a calculated risk -- has placed his/her bet on the plane *not* going down.

Given the stakes -- one's life -- it is *that* decision that might actually be called "irrational". There are undoubtedly people who have decided, entirely rationally, that the potential cost outweighs whatever benefit there may be to them in flying. If they have a perfectly good alternative, one that they would enjoy when they would not enjoy flying, they rationally choose it.

Yup, buses crash and trains derail. But the mortality in bus crashes and train derailments isn't usually 100%, whereas it commonly is in plane crashes. People can sometimes take measures to protect themselves or save their lives in buses, trains and cars; people in planes have no control whatsoever over what happens to them. Those are other factors that a rational non-flyer will probably have taken into consideration.

Your decision to label all choices and policy positions that you don't agree with as stemming from "fear", and "irrational fear" at that, is both rude and (if what you're expressing is genuine belief) quite foolish.

The only tool required for mayhem is the intent.

Ah yes -- the "think method". Well, it worked for The Music Man. Perhaps it will work for someone intent on killing a room full of people, or anyone at all from a safe distance ...

[Hrumph]

117. That's not what I said, and you know it.

I did not label all decisions I disagree with as being irrational. I was talking about a particular decision by one individual who claimed the "potential" for trouble as the primary justification. I made that judgement based on the fact that the "potential" result has never manifested itself even though the requisite conditions have been in place for quite some time.

If you have to resort to demonizing your opponents in the debate then you should reevaluate you position because it obviously isn't very strong.

[iverglas]

121. If I knew what you were talking about

I'd respond to it. But heck, I'll take a shot.

That's not what I said, and you know it.

What YOU SAID was: Your fear is irrational.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You labelled someone else's policy position a position based on fear.

In fact, what THAT PERSON SAID was:

There Is Still The Potential for Mayhem the more guns you have in circulation.

YOU are the one who labelled that "fear". If I said that when we go swimming, there is the potential for drowning, and the more people who go swimming the more potential there is for drowning, would you label that "fear", or agree that it is a statement of fairly obvious fact?

As for the "irrational" bit, I just can't figure out what's "irrational" about a statement of fact, or even an allegation of fact that really, really obviously is not based on a hallucination.

The more "X" there is, the more potential there is for the events associated with "X" occurring. Duh.

I did not label all decisions I disagree with as being irrational.

Well, your demonstrated propensity for applying the label

- labelling people's choice not to fly "irrational" when you actually know nothing about the basis for any individual's choice, and when their choice may stem from a perfectly rational assessment of the situation that simply involves criteria and weighting of criteria that are different from your own

- labelling CO Liberal's quite reasonable assertion of a fact an "irrational fear"

certainly suggests a rather indiscriminate approach to the use of it.

You may not label *all* decisions you disagree with "irrational", but I don't have any way of knowing which you will label "irrational", since the process by which you assign the label seems to be quite ... irrational ... so my best course of action is to assume that you'll label a decision irrational and take the appropriate defensive posture, eh?

I was talking about a particular decision by one individual who claimed the "potential" for trouble as the primary justification. I made that judgement based on the fact that the "potential" result has never manifested itself even though the requisite conditions have been in place for quite some time.

What can you possibly be saying here??

The "potential" for trouble materializes all the bloody time. Every year in the US: thousands of deaths by firearm, hundreds of thousands of injuries by firearm, dog knows how many crimes committed using firearms. I'm seeing some pretty material things there. Really big proportions of all of which simply and obviously could/would not have been committed without firearms.

If you have to resort to demonizing your opponents in the debate then you should reevaluate you position because it obviously isn't very strong.

My dear boy, s/he who responds to statements of fact and opinion with allegations of irrationality and fearfulness is the one who oughta be looking in that mirror.

[Township75]

47. I think I would win that bet.

"Other than extending the AWB and stopping the insanity of concealed-carry, I'm not out to grab anyone's guns "

Gun control isn't limited to gun confiscation.

You stated you want to extend the AWB. That is gun control.

[el_gato]

48. Their opposition to CCW shows you the real agenda

One minute they say they only want criminals and crazy people not to have guns. Then they turn around and start talking about how much they hate CCW. Now people with CCW permits are people who are abiding by the law etc. So it's not just the "crazies" they want to take guns from.

[iverglas]

18. and if they're not

... they may still have virtually unimpeded access to the firearms they use to commit crimes.

As el_gato says, there's little point in making laws and expecting criminals to follow 'em, eh?

Heck, if I thought that would work, I'd just leave my stereo and TV out on the lawn when I go on vacation. The law tells criminals not to steal, so of course my stuff will be there when I get back.

Silly me, I put my stuff inside and lock the doors so criminals can't get it. And I remove the key from my car ignition when I park the car -- 'cause it's not only sensible to do that, it's the law, and I'm a fine, upstanding, honest, law-abiding car owner (and I never use my car to commit crimes or hurt anybody), and I obey the law, even though it's a huge interference with my liberty to have to do this. It's the law because if I leave the key in the ignition, it's too easy for a criminal to take it, and criminals who take cars very often do unpleasant things with them, like crash into pedestrians and other cars and kill people.

Hmm ... kinda like what criminals do with firearms.

Hmm ... I wonder whether there might be things we could do, and maybe require fine, upstanding, honest, law-abiding firearm owners to do, so that criminals couldn't get firearms ...

[Lamorat]

37. What you call reasonable

I call rape of freedoms. We have background checks. That won't stop anyone who really wants a gun.

I'll concede background checks though, but nothing more.

[library_max]

23. But in a free society, you're still not allowed to own anything you want.

You can't own plutonium, you can't own dioxin, you can't own anthrax spores. These are sensible safeguards for the protection of society, it being stupid to wait until someone decides to use one or the other in a criminal act and THEN put him in jail (dozens of dead people later). And the time will come when the same logic applies to guns.

[el_gato]

27. You reveal your true thoughts

Guns = plutonium, anthrax blah blah


And your other buddies on this board claim they are not gun-grabbers.


DOH!!!!!

[CO Liberal]

31. I've Seen No One On The Board Advocate "Gun-Grabbing"

But I have seen more than my share of paranoid pro-gunners accuse others of being "gun-grabbers".

[slackmaster]

36. Here's one example, CO

library_max calls for complete disarmament of civilians:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=59554&mesg_id=60011

Achieving his state goal would necessarily involve confiscation of all guns at some point, would it not?

[CO Liberal]

57. His Post Appears to Be Sarcastic in Nature

But of course, I can'er speak for him. Perhaps you'd like to question him directly.

[FeebMaster]

60. Sarcastic?

He's repeated the assertion several times. Not interested in discussing how to get it accomplished sadly. I had a plan of sorts to get it done, but no one seemed interested.

[slackmaster]

71. He hasn't recanted it

The tone is rather caustic but I see no evidence that he doesn't actually mean exactly what he wrote.

[CO Liberal]

74. And Even If He DOES Mean It...

...he does not speak for all who favor gun control.

Personally, I resent being referred to as a "gun-grabber", and am publicly putting everyone on notice that any future references to me as a gun-grabber will be passed on to the moderators for possible action as a personal attack against me.

Wayne
(CO Liberal)

[FeebMaster]

75. Well you know CO

I hear you're known by the company you keep.

[CO Liberal]

78. Put It This Way

Known racist David Duke owns guns. Known child molester Ted Nugent owns guns. Using your "logic", am I to assume that ALL gun owners are racist child-molesters??

Of course not!!!! We're all individuals and all have our own opinions.

Then why are so many pro-gunners so eager to assume that everyone who advocates gun control automatically advocates confiscation?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

80. You and I are pretty much in agreement there

...publicly putting everyone on notice that any future references to me as a gun-grabber will be passed on to the moderators for possible action as a personal attack against me....

Seems like a reasonable position to me. I think of you as a Nervous Nellie about guns, whereas I am more of a White-Knuckle Driver especially on the freeways during rush hour. ;-)

[CO Liberal]

83. I Guess I'm a White-Knuckle Driver, Too...

After three accidents in four years, none of which were my fault.....

[TX-RAT]

84. three accidents in four years

Sounds more like your a target.

[CO Liberal]

In Three Different Vehicles

So I know they didn't have bulls-eyes on them. :-)

In 2000, I was in an Isuzu Hombre pickup doing 55 on I-25 when an asshole in a Pontiac Sunfire doing between 90 and 100 plowed in to my rear bumper.

In 2002, I was in a Suzuki Swift and stopped at a red light. Some clown in a Grand Am hit me and pushed my car into the Buick LeSabre in front of me.

And just last February, someone in a Ford Ranger made an improper U-turn in front of me on a two-lane road. With nowhere else to go (with a ditch and trees to my right), I swerved to the left and wound up T-boning the guy.

[TX-RAT]

87. With your luck

We need to play poker.

[CO Liberal]

89. No, Thanks

I'd probably lose my shirt. :-)

[library_max]

91. Not sarcastic, CO Liberal.

They're right. I don't think half-measures work. As long as firearms and ammo are available to the civilian population, criminals, crazy people, and idiots are going to be able to get their hands on them. Such people just don't walk around with their classifications stamped on their foreheads - also, an unfortunate number of sane, intelligent, and otherwise non-criminal gun enthusiasts are happy to play middle-man to get guns to the crooks and loons.

So, on the one hand, it's not accurate to say that "no one on the board" is in favor of ultimately removing guns from civilian hands (calling that "gun grabbing" is like calling abortion "baby killing," in the sense of being abusive crap). On the other hand, that's no justification for the paranoid fantasy that everyone who favors gun contol is in complete agreement with some conspiracy-theory agenda. People on that side of the issue, like people on any side of any issue, may differ.

[iverglas]

94. okay, I'll bite

How do you address the question of hunting, for instance?

Not all hunters are city slickers flying into cushy camps run by expensive outfitters to bag trophies. People do hunt for subsistence in North America. In Canada, First Nations people hunt for subsistence both as a direct source of food and as a cultural practice, one of the practices that is characteristic of them as a people, and their "aboriginal rights" are protected in our Constitution; I would imagine that the same is true of Native Americans' activities and practices, even if the right is not as protected.

I might, personally, be happier if nobody was hunting at all. Not because of any particular moral qualms about the practice (which, even if I have them, I certainly would not advance as grounds for prohibiting it), but because it does involve the widespread presence of firearms in circumstances and situations that are pretty much beyond any kind of public control: in people's hands and people's homes.

But I don't see the problems that are inherent in that presence of firearms as quite coming up to the standard of justification for interfering in some people's activities to feed their families, and in some people's ability to protect themselves and their livestock and crops from predators and pests. (I agree with Mary that the people are the actual problem, not the varmints, but the people do seem to be here to stay.)

So I might agree with you if what you said was that you'd be happy if there were not a single firearm in a single home on the continent. I would probably be too -- if that were to come about because nobody wanted or needed to hunt for food or control predators and pests ... in other words, if this were utopia. But in any event, that personal preference is not a basis for law or policy.

[library_max]

95. What do poor people do for subsistence in the city?

Take a gun and hunt for wallets and jewelry? Well, some of them do, but that's not the desired effect, is it? So apparently the situation requires some non-gun solution to the problems of poverty and hunger. Why is this automatically different in Montana than it is in New Jersey?

The need for guns to protect livestock and crops from predators and pests have been much exaggerated. I have friends who live on ranches and own guns and amuse themselves hunting rattlesnakes and shooting harmless "critters." There are other, generally more effective ways to protect crops and livestock. If there really was a serious incursion of predators, game wardens or other professionals could be called in. Just like if there's a vicious stray in my neighborhood, I don't expect to take care of it myself.

I acknowledge that a lot of things would be more convenient for rural folks if they had their own guns, but that's the slippery slope. How do you keep those selfsame guns down on the farm once they've seen Paree, so to speak? I don't have anything against hunting as a hobby, either. I'm a hobbyist myself. But if it was a choice between one of my hobbies and tens of thousands of lives every year, I'd drop that hobby like a hot potato.

[iverglas]

96. agree on the principle

I'm a hobbyist myself. But if it was a choice between one of my hobbies and tens of thousands of lives every year, I'd drop that hobby like a hot potato.

Absolutely. If alcohol prohibition actually worked, I'd be happy never to touch another drop if that was the price of eliminating the horrible misery that alcohol abuse causes. And I'd probably argue that prohibition was perfectly justified, and certainly never claim that my interest in drinking trumped the public interest in eliminating those problems and protecting the victims of other people's alcohol use.

Ditto firearms. I've mentioned before that I'd probably enjoy target shooting. I'm quite sure I would in fact, although I've never been motivated to go and do it. But yup, it's a hobby. And I would never claim that my enjoyment of it entitled me to have firearms lying around my home, or even want to do that, although maybe making them available only on site at a facility set up for the purpose, under extremely strict controls, wouldn't be something that could justifiably be prohibited.

It's a difficult thing when one person's hobby is an unrelated person's death, that death having nothing to do with the first person at all. It isn't like the activity itself is dangerous; it's only dangerous when practised by certain people in certain circumstances, over which we have no control. I don't beat my cats or run down pedestrians when I drink; why should I not be allowed to drink? (Again, speaking in an alternate universe where alcohol prohibition works.) I don't gamble away my family's grocery money; why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a lottery ticket? (Gambling is one situation where prohibition is effective enough to be justified, in my opinion. My best friend really would not have lost her daughter's savings to a mafioso bookie if there hadn't been a casino across the river.)

It's the lack of a direct relationship between what one person does and what another person suffers -- and the unpredictability and uncontrollability of the situations in which a relationship does arise -- that is the obvious sticking point.

Allow me to quote Oakes again, because it is this issue that the tests involved in constitutional scrutiny of rights violations (on both sides of the border) are meant to address (US tests are different, but similar in many ways):
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1986/vol1/html/1986scr1_0103.html

Two central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.

Okay: preventing deaths and injuries and crimes pretty much meets that standard.

Second, the party invoking s. 1 <arguing that the limitation is justified in free and democratic society> must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.

To begin, the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.

A possible problem: is prohibiting the "honest, law-abiding gun owner" from owning a firearm rationally connected to the objective of preventing deaths and injuries and crimes? Is it not somewhat arbitrary?

In addition, the means should impair the right in question as little as possible.

Well, prohibiting firearms ownership would impair the right about as much as possible. Less intrusive limitations have to be considered to see whether they would achieve the objective.

Lastly, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective -- the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.

It's an important objective, and the deleterious effects are, indeed, arguably not really that severe. If one were the person confronted by a grizzly bear 100 miles from the nearest game warden, one might disagree.

All efforts to protect someone are going to bother someone else. Liberty vs. security, blah blah. Prohibiting discrimination on racial, sexual, religious, etc. grounds in employment and housing really bothers some people, and very definitely interferes in their liberty, since they would never hire or house members of certain groups if given their druthers, and causes them considerable distress. Tough, we say. The public interests at stake just outweigh that distress and interference.

The "rational connection" test does not require a linear relationship that can be empirically proved. As I've quoted before:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation <Canada's new, stricter firearms rules, long before the firearms registry> provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

But the question is whether some approximation of the desired result could be achieved by less intrusive means -- is there a diminishing returns effect as the intrusiveness increases, if you will.

Mandatory licences that were available only for demonstrated need (I'm not actually proposing this, I'm just offering it as something that could be proposed), strict regulation of the types of firearms that could be possessed that would rule out anything not suited to such needs, mandatory registration of all firearms and transfers, and rules with teeth about handling and storage, as the basic components of such a system, could provide such an approximation. As Pert_UK puts it, it would greatly reduce "casual" firearms possession. Of course, good neighbour practices in other jurisdictions would be essential, since otherwise there will indeed be supply to fill any unmet illicit demand in the regulated jurisdiction.

There is also obviously a synergistic relationship between the presence of firearms and levels of violence. Guns don't cause murder and mayhem, but the pervasiveness of guns, and "gun culture", in a society is a factor in its levels of murder and mayhem. The USAmerican exceptionalism often argued against inferring causation from the correlation between the violence in US society and the pervasive presence of firearms is disingenuous. Again, the relationship isn't linear, but it's ludicrous to say there is no relationship.

If the firearms and "gun culture" were less pervasive, my bet is that so would the violence be. The point being that total elimination of firearms in private hands would perhaps not be necessary in order to achieve a tolerable level of firearms-related harms, because the harm associated with firearms isn't a constant function of the number of firearms. If there are x firearms and y firearms-related deaths, say, that doesn't mean that if there are x/10 firearms there will be y/10 firearms-related deaths; there would more likely be y/50 or y/100 firearms-related deaths, in my submission. I think we can assume that greatly reducing the number of firearms, and drastically altering the composition of the firearms "population" (to move back away from handguns, in particular and most importantly), will positively affect the cultural factors that affect the number of firearms-related deaths.

How do you keep those selfsame guns down on the farm once they've seen Paree, so to speak?

If I'm ever arguing your point, I plan to use that one. ;)

[library_max]

102. Well, you can't change the culture, but you can change the guns.

I agree that some people (cops, soldiers, bonded couriers, licensed security, game control, etc.) would still have to have weapons. These would be issued along with ammo, and every bullet would have to be accounted for, as many police departments now do. If other people could demonstrate "need" they could perhaps be worked into the same system. The point, as I think we agree, is with casual gun ownership. But guns have a way of getting around if they're not strictly controlled, and I don't think mere registration would do the job, although it'd certainly be a start.

We've discussed previously why Prohibition is a bad analogy for guns. There's literally no way to stop people from making booze, and anyone can do it. Further, for many alcohol is an addiction, and it's that addiction which fueled the bootleg market in whiskey and the huge illegal profits thereof. Same with drugs. Not the same with guns.

I'm less concerned with the guilt of private gun owners than with the tragic consequences of private gun ownership. I'm prepared to concede that as many as 90% or more of (legal) private gun owners are model citizens whose guns will never do anyone any harm - but there's no way to tell which are the ones who don't fall into this category, who will end up killing about 30,000 people next year.

[iverglas]

103. don't apple/orange me now

We've discussed previously why Prohibition is a bad analogy for guns.

Yes. Actually, I was doing it quite a while ago, precisely because:
- firearms are not readily manufactured by yr average person, or in quantity, clandestinely
- firearms are not addictive
- consumers of firearms do not require a constantly replenished supply of the product (as alcohol consumers do even if they're not addicts)

Let's not argue at cross-purposes.

I wasn't making the analogy you allude to, of course. I was referring to the legitimacy of banning something that is a "hobby" -- where the ban is a trivial interference with the exercise of a right, and the harm that it is sought to avert is so horrific. *If* the ban would work and horrific misery could be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, *then* it is legitimate to impose it -- and decent people should be expected to comply willingly.

I was agreeing with you: that I too, an honest, law-abiding practitioner of whatever it was, would happily give up that hobby if requiring other people to give it up could reasonably be expected to lead to a significant reduction in yet other people's misery, or even their own.

It can't be reasonably expected to do that in the case of alcohol. It could in the case of firearms. But what I was getting at was that this wasn't the *only* consideration. There is a balancing to be done.

Banning the possession firearms for skeet shooting might be an entirely trivial interference with a right. It also might not have much effect on the overall level of misery, depending on the type of firearms now commonly used for skeet shooting and the prevalance of that firearm among "crime guns" and the propensity of lawful skeet gun owners for using their firearms to cause harm. So in that case, if skeet guns and owners were not a significant factor in the misery sought to be reduced, then no matter how trivial the interference with a rather unimportant exercise of a minor element of a right, there might not be justification for it.

Just as prohibiting me from wearing a pink hat while driving would be an utterly trivial interference with my liberty, but it simply would not be justified -- no possible rational connection to any substantial public interest -- so it would be unconstitutional.

And, conversely, just as prohibiting First Nations people in Canada from owning firearms would be a very major interference with a constitutional right (here), and might not be justified by the extent to which the harm sought to be prevented would actually be prevented by imposing such a ban.

There's a solution: First Nations people do have constitutional rights that other Canadians don't have -- "aboriginal rights", which they have as a people which did not lose its collective rights when Canada was formed -- and could be exempted from the kind of flat ban you propose. Politically, that would be a tough one.

In fact, it could be argued that a flat ban would amount to unequal treatment of various other people (which is prohibited by the Cdn constitution) because banning people who hunt for subsistance from owning firearms would not affect them in the same way as banning city slickers from owning firearms. Again, the solution could be to allow for firearms possession where a need is demonstrated -- unless, as you suggest, and as it may be reasonable to expect, this would defeat the purpose of the ban.

When we start talking about banning of handguns, we're on firmer ground. Handguns are the weapon of choice for facilitating the commission of crimes and for intentionally causing injury and death. And handguns stolen from lawful owners are commonly used for those purposes. Banning them *could* be expected to have a significant effect in reducing crime, injury and death.

That's why it's difficult to get authorization to possess a handgun in Canada. The harm that widespread handgun possession results in just outweighs any rights violation involved in banning them. Unfortunately, there seem to be an awful lot of them kicking around still, and being unsafely handled and stored, because stolen handguns are not infrequently used in the commission of crimes.

But what I was getting at was that half-measures might actually turn out to be three-quarter measures. Reducing the number of firearms in circulation, and drastically changing the composition of the population of firearms (i.e. eliminating most handguns), could be expected to change the culture, and to reduce the number and types of misuses of firearms by a proportion greater than the proportion of firearms eliminated.

I'm less concerned with the guilt of private gun owners than with the tragic consequences of private gun ownership.

And that, too, is my ongoing point. There is some deterrent effect in laws, but plainly not enough to achieve the goal, or even get close to it. Punishing people for violating laws is not, in many cases, sufficient to deter either them or others from violating the laws. Pointing fingers at the people who do violate the laws, or even cutting off their heads, does not solve the problem sought to be solved.


It's the balancing act that is always the issue. The "RKBA" crowd simply rejects any interference in their exercise of their rights where the goal is to benefit someone else, and that is not a "liberal" position. It is also completely inconsistent with the reality of life in a mature liberal democracy, where all of our rights are limited every minute of every day despite how honest, law-abiding or innocent we may be.

[Hrumph]

106. And there you have it

I agree that some people (cops, soldiers, bonded couriers, licensed security, game control, etc.) would still have to have weapons. These would be issued along with ammo, and every bullet would have to be accounted for, as many police departments now do. If other people could demonstrate "need" they could perhaps be worked into the same system. The point, as I think we agree, is with casual gun ownership. But guns have a way of getting around if they're not strictly controlled, and I don't think mere registration would do the job, although it'd certainly be a start.

And it was just yesterday or the day before when someone said "I haven't seen anyone calling for a total ban." (Or words to that effect.)

I agree with you that guns have a way of getting around. You're not going to stop them. Eventually, someone will point out that all the "reasonable gun control measures" haven't made any difference and that the only solution is a total ban on private ownership. (Your suggestion is practically that.) Confiscation is only possible if the guns are registered first. And it was just yesterday that iver rolled her eyes and pretended that the connection between confiscation and registration was coincidental, at best.

The number of people truly addicted to alchol is a relatively small percentage. Certainly not enough effect a repeal of a Constitutional Amendment. The fact is that people refused to have such a lifestyle change imposed on them by a boisterous group of self-richous social reformers.

[library_max]

109. Regarding Prohibition,

it passed. People voted "to have such a lifestyle change imposed on them by a boisterous group of self-richous (sp) social reformers." It passed Congress and was ratified by the states. It was repealed only when a) it manifestly didn't work, having been tried (although some measures of alcohol pathology such as public drunkenness and drunk driving decreased, they didn't decrease enough), and b) it had the unintended side-effect of creating a very lucrative market for organized crime, with the accompanying violence and corruption.

Both the organized crime profits and the continued incidence of alcoholic pathologies were traceable to alcohol addiction (alcoholism), just as the organized crime profits and continued pathologies related to drugs nowadays are traceable to drug addiction; although not everyone who takes drugs is an addict, addicts are the engine that keeps the black market going.

[Hrumph]

113. And it would have remained law

if it weren't for the large number of folks that chose to do it anyway, thereby fueling the rise of organized crime.

But we agree, then, that prohibition was an abject failure an ultimately created more problems than it solved.

[iverglas]

115. wow

But we agree, then, that <ALCOHOL> prohibition was an abject failure an ultimately created more problems than it solved.

(Funny how noses change faces, isn't it?)

I'll bet we also agree that the earth is spheroid and the moon is not cheesy.

Now, where can we go with all this?

[Hrumph]

118. Can we?

With any luck, we might be able to come to a mutual understanding that we simply cannot dictate the behavior of others no matter how noble or richous we believe our "cause" to be.

[iverglas]

119. Decriminalize homicide!

There. After all, we want to have a mutual understanding that we simply cannot dictate the behavior of others no matter how noble or richous we believe our "cause" to be, and I wouldn't want to stand in the way of mutual understandings.

[library_max]

123. The entire body of criminal law exists for no other purpose

than to dictate the behavior of others. Likewise the civil code. In fact, all law basically dictates behavior, in the sense you mean, in the sense that restricting is "dictating." We dictate that people can't kill each other. We dictate that they can't engage in law or medicine without a license. We dictate that they can't sell crack at playgrounds. We dictate that they can't dump dioxin into the environment. We can just as well dictate that they can't buy, sell, or own guns.

By the way, for crying out loud, the word is "righteous."

[library_max]

124. Some more thoughts.

My premise continues to be that private ownership of firearms inevitably leads to criminal ownership and criminal misuse of firearms. The individual gunowner doesn't have to be guilty of anything - his mere possession of a gun entails this risk. Even somebody like OpSomBlood, who strikes me as a highly responsible person who would take every precaution for gun safety and security, cannot be 100% sure that his guns will never fall into criminal hands.

And that's Op and people like him (meaning no insult to other gun owners on the board, I'm sure most or all of you are quite responsible with your guns). What about careless, stupid, or mentally unstable gun owners? The risks skyrocket. And there's no way to craft a law so that guns can legally be sold to and owned by only intelligent, responsible, level-headed citizens. I'm not talking about the certifiably insane here - we all know people who are functionally borderline, and they can legally buy and own guns.

The only way rules about handling and storage can ever have "teeth" is if we legalize spot inspections of homes with guns in them. And there goes the Fourth Amendment out the window.

[FeebMaster]

125. I'm still wondering how you plan on getting guns banned

here in the US, you haven't mentioned. Do you think some Senator is just going to introduce a bill to ban guns one day and it's going to pass?

[FeebMaster]

126. oops

twitchy mouse finger

[TX-RAT]

127. You over trained.

[FeebMaster]

128. My brain said click.

But my finger said double tap.

[iverglas]

35. and someone else reveals an absence of them

Guns = plutonium, anthrax blah blah

Yeah. And when I say your love is like a red red rose, you'll accuse me of wanting to dump manure on him/her and calling him/her a prick.

I'd say "DOH!!!" is fer sure, except that I remain quite unconvinced that the disability is cognitive in your instance.

Dim, disingenuous; dim, disingenuous ... which petal will be left when the smoke clears?

[el_gato]

46. You post alot of empty accusations

and insults. Nevermind the fact that the poster was saying
guns should be viewed the same way as anthrax.

[iverglas]

50. never mind

Seems to be your motto. You never do mind what anyone has actually said about anything, do you?

Nevermind the fact that the poster was saying guns should be viewed the same way as anthrax.

Never mind the fact that the poster was saying no such fucking thing. Please.

There probably is a relationship between ideology and IQ. A reasonably intelligent person who is not blinded by ideology will be capable of understanding what s/he sees and hears. A person who is driven by his/her own self-interest to the exclusion of any other consideration, to the point of being intensely afraid and angry about any possibility of not getting what s/he wants, and who has adopted an ideology that justifies him/her getting whatever s/he wants, might actually see bogeymen everywhere, in anything that might jeopardize his/her ability to get what s/he wants even a tiny bit -- and not only pretend to see them.

Maybe you really can't understand what other people are saying, once you perceive that what they are proposing might stop you from getting your own way entirely and completely and absolutely. Maybe you're not intentionally misrepresenting what they said in order to characterize them not just as people who think that what you want is not the be-all and end-all of human existence, but as fiends who are trying to undermine your goals, which you have identified, in your mind, in your ideology, with everything that is good and just and moral, and who are trying to do something that no right-thinking decent person could agree to.

Who knows?

[library_max]

90. Yes, one of the main purposes of writing is to reveal one's thoughts.

Assuming, of course, that one has any.

In this case, my point, which was quite clear the first time, is that living in a "free society" does not give anyone legal carte blanche to obtain and own any dangerous thing they please.

[Hrumph]

32. I can agree with that.

But I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a "reasonable gun control measure" that will, in fact, keep them out of the wrong hands.

[iverglas]

39. well gee

But I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a "reasonable gun control measure" that will, in fact, keep them out of the wrong hands.

Allow me.

- Prohibit all transfers of firearms where the purchaser has not passed screening for eligibility to possess firearms (which necessarily includes possession of a permit for that purpose, at a minimum, for which there would be appropriate requirements).

- Require all firearms owners to register their firearms as an incentive for compliance with the prohibition on transfers to non-eligible buyers.

- Require all firearms owners to store their firearms and ammunition in accordance with certain requirements in order to reduce access to them by unauthorized persons.

Now of course, the task you set was by definition an impossible one -- you don't want to reduce access to firearms by criminals, you want to eliminate access to firearms by criminals, apparently: "keep them out of the wrong hands".

If that's the case, can you think of any other measures proposed and taken in order to protect the public from certain activities that are, or that you think should be, required to be 100% effective before being adopted?

Hardly anybody obeys speed limits all the time, so we may as well eliminate them ...

[TX-RAT]

42. Sounds good to me.

[Hrumph]

43. I don't thin that's really reasonable.

- Prohibit all transfers of firearms where the purchaser has not passed screening for eligibility to possess firearms (which necessarily includes possession of a permit for that purpose, at a minimum, for which there would be appropriate requirements).

Nope. What you're suggesting is licensing and, on principal, I do not believe in licensing rights. (Of course, this is where you and I will forever part company. If I understand your position correctly, you do not believe gun ownership is a right.)

- Require all firearms owners to register their firearms as an incentive for compliance with the prohibition on transfers to non-eligible buyers.

Again, no. Confiscation has always been preceeded by registration. I do not trust that the govt. will always retain any shred of respect for my rights. In truth, I view the 2nd Amendment argument as largely a moot point. If they thought it would buy them a sufficient number of votes, BOTH parties would be racing down the road ton confiscation so fast it'd make your head spin, the Constitution be damned.

- Require all firearms owners to store their firearms and ammunition in accordance with certain requirements in order to reduce access to them by unauthorized persons.

Strike three. While I agree wholeheartedly that safe storage is important, there's that whole rights thing getting in the way again. I don't believe you can prequalify rights based on probabilities that people will always exercise them intelligently or responsibly. Such is the nature of liberty. And there is also the question of enforcability.

Hardly anybody obeys speed limits all the time, so we may as well eliminate them ...

No, probably not. (I do think there's room for reforming speed laws but that's a completely different issue.) The thing is that all you have to do to catch a speeder is sit on the side of the road with your handy, dandy speed gun and zap them as they go by. The only way to enforce "safe storage" laws is to have the authorities personally inspect the proposed storage site. The cops just don't need to be in my home. One might say that it is a matter of choice - If you don't waht the cops there then fine, don't be a gun owner. But here we have that same ol' rights issue cropping up. You would reduce my right to a privilage - requiring the blessing of the state - and that is something I cannot abide. Anything granted by the state can be revoked by the state with the stroke of a pen. Thank you, no.

And, as you've already pointed out, this will not prevent criminals from getting guns. I would go further and opine that it would not seriously reduce the number of "wrong" people with guns. There will always be a way around the law, no matter what the law is. You might succeed in raising the street price of unpapered weapons but that's all.

I know, of course, that you will reject my reasoning but I will offer it anyway:
It's an imperfect world. It will ALWAYS be imperfect. Learn to deal with it yourself and quit depending on others (the government) to solve all your problems for you. The criminal use of guns is a problem. The only way the problem will ever go away if if the associated cost of that criminal use is so high that no one will want to chance paying the bill.

[iverglas]

49. well there ya go

What you're suggesting is licensing and, on principal, I do not believe in licensing rights. (Of course, this is where you and I will forever part company. If I understand your position correctly, you do not believe gun ownership is a right.)

Of course it is. So is pooping. Can you imagine the notion of not having a right to poop?? And yet limits are placed on your exercise of that right. How odd. So is dog ownership, and car ownership, and earning a living. I can't imagine a govt. saying that I didn't have the right to do any of those things. (Although I have no doubt that some self-taught expert will be here in short order saying I don't.) Licences required for all of 'em in many circumstances.

Confiscation has always been preceeded by registration.

Yeah. And drunk driving has always been preceded by breastfeeding.

I don't believe you can prequalify rights based on probabilities that people will always exercise them intelligently or responsibly.

I don't know what all this "prequalify" is. Someone who is qualified to exercise the right -- i.e. not prohibited from exercising it for good and valid reasons ("justification") -- can then be required to exercise it in the manner least likely to interfere with the public interest, where such requirements do not effectively deny the exercise of the right without justification. The requirement that I remove the key from the ignition of my car simply does not effectively deny the exercise of my right to go places ("liberty"). The requirement that someone store firearms and ammunition separately and locked when not in use in no way denies the exercise of any right.

The thing is that all you have to do to catch a speeder is sit on the side of the road with your handy, dandy speed gun and zap them as they go by. The only way to enforce "safe storage" laws is to have the authorities personally inspect the proposed storage site.

There ya have it. Now, nobody randomly inspects my home to check for fire code violations, so I would have no reason to expect anyone to randomly inspect my home for firearms storage violations. Of course, I would have no reason to expect that great masses of honest, law-abiding gun owners would be breaking the law by storing their firearms unsafely. If only because they knew that if someone got unauthorized access to the firearms and committed a crime with them, they'd be charged with the storage regulations violation, eh?

But if I had reason to suspect that my neighbour left loaded firearms lying around the house when s/he was not home, I'd be glad to know that I could have this situation, which is extremely unsafe for the public and my neighbour's children, investigated and rectified.

If you don't waht the cops there then fine, don't be a gun owner. But here we have that same ol' rights issue cropping up. You would reduce my right to a privilage - requiring the blessing of the state - and that is something I cannot abide.

And again, we seem to have the self-taught expert looking at things the way that suits him/her, rather than the way they are.

A right that is subject to reasonable and justified limitation does not become a privilege by the stroke of a pen or any other wise. There is justification for prohibiting me from pooping in the park. There is no justification for prohibiting me from pooping in my home between dusk and dawn, or for prohibiting me from pooping anywhere ever. Just because you or someone else doesn't grasp the concept of justified limitation on the exercise of rights doesn't mean that the concept has no meaning.

It's an imperfect world. It will ALWAYS be imperfect. Learn to deal with it yourself and quit depending on others (the government) to solve all your problems for you.

Thanks ever so for the advice, which of course has nothing to do with anything and is nothing more nor less than rude.

If I were of a similarly rude bent, I'd say: stop being such a selfish asshole, and stop making petulant and childish "you're not the boss of me" statements as if they trumped argument based on the legitimate interests and concerns of other people and accurately expressed the way in which individual rights and collective interests interact. Luckily, I'm not like that, eh?

But I will say: stop characterizing other people's legitimate concerns both for themselves and for more vulnerable individuals and groups as some sort of character defect. It's not attractive. Or civil.

The criminal use of guns is a problem. The only way the problem will ever go away if if the associated cost of that criminal use is so high that no one will want to chance paying the bill.

Ah yes. All we really have to do is persuade those criminals to obey those laws. Good luck with that, eh?

[Hrumph]

68. all those things are already illegal

Of course it is. So is pooping. Can you imagine the notion of not having a right to poop?? And yet limits are placed on your exercise of that right. How odd. So is dog ownership, and car ownership, and earning a living. I can't imagine a govt. saying that I didn't have the right to do any of those things. (Although I have no doubt that some self-taught expert will be here in short order saying I don't.) Licences required for all of 'em in many circumstances.

So far, I haven't seen anyone proposing a "poop" license. As far as the others, you may have the right to OWN those things but if you take them off your property then THAT'S a privilege granted by the state. Your dog has to have a license - Public health, you know. And if you drive on public streets, your car MUST be licensed and insured and YOU must be licensed. You do not have a RIGHT to drive on public streets. Now, you may claim that right but if your govt. stops granting licenses for these things then where does that leave you?

I don't know what all this "prequalify" is. Someone who is qualified to exercise the right -- i.e. not prohibited from exercising it for good and valid reasons ("justification") -- can then be required to exercise it in the manner least likely to interfere with the public interest, where such requirements do not effectively deny the exercise of the right without justification. The requirement that I remove the key from the ignition of my car simply does not effectively deny the exercise of my right to go places ("liberty"). The requirement that someone store firearms and ammunition separately and locked when not in use in no way denies the exercise of any right.

It is already illegal for the persons you're talking about to own or possess firearms. Since safe-storage laws are practically unenforceable until AFTER the fact, I believe they are useless. I submit to you that someone not already motivated by the potential loss of a loved one - or at least by the potential for theft of the firearm - is not making sound decisions concerning that storage. I don't believe the potential threat of criminal prosecution would be taken any more seriously.

A right that is subject to reasonable and justified limitation does not become a privilege by the stroke of a pen or any other wise. There is justification for prohibiting me from pooping in the park. There is no justification for prohibiting me from pooping in my home between dusk and dawn, or for prohibiting me from pooping anywhere ever. Just because you or someone else doesn't grasp the concept of justified limitation on the exercise of rights doesn't mean that the concept has no meaning.

There is justification for prohibiting shooting people. Those prohibitions are already in place. Your comparison is invalid on 2 points; 1) There is no license to poop. 2) You argue as if there are not already limitations on the right of gun ownership. Clearly, there are.

If I were of a similarly rude bent, I'd say: stop being such a selfish asshole, and stop making petulant and childish "you're not the boss of me" statements as if they trumped argument based on the legitimate interests and concerns of other people and accurately expressed the way in which individual rights and collective interests interact. Luckily, I'm not like that, eh?

I am not being rude, I'm just calling them as I see them. Current law has already addressed the legitimate intersts of the general public. If we can find no room for agreement on that point then so be it but your constant mischaracterization of my positions is disingenuous. Similarly, your protestations of being above certain behaviors, while engaging in them in the very same sentence, is not witty, or entertaining.

But I will say: stop characterizing other people's legitimate concerns both for themselves and for more vulnerable individuals and groups as some sort of character defect. It's not attractive. Or civil.

As a matter of fact, unwillingness to take personal responsibility for one's own safety IS a character defect. A serious one at that. As I said, the ligitimate concerns have already been more than addressed by current law. Furthermore, I am not willing to cede my rights to the illegitimate authority some others might wish to impose in order to placate their fear by rendering me just as defenseless as they have made themselves.

Ah yes. All we really have to do is persuade those criminals to obey those laws. Good luck with that, eh?

Persuade? I never said anything like that. Clearly, you misinterpret what I said.

[iverglas]

97. lordy

all those things are already illegal

So was birth control. So was interracial marriage. So was "sodomy". Good grief. Whether or not something is "illegal" has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is constitutional (or, to move further back, whether it should be constitutional).

You do not have a RIGHT to drive on public streets. Now, you may claim that right but if your govt. stops granting licenses for these things then where does that leave you?

It leaves me in the Supreme Court of Canada challenging the govt. policy as a violation of my fundamental (constitutional) rights and freedoms. The state/society is entitled to limit how I exercise my rights in order to protect important public interests. It is *not* entitled to prohibit me from exercising them on a whim. And yes, I *do* have a right to get from here to there for my own personal reasons, by the most expeditious means available to me; it's called "liberty", and I can go ahead and exercise it unless and until someone can offer a damned good reason why not.

I don't know where it would leave you, but I suspect that it would leave some of your less self-taught fellow citizens in their equivalent of where I'd be.

Since safe-storage laws are practically unenforceable until AFTER the fact, I believe they are useless. ... I don't believe the potential threat of criminal prosecution would be taken any more seriously.

I'm unceasingly gob-smacked by this.

The possibility of prosecution and long prison sentences imposed AFTER the fact is supposedly going to deter criminals from breaking the law by using firearms in the commission of their crimes ... but it isn't going to deter honest, law-abiding individuals from breaking the law by allowing their firearms to be played with by children or stolen by criminals. I give up. What school of logic is this?

It is already illegal for the persons you're talking about to own or possess firearms.

