Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,097
    I get it. The legal basis and the historical basis...now let me take the Devil's side.

    In a world where anyone can buy and carry anything...what do you do about events such as this?

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/accidental-gunfire-at-dallas-walmart-injures-four-gun-owner-had-permit/




    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Suarez View Post
    I get it. The legal basis and the historical basis...now let me take the Devil's side.
    In a world where anyone can buy and carry anything...what do you do about events such as this?
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/accidental-gunfire-at-dallas-walmart-injures-four-gun-owner-had-permit/
    Freedom and or liberty are not without risk and cost. This is one of the costs. This isn't just an issue with some low-IQ mouth breathing type--remember the FBI's Fred Astaire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnoJ4uqUa1U. This guy was not sub-average IQ (the FBI doesn't hire those sorts), had *significant* firearms training, financial wherewithal to purchase a *good* holster etc. and still had intimate relations with the canine.

    The perfectibility of man is a progressive or socialist goal, one that a student of history--much less a conservative would realize is at best tilting at windmills, and at it's most malignant entails more evil than doing nothing ever could. The millions slaughtered by Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot et. al. are evidence of this.

    That can be more succinctly stated:

    You Can't Fix Stupid.

    Even after stupid demonstrate's itself you're not allowed to fix it like you fix your dog.

    However if you think you must DO SOMETHING take a look at what the Anti-Smoking folks have done. In the last 40 years smoking rates have been cut in half--from roughly 35% of adults to about 17% of adults through a MASSIVE amount of propaganda, tax increases, social engineering, laws against smoking in public places, annoying adds EVERYWHERE, social pressure etc.

    Think about that--something that is CLEARLY bad for your health, expensive as shit, really unpopular, and in 40 years they've managed to cut the rate IN HALF. In the 17-24 age group--people who've LIVED under the information flow their entire lives, it's STILL 17%, and I don't think that counts "vapers". If mankind were half as malleable as the progressives believed that rate would be trending towards zero.

    Or look at Drunk Driving, about the same level of emphasis over the same timeframe, same costs etc. And *maybe* a slighty better result.

    So, not to be a "can't be done" eyeore type you'd have to do *at minimum*:
    1) Get *safe gun handling* included in the Department of Educations primary and secondary school curriculum.
    2) Develop (and continually update) Public Service Announcements about safe gun handling.
    3) Somehow make *proper* gun handling, rather than just the having of a gun, cool--engage social pressure.

    The problem, ultimately is three things. One is:
    Normal-distribution-bell-shaped-curve-with-standard-deviations-From.png

    There's always that 13.6 percent that's smart enough to get around in public without a minder, but not smart enough to really understand what they are doing.

    The other is "Dunning-Krueger". Most of us overestimate our competence in at least some areas. For some people that area is safe gun handling.

    The final problem is that to do this you'd have to get the buy in, approval and assistance from a bunch of people who *do not want* guns handled safely, they want them (like cigarettes and drunk driving) eliminated.

    So it could probably be if you got enough people in government behind it.

    Stop laughing.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,097
    That is all very interesting, but (again with )

    Anyone can buy and own a car or truck...but when you want to drive on the street with other people whose safety you can affect, the vehicle is inspected for safety, and the driver must show a minimum standard of skill...otherwise...no go.

    After all the "we are not guaranteed a right to drive" discussion, and the "who will inspect for safety and verify skill" discussion, we are still left with the unsafe driver in the unsafe vehicle that accidentally with no evil intent t-bones the school bus filled with first graders and kills them all. That doesn't happen as much because of the things the devil mentioned.

    So at the end of the day are we OK with Big Belly Billy carrying his 1.5 pound trigger Taran-Wick Glock 43 in his hairy oversized ass crack at the Toys R Us when your kids and wife are shopping there?

    And will the same post you put up be acceptable to you from the deputy that shows up at your office to announce that Big Belly Billy dropped his Taran Special when he farted and blew one of yours away when it discharged on the deck?

    I dunno the answer...but the devil sure is a motherfucker isn't he...
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,116
    Your subject is "SHOULD THERE BE ANY GUN LAWS", and then you go on to specifically talk about ownership prohibitions, rather than the gamut of laws. Since I'm procrastinating on a task that I'm having some technical troubles with and just don't feel like fighting yet, I'll go with it.

