Thank you for a well thought out comment. Ita refreshing to read something like this sometimes. Sometimes it feels like everyone is on their own radical side.
I’d also add strickter punishments for the owner of the firearm if it was used in a crime by their child. I have a kid. I plan to buy a gun. If my kid kills someone with my gun, then as far as I’m concerned I’d be directly at fault. In addition to that I think parents should be legally liable for any violent crime their child does. If the parent has the legal authority over their child, they should also be held liable.
My kid is learning to drive and I was surprised he doesn’t need insurance. But the reason is I’m still the “driver” while he is operating the car. Im responsible for issues, my insurance pays any claim, and of course I can’t have a couple beers despite not being behind the wheel. We have an example
Why can’t we model responsible Gun ownership after cars and driving?
Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right. It would be like modeling your right to join and raise your kid in a religion off of licensing requirements for being a doctor. (And hey, religion will fuck kids up for the rest of their lives, even if they manage to escape.)
Ok, then free speech. Also in the Bill of Rights as an individual right the government can’t infringe.
Yet there are limits, there are consequences, non-government entities do not need to abide. The classic example is you can’t yell “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. Your right to free speech ends when it endangers someone else.
Similarly, your right to bear arms should be limited when it endangers someone. If you bring a weapon to a bar, a crowded space, carry in a city, brandish it during road rage, or when someone rings the doorbell, or if someone is able to access your weapon or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, or you let someone use it without training, or you do something stupid when people are around, or you hunt by. Blasting away at every rustling bush, or you hunt where your bullet can co e down where there are people, then you are endangering people. You not respecting the tool and its capabilities shows that you are not fit to carry. There are consequences, and they need to happen before you actually hurt or kill someone
So, restrict rights before they can potentially be used in a way that might cause injury to someone, correct?
So, it would be reasonable to have a political literacy test before allowing someone to vote, since their voting patterns have the potential to cause real harms, correct? Or to ensure that you aren’t allowed to read about Nazi ideology, so you can’t copy it?
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon,
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life? I literally have a gun beside my door that I put in my pocket before I get the mail because we have aggressive bears in my area that are too comfortable with people. I’ve had bears on my front porch, I had one that tried to come in through a window screen.
Consequences can not happen before; consequences are something that happen after the fact. You can’t redefine consequence as something that happens to you in order to prevent you from doing a thing that you might not have done in the first place. What you’re proposing would be like preemptively jailing someone because they fit the patterns of someone that might be more likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon,
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life?
Sure, that’s the big contradiction n trying to keep a firearm for self-defense. If it’s readily accessible, odds are more likely someone will be shot on accident or a moment of emotion, than that you’ll defend yourself. If it’s locked up, with the ammo elsewhere, you’re following best practices to keep your family and friends, and yourself safe, but then can’t use it to defend yourself
I have mixed feelings about this, because I can see that it would applied in a racial manner by law-and-order Republicans. E.g., black parents in a high-crime area have a gun for protection–since cops don’t give a shit–kid steals the gun and shoots someone, and there’s an immediate judicial lynching of the parents.
I’m in favor of locking guns up around kids, but I’m generally opposed to laws that mandate it, both because of costs (a gun safe that’s worth a damn easily costs $1500, and a good one starts at about $4500), and because some people–e.g. women that are being stalked–may need to have ready access to a gun at all times.
I completely understand the concern regarding this being applied in a racial manner. I don’t really know how to get around that, though. Any law that could be abused, will be abused, so we should be very careful, but I personally am not knowledgeable enough to come up with a solution. I do think that in the example you’ve provided is valid and can and does happen. But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly. Maybe stricter punishments for parents of kids that commit crime could lead to a change where people start taking more responsibility for their children. Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities. I don’t know. I’m glad that I’m not in charge of making those decisions.
Regarding locking guns up and having laws about how to safely store a gun in your own home, I oppose those. I’m willing to accept the risk if the punishment for mishandling them is severe enough. But like I said, I don’t know where that like should be drawn. I think my main point is that I’m for personal responsibility, and we should be encouraging that, instead of removing the choice completely.
But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly.
Yes, it does. But that’s the real solution.
It’s like getting physically fit; you don’t throw out your television and XBox because you’re fat and sit on your ass instead of going to the gym. You change your habits. The television and XBox are not themselves the problem.
Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities.
That seems to be the most likely outcome, esp. since prosecutors have fairly broad discretion on charging. I think that making a case for gross negligence would be a different category though, e.g., you knew your child was directly involved in violent criminal behavior and you knowingly left a firearm where you had reason to believe your child could access it easily then you are guilty of being an accessory. But I’d want that bar to be pretty high.
Thank you for a well thought out comment. Ita refreshing to read something like this sometimes. Sometimes it feels like everyone is on their own radical side.
I’d also add strickter punishments for the owner of the firearm if it was used in a crime by their child. I have a kid. I plan to buy a gun. If my kid kills someone with my gun, then as far as I’m concerned I’d be directly at fault. In addition to that I think parents should be legally liable for any violent crime their child does. If the parent has the legal authority over their child, they should also be held liable.
My kid is learning to drive and I was surprised he doesn’t need insurance. But the reason is I’m still the “driver” while he is operating the car. Im responsible for issues, my insurance pays any claim, and of course I can’t have a couple beers despite not being behind the wheel. We have an example
Why can’t we model responsible Gun ownership after cars and driving?
Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right. It would be like modeling your right to join and raise your kid in a religion off of licensing requirements for being a doctor. (And hey, religion will fuck kids up for the rest of their lives, even if they manage to escape.)
Ok, then free speech. Also in the Bill of Rights as an individual right the government can’t infringe.
Yet there are limits, there are consequences, non-government entities do not need to abide. The classic example is you can’t yell “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. Your right to free speech ends when it endangers someone else.
Similarly, your right to bear arms should be limited when it endangers someone. If you bring a weapon to a bar, a crowded space, carry in a city, brandish it during road rage, or when someone rings the doorbell, or if someone is able to access your weapon or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, or you let someone use it without training, or you do something stupid when people are around, or you hunt by. Blasting away at every rustling bush, or you hunt where your bullet can co e down where there are people, then you are endangering people. You not respecting the tool and its capabilities shows that you are not fit to carry. There are consequences, and they need to happen before you actually hurt or kill someone
So, restrict rights before they can potentially be used in a way that might cause injury to someone, correct?
So, it would be reasonable to have a political literacy test before allowing someone to vote, since their voting patterns have the potential to cause real harms, correct? Or to ensure that you aren’t allowed to read about Nazi ideology, so you can’t copy it?
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life? I literally have a gun beside my door that I put in my pocket before I get the mail because we have aggressive bears in my area that are too comfortable with people. I’ve had bears on my front porch, I had one that tried to come in through a window screen.
Consequences can not happen before; consequences are something that happen after the fact. You can’t redefine consequence as something that happens to you in order to prevent you from doing a thing that you might not have done in the first place. What you’re proposing would be like preemptively jailing someone because they fit the patterns of someone that might be more likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
Sure, that’s the big contradiction n trying to keep a firearm for self-defense. If it’s readily accessible, odds are more likely someone will be shot on accident or a moment of emotion, than that you’ll defend yourself. If it’s locked up, with the ammo elsewhere, you’re following best practices to keep your family and friends, and yourself safe, but then can’t use it to defend yourself
I have mixed feelings about this, because I can see that it would applied in a racial manner by law-and-order Republicans. E.g., black parents in a high-crime area have a gun for protection–since cops don’t give a shit–kid steals the gun and shoots someone, and there’s an immediate judicial lynching of the parents.
I’m in favor of locking guns up around kids, but I’m generally opposed to laws that mandate it, both because of costs (a gun safe that’s worth a damn easily costs $1500, and a good one starts at about $4500), and because some people–e.g. women that are being stalked–may need to have ready access to a gun at all times.
I completely understand the concern regarding this being applied in a racial manner. I don’t really know how to get around that, though. Any law that could be abused, will be abused, so we should be very careful, but I personally am not knowledgeable enough to come up with a solution. I do think that in the example you’ve provided is valid and can and does happen. But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly. Maybe stricter punishments for parents of kids that commit crime could lead to a change where people start taking more responsibility for their children. Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities. I don’t know. I’m glad that I’m not in charge of making those decisions.
Regarding locking guns up and having laws about how to safely store a gun in your own home, I oppose those. I’m willing to accept the risk if the punishment for mishandling them is severe enough. But like I said, I don’t know where that like should be drawn. I think my main point is that I’m for personal responsibility, and we should be encouraging that, instead of removing the choice completely.
Yes, it does. But that’s the real solution.
It’s like getting physically fit; you don’t throw out your television and XBox because you’re fat and sit on your ass instead of going to the gym. You change your habits. The television and XBox are not themselves the problem.
That seems to be the most likely outcome, esp. since prosecutors have fairly broad discretion on charging. I think that making a case for gross negligence would be a different category though, e.g., you knew your child was directly involved in violent criminal behavior and you knowingly left a firearm where you had reason to believe your child could access it easily then you are guilty of being an accessory. But I’d want that bar to be pretty high.