On Nov 15, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Christian Brunschen wrote:
On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:36, Roger Howard wrote:
[ snippage ]
I have absolutely no problem with responsible private ownership of
weapons, not only for hunting, but for fun and for self-defense.
However, if I were arming myself to protect my home, I cannot imagine
wanting to use an AK-74, or even an AR-15 knockoff. I see no real use
for these weapons *except* high intensity combat, or perhaps for fun.
Do focused gun bans stop violence? No, obviously not. Does it mean we
should not regulate weapons sales at all? That seems to be the
disagreement. I see the balance of risk vs. reward being against
private sales of assault weapons, just as I see it workng against
sales of cheap, low-quality, crime-oriented zip guns.
Personally, I don't like guns. However, I can understand the
philosophy behind the 2nd amendment, and I'm not even going to
particularly disagree with it.
But I also think that handling and use of guns should be regulated,
at least in the same way that handling and use of another dangerous
yet widely available item is regulated: Motor vehicles. In my
opinion, if there is a general permission to on weapons (such as
provided by the 2nd amendment), then because they are dangerous,
handling and using them should require a license much in the same
way as handling and using a car or similar does. Different classes
of weapons should of course require different classes of license
(handgun != rifle, similarly as motorcycle != car). Handling a gun
without a suitable license, or handling it in an unsafe manner,
could lead to the restriction or revocation of a license. This, of
course, includes things like deliberately using a gun to commit a
crime.
I also think that having a registry of gun ownership, much like the
current registry of car ownership, is a good idea; but there, I am
aware of the objection that since the purpose of the second
amendment is to arm the populace against a corrupt government,
giving such a corrupt government a handy list of exactly who owns
which guns is counter-productive.
Note that this above thinking of mine doesn't say anything about not
making available licenses for certain classes of weapons; say,
assault rifles, however you choose to define those. In order to fit
in with the second amendment, any licences would have to be made
available in a non-discriminatory fashion, and that includes cost
(other than the actual costs of testing the applicant's proficiency
& safety in handling the class of weapon in question) and any
artificial restrictions on which classes of weapons it is possible
to get licenses for.
Thoughts?
I wonder as well whether those who are against the assault rifle ban
are against any limit on what weapons law-abiding citizens should be
able to have, or simply want the bar set higher? i.e., how about
tanks? howitzers? machine guns mounted on the back of pickup trucks?
grenade / rocket launchers? And I am seriously asking, because by
strictly extrapolating the principle that the population must have
the right to have the means to defend itself against a corrupt
government, at least I arrive at the conclusion that the only
restrictions on private ownership of weapons should be the ones that
the government places on itself, i.e., things like arms treaties,
etc (so, no chemical or biological weapons, but helicopter gunships
or similar should in principle be OK).
Best wishes,
// Christian Brunschen
excellent observations and questions
K
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
