Creative Gun Control Proposal

[ZenGum]

On the one hand, Americans want their citizens to be armed, to protect themselves collectively from government tyranny and individually against crime.

On the other hand, they want people to be disarmed so as to prevent both ongoing gun crime and occasional killing sprees.

I notice that in all the major killing sprees since Columbine, the perpetrators had one thing in common: a Y-chromosome.

Yep, they were all male. And the vast majority of other shootings are also done by males.

So here's the proposal.

By default, women automatically have the right to gun ownership (and maybe public carry? item for discussion), although they can lose this right, for example if convicted of a serious crime.

Men must earn the right to own (& carry) a gun. This can be done by any one of:
* military or police service
* voluntary psychological and background checks
* reaching a set age (25? 30?) without criminal conviction
* other stuff you suggest...
This right could be lost by misbehaviour.

There would be enough armed women and mature men to prevent tyranny, and it would make it much harder for the unstable, depressed loner to obtain weapons, since these seem to frequently be young males. It would give grounds for arresting and disarming those who had not earned the right.

Ibby ... I can hear you already . Yes, you have a point. I'm not sure what to do about that.

So ... what do y'all think?

[Shawnee123]

I like.

Penis size should be a factor.

[Clodfobble]

Well, the nameless loser who committed the most recent school shooting used his mother's semiautomatic from their mobile home to do it.[/party pooper]

[Shawnee123]

Was there another shooting after Sandy Hook?

Adam Lanza did indeed use his mother's semiautomatic, from their very nice house in an affluent neighborhood.

Maybe i missed something?

[Happy Monkey]

G. Gordon Liddy's wife owns all his guns.

[Lamplighter]

By Tom Curry, NBC News national affairs writer
Updated 9:30 a.m. ET:

On NBC’s Meet the Press, National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre on Sunday
refused to support new gun control legislation and maintained his support for putting
armed guards and police in schools in response to the Dec. 14 school shootings in Newtown, Conn.

See the Meet The Press page

“If it’s crazy to call for putting police in and securing our schools to protect
our children, then call me crazy,” LaPierre told NBC’s David Gregory.

Unfortunately for the NRA, this self-proclamation of insanity immediately puts
Wayne into the NCP (National Crazy People) database,
and he can no longer purchase guns legally.

But not to worry... he can keep all the guns he already has or owns.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Men must earn the right to own (& carry) a gun. ...

If they have to earn it, it isn't a right, it's a privilege like a driver's license and can be taken away at will.

... it would make it much harder for the unstable, depressed loner to obtain weapons, since these seem to frequently be young males. ...

There'll always be some dipshit female in love who'll get weapons for them and she'll probably be a lonely school teacher.

It would give grounds for arresting and disarming those who had not earned the right. ...

This wouldn't provide an ounce of prevention; unless, accompanied by unreasonable search and seizure before incidents can occur.

Creative Gun Control Proposal ... So ... what do y'all think?

NOT. One can already hear the domino effect of people's rights falling. I've heard of better bladder control proposals. But, thanks for tryin'.

We could pass a law mandating that all new clothing be made bulletproof. The heavier clothing would also take more physical effort to move around in and help solve the nation's obesity problem ... a twofer.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Was there another shooting after Sandy Hook?

It happens every week. SUVs run over children between 50 and 60 times a week. Killing about 30 kids every week.

Sandy Hook is only news because the deaths all happened in one place. Making the story more emotional. Same emotions that also justify guns whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people.

Logically shocking and emotionally irrelevant would be to deal with children deaths logically.

[Shawnee123]

But there haven't been any school shootings since Newtown. So i don't know who the nameless guy in the mobile home is.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

... Logically shocking and emotionally irrelevant would be to deal with children deaths logically.

[Rhianne]

Originally Posted by tw

It happens every week. SUVs run over children between 50 and 60 times a week. Killing about 30 kids every week.

Sandy Hook is only news because the deaths all happened in one place. Making the story more emotional. Same emotions that also justify guns whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people.

Sandy Hook was just an accident?

[bluecuracao]

On the one hand, Americans want their citizens to be armed, to protect themselves collectively from government tyranny and individually against crime.

I have never been able to get the first part. While individual protection against crime is perfectly understandable, the thinking that guns will protect anyone from so-called U.S. government tyranny is looney.

Just talking a separate government entity, like SWAT or the FBI--if they need to take an armed someone or a group of armed someones out, they have the means and it will/has happen(ed).

As for our government being able to gather itself together and become one mass thing that violently terrorizes its citizens...if that were to somehow happen, mere guns aren't going to save anybody.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

Sandy Hook was just an accident?

Car crashes are not accidents. They are directly traceable to human failure.

SUVs killing children are a perfect example. I cannot see a kid behind me. So it is safe to back up. Reality. SUVs drivers have no idea what is behind them when they back up.

Volvo now replaces steel with glass on a new SUV design. Because the death of so many kids every week is no accident. "I do not see the kid so the kid is not there." The only question - is that manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide?

Meanwhile the mother knew she had a kid with serious problems. So what did she do? All guns with trigger locks? Guns locked in a safe? Guns removed to some other building? What did she do? Nothing? At what point do we hold people with guns responsible for their actions - as we should with SUV drivers who also kill so many kids every week.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I like.

Penis size should be a factor.

Oh, except for you. I wouldn't let you near a goddamn pea shooter. You're nutso. but we love you!

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Well, the nameless loser who committed the most recent school shooting used his mother's semiautomatic from their mobile home to do it.[/party pooper]

Well if women could use their brains and secure their firearms adequately ... seriously, she was an idiot. She knew her son was mentally ill, but instead of taking him to a counsellor, she took him to a shooting range.
No guns for her.

Originally Posted by sexobon

If they have to earn it, it isn't a right, it's a privilege like a driver's license and can be taken away at will.

Semantics, but if you like. Privilege.

There'll always be some dipshit female in love who'll get weapons for them and she'll probably be a lonely school teacher.

Don't agree, many of the spree shooters are such loners that they don't have
this option, and if they did get a girlfriend, they'd be less likely to go a-shootin'.

This wouldn't provide an ounce of prevention; unless, accompanied by unreasonable search and seizure before incidents can occur.

See, that's where the woman dobs him in when he tries to get her guns.

NOT. One can already hear the domino effect of people's rights falling.

Slippery slope argument. Invalid. Next...

I've heard of better bladder control proposals. But, thanks for tryin'.

Yeah, I'm just pissing in the wind, aren't I?

We could pass a law mandating that all new clothing be made bulletproof. The heavier clothing would also take more physical effort to move around in and help solve the nation's obesity problem ... a twofer.

Brilliant! AND it would stimulate the economy as all those new clothes are made.

Originally Posted by tw

It happens every week. SUVs run over children between 50 and 60 times a week. Killing about 30 kids every week.

Sandy Hook is only news because the deaths all happened in one place. Making the story more emotional. Same emotions that also justify guns whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people.

Logically shocking and emotionally irrelevant would be to deal with children deaths logically.

Sorry, guys, but TW is right (although I haven't checked the SUV stats.) Kids get killed all the time, and it was only the concentrated nature of these killings that has broken through the "business as usual" facade and made people react emotionally. If the ongoing death toll does not make you change, neither should the Sandy hook incident.

[Rhianne]

You are seriously comparing a series of unconnected traffic 'incidents' with a case of mass murder? I'll back out now, I'm out of my depth here.