S/O Gun control

[Murphy101]

I just see it creating a new insurance industry and not actually addressing the issue of gun availability.

Yep. Cures nothing, costs everyone.

 

I'm even less a fan of yet more, we don't know what it will do until we pass it and find out.

[Ms.Ivy]

I am as liberal as they come and have many, many liberal friends and family and not ONE single person I know and not one single politician I know of wants guns abolished. That is a fear tactic employed by the NRA and their political cronies.

It's hard to tell what people are thinking when they want "gun-free zones."  

[goldberry]

For any regulation to be effective at all, it would have to be enforced on a federal level, and not just a city, county, or state level.  If you can just drive a bit to get around a regulation, it's useless.

 

I also think that mental illness should be part of the background and verification criteria.  I agree with requiring guns to be removed when there is a mentally ill person in the home.  That might even prevent a fair bit of suicides.    Is it sad that *some* mentally ill might do just fine with a gun, but won't be allowed to own one?  Sure.  Sorry.    History has shown that mental illness plus firearms can have horrendous consequences. 

 

Yes, I know not all mentally ill seek treatment, blah, blah, but it's a start.  Doing something to start is better than doing nothing.

 

 

 

 

[ktgrok]

After reading the part about the UK requiring a doctor approve the application and two character references to buy a gun, I think that would be a GREAT first step. 

 

 

[Annie G]

This page gives a lot of detail and these are the current rules:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, Firearm Certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.^[45] The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years.

 

My former boss has a shotgun certificate, and he not only has to fulfil the fitness conditions, but to specify where he is likely to shoot.  He's not limited to shooting in that place, but there has to be reasonable location available to him (not the back garden).

 

I think that there used to be a fair number of service revolvers unloaded in drawers, brought back from both World Wars.  They were just a curiosity in most cases.  I do think that there is a cultural difference here: there isn't a founding myth in Britain of ordinary people righting wrongs and forging new lives with guns, as the US has in the Wild West.  Guns just don't mean much in British culture.  Our stories of invasion and oppression predate pistols.

 

The tightening of laws came in reaction to mass killings in Hungerford (1987, street shooting) and Dunblane (1996, school shooting).  There was an amnesty, and many weapons were handed in.  There was such horror at these incidents that there was little objection to the new laws.  There was no ingrained cultural value to guns in the UK, so there was little to weigh against the deaths of innocent adults and children.

 

There was a later street shooting (Cumbria, 2010) but the laws weren't changed much after that - there was a recognition, I think, that laws can't prevent every last incident.

 

This section gives the firearms crime statistics; there are about fifty firearm deaths in England and Wales per year:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

 

What does all this feel like?  Because there are very few guns around, criminals don't carry them: the penalties for using a gun during a crime are very high, and criminals know that it's very likely that the person they are mugging/burglarising will be unarmed, so they just expect to run away if discovered.  There is a general lack of fear here: I feel no connection with the idea of carrying a gun for self-defence.

 

It's very hard to compare two country's crime figures, because of differences in reporting, but this article seems to have tried hard to get to definitions.  I don't know anything about the writer's background:

 

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

Thanks for taking the time to write this out.  I wouldn't be comfortable giving someone the ability to own a gun for sport but not for self defense.  There are a lot of people genuinely afraid of someone and the police often can't prevent an incident. A gun may or may not protect a woman, but I do want people with real concerns to be able to protect themselves.  (Of course that leads to other people who want to protect themselves such as people who have dangerous jobs like maybe pizza delivery.)

 

The second thing that stands out to me is that your criminals would run away if they are discovered mugging/breaking into a place. Maybe here some do that but there are a lot of cases where home invasions turn really violent even without guns- I'm not convinced criminals here would be scared off. I think we have some pretty awful criminals here. 

 

I guess I hear of a lot of rapes and murders that don't involve guns and I think that evil people will find a way to act on their bad intentions.  I think here we have to fight this crime issue with more than controlling guns...we have to figure out how to curtail the evil. And that is likely more difficult than eliminating guns. 

 

Thanks again for your reply. 

[Joanne]

It's hard to tell what people are thinking when they want "gun-free zones."  

 

No, it's not. You can simply take it at face value that some people believe there are places in which it is inappropriate to have or best not to have a gun. Off the top of my head, I can say church. Schools. Hospitals. Government buildings such as the Post Office, or DMV.

[Stacia]

This may be slightly OT, but it's a question I've had for awhile.

 

For people who want to own guns, mainly for personal safety reasons, & who are responsible gun owners, I would assume that means you store your gun(s) in a gun safe w/ the ammo stored separately (or at least next to instead of in the weapon)? (Actually, most people I know in my area do own guns & have gun safes in their homes.)

 

If so & if the point of owning the gun is for safety, how does that work when, say, an intruder comes into your house? The intruder has the element of surprise, which is probably not going to give the responsible gun owner time to get to the safe, unlock the safe, load the weapon, then aim & shoot accurately.

 

So, how does owning a gun make you feel safer for scenarios like that?

 

I would think that if you're thinking that someone will intrude or rob you, realistically, you would need your gun loaded & nearby at all times to actually use it in a self-defense scenario. But, then, that doesn't align with being responsible re: keeping guns unloaded, locked up, etc....

 

I'm honestly curious about this.

[Stacia]

This year in the United States we've averaged more than one mass shooting (defined as shootings where at least four people are shot, including the gunman) every day of the year.

 

Bill

 

I "liked" your post not because I like the info in it, but because I think it's critical to keep putting this info out there. We are too complacent in the face of daily gun deaths.

[Murphy101]

After reading the part about the UK requiring a doctor approve the application and two character references to buy a gun, I think that would be a GREAT first step.

I would be opposed to this.

 

One, it's a right. We do not need a Drs slip to access our rights. Nor do we need the good opinion of others to do so. Removing that right if we commit a crime worthy of such action by the state is acceptable though.

 

Two, doctors have enough work without being given more paperwork to fill out. Not to mention the health system does not need further burdened. Their job is medicine. Leave them to it and leave law enforcement to enforcing laws and legislatures to making laws that police can manage.

[Ms.Ivy]

No, it's not. You can simply take it at face value that some people believe there are places in which it is inappropriate to have or best not to have a gun. Off the top of my head, I can say church. Schools. Hospitals. Government buildings such as the Post Office, or DMV.

I just don't see much difference between saying "guns should not exist where there are humans" and "Guns should not exist." But I think we can all agree that you can't set up gun free zones in a wider area that is not gun free and expect complete safety. I think that's the bigger problem right now. The gun free school zone approach is not working.

[TechWife]

Some things are fairly straight forward and there is no sense in fighting for legislation that doesn't address the bulk of the issue and is unlikely to survive court challenges.

 

It would need to be part of a comprehensive package, not a stand alone. Unless the Supreme Court has already ruled on gun owners and insurance, then the law is open to interpretation. Shoot, even when the Supreme Court has ruled on something, it's still open to their interpretation. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. Sometimes we have to attempt the seemingly impossible to learn what is truly possible. 

[Jkacz]

This may be slightly OT, but it's a question I've had for awhile.

 

For people who want to own guns, mainly for personal safety reasons, & who are responsible gun owners, I would assume that means you store your gun(s) in a gun safe w/ the ammo stored separately (or at least next to instead of in the weapon)? (Actually, most people I know in my area do own guns & have gun safes in their homes.)

 

If so & if the point of owning the gun is for safety, how does that work when, say, an intruder comes into your house? The intruder has the element of surprise, which is probably not going to give the responsible gun owner time to unlock the safe, load the weapon, aim & shoot accurately.

 

So, how does owning a gun make you feel safer for scenarios like that?

 

I would think that if you're thinking that someone will intrude or rob you, realistically, you would need your gun loaded & nearby at all times to actually use it in a self-defense scenario. But, then, that doesn't align with being responsible re: keeping guns unloaded, locked up, etc....

 

I'm honestly curious about this.

For those honestly curious - Gun is stored in a biometric (fingerprint) gun safe next to the bed. Magazine containing ammunition is in the safe with the gun. I can open the safe and load the gun in about 30 seconds. House is equipped with an alarm system. Bedrooms are on the second floor. if the alarm goes off, either my husband or I go to the children and grab the phone to call 911, the other accesses the safe and guards the stairs until help arrives. Thieves can steal anything they want from the first floor but if anyone comes up the stairs, we will protect our children.

 

This probably sounds paranoid to some of you, by there was a home invasion in our town and friends of ours were seriously injured. Admittedly, the chances of a home invasion are rare, but so are the chances of a fire and we're encouraged to run fire drills with children. How is this any different?

[Stacia]

For those honestly curious - Gun is stored in a biometric (fingerprint) gun safe next to the bed. Magazine containing ammunition is in the safe with the gun. I can open the safe and load the gun in about 30 seconds. House is equipped with an alarm system. Bedrooms are on the second floor. if the alarm goes off, either my husband or I go to the children and grab the phone to call 911, the other accesses the safe and guards the stairs until help arrives. Thieves can steal anything they want from the first floor but if anyone comes up the stairs, we will protect our children.

 

This probably sounds paranoid to some of you, by there was a home invasion in our town and friends of ours were seriously injured. Admittedly, the chances of a home invasion are rare, but so are the chances of a fire and we're encouraged to run fire drills with children. How is this any different?

 

Ok. Thanks for answering.

[mom2scouts]

 

I'm sure what I'm going to say next will offend people but I can't help it.  

Where I live there is concealed-carry allowed.  I know a few people who do (and I'm sure there are several who do & I don't know) & I am so disturbed by the idea that these idiot, macho, rambo wannabees are bringing weapons to church, the movie theater, the grocery store - & their wives (who don't otherwise fit the profile of demure, submissives) look at them like "Oh, my hero!  If someone starts shooting me my big, strong husband will save the day! {{swoon}}" as he confidently pats the location of the hidden gun.  BARF!!!!!  These are also people who thought the curious incidents of 2 handguns left in public bathrooms & accessible to children are funny & not a problem, because nobody got hurt.  

 

 

It's just as likely that those wives are also carrying concealed. Permits for women are up about 270% in the past 8 years. All of the people that I know have CC permits are women and many of them are people I would never expect to even own a gun.  

[TechWife]

I would be opposed to this.

 

One, it's a right. We do not need a Drs slip to access our rights. Nor do we need the good opinion of others to do so. Removing that right if we commit a crime worthy of such action by the state is acceptable though.

 

Two, doctors have enough work without being given more paperwork to fill out. Not to mention the health system does not need further burdened. Their job is medicine. Leave them to it and leave law enforcement to enforcing laws and legislatures to making laws that police can manage.

 

One, who determines this is the case? There is a first time for everything. Should the needs/desires of the one outweigh the well being of many? This is a long standing question that has to be answered in some way every time a new law is enacted. 

 

Two, it is within the scope of a physician to make a general determination about the mental health of a person. The health system is not burdened by carrying out tasks related to mental health, they do it every single day. The doctors would not be involved in enforcement or legislature. They would, however, be asked to make a clinical determination as the the mental fitness of their patient. It is something doctors do every single day of their working careers. Something you might not realize is that doctors are already involved in something similar as pilots have to be certified by an FAA authorized examiner.  

[8circles]

It's just as likely that those wives are also carrying concealed. Permits for women are up about 270% in the past 8 years. All of the people that I know have CC permits are women and many of them are people I would never expect to even own a gun.  

 

Yes, I just don't know any for sure female carriers.  The ones whose husbands do say they dont themselves but they could be lying.

 

Anyhow, I don't know any private citizen who isn't former military - who actually saw combat - who *I* think should be able to carry a gun in public, concealed or open.  I believe they are a hazard and many of them suffer from over-inflated egos, wishing to be a hero and have their 15 minutes when the opportunity arises.  Only I don't think they understand what that would actually mean.  The video Mergath talked about would probably be quite eye-opening for them.

 

The whole thing is ridiculous and I find myself asking "how did we get here?"  This isn't the kind of culture I want but it appears that many do.

[Jkacz]

I have my concealed carry permit. While I do not usually carry, there have been times when I have done so. One example is when there was an unknown car parked on our very suburban street where no one parks on the street. No driver was in the car and I had to bring one child to go pick up the other child at preschool. Husband was at work. I will guarantee that no one knew or even suspected I was carrying. Other than family and close friends, no one in "real" life even knows that we own guns, never mind that I might be carrying.

[Amy in NH]

I would say a good middle ground is to allow the people who want to be armed, to be armed. Not every teacher should carry but if they want to be armed then they should be able to carry. There should be no gun free zones.

That is not a middle ground - IMO it is a very extreme view.

[Amy in NH]

I think the answer is in the idea of "a well regulated militia". Right now we just have guns. We don't have "well regulated" at all.

 

I think the ideal would be for all gunsowners to need to be part of a regulated group with regular meetings, rules, trainings, etc. Basically a civilian version of the National Guard. If you dont' want to put that much effort into it then fine, don't have a gun. But the 2nd ammendment isn't about protecting your home from robbery, it's about a freaking militia to defend the people against the government. If you want to preach 2nd ammendment to the rooftops, feel free. But remember that part about well regulated militia.

 

My hope is that if you are showing up to regular trainings, passing a pysch test maybe, etc you would get noticed if you were a freaking pyschopath and reported before you did harm.

This

[8circles]

I have my concealed carry permit. While I do not usually carry, there have been times when I have done so. One example is when there was an unknown car parked on our very suburban street where no one parks on the street. No driver was in the car and I had to bring one child to go pick up the other child at preschool. Husband was at work. I will guarantee that no one knew or even suspected I was carrying. Other than family and close friends, no one in "real" life even knows that we own guns, never mind that I might be carrying.

 

I can't imagine being afraid of an unoccupied unknown car parked on the street in a suburban neighborhood.  How is that in any way a danger to you?  What nefarious purpose do you suspect that would benefit from you having a gun?

[Jkacz]

The whole thing is ridiculous and I find myself asking "how did we get here?" This isn't the kind of culture I want but it appears that many do.

We got here because we live in a time that people can be brutally raped and sodomized, stabbed and left for dead in their own home. Whether it's actually more prevalent or more publicized, I'm not sure, but I refuse to risk my safety or that of my loved ones to enact more gun legislation that I don't feel would help the real issues.

 

I find it ironic that my FIL, an army veteran, can not even purchase a gun in Long Island because he has been unable to get a permit for over a year. The police department there has "lost" his application multiple times, and given him the run around so much that he has given up. I will guarantee that the criminals there have no issues getting guns, but yet a law abiding citizen does. That is why I'm concerned when people bring up "common sense" gun reform, because only the law abiding citizens are harmed by it.

[8circles]

We got here because we live in a time that people can be brutally raped and sodomized, stabbed and left for dead in their own home. 

 

I'm sorry that you live in fear of this happening to you.  I do not.  How frequently does this happen where you live?  Can you point to a time in history when there was no violent crime? 

[Ms.Ivy]

That is not a middle ground - IMO it is a very extreme view.

 

It's not as extreme if you compare it to other "gun free" zones -- i.e., courthouses, the capitol building, the president, the airport, the social security office -- all protected by guns to prevent people from using guns.  You have to walk through metal detectors which is enforced by people who have guns.  If we want schools to be gun free zones, we should at least pretend to be as serious about it as we are about guns on an airplane.  Simply putting up a sign that says "gun free zone" seems extreme to me -- extremely naive.  

[Jkacz]

I can't imagine being afraid of an unoccupied unknown car parked on the street in a suburban neighborhood. How is that in any way a danger to you? What nefarious purpose do you suspect that would benefit from you having a gun?

Houses are on 3-5 acres each. The problem wasn't the unoccupied vehicle, the problem is where the driver to that vehicle was. The closest public place to walk to is about 2 miles away and it's enough of a walk down the driveways that NO ONE parks on the street unless their driveway is being paved or sealed. Houses are partially hidden by trees and the driver could have been hiding anywhere. While I was not likely to need the gun, I believe in better safe than sorry.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It would need to be part of a comprehensive package, not a stand alone. Unless the Supreme Court has already ruled on gun owners and insurance, then the law is open to interpretation. Shoot, even when the Supreme Court has ruled on something, it's still open to their interpretation. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. Sometimes we have to attempt the seemingly impossible to learn what is truly possible.

Mandated insurance is currently a non-starter at the national level and faces a host of issues, ranging from whether it is legal to require it (possibly is if structured correctly) to having providers willing to provide it at reasonable rates. It is trickier than car insurance because 1.) car insurance is not mandated at the national level, and 2.) driving had been ruled a privilege, not a right. With the current USSC ruling gun ownership is a right, then placing extraordinary burdens on gun owners would fall in the same realm as certain restrictions on other rights (example: voting).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

One, who determines this is the case? There is a first time for everything. Should the needs/desires of the one outweigh the well being of many? This is a long standing question that has to be answered in some way every time a new law is enacted.

 

Two, it is within the scope of a physician to make a general determination about the mental health of a person. The health system is not burdened by carrying out tasks related to mental health, they do it every single day. The doctors would not be involved in enforcement or legislature. They would, however, be asked to make a clinical determination as the the mental fitness of their patient. It is something doctors do every single day of their working careers. Something you might not realize is that doctors are already involved in something similar as pilots have to be certified by an FAA authorized examiner.

The number of pilots in this country is extremely small when compared to the number of gun owners.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

On the topic of mental evaluations and insurance, I do think a case could be made for requiring both for someone wanting a concealed carry permit. I don't think doing so would affect gun violence to a noticeable degree though.

[Jkacz]

I'm sorry that you live in fear of this happening to you. I do not. How frequently does this happen where you live? Can you point to a time in history when there was no violent crime?

New Hampshire, as a whole, is extremely safe with one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation. But while home invasions are rare, they exist everywhere. Maybe I have a heightened sense of it - my father was one of the firemen who responded to the Petit home fire in Cheshire, CT and friends/acquaintances of ours were seriously injured here in New Hampshire. I guess it's like cancer, if a friend is diagnosed you might be more likely to do routine screenings.

[8circles]

New Hampshire, as a whole, is extremely safe with one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation. But while home invasions are rare, they exist everywhere. Maybe I have a heightened sense of it - my father was one of the firemen who responded to the Petit home fire in Cheshire, CT and friends/acquaintances of ours were seriously injured here in New Hampshire. I guess it's like cancer, if a friend is diagnosed you might be more likely to do routine screenings.

 

That crime sounds horrific.  I'm sorry that you have any connection to it at all.  & I'm sorry that you live in fear.

To the bolded:

Except cancer screenings don't put other people in danger nor do they contribute to a gun culture that smells more like vigilanteeism than freedom.

[Joker]

I just don't get the fear.

 

I should say I grew up in a home with guns. We did a lot of hunting and skeet shooting. Our guns were not locked away and neither was the ammunition. It was the same in most of the homes in our area. There wasn't violence either. No one took advantage of all those unlocked guns. It just was. There wasn't fear, though. That's not what the guns were for.

 

I own no guns because we do not hunt or skeet shoot. There is no reason. I just don't fear people that way in my everyday life. I don't feel fear and a need to protect my children/family with a gun. It's doesn't make sense to me. Dh was in the Marines. He is comfortable and familiar with guns but feels zero need to have one in our home.

 

I think the fear is where the whole thing falls apart to me. Why do some fear others so much? That fear that people have scares me. It's why I would yank my dds out of their school if teachers/adminstrators were allowed to carry. I think that kind of fear is dangerous to be living with on a daily basis.

[TechWife]

Mandated insurance is currently a non-starter at the national level and faces a host of issues, ranging from whether it is legal to require it (possibly is if structured correctly) to having providers willing to provide it at reasonable rates. It is trickier than car insurance because 1.) car insurance is not mandated at the national level, and 2.) driving had been ruled a privilege, not a right. With the current USSC ruling gun ownership is a right, then placing extraordinary burdens on gun owners would fall in the same realm as certain restrictions on other rights (example: voting).

 

Health insurance is now mandated at the national level, so I think it is within the realm of possibility to mandate firearm insurance. It remains to be seen that increased gun control laws would really be placing a burden on those who want to own guns. It is also matter of balancing rights. It could certainly be argued that low regulation or no regulation gun ownership interferes with the ability of some people to  have life, liberty and  to pursue happiness, the inalienable rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. 

 

While everyone 18 years of age and older has the right to vote, there are laws in place that regulate the way this right is accessed. Voters must register, they have to vote on specified days and at specified times, in some states they must present a photo id. Additionally, those convicted of certain crimes forfeit their right to vote for life. SCOTUS has determined such laws do not infringe on the right of people to vote. 

 

Likewise, it has been determined that a certain population in the US is not permitted to own a firearm. This has been legislated. The legislation is not detailed in the constitution or it's amendments, to my recollection, but it is, nevertheless, law that firearms may not be owned by convicted felons, for example. These laws do not infringe on the people's right to "bear arms." 

 

Additionally, have you considered that it is entirely possible to amend the constitution? Amending the US Constitution is rare, but it is possible and it has been done. 

 

Instead of looking for ways things won't work, I really do wish that our citizens would sit down at the table together and determine to address the issue of gun violence, propose solutions and work to have the solutions implemented. This is not a swift nor easy process, but time will pass regardless.  I stated earlier in this thread that I think gun control is secondary to other issues we have in our country, so limiting the discussion to this one thing is not going to solve many problems. In addition to tacking gun control, we need to simultaneously tackle the deficiencies in mental health care in our nation and engage in some personal introspection on what we as individuals should demand of ourselves and each other as far as behavior is concerned and when it is right to limit the rights of a few people (in this case, those who should not have access to guns in the first place) in order to preserve the lives of many. In addition, larger conversations need to take place with entire communities, both small and large, to attempt to reach some type of consensus on those expectations. Right now we have laws in place and no one has reasonable expectation that they will be effective in protecting the citizenry. Perhaps the thing that must change the most is nurturing a sense of humility, meaning a personal realization that others have valid points and that in some areas, compromise is necessary. 

 

 

 

 

[Murphy101]

One, who determines this is the case? There is a first time for everything. Should the needs/desires of the one outweigh the well being of many? This is a long standing question that has to be answered in some way every time a new law is enacted.

Determines what is the case? That gun ownership is a right? The constitution and the USSC. You cannot place an undue burden on access to a right. Like someone else noted, this would be similiar to requiring a doctors note to vote.

 

Two, it is within the scope of a physician to make a general determination about the mental health of a person. The health system is not burdened by carrying out tasks related to mental health, they do it every single day. The doctors would not be involved in enforcement or legislature. They would, however, be asked to make a clinical determination as the the mental fitness of their patient. It is something doctors do every single day of their working careers. Something you might not realize is that doctors are already involved in something similar as pilots have to be certified by an FAA authorized examiner.

I am very familiar with that bc I have someone working on it in my household.

 

But again, being a pilot is not a right. Owning a gun is.

 

The government has a LOT more flexibility in restricting things that are not rights and extremely limited ability to restrict things that are rights. Which is as it should be or they aren't really rights and freedoms.

 

Also, the medical practioners that a person can see for their pilot medical are limited to a few doctors. For example, in my area my son had to choose one of two doctors. I can't remember if that's all there were in my state or just my region, but he could not go to just any dr for it. And it isn't covered by insurance. So no, this is not placing a burden on the general doctors at large. But it also takes a long time to get an appointment with the few doctors who do it and many weeks to get the results.

 

You seem bent on doing anything, effective or practical not with standing, because it's more important to rush to "do something", to do anything.

 

I disagree with that lack of strategy. This attitude tends to get an automatic no vote from me. If you can't show me how it will be both effective and legal and manageable, then I'm likely to vote no until given that information. Good intentions alone do not usually make good laws. I wish they did, but they usually don't.

[TechWife]

Houses are on 3-5 acres each. The problem wasn't the unoccupied vehicle, the problem is where the driver to that vehicle was. The closest public place to walk to is about 2 miles away and it's enough of a walk down the driveways that NO ONE parks on the street unless their driveway is being paved or sealed. Houses are partially hidden by trees and the driver could have been hiding anywhere. While I was not likely to need the gun, I believe in better safe than sorry.

 

In my area I would assume that someone had a guest over and the guest chose to park on the street. There homes on small lots and large lots, wooded and clear lots, farms and city blocks and everything in-between within a 20 min drive of my home. 

[TechWife]

The number of pilots in this country is extremely small when compared to the number of gun owners.

 

That is irrelevant. The fact is that the government does already require people to obtain health certificates from designated physicians. It is not a new concept. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is irrelevant. The fact is that the government does already require people to obtain health certificates from designated physicians. It is not a new concept.

It isn't irrelevant when you suddenly want to require everyone go to a doctor to get access to what is determined to be a legal fight. A requirement of this nature could be a burden in some areas, and it is possible that many doctors would not want to be responsible for determining whether someone is mentally competent to own a gun.

The comparison to airline pilots is flawed from the start as employment as a pilot is not a right.

[Jkacz]

That crime sounds horrific. I'm sorry that you have any connection to it at all. & I'm sorry that you live in fear.

I think what you misunderstand is that I DON'T live in fear. I feel prepared in the unlikely event I ever need to be. It's like having a fire extinguisher - you hope you never need it. But target shooting is also a sport and I enjoy going to the range to keep up my skills.

[TechWife]

Determines what is the case? That gun ownership is a right? The constitution and the USSC. You cannot place an undue burden on access to a right. Like someone else noted, this would be similiar to requiring a doctors note to vote.

 

No - that requiring a medical certificate is an undue burden. If you read carefully, you can see that I was following on someone else's thoughts. 

But again, being a pilot is not a right. Owning a gun is.

 

I never said it was. I was simply using that as an example of how the government already has an established regulation requiring those who have the safety of others in their hands to prove that they are fit for that responsibility. It is not a new idea and it is not impossible to implement. 

 

The government has a LOT more flexibility in restricting things that are not rights and extremely limited ability to restrict things that are rights. Which is as it should be or they aren't really rights and freedoms.

I agree. I also posit that when the life and health of it's citizens is at stake, the government has an obligation to restrict the activities of it's citizens accordingly. Additionally, there exists a way to amend our constitution. As I have stated elsewhere, it is not easy to do, nor is it done frequently, but when the citizens determine it is necessary, it gets done. The question is - what does it take for the citizens to require the government do what it can to prevent unnecessary firearms deaths? 

 

Also, the medical practioners that a person can see for their pilot medical are limited to a few doctors. For example, in my area my son had to choose one of two doctors. I can't remember if that's all there were in my state or just my region, but he could not go to just any dr for it. And it isn't covered by insurance. So no, this is not placing a burden on the general doctors at large. But it also takes a long time to get an appointment with the few doctors who do it and many weeks to get the results.

So what? The responsibility belongs to the person who wants to own the gun, just as it is on the person who wants to fly the plane. Either more doctors will provide these certificates for those who want firearms or they won't. Either way, the number of current providers for a different, yet similar, service, is not a valid reason not to require a person to demonstrate their fitness to own a firearm. I don't think insurance should have to pay for a certification for someone to either own a gun or to fly a plane, but if lawmakers want to "make it so," they will. 

You seem bent on doing anything, effective or practical not with standing, because it's more important to rush to "do something", to do anything.

Whatever gave you that idea? I have said repeatedly that these things will take time to implement. I have said repeatedly that we must determine to do this. Gun violence has been a long standing problem in this nation and various solutions have been examined and discarded or retained but not implemented for years now. The Sandy Hook school shooting took place three years ago. How much more time do we need? I am not proposing rushing, I am proposing thoughtful, purposeful action. 

I disagree with that lack of strategy. This attitude tends to get an automatic no vote from me. If you can't show me how it will be both effective and legal and manageable, then I'm likely to vote no until given that information. Good intentions alone do not usually make good laws. I wish they did, but they usually don't.

Well, I did say it is brainstorming. I am not responsible for fleshing everything out. The good thing is that I am not rushing to "do something, to do anything." There is time for thoughtful, purposeful dialogue in order to work out the details. Equally good is that it is not solely up to you. As Lincoln said, we have a government by the people . It's time to for the people to act.

 

Edited to correct highlighting.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Health insurance is now mandated at the national level, so I think it is within the realm of possibility to mandate firearm insurance. It remains to be seen that increased gun control laws would really be placing a burden on those who want to own guns. It is also matter of balancing rights. It could certainly be argued that low regulation or no regulation gun ownership interferes with the ability of some people to have life, liberty and to pursue happiness, the inalienable rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.

 

It would be a poor argument as it is not well thought out. Someone lawfully exercising their right to bear arms has no direct negative impact on the rights of others. Also the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

While everyone 18 years of age and older has the right to vote, there are laws in place that regulate the way this right is accessed. Voters must register, they have to vote on specified days and at specified times, in some states they must present a photo id. Additionally, those convicted of certain crimes forfeit their right to vote for life. SCOTUS has determined such laws do not infringe on the right of people to vote.

And there is a significant body of case law that helps determines what restrictions are reasonable. Many of the ideas you proposed would fail a litmus test of undue burden for the same reason many state laws related to voting rights have been struck down.

 

Likewise, it has been determined that a certain population in the US is not permitted to own a firearm. This has been legislated. The legislation is not detailed in the constitution or it's amendments, to my recollection, but it is, nevertheless, law that firearms may not be owned by convicted felons, for example. These laws do not infringe on the people's right to "bear arms."

There is also a difference between someone forfeiting a right due to their own actions and the government restricting rights for a group as a whole. One has been found to be constitutional, but the other not so much.

 

Additionally, have you considered that it is entirely possible to amend the constitution? Amending the US Constitution is rare, but it is possible and it has been done.

Of course. But for now that is simply wishful thinking.

 

Instead of looking for ways things won't work, I really do wish that our citizens would sit down at the table together and determine to address the issue of gun violence, propose solutions and work to have the solutions implemented. This is not a swift nor easy process, but time will pass regardless. I stated earlier in this thread that I think gun control is secondary to other issues we have in our country, so limiting the discussion to this one thing is not going to solve many problems. In addition to tacking gun control, we need to simultaneously tackle the deficiencies in mental health care in our nation and engage in some personal introspection on what we as individuals should demand of ourselves and each other as far as behavior is concerned and when it is right to limit the rights of a few people (in this case, those who should not have access to guns in the first place) in order to preserve the lives of many. In addition, larger conversations need to take place with entire communities, both small and large, to attempt to reach some type of consensus on those expectations. Right now we have laws in place and no one has reasonable expectation that they will be effective in protecting the citizenry. Perhaps the thing that must change the most is nurturing a sense of humility, meaning a personal realization that others have valid points and that in some areas, compromise is necessary.

Compromise will be required. The art of reaching that compromise requires understanding the current climate and what is a legitimate starting point.

[TechWife]

It isn't irrelevant when you suddenly want to require everyone go to a doctor to get access to what is determined to be a legal fight. A requirement of this nature could be a burden in some areas, and it is possible that many doctors would not want to be responsible for determining whether someone is mentally competent to own a gun.

The comparison to airline pilots is flawed from the start as employment as a pilot is not a right.

 

Actually, it is. The number of providers for this service now and the demand for it in this limited scenario does not indicate the availability of a different service in the future. 

 

I don't have a problem with doctor's not wanting to take on that responsibility. That alone should tell us that there is a great deal of caution to be had. In all likelihood, the doctors would be certifying the presence or absence of medical conditions and indicating their knowledge of prescribed medications, including mental capacity and the legislation would take care of determining the criteria. 

 

I didn't compare the right to be a pilot to the right to own a gun. I simply used the existence of medical certification for pilots as an example of how establishing and certifying fitness is currently being done. Please read carefully. I am a plain spoken person.  I say what I mean and mean what I say. 

[TechWife]

It would be a poor argument as it is not well thought out. Someone lawfully exercising their right to bear arms has no direct negative impact on the rights of others. Also the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

 

Of course they don't. At issue is what it means to lawfully bear arms. That is the issue. The Declaration of Independence is a founding document and I cited it to demonstrate where the concept I was illustrating was coming from. 

 

And there is a significant body of case law that helps determines what restrictions are reasonable. Many of the ideas you proposed would fail a litmus test of undue burden for the same reason many state laws related to voting rights have been struck down.

 

Then perhaps it is time for our perception of undue burden to change. I don't know. You neglect to realize that many state laws regarding voting restrictions have been upheld. 

 

There is also a difference between someone forfeiting a right due to their own actions and the government restricting rights for a group as a whole. One has been found to be constitutional, but the other not so much.

It isn't the government restricting the rights, it is the health of the people and their ability to safely exercise that right that would restrict the rights of individuals. The responsibility to maintain good health and to obtain the needed training is solely under the control of the individual. 

 

 

Of course. But for now that is simply wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking sounds like a great place to start  to me. 

 

Compromise will be required. The art of reaching that compromise requires understanding the current climate and what is a legitimate starting point.

First, I think most people are capable of assessing the current climate. Second, the legitimate starting point is where we are now. Figuring out where to start isn't hard. Moving forward seems to be much more difficult. 

 

Edited to correct highlighting. 

[8circles]

I think what you misunderstand is that I DON'T live in fear. I feel prepared in the unlikely event I ever need to be. It's like having a fire extinguisher - you hope you never need it. But target shooting is also a sport and I enjoy going to the range to keep up my skills.

hmmm.  ok.  I understood that you carry a gun because of the possibility of violent crime against you.  You used the example of violent crime as a reason to carry a gun.  You also indicated that you carried your gun on a specific occasion when you felt a threat from a vacant car parked on the side of the road.  The only way for me to understand that is that you are afraid of violent crime against you.  I think I understand that the gun is giving you confidence so you won't be afraid, right?  So without the gun, you are living in fear.  That's why you need the gun.

 

I'm sorry that without carrying a gun, you would live in fear.  Is that better?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually, it is. The number of providers for this service now and the demand for it in this limited scenario does not indicate the availability of a different service in the future. 

 

I don't have a problem with doctor's not wanting to take on that responsibility. That alone should tell us that there is a great deal of caution to be had. In all likelihood, the doctors would be certifying the presence or absence of medical conditions and indicating their knowledge of prescribed medications, including mental capacity and the legislation would take care of determining the criteria. 

 

I didn't compare the right to be a pilot to the right to own a gun. I simply used the existence of medical certification for pilots as an example of how establishing and certifying fitness is currently being done. Please read carefully. I am a plain spoken person.  I say what I mean and mean what I say. 

 

Medical certifications for different jobs have existed for some time so I am not sure why you were taking the time to make that point.

[TechWife]

Medical certifications for different jobs have existed for some time so I am not sure why you were taking the time to make that point.

 

It's just an example, that's all. Additionally, a pilot's license doesn't equal a job. I took the time to make the point because I think requiring medical certification is a worthwhile idea to consider. That's what I thought this thread was about and that's what my post was about. Ideas. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Edited to correct highlighting. 

 

Using highlights instead of quotes makes replying more difficult. Just an FYI.

 

 

Of course they don't. At issue is what it means to lawfully bear arms. That is the issue. The Declaration of Independence is a founding document and I cited it to demonstrate where the concept I was illustrating was coming from.

 

And there is a body of case law that gives us an idea of what that right currently means.

 

 

Then perhaps it is time for our perception of undue burden to change. I don't know. You neglect to realize that many state laws regarding voting restrictions have been upheld.

 

I didn't neglect to mention anything.  "And there is a significant body of case law that helps determines what restrictions are reasonable."

 

 

It isn't the government restricting the rights, it is the health of the people and their ability to safely exercise that right that would restrict the rights of individuals. The responsibility to maintain good health and to obtain the needed training is solely under the control of the individual.

 

When the government is setting the requirement, the undue burden principle applies. 

 

Also, I suggest you review the USSC decision on the healthcare mandate.  What was decided was a bit more complex than the government being able to simply mandate health insurance coverage.

[Jkacz]

hmmm. ok. I understood that you carry a gun because of the possibility of violent crime against you. You used the example of violent crime as a reason to carry a gun. You also indicated that you carried your gun on a specific occasion when you felt a threat from a vacant car parked on the side of the road. The only way for me to understand that is that you are afraid of violent crime against you. I think I understand that the gun is giving you confidence so you won't be afraid, right? So without the gun, you are living in fear. That's why you need the gun.

 

I'm sorry that without carrying a gun, you would live in fear. Is that better?

 

And this is an example of why no meaningful conversations on guns can take place. I should have known better than to try to explain.

[Tsuga]

For those honestly curious - Gun is stored in a biometric (fingerprint) gun safe next to the bed. Magazine containing ammunition is in the safe with the gun. I can open the safe and load the gun in about 30 seconds. House is equipped with an alarm system. Bedrooms are on the second floor. if the alarm goes off, either my husband or I go to the children and grab the phone to call 911, the other accesses the safe and guards the stairs until help arrives. Thieves can steal anything they want from the first floor but if anyone comes up the stairs, we will protect our children.

 

This probably sounds paranoid to some of you, by there was a home invasion in our town and friends of ours were seriously injured. Admittedly, the chances of a home invasion are rare, but so are the chances of a fire and we're encouraged to run fire drills with children. How is this any different?

 

I appreciate your answering.

 

I would like to answer your question about serious injury during a home invasion. We live in an area that is EXTREMELY prone to home invasion and we do repeatedly tell the children how to avoid injury. They frequently ask about random other things and we remind them--now if anyone comes in the house, if we're not here, you run and hide. Murders are rare. People don't want life in prison. They don't want to kill. So if you stay away, if you hide under the bed, then that's where you are safest. Having a gun would not make our children safer, because it starts a cycle of fighting for survival that wasn't there previously and ups the ante. No. Run away. Hide. Don't see them. Don't look like you can identify them and don't try to.

 

So I agree that home invasion drills are no different than fire drills.

 

What I do think is that having a gun to protect your family during a home invasion is like having baking soda by your bed in case of a home fire. True, some home fires might be grease fires, but most of the time, you just need to get away. Stop, drop, and get out of the house. You need a solution and to train for the solution, absolutely agree.

 

Is a gun in the home a solution? That's where we disagree.

 

Now, if I lived in a war zone and people were going house to house shooting people (and this does happen, and is happening right now in parts of the world) I might change my mind. However even in that case, the people I met who'd survived door to door shootings were unarmed. They survived by their wits, running, hiding, faking. Nobody ever outgunned a crazy person willing to kill. The people who tried that were mostly dead. I'm not saying that to be dramatic. It's true. They were mostly dead, the combatants.

[Joker]

And this is an example of why no meaningful conversations on guns can take place. I should have known better than to try to explain.

 

I don't understand your response. You used an example of a horrific crime to reason why you own a gun. That would point to your fear of it happening to you.

 

You then said it was like owning a fire extinguisher. I own a fire entinguisher but do not own any firearms. I do not view them at all the same.

[Deee]

As an Australian, this conversation is simply mind-boggling to me.  We have a black market in weapons here. Its almost exclusively limited to hardcore criminal activity.  We have some shootings (generally single and targeted - those that are not are rare, so they are a very.big.deal). Concerns have been raised about increasing numbers of fire-arms, which must be licensed and locked up.  Automatic weapons are banned.  We had a mass shooting in 1995 and our then Prime Minister radically tightened fire-arm control laws with overwhelming public support.  I am a former soldier and weapons instructor.  I know what semi-automatic and automatic weapons can do.  I also grew up in a pretty dodgy part of Sydney.  I don't believe private citizens need weapons.  Maybe in the bush, to put an animal down.  A single shot rifle, kept in a safe, is enough for that purpose.  In the city, there is no need for firearms.  You want to shoot things, join a pistol club and store the pistol in a police or military armoury.  Our police are armed with glocks.  It is a very big deal if they shoot at someone.  I can't understand the fear culture, or the fear of your govt (Have you see the last idiot we elected? You have nothing to worry about!).  It seems to me that your nation is caught in a dreadful Catch-22 - scared of all the guns, and too scared to lay them down.  

D

[SharonM]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

 

The current shootings in schools and public places isn't anything new. But we are seeing it more often, and I don't know that we can legislate the answer. Every time someone shoots another, they are breaking the law and that does not deter them. We need to answer the mental health issue and societal issues such as bullying. I do not see how taking away guns will help with that.

[Laura Corin]

I am as liberal as they come and have many, many liberal friends and family and not ONE single person I know and not one single politician I know of wants guns abolished. That is a fear tactic employed by the NRA and their political cronies.

 

Even Britain hasn't abolished guns....  I live in the countryside and see guns on people's arms at least once a week.  They are a work tool and necessary for that.