HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A proposal to encourage r...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:09 AM

A proposal to encourage responsible gun ownership.

The basic conflict between gun owners and those who would restrict access to guns is the increased risk that the widespread availability of guns impose on people who do not themselves own or wish to own guns. The laws that currently enable responsible gun owners to have guns also enable irresponsible people to obtain and misuse firearms. If a responsible and conscientious gun owner opposes more stringent regulation to keep firearms out of the hands of those who might abuse them, then he must accept that he bears partial responsibility for abuse when it does occur. His right comes at a cost to others. One person's right to own a Bushmaster compromises another person's right to send his kids off to school without constant anxiety for their well-being.

An alternative way to encourage more responsible gun ownership could be a system of collective accountability by the gun-owning community. My suggestion is that each gun owner should be required to be vouched for by 5 other gun owners. If a gun owner misuses a gun or allows a gun that he owns to be misused, the people who vouched for him would also be criminally and civilly liable for the misuse of that gun to a reduced, but non-trivial, extent.

People who vouched for other gun owners would then have a vested interest in keeping tabs on those owners- their attitude, circumstances, and behavior. If a person vouching for another gun owner changed his mind or moved out of the area, that would be documented and he would have to be replaced within a short period of time. Obviously, a gun owner who couldn't find or keep 5 people to share responsibility for his gun-ownership would have limitations on his ability to possess firearms.

I arbitrarily picked 5 as the number of people needed to vouch for another gun owner's good character and behavior. The number could be lower or higher. The number of people required to vouch for another person's gun ownership could also be variable, depending on circumstances, including the types of weapons owned and the geographical location.

The general idea is that the level of responsibility of gun ownership should be made commensurate with increased risk to the community as a whole that accompanies the right of gun ownership.

23 replies, 1568 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply A proposal to encourage responsible gun ownership. (Original post)
hay rick Dec 2012 OP
Hoyt Dec 2012 #1
hay rick Dec 2012 #18
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #2
jody Dec 2012 #3
Kaleva Dec 2012 #4
jody Dec 2012 #5
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #9
Kaleva Dec 2012 #10
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #6
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #8
NickB79 Dec 2012 #12
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #15
NickB79 Dec 2012 #17
derby378 Dec 2012 #19
PeaceNikki Dec 2012 #11
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #20
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #14
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #7
NickB79 Dec 2012 #13
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #16
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #21
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #22
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #23

Response to hay rick (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:14 AM

1. I don't disagree with the idea, but even Randy Weaver could find 5 aryan nation members to vouch for

him.

Probably need qualifications for "vouchers." But, general idea is good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:41 PM

18. Probable qualifications for "vouchers."

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:48 AM - Edit history (1)

1. Must own at least one registered gun.
2. Must have confirmed address.
3. Must not have a criminal record.

And, assuming they didn't have criminal records, 6 Aryan Nation wingnuts could indeed all vouch for each other. But that's ok- I'm looking for an improved system, not perfection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:19 AM

2. Why not...

a full comprehensive background check? The kind like I, and many others, had to get to enlist with a security clearance in military intel.

At the cost of the person who wants to own the firearm of course.

I mean, if it's a true NEED to own the firearm, you must be willing to pay for the privilege/right... correct?

I'd have no problem with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LP2K12 (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:20 PM

3. full comprehensive background check? NO MORE than to be president who gets to use nukes. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:27 PM

4. My guess is few would be willing to go thru months of intense scrutiny and questioning..

like a candidate for President goes thru. Plus going thru numerous public debates facing people who oppose you're getting a permit. And then having the public vote on if you ought to get a permit. One could dedicate two or more years of their life in pursuit of getting a permit and the odds would be stacked against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:34 PM

5. Perhaps but Dubya Bush's AWOL was ignored. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:52 PM

9. 5 people filling out and signing an application takes 2 years?

the public gets to vote if you want to open a pizza place..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:09 PM

10. I was responding to what jody had posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LP2K12 (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:39 PM

6. Which other rights should I pay for before exercising?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:50 PM

8. driving your car

living in your house.
having a bank account
your refrigerator for pete's sake
your gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:11 PM

12. Driving a car is a priviledge, not a right

Same with having a bank account and owning a refrigerator.

You do realize that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:04 PM

15. so is having a gun. even for self defense its a privilege, it takes money

privilege
noun
1.
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2.
a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3.
a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4.
the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5.
any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:11 PM

17. So, if it costs money it's a priviledge?

By that definition, we as US citizens have no rights whatsoever. Exercising my 1st Amendment right to post on the Internet requires a computer. A woman using her right to obtain a legal abortion usually requires money to be paid. My right against unreasonable search and seizure of property requires I have money to purchase said property in the first place.

I'd suggest you look up the legal definition of "intrinsic rights" before you make yourself look any more foolish. As it stands, your 5th definition you listed bolsters my case:

any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.


As in, we are privileged to live in a country where our intrinsic rights, as defined in our constitution, are protected. Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, as the courts have repeatedly upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:46 PM

19. I tell ya, some people on DU...

They need some serious learnin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:10 PM

11. Pay for?! Do they give guns away now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:41 PM

20. You pay for pens, paper, tv time etc...

 

You are not billed for the right to speak.

Ok sir, you've got an approved 30 minute free speech license.

Or...

Okee dokee... One voucher for 30 days of protection from unreasonable search and seizure. You wouldn't be doing anything immoral would you? I think we are going to have to keep a closer eye on you.

It's for the greater good after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:20 PM

14. I'm a gun owner...

and I have no problem with this idea.

Paying for or buying into something shows that you really need it.

You can spend a couple hundred on the firearm, another hundred or so on the fingerprinting and class for the CCL... but you can't see paying for a comprehensive background check to verify you're "right" to own that firearm is backed by a comprehensive review of your background?

People like to use the big R word... RIGHT.

Let's start focusing on the other big R word... RESPONSIBILITY.

I don't want to take your firearm(s) away. I do, however, want to make it more difficult for irresponsible owners to get their hands on them.

So... charge for the bg check, charge for fingerprinting and CCL, charge for the firearm, limit the amount of ammunition on can have on hand outside of a range, limit magazine capacity. Hell, I'd even consider having to carry insurance like one does on their automobile, motorcycle, etc.

Heck, why not have tiered insurance? You get a inspection of your home for homeowners insurance. Listen here Mr/s. Gunowner. Here's your annual premium for your firearm insurance. However, if you let our inspecter verify that you have the proper means of storing the firearm in your home, we'll discount that rate. Take some sort of class every few years re-verifying you can safely operate your firearm... another discount.

That's just me though. I'm not afraid of losing my firearms and I'm not afraid to pay for something I love to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:48 PM

7. nice job

the people who vouched for him would also be criminally and civilly liable for the misuse of that gun to a reduced, but non-trivial, extent.

it takes the guy in the parking lot of the gun show out of the equation.
3 people would be enough for me.

call it the Firearm Owners Sponsorship Initiative!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:15 PM

13. You're advocating collective punishment now?

And you think that's going to fly with "reasonable" people?!?

It would be like suggesting we fight the war on drugs by arresting EVERYONE on in an apartment complex because ONE guy was found with drugs in his apartment. Would that sound reasonable to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:07 PM

16. define collective punishment first

that would only be reasonable...

ever hear of a cigarette tax?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:50 AM

21. Think more. Snark less.

A cigarette tax is not a collective punishment. It is a tax on cigarettes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:45 AM

22. i said define it, not say what isn't it

what is a collective punishment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:59 PM

23. K&R

my first. not a bad idea, in theory...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread