FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gun Control: A Real Pain in the Rear

   
Author Topic: Gun Control: A Real Pain in the Rear
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 11443

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
So this just happened:

quote:
Witnesses inside the theater told officers the gun fell from the man’s pocket as he was adjusting himself in the seat, and it fired when it dropped to the floor, striking him in the buttocks.

The 56-year-old man then reportedly stood up, apologized to those around him and left the theater before police arrived. He checked himself into a nearby VA hospital in Reno, where he was treated for a gunshot wound to his buttocks, according to a police report. His injury is not considered to be life-threatening.

He's lucky the shot hit himself and not someone else. Otherwise, I suspect this story would be much larger.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Now, we shouldn't look askance at someone wanting a gun to go to the movie theater. Crime statistics teach us how likely we are to need deadly violence to hand at any moment in any location.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
Something tells me this guy didn't have a concealed weapons permit. I don't have a problem with people carrying weapons as long as they have a permit. Nevada is an open carry state which means he can carry it as long is it is holstered and visible. The fact that it was hidden in his pocket means he will probably be speaking to police soon.

Does anyone know if this particular theatre had a "no gun" rule? I know the one in Aurora did, but I am sure it depends on the company / location.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 11443

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Something tells me this guy didn't have a concealed weapons permit. I don't have a problem with people carrying weapons as long as they have a permit. Nevada is an open carry state, so the fact that it was hidden in his pocket means he will probably be speaking to police soon.

The article states he did have one. However, it looks like he'll be talking to the police anyway:

quote:
Adams also noted that a revised statute in Nevada would warrant a misdemeanor offense for anyone who negligently discharges or causes to be discharged a firearm in public, and, therefore, he said, “I would certainly be inclined to prosecute.”

Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah good. I hope he gets prosecuted and has his permit revoked. They teach you how to handle your firearm in the class. If he isn't following the law or the rules, take it from him.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Something tells me this guy didn't have a concealed weapons permit. I don't have a problem with people carrying weapons as long as they have a permit. Nevada is an open carry state which means he can carry it as long is it is holstered and visible. The fact that it was hidden in his pocket means he will probably be speaking to police soon.
I'd much rather the person sitting next to me at the movies not be able to kill me depending on their mood or competence just because I had the bad luck to go to the movies that day. I can after all easily imagine plenty of reasons why someone everyday civilian might want a firearm in their pockets at a movie theater (more than one, even, Because You Never Know) that shouldn't at least concern me if I'm sitting next to them. I can't count the number of times people I know, and myself, have been violently attacked at the movies.

Misdemeanor. Jesus. Chances are he had people in literally three hundred and sixty degrees around him, and one of the only three places (up, down, or himself) was the one he shot in.

But whatever we do, don't let's consider this for god's sake any sort of reason to start questioning our permit process and our national attitude towards not just guns, but guns in public. We need 'em, for crime and tyranny and stuff. Yeah.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Ah good. I hope he gets prosecuted and has his permit revoked. They teach you how to handle your firearm in the class. If he isn't following the law or the rules, take it from him.

Am I correct in thinking that to you, this would be sufficient? Take his guns, slap a misdemeanor on him, and it's done, with perhaps an ability later to have his permit reinstated.

Also, it should be said: no, he clearly wasn't taught how to handle his concealed firearm. I feel pretty confident in saying so because he shot himself in the ass at the movies not long ago.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
In Wisconsin, under our existing concealed carry law, I don't believe there is any scenario under which a concealed carry permit can be revoked for accidental discharge. You would need to actually be convicted of a felony or be prevented from carrying a weapon under a condition of bail.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Ah good. I hope he gets prosecuted and has his permit revoked. They teach you how to handle your firearm in the class. If he isn't following the law or the rules, take it from him.

Am I correct in thinking that to you, this would be sufficient? Take his guns, slap a misdemeanor on him, and it's done, with perhaps an ability later to have his permit reinstated.

Also, it should be said: no, he clearly wasn't taught how to handle his concealed firearm. I feel pretty confident in saying so because he shot himself in the ass at the movies not long ago.

Have you ever been to a CCW class? They do teach you proper carry techniques, and this guy was obviously not doing what he was taught. If he isn't using the skills he was taught properly, he should lose the right to carry a concealed weapon. Just like anything else you need a license for.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Have you ever been to a CCW class? They do teach you proper carry techniques, and this guy was obviously not doing what he was taught. If he isn't using the skills he was taught properly, he should lose the right to carry a concealed weapon. Just like anything else you need a license for.
You're assuming he was taught properly, for no other reason I can see except that e managed to obtain a permit. Just checking, but how many other government institutions would you place that sort of faith in? Having spoken with you about politics for quite some time on Hatrack, I'm confident the answer is few indeed.

