Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Should gun owners in California sue over the violation of their right to bear arms?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (20282 points ) October 15th, 2011

With the signing of AB 144 the state of California has set itself on a path to bar people their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Open carrying your piece can land you in jail for one year and get you fined $1,000. Should gun owners sue and go over the state head like Prop. 8, or should they just suck it up and allow their right to be taken? If they do not contest this right, what other gun rights will they lose next?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

88 Answers

RareDenver's avatar

No. The right to bear arms is outdated.

Nullo's avatar

I think that they really should. As a well-regulated militia is necessary to the free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

@RareDenver We’re presently in a phase where our various degrees of government are trying to grow beyond their place. Every freedom surrendered – and it is a right and a freedom to bear arms – brings them another step closer to having what they do not have any business taking.
I’d say that so long as there are people out there who want to hurt or kill you, the right to bear arms is perfectly relevant.

RareDenver's avatar

@Nullo so how does just about every European country get by without a right to bear arms?

Dog's avatar

I think it will be taken to a higher court for three reasons (beyond the violation of Constitutional rights):

1. The penalty is $1000.00 And up to one year in prison. Our prison system is overloaded and underfunded. This model is not going to work.

2. There are no recorded instances of crimes committed by citizens using open carry during the entire 160 years it has been allowed in the state of California.

3. Obtaining a legal concealed handgun permit is difficult and expensive, on average $500 for the application and $250 every year to renew. This means that only those able to afford the luxury of a permit can exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

Dog's avatar

Allow me to note that I am not a member of the NRA and am not a gun advocate.

But I do not like this law due to the unnecessary nature ot if. Again there are no recorded instances of crimes committed by citizens using open carry, there are instances where open carry has prevented crime.

There are no statics that show this open carry ban will lower crime.

This law truly only benefits criminals, who have no qualms about carrying loaded, concealed guns by taking out of play the random possibility that law-abiding citizens might not be entirely defenseless.

marinelife's avatar

There is no right to bear arms. Saying there is is a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

janbb's avatar

No – they shouldn’t, but yes, the probably will. Attempts at gun control do not infringe on the right to bear arms just as not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded movie theatre does not impinge on the right to free speech – according to the Supreme Court.

And I wish those who talk so loudly about how our freedoms are being curtailed in terms of killing machines would stay out of my bedroom and my womb as well.

jaytkay's avatar

If the right to bear arms includes the right to openly carry whenever and wherever, I guess any no restrictions are legal. Felons, children and the mentally ill should be included. Gun licensing should be abolished. Any weapon, including machine guns and hand grenades, must be allowed on all private property, in churches, and schools.

That’s the way in all advanced societies with low crime rates. RIght?

jaytkay's avatar

there are no recorded instances of crimes committed by citizens using open carry

Is there a log of every convicted criminal’s open carry license status?

If not, that claim is an impressive-sounding fiction presented as“fact”.

Coloma's avatar

“Rights” need to be amended according to present day viability.
This is no longer 1811 or 1911, one does not need to shoot Grizzley bears and Wolves and defend their gold claims and attacks from “hostiles” on the prairie.

I do not condone anyone in the private sector carrying firearms openly.

If you must keep weapons, keep them in your home under safe conditions.

Frontier justice is a thing of the past.

I admit I am not a fan of firearms and I have had many experiences with fools and their guns out here in the hills where I live.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Kinda ironic that any state in the largest producer/distributor of arms in the world, wants to stop people from bearing arms.

tom_g's avatar

I will admit that the 2nd amendment/gun control issue is one of the most difficult for me to form a coherent opinion on.

There are a few things that puzzle me:

- The most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment rights and right to carry appear to me to be the same people who are unwilling to support many other rights (reproductive, privacy, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc.)

- I just don’t get it. If you feel that you need to be carrying a gun on you when you go to the grocery store, why do you even live in this country? Haven’t we already lost? Is this country that violent and dangerous a place that we all need to be walking around with guns? It seems to be an admission that we should probably close up shop and try to do things differently – maybe like other more civilized countries in Europe, etc.

HungryGuy's avatar

@tom_g – Right on! Those on the right want their gun rights, which I agree to. But those on the right want to restrict the rights of other people who they can marry, sleep with, what drugs they can use in private, etc. Both sides each need to respect and embrace the rights that the other side wants for themselves.

Coloma's avatar

@tom_g

Well said, and, if I may, allow me to say, from the voice of experience, if one has never been on the RECEIVING end of guns gone wild, well…you literally, might not have a leg to stand on.

I have been shot at on my horse on trail, I have had a psycho redneck neighbor dropping branches on my head shooting aimlessly into the woods which happen to be my HOUSE!

I have faced off, as a 5’3 woman with a truckload of redneck, Coors lite swilling bubbas that chased a buck onto my property and wanted to finish their hunt on my land…..the list goes on.

Nature loving bohemian gal and gun toting redneck bubbas are not a blend.

tinyfaery's avatar

Stay out of our business. If people don’t like it they can move.

TexasDude's avatar

@marinelife, the Supreme Court disagrees.

woodcutter's avatar

Yes they should and they will. We all have the right to keep and bear arms, even those who choose not to. We all do, but in Cali. you must be rich in order to do so. Now you will have to register long guns in that state thanks to Ole Jerry. Long guns really? How many crimes are committed with non pistols there? Whatever the number it is so minute it is not worth putting law abiding gun owners names on a list. There is no evidence that registering guns has any impact on crime. If there is I’d like to see some proof. The only reason for the state to want to know who has what, and where, is to make it easier to hassle people or for confiscation. So this means the gang bangers who will refuse to obey that law will be even more illegal?

Coloma's avatar

@woodcutter

Respectfully, but..everyone up in my neck o’ the woods packs rifles, long guns.

