I want to buy medicines containing pseudoephedrine without having to show my driver's license. I want to buy them in quantity, too. The "guilty until proven innocent" approach is so American. :(

(12-21-2012 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So let's assume that no new gun ban legislation is enacted. But gun restriction is, as in, it makes it harder to be able to purchase due to deeper background checks, longer waiting periods, etc. How do you feel about that?

In essence, trying to ensure that only those who do act responsibly when handling firearms are able to LEGALLY buy them. If law enforcement the. Also beefed up their efforts to stop illegal gun purchases, the potential that crimes committed by illegally purchased rifles would decrease.

To paragraph one, I don't see the point. Not that I am against it, but whom are you targeting? 3 days isn't enough but 7 days would be? How small a percentage of the population are we protecting vs how large? I'm not blanketly against it... I just don't see the point. I'm not aware that many people have been issued permits because we missed something that a "deeper" review or longer wait time would have stopped. My hesitation here is primarily on cost/benefit, but a little bit on rights violations. This without a STRONG paragraph 2 is the wrong message and will be fought by people we don't need to fight with.

To Paragraph two... Innocent until proven guilty... meaning you have to assume they are capable, unless they have sufficiently demonstrated through previous actions that they are not... i.e. insufficient age, mental capacity or crime. That's what makes this right different from other laws, and it needs to be respected as being different.

Having said that,...

Absolutely on beefing up efforts to get/keep guns away from criminals... and more significantly, harsher sentencing guidelines for gun crimes, whether fired or not. A petty 7-11 criminal or small-time drug dealer might be less inclined to keep his illegal glock (gun culture) if the punishment just for having it, much less "manacing" with it was 5yrs in jail. A parent with concerns about their child's mental health might lock them up better or get rid of them if they faced a $100,000 fine if he takes one to a school. I don't want manditory sentences... but I want stiff guidelines with judges on the record for making exceptions... and advocacy groups to point these out come election time.

(12-21-2012 12:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 09:31 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I expect the ATF to pass a regulation that if you own what is ultimately defined as an "assault weapon" you will be required to own a gun safe of a certain specification .

Kinda hard for the NRA to oppose this.

I guess if you are a member of a mexican cartel, you can get an exemption from the ATF.

Seriously, though, my gun dealer friend says he expects these kinds of weapons to be named a "Class three" weapon - similar to machine guns. To own a class three weapon you have to have permission.

Since suppressors (aka silencers) are now approved for hunting in Texas and are a similar classification, it ought to be easy to get the permit.

(12-21-2012 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, comparing the blaming of the Jews and other mainly ethnic minoriry groups for Germany's economic woes post-WWII is the same as laying blame to a political party that was involved in creating policy that helped hurt the economy.

I honestly can't believe I just read that. Apples to oranges.

I see gun-toting, bible thumping rednecks blamed for a myriad of the world's problems... It just depends on where you look.

(12-21-2012 09:04 AM)JSA Wrote:  I can't legally own a sawed-off shotgun.

I don't see this as a threat to my freedom.

But the question would be, why?

A shotgun is perhaps the MOST effective weapon in the world in home defense. It makes a lot of noise (especially a pump) and is easy to aim/hit your target. The shorter barrel of a "sawed off" gun makes it more effective in the potentially tight quarters of a hallway or a bedroom.

The reason it is illegal is because criminals can hide it under their coats better than a regular shotgun, but not as well as a pistol.

So people are robbed of one of the best tools for home defense because of criminals. FTR, 375 people were murdered by ALL shotguns in the US in 2010. A fraction of that number by "sawed off' ones... vs 13,000 by handgun.

While you may not feel more threatened, the stats say you aren't helped much either... and you can't/shouldn't take away rights just because you think it doesn't hurt you to lose them.

Frankly, it seems to me that having MORE sawed off shotguns for home defense would be better than handguns. Rather than take them away, we should encourage people to trade pistols for them for home defense

This 12 gauge shotgun is legal in all States. It's a Mossberg Model 500.



