Posts: 4,919
Threads: 196
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Robkelk: I think I've identified the fundamental disconnect and why we keep talking at cross-purposes.
You're thinking of "the militia" as being a lesser form of standing army. That it's something that you join, that has leaders and officers and ranks and officialness and all that.
It isn't. It isn't something you join, it isn't anything like that. It is not an organization.
It is the entire citizenry, taking up arms in defense of their homeland. Yes, there is a cadre of formally organized people under arms that can be called on in times of external war -- the National Guard and Reserves.
But the Militia as an active, organized force only exists when called upon. Only when needed, in defense of the nation against external aggression. In other times, such as now, the militia is not organized, not active, not shaped. It is amorphous and vague and widespread.
I took a little look into the status of Militia in Canada and that was what clued me in. To Canada, the Militia -is- the national standing army. It's something that you enroll in, get trained for, have a rank in, get issued equipment by.
It's not like that here at all.
Here's a metaphor for you.
The Canadian Militia is a glass of water. Rob's asking what shape my glass is.
The American Armed Forces are a barrel of water. The National Guard is a bottle of it.
The Militia isn't a glass. It is the ocean they all float on.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
Yeah, it seems like "what do you compare to what" would be a hard question there.
Whatever else one might say about the way the government in the US is set up, it probably does make analysis like this easier. With different states having different laws, adopted at different times, etc etc etc, you get the right kind of data to do all kinds of cross-comparisons. For the UK, I'm thinking coming up with some before and after numbers to compare would be trivial*, rooting out confounding variables could be a real problem.
*Trivial in this case meaning "Probably involving a great deal of grunt work counting things, but not necessarily anything all that fancy on the math side".
-Morgan.
Posts: 25,533
Threads: 2,060
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
ECSNorway Wrote:Robkelk: I think I've identified the fundamental disconnect and why we keep talking at cross-purposes.
You're thinking of "the militia" as being a lesser form of standing army. That it's something that you join, that has leaders and officers and ranks and officialness and all that.
It isn't. It isn't something you join, it isn't anything like that. It is not an organization.
It is the entire citizenry, taking up arms in defense of their homeland. Yes, there is a cadre of formally organized people under arms that can be called on in times of external war -- the National Guard and Reserves.
But the Militia as an active, organized force only exists when called upon. Only when needed, in defense of the nation against external aggression. In other times, such as now, the militia is not organized, not active, not shaped. It is amorphous and vague and widespread.
I took a little look into the status of Militia in Canada and that was what clued me in. To Canada, the Militia -is- the national standing army. It's something that you enroll in, get trained for, have a rank in, get issued equipment by.
It's not like that here at all.
Here's a metaphor for you.
The Canadian Militia is a glass of water. Rob's asking what shape my glass is.
The American Armed Forces are a barrel of water. The National Guard is a bottle of it.
The Militia isn't a glass. It is the ocean they all float on.
And that explains the disconnect. Thank you.
At least now I know that my question as asked was nonsensical...
Now I have to figure out what my next question is.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
I've been reading the gun thread on TV Tropes, and a couple of interesting links came up.
This article on Forbes' website doesn't have a great deal to say that I haven't seen elsewhere recently, but there was one statistic in relation to the UK's laws that I hadn't heard before.
Quote: Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
I'm thinking it's a bit of a leap to assume the difference is all due to the much higher chance of a resident having a gun... but it's interesting. (Although it strikes me as weird that the percentage is that high in any country.)
NRA VP blames video games and movies for violence. Thanks, I'm sure trotting out that old chestnut will help. (I'm pretty sure I've seen studies showing the opposite for *this* one too...)
-Morgan.
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 51
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
1
Morganni Wrote:NRA VP blames video games and movies for violence. Thanks, I'm sure trotting out that old chestnut will help. (I'm pretty sure I've seen studies showing the opposite for *this* one too...) I saw the explosion from it on Twitter. What it seems to have come down to is a basic demand that, if it comes to a choice between eviscerating the First Amendment, versus merely weakening the Second, they're demanding that it be the First Amendment sacrificed on the altar of safety traded for rights. Or, in other words, try to pin the blame on anything and everything they can try to deflect it to.
I've kept track of some of the studies, since console video gaming is one of my hobbies (I collect old systems and games), and there are more than a few that, with everything else factored for, show that video game violence has little to no measurable effect on the relative aggression level of the player.
Do I believe that guns should be banned? No. In too many areas, that gun is your only defense against local non-human predators (I personally know of a couple that live in the mountains, there are bobcats and lynx up there). And in a number of other areas, sadly, because we wiped out the local predators, local human hunters are needed to be the population controls on a number of species.
Do I believe guns should be easily available? No. While a gun can be used responsibly, it is a dangerous tool overall, especially in the hands of someone who does not respect it as what it is. In terms of a gun, if you need something that can spray an area with 30+ rounds in order to actually hit a single target, a gun should not be your first choice for self defense, even against animals. I would definitely accept a "must absolutely be licensed, bonded, and insured" in order to own guns capable of that rate of fire or magazine capacity. I would certainly also accept "you can only own an assault rifle as a permanently demilled collector's piece" as a restriction. Handguns are a little trickier, but I would err on the side of caution because of the ease of carrying such concealed, specifically with licensing and "why do you need this again?"
With that said, would I like to fire an assault rifle for myself? Hells yes. But I would only do so under the controlled circumstances of an outdoor range, under the supervision of a professional firearms instructor, and it would definitely not be my weapon to take home with me afterwards.
I have fired a bolt action rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, and a revolver, in my time. Are they enjoyable? Yes. Are they something I'll be keeping around for myself? No. I don't hunt (although I have enjoyed the product from other people's hunts), I live in the city (so no need to protect myself from four legged predators), and as noted, I don't believe in their self defense usefulness with regards to other people (most of all my own non-violent hands).
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
What do you call "something that can spray an area with 30+ rounds" though?* After all, fully automatic weapons are still illegal. (Aside from some grandfathered-in older ones, which have not been shown to be an issue as far as criminal activity goes.) And I've seen some convincing arguments lately that larger-capacity magazines help the legitimate user far more than the mass shooter.
*Also, under many circumstances, a shooter doing this is less likely to successfully hit anyone, but that's a different issue.
"Easily available" is, unfortunately, pretty vague in the context of this argument. There are a lot of variables involved. My personal preference is shall-issue with proof of -good- training to non-felons, with permit fees that normal people can afford to pay.** Restrictions on what weapons are available to be based on what those things actually mean in use.*** (30 round magazines? Just fine. Explosives? That's a problem. Anti-material rifle? Not only no, but hell no.) Because there's actually statistics giving me reason to believe that laws like this would give the results I want to see.
**You may note the lack of mental health clause in there. I've seen some concerns about the abusability of these, and it's not clear that they do a great deal to keep guns out of the hands of the people one wants the guns away from anyway. Since I don't know of one that would do what I want it to, I'm not suggesting one. Anything else that is lacking I might just not be thinking of right now.
***It was rather stunning to read about some of California's gun laws. Bans on cosmetic or minor-convenience items that don't affect the lethality of the weapon. And then they ban one specific type of .50 caliber round, which would actually be sensible if they also banned the other types of .50 caliber rounds, all of which are pretty much lacking in having a reasonable civilian use.)
-Morgan.
Posts: 25,533
Threads: 2,060
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
JFerio Wrote:Do I believe guns should be easily available? No. While a gun can be used responsibly, it is a dangerous tool overall, especially in the hands of someone who does not respect it as what it is. ... In addition to the points you made here, I'd add the matter of training. We do not let people purchase and operate a motor vehicle without first ensuring they have been trained it its correct use. In some cases, that includes training them when not to use a vehicle. In Canada, there's similar training required before one is allowed to purchase and use a firearm - is that the case in the USA?
We also don't let people drive drunk, or stoned, or otherwise under the effects of mood-altering substances (not that this stops some people, granted). Should we make "drinking and shooting" as distasteful socially as "drinking and driving" is, perhaps? Would it make any difference in this sort of case?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
robkelk Wrote:In addition to the points you made here, I'd add the matter of training. We do not let people purchase and operate a motor vehicle without first ensuring they have been trained it its correct use. In some cases, that includes training them when not to use a vehicle. In Canada, there's similar training required before one is allowed to purchase and use a firearm - is that the case in the USA?
Not a question with a simple answer. For the vast majority of guns that anybody in the US has, the relevant regulations are state, not federal. There are some pretty wide variations in what requires a permit as well as what is required to get those permits.
I would note that most pro-gun people who I've personally interacted with seem to think that the training usually isn't as good as they think it should be.
Haven't "x is worse when drunk/drugged/whatever" been tried with other things and been found to lack effectiveness? Got to get to work though, so I don't have time to research right now.
Also there's something else that occurred to me that I've got to think about...
-Morgan. And that should remind me of it when I get home.
Posts: 7,404
Threads: 577
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
5
Very much agree with Morgan in #30, which fits also with my 'firearms safety unit to graduate hs' plan. A driver's license like model for gun ownership with concealed carry as an endorsement like a commercial or multiaxle upgrade as well. Though by the numbers guns are really much safer than automobiles...
--
"Anko, what you do in your free time is your own choice. Use it wisely. And if you do not use it wisely, make sure you thoroughly enjoy whatever unwise thing you are doing." - HymnOfRagnorok as Orochimaru at SpaceBattles
woot Med. Eng., verb, 1st & 3rd pers. prsnt. sg. know, knows
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 51
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
1
Morganni Wrote:What do you call "something that can spray an area with 30+ rounds" though?* After all, fully automatic weapons are still illegal. (Aside from some grandfathered-in older ones, which have not been shown to be an issue as far as criminal activity goes.) And I've seen some convincing arguments lately that larger-capacity magazines help the legitimate user far more than the mass shooter.
*Also, under many circumstances, a shooter doing this is less likely to successfully hit anyone, but that's a different issue. Well, a big part of it is that, for hunting, well, do you really need to fire more than two or three shots to bag your kill? And with self defense against people, the ability to spray the area actually becomes a bigger threat to bystanders than any hypothetical assailant with a weapon.
Quote:"Easily available" is, unfortunately, pretty vague in the context of this argument. There are a lot of variables involved. My personal preference is shall-issue with proof of -good- training to non-felons, with permit fees that normal people can afford to pay.** Restrictions on what weapons are available to be based on what those things actually mean in use.*** (30 round magazines? Just fine. Explosives? That's a problem. Anti-material rifle? Not only no, but hell no.) Because there's actually statistics giving me reason to believe that laws like this would give the results I want to see.
**You may note the lack of mental health clause in there. I've seen some concerns about the abusability of these, and it's not clear that they do a great deal to keep guns out of the hands of the people one wants the guns away from anyway. Since I don't know of one that would do what I want it to, I'm not suggesting one. Anything else that is lacking I might just not be thinking of right now.
***It was rather stunning to read about some of California's gun laws. Bans on cosmetic or minor-convenience items that don't affect the lethality of the weapon. And then they ban one specific type of .50 caliber round, which would actually be sensible if they also banned the other types of .50 caliber rounds, all of which are pretty much lacking in having a reasonable civilian use.)
-Morgan.
One of the "modifiers" I've read about regarding the accessibility of guns is effectively eliminating the "one time cost" aspect of acquiring a firearm, the requirement that you also hold effectively liability insurance on each piece of whatever arsenal you want to have. The rate is modified according to use, such as "hunting" (which would probably require some justification unless it's a specific hunting-type rifle), "hobbyist shooting" (which might require the weapon to be stored at the gun range you use to qualify), and "self defense" (with a REALLY high rate accounting for the fact that you're buying it for defense, it's not meant to be a last ditch sort of thing).
I do agree licensing of gun owners, with at least a "test of competency", should be required, even with the lower-relative injury rates compared to driving of autos. Not coupling mental health reforms to that in terms of requiring one to be "problem free", is probably a good idea, if only because we need signficant reforms in the health system relating to mental health, and cultural shifts away from stigmatizing people who are "atypical" mentally but otherwise functional in society.
Of course, ease of availability as it stands allows someone, with no criminal record, to basically acquire a small armory fairly rapidly, given sufficient amounts of cash. A waiting period is a good start. A limit on the number of firearms one can purchase would be a good move as well, like say one piece every six to twelve months. Licensing itself would take care of the need for background checks. I would also advocate a limit on the amount of ammo one can purchase all at once. No one can burn through 300-400 rounds on a weekend hunting trip unless it's an ambitiously large group. I could also see having one exception to that limit: buying for your hobbyist shooting at the licensed gun range, where you keep a storage locker space for your range firearm.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
I really do think that mental health is the biggest issue at large here. In most mass shootings that have occurred over the last two decades here in the USA, it has been due to some sort of psychological issue. It is very, very rare to have a shooting like this 'just for lulz' - and even there psychological issues could be cited.
So, I feel that right-to-carry permits should come with questions like "Who has access to your home," and "Is there a history of mental instability in your family?"
Posts: 4,885
Threads: 301
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
8
Minor comment
In 2007. 78 people were victims of homicide in Ireland. This includes 20 deaths due to dangerous driving. This includes 36 stabbings. This also includes 20 shootings. In a population somewhere between 4 and 5 million.
Our firearms laws aren't really that different from what Jferio suggests. You need to have a purpose to own it. And a place to shoot it. Many farmers are armed for 'pest control' and there're cases where burglars have been shot while fleeing and it's been held up as self defence. Buts it's very tightly controlled and each time it's been tested in court before a judge rather than being written off.
Quite frankly. Those statistics are five years old. 2007 was the worst year for murder in recent times.
I think that speaks for the efficacy of our restrictions.
And tbh, I'd much rather put my faith in a good door lock, strong window frames and a reliable house-alarm and dog to keep intruders away, rather than a weapon that will have to be secured away from the reach of children and hidden safely. I'd rather keep them out of my house entirely than deal with them indoors, and I know no burglar wants to deal with an awake and riled homeowner, no matter who's armed with what. They'd rather go to the house down the street that's obviously empty... or un-alarmed, or has a window left open.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
Dartz Wrote:And tbh, I'd much rather put my faith in a good door lock, strong window frames and a reliable house-alarm and dog to keep intruders away, rather than a weapon that will have to be secured away from the reach of children and hidden safely. I'd rather keep them out of my house entirely than deal with them indoors, and I know no burglar wants to deal with an awake and riled homeowner, no matter who's armed with what. They'd rather go to the house down the street that's obviously empty... or un-alarmed, or has a window left open. For me, a gun would be the last line of defense when all those other deterrents fail. (In other words, I'd be getting it out of the safe and loading it while the dog keeps whoever it is at bay.)
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 51
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
1
Dartz Wrote:Our firearms laws aren't really that different from what Jferio suggests. You need to have a purpose to own it. And a place to shoot it. Many farmers are armed for 'pest control' and there're cases where burglars have been shot while fleeing and it's been held up as self defence. Buts it's very tightly controlled and each time it's been tested in court before a judge rather than being written off. I do view it as a course of "need". Like I have never had a purpose to own a firearm, thus I personally don't own one. But as long as you have a legitimate reason (other than carrying it "just in case someone threatens me", which is definitely not a good reason and leads to violent escalation when it happens), I have no brook with owning firearms.
And, of course, if you're one of the sorts that feels like having a large private armory for your eventual rise up against the tyranny of government... well, most rebellions in history have tended to slip the noose of gun control to manage it. I really don't think one here wouldn't be any different. But those are effectively not in the list of reasons for gun control, but that's a whole other bucket of fish that's outside the scope of the topic.
On a slightly unrelated note, Adam Savage got a gun license to get two guns to demill and disassemble to make a duplicate of the Bladerunner gun prop for himself. I was definitely touched that he went to the trouble, although that might have been following laws to the letter.
Quote:And tbh, I'd much rather put my faith in a good door lock, strong window frames and a reliable house-alarm and dog to keep intruders away, rather than a weapon that will have to be secured away from the reach of children and hidden safely. I'd rather keep them out of my house entirely than deal with them indoors, and I know no burglar wants to deal with an awake and riled homeowner, no matter who's armed with what. They'd rather go to the house down the street that's obviously empty... or un-alarmed, or has a window left open.
The best defense against home invasion is to make another target look more appetizing, or at least to avoid looking juicier than the neighbors. The alarms and door locks are not necessarily going to stop a determined thief or assailant... but most who are just looking for a quick haul, any complication to their "smash and grab invasion" will make them move on to the next target without even making the attempt.
I tend to avoid walking through the areas of town that I feel like one should be packing heat to be there, or might be considered a victim. Especially at night. Having a firearm on my hip would really be the worst thing to do for me in those circumstances.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
Posts: 7,404
Threads: 577
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
5
I have only one big objection to your plan, Dartz, and that's assuming that hobbyist shooting is done at an enclosed target range. The local club goes to one of the members' farms and fires at haybales backed by an earth berm. My father did the same in the back field before needing to move here to get away from the mountaintop winters. I don't actually know anyone who does otherwise... even with hearing protection and good ventilation an enclosed range is much less pleasant to shoot in than an open field.
--
"Anko, what you do in your free time is your own choice. Use it wisely. And if you do not use it wisely, make sure you thoroughly enjoy whatever unwise thing you are doing." - HymnOfRagnorok as Orochimaru at SpaceBattles
woot Med. Eng., verb, 1st & 3rd pers. prsnt. sg. know, knows
Posts: 4,885
Threads: 301
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
8
You may shoot on your own land. Or you must have permission from three landowners to shoot on their land. Indoor firing ranges are a rare beast. Shooting clubs do exist, as do outdoor adventure centres that offer shooting as an activity.
Shooting is definitely seen as an outdoor activity rather than an indoor one, and most shooting is with shotgun or .22 Rifle.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Dartz Wrote:In 2007. 78 people were victims of homicide in Ireland. This includes 20 deaths due to dangerous driving. This includes 36 stabbings. This also includes 20 shootings. In a population somewhere between 4 and 5 million. Let's split the difference and call it 4.5 million, which gives a homicide rate of about 1.7 per 100,000.
I looked up crime rates for US states in 2007, and found that five US states had the same or lower homicide rates: Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Iowa, and New Hampshire. These states vary wildly in their laws, with Hawaii being one of the worst states and Montana being one of the better ones (or you could put it the other way around if you hate freedom). Vermont, which has been the most free state for decades, was 1.9.
Note that the crime rate in the US has been dropping since the 1980s, and is currently tied for lowest since 1900 (I haven't seen statistics further back than that). That's true across the country, including in the relatively high-crime states where only rich and powerful people are allowed the means to defend themselves. During that period there has been a wave of reform in concealed carry laws which has made it possible for people with clean records to legally defend themselves in most of the country. There have been various studies on the effect of those laws, with results ranging from inconclusive to drops in certain categories of crime. (It's understandably hard to study when crime rates where already dropping anyway.)
Also, a great deal of the violent crime that exists in the US is a direct result of the War on Agriculture, Chemistry, and Capitalism (excuse me, "Drugs"), which also leads to such charming statistics as the US locking up more people than all the rest of the world combined, and a homicide rate among black men more than ten times that for white men. When a government is effectively making war on large segments of its own population, that sort of thing is inevitable.
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
JFerio Wrote:Well, a big part of it is that, for hunting, well, do you really need to fire more than two or three shots to bag your kill? And with self defense against people, the ability to spray the area actually becomes a bigger threat to bystanders than any hypothetical assailant with a weapon.
Actually, most of the arguments I've seen are based on competition and range shooting. Range time isn't unlimited (and often also not free), so there's kind of this thing where they'd like to spend more of it actually shooting instead of reloading.
As for the self-defense thing, there's one thing which needs to be made clear here - a thirty-round magazine does -not- grant the ability to spray an area. No* weapon that a civilian can legally obtain can do that unless it has been illegally modified. One pull of the trigger, one bullet. And someone who actually pays attention to the training won't want to do it anyway, because the goal of shooting at an assailant is to hit them -repeatedly-, and spraying an area makes it unlikely to do it even once**.
There's apparently also some implementation issues that have shown up in previous attempts to regulate magazine sizes.
*Slight exaggeration. Some -very- old automatic weapons are still legal due to grandfather clauses. They are so rare as to be essentially meaningless to the discussion at hand.
**I seem to recall reading some studies to the effect of "Criminals doing stupid shit like this has saved the lives of a lot of cops."
Quote:One of the "modifiers" I've read about regarding the accessibility of guns is effectively eliminating the "one time cost" aspect of acquiring a firearm
Okay, gotta break in there. This is, basically, wrong. Okay, yeah, if someone buys a gun and lets it rot in a box for the rest of eternity, that's a one-time cost. Someone who wants to have a decent chance of using it effectively in a crisis situation is going to need to put in some regular practice. Meaning you've got the cost of range time (unless you've got a place you can do it for free - most don't), ammunition (with some common pistol calibers being frightfully expensive), cleaning supplies, and occasionally replacement parts, there are a lot of ongoing expenses. And the one-time cost isn't exactly pocket change either. Know why I do not, in fact, own a gun? Because between training, storage, practice ammunition, miscellaneous expenses, oh and the cost of the gun itself... I'm probably looking at close to a couple months pay. I haven't got that just lying around. Is your goal really for only the rich to be able to legally acquire guns?
