Gun Control

[bill_g]

My question is where's *my* F16? I need air superiority over my neighbor with way too many AR's in his closet. At a minimum I want my own armored division to protect myself from him. I won't settle for just mortars, bazookas, and SFR's, though I may consider a low yield nuke. Just a couple kilotons (holding fingers together).

[Uninformed]

I'm just going to say, I know John Thomas8. I've known him online since about 2003 on other forums, and he lives near me. I've met him several times....
...He's a good man.

The only thing JT8 has written that I don’t understand is how people “are made criminals” when trying to buy a gun but my knowledge of such matters is limited.
As it happens I am for the want of better words a “lover/fan” of guns and have an interest in them mainly from the technical/engineering point of view; they are quite remarkable examples of trial and error development involving many areas of physics (much like the internal combustion engine but dealing with much greater forces) and the balance of compromises to meet the desired purpose(s).
JT8 unlike me lives in a society where guns abound and the attitude towards them is much different. I have no doubt that were I in his place my attitude would likely be very similar. It is always the case that attempting to regulate any issue affects many more responsible law abiding citizens than potential culprits.

[Uninformed]

My question is where's *my* F16?...

I’m pretty sure that if they could be produced at a price that was widely affordable someone would be trying to market them

[neeneko]

The only thing JT8 has written that I don’t understand is how people “are made criminals” when trying to buy a gun but my knowledge of such matters is limited.

I can not speak for the poster, but the general logic I encounter is some combination of:

• If you create a requirement where none existed before, people who continue to do as they did before the requirement are breaking even though they were fine before, thus the requirement creates criminals.

• If you create a requirement for an activity that should not have requirements, then people performing that activity without fulfilling the requirement are acting correctly and thus the requirement creates criminality where none exists.

• If you create a requirement that can not be fulfilled in order to prevent an activity that is otherwise legal, then you are creating artificial criminality in order to stop non-criminal protected behavior

I think a lot of it is co opted from arguments against the 'war on drugs', which was rooted in taking a legal activity that the government could not prohibit directly, creating a tax stamp that no one could obtain, and criminalizing the failure to pay the impossible tax, which created criminals out of people who were continuing to engage in perfectly legal activity. I think it is an awkward fit to guns rights, but as we have seen over and over with the car analogies, it is not a movement that really cares about internal consistency or logic, only how it feels and 'but other people can use this argument for their cause!'... so yeah, it really reminds me of the 'but what about racism against white christians!' co opting civil rights language.

[neeneko]

My question is where's *my* F16? I need air superiority over my neighbor with way too many AR's in his closet. At a minimum I want my own armored division to protect myself from him. I won't settle for just mortars, bazookas, and SFR's, though I may consider a low yield nuke. Just a couple kilotons (holding fingers together).

Heh. To be fair, if you have the money and connections to obtain an F16 or a full armored division, you probably also have the money and connections to not have the laws apply to you like other plebeians.

[Uninformed]

I can not speak for the poster, but the general logic I encounter is some combination of:...

Thanks.

[Kendra]

Just spitballing here, but since Senator Kennedy brought up the why can they take the vehicles away from the folks who DON'T drive drunk and don't kill people analogy, let's try this. Note: I'm not a gun owner, so don't gobsmack me in my ignorance.

So...I realize states might differ in the process of how one learns to drive, gets a license to drive, owns a vehicle, insurance requirements, etc. It's also been a decade or two since I did all this and maybe things are different in WA these days.

Back in the days there was something in high school called driver's education. I'm pretty sure that's gone, and new drivers pay to take driving lessons (or dad teaches, whatever). Switch out a potential gun purchaser and require them to take a test and make sure they know what they're doing and know safety protocols (you know, keeping guns out of kid's hands and stuff).

Once that's done, the new driver/new gun purchaser has to go and take a test at the Department of Licensing and pay for and get a license. Is it unreasonable to ask a gun owner to do the same?

Now, the driver/gun purchaser wants to drive. In WA, one needs not only the license, but a proof of insurance (liability at a minimum). That way, if the driver does stupid stuff like pulling in front of an innocent driver/runs down a pedestrian, etc. there's insurance to cover the victim's injuries/damages. Is it unreasonable to require liability insurance for a gun owner/potential purchaser to have similar insurance so when stupid stuff is done (like the mom who didn't secure the gun in her purse when she went to WalMart and the toddler grabbed it and shot it). Or when kids are playing at the neighbors and get their hands on an unsecured gun and shoot someone. Or when the wrong person gets their hands on a gun and go shoot people at the grocery store, there's options for the victims and their heirs to get damages.

I know in WA that the police officers during traffic stops ask for the driver's license as well as proof of insurance. They don't have it, they get a ticket on their record. Too many of those (like DUIs can lead to suspending the licence. Is it too much for a law that says a person can't purchase/own a gun without showing both items?

