Gun control with brains

[elohiym]

He is essentially advocating that a person's constitutional right to privacy should be violated in order to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

Everyone is given an eye test before receiving a license to drive motor vehicles. Blind people will be tested and refused a license to operate motor vehicles.

Everyone is given a written test that they must pass to be given a license to operate motor vehicles. Mentally handicapped people will be given that test and refused a license to drive motor vehicles when they fail it.

You don't have to take a test in order to travel in the U.S; you don't need a driver's license to travel. To drive a motor vehicle you don't have to have a psychological evaluation even though you are operating a machine often used to commit homicides.

Do you see these instances as invasions of their privacy?

Do you see these instances as an unreasonable assault on their individual rights as citizens?

No, because the state has an interest in maintaining safety on the roads by administering a basic vision and distance reading test for drivers, not an eye exam. Furthermore, driving is not a right.

Do you see the way we manage the ownership and use of motor vehicles in our society as fundamentally 'wrong' in some way? And if so, how so?

Yes, but in ways not relevant to the topic.

Do you believe giving drivers a psychological evaluation will reduce the number of vehicular homicides?

And if we can manage hundreds of millions of people owning and operating hundreds of millions of motor vehicles through the systematic training, testing, and licensing, why do you think we couldn't or shouldn't do a very similar thing with firearms?

But it wouldn't be a similar thing. We are discussing a psychological exam ordered by the government, a medical test being required to have a constitutional right. The courts would find that unconstitutional.

Consider that few people commit murder in the U.S. relative to the population size. Just look at those numbers from 2014 already posted. Why create the financial burden, the bureaucratic mess and violate the privacy rights of millions of law abiding citizens for the "pre-crime thoughts" of 13,000 psychopaths that could steal a gun, or use a knife as more than 12% do?

People steal cars and drive them recklessly and people commit homicide with cars regardless of how society manages drivers licensing.

Why do you think we couldn't or shouldn't do a very similar thing with knives?

 

[elohiym]

This is why politicians are so eager to get rid of the second amendment. Because that gives us the power to fulfill what our founding fathers demanded of us.

It's ironic that you are advocating for a violation of the right to privacy (when you advocate for psychological testing) in order to have the right to bear arms.

 

[elohiym]

1. Apparently it is not so simple
2. Guess what? The Constitution is not holy. You are allowed to have your own opinion on matters. Allowed- and should.

Any U.S. law repugnant to the U.S. Constitution is void.

 

[PureX]

You don't have to take a test in order to travel in the U.S; you don't need a driver's license to travel. To drive a motor vehicle you don't have to have a psychological evaluation even though you are operating a machine often used to commit homicides.

That's because motor vehicles are not designed specifically to kill human beings. And because they are almost never used for that purpose, intentionally.

… the state has an interest in maintaining safety on the roads by administering a basic vision and distance reading test for drivers, not an eye exam. Furthermore, driving is not a right.

It is a vision exam (which is almost always referred to as an "eye exam"). So you're just picking at nits, here. And actually, everyone has a right to operate any vehicle they want to (so long as they own it). That is the premise that we start with. And then we restrict this right where necessary for the purpose of everyone's safety.

Do you believe giving drivers a psychological evaluation will reduce the number of vehicular homicides?

Yes, but not significantly. Most deaths caused by driving motor vehicles are not directly attributable to psychological problems. They are almost always due to unintentional negligence.

But it wouldn't be a similar thing. We are discussing a psychological exam ordered by the government, a medical test being required to have a constitutional right. The courts would find that unconstitutional.

You are mischaracterizing the process. It would be a psychological profile created with the applicant's permission, based on a number of factors, intended to determine their eligibility for a license to own and use firearms. It is not an exam "ordered by the government". It would be an exam required by the government to determine eligibility of a prospective licensee. And you are also somewhat confused by the idea of a "constitutional right". These rights are not absolute, as you seem to be presuming. All of our rights are limited and relative to the equal rights of everyone else. And it's the government's job to determine where the rights of the individual stop, and the rights of the collective (public safety) begin. And that's exactly what these kinds of regulatory systems are doing, and are overseeing.

Consider that few people commit murder in the U.S. relative to the population size. Just look at those numbers from 2014 already posted. Why create the financial burden, the bureaucratic mess and violate the privacy rights of millions of law abiding citizens for the "pre-crime thoughts" of 13,000 psychopaths that could steal a gun, or use a knife as more than 12% do?

If so few people are being murdered by guns in the U.S. relative to the overall population, then there is also very little need for the overall population to have guns to protect themselves from those very few gun-toting murderers.

So that if we're basing our laws on relative sacrifice (and ultimately we are always doing that in a 'free' society), then I'd say the sacrifices should be made on the side of gun ownership, and not on the side of lives lost for the sake of gun ownership. Wouldn't you?

People steal cars and drive them recklessly and people commit homicide with cars regardless of how society manages drivers licensing.

Yes, but cars are not designed to kill people quickly and effectively. And people do not intentionally use cars for that purpose. Not even the people who steal them. So when a car us used to kill a human, it's nearly always unintentional, and we have little control over thee unintended accidents. Guns, on the other hand, are designed and intended to be used to kill human beings. So that when they are used to do so, it is almost always the result of intent. And we can do something about that if we can identify the intent in advance. So the regulation of guns will necessarily need to focus more on identifying and thwarting the likelihood of an intent to kill, whereas the regulation of motor vehicle use will necessarily be focussed on identifying and thwarting unintentional negligence.

No system will ever be perfect. So using the expectation of perfection as a criteria for implementation would be completely irrational.

Why do you think we couldn't or shouldn't do a very similar thing with knives?

Because knives have many other uses and purposes besides killing human beings quickly and effectively. And because killing a human being with a knife is often quite difficult to do without some training.

 

[jzeidler]

It's ironic that you are advocating for a violation of the right to privacy (when you advocate for psychological testing) in order to have the right to bear arms.

I don't want the government involved in this if there even has to be additional stipulates put on which might not be necessary. But if they do I would want it to be done by a third party.

 

[Yorzhik]

Oh, look, there it is, the very obviously false nonsense at the core of at least 99.95% of all pro-gun arguments.

I'm pretty sure the foundation of 99% of pro-gun arguments would be the right to self defense.

 

[jzeidler]

Oh, look, there it is, the very obviously false nonsense at the core of at least 99.95% of all pro-gun arguments. There's no point in making anything illegal because criminals don't obey the law. Why even have laws? It's just as easy to acquire something that is illegal as something that is legal, and well-meaning, generally law-abiding people never ever accidentally hurt someone. So lets not bother.



Why don't you guys take deep breath and admit the truth: It doesn't really matter if gun laws could save lives. You don't want to do it because you think your freedom would be forfeit, and you're willing to let people die because you're too scared of that possibility to try to do something meaningful about it.

Your wrong on many levels.

First if this is false then how is a People to destroy a tyrannical government (as Thomas Jefferson demanded we do) without weapons?

Next, you say that gun laws won't take away our freedom. Yes it will because it is an infringement on our right to bear arms.

Lastly, I am willing to let people die so that we can keep our weapons because people die for freedom. And some people dying by a couple psychos and we keep our guns is better than millions dying by a tyrannical government because we gave our our right to bear arms.

 

[oatmeal]

The Bill of Rights is not "God-given". I am not aware of any Biblical source for the "right to free speech", let alone the "right to own weapons". Perhaps there is something in the New Testament that I am not aware of?

Peter sought to speak freely, as an apostle, would you deny him that right?

Acts 2:29

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

It is God's will that we pray that the word have free course.

2 Thessalonians 3:1

Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

Why? Because there are those who would take away your freedom to speak God's word to others.

I Thessalonians 2:16

Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Jesus Christ came to bring a sword.

Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 22:36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:38

And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

( the swords here were probably daggers, a weapon that could be concealed and carried)

 

[PureX]

... how is a People to destroy a tyrannical government (as Thomas Jefferson demanded we do) without weapons?

As long as the people man the military, the government has no real power. And in the Unites States the people man the military. So the government has no power that we do not allow it to have. And the only reason our government is as corrupt as it is, is because we have allowed it to become so by our own laziness, ignorance and moral corruption. In the United States we have the government that we deserve, because we elected them, and then we re-elect them. We are free to stop doing this at any time.

So this whole idea that we need guns to fight the government is nonsensical, and is not applicable to the reality that we are living in.

Next, you say that gun laws won't take away our freedom. Yes it will because it is an infringement on our right to bear arms.

ALL laws infringe on our personal freedom. But that's the price we pay to live together in an organized, inter-dependent society. And we are ALL living in an organized, inter-dependent society. So life as a human being isn't just about the desires of the individual, anymore. It's also about the individual's responsibility to the society of human beings in which he lives, and without which he could not live, fully.

Lastly, I am willing to let people die so that we can keep our weapons because people die for freedom.

You don't get to decide for other people that it's OK for them to die for your self-centered idea of freedom. And the fact that you don't understand this is chilling.

And some people dying by a couple psychos and we keep our guns is better than millions dying by a tyrannical government because we gave our our right to bear arms.

There is no tyrannical government threatening the United States. This is a paranoid fantasy in your mind. Yet the people dying by gun violence is not a fantasy, they are really dying and are not your enemy. They are real people. They are your people. You have lost all sense of reality and of moral priority.

 

[elohiym]

To drive a motor vehicle you don't have to have a psychological evaluation even though you are operating a machine often used to commit homicides.

That's because motor vehicles are not designed specifically to kill human beings. And because they are almost never used for that purpose, intentionally.

I have three guns: a 12 gauge shotgun designed for hunting fowl, a single shot 270 caliber hunting rifle and a Kentucky long rifle. I believe it could only be argued that the Kentucky long rifle was designed, in part, to kill human beings. Still, the colonists of North America would have had a hard time hunting and defending themselves without them.

In his book the Kentucky Rifle, Dillon writes: "...[A]n unknown smith, in a shop long since silent, fashioned a rifle which changed the whole course of world history; made possible the settlement of a continent; and ultimately freed our country of foreign domination."

Yes, times have changed ... but how does your argument apply to my guns versus my car? I haven't fired any my guns in years, but I drive every week. If a psychological exam determines that I am unfit to purchase and own a weapon, could I be qualified to operate a motor vehicle?

It is a vision exam (which is almost always referred to as an "eye exam"). So you're just picking at nits, here.

We need to pick at each others nits to get to the truth, friend. It's not an eye exam. I recently took my daughter for her permit test and the exam was nothing like the eye exam her optometrist gave her earlier the same year. At the DMV they didn't even ask if my daughter has an eye disease that will cause her sight to deteriorate over time. I think that would be a good question to ask everyone.

And actually, everyone has a right to operate any vehicle they want to (so long as they own it). That is the premise that we start with. And then we restrict this right where necessary for the purpose of everyone's safety.

Everyone only has a right to travel. Nobody has a right to drive. The privilege to drive is contingent on many factors, but it is not a right. Perhaps anyone can own a car but nobody has the right to drive it on the public roadways without a license, insurance and above all, competency.

Most deaths caused by driving motor vehicles are not directly attributable to psychological problems. They are almost always due to unintentional negligence.

Okay, but can we agree that murderers should not be granted a license to drive?

You are mischaracterizing the process.

Perhaps. I don't know. It's a hypothetical process, and the OP has now stated that he doesn't want the government involved. You should cut me some slack on that one.

It would be a psychological profile created with the applicant's permission, based on a number of factors, intended to determine their eligibility for a license to own and use firearms. It is not an exam "ordered by the government". It would be an exam required by the government to determine eligibility of a prospective licensee.

If I can't acquire the weapon without the government required exam, it's equivalent to what I mean by a government ordered exam. You say it would be voluntary, okay; but if I don't volunteer?

And you are also somewhat confused by the idea of a "constitutional right". These rights are not absolute, as you seem to be presuming. All of our rights are limited and relative to the equal rights of everyone else.

No, that's not what I'm presuming. I agree with you.

And it's the government's job to determine where the rights of the individual stop, and the rights of the collective (public safety) begin.

The People control, and are, the government. I am one of the People. My determination is that we can focus on more important issues than gun control.

If so few people are being murdered by guns in the U.S. relative to the overall population, then there is also very little need for the overall population to have guns to protect themselves from those very few gun-toting murderers.

And very little need to take guns away from law abiding citizens or burden them with more laws, especially if those law infringe on their rights.

So that if we're basing our laws on relative sacrifice (and ultimately we are always doing that in a 'free' society), then I'd say the sacrifices should be made on the side of gun ownership, and not on the side of lives lost for the sake of gun ownership. Wouldn't you?

The murderer sacrifices his freedom and life. Law abiding gun owners shouldn't have to make a sacrifice because a few evil people commit murders with guns.

So that when they are used to do so, it is almost always the result of intent. And we can do something about that if we can identify the intent in advance.

No law can help you do that. What I intend to do today with a gun may not be what I intend to do with it after owning the weapon for several years.

Why do you think we couldn't or shouldn't do a very similar thing with knives?

Because knives have many other uses and purposes besides killing human beings quickly and effectively. And because killing a human being with a knife is often quite difficult to do without some training.

I'm not convinced by that argument.

Thanks for responding; we can continue our conversation on the thread I started, if you like. I'm leaving this discussion.

 

[WizardofOz]

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak

 

[PureX]

I haven't fired any my guns in years, but I drive every week. If a psychological exam determines that I am unfit to purchase and own a weapon, could I be qualified to operate a motor vehicle?

Yes, because the safe use of a motor vehicle is not nearly so dependent on your psychological state.

At the DMV they didn't even ask if my daughter has an eye disease that will cause her sight to deteriorate over time. I think that would be a good question to ask everyone.

I agree, but the point was that such an exam is necessary to determine one's physical ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. We voluntarily submit to such an exam because we all know (or should know) that it's a reasonable criteria for obtaining a license to operate motor vehicles among the public.

Everyone only has a right to travel. Nobody has a right to drive. The privilege to drive is contingent on many factors, but it is not a right.

Actually, I disagree with this. It was an idea pushed on us some years ago by the politicians and insurance companies when they wanted to force us to buy auto insurance (which I believe should be optional). We 'the people' were foolish to allow them to proclaim that driving is a "privilege". Because it creates the illusion that our rights are given to us by the government, and they are not. They are given to us by "our Creator" (according to our founders) and are only managed by our government, with our permission.

Thus, we all have a right to drive our own vehicles, or own our own guns. And then we allow the government to regulate these rights for the security and safety of all of us.

Okay, but can we agree that murderers should not be granted a license to drive?

Murderers should not even be living among the public, let alone driving. If they have served their time and been deemed able to live among the public, again, then I see no reason they should not be allowed to drive. Motor vehicles are not designed for killing. And so have no particular special relationship with murder or murderers. And if we suspect the murderer poses any threat to life, they shouldn't even be out of prison.

If I can't acquire the weapon without the government required exam, it's equivalent to what I mean by a government ordered exam. You say it would be voluntary, okay; but if I don't volunteer?

Then you don't get to own firearms.

Look, we license all sorts of things in our society for the safety and well-being of everyone. You can't practice medicine without a license. You can't broker stocks or real estate without a license. You can't operate dangerous equipment without a license.

You have a right to do all these things, but that right has been limited by the equal rights of everyone else with the permission of everyone else. And all the government is doing is regulating the exercise of those rights according to the public's will, and the public's right to live in a safe and secure environment. You are part of that public, so you have tacitly agreed to allow this regulation to occur. You are not being "forced" to do anything by the government because you are living in a representational democratic society. If you are ever forced to do anything, it's being done by the people you are living among. If you disagree with them, fine. But stop imagining that the government is some separate entity with power of it's own. It's not. And thinking that it is, gives it power that it's not supposed to have, and does not deserve.

The People control, and are, the government. I am one of the People. My determination is that we can focus on more important issues than gun control.

People are being killed at alarming rates. Far greater rates than in all the other modern civilized nations. That tells us that it's possible to correct this phenomena. Many lives can be saved. This IS an important issue.

The murderer sacrifices his freedom and life. Law abiding gun owners shouldn't have to make a sacrifice because a few evil people commit murders with guns.

Law abiding people are already making the maximum sacrifice: their lives. And they should not be expected to do so just so anyone who feels like it, can own guns.

No law can help you do that. What I intend to do today with a gun may not be what I intend to do with it after owning the weapon for several years.

No law can achieve perfect results. But clearly, laws do work, and do achieve positive results. And the fact that we regulate so many other aspects of our social interaction is pretty strong evidence that regulating firearms will likewise have a positive effect on the security and well-being of our society.

I'm not convinced by that argument.

A lot of people will never be convinced because they just don't want to be. All the logic and reason on Earth will not convince them. But we are reaching the point where enough American are convinced that the laws will finally be written and enacted and firearms will finally be effectively regulated. Because it is the sensible thing to do. And because too many people are being killed by our lack of regulation.

But first we have to fight the greed of the gun manufacturers and the lies they continually promote, and the ignorance and selfishness of the politicians and the "gun nuts" who don't care how many people die so long as they get to do whatever they want whenever they want to. It's always a battle to overcome our own greed and ignorance and selfishness with generosity and love. That's the history of humanity.

 

[WizardofOz]

Chicago is going to pay gun owners $100 each to turn in their guns