As for the rest of that paragraph and the last one... well, I could go down it line by line, but it seems like those policies would add up to three results.
-Less people having guns. I'm assuming this is, in fact, what you're wanting here.
-Gun owners on average will have less experience with their weapons, and thus be less effective with them when and if the need arises. I'm assuming you would consider this acceptable.
-There will be more crime, more violence, and more death.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you'd rather not have the last one, but there's a lot of reason to believe that's what you'd actually get.
Quote:other than carrying it "just in case someone threatens me", which is definitely not a good reason and leads to violent escalation when it happens
So... it's violent esclation and thus bad, if by pulling a weapon someone stops a crime without even firing a shot? I'm not quite following that logic.
Though personally I think the best reason would be "just in case someone threatens another person while I'm around". The chances of it actually coming up are higher, and the chance of successfully intervening probably -much- higher. There's also the demographic effect, which one contributes to even if one never aims their weapon at anything more alive than a paper target.
Dartz Wrote:a weapon that will have to be secured away from the reach of children and hidden safely.
Seems like the best answer to that issue nowadays is biometric safes. Rapid access for the owner, for anyone else not so much.
-Morgan.
Posts: 7,404
Threads: 577
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
5
I'm sorry, I put that poorly and got sidetracked from the real point. What I meant to say was, I don't actually know anyone who goes to a "target range" business to do their target shooting, and several who do so on their own property. Where would their guns be, under Dartz's insurance barrier plan? Even for those who do, I can't really see a gun safe at a business really being any more secure than a gun safe in a home... What do you do when you go to a shooting competition somewhere else, for that matter?
--
"Anko, what you do in your free time is your own choice. Use it wisely. And if you do not use it wisely, make sure you thoroughly enjoy whatever unwise thing you are doing." - HymnOfRagnorok as Orochimaru at SpaceBattles
woot Med. Eng., verb, 1st & 3rd pers. prsnt. sg. know, knows
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 51
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
1
"Gun range" was just an example for the hobbyist, and would be for the one that can't set up their own firing range. The biggest thing for that one (or for any really) would have to be a requirement in terms of storage, whether it be at home or off-site, would be a guarantee that they have a secure "lock up", whether it be a licensed gun range site (with regular inspections to ensure they're compliant), or a home inspection of your installed facilities before you're allowed to pick up your license.
For transport, it might include a vehicle inspection for the installation of a gun safe in the vehicle, in the trunk/boot/whatever.
Regarding the ongoing costs... some people who buy "for defense" or "just to have it" are less likely to be ones who maintain their weapons correctly anyway. Although some of them might manage to do the minimum amount of, say, checking and cleaning once every six months.
Most of my issue with the "for my defense" is that it does push the weapon, in too many cases, several notches forward of "last ditch"... and very, very few people, unless they're hardened criminals, are actually prepared to accurately pump 2-4 rounds into someone else, even when the chips are down.
Regarding the balance between "someone should be able to get a gun when they have a good reason" and "drastically limiting access to all but those on the lowest difficulty setting" is going to be difficult, because some of the most obvious ways to slow down or limit access unfortunately involve hitting the pocketbook of the would-be owner. Except a limit of "one weapon every six months", but that will require a hell of a lot more record keeping and enforcement than we have, and would still ultimately raise the cost (albeit the one time up front) of acquiring a firearm.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
Posts: 4,885
Threads: 301
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
8
If I recall correctly, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Iowa, and New Hampshire are mostly rural states? Perhaps that has a bearing on low murder rates?
Here, most firearms are held on the owners property, in a safe in the owners home. This is pretty much required. If you want to go somewhere else, the weapon goes in the boot of your car. You're not allowed publicly and openly carry it anywhere unless it's in a case of some sort. A lot of illicit weapons are stolen from legitimate sources and owners. It's rare to the point of specifically being mentioned on the news when it happens that a lawfully held firearm is used in the commission of a crime, so the aim is to keep lawful weapons from falling into illicit hands.
It also must be said that while you can use your gun in self-defense, that is not an acceptable reason to put on the licensing application for owning one.
It's also arguable that it's the price we pay for not being randomly 'swatted' and 'shot by misunderstanding' by our own police force. Very few of our police are actually armed in the course of their duties. Quite frankly, that's worth its weight in gold. And this is despite having an armed insurgency group operating.... they're usually handled by the army. In fact, armed security in the aid of the civil power is a constitutional duty of the army. So, it's unnarmed police, or a highly trained and professional military force. Not yahoo's with a sherrif's badge and a power-trip. It's so unusual for someone to be shot by police that the last time it happened, not only was it newsworthy but a full inquiry was called.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Dartz Wrote:If I recall correctly, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Iowa, and New Hampshire are mostly rural states? Perhaps that has a bearing on low murder rates? It's hard to say. What do you mean by "mostly rural," exactly? California and Texas could both be described that way if you're talking about land area used for agriculture. The statistic that people mostly seem to use is population density, and by that measure Hawaii is one of the more densely populated states, Montana is way down near the bottom, and the others are in the middle (as is Ireland's population density).
I was looking at the homicide rate, not the murder rate (as that's what you gave for Ireland), but looking up the 2007 murder rates for those states, I see that they're still towards the bottom and in the same order.
The militarization of police in the US is a very serious problem, but it's entirely due to the government being at war with the populace. They declared a "War on Drugs" and began equipping police as soldiers and training them to think and act like soldiers starting in the 1980s. The end result is that now the US is effectively a police state. Sure, there's a full inquiry when a cop shoots someone--conducted by the police, who nearly always conclude that under the rules they wrote for themselves, it was just fine. Also, cops in the US don't just shoot people--they routinely torture and kill using hands and feet, clubs, and electric shocks.
Added: Just out of curiosity, on those "license applications" you mentioned, is "I read history and England is right over there" considered a valid reason?
Posts: 25,533
Threads: 2,060
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
khagler Wrote:Added: Just out of curiosity, on those "license applications" you mentioned, is "I read history and England is right over there" considered a valid reason? I can't speak for Ireland, but I know "I http://www.warof1812.ca/]read history and the USA is right over there" is not a valid reason to own a firearm in Canada.
(Link chosen to provide the Canadian take on the event.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
Yeah, comparing the numbers across doesn't really work like that. (Though I'm not sure if "more rural" would be a major factor or not.)
Of course, this goes both ways. Take, say, this information on homicide rates from wikipedia. Israel, where guns are very easily available, has a rate of 2.1 per 100k, which is quite good compared to a lot of places.
JFerio Wrote:Regarding the ongoing costs... some people who buy "for defense" or "just to have it" are less likely to be ones who maintain their weapons correctly anyway.
Got statistics for that?
I could say that a lot, really. You seem to be starting from the premise that legal gun owners in general are very dangerous, and that therefore that needs to be reduced. There is a great deal of research and statistics to the effect of that being flat-out wrong, and not to a minor degree. So what have you got to counter that?
-Morgan.
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 51
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
1
Morganni Wrote:JFerio Wrote:Regarding the ongoing costs... some people who buy "for defense" or "just to have it" are less likely to be ones who maintain their weapons correctly anyway.
Got statistics for that?
I could say that a lot, really. You seem to be starting from the premise that legal gun owners in general are very dangerous, and that therefore that needs to be reduced. There is a great deal of research and statistics to the effect of that being flat-out wrong, and not to a minor degree. So what have you got to counter that?
-Morgan. No statistics, I'm afraid. But we don't require ANY training here to get a gun. Background checks, yes. Training, not nearly so much. So that's what I base part of that on.
The gun owners I personally know are not dangerous. They know how to respect the gun. They do not carry their guns around because they can, and they have purposes for them that are nowhere near self defense. But the population that does not respect the gun, while it might not be a majority of gun owners, is of grave concern to me and does admittedly color my view of the subject. The Connecticut shooting is a case in point, the mother didn't have the arms properly secured, either because she didn't lock them up, or worse, let someone else have the combination/keys who couldn't handle the responsibility.
And this won't change until the laws can be revised and written that basically ensure that, you want the gun? You have to prove you're worth the gun, through training and storage preparation. Granted, it'll take a good 10-20 years for it to have sufficient effect on the underlying culture issues, but it took us a long time to get to having the culture issues in the first place.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
|