Second, there's a problem here. Either he was taught with complete diligence and then later changes in him somehow overcame his 'training' (the, you know, deeply rigorous training that precedes our collective permission to carry lethal force), which would call into question our permit process. Or he wasn't trained properly, calling into question our permit process.

Clearly the follow-up to these possibilities is not to take a skeptical look at our permitting process.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
BTW, we ALL know that everyone receives advanced notice of when and where they will be attacked. You know, so they can know when to wear their guns, since wearing them any other time might bother Rakeesh. [Wink]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Have you ever been to a CCW class? They do teach you proper carry techniques, and this guy was obviously not doing what he was taught. If he isn't using the skills he was taught properly, he should lose the right to carry a concealed weapon. Just like anything else you need a license for.
I think the point is, if people lose their gun-carrying rights after demonstrating they shouldn't have had them in the first place, that's a very expensive way to weed out the incompetents. And the price is carried by, among others, the people who got shot when this person demosntrated their lack of skill. In this case it was the same person, which was "lucky", but hardly garunteed. Doesn't it seem an unfortunate system that will only show someone to be unfit for a gun after a bullet ends up in someone's body?

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
BTW, we ALL know that everyone receives advanced notice of when and where they will be attacked. You know, so they can know when to wear their guns, since wearing them any other time might bother Rakeesh. [Wink]

Oh, hardly just me. And anyway, we ALL know when and where we'll use our guns negligently or out of anger or simply against the wrong target through a legitimate mistake, so we can just not take them to the movies on those days and be protected against our enormously dangerous society the rest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:
Have you ever been to a CCW class? They do teach you proper carry techniques, and this guy was obviously not doing what he was taught. If he isn't using the skills he was taught properly, he should lose the right to carry a concealed weapon. Just like anything else you need a license for.
I think the point is, if people lose their gun-carrying rights after demonstrating they shouldn't have had them in the first place, that's a very expensive way to weed out the incompetents. And the price is carried by, among others, the people who got shot when this person demosntrated their lack of skill. In this case it was the same person, which was "lucky", but hardly garunteed. Doesn't it seem an unfortunate system that will only show someone to be unfit for a gun after a bullet ends up in someone's body?

Hobbes [Smile]

The really perverse thing of it is we're expected to handle all of the thousands accidental or wrongful gun injuries and deaths as the cost of doing business in our civilization. But deaths from crime (and the nebulous, laughable worry of a violent tyranny), those things we absolutely cannot tolerate. They can't be endured without letting anyone who isn't actually frothing at the mouth at the time to obtain a firearm and even be allowed to take it just about anywhere.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Have you ever been to a CCW class? They do teach you proper carry techniques, and this guy was obviously not doing what he was taught. If he isn't using the skills he was taught properly, he should lose the right to carry a concealed weapon. Just like anything else you need a license for.
You're assuming he was taught properly, for no other reason I can see except that e managed to obtain a permit. Just checking, but how many other government institutions would you place that sort of faith in? Having spoken with you about politics for quite some time on Hatrack, I'm confident the answer is few indeed.

Second, there's a problem here. Either he was taught with complete diligence and then later changes in him somehow overcame his 'training' (the, you know, deeply rigorous training that precedes our collective permission to carry lethal force), which would call into question our permit process. Or he wasn't trained properly, calling into question our permit process.

Clearly the follow-up to these possibilities is not to take a skeptical look at our permitting process.

Federal programs and State run programs such as CCW permit requirements are two completely different monsters. Do I think the Federal Government has very few programs that run well? Absolutely. The same with state government programs.

From personal experience, I think it works well. I live in Nevada. The people that I have met that do CCW training here in Las Vegas are very very serious about it. I've seen them kick people out of certification classes if they notice they aren't paying attention. My brother has a CCW and said that during his class one guy looked like he was running on no sleep, so the instructor told him to leave and come back when he had rested.

Reno and the surrounding area are more rural so the instructors may be more lax up there. If so I would agree that an investigation be done to determine if the training classes are not up to snuff. Having a firearm discharge accidently means that the gun was loaded, the safety was off, and he wasn't using a proper holster.

I would also be open to charging the man with a more serious crime due to his negligence, but what charges could he realistically be charged with under the law?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Reno and the surrounding area are more rural so the instructors may be more lax up there.

?????

Rural = lax . . . since when?

Hey, I'm a city gal, but give me a break. Also, personal anecdotes are nice, but don't actually prove much.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I do not buy for a second that his gun "went off" from hitting the ground. Unless he was carrying a vintage revolver, it is nigh on impossible for a gun to go off from simply being dropped.

quote:
Doesn't it seem an unfortunate system that will only show someone to be unfit for a gun after a bullet ends up in someone's body?
quote:
"With hard numbers or estimates from all but three of the 49 states that have laws allowing for issuance of carry permits, the GAO reports that there were about 8 million active permits in the United States as of December 31, 2011.
Source One accident out of 8,000,000 is not a trend from which conclusions should be drawn.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
It would be interesting to apply the "One accident, lose your license" approach to that much more deadly weapon, the common or highway-variety car.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Or what I should say is that 1/8,000,000 is a trend from which conclusions should be drawn.

Good job CCW training! Keep up the good work.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
It would be interesting to apply the "One accident, lose your license" approach to that much more deadly weapon, the common or highway-variety car.

I don't believe you were saying so, KoM, but is anyone suggesting that this is the only accidental or wrongful discharge out of all of the millions of permits? Because that would seem to be to be a laughably simple-minded direction that...well, that gun rights advocates will certainly end up taking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
(Post Removed by JanitorBlade. Stone_Wolf: Please don't.)

[ August 18, 2012, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm.....SW and Rakeesh are the same person, it appears. [Wink]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
All these big arguments and it was all in my head?

What is this, Fight Club?

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post 
If this is Fight Club, Rakeesh seems to be the original by about thirty minutes.

Chin up SW! you still get all those weird scenes with Helena Bonham Carter.

Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Does that make me Ed Norton or Brad Pitt?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Hmm.....SW and Rakeesh are the same person, it appears. [Wink]

quote:
Have you ever been to a CCW class? They do teach you proper carry techniques, and this guy was obviously not doing what he was taught. If he isn't using the skills he was taught properly, he should lose the right to carry a concealed weapon. Just like anything else you need a license for.
It might appear so, exept that one person said 'huh, this might be cause to turn a skeptical look at our permitting process' (my own words, literally), while the other claimed that one accident out of millions of permits (a silly claim, since not even the most reactionary gun rights advocate would suggest this was the only one) served to vindicate the process, open and shut.

I realize you feel differently about this than I do, but I trust you enough to believe you'll see which claim-in spite of its tone-was reasonable, and which was absurd. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there really was just one in eight million wrongful or accidental discharges, thus the process is actually vindicated...by the accident. It doesn't serve as a negative event or even a neutral one with respect to the permitting process...this event actually is a positive one. Apparently.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
(Post removed by JanitorBlade)

[ August 18, 2012, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Ran across this:
quote:
The vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 (NCVS) to 23 million (raw NSPOF) DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.
Source

Or in plain language, between 100k-23mil times a year a gun is used in self defense. Kinda a big gap.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
I say lets put in a market solution.

1) If injured from a misfired gun you can sue the person who mis-fired it.

2) If you are scared or startled by a misfired gun, and believe that the negligence of the person carrying the gun did put your life or health in jeopardy, you are allowed to carry a gun.

3) Misfired means accidentally or criminally fired.

4) There are no caps on the amount of money you can win from such mis-firing, or if there is a cap it is a cap per round mis-fired.

5) Insurance to cover such law suits should be available, and perhaps mandatory. If you accidentally shoot me I want to make sure you can cover my medical bill.

6)If the incidents of damage and mis-fire are as low as the NRA says, the fees for such insurance should be low. If not, the insurance fees will be high, forcing the insurance companies to demand gun owners they insure to be good owners--trained--and responsible.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
That's not a bad idea. We require car insurance, why not gun insurance? In both cases there is a private benefit (we want to drive and own guns) and a public problem (accidents for which the one responsible can't pay). Mandatory insurance for a license seems like the obvious solution.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I agree. I could have sworn I suggested the very same thing in the Zimmerman thread...I don't have time to look right now, but will later.

Either way, it's a great idea!

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 11443

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Hmm.....SW and Rakeesh are the same person, it appears. [Wink]

My head just exploded.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
The idea that we don't even regulate guns as much as we regulate cars is just asinine.

Some states are good about it, some are fantastically negligent. Federalize gun laws etc etc etc

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 11443

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The idea that we don't even regulate guns as much as we regulate cars is just asinine.

I agree emphatically. I lean liberal generally, but gun rights are one thing I do actually tend to side with conservatives on. The right to own and bear arms is one thing I think is a unique part of America and, at least how I understand the idea behind the 2nd amendment, was and is a radical idea put into law.* Now, I do have some major caveats and I think strict regulation is not something that should be seen as a bad thing.

Anyway, I love the idea of a firearms insurance. I've not seen that before and I think it's wonderful.

Now, none of that prevents incidents where someone snaps psychologically and goes on a shooting spree. That's still a major issue. And to that, again, I think Samp is correct in pointing to mental healthcare. A sane, rational gun owner is not going to walk into a theater or mall or university and start shooting random people. The solution to that problem is not stricter gun control, but fixing (or at least treating) individuals.

*ETA: As a check and balance given to the general population against government forces. And here, I think it was a way the founding fathers tried to correct the wrongs they saw in many governments of the time by exploiting their citizens who generally had no way of revolting other than civil war and blood baths. If the populace is armed, hopefully the government actually makes an effort to govern in a way that will benefit all - not just those in power with arms to bear (that they didn't see slavery as a fatal flaw to their otherwise revolutionary establishment of a new government is tragic).

[ August 16, 2012, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Godric 2.0 ]

Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The idea that we don't even regulate guns as much as we regulate cars is just asinine.

Some states are good about it, some are fantastically negligent. Federalize gun laws etc etc etc

I do cynically enjoy one of the traditional responses: "Cars kill more people than guns!" It never seems to penetrate that perhaps a tool that is designed to kill and then is successful at it might perhaps best be treated differently, more stringently than a tool that is designed to transport people and cargo and can also kill.

I guess 'cars kill too' is just an easy soundbite. But then why would that side of the issue ever steer away from the persuasive but shallow sound bite? It serves so well in so many cases. I can't tell you how many times I get to hear about grandma and her social security check as though it should be decisive, and then looked twice at when I mention John shooting Jim in a fit of drunken rage, as though only one of the anecdotes ought to count.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
The reason cars and guns are compared is that are both potentially deadly to the general public without proper handling and both are regulated by the government. Yes, the purpose of a car and a gun are hugely different, but the reality of the danger of a mishandled car is beyond similar to mishandled firearms.

I have never understood why people insist that comparisons should be identical in every way to be considered valid. If the only thing you compared were things that had no differences there would be no useful conclusions to draw.

As to the actual comparison, those who wish to carry a gun should have to pass a competency test, as those who wish to drive do, as well as carry insurance as Darth_Muave suggested. Also I feel that laws similar to DUI should be put into place for handling firearms, but instead of a "legal limit" a no tolerance policy. No booze and guns, or else your otherwise legal firearm (or carry permit) is now a crime.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As to the actual comparison, those who wish to carry a gun should have to pass a competency test, as those who wish to drive do, as well as carry insurance as Darth_Muave suggested. Also I feel that laws similar to DUI should be put into place for handling firearms, but instead of a "legal limit" a no tolerance policy. No booze and guns, or else your otherwise legal firearm (or carry permit) is now a crime.
This, to me, is what casts the NRA in such a bad light. There are many basic common sense measures to promote gun safety, which they claim to be all about. However, not only do they not champion them, they fight tooth and nail to prevent them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
That is a major problem once people become polarized on an issue. The NRA will protect all gun "rights" no matter if they make sense or not. The Brady anti gun people will try and take away every gun "right" no mater if it makes sense or not.

Sanity is in the grey area in the middle.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The Brady anti gun people will try and take away every gun "right" no mater if it makes sense or not.
You know, I'm not sure you can substantiate this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The Brady anti gun people will try and take away every gun "right" no mater if it makes sense or not.
You know, I'm not sure you can substantiate this.
I'm absolutely sure it cannot be substantiated, since on the one hand there is a specific group-the NRA-with publicly discussed policy aims and lobbying and campaigning while on the other hand there is a group that is at best vaguely defined right from the very start.

Gun rights advocacy groups such as the NRA do love, and profit by, playing the victim in politics but the actual history is one of their enormous power and imperviousness. It's difficult even to find a major politician wrangling with them (witness the thorough lack of an actual discussion in the legislature of implementing the kinds of reforms gun rights advocates are 'all for'), and more difficult still to find examples of them beaten in the field, so to speak.

Other people and I have said it before, and I'll say it again here: the people who need to be convinced to support things such as zero tolerance, insurance, and proactive testing are not in the gun control side of things. There is not a history of rational reform offered by the NRA, only to be hysterically rejected by 'Brady people' who then demand all gun rights be ceded immediately.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Yes, "Well Regulated" means no regulations at all.

The right to bear arms comes with 0 responsibility attached to it, as compared to the right to vote, which requires a picture id.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Whoever are you talking to with the above post?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2