Please insure your 2nd amendment rights!

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay... a hunter nearly (or accidentally) shoots another hunter while hunting grouse. There is not injury (or the injury was accidental), so there is either no report that this ever happened or no crime was committed so there is no basis for restricting the owner. Nonetheless, the situation is dangerous. A gun owner is cleaning is gun and it accidentally goes off. A parent leaves a gun where a child could find it and play with it. All dangerous. All the result of negligent and careless behavior. No crimes. Possibly nothing reported. Possibly no one ever knows about it.

I don't necessarily think that these things should be addressed, but MM's analogy was that where there is evidence that someone uses a gun in an unsafe manner - even if there is no crime - there should be some regulation to prevent future accidents.

Which is the whole point, IF there is evidence action IS taken, usually resulting in lose of the right to own weapons. But just as minor accidents with cars are not prosecuted minor accidents with weapons that do not break a specific law ( by the way, it is against the law to improperly store a weapon around children or to fire a weapon , even accidently in certain areas.) are not prosecuted. BUT if they are the difference is that you LOSE the right to own weapons if found guilty. The laws are so much more restrictive on firearms then automobiles it is just not comparable. There are hundreds of ways to lose the right to own a weapon permanantly and almost none on cars.

 

[ReillyT]

Which is the whole point, IF there is evidence action IS taken, usually resulting in lose of the right to own weapons. But just as minor accidents with cars are not prosecuted minor accidents with weapons that do not break a specific law ( by the way, it is against the law to improperly store a weapon around children or to fire a weapon , even accidently in certain areas.) are not prosecuted. BUT if they are the difference is that you LOSE the right to own weapons if found guilty. The laws are so much more restrictive on firearms then automobiles it is just not comparable. There are hundreds of ways to lose the right to own a weapon permanantly and almost none on cars.

Okay... this will be might last time to try to discuss this with you. Apparently, resistance is futile. Many minor accidents or incidents of reckless or negligent behavior with automobiles are observed and prosecuted (at least with a ticket). This is because there are police all around us watching us as we drive, responding to calls about minor accidents, etc.

Reckless behavior with a gun generally only comes to be identified when an injury occurs. Even then (and those are the minority of cases), if there is no death and there was no intent, it isn't usually a criminal matter. See Dick Cheney. Hence, it is more difficult for law enforcement to monitor and respond to reckless behavior with a gun than with a car. It is just less observable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Many minor accidents or incidents of reckless or negligent behavior with automobiles are observed and prosecuted (at least with a ticket). This is because there are police all around us watching us as we drive, responding to calls about minor accidents, etc.

Actually, no. Its because almost every car accident is the result of someone breaking the law. Few accidents are ever observed by the police.

Reckless behavior with a gun generally only comes to be identified when an injury occurs. Even then (and those are the minority of cases), if there is no death and there was no intent, it isn't usually a criminal matter.

Thats because most gun accidents are NOT the result of someone breaking the law. It doesnt have anythig to do with there not being a means through which police can monitor the situations.

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, no. Its because almost every car accident is the result of someone breaking the law. Few accidents are ever observed by the police.

That is why I said "responding to calls of... accidents."

Thats because most gun accidents are NOT the result of someone breaking the law. It doesnt have anythig to do with there not being a means through which police can monitor the situations.

I understand that. Most gun accidents are not the result of anyone breaking the law. That, I believe, was part of the point of MM's analogy. I believe he said something about how someone could have an accident per month with a gun and there is no restriction/ regulation that will prevent him from having another accident next month.

 

[mattskramer]

Wow. It looks like I opened a can of worms with this topic. Practically all that I really meant to suggest (and it was just a free-thinking idea) was that perhaps people who prove themselves to ne habitually negligent, clumbsy or foolinsh (those who show themselves to be irresponsible in handling a gun) should not be allowed to own guns (even if no technically defined crime had been comitted.

 

[Shogun]

but MM's analogy was that where there is evidence that someone uses a gun in an unsafe manner - even if there is no crime - there should be some regulation to prevent future accidents.

total krap.

shit happens, dude. This isn't PKD's Minority Report. No amount of regulation will keep life from happening. If blaming gun owners for the misfortune of a few circumstances were the standard no one would drive, fly or use trains. Mass regulation won't keep stupid individuals from being stupid.

