The wisdom and foresight of Tomfurbs and Trish here on H.A.

Quote:

---

I agree that firearms have legitimate uses

---

Gotta have a gun to stalk & kill the mighty beer can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I can agree with that modulo a licensing program to insure owners are appropriately educated. [Edit: ...and perhaps a restriction on the type of firearm].

---

There are dangers with licensing systems which I find worrysome, but there are ways around them.

There are a few states in the US that make gun ownership a class issue- intentionally making the licensing system too costly and legally difficult for the lower SEC's to use. This, in addition to unfairly burdening the poorer gun collectors, competition shooters etc also encourages them to bypass the licensing system by acquiring guns not known to exist by the system. There is simply no reason for a licensing system to be a lengthy 9+ month long process, costing in some cases thousands of dollars, most especially if the reason behind the process is simply to ensure people know how to safely & legally manage gun ownership. Licensing is to know about competency, not how much cash they carry in their bank accounts.

Some states in the US also intentionally create the licensing system in a way that leads to gun confiscation. If you inherit a sidearm and do not have a side arm license many states require the gun be turned over to the police who will hold it for a few months before selling it, scrapping it or (more often the case) keeping it themselves individually. The time it takes in these states to get the license, even if you meet all the requirements the first time you file- is usually no less than twice the time the police are required to keep your gun on hand. This may seem trivial but it isn't if your family resides in such a state with firearms of historical significance (let's say you're ancestor participated in a famous duel and kept the firearm after the fact).

I am also concerned about the trend in recent decades with states using licensing systems (not as a gun issue persay but on general terms) to demand things from their citizens unethically. To get a marriage license in some states requires a battery of std tests, it is no business of my state if i have an std, and there certainly is a tradition of medical records being confidential in our society. I don't even want my state to know rather I have had std tests.

Laws regarding licenses of any kind need to be very specific as to what these systems can require, what they can & can't do, and why they're there. There is a difference between a licensing fee (to cover the operational expenses of a licensing system) and a licensing tax (used to raise money for the state). Thus it is unethical IMO for a gov to require a marriage license for basic fundamental things like cohabitation (living with someone of the opposite sex), and then price that license in a way that gives the state a big fund to use for unrelated expenses (like politicians' raises).

Sin taxes are different. If ATF's are taxed heavily to discourage their purchase, that is different from putting the sin tax on the license (or legal ability to use them) itself. Access to the courts should never be based on SEC standing (I say courts because gun licensing is typically run by courts, not some gun-version of the dmv).

That is to say, I am conditionally agreeing with you in concept- it is the application that worries me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muhmuh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahG

it is my continental european duty to point out that you conveniently forgot to mention that it was invaded by the french

---

i guess youre american so you might not know this but for europeans (the english and germans especially) the french are a bit of a joke when it comes to war... sort of like canada but with much much better food

---

Ah, but Canada at least took Juno beach...

Quote:

---

Ah, but Canada at least took Juno beach...

---

Well yeah... Coming from the frozen tundra, they just didn't want to leave any beach they could find that didn't have icebergs in the surf.

Thank God for Quebec, so you don't have to go all the way to France to be treated rudely.

I agree that it’s unfair to price gun licenses outside the average person’s range of affordability.

I also agree that the waiting period shouldn’t be nine months. However, in a sense the “waiting period” for one’s very first car license is measured in months, i.e. if one counts the time required to learn the rules of the road and time required to acquire the skills to drive competently and safely. Some states ask that student drivers submit a log of their driving hours. The tests that you take to acquire your first firearm license should be comprehensive. It’s not asking too much that the applicant spend some time acquiring the appropriate knowledge and skills. On the other hand, one should expect subsequent license renewals to be relatively easy and routine.

I’ve been unaware of the affect of licensing on inheritance. Thanks for bring that to our attention.

You mentioned in passing the issue of requiring std tests for obtaining marriage licenses. The blood test requirement for marriage licenses (i.e. testing for stds) is as old as the hills. I don’t think of it as a recent trend. The only thing recent about it is the newer forms of stds for which one can test. I never looked into issue how these tests might affect public health.

All and all we have a basis for a great deal of agreement. Have your legislators call my legislators and we’ll get them to draw up a bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

However, in a sense the “waiting period” for one’s very first car license is measured in months

---

interesting that you mentioned that... compared to a lot of european countries the drivers education in the us is a complete joke
even on german roads where drivers are educated and tested to deal with a lot including autobahns with speed differentials of 100+kmh you see a lot of idiots on the roads
do you really think a licencing system for guns would enforce hard enough tests to change anything in the us?

muhmuh,

On gun safety we can expect our citizens to do no better than our vice president. Dick Cheney is where we set the bar.

As far as driving goes, Robert Novak sets the bar.

It's a dark, dark world over here. 8)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

However, in a sense the “waiting period” for one’s very first car license is measured in months, i.e. if one counts the time required to learn the rules of the road and time required to acquire the skills to drive competently and safely.

---

Right, but I was not referring to any process by which people arrive at the requirements for a gun license. There might be a minimum age like 16 (random # pulled out of thin air- don't read into it). Sure they can't get the license before that, but that doesn't mean the license system, for obtaining the license, takes 16 years from start to completion.

A gun license could require a competency course, like drivers ed is required for drivers- I don't consider that as the same as the wait that the system imposes just for the court stage of obtaining that license. It is a long, drawn out, costly system regardless the individual's status in terms of license requirements.

By comparison, if you meet the requirements (tests, age, training) for a DL the most "wait" for the process of filing your application and getting a response- is the line in the DMV.

Quote:

---

A gun license could require a competency course, like drivers ed is required for drivers- I don't consider that as the same as the wait that the system imposes just for the court stage of obtaining that license.

---

Neither do I technically. That's why I used the phrase, "in a sense". I see no reason (other than poorly thought out logistics) why your test can't be graded immediately and why you shouldn't be able to go out hunting afterward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomfurbs

What? The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066. And we've had a universal franchise for a good few years more than the US. So that paragraph makes pretty much no sense at all.

Smallarms were outlawed in my country in my lifetime, after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. It was one of New Labour's key election issues. Do your research pal.

Cars are designed to drive people from A to B. Guns are designed to kill things. Yes there is a difference.

There is a massive difference between US attitude towards gun-ownership and European attitude. What you both need to aknowledge ( and Uncle Sam needs to acknowledge) is that Europe is a lot older than the US. Therefore we just might have a better handle on how a civilised country should conduct itself. You never know... one day America might learn from it's neighbours instead of assume it is better than them. :shrug

---

I stand corrected on my time line with the gun laws, so +1 to you on pointing it out. However, as for speaking about a continent full of tyrants, invasions, and other problems, I think you're trying to dodge that bullet with your response. From your history of Monarchs, to the Nazi's, and countless other regimes, Europe has a nasty track record. People would do well not to forget it.

Yes cars are used for transportation, a legitimate purpose. However, they can be misused by drunks and other reckless people. Firearms have legitimate uses, the most important being self-defense.

As for Europe having more experience in the affairs of running a society this is true. What I think you (and many other Europeans) need to acknowledge is that the U.S. is a distinctly different nation in many respects. Many of the people that have come here over the centuries have done so to get away from the more intrusive ways and traditions of Europe.

For me it is not a matter of thinking that there is nothing to learn from Europe. I just seem to have a different perspective than you and many others. I believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. To do this effectively, it requires as little government interference as possible.

---

Man, the US has only been around for 200 years, and in that time it has had Civil War, genocide, major political corruption, numerous abortive foreign conflicts and is the only nation to drop Atomic arms in anger and use chemical weapons continuously throughout a war. You also have some of the most crime-filled cities in the world, and some of the worst literacy rates. And enough of its citizens believe the most reductive and literal interpretaion of Christianity to make religious fundamentalism a powerful lobby. It also has a primitive health care system and very ineffective means of coping with its poor.

I would argue that a country like that needs a few less guns and a little more govt. supervision, personally.

You bet Europe has made mistakes. Hell, my country is among the worst. Why does America insist on repeating them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomfurbs

Man, the US has only been around for 200 years, and in that time it has had Civil War, genocide, major political corruption, numerous abortive foreign conflicts and is the only nation to drop Atomic arms in anger and use chemical weapons continuously throughout a war. You also have some of the most crime-filled cities in the world, and some of the worst literacy rates. And enough of its citizens believe the most reductive and literal interpretaion of Christianity to make religious fundamentalism a powerful lobby. It also has a primitive health care system and very ineffective means of coping with its poor.

I would argue that a country like that needs a few less guns and a little more govt. supervision, personally.

You bet Europe has made mistakes. Hell, my country is among the worst. Why does America insist on repeating them?

---

I agree we have had our share of bad history; much of that sordid past also involved government officials abusing their power. See that is where you and I seem to diverge in our philosophy. You believe in increased government supervision in order to solve social ills. I see it as a fundamental evil that concentrates too much authority into a small group of people. I'm not going to deny that one can make a forceful and sincere argument for your viewpoint, it's just something I disagree with on a very root level.

Btw, just so you understand... I'm not a fan of neo-cons, Bush, religious zealots, so on and so forth. I simply want to live my life as I see best, so long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others, and with as little interference from the government as possible.