h a l f b a k e r yBirth of a Notion.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Shooting spree murder-suicides are a great tragedy. Interviews with Psychologists reveal two common threads: 1: The shooters tend to be loaners. 2: The shooters tend to have a fascination with violence. Well... That pretty much describes every socially awkward individual between the ages of 12 and
30. Interviews with friends and family tend to include one of two statements: "Didn't have many friends" or "I knew it would happen one of these days."
It's my belief that those shooting spree murder-suicide psychos are, more or less, regular people like me. It's my belief that most of them could have gone on to die at a ripe old age, having never pumped round after round through their former schoolmates and co-workers... if only they'd had a few friends to hang out with. So, can the state mandate friends? Well, no...
When obtaining a license to drive a vehicle, or operate a forklift, when applying for a job, and when seeking admission into a university, you generally must have one or more individuals endorse you as someone capable of meeting the challenge. Not so with obtaining a firearm. I suspect this is a defect in our gun licensing policies.
With votes of confidence gun licensing, someone interested in obtaining a firearm would need to provide proof that one or more legally armed individuals, and one or more unarmed individuals believed that the applicant was up to the responsibility of operating a firearm in a responsible manner.
Should the applicant go on a shooting spree, those individuals who endorsed them could be investigated, and possibly have their licenses revoked.
Due to the legal issues, endoresees would be able to revoke their endorsement at any time, either because they no longer trusted the individual, or because they were no longer in a position to gauge their level of responsibility.
In every day situations, it should not be too difficult for someone to get replacements, or have extra endorsements, but an unexpected loss of endorsement would arouse obvious police interest.
Loners who have no friends would then either need to earn the trust of a few good citizens, or seek out criminal networks in an attempt to obtain a gun. I suspect that for most such loaners, it will be easier to convince a few good citizens that they are trustworthy, rather than convincing blackmarket gun dealers that they will not narc.
Thus, the really dangerous find obtaining weapons that much harder, the police get better tips on dangerous suspects, and gun nuts (especially the really risky ones!) get a network of some involved, and educated individuals with which to share their enthusiasm.
Admittedly, it'll be a little bit tougher for everyone to get guns, but with the right number of endorsees, we should be able to see all the benefits without making it too tough for prospective owners.
my inspiration
_22Vote_20of_20No_2..._20gun_20control_2e
credit where credit is due; the second highest form of flattery and all. [ye_river_xiv, Apr 20 2007]
The second amendment
http://en.wikipedia...States_Constitution
Not so simple as it may first appear. [jhomrighaus, Apr 22 2007]
[link]
|
| |
This might bring up a new course in high school, 'Firearms Ed.', but it's a good idea. |
|
| |
So, given that the right to bear arms is predicated on individuals being part of a well-organised militia, guns shouldn't be sold to people who aren't part of a
well-organised militia? |
|
| |
//who will vow to the person's mental capacity to use guns responsibly//
So only psychiatrists/psychologists will be allowed to endorse a gun license then? |
|
| |
Where we agree : if you want to stop
gun tragedies, remove guns from the
hands of those likely to perpetrate such
horrible crimes. |
|
| |
Where we strongly disagree : how do
you identify those likely to use guns
criminally? A psychologist is not the
answer. In short, I can see the only
solution is an outright ban on guns,
except for those with a job need. Even
those who feel that shooting is an
acceptable hobby, must store them in
licensed, safe venues. |
|
| |
I'm sick of the National Rifle Association
and other gun lobbies spouting forth
the second amendment. As [ye_river]
points out, the 2ndA states that it's
your right to have a firearm as part of a
well organised militia. That would
outlaw individuals, yet why does the US
still insist it's a sensible law? |
|
| |
Madness, utter madness. You need gun
amnesties, strict laws against gun
ownership and tough sentences for
those that do. Until such time,
America's youth will continue to die
needlessly. |
|
| |
BrauBeaton: Your right, of course killers can kill without guns. But the fact is that less people die of bullet wounds in the UK than US per 1000, and that isn't just luck. |
|
| |
//But the fact is that less people die of bullet wounds in the UK than US per 1000, and that isn't just luck.// |
|
| |
I bet (based on absolutely nothing [stat anyone?]) more people die from knife wounds or violent blunt trauma in the UK. Crazy people are everywhere, and they use what they got. |
|
| |
So we should make it easier for them? |
|
| |
what about other projectile weapons? Crossbows, bows and arrows, spears. If I really wanted to go on a spree, and didnt have guns, or want to go the explosive route, I'd just get a crossbow and a boatload of bolts. Guns arent the problem, people are. |
|
| |
When was the last time you saw a self-loading crossbow that'll fit down your trousers? |
|
| |
As long as the system doesn't include excessive fees and such, I think this is the most reasonable system I've heard of. |
|
| |
One thing I'm a little confused about is what type of license you are referring to, though. Concealed carry permit, or gun ownership permit? As far as I know (and this may be a state-by-state thing) you don't need a permit to buy a gun, only a background check with the FBI. A concealed carry permit is much more involved, and has a mandatory training class, and requires you to pass the background check in addition to submitting your fingerprints to the authorities, both to check them in the system for possible cold crimes and keep them on file for any trouble later. |
|
| |
I don't believe that the concealed carry permit requires much alteration, since very few crimes are committed by CCL holders, but for new gun owners, this system seems fairly reasonable. |
|
| |
Just don't make us go through all of this crap every time we buy a gun. Once for the first one, and once a decade or so after that (for any new guns purchased) would be sufficient. |
|
| |
I just don't understand why Americans
need all these guns. Is it because other
Americans have guns and they're inclined
to use them? What a strange society. |
|
| |
I should also say that I like this idea, I had
a very similar one when I read the vote of
no confidence gun control. [+]. I'm just
saying that outlawing all guns is futile and
silly. |
|
| |
thanks for the stat [bigsleep]. interesting
stuff. |
|
| |
I can't speak for all other gun owners, but all of the ones I know have them for either hunting (and yes, we eat what we hunt. You won't find many avid hunters who approve of anyone hunting merely for sport) or for recreational shooting. Only one person that I know has a gun only for self defense, and he has his concealed carry permit and a clean record. |
|
| |
In a recent news story I read, it said that gun crimes have been decreasing for the last 5 years in all states, regardless of how strict their gun laws were. Also, one of, if not the, highest crime rates is in Washington D.C. where there has been a ban on handguns for 30 years. |
|
| |
// I'm just saying that outlawing all
guns is futile and silly // |
|
| |
Is it futile or silly to suggest that no
guns equals no gun crime? Is it silly to
suggest that criminalising guns means
that those that have them clearly have
them for non-peaceful reasons and are
therefore dangerous. |
|
| |
However, Americans need to look into
their psyche here. I agree with Charlton
Heston and the rest of the mad gun
lobby on one point only. "Guns don't
kill, people do". The highest per capita
gun ownership is in Switzerland, a
country with one of the lowest gun
crime rates. |
|
| |
So, that suggests to me that there's just
something in the way that Americans
think, use, own and secure guns that
make it a dangerous place. |
|
| |
It'll take a huge number of
psychologists to examine the entire
nation. Worth a go though huh? Nah,
madness. Fish. |
|
| |
[jtg] I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, but although I have no figures to hand, I'm not sure Switzerland is a good example. Only last week, some bloke walked into a cafe with his service rifle and opened fire on some diners and killed an old boy at the bar. There have been several high profile family killings in recent years and let's not forget the nutter who killed 14 in Zug's parliament building in 2001. |
|
| |
From talking to Swiss men of national service age, they get to take their gun home but don't get a strong box to keep it in. Looking after it is their responsibility. Bloody silly idea if you ask me - especially when the beer's so cheap. |
|
| |
permits for guns only keep them out of the hands of the lawabiding |
|
| |
"Firearm's Ed" I would definitely have signed up for that elective... |
|
| |
As for what kind of license I am talking about... Well, I'm no gun owner, but here in CA I believe you are supposed to have a gun license before you own any weapon. If not... then maybe that would be a good idea. I could strain the car analogy a little, and point out that even to buy a car, you must have both a license and insurance in every state I've been to. |
|
| |
Hmm... shooter's insurance... Nah. |
|
| |
Senatorjam is right of course. Illegal gun owners and users will not be deterred by such a law. I believe I mentioned that, and that when it comes to the solution of gun issues, laws are far from perfect. This idea is aimed at reducing (not completely solving) the issue of lone shooters. Since many of them buy their guns legally, and then kill themselves before we can question them, other solutions will be harder to implement. |
|
| |
If politicians start making louder and louder calls for more gun legislation, I seriously hope that you will consider sending this in to your congressman and ask him to consider it. This really is the most sensible piece of legislation I've heard of (other than actually enforcing the laws that already exist), and this is coming from a staunch gun rights supporter. |
|
| |
// permits for guns only keep them out of the hands of the lawabiding |
|
| |
This is like saying "alcohol only makes your mouth and stomach drunk." Allow for osmosis and the picture changes. |
|
| |
If criminals mainly get their guns from law-abiding people (by theft, or by comitting their first crime, e.g. assault on a spouse in anger), and if criminals destroy guns (after commission of a crime to avoid identification), then reducing the number of guns held by law-abiding people eventually reduces the number of guns available to criminals. |
|
| |
Situations where this doesn't work, and the quote is true, are when there's no transfer or when there's a plentiful source outside the system. But I don't think these are the case. |
|
| |
I like the idea of endorsements. Like
filling out a job application, you need
references to vouch for your (hopefully)
good name. It is a good way to ensure
that guns are being kept in not only
good hands, but responsible hands. |
|
| |
I also support the idea of manditory
training before being able to purchase a
gun. We need to be taught how to
properly drive so we don't run people
over or run into other cars, and it
should be like this for firearms. People
should not only be taught about proper
use and care of guns, but hiding them
properly from thieves and children, and
other responsible measures of which
will save lives. |
|
| |
I admit though, guns are thrilling! my
first gun experience was with a muzzle-
loaded musket, then the AR 15, then a
12-guage. Although my BEST GUN
THRILL was shooting a 6-guage
shotgun when I weighed less than 100
pounds. |
|
| |
I bet that left a bruise...
I shot a 20 gauge as one of my first guns bigger than a .22 and it just about knocked me over. In my defense, I'm a lot bigger now, and that gun still kicks worse than most 12 gauges. |
|
| |
see the links for a very thorough discussion of the second amendment which is no where near as simple as many would like to imply. |
|
| |
//If politicians start making louder and louder calls for more gun legislation, I seriously hope that you will consider sending this in to your congressman and ask him to consider it. This really is the most sensible piece of legislation I've heard of (other than actually enforcing the laws that already exist), and this is coming from a staunch gun rights supporter.// |
|
| |
I'll keep that in mind. Rumor is they won't do much legislating anyway, and I'd rather not get my name on any kind of gun restriction. I also I live in CA, along with certain gun toting halfbakers. I don't want to send any gun restriction up the chain till my local experts chime in. |
|
| |
maybe myspace could do a plugin to facilitate this? |
|
| |
Could you win a free cell phone ringtone? |
|
| |
Why not? Myspace did a plugin to facilitate terminally crashing my computer. It didn't come with any ringtones though. |
|
| |
...Invisioning a world where "Firearms Ed" is taught in high schools, and gun ownership is dependant upon the voters of Myspace.... |
|
| |
EUGH! Talk about a dystopian nightmare... |
|
| |
This is advocacy. This should be [marked-for-deletion] Advocacy. |
|
| |
they did a background check on the guy before he got the guns and he turned up clean. you cannot blame this on the government they did their job. |
|
| |
//This should be [marked-for-deletion] Advocacy.// |
|
| |
No, it shouldn't. Read the help page. |
|
| |
No, they didn't. They failed to teach you to use capitalization. |
|
| |
Ouch. A slap in the face from nomocrow.
That was a good one. This isn't advocacy,
it's a good idea that I am sure has been
implemented in other places. |
|
| |
[I agree that this isn't advocacy, and am ignoring the marked-for-deletion tag. --Jutta] |
|
| |
This would make for an interesting study of local or regional nuttiness, congealing places like Flint Michigan or Texas where everyone has a gun. |
|
| |
I like the idea of spreading the responsibility by making the permit of a person dependent on his endorsement of others. On the other hand, i am strongly in favour of banning all privately owned guns that can hold more than one shot or are otherwise overspecced for hunting. Hunters can carry a rifle and a sidearm, One shot with the rifle - if the animal is shot but escapes, the hunter can track it and finish it off with the (one shot) sidearm. |
|
| |
This is a terrible idea. Degree of introversion correlates with certain political philosophies. You would be arming only the extroverts and giving the introverts more reason to feel oppressed. And gun control laws don't actually keep people from arming themselves, they just make it a little more difficult. So no only would you fail to disarm the next shooter, you would give him extra motivation. |
|
| |
//reducing the number of guns held by law-abiding people eventually reduces the number of guns available to criminals.// |
|
| |
I couldn't agree less. It's becomingly increasingly trivial for a person to manufacture a gun. The only reason legal gun owners are the primary source for criminals is that it's the easiest path. With fewer legal owners criminals would simply turn to the next-easiest method: purchase from illegal manufacturers. |
|
| |
//gun control laws don't actually keep people from arming themselves, they just make it a little more difficult.//
This is absolutely the weakest argument against gun control possible. "Laws aren't 100% effective therefore we should have no laws." "Medicine isn't 100% effective, therefore we should have no medicine." "Social mores are not 100% effective, therefore let's get naked and fuck fistfuls of our own shit!" |
|
| |
I am willing to countenance arguments such as the one about the difficulty of moving from an armed society to an unarmed society as that's a practical consideration that can't be overlooked but the "laws don't work" stuff is just specious nonsense. |
|
| |
//Laws aren't 100% effective therefore we should have no laws// |
|
| |
Nice straw man. The actual argument is "THIS proposed set of laws would be particularly ineffective, therefore we should not enact it." |
|
| |
Ech, death of the author strikes again. Two questions: if a
person speaks in general terms of, say, "gun control laws"
is it
(a) reasonable to expect a reader to be able to divine
that the intention of the drafting is "gun control laws such
as the ones proposed in this idea"; and, subsidiarily
(b) is it therefore supportable to suggest that the
argument is a straw man for dealing with the plain
meaning of the words, rather than the intent of the
author in writing those words? |
|
| |
Relatedly, I would characterise what I wrote as a reductio
ad absurdum argument (based on the plain meaning of
the words, not the now clarified intended meaning),
rather than a straw man, and I deliberately wrote it with
an absurd conclusion to try to emphasise that element of
it. However (death of the author), I guess I could have
been more explicit. |
|
| |
... but if there's a semiotician we could shoot ... |
|
| |