Page 1 of 1

Gun control

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:18 am
by orathaic
I have to admit, the webdip forums (of old) truly inspired this one:

“Guns and Cars!” by ORathai C

Re: Gun control

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:15 am
by Octavious
I genuinely have no idea who would win with a car like license and insurance system for guns, other than insurance companies.

You say that we don't just let anyone drive, but the reality is that we pretty much do. The tests are not overly challenging, and can be taken time and time again until they're passed. To not get a licence despite trying you have to be utterly useless.

As for insurance, you will note that despite it existing for cars you still observe a vast number of accidents and deaths. There may be some small deterrent, but surely this pales into insignificance compared to the deterrent of not wanting to hurt someone. People reckless with the lives of others won't suddenly be risk averse to save a few quid.

And, of course, neither licensing nor insurance has any impact whatsoever on those who deliberately use vehicles to kill. It will not stop mass shootings in the same way that the prospects of disqualification and insurance costs did not stop the terror attacks on Christmas Markets a year or so ago.

In short, I don't see the point.

Re: Gun control

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:23 pm
by orathaic
You raise some interesting and valid points, however the major item at issue, in my mind, is pushing the cost (and a potential profit) onto insurance companies.

The assumption here would be that they would then profile potential mass shooters, work out who was most likely to be radicalised or prone to violence; probably end up using tracking technologies which most tech companies use (like Google for advertising) to collect information about your online behaviour, and attempt to find correlations which would then help with mass shootings.

Of course, counter to my position, it is arguable that law enforcement should already be using this kind of technology, and if it worked as well as I imagine then surely they would already be stopping all manner of mass shootings... And my only counter to that is the claim that a profit motive is *supposed* to make corporations more innovative...

But back to your original point. Yes, we do basically let anyone who really wants to drive; but I don't think it is a bad thing from a safety perspective that we force them to pass a test first. And the same logic seems equally valid for gun ownership (though arguably, my logic would only apply to public places, and not the home, which is where many gun accidents happen... So let's just assume I really want to see testing and licensing of all gun owners).

You are entirely right that this would do nothing with regard mass shootings; but building a system to reduce gun deaths as a whole is not a bad thing (and any US based gun owners I know are rather safety conscious to begin with... I don't know that they would be fond of govt limitations on who can own a gun, but they would be happy with the idea of improving gun safety...)

Re: Gun control

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:29 pm
by TrPrado
The “cost” in this instance is pretty exclusively criminal penalty, and you can’t push off criminal punishment onto insurance companies. And several forms of firearms already require licensing, and licenses are also required to bring those to certain locations or to conceal them. Adding new layers of restriction on top of that, especially making it nationally centralized, would range from pointless to being a restrictive hassle for the sake of restriction, neither of which would go well.

Re: Gun control

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:06 am
by mar
The second amendment: "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." As long as that law is followed everything is fine. I'm not crazy about owning guns, I'm crazy about following the law. I believe that if you want to own a gun you should be obligated to train with it at least 12 hours a year, that's 1 hour a month, and go through a mental evaluation process. Then once everything is set, citizens should be encouraged to carry their weapons in public. This would be an immediate deterrent to anyone who is looking to commit a violent crime because the potential terrorist has no idea if the area they are going to terrorize has,not only armed, but trained people inside that will defend themselves and everyone around them.

Re: Gun control

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:18 am
by Randomizer ... 568146002/

Somehow the age of gun toters keeps dropping and this is why we need more restrictions, because there are enough irresponsible legal gun owners out there. Training doesn't help because even armed professionals leave their guns behind in restrooms and unsecured.

Re: Gun control

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:43 am
by TrPrado
I don’t think average age of gun owners is important at all.

Re: Gun control

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:16 pm
by orathaic
@mar if everyone is armed, doesn't that lead to more racism?

Or why is it that only black guys with guns get shoot by police, when protecting people: ... story.html

Oh sorry, didn't mean to make this about race. Let's ignore race, how about good guys with guns shot by police. Kinda ruins your whole narrative?

And second, there us no reason to assume, given the second amendment, that those militias should be allowed to bring their guns home. Keep them in a common militia secure facility. Only have them out on official militia business.

If the 2nd amendment is really what you want. There is no reason gun ownership shouldn't be limited to militia members, and no reason the 'well regulated' part shouldn't mean regular training, drills, marching, etc. (you can even have insurance companies make a profit by forcing the militias to have insurance). Well regulated could mean high standards of security on weapon storage at a central location (in each town).

I mean, you could also argue that the 'being necessary for the security of a free-state' doesn't mean what it did in 1791. There was a time when the US was threatened by the Spanish in the South, the British in the North and the Indian tribes in the west/rest of the continent. Now you're looking at a nuclear armed power with two oceans on either side, and peaceful relations both north and south.

There is no comparison. As such the whole amendment should be revisited... But emotions will stop that.