 

[ReillyT]

Wow. It looks like I opened a can of worms with this topic. Practically all that I really meant to suggest (and it was just a free-thinking idea) was that perhaps people who prove themselves to ne habitually negligent, clumbsy or foolinsh (those who show themselves to be irresponsible in handling a gun) should not be allowed to own guns (even if no technically defined crime had been comitted.

I even forgot it was you. I kept referring to "MM's analogy." Sorry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow. It looks like I opened a can of worms with this topic. Practically all that I really meant to suggest (and it was just a free-thinking idea) was that perhaps people who prove themselves to ne habitually negligent, clumbsy or foolinsh (those who show themselves to be irresponsible in handling a gun) should not be allowed to own guns (even if no technically defined crime had been comitted.

People do not lose their rights unless they commit a crime.
Its a little thing called Due Process. If I were you, I'd be happy its there.

 

[ReillyT]

but MM's analogy was that where there is evidence that someone uses a gun in an unsafe manner - even if there is no crime - there should be some regulation to prevent future accidents.

total krap.

shit happens, dude. This isn't PKD's Minority Report. No amount of regulation will keep life from happening. If blaming gun owners for the misfortune of a few circumstances were the standard no one would drive, fly or use trains. Mass regulation won't keep stupid individuals from being stupid.

I don't know if I agree with Matt's suggestion (free-thinking though it was). However, your response is pretty weak. "Shit happens Dude." I'll remember that one. It carries a lot of analytical weight.

As a practical matter (although I am not saying that I agree with it), I don't see how not letting stupid/careless gun users own guns wouldn't help prevent "shit" from happening.

 

[ReillyT]

Sorry. That was snippier than I meant it to be.

 

[Shogun]

I love the smell of second amendment threads in the morning!

 

[Shogun]

I don't know if I agree with Matt's suggestion (free-thinking though it was). However, your response is pretty weak. "Shit happens Dude." I'll remember that one. It carries a lot of analytical weight.

As a practical matter (although I am not saying that I agree with it), I don't see how not letting stupid/careless gun users own guns wouldn't help prevent "shit" from happening.

Can you show me one single regulated behaviour that absolutely guarentees that no accidents will ever occur?

just one. ANYTHING.


and don't worry about it, dude.. I've been peppering my posts with a little shitheadedness too.

it's all good.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That, I believe, was part of the point of MM's analogy. I believe he said something about how someone could have an accident per month with a gun and there is no restriction/ regulation that will prevent him from having another accident next month.

That's right.
And, as I said, that's because car accidents, by their nature, virtually necessitate that a law is broken before one can exist. People who lose theor driving provileges dont lose them because they were negligent or because they have proven themselves irresposnsible, as is his argument, but because they broke the law.

The attempt here is to relate the removal of driving privilges because of the driver breaking the law to the removal of the right to arms because of some subjective degree of negligence on the part of the gun owner -- that we do the former, we should do the latter.
Apples and oranges.

 

[ReillyT]

That's right.
And, as I said, that's because car accidents, by their nature, virtually necessitate that a law is broken before one can exist. People who lose theor driving provileges dont lose them because they were negligent or because they have proven themselves irresposnsible, as is his argument, but because they broke the law.

The attempt here is to relate the removal of driving privilges because of the driver breaking the law to the removal of the right to arms because of some subjective degree of negligence on the part of the gun owner -- that we do the former, we should do the latter.
Apples and oranges.

Any law carries with it a degree of subjectivity, but it need not be wholly subjective. You could develop a set of regulations pertaining to the safe storage, handling and use of firearms. You could investigate every injury associated with the use of a gun to determine whether these regulations were violated. You could mandate reporting among hunters for any violations by other hunters of hunting codes. Those are some thoughts off the top of my head which one could base restrictions on. It would be the same as driving, for which there are more minute regulations pertaining to the rules of the road than I could ever remember for more than 1 day after my driving test. The harder part is monitoring, but it wouldn't be impossible to do a better job of this.

I am not saying that I necessarily think this should be done, but it isn't impossible. Nor is it unnecessarily subjective.

 

[ReillyT]

Can you show me one single regulated behaviour that absolutely guarentees that no accidents will ever occur?

just one. ANYTHING.


and don't worry about it, dude.. I've been peppering my posts with a little shitheadedness too.

it's all good.

There are no guarantees in life. But in all endeavours, there are ways to minimize accidents and dangers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Any law carries with it a degree of subjectivity, but it need not be wholly subjective.

You're missing the point.

The premise is 'because we take away people's ability to drive when they have an acciddent, we should take away their ability to have guns when they have an accident'.

The premise is unsound because the two actions are not comparable:
The former is based on breaking the law; the latter is not.

And, when someone IS criminally negligent with a gun, they ARE charged with a crime and they DO lose their right to have a gun.

So, I'm, really not so sure how there's much of an argument here.

 

[Shogun]

There are no guarantees in life. But in all endeavours, there are ways to minimize accidents and dangers.

but, at the end of the day, the FACT that life happens is a variable that we can neither predict OR preempt, yes? Which makes such a statement pretty darn pertinent when trying to limit an amendment from the bill of rights, eh? You can try and regulate guns into oblivion and people will still die in accidents. It's a logical fallacy to restrict the rights of gun owners is some Phillip Dick Minority Report fashion in order to preempt accidents.

Which, carries quite a bit of analytical weight. Which is why we still drive despite yearly auto deaths by the thousands. Which is why we still allow guns despite accidents and is probably why you can't name anything that is regulated to the point of guarenteeing safety.


I'm a little disapointed that no one wanted to chew up MK's posted studies. I got a kick out of terming it the Alfred Kinsey of Gun Control.

 

[ReillyT]

You're missing the point.

The premise is 'because we take away people's ability to drive when they have an acciddent, we should take away their ability to have guns when they have an accident'.

The premise is unsound because the two actions are not comparable:
The former is based on breaking the law; the latter is not.

And, when someone IS criminally negligent with a gun, they ARE charged with a crime and they DO lose their right to have a gun.

So, I'm, really not so sure how there's much of an argument here.

No... I got the point. Notice how I did all that writing about the laws/regulations that could be put in place to more closely monitor safe gun usage. Are those the laws that you are talking about? Then I did all that writing about ways to make them more then just purely subjective. Do you even read the posts before you respond?

Now, if you think that we have all of those laws now (I don't really know), then it just becomes a question of how to monitor them to make sure they are followed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No... I got the point. Notice how I did all that writing about the laws/regulations that could be put in place to more closely monitor safe gun usage.

And the part you missed:
He doesnt want to criminalize the behavior - he wants to take away the right simply because the people are 'negligent'.

Did YOU read the post?

 

[ReillyT]

but, at the end of the day, the FACT that life happens is a variable that we can neither predict OR preempt, yes? Which makes such a statement pretty darn pertinent when trying to limit an amendment from the bill of rights, eh? You can try and regulate guns into oblivion and people will still die in accidents. It's a logical fallacy to restrict the rights of gun owners is some Phillip Dick Minority Report fashion in order to preempt accidents.

The Bill of Rights is a separate question. It merely adds a whole other layer of complexity to anything we are discussing. At this point, I thought it best just to work with the issue at hand. It isn't a logical fallacy at all. Not all accidents can be prevented, but surely some vehicular accidents are prevented by rules of the road, coupled with police and judicial enforcement.

Which, carries quite a bit of analytical weight. Which is why we still drive despite yearly auto deaths by the thousands. Which is why we still allow guns despite accidents and is probably why you can't name anything that is regulated to the point of guarenteeing safety.

Of course I can't name anything regulated to the point of absolute safety. But you can't regulate traffic on the roads to absolute safety either. That doesn't mean I don't want traffic laws. They many not guarantee anything, but they do make a difference.

I'm a little disapointed that no one wanted to chew up MK's posted studies. I got a kick out of terming it the Alfred Kinsey of Gun Control.

Sorry, I didn't read it. To be honest, I really don't feel strongly about guns, one way or the other. It just isn't one of those things that interests me. I just happened to get caught up in this discussion.