There are plenty of mountain and rural areas full of shotgun totin’ locals.

My old dog had his leg blown open by a 30–06 after chasing stray cattle back through the hole in the fence where they came through to my property. Not a pretty sight.

woodcutter's avatar

Respectfully, but..everyone up in my neck o’ the woods packs rifles, long guns.

Now the locals will have to tell the state what they own. Think that would have done anything to save your dog?

Coloma's avatar

@woodcutter

No. Clearly.

woodcutter's avatar

If I read one of those bills correctly it will be a crime to transport a firearm in your own car loaded or unloaded. So I suppose technically now a person can be tossed in jail after purchasing a gun and going home with it, or, driving to a range to shoot…busted. So if you manage to get your new gun home without getting caught, home is the only place you’d better have it. If the criminals aren’t squirting wet dreams over this they probably have even fewer feelings than previously thought.

jaytkay's avatar

1)
The penalty $1,000 and up to one year applies only if, “The person is not in lawful possession of that handgun.”

Here’s the law

It is long because includes all existing statutes – search for ”$1,000” and you will find the pertinent section.

2)
If I read one of those bills correctly it will be a crime to transport a firearm in your own car loaded or unloaded.

Not correct.The law says “exposed”, so they are not making it illegal to transport a firearm

mrrich724's avatar

Yes, I think they should fight for it. California is so intrusive as it is on the rights of Americans, and every new step they take to make it harder for citizens have the basic rights that most other states already have, should be met with resistance.

I was raised in Florida. I moved to California for two years, after seeing what a crock this place is, I swallowed the several thousand dollar cost it took for me to go back to Florida (on top of the money and effort it took me to get there). And this was without the guarantee of having a job when I got home. But I got a job in one month, b/c the lack of jobs wasn’t HALF as bad as in Cali.

Now I only come to visit my wife’s family once a year.

So to go what with @tinyfaery said, actually, moving out is a way to make a statement. I sure as hell did and I couldn’t get out fast enough.

State tax, ridiculous sales tax, $0.10 to drink out of a bottle, $4.00 a gallon gas where Ft. Lauderdale, a major city is currently at $3.45, lots and lots and lots of other taxes, with nothing to show for it: shitty roads, major money issues, school layoffs all the time, truly, they take your money for special interest groups, give you nothing to show for it, and then want to take away more rights?

Here is my Theme Song for California, and I truly couldn’t think of better lyrics to represent that place.

Anyway, rant off, yes people should fight. Not just for gun rights, but for the simple fact that California is turning out to be the best example of what can happen when government runs rampant on people who don’t keep it in check: Take as much as it can, and give you as little as possible in return.

tinyfaery's avatar

Glad for the people who get the fuck out. More room for us progressive, forward thinking people.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@RareDenver @Nullo so how does just about every European country get by without a right to bear arms? Mostly by living under some authoritarian government.

@jaytkay If the right to bear arms includes the right to openly carry whenever and wherever, I guess any no restrictions are legal. Felons, children and the mentally ill should be included. Gun licensing should be abolished. Any weapon, including machine guns and hand grenades, must be allowed on all private property, in churches, and schools.

That’s the way in all advanced societies with low crime rates. RIght? I can’t even dignify that with a proper answer. However, you forgot to mention giving vehicles to people that drink so they can clean all of out clocks while coming home from the market, and even worse, giving them their vehicles back after they been busted for a DUI; that is truly stupid.

@SquirrelEStuff Kinda ironic that any state in the largest producer/distributor of arms in the world, wants to stop people from bearing arms. Kinda ironic that state in the nation of uncommitted horndogs boinking like bunnies should have the heebie jeebies seeing a naked nipple on page three of the newspaper, topless beaches, or on late night TV. Or, such an upright and great nations can outstrip teen pregnancies of every nation in the so-called first world. What else is new?

@tom_g Is this country that violent and dangerous a place that we all need to be walking around with guns? Out of all the so-called first world nations the US do best the others in prison, population locked up, and lets not forget what we really can be proud of; the amount of yearly homicides.

RareDenver's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central all governments are authoritarian to a degree and don’t try and kid yourself that people in the US are in some way ‘more free’ than people in the EU

Soupy's avatar

Every now and then I see something like this, and it blows my mind. There are people on earth who believe that it’s a human right to be able to carry around a weapon capable of blowing someone’s face off.

For me it’s totally the opposite. I think I should have the right to walk around knowing that all the crazies aren’t allowed to carry things like this.

It’s amazing how upbringing impacts our values, yes?

In answer to the question, I don’t think gun owners should be suing the government for taking away their “right” to openly carry around weapons. I think they should maybe stop openly carrying around weapons. But of course my opinion is coloured by my view on guns.

Nullo's avatar

@RareDenver Actually, a lot of Europe lets its people have guns, only with restrictions. As far as I know, the Uck is the only one that has gone to the extremes that it has.
In the United States, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.

Nullo's avatar

@tom_g

The most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment rights and right to carry appear to me to be the same people who are unwilling to support many other rights (reproductive, privacy, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc.)
We’re not in favor of all rights evar, mostly because you don’t get rights by slapping a label on a behavior.
“Reproductive rights” are opposed on the grounds that you’re killing a human being that hasn’t tried to kill you (or anybody else).
Rights to privacy are strongly supported in gun culture, cropping up on issues like gun ownership records and the like.
Freedom of religion is another important one for this bunch. The religious in their midst (and there are a lot of atheists and agnostics in there, too) are keen on being able to practice their religion. For the most part, they don’t really care about other religions.
I don’t really see what you’re getting at, saying that there’s no support for civil rights. Elucidate, plz.

