Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Polaris]

It may not come off in my posts, but I've written many times in these threads that I don't necessarily want to ban all guns. If we instead managed to make guns much more restricted, I think that would go a long way towards not only solving the problem, but breaking the fever of the 2nd amendment absolutists who pollute the debate with fantasies of Red Dawn style heroics.

I'd personally like to see the following:

1) Background checks for every purchase, private or licensed dealers.
2) Licenses for gun users that work like driver's licenses. You take tests, can have your license suspended for infractions, etc. That's a good way to let people have guns but provide a way to take them away from people like the school bus hostage taker, who should not have had any guns.
3) If people must play with powerful guns, store those at ranges and never let them out. You can rent them or own your own, but they stay there. Have fun! Just don't keep them out in public.
4) Abolish open carry laws. I should never, ever have idiots walking around with guns in my neighborhood, like they did here in Sellwood.
5) This one will get panned, but abolish CCW permits. If you want to defend you home, keep your weapons there. I don't want people bringing their guns to places that I'm at. Keep them away from me and we'll be fine. Your right to carry is running into my right to be away from your weapons.

If we did those things, we'd be a much safer country and people could still own their guns.

And that's why I don't mind debating you. I don't get the sense you're working the gears of a huge "gotcha" like three or four other posters.

I would be okay with all but 3), and 5) only grudgingly. Perhaps treating "powerful guns" (have to work on that definition) as Class 3-lite. Those don't have to be stored anywhere and yet they've been used in a crime only once since 1934...by a cop. Imperfect analogy: if guns are treated like cars vis a vis licensing then treating my (currently hypothetical) Bushmaster ACR like a truck and issuing a special license (similar to a CDL) might be an option.

 

[jimbob]

And that's why I don't mind debating you. I don't get the sense you're working the gears of a huge "gotcha" like three or four other posters.

I would be okay with all but 3), and 5) only grudgingly. Perhaps treating "powerful guns" (have to work on that definition) as Class 3-lite. Those don't have to be stored anywhere and yet they've been used in a crime only once since 1934...by a cop. Imperfect analogy: if guns are treated like cars vis a vis licensing then treating my (currently hypothetical) Bushmaster ACR like a truck and issuing a special license (similar to a CDL) might be an option.

I'd like enforcement of punishments for illegal purchasing of ammunition, and as Nessie has pointed out the Pareto principle applies to illegal purchases in that 1% of gun shops accounts for a disproportionate amount of illegal guns (I can't remember the values but Nessie has also posted the link).

 

[Belz...]

The hell?

+1.

 

[Unabogie]

And that's why I don't mind debating you. I don't get the sense you're working the gears of a huge "gotcha" like three or four other posters.

I would be okay with all but 3), and 5) only grudgingly. Perhaps treating "powerful guns" (have to work on that definition) as Class 3-lite. Those don't have to be stored anywhere and yet they've been used in a crime only once since 1934...by a cop. Imperfect analogy: if guns are treated like cars vis a vis licensing then treating my (currently hypothetical) Bushmaster ACR like a truck and issuing a special license (similar to a CDL) might be an option.

I am sure there are a number of ways to get there, but my main criteria is that we should have the ability to remove guns - or prevent their purchase in the first place - from people who present a danger to others. And for the rest, figure out a way that their guns don't infringe on my right to be away from those same guns. If you can walk down my street holding your Bushmaster, then my front yard becomes unsafe for me and my kids. I don't see how gun rights trump my rights to be gun free (even if courts say that they do). I want a different set of standards to live by, and then gun owners can go nuts (but not literally)

 

[Sabretooth]

And that's why I don't mind debating you. I don't get the sense you're working the gears of a huge "gotcha" like three or four other posters.

I would be okay with all but 3), and 5) only grudgingly. Perhaps treating "powerful guns" (have to work on that definition) as Class 3-lite. Those don't have to be stored anywhere and yet they've been used in a crime only once since 1934...by a cop. Imperfect analogy: if guns are treated like cars vis a vis licensing then treating my (currently hypothetical) Bushmaster ACR like a truck and issuing a special license (similar to a CDL) might be an option.

I don't agree with 5, only because it eliminates all ability for personal defense. Plus, I'd be inclined to believe that hoodlums will quickly be on to the idea that people in public are open game and never armed.

 

[Sabretooth]

I am sure there are a number of ways to get there, but my main criteria is that we should have the ability to remove guns - or prevent their purchase in the first place - from people who present a danger to others. And for the rest, figure out a way that their guns don't infringe on my right to be away from those same guns. If you can walk down my street holding your Bushmaster, then my front yard becomes unsafe for me and my kids. I don't see how gun rights trump my rights to be gun free (even if courts say that they do). I want a different set of standards to live by, and then gun owners can go nuts (but not literally)

Why? Are you implying the gun might become sentient?

A gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.


ETA: Actually, I'd think you'd become safer. Who the hell is going to mess with a guy carrying a AR15 down a neighborhood street?

 

[Lowpro]

I don't agree with 5, only because it eliminates all ability for personal defense. Plus, I'd be inclined to believe that hoodlums will quickly be on to the idea that people in public are open game and never armed.

I don't see why people think a no gun = no personal defense. Seriously find something else to defend yourself with. In the meantime we'll also try to make sure you are never attacked by someone with a gun too.

 

[Unabogie]

Why? Are you implying the gun might become sentient?

A gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.

Guns go off accidentally and people suck and are stupid. Keep your goddamned deadly weapon away from my family. There's no reason in the world for you to be carrying a Bushmaster down my street. That's insane. And this is why we can't have nice things. If you can't even admit that some dude carrying his assault rifle down a residential street is stupid and irresponsible and frightening to the rest of us, how can we implement sane and reasonable regulations?

 

[Sabretooth]

I don't see why people think a no gun = no personal defense. Seriously find something else to defend yourself with. In the meantime we'll also try to make sure you are never attacked by someone with a gun too.

Seeing that the law has been "trying" to do this since the beginning of time, I'd rather have it be up to me to choose how I want to defend myself.

 

[triforcharity]

I disagree with it. The force should be proportional.

If, like is usual in the UK, the person breaking in is unarmed then deadly force is unnecessary. If the person is armed but is only interested in taking possessions then deadly force is unnecessary.

So, psychic abilities come into play? Awesome!

Yes, I understand that armed home invasion is rare in the UK, so your laws reflect that. But here in the US, that would be deadly for many people.

How do you know the person is not going to BECOME armed while in your kitchen?

Do you have to wait till the douche starts beating the **** out of you till you defend yourself?

It just seems odd. Like I said, in the UK, it's rare, so your laws reflect that. But, in the US, that just makes me cringe.

Nothing against the UK though. Well, except for that silly accent.....

 

[Belz...]

I am sure there are a number of ways to get there, but my main criteria is that we should have the ability to remove guns - or prevent their purchase in the first place - from people who present a danger to others. And for the rest, figure out a way that their guns don't infringe on my right to be away from those same guns.

Easy solution: you can't carry your guns out of your home or designated places for activities such as shooting or hunting.

 

[Belz...]

A gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.

Although I agree with the idea that the wielder is ultimately responsible, the very presence of a gun increases the likelihood of its use, accidental or otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

Seeing that the law has been "trying" to do this since the beginning of time, I'd rather have it be up to me to choose how I want to defend myself.

However I would like to know why, in your opinion, other countries do not seem to have such a problem with violence that individuals feel the need to own so many guns (per capita, that is.) If the question is unclear, feel free to say so.

 

[Sabretooth]

Guns go off accidentally and people suck and are stupid. Keep your goddamned deadly weapon away from my family. There's no reason in the world for you to be carrying a Bushmaster down my street. That's insane. And this is why we can't have nice things. If you can't even admit that some dude carrying his assault rifle down a residential street is stupid and irresponsible and frightening to the rest of us, how can we implement sane and reasonable regulations?

See, this is what I'm getting at. Why is the sight of a gun so inherently frightening? This is what drives politicos into bad laws.

Yes, it's silly, and maybe irresponsible if the idiot has it loaded. But frightening? C'mon. Would you feel the same if it was just a regular old rifle?

It is very, very, very (did I say very) rare for a gun to just "go off". And even then, it because it's very old ammunition. Bullets don't have an infinite shelf life if not cared for properly. You'd still have a better chance of winning the lottery and being struck by lightening in the same day...twice.

I believe that everyone should be educated with the operation and use of firearms. Maybe we'd have a lot less fear-mongering and we could get to solving the real problems of society.

 

[Sabretooth]

However I would like to know why, in your opinion, other countries do not seem to have such a problem with violence that individuals feel the need to own so many guns (per capita, that is.) If the question is unclear, feel free to say so.

I understand the question, but I'd be lying if I said I had the right answer. My opinion is that it has to do with culture and geography.

 

[Unabogie]

See, this is what I'm getting at. Why is the sight of a gun so inherently frightening? This is what drives politicos into bad laws.

Yes, it's silly, and maybe irresponsible if the idiot has it loaded. But frightening? C'mon. Would you feel the same if it was just a regular old rifle?

Yes! See this is what you don't get. Those things, no matter who is holding them, can kill you in a second. Keep them away from me. You don't have that right. I get to choose my own exposure to weapons, or else I'm not as free as you are when it comes to guns.

It is very, very, very (did I say very) rare for a gun to just "go off". And even then, it because it's very old ammunition. Bullets don't have an infinite shelf life if not cared for properly. You'd still have a better chance of winning the lottery and being struck by lightening in the same day...twice.

Some dude just shot his girlfriend in a restaurant when his gun went off as he adjusted his pants. He shot her in the leg. Could have been anyone and they could have been shot anywhere on their bodies. Why shouldn't people just not bring their guns around me?

I believe that everyone should be educated with the operation and use of firearms. Maybe we'd have a lot less fear-mongering and we could get to solving the real problems of society.

No, not everybody. Everybody who WANTS to own guns. The rest of us should be free to be left alone. That's all I want. The rest is details.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why is it that people who complain the loudest about avoidance of personal responsibility in today's society always seem to do it in the context of "I am not responsible for your actions."

 

[triforcharity]

This is my primary frustration. The responsible gun owners show up talking about their trigger locks and quick access gun safes, but they will die screaming if anyone were to suggest that such "responsible" measures be required.

Most states already have a "keep your guns out of easy reach of children etc" laws.

What I have a problem with, is requiring these be implemented, and that I submit to an "inspection" to check to make sure I'm complying.

I don't like that, and will never agree to this. Ever.

As a responsible gun owner I think that there should be laws to require others to be reasonably responsible as well. I have my guns in a safe and I know they can not be stolen and used against myself or anyone else.

If you believe that, I've got some property in Arizona I would be willing to give you a GREAT deal. Interested?

I am responsible for my guns and I think others should be responsible as well. I think there should be legal means to deny gun ownership to those who are unwilling to recognize that responsibility.

No. I do not agree at all. I have an unsecured weapon hanging on my wall. Should I be responsible if someone breaks into my house, through my either locked doors, or locked windows, and steals my gun? No.

Not one bit. It's a silly opinion, IMO.

But that is a pipe dream in this country so I have previously proposed that gun ownership should come with a clear liability: if a gun is used in a crime the registered owner of that gun is strictly liable to the victims of the crime unless it can be shown that reasonable measures were taken to secure the gun.

What you mean to say is if the plaintiff can show that the gun owner didn't secure it well enough? Burden of proof.

 

[Lowpro]

Seeing that the law has been "trying" to do this since the beginning of time, I'd rather have it be up to me to choose how I want to defend myself.

Seeing as it takes a jury of peers who aren't biased by immediate fear and a defendant who has a case reasoned out by a capable lawyer (usually) in due process in order to legally kill someone I don't think you should have the right or the tool to bypass all that in the name of self defense. You shouldn't have the right to choose to kill on your own. We don't tolerate it when attackers do it and that should extend to defenders as well. Guns should absolutely be off the table in that choice of how you want to defend yourself. Your ability to leverage lethal force should not be made by just you unless you think summary execution is a good defense.

Face it. You probably suck at assessing when you can kill someone even in defense. Sailors definitely did.

 

[Sabretooth]

Yes! See this is what you don't get. Those things, no matter who is holding them, can kill you in a second. Keep them away from me. You don't have that right. I get to choose my own exposure to weapons, or else I'm not as free as you are when it comes to guns.

And I respect your choice. But those "things" can only kill you if not treated with respect, much like many other things in this world. That jackass kid speeding in his souped up Honda down your street is more dangerous than the guy with the AR. But there's no anti-kid-with-speeding-Honda campaigns out there (though, there should be).

I was brought up with guns in the house and I learned to shoot and be responsible with them at a very young age. I don't fear guns...I fear guns in the hands of irresponsible people and people with ill-intent. Quite the same fear I feel about drunk drivers.

Some dude just shot his girlfriend in a restaurant when his gun went off as he adjusted his pants. He shot her in the leg. Could have been anyone and they could have been shot anywhere on their bodies. Why shouldn't people just not bring their guns around me?

Yes, I agree, that idiot shouldn't have a gun, and I hope he loses his right to carry. The absolute, number 1, first and foremost priority of any gun owner should be to have 100% control of your firearm at all times. There is no valid excuse otherwise.

No, not everybody. Everybody who WANTS to own guns. The rest of us should be free to be left alone. That's all I want. The rest is details.

Fine, that's your choice. But don't project fear out of ignorance.