Guns

the burden of proof would be on the prosecutor to demonstrate that the weapon was in fact not properly secured. i agree in principle, but just because access was gained doesn't mean it wasn't secured. yes. case in point, vt, i believe. it is a small point, but jon does have a real issue with the collector thing. perhaps there should be a separate collector's license which requires that none of the weapons or munitions purchased under that license can ever be discharged or used. this would probably require separate storage for collection and non-collection weapons and loss of licensure in the case of a breach of the collection license non-use rule. also, if any more deadly weapons are permitted in these collections (grenades, whatnot), they should be disabled. this is kind of complex, but i think it easily solves that complaint.also, those kinds of munitions should be permitted in the case of my suggested local militia armories. keep in mind, weapons and munitions in these armories should be accessible only for training or emergencies and must be under tight guard.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Sure, it's possible; it's also possible that the only reason I want a sample of lethal smallpox is for my "great moments in epidemiology" diarama.Kindly explain how the desires of collectors - who could just as easily make do with replicas - overrides the government's interest in public safety?Or were you under the impression that all you had to do here was show up, accuse us of "fallacies" in the most strident possible tones, and you were done? Somebody should register you as a firearm - all you've done so far is shoot your mouth off. (That's a little gun joke.)

quote:

---

it is a small point, but jon does have a real issue with the collector thing.

---

People would collect anything and everything if they could.It is illegal to collect (new) real tortoise shell and real ivory and real wastebaskets made out of elephant legs and real tiger pelts and real rhino horns because the costs (extinction of endangered animals) is too great just to satisfy the material lusts of collectors.I really don't care that collectors of military weaponry couldn't get armor-piercing bullets. They can't get surface-to-air missiles or nuclear warheads, either.

What a beautiful straw man you've built up here... let's hope you're the only crow he convinces Of course you can't collect those things; something is dying for certain. If you went to the gun shop and ordered one of those 'bad' weapons and told the guy you planned to shoot up your office party with it, I'd say you shouldn't have it. Of course, when death is the certain outcome, people shouldn't have the weapon. But what if death ISN'T the outcome? What if the only outcome is that they will sit and get dusty in a display case for many generations?

WTF? Is this your A-game? Or do you think we're idiots?Presumably, certain death doesn't await literally everyone who performs research on smallpox. That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict ownership of pandemic infectious agents to those authorized by the CDC.

keep in mind jon, that in chat you were arguing that you should be able to collect those armor-piercing bullets and whatnot because you can collect silver dollars.and then accused me of a fallacy when I used your argument in saying that because you can collect bullets, you can collect nukes (well, actually I asked you that, but . . .).

Why have a licence? A friend of mine had a father who had a big old handgun. Completely genuine. We used to play with it as teenagers. The firing pin had been removed, a ball-bearing was welded into the barrel and the trigger had been removed.Nobody got killed with that collector's item.

Are you serious??? A collector has the right to have what the hell he wants??? You know, I've always fancied one of those suitcase nukes - classic bit of Soviet history. I'd lock it up really well and only get it out twice a year at special viewing parties. Is that ok?I have seen stupidity beyond the pale in this thread, but this argument must take the all-time record

Regarding your list of suggestions brennakimi - excellent list.Outside of hunting rifles I see no reason to have more than one gun in a household. I will admit my city is quite safe compared to big American cities, so perhaps handguns would be justified in many cases. The more one needs the more restricted the procedure should be to obtain them.

• Hunting rifles - not restricted as handguns should be, but most if not all of your suggestions should apply
• Handguns - Difficult to obtain; phsychological evaluation, fingerprinting, etc
• Assault rifles, fully automatic handguns - Illegal
• Any amunition not nessesary to kill a deer or a rat becomes illegal

quote:

---

Why have a licence? A friend of mine had a father who had a big old handgun. Completely genuine. We used to play with it as teenagers. The firing pin had been removed, a ball-bearing was welded into the barrel and the trigger had been removed.

​

Nobody got killed with that collector's item.

---

That's what I said earlier.

quote:

---

What if the only outcome is that they will sit and get dusty in a display case for many generations?

---

Jon, I (and others) have responded to this question already, and instead of adressing my reply, you just repeated your question as if we hadn't.My response was stated in a reply to you in Message #195: Now, if you would like to address that question, you will then be participating in the debate.

quote:

---

Of course, when death is the certain outcome, people shouldn't have the weapon.

---

quote:

---

Of course you can't collect those things; something is dying for certain.

---

When someone goes deer or turkey or rabbit or grouse hunting, something is dying for certain as well. (If the hunter is any good at hunting, that is) If we apply your argument above, people shouldn't be allowed to hunt.I am pretty sure you didn't want to propose that, so maybe you might want to think through your arguments a bit more before you make them.The reason we ban the trade in new ivory, tiger pelts, etc., is not merely and solely because animals are being killed; the chicken I ate the other night was an animal that was killed, too. The reason we ban the sale of those specific items is because those particular animals are endangered. If the world was overrun with elephants, for example, I am sure that the sale of ivory would not be restricted.The point that I was making when I brought up the banned animal trophies was that we do, in fact, restrict what collectors are allowed to possess if there is a compelling reason to do so. That a collector desires an object is not enough of a reason to allow them to have it if there is a compelling reason they shouldn't.Lastly, I have asked several times for the pro-gun people on this thread to supply some data to back up their side of the argument, as I have with mine. So far, nobody has, and my studies and statistics have been mostly ignored or brushed aside.Perhaps you can pick up the slack for your side and start doing some research and post your counter evidence to my studies here.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

There are currently two ways in which a legitimate "collector" can legally possess military-grade weapons. Federal Curio and Relic License, and a Class III Federal Firearms License.The C&R License requires the weapon in question to be at least 50 years old, to be in unmodified form, etc. It requires a full background check, certification of safe storage, and costs about $300. It does NOT allow possession of fully automatic weapons.The Class III FFL (which is actually designed for dealers, manufacturers, etc, but is available for individual collectors), requires a very lengthy background check, federal inspection and certification of high-security storage, etc, and costs $3000. This DOES permit ownership of fully-automatic weapons.In other words, there is no actual reason why an individual can't own a machine gun under current laws - as long as they comply with the requirements of a Class III license. If for some reason you want to play collector of an arsenal of fully-automatic rifles, all you need is a license and a lot of cash.

What do you think should have barred him that on any given day, prior to this event, you wouldn't have ordinarily said that he was being discriminated against? What is it that should have legally prevented him from purchasing a weapon? As best as I can tell, the only thing that would have prevented him is his psychological profile. But the problem is that this kind of information is so highly protected under patient/doctor confidentiality that people would not accept it without first making a big stink.

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

You're playing this up as a "gotcha", which you can do, I guess, but I wanted to step in and point out that you've raised a very legitimate point. If we're going to grant the use of firearms for personal defense - and their utility in that respect is an unsettled point, I think - then we can't simply disqualify people for self-defense simply because they have a mental illness. Women who have been grappling with depression, for instance, are at a much higher likelihood of being sexually assaulted.If the only people we're going to allow to defend themselves with guns are the people who don't really need a gun to defend themselves, what's the point?

quote:

---

What is it that should have legally prevented him from purchasing a weapon?

---

Unless I am mistaken, a magistrate put him in a mental institution involuntarily because he was considered a danger to himself and others. That should be part of the public record, and therefore should pop up on a background check.People like that shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm without a lengthy waiting period and additional criminal and psychological evaluations.We also should not be depending upon the customer to be truthful on the application to purchase the gun.