I just don’t get it. If you feel that you need to be carrying a gun on you when you go to the grocery store, why do you even live in this country? Haven’t we already lost? Is this country that violent and dangerous a place that we all need to be walking around with guns? It seems to be an admission that we should probably close up shop and try to do things differently – maybe like other more civilized countries in Europe, etc.

It’s not a question of fear, in all cases. A gun can protect you from criminals, true, but in this case, they’r exercising their right so that they don’t lose it. It’s like demonstrating.
Gun ownership reshuffles authority. It is said that the gun is the difference between a citizen and a subject. Are we not in a country that is governed by the people? What better way to illustrate that than for the people to carry around the Great Equalizer?

And some people have guns because they’re pretty cool. And some have guns for their history. I know a history professor that’s working on collecting all of the rifles of the Second World War, for both of these reasons.

RareDenver's avatar

@Nullo I don’t really see what you are getting at, I never said gun ownership was not allowed in the majority of Europe, it is however considered a privilege and not a right. Prove yourself fit and responsible to own a gun and you can own a gun.

I really don’t see why anyone would think that in a first world country in the year 2011 gun ownership should be a right.

jaytkay's avatar

Are we not in a country that is governed by the people? What better way to illustrate that than for the people to carry around the Great Equalizer?

Voting and working to help the people around you instead of threatening to murder them would be a good illustration.

lol “The Great Equalizer” lol (Insert inadequate penis joke here)

RareDenver's avatar

@jaytkay that was a fucking great answer and had me laughing so hard I think a little bit of wee came out…... brb bathroom

mrrich724's avatar

The issue that is commonly brought up regarding gun restrictive laws is that you are only restricting law abiding citizens. Criminals, by nature, don’t care if California (or anywhere) makes a law restricting the carry of a weapon.

It reminds me of a pro-concealed-carry quote, “If I could carry a police officer in my pocket, I wouldn’t need to carry a gun.”

And this is a point in favor of carry of a weapon, where I haven’t truly been satisfied by any counter answer.

Bad guys will carry weapons no matter what people say, so what is the point of the laws except to prohibit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves?

woodcutter's avatar

There is the misconception that people who go through the steps to be eligible to carry legally, a loaded firearm are just itching to use them. That is opposite from the truth. A person on the whole needs to be a couple of ticks higher on the responsibility range to legally carry. They usually have decent jobs, don’t do drugs, and treat others with respect and don’t sit around contemplating how to buck the rules. Most people don’t carry for a couple reasons. They don’t want to, or they don’t meet the above criteria.
If these kinds of intrusive laws actually did anything to reduce crime it would maybe become a point to debate. But the fact is, they do not. They amount to an incremental destruction of the second amdt in that the aim is not to control crime but to systematically make gun ownership a bother. In time it is hoped that if enough people decide to not be gun owners it will carry over to the next generations to the point that interest will fall to the levels that gun makers will have to close their doors. Thus making guns unavailable or very very expensive which also has the same intended effect.

Gun owners don’t worry so much about direct confiscation. They are concerned with the sneaky under the radar regulations that drive people away from access to 2A. Under the disguise of public safety. All of the politicians know this but the sky is falling left is depending on their constituents to be frightened enough to believe guns = bad no matter who has them. In some places that actually works. Places like California.

mrrich724's avatar

You are right @woodcutter. When I wear my 40, the ABSOLUTE LAST thing I want to do is to ever have to show it to anyone.

I am a good person. I do not want to look for trouble, nor do I ever want to have to deal with the complications of brandishing/using my weapon.

The people who are “just itching to use them,” are the bad people who don’t give a shit about the laws people create anyway!

jaytkay's avatar

I’m glad walking about in public doesn’t induce pants-pissing fear in me. That must suck. Maybe there’s a support group or something.

mrrich724's avatar

Good thing you live in a nicer neighborhood @jaytkay

Where I live, I was walking to Best Buy and this hoodie looking kid in front of me forgot to tuck in the back of his tshirt when he stuck his gun in the small of his back.

That made me feel good about having mine.

And honestly, you don’t need “pants pissing fear” to carry a gun. For all the money people spend on “insurance,” home owners insurance, car insurance, health insurance, dental insurance, etc, $600 for a gun and $100 for a permit is the LEAST expensive life insurance you can buy . . .

And I know the NRA is of course going to be pro guns, but subscribe to them on Twitter for a while, and read the stories that are posted that people go through EVERY DAY. Then keep going on living your life happy and lucky that you’ve never had to encounter something that changes your mind and teaches you to carry a gun.

TexasDude's avatar

I like how @jaytkay and a few others are consistently using absurd platitudes, making obtuse assumptions, and ignoring facts that others have posted and are somehow managing to rack up the most upvotes.

Speaks volumes about the type of thinking that is accepted as the straight and narrow around here.

*unsubscribes

tinyfaery's avatar

Glad most of these people are not in my beloved CA.

jaytkay's avatar

@mrrich724

I live in Chicago. Not the safest neighborhood. And I subscribe to the NRA daily email where I learn things like the UN is about to confiscate my guns. If that’s where you’re getting your news, well, good luck to you.

And I’m sure the Twitter stories are all true. “I was carrying my gun and this big black guy was following a young blond girl. He looked at me and I patted my Glock in its concealed Galco holster. He nodded, acknowledging my message. No young white girls were raped in my city that day. Check the newspaper if you doubt me.”

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I ignored some facts? Specifically…?

woodcutter's avatar

Penis inadequacy jokes- definition: when someone’s argument has run out of steam.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@mrrich724 Bad guys will carry weapons no matter what people say, so what is the point of the laws except to prohibit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves? Gadzooks! We don’t agree much, but <Standing one a chair> I AGREE WITH THAT! Yeah, I said it. Lurve that.

