JFerio Wrote:This would be the main sticking point with such, yes, and I'm pretty sure would be the key weakness that the NRA would use to try to torpedo the whole idea.
I'm betting it's the weakness that everyone everywhere would be using to try and torpedo it, because it's that big a one.
There was something similar in the TVT gun thread. One of the posters wrote up a list of what their "in a perfect world" gun laws would be. One of the items was for psychological screening. The problem is, no one seemed to be able to come up with an implementation that would work properly - it always incentivized either approving everyone or approving no one, both of which are obvious failure conditions.
Quote:However, there is a definite group of people that seems to feel there is little to no training needed for guns, or is making assumptions about their potential use, such as for self defense (which requires training so that, if you need to, you can get the gun out, pull the trigger, and put your assailant down with two shots, both hitting).
Is that really such a large group? I'm not sure. I heard someone put the NRA into that category once, but since one of the big things they do is training, that doesn't seem quite on.
(Also, why two? When I see a specific number mentioned it seems like it's usually 5-7, but more often it's a situation-dependent expression of some form.)
Quote:The sticking point that would really make them dig in the heels would be any sort of "intended purpose" requirements, especially if it takes "self defense" off the table.
I'm pretty sure that'd make a lot of people who aren't members of the NRA dig in their heels. It's the second best reason to own a gun in my book.
Seriously, why are you convinced that it doesn't work? Because there's a lot of examples of it in fact doing so out there.
Quote:I'm pretty sure their corporate masters (yes, I just went there) would prefer that everyone from newborn to grave were required by law to own one or more guns.
A more sane variant has been done. Unsurprisingly enough, it did not dissolve into an orgy of violence and bloodshed.
Oh, and school teachers in Utah have allowed to carry guns at school (if they have a concealed carry permit) since 2001. Also no orgy of violence and bloodshed.
Dartz Wrote:Arguably, it's the position of 'Sherrif' being abused there.
Quite right. But what can you do? You could hope with all your might that people would stop abusing the policy, but changing to a policy that's less abusable would probably give better results.
Quote:(And I don't even know if that doesn't include suicides.)
It probably does. It's an effective way to inflate the numbers. NHTSA data shows 30,196 fatal crashes in 2010, with 32,885 fatalities. The "Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence" has a page saying guns were used in 11,078 homicides in 2010. I suspect that number includes those shot during the commission of a crime. Either way, guns have a loooong way to go to catch up with that. (Especially if traffic cameras become more common.)
Quote:I can play the more emotive 'statistic' that more people died in one school in one hour, than in one country in one year. And then point out that these events aren't even an aberration. This has happened repeatedly. Multiple times this year in fact.
There are also countries with less total population than Newtown, Connecticut. If your goal was to provide an example of a misleading statistic, you came up with a good one.
Quote:The idea that a constitution cannot be changed, or must remain sacrosanct is far more dangerous, however. I mean seriously. Are people that bloody closed-minded.
It's been done. If people want to try it, they know how to do it.
-Morgan.