I don't mind there being some kind of licensing or control on paintball or airsoft guns but they should be in their own class, really. They're non-lethal weapons that resemble firearms. They can still definitely hurt people and if you want to restrict their sale and usage I don't think that's necessarily unreasonable (in the hands of an idiot they're very dangerous) but the current classification system seems knee-jerk and fear-based.
Yeah, the paintball and airsoft restrictions are probably the one area where I think our current gun laws can, to use a precise term, go fuck themselves. Thankfully there seems to be some pushback of late, and beyond that, a few paintball courses have been running for quite a while on the mainland. It's a regulatory nightmare to get them up and running, though, and people generally can't own their own paintball guns.
I am specifically talking about the state deciding I need to give a satisfactory reason for exercising my constitutional right.
I don't have a problem with required training, or a background check, or a waiting period, but I as a black man who knows the history of both this country am very uncomfortable with the state getting to have an extra hurdle before I get to exercise my rights.
Okay. Here would be what I would consider my reasonable fantasy framework for the U.S., intended to address both the concerns of public safety & those of firearm enthusiasts:
You decide you want to become a firearm owner, so you go to the appropriate venue to get a license.
"Okay," says the nice person working the desk, "Here is the schedule for the available (subsidized) training courses for different firearm categories. You can pay up front or at the end of the year as part of your tax payments. At the end of the course, if you pass, you'll be issued a weapon appropriate to the training you received. You may use & carry any weapon of that class while you're licensed, but may not purchase another weapon for a six month probationary period after the course ends,"
Your probationary gun must stored at a place that is licensed & registered to store firearms. This could apply to shooting ranges, hunting lodges, ranger stations, etc. You must sign it out and sign it back in. If you're a hunter, it (ideally) is always available to you at a convenient place that is not your home when you want to go hunting, and likewise if you go target shooting at a range.
"But what is my probationary gun?"
If you went through pistol training, it's an M1911. If you went through rifle training, it's a Springfield M1903. Why? Because there is a large surplus of these weapons available for distribution by the U.S. government, they are very dependable, they are very popular and the ergonomic features of the weapons encourage good firearm practice (the M1911, for example, has a manual action; you have to cock it before you can start firing. It's semi-automatic, but you have to take a deliberate action before the trigger does anything, adding another layer to safety & discipline).
After your 6 month probationary period is finished, you may go and buy any weapon you like of the class - but you may not store the weapon in your home. You may store it on your property, but it must be in a secure location that is not lived in (a locked storage building on a farm, for example - where most farmers & ranchers keep their weaponry anyway). For folks living in cities, this probably means renting storage space (again, perhaps this can be subsidized) from the aforementioned places that are licensed & registered to store firearms.
To head off a criticism relating to "relative risk" and things which cause lots of death like cars.
It is incorrect to say that cars are more deadly than guns. The big aspect that makes an action or item deadly is not simply how many people die or how many of the dangerous items exist, but how often people die relative to the use.
Cars do pretty well on this(ditto swimmers i think). Per hour spent using cars very very few people die.
Per hour spent using guns (for hunting, or protection or whatnot) lots and lots and lots of people die. And this would be counting a person who concealed carries as "using" a gun 8+ hours a day. Estimates of driving time is about 90 to 100 minutes of driving per person per day in the U.S. [this does cover passenger stats i believe]
If every concealed handgun permit in the United States carried their gun for 16 hours a day, every day then Americans would "use" guns about 35 minutes a day on average.
I propose that such a usage number is ridiculously high. And that because of this suggesting that "cars are more risky than guns" is patently ridiculous. As is many other things for which the comparison is made.
Cars are a shitty comparison (for anti-gun legislation folks) for a couple other reasons as well:
1. We have VINs on each car and we track ownership/registration/address at a state level
2. 49 states require insurance in order to own and operate a motor vehicle (WTF NH? Live free or die is pretty much it)
3. All states require passing both written and operational tests in order to legally drive
4. All operators must obtain and maintain licensing
5. Operators and non-involved owners can be held legally liable for the pain/suffering caused as a result of the ownership/maintenance/use of said vehicle regardless of intent to injure
6. Etc...
Give me this for gun ownership and I won't care if you have a howitzer (is that's gun? I think it is)
A howitzer is a specific type of artillery peice between a "gun" and a "mortar"
+6
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I am specifically talking about the state deciding I need to give a satisfactory reason for exercising my constitutional right.
I don't have a problem with required training, or a background check, or a waiting period, but I as a black man who knows the history of both this country am very uncomfortable with the state getting to have an extra hurdle before I get to exercise my rights.
Okay. Here would be what I would consider my reasonable fantasy framework for the U.S., intended to address both the concerns of public safety & those of firearm enthusiasts:
You decide you want to become a firearm owner, so you go to the appropriate venue to get a license.
"Okay," says the nice person working the desk, "Here is the schedule for the available (subsidized) training courses for different firearm categories. You can pay up front or at the end of the year as part of your tax payments. At the end of the course, if you pass, you'll be issued a weapon appropriate to the training you received. You may use & carry any weapon of that class while you're licensed, but may not purchase another weapon for a six month probationary period after the course ends,"
Your probationary gun must stored at a place that is licensed & registered to store firearms. This could apply to shooting ranges, hunting lodges, ranger stations, etc. You must sign it out and sign it back in. If you're a hunter, it (ideally) is always available to you at a convenient place that is not your home when you want to go hunting, and likewise if you go target shooting at a range.
"But what is my probationary gun?"
If you went through pistol training, it's an M1911. If you went through rifle training, it's a Springfield M1903. Why? Because there is a large surplus of these weapons available for distribution by the U.S. government, they are very dependable, they are very popular and the ergonomic features of the weapons encourage good firearm practice (the M1911, for example, has a manual action; you have to cock it before you can start firing. It's semi-automatic, but you have to take a deliberate action before the trigger does anything, adding another layer to safety & discipline).
After your 6 month probationary period is finished, you may go and buy any weapon you like of the class - but you may not store the weapon in your home. You may store it on your property, but it must be in a secure location that is not lived in (a locked storage building on a farm, for example - where most farmers & ranchers keep their weaponry anyway). For folks living in cities, this probably means renting storage space (again, perhaps this can be subsidized) from the aforementioned places that are licensed & registered to store firearms.
This is interesting. Why the requirement people rent storage space and that their gun be stored there? What if the only subsidized storage space is across town? That's a pretty extreme restriction and even though I'm not one for jumping on the slippery slope bandwagon, that is closer to a ban than I've seen from anyone not suggesting a ban.
Instead of having to store in some facility that will probably price out most poor and lower middle class folk, just do the standard: Locked and disabled.
Trigger locks or a gun safe and remove the bolts. It's a useless hunk of metal at that point. Store ammo separately, also locked.
As someone who stores my rifles in this manner, it is really not a hassle at all, but makes it so someone trying to steal my rifles will have a hell of a time getting any use out of them and also would mean accidents basically don't happen unless I'm at the range.
PS. I have never been involved in nor witnessed an injury accident. One close call. 28 years of shooting.
I am specifically talking about the state deciding I need to give a satisfactory reason for exercising my constitutional right.
I don't have a problem with required training, or a background check, or a waiting period, but I as a black man who knows the history of both this country am very uncomfortable with the state getting to have an extra hurdle before I get to exercise my rights.
Okay. Here would be what I would consider my reasonable fantasy framework for the U.S., intended to address both the concerns of public safety & those of firearm enthusiasts:
You decide you want to become a firearm owner, so you go to the appropriate venue to get a license.
"Okay," says the nice person working the desk, "Here is the schedule for the available (subsidized) training courses for different firearm categories. You can pay up front or at the end of the year as part of your tax payments. At the end of the course, if you pass, you'll be issued a weapon appropriate to the training you received. You may use & carry any weapon of that class while you're licensed, but may not purchase another weapon for a six month probationary period after the course ends,"
Your probationary gun must stored at a place that is licensed & registered to store firearms. This could apply to shooting ranges, hunting lodges, ranger stations, etc. You must sign it out and sign it back in. If you're a hunter, it (ideally) is always available to you at a convenient place that is not your home when you want to go hunting, and likewise if you go target shooting at a range.
"But what is my probationary gun?"
If you went through pistol training, it's an M1911. If you went through rifle training, it's a Springfield M1903. Why? Because there is a large surplus of these weapons available for distribution by the U.S. government, they are very dependable, they are very popular and the ergonomic features of the weapons encourage good firearm practice (the M1911, for example, has a manual action; you have to cock it before you can start firing. It's semi-automatic, but you have to take a deliberate action before the trigger does anything, adding another layer to safety & discipline).
After your 6 month probationary period is finished, you may go and buy any weapon you like of the class - but you may not store the weapon in your home. You may store it on your property, but it must be in a secure location that is not lived in (a locked storage building on a farm, for example - where most farmers & ranchers keep their weaponry anyway). For folks living in cities, this probably means renting storage space (again, perhaps this can be subsidized) from the aforementioned places that are licensed & registered to store firearms.
Keeping people from storing their firearms at home would most likely be a violation of Heller and would be politically untenable outside of very blue areas. That's the only part of your framework i find objectionable.
I think anyone making the (very dubious) claim that gun control means "only criminals have guns" or that "they'll just use illegal guns" needs to at least address the issue raised here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTyQ4Q8z-D8
To whit: it is many times more expensive and difficult to obtain the same weapon in a place where it is illegal
I am specifically talking about the state deciding I need to give a satisfactory reason for exercising my constitutional right.
I don't have a problem with required training, or a background check, or a waiting period, but I as a black man who knows the history of both this country am very uncomfortable with the state getting to have an extra hurdle before I get to exercise my rights.
Okay. Here would be what I would consider my reasonable fantasy framework for the U.S., intended to address both the concerns of public safety & those of firearm enthusiasts:
You decide you want to become a firearm owner, so you go to the appropriate venue to get a license.
"Okay," says the nice person working the desk, "Here is the schedule for the available (subsidized) training courses for different firearm categories. You can pay up front or at the end of the year as part of your tax payments. At the end of the course, if you pass, you'll be issued a weapon appropriate to the training you received. You may use & carry any weapon of that class while you're licensed, but may not purchase another weapon for a six month probationary period after the course ends,"
Your probationary gun must stored at a place that is licensed & registered to store firearms. This could apply to shooting ranges, hunting lodges, ranger stations, etc. You must sign it out and sign it back in. If you're a hunter, it (ideally) is always available to you at a convenient place that is not your home when you want to go hunting, and likewise if you go target shooting at a range.
"But what is my probationary gun?"