Its near and dear to my heart and is close to my bed in a secure location.

I load it it with Remington Express Managed-Recoil 00 Buckshot. Perfect for Ms. WMD as she is not fond of a bruise. It has a good dispersal (hits anyone standing within a door frame) at close ranges (10 feet) and will put the Bad Guy down with reduced risk the shot will penetrate sheet rock and fly into adjacent rooms compared to a 9mm, .40 or .45 round.

(12-21-2012 02:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  A parent with concerns about their child's mental health might lock them up better or get rid of them if they faced a $100,000 fine if he takes one to a school.

From what I read today, Ms. Lanza evidently kept her guns locked up.

$ 100,000? Most of the guys on this board make more than that in a year I'd wager, at least those who've been out of school awhile . . . . but that's probably 2 years work for the majority of Americans . . . two income households are averaging less than $ 100K.

So this kid who was bullied and wrongly took a gun to school this week, who was caught, and no one was hurt . . . . his parents give up 2 years salary (which happens to be 2 years of college education) when they didn't arm him, give him permission and the guns were taken without their knowledge . . . even if the guns were locked up?

I got hit by a car stolen by a 13-year old last month. Several grand in damage. He was way out of control in his driving, hit two cars (without really braking) drove up in a yard and hit a fence.

The stolen car was insured. Doesn't matter. I paid my (large) deductible and my insurance covered the rest. Other guys insurance doesn't pay . . . . kid didn't have permission to drive the car (it was stolen). Granted it wasn't the owner's son or relative . . .

Put another way, kid steals neighbor's gun . . . no penalty. Kid 'steals' parents gun, (and we're talking legal, registered gun since you'd have to be able to prove whose gun it was) and you bankrupt the family (and kid turns 18 with no debt).

I just don't see that (the $100,000 fine for a parent whose kid stole their gun) as a reasonable outcome. Frankly, I don't see the owner of a stolen car responsible either.

For perspective, the kid who damaged 3 cars was released to his mom. He was on probation already (possesion), but from what I can gather from my discussions with police, there is virtually no chance he will do jail time or juvenile time either.

His single mom looked pretty upset, was crying and yelling at the kid. I have no doubt he was talked to sternly later that night.

Look, the person who should've taken responsibility or should've been held responsible didn't and won't be. Sticking his mother, who was probably at work at the time, and probably has never stolen a car in her life, with a repair bill(s) for what might amount to 10% of her income for the year isn't going to make me feel better either.

I do a decent job raising my kids. Don't expect I'll ever get a call from a policeman to pull one of them out of a stolen car. But then again, my kids don't come home to an empty apartment in a bad neighborhood, with no one to drive them to any activities or help them with homework, because their parent physically and financially can't do the things I or my wife can. And even so, there is no guarantee that one of my kids won't mess up in some fashion, doing something they've been taught was wrong since they were 4.

At some point, it's the kids choice, not the parents. when it is reasonable to do so, we've got to hold the person responsible for the action . . . . responsible for their action.

And sometimes, although it isn't fair, there isn't a way to make it fair.

Draconian measures yield draconian results. And as Rick notes, life isn't always fair, and sometimes there's no way to make it fair.

The problem with focusing on the gun is that there's no way to do so without creating "guilty until proved innocent" situations. Focus on the people, not the guns. It is people who commit the crimes, using guns as a means, not the other way round.

License people to use guns, and require training and background checks
Stiffer penalties for gun use
Focus on mental health issues
Come up with a procedure to verify licenses at gun shows and end the gun show exemption, which is a huge hole
Consider requiring liability insurance for gun licensees
A cooling off period--48 hours, not some absurd length of time

And here's the one that seems particularly noteworthy to me. As a white male, my chances of getting shot are like 6.3 per 100,000. That's a few points higher than the western Europe average (which is somewhere in the 3-5 range), but generally in the same range and lower than some European countries (upper end goes to 7 or slightly higher). I would think most of us could live with that. The reason we are significantly higher overall is that our rate is in the 20 area for African-Americans and Latinos. And for those who posted and commented about the map of the US showing a correlation between lower gun deaths and stricter gun laws, what it also showed is perhaps stronger correlations with large minority populations and lower incomes. Figuring out why that is and what to do about it would seem to be a much more productive use of time and effort than trying to figure out how to eliminate the source of 350 killings a year.

(12-22-2012 06:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Draconian measures yield draconian results. And as Rick notes, life isn't always fair, and sometimes there's no way to make it fair.

The problem with focusing on the gun is that there's no way to do so without creating "guilty until proved innocent" situations. Focus on the people, not the guns. It is people who commit the crimes, using guns as a means, not the other way round.

License people to use guns, and require training and background checks
Stiffer penalties for gun use
Focus on mental health issues
Come up with a procedure to verify licenses at gun shows and end the gun show exemption, which is a huge hole
Consider requiring liability insurance for gun licensees
A cooling off period--48 hours, not some absurd length of time

And here's the one that seems particularly noteworthy to me. As a white male, my chances of getting shot are like 6.3 per 100,000. That's a few points higher than the western Europe average (which is somewhere in the 3-5 range), but generally in the same range and lower than some European countries (upper end goes to 7 or slightly higher). I would think most of us could live with that. The reason we are significantly higher overall is that our rate is in the 20 area for African-Americans and Latinos. And for those who posted and commented about the map of the US showing a correlation between lower gun deaths and stricter gun laws, what it also showed is perhaps stronger correlations with large minority populations and lower incomes. Figuring out why that is and what to do about it would seem to be a much more productive use of time and effort than trying to figure out how to eliminate the source of 350 killings a year.

Geez. Since the percentage per capita is so small, let's just accept such senseless killings as a fact of life. NOT! You do realize that all other countries around the world have citizens with mental illness, who play video games and watch the same movies and TV shows that we do here in the U.S., yet the murder rate in America is 8 times greater than the rest of the world combined? The ONLY differentiating factor-- and, yes, it's very hard to argue it's not a causal effect-- is the reality that despite comprising only 5% of the world population, the U.S. owns 50% of the guns. Stop with the lower income crap, as 3rd world countries, with far poor average national income, have far less gun killing rates than the U.S..

(12-22-2012 10:34 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Since the percentage per capita is so small, let's just accept such senseless killings as a fact of life. NOT! You do realize that all other countries around the world have citizens with mental illness, who play video games and watch the same movies and TV shows that we do here in the U.S., yet the murder rate in America is 8 times greater than the rest of the world combined? The ONLY differentiating factor-- and, yes, it's very hard to argue it's not a causal effect-- is the reality that despite comprising only 5% of the world population, the U.S. owns 50% of the guns. Stop with the lower income crap, as 3rd world countries, with far poor average national income, have far less gun killing rates than the U.S..

Of course, Walt, that's a complete perversion of what I wrote. Exactly where did I say that senseless killings are okay? Exactly where did I say that the problem was video games or movies or TV? What I'm saying is that they're all pretty much senseless, so let's do the things that bring the total number down, instead of focusing hysterically on a tiny component of the problem. Or are you saying that it's only the killing of rich white school kids that's senseless, and the thousands of African-American and Hispanic killings are somehow not senseless? That's probably an unfair characterization, but if you're going to put words in my mouth, then you opened the door.

But let me ask you a question. White males own a disproportionately large share of the legally-owned weapons in the US, and a particularly disproportionately large share of the rifles and "assault weapons" (by almost any way you want to define the term). And yet their rate per capita is single-digits, like Europe. If guns are the problem, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that the component of the population owning most of the weapons isn't the component having most of the problem? So, contrary to what you posted, it's very hard to argue that guns are the primary cause. Correlation does not mean causation, and on closer look, even the correlation is not too good. If guns are the primary causal factor, shouldn't the number of deaths be proportional to the number of guns? Why don't we try to reduce the number of ALL gun deaths?

As for your final point, the highest killing rates are in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, which looks a whole lot like the 3rd world to me.

(12-22-2012 01:49 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 02:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  A parent with concerns about their child's mental health might lock them up better or get rid of them if they faced a $100,000 fine if he takes one to a school.

From what I read today, Ms. Lanza evidently kept her guns locked up.

$ 100,000? Most of the guys on this board make more than that in a year I'd wager, at least those who've been out of school awhile . . . . but that's probably 2 years work for the majority of Americans . . . two income households are averaging less than $ 100K.

You completely left off my comment about not wanting mandatory sentencing for precisely the reason you describe. If she took reasonable precautions and the guy still got the guns, I wouldn't fine her at all. If she didn't... then she MAY be culpable.

the 5yr $100,000 number is modeled after Germany's law... but what I DON'T want is a convicted drug dealer getting 30 days and $1,000 fine for an illegal gun...hence the extreme baseline. I have no problem with a judge using discretion and having a suspended sentence to a guy with a clean record driving to the shooting range with his father's pistol... but I want it on the record that it was an exception so that people will be even MORE careful, and most importantly that petty criminals and guys trying to look "tough" will decide that the penalty isn't worth it. It won't stop murderers, but it might reduce the "gun culture" and get some guns away from criminals.



Walt...

Do you agree that of the 13,000 murders in this country by gun, that the vast majority are done by people who should have otherwise been denied their rights to a gun? I've seen stats claiming as high as over 90%, but I take those with skepticism... but 50% seems like a conservative number... That's 6500 of them if we can get more guns away from them.

Arguing about "assault rifles" is silly when the biggest difference between an assault rifle and a sporting rifle is a plastic vs a wooden stock. The action is identical... more significantly, that fewer than 350 of the 13,000 deaths are caused by assault rifles.

(12-22-2012 01:49 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 02:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  A parent with concerns about their child's mental health might lock them up better or get rid of them if they faced a $100,000 fine if he takes one to a school.

From what I read today, Ms. Lanza evidently kept her guns locked up.

$ 100,000? Most of the guys on this board make more than that in a year I'd wager, at least those who've been out of school awhile . . . . but that's probably 2 years work for the majority of Americans . . . two income households are averaging less than $ 100K.

So this kid who was bullied and wrongly took a gun to school this week, who was caught, and no one was hurt . . . . his parents give up 2 years salary (which happens to be 2 years of college education) when they didn't arm him, give him permission and the guns were taken without their knowledge . . . even if the guns were locked up?

My gun safe cost right at $1200.00 including installation (bolting it onto a concrete slab). It isn't going anywhere, and you'd need a few hours (or some explosives) to breach it. Only one other person besides me knows how to open it.

Any weapon that is "objectionable" because of the Connecticut incident should be kept very secured.

Texas law already provides a sanction for making a firearm accessible to a CHILD- Section 46.13 of the Penal Code.

Here's the law:

(a) In this section:

(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of age.

(2) "Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.

(3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.

(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm; or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

© It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:

(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;

(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;

(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this code; or

(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an agricultural enterprise.

(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(e) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor if the child discharges the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury to himself or another person.

(f) A peace officer or other person may not arrest the actor before the seventh day after the date on which the offense is committed if:

(1) the actor is a member of the family, as defined by Section 71.003, Family Code, of the child who discharged the firearm; and

(2) the child in discharging the firearm caused the death of or serious injury to the child.

(g) A dealer of firearms shall post in a conspicuous position on the premises where the dealer conducts business a sign that contains the following warning in block letters not less than one inch in height:

"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."

But Adam wasn't a "child" as defined by any law.

Notice under Section ©(3) that it makes burglary/theft of a weapon a defense to a violation of this section.

IMO opinion Mrs. Lanza was at fault because apparently she didn't keep her weapons locked up "good enough." I can see keeping a pistol or shotgun readily accessible, but a Bushmaster M-4 clone needs to be kept secured at all times unless its in use.

(12-21-2012 09:04 AM)JSA Wrote:  I can't legally own a sawed-off shotgun.
I don't see this as a threat to my freedom.

Interesting note about the case that upheld the sawed-off shotgun ban - the robbers challenging the ban never showed up at the supreme court. Only the government presented an argument. Not surprisingly, the robbers lost.

(12-22-2012 03:48 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 01:49 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 02:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  A parent with concerns about their child's mental health might lock them up better or get rid of them if they faced a $100,000 fine if he takes one to a school.

From what I read today, Ms. Lanza evidently kept her guns locked up.

$ 100,000? Most of the guys on this board make more than that in a year I'd wager, at least those who've been out of school awhile . . . . but that's probably 2 years work for the majority of Americans . . . two income households are averaging less than $ 100K.

So this kid who was bullied and wrongly took a gun to school this week, who was caught, and no one was hurt . . . . his parents give up 2 years salary (which happens to be 2 years of college education) when they didn't arm him, give him permission and the guns were taken without their knowledge . . . even if the guns were locked up?

My gun safe cost right at $1200.00 including installation (bolting it onto a concrete slab). It isn't going anywhere, and you'd need a few hours (or some explosives) to breach it. Only one other person besides me knows how to open it.

Any weapon that is "objectionable" because of the Connecticut incident should be kept very secured.

Texas law already provides a sanction for making a firearm accessible to a CHILD- Section 46.13 of the Penal Code.

Here's the law:

(a) In this section:

(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of age.

(2) "Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.

(3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.

(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm; or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

© It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:

(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;

(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;

(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this code; or

(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an agricultural enterprise.

(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(e) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor if the child discharges the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury to himself or another person.

(f) A peace officer or other person may not arrest the actor before the seventh day after the date on which the offense is committed if:

(1) the actor is a member of the family, as defined by Section 71.003, Family Code, of the child who discharged the firearm; and

(2) the child in discharging the firearm caused the death of or serious injury to the child.

(g) A dealer of firearms shall post in a conspicuous position on the premises where the dealer conducts business a sign that contains the following warning in block letters not less than one inch in height:

"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."

But Adam wasn't a "child" as defined by any law.

Notice under Section ©(3) that it makes burglary/theft of a weapon a defense to a violation of this section.

IMO opinion Mrs. Lanza was at fault because apparently she didn't keep her weapons locked up "good enough." I can see keeping a pistol or shotgun readily accessible, but a Bushmaster M-4 clone needs to be kept secured at all times unless its in use.

My point was not that making a weapon accessible to a child/minor is a good thing, or that it shouldn't be addressed in some fashion. It was that a $ 100,000 fine is excessive when there was no intent to place the weapon in the hands of the child.

Beyond that, the mere presence of the gun in the hands of a minor (or in this case, a non-minor) is NOT necessarily evidence that the the owner didn't take adequate measures to prevent access. A locked safe, or a locked trigger still have keys to unlock them. Finding those keys can occur without the owner's permission or knowledge, particularly if the person looking is a resident of the house, and the Owner either sleeps on occasion or leaves the house on their own, both more than reasonable activities.

Despite the assumptions here, and the mother's concerns over his ability to function on his own, there is still no evidence that has been presented to the public that (a) the shooter had ever exhibited violent behavior of any kind, and certainly not of a deadly nature; (b) that he had ever threatened mass murder or © that he had ever threatened suicide or (d) that he had ever threatened to kill his mother.

All of I've seen in writing is that he was considered odd, evidently had problems communicating (seemingly to an almost incapacitating level), had trouble in conventional school settings, and liked to play video games (the only stated evidence that a game he was playing was violent was in an incident where multiple students at his high school were evidently also taking part - maybe even evidence that he wasn't 100% as unsocial as a few of his classmates are remembering after the fact).

Some stories make a lot of the fact that the mother was concerned about how he was developing and was considering institutional help. While notable, that is certainly not only not uncommon, but expected, of any parent approaching their upper years as the sole caregiver for a child (in the biological, not legal age sense) who is 'challenged' or incapable of taking care of themself on their own. This applies to special needs children, who may have real difficulties surviving on their own, but of whom no one here would expect to be a threat to anyone else. They still would need protection and care, increasingly so as the primary caregiver's ability to provide adequate attention diminished.

In short, there are many ways that this 20-year old's behavior may have concerned his mother (withdrawal, even less social interaction) as they both aged. That does not automatically mean she had reason to suspect him capable of the crime he committed, or in fact any crime.

In fact, the crime itself is pretty much unprecedented in our, including the mother's, lifetime. It may not be 'inconceivable', but fearing that outcome in advance would probably not be considered rational.

The shooter was legally an adult. His mother had NOT turned him loose on the world, in fact he felt the need to remove his mother from the equation BEFORE he want on his killing spree.

I am NOT prepared to throw his mother under the bus without a whole lot more evidence than I've seen presented in the court of public opinion to date.

There is more than enough evidence to assume her son guilty of an unfathomable, unprecedented crime.

But she, as the first victim, in what seems to have been at the best, an increasingly difficult situation, deserves the presumption of 'innocence until proven guilty' that our legal system guarantees, even if public opinion isn't unanimous in wanting to offer it.

(12-21-2012 01:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So where does your line get drawn? Do you believe that any sort of weapon should be able to be legally purchased since any sort of weapon restrictions would, if you 're reading the 2nd Amendment as I think you are, be taking away rights?

In general, yes. I think the denial of any "gun" is an infringement, but certain infringements are allowed under the 5th. I think explosives can be banned because they are not arms. I think nuclear and biologic weapons can be banned, because there is no way to use them for any legal purpose, including home defense or even entertainment without infringing on others rights.

I've never heard that before - how are "explosives" not "arms"? And what is gunpowder if not an explosive?

As for nuclear and biological weapons, I can think of many entertaining uses of a (very very small) nuclear weapon. I'm having a harder time with biological weapons, but I'm sure someone could come up with something they found entertaining.

Given your willingness to accept these restrictions, how would you respond to the following argument?
"For someone else to decide that a) I don't need something, and therefore b) I can't have it, is IMO a serious restriction on my individual liberty. Doesn't matter what it is. As long as I use it responsibly, it should be none of your business--and most definitely none of government's business--what I have or don't have."

(12-26-2012 09:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  "For someone else to decide that a) I don't need something, and therefore b) I can't have it, is IMO a serious restriction on my individual liberty. Doesn't matter what it is. As long as I use it responsibly, it should be none of your business--and most definitely none of government's business--what I have or don't have."

Won't speak for Hambone, but I agree 100% with this, as long as "responsible use" is defined to exclude any intrusion into the liberty of another.

(12-23-2012 02:11 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  My point was not that making a weapon accessible to a child/minor is a good thing, or that it shouldn't be addressed in some fashion. It was that a $ 100,000 fine is excessive when there was no intent to place the weapon in the hands of the child.

That's why judges have discretion. All of the factors you listed would be mitigating factors. The current situation where someone gets (perhaps) a $500 fine, not coming close to covering the court costs, much less being much of a deterrent to a criminal for being the antithesis of what you describe here is a FAR worse situation. I want to deter criminals. I want to encourage safe handling. If you are safe and things still happen, then no problem.

(12-26-2012 09:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 01:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So where does your line get drawn? Do you believe that any sort of weapon should be able to be legally purchased since any sort of weapon restrictions would, if you 're reading the 2nd Amendment as I think you are, be taking away rights?

In general, yes. I think the denial of any "gun" is an infringement, but certain infringements are allowed under the 5th. I think explosives can be banned because they are not arms. I think nuclear and biologic weapons can be banned, because there is no way to use them for any legal purpose, including home defense or even entertainment without infringing on others rights.

I've never heard that before - how are "explosives" not "arms"? And what is gunpowder if not an explosive?

As for nuclear and biological weapons, I can think of many entertaining uses of a (very very small) nuclear weapon. I'm having a harder time with biological weapons, but I'm sure someone could come up with something they found entertaining.

Given your willingness to accept these restrictions, how would you respond to the following argument?
"For someone else to decide that a) I don't need something, and therefore b) I can't have it, is IMO a serious restriction on my individual liberty. Doesn't matter what it is. As long as I use it responsibly, it should be none of your business--and most definitely none of government's business--what I have or don't have."

Explosives aren't "arms" in my mind because they are generally uncontrolled in sufficient quantities to be dangerous.... Hence firecrackers and the gunpowder in a bullet are inconsequential... but a hand grenade is too easily uncontrolled. As for your nuke comment, what about the radiation? I can't imagine them being small enough to not cause unintended damage, but I suppose if they ever get there, you can make that argument.

To your last comment, OwlNumbers pretty well hit the nail on the head. Using "whatever it is" responsibly and not infringing upon the rights of others means you (the government) should stay out. I only accept restrictions where even the "responsible" use of something infringes on others rights. That is clearly arguable and will likely change over time... and that is the purpose of the courts as far as I'm concerned. It's not a question of accepting restrictions.... It's a question of conflicting individual rights. I accept that those actions likely infringe unreasonably on other's rights. I don't accept that the government can simply limit my rights WITHOUT this infringement.

Hambone,
Your comments are in direct conflict with Owl 69's stated position. You believe that it's acceptable to "ban" explosives and nuclear weapons, even to people who have not yet demonstrated that they will not "use it responsibly".

I would contend that your position is in fact much more nuanced than Owl 69's, and implies a willingness to weigh the inherent danger of the weapon against your perception of the utility said weapon provides to the prospective owner.

(12-29-2012 10:42 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Hambone,
Your comments are in direct conflict with Owl 69's stated position. You believe that it's acceptable to "ban" explosives and nuclear weapons, even to people who have not yet demonstrated that they will not "use it responsibly".

I would contend that your position is in fact much more nuanced than Owl 69's, and implies a willingness to weigh the inherent danger of the weapon against your perception of the utility said weapon provides to the prospective owner.

Then I gave you the wrong impression. The nuances of my response may only be nuanced because I am getting into some small details Owl ignored.

First, Utility has zero bearing on my right to have something. Only the risk to the rights of others posed by my reasonable operation of it. The utility of my speech is similarly not at issue in looking at the first amendment.

Second, I can shoot a gun, and with the presumption of minimal precautions, not put anyone at risk. Explosions are much less controllable, and thus I feel "special" precautions must be taken to avoid infringement on the rights of others. My position is that this is what is and should be argued about, and not just outright banned. An explosive in a NY apartment building is a much different public risk than an explosive on a 5,000 acre ranch in west Texas. I have the right to the explosive, but the state has a right to restict me with it.

Third, to a nuke... at this point, I'd accept that there IS no reasonable way to posess a "live" nuke for any purpose or any amount of utility, including art, that doesn't put other's rights at risk. My opinion is based on a limited knowledge base on the radiation risk of using plutonium as part of a coffee table (low utility art) rather than the risk that you might actually use it to blow somebody up. As such, it is not an "arm"... because any reasonable use of it as an arm, even for the simple entertainment of watching it go boom, would CERTAINLY put many people's rights at risk due to radiation.

I have not read Owl's entire position, I was merely agreeing with what I understood his belief to be that "responsible use" means not infringing upon the rights of others, and if I'm not doing that, then the government can't infringe upon my rights.

To me, it's the same argument as abortion. So long as my decision doesn't infringe upon the rights of another citizen, then you can't touch me. Once it does, (viability) I can STILL do it, but I may have to demonstrate more precautions to protect others... up to and including a "late term" abortion where by statute or common sense, the presumption really is that you are absolutely infringing on the rights of others, but that may be okay if it saves your OWN life. It's a very poor analogy, but that is the handgun, explosive and nuke argument as I see them.