The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[AmazonQueen]

Because there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees your right to own any form of transportation. That's why if the government wanted to ban all cars, it would be perfectly constitutional for them to do so.
.

Which is why relying on a document devised in the 18th century for laws for the 21st century doesn't work. The world has changed.

 

[Lexicus]

Let me put it this way and I'll let you interpret whatever meaning you want from it: If I were willing to go to some far off land and fight a war for a cause I didn't even really care about, what do you think I'll be willing to do for a cause that I care deeply about?

This is rather remarkable. Your whole argument about guns revolves around "it's a Constitutional right," but here you are essentially saying that if the Constitution was changed and it was no longer a Constitutional right, you wouldn't care a bit and would just get violent.

Now what I wonder is whether the people trying to debate you in good faith will realize exactly what this means.

 

[Samson]

I have no idea, I don't really know what your point is. It seemed initially that you had some sort of moral objection to parents having locks on their bedrooms.

My question was prompted by Commodore suggesting that bedroom door locks were a solution to "guns must be easily accessible to be useful, but not easily accessible to children". I do not see that this is consistent with children always having access to their parents, and I am still not convinced after Commodore's answer. I am not that interested enough to push the point however.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well I don't think your 4 bullet points logically follow anyway. The parents could be in posession of this special item known as "a key", meaning they could have easy access to their guns without also allowing their children easy access to their guns.

 

[Estebonrober]

This is rather remarkable. Your whole argument about guns revolves around "it's a Constitutional right," but here you are essentially saying that if the Constitution was changed and it was no longer a Constitutional right, you wouldn't care a bit and would just get violent.

Now what I wonder is whether the people trying to debate you in good faith will realize exactly what this means.

I think it means he likes pork chops with applesauce.

@Commodore seriously though do you chose to rebel against the nation over say new regulations on firearms? Say if we passed a measure stating all high velocity rounds have to be in single shot rifles only? Or all high velocity rifles with high capacity magazines be stored with a trusted third party like a gun range or dealer? Would this start your war?

 

[Lexicus]

Well I don't think your 4 bullet points logically follow anyway. The parents could be in posession of this special item known as "a key", meaning they could have easy access to their guns without also allowing their children easy access to their guns.

The point is that during a home invasion you will not have time to unlock the guns using the purported "key", which is why "easily accessible" means "not locked up."

 

[Samson]

Well I don't think your 4 bullet points logically follow anyway. The parents could be in posession of this special item known as "a key", meaning they could have easy access to their guns without also allowing their children easy access to their guns.

I agree. The way I read the discussion was that you could not require all guns to be kept locked away when not in use because then they would not be available to fight off a home invader.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree. The way I read the discussion was that you could not require all guns to be kept locked away when not in use because then they would not be available to fight off a home invader.

That was a correct reading of what Commodore was arguing. Indeed I believe I recall him saying his guns are not locked up, and always loaded, so there is no "key" involved here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The point is that during a home invasion you will not have time to unlock the guns using the purported "key", which is why "easily accessible" means "not locked up."

Don't really see how you can assert that. The key factors would seem to be where you, the invaders, and the guns are in relation to each other, and primarily if the invaders are between you and the guns. Whether or not they're locked away seems very much secondary to that.

 

[Lexicus]

Don't really see how you can assert that. The key factors would seem to be where you, the invaders, and the guns are in relation to each other, and primarily if the invaders are between you and the guns. Whether or not they're locked away seems very much secondary to that.

Well, I suggest directing your questions to Commodore:

If the purpose of your firearm is home defense, then it should be easily accessible and loaded at all times. Mine is.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I suppose my point is that being locked away doesn't necessarily make something not easily accessible if you have the key.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I suppose my point is that being locked away doesn't necessarily make something not easily accessible if you have the key.

Do you carry keys around with you all the time at home?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Do you carry keys around with you all the time at home?

No, but then I'm not a gun owner who takes pride in both constantly being prepared for a home invasion and also being a very responsible gun owner. If I was it's not a huge stretch to imagine that I would.

 

[AmazonQueen]

No, but then I'm not a gun owner who takes pride in both constantly being prepared for a home invasion and also being a very responsible gun owner. If I was it's not a huge stretch to imagine that I would.

Even in the bath or shower?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So why not regulate guns in the same way as cars?
Insurance for damage/injury caused which the user was responsible for
Require the user to pass a test to show competency
Make guns registered and a licence required to own one

Let's not shovel more money into insurance pockets please. What kind of test/licensing requirements are you suggesting?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Leave guns legal make the companies that make them liable for what happens. In the USA anyway.

I used to favor this approach wholeheartedly... but a couple things I've learned and/or considered more recently have given me pause... "ghost guns" being one example.

I am more than a bit amused that we have yet a new term for certain weapons - MSSR - military style semiautomatic rifles.

Oooh... sounds sinister and scary... like "USSR"

 

[AmazonQueen]

Let's not shovel more money into insurance pockets please. What kind of test/licensing requirements are you suggesting?

That would be up to your politicians.
Here people have to register cars after purchase. Dealers will usually do it for you. A course in gun handling and safety being completed before purchase is allowed seems reasonable.
It just seems a reasonable suggestion to me that gun users should bear the costs when there are accidental/wrongful victims of their actions.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You certainly do inconvenience me when a minor traffic incident ends with you going through the windshield and taxpayer resources have to be expended to save you. It gets worse when you outright die from what would have been a minor accident and taxpayers are stuck with a massive bill taking care of the family you left behind (if you're the primary breadwinner).

This argument can easily be extended to health care, for example if someone smokes or overeats they cost the taxpayer more. Therefore there is a legit case based on this reasoning to deny people who overeat extra healthcare beyond what a healthy person receives...or if you smoke you're SOL.

That's a problem when you start having other people pay for stuff a person does; what that person does becomes their (or in practical cases the government's) business...at a scale the government can't manage efficiently.

Similarly, a real alternative is to not use taxpayer money on that family at all, and to apply this standard throughout as a matter of policy.

That would be up to your politicians.

Hah. If there's a reason to believe in a different outcome than the last 100+ times I'd be interested to hear it.

A course in gun handling and safety being completed before purchase is allowed seems reasonable.

It does sound reasonable, there's not much point in having a weapon if the person doesn't know how to use it. Since there are lots of different kinds of guns it might be more complicated than anticipated though. I'd imagine firing a 12 gauge shotgun vs one of those questionable-utility purse handguns to be sufficiently different that you'd need different training between the two for example, and both would be at least somewhat different from a hunting rifle. Same for how you'd store these safely.

 

[Lexicus]

Similarly, a real alternative is to not use taxpayer money on that family at all, and to apply this standard throughout as a matter of policy.

It's only a real alternative if you think that people dying because they can't access healthcare is an acceptable outcome.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's only a real alternative if you think that people dying because they can't access healthcare is an acceptable outcome.

Depending on a person's choices, yes it is acceptable. Smoking is optional, and a smoker asking for 5x the cost of a non-smoker or more from the public isn't reasonable.

When you start asking or especially forcing people to pay for your actions, your actions become their business. They could easily decide that if you make choices that cost them 5x extra, they're not giving one cent extra. The end result for such choices means "die due to no healthcare", and this is an acceptable outcome - person in question made their choice.

There's a non-trivial issue in terms of how such systems drive cost and quality of healthcare though, so you'll also have people who do the right things die anyway because the system is crap. I do not find this acceptable, especially if concessions for the smoker above lead to it.