    First to the idea of Gun Laws in general--intellectually I don't think that most sorts of 'suitability to task' laws are unreasonable. Pistols sold for self defense should be able to meet a *reasonable* reliability test. Pistols sold for daily carry should be drop safe. Pistols sold for gun games shouldn't blow up in your hand--that sort of thing. Given that many in government (on both sides of the aisle) think it's reasonable to escalate requirements like these until they can't possibly be met is a problem that I acknowledge, which is why I wouldn't push for them.

    Second to the point of your essay.

    So in certain circumstances, if it can be proved that a person committed an act amounting to forfeiture, I think firearms restrictions or prohibitions are legitimate. But I don’t think restrictions or prohibitions can be legitimate if they apply to everyone, without any showing that a specific person has engaged in specific misconduct.
    I agree with you on the propriety of the state prohibiting "all" persons from possessing "all" firearms at "all" times. The state does not have the right, nor the responsibility to do that.

    One of the things that the SCOTUS has come up with--entirely on their own, it's not in the constitution and I believe that it is seriously problematic if not used carefully, is the notion of "Strict Scrutiny". That is given the nature of "inalienable" rights and of "constitutionally enumerated" rights[1], and given that we live in a society where there sometimes these rights can come into conflict, and that humans have various levels of...let's say 'restraint', that there are conflicts between rights that need to be addressed legally, and that to be constitutional these laws must be narrowly tailored to address specifically the problem.

    From that, we can look at specific places, times and instances where it may be in societies/governments interest to restrict the possession of firearms by large classes of people rather than at the individual level. Some of these would be:

    • Possession of a firearm while legally intoxicated, including while under the influence of any drug. If you can't drive a car in that condition you shouldn't have a gun ready to hand. This is not to say "one drink and the gun gets put away", but if you're falling down drunk... Note this doesn't say "not in a bar". If you're in a bar drinking A beer, or having a coke, you're fine.
    • Possession of a firearm inside a courtroom. I've seen enough videos of people losing their s*t when the "wrong" verdict gets issued for a family member/friend, or when the "guilty" party is found "not guilty". Emotions run VERY high and I think that "not in the courtroom" is narrowly tailored enough to pass muster. Maybe even "not in the court building" if it's *just* a court building.
    • Basically any place or time (that I can't think of off the top of my head) where *irrationality* or *impaired mental function* can be predicted or assumed. Like say the floor of Congress.
    • And clearly you have no right to carry a firearm onto my private property. Property that is "public", like a mall, grocery store or parking lot would fall under the "if I can't block a $PROTECTED_CLASS you can't block a gun owner" rule.


    These are prohibitions that apply to broad categories of the public, but only in *narrow* circumstances. Keeping them properly narrow is an exercise for the public, but then there is always that tension between rights.

    Also I think that the state would be working within it's bailiwick on restricting *some* firearms *some* of the time. I think it's reasonable to require *all* people wishing to exercise their right to keep and bear arms do so in a manner that prevents the firearm from falling out or "accidentally" discharging while being carried. I would have little problem with a law that required a carried pistol to be drop safe, and to be "carried in a manner such that the trigger was covered and the firearm properly restrained". Especially if one is doing backflips on a dance floor.

    There are also several classes of *arms* that are inherently less safe to unsafe, and I think that governments have the right to *regulate* (but not prohibit, either through direct prohibition, or by raising the "regulation" so high it cannot be met). For example it is not unreasonable to regulate the storage of large amounts of powder for those involved in black powder musketry, or have their own artillery. I don't know what a "reasonable" amount of black powder storage is, but IMO it would not be unreasonable to say "no more than X pounds can be stored outside a specially built magazine". Storing 10 pounds in your garage is probably just fine. Storing 1000...might not be. And yes, reasonable people won't do this. But the news is filled with people who aren't reasoanble, and if Florida wants to keep Florida Man from storing a ton of black powder in his mobile home, I'm not going to argue *too* much.


    [1] There are a lot of rights that are not documented in the constitution because either the founders didn't think about it, or because it wasn't an issue for them to think about. But their notion of rights is very different from what we get presented by today. I am absolutely certain that our founding fathers would have agreed that we have a "right" to health care, the same as we have a "right" to food, or to "keep and bear arms". Note in NONE of these cases is there any obligation on the state to provide these things--rights are not entitlements generally.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,116
    [QUOTE=Gabriel Suarez;1938043]That is all very interesting, but (again with )
    Anyone can buy and own a car or truck...but when you want to drive on the street with other people whose safety you can affect, the vehicle is inspected for safety, and the driver must show a minimum standard of skill...otherwise...no go.[quote]

    In 2018 there were 37,133 automobile accident fatalities, and 4,560,000 (estimated) injuries requiring medical care. This is with a (fairly minimal) standard for drivers and maintenance.

    Despite a MUCH higher level of inspections, training requirements, maintenance requirement and etc. we still have more than a few airline crashes.

    We're human and we live in a stochastic universe it happens, and we can minimize it, not stop it.

    After all the "we are not guaranteed a right to drive" discussion, and the "who will inspect for safety and verify skill" discussion, we are still left with the unsafe driver in the unsafe vehicle that accidentally with no evil intent t-bones the school bus filled with first graders and kills them all. That doesn't happen as much because of the things the devil mentioned.
    See the numbers above. It *does* happen a lot. We just accept it as the price of not having to walk everywhere--which has it's own costs.

    I'm not opposed to something like a "safe carry" law, and I think it would be relatively trivial to word a law such that it cannot be applied over-broadly, and yet still be useful guidance. Like I mention above "carried in a manner such that the trigger is covered and the firearm properly restrained" By definition "properly restrained" would mean "doesn't fall out in reasonably foreseeable circumstances".

    The setting of performance standards would also be relatively straightforward. Tie the legal requirements to whatever is expected of armed security. Yeah, it's a low standard, but as long as you can keep that binding the security guard industry will either have to step up it's training, or they'll have a financial stake in making sure the standards don't get to high.

    The problem as I see it is twofold--one is that (as you note) we do have a bunch of anti-gun nincompoops who will try to raise the bar until you'd have trouble getting over it. However we have to be vigilant against those pricks anyway, so it's not that much of an additional problem.

    The other problem is the "We have to do something, this is something, we have to do it". Let's say we did have "reasonable" gun carry laws--trigger covered and adequately restrained, and drop safe. But then the Center short stop for the LA Bears is in a shopping mall and his biinged out 45 carried cock'd and lock'd falls out of his sweatpants, releasing the safety and he shoots two kids. CLEARLY he was breaking the existing laws, but you know that there will be hue and cry to DO SOMETHING. I mean, other than put the guy in the 'lectric chair, or cut his nuts off so he doesn't have (more) kids.

    Most of us aren't against reasonable regulation.



    So at the end of the day are we OK with Big Belly Billy carrying his 1.5 pound trigger Taran-Wick Glock 43 in his hairy oversized ass crack at the Toys R Us when your kids and wife are shopping there?
    I just threw up in my mouth a little.

    But no, not really. I just think that *given how law abiding most people are* it's going to be hella hard to change. On the order of getting people to stop smoking, stop drinking when they drive etc.

    Ultimately we can pass all the laws we want, but we can't *make* people obey them.

    I mean, that was what you used to do, right? Find the people who disobey'd them? How many of THEM obey'd even reasonable laws?


    And will the same post you put up be acceptable to you from the deputy that shows up at your office to announce that Big Belly Billy dropped his Taran Special when he farted and blew one of yours away when it discharged on the deck?
    Probably about the same as if I found out he'd plowed into them while texting on his cellphone, driving while drunk/high/eating a cheeseburger.




    I dunno the answer...but the devil sure is a motherfucker isn't he...
    Yeah.

    The only answer I can come up with is summed up in the Serenity Prayer.

    We have to change the things we can, and have the humility and strength to accept the things we can't.

    I'm not really in all that different a place from you on this, except looking at it I just don't see any mechanism to *significantly* reduce this sort thing at a reasonable cost (financially or "rights" wise). It's relatively rare (contrast with 15 thousand deaths from heroin overdoses last year) which means it's hard to make a big absolute change, and the more rare you make it the more newsworthy it becomes.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    80
    If someone has predatory tendencies, they will be a danger to every decent person, armed or unarmed. Gun laws should exist to protect people from predatory criminals, not to create defenseless populations from criminals who already scoff at the law. Gun laws should be limited to creating harsh penalties to the misuse, or irresponsible use of arms. Likewise they should protect people from negligent or incompetent manufacturers that create and sell unsafe products that are prone to true accidental discharges. In regards to people carrying arms, there should be some minimum standards of safety, if the state is going to go the route of allowing permit-less concealed carry, the state should provide easy means for people to learn safe carry methods to reduce the risk of a negligent discharge. We provide sex education in schools because we recognize that people are not going to refrain from having sex, and they should be educated on the risks and dangers and provided information on how to reduce such risks. Guns are not going anywhere, and society would benefit from Firearms Safety being brought back into schools Life Education classes. The entire argument of telling kids to not touch a firearm, and to get an adult if they were to find one, falls on its face, if those adults do not know how to make a loaded weapon safe without a loud clash and a sudden flash occurring.

    Gun laws should exist to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, to increase the skill of the hands holding them and to ensure that weapons manufactured are of good quality and not prone to accidental discharges. Gun laws should not be made that circumvent the Right to Due Process that is easily abused in "Red Flag" Laws that allow anyone to strip someone of their rights when they have not been convicted of a violent predatory crime if they dislike them, or get into a petty argument. Additionally, gun laws should not be made that restrict weapons based on appearances, or limit technological advancement. Weapon laws should not be made that remove anyone's rights from owning and possessing arms for exercising their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness peacefully. I would say this should even cover users of Medical Cannabis or even responsible Recreational use. Although the Federal Government has just partially remedied this with the recent legalization of CBD Hemp Cannabis Flower and products, which lack the impairing effects of THC and retain much of the medical benefits. The law should exist to prevent people from using and carrying arms while they are impaired on THC however, much as we do with Alcohol and other prescription drugs.

    If someone is chemically dependent on Alcohol or Narcotics, they should not be carrying arms let alone drive a vehicle until they gain the self control to either quit their addiction, or drink responsibly. A person that commits DUI, should be deemed unsafe and not permitted to carry arms until they prove their responsibility. Active users of dangerous narcotics should not be allowed to possess or carry arms, no one is perfect however, and if one has an otherwise clean record and quits use, I do not feel they should be given a lifetime ban. Lifetime bans should be limited to violent and/or predatory criminals like robbers, burglars, hard drug dealers, road ragers etc. We would do well as a society to keep these kinds of people incarcerated far longer than they are now, with our jails being overcrowded with people who have committed victim-less crimes (Not to be confused with people who have committed crimes that had no victim, but potential victims exist such as DUI and reckless driving) some change and reform is needed here. I believe this to be of far more importance to creating a safer society than restricting peaceful and responsible peoples freedoms. Look at how society rewards truly awful people now that have committed predatory crimes with little repercussions like the "Musician" (and I use that term lightly) Cardi B. who admitted to drugging and robbing people. Not even a slap on the wrist. Predatory criminals should not be allowed back into the public, period. It is in their nature.

    Certain classes of weapons should stay regulated. Machine Guns should be allowed to be manufactured new for Civilian purchase, but the regulations in place regarding background checks and registration should remain. No one should be able to buy or make destructive dangerous ordnance such as grenade launchers or other explosives without proper training and storage safety requirements in addition to a lengthy background check and interview of ones peers regarding the individual seeking to purchase/manufacture them. These have no defensive purpose outside of some kind of "Red Dawn" Invasion Scenario and should not be easily available to the general public. In addition to storage safety, if one reloads ammunition, certain amounts of gunpowder should not be allowed to be stored just anywhere. 150lbs of gun or black powder should not be stored in your chain smoking neighbors town house you share a wall with, and if one wishes to sell homemade or reloaded ammunition, they should have a permit that demonstrates they can make safe consistent products to protect the general public from dangerous catastrophic destruction of their arms. Items like suppressors are a public safety device, and several European Nations are ahead of us with the law regarding them. They reduce risk of hearing damage, and lower noise pollution in areas around where firearms are discharged for sport, recreation or hunting. Firearms laws requiring things like microstamping, fingerprint scanning etc are burdensome at best, and at worst make the owner less able to respond to a violent threat in a timely manner which could endanger lives. All mechanical devices can fail, and these would raise the cost of arms immensely, which is not fair to people with lower incomes, while providing little if any benefit to society.
    Last edited by WraithWolf; 06-06-2019 at 01:38 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •