Interesting take on gun regulations

Poli-meaning many
Tics-blood sucking insects

Yep... that about sums up the Government...

Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby Swift » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:19 pm

I know any venture into a discussion of gun regulation in the US can be contentious thing. But this was such an interesting article, I had to share it. And if you are going to read it, read the entire thing, because he covers multiple sides of the issue.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html?m=1

I said then nothing will change, that nothing can change because we Americans will not change it. We can’t even have a civil conversation about it. Guns are an obsession in our country, a lunatic insanity, the mere mention of which makes us bang bang crazy.

I said that the slaughter will continue, and it has with terrible regularity.

I said liberals will blame conservatives, and they do.

I said conservatives will blame liberals, and they do.

I said the same old argument will continue. And so it has, repetitious and as predictable as clockwork, bang, bang, bang.

And nothing changed.

Fully half of Americans apparently believe gun violence can somehow be brought under control with the addition of yet more gun violence – which is a lot like saying drunk driving can be cured if we just put more drunk people behind the wheel. They might be right, in an evolutionary sense, but it’s small comfort to those killed and maimed in the resulting blood bath.

The simple truth of the matter is that gun violence isn’t the exception in America, it’s who we are.

And so what do we do about it?

As a firearms expert and as a gun owner, and I am both, I’ll say to you in all candor: more guns are not the solution. Having people armed in schools and churches is not the solution. Carrying your mini-14 in a tactical harness to the grocery store isn’t the solution. Living in an armed camp isn’t the goddamned solution.

You can’t fight drunk driving with more drunk drivers.

So what then? More laws?

Maybe, if they’re the right laws.

But what both the anti-gun lobby and the pro-gun lobby get wrong is this: While it’s often true laws don’t stop criminals, that is not the law’s purpose.

Laws don’t stop crime. It would be nice if they did, but laws don’t stop crime. Instead laws give society legal recourse when its members engage in antisocial behavior.

Saying new gun laws won’t end gun violence is a non sequitur. Of course guns laws won’t end gun violence.

Laws don’t stop crime, however what well written laws do is to put responsibility where it belongs – on the criminal.

Well written laws are about pragmatism.

For example, we all know that laws against drinking and driving won’t stop drunk driving, but they weren’t intended to. We know it’s going to happen. People are going to drink and drive and kill themselves and each other. We know we can’t eliminate it completely. That’s the pragmatism part.

Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

But, and this is important so pay attention, here’s what those laws didn’t do: they didn’t keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from 1) drinking, or 2) driving (note the operative word here is or).

And that’s the answer.

We need gun laws that give society legal recourse by making each gun owner/user personally accountable for their own actions.

Those laws should be designed to change our gun culture over time in order to make gun violence less likely. And, of course, those laws should not keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Now, what exactly does such a law look like?

Well, it looks like the NRA.

He then goes on to a brilliant idea. The NRA has suggested rules for gun safety. Make them the law of the land. How can the NRA oppose their own gun safety rules? Make gun owners criminally responsible for proper gun safety and managment.

- Always assume the gun is loaded, unless you personally have verified that it is unloaded.
- Always point the gun in a safe direction.
- Know how to use the gun safely.
- Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
- Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
(he does add a non-NRA addition to this rule of "Never provide a gun to someone not authorized to have it"

Over time, just like with the drunk driving laws, enforcing the NRA’s own rules, the same basic common sense rules that are used in the military, in law enforcement, on civilian gun ranges, and were taught to most of us by our fathers, will change our culture from one of gun fetishists to one of responsible gun owners. And that will reduce gun violence, just as the same approach has significantly reduced drinking and driving.


It will also restart the conversation and at least some action; it has to be an improvement of our current complete lack of action.
Never, ever forget: we did this. This is what we can do.

In wilderness is the preservation of the world. - Henry David Thoreau

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:40 am
Location: At my keyboard

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby grapes » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:27 pm

Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

Looking back, sadly, I have to disagree with this. Laws did nothing. PSAs and PR and public models did it, I've never seen one drinker deterred by the law, unfortunately.
User avatar
grapes
Resident News Hound
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby SciFiFisher » Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:46 pm

grapes wrote:
Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

Looking back, sadly, I have to disagree with this. Laws did nothing. PSAs and PR and public models did it, I've never seen one drinker deterred by the law, unfortunately.


Laws rarely work immediately as a deterrent. What has happened over time is that fewer people are driving drunk. i.e. a change in culture. And when they are caught driving drunk the severe penalty imposed usually serves as a wake up call for some of them. i.e. they get caught once and never do it again. Which leaves, for the most part, a small segment of the population that will not be deterred because they will not take responsibility for their own behavior even if you pointed a gun to their head.
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law
User avatar
SciFiFisher
Redneck Geek
 
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm
Location: Sacramento CA

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby geonuc » Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:18 pm

grapes wrote:
Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

Looking back, sadly, I have to disagree with this. Laws did nothing. PSAs and PR and public models did it, I've never seen one drinker deterred by the law, unfortunately.


You have now. Me. I very often limit my alcohol intake when at a bar or restaurant specifically because of the law. Not because I think I can't drive home responsibly with three beers in me but I don't know that I can pass a sobriety test and getting a DUI/DWI is definitely something I want to avoid.

Perhaps what you mean is that laws won't stop an already drunk person from driving. But they do deter drinking prior to driving.
User avatar
geonuc
Resident Rock Hound
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Not the Mojave

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby geonuc » Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:25 pm

With respect to the article, I've seen this suggestion before (make NRA rules the law) and tend to agree with the idea. But I still don't agree that that will be enough to get this country out of its gun-nut mentality and stop the violence.

We still need to ban military-style weapons and high capacity magazines. We still need to ban gun show sales. We still need to ban concealed carry, except for those who have a very good reason, have passed an expensive background check and have passed a real training course. We need to license users and register all firearms, just as we do with cars and drivers licenses.

I have weapons in this house and I went to a gun range a few weeks ago. It was fun. And I support registering the damn things.
User avatar
geonuc
Resident Rock Hound
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Not the Mojave

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby pumpkinpi » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:37 pm

geonuc wrote:You have now. Me. I very often limit my alcohol intake when at a bar or restaurant specifically because of the law. Not because I think I can't drive home responsibly with three beers in me but I don't know that I can pass a sobriety test and getting a DUI/DWI is definitely something I want to avoid.


That's smart. I often take the keys from MrPi when he's had a couple beers during a short dinner out. I'm sure he could drive home safely. But if we get in an accident at someone else's fault, he could still get in trouble.
Too bad ignorance isn't painful.
"Standing at the forefront of human ignorance." Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe
User avatar
pumpkinpi
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 12:56 pm
Location: 100 meters closer to the north pole than the equator

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby pumpkinpi » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:41 pm

Swift wrote:
And so what do we do about it?

As a firearms expert and as a gun owner, and I am both, I’ll say to you in all candor: more guns are not the solution. Having people armed in schools and churches is not the solution. Carrying your mini-14 in a tactical harness to the grocery store isn’t the solution. Living in an armed camp isn’t the goddamned solution.

You can’t fight drunk driving with more drunk drivers.

So what then? More laws?

Maybe, if they’re the right laws.

[quote]

I don't see how this is a good analogy to support this position. The argument for fighting gun violence with more guns is that the good guys could stop the bad guys.

That is not parallel to fighting drunk driving with more drunk drivers. You don't have good and bad drunk drivers pitted against each other.
Too bad ignorance isn't painful.
"Standing at the forefront of human ignorance." Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe
User avatar
pumpkinpi
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 12:56 pm
Location: 100 meters closer to the north pole than the equator

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby Swift » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:12 pm

pumpkinpi wrote:I don't see how this is a good analogy to support this position. The argument for fighting gun violence with more guns is that the good guys could stop the bad guys.

That is not parallel to fighting drunk driving with more drunk drivers. You don't have good and bad drunk drivers pitted against each other.

I would say it is an imperfect analogy. You are correct, no one in their right mind would propose pitting good and bad drunk drivers against each other.

But, as near as I can tell, that is exactly what the NRA proposes to do so as to stop gun violence, like the incident in Charleston. If all the "good guys" were packing, they could shoot the bad guys. And to me, that is almost as insane as the drunk driver idea. I guess the better analogy would be to have sober drivers ram their cars into those driven by drunk drivers, before someone really gets hurt.

So I think the NRA's "solution" is pretty close to as insane as the drunk driver anlogy.

I don't want to live in a world where everyone is packing. I don't particularly like Westerns, and I certainly don't want to live in one.
Never, ever forget: we did this. This is what we can do.

In wilderness is the preservation of the world. - Henry David Thoreau

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:40 am
Location: At my keyboard

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby Rommie » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:26 pm

geonuc wrote:
grapes wrote:
Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

Looking back, sadly, I have to disagree with this. Laws did nothing. PSAs and PR and public models did it, I've never seen one drinker deterred by the law, unfortunately.


You have now. Me. I very often limit my alcohol intake when at a bar or restaurant specifically because of the law. Not because I think I can't drive home responsibly with three beers in me but I don't know that I can pass a sobriety test and getting a DUI/DWI is definitely something I want to avoid.

Perhaps what you mean is that laws won't stop an already drunk person from driving. But they do deter drinking prior to driving.


To even one up this further, drunk driving is such a huge problem in Hungary that they now have zero tolerance when it comes to driving- if you've had any alcohol that night you get a DUI. As in, 0.5% and up and you don't drive for a year. If you're above 0.8% then you lose the license for 5-10 years and you can even get put in jail for a year.

Deaths from such a zero tolerance policy have gone down with regard to DUIs. Ergo, we should ban all guns, right?
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.
User avatar
Rommie
 
Posts: 4056
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:04 am

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby SciFi Chick » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:42 pm

Rommie wrote:To even one up this further, drunk driving is such a huge problem in Hungary that they now have zero tolerance when it comes to driving- if you've had any alcohol that night you get a DUI. As in, 0.5% and up and you don't drive for a year. If you're above 0.8% then you lose the license for 5-10 years and you can even get put in jail for a year.

Deaths from such a zero tolerance policy have gone down with regard to DUIs. Ergo, we should ban all guns, right?


No. They didn't ban alcohol. They just increased the ramifications of misusing it. I would be on board with regulating guns in that sense.
"Do not speak badly of yourself, for the warrior that is inside you hears your words and is lessened by them." -David Gemmel
User avatar
SciFi Chick
Information Goddess
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 4:04 pm

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby geonuc » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:06 pm

Rommie wrote:
geonuc wrote:
grapes wrote:
Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

Looking back, sadly, I have to disagree with this. Laws did nothing. PSAs and PR and public models did it, I've never seen one drinker deterred by the law, unfortunately.


You have now. Me. I very often limit my alcohol intake when at a bar or restaurant specifically because of the law. Not because I think I can't drive home responsibly with three beers in me but I don't know that I can pass a sobriety test and getting a DUI/DWI is definitely something I want to avoid.

Perhaps what you mean is that laws won't stop an already drunk person from driving. But they do deter drinking prior to driving.


To even one up this further, drunk driving is such a huge problem in Hungary that they now have zero tolerance when it comes to driving- if you've had any alcohol that night you get a DUI. As in, 0.5% and up and you don't drive for a year. If you're above 0.8% then you lose the license for 5-10 years and you can even get put in jail for a year.

Deaths from such a zero tolerance policy have gone down with regard to DUIs. Ergo, we should ban all guns, right?


I'm generally opposed to zero tolerance policies, but we definitely should increase the penalties for being stupid with guns.

Also, I'm pretty sure you meant 0.05% / 0.08%. :D
User avatar
geonuc
Resident Rock Hound
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Not the Mojave

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby Swift » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:19 pm

geonuc wrote:Also, I'm pretty sure you meant 0.05% / 0.08%. :D

Well, you won't drive for a year at 0.5%, because you'll be dead.

http://chavesdwiprogram.us/pdf/Effects%20of%20Alcohol%20Intoxication.pdf
While this may seem a small amount to worry about, a blood alcohol concentration of 0.30 can cause a person to go into a coma, while a blood alcohol concentration level of 0.40 could kill you.


(I just realized that I even reference my jokes. There is something seriously wrong with me)
Never, ever forget: we did this. This is what we can do.

In wilderness is the preservation of the world. - Henry David Thoreau

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:40 am
Location: At my keyboard

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby SciFiFisher » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:45 am

Swift wrote:(I just realized that I even reference my jokes. There is something seriously wrong with me)


You might be a scientist if.... roll:
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law
User avatar
SciFiFisher
Redneck Geek
 
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm
Location: Sacramento CA

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby Thumper » Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:21 am

I read the whole blog post. Most of it made sense to me. I'm sure someone could point out to me where his ideas are bad and wouldn't work. Stopping the loonies without impairing everyone else will always be difficult. But reducing accidental shootings and gun thefts shouldn't be that difficult or restraining.
Look for the Helpers. You will always find people who are helping.
-Mr. Rogers' Mom
User avatar
Thumper
Ichi-Ban Tomodachi
 
Posts: 4292
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:20 pm
Location: OH - IO

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby geonuc » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:09 pm

Swift wrote:(I just realized that I even reference my jokes. There is something seriously wrong with me)


Yep.
User avatar
geonuc
Resident Rock Hound
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Not the Mojave

Re: Interesting take on gun regulations

Postby vendic » Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:22 pm

Problem is you can't use the NRA's rules against them.
The NRA blatantly ignores them and just keeps tagging things that are negligent as, "a tragic accident".
The average brainwashed gun advocate will agree with them and the average politician will agree because if he doesn't, his pay check gets smaller.
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am


Return to Poli-Tics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests