Gun control - old post I wanted to save

[DianaCox]

I consider myself to be a super-competent person. However, I am aware of SOME of my limitations, and making snap decisions is one of them. When I was a biology major at a college where 96% of the bio majors were pre-med and heading for a far more lucrative profession than I was (I expected to be a researcher/professor), and one of the reasons for NOT giving medicine as a career a second thought is that I need to give EVERYTHING a second thought - I'm not comfortable being pressured like that, even if I think I'd make the right decision almost every time. Almost isn't good enough when you're a doctor.

I know there are medical professions that don't require snap decisions - or that much contact with people either - like pathology or radiology. But that whole "people's lives are depending on me to make the RIGHT decision RIGHT now" is just not me. Note that although I'm a lawyer, I rarely do any arguing in court - most of my work is done on the computer, at my own pace. That's how I like it.

Having said that, there are PLENTY of other things I think I *AM* good at that maybe, just maybe, I'm not as good at as I believe. Driving for instance. I read somewhere that 85% of people think they are better-than-average drivers. I include myself in that statistic. It is a fact that my husband essentially refuses to be a passenger in the car if I'm driving (I think he's just a control freak, of course). And maybe a few others have complained as well. But I don't REALLY believe I am anything but an excellent driver, just a little aggressive, and what's wrong with that? I haven't been in an accident or gotten a ticket in years. I am quite confident of my abilities, and blind to my possible incompetence.

My point is, I don't want anyone who has my life, or anyone's life, in their hands because of carrying a weapon, to be an amateur, "good enough," an arrogant incompetent, or a dilettante. I don't think anyone who isn't in the top 5% of humans in their capability to have and properly control a weapon of mass destruction in their hands should be allowed to have one, perhaps outside of renting one at a shooting range.

50% of people in the US have an IQ below 100. Fact. I don't want citizens who are on the left side of the bell curve to have a gun. And really, I want further filtering requirements for owning or using a gun that would likely eliminate ME from being allowed to do so, including IQ, reaction time, mental fitness, eyesight, emotional intelligence, personality characteristics, etc.

Owning and using a gun should NOT be something that is allowed just because you're born. The requirements should be incredibly stringent.

I don't think I have the personality that is suitable for being a doctor, or using a gun in an emergency situation. I don't get off on having a gun in my hands, though I have mildly enjoyed target shooting, so I have no emotional involvement in my "right" to own one, and I'm HIGHLY suspicious of people who DO care so much. (I'll admit, however, that part of me would like to have a gun buried in an earthquake preparedness kit, though again, that is borne of paranoia and TV movies, I think.)

And perhaps that is my prejudice - I think I'm overall a super competent person, and I don't trust having a weapon of mass destruction in my home. Far too many of the gun nuts I've seen on TV yowling about their "right to bear arms" are slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who IN MY OPINION shouldn't have one either, because I don't believe they can handle them in a way that is consistent with the overall safety of the public. That's my prejudice.

Read more: http://weightlosssurgery.proboards.com/user/3/recent?page=2#ixzz2q1ulhGca

 

[DianaCox]

I seem to be mostly posting arguments proffered by my classmates, rather than my own original thoughts, but they are some really smart and well-read and persuasive folks.

Again, the argument is first in carets, and the response follows:


> Quick fixes? Eliminating hi capacity magazines seems logical, but the federal experiment (from '94 to '04) had the traditional unintended consequences, mostly just driving up the price for "pre-ban" hi capacity equipment and strengthening a social strata of folks eager to work around the ban... <

That will happen with any change to gun laws, but it's not a big issue.

To a surprising extent, awful events are crimes of opportunity.

The Cornell campus is on a hill overlooking the lake, with deep gorges cut by several creeks. There have always been suicides jumping off bridges into the gorges, but a few years ago there was a rash of them. In response, Cornell and the city put up ugly fences on most of the bridges.

The obvious response was that's pointless, if people want to jump, they'll jump. It's not hard to get around the fences, go to the end of the bridge, grab the last fence post, swing around to the outside of the fence, crab along to the middle of the bridge holding onto the fence, and then let go. But nobody has. Suicides are irrational and impulsive, and making it more complicated is in fact an effective deterrent. (They're replacing the fences with less ugly nets under the bridges; again, hypothetically a determined jumper could crawl out of the net and jump again, realistically they won't.)

We have learned that the kid who shot up the school in Connecticut lived in a house full of semi-automatic weapons, and I very much doubt he would have done what he did if they weren't so easily available.

So although I personally believe that there is no reason for most people to have any weapon in their house beyond ones they use for hunting (which, living in a part of the country so overrun with deer that you have to fence your rhododendrons, I heartily endorse), even incremental changes to make access to weapons more difficult are likely to have a positive effect.

~~~

I have another couple of modest proposals to add:

Congress should pass a FEDERAL LAW making the owner or possessor of ALL guns SERIOUSLY criminally liable as an accessory and per se civilly liable for damages for any crime committed with their gun UNLESS they can PROVE that it was locked up in a way that is considered adequate and was stolen anyway; AND require the owner carry insurance to cover at least a minimal amount of the damages (say $500K) that might be caused by use of his weapon, AND make any award of damages that results from use of the gun that is OVER $500K non-dismissible in bankruptcy. In addition to outlawing assault rifles, and other fully and semi-automatic guns. And the licenses. AND making ammunition much more tightly regulated and expensive.

Yes, then only those who can AFFORD the insurance and the gun lockers would be able to legally have guns. I have NO problem with that - having a CAR isn't a right, and neither is having a gun.