Is it time for Red Flag laws?

[pegelli]

Pieter: Regarding Les's post, why do they allow insane people to drive in Germany? They should have better licensing criteria.

They have the best licensing criteria, believe me, they're so good nobody else has any better, they're the best from the moment the German's started to drive. You're from German ancestry, you should know, I'm even surprized you dare to bring it up, your great grandfather will probably turn over in his grave from utter shame

[Alan Klein]

My  grandparents were from Poland and Russia.  They never own a car. 

[pegelli]

My  grandparents were from Poland and Russia.  They never own a car. 

Close enough

Also Klein is neither a Polish nor a Russian name, so I suspect they were Germans when they lived there. Germany used to be a lot bigger in the old days 

[LesPalenik]

Alan is also correct in saying that the driver, a 48 year old German graphics designer, had psychological problems.

[Rand47]

They have the best licensing criteria, believe me, they're so good nobody else has any better, they're the best from the moment the German's started to drive. You're from German ancestry, you should know, I'm even surprized you dare to bring it up, your great grandfather will probably turn over in his grave from utter shame

Which seems to me to make the point quite well.  You can have the best licensing requirements for "anything" and it will be ineffective in preventing someone from doing evil if they are intent on doing so.  My view is that it isn't politics, or laws, or anything else that is the root problem.  People are the root problem.  The only way to be "perfectly safe" is to lock down society in a totalitarian regime of some sort where the regime becomes the supreme evil that all others are afraid to run afoul of for fear of summary elimination.

Absent an appeal to something transcendent, societies, political perspectives, etc. will never agree and continue to parse, fuss, debate, etc., over "the best/right" way to address these issues - all of which are tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Rand

[Alan Klein]

Close enough

Also Klein is neither a Polish nor a Russian name, so I suspect they were Germans when they lived there. Germany used to be a lot bigger in the old days 

It's hard to tell what their real names were.  Many names of immigrants were shortened or changed when they entered the country at Ellis Island.  Especially if they came from Eastern Europe.  The immigration officers couldn't understand what the "poor and tired" were saying or just couldn't spell their names in any case.  So they were changed and shortened.  Interestingly, my wife's grandfather and his brother have different last names. Not even close.  (Cecil and Josephson).   They came here at different times and the immigration officers gave them names they thought fit.  Weird. 

[pegelli]

Which seems to me to make the point quite well.  You can have the best licensing requirements for "anything" and it will be ineffective in preventing someone from doing evil if they are intent on doing so.  My view is that it isn't politics, or laws, or anything else that is the root problem.  People are the root problem.  The only way to be "perfectly safe" is to lock down society in a totalitarian regime of some sort where the regime becomes the supreme evil that all others are afraid to run afoul of for fear of summary elimination.

Absent an appeal to something transcendent, societies, political perspectives, etc. will never agree and continue to parse, fuss, debate, etc., over "the best/right" way to address these issues - all of which are tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Rand

Fully agree Rand, but there is also something else. As you say perfect licensing requirements don't exist and good licensing requirements are never a guarantee to avoid mishaps, not in traffic and not with guns. But I think they still improve safety in general, but apparently it's a too big threat for the gun lobby that the most silly arguments get used to try and avoid them for guns.

[Alan Klein]

Fully agree Rand, but there is also something else. As you say perfect licensing requirements don't exist and good licensing requirements are never a guarantee to avoid mishaps, not in traffic and not with guns. But I think they still improve safety in general, but apparently it's a too big threat for the gun lobby that the most silly arguments get used to try and avoid them for guns.

I don't understand your point.  Are you saying that mass killers who use guns would not do mass killings if we had better licensing?  Or that they would kill more people since they would become better shooters?  It seems to me that the last problem the mass shooters have had to date is hitting their targets.  They really seem to know how to use guns. 

[Rob C]

Well, cars are as dangerous as anything else when handled badly or intentionally used as weapons, but they also have a good, fundamental purpose.

I don't really see that guns can be sheltered under that umbrella; after all, their sole design purpose is to kill. There is no other legitimate function for them, unless as threat in a defensive sense, which is but one step removed from killing or at least seriously injuring in a defensive move. In short, they serve only to cause damage, either terminal or serious enough to incapacitate.

All of which seems to me to indicate that their use outwith home protection or policing should be banned. Period.

Hunting is a whole other topic, of course, and even there, that folks can drive around with rifles on racks in their vehicles, whether they are really about to go out and catch something for dinner or not, strikes me as bizarre. Just imagine: some guys stop for a beer or three, get into an argument or just feel macho, go out to the vehicle and take one of those killing machines down off the rack... How do you reason with any guy with a head of beer, his manhood under imaginary threat, and a huge gun in his hands? And all in front of his equally nutty peers? His mother later telling the local press that her son is really a good boy won't help you and your widow one goddam bit, will it?

[Rand47]

Fully agree Rand, but there is also something else. As you say perfect licensing requirements don't exist and good licensing requirements are never a guarantee to avoid mishaps, not in traffic and not with guns. But I think they still improve safety in general, but apparently it's a too big threat for the gun lobby that the most silly arguments get used to try and avoid them for guns.

I don't disagree.  I'm fully supportive of sane regulations, but only if there is a commitment to enforcement.  Far too often today legislators think they have fixed something by passing a law.  Which in my view is either disingenuous (way too often), or terribly naïve.  Working close to governments I've see a lot of both.  But even good regulation is subject to the 90-10 rule where you'll get 90% effectiveness pretty easily (assuming the creators/implementers are serious about wanting change) - but that last 10% will take exponential effort beyond the original work that got you to 90% - and very often no matter how much effort and resources you put in, you never reach 100%.  In part, that's the reality that some refuse to acknowledge - taking us back to my argument about totalitarian rule being the only way to get there, the price of which brings its own "rewards."

Rand

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... cars... also have a good, fundamental purpose.

I don't really see that guns can be sheltered under that umbrella; after all, their sole design purpose is to kill...

Guns/killing can have "a good, fundamental" purpose as well. Defeating the Nazis, for instance.

[pegelli]

Guns/killing can have "a good, fundamental" purpose as well. Defeating the Nazis, for instance.

In the hands of trained soldiers yes, but untrained civilians are pretty useless in trying to achieve this "good, fundamental" purpose

[Alan Klein]

In the hands of trained soldiers yes, but untrained civilians are pretty useless in trying to achieve this "good, fundamental" purpose

American patriots who fought under Washington were not trained soldiers for the most part, just average guys who had guns.  Castro and his cohorts were not soldiers either.  Of course Castro was a lawyer and much more dangerous. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In the hands of trained soldiers yes, but untrained civilians are pretty useless in trying to achieve this "good, fundamental" purpose

I think you are underestimating skills of the "untrained civilians." Especially those, like Americans, who are accustomed to guns. Snowflakes, who faint at the mere sight of a gun, however...

Many social and historical changes were achieved not by trained soldiers, but armed population.

[pegelli]

@ Slobodan and Alan: I thought it was obvious I meant people untrained in the use of guns. Both your examples talk about different folks.

But it's a diversion from the main question: Why does the NRA not support basic competency testing before people can buy a gun and do they think there is nothing wrong with gun show sales without any background checks or training. Changing this won't solve all the problems, I know that, but it still is wacky at best.

[Alan Klein]

@ Slobodan and Alan: I thought it was obvious I meant people untrained in the use of guns. Both your examples talk about different folks.

But it's a diversion from the main question: Why does the NRA not support basic competency testing before people can buy a gun and do they think there is nothing wrong with gun show sales without any background checks or training. Changing this won't solve all the problems, I know that, but it still is wacky at best.

The American Constitution prevents the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  There's no requirement to be trained.  If you want to store a gun on your mantle waiting for the next revolution, the government can't take it away saying you're not qualified to use it.  Or insisting that you take semi-annual exams to prove you know how to use it.  It's obvious that the government would come up with some bureaucratic reason to require training and then use that requirement to seize your guns.  The NRA isn't stupid.  They understand the slippery slope. 

However, every State requires hunting licenses to hunt.  So if you're going to use your gun in the field, you have to pass a hunting qualification course that requires basic hunting and gun use competency.   Even NRA members don't want to get shot in the back by some stupid, nincompoop hunter who climbs over fences with his gun cocked and his finger on the trigger.  Which reminds me.  Did VP Dick Cheney have a license to hunt?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

[Rob C]

Guns/killing can have "a good, fundamental" purpose as well. Defeating the Nazis, for instance.

That doesn't mean guns in civilian hands, does it? I have no beef about police or military having all the stuff they need to do the jobs we need them to do for us.

[LesPalenik]

Gun licensing or registration don't prevent mass shootings. Armed deputies don't seem to help either. And it is very questionable that the clear backpacks in the schools will achieve anything.
However, what seems to propagate these shootings in USA is the prevailing gun culture and the wide availability of all kinds of guns and ammunition.

[pegelli]

There already are laws preventing lunatics getting weapons.

The American Constitution prevents the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. 

Make up your mind Alan, too many contradictions in what you're posting here on page 3 vs. page 4.

[Rob C]

American patriots who fought under Washington were not trained soldiers for the most part, just average guys who had guns.  Castro and his cohorts were not soldiers either.  Of course Castro was a lawyer and much more dangerous.

Heysoos, Alan, the Middle East is falling apart because of nutter civilians with guns fed them by opposing parties fighting proxy wars! You can hardly extol private gun ownership as some saviour of national stability, not even in the USA. If you do try to do so, you have left reason behind and are voicing cant. All you can claim for private ownership of death machines is that they may save your ass if somebody tries to invade your home for some reason. Which is why I think they should be kept there, for use there if required.

References to constitutions draw up in ancient days are not much cock when the nature of the items covered then and now are so vastly different! As I have previously pointed out, a muzzleloader is not a contemporary firearm with a multi-shot capability that can clear a room in seconds! To imagine there is some logic in applying the same type of legal position to both is daft. Your constitution needs rewriting, urgently.