We don’t license people to own cars, after all, we license them to drive cars. It’s the driving that’s far and away the most significantly dangerous part. And that part almost always takes place on public property where it can be observed and regulated comparatively easily. It is much more easy to do something dangerous with a gun (even if it’s just leaving it around loaded where young kids can play with it) in a situation where it can’t be seen or regulated. So in terms of protecting public safety, failing to require a license for a homebound car and failing to require a license for a homebound gun are not analogous.
*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**WAE: *The valid point of comparison [between cars and guns] is that they can both be used, either accidently or with intent, to cause severe injury and/or death. *
But a car cannot be so used if confined strictly to one’s own property (in the overwhelming majority of cases, at least), whereas a gun can be. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to treat them as analogous when it comes to licensing requirements. **
[/QUOTE]
deep sigh Did you read anything else I posted? I know it’s a lot, but suck it up and do it. I’ve read some freakin’ novels on this board.
Like I said in the last post:
Yup Al, I’ve read everything you posted on this thread. Did you read my last post? I just don’t know how to make this any clearer to you.
Heh. It seems we are posting almost simultaneously.
This is what I’ve been saying.
As opposed to posessing a gun on your own private property, which does not “(take) place on public property where it can be observed and regulated comparatively easily”, which means that enforcing such a licensing scheme the same way we enforce driver licensing would require wholesale violations of the 4th amendment. This seems like more of an argument against licensing.
Hmmmm. So, if it’s something that is dangerous if left around for young children to find, then it should be licensed. So, you need a license to have a bottle of Drano? A cordless power drill? A butcher knife?
Do tell.
Sorry about the tone there. I didn’t realize there was more coming.
Hmmm, I think I may see part of the problem here: I’m trying to get across one basic point about the car/gun analogy, which I think you may already accept, and you’re trying to include points about the broader aspects of gun licensing as well. If so:
As opposed to posessing a gun on your own private property, which does not “(take) place on public property where it can be observed and regulated comparatively easily”, which means that enforcing such a licensing scheme the same way we enforce driver licensing would require wholesale violations of the 4th amendment. This seems like more of an argument against licensing.
Who says we have to “enforce” gun licensing “the same way” we “enforce” driver licensing? As you point out, in fact, we can’t, because we police the behavior of licensed drivers via direct surveillance, which we cannot apply to the behavior of gun users in their own homes without punching holes in the Fourth Amendment. But we don’t have to conclude from that that gun licensing is a bad idea; instead, we simply put more of the policing at the front end of the licensing process, i.e., when the potential owner tries to acquire a gun, and hope that their subsequent “unpoliced” behavior will be okay. (I would be inclined to supplement this with periodic and scheduled—no warrantless searches here—license renewals and gun storage safety inspections, similar to the way you have to get your driver’s license renewed and your car safety-inspected periodically. Or if the storage inspections were ruled too invasive, we might substitute a system of fines for gun owners whose guns get stolen or involved in an accident due to careless or improper storage.)
*“It is much more easy to do something dangerous with a gun (even if it’s just leaving it around loaded where young kids can play with it) in a situation where it can’t be seen or regulated.”
Hmmmm. So, if it’s something that is dangerous if left around for young children to find, then it should be licensed.*
How on earth do you get from what I said to that? I was simply pointing out that dangerous activity with a gun is generally much more easily concealed than dangerous activity with a car. Of course I don’t believe that every potentially dangerous household object should require an official license. There’s nothing illogical about recognizing that practically everything is dangerous to some extent, while applying legal regulation only to a few of the most dangerous ones. Just because we can’t and shouldn’t regulate everything doesn’t mean it’s a good idea not to regulate anything.
Actually, I was simply trying to respond in a direct way to your points. What is it you think I already accept?
I certainly didn’t. Of course, I don’t think gun licensing should be enforced at all, but that’s another argument.
Glad to see we agree on something.
No, but we should conclude that gun licensing is difficult to enforce, which should be a factor in deciding whether to implement it.
I am curious. How would “more of the policing at the front end” work? I don’t think anyone is going to commit a crime while they are applying for a license.
All I am going to say about that is, the very idea sends a shiver down my spine.
And this brings us full circle, back to the subject of comparing guns and cars. Should a car owner whose car gets stolen and involved in an accident be subject to a fine?
Hmmmm…“applying legal regulation only to a few of the most dangerous ones”. Ok, let’s try this: I recall reading a statistic that more children under the age of 6 are killed each year due to accidents involving home pools, than accidents involving guns in the home. I don’t have the cite for this on hand, but I could dig it up pretty easily if you want it. In any case, I am sure you can recognize the danger of a pool to a small child. Should people have to get licenses to install pools?
sjgouldrocks…
I did. And so did you. At least, I’m assuming that you’re between the age of 18 and 45…
There ain’t no draft no more. Not in the US anyway.
But you are not licensing them just because they can be used, you are licensing them because they have risk associated with them.
So my point remains…
Is a gun on an owner’s personal property dangerous enough to require licensing. (note: I am including shooting the gun, not just possesing it)
You can talk all day about how much more useful a gun is in a particular situation, but that doesn’t matter. The relevant fact is how DANGEROUS it it.
So lets see some numbers that show how legally owned guns, on the owner’s personl property, pose enough risk to society that they must be licensed.
As you wish . . .
Ummm…I’m a newbie here. What did I do wrong?
WAE: Ok, let’s try this: I recall reading a statistic that more children under the age of 6 are killed each year due to accidents involving home pools, than accidents involving guns in the home. I don’t have the cite for this on hand, but I could dig it up pretty easily if you want it. In any case, I am sure you can recognize the danger of a pool to a small child.
Lemme get this straight. “More children under 6 killed due to accidents with pools than with guns” = “pools more dangerous than guns”?? Isn’t that a rather selective use of statistics? Look Al, if you’re just going to go on grabbing for isolated factoids that you feel support your opinion and presenting that as the equivalent of a coherent logical argument, it is going to be very weary work debating with you. I am really trying my best to look at these issues from all sides, but I’m afraid you’re not helping much.
Don’t sweat it, g’boy; Uncle Beer was speaking as a poster, not as a moderator. Apparently, this debate is not up to his personal standards of excellence. On the other hand, while he was inclined to make the allegations, he was not inclined to argue them; therefore they require no response.
Your only remedy in any case would be to participate in your thread in as fair minded a way as possible, supporting your assertions with logic and appropriate cites. (Which intention I’m sure you possess regardless of criticism from nonparticipants to the thread.)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Call me an elitist snob, but I’m not going to waste any time debunking kellerman YET AGAIN. His study has had so many holes shot in it by the SD, that it deserves to ranked up there with the -gry question.
Besides…
Your little “statistic” has nothing to do with the question. It doesn’t even pretend to compare “at home” gun accidents and injuries to car accidents in general.
And just to cover all my bases…
You totally missed the point Spoofe was making. It had to do with the legal definition of militia, and had nothing to do with the draft.
Why don’t you run a search and read some of the gun threads, I think there were only about 50 of them since January. Get your feet on the ground and understand some of the basics before you come running in to the fray with pathetic arguements that only show how little you understand about this topic.
Freedom, howzabout, as a veteran of so many gun control threads on the SD, you stop asking for citations on the link between guns in the home and violence when you know what you’re gonna get? There haven’t been any widely published scientific studies of that link other than Kellerman’s, and we both know gun rights advocates will never accept Kellerman’s numbers. Interestingly enough, though, this disdain for “junk” science seems to evaporate when you fellas cite Lott and Kleck…
I think this is one of the rare cases where I’m beginning to agree with Uncle Beer. (!) Dishonest little baiting tactics like you just pulled with sjgouldrocks are why I’ve stopped participating seriously in these debates. When you can stop ignoring the fact that the design purpose of handguns is to kill people, maybe then you won’t need a citation to “prove” the risk to society of unregulated ownership of the things.
Hell, I’m a gun owner. I know how to use them and I will fight for my right to defend myself and my family. But I’ll happily submit to licensing requirements and other controls that require a minimum level of competence and some assurance to society that the weapon will be kept safe and used in lawful ways. And I sure don’t begrudge the regulations that limit the types and sizes of personal weaponry allowed in private homes.
sjgouldrocks
So? That is completely immaterial. You are a member of the Unorganized Militia (a valid body as far as the law is concerned) as soon as you turn 17 (sorry, I had a typo in my earlier post). The draft and/or military service has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the law before you decide to comment on it.
Xenophon…
Except our reasons for dismissing Kellerman’s work has been noted, while the main criticism of Lott is “he was just lying”.
Kellerman’s research is flawed because he only included cases which resulted in someone being dead. When you consider that the primary claim of Lott is that most gun uses result in nobody getting harmed at all, you should be able to see the flaw in that rationing. Further, Kellerman’s research also showed that you had a much higher chance of getting killed if you were A: a renter, and B: lived alone (note: if it was some other cause other than those two, it would have been noted. The official cause for the increased rates of death were as I described).
While Kellerman’s work indicates a link between gun ownership and increased rates of death in the home (note that he doesn’t find out exactly WHO died), it IS NOT a conclusive piece of work, and only mandates that further research is necessary.
I didn’t say that. I was simply trying to get a feel, from you, of what you might consider dangerous enough to regulate. If we A-Assume this statistic is true and B-Consider guns in the home dangerous enough to regulate, then it seems we also have a compelling case to also regulate pools.
BTW I am not sure about the age, it may be older but I was being conservative because I didn’t have the cite right there.
Yes it is. I was selecting the one I could remember offhand. I could go dig up a lot more statistics if you like; I haven’t so far because I am lazy.
Like I said, I was just trying to get a feel for what you consider dangerous enough to regulate.
Well. Perhaps that was an isolated factoid, but if the only thing in my posts you are going to respond to is the isolated factoid, then no, it’s not going to be much of a debate. I did make some other points, as I’m sure you’ve noticed.
Speaking strictly for myself, I like this thread just fine.