Yeah. And they're so honest and law-abiding that they just don't do it. No reason for us to consider ways to actually make sure they don't do it; we'll just go on the honour system, and trust them not to offer any honest and law-abiding but strangely blind or corruptible citizen enough money to get what they want.

As a matter of fact, unwillingness to take personal responsibility for one's own safety IS a character defect. A serious one at that.

Gee, now that was civil.

Of course it wasn't, in two senses. To start with, it's just rude again.

But it also failed to address what I said, and was therefore not "civil discourse". Here's what I said, that you were purportedly responding to:

But I will say: stop characterizing other people's legitimate concerns both for themselves and for more vulnerable individuals and groups as some sort of character defect.

Exactly what character defect is it that afflicts children who die when someone plays with guns, or when stray bullets enter their homes and their bodies? I'd ask about the character defects of the abused women shot dead by their intimate partners, or terrorized by them and their firearms, but I don't think I want to know the answer, so spare us both the wear and tear and don't bother.

[Hrumph]

104. Round and round we go.

So was birth control. So was interracial marriage. So was "sodomy". Good grief. Whether or not something is "illegal" has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is constitutional (or, to move further back, whether it should be constitutional).
For someone who never misses the chance to call "strawman" you're quite the completely-unrelated-analogy queen yourself.

It leaves me in the Supreme Court of Canada challenging the govt. policy as a violation of my fundamental (constitutional) rights and freedoms. The state/society is entitled to limit how I exercise my rights in order to protect important public interests. It is *not* entitled to prohibit me from exercising them on a whim. And yes, I *do* have a right to get from here to there for my own personal reasons, by the most expeditious means available to me; it's called "liberty", and I can go ahead and exercise it unless and until someone can offer a damned good reason why not.

IMHO, you have no idea what a "right" is. Yes, I agree that you have the right of ingress and egress but that's not the same thing as being granted the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public streets. Rights are not licensed. This is probably one of those bedrock principals that people like you and I will absolutely never agree on.

The possibility of prosecution and long prison sentences imposed AFTER the fact is supposedly going to deter criminals from breaking the law by using firearms in the commission of their crimes ... but it isn't going to deter honest, law-abiding individuals from breaking the law by allowing their firearms to be played with by children or stolen by criminals. I give up. What school of logic is this?

Again, you COMPLETELY misunderstand my point. When I say, "raise the cost" I'm NOT talking about long prison sentences and fines.

Yeah. And they're so honest and law-abiding that they just don't do it. No reason for us to consider ways to actually make sure they don't do it; we'll just go on the honour system, and trust them not to offer any honest and law-abiding but strangely blind or corruptible citizen enough money to get what they want.

You put so much energy into being obtuse... My point, which you OBVIOUSLY CANNOT GRASP, is that you simply will not prevent these folks from obtaining firearms. It is my belief that you will not make even a significant dent. Stop trying to interfere with my rights simply to make yourself feel better about your circumstances.

Exactly what character defect is it that afflicts children who die when someone plays with guns, or when stray bullets enter their homes and their bodies? I'd ask about the character defects of the abused women shot dead by their intimate partners, or terrorized by them and their firearms, but I don't think I want to know the answer, so spare us both the wear and tear and don't bother.

Example1: It is my responsibility to protect my kids. That responsibility, however, does not give me the authority to dictate the behavior of other free people where their actions do not DIRECTLY endanger my kids. I do not have the authority to tell my neighbor he/she cannot own guns because I'm afraid he/she might flip out someday, or just do something stupid, and murder my child. I address the every-day risks by trying to keep as close an eye on my child as possible. I cannot, nor do I want to, child-proof the world. If, on the other hand, someone tried to build a shooting range that would place my child's daycare facility 1/4 mile downrange, I would certainly oppose that facility. I would consider the building of such a facility to be a reckless disregard for the safety of others. (The flip side of that coin is that I would also oppose the building of a daycare downrange of a shooting facility that was already there.)

Example2: When I was in college, I would read at least twice a month of female students being raped in a particularly wooded section of the campus. On the one hand, the rapist must bear full responsibility for the act he committed. It is absolutely true that everyone has the right to walk through that area unmolested. Rape is a vile crime and, IMHO, should carry the possibility of capitol offense punishment. At the same time, however, I'm forced to wonder what the hell those women were doing there in the first place. I mean my God, it's not like it was a secret that women got attacked there on a regular basis. Continuing to use it as a short cut at night with the belief that "it'll never happen to me" is absurd in the extreme. At the risk of painting with an overly broad brush, I don't know why it's so common for women make the choices they do. I mean, everyone makes stupid decisions on occasion but I can't fathom why anyone would choose to live under the threat of brutality. One has the morally incumbent on us all to take responsibility for our own safety. This includes making sound lifestyle decisions - like not getting involved with a drunken, abusive animal or similar type. It includes learning to defend one's self, acquiring the tools necessary for self-defense and the requisite training in their use.

Finally, you can't seriously sit there and tell me that someone who will CHOOSE to live in such a state does so because their characters are unimpeachable. No one in their right mind would make that choice. Calling me "rude" for pointing that out is a waste of breath. It's not a buttercup world and you better learn to look out for yourself. Part of the responsibility of a parent is teaching your kids what they need to know to make their own way in the world. You want to reduce violence? Start by fixing the screwed up social conditions that breed sociopathic personalities. Stop making excuses for lousy parents and stop enabling them to shirk their responsibilities. And stop returning violent criminals to the streets.

[iverglas]

108. I search in vain

for anything in that post that could be called "liberal" ... in anything but the 18th century privileged-white-male, 20th century neo-liberal/right-wing libertarian sense.

Not to mention any evidence of comprehension of some basic human consensuses that kind of underlie this discussion.

One has the morally incumbent <duty?> on us all to take responsibility for our own safety.

What might your definition of "moral" be? When did "morality" address what people's "responsibilities" to themselves are? Precisely what is your authority for telling me what my duties to myself are?

Whaddareyagonnado if I fail to fulfil my responsibilities/duties to myself, might I ask?

Your assertion might make some little sense if you were to say that one may not claim that others are responsible for one's safety so long as one does nothing to protect one's self. But that wouldn't get you far in this argument. Unless you really are suggesting that women should wear chador and stay off the streets after dark.

The fact that it may not be sensible for some women to do some things in some circumstances does not mean that society does not owe them the same level of protection that is available to anyone else. And yes: if society makes protection available to some, then it owes it to all, to the extent that they need it and that society is capable of providing it. And nobody really cares whether *you* agree or not, because it isn't a matter of individual decision.

I had really thought that we were past the time when the solution to violence against women was for women to avoid situations in which there was any risk of experiencing violence. In some people's minds I guess we aren't. And I'm really not the slightest bit interested in such people's opinions about sexual assault or what should be done to people who commit it, believe me.

At the risk of painting with an overly broad brush, I don't know why it's so common for women make the choices they do. I mean, everyone makes stupid decisions on occasion but I can't fathom why anyone would choose to live under the threat of brutality. ... Finally, you can't seriously sit there and tell me that someone who will CHOOSE to live in such a state does so because their characters are unimpeachable. No one in their right mind would make that choice. (emphases added)

But thanks for offering your opinions about the "impeachable" character and/or abject stupidity and/or insanity of women who are victims of violence. Obviously, the reason why women are overwhelmingly more victimized by sexual and spousal assault is that they are stupider and eviler and crazier than men. I've been aware of that for some time, thank you. Hard to miss it, after some 50 years in a culture that is built on it.


For someone who never misses the chance to call "strawman" you're quite the completely-unrelated-analogy queen yourself.

You'll have to forgive me if I misunderstood the heading of your post, as it subsequently occurred to me I may have done. When someone says "those things" or whatever you said there, it isn't always easy to tell what things are being referred to. I had taken you to be referring to my "pooping (in the park)" analogies -- the things that people have a right to do, but where their exercise of those rights is subject to restrictions -- since you immediately quoted what I had said on that point:

Of course it is. So is pooping. Can you imagine the notion of not having a right to poop?? And yet limits are placed on your exercise of that right. How odd. So is dog ownership, and car ownership, and earning a living. I can't imagine a govt. saying that I didn't have the right to do any of those things. (Although I have no doubt that some self-taught expert will be here in short order saying I don't.) Licences required for all of 'em in many circumstances.

It occurred to me afterward that maybe you were talking about misuses of firearms. If you were, my comment was simply irrelevant and arose out of a misunderstanding. If you were talking about what I thought you were talking about, my comment was absolutely on point and it is your own misapprehension of the issues involved in "rights" that is the problem.

IMHO, you have no idea what a "right" is. Yes, I agree that you have the right of ingress and egress but that's not the same thing as being granted the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public streets. Rights are not licensed. This is probably one of those bedrock principals that people like you and I will absolutely never agree on.

Yeah, well, ta for YHO. I'm sure the people who pay me handsomely largely because of my expertise in things like "rights" will be interested to hear it.

Rights are not licensed ... so perhaps you could explain what that Federal Communications Commission thingy of yours is all about. What's that I heard in that Constitution of yours? Freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged? What's a parade permit?

Yeah, I know. You probably think they're baaaad too.

A licence is just a formula for granting exemptions to prohibitions that would otherwise be unconstitutional, for cripes' sake. It would be unconstitutional to say "thou shalt not practise medicine" or "thou shalt not travel whither thou wouldst in a motorized vehicle" or "thou shalt not sell food to the public" or "thou shalt not operate a television station".

A licence exempts people from that prohibition on conditions that are in the public interest and that are as unrestrictive of private rights as possible -- without gravely jeopardizing the public interest in things like not being operated on by bank tellers, not being served food by people who haven't washed their hands in a year, not being run down by people who never learned to drive, not having their TV screens filled with static from competing media outlets and being unable to receive any information at all.

"Rights are licensed" every minute of the day, whenever there is justification for prohibiting some people from exercising them and a need to ensure that the people allowed to exercise them are qualified to do so and do so in the public interest.

Again, you COMPLETELY misunderstand my point. When I say, "raise the cost" I'm NOT talking about long prison sentences and fines.

Well cripeys, maybe it would help if you said what you *are* talking about. Making it more expensive for criminals to buy guns??

My point, which you OBVIOUSLY CANNOT GRASP, is that you simply will not prevent these folks from obtaining firearms. It is my belief that you will not make even a significant dent.

Yup. And both those bits are indeed beliefs, or "opinions". I CAN GRASP your opinion that "you simply will not prevent these folks from obtaining firearms". I simply think that it is, and is demonstrably, BULLSHIT.

No one has ever claimed that anything will prevent EVERYONE who might use a firearm to cause injury or death or to facilitate the commission of a crime will ever be unable to get hold of one, so your opinion on that point would, of course, be an opinion about a straw individual.

But it is more than arguable that SOME such people, and in fact MANY such people, can be prevented from doing so. You have noticed that there is a world outside your borders, and that the US is not on Mars and USAmericans actually aren't Martians, right? "American exceptionalism" just doesn't cover every sin ya can think of, and the success of the measures you dismiss in other places simply cannot be disregarded in considering what might fruitfully be done in the US.

Whether, say, banning or severely restricting the possession of handguns would result in a reduction in the +/-10,000 handgun homicides a year currently experienced in the US (versus about 100 in Canada) is one question. (At Canada's rate, the US would have 900 handgun homicides, although I am not saying that the difference is entirely attributable to the relative inaccessibility of handguns.)

Whether the entirely reasonable expectation that it *would* do that is sufficient to impose that kind of restriction on whatever right is in issue is another.

The two are related (see my posts to library_max), but they are separate questions.

[Hrumph]

122. My, but you do tend to ramble.

Lessee if I can separate the wheet from the copious chaff in your post;

I never said "all women are stupid, crazy, etc." so just cool yer jets, sweetie. I was simply addressing abusive relationships because you brought them into the discussion. Can't we even agree that the decision to stay in such a relationship is an unsound decision? My guess is that you would not do so yourself - you seem plenty fiesty. You cannot keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. I don't want to see anyone get hurt. How many times have we heard a battered woman say "but I love him" when someone tells her to get out of the situation? I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities but that IS stupid! If you're going on a long trip by air and the plane looks rickity when you get on it, then major components keep breaking at every layover... STOP GETTING ON THE FRICKIN PLANE, IT MIGHT CRASH! When it DOES crash, it shouldn't be a surprise. Everyone has a responsibility to him/hersef to look out for him/hersef. Does that release the airline from its responsibility to maintain the aircraft? Of course not. But hell, don't get on the frickin plane if you have every reason to believe it's going to crash.

On to other points you raise... I will concede that many Americans would comply with an outright ban on handguns. In that event, we would probably see a reduction in the number of people shooting themselves or others due to stupid accidents. But you're talking about homicides. Further, you want to differentiate between "handgun homicides" and other homicides and this is where the whole point about intent comes in. I'll go further to conceed that if you were, in fact, able to make handguns unavailable or prohibitively expensive for the majority of criminals, then you've still done nothing to address the intent. Dope dealers will still kill each other over money and drugs and sociopaths will still murder others just cuz, they'll just use something besides a gun to do it. If you somehow managed to reduce "handgun deaths" by 1000 but other homicides rose by a similar number, then you haven't really fixed anything. Unless, that is, you just feel better about people being stabbed to death instead of shot.

[TX-RAT]

51. Since you don't like Iver's reasonable gun control

Lets hear yours.

[OpSomBlood]

52. I'll take a stab at a compromise:

- State (not federal) "shall issue" licensure for gun ownership with a focus on safe handling, safe storage, and legal guidelines for gun usage similar to current CCW programs.
- No quantity limitations on the purchase of guns or ammo.
- No gun registration.
- Harsher supplementary penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime.
- Require private gun transactions to use a third-party broker who has access to the background check network, thus eliminating the famed "gun show loophole."
- Reassign anti-drug police units to exclusively track down black market firearms.
- Require visual inspection of every container that enters U.S. ports.

[TX-RAT]

53. Not bad.

Especially

Require private gun transactions to use a third-party broker who has access to the background check network, thus eliminating the famed "gun show loophole."

[iverglas]

54. the problem being ...

Require private gun transactions to use a third-party broker who has access to the background check network, thus eliminating the famed "gun show loophole."

Without registration, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECTIVE WAY to enforce such a requirement.

A private seller who knew that there was no record of his/her ownership of a firearm would simply have no reason to choose to lose a quick buck by going through the screening process before selling.

It might close the gun show loophole, but isn't it the firearms control opponents who are always telling us that it's insignificant anyway?

ALL firearms start out being owned legally. Without a chain of title to follow to figure out who made the illegal sale, there is precious little point in making the sale illegal.

[TX-RAT]

55. Should have left gun show loophole out of that.

(Require private gun transactions to use a third-party broker who has access to the background check network)
And i agree you can't have gun control without registration.

Damn proud we had 2 people offering suggestions instead of insults.

If the gun was purchased new there would be a record of it's sale. To get individuals to willingly register older guns would be difficult, but not impossible.

[OpSomBlood]

56. All firearms start out "legal"...

...but not necessarily legal in the country they end up in. I think smuggling, the black market and theft are doing more to arm violent criminals than legitimate gun shops that follow the law.

I oppose registration because I feel that it violates the intent of the Second Amendment. A detailed document trail of who owns which guns would be an extraordinarily handy tool for an oppressive government.

[iverglas]

58. yeah

A detailed document trail of who owns which guns would be an extraordinarily handy tool for an oppressive government.

So would a phone book.

[TX-RAT]

59. Without registration

You would only control a percentage of the guns. Thats not much control.

(I think smuggling, the black market and theft are doing more to arm violent criminals than legitimate gun shops that follow the law.)
Couldn't agree more.

(A detailed document trail of who owns which guns would be an extraordinarily handy tool for an oppressive government.)
Sorry i don't buy into oppressive government part.

[OpSomBlood]

62. You don't think that "another 9/11" involving guns would lead to roundup?

Come on. We of all people should know what the Bush administration is capable of.

[TX-RAT]

65. Did they roundup box-cutters?

Did they roundup rental trucks?

[Hrumph]

73. Of course not.

Sorry i don't buy into oppressive government part.

Neither did the citizens of Zimbabwe until it actually BECAME oppressive. Every government, at its inception, is installed by the people. None of them ever start out promising to "stomp on the faces of the people with our bloody boot heal." They ALL claim to have the people's best interests at heart. Some of them actually start out that way but become corrupt over time.

[TX-RAT]

86. Neither did the citizens of Zimbabwe

Comparing Zimbabwe to what you think could happen in the US is really stretching.

[Hrumph]

88. There is no magic spell

that keeps the U.S. from becoming oppressive. Are there vast differences in culture? Absolutely. But totalitarianism is not confined to one or a few cultures. ANY government CAN become oppressive. The belief that such things never change is naive.

[library_max]

130. The belief that privately-owned guns keeps them from changing

goes beyond naive into the land of pure fantasy.

[iverglas]

61. oh, and

I think smuggling, the black market and theft are doing more to arm violent criminals than legitimate gun shops that follow the law.

Excuse me, but duh.

I would have thought it obvious that the purpose of registration was to deter black market sales and theft.

Firearms get to the black market somewhere -- somewhere, sometime, there was a legal owner. I certainly was not suggesting that the law-breaking (or negligent) legal owner (the one who transfers to a disqualified purchaser) was always or even usually or even commonly a retailer.

("Gun shop" ... it just sounds so quaint and homey, doesn't it?)

[OpSomBlood]

63. Would you prefer "evil merchant of infant death"?

"Gun shop" just sounds better, I think.

[iverglas]

64. arcane antiquities

Watched a CBC show about Canadian English last month. Apparently our lingo is more Yank than we like to think -- it was heavily influenced by the United Empire Loyalists who came north after your revolution -- basically, actual Yankees, from the northeast. All sorts of Brit ways of saying things were supplanted by these pushy colonists' ways.

One example given was "shop"/"store". A Brit goes to the shops. A North American goes shopping, but to the store. "Store" had previously referred to the place where stuff was stored or stocked.

Youse guys don't go to the clothing shop, or the department shop, or the grocery shop, or the corner shop, and yet you still go to the gun shop. Odd.

[OpSomBlood]

66. I think I know why we use "shop" with guns.

Because in the U.S., a "shop" is a place where mechanical items are built and repaired. I think "gun shop" is more a reference to the gunsmith's craft than anything else.

[TX-RAT]

67. Lots of shops

Gun shop, pro shop, machine shop,welding shop,gift shop,coffee shop,bait shop,

[iverglas]

93. thought of that too

As in "the car's in the shop".

Heh: http://www.tincher.to/oegs.htm

Olde English Outfitters was formerly known as Olde English Gun Shoppe. Despite the cutesy-poo name they are the largest and most reputable gun store in the Dayton / Miami Valley Ohio USA area. (Yes, it really was spelled Olde English Gun Shoppe not Old English Gun Shop or Old English Outfitters.)

Eek, I've linked to a "pro-gun" opinion site. (The guy's in Dayton; what/where the hell is ".to"?) I like this part:

http://www.tincher.to/letters.htm

How to use these letters

All of these letters-to-the-editor have been published in local newspapers. Feel free to use pieces of them as a basis for your pro-gun letters. You can use the "Select All", "Copy", and "Paste" commands on your computer's "Edit" menu to copy these to a text file on your computer.

... The following letter attacks Al Gore as being soft on crime. I believe that this is a good strategy with gun-control advocates in general and Clinton/Gore in particular. ...

The next letter was a response to an ultra-liberal newspaper columnist's off-hand swipe at the NRA.

... Note that I depict anti-gun forces as censors, which hits a hot button with journalists and liberals. ... Anti-gun censors know that they must eliminate the First Amendment right to free speech so that they can eliminate the Second Amendment right to bear firearms. They don't want anyone to know that honest people with guns prevent more than 2 million crimes each year, according to a study by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.

... Why is this a pro-gun letter? Number one, because the NAACP sued gun manufacturers because so many blacks shoot other blacks. ... The once-proud NAACP is no longer a non-partisan civil rights organization. The Democrat-controlled NAACP even ran anti-Bush ads in Texas during the election. Now the NAACP is just a puppet of the Democrat party. The Democrats pull the strings and the NAACP dances. ... Incidentally, this is why campaign finance reform is doomed. The Democrats are just too good at laundering campaign money through supposedly non-partisan organizations like the NAACP. ...

We needed our daily dose of right-wing gun-nut tripe, after all. It's free for the copying and pasting for anyone who might like to save time.

[library_max]

92. Violates the intent of the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment has to do with a citizen militia. So it says and so it has always been interpreted (Miller, et al). Now a citizen militia, if one even exists any more, would necessarily be an organized body. To call up every able-bodied male citizen to service, you'd have to begin with a list of all those able-bodied male citizens, right? So how in tophet is registration a violation of the spirit of the Second Amendment?

Out of curiosity, do you consider the US Census to be a violation of your civil rights? How about drivers' licenses?

[Columbia]

111. People = citizen militia?

Nevermind, I don't even want to get into this again with you. This thread is too damn long already.

[library_max]

116. Yes, that and being wrong would be significant deterrents.

[Hrumph]

72. Some of these

I cannot agree with gun-owner licensing. However, I could possibly support requiring completion of a short course in safe handling procedures and the laws covering safe storage. A certificate of completion should be good enough. Then, at least, everyone can be said to be aware of those principals and laws. Failure to comply is then a concious choice on the part of the offender which they would be criminally liable for.

- No quantity limitations on the purchase of guns or ammo.
- No gun registration.

I'm with ya there.

- Harsher supplementary penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime.

No, but I would support harsher penalties for the use of ANY deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, sure.

- Reassign anti-drug police units to exclusively track down black market firearms.

Nah. And exercise in futility and a waste of money.

- Require visual inspection of every container that enters U.S. ports.

Intersting, but I think impractical

[OpSomBlood]

76. The license would be proof of course completion.

You can't say you're against licensing, but for mandatory training. If the training is mandatory, then the "completion certificate" is essentially a license. As I said, this would be a "shall issue" license that is only refused in the event that a background check reveals mental illness or a violent criminal record.

Nah. And exercise in futility and a waste of money.

Nowhere even close the the waste of money the "war on drugs" is. I'd much rather have that money and manpower dedicated to tracking down illegal guns.

[Hrumph]

79. The difference is

A license can be revoked. A "certificate of course completion" is not.

[OpSomBlood]

82. Is revoking a license such a bad thing?

You get the license. You buy a gun. You commit a violent crime. The license is revoked. You are no longer allowed to own a gun.

I understand the potential for abuse, but you could write in the specific reasons for license revocation into the legislation.

[Hrumph]

85. Felons are already prohibited

from owning guns but that hasn't really prevented them from getting them if they are motivated enough.

Fore one thing, there are precious few licenses that are good for life. Nearly all of them expire at some point and must be reissued - for a nominal fee, of course. This amounts to nothing more than a tax. RIGHTS should not be taxed, period.

Sure, it starts out as with violent crime being the only reason for license revocation. A few years down the road, then the list of reasons for revocation becomes more broad. The only way to prevent the slipery slope to not to build the hill in the first place.

[T Town Jake]

99. I'd accept every bit of that...

...but the real question is, would the gun control crowd be willing to compromise in good faith? I'd be delighted if they would, but I'm a tad sceptical.

[OpSomBlood]

100. I don't think either side is willing to compromise much.

But the NRA was at least willing to accept AWB renewal in exchange for lawsuit immunity for gun manufacturers in cases of deliberate criminal abuse (which I think is fair).

The anti-gunners would have none of that.

[Hrumph]

105. I think you're right.

We're at the end of the compromise road. What's left are two groups of folks with equally intractable positions.

[NorthernSpy]

29. tweaker psychosis?

Sounds like it, anyway. It often seems as though extremely brutal home invasion murders are disproportionately likely to involve meth-heads.

As much as I'm sincerely opposed to the criminalization of drugs, amphetamines appear to me to be something of a special case because of their effect of putting the user in a mental state that is indistinguishable from paranoid schizophrenia. People who are in that condition can commit the most horrific acts for the most insane reasons imaginable.

Of course, outlawing these drugs hasn't really helped much. If anything, it may have made the situation worse by (in effect) promoting the easily made (and extremely strong) methamphetamine over the comparatively weaker uppers that used to be more popular; after all, if one is going to take the risks involved in dealing black market drugs, concentrating on the most potent and addictive substances offers the greatest returns.

I have no idea what the solution is. Really, I just wish people would steer clear of the stuff.


Mary