U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-16-2009, 09:12 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,154 posts, read 11,634,027 times
Reputation: 13243

Advertisements

I hear this term a LOT from We Hate Guns Inc.. Would someone please outline what 'common sense' measures need to be implemented in regards to my firearms rights? When one examines all the EXISTING laws it seems that this has already been addressed. So, would someone please enlighten me as to what measures need to be put in place that will make a wisp of a difference in stopping criminals from obtaining and using firearms by and for illegal means? Not a day goes by that I do not hear some wildly left wing politician or some group or another, backed by a large portion of the media, howling for 'common sense' gun control, yet not a peep do I hear about what those measures should be and what difference they will make. Other than , of course, further restrict law abiding firearms owners from using our weapons for responsible purposes. Lol, I guess we law abiding gun owners are easy to find, so when the new measures, whatever those may be, are implemented, anti firearms rights groups can claim wild success when we have turned in our 'evil' handguns, and semi auto rifles. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here, but this seems to be the case. Laws, after all, do only effect those who obey them, and criminals are not devoid of 'common sense' themselves. I'm sure the latter support much more 'common sense' gun control and can offer a plethora of ideas on the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2009, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,257,135 times
Reputation: 948
Great strawman. Come back with a balanced definition and I'll respond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 09:25 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,154 posts, read 11,634,027 times
Reputation: 13243
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Great strawman. Come back with a balanced definition and I'll respond.
I'm asking for a definition, not offering one. Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 09:47 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 5,068,140 times
Reputation: 3853
I know I am inviting hate mail here, but here are a few ideas I have:

1. First, revoke governmental immunity in torts when it comes to gun licensing -- that will encourage governmental agencies to enforce laws that are already on the books (I mean, it makes no sense to add more laws if the powers that be won't enforce them). If the agency (municipality for example) knew or should have known that the gun owner did not qualify for a license (due to past convictions for violent crimes, mental illness, etc.), then that agency should be liable in tort to any person injured by that gun owner's unjustified use of a firearm. Right now, gun licensing falls under "governmental discretion" that's immune from lawsuits -- I think the rule should be different for situations where the government puts a deadly weapon into someone's hands.

2. Require classes and evidence of knowing how to use, store and clean a gun before licensing. Hey, we require people to learn how to drive before licensing them to do so, I don't see why we shouldn't do that for any instrumentality capable of wreaking havoc.

3. Impose strict liability upon gun owners for injuries or property damage caused by an unjustified or negligent use of a firearm. We already impose strict liability for such things as keeping predatory wild animals, operating inherently dangerous instrumentalities, etc., the same rule should apply to guns. And, since the people who are least responsible also tend to have the least money (just from my observations as a tort lawyer), I would also require insurance.

4. Just like with cars, create a rebuttable presumption of permissive use when a gun is negligently or unlawfully discharged by someone other than its owner, and impose vicarious liability -- that will encourage gun owners to report their guns stolen promptly, and to safeguard them more zealously, as well as create a further disincentive for illegally buying guns for people who don't qualify.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 09:55 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,154 posts, read 11,634,027 times
Reputation: 13243
Thank you Redisca. I'm not going to argue with anyones suggestion here. I'm just looking for what folks feel the options are. Granted, I am very biased in my view of firearms rights, but in this case I'm not here to argue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Columbus, Indiana
957 posts, read 1,941,243 times
Reputation: 1347
I really like idea #3. My husband, who is an avid gun collector was raised with guns. But, he had a good father who made sure he and his brother knew the proper way to use, store and clean a gun. Many people who buy guns have no idea what they are doing. I think all the other ideas are good too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 10:32 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,154 posts, read 11,634,027 times
Reputation: 13243
I live in a very rural area, but, there are county ordinances that hold people responsible for negligent use of a firearm. If someone is hurt or killed by a careless shot, or as a result of mishandling (especially if booze is involved) the perpetrator will fry, rest assured. Such liability exists at the state level as well, trigger locks are now a mandatory accessory with a gun sale and the buyer must sign off that they will use the device and understand the liability for not doing so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,259,760 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Hey, we require people to learn how to drive before licensing them to do so, I don't see why we shouldn't do that for any instrumentality capable of wreaking havoc..

You're overlooking the central plank in the gun nut principle. You have no right to keep and bear a car (or a paint brush or a toaster or a shoe-horn or a jelly-filled doughnut), but they do have a right to have a gun. The Constitution is perfectly clear about that, and that's --- umm -- irrefutable.

Somebody will certainly point this out to us, I'm just beating them to it, so we can move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:13 PM
 
13,819 posts, read 14,653,063 times
Reputation: 11509
I am very torn on this issue. I do agree that any law passed would not take a gun out of a criminals hands. after all criminals break laws. the responsible gun owner I have no problem with. I think anyone who wants a gun to protect themselves and their homes should have one. with that being said I have a problem that just about anybody can get a gun that is like a "machine gun" sorry I do not know the difference between what is considered a semi automatic and all the rest but some of these guns are not for sport or protection they are for killing. what does a sportsmen or a person who wants one for protection need something that sprays tons bullets for? I don't know why anyone who is law abiding would care if they had to have a 3 day wait. to me that would maybe cut down on the man or woman who is in a rage that wants to shoot their spouse for cheating on them. I would hope one day we could find a middle ground but the other side of the coin is the ppeople that worry any restriction would erode their rights and then the total ban on guns. I am pro choice and this is what I worry about when people start putting judgements on the whens and the whys of choice so I can see that side of the gun issue as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 06:26 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,505,422 times
Reputation: 2569
You have a right to keep & bear anything as long as its legal & you arent hurting anyone. The reason guns are protected specifically is because of people like jtur.

Common sense gun laws Eh.

Personally I think a backround check is sufficient for purchase as long as it can be instant. I'v had to wait out the weekend before & its no big deal but if it can be instant it should be.

Despite what some folks say you dont need a license to buy a car, only drive it on public highways.
We have licensure for public carry in most places & hunting everyplace. What you do on your own property shouldn't require a license.
I think everybody knows that people are liable for damages & injury they cause, be it with a gun, or a brick. Ins I dont think will work. Theres so few accidents by people who would buy it that they wouldn't be able to determine an average risk or anything to base premiums on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top