Do any of the gun owners you know carry their guns around because they feel it's the right thing to do?
I think the main problem with the "need to have a suitable purpose" thing is that it would be either hilariously abusable, or hideously abusable. Here's the two ways I can see it going...
-If what they say matches the approved list, the requirement is satisfied. The contents of this list will become known before well before the law goes into effect, and people will say the correct things regardless.
-If the issuing authority likes what they say, the requirement is satisfied. The system will be rife with corruption and nepotism, since this basically amounts to 'if I feel like it'. See as an example California, where "make a big donation to the sheriff's reelection fund" is often cited as an effective way to get a concealed carry permit.
If we want a system that won't be massively broken, the criteria need to be objective. Proper storage in theory could be, but I'm not entirely sure I trust regulators to get that one right. Training, on the other hand, gets no arguments from me, as long as the requirement is feasible. I haven't heard about anyplace actually trying to use prohibitively expensive training requirements to create a de facto ban, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it.
I still stand behind my position that the average untrained gun owner is a net positive influence on the safety of their community.
As for the culture thing... care to elaborate? Most times I see that come up, it's from the "violent media and games cause crime, oh noez!" crowd, and it sounded to me like you were with me in the "that's complete bullshit" crowd.
And I just don't buy this either. That's like saying "the scientific method is muddy" etc. Yes, statistics can be inaccurate or corrupted in various ways. That's why you need to look at the methodologies and assumptions involved, and decide if you feel you can trust the people who came up with them. But if you just say "people can lie with statistics, throw them all in the crapper", you're giving up on an incredibly powerful tool for determining what is actually going on in a situation.
-Morgan.
I think the main problem with the "need to have a suitable purpose" thing is that it would be either hilariously abusable, or hideously abusable. Here's the two ways I can see it going...
-If what they say matches the approved list, the requirement is satisfied. The contents of this list will become known before well before the law goes into effect, and people will say the correct things regardless.
-If the issuing authority likes what they say, the requirement is satisfied. The system will be rife with corruption and nepotism, since this basically amounts to 'if I feel like it'. See as an example California, where "make a big donation to the sheriff's reelection fund" is often cited as an effective way to get a concealed carry permit.
If we want a system that won't be massively broken, the criteria need to be objective. Proper storage in theory could be, but I'm not entirely sure I trust regulators to get that one right. Training, on the other hand, gets no arguments from me, as long as the requirement is feasible. I haven't heard about anyplace actually trying to use prohibitively expensive training requirements to create a de facto ban, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it.
I still stand behind my position that the average untrained gun owner is a net positive influence on the safety of their community.
As for the culture thing... care to elaborate? Most times I see that come up, it's from the "violent media and games cause crime, oh noez!" crowd, and it sounded to me like you were with me in the "that's complete bullshit" crowd.
Dartz Wrote:The statistics are muddy and can generally be made to say what people want them to say.
And I just don't buy this either. That's like saying "the scientific method is muddy" etc. Yes, statistics can be inaccurate or corrupted in various ways. That's why you need to look at the methodologies and assumptions involved, and decide if you feel you can trust the people who came up with them. But if you just say "people can lie with statistics, throw them all in the crapper", you're giving up on an incredibly powerful tool for determining what is actually going on in a situation.
-Morgan.