Who should be able to have guns?

[ctdonath]

Such issues need be addressed by starting with basic principles/axioms, then applying the question and seeing where you end up. All too often such questions are answered by gut feel, and end up conflicting badly with other conclusions.

Start with Cooper's Four Rules:

RULE 1: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE 2: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
RULE 3: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE 4: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Without getting into a long discussion of that (plenty of threads have been had), I start with these as core principles. So long as they are followed, safety reigns.

Understandably, if someone violates these rules, others have a natural right to act in a manner enforcing these rules - not as a matter of law, but as a matter of their own personal safety. If someone persists in breaking them, society - acting as a group of individuals interested in their own safety & that of others - has a collective right to disarm that person until they can be reasonably trusted with weapons again. Incompetence (i.e.: immaturity or insanity), wilfull violation (i.e.: reckless endangerment or worse), or criminal act (i.e.: outright violence or threats thereof) reasonably warrant disarming them. As such, children should be taught appropriately from an early age, and the dangerous should be restrained until they get the point.

So long as the person can reasonably follow the Four Rules, the right "shall not be infringed". Bare fear that someone might harm another is grossly insufficient.

 

[Derby FALs]

I love these threads. Just sit back and watch the closet gun grabbers out themselves. In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[cosine]

Or rather, who shouldnt be able to have guns?

Only those currently residing in prison.

 

[gezzer]

I love these threads. Just sit back and watch the closet gun grabbers out themselves. In for a penny, in for a pound.

+1 Amazing or scary isin't it

 

[Derby FALs]

Clueless.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Anyone in jail.

Or dead.

Unfortunately not a criminal punishment option here in Minnesota.

 

[quatin]

Quatin,

I would support a punishment for negligence if that punishment did not include revocation of a Constitutionally protected right.

EDIT: To clarify I don't support requirements that determine negligence. No one should be forced to have to put their guns in a safe or under lock and key. But they should be held responsible for and accidents that occur as a result. If a criminal steals the gun and kills someone that's not the owner's fault it's the criminal's fault. If a child wanders into a bedroom finds a gun and someone gets hurt that IS the owner's fault. If an adult wanders into a bedroom and gets hurt that could be the adult's or the owners fault. And that is what juries are for.

The very concept of revoking someone's Constitutionally protected right is unconstitutional in itself. Do you see my point?
__________________

Well that's fine. You support a reactive side of the law. For laws relating to gun control I support both reactive and preventive. I was dictating what I think a preventive law should look like (being that a law has to be preventive in terms of "who should have guns"). If it were a reactive law, I support what you said, however I would EMPHASIZE heavy punishment for those who are in ignorance of it. If we are to give trust freely to the population, let there be hell if the trust were to be broken. If a child were to kill either himself/herself or someone else with a weapon acquired easily out of ignorance by the parents like you said, that parent needs to be held for murder. If an accident were to occur and someone is injured then let a jury decide if it was blatant negligence, in which case it will be treated as of above.

For the second circumstance with a 3rd party stealing a weapon and using it, I would have to state limitations upon it. If the weapon was stashed away on top of a closet/drawer/nightstand somewhere inside the house and was incidentaly thieved, that may be fine. If the weapons were stashed in plain view and easily accesible, it should be verborten. A gun owner should be held liable to how he/she secures their weapon. If a handful of M4s (unloaded but with ammo present) were haphazardly stashed in a pickup truck and parked infront of a prominent dangerous neighborhood or high school and it gets stolen and used for a shooting, the owner needs to be held partially responsible. If not legally, then morally. We know there are bad people out there, we should at the very least do all we can to make sure our weapons are not thieved and used on someone else.

 

[Byron Quick]

A man tried to beat my brains out with a hickory sledge hammer handle one night. Who else would you hold responsible for his actions with that improvised weapon? The hardware store owner where he bought it? The woodworking facility that shaped it? The sawmill that cut the hickory tree into lumber? The logger who cut down the tree and hauled it to the sawmill? The man who owned the land the tree came from? How about the guy who planted the tree seventy years ago? Surely we should sue his estate.

I don't see but one person who was responsible...the person who decided to perform an assault and then acted upon that decision.

I was raised from birth in a home with unsecured firearms and ammunition. Until the age of four, my parents watched me very closely. At the age of four, I was shown-graphically-what firearms were capable of doing to living flesh. I first owned a firearm-and had access to its ammunition-at the age of eight. I was allowed to hunt unsupervised from the age of twelve. There were no accidents involving play with a firearm for I knew that firearms were not toys. Why did I know that? Responsible parents.

quatin,

Shift your 'logic' to another focus and test it. If someone breaks into your home, gets drunk on liquor in your house, steals condoms, steals your car, runs it through a holiday crowd, and then rapes the neighbors just what negligence have you shown? The felon states at trial that he would not have committed the rapes if he had not found your condoms to protect him from STD's, he would not have lost control of the car if he he had not found your unsecured liquor, and would not have stolen the car if he had not found your unsecured keys. Apparently, the fact that all of these items were stored within your house is irrelevant.

 

[Prince Yamato]

If they are not trustworthy of all rights and privilages they are not safe to release.

What I would GIVE to hear a politician utter those words...

 

[Erebus]

Why are children so sacred

I truly hope you don't have children and can ask a question like that...

How many accidental deaths (non criminal) amongst children last year (newborn to 18) by firearms? 56. Thats it.

The number is irrelevant. If you knowingly have a child in your house and don't supervise them well enough to keep them away from a firearm you know is accessible to them you are not only negligent but stupid. It's called responsibility. Drunk drivers don't get in the car intending to crash their cars into other people. Accidents aren't accidents if someone intentionally allowed the conditions to occur that brought it about. Such as a drunk knowingly getting in a car and driving down the road. Such as knowingly leaving a gun in a place that a child can find it when children are present.

If a toddler is in the house do you just leave the door to the basement stairs open because if he falls down them and gets killed it's just an accident? Do you leave the front door open because if he wandered into the road and got hit by a car and killed it's just an accident? Do you leave 2nd story windows wide open because if he fell out it's just an accident?

If the above are punishable as negligent than leaving a gun where a child can find it and not supervising them should handled exactly the same way. I understand laws about negligence aren't the same everywhere.

That being said revocation of 2A is off limits.

I don't support the punishment of an owner that is burgled, he/she is a victim. If someone steals a baseball bat from my car and clubs someone to death am I responsible for that murder? How about if they steal the car and hit someone with it?

 

[DerringerUser]

I agree for the most part.

Although good luck, with how many Democrats are around

 

[quatin]

Ok, so you advocate to absolve whomever was not directly active in an assault, not witholding any circumstance? So the company who taught the 9/11 terrorists to fly without giving them a background check despite some obvious red flags should continue their practice?

Byron

Using the same method of shifting your logic to another approach. What if a man were to leave some m4 rifles, tech-9s, all the corresponding ammo and basically a whole legal arsenal in his pickup truck. He then parks that truck legally on a street in a neighborhood riddled with crime with the tarp open. What if he were to park his truck a block away from a penitentiary?

Now this is probably one of those "You can't tell me what to do!" laws that morally everyone follows anyways. (Like putting on your safety belt when you drive) But I still believe if you have a weapon, you should go to the extra lengths in securing it from those irresponsible enough to use it in offensive ways.

 

[Erebus]

What if a man were to leave some m4 rifles, tech-9s, all the corresponding ammo and basically a whole legal arsenal in his pickup truck. He then parks that truck legally on a street in a neighborhood riddled with crime with the tarp open.

What if a woman in a bikini with condoms in her purse walks though a high crime neighborhood and gets raped? If her purse is stolen and her condoms are used to rape someone else is she responsible?

 

[quatin]

Why would rapists use condoms?

Anyways, there may be tons of other exceptions to the rule as well as inclusions. But unless you think it's okay for a person to practically ask for his weapons to be stolen and used ilegally, there's a defining boundary between what's ok and what's not when it comes to responsibilities of a weapon.

 

[Soybomb]

I'm always shocked by how many gun people who would be the first to scream that gun control doesn't work when they're opposing a new ban or fighting for concealed carry will be so quick to pipe up and say that "X shouldn't own guns." Gun control still doesn't work, and its still a waste of money.

 

[mp510]

Gun control still doesn't work, and its still a waste of money.

Good point. I have sort of forgotten about that.

 

[Phetro]

Minors without parental consent. All others are "the People," the very "People" the Second Amendment refers to. No restrictions are acceptable against them.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Quatin? The law about safe storage has one major flaw, you stated your self the "defining boundary" is important. So if I make the definition, it will be totally different than the next mans definition. I am sure that presidential hopeful,Hillary Clinton would be perfectly happy for everyone to have guns, if she could define the safe storage laws to her standards. I think it would probably be something like this.

"All guns must be stored dissasembled, seperated from any ammunition, by at least three locked access points, all guns and ammunition shall be in steel safes, locked inside a concrete room, on the second floor or above. There shall be an alarm system monitored 24 hours by onsite security personell, and when the door is unlocked the security system has to call the local police."

Sorry, We should allow no boundaries to be set by anyone. All we need is one good law for gun control, may I suggest this one?

 

[LkWinnipesaukee]

Okay, how about this

I'm 16, a soph in high school. There are a LOT of people I would NOT trust with any kind of gun. A few of my close friends I would trust very much. What are your thoughts on minors and guns?

I think kids under 18 should take a safety course, then they can have all the guns they want. But if they screw up, they lose privilages until theyre 18 (kind of like a drivers license)


Discuss.

 

[Matt304]

I'll be 21 next month. I was a 3-P NRA shooter for many years. I practice utmost safety with firearms while shooting with other friends or groups; I am often the scolder. I handle weapons well, and have trouble even hunting animals at times as I feel for them in a way (I know I know guys).

At the same time, I was convicted of battery in HS as I didn't mind beating up someone who picked on me, and due to this - may not be able to get my FOID next month, I do not know yet.

For the most part, and as me for an example, a person convicted of a violent crime like battery isn't neccessarily going to yield bad results with a firearm.

I have nothing against the person with DUI's. We all drink for the most part, and because they may have put themselves in a bad drinking situation, this I feel is in no direct correlation of a firearms-related situation which they may put themselves in. I have a friend, who received his second DUI, he's an idiot when drunk, but you won't catch him with his shotgun when drunk. He is a very good hunter and knows gun safety very well, like I.

To me, this is like saying, you cheated on a test, you would use a firearm the wrong way. No correlation here to me.

Now with this being said, it would make you wonder just who I would want to have firearms if some violence/drinking crime is permitted. Well, I think you can see where I'm going...there is a line involved in these crimes, and the specific situation need apply.

It is apparent the sort of people we try to keep guns from, the variety with obsurdly-ill mental capacities who may focus on the wrong aspects of firearms. These sort of people aren't that hard to filter out from their court records, if you know what I mean.

I'll leave it in that I feel a common sense issue need apply to the application approval process, not simply "a checked yes for misdemenor means denial" sort of thing. Records need to be reviewed, and decided upon. Unfortunately for us, states don't seem to care about finding certain things out about individuals, a simple denial is easier.

From this statement I will also elaborate another friend's story. He was 18, convicted of underage drinking. On his FOID app when asked if he had a misdemenor besides traffic violation, he put yes. DENIED. Now this kid is a straight-A student, who has never been in a spec of trouble besides this instance. For this I must call absolute bullsh*t in my opinion.

 

[cosine]

I'm 16, a soph in high school. There are a LOT of people I would NOT trust with any kind of gun. A few of my close friends I would trust very much. What are your thoughts on minors and guns?

Kids can purchase, own and operate guns. It is the parents' responsibility to oversee and ensure said children behave appropriatelywith firearms.

 

[quatin]

Quatin? The law about safe storage has one major flaw, you stated your self the "defining boundary" is important. So if I make the definition, it will be totally different than the next mans definition. I am sure that presidential hopeful,Hillary Clinton would be perfectly happy for everyone to have guns, if she could define the safe storage laws to her standards. I think it would probably be something like this.

"All guns must be stored dissasembled, seperated from any ammunition, by at least three locked access points, all guns and ammunition shall be in steel safes, locked inside a concrete room, on the second floor or above. There shall be an alarm system monitored 24 hours by onsite security personell, and when the door is unlocked the security system has to call the local police."

Sorry, We should allow no boundaries to be set by anyone. All we need is one good law for gun control, may I suggest this one?

Yeah sure, if you want to lean towards a stricter dictum you can. I lean towards a more lax policy. Almost every single subject will have conflicting opinions, so since not EVERYONE can agree about immigration policies does that mean we should have NO immigration policy at all? If there is a clear minimum threshold then at the very least that threshold should be made legit.

As for minor possesion, I will have to agree with Phetro and clarify to include "minors with parental consent", in the same way as applied to alchohol. Beyond that is a shaky subject. If you truly believe the constitution applies to everyone not witholding, you should fight for minors to legally purchase/use alchohol,tobacco, firearms and the operation of motor vehicles without parental consent.

 

[JN01]

I agree that in a perfect world, if a criminal can't be trusted, he shouldn't be let out of prison. HOWEVER, that is FAR from the case in the real world. People are in and out of prison all the time.

Since the untrustworthy, violent, recidivists aren't being locked up for life, it seems reasonable that they at least shouldn't be allowed to legally possess weapons. It can at least give them a reason to be locked up a little longer the next time.

I can't feel bad about violent predators (murderers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers) having their right to self defense infringed.

 

[Erebus]

As I stated previously, and perhaps you missed, PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY is the only thing that matters when it comes to the raising of children.

Exactly if you have a ND and someone gets hurt you can be held responsible and liable. You are responsible for your kids so if they have an ND you are responsible.

Since the untrustworthy, violent, recidivists aren't being locked up for life, it seems reasonable that they at least shouldn't be allowed to legally possess weapons.

And who makes the decision as to who is untrustworthy? The government? What happens if they decide that a speeding or parking ticket makes you untrustworthy? Where does the line get drawn? Once you allow them to start determining where the line is drawn it's going to keep getting closer and closer to you. Eventually overcoming you. Look at Britain and Australia of you don't believe me.

 

[gezzer]

LkWinnipesaukee

At your age I carried my 22 target rifle to high school every Tuesday as I was on the YMCA Rifle Team. I left in the principal’s office with seven or eight other rifles. As a sophomore I built a flintlock rifle in shop. That was a while ago in 1967 before the dastardly gun act of 1968. Did I live in the country NO I lived in a City touching Boston.

Now in NH my son passed his hunter safety at 13. He has attended muzzleloader competitions since he was 9 and has all the winning medals to prove it. He has helped in the shop for years. At your age he became one of the better metal finishers for the old double shotguns.

He is now just out of high school and is working the hard apprenticeships to be a gun maker.