Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:47:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
573 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > I'm sorry, perhaps I should be more specific: the would-be gun owner needs
> > to PASS a strict test in addition. No, it won't be perfect - nothing ever is.
>
> I support the notion that people ought to be competent users of any powerful
> tool, especially one as powerful as a gun. However...
>
> My objection to an apriori training requirement (rather than an aposteriori
> lawsuit for negligent behaviour) is a weak one, but it exists nonetheless,
> and is this.
>
> We have the lesson in our recent past of literacy tests that any white could
> pass but even a college grad in english lit who happened to be black could
> not. Similarly, I fear the unscrupulous opponents of guns within the
> government would use this mechanism to keep all from owning, or all except
> their cronies.
This is an interesting point, but I think it can be avoided if it is a
Federal test, not a state or other local test. Since the test should be
done in conjunction with the training course, there shouldn't be a problem:
if it ain't in the course, it ain't on the test.
> As an illustration of this I offer the factoid which I heard somewhere (and
> which may be false but I tend to doubt it) that says that machine guns are
> not outlawed per se, they just have been taxed (by the BATF, as it happens)
> to the point that civilians can no longer acquire new ones. This passed
> constitutional muster where banning them outright did not. (which shows how
> critical the need for clarity in parts of the constitution is)
Fully automatic weapons are banned - you can't buy them for any amount of
money (legally). You can buy semi-automatic versions of the same weapons
*and* legally buy the parts to upgrade them to fully automatic. Or at least
used to - it's not something I keep up on.
Or so my understanding goes - don't base your purchasing habits on what I said.
:-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Not at all, and this has never been so. (I would point that even if inferior 'laws' stated that, they would be negated by the constitution, but that's not really my point at this time.) (...) said. (...) See (URL) for the details. Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) I support the notion that people ought to be competent users of any powerful tool, especially one as powerful as a gun. However... My objection to an apriori training requirement (rather than an aposteriori lawsuit for negligent behaviour) is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
