Second Amendment

[Wolverine]

Which costs more - a powerful burglar alarm or a gun?

Very subjective.

If by "powerful" you mean an alarm system which includes monitoring, such as ADT's home security systems, you have to purchase the equipment, have it installed, and then pay a monthly fee to the company for service. A simple, good quality firearm well-suited for home defense, such as a 12-gauge shotgun, can be had for $250 or less, new. In that case, the gun is cheaper. Or, if you had your heart set on a presentation grade Les Baer custom .45ACP with your name engraved on it, that'd be over $6k, where the alarm would likely cost less.

At the risk of stating the obvious, however, it's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of what will be the best solution for someone in their own environment. Personally, I have no use for an alarm system at this time. Others may abhor firearms and wish to install a security system instead. Some would not want any part of either.

A system like ADT's is kind of cool. It'll automatically alert authorities if your house is on fire. It will not, however, give you much protection from an attacker that's entered your home seeking to do harm. In a situation like mine, where I live out in the country and law enforcement might take up to 15 minutes to arrive on scene if I were in imminent danger, I don't see it doing me much good. Personal choice.

 

[Wolverine]

Before you can drive a car, you have to do a driving course and a test. Maybe, people who want to have guns should be required by law to do a course in responsible gun ownership.

That is the law in some areas of the country. I object to such practices, and consider it a matter of personal responsibility. Driving is a privilege, not a right. We've had several such discussions on the forum in the past.

It wouldn't stop illegal gun use but it might stop accidents.

I suspect much like licensing drivers helps stop traffic accidents.
There are numerous firearms safety resources already at one's disposal. Accidental firearms deaths have been in steady decline over recent years. Using the CDC stats from 2000 as a guide, 724 accidental deaths from a population of 275,264,999 Americans -- even if we use a conservative estimate of 60,000,000 gun owners in the US, that translates to 0.0012%. For the same period, there were 43,354 accidental motor vehicle deaths.

Surely any sane adult would not object to waiting a while before getting a gun if it meant greater safety for everyone.

In order for a waiting period to prevent a crime of passion or rage, several criteria must be met.

First, the person intent on committing the crime must not own or have access to a gun and there must be no other weapon available or acceptable to the potential offender.

Second, the person must have no record that would prevent him from legally obtaining a firearm. Waiting periods would only apply to those who were willing to submit themselves to a background check and could successfully pass. Others would choose another means to secure a gun.

Third, the potential assailant must seek to obtain the gun through a licensed dealer who would conduct the background check and institute the waiting period prescribed by law.

Fourth, some mechanism or rationale must cause the assailant to change his mind about committing the crime before the arbitrarily chosen “cooling off” period expired. One would have to assume that the inability to obtain the desired weapon – a gun – would result in the desired behavior, rather than further enrage the individual.

In other words, advocates of cooling off periods assume that an individual enraged to the point of committing a violent crime would simply change his (or her) mind if he had to wait to obtain a firearm, that such a person would not consider an alternative method or weapon to carry out his criminal intent and that once denied immediate possession of a firearm, the irate offender would not seek to acquire one through some other means. Source

And background checks should be kept forever.

I agree.

 

[corplinx]

you guys have all fallen for a troll

I was suspicious after his first post which sounded faux-curious and his later posts just confirmed it.

 

[Wolverine]

Similarly, more gun accidents happen to family members because they are there all the time.

I understand your point.

What I dislike about the phrasing of such "statistics" is that it seeks to shock readers emotionally rather than paint a truly objective representation of the subject matter. I'm sure that, statistically, I'm X times more likely to be stabbed in my own home because I own many knives. But, something my shotgun and 8" Sabatier chef's knife have in common is that neither is magically going to leap from its safe place of storage to maliciously attack me.

 

[Wolverine]

you guys have all fallen for a troll

I was suspicious after his first post which sounded faux-curious and his later posts just confirmed it.

Guess we'll find out.

I don't have anything better to do at the moment.

 

[severin]

Wolverine - when I said it should be harder to get a gun, I wasn't thinking about a 'cooling off period', I was thinking more in terms of more stringent background checks. However, if I were thinking of shooting my no good cheating rat of a husband, I might well have got over the idea after a couple of weeks.

I agree that plenty of car accidents happen despite having to take drivers lessons. The European Union is thinking of introducing a law that people have to retake their driving tests every ten years. Maybe something similar could be introduced with guns - you have to go to a sensible gun owners refresher class. Difficult to institute, granted. And no answer to illegal gun use, but even so, if it would stop one child being killed a year, it would be worth it.

I suspect that many people own guns to make them feel safer - but does this mean they might take risks they would otherwise not if they were unarmed? If someone is pointing a gun at you, you wouldn't necessarily have time to get yours.

I've never seen a hand gun and I hope I never do.

 

[Tony]

I've never seen a hand gun and I hope I never do.

Awwww, poor wittle thing. Big, meany guns got you scared? Im sure mommy and daddy gub-mint can keep you safe.

 

[muckraker]

If gun ownership is an individual constitutional right (and not subject to being member of a militia), what is the constitutional justification for forbidding ex-felons, or the insane, from owning guns?

the government can't restrain free speech, eliminate trial by jury, or prohibit the free exercise of religion for ex-cons and crazy people, so how can we violate this particular constitutional right?

 

[peptoabysmal]

If you cannot secure your gun, you are not responsible enough to own one.

Says who? I haven't heard of any law like this. Until there is a law such as this, it is just you trying to force your own emotionally charged moral viewpoint on others.

And I said they should be charged as an accomplice, notthe actual murderer. Then, maybe, the gun owners might take their responsibility seriously.

