Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345568 times)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2050 on: January 12, 2017, 08:11:55 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.

Which states?

Googling found me this.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/licensing-of-owners-purchasers/
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2051 on: January 13, 2017, 07:39:24 AM »
I do not know where to find it now, but I recall seeing a study claiming states with training requirements had no statistical differences in accidents with firearms.

I do recall something from John Lott asserting that such states had negative (it was slight) effects on public safety overall, due to the disincentive to obtain a license to carry and the consequently lower number of persons carrying.

I have compared myself states that have training requirements to carry v. those that do not, and the percentage of adult license holders in the states that do not (e.g., Georgia) is much higher than states that do (e.g., Texas).  I have not personally done any research beyond that, and I am not sure I would be qualified (competent) to do any research beyond that.



UPDATE:  I just noticed y'all were discussing actually owning, not carrying.  I have not researched that issue at all.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 07:41:19 AM by Malum Prohibitum »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2052 on: January 13, 2017, 09:22:08 AM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional.

You've got to get to that point, which means someone has to waste time and money challenging it in a court, etc etc.


I'd also want to know what people are trying to solve with training.  On the surface, and if it could be perfectly implemented, I agree it seems like a good idea, but in reality, I am not sure what problem it solves, and again, I have serious doubts about implementation.  Personally I'll just continue to advocate people get their own training because they want to and it's a good idea, not because someone made them. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2053 on: January 13, 2017, 09:42:47 AM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

It'd just be another excuse for government to stick it's nose into your affairs.    (My view point is shifting to the right this year!)

It's not just the governmental intrusion; it also wouldn't prevent many deaths. There are just not that many accidental gun deaths in the home, compared to suicides and murders.  The burden would far outweigh the possible upside, much less the downsides.

The best way to implement a safety training program would be to teach it in public schools. This would reach everyone, be affordable and not a burden on the exercise of people's rights, and have the largest impact. It's not as if only gun owners need to know how to be safe around guns.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

darknight

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2054 on: January 13, 2017, 10:19:18 AM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

It'd just be another excuse for government to stick it's nose into your affairs.    (My view point is shifting to the right this year!)

It's not just the governmental intrusion; it also wouldn't prevent many deaths. There are just not that many accidental gun deaths in the home, compared to suicides and murders.  The burden would far outweigh the possible upside, much less the downsides.

The best way to implement a safety training program would be to teach it in public schools. This would reach everyone, be affordable and not a burden on the exercise of people's rights, and have the largest impact. It's not as if only gun owners need to know how to be safe around guns.

Agreed.
If people were actually concerned with deaths, they would take a look at the greatest killers.. like how about the 480,000 tobacco related deaths A YEAR in the U.S. (https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/)
It's a left side vs. right side issue that most people don't really think about. Left side say "you don't NEED guns". True(ish). Arguable. However, I invite anyone to argue the NEED for tobacco.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2055 on: January 13, 2017, 04:05:28 PM »
Kris,

If you think standard gun "safes" are actually safe, you are sorely mistaken.  Our house was broken into a few years back, we had 3 of them, all bolted into the floor, or the wall.  Two smashed open with what the cops suspect was a sledgehammer, they took the third one with them by sheering off the stud it was connected to.  We've also had friends that have had whole gun safes stolen. 

We bought new ones, supposedly super secure, DH and I can both pick the locks on them in under a minute.  Most locks in general including those on gun safes are PURELY a psychological barrier to anyone that really wants in them. 

Only time we use them now is when we are gone on vacation and the neighbor child comes over to feed the cats.  Pretty much what you are saying is that I should be in jail because a criminal had the intent, and means to break into my home, and my safe, and violate MY privacy...but it's my fault because they weren't "secured" enough. That is where your argument fails, you are affording more "rights" to the criminal then to the victim.

Why is this comment being directed at me? When did I ever say that gun safes were "safe"?

Also, NO. I have absolutely no idea where you got the bolded part, but do NOT put words in my mouth that I have never said or even implied. I seriously have no idea how you got any of that out of anything I have said. Frankly, I would like an apology.

Kris, your general tone, outside of getting offended at what everyone says to you regardless of "Snark" (heck I didn't think Chris22 was snarky at all to you), has been that guns need to be locked up and "controlled" even in an individuals house.  I'm simply pointing out that safes, and standard locking mechanisms, don't do an iota of good if someone is intent on wanting access.  People aren't being irresponsible when they leave them in their house, they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is.

Saying that "tone" tells you something that my words never said is a pretty damn weak argument.

If you will go back through everything I have said, you will notice the following things:

1) I responded to Chris22's original question to Gin by saying that having guns "locked up" could be considered one reasonable example of "controlled". Not the only one. I would like to point out that I never said "locked in a gun safe". I actually never used the words "gun safe." I would consider that having a gun in a locked house when you aren't home is "locked" as well.

2) I never said the word "safe". That's your word. I used "controlled". They are different concepts. So your entire argument about whether a guns in a safe are "safe" is an argument you are having with someone other than me. Which is why I asked why you were addressing me.

3) And following from that, I never once said that someone who wanted access to a gun wouldn't be able to get to them if they were in a gun safe. Again, that's something you introduced. My point in saying that a gun is "controlled" if it's locked away when a gun owner isn't home was that I don't think a gun owner can be held responsible for someone accessing a gun if they break into his locked house. (Or his locked safe, for that matter.) Go through the thread. Read it again, with that in mind.

4) As I ALSO pointed out, I have three guns in my home. I also stated upthread that I do not own a gun safe, nor have I ever owned a gun safe. So can you please tell me how it is that I am saying that "People (are) being irresponsible when they leave them in their house" or arguing against that "they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is" when I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT IN MY OWN HOUSE?

And on a similar note, can you please tell me, given that I have guns in my house and no gun safe, how it is that "Pretty much what you are saying is that I should be in jail because a criminal had the intent, and means to break into my home, and my safe, and violate MY privacy...but it's my fault because they weren't "secured" enough"?

Still kinda waiting on a response to this.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2056 on: January 13, 2017, 10:52:38 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.

What makes you think that it is a good idea?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2057 on: January 14, 2017, 08:33:27 AM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.

What makes you think that it is a good idea?

I think it's not a bad idea that a person get basic training in safe handling and operation of a handgun before a first purchase.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2058 on: January 14, 2017, 01:33:52 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2059 on: January 14, 2017, 03:25:35 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.

How did you get a driver's license?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2060 on: January 14, 2017, 03:40:06 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.

How did you get a driver's license?

Driving isn't a right, FWIW.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2061 on: January 14, 2017, 03:49:53 PM »
That's important to note -- here's the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Here's where the issue is more of the states, who are trying to infringe on the citizens rights to keep and bear arms, than the federal government.  It's easy to see that mandatory training is an infringement on gun ownership and use. 

Training is a great idea, but it should be the choice of the individual.

Driving automobiles, is obviously not in the constitution, but the intention of the 2nd amendment is to protect freedom. 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2062 on: January 14, 2017, 05:04:51 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?


I see nothing wrong with requiring a basic gun safety course -- or some other equivalent, like a test proving you know those basics -- for a first purchase.

And yes, I'm well aware that that there are people who consider it an outrageous violation of their Second Amendment rights to ask that a person buying a gun for the first time have some basic gun safety knowledge.

I'm just not one of them.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2063 on: January 14, 2017, 05:10:50 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2064 on: January 14, 2017, 05:15:18 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

As I said, I realize people think this is a big deal. I am not one of those people.

I'm not going to argue about it. Because I think it's kind of silly.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2065 on: January 14, 2017, 05:31:07 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.

How did you get a driver's license?

The lady at the DMV handed it to me.  I believe she got it from the printer from behind the counter. What's you're point?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 05:38:13 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2066 on: January 14, 2017, 05:37:55 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?


I see nothing wrong with requiring a basic gun safety course -- or some other equivalent, like a test proving you know those basics -- for a first purchase.

And yes, I'm well aware that that there are people who consider it an outrageous violation of their Second Amendment rights to ask that a person buying a gun for the first time have some basic gun safety knowledge.

I'm just not one of them.

This is fine. Obviously some people would disagree, which is fine as well.

As this idea has been floated in this discussion many times, one of the most popular compromises offered was to make it part of education curriculum in public schools in the United States.  This way all are given this information (which is clearly a good idea) and no one is burdened in exercising their rights.  Would you object to such a policy, if offered as a compromise?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2067 on: January 14, 2017, 05:51:46 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?


I see nothing wrong with requiring a basic gun safety course -- or some other equivalent, like a test proving you know those basics -- for a first purchase.

And yes, I'm well aware that that there are people who consider it an outrageous violation of their Second Amendment rights to ask that a person buying a gun for the first time have some basic gun safety knowledge.

I'm just not one of them.

This is fine. Obviously some people would disagree, which is fine as well.

As this idea has been floated in this discussion many times, one of the most popular compromises offered was to make it part of education curriculum in public schools in the United States.  This way all are given this information (which is clearly a good idea) and no one is burdened in exercising their rights.  Would you object to such a policy, if offered as a compromise?

*shrug* Why not?

The sad thing is, so many people are trying to politicize curriculum in public schools these days (seeking to teach creationism in science class, seeking to only allow a version of history that makes America look flawless), that I wouldn't be surprised if such a class got politicized as well. But I see no problem with a gun safety class as a PE unit. Except that I'm guessing many people would not be okay with their minor children being exposed to guns. So maybe as an elective.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2068 on: January 14, 2017, 08:48:06 PM »

*shrug* Why not?

The sad thing is, so many people are trying to politicize curriculum in public schools these days (seeking to teach creationism in science class, seeking to only allow a version of history that makes America look flawless), that I wouldn't be surprised if such a class got politicized as well. But I see no problem with a gun safety class as a PE unit. Except that I'm guessing many people would not be okay with their minor children being exposed to guns. So maybe as an elective.

Of course it would be politicized, which is why it is important to have these conversations to get everyone from all sides of the issue to come to a compromise. Just like sex ed, or science, or creationism, or vaccines, some people will object to their children being exposed to it. But that doesn't mean it's better for everyone if they are, and worrying about a how political a good solution may be is not a good reason to accept a worse solution to a problem.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2069 on: January 14, 2017, 09:22:29 PM »
Good lord. This thread is still going. Somethings never change.
;)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2070 on: January 14, 2017, 09:26:12 PM »
Good lord. This thread is still going. Somethings never change.

I know. Isn't it wonderful? Pretty soon we'll be able to buy silencers over the counter!
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2071 on: January 14, 2017, 09:29:38 PM »
Good lord. This thread is still going. Somethings never change.

I know. Isn't it wonderful? Pretty soon we'll be able to buy silencers over the counter!

Alex Jones is selling discounted body armor if you are worried.
;)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2072 on: January 14, 2017, 10:40:43 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2073 on: January 14, 2017, 11:13:28 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Do you feel this about laws that would force people to present identification to vote?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2074 on: January 14, 2017, 11:33:49 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Do you feel this about laws that would force people to present identification to vote?

Of course not because there is quite substantial evidence that those laws meet the standard of Chris22's fears of overly onerous restrictions, if we were to draw an analogy to guns: namely, they are unconstitutional. There are no comparably questionable gun laws on the books. To wit:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hajnal-voter-id-research-20160908-snap-story.html

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2075 on: January 14, 2017, 11:57:42 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Do you feel this about laws that would force people to present identification to vote?

Of course not because there is quite substantial evidence that those laws meet the standard of Chris22's fears of overly onerous restrictions, if we were to draw an analogy to guns: namely, they are unconstitutional. There are no comparably questionable gun laws on the books. To wit:

There are many questionable gun laws on the books, but that is another topic.

If these restrictions are unreasonable to vote, why are they reasonable for other rights? Would you propose voters be required to take a knowledge test or pass an exam at the polls before being allowed to vote?

Are you aware of how few fatal gun accidents there are in the U.S. each year? Clearly the evidence points to training requirements not actually being about reducing the miniscule number of accidental gun deaths each year.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2076 on: January 15, 2017, 12:08:41 AM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Do you feel this about laws that would force people to present identification to vote?

Of course not because there is quite substantial evidence that those laws meet the standard of Chris22's fears of overly onerous restrictions, if we were to draw an analogy to guns: namely, they are unconstitutional. There are no comparably questionable gun laws on the books. To wit:

There are many questionable gun laws on the books, but that is another topic.

If these restrictions are unreasonable to vote, why are they reasonable for other rights? Would you propose voters be required to take a knowledge test or pass an exam at the polls before being allowed to vote?

Are you aware of how few fatal gun accidents there are in the U.S. each year? Clearly the evidence points to training requirements not actually being about reducing the miniscule number of accidental gun deaths each year.

how many times must I repeat myself? Yes, I am aware. I'm just saying gun safety classes are far from a threat to liberty. Voter ID laws, however, are much more demonstrably so.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2077 on: January 15, 2017, 12:13:34 AM »
how many times must I repeat myself? Yes, I am aware. I'm just saying gun safety classes are far from a threat to liberty. Voter ID laws, however, are much more demonstrably so.

Well I guess on this we will have to disagree.  (On the safety classes - no so much the voter id laws)

No biggie, the law currently feels the benefits of mandatory before-purchase gun training to be outweighed by the harm and the supreme court will likely uphold this view for at least another generation.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2078 on: January 15, 2017, 12:23:18 AM »
how many times must I repeat myself? Yes, I am aware. I'm just saying gun safety classes are far from a threat to liberty. Voter ID laws, however, are much more demonstrably so.

Well I guess on this we will have to disagree.  (On the safety classes - no so much the voter id laws)

No biggie, the law currently feels the benefits of mandatory before-purchase gun training to be outweighed by the harm and the supreme court will likely uphold this view for at least another generation.

I mean, like I said, I don't personally care if there are no mandatory safety class laws. I think gun owners who don't learn responsible ownership are idiots, but that's their prerogative since I don't particularly fear their impact on society, other than the likelihood that their children will inadvertently kill themselves or a friend. I'll keep my kids from hanging out with such households, of course. But I will never be convinced that being kept from voting by the government* is worse than being forced to attend a class to own a gun.

*Point being that voter ID laws make it at least if not more difficult for certain citizens to vote than the hypothetical (but have never actually existed) gun laws feared by posters like Chris22. Since I think the latter are clearly bad, I feel comfortable telling you all to chill out about the fact that the worst you've had to deal with is WAY less onerous than the former.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2079 on: January 15, 2017, 12:35:41 AM »
*Point being that voter ID laws make it at least if not more difficult for certain citizens to vote than the hypothetical (but have never actually existed) gun laws feared by posters like Chris22. Since I think the latter are clearly bad, I feel comfortable telling you all to chill out about the fact that the worst you've had to deal with is WAY less onerous than the former.

Well not really on point, there are plenty of areas in the country where it is unimaginably more onerous to purchase a handgun than it is to get an ID to vote. Not even close. I question if you are even versed on the subjects to compare them.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2080 on: January 15, 2017, 12:41:28 AM »
*Point being that voter ID laws make it at least if not more difficult for certain citizens to vote than the hypothetical (but have never actually existed) gun laws feared by posters like Chris22. Since I think the latter are clearly bad, I feel comfortable telling you all to chill out about the fact that the worst you've had to deal with is WAY less onerous than the former.

Well not really on point, there are plenty of areas in the country where it is unimaginably more onerous to purchase a handgun than it is to get an ID to vote. Not even close. I question if you are even versed on the subjects to compare them.

And I question if you are versed in the negative impact of voter ID laws that you would compare their society-wide repercussions to requiring people take a class to own a deadly weapon, as has been done with automobiles for ages.

ETA - I can think one is bad while still thinking the other is very obviously worse.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 12:44:29 AM by Lagom »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2081 on: January 15, 2017, 12:56:39 AM »
Well not really on point, there are plenty of areas in the country where it is unimaginably more onerous to purchase a handgun than it is to get an ID to vote. Not even close. I question if you are even versed on the subjects to compare them.

And I question if you are versed in the negative impact of voter ID laws that you would compare their society-wide repercussions to requiring people take a class to own a deadly weapon, as has been done with automobiles for ages.

ETA - I can think one is bad while still thinking the other is very obviously worse.
[/quote]

I now see your point. To be fair, you clearly began the exchange with 'threat to individual liberty' which onerous requirements for firearm possession clearly are (as well as onerous requirements to vote). This is what my responses have been speaking to (and possibly most other posters). Switching the discussion midstream to "society-wide repercussions" clearly changes the dynamics and alters the equation.

When accidental firearm deaths even begin to come close to accidental vehicular deaths, then perhaps the safety training will be  more appropriate.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2082 on: January 15, 2017, 01:11:57 AM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2083 on: January 15, 2017, 12:23:41 PM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.
Setting the voter-id issue aside for the moment, before I would be willing to agree to support any sort of mandatory gun safety training, I'm compelled to ask: why?  What problem would be solved/improved by such a requirement?  The CDC says that only about 500 people per year are killed through negligent or accidental discharge.  While each of those is certainly a tragedy to those involved, from a statistical and public policy standpoint, this barely amounts to a rounding error.

As for voter-id laws and the potential for voters being disenfranchised, I'd like to give an example of the potential mischief.  In 2008, Al Franken was elected to the Senate by a mere 312 votes.  With that victory, the Democratic Party achieved a 60-vote (filibuster-proof) majority in the Senate and passed the ACA.  That's not a huge number of votes to swing, especially since later review revealed that nearly 400 convicted felons had voted (or had ballots cast in their name).  When talking disenfranchisement, it's important not only to remember the people who might find it difficult to get an ID card, but also all the voters who are disenfranchised by voter fraud.  Given how far many states go to make voter-ID easy to get, and how stupidly easy it is to commit voter fraud where ID isn't required, I'm inclined to come down in favor of requiring ID (but making it free/easy to get).

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2084 on: January 15, 2017, 01:03:47 PM »
I'm not particularly advocating for mandatory trainings, I'm just saying its hyperbolic to whine about freedom lost, especially since none of these hypotheticals that have been offered, that I agree would be unconstitutional, have actually happened or seem likely to happen.

As for voter fraud, just go research the issue with an open mind please rather than giving into the fear. Even many GOP officials were explicitly standing against Trump when he was going on about it, for example. They were doing this because there is absolutely no evidence that fraud has been an issue in national elections. But there is tons of evidence that ID laws and other voter-suppression methods have had a a huge impact on voting numbers among certain (i.e. not white) populations. You don't think especially close votes aren't subject to extra scrutiny? Tinfoil hat truly required if you are going to go down the rabbit hole of claiming fraud was to blame there. You can respond to this if you like but that's all I'll say on the matter in this thread since we are well off topic.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2085 on: January 15, 2017, 01:11:24 PM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.
Setting the voter-id issue aside for the moment, before I would be willing to agree to support any sort of mandatory gun safety training, I'm compelled to ask: why?  [/b]What problem would be solved/improved by such a requirement?  The CDC says that only about 500 people per year are killed through negligent or accidental discharge.  While each of those is certainly a tragedy to those involved, from a statistical and public policy standpoint, this barely amounts to a rounding error.

As for voter-id laws and the potential for voters being disenfranchised, I'd like to give an example of the potential mischief.  In 2008, Al Franken was elected to the Senate by a mere 312 votes.  With that victory, the Democratic Party achieved a 60-vote (filibuster-proof) majority in the Senate and passed the ACA.  That's not a huge number of votes to swing, especially since later review revealed that nearly 400 convicted felons had voted (or had ballots cast in their name).  When talking disenfranchisement, it's important not only to remember the people who might find it difficult to get an ID card, but also all the voters who are disenfranchised by voter fraud.  Given how far many states go to make voter-ID easy to get, and how stupidly easy it is to commit voter fraud where ID isn't required, I'm inclined to come down in favor of requiring ID (but making it free/easy to get).

I would be very interested in seeing research on this. However, the NRA has done everything it can to stop the CDC from doing that research.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

So, I don't think we're likely to have that information from a credible source.

Which is sad, really, if you want actual information to help guide your thinking.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 01:13:46 PM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2086 on: January 15, 2017, 01:32:29 PM »
I'm not particularly advocating for mandatory trainings, I'm just saying its hyperbolic to whine about freedom lost, especially since none of these hypotheticals that have been offered, that I agree would be unconstitutional, have actually happened or seem likely to happen.

As for voter fraud, just go research the issue with an open mind please rather than giving into the fear. Even many GOP officials were explicitly standing against Trump when he was going on about it, for example. They were doing this because there is absolutely no evidence that fraud has been an issue in national elections. But there is tons of evidence that ID laws and other voter-suppression methods have had a a huge impact on voting numbers among certain (i.e. not white) populations. You don't think especially close votes aren't subject to extra scrutiny? Tinfoil hat truly required if you are going to go down the rabbit hole of claiming fraud was to blame there. You can respond to this if you like but that's all I'll say on the matter in this thread since we are well off topic.
I'm not quite clear on which hypotheticals you're referring to--can you clarify, so I don't go off arguing a point you're not making? :)

I'm not making the argument that voter fraud affects one party more negatively than the other.  The point I'm trying to make is that if we're talking about the potential for disenfranchising voters by requiring voter ID (and it's certainly a point that needs to be addressed), we would be remiss if we ignored the potential for disenfranchising voters by not requiring voter ID.

As for the huge impact of voter ID on certain demographics, can you point me in the direction of the evidence, so I can get the facts straight from the source?

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2087 on: January 15, 2017, 04:17:12 PM »
In my state, to legally purchase a firearm you must first attend a 13.5 hour "hunter education course," which is only offered once a month. Just checked the state's hunter ed website, and the only courses offered this month and next month are 75 miles, one way, from my house. In March, a class is offered that's "only" 35 miles away. Also, from the state's website: "Please remember to bring a valid picture ID to the class."

Please explain to me how requiring that someone, not only show picture I.D., but also drive 150 miles, round trip, three days in a row to attend a mandatory 13.5 hour gun safety course, is *less* of an infringement on a citizen's constitutional rights than simply asking that people who want to vote get a photo ID?

IMO, both types of laws are intentional barriers put in place to limit the number and type of people who engage in certain activities. In the case of voter ID laws, the intent of the laws is clearly to limit the number of poor people who vote, many of whom are people of color, many of whom are likely to vote for Democratic candidates. On the other hand, mandatory gun safety classes clearly have very little to do with "safety," as the number of accidental gun deaths is already very, very low, and everything to do with limiting the number and types of people who are able to legally own firearms.

Just to be clear, I'm against voter ID laws, because I'd prefer to see more Democrats elected and I'm in favor of erecting even more barriers to make it more difficult to purchase firearms, because I'd prefer to live where fewer people are walking around carrying guns, but to try to argue that requiring that somebody get a photo ID to vote is anywhere even close to the burden placed on people who want to purchase a firearm in some states is disingenuous, IMO. 

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2088 on: January 15, 2017, 06:02:29 PM »
to try to argue that requiring that somebody get a photo ID to vote is anywhere even close to the burden placed on people who want to purchase a firearm in some states is disingenuous, IMO.

Good thing that' not what I'm arguing although it sounds like you don't realize how burdensome it actually can be for some people to obtain IDs (see the links below). Again, all I'm saying is having your right to vote restricted is obviously a greater threat to freedom with a capital F than having your access to guns restricted. Not sure how many ways I can rephrase before it sticks. As I've said repeatedly, I think many instances of restricting gun access are unconstitutional and yes, a restriction on freedom. Just less so by a fair margin. It's ridiculous to call me disingenuous in this instance when I'm not even making the argument you are referring to.


I'm not quite clear on which hypotheticals you're referring to--can you clarify, so I don't go off arguing a point you're not making? :)


Mostly referring to this one by Chriss 22 on the last page:

Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

As for this question:

Quote
As for the huge impact of voter ID on certain demographics, can you point me in the direction of the evidence, so I can get the facts straight from the source?

There are many sources but here is a combination of reporting by well respected publications and one recent academic paper. Many more sources can be found easily via Google:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.88a59c111a74

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/?utm_term=.924dd5c2721e

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 06:10:48 PM by Lagom »

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2089 on: January 15, 2017, 08:04:42 PM »

I'm not quite clear on which hypotheticals you're referring to--can you clarify, so I don't go off arguing a point you're not making? :)


Mostly referring to this one by Chriss 22 on the last page:

Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???
Ah, thanks for clarifying that.  Here's the thing, though:  such laws aren't hypothetical.  They are very real in some places.  Take Illinois' concealed carry law, which was passed only after the blanket ban on carry of any sort was struck down by the courts.  It requires a 16-hour class (one of the longest in the country), and a $150 permit fee, non-refundable, which doesn't guarantee that you'll actually *get* your CCW license, and which is only good for 5 years (after which another $150 renewal fee applies).  And Cook County (which includes Chicago) Sheriff Dart's statements that he would object to every single CCW application in his county.  And the fact that non-IL residents have to pay $300 to get that same permit.  That $150 fee is the major reason why, despite taking the CCW class, I have not applied for my permit.  There is no rational reason for the permit being so high.  Utah's CCW permit costs $50, is good for the same 5 years, and costs $10 to renew. 

You want another example?  Take New York's recently-passed "SAFE" Act, which instituted an "assault weapons" ban.  No grandfathering here, you *have* to move your guns out of state or turn them in.  Or take Maryland, Hawaii, D.C., New Jersey, most of Massachusetts, California, or Rhode Island, where concealed carry is technically allowed, but in practice it's practically impossible.

Quote
As for this question:

Quote
As for the huge impact of voter ID on certain demographics, can you point me in the direction of the evidence, so I can get the facts straight from the source?

There are many sources but here is a combination of reporting by well respected publications and one recent academic paper. Many more sources can be found easily via Google:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.88a59c111a74
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/?utm_term=.924dd5c2721e
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
It's hard to take WaPo seriously when they strongly imply that the 2013 SCOTUS ruling will legalize poll taxes and literacy tests for voting, when that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual ruling. 

I understand that there are people who indeed run into issues like those in the article, where there's a missing name-change document somewhere, or a missing birth certificate.  I get that, and voter-ID laws should definitely account for such situations.  But that does not constitute a "huge impact," since it only applies to a very small sliver of the population.  And to use that as an argument to disenfranchise (by not requiring voter ID) the vast majority of the population that can more easily substantiate their identity seems like bad public policy to me.  I don't mean to minimize the impact it has on those individuals, but it really looks like a "baby with the bathwater" approach.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2090 on: January 15, 2017, 08:18:00 PM »
Quote
You want another example?  Take New York's recently-passed "SAFE" Act, which instituted an "assault weapons" ban.  No grandfathering here, you *have* to move your guns out of state or turn them in.  Or take Maryland, Hawaii, D.C., New Jersey, most of Massachusetts, California, or Rhode Island, where concealed carry is technically allowed, but in practice it's practically impossible.

Yep.  As a former police officer with a perfect record, I can't get a carry permit in NJ.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2091 on: January 15, 2017, 08:39:42 PM »
Meh, OK. You guys are arguing with me like I'm super pro gun-control. I'm not. Like I said earlier, I just think ya'll need to chill a bit with the "BUT WHAT ABOUT MY FREEEEEEDOM?!?!?!?" rhetoric. Concealed carry is a whole 'nother bag of worms than purchasing firearms and warrants a separate discussion on what constitutes overly onerous requirements. The ones you mention do seem close to that line but I would need to think more on the topic and do additional research before I weigh in.

@zolo, you are continuing to argue as if voter fraud is actually a problem. It is not, thus anything that restricts people's ability to vote is fundamentally awful. WaPo is far from the only source (not even the only source I linked!) that has plenty more to say on the topic. Anyway, I think the comparison has run its course for the purposes of this thread.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2092 on: January 15, 2017, 08:59:40 PM »
I think the point that everyone is trying to make with the comparison is that the biggest issue with mandatory safety training is not that safety training is a bad idea, or that it would be the most burdensome thing one can think of, (I mean, really, why is that a level of burden that has to be reached to stop laws being added?) it's that the burden overall greatly outweighs any benefit to society overall. Taking a training class is not really that burdensome, in isolation. Getting an id to vote is not that burdensome, in isolation. But the act of requiring someone to do has negatives that clearly outweigh the positive, and thus there is no pressing reason to add the burden to peoples' exercise of their freedom.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 09:14:18 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2093 on: January 15, 2017, 11:51:55 PM »
I think the point that everyone is trying to make with the comparison is that the biggest issue with mandatory safety training is not that safety training is a bad idea, or that it would be the most burdensome thing one can think of, (I mean, really, why is that a level of burden that has to be reached to stop laws being added?) it's that the burden overall greatly outweighs any benefit to society overall. Taking a training class is not really that burdensome, in isolation. Getting an id to vote is not that burdensome, in isolation. But the act of requiring someone to do has negatives that clearly outweigh the positive, and thus there is no pressing reason to add the burden to peoples' exercise of their freedom.

Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2094 on: January 16, 2017, 12:08:30 AM »
Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

I guess at this point we will have to disagree on this.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2095 on: January 16, 2017, 12:15:02 AM »
Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

I guess at this point we will have to disagree on this.

So you literally think being prevented from voting (in the extreme case) is no worse than being prevented from buying a gun? Because all I'm saying is that only one of those things is fundamental to having a voice in our society, which is built upon escaping the yolk of monarchs. You do know I am more on the gun owner side of things in general, right? I oppose most gun control measures, although probably for different reasons than most posters here. I just am offended by the suggestion that the right to vote is a relatively trivial thing, when I consider it to be in some ways the most important thing of all.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2096 on: January 16, 2017, 12:55:46 AM »
Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

I guess at this point we will have to disagree on this.

So you literally think being prevented from voting (in the extreme case) is no worse than being prevented from buying a gun? Because all I'm saying is that only one of those things is fundamental to having a voice in our society, which is built upon escaping the yolk of monarchs. You do know I am more on the gun owner side of things in general, right? I oppose most gun control measures, although probably for different reasons than most posters here. I just am offended by the suggestion that the right to vote is a relatively trivial thing, when I consider it to be in some ways the most important thing of all.

I personally feel that both rights are extremely important, that neither is trivial and that both should be protected as strongly as possible. Which is why I disagree with trivializing these basic, vital rights as 'similar to getting a driver's license.' Remember, America did not vote itself free of the yolk of monarchs.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2097 on: January 16, 2017, 01:02:29 AM »
Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

I guess at this point we will have to disagree on this.

So you literally think being prevented from voting (in the extreme case) is no worse than being prevented from buying a gun? Because all I'm saying is that only one of those things is fundamental to having a voice in our society, which is built upon escaping the yolk of monarchs. You do know I am more on the gun owner side of things in general, right? I oppose most gun control measures, although probably for different reasons than most posters here. I just am offended by the suggestion that the right to vote is a relatively trivial thing, when I consider it to be in some ways the most important thing of all.

I personally feel that both rights are extremely important, that neither is trivial and that both should be protected as strongly as possible. Which is why I disagree with trivializing these basic, vital rights as 'similar to getting a driver's license.' Remember, America did not vote itself free of the yolk of monarchs.

Yes, but the vote is precisely what was lacking in the society that arms were necessary to escape.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2098 on: January 16, 2017, 01:39:27 AM »
I would agree: these rights compliment each other well.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2099 on: January 16, 2017, 08:01:37 AM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.

I get what you're saying, and on the face of it, a basic class wouldn't more than an inconvenience. But JUST like voter ID laws, it could be used to disenfranchise potential gun owners... IE, how much the class costs, availability, locations, etc.  If anything, the abuse of voter ID and voter testing is evidence of similar tactics that could be used to make it unconstitutionally onerous. It's not just about it being a pain in the ass. I took a CCW class since I wanted to be able to concealed carry... which amounts to a safety class. I live in a fire-arm friendly county, and that was STILL a pain to get signed off by the sheriff. I hear tales of what one must go through in the gun-unfriendly county a bit north of me, and that's all the evidence I need to know how a required class would play out.