

You Want A Gun? Then Do Something For Me - tkellogg
http://timkellogg.me/blog/2012/12/22/guns-and-responsibility/

======
joshmlewis
The idea isn't bad per say, but while it may be a good solution for you, it
may not be the best solution for everyone. I live in the south, and I know a
lot of people would be outraged at the idea of this. When it comes down to it,
most people are selfish. They think having a gun is to protect them and their
loved ones, not me or you. They wouldn't like the fact that they have to spend
extra time and money for their 'God given right' to bear arms. An 80 hours
course isn't going to stop people from being violent, look at the hijackers of
9/11, they had to go through and get their pilot training which costs
thousands and a lot of time, and that just shows where there is a will there
is a way and a course might help these situations but nothing is going to
totally alleviate them.

I don't think a lot of people who don't live in the south or a rural area
understand how guns are used in normal culture in places like here. People go
out and hunt. A lot. They go target shooting, they have competitions, etc.
It's a big deal and it's an issue that sits very close to the heart of a
southern person.

I personally am not sure what should happen, but these are just some things I
have seen and grown up around. Almost everyone has a gun here, most of them
never get shot, but they are still really prevalent.

------
Bobble
Taking the argument to its logical conclusion: if you aren't willing to kill
on behalf of the unarmed, you aren't worthy of defending yourself. Kill for
me, or you deserve to die. That logic seems flawed.

~~~
tkellogg
That is in fact the logic of the the pro-gun party. Since politics is about
compromise, might as well run with it...

~~~
Bobble
In what way, in fact, is that the logic of the "pro-gun party?" I myself have
not heard the NRA or others ever say that non-gun owners deserve to die.
Please elaborate.

~~~
tkellogg
They say that "guns protect us". How do they protect us? Is a bystander
supposed to lift up their shirt, revealing a gun tucked into their waist,
forcing the bank robbers to run away? I think the NRA and Republican party
have already assumed that they're instructing the general public to kill, or
at least wound, on behalf of public safety.

~~~
Bobble
Having the ability and/or willingness to protect others is entirely different
from mandating it. The NRA is asking for the ability to exercise the right to
defend oneself (and others) if needed, without censure. You would require that
civilians purposefully put themselves in that situation - to go looking for
trouble - in order to have that right of defense.

------
dbecker
_All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police_

If someone wants to use a gun for criminal purposes, it's hard to imagine that
giving them a badge first is going to solve anything.

It just means they could go on their power trip under the guise of police work
in addition to doing it criminally.

------
andyjohnson0
_"the constitution specifically highlights firearms as a method reserved for
future use to revolt against the government, if it ever becomes evil."_

I keep reading this, but I don't believe the us constitution says any such
thing. Am I (European) correct?

~~~
hanleybrand
You are correct - the 2nd amendment prohibits the US government from
infringing the right to "to keep and bear arms" - it does not specify what
kind of arms, so knives and swords (and theoretically but not actually)
nuclear weapons would all be equally covered - supposedly as a check against
tyranny, but this is not spelled out in the constitution, and sedition was
made illegal about 10 years after the constitution was ratified.

My personal view, therefore is that the arguments for the 2nd amendment are a
ridiculous fiction - as I imply above, US citizens can not actually build up
an arsenal of weapons that would enable them to successfully challenge the US
Government successfully (see Waco, Move, etc. - build up a big enough armory,
you will be taken out).

So in my view gun rights only exist at this point to enrich arms dealers and
give the citizenry an illusion of control, at the low, low cost of
80-something of our citizens per day.

------
jaxn
The difficulty in defining what to regulate is probably the hardest part of
the problem and he just throws out a completely unworkable definition.

A double-action revolver would fit his definition of an "assault rifle".

~~~
rtkwe
Even better depending on what you define as a reload a single action cap and
ball could qualify. Restricting to rifles only, if you define a reload as
taking bullets from outside the weapon and storing then in the weapon, which
seems like a reasonable enough way to define it on the surface, a bolt action
rifle with an internal box magazine (aka most rifles) would qualify. Also what
would be the mission of the proposed volunteer police force? when would they
be called in/up? who would govern and organize them?

------
orik
Do people who want food also have the responsibility to feed society?

~~~
astolarz
Straw man fallacy. Besides, I don't think I've heard of too many people going
on deadly feeding rampages.

------
regis
I will never support any sort of gun control that does not also include
disarming law enforcement. Is this not something other people are concerned
with?

------
secondChrome
..."but military service has a way of vouching for their sanity."

Sadly, there are too many who lose their sanity thanks to the military.

------
sleighboy
I wish people would stop using the term "assault rifle" incorrectly. There is
only one assault rifle ever, the Sturmgewehr 44.

~~~
pohl
To start making your wish a reality, go update this page and address any
concerns various WP editors may have.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle>

~~~
sleighboy
That page gets it right in the "Definition" section saying the term is
basically slang derived from the StG44 and that to be considered an "assault
rifle" it must be select-fire. Those are Class III weapons in the US and
already very restricted, assuming you have enough disposable income to buy one
and find a seller. The example given in the post has nothing to do with Class
III weapons, so the term is used improperly, that is my point.

------
RyJones
This isn't how rights work.

------
danso
> _“No person can own or operate an assault rifle as a civilian except for
> honorably discharged veterans, current military officers or enlisted
> personnel at E3 level or higher, or persons who have passed an 80 hour
> course. All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police
> (or some other analogous public safety service).”_

Because nothing could go wrong with conferring special rights only to members
of the military, right?

This proposed solution would have had limited impact on the recent killings
that have stoked the current gun control argument. Adam Lanza would've have
passed the 80-hour training requirement. Columbine and Virginia Tech was
perpetrated by handguns and shotguns. Aurora did involve a rifle but VT still
resulted in more fatalities with just handguns. The older perpetrator of the
Beltway sniper attacks was an Army veteran.

This is not to say that gun control is bad. But the reasoning behind this
solution is very specious.

~~~
cpursley
He did mention an 80 hour course.

~~~
CodeMage
Expecting an 80-hour course to somehow deter a psychopath from shooting up a
bunch of people strikes me as rather naive.

~~~
dbecker
I agree with your claim, but it's also my understanding that the CT killer
(and many murderers in general) stole the gun from a friend or relative.

So a killer wouldn't need to attend the 80 hour course if he had access to a
gun purchased by someone who did attend the course.

~~~
danso
The CT killer used his mother's legally owned rifle and it is said she took
him shooting with her on many occasions.