If you went through pistol training, it's an M1911. If you went through rifle training, it's a Springfield M1903. Why? Because there is a large surplus of these weapons available for distribution by the U.S. government, they are very dependable, they are very popular and the ergonomic features of the weapons encourage good firearm practice (the M1911, for example, has a manual action; you have to cock it before you can start firing. It's semi-automatic, but you have to take a deliberate action before the trigger does anything, adding another layer to safety & discipline).
After your 6 month probationary period is finished, you may go and buy any weapon you like of the class - but you may not store the weapon in your home. You may store it on your property, but it must be in a secure location that is not lived in (a locked storage building on a farm, for example - where most farmers & ranchers keep their weaponry anyway). For folks living in cities, this probably means renting storage space (again, perhaps this can be subsidized) from the aforementioned places that are licensed & registered to store firearms.
This is interesting. Why the requirement people rent storage space and that their gun be stored there? What if the only subsidized storage space is across town? That's a pretty extreme restriction and even though I'm not one for jumping on the slippery slope bandwagon, that is closer to a ban than I've seen from anyone not suggesting a ban.
Instead of having to store in some facility that will probably price out most poor and lower middle class folk, just do the standard: Locked and disabled.
Trigger locks or a gun safe and remove the bolts. It's a useless hunk of metal at that point. Store ammo separately, also locked.
As someone who stores my rifles in this manner, it is really not a hassle at all, but makes it so someone trying to steal my rifles will have a hell of a time getting any use out of them and also would mean accidents basically don't happen unless I'm at the range.
PS. I have never been involved in nor witnessed an injury accident. One close call. 28 years of shooting.
It's much closer to a purely class-based restriction on firearms ownership than it is a ban.
It's much nicer than saying "only wealthy white landowners plz" but that's about it.
To head off a criticism relating to "relative risk" and things which cause lots of death like cars.
It is incorrect to say that cars are more deadly than guns. The big aspect that makes an action or item deadly is not simply how many people die or how many of the dangerous items exist, but how often people die relative to the use.
Cars do pretty well on this(ditto swimmers i think). Per hour spent using cars very very few people die.
Per hour spent using guns (for hunting, or protection or whatnot) lots and lots and lots of people die. And this would be counting a person who concealed carries as "using" a gun 8+ hours a day. Estimates of driving time is about 90 to 100 minutes of driving per person per day in the U.S. [this does cover passenger stats i believe]
If every concealed handgun permit in the United States carried their gun for 16 hours a day, every day then Americans would "use" guns about 35 minutes a day on average.
I propose that such a usage number is ridiculously high. And that because of this suggesting that "cars are more risky than guns" is patently ridiculous. As is many other things for which the comparison is made.
Cars are a shitty comparison (for anti-gun legislation folks) for a couple other reasons as well:
1. We have VINs on each car and we track ownership/registration/address at a state level
2. 49 states require insurance in order to own and operate a motor vehicle (WTF NH? Live free or die is pretty much it)
3. All states require passing both written and operational tests in order to legally drive
4. All operators must obtain and maintain licensing
5. Operators and non-involved owners can be held legally liable for the pain/suffering caused as a result of the ownership/maintenance/use of said vehicle regardless of intent to injure
6. Etc...
Give me this for gun ownership and I won't care if you have a howitzer (is that's gun? I think it is)
Cars continue to be a shitty comparison because of the items you mentioned above, quite a few only apply if you're driving on public roads. On private property, they are not actually required at all.
Why do I need to own a gun? Fuck you for asking because it's none of your goddamn business.
Why do you need a job?
Why do you need a house?
Why do you need a car?
Why do you need a retirement account?
I mean, the government gets all kinds of information from you for all sorts of things. Apparently guns are sacred, though? Why is that? What sets apart guns from all the other things you have to fill out government forms for?
This is interesting. Why the requirement people rent storage space and that their gun be stored there? What if the only subsidized storage space is across town? That's a pretty extreme restriction and even though I'm not one for jumping on the slippery slope bandwagon, that is closer to a ban than I've seen from anyone not suggesting a ban.
It creates space between the owner and the weapon that I think research into gun violence shows is valuable. The owner still has access to their weapon whenever they want it for hunting or range shooting, which I feel is a reasonable compromise.
The problem with restrictions on what someone can do with it at home / where they can store it at home is that such legislation is impossible to enforce in practice. How does anyone know whether or not you've abided by a given law to, say, keep your weapons in a safe and/or keep them in an inactive state?
To head off a criticism relating to "relative risk" and things which cause lots of death like cars.
It is incorrect to say that cars are more deadly than guns. The big aspect that makes an action or item deadly is not simply how many people die or how many of the dangerous items exist, but how often people die relative to the use.
Cars do pretty well on this(ditto swimmers i think). Per hour spent using cars very very few people die.
Per hour spent using guns (for hunting, or protection or whatnot) lots and lots and lots of people die. And this would be counting a person who concealed carries as "using" a gun 8+ hours a day. Estimates of driving time is about 90 to 100 minutes of driving per person per day in the U.S. [this does cover passenger stats i believe]
If every concealed handgun permit in the United States carried their gun for 16 hours a day, every day then Americans would "use" guns about 35 minutes a day on average.
I propose that such a usage number is ridiculously high. And that because of this suggesting that "cars are more risky than guns" is patently ridiculous. As is many other things for which the comparison is made.
Cars are a shitty comparison (for anti-gun legislation folks) for a couple other reasons as well:
1. We have VINs on each car and we track ownership/registration/address at a state level
2. 49 states require insurance in order to own and operate a motor vehicle (WTF NH? Live free or die is pretty much it)
3. All states require passing both written and operational tests in order to legally drive
4. All operators must obtain and maintain licensing
5. Operators and non-involved owners can be held legally liable for the pain/suffering caused as a result of the ownership/maintenance/use of said vehicle regardless of intent to injure
6. Etc...
Give me this for gun ownership and I won't care if you have a howitzer (is that's gun? I think it is)
Cars continue to be a shitty comparison because of the items you mentioned above, quite a few only apply if you're driving on public roads. On private property, they are not actually required at all.
if your gun never leaves your property i don't think i'd care.
if it does, then you're liable.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Why do I need to own a gun? Fuck you for asking because it's none of your goddamn business.
Why do you need a job?
Why do you need a house?
Why do you need a car?
Why do you need a retirement account?
I mean, the government gets all kinds of information from you for all sorts of things. Apparently guns are sacred, though? Why is that? What sets apart guns from all the other things you have to fill out government forms for?
Constitutional Right?
Which you're happy to suspend for all sorts of reasons except when people shoot up schools and theaters it seems.
This is interesting. Why the requirement people rent storage space and that their gun be stored there? What if the only subsidized storage space is across town? That's a pretty extreme restriction and even though I'm not one for jumping on the slippery slope bandwagon, that is closer to a ban than I've seen from anyone not suggesting a ban.
It creates space between the owner and the weapon that I think research into gun violence shows is valuable. The owner still has access to their weapon whenever they want it for hunting or range shooting, which I feel is a reasonable compromise.
The problem with restrictions on what someone can do with it at home / where they can store it at home is that such legislation is impossible to enforce in practice. How does anyone know whether or not you've abided by a given law to, say, keep your weapons in a safe and/or keep them in an inactive state?
I think anyone making the (very dubious) claim that gun control means "only criminals have guns" or that "they'll just use illegal guns" needs to at least address the issue raised here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTyQ4Q8z-D8
To whit: it is many times more expensive and difficult to obtain the same weapon in a place where it is illegal
I have some experience with this.
One of the organizations I worked with in my younger days would take legally purchased (or stolen from legal purchasers) weapons, give them a once over to remove various identifying characteristics...
And then ship them overseas where guns are much harder to get.
Why do I need to own a gun? Fuck you for asking because it's none of your goddamn business.
Why do you need a job?
Why do you need a house?
Why do you need a car?
Why do you need a retirement account?
I mean, the government gets all kinds of information from you for all sorts of things. Apparently guns are sacred, though? Why is that? What sets apart guns from all the other things you have to fill out government forms for?
Constitutional Right?
Which you're happy to suspend for all sorts of reasons except when people shoot up schools and theaters it seems.
How does anyone know you're not storing a gun in your house?
Nobody does, but the entire process is intended to discourage that activity.
Then your question above about in home locks was what then? Misdirection?
Legislating that people lock away their weapons is not discouragement on the same level as actively having people participate in a system that normalizes firearms being in a secure place outside of the home.
EDIT: I mean, just to recap: the current paradigm for, say, a hunting trip is that you go to your gun closet to get your gun, get in your vehicle, drive to your hunting spot.
The proposed paradigm is that you get in your vehicle, go to your hunting spot and then go get your gun.
And you identify the latter paradigm as being almost the same thing as a gun ban?
Why do I need to own a gun? Fuck you for asking because it's none of your goddamn business.
Why do you need a job?
Why do you need a house?
Why do you need a car?
Why do you need a retirement account?
I mean, the government gets all kinds of information from you for all sorts of things. Apparently guns are sacred, though? Why is that? What sets apart guns from all the other things you have to fill out government forms for?
Constitutional Right?
Which you're happy to suspend for all sorts of reasons except when people shoot up schools and theaters it seems.
Er, no?
General you. The US already says you have to be and do certain things to be able to own a firearm. Why not just add licensing to that? It doesn't infringe anyone's rights anymore than telling them they can't have one because they committed a crime 20 years ago or a doctor says they're not to be trusted with one.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
How does anyone know you're not storing a gun in your house?
Nobody does, but the entire process is intended to discourage that activity.
Then your question above about in home locks was what then? Misdirection?
Legislating that people lock away their weapons is not discouragement on the same level as actively having people participate in a system that normalizes firearms being in a secure place outside of the home.
EDIT: I mean, just to recap: the current paradigm for, say, a hunting trip is that you go to your gun closet to get your gun, get in your vehicle, drive to your hunting spot.
The proposed paradigm is that you get in your vehicle, go to your hunting stop and then go get your gun.
And you identify the latter paradigm as being almost the same thing as a gun ban?
For many people it will be. Not everyone hunts, dude. Hunting is a small number of gun owners. I've never hunted.
The idea behind the locks isn't to punish people who don't do it. It's to change the culture to one where locking guns up is the norm instead of the exception. In Canada I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't lock their guns up.
Keeping people from storing their firearms at home would most likely be a violation of Heller and would be politically untenable outside of very blue areas. That's the only part of your framework i find objectionable.
Okay. I will compromise on that component if the rest seems agreeable.
Now somebody go call Obama and tell him we have done the impossible and created bipartisan gun control legislation.
Why do I need to own a gun? Fuck you for asking because it's none of your goddamn business.
Why do you need a job?
Why do you need a house?
Why do you need a car?
Why do you need a retirement account?
I mean, the government gets all kinds of information from you for all sorts of things. Apparently guns are sacred, though? Why is that? What sets apart guns from all the other things you have to fill out government forms for?
Constitutional Right?
