Rant

[anterus]

'Inherently dangerous' is a phrase that gets overused in the gun debate. To my mind, the only types of weapons which are inherently dangerous are Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. Just about every other 'weapon,' if you leave it alone, it doesn't hurt you, or anyone else. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons can do harm by their

Comments

[vond]

I totally agree with that statement. We should ban guns because people are too stupid to have them, not because they're inherently dangerous :)

(devil's advocate)

[anterus]

Won't disagree that some people really are too stupid to have guns. Wouldn't be fair to those of us who aren't to ban them for everyone, just because some people might be irresponsible, though. That'd be like saying we shouldn't let anyone drive, just because some people are going to be irresponsible with cars.

[mikailborg]

Swords and handguns exist primarily to cause harm to people. Sure, you can use them for other things, but that's not why they were invented. Cinderblocks exist for other reasons, though they can be used as weapons. Knives... it's arguable; I've used knives for decades, and never once as a weapon.

So, I think "inherently dangerous" is a fair phrase. Inherent: "Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic." That doesn't change your point about irresponsibility being punished, which I'd certainly agree with you on.

[anterus]

I can't really argue that a sword or a gun or a bow or a crossbow or a pike was ever meant for anything other than the rending of flesh, human or animal. But I never look at something sitting on a table, or in a rack, or whatever, as dangerous, unless even in the act of not being used it causes harm to those around it. NBC weapons clearly do that, unless stored in very specific ways. A pike in a weapons rack is not going to jump up and attack you, so it's not inherently dangerous, to my mind. Explosives walk something of a grey area between NBC weapons and guns, knives, towed artillery pieces, etc., since they can go off without warning under certain conditions (Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordinance comes to mind

[rattrap]

I think there should be a requirement to get a license to own and use a firearm, the same as there is to own and use a car, motorcycle or airplane. Right now, so far as I know, the only two incidences where this is currently true is in the case of a concealed carry permit and a Class III firearms license (Fully-Automatic weapons, for the uninformed).

I have been shot at three times in my life: once with a blank round (I didn't know that at the time, but I didn't lose bladder control); once by a young felon who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside, and wound up taking a several year vacation at the expensive of the WV Juvenile Justice System, and; once by a punk whose pellet rifle couldn't penetrate good G. C. Murphy work clothes.

Still, as you say, a weapon is not a "real and imminent" danger just because it exists. It is morally neutral, and depends on the intent of the user. I still support the ownership of firearms by individuals for sporting purposes (including hunting) and personal defense.

[anterus]

My primary complaint against the 'license to own and use a firearm' is that it's a great way to keep track of whom to suppress if the gov't ever wants to do such a thing. Firearms registration was abused in New York, when they required it (for ease of crime solving!), and then, down the road, used that information to track down and confiscate guns, once a law was passed banning them. I think the ban is in NYC, but not certain

[steelhelix]

Personally, I have big issues with forcing people to have licenses to own or to carry... it limits the law abiding citizen while putting no new restrictions on the criminals.

In my opinion, a lack of understanding is the biggest problem. Understanding comes through training and experience, so here's my suggestion:

I believe that for someone to graduate high school or get their GED, they must take a firearms safety course. Since you can't legally own a firearm before 18 (handguns before 21), this would catch most of the population (except the drop-outs, and something could be figured out as far as them.

[anterus]

Oh, just incorporate varying levels of firearms education into Elementary, Middle, and High School education requirements. So hit them early in ES w/ some basic 'don' touch, get an adult' stuff, kinda like the NRA's Eddie Eagle does. Then, in MS, something a bit more in-depth, like 'Here's how to make sure it's safe when you're taking it to an adult so the little kids around don't get to it, or just leave it alone and get an adult, if there're no kids around.' Finally, in HS, another round of 'how to handle it safely' and maybe some opt-out (like sex ed is now) training on the range (mostly air-rifles, at least to start, maybe some 22s for late in the course), kinda like we did archery in my HS

[steelhelix]

A lot of schools in the earlier parts of the 20th century used to have shooting teams, now it's a thing of the past. The liberals hit us where it counts, in schools... by changing how schools teach things, they change how people think... which is why we're having such issues reverting the laws to how they should be now.