See this is what I don't get. Do people just leve their guns lying around? A gun lock sounds fine but over here you HAVE to have a secure place to keep your weapon. Why is this not a mandatory thing?
With respect to limiting guns to those with mental illness, I don't think the point is to deny everyone with any form of mental illness guns. I think it's to deny those who are potentially dangerous from having guns. For example, if you're just mildly depressed to the point where you may need medication but aren't likely to cause harm to anyone, then there probably is no need to deny you from owning a gun. However, if the voices in your head are telling you that your neighbor is some sort of demon dog that needs to be eliminated, then damned straight you should not be allowed to have a gun.
See this is what I don't get. Do people just leve their guns lying around? A gun lock sounds fine but over here you HAVE to have a secure place to keep your weapon. Why is this not a mandatory thing?
That felt like some though the looking class shit. Then again I still don't buy the home defence thing, but I suspect that is more to do with where I live than anything else. I still do not see a good reason for one of the requirements for owning a gun is to have a safe an secure location to store your gun.
Just so y'all know, the NY law states that a doctor would have to recommend you be put on the list. You would ave to have a mental illness that would make you a danger. No one is going to deny you a gun unless you are a danger to others.
I still do not see a good reason for one of the requirements for owning a gun is to have a safe an secure location to store your gun.
Because enforcing the aforementioned requirement would require inspections of one's home. I like the police just find but i'm sure as hell not going to let them inspect my fething home.
How about proof of installation or some crap like that. No different to an insurance guy coming round to check your house. They come in see that you have a lockable gun cabinet and then go. If you have something that can kill people in your house you should be as open as fuck. Hell if I lived on your street I would check it only takes one cock up for someone to loose toes. If you don't like that keep it at the range, its what we do with ours.
With respect to limiting guns to those with mental illness, I don't think the point is to deny everyone with any form of mental illness guns. I think it's to deny those who are potentially dangerous from having guns. For example, if you're just mildly depressed to the point where you may need medication but aren't likely to cause harm to anyone, then there probably is no need to deny you from owning a gun. However, if the voices in your head are telling you that your neighbor is some sort of demon dog that needs to be eliminated, then damned straight you should not be allowed to have a gun.
I don't like blanket laws like that. Should there be more restrictions for individuals with illnesses like schizophrenia and disassociative identity? Of course. But they should be things like frequent license reassessment and the liability of immediate liscense suspension under certain conditions.
This applies only to a reasonable system for the mentally "healthy" to get and own guns, of course. Everything I say is purely hypothetical and has no baring on the current system.
How about proof of installation or some crap like that. No different to an insurance guy coming round to check your house. They come in see that you have a lockable gun cabinet and then go. If you have something that can kill people in your house you should be as open as fuck. Hell if I lived on your street I would check it only takes one cock up for someone to loose toes. If you don't like that keep it at the range, its what we do with ours.
I have all sorts of things that could kill someone in my house. 2 chainsaws, a bunch of axes, a circular saw, a table saw,a lawnmower and a car off the top of my head. None of those are my neighbors business, and neither is my shotgun.
A gun is only a tool, it's no more inherently dangerous than any of the others. One hell of a lot safer than the chainsaws, I'd wager.
A gun is only a tool, it's no more inherently dangerous than any of the others. One hell of a lot safer than the chainsaws, I'd wager.
Guns are a hell of a lot easier to control than chainsaws. Chainsaws are mean and motorized and you have to have some serious upper body strength to use it. Guns are much easier to use in any capacity.
I don't like blanket laws like that. Should there be more restrictions for individuals with illnesses like schizophrenia and disassociative identity? Of course. But they should be things like frequent license reassessment and the liability of immediate liscense suspension under certain conditions.
This applies only to a reasonable system for the mentally "healthy" to get and own guns, of course. Everything I say is purely hypothetical and has no baring on the current system.
Go by rules similar to what the FAA uses for passing pilot physicals then. To have a pilot's license, you need regular physicals by a flight surgeon. Your mental health history is reviewed as part of the physical. If you have a disqualifying mental illness, then your license is suspended until you've been certified as mentally healthy for a minimum of six months, at which your your license to fly may be reinstated provided you pass another physical, retrain as necessary, etc. While the rules for gun ownership may not be exactly the same as these, it's certainly a good model for a starting point.
Yeah. Denying guns specifically to the mentally ill us to deny them a Constitutional right (as the Amendment is currently being interpreted) and deem them second class citizens.
But we already deny criminals the ability to legally purchase a firearm, and the mentally ill are probably too unstable to own a gun safely.
But we already deny criminals the ability to legally purchase a firearm, and the mentally ill are probably too unstable to own a gun safely.
In some states we don't even let felons vote, and that's bullshit too. Firearm prohibition ought to be an extension of probation. Once you're done with that, you ought to be able to buy a gun and vote (though not with the gun).
Go by rules similar to what the FAA uses for passing pilot physicals then. To have a pilot's license, you need regular physicals by a flight surgeon. Your mental health history is reviewed as part of the physical. If you have a disqualifying mental illness, then your license is suspended until you've been certified as mentally healthy for a minimum of six months, at which your your license to fly may be reinstated provided you pass another physical, retrain as necessary, etc. While the rules for gun ownership may not be exactly the same as these, it's certainly a good model for a starting point.
Not sure that the physicals ought to be part of the inspection, but at this point we're arguing over semantics. I agree that the FAA regulations should be one model considered for replicating, but I don't feel informed enough on either their rules or guns to say anything more assertive.
Of course, they reason why they can do that in Switzerland is due to compulsory military service. Everyone in Switzerland is required by law to serve in the armed forces at some point in their lives. I'll bet some of the same gun nuts who want everyone carrying guns would be screaming bloody murder if everyone also had to serve in the Army.
Not true, but what Jack is saying isn't either. It's not compulsory military service, it's compulsory civil service, which can be either in the military, or serving the government. And you can be excluded from either, if you have cause, which isn't hard to get.
Also, not every household has an assault rifle in it - it's only around for existing militia members - and it isn't required for active militia members, they just have the option. If they WERE in the militia, and they kept their rifle in their house, they had the option when they left to keep it, but it's restricted down to semi-auto only by the government before being given to you. They're also no longer issued ammo unless they're in either a rapid response force or an MP - You can buy ammo when you're at the range, but you have to use it at the range it was purchased at before you leave, for that sort of ammunition.
Also, to become a member of the militia, and to keep your rifle in your home if you are a militia member, you have to be able to pass a series of tests, including mental health. I don't know if it's required for non-militia license holders, however.
I'm really against keeping some felons from getting guns too. I get if they were convicted of a violent crime, but if it was some guy who embezzled a bunch of money or something 20 years ago, or had a lot of weed, then I don't give two shits if he wants a gun.
I'm really against keeping some felons from getting guns too. I get if they were convicted of a violent crime, but if it was some guy who embezzled a bunch of money or something 20 years ago, or had a lot of weed, then I don't give two shits if he wants a gun.
The embezzler might be upset he was caught and want to seek revenge.
Not sure that the physicals ought to be part of the inspection, but at this point we're arguing over semantics. I agree that the FAA regulations should be one model considered for replicating, but I don't feel informed enough on either their rules or guns to say anything more assertive.
Physicals probably aren't necessary, but the general "you must have been free of mental illness for x amount of time" protocol is the part I was keying in on as being appropriate for gun ownership.
Of course, they reason why they can do that in Switzerland is due to compulsory military service. Everyone in Switzerland is required by law to serve in the armed forces at some point in their lives. I'll bet some of the same gun nuts who want everyone carrying guns would be screaming bloody murder if everyone also had to serve in the Army.
Not true, but what Jack is saying isn't either. It's not compulsory military service, it's compulsory civil service, which can be either in the military, or serving the government. And you can be excluded from either, if you have cause, which isn't hard to get.
Also, not every household has an assault rifle in it - it's only around for existing militia members - and it isn't required for active militia members, they just have the option. If they WERE in the militia, and they kept their rifle in their house, they had the option when they left to keep it, but it's restricted down to semi-auto only by the government before being given to you. They're also no longer issued ammo unless they're in either a rapid response force or an MP - You can buy ammo when you're at the range, but you have to use it at the range it was purchased at before you leave, for that sort of ammunition.
Also, to become a member of the militia, and to keep your rifle in your home if you are a militia member, you have to be able to pass a series of tests, including mental health. I don't know if it's required for non-militia license holders, however.
Thanks for correcting me. I overgeneralized the situation and apparently didn't properly remember the details of their service. Compulsory civil service can take many forms -- some military or other. For example, unless things have changed since I learned about this from a native, France also has compulsory service, but you have the choice of serving either in the military or with the police.
How stupid is it that the right to own a gun has greater protection than the right to vote? I wonder which of the two is more important in protecting against tyranny...
Thanks for correcting me. I overgeneralized the situation and apparently didn't properly remember the details of their service. Compulsory civil service can take many forms -- some military or other. For example, unless things have changed since I learned about this from a native, France also has compulsory service, but you have the choice of serving either in the military or with the police.
It's okay, a lot of people make that mistake - the only reason I know is because I made the same mistake, and was corrected on it. I like the idea personally, though - I've heard from a lot of people with nothing but glowing reports about their various forms of service, ranging from military to driving a bus for and helping out at a special needs school.
How stupid is it that the right to own a gun has greater protection than the right to vote? I wonder which of the two is more important in protecting against tyranny...
Tyrants can be pretty damn popular...
And tyranny can be hard to see coming. It's usually baby steps, and by the time you realize what it is you may not have the ability to vote anymore.
How stupid is it that the right to own a gun has greater protection than the right to vote? I wonder which of the two is more important in protecting against tyranny...
Tyrants can be pretty damn popular...
Sure they can, but typically this is only after the situation (usually w.r.t. economics) is so shitty that a tyrant starts to look like a good way out of it. The main idea is to stop the situation from becoming that shitty in the first place.
And tyranny can be hard to see coming. It's usually baby steps, and by the time you realize what it is you may not have the ability to vote anymore.
That, I think, is debatable. The rise of tyranny has, in many instances, been rather predictable.
In any case, though they may seem rather flimsy at times (because in some ways they are), free speech and the right to vote are by far the best protections against tyranny. If it comes down to guns, you've already lost.
Apparently the law passed in NY did not include a police exception. So cops are now in violation of the law if they fully load their 15 round magazines. Lol.
What is really funny is reading the cops "criminals don't obey laws" argument about why they (and only they) should get an exception.
As written the law also prohibits cops from bringing guns into schools.
Apparently the law passed in NY did not include a police exception. So cops are now in violation of the law if they fully load their 15 round magazines. Lol.
I was under the impression that it was magazine capacity, rather than how many rounds you load. Isn't that the case? Also, do you have a source for that?
I'm kinda ok with the Cops having better firearms than me, I accept that the Military does as long as they are trained properly and checked for mental health issues.
@Churba - Read some of his other articles. The one on the CDC research has a great line:
In Philadelphia, according to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, possessing a gun is strongly associated with getting shot. Since "guns did not protect those who possessed them," epidemiologist Charles C. Branas and four co-authors conclude in the November American Journal of Public Health, "people should rethink their possession of guns." This is like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off unencumbered by safety equipment.
When I read that I thought of Rym's pro-gun control arguments
eh, that's a bad analogy. A skydiver needs the parachute, someone with a concealed permit who is carrying isn't going to need the gun in 99% of the cases.
eh, that's a bad analogy. A skydiver needs the parachute, someone with a concealed permit who is carrying isn't going to need the gun in 99% of the cases.
I'm kinda ok with the Cops having better firearms than me, I accept that the Military does as long as they are trained properly and checked for mental health issues.
Well, yeah, I'd be okay with it too. I think it's a goofball mistake to forget the police exemption, but I'm about 80% sure they'll fix it. But I'm 90% sure that some people will be real angry if they do.
Seriously, I know people who think - and are fighting hard - because they think that gun advocates are complaining about the term "Assault Rifle", rather than "Assault Weapon", and therefore think that all gun advocates believe that people are fighting so that they can have as many assault rifles as they want with no regulation. Which is frankly just stupid and is little more than an emotionally charged straw-man argument.
eh, that's a bad analogy. A skydiver needs the parachute, someone with a concealed permit who is carrying isn't going to need the gun in 99% of the cases.
That's not the point of the analogy.
Yea, your point, that's what people keep doing to every analogy used for or against gun control. take the weak aspect of it and throw it out.
Comments
With respect to limiting guns to those with mental illness, I don't think the point is to deny everyone with any form of mental illness guns. I think it's to deny those who are potentially dangerous from having guns. For example, if you're just mildly depressed to the point where you may need medication but aren't likely to cause harm to anyone, then there probably is no need to deny you from owning a gun. However, if the voices in your head are telling you that your neighbor is some sort of demon dog that needs to be eliminated, then damned straight you should not be allowed to have a gun.
This applies only to a reasonable system for the mentally "healthy" to get and own guns, of course. Everything I say is purely hypothetical and has no baring on the current system.
A gun is only a tool, it's no more inherently dangerous than any of the others. One hell of a lot safer than the chainsaws, I'd wager.
/don't necessarily disagree with you though
Also, not every household has an assault rifle in it - it's only around for existing militia members - and it isn't required for active militia members, they just have the option. If they WERE in the militia, and they kept their rifle in their house, they had the option when they left to keep it, but it's restricted down to semi-auto only by the government before being given to you. They're also no longer issued ammo unless they're in either a rapid response force or an MP - You can buy ammo when you're at the range, but you have to use it at the range it was purchased at before you leave, for that sort of ammunition.
Also, to become a member of the militia, and to keep your rifle in your home if you are a militia member, you have to be able to pass a series of tests, including mental health. I don't know if it's required for non-militia license holders, however.
And tyranny can be hard to see coming. It's usually baby steps, and by the time you realize what it is you may not have the ability to vote anymore.
In any case, though they may seem rather flimsy at times (because in some ways they are), free speech and the right to vote are by far the best protections against tyranny. If it comes down to guns, you've already lost.
What is really funny is reading the cops "criminals don't obey laws" argument about why they (and only they) should get an exception.
As written the law also prohibits cops from bringing guns into schools.
Even on the full site it was a pain In the ass to find it: http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/cops-are-outraged-that-new-yorks-new-mag
Some interesting phrases in the article -
"Cops are complaining about the lack of a double standard:"
First time I think I've heard it used quite that way.
"Cops are outraged at the possibility that they might be treated the same as "a regular citizen" under the law."
There is not an emoticon to express quite the eyebrow-raised smirk that occurred when I read that.
Seriously, this whole thing is a hilarious clusterfuck. Seriously, New York, what the fuck are you doing?
Seriously, I know people who think - and are fighting hard - because they think that gun advocates are complaining about the term "Assault Rifle", rather than "Assault Weapon", and therefore think that all gun advocates believe that people are fighting so that they can have as many assault rifles as they want with no regulation. Which is frankly just stupid and is little more than an emotionally charged straw-man argument.