@woodcutter There is the misconception that people who go through the steps to be eligible to carry legally, a loaded firearm are just itching to use them. They are not carrying loaded weapons, they are unleaded.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I like how @jaytkay and a few others are consistently using absurd platitudes, making obtuse assumptions, and ignoring facts that others have posted and are somehow managing to rack up the most upvotes[sic]. Maybe that is the reason behind ignoring the logic, makes it more logical to garner points.

woodcutter's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central What does that even mean?

mrrich724's avatar

@jaytkay @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard made some correct observations about your statements. And since you are so interested in “subscribing to the NRA daily email” . . . do yourself a favor and subscribe to some #NRA twitter feeds . . . there are no Galco advertisements, simply links to local newspaper online articles from throughout the nation that have no commercial breaks, just first hand accounts of real life experiences.

Not only that, you aren’t even reading everything people have to say before responding, as he very clearly stated that he was done wtih this thread and unsubscribed . . . yet you addressed him and asked him a question.

I think it’s just becoming obvious that you are saying things that you (and others) think sound nice to say. Like indirectly accusing me of being to dull to see through an advert disguised as an article.

@Hypocrisy_Central quoted me just two contri’s above . . . and still no one has addressed that legitimate question . . . I didn’t suspect anyone would. How will gun “control” do anything except limit the law abiding citizens?

Nullo's avatar

@woodcutter It’s a play on words. Bullets are made out of lead, so a loaded gun is leaded. Unloaded guns are unleaded.
I don’t think anybody even sells leaded gasoline anymore.

@jaytkay Firstly, nice job with the penis joke. I’m glad to see that the left is still producing people with such a mature sense of humor.~
Second, you’re dabbling in false dichotomies. It’s not “no guns OR all military hardware evar.” And it’s not “murder OR voting.” It’s “good, law-abiding citizens ought to be able to have guns if they want them, so that they can defend themselves if need be.”
And I’m pretty sure that you know that.

Would you believe that of all of the people that I know who have guns, not one of them has threatened to murder anybody?

RareDenver's avatar

EU has stricter gun control than the US. The EU has lower gun crime rate than the US. Anyone see a connection?

jaytkay's avatar

@mrrich724 My mention of Galco wasn’t about disguised advertisements or a suggestion that anyone is dim. It was an imitation of the tedious details that gun enthusiasts use. Not in this thread, but if you read even a little bit in online forums, you’ve seen it.

And I addressed Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard’s assertion that I am ignoring facts. What facts? If he’s not here to point out my error, anybody else is welcome to chime in.

And no, your claim that only law-abiding people are restricted by gun control is not a fact, it’s circular reasoning.

@Nullo The goal of open carry is to threaten people. That’s indisputable.

tom_g's avatar

@Nullo: “It’s not a question of fear, in all cases. A gun can protect you from criminals, true, but in this case, they’r exercising their right so that they don’t lose it. It’s like demonstrating.”

I’ll take your word for it that it is not a question of fear in all cases. However, that is all I hear – fear and paranoia.

But why guns? Why are they so into guns? How is it like demonstrating?

@Nullo: “Gun ownership reshuffles authority. It is said that the gun is the difference between a citizen and a subject. Are we not in a country that is governed by the people? What better way to illustrate that than for the people to carry around the Great Equalizer?”

See, I just don’t get it. Are you saying that walking around with that pistol is keeping the government from turning into a totalitarian state? If so, shouldn’t all citizens be required to carry? And shouldn’t they be required to carry something better than a pistol? Maybe we should require that the military forces only grow to a certain size so we can be sure the citizens have a fighting chance? I bet there could be a way of measuring this?

Is this really what people are talking about? Please tell me I’m wrong.

Regarding the historical novelty and hobby aspect of antique guns – why not antique coins or antique toys? Why something that is designed to kill a living being? Why not antique torture devices, sex toys, or bread boxes?

Is it the loud noise that guns make? Is it a feeling of power? Is it wild-west fetish fantasy?
I am serious when I say I don’t get it.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@mrrich724 How will gun “control” do anything except limit the law abiding citizens? The only thing I can see gun control doing is cutting down on accidental shootings because there will be nothing for people to accidentally shoot themselves with. It won’t stop crime, they will either smuggle in their guns, making the cartels richer, or they will find a different weapon to use.

@jaytkay @Nullo The goal of open carry is to threaten people. That’s indisputable. Indisputable, really? When they had some open carry gatherings here at the local Starbucks and other near by cities, it did not descend into the wild wild West. There were no duels, gun fights, etc breaking out. They did not walk about pointing their guns at anyone or acting like assholes with big chips on their shoulders. Far from undisputed.

jaytkay's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Rregarding “threaten” – You’re arguing against a straw man, not responding to what I wrote. The goal of open carry is menacing people around you. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@jaytkay The goal of open carry is menacing people around you. Straw men? I would keep yours away from a flame he might look like Burning Man. To say that is about equal to saying everyone who owns a pitbull does so to, (A) fight the animal for money, (B) intimidate all the other dog owners and people they pass on the street. Maybe in your neck of the woods they walk around trying to be Billy Badass, those who had open carry mixers and gatherings here must have hid it very, very well. They seem no different than the average John Q.

janbb's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I hesitate to weigh in on gun control questions anymore, but what other purpose would there be for openly carrying a weapon if it weren’t to menace others?

jaytkay's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central If the purpose of the “Great Equalizer” is not a threat, how does it equalize?

If it’s not a threat of violence, how does it work?

Does it make everyone the same height? Does it give everyone the same IQ? Does it give people equal musical aptitudes? Something else?

woodcutter's avatar

Ok this has been fun but please could we stop the play on words already? It’s really starting looking juvenile. The great equalizer: A 90 lb woman will have the ability to make a man built like Mike Tyson stop. He would be considered equalized, neutralized, stopped. Would the woman be doing right by using a firearm to save herself, or is she just being an unreasonable bitch? But we all already understand this. Some want to be funny because they want to be like Bill Mauer and attempt to minimize their opponents talking points when they think others are watching.

janbb's avatar

And yet – I am 5 ft 1 inch and have never felt that a gun was necessary.

woodcutter's avatar

@janbb Concider yourself fortunate. But humanity as a whole will not mimic your life experiences necessarily.

RareDenver's avatar

Okay so if we take state sponsored use of guns, police, army, SWAT teams etc out of the equation, and gun sports and hunting, target practice etc. We should be left with three different types of shootings:

1. accidents
2. legitimate self defence
3. illegal and intentional shootings

If number 2 outweighs numbers 1 and 3 then maybe the gun rights people have a point, if however numbers 1 and 3 outweigh 2 then I think their case is weakened.

Anyone have any statistics on this?

woodcutter's avatar

@RareDenver The deceptive part of your equation there, is the fact that people in group# 2 tend to have to carry the curse of the other 2 groups. There are so many other analogies where the test groups were different it would cause pretty much the same outrage of that group.

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter what? maybe its just because it’s 6am but that didnt make any sense to me

woodcutter's avatar

What part are ya having trouble with? If you are thinking in PC mode it may confuse but it should be pretty straight forward.

tom_g's avatar

@woodcutter – I’m not sure how PCs – or Macs – have anything to do with this.

woodcutter's avatar

~~~PC = politically correct, the thing we all know I have no time for so as long as we all know it will get a little gooey, we can continue :)

tom_g's avatar

@woodcutter – Good thing political correctness hasn’t made an appearance in this thread yet (with the exception of you mentioning it, and my answer right here).

I’m curious though, if someone doesn’t understand a response you have given, do you prefer to accuse them of something for which there is no evidence rather than explain yourself?

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter maybe I’m just thick.

the fact that people in group# 2 tend to have to carry the curse of the other 2 groups

I have no idea what this means

There are so many other analogies where the test groups were different it would cause pretty much the same outrage of that group.

What relevance does this have?

I was simply postulating that if we took the total number of ‘legitimate self defence shootings’ that occurred in the US on average per year and the result was higher than that of both the total number of ‘accidental shootings’ and ‘illegal and intentional shootings’ that maybe I could see gun rights as being a force for good and therefore legitimate and worthwhile. However if the reverse were true then maybe not.

It’s kinda like car accidents and intentional running down of people, if the total number of car journeys that resulted in an injury or fatality outnumbered those that went by with no significant incident then we would have no cars, luckily this is not the case.

woodcutter's avatar

@RareDenver the fact that people in group# 2 tend to have to carry the curse of the other 2 groups . What that means is the the one’s who do wrong here have the one’s who do not, pay for their misgivings. Do you really think that is just? It can be hard to prove a negative sometimes but really, many instances of self defense with guns happen without a shot being fired. The reason we seldom hear of these incidences it the fact that no news organization wants to waste resources on something that didn’t happen. When in fact something very big happened. A person, no… two people’s lives were saved which I can promise you, are very big in the minds of the two parties still walking. Even still, not newsworthy because the news want blood and guts to tell about because they sell. They sell better than sex. So the tragedies are over amped and the tragedy avoidance get left on the cutting room floor. So by your logic the wishes of they who trust themselves with a gun to defend themselves should be discounted because of a few bad apples? And does anyone really care if someone accidentally shoots themselves doing something stupid with a gun, or ends their life with one? Really? or are those instances merely being used as add-on excuses to be able to solidify their beliefs that guns are bad. After all , I thought liberals were all for someone freely ending their life when they want to as long as Jack Kevorkian was involved then it’s fine, but if someone does it their way it’s an outrage? We can’t discount the lives saved by responsible people with their own guns. There are some really shitty places in this country and that includes California, and there is never sign that says “ENTERING SHITTY AREA” If a person has never been accosted it can be easy for them to conclude it doesn’t happen so why worry? The emergency rooms and cemeteries are full of people who probably thought stuff like this only happens to other people. Don’t let the perfect destroy the good.

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter I see what you mean now and you make a very good point about a gun being utilised in self defence without a shot ever being fired but I still stand by the fact that if there are less guns out there there will be less gun crime and not all accidental shootings are the shooting of ones self. In addition yes I do care if someone accidentally injures or kills themselves, an accidental death and suicide are very different things.

I don’t think suicide should be illegal as such but I do think it should be discouraged but we are digressing here a little.

ps never heard of Jack Kevorkian

CWOTUS's avatar

The irksome thing about such proposals is that lawmakers and those who support them earnestly believe that by “making whatever illegal” it will go away. Hence Prohibition, War on Some Drugs and now anti-gun measures. The truth is quite different, but that never seems to matter to the do-gooders. Though I’m not a gun owner or an NRA member I support the right to bear arms. I trust my neighbors – and most random strangers – to be essentially law-abiding. It’s also ignorant in the extreme to fail to support people’s rights to bear arms “because the people who want that also seem to want to take away other people’s freedom in other areas”. The two wrongs still do not make for right policy.

The irksome thing about arguments against such laws is that they often resort to hyperbole on the other side: “the government is out to get us”; “the criminals will take over”; “you won’t be safe without armed resistance against both criminals and government agents”. The hyperbole is no more accurate or helpful than the false assumptions of the regulators.

Here’s what I think:
1. The right to possess weapons (in general) is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Regardless of whether this is “necessary” or “accurate”, the right is established and upheld by the US Supreme Court.

2. It’s not an absolute right. There is no guarantee of any right to own “any” weapon that can be imagined or produced. Just as the freedom of speech does not permit some forms of speech: inciting to violence or panic, fraud, threatening, etc., the right to bear arms has – and should continue to have – some qualification. It’s this qualification that we should be discussing, not absolute abolition (not going to happen) or absolute freedom (which is just as absurd in the opposite direction).

I would like to propose some suggestions that (I hope) work around the “reasonable regulation” that we should be discussing:

1. Like it or not, we register automobiles and license drivers. The systems we have in place for this work in large measure. The registration process helps the police to track stolen and misused vehicles, which reasonable people agree is a good policy. I propose that we should “register” firearms, but with a twist. I propose that gun owners should accept the responsibility for carrying liability insurance for the weapons. The insurance companies providing that insurance should be charged with the cost, responsibility and administration for maintaining the registration, and should replicate the registration by company with the state, with no identifying information regarding the owner. If a weapon used in a crime is found to be in the state’s database of registered weapons, then the police can obtain a search warrant to have the insurer disclose the owner’s name and address so the police can conduct a legitimate investigation.

2. Owners should be responsible to their insurance companies for maintenance of the weapons and their storage, transportation and use. Weapons theft must be reported to insurers so that the insurer can cancel their liability and mount their own investigation, as well as initiate police action to investigate the theft (by geographic area, not by named owner, unless the insurance company itself believes the report to be fraudulent).

3. Weapons users and handlers (including casual transporters) must be trained and licensed to do so. Users and handlers who do not have licenses covering the weapons in their possession should face legal sanction and fines. Training and licensing is also a function of the insurers carrying the liability coverage, which would also be part of the requirement for licensing, very much the way many states mandate automobile insurance for drivers / registered owners.

This maintains costs and personal registration information apart from “the government”, and mandates that at least some of the costs of ownership: misuse, accidental discharge and careless handling resulting in loss or theft of the weapon, will be borne by the licensing agencies.

woodcutter's avatar

@CWOTUS So, basically you would like to see the second amendment priced clean out of the hands of ordinary Americans who, are the one’s who own damn near all of the firearms, second in ownership would be the US govt. That would make you feel safer?

CWOTUS's avatar

Why do you think gun owners would be so hard-pressed to buy liability insurance? The gun’s going to be more expensive.

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter as the article states It’s difficult to prove cause and effect. and it’s an editorial opinion as opposed to a news article. I would think the drop in crime is more due to cultural shift than more guns.

@CWOTUS I like your ideas there

bkcunningham's avatar

@CWOTUS, NRA members are offered liability insurance, just like what you described, on their firearms. There are many, many other companies who offer exactly the same type of insurance.

Your liability insurance proposal isn’t new. It has been proposed by a variety of state legislators. The latest that I can recall was Illinois state rep. Kenneth Dunkin.

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/members.htm

woodcutter's avatar

What does that even mean? Sure guns are expensive so it will make all those things you suggested there seem cheap by comparison? I hope that’s not what you were driving at because it would be absolutely ridiculous.

First off we have to examine what type of people own most of the guns. They would be working folk, the type who do their shopping at walmart. Gun owners aren’t rich. Oh sure some of them could be, but on the whole they are not. You are proposing to make the whole gun ownership thing a hoop jumping exercise that will no doubt be fraught with fees on top of yet more fees on top of fines that will make it extremely easy for someone to become astray of the law. Every single thing you site is gong to add up to a pretty penny and we all know that all administrative costs from insurers are passed down to the consumer. That is the true “trickle down” concept we hear so much about.

Gun registration: first off is a very bad idea, bad, bad, bad. It doesn’t do squat to control crime in any way, whatsoever. I’m not from Missouri but “show me” anyway. You can’t. Imagine the costs for a state to maintain a gun registry system for nothing in return. It would add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars…per year, more like millions. Look at Canada with their gun registry. It’s like a million dollars plus yearly, to keep up with the thing and they are about to scrap the whole idea any day now. And California has more gun owners than the whole country of Canada. For that priceless nugget to have any chance of working the way you hope, you will first have to cruise the “hoods” and locate all the dopers, runners, and the rest of the gang bangers et;al and tell them they too will need to register all their guns. Tell us how that works out for ya if they let you out of there alive. Wait don’t do that- I kid. Save you the heartbreak, they ain’t gonna do it. So all you will get out of registration are documented guns that won’t be found at crime scenes…brilliant!

Gun ownership is a constitutional right as well as self defense being a human right way before the first government ever sprang up. You don’t need a law written by men in order to have permission to defend yourself from harm. It is a given, as well as a survival reflex.

Driving automobiles is not a constitutional right. By all standards it is a privilege at best therefore it is silly to apply the same stipulations to these two activities. Gun insurance? Please. When we pay our taxes we are covering all the necessary things we need to deal with mishappen firearm incidences: courts, district attys, judges who order restitution, fines, or punishment. So why should gun “handlers” have the burden of paying extra if they are already doing it? They shouldn’t, it’s wrong and discriminatory, and it only serves to punish law abiding people for the sins of the lawless. Look we all know gun control is bunk, meaning it is a knee jerk reactionary non solution that is an attempt to make some people feel good that they are doing something. With these people there can never be enough gun control because even after they implement more “common sense gun laws” and later discover the laws don’t work, they push for more to see if they work. And so on. They never will.

woodcutter's avatar

@RareDenver I think the point the article was trying to show was that even with gun ownership at an all time high, the crime rate has not gone up because of it. The anti gun lawmakers were wringing their collective hands with worry over the fact that more and more gun regulations were being dismantled and carry laws going in favor of gun owners because they just knew we were going to see the streets run red with blood with all these guns everywhere. I find it telling that these same doomsday predictors are mysteriously quiet about this fact. You would think they would be jumping with joy abut it, here in America but in their usual form, that is the kind of thing we all have to dig for because the mainstream media only likes to report the bad news and mayhem in general. The lowering crime rate is a good thing but still the anti’s seem suspicious of it without offering any studies to show the opposite. I guess when the FBI reports these figures all the Brady people can do is shut the fuck up? But no, the fact that more guns out in the public has not been proven to have anything to do with that. The criminal culture here in the US is just getting culturally nicer . I think even you are having a hard time believing that. Y’all just won’t take yes for an answer.

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter there has been a general downward trend in crime rates across much of the first world countries in the last few decades, even ones with strict gun controls, so I don’t think we can infer that more guns equals less crime either. By cultural shift I wasn’t talking about just the criminal culture, I was talking about fewer people turning to crime in the first place.

who are Brady people?

bkcunningham's avatar

@RareDenver, Brady is the reason we have federal background checks on the purchase of handguns in the US. Brady is James Brady who was shot in the head by John Hinckley, Jr., during the assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan. Brady was Reagan’s assistant and White House Press Secretary. That is why the White House Press Briefing Room is called the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. (Hinckley also shot a DC police officer in the neck and back and a secret service agent in the stomach

woodcutter's avatar

@RareDenver You are still not willing to accept the proven fact that when millions of newly acquired firearms enter private ownership and crime does not rise ,in fact goes down, that more guns does not equal more crime. Instead it seems you want to completely discount that, or spin that fact into coincidence? So would you be willing to admit that crime has fallen despite the rapid growth in newly acquired firearms? If for example crime stats went up through the roof, at the same time more guns were being acquired,I would guess you would blame that on all the new guns coming in? You would probably make a good politician. I’m just trying to get a bead on you, no pun intended.

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter I accept that crime rates have gone down while gun ownership has gone up, but I also accept that the same has happened in many other countries that have strict gun controls and gun ownership has either stayed level or gone down.

If you make guns harder to come by then fewer criminals will come by them too. There will always be your hardcore that will get hold of guns. There are criminals in the UK that have guns and the UK has strict gun control. The opportunistic or petty criminal will be less likely however to have a gun.

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter also I can’t see a problem with the car analogy, a cars primary function is not as a lethal weapon but it can become one and people therefore have to prove themselves fit and responsible before getting behind the wheel and heading off down the freeway. Why shouldn’t it be the same for guns? You say driving is a privilege and gun ownership a right. I am saying gun ownership should also be a privilege. Maybe it’s time for another amendment.

woodcutter's avatar

@RareDenver No you can never make it even remotely hard for the motivated and criminally inclined to get just about any kind of gun they want. You can however make it impossible for those who are not criminally inclined to get them. That sounds like the opposite of what we would want. The black market is a thriving force in our world. There is plenty of heinous crime in Europe trust in that, with guns and without. And they have all these gun laws. You would have to expect it to go down to almost nothing with all those gun laws but it hasn’t and it never will.

In the states we have the most lax gun laws in the world and in spite of all that, crime is falling. Slice it any way you want, but it’s looking like the Europeans have to restrict their citizens of a basic right to achieve what they believe is lower crime ,and the US is getting the same results without doing it. Which place would you rather live?

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter this where we differ, I don’t see gun ownership as a basic right. I’ve lived in both the US and Europe, I currently live in Europe and am quite happy here, I’m also a European.

CWOTUS's avatar

@woodcutter

I think your reaction is unjustified. I fully support the right of people to own ‘personal’ weapons of all kinds: knives, swords, rifles and shotguns as well as handguns. I agree that “gun registration” won’t stop crime. That’s not its intent, any more than auto registration prevents car theft, drunk driving and other misuse of automobiles. However, you have to admit that auto registration “deters” some theft, and makes investigation of auto crimes somewhat easier. Without some form of automobile registration, and given the mobility of the thing itself, your car could be stole from your driveway today and there would be almost zero possibility of recovery. Insurance, if it were even on offer, would be prohibitively expensive.

The merit to registration with an insurance company instead of “the state” is that their records are safe from the state except in the case of a bona fide need – supported by a subpoena and/or search warrant issued by a judge – for the police to investigate “the ownership of a particular weapon used in a particular crime”. In other words, the state benefits by having the registration available and the consumer / gun owner benefits by having a way to track the theft of his legally owned weapon.

Your concerns about “fees on top of fees” and all the ways that gun owners will be tripped up, tricked and led to the commission of “crimes” for failing to register are overblown. The model already exists with auto registrations, emissions testing, safety inspections, etc. It’s not difficult to stay on the right side of the law. And some “administrative” lapses are more subject to fine, confiscation and imprisonment than others: If I drive without my license in my possession, or an expired registration I may receive a ticket and a fine (maybe just a warning). If I drive a car that’s been reported as stolen, or if my license has been suspended, then I’m more likely to be arrested and the vehicle impounded.

I’ll go further in my suggestion from above, in fact: I think that part of the registration process should include a ballistics record of the weapon, which would be part of the document package from the insurance company to the state, so that upon commission of a gun crime where a slug can be recovered and checked, police would already have a database of (registered) ballistics records to check, which would aid them in investigating, at least to start: “where did this gun come from?”

Nothing is perfect, and of course I realize that. I know that many will refuse to register weapons, either because they already use them in crimes, aren’t allowed to have them because they are ex-convicts, or deal in them as stolen property. Some, maybe you included, @woodcutter, would simply resent “more interference with my right to own this legal weapon”. But I’ll bet you register your car, and I’ll bet that even most cars driven in “the hood” are registered these days. Over time, I think it’s an idea that could work very well. When the police only have to worry about a relative minority of unregistered, stolen, smuggled, homemade and other weapons that can’t be tracked, most “gun crimes” by people using weapons that had at one time been properly registered would at least have a starting point for investigation – and people whose guns were not ‘in play’ in crime wouldn’t have a thing to worry about.

In fact, I’d like to see much wider gun ownership – and training! – so that people know as much about guns as they do about cars, to continue the analogy.

woodcutter's avatar

@CWOTUS I’m sorry but I believe the govt. is involved in our lives too much now. Having them know everything about our guns is useless to even think about solving crimes. You are aware that the people who’s stock in trade is guns and crime never have registered weapons and most of the time remove all identifying marks? The only possible and practical reason for the state to know this is to have more leverage if there is a change in laws one day and they will know where they all are. It’s happened before and it can happen again. History people, history.

My friend you have much more faith than I do with any entity be it govt. or private, keeping accurate records of anything especially 60 plus million different guns in the US where everything is always in flux. It’s also extremely naive to think records won’t be shared with anyone who asks for them. It all sounds like a swell idea on its face, but it would turn into a total boondoggle. More likely than not ,those duties would be outsourced to India and you know how that goes.It would cost millions to keep up with it all and who gets to pay these millions? The gun owners will. It’s the same old tactic- introduce all these great sounding “common sense” ideas designed to bankrupt the common person into being discouraged from the idea of even having guns. It would totally work. It’s economics 101. If you are really a proponent of the second amendment, as is Obama ~, then you would know the best thing you could do for its cause is to leave it alone. Instead of devising ways to restrict ownership of objects there should rather be more emphasis on finding out why crime happens in the first place, or make people convicted of violent crimes serve out the whole sentence instead of being paroled out or plea out.

Inventing more restrictive gun laws that only hamper the honest people because of the bad players is unjust punishment and they have never worked unless you believe it’s working when the balance of power shifts to the bad people who don’t pay any mind to laws. It’s playing right into the criminal’s hands.

@RareDenver And this BS about how Europe has it’s act together with their violence problem is a failed attempt to compare apples and oranges. You really believe you have the murderers and rapists on the defensive there? It’s getting to the point here in the US where the bad guys are starting to ponder their intended targets as it’s starting to be clearer there is a chance they will lose because of the increase in concealed carry among us.There is really no way to tell. So they are getting more selective. THAT is why violent crime here is trending down. It isn’t because of the law or our police. Even women are packing heat in record numbers now, so much, that gun makers are building guns with fashion colors. A company isn’t going to retool their production facility for a temporary fad and loose millions. The gals are packing and the men are learning manners…again. I’m happy for you that you like where you live. That’s great. In your city the stalkers and the freaks have no fear of their intended victims because they know on the front end of an assault they are going to win. And you victims also know they are going to win. It’s a done deal, almost a transaction only you may loose some teeth in the deal but what the hell, at least you didn’t piss off they guy. In America we call that rolling over especially when it’s expected every time. What kind of shit is that? Embolden the miscreants to the point they have no fear. In doing that, y’all deserve what you get.

Ya know, the reason America is, is because there where enough Europeans back in the day who thought the old world sucked. They wanted to build a place that was different from where they came, something better and by golly they did it. Still now, you see a hell of a lot more people from Europe wanting to relocate to America then Americans who want to cross over. Why do you suppose that is? Because it’s better here, that’s why, but please, don’t just take my word for it. If you feel you need a govt. telling you how to live then that’s fine, not knocking it. But there is an overwhelming concensus here that want things here to be different from the old world, which most of the time = better. Oh sure there is a minority who claim to want things here to turn backwards into Europe and undo what was done in the first place in order to be different. US culture is ingrained now because it is natural for a free people to adopt. So, it would be much more practical for those people to go back to Europe if that’s what they truly want. I mean…they can leave now…I think they’ll stay.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@RareDenver @woodcutter also I can’t see a problem with the car analogy, a cars primary function is not as a lethal weapon but it can become one and people therefore have to prove themselves fit and responsible before getting behind the wheel and heading off down the freeway. Why shouldn’t it be the same for guns? You say driving is a privilege and gun ownership a right. This is one area that really frost my tookus. The nation is so spineless I believe they have it backwards. Driving is treated as a right and gun ownership as the privilege. The Constitution said you have a right to bear arms, it didn’t say you lost it forever because you broke the law. In fact, during the western time, once you served your sentence, you got your piece pack. These days even if you were a white collar criminal you lose your right to gun ownership.

However, you can be found guilty of abusing the right to drive by driving under the influence many times. You might lose your license for a spell, but you rarely see anyone get a lifetime ban or suspension, even if they blew through a stop sign and plowed through a bunch of kids in a crosswalk. Society think it is too cruel to put some drunk on the bus for the rest of his life. They say life is too hard if they can’t drive, they can’t earn as much, bla bla bla. Cars may not have an attended use to cause harm or inflict bodily damage, but in reality, they cause more death and suffering than guns do in a year.

RareDenver's avatar

@woodcutter I thought we were just having a discussion about whether carrying around lethal weapons should be considered a right or a privilege but I am sensing quite a bit of hostility from you now so I’ll leave this thread.

woodcutter's avatar

@RareDenver Well, whenever a European with mixed Up facts makes an absurd claim that another person’s country needs to amend their constitution, it does come off as extremely arrogant, especially if you you are advocating people in another country lose some of their basic rights to suit yourself especially if you have no skin in the game here. You were doing fine until you made that mistake, which pretty much threw down the gloves and strayed away from the topic about California’s pending lawsuits. I am America, one of 3%. What did you expect?

If I was really hostile there would be all caps, you just took it that way from experience?

WestRiverrat's avatar

I think they should apply the same standards to voting that they do to bearing arms. A misinformed, uneducated voter is potentially more dangerous than a firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther