?

Log in

No account? Create an account

[icon] My gun control proposal - Patti
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (pattib.org).

Security:
Subject:My gun control proposal
Time:02:16 am
1. Handguns must be registered and licensed to an individual, just like motor vehicles. Transfers of registration must be recorded immediately.
2. Handguns must always be stored locked, and the unlocking mechanism must be stored separately.
3. The registered owner of a handgun is responsible for any deaths or injuries that are caused by that gun.
4. There will be some reasonable mechanism for reporting the theft or destruction of a registered handgun.
5. If a gun that is registered to you is ever found unlocked, or in someone else's possession, there will be hell to pay.
6. If you're ever caught with an unregistered gun, there will be hell to pay.

Justification: I want handgun owners to be responsible for what is done with their weapons, and for them to have a really strong motivation to keep them safe.

I'm sure there are holes in my proposal, as it's more conceptual than complete.
comments: Leave a comment Previous Entry Share Next Entry


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 01:27 pm (UTC)
i dont have any problem with your rules I just dont see how that really stop anything bad from happening. If I buy a gun to only protect my house and register it how will you know if I am keeping it locked? Will there be home inspections?

Serious question for you..in another discussion we talked about Voter ID laws. You said the risk to infringing on someones right to vote was a greater harm than the risk of someone voting who shouldnt. I could be wrong with that description but I think I have it right. The right to bear arms is right there in the constitution and is as ingrained in the US experience as the right to vote. How is this different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
This is 10 year old data but this says taking out suicides (we can assume people who kill themselves will just find another way to do it) around 12k people die each year from gun violence. So if your laws were 100% successful in eliminating hand gun deaths it would affect 0.0042% of the population.

Now I understand that loss of life is worse than loss of the right to vote..but from a strictly math standpoint isnt this as onerous (or more so) as Voter ID laws?

disclaimer..I have never owned a gun. I have never fired a gun. I have never even held a real gun loaded or unloaded. And I think we would be better off if guns didnt exist...
(Reply) (Thread)


jpmassar
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:13 pm (UTC)
It is legally different because the right to vote has been declared to be a "fundamental right" by the US Supreme Court, whereas the right to carry a gun has not (yet), despite the wording of the 2nd amendment and the lack of any mention of a right to vote in the Constitution.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:19 pm (UTC)
but the math doesn't change...this is a solution that if 100% successful offers almost no benefit (obviously except for the family and friends of those harmed). But at the same time will hamper the rights (fundamental or otherwise) of millions of Americans...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


jpmassar
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:59 pm (UTC)
No one's arguing with your math. You asked "How is this different?" and I tried to explain why it is in fact different from a legal point of view.

You yourself answered the question from a moral point of view:

loss of life is worse than loss of the right to vote

Or, in legal speak, restricting someone's rights so as to prevent a murder or killing is more acceptable constitutionally than restricting someone's right to vote to prevent others from fraudulent voting because the consequences are immeasurably worse in the former than the latter
even if the numbers are similar in absolute terms.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 06:40 pm (UTC)
How will I know if you're keeping it locked? I won't.

What I will have done, though, is provide some really hardcore teeth for when you don't keep it locked and something bad happens with it. If you own a gun and don't keep it locked, then I steal it and use it to kill someone, then you get life in prison. That seems like a good motivation to make sure nobody gets your gun.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 06:51 pm (UTC)
i just see too many holes...

Lets say I have a gun and its not locked up. Criminal comes into my house and before I get my gun he has me under control with his gun. He forces me to give him my gun.

You are gonna put me in jail for life if he uses it to kill someone? Really? All I have to say is he forced me to unlock my safe and its not my word versus the word of a murderer..I win that battle every day
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 07:48 pm (UTC)
not = now
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 08:08 pm (UTC)
Would I rather believe a murderer or a salesman? Hrmm...

:-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 08:14 pm (UTC)
funny..i prefer to think of myself as COO these days...nah, I will always be a salesman
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 08:14 am (UTC)
I said that it has holes.

The principal is "you are responsible for your gun, and if it is used to harm someone you will pay a large penalty." The rest is implementation details.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

[icon] My gun control proposal - Patti
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (pattib.org).