See, here's the thing about that. Up to the late 70s, early 80s, Second Amendment jurisprudence was rather settled on the language espousing a collective right. There were some arguments being made for an individualist reading, but it was considered a fringe position. Then you start seeing conservative legal groups like the Federalist Society start pushing the individualist reading as a group within the legal community. And it takes time, but as they continue to press the issue, and as conservative jurists are appointed (and liberal jurists are blocked), you see the slow shift in allowing the individualist view to take precedence.
Why do I need to own a gun? Fuck you for asking because it's none of your goddamn business.
Why do you need a job?
Why do you need a house?
Why do you need a car?
Why do you need a retirement account?
I mean, the government gets all kinds of information from you for all sorts of things. Apparently guns are sacred, though? Why is that? What sets apart guns from all the other things you have to fill out government forms for?
Constitutional Right?
See, here's the thing about that. Up to the late 70s, early 80s, Second Amendment jurisprudence was rather settled on the language espousing a collective right. There were some arguments being made for an individualist reading, but it was considered a fringe position. Then you start seeing conservative legal groups like the Federalist Society start pushing the individualist reading as a group within the legal community. And it takes time, but as they continue to press the issue, and as conservative jurists are appointed (and liberal jurists are blocked), you see the slow shift in allowing the individualist view to take precedence.
Wait, wait, wait.
Are you actually suggesting that the founding fathers did not intend for every citizen to have military hardware and weapons of mass destruction?
Like when anyone says constitutional right. We had slaves, the first amendment meant dick to a large group of people.
To say that our founding fathers had it all figured out is simply not true.
The Founding Fathers did not invent that right. They just put armed militias ala The Minutemen in the Constitution. That right was invented by a cadre of gun company lobbyists, Republican politicians and the NRA in the 1970s, and enshrined in the Supreme Court recently by a hilariously poorly reasoned decision. Before that, the nation was littered with different levels of gun control, restrictions and outright bans.
Heller's gone as soon as the Court shifts left. Hell, it'll probably be gone as soon as a conservative politician decides that embracing gun laws is the path to the presidency.
I think the second amendment in the U.S. makes a lot of sense if you look at it as a force organization doctrine for the time period, when America lacked the logistical tools to make a large & organized national force possible and it seemed like the only way to prevent a state within a state situation from developing if someone who wasn't as high minded as Washington took power and had the confidence of a large troop contingent.
Armed state militias could isolate and successfully oppose any would-be proto-American dictator, upholding the democratic enterprise.
It just outlived any usefulness it may have had and lacked in long term thinking.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think the second amendment in the U.S. makes a lot of sense if you look at it as a force organization doctrine for the time period, when America lacked the logistical tools to make a large & organized national force possible and it seemed like the only way to prevent a state within a state situation from developing if someone who wasn't as high minded as Washington took power and had the confidence of a large troop contingent.
Armed state militias could isolate and successfully oppose any would-be proto-American dictator, upholding the democratic enterprise.
It just outlived any usefulness it may have had and lacked in long term thinking.
It's not even that.
The entire colonial militia movement was created for political reasons. Essentially, the 16th-17th century experience of Europe had turned the entire continent against standing armies. Soldiers were not seen as heroes, but murderous scum. The colonists not only brought that idea with them, but many were literally fleeing the horrors created by European armies.
That's the political climate that birthed the militia movement. The idea was that a professional military clashed with the very ideas of a free colony, since professional armies were a tool of oppression. So, towns in the new states created bands of citizen soldiers, tied to a community and outfitted by local leaders and militia members.
The problem with citizen militias was that they could not stand against a real professional army. After a few initial successes in the American Revolution, they were torn apart by the British Army. With no alternative after a series of defeats, the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the U.S. Army.
Even then, the colonial attitude was deeply hostile to the idea of a standing army. The reason the U.S. Army nearly starved at Valley Forge was that the surrounding towns forbid the army from foraging and even refused to sell provisions. They set their militia to guarding their food stocks, and George Washington decided that he did not want to use force against the militias.
With the war won, the U.S. Army was here to stay. That's why the existence of militias was enshrined in the Constitution - local leaders were afraid that the new army would disband or absorb them. Southerners were especially worried, since their militias did double duty preventing slave uprisings. So, you got the Second Amendment.
And now, centuries later, we get weekly shootings because a bunch of colonial idealists could not accept that their pet thought project - the local militias - had failed miserably when it came time to defend the nation and so they had to write a protection for them in the national founding document.
This is interesting. Why the requirement people rent storage space and that their gun be stored there? What if the only subsidized storage space is across town? That's a pretty extreme restriction and even though I'm not one for jumping on the slippery slope bandwagon, that is closer to a ban than I've seen from anyone not suggesting a ban.
It creates space between the owner and the weapon that I think research into gun violence shows is valuable. The owner still has access to their weapon whenever they want it for hunting or range shooting, which I feel is a reasonable compromise.
The problem with restrictions on what someone can do with it at home / where they can store it at home is that such legislation is impossible to enforce in practice. How does anyone know whether or not you've abided by a given law to, say, keep your weapons in a safe and/or keep them in an inactive state?
It's much closer to a purely class-based restriction on firearms ownership than it is a ban.
Actually, the intended model is a replication of how firearm storage & control works on contemporary military bases.
The model of how firearms storage and control works on contemporary military bases results in low ranked barracks-dwellers essentially not being able to own personal firearms while higher ranked people who live off-base can.
Which isn't a huge social justice issue in the military but when you translate it into a practice for the general public it becomes just what I said up above.
Also I'm fairly certain that the number of people who accidentally kill themselves while doing the dishes is close to zero whereas the number of people who kill themselves cleaning their guns is greater than zero.
This is interesting. Why the requirement people rent storage space and that their gun be stored there? What if the only subsidized storage space is across town? That's a pretty extreme restriction and even though I'm not one for jumping on the slippery slope bandwagon, that is closer to a ban than I've seen from anyone not suggesting a ban.
It creates space between the owner and the weapon that I think research into gun violence shows is valuable. The owner still has access to their weapon whenever they want it for hunting or range shooting, which I feel is a reasonable compromise.
The problem with restrictions on what someone can do with it at home / where they can store it at home is that such legislation is impossible to enforce in practice. How does anyone know whether or not you've abided by a given law to, say, keep your weapons in a safe and/or keep them in an inactive state?
It's much closer to a purely class-based restriction on firearms ownership than it is a ban.
Actually, the intended model is a replication of how firearm storage & control works on contemporary military bases.
The model of how firearms storage and control works on contemporary military bases results in low ranked barracks-dwellers essentially not being able to own personal firearms while higher ranked people who live off-base can.
Which isn't a huge social justice issue in the military but when you translate it into a practice for the general public it becomes just what I said up above.
That's okay; we've compromised on my fantasy legislation and are now waiting on approval from fantasy Obama to move forward with it onto the senate floor sans the part that people have objected to. Which is how law making totally works in fantasy D.C.
I have already assembled my fantasy filibuster team of Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, and Jimmy Stewart.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure the argument that restricting the way guns are used will result in unequal class treatment is a compelling one--not because I disagree with the prediction but because I disagree that we should care. Guns basically shouldn't be used for anything but work and hobbies anyway, so if you're using a gun on your own time, it's because you've elected to take on a activity whose dangers essentially mandate that it be a luxury. In that sense it's no different from cars, which lower class households can find difficult to purchase because the dangers inherent to car operation require things like licensing fees, regular maintenance, and minimum insurance levels.
I have already assembled my fantasy filibuster team of Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, and Jimmy Stewart.
No fair! The fantasy constitution clearly forbids the use of undead proxies for fillibusters.
...In all seriousness, I am kind of shocked to see how few objections there have been to proposals here that I have generally considered pretty 'hard' proposals for gun control by people I know are very enthusiastic about gun ownership. Like, if we were actually having a debate about a real policy, I would compromise on the few objections raised in a heartbeat in order to get the ball rolling on things like cooldown periods & training, which there seems to be nearly universal support for (of course, not really universal support, but there never is).
I have already assembled my fantasy filibuster team of Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, and Jimmy Stewart.
No fair! The fantasy constitution clearly forbids the use of undead proxies for fillibusters.
...In all seriousness, I am kind of shocked to see how few objections there have been to proposals here that I have generally considered pretty 'hard' proposals for gun control by people I know are very enthusiastic about gun ownership. Like, if we were actually having a debate about a real policy, I would compromise on the few objections raised in a heartbeat in order to get the ball rolling on things like cooldown periods & training, which there seems to be nearly universal support for (of course, not really universal support, but there never is).
Well don't get ahead of yourself, the NRA would regard all of your proposals as Ragnarok.
I have already assembled my fantasy filibuster team of Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, and Jimmy Stewart.
No fair! The fantasy constitution clearly forbids the use of undead proxies for fillibusters.
...In all seriousness, I am kind of shocked to see how few objections there have been to proposals here that I have generally considered pretty 'hard' proposals for gun control by people I know are very enthusiastic about gun ownership. Like, if we were actually having a debate about a real policy, I would compromise on the few objections raised in a heartbeat in order to get the ball rolling on things like cooldown periods & training, which there seems to be nearly universal support for (of course, not really universal support, but there never is).
Well don't get ahead of yourself, the NRA would regard all of your proposals as Ragnarok.
But, if memory serves (and in fairness it probably doesn't because my memory has been abysmal lately), @BigJoeM is a member of the NRA, and he found the proposals largely reasonable. Perhaps the NRA upper management would not like any controls at all, but I suspect this is a fringe position even within that organization.
I have already assembled my fantasy filibuster team of Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, and Jimmy Stewart.
No fair! The fantasy constitution clearly forbids the use of undead proxies for fillibusters.
...In all seriousness, I am kind of shocked to see how few objections there have been to proposals here that I have generally considered pretty 'hard' proposals for gun control by people I know are very enthusiastic about gun ownership. Like, if we were actually having a debate about a real policy, I would compromise on the few objections raised in a heartbeat in order to get the ball rolling on things like cooldown periods & training, which there seems to be nearly universal support for (of course, not really universal support, but there never is).
Well don't get ahead of yourself, the NRA would regard all of your proposals as Ragnarok.
But, if memory serves (and in fairness it probably doesn't because my memory has been abysmal lately), @BigJoeM is a member of the NRA, and he found the proposals largely reasonable. Perhaps the NRA upper management would not like any controls at all, but I suspect this is a fringe position even within that organization.
They're lobbying position (which is all that matters, the opinions of the membership is largely meaningless) is to oppose nearly every restriction.
IIRC they even opposed some stuff having to do with homemade bomb making components.
And they definitely oppose background checks and waiting periods. As well as mandatory gun locks/safes (so that restriction on where you can store your gun would be no bueno).
Totally comfortable with licensing and waiting periods - every Constitutional right has some restriction as we balance public good with individual rights under a standard that defaults to individual liberty and least-restrictive interventions.
Think the OP is pretty clearly skewed toward bans.\
Believe gun control laws are de facto racist, and that it's extremely hard to square a desire for equal rights with a restrictive scheme that disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities.
Posts
Yeah, the paintball and airsoft restrictions are probably the one area where I think our current gun laws can, to use a precise term, go fuck themselves. Thankfully there seems to be some pushback of late, and beyond that, a few paintball courses have been running for quite a while on the mainland. It's a regulatory nightmare to get them up and running, though, and people generally can't own their own paintball guns.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Okay. Here would be what I would consider my reasonable fantasy framework for the U.S., intended to address both the concerns of public safety & those of firearm enthusiasts:
You decide you want to become a firearm owner, so you go to the appropriate venue to get a license.
"Okay," says the nice person working the desk, "Here is the schedule for the available (subsidized) training courses for different firearm categories. You can pay up front or at the end of the year as part of your tax payments. At the end of the course, if you pass, you'll be issued a weapon appropriate to the training you received. You may use & carry any weapon of that class while you're licensed, but may not purchase another weapon for a six month probationary period after the course ends,"
Your probationary gun must stored at a place that is licensed & registered to store firearms. This could apply to shooting ranges, hunting lodges, ranger stations, etc. You must sign it out and sign it back in. If you're a hunter, it (ideally) is always available to you at a convenient place that is not your home when you want to go hunting, and likewise if you go target shooting at a range.
"But what is my probationary gun?"
If you went through pistol training, it's an M1911. If you went through rifle training, it's a Springfield M1903. Why? Because there is a large surplus of these weapons available for distribution by the U.S. government, they are very dependable, they are very popular and the ergonomic features of the weapons encourage good firearm practice (the M1911, for example, has a manual action; you have to cock it before you can start firing. It's semi-automatic, but you have to take a deliberate action before the trigger does anything, adding another layer to safety & discipline).
After your 6 month probationary period is finished, you may go and buy any weapon you like of the class - but you may not store the weapon in your home. You may store it on your property, but it must be in a secure location that is not lived in (a locked storage building on a farm, for example - where most farmers & ranchers keep their weaponry anyway). For folks living in cities, this probably means renting storage space (again, perhaps this can be subsidized) from the aforementioned places that are licensed & registered to store firearms.
A howitzer is a specific type of artillery peice between a "gun" and a "mortar"
This is interesting. Why the requirement people rent storage space and that their gun be stored there? What if the only subsidized storage space is across town? That's a pretty extreme restriction and even though I'm not one for jumping on the slippery slope bandwagon, that is closer to a ban than I've seen from anyone not suggesting a ban.
Instead of having to store in some facility that will probably price out most poor and lower middle class folk, just do the standard: Locked and disabled.
Trigger locks or a gun safe and remove the bolts. It's a useless hunk of metal at that point. Store ammo separately, also locked.
As someone who stores my rifles in this manner, it is really not a hassle at all, but makes it so someone trying to steal my rifles will have a hell of a time getting any use out of them and also would mean accidents basically don't happen unless I'm at the range.
PS. I have never been involved in nor witnessed an injury accident. One close call. 28 years of shooting.
Keeping people from storing their firearms at home would most likely be a violation of Heller and would be politically untenable outside of very blue areas. That's the only part of your framework i find objectionable.
To whit: it is many times more expensive and difficult to obtain the same weapon in a place where it is illegal
It's much closer to a purely class-based restriction on firearms ownership than it is a ban.
It's much nicer than saying "only wealthy white landowners plz" but that's about it.
Cars continue to be a shitty comparison because of the items you mentioned above, quite a few only apply if you're driving on public roads. On private property, they are not actually required at all.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Constitutional Right?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
It creates space between the owner and the weapon that I think research into gun violence shows is valuable. The owner still has access to their weapon whenever they want it for hunting or range shooting, which I feel is a reasonable compromise.
The problem with restrictions on what someone can do with it at home / where they can store it at home is that such legislation is impossible to enforce in practice. How does anyone know whether or not you've abided by a given law to, say, keep your weapons in a safe and/or keep them in an inactive state?
Actually, the intended model is a replication of how firearm storage & control works on contemporary military bases.
if your gun never leaves your property i don't think i'd care.
if it does, then you're liable.
Which you're happy to suspend for all sorts of reasons except when people shoot up schools and theaters it seems.
Best way to kill rad scorps is with a powerfist and a high unarmed skill god damn it feral you know this.
pleasepaypreacher.net
How does anyone know you're not storing a gun in your house?
I have some experience with this.
One of the organizations I worked with in my younger days would take legally purchased (or stolen from legal purchasers) weapons, give them a once over to remove various identifying characteristics...
And then ship them overseas where guns are much harder to get.
It was a very lucrative business.
Nobody does, but the entire process is intended to discourage that activity.
Then your question above about in home locks was what then? Misdirection?
Er, no?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Legislating that people lock away their weapons is not discouragement on the same level as actively having people participate in a system that normalizes firearms being in a secure place outside of the home.
EDIT: I mean, just to recap: the current paradigm for, say, a hunting trip is that you go to your gun closet to get your gun, get in your vehicle, drive to your hunting spot.
The proposed paradigm is that you get in your vehicle, go to your hunting spot and then go get your gun.
And you identify the latter paradigm as being almost the same thing as a gun ban?
To say that our founding fathers had it all figured out is simply not true.
General you. The US already says you have to be and do certain things to be able to own a firearm. Why not just add licensing to that? It doesn't infringe anyone's rights anymore than telling them they can't have one because they committed a crime 20 years ago or a doctor says they're not to be trusted with one.
For many people it will be. Not everyone hunts, dude. Hunting is a small number of gun owners. I've never hunted.
The idea behind the locks isn't to punish people who don't do it. It's to change the culture to one where locking guns up is the norm instead of the exception. In Canada I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't lock their guns up.
But most do.
The system works.
Okay. I will compromise on that component if the rest seems agreeable.
Now somebody go call Obama and tell him we have done the impossible and created bipartisan gun control legislation.
See, here's the thing about that. Up to the late 70s, early 80s, Second Amendment jurisprudence was rather settled on the language espousing a collective right. There were some arguments being made for an individualist reading, but it was considered a fringe position. Then you start seeing conservative legal groups like the Federalist Society start pushing the individualist reading as a group within the legal community. And it takes time, but as they continue to press the issue, and as conservative jurists are appointed (and liberal jurists are blocked), you see the slow shift in allowing the individualist view to take precedence.
Wait, wait, wait.
Are you actually suggesting that the founding fathers did not intend for every citizen to have military hardware and weapons of mass destruction?
That's ridiculous!
The Founding Fathers did not invent that right. They just put armed militias ala The Minutemen in the Constitution. That right was invented by a cadre of gun company lobbyists, Republican politicians and the NRA in the 1970s, and enshrined in the Supreme Court recently by a hilariously poorly reasoned decision. Before that, the nation was littered with different levels of gun control, restrictions and outright bans.
Heller's gone as soon as the Court shifts left. Hell, it'll probably be gone as soon as a conservative politician decides that embracing gun laws is the path to the presidency.
Armed state militias could isolate and successfully oppose any would-be proto-American dictator, upholding the democratic enterprise.
It just outlived any usefulness it may have had and lacked in long term thinking.
string isItMoreDangerousThanAGun(string weaponType, string bullshitArgument)
{
return "Shut the fuck up"
}
It's not even that.
The entire colonial militia movement was created for political reasons. Essentially, the 16th-17th century experience of Europe had turned the entire continent against standing armies. Soldiers were not seen as heroes, but murderous scum. The colonists not only brought that idea with them, but many were literally fleeing the horrors created by European armies.
That's the political climate that birthed the militia movement. The idea was that a professional military clashed with the very ideas of a free colony, since professional armies were a tool of oppression. So, towns in the new states created bands of citizen soldiers, tied to a community and outfitted by local leaders and militia members.
The problem with citizen militias was that they could not stand against a real professional army. After a few initial successes in the American Revolution, they were torn apart by the British Army. With no alternative after a series of defeats, the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the U.S. Army.
Even then, the colonial attitude was deeply hostile to the idea of a standing army. The reason the U.S. Army nearly starved at Valley Forge was that the surrounding towns forbid the army from foraging and even refused to sell provisions. They set their militia to guarding their food stocks, and George Washington decided that he did not want to use force against the militias.
With the war won, the U.S. Army was here to stay. That's why the existence of militias was enshrined in the Constitution - local leaders were afraid that the new army would disband or absorb them. Southerners were especially worried, since their militias did double duty preventing slave uprisings. So, you got the Second Amendment.
And now, centuries later, we get weekly shootings because a bunch of colonial idealists could not accept that their pet thought project - the local militias - had failed miserably when it came time to defend the nation and so they had to write a protection for them in the national founding document.
History is fun.
The model of how firearms storage and control works on contemporary military bases results in low ranked barracks-dwellers essentially not being able to own personal firearms while higher ranked people who live off-base can.
Which isn't a huge social justice issue in the military but when you translate it into a practice for the general public it becomes just what I said up above.
Cutlery: Safer for everyday use than guns.
That's okay; we've compromised on my fantasy legislation and are now waiting on approval from fantasy Obama to move forward with it onto the senate floor sans the part that people have objected to. Which is how law making totally works in fantasy D.C.
...I hope we don't get fantasy fillibustered.
This is monstrous.
No fair! The fantasy constitution clearly forbids the use of undead proxies for fillibusters.
...In all seriousness, I am kind of shocked to see how few objections there have been to proposals here that I have generally considered pretty 'hard' proposals for gun control by people I know are very enthusiastic about gun ownership. Like, if we were actually having a debate about a real policy, I would compromise on the few objections raised in a heartbeat in order to get the ball rolling on things like cooldown periods & training, which there seems to be nearly universal support for (of course, not really universal support, but there never is).
Well don't get ahead of yourself, the NRA would regard all of your proposals as Ragnarok.
But, if memory serves (and in fairness it probably doesn't because my memory has been abysmal lately), @BigJoeM is a member of the NRA, and he found the proposals largely reasonable. Perhaps the NRA upper management would not like any controls at all, but I suspect this is a fringe position even within that organization.
They're lobbying position (which is all that matters, the opinions of the membership is largely meaningless) is to oppose nearly every restriction.
IIRC they even opposed some stuff having to do with homemade bomb making components.
And they definitely oppose background checks and waiting periods. As well as mandatory gun locks/safes (so that restriction on where you can store your gun would be no bueno).
Think the OP is pretty clearly skewed toward bans.\
Believe gun control laws are de facto racist, and that it's extremely hard to square a desire for equal rights with a restrictive scheme that disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities.