3 ms·

And the failure of others to recognize that they live in a society and that their actions have an effect on others is just as obnoxious. You may be happy to ta

And the failure of others to recognize that they live in a society and that their actions have an effect on others is just as obnoxious. You may be happy to take your chances and own and carry a firearm, but why should I, or any other bystander, have to take your chances?

snitko 14y ago
Same logic can be applied to your argument. Why should I take your chances and rely on the police instead of myself to be able to protect me? Convince me (rather than order me) I would be better off without it - and I could voluntarily change my mind.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  No, not really. My problem is having a massive untrained population of gun owners. If I could have a reasonable certainty that if you owned a gun, you were trained to use it safely, were required to store your firearms safely, and were responsible/liable if your firearm was lost or stolen, I would be perfectly happy for you to own a gun. But this discussion invariably comes down to "gun-rights" folks asserting that any abridgment or checks of their right to own a gun is equivalent to tyranny that would justify overthrowing the government. It's ridiculous. I'm not against gun ownership, i'm against unsafe gun ownership.
  - snitko 14y ago
    Then government, given its track record of being responsible, being effective and not abusing power should be the last organization for you to turn to for enforcing responsible gun ownership.
    - knowtheory 14y ago
      Now you are making a different argument. I don't care if you think the government is or isn't an effective or responsible organization. I want to know why I as another member of your society should trust my safety to you and your firearm. Because if you fuck up, I don't have the right to redress, because I could very well be dead. If you don't like the government doing the checking, propose an alternative. Because universal, untrained and unaccountable gun ownership isn't a great improvement on illegal gun ownership as far as I am concerned.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        I think a lot of fear people have of guns is because they are unfamiliar with what they can and cannot do, how to use one properly, how to tell if someone else is using their gun properly, etc. Concealed carry permits already require classes and background checks. Maybe gun safety should be taught to everybody. As further evidence that the fear of guns may be overblown, consider just how widespread gun ownership is, and then consider how rare gun violence is outside of gang-ridden urban centers. I would disagree with any sort of strict liability for one's gun being lost or stolen, but if the gun owner was clearly negligent, then they should bear responsibility.
        knowtheory 14y ago
        Ah, so here's the point where it gets all "us vs them", eh? I have fired guns, enjoy shooting, and several (but not all) of my family members own guns. It's not that I don't believe safe gun ownership is impossible, it's that I don't trust other people, and I would like their failures with potentially lethal tools to have consequences. If you own firearms, you should know where they are, and you should secure them against theft. If they're stolen, you should have to report them. And if you're losing a lot of guns, that should raise red flags, and someone should have a talk with you about responsible gun ownership.
        curiousdannii 14y ago
        I almost wonder if you should be liable for having a gun stolen, unless you can prove it was adequately secured.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        I agree with your final paragraph, but disagree that the vast majority of gun owners are worthy of distrust.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        Too late to edit, so I also wanted to add that my intention with my previous comment is not to create an "us-vs-them" dichotomy, but to try to make the debate more inclusive by teaching everyone how to be safe around guns and how to recognize someone who is not being safe.
  - aero142 14y ago
    I don't understand this argument. There are not numerous cases in the US where people were trying defend themselves with good intentions, but due to their lack of government approved firearms training, they injured someone else. Do you feel threatened by your neighbor's lack of gun training? They are just going to start shooting randomly at the darkness and hit you?
    - knowtheory 14y ago
      Really? Because I can think of two off hand that made the news since Newtown. http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-08/man-accidentally-shoots-wife-concealed-carry-gun http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-08/man-accidentally-shoots-... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-3-killed-playing-uncle-gun-article-1.1223270 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-3-killed-playin...
      - aero142 14y ago
        Exactly. Your original statement was about laws and training programs that the government should require that will prevent these things from happening. In your two stories, you have a person with a concealed carry permit, and a state trooper. How much more training can you have than as a state trooper. I don't know what policy or training that we can mandate as policy that will prevent this. Gun deaths are from suicide, gang/drug related shooting, and homicide primarily. Accidental gun deaths are mostly hunting related, and still are much smaller than the above three. I don't see what your government training for "safe gun ownership" really accomplishes except feel good hopefulness and annoying people into not wanting to own guns.
drgolden 14y ago
Because the bill of rights says so! The founding fathers clearly had some understanding of risk management because they were chiefly concerned with checks and balances being embedded into the REPUBLIC structure. In the case of tyranny, freedom of speech (a1) is the most important tool for putting down corporate (group) injustice. When that fails, and the founding fathers knew these things are inevitable, the ordinary people should have tools on par with what the tyrannical corporate establishment possesses to effectively check and balance the tyranny. Not for hunting. Not for home defense. For tyranny defense. People are free to move across states and municipalities to find the social system that's right for them. This is not something that the federal government should be narrowing the legal definition of.

snitko 14y ago

Same logic can be applied to your argument. Why should I take your chances and rely on the police instead of myself to be able to protect me? Convince me (rather than order me) I would be better off without it - and I could voluntarily change my mind.

knowtheory 14y ago
No, not really. My problem is having a massive untrained population of gun owners. If I could have a reasonable certainty that if you owned a gun, you were trained to use it safely, were required to store your firearms safely, and were responsible/liable if your firearm was lost or stolen, I would be perfectly happy for you to own a gun. But this discussion invariably comes down to "gun-rights" folks asserting that any abridgment or checks of their right to own a gun is equivalent to tyranny that would justify overthrowing the government. It's ridiculous. I'm not against gun ownership, i'm against unsafe gun ownership.
- snitko 14y ago
  Then government, given its track record of being responsible, being effective and not abusing power should be the last organization for you to turn to for enforcing responsible gun ownership.
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    Now you are making a different argument. I don't care if you think the government is or isn't an effective or responsible organization. I want to know why I as another member of your society should trust my safety to you and your firearm. Because if you fuck up, I don't have the right to redress, because I could very well be dead. If you don't like the government doing the checking, propose an alternative. Because universal, untrained and unaccountable gun ownership isn't a great improvement on illegal gun ownership as far as I am concerned.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      I think a lot of fear people have of guns is because they are unfamiliar with what they can and cannot do, how to use one properly, how to tell if someone else is using their gun properly, etc. Concealed carry permits already require classes and background checks. Maybe gun safety should be taught to everybody. As further evidence that the fear of guns may be overblown, consider just how widespread gun ownership is, and then consider how rare gun violence is outside of gang-ridden urban centers. I would disagree with any sort of strict liability for one's gun being lost or stolen, but if the gun owner was clearly negligent, then they should bear responsibility.
      - knowtheory 14y ago
        Ah, so here's the point where it gets all "us vs them", eh? I have fired guns, enjoy shooting, and several (but not all) of my family members own guns. It's not that I don't believe safe gun ownership is impossible, it's that I don't trust other people, and I would like their failures with potentially lethal tools to have consequences. If you own firearms, you should know where they are, and you should secure them against theft. If they're stolen, you should have to report them. And if you're losing a lot of guns, that should raise red flags, and someone should have a talk with you about responsible gun ownership.
        curiousdannii 14y ago
        I almost wonder if you should be liable for having a gun stolen, unless you can prove it was adequately secured.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        I agree with your final paragraph, but disagree that the vast majority of gun owners are worthy of distrust.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        Too late to edit, so I also wanted to add that my intention with my previous comment is not to create an "us-vs-them" dichotomy, but to try to make the debate more inclusive by teaching everyone how to be safe around guns and how to recognize someone who is not being safe.
- aero142 14y ago
  I don't understand this argument. There are not numerous cases in the US where people were trying defend themselves with good intentions, but due to their lack of government approved firearms training, they injured someone else. Do you feel threatened by your neighbor's lack of gun training? They are just going to start shooting randomly at the darkness and hit you?
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    Really? Because I can think of two off hand that made the news since Newtown. http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-08/man-accidentally-shoots-wife-concealed-carry-gun http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-08/man-accidentally-shoots-... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-3-killed-playing-uncle-gun-article-1.1223270 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-3-killed-playin...
    - aero142 14y ago
      Exactly. Your original statement was about laws and training programs that the government should require that will prevent these things from happening. In your two stories, you have a person with a concealed carry permit, and a state trooper. How much more training can you have than as a state trooper. I don't know what policy or training that we can mandate as policy that will prevent this. Gun deaths are from suicide, gang/drug related shooting, and homicide primarily. Accidental gun deaths are mostly hunting related, and still are much smaller than the above three. I don't see what your government training for "safe gun ownership" really accomplishes except feel good hopefulness and annoying people into not wanting to own guns.

drgolden 14y ago

Because the bill of rights says so! The founding fathers clearly had some understanding of risk management because they were chiefly concerned with checks and balances being embedded into the REPUBLIC structure. In the case of tyranny, freedom of speech (a1) is the most important tool for putting down corporate (group) injustice. When that fails, and the founding fathers knew these things are inevitable, the ordinary people should have tools on par with what the tyrannical corporate establishment possesses to effectively check and balance the tyranny. Not for hunting. Not for home defense. For tyranny defense. People are free to move across states and municipalities to find the social system that's right for them. This is not something that the federal government should be narrowing the legal definition of.