Do You Have Any Guns Pt. 2
Onward! I think a few people might be puzzled by these jokes, because Monty Python isn’t as prevalent as it used to be. See video below.
This Op-Ed boiled my blood. Sure, we need intelligence tests, federally mandated, to own a gun! Of course, we don’t require those for archery sets, drivers’ licenses (drive on the freeways of Dallas for proof), chainsaws, blenders, hair dryers, Tylenol, or any other potentially lethal purchase. Great idea. Fuck.
For the last time: If you buy a firearm and are stupid with it, you are likely going to kill or injure yourself. Fuck legislation on this – you don’t buy a Hayabusa without knowing how to ride a motorcycle. If you do, you’re going to hurt or kill yourself. THE SYSTEM IS WORKING.
Alright, on with the funny.
ADD: Obama busts out the Fudd defense. Who’da thunkit?
You know that Op Ed piece was sarcasm and commentary on the whole insanity of the current GOP. I mean honestly look at the lines and notice every single one point to the stupid commentaries said in HuffPo and other magazines. Even REASON, has people who’re angry about “gun control” and that it’s not always fair and moderate. I’ve made a few reasonable suggestions about it and where the problems are to address mental health issues. That they’re all rationally based and that even these had some minor merit in passing…..
Intelligence tests? Well, no. Because then a good portion of the South would be unarmed. (I lived there most of my life, trust me on this one.)
However, as I’ve said before, having a written gun safety test, followed by practical exams, aren’t a bad idea.
Exam 1: Safety – Show you can safely load and unload the firearm you’re trying to purchase.
Exam 2: Aim – Hit a target with a certain number of rounds, at a reasonable distance for the weapon. Failing this doesn’t mean you can’t get a gun; it just means you have to take practice time. (The gun shops should be all in agreement with this; they’d get to sell training time and rounds.)
Exam 3: Firearm maintenance. This one is sort of optional… Personally, I would never own a firearm that I couldn’t perform basic cleaning and maintenance on, but it’s not necessarily a barrier to firearm ownership. If some schmuck wants to own a firearm and never clean it, it’s not going to hurt me, though they may regret it.
All of this, of course, makes too much sense to be implemented.
That’s pretty much how I see things. If you are not trained to use the damn thing safely you shouldn’t be possessing it.
That, and better access to mental health services.
You’re falling into the “may issue” trap. Sure it sounds good on paper to have a local sherrif in charge of who gets a permit, just to make sure no crazies fall throught the cracks, but then you end up with NYC, or Chicago; Alvin fucking York couldn’t get a permit. Inb4 “ehrmagerd, slippery slope phallusy, your argument has no merit,” any – I say again, ANY – power you give to the government will eventually be abused. Apply your argument to any other natural right and see if it has merit there. Would you want you local board of elections deciding whether you could vote? Or how about you are only immune to unwarrented search if you can prove you don’t have anything to hide?
Just some perspective form the governemnt fearing libertarian fringe.
I’m not talking about subjective qualifications here.
It’s all objective; if someone meets the quals, then barring any other background issue (violent felon, etc) they can purchase the firearm.
You don’t need a driver’s license to purchase a car.
That’s how it started with CCW permits in California. Then some sheriffs started adding extra requirements (illegally) such as liability insurance, psych evals, and increased minimum age requirements until it was impossible for any common individual to get one.
Second, if they hurt or kill themselves, who cares? Stupidity should not be coddled. Charge a person with negligence if they harm someone, not because they MIGHT do something.
You shouldn’t have to demonstrate competency with any right, much less the 2A. They are a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Rights-Only-If-You-Pass-The-Test.
You know, I have to completely, and utterly disagree with the “practical exams” thing. Why? Because it doesn’t make sense in the slightest. How is someone, who is new to firearms, expected to past any of these tests? They have no experience. Sometimes people don’t have friends who have firearms to teach them. I can kind of understand the reason behind the reloading one, but that should just fall under “understanding the safe handling of a firearm.”
It is the “aiming” requirement that bothers me the most. Because…just…why? I could understand it as a requirement to be allowed to Carry your firearm. To me, I do think that yearly training, and being able to pass, some form of minimum competence level test with your carry arm should be required. If you want to carry? Be trained to carry. Makes sense to me. But to own a firearm? Doesn’t make sense to me.
How is someone, just given a pair of car keys, expected to learn anything without practice?
We have driving schools, Driver’s Ed, etc, for a reason. Even parents who teach their kids (like my dad tried to teach me to drive stick on an old VW microbus – it didn’t work, and replacing a clutch in those is a bitch).
Your opposition confuses me. “They shouldn’t have to aim to be able to own a gun”, basically. Then what the hell’s the point?
If you have a firearm that you are unwilling or unable to learn how to hit a target with it, then, barring collectors, you probably shouldn’t have it.
Please understand, I’m not saying “must shoot a 280+ out of 300, at 20 meters with some POS .38”, I’m saying you should be able to hit a reasonable sized target at an average distance for the weapon, with some consistency. If it’s a pistol for home defense, then a man-sized target at somewhere between 10-20 feet. Else, they’re more of danger to themselves and everyone around them, than to the intended target.
How it works in Australia, where this actually happens, Is they basically walk you through it. It is almost impossible to fail and is taught and the test is written so that only complete idiots who will never follow a safety rule in thier life will fail. Retests are often taken in the same class and all we had to do was shoot 5 rnds out of a 22LR bolt action [easiest gun to get here legally] and be able to hit the paper at 25m for the practical part of it.
Personally, I have nothing against a test in theory. It would make me happy to know that anybody buying (or even touching) a gun has been taught gun safety. In practice, as Jay Moyes noted below, it’s just asking for abuse at some point.
It’s interesting that this comes up today, because I was actually just thinking about it yesterday. My point of view is, generally, licensing/tests/etc are fine as long as they’re set up to “fail-Libertarian”. NICS is actually a pretty good example. The intuitive thing to do is to say, “If you get a hold, the government will review it and get back to you.” However, that’s just begging for an anti-gun government to say, “You’re on hold. We estimate you’ll have your answer in about 20 years.” So, instead, it’s written so that if they apply a hold, THEY have to take active steps to come up with a specifically-defined real reason to deny you within a short time period, or it goes away.
How do we apply this to a licensing test? (Warning: Libertarian point of view incoming.) Simple. We make it controlled by people who have a vested interest in people taking these tests: FFL holders. Basically, if an FFL holder fills out a form that says you pass, you get your certification. For that matter, it doesn’t even need to be a government certification; FFLs could choose to do this on an entirely voluntary basis, just as there is no (federal) enforcement of MPAA or ESRB ratings (AFAIK). A reasonable fee could be charged for this, of course. Perhaps the NRA would choose to administer this; in any event, it’s preferable for a non-governmental organization to do it, because otherwise the system is essentially gun registration.
Why is this good? It means that the people who want to sell guns and ammunition get to determine who is allowed to buy guns and ammunition, and potentially make money just issuing the permit. They WANT to issue these. There’s even motivation for them to try to get people in the door, which means more people who might not have ever touched a gun outside of Modern Warfare 2 now know they can go somewhere with a range, get to “play with real guns,” and learn safety in the process. That takes people who would’ve thought of guns as Magic Death Sticks that they see on TV and shoot people with in video games, and helps them think of them as useful tools that can be dangerous if used inappropriately.
For any test or certification, if it makes one person who could’ve safely and legally bought a gun not get one, it’s a failure. Otherwise, if it makes one person never have to say, “I didn’t know it was loaded!” or “I dropped it and it went off!” it’s a success.
How about we have a firearms test for reporters to speak on the matter of firearms. How about we have a test to see if the senator even understands what the feature of the firearm DOES before they can write legislation on it. How about we have a test of intelligence before they are allowed to vote. It is a right. We cannot have rights infringed without due process. As much as I would like to forcibly shut DiFi up, she still has the right to speak her stupid dribble. What really irks me is that DiFi proposes the same thing EVERY YEAR, and it gets shot down EVERY YEAR. She throws it out there after the tragedy in Newtown, and there is cheering. Who’s the one standing on the graves of dead children? US? How did it get so twisted that WE who are defending our rights get shouted down as playing politics with dead children.
Todd pointed it out. Good. My beliefs are that after a thorough training course involving both classroom and range time, people should be able to own what they want. If you fail, you can take the class again in a year.
1. Beliefs do not equal rights.
2. You trust the government not to change that class or test? Really?
I trusted them to train my generation (and several previous ones) to drive. I’d love to see it as part of 7-8th grade curriculum. And as for point 2… No shit. That’s why I specified.
Intelligence test would rule out the most of the country, not just the south. Bring back high school rifle clubs for teenagers, let them get range safety certified. Demonstrate the difference of a .222 Hornet in a Sport Autoloader to a commercially available 5.56 AR-15 Variant (not much but looks). Shoot a gallon milk jug filled with water down range and show teens what hydrostatic shock will do to little Jimmie’s head. Show the reality not the first person shooter fantasy. Give them factual experience and then show them some suicide by gun photos. If you cannot control their last action with guns, then control their first experience.
It’s amazing just how stupid people can be. My mother-in-law sent me a newspaper clipping on people who have injured themselves with immersion blenders. Apparently a lot of people have tried to dig out a stubborn chunk of food with their fingers and have accidentally sliced up their fingers. Just proof that if you’re an idiot, you’re going to injure yourself with anything remotely dangerous.
While I agree with the Heinlein postulate: Stupidity is a capital crime, sentence executed by the Universe, I wouldn’t use THAT particular study that you linked, to convince pro-gunners. It’s by Arthur Kellermann, who’s about as credible as Michael Bellesiles.
Beautiful statistic on the Pub Med link! You’re 333% more likely to successfully use a firearm to protect yourself than have a cop show up to use his for you.
Holy #*$&, I’ve never noticed that before. That’s an awesome statistic in an otherwise worthless study.
For anybody who doesn’t understand why it’s worthless: “defensive gun use” does not mean “shot bad guy”. “Racked 12ga pump-action, thief took off running” is a defensive gun use. “‘Don’t move, I have a gun!’ and burglar stays face-first on the ground until police arrive” is a defensive gun use. Neither of them is covered in that study–that study only includes examples where the owner pulled the trigger AND hit a target. However, most other studies (see GunCite for plenty of info) suggest those uses FAR outweigh cases where a gun is fired. (Which makes sense. I don’t particularly want to shoot somebody, and they’d presumably prefer not to be shot.)
Antis hiss and spit, we get to laugh, at least a bit.
But, yah; ain’t numbers grand?
-Pete
Since everyone else seems more interested in the op-ed article, I’m going to chime in and say: huzzah for Monty Python references! The world needs more Britcom.
All politics aside….
I am a HUGE Python fan and I applaud any attempt to revive and include that brand of humor. Every now and then I run across an intentional python reference in modern media, and it makes me chortle for a good long time.
Last year while I was eating at the Claimjumper restaurant, a grossly overweight man and his wife walked in. I distinctly heard the serve quietly tell the busboy: “Oh Sh*t! it’s Mr. Creosote!” I promptly snorted my ale all over my ribeye.
I think we just went over the top with the Pythonesque AK-47 eating cat. Must be Snooch.
To the moderates and lefties, you almost had me on the intelligence test and the metaphor of car ownership, we can rip apart both issues. Here’s why:
Intelligence test? Awesome idea. We should have that for other things. Such as driving. Such as voting! Wait a second, that actually happened. Southern States used literacy tests as an intelligence test to keep black people from voting. Not only did it backfire by excluding poor white people, but such tests were eventually ruled unconstitutional. Gun ownership is still a right, and you can’t stack the odds against a citizen like that.
Which brings be to our next argument regarding registration and regulation, the automotive metaphor. J. Grant can probably tell you Los Angeles has a huge problem with car registration, licensing, and insurance. This city has a Godzilla-sized load of uninsured drivers (auto insurance is required by law here in California), and drivers without licenses. There are also quite a few drivers who sneak around without proper registration. Personally, I went a year with temp tags on my car without getting stopped.
The current licensing laws have done very little to stop collisions by unlicensed and uninsured drivers here in LA. If I remember right, we now have a body count of unsolved hit and runs going into the thousands. I can’t see regulation doing much good regarding gun violence either.
Shoot the lawyers, more skin on HBO!
Testify, Brother!
Actually, they found a way around the “excluding poor whites” backfire. The origin of the phrase “Grandfather clause” comes in, here. If your grandfather was able to vote (in other words, was white, pre-13th-14th-15th amendments), then you were exempt from the test.
The other way to do it was to give whites a McGuffy Reader (slightly dumber than Sally, Dick, and Jane), and blacks a PhD dissertation.
Just like the voting restrictions you mention, gun control has a long history of discriminating against minorities and poor people. Even after explicitly racist laws were overturned, many facially neutral laws still had the clear (and usually completely intentional) effect of disarming the “wrong” sort of people. Discretionary permitting is the most obvious; the wealthy and well-connected have little trouble getting a permit, but good luck if you’re little people. Another popular approach is driving up the price of gun ownership, either through taxation or by banning less-expensive weapons. Recent calls for requiring liability insurance strike me as more of the same. And as Dex pointed out, even the most neutral law can be selectively enforced.
The fact that these policies are often championed by “liberals” and “progressives” who loudly proclaim themselves the champions of the downtrodden is just the ironic icing on the cake.
I had a good laugh at the strip. I work at a gun shop in Minnesota, generally have tons of whatever you want, the past month and a half have cleaned us out. Same is to be said for quite a few shops in the area.