Hi Ian, I know you didn't say "ban", but Ron mentioned it. However, my little bit on consequence isn't exclusive to banning either. It's just that the extreme case of banning makes the argument clearer and my rhetoric easier. :-)
The purpose of the 'right to bear arms' is to avoid the problem of the regulator's agenda. By making it a right rather than an as-needed permission, the regulating body cannot arbitrarily deny your right - there must be specific reasons in law, and the legal system then keeps the regulating body in check. Set up an unrestricted regulating body, and the dreaded corruption is given a seedling from which it can grow. I don't think the required background check and at-point-of-sale registration on new guns is adequate. My Firearm Law wish list is: - Required weapon registration (with expiry/renewal) on all firearms including collectibles and antiques: allowed to own, keep in home (loaded or unloaded) or store unloaded AND trigger-locked or case-locked in your possession (but not concealed on your person). Owner is 100% legally responsible for weapon at all times. If it is used in a crime (even if stolen without being reported), owner is subject to criminal charges as accomplice to the crime. Registration not allowed for convicted felons unless their right to vote has been legally reinstated by the court. I'd like to see ballistics samples taken for every registration and renewal, but this might prove to be unmaintainable in practice. - Optional concealment license: Requires training. allowed to carry on your person, loaded or unloaded, must be fully concealed. To be carried loaded, gun must have at least one safety. Not allowed in government buildings, airports, places where alcohol is served, etc. Possession disclosure laws need to be fixed*. Same as current arrangement in many US states. Across-the-board licensing on a per person basis would be practically impossible to enforce and would largely be redundant to a per-firearm registration - it's too easy to hand a gun to another person and hide it out of plain sight. However, the combination of concealment license option and stiff penalties for a third party possessing your registered gun would help mitigate this risk. Thoughts? * Here are some of the gotchas in Florida's concealed weapons regulations. You are legally not allowed to let any person believe that you may be carrying a concealed weapon (whether you are or not). At the same time, you are legally required to immediately inform a police officer if he engages you that you have the license and are in possession of a weapon. A few people have been charged with violating the disclosure clause because they told a police officer they had a weapon! Also, the rules about drawing your concealed weapon are vague and leave a huge hole in interpretation about whether drawing your weapon for an approved reason violates the disclosure clause. -Laird > [Ian] > Sorry Laird, but I don't buy that ... > > I didn't say "ban" - just better controlled access. > > Agreed, a nutcase will use whetever weapon is to hand, during such an episode. > > A multi-shot semi-automatic pistol is a lot deadlier, at range and > harder to overpower in the hands of an assailant, than a blade, or a > bottle, or sticks and stones, blackmail, whatever. > > Personally I believe with any "weapon" the onus should be to justify > need, not a matter of right, except by exception. The right to bear > arms in self-defence, (or just in case we need to forcibly overthrow > our government) surely needs some evidence of need. > > Ian > > On 4/19/07, Laird Bedore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Ron, >> >> I don't think there's any amount of preventative action that will 'cure' >> any society from the occasional 'extremely divergent' doing something >> awful like the VT shootings. When someone is sufficiently far enough off >> the track, it doesn't matter what weapons are available - they will use >> whatever they can get their hands on. If we banned all guns, we'd see a >> machete attack. If we banned all blades, we'd see a spear or other such >> pointy-stick attack. If we banned all sticks, we'd still see someone >> poking everyones' eyes out with their fingers. We can limit the tools >> all we like, but the underlying impetus remains, undeterred in its >> course of action. Outreach programs help, though I doubt they can ever >> be perfect. There's no telling how many similar events have not occurred >> thanks to the intervention of such programs. It's unfortunate we can so >> easily count the failures but not the successes. >> >> Keep in mind the same divergent seedlings that lead some people to >> violence also lead others to inspiration or invention. The dynamic urge >> to stray from the norms is a necessary trait of our humanity, though >> extremes such as this do not always lead to good endings. >> >> Back to the gun ban idea, what of consequence? If our reaction is to ban >> guns, do we not trade a degree of biological safety for reduced social >> (and arguably intellectual) freedoms? One of the most pivotal >> cornerstones of American government is the right of the people to >> overthrow its government if it becomes irreparably corrupt. By banning >> the tools necessary, we concede this right and thus reduce the >> intellectual oversight we have placed upon our social institution. The >> standard 'slippery slope' argument follows ad nauseum. >> >> -Laird >> >> >>> [Ron] >>> Would tougher gun control laws or banning guns all together stopped this >>> sort of violence? >>> >>> Would outreach programs stopped this sort of violence? >>> >>> Or is it a question of a "crazy straw" gene and just try not be in these >>> peoples way >>> When they go off? >>> moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