I think the word you are groping for is accessory, not accomplice. Accomplice implies deliberate intent to aid the crime. If your intent is to punish firearm owners for owning firearms, you might have better luck with a wrongful death suit.

When a gun has other uses than shooting things, like say, driving to work on it, then perhaps your textbook NRA stooge (sorry, Shemp) argument may have relevance.

Though it's quite natural to fear what you do not understand, it is still regrettable when law-abiding citizens are forced to pay the price for the phobias of the tyrannical minority.

 

[corplinx]

If gun ownership is an individual constitutional right (and not subject to being member of a militia), what is the constitutional justification for forbidding ex-felons, or the insane, from owning guns?

the government can't restrain free speech, eliminate trial by jury, or prohibit the free exercise of religion for ex-cons and crazy people, so how can we violate this particular constitutional right?

Because pro-gun people are wishy-washy. I see no reason to take away a person's second amendment rights if they serve all of their jailtime for their crime.

 

[Kodiak]

The death penaltyreally works as a deterrent, doesn't it, that's why you have so little crime in the US. But let's no go there, that's a whole other can o' worms.

There'd be no repeat offenders though...

 

[Suddenly]

If gun ownership is an individual constitutional right (and not subject to being member of a militia), what is the constitutional justification for forbidding ex-felons, or the insane, from owning guns?

Big "if" there. The circuits are split as to this. Plus, it is accepted that there is "some" relation to a militia, as spelled out in the Miller case.

Lets ignore that and assume that there is no requirement to join a militia w/r/t second amendment right.

the government can't restrain free speech, eliminate trial by jury, or prohibit the free exercise of religion for ex-cons and crazy people, so how can we violate this particular constitutional right?

No right is absolute, all are subject to reasonable regulation. The government restrains free speech by noise stautes and other such things, such as not screaming fire in a crowded theatre and the like. Religion is restricted in that no matter the religious reason, human sacrifice is still illegal.

Felons are a special case as legally beccoming a felon equates to the forfeiture of all rights, a leftover from the days when all felonies were punishable by death.

Groups can be singled out for special restriction only under very compelling circumstances.

 

[Evolver]

Says who? I haven't heard of any law like this. Until there is a law such as this, it is just you trying to force your own emotionally charged moral viewpoint on others.

I never said it was a law. This was my proposal I threw out there.

I think the word you are groping for is accessory, not accomplice. Accomplice implies deliberate intent to aid the crime. If your intent is to punish firearm owners for owning firearms, you might have better luck with a wrongful death suit.

Fair enough, accessory. I do not want to punish firearm owners for owning firearms. I have many friends who own them. I have used them myself. I would punish proven irresponsible gun owners.

Though it's quite natural to fear what you do not understand, it is still regrettable when law-abiding citizens are forced to pay the price for the phobias of the tyrannical minority.

I have no phobia of guns. I do, however have a phobia of idiots with guns. Small distinction, I know, but there is a difference.



And I'll volunteer to decide who's an idiot and who's not.

 

[Kodiak]

I have no phobia of guns. I do, however have a phobia of idiots with guns. Small distinction, I know, but there is a difference.

Would a citizen with a clean criminal and mental health record who had successfully passed a "gun-use and safety course" or its equivalent (military training, for example) qualify as a "non-idiot"?

 

[Evolver]

Would a citizen with a clean criminal and mental health record who had successfully passed a "gun-use and safety course" or its equivalent (military training, for example) qualify as a "non-idiot"?

Most likely yes. If he doesn't use his "gun-use and safety course" information, and leaves his gun out where others could easily take it, then he would be an idiot. But again, most likely, not.

As I stated previously, I know many people who own guns, and keep them properly secured when not in use. I have no problem with them. I also know a few who leave the guns lying about the house where kids are playing, or, as I mentioned earlier, poking out of a gym bag. they are idiots, and should not own guns.

How this can be discerned before issuing a license, I don't know. Perhaps there is a psychic out there who could screen them.

 

[severin]

Thank you for being so patronising, Tony.

The main reason I have never seen a handgun is that I'm English. We are not, on the whole, a gun-toting nation. The only reason I've even seen a shotgun is that I grew up in the country. Puny as it was, I have fired an air rifle so no, I am not afraid of guns per se.

 

[Kodiak]

Thank you for being so patronising, Tony.

The main reason I have never seen a handgun is that I'm English. We are not, on the whole, a gun-toting nation. The only reason I've even seen a shotgun is that I grew up in the country. Puny as it was, I have fired an air rifle so no, I am not afraid of guns per se.

I've met members of your elite military and even members of your Olympic shooting teams. They represent your country well and carry on your country's legacy of fine marksmanship with honor and distinction.

 

[severin]

Our soldiers have guns? Blimey, I never knew that. And as to our shooting teams - a few individuals are hardly representative of a population.

 

[Kodiak]

Our soldiers have guns? Blimey, I never knew that. And as to our shooting teams - a few individuals are hardly representative of a population.

I in no way meant to imply that they were.

My point was that there are lawful ways to familiarize youself with firearms if you want to, regardless of where you live. If you prefer not to - that's fine too.

 

[Wolverine]

Wolverine - when I said it should be harder to get a gun, I wasn't thinking about a 'cooling off period', I was thinking more in terms of more stringent background checks.

Could I ask you to provide an example? Just curious.

I suspect that many people own guns to make them feel safer - but does this mean they might take risks they would otherwise not if they were unarmed? If someone is pointing a gun at you, you wouldn't necessarily have time to get yours.

This, also, is extremely subjective. There are many what-if scenarios which might arise in self/home defense. All the more reason for those who choose to own guns to receive appropriate training in this area. There are many organizations which provide such courses, as well as excellent books on the role of firearm in personal protection, all of which illustrate what to do and what not to do.