Gun Policy

[Karl Marx]

What laws and regulations should a country adopt in regard to the use and ownership of firearms? Short of drafting an entire legal code, just talk about policies that you think have or could have a positive impact on society as a whole. Anything goes - from proposing total bans on a type of gun to talking about high-capacity magazines to discussing whether or not armed guards should be present in schools (this was a topic of debate in the U.S. after the Sandy Hook shooting, for those who don't know).

 

Who wants to go first?

[Sailor Jerry]

I'm all for gun ownership of any kind for the public......with a few stipulations. First, in order to be able buy a gun, a person would need to sit through a class of "X" number of hours, during which time, the course instructor/s would perform a criminal AND mental health background check. If all is well and the course reqs are met, then the person gets a gun license.....just like a car license which would need to be renewed every 3 years or so. Also, whenever someone goes in to purchase a gun, the gun seller would need to verify the license and perform another background check just in case anything new pops up. The licenses would be in stages, with a higher level courses needed to be taken after the lower previous ones have been completed. Say pistol first, then either conceal/carry or rifle, then assult weapons.

Now, in the event of a violet criminal background....not sure on that one. Maybe no license or revoke of current license for a period of 10 years or so with all weapons registered to them would need to be sold off, but if the crime commited had a gun used during it.....then no more/permanent revocation of licensing and all weapons would be forfeited to the state.

I also believe, just like a car and licensing, a gun/weapons insurance should also be placed in effect....for any of those "accidental" injuries caused by the weapon. Just like car insurance though, the number and types of weapons would affect the premiums of the policy. Just a few of my thoughts.

[PiratePaul]

I think guns should be allowed in more places. You may think that that is a bad idea because it makes it easier for a criminal to commit a crime, but when you are in a bank, and a man tries to rob it, and 5 other people pull out their guns, who do you think will win?

Armed guards in schools are kinda ridiculous. There have only been a handful of shootings in schools, so armed guards seems like a waste of money.

 

 

I'm all for gun ownership of any kind for the public......with a few stipulations. First, in order to be able buy a gun, a person would need to sit through a class of "X" number of hours, during which time, the course instructor/s would perform a criminal AND mental health background check. If all is well and the course reqs are met, then the person gets a gun license.....just like a car license which would need to be renewed every 3 years or so. Also, whenever someone goes in to purchase a gun, the gun seller would need to verify the license and perform another background check just in case anything new pops up. The licenses would be in stages, with a higher level courses needed to be taken after the lower previous ones have been completed. Say pistol first, then either conceal/carry or rifle, then assult weapons.
Now, in the event of a violet criminal background....not sure on that one. Maybe no license or revoke of current license for a period of 10 years or so with all weapons registered to them would need to be sold off, but if the crime commited had a gun used during it.....then no more/permanent revocation of licensing and all weapons would be forfeited to the state.
I also believe, just like a car and licensing, a gun/weapons insurance should also be placed in effect....for any of those "accidental" injuries caused by the weapon. Just like car insurance though, the number and types of weapons would affect the premiums of the policy. Just a few of my thoughts.

Pretty much all that you said went against your first statement. 'A few stipulations', dude, you pretty much made it where the government can take away the rights of some people to have guns. As a southener, I hunt. I had to go through a safety course so that I could hunt legally.

If you want people to require lisences to own a gun (in most states you already have to have a lisence to carry it) then I am against you.

[Solomon]

"What laws and regulations should a country adopt in regard to the use and ownership of firearms?"

 

The answer to this question is similar to the answer to most legal questions. As with any proposed law, you should evaluate the pros and cons, the costs and benefits. Firstly, you should consider how the law will impact the people who live in your own country but nowadays it is impossible to ignore the effects of a law on people in other countries too.

 

It is difficult for many people to imagine a reality different to the current one. What can help is looking at the models provided by other countries, especially those countries with similar levels of economic and social development. While it's true that each country has its own particularities, they are invariably much less significant than what they have in common with similarly developed societies. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't make a case for "exceptionalism", only that it's much easier to make the claim than it is to back it up with anything substantive.

 

The final thing to consider is inevitability. For example, it was clear to all but the most myopic of South Africans that apartheid was not a sustainable long-term option. While recognizing that any change can be traumatic for some, is it worth fighting against the tide when you know sooner or later the change is going to come? Usually it's better to grasp the nettle, to recognize that the transition may be uncomfortable but the longer terms benefits easily outweigh the immediate mental turmoil. Once you accept that, you can then look at the details of implementing the change.

[PiratePaul]

"What laws and regulations should a country adopt in regard to the use and ownership of firearms?"

 

The answer to this question is similar to the answer to most legal questions. As with any proposed law, you should evaluate the pros and cons, the costs and benefits. Firstly, you should consider how the law will impact the people who live in your own country but nowadays it is impossible to ignore the effects of a law on people in other countries too.

 

It is difficult for many people to imagine a reality different to the current one. What can help is looking at the models provided by other countries, especially those countries with similar levels of economic and social development. While it's true that each country has its own particularities, they are invariably much less significant than what they have in common with similarly developed societies. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't make a case for "exceptionalism", only that it's much easier to make the claim than it is to back it up with anything substantive.

 

The final thing to consider is inevitability. For example, it was clear to all but the most myopic of South Africans that apartheid was not a sustainable long-term option. While recognizing that any change can be traumatic for some, is it worth fighting against the tide when you know sooner or later the change is going to come? Usually it's better to grasp the nettle, to recognize that the transition may be uncomfortable but the longer terms benefits easily outweigh the immediate mental turmoil. Once you accept that, you can then look at the details of implementing the change.

You didn't answer the question. All you did was give a damn reason to change.

[Grillick]

I have no real objection to gun ownership, although I think it is generally a stupid idea. I do not, however, believe that it is ever acceptable for one individual to take another's life, so people who own guns should carry a heavy burden.

 

All guns should be registered. Anyone in possession of an unregistered firearm should be guilty of a felony punishable by at least one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

 

Anyone who is injured by the use of a firearm should be able to collect his damages in a civil action against the owner of the firearm or the user of the firearm (or both) without regard to the owner/user's mental state. Recovery should be based on a theory of strict liability.

 

Any time a firearm causes personal injury to a person, the user of the firearm should be guilty of assault, regardless of the user's mental state. The owner of the firearm should be guilty of the same crime as the user, on a theory of accomplice liability, unless s/he can demonstrate that s/he took every precaution to prevent the firearm from being used by another person.

 

"Self-defense" would not be a justification in any of these actions, however the existence of this type of liability regime would give rise to a rich market in insurance products, protecting gun owners and users from the financial cost associated with the damage their recreational devices can cause. In order to protect the victims of gun violence from the risk that they will be injured by a firearm used or owned by someone who cannot afford to pay their damages, all gun owners and users will be required to carry insurance to cover their liability for the damage. Any person in possession of a gun, even if it is registered, who is not properly insured should be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

[Solomon]

You didn't answer the question. All you did was give a damn reason to change.

If you read it more carefully, you'll see I answered the question.

[Karl Marx]

Anyone who is injured by the use of a firearm should be able to collect his damages in a civil action against the owner of the firearm or the user of the firearm (or both) without regard to the owner/user's mental state.

 

Any time a firearm causes personal injury to a person, the user of the firearm should be guilty of assault, regardless of the user's mental state.

 

Disclaimer: I don't think people with the types of mental disabilities described below should have guns in the first place. This is purely for the sake of argument.

 

So, let's say that a schizophrenic gets their hands on a gun. The have the potential to suffer episodes of acute psychosis. They can suffer hallucinations (both auditory and visual) that alter their perception of reality. Let's say during one of these episodes, they perceive a threat to themselves and use their gun, thinking they are keeping themselves safe, and end up injuring or killing somebody.

 

This is not the same as a mentally healthy person being careless and accidentally hurting somebody, nor is it the same as somebody deliberately causing harm. Our schizophrenic could not differentiate between what was real and what wasn't. As such, they did not make the conscious decision to do what they did in reality. What they chose to do and what happened are entirely different. They could not make decisions in the same way everybody else can.

 

Why should they be punished for something that was out of their control? (Note: If it was illegal for them to possess the gun in the first place and they were capable of making rational decisions at the time they acquired it, then they should indeed be charged with illegal possession.) Why should they be treated in the same manner as someone who sought to intentionally harm someone? Why should they be treated in the same manner as someone who chose to ignore safety rules and accidentally (although they made the choice to be careless) harms someone? How can we ignore the plight of the weakest members of our society, increase their burden, and refuse to recognize that they cannot be compared to or treated like normal people?

 

Would your proposed policies treat children the same way as adults? Because they have greater control over their actions than a schizophrenic, who would be punished under your system, it would make sense to treat them like adults, right?

 

The callousness of your proposal is shocking, especially coming from a liberal.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Karl Marx

[Karl Marx]

For some reason, my reply posted twice, with the second post being a quote of the first one. I was unable to delete it, so I just cleared it.

 

Edited July 16, 2014 by Karl Marx

[Grillick]

The callousness of your proposal is shocking, especially coming from a liberal.

Assuming, arguendo, that your description of my political position is correct, I fail to see how it has any bearing on whether or not I am callous.

 

That being said, I am not concerned with your hypothetical situation. Firstly, strict liability is exactly what it sounds like: a system that does not take into account the peculiarities of any particular situation because the lawmaker has made a conscious decision that the costs of determining that information on a case-by-case basis outweighs the potential value of increased justice. As for your schizophrenic, even though he was delusional about his circumstances, he still decided to use a firearm in "self defense," which I already identified as an illegitimate purpose. Said schizophrenic would probably not be able to be a registered owner of a firearm, so he could only be liable as a user. He would still have committed assault (or battery under the common law and in many states). The Court would be within its discretion to consider his mental illness when determining the appropriate punishment, but it is not relevant with respect to his guilt any more than it would be relevant if he had committed any other strict liability crime (admittedly, these crimes are few and far between, but I believe that guns are dangerous enough that such treatment is a valid means of discouraging their use).

 

The same holds true for children, both in respect to their guilt and the appropriate punishment.

[Shellhound]

Personally, I think guns are awesome, at the same time guns are used for killing. That has always been their purpose. Guns have been used for killing animals, killing enemy soldiers, killing those trying to harm you and killing those you want to do harm too. They are made to kill people, we should respect that a gun is a tool, it is not something fun, it is not something to use to show off with. It is a tool and its purpose is death. To buy a gun you should have to have a license, and that license should include a check on your mental health, your criminal background and you should have to go through a course on gun safety to get this license. It shouldn't be to obstruct people from getting guns but rather to make sure the people that have them aren't criminals, mentally ill and that they know the dangers and proper precautions in regards to owning a gun. It should be a fairly quick process, not something that takes months to get, once again it's not supposed to stop or discourage people from owning guns.

 

Personally I see banning guns to be an awful idea, for one criminals will always have access to guns. I can order one right now off of Tor for roughly the same price I can get a normal one, and its tax free! Secondly, the process of banning them will be a huge drain on the economy. The revenue from the gun business will cease to exist, and it won't be cheap having to confiscate everyone's guns. This process will also be a bloody one, people won't just roll over and give up their guns. Shots will be fired over it, personally I think it could lead to a second revolution or another civil war. Is that something we truly want to risk?

[Sailor Jerry]

 

Pretty much all that you said went against your first statement. 'A few stipulations', dude, you pretty much made it where the government can take away the rights of some people to have guns. As a southener, I hunt. I had to go through a safety course so that I could hunt legally.

If you want people to require lisences to own a gun (in most states you already have to have a lisence to carry it) then I am against you.

 

Yes, you have a "Hunting License", did that license do a criminal or mental health background check on you....no I don't think so.  It only covers a few things like gun safety and how not to fall out of tree stand.  And yes, I believe should take the rights away from some people to own and use firearms....they do it to people who get to many DUIs when they suspend their drivers licenses.  A car used irresponsible can cause property damage as well as kill.....for this reason only folks who are 16 (here in the U.S., older in other countries), have insurance and use a legally registered car can drive.  But yet your ok with some dude who has a violent past and/or mental health issues go into a gun show and buy any weapon he wants with no checks at all......I think I just found out whats wrong with this country! 

[Karl Marx]

"What laws and regulations should a country adopt in regard to the use and ownership of firearms?"

 

The answer to this question is similar to the answer to most legal questions. As with any proposed law, you should evaluate the pros and cons, the costs and benefits. Firstly, you should consider how the law will impact the people who live in your own country but nowadays it is impossible to ignore the effects of a law on people in other countries too.

 

It is difficult for many people to imagine a reality different to the current one. What can help is looking at the models provided by other countries, especially those countries with similar levels of economic and social development. While it's true that each country has its own particularities, they are invariably much less significant than what they have in common with similarly developed societies. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't make a case for "exceptionalism", only that it's much easier to make the claim than it is to back it up with anything substantive.

 

The final thing to consider is inevitability. For example, it was clear to all but the most myopic of South Africans that apartheid was not a sustainable long-term option. While recognizing that any change can be traumatic for some, is it worth fighting against the tide when you know sooner or later the change is going to come? Usually it's better to grasp the nettle, to recognize that the transition may be uncomfortable but the longer terms benefits easily outweigh the immediate mental turmoil. Once you accept that, you can then look at the details of implementing the change.

 

 

If you read it more carefully, you'll see I answered the question.

 

You seem to be insinuating that gun policy should change. If you are, would you mind telling us how?

[Ayayay]

I agree with the founding fathers, we should have the same weaponry as the US army. It is my RIGHT to own a chaingun and a predator drone!

[Keegoz]

Don't live in the US and the problem never comes up due to a lack of mass shootings.

 

Who would want to live in a country where mentally ill people are allowed access to guns?

[RedArmy BushMan]

Who would want to live in a country where mentally ill people are allowed access to guns?

That isn't true at all. If you ever go to a mental facility, even for depression, it makes it much much harder get any kind of firearm legally. Most of the time preexsisting mental conditions come up (at least in MD when I bought my nugget).

 

Plus access to the guns isn't the problem. In Norway (where Anders Brevik lived, killed, and injured many more people than US killers) gun ownership is prohibited unless you can give the government reason to own the firearm, and they must have a clean police record.

[Solomon]

You seem to be insinuating that gun policy should change. If you are, would you mind telling us how?

I provided a simple framework for people to assess their country's current gun laws. I don't have the time or motivation to learn every country's gun laws, data on gun homicides/suicides, etc.. However, the laws and statistics are readily available for those who are interested in learning more about their own country's gun situation.

 

In my country (Portugal), there are 13 legally registered guns per 100 people. More than 90% of these are shotguns and hunting rifles. Last year, there were 22 gun homicides (0.23 per 100,000 people), 103 gun suicides (1.0 per 100,000), and 3 unintentional gun deaths (0.03 per 100,000). In comparison with most other developed countries, my opinion is that Portugal's gun laws are broadly effective.

 

There is no clear data on how many unregistered guns there are but, based on police weapons recovery, the main sources are Central and South America (mostly U.S.-manufactured) and Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine).

[PiratePaul]

Most of you that want to change gun ownership and availability want to add fines and licenses to them. That goes against the 'right to bear arms'. I think that all citizens (excluding mentally ill and violent criminals) should have the ability to purchase a fire arm. It seems like a logical thought due to the purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is to protect oneself from the government should the need arise. If you take everyone's weapons from them, then the government and military can do whatever they want because we can't fight back.
I understand the idea of taking guns away, or limiting access to a more specific few. I understand why you think that taking a gun away from someone will stop them from commiting a violent crime. But you would be incorrect to think that. You cannot stop someone who is mentally ill from doing whatever it takes to make them feel better. Sometimes it is violence, and you can't stop that by taking away guns.

I think we should limit access to guns by background checks and should teach people how to use a gun properly.

[Keegoz]

Most of you that want to change gun ownership and availability want to add fines and licenses to them. That goes against the 'right to bear arms'. I think that all citizens (excluding mentally ill and violent criminals) should have the ability to purchase a fire arm. It seems like a logical thought due to the purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is to protect oneself from the government should the need arise. If you take everyone's weapons from them, then the government and military can do whatever they want because we can't fight back.

I understand the idea of taking guns away, or limiting access to a more specific few. I understand why you think that taking a gun away from someone will stop them from commiting a violent crime. But you would be incorrect to think that. You cannot stop someone who is mentally ill from doing whatever it takes to make them feel better. Sometimes it is violence, and you can't stop that by taking away guns.

I think we should limit access to guns by background checks and should teach people how to use a gun properly.

Yes because so many western nations with strict gun control have been taken over by their own military. I'd say if the military did turn on you, the civilian population even with firearms wouldn't stand a chance against the US military.

 

I hate how in the US you believe a couple hundred year old paper says that you can bear arms and therefore it is the most logical thing to do. The circumstances in which that constitution was written in was completely different than how the US is today. It was created in a time of much less security and guns being readily available but less deadly. No one who had a hand in writing it could have imagined what the world is like today.

 

Sure you can't stop mentally ill people from harming others but I'd say you have a better chance at surviving with a lunatic coming at you with a knife than someone coming at you with assault rifle.

[Jerry LeRow]

Laws and regulations won't help much imo. The real bad guys will always get their weapons, whether it's the lone criminal who buys a gun on the black market or entire groups /  countries who get supplied by guys like the lord of war.

 

What would help imo is pretty simple: Gov buys the guns from the people and destroys them. As a side-effect, the criminals selling guns will have less supply of guns, the prices will increase as the demand will stay the same. Eventually prices (on the black market) will skyrocket and guns will become too expensive for criminals.

 

Some laws that might help: Background checks, store the gun and ammo in different places & locked away, <-- this getting controlled by the police, no public carrying of guns and harsher penalties.

 

What is important is imo to think of the reason why a person gets a gun and eventually harms someone with it is to think of the person's life as a process, not just the actual "omg he's got a gun he's a bad guy"-impression. For some persons that's the last resort, they don't wanna use a gun but have probably a family and no other option to get money. And some people are just sick, but I wouldn't focus too much on them.

 

To the 2nd amendment: It allows private gun ownership, imo to defend private property and defend yourself against threats to your private life. If there are public threats you have the most powerful public army, under the command of the president, and you also have statewide public militias, the national guard, commanded by the governor. Most people imo can't separate private and public.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Jerry LeRow

[Solomon]

Laws and regulations won't help much imo. The real bad guys will always get their weapons, whether it's the lone criminal who buys a gun on the black market or entire groups /  countries who get supplied by guys like the lord of war.

...

If that's the case, why do some countries have much higher gun murder rates than others?

[Grillick]

To the 2nd amendment: It allows private gun ownership, imo to defend private property and defend yourself against threats to your private life. If there are public threats you have the most powerful public army, under the command of the president, and you also have statewide public militias, the national guard, commanded by the governor. Most people imo can't separate private and public.

As former Chief Justice Warren Burger once put it, the idea that the Second Amendment protects a private right to own guns for self defense is the biggest fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the public in this country.

 

The Second Amendment's purpose was to protect the states from abuses of the federal government, to ensure they kept the measure of autonomy they had retained when the Constitution was ratified. It has nothing to do with an individual's right to choose for himself how and when to be armed.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Grillick

[Jerry LeRow]

If that's the case, why do some countries have much higher gun murder rates than others?

Gun murder rates aren't simply derived from guns/1,000 persons or similar rates. Again, look at the process, why do people murder, what's their life before, what are their chances in the future, how will the police deal with them... some countries care about their people, like most european countries, in other countries, like america, people have to be far more self-reliant and the government doesn't meddle much in their life. May be an advantage sometimes, but in this case, fewer observation of people, fewer services to people,..., some people use guns to correct their state of life in which they wouldn't be if they'd be born in another nation.

 

 

 

The Second Amendment's purpose was to protect the states from abuses of the federal government, to ensure they kept the measure of autonomy they had retained when the Constitution was ratified. It has nothing to do with an individual's right to choose for himself how and when to be armed.

And that's, from what I often read, the National Guard. The problem with this is that the national guard's commander (governor) can be "overstepped" by the president, e.g. in arkansas under Eisenhower, where he withdrew the command of the democratic governor and gave orders to the national guard.

[Solomon]

Gun murder rates aren't simply derived from guns/1,000 persons or similar rates. Again, look at the process, why do people murder, what's their life before, what are their chances in the future, how will the police deal with them... some countries care about their people, like most european countries, in other countries, like america, people have to be far more self-reliant and the government doesn't meddle much in their life. May be an advantage sometimes, but in this case, fewer observation of people, fewer services to people,..., some people use guns to correct their state of life in which they wouldn't be if they'd be born in another nation.

If you're right and laws have little impact on gun crime, it's ironic that the countries that have shown themselves to be least responsible regarding guns have the least stringent gun laws!

[Grillick]

And that's, from what I often read, the National Guard. The problem with this is that the national guard's commander (governor) can be "overstepped" by the president, e.g. in arkansas under Eisenhower, where he withdrew the command of the democratic governor and gave orders to the national guard.

From it's very inception, the Constitution permitted the President to call forth the militia to defend the country or enforce federal law. The fact that Arkansas' militia chose to obey the order to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than to support the state governor who was violating his oath of office has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

 

It is true that over the centuries the states have chosen to shed some of the autonomy they retained at the Founding, and we can reasonably disagree over whether that choice was wise. But the wisdom or folly of that decision does not change the character of the Second Amendment.