I don’t want to turn this into an abortion thread. But whatever your opinion on abortion, most will agree that the woman is in a difficult situation and should be treated with as much compassion as whatever your opinion on abortion is will allow. So – no harrassment. And if she is going to get the abortion, delaying it will moderately increase medical risks, so there’s no plus there. Also, a lot of people regard aborting an older fetus as more morally problematic, so delay for the sake of delay is again troubling.
By contrast, getting a gun is not an emergency. The experience of getting a gun does not deteriorate over time. And, unlike with abortion, mainstream public health research shows you are in more danger after you get one. And a lot of shootings, whether criminal or suicide, are impulsive, so delay can save lives. It’s not important to me that the line is long, but I’m very much in favor of Oahu’s waiting period and multiple visits to the police station.
I don’t know. Hopefully it’s because they’ve noticed that the US having the world’s highest incarceration rate hasn’t prevented us from having a high violence rate compared to other westernized nations.
I don’t.
I’d look on it like getting a driver’s license. Perhaps there are mental illnesses more associated with getting into a car accident than being nearsighted. But, yet, we give a vision test to get a license in most states, and we don’t do a mental health check in most states. I go with the majority here. And I think guns permits should be the same way – eye check, yes, because it’s easy to check, objectively measured, and you want a shooter to be able to see what’s in the distance. Mental health check, no, exactly for the reason you imply.
The trouble with a “bargain” of this sort is this:
The pro-gun people believe that gun-ownership is a fundamental right. They generally belive very much in the “shall not be infringed” part.
The anti-gun people are generally not sincere when discussing propsed individual gun control measures. They like every one, and after that one is passed, they’ll like the next one, too. This is independent of the implemeted measure’s actual affect on crime. It’s driven by an irrational phobia, or flawed logic, or a mental weakness that makes one think that all duties of the individual can and should be outsourced to the state. Whatever it is, it will never stop. They will be in favor of every single law that in ay way, however small, inhibits the ability of gun ownders to obtain, keep, carry, or use guns.
That’s the trouble with your “bargain”. No sooner that it passes, the antis would be right back trying to undo their end of it.
You need to understand the propganda and the incrementalism.
If full-autos are effectively banned, why should you people able to own a gun that’s semi-auto? It looks just as scary, and can fire almost as fast.
If 20 round magazines are made illegal, because 20 is more than 10, then why shouldn’t 10 be illegal? That’s more than five.
If you buy a gun from a dealer you need a government-approved background check. But if you buy a gun from your neighbor, you don’t? If you can’t buy a gun from your neighbor, why should you be able to from your father? It’s the “father loophole”, you know. If you can’t buy a gun from your father, why should he be able to loan you one?
I am pro-choice (at least up to the end of the first trimester and for health reasons ebyond that), but if I were anti-abortion, I would think that I could comapssionately discourage abortion.
So do you see some of these gun control measures as discouragement through harassment.
Or it could result in the woman deciding not to get the abortion. And if you can save just one life, isn’t it worth it
cite?
There is a correlation between having a gun and getting murdered, but I think that is probably better explained by the fact that people who feel at risk are more likely to get a gun.
The FBI uses a term called “time to crime” which measures the time between when a gun is purchased from an FFL to when it is recovered at a crime scene (I don’t know if suicide is included in this) and it is measured in months not days.
Would you be in favor of similar hurdles to exercise other rights? You are endorsing a prior restraint on freedom and from waht I can tell it is largely based on your dislike of guns.
What? On the one hand you think that people are just aching to commit crimes (or suicide) with a gun and on the other hand you don’t think its worth jailing felons that try to get guns? We can have the debate on whether we should be spending more money on education to reduce the money we spend on jails but we can’t ignore the felons we have amongst us.
Yeah, I understand that the gun grabbers will never stop trying to grab our guns. So what? We impose regulations on the operation of nuclear power plants even though the “no nukes” crowd would love to shut down every nuclear reactor in the country. We don’t let bad ideas get in the way of good ideas (I’m not saying that my idea is necessarily a good one but don’t you have to take a look and see before you just dismiss it out of hand?).
I don’t think that “shall not be infringed” in the 2nd amendment is any more sancrosanct than the phrase “congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” is in the first amendment. Don’t you agree?
Yeah, I understand incrementalism and I agree that the gun grabbers are going to try and use it but lets face it, we’ve had registered machine guns for a long time and noone has tried to confiscate them, not because they don’t want to but because its even more of a non-starter than an AWB.
The best thing that could happen for the NRA is if after every tragedy like Newtown, Feinstein or some other gun grabber gets in front of a camera and starts talking about grabbing guns. There is no surer way to stop gun control in its tracks than to try and grab guns.
Incrementalism is just a different way of saying slippery slope. The slippery slope in this case only works if you let it.
And its not like there’s nothing in it for gunowners. A uniform set of gun laws across the country, a national carry license, repeal of many of the other gun laws (6 month wait and a $200 tax for a $150 suppressor… SERIOUSLY?)
I still can’t buy a machine gun because it’s illegal here. This is an argument in favor of more regulation, the fact that an entire class of firearms is effectively banned for the vast majority of people? You concede that gun control advocates will never stop their push to restrict, limit, ban, and confiscate - so why give an inch?
No, because, unlike in the case of deciding on the future of a fetus, there is no rush to get a gun. I’d compare it to getting a driver’s license. At least in Pennsylvania, you first have to pass your written driver’s test, and then have to wait weeks for an appointment for a behind the wheel test. Often as not, people seem to fail at least one of these, further prolonging the process. No one seems to think it’s harassment – except perhaps for some teenagers who shouldn’t be driving yet anyway. A serious licensing process, whether for shooting or driving, takes time.
I think that gun ownership should, like driving, be a privilege, not a right. I’m for may-issue, not shall-issue. A fair process, with applicants treated equally? Yes. A right? No.
This exaggerated (and I think distorted) summary of my position relates to the issue of what to do with a felon going through Hawaii’s legal process of obtaining a gun permit, and then being turned down. I think that applying for a license is a legitimate way to find out whether the police are still enforcing a legal requirement. Unless there’s some evidence that those 200 felons are more likely to re-offend than other ex-convicts, I see no reason to subject them to even a small sanction.
While I’m all for education, this would be, for me, an unacceptably slow and uncertain way to reduce the jail and prison population.
Did you mean to say “any less sacrosanct” in the sentence above rather than “any more sacrosanct?” If so, here’s my answer: I don’t even think the parts of the Bible I agree with are sacrosanct, much less the US Constitution.
If gun ownership is a right, than stopping felons, who have completed their sentences, from getting guns is an infringement of the right. Since most gun owners apparently favor long sentences for felons exercising their 2nd amendment right, they arguably favor bigger infringements than I do. The difference is, they don’t admit it. It’s like a fundamentalist preacher who says he’s following the sacrosanct text to the letter when, actually, he’s picking and choosing the parts he likes just as much as the mainline Protestant minister down the street.
I agree that to satisfy the relevant safeguards of gun ownership, certain time must be made available. What is perfectly reasonable is the necessary time it takes to accomplish these tasks. What is not reasonable, and even unconstitutional, is unnecessary delay meant to create further burdens and hurdles to a fundamental right. A driver’s license is in no way connected to one’s 2nd amendment rights given our current jurisprudence. It is a fundamental civil right.
The harm that is caused by denial of one’s 2nd amendment rights is irreparable. Unnecessary time delays certainly falls within the scope of the core 2nd amendment right. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Well all those local and state laws would evaporate under this proposal. I could drive across the country with a Thompson machine gun and fire it at your local gun range and I can drive all that way with a firearm digging into the small of my back because now my CCW is good nationwide.
The reason we give an inch is because we are not doing it for them, we are doing it for us. At the cost of some minor inconvenience, we get uniform firearm laws, repeal of some of the sillier parts of the NFA, convergence of much of the rest, and hopefully fewer guns in the hands of criminals over time.
If you are talking about the time it takes to administer a few tests for the license, then f but if I already have a license (so you know I am a legal purchaser of a firearm) and you want me to come one day to pick out my firearm, then come back a few days later to pick it up, then you are imposing a waiting period and I am not sure you can justify that.
May issue is not usually subject to objective standards. How would your “may issue work” Are you just talking about passing some tests or are you talking about something more?
What? They are breaking the law to test the police enforcement so they shouldn’t be punished for it?
I’d rather have felons in jail than felons armed in the general public.
There is due process involved with being a felon. Maybe some felons are actually innocent but the overwhelming majority are not. And historically, felon are much much likelier to commit a gun crime than almost any other group.
For how long? Again, I believe you underestimate how long this bargain will last. The ink won’t even be dry. I’d bet the antis would have plans in place to undo their end of the bargain before it’s even in effect. The ringleaders of these people are zealots, driven by fear and hate. They never stop. Your “bargain” would be very short-lived.
Although Australia’s mandatory gun buy-back saved lives, that’s not what I propose for the US. I think that we should instead use public health measures, such have been reasonably successful in the case of cigarettes. Public informaton campaign on the dangers of gun ownership, yes. Restrictions on the types of guns manufactured and imported, yes again. Confiscation of legally held weapons, no, except perhaps at time of the gun owner’s death.
For a long time. We just stopped background checks at gun shows.
Once the federal government-empts firearms regulation, the states can’t do anything in the area unless they want to sue the federal government to make the laws even less restrictive under the state’s second amendment right.
I understand that some of the gun grabbers will never stop until they have outlawed guns. So what? I want to walk on the moon one day, and I think I’ve got a better shot at that than the gun grabbers have at outlawing guns.
That doesn’t strike me as a particularly balanced article. It seems to want to reach the conclusion it reaches.
Before we made smoking not cool anymore, we stopped having cigarettes in commercials, movies, and other popular culture.
Public information campaigns? Smoking provides few benefits outside of the cool factor (peer pressure) for people who are going to start smoking. Guns can save your life. Cops carry guns. Soldiers carry guns. The guys that protect the president carry guns. The benefit is obvious (if not quantified).
We’ve had inconclusive debates about whether gun ownership is worth the risk of gun ownership and people seem to believe what they want to believe. I don’t see how “information” from one side wouldn’t be countered by “information” from the other side.
I don’t think the facts line up the way you think they do.
Number 3 in the link above (obesity), by addressing a current area of medical and moral panic, probably causes a lot of people to smoke. So the gun ownership situation is indeed similar to smoking in that sometimes it saves a life, even though careful statistical study mostly shows it to be more likely to take it.
The doctors who thought smoking was beneficial to health weren’t knaves and idiots. Because of inability to do controlled experimentation, proving the dangers of smoking was genuinely hard. There still can be legitimate debate over which dangers of smoking are proven.
Research, I believe, points strongly in an anti-gun direction, but the evidence indeed isn’t now as clear-cut as with smoking. NRA officials may believe something similar, explaining why they lobby to stop more research.
True.
If everyone voluntarily gave up cigarettes – although it won’t happen – I’d be glad. But if everyone in my area gave up all guns, we would be overrun with deer much worse than we already are. So, a campaign against guns is more complex. I want fewer guns, owned by citizens who are more carefully screened, and optimized for hunting rather than personal protection. Biometric controls, to limit use to those with licenses, may work in the future. But I don’t want zero guns. This makes the battle against living in an armed camp more subtle than the fight against tobacco.
On the other hand, campaigning against guns is easier than campaigning against cigarettes because guns don’t have nicotine inside them. American gun culture is hard to change but, at least, is not an addiction.
Agreed. But, also, over time, maybe over generations, evidence has an effect, and people change.
I don’t support the suppression of research but as I told Hentor, it is clear (to me at least) that the ban wasn’t an attack on knowledge so much as it was retribution for what the NRA considered ends driven research conducted and funded by the CDC.
And your side of the debate may be the worse for the wear when that happens.
I’m not, in general, opposed to the possession of guns.
I AM opposed, however, to the unnecessary possession of guns. For example, what do you even NEED an M-16 for? Hunting? Sarah Palin did it with her bare hands.
If it’s a trophy, I would want a ban on the sale of M-16 ammunition. And, for good measure, something that renders the M-16 incapable of operating, such as removing the (insert part of gun that shoot, I think its the firing pin?).
So which guns do you consider necessary to the exercise of my constitutional rights.
Btw, I think M-16s are select fire machine guns. If you are talking about AR-15s then I would like to point out that AR-15s are just rifles that have things like pistol grips and collapsible stocks. A lot of people now use ar15 variants for hunting.
Trophy?
Banning a particular type of ammunition is silly. The ak47 ammo is a lot cheaper and much more deadly within a100 yards. The 308 is a common hunting round that was formerly used in the M-14 and is probably a better round in every sense except that they weigh more.
Each of these along with many other rounds as military rounds. You see the things that make for good ballistics in a miligary setting makes for good ballistics in a lot of other settings.
The main reason that AR-15s are so popular is that veterans are familiar with the platform so they gravitate towards it.
I get the feeling you are starting this conversation from where we were about two months ago.
Well, they’re not “perfectly free” if they have strong restrictions on gun ownership.
Loving guns can be about more than loving guns. Just like loving cars can represent more than just loving cars. It can be a love of what those things allow you to do and what they represent. At least for some people. Just like cars represent mobility and freedom for some people, guns represent self reliance and security for some people.
Me, I just like guns, I’ve stopped trying to justify purchases after I started buying expensive revolvers that have no practical purpose other than to wear at barbecues.
What? On the one hand you think that people are just aching to commit crimes (or suicide) with a gun and on the other hand you don’t think its worth jailing felons that try to get guns? We can have the debate on whether we should be spending more money on education to reduce the money we spend on jails but we can’t ignore the felons we have amongst us.