http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Putting the Ref back in Reference. Elections to Party Politics. en Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:54:35 GMT vBulletin 5 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/misc/rss.png http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155993-Pro-Gun-Control&goto=newpost Sun, 26 May 2013 14:46:59 GMT Let's start with a quick definition: Gun control is ANY imposed limit on the right of gun ownership.

I accept that society, through government, does have the right to place limits and restrictions on gun ownership. The question isn't 'should there be gun control' but ' where do individual rights and societal rights balance'.

In the interest of full disclosure, if guns vanished from the face of the Earth tomorrow I'd be first at the celebration party. Growing up on Lake Martin, I learned that 'hunter' and 'lunatic' were interchangeable terms (seriously, moron, shooting off the top of a hill over a lake?!?!?! Gee, no idea how anyone got hurt that way! :argh:) and while I've met and talked with many rational hunters since then, I've never seen one in the woods where it counts - talk, as they say, is cheap. So, no, you won't be convincing me via debate that hunters can be responsible in the woods - I'll accept it for the sake of argument but a part of my soul will never believe it.

That's my bias. I fully recognize some is not fair - and not logical - but some is. I merely report where I'm coming from - I'm not actually arguing for gun abolition. The reverse bias - those who grew up with them and see no harm at all - has similar issues - such is the nature of bias.

But bias should not be the basis of policy - there equity and justice need to take a seat alongside practicality, pragmatism, idealism and public weal. There is no perfect formula for policy - it's all 'muddle through' - but that doesn't mean we can't make good policy. It just means we have to work harder at it.

So, what do I support? Restrictions on ownership to include: mental competence (rigorous, not just Bob is crazy), demonstrable competence (including ability to fire, maintain, safely store, safely use and correctly identify a given weapon - if you don't know how to use and maintain it, you don't get it until you learn), age limits (I don't care if Johnny is old enough to ride his bike, he doesn't get his own .44) on full ownership (Johnny can have his .22 - but Dad is the legal, and responsible, owner until Johnny is 18), non-felonious ownership (committing a felony is a bad thing - you can darn well wait out the post prison time period too - unless the felony is murder in which case, no) and everyone's favorite: fire power limitations (no, you can't have a Howitzer, so there).

The devil is of course in the details - yes, that means mucking out just what 'firepower' is and is not reasonable for the individual owner. My gun skills are limited (not actually non-existent - Dad didn't think like that and I reluctantly agree) so my personal rule of thumb would be 'anything that lets me kill people in a optimal situation' - full auto in a crowded stadium, even I'm gonna hit someone. I might get lucky with a revolver in a street - but that wouldn't be a risk society's interest would be so great in as to overrule the gun owner - balance is tough.

Further, rights come with responsibilities - and we need to toughen up the 'responsibilities' part. If you own a weapon you are responsible for it - period. As long as you have done due diligence (locking it up when you/your agents aren't there, properly maintaining it, handling it safely, loaning it only to those of same legal status, et al) so far as was reasonably within your power, then unforeseen events aren't your responsibility. But lacking due diligence, gun owners are responsible for any event in which their weapon is used. Any as in ANY. You didn't bother to get a gun safe and it gets stolen, you are civilly liable for damages done. Burglars busted open your safe, you're not. Guns may not kill people by themselves but only a total moron doesn't know they can be used to kill - and yes, leaving the keys in the car is similar and I wouldn't have a problem with the same restriction. Small gun or 2000 lb bullet - owners bear the responsibility of due diligence. Rights come with responsibilities and when your toy can be used to kill, those responsibilities are more serious.

Kid finds gun in drawer and kills another kid/self - owner does time for negligent manslaughter. Take a minute to lock it away when you aren't present. If you need it for security, keep it on your person or within your line of sight while it serves that purpose - not in a drawer somewhere in the hopes your kid is a saint. He/she isn't - and neither are his/her little friends. Yep, it's a nuisance - responsibility is a pain sometimes. Deal with it. And no, don't throw the car keys just anywhere - kids do really stupid things. Hang them up when the kids are small; keep them safe when the kids are bigger and dumber. The car is a lower risk - kids think of guns as toys in a way they don't real cars, so the due diligence isn't as high - that's life. But there's no excuse for negligence in either case. You own it, you are responsible for it.

Back later... ]]> Political Science 301 Teallaura http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155993-Pro-Gun-Control