Again, don't shoot me for spitballing, but I imagine the insurance companies would vet their clients pretty thoroughly before providing that kind of insurance? Might stop some purchasers cold in their tracks. Might just be fun to start this conversation so the folks at Fox have something else to go nuts about

[neeneko]

Again, don't shoot me for spitballing, but I imagine the insurance companies would vet their clients pretty thoroughly before providing that kind of insurance? Might stop some purchasers cold in their tracks. Might just be fun to start this conversation so the folks at Fox have something else to go nuts about

So this 'gun owners must carry insurance' idea is a pretty common one, but it is a problematic idea. Gun ownership is (regulated or not), supposed to be a 'right', and putting it behind economic barriers, esp economic barriers controlled by non-government parties who already have problems with things like redlining, can quickly turn it into a race/class/etc specific 'right'.

We can also look to cars to see how this can really end up hurting poor people. A lot of the US is layed out with the assumption that one drives, so having a car or not, esp when you are poor, can be a major factor in determining, well, how poor you are going to stay. There are some pretty nasty economic traps that can take a car away or make one extremely expensive to own and operate (such as how a single fine can snowball), to the point car related fines have become a major revenue stream and thus rules around them encouraged.

Now, for most people guns are not nearly as critical for their survival (though the US does actually have a non-trivial population of subsistence hunters), but that we already have a framework for 'how can we extract large sums of money from people who can not afford lawyers if they want access to something middle class people take for granted', and gun insurance would likely go the same way.

And even within current gun laws, what you can and can not own is already pretty deeply tied into how much you can afford, who you know, and the rather racially skewed justice system. Privatizing access would likely only make that divide worse.

[Dave from down under]

Re insurance

You could have a tired approach based on risk

A bolt action rifle with a 5 round magazine - $50/yr from the Federal government’s insurance agency. Assuming you pass your competency test and continue to pass it.

Everything else you need private insurance as well as pass competency tests.

Partner that with a moratorium on weapons manufacture and a Federal buy back program.

[Suranis]

Rights are not universal. You have a right to Travel. Driving a car is a privilege. One attained by jumping through hoops.

There is no reason why someone should not have to jump through hoops to get the fancy guns, just because its a "right." The second amendment is non specific about the arms you are entitled to. It is very specific about the Militia you should be in - a well regulated one.

As was said in another forum;

Blocking things like high capacity magazines is also kind of akin to putting barriers on bridges i.e. it won't stop someone who is really determined but adding an extra barrier quite possibly will stop people who are basically having a breakdown and not really planning things rationally from having as high a body count.

As evidence, we had 3 jumpers in six months, fences went up on the bridges, no jumpers since. Sure there are other ways, but make folks work for it.

[somerset]

Again, don't shoot me for spitballing, but I imagine the insurance companies would vet their clients pretty thoroughly before providing that kind of insurance? Might stop some purchasers cold in their tracks. Might just be fun to start this conversation so the folks at Fox have something else to go nuts about

So this 'gun owners must carry insurance' idea is a pretty common one, but it is a problematic idea. Gun ownership is (regulated or not), supposed to be a 'right', and putting it behind economic barriers, esp economic barriers controlled by non-government parties who already have problems with things like redlining, can quickly turn it into a race/class/etc specific 'right'.

We can also look to cars to see how this can really end up hurting poor people. A lot of the US is layed out with the assumption that one drives, so having a car or not, esp when you are poor, can be a major factor in determining, well, how poor you are going to stay. There are some pretty nasty economic traps that can take a car away or make one extremely expensive to own and operate (such as how a single fine can snowball), to the point car related fines have become a major revenue stream and thus rules around them encouraged.

Not necessarily.

I moved back to the US almost three years ago, and I still don't have a car. I chose a place to live that is convenient to public transportation, and ride a bicycle as much as I can. There may come a time where Mrs Somerset's work and mine make it necessary for one of us to commute, but even then it will be a matter of choosing convenience over necessity. You don't have to have a car if you seriously don't want to. We Americans have become so brainwashed about what think we must have, rather than looking at how we can do without things that take away from life rather than adding to it.

I understand why people like guns. I like guns. They're fun to shoot, they're very interesting from a mechanical engineering standpoint, and the history of firearms is fascinating (check out the Forgotten Weapons YouTube channel for some really cool history). But the average person doesn't need guns, even for personal safety. We may try to rationalize things we want as things we need, but it's ultimately a failing argument.

[Luke]

Somehow, don't think Matt Couch was looking for my response to his breaking news

U.S. appeals court rules states may restrict people from openly carrying guns in public
By MAURA DOLANSTAFF WRITER MARCH 24, 2021 12:42 PM PT

SAN FRANCISCO — A divided federal appeals court, upholding a Hawaii gun regulation, decided Wednesday that states may restrict the open carrying of guns in public. In a 7-4 decision, an en banc panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said restrictions on carrying guns in public except for hunting do not violate the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms. “The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places — including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets — the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,” Judge Jay Bybee, appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote for the majority.

He said a review of more than 700 years of American and English law showed that government has long had the power to regulate arms in public places. “We have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “Indeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self defense.” Bybee was joined by another Bush appointee and five Democratic appointees.

The decision upheld a county law in Hawaii that limited permits for openly carrying guns, other than for hunting, to persons with an urgent need for arms and “engaged in the protection of life and property.” It was challenged by a man who sought and was denied a permit for open carry for self-protection. Evidence during the legal proceedings revealed that the county’s permits had been limited to security guards. Wednesday’s decision overturned a 2-1 ruling in the same case a year ago by a 9th Circuit panel. Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, writing the lead dissent Wednesday, called the majority decision “unprecedented” and “extreme.” “At its core,” wrote O’Scannlain, a Reagan appointee who was joined by other Republican appointees, “the 2nd Amendment protects the ordinary, lawabiding citizen’s right to carry a handgun openly for purposes of self-defense outside the home. Despite an exhaustive historical account, the majority has unearthed nothing to disturb this conclusion.”

Federal appeals courts have been divided over the right to carry guns openly in public, creating a conflict in the law that the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually have to clarify. A gun control group praised the ruling and noted that the Supreme Court would consider this week whether to review a similar case out of New York. “Today’s ruling, joined by respected appellate judges across the ideological spectrum, is the latest reminder that arguments against reasonable, life-saving gun laws rarely hold up in the courtroom,” said Eric Tirschwell, managing director for Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety. “As the court recognized, states and localities have extremely broad power to restrict the carrying of firearms in public spaces.” The 9th Circuit decided in 2016 that people do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... carry-guns

Grew up hunting with my family and have zero objection to having a gun for hunting and security. But it's out of control. Folks have 20-30-50 guns, some semi-automatics, some rigged as automatics. Often there's no training. Getting some control of these back in places like cities vs wide open country is an important step. Hopefully this ruling with give Congress some balls to finally get serious. Being a few miles from Stoneman Douglas High School, we're not willing to let some RWNJ's fantasies kill any more of our kids.

[neeneko]

Rights are not universal. You have a right to Travel. Driving a car is a privilege. One attained by jumping through hoops.

There is no reason why someone should not have to jump through hoops to get the fancy guns, just because its a "right." The second amendment is non specific about the arms you are entitled to. It is very specific about the Militia you should be in - a well regulated one.

I see the crux being in what kind of hoops you have and what kind of barriers they represent to people from different backgrounds. Background checks and competency tests? All for that! Do you have 10k and know a cop/judge? Already don't like that... but 'hrm, which neighborhood do you live in and are you a high risk skin colour?'... I really want to slow down that road.

Blocking things like high capacity magazines is also kind of akin to putting barriers on bridges i.e. it won't stop someone who is really determined but adding an extra barrier quite possibly will stop people who are basically having a breakdown and not really planning things rationally from having as high a body count.

As evidence, we had 3 jumpers in six months, fences went up on the bridges, no jumpers since. Sure there are other ways, but make folks work for it.

Which is a great example of a good neutral rule, as opposed to one that equates ability to afford walking on the other side of the fence with the responsibility to not jump.

[neeneko]

I moved back to the US almost three years ago, and I still don't have a car. I chose a place to live that is convenient to public transportation, and ride a bicycle as much as I can. There may come a time where Mrs Somerset's work and mine make it necessary for one of us to commute, but even then it will be a matter of choosing convenience over necessity. You don't have to have a car if you seriously don't want to. We Americans have become so brainwashed about what think we must have, rather than looking at how we can do without things that take away from life rather than adding to it.

On the other hand, there is a reason the 'I gave up my car' lifestyle is a status symbol of the moderately affluent and middle class. You have to be above a certain socioeconomic line with a matching lifestyle, job, and living space to support such a choice. Not having a car is an option you get if you can afford to live without one.

[somerset]

I moved back to the US almost three years ago, and I still don't have a car. I chose a place to live that is convenient to public transportation, and ride a bicycle as much as I can. There may come a time where Mrs Somerset's work and mine make it necessary for one of us to commute, but even then it will be a matter of choosing convenience over necessity. You don't have to have a car if you seriously don't want to. We Americans have become so brainwashed about what think we must have, rather than looking at how we can do without things that take away from life rather than adding to it.

On the other hand, there is a reason the 'I gave up my car' lifestyle is a status symbol of the moderately affluent and middle class. You have to be above a certain socioeconomic line with a matching lifestyle, job, and living space to support such a choice. Not having a car is an option you get if you can afford to live without one.

No you don't. But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

[neeneko]

No you don't. But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

In general, people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum don't have the luxury of only selecting jobs that public transportation can get them to. A lot of them work in services, or temp work, things that require a great deal of movement and flexibility. "do you have your own transportation" is a common minimum requirement for employment, and having better options not to be trivialized. Most poor people I know, having their car out of commision means not working and potentially losing their job.

[AndyinPA]

Grrrr. Infrastructure.

[Patagoniagirl]

No you don't. But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

In general, people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum don't have the luxury of only selecting jobs that public transportation can get them to. A lot of them work in services, or temp work, things that require a great deal of movement and flexibility. "do you have your own transportation" is a common minimum requirement for employment, and having better options not to be trivialized. Most poor people I know, having their car out of commision means not working and potentially losing their job.

I can testify.

[Lani]

No you don't. But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

In general, people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum don't have the luxury of only selecting jobs that public transportation can get them to. A lot of them work in services, or temp work, things that require a great deal of movement and flexibility. "do you have your own transportation" is a common minimum requirement for employment, and having better options not to be trivialized. Most poor people I know, having their car out of commision means not working and potentially losing their job.

I can testify.

Me, too.

Also, some many areas have limited, if any, public transportation.

[pipistrelle]

No you don't. But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

In general, people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum don't have the luxury of only selecting jobs that public transportation can get them to. A lot of them work in services, or temp work, things that require a great deal of movement and flexibility. "do you have your own transportation" is a common minimum requirement for employment, and having better options not to be trivialized. Most poor people I know, having their car out of commision means not working and potentially losing their job.

I have a friend in that position. No public transportation near his job, would have difficulties getting a car if his gives out. Nothing is walkable. Housing is relatively cheap.

[Gregg]

Probably something stupid.

[Dave from down under]

But there are I will stipulate tens of millions of responsible gun owners if someone will tell me how to do something about the tens of thousands of not responsible gun owners. Still, it will eventually lead to an event that snaps the country to finally react, and sudden reactions to traumatic events as often as not lead to unintended consequences. The longer its allowed to continue, the crazier its gonna be when we decide to do something. Probably something stupid.

After the next American Revolution/Civil War the winner will want/need to crush the losers completely..

Then gun ownership other than by those in the winning "militia" will be a capital offense with summary execution..

The mass murders to date have not led to change, why expect future mass murders to lead to change?


(Caveat - the above is the pessimist in me, the optimist in me hopes that the US can change without that - we changed after Port Arthur, NZ changed after Christchurch - it can be done.. )

[pipistrelle]

Still, it will eventually lead to an event that snaps the country to finally react, and sudden reactions to traumatic events as often as not lead to unintended consequences. The longer its allowed to continue, the crazier its gonna be when we decide to do something. Probably something stupid.

After Sandy Hook, I gave up. Guns are more important than kindergartners being shredded.

[pipistrelle]

But there are I will stipulate tens of millions of responsible gun owners if someone will tell me how to do something about the tens of thousands of not responsible gun owners. Still, it will eventually lead to an event that snaps the country to finally react, and sudden reactions to traumatic events as often as not lead to unintended consequences. The longer its allowed to continue, the crazier its gonna be when we decide to do something. Probably something stupid.

After the next American Revolution/Civil War the winner will want/need to crush the losers completely..

Then gun ownership other than by those in the winning "militia" will be a capital offense with summary execution..

The mass murders to date have not led to change, why expect future mass murders to lead to change?


(Caveat - the above is the pessimist in me, the optimist in me hopes that the US can change without that - we changed after Port Arthur, NZ changed after Christchurch - it can be done.. )

The culture is different here. First, most of the country can't understand free speech rights apply ONLY to government suppression. And our court system totally muffed interpretation of the second amendment, so now we don't even bother to remember the "well-regulated militia" part, which, if my Revolutionary War readings are correct, were back in the day nothing like the current "militias," which I'm referring to henceforth as what they are--gangs.

[fierceredpanda]

Still, it will eventually lead to an event that snaps the country to finally react, and sudden reactions to traumatic events as often as not lead to unintended consequences. The longer its allowed to continue, the crazier its gonna be when we decide to do something. Probably something stupid.

After Sandy Hook, I gave up. Guns are more important than kindergartners being shredded.

I'm a youngin here, but I was 14 when Columbine happened in the Spring of 1999. Since then, I have gone through the back half of my teens, my twenties, and I'm now on the downslope towards forty, constantly hearing "Is this the tragedy that finally changes things?" The answer was, is, and forever will be a resounding "NO," because enough people in this country value their unfettered access to weapons of war over the lives of other people. It's the same logic behind the opposition to mask-wearing. My "freedom" to not wear a mask trumps your ability to not get sick and die.