Turkeestalker you state my point very well. My differing views are only relevant to this discussion in making the point that having them is my right as a free man. Whether I thump a Bible, hug a tree, speak properly, or am able to write well (if at all) does not change my constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
Written essay in order to get your pistol permit?
- Thread starter gunnerk19
- Start date
Some of this debate is clearly my fault for not being a great communicator.
I am not going to argue constitutional points because I am not well versed enough on some of the finer aspects of that type of debate.. I will freely admit that history is not one of my stronger areas of knowledge.
I am a firm believer that the more responsible adults we have who carry weapons, the safer everyone is for it.
If you all will allow, let me switch this to a form which I believe will make it easier for me to get my perspective across, then tell me if and how you disagree.
First, an example..
John Doe is a 42 year old man who has never held a job for more than three to six months.. He's been divorced three times, has three children with three different women, the police have visited his home on many occasions over the years due to loud arguments with his girlfriends and wives but he's never been arrested or jailed for any type of domestic violence, he's been arrested for drunk driving twice, has been involved in vehicle accidents on average of every two or three years.. John Doe has a gambling problem, he's been sued by every landlord he's ever rented from, he has had his driver's license suspended multiple times for failure to pay traffic tickets, he's been hospitalized multiple times for injuries sustained in various random activities, he never graduated high school and he has multiple collection agencies after him for bad loans and multiple financial judgements.
John Doe does not have any felony convictions and has never been declared mentally unstable.
Would you want John Doe sitting behind you and your family in a movie theater with a loaded weapon? Or walking around in a crowded shopping center? Would you want John Doe to be in the car you accidentally bump when pulling out of a parking spot?
There is not a single thing I listed in my example above that I believe should prevent anyone from owning or carrying a weapon.. in fact, pick any two or three things and I still don't see an issue. But it paints a scary picture to have someone like that in society with a loaded gun.
Now lets take this perspective for a ride up the road to another example.
Jane Doe (no relation to John Doe), is an 18 year old kid. Her best friend is getting married and they're throwing a small party.. She's driving to the party and gets pulled over for failure to use her turn signal.. The police officer finds a bag of pot in her car.. or maybe a bottle of Vicodin..(whatever, pick your favorite drug).. she ends up being convicted of felony narcotics possession.
>>>Fast Forward 20+ years>>.. Jane doe is married with two kids, after ten years in college she earned her doctorate degree in something, one of her kids just got accepted to Harvard, and she's on the board of directors for (pick your favorite charity).. Jane has not even had a traffic ticket since the day she got pulled over with the drugs.
Jane Doe can't buy a firearm because of that felony.
Are the current gun control laws really working?
My comments about stupid people an essays and whatever else, were directed as a way of steering our current thoughts on gun control in a different direction. Admittedly I probably could have done a better job of it.
Not many people know this, but the insurance rates you pay for your vehicle and your homeowners insurance are affected by your personal habits. Insurance companies have mathematical algorithms to determine a risk assessment and charge you accordingly. Most people understand that and the obvious parts where the more expensive your home or car, the higher your premiums will be. That's the obvious part. What's not so obvious is that your credit report is also part of that equation, as well as your credit card purchase history.. Yes folks, the credit card companies and the insurance companies are all in bed together. Big happy shared databases..
You go to a smoke shop and buy a bong with your credit card... the algorithm will apply a negative point.. Go and buy a roof rake to remove the snow from your roof and the algorithm applies a positive point. Not many people know this..
Insurance companies have taken human behavior and risk management to a purely scientific level and they have learned much.
So let me ask, would you rather have John Doe or Jane Doe in close proximity to your family with a loaded weapon?
I am of the opinion that we can learn something from the lessons learned by the insurance companies. By throwing out arbitrary and blind rules that do not account for reality and replacing them with something more practical that allows good people to defend themselves while rejecting people no one would want around their families with a loaded weapon. Heck, I wouldn't even want John Doe to be hunting with a gun let alone walking around with one.
Good people should be able to walk into any gun store or local clerks office, give them their training certificate, and get their carry permit. The process should take less than 10 minutes and should cost less than $20 for administration fees. (not including training costs).
John Doe shouldn't be able to even get in the door until he cleans up his act.
I am not going to argue constitutional points because I am not well versed enough on some of the finer aspects of that type of debate.. I will freely admit that history is not one of my stronger areas of knowledge.
I am a firm believer that the more responsible adults we have who carry weapons, the safer everyone is for it.
If you all will allow, let me switch this to a form which I believe will make it easier for me to get my perspective across, then tell me if and how you disagree.
First, an example..
John Doe is a 42 year old man who has never held a job for more than three to six months.. He's been divorced three times, has three children with three different women, the police have visited his home on many occasions over the years due to loud arguments with his girlfriends and wives but he's never been arrested or jailed for any type of domestic violence, he's been arrested for drunk driving twice, has been involved in vehicle accidents on average of every two or three years.. John Doe has a gambling problem, he's been sued by every landlord he's ever rented from, he has had his driver's license suspended multiple times for failure to pay traffic tickets, he's been hospitalized multiple times for injuries sustained in various random activities, he never graduated high school and he has multiple collection agencies after him for bad loans and multiple financial judgements.
John Doe does not have any felony convictions and has never been declared mentally unstable.
Would you want John Doe sitting behind you and your family in a movie theater with a loaded weapon? Or walking around in a crowded shopping center? Would you want John Doe to be in the car you accidentally bump when pulling out of a parking spot?
There is not a single thing I listed in my example above that I believe should prevent anyone from owning or carrying a weapon.. in fact, pick any two or three things and I still don't see an issue. But it paints a scary picture to have someone like that in society with a loaded gun.
Now lets take this perspective for a ride up the road to another example.
Jane Doe (no relation to John Doe), is an 18 year old kid. Her best friend is getting married and they're throwing a small party.. She's driving to the party and gets pulled over for failure to use her turn signal.. The police officer finds a bag of pot in her car.. or maybe a bottle of Vicodin..(whatever, pick your favorite drug).. she ends up being convicted of felony narcotics possession.
>>>Fast Forward 20+ years>>.. Jane doe is married with two kids, after ten years in college she earned her doctorate degree in something, one of her kids just got accepted to Harvard, and she's on the board of directors for (pick your favorite charity).. Jane has not even had a traffic ticket since the day she got pulled over with the drugs.
Jane Doe can't buy a firearm because of that felony.
Are the current gun control laws really working?
My comments about stupid people an essays and whatever else, were directed as a way of steering our current thoughts on gun control in a different direction. Admittedly I probably could have done a better job of it.
Not many people know this, but the insurance rates you pay for your vehicle and your homeowners insurance are affected by your personal habits. Insurance companies have mathematical algorithms to determine a risk assessment and charge you accordingly. Most people understand that and the obvious parts where the more expensive your home or car, the higher your premiums will be. That's the obvious part. What's not so obvious is that your credit report is also part of that equation, as well as your credit card purchase history.. Yes folks, the credit card companies and the insurance companies are all in bed together. Big happy shared databases..
You go to a smoke shop and buy a bong with your credit card... the algorithm will apply a negative point.. Go and buy a roof rake to remove the snow from your roof and the algorithm applies a positive point. Not many people know this..
Insurance companies have taken human behavior and risk management to a purely scientific level and they have learned much.
So let me ask, would you rather have John Doe or Jane Doe in close proximity to your family with a loaded weapon?
I am of the opinion that we can learn something from the lessons learned by the insurance companies. By throwing out arbitrary and blind rules that do not account for reality and replacing them with something more practical that allows good people to defend themselves while rejecting people no one would want around their families with a loaded weapon. Heck, I wouldn't even want John Doe to be hunting with a gun let alone walking around with one.
Good people should be able to walk into any gun store or local clerks office, give them their training certificate, and get their carry permit. The process should take less than 10 minutes and should cost less than $20 for administration fees. (not including training costs).
John Doe shouldn't be able to even get in the door until he cleans up his act.
Obvious answer... but not so obvious due process.
Who in your utopia will be the decider?
What are the units on the yardstick?
And how far up the yardstick must you measure?
Details.....
the Devil's in them`ya know.
postscript: Read this:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_arrest_conviction.cfm
You'll love it.
turkeestalker
New member
MurBob, I can do nothing for you son, I'm sorry. You apparently have no real understanding of the rights that the US Constitution affords you, and truly do scare the ever loving crap out of me, John Doe doesn't even come close.
Last edited:
Those are questions that would have to be answered by experts better qualified than I. And I'm not suggesting that due process should or would be avoided, I'm only suggesting that once an individual reaches a specific score or meets some criteria, the process should be streamlined, easy, and cheap, as well as federally mandated in such a way as to not be circumvented by local law or be encumbered by some wacky idea like like writing an essay or having your neighbor write a letter for you.
Here in Michigan, the law just changed for the better. You take your training class, you take your permit to the (county?) clerks office, and they give you your carry permit. There are no more gun boards to beg and plead in front of.. +1 for Michigan.
I think there are a great number of people who have felony convictions for crimes we would all consider irrelevant to owning or carrying a weapon in pubic. Think Martha Stewart for a well known and obvious example.
I also believe you can predict with astounding accuracy that certain behavioral patterns are precursors to someone who would be a danger to the public with a loaded weapon, even in the absence of any previous criminal history.
kilimanjaro
New member
John Doe may be a bit of a loser, but he is not violent, psychotic, or otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm and getting a carry permit. I may not personally be all that happy with him sitting behind my family at the theater, but he has the same rights I do and is free to exercise them.
John is not guilty before the fact, as you intimate. I will add, however, in some states a DUI conviction costs you your CCW permit. And, in many states, it is also a felony. I agree multiple offenses should mean federal prohibited person status, but the law doesn't do that just yet. So you don't get to do that, as the approving authority.
Jane Doe did make a mistake in her youth. Granted. OK, now what? Cry us a river. There is a legal process for her to follow to have her felony conviction expunged. It's going to cost a few bucks and take a year, but it happens every day in this country. Until she does that, I am quite happy with her not buying a firearm, the law is the law and she needs to follow it.
So do you. Your scenarios are exactly the reason why we have laws in this country that apply equally to every citizen. As distasteful as it may be to think of John Doe with a carry permit, he will only deprive one person of their civil rights if granting the permit was a mistake. I note you do not appear to support denial of his license to drive a car, a far deadlier weapon. You, however, as the arbiter of who gets permits, will clearly deprive hundreds or thousands of your fellow citizens of their civil rights, based on your subjective opinion and ability to conjure up scenarios calling for the need for intrusive examination and authority out of thin air.
Nothing personal, but the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect ourselves against people like yourself, should you ever get to wield governmental power and authority.
John is not guilty before the fact, as you intimate. I will add, however, in some states a DUI conviction costs you your CCW permit. And, in many states, it is also a felony. I agree multiple offenses should mean federal prohibited person status, but the law doesn't do that just yet. So you don't get to do that, as the approving authority.
Jane Doe did make a mistake in her youth. Granted. OK, now what? Cry us a river. There is a legal process for her to follow to have her felony conviction expunged. It's going to cost a few bucks and take a year, but it happens every day in this country. Until she does that, I am quite happy with her not buying a firearm, the law is the law and she needs to follow it.
So do you. Your scenarios are exactly the reason why we have laws in this country that apply equally to every citizen. As distasteful as it may be to think of John Doe with a carry permit, he will only deprive one person of their civil rights if granting the permit was a mistake. I note you do not appear to support denial of his license to drive a car, a far deadlier weapon. You, however, as the arbiter of who gets permits, will clearly deprive hundreds or thousands of your fellow citizens of their civil rights, based on your subjective opinion and ability to conjure up scenarios calling for the need for intrusive examination and authority out of thin air.
Nothing personal, but the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect ourselves against people like yourself, should you ever get to wield governmental power and authority.
turkeestalker
New member
Your proposed idea in my opinion has ZERO merit. I'm sorry, but you have a perspective that is so far from mine, and I'd venture to say from that of most responsible gun owners, that it is hard to even wrap my head around where you could be coming from with it. Your views are certainly NOT coming from the perspective of a supporter of the second amendment from where I stand.
You frighten me because you pose as great of a threat to my freedoms as a public official who would dare to proclaim that Australia is a model for gun control that the US should follow. We all know which specific two have publicly made that claim.
I'm sorry, but you truly DO scare the crap out of me, far more than any John Doe in our society. The John Doe out there at least I have a chance to handle successfully should the need ever arise, though I doubt it ever will. That is because I DO exercise my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and I DO legally carry concealed all day, every day. As I've stated before on this forum, if I am dressed, I am armed. Not because I am some paranoid bat-x-crazy fool, but because that really is the only way to insure that no one else ever has access to the firearm that I've chosen to and committed myself to carry for the protection of myself and family. I unfortunately can not protect myself or my family as readily from flawed ideologies, that far greater danger just isn't as obvious.
Last edited:
I would be interested in hearing what (in your opinion) "fundamental truths" are today irrelevant, ineffective or "downright counterproductive"
I can agree with that, sure.
I can agree with this, BUT the process I envisage is NOT the one you do.
"not working so well" is a value judgment, and without stating your parameters for judgment, I can not agree. What I can agree with is that the current system and its enforcement is a breeding ground for abuse.
I can agree that you are either prohibited by law, or your are not. And that is all there should be. I have an issue with the language of "allowed to carry a weapon", primarily because the underlying assumption is guilt, and you must prove your worthiness. And, personally, I refuse to gobble any random authority figure. I won't grovel, either!
if these are the disqualifiers stated in law, then they are the only points that matter. John Doe may be a deadbeat, who doesn't pay his bills, and may be a total loser by many standards, BUT if he does not meet the legal requirements to be prohibited, then his rights are the same as yours and mine.
You aren't comfortable with him carrying a gun, because to you he's an unsavory character, despite never being convicted or adjudicated of a disqualifying condition.
Here's the problem with your arguments, as I see it, you appear to be agreeing with both sides. You agree that writing an essay, or character references, etc. are burdensome and should not be done.
yet at the same time, you say we do need some tests, some proof of good character, etc. So, it appears that you are opposed to arbitrary conditions for approval, unless they are YOUR arbitrary conditions.
To me, this is either innocent miscommunication, or it is a degree of bigotry.
I invite your clarification of the matter.
turkeestalker
New member
My appologies
I'm sorry to gunnerk19 and everyone else who has posted in this thread, I never intended to hijack it or assist in carrying it off topic. I could not disagree more with the line of thinking that some essay needs to be written, (or any other ridiculous hoop jumped through), in order to judge whether or not an individual can enjoy a freedom, better still a right, that is already guaranteed him/her by the Constitution of the United States.
I will sit down and shut up now, but I can not be alone in questioning motivations.
I'm sorry to gunnerk19 and everyone else who has posted in this thread, I never intended to hijack it or assist in carrying it off topic. I could not disagree more with the line of thinking that some essay needs to be written, (or any other ridiculous hoop jumped through), in order to judge whether or not an individual can enjoy a freedom, better still a right, that is already guaranteed him/her by the Constitution of the United States.
I will sit down and shut up now, but I can not be alone in questioning motivations.
I believe that the right to own a firearm should not carry the same criteria as the right to carry one in public as a concealed weapon.
Simply owning a firearm does not require the same level of responsibility as carrying one in public.
That is certainly a valid and inarguable point. You can't penalize someone for something they haven't done yet. Interestingly, that's exactly what we do when we deny a mentally ill person. We are simply predicting that giving them a gun is probably going to turn out bad.
I didn't know that!! Thank you. I had no idea a felony could be removed in such a way.
HUH?? Did you type that wrong? Did I read it wrong? Or did you just say John is only going to kill one person if it was a mistake?
You might want to research some of my postings! LOL.. because I mentioned exactly that earlier. But that's really a different conversation of a different type and will probably be rendered irrelevant in the near future.
You are wrong on this one. There is nothing arbitrary about the way insurance companies use algorithms to make decisions and manage risk. It is absolutely not an arbitrary process and, in fact, is blind, equal, and scientifically proven.
You are mistaken on this point too. I never suggested the idea that any human would be part of the process.. in fact, I specifically stated that a mathematical formula based on proven insurance company research and experience would be used. That's part of the beauty of what I was proposing.. it removes the human element and places it squarely in the control of science. No bias, no political agenda, no personal agenda, and computers don't discriminate.
You make some good arguments that are difficult to argue with. Calling me the person who people need protections against is not one of them.
I believe (to a lesser extent) your right to own a gun, and much more importantly, to carry one in public should be based upon your own behavior. We already do that! I'm just proposing a better way to implement the criteria we use... a scientifically proven set of criteria that is so well developed it makes insurance companies rich because it is so accurate.
Please see my post just above.. Or better yet, I'll quote myself in order to clear this up.. Let me know if you still have an argument against it.. IE: you see a flaw in the idea.
Please note, you'll have to read between the lines as this was directed at another comment.. but you'll get the idea..
QUOTE
You are mistaken on this point too. I never suggested the idea that any human would be part of the process.. in fact, I specifically stated that a mathematical formula based on proven insurance company research and experience would be used. That's part of the beauty of what I was proposing.. it removes the human element and places it squarely in the control of science. No bias, no political agenda, no personal agenda, and computers don't discriminate.
You make some good arguments that are difficult to argue with. Calling me the person who people need protections against is not one of them.
I believe (to a lesser extent) your right to own a gun, and much more importantly, to carry one in public should be based upon your own behavior. We already do that! I'm just proposing a better way to implement the criteria we use... a scientifically proven set of criteria that is so well developed it makes insurance companies rich because it is so accurate.
Don't take this the wrong way but frankly, you've said nothing of meaning here other than you obviously disagree.. Tell me what you disagree with. What part and why? I'm all ears, if you see a flaw, point it out..
Telling me I'm wrong and that you're frightened by the idea and how you're going to protect yourself does not add anything.. Its not debatable argument, its posturing.
And on that note, please tell me how you're going to protect yourself, and your family, when John Doe sits down behind you in a movie theater and starts fumbling with his weapon?
You see, you could be the best marksman in the world, with the fastest draw, and have a level of personal responsibility that is second to none.. and it won't help you or your loved family one bit when John Doe sits down behind you in a movie theater. (metaphorically speaking).
The fact is, we have the technology to predict John Doe.. insurance companies have been using it on you and I for over a decade and it is accurate to standards that turn the differences of a few dollars into riches for the insurance industry.
carguychris
New member
No system created by humans can ever truly be without any bias or agenda, and furthermore, any system designed to prevent relatively rare events such as shootings would have to use very broad criteria that would disqualify a lot of people unfairly. However, this argument doesn't really quite summarize my feelings on this matter.MurBob said:
My next argument is that this system would intrinsically discriminate against the poor, since they often lack the resources to defend themselves against such things as petty criminal charges or creditor collection attempts, and they're often inadequately educated to avoid these circumstances in the first place. But this doesn't really summarize things either.
I'll put it simply. I find this idea to be an affront to the values that this country was founded upon. Rights should not be made conditional upon patterns of personal spending and behavior in a quixotic quest for safety. What next? Shall we take away these folks' right to vote? Perhaps make them wear uniforms and force them to shave their heads so they can be readily identified? I'll let your imagination take it from there.
In a broader philosophical sense, I believe that humanity must tread REALLY cautiously when considering the idea that governance and justice can be reduced to impersonal and supposedly perfect scientific algorithms that utilize the vast computer database we're assembling. Consider that we're rapidly approaching a technological nexus where most of man's guns really could be taken away, but not by "libruls" – rather by some version of Skynet or Klaatu.
Democracy and the criminal justice system may be imperfect and sometimes unfair, but I find them preferable to being reduced to the sum of my credit rating and my grocery store receipts.
carguychris
New member
I can't.MurBob said:
But then again, I could also be vaporized in a fireball of burning Jet-A when one of those Southwest Airlines 737s that constantly fly over my house crashes in my backyard while I sit at my computer writing this.
Perhaps we can mitigate this risk by restricting airline ticket purchases to those who are truly worthy of air travel, thus reducing the number of jets in the air, and the resultant risk to folks on the ground. I feel safer already.
But less free.
turkeestalker
New member
... and I said I would sit down and shut up, but you won't.
IF you would like to start a discussion about insurance companies infallible scientific criteria that makes them rich being used for wielding or abolishing our inalienable rights under our constitution, then please do so under it's own title in it's own thread.
I would wager that you'll not get the response to and praise for, your awesomely intuitive line of thinking that you seem to presume.
You're going to have to find another utopia if you wish to be able to protect yourself and your family from every danger out there. That society is a fallacy that simply does not exist, nor can it be created, but people keep trying. The means by which they attempt to do so is a part of what scares the crap out of me.
I am not posturing. From where I stand you seem hell bent on arguing, in this and most of your other posts. You simply have a tact for doing it that I would liken to that of the fictional character that was Ray Romano's mom. I honestly now believe what I suspected shortly after you arrived and mentioned FICO scores as some unit of measure, that is precisely the reason why you're on this forum, I'll not play your game.
There is an old sayin, or not so old... 'you can't fix stupid'. My own impression at this point is that you would deny yourself the very right that you claim to support based on the fact that....
IF you would like to start a discussion about insurance companies infallible scientific criteria that makes them rich being used for wielding or abolishing our inalienable rights under our constitution, then please do so under it's own title in it's own thread.
I would wager that you'll not get the response to and praise for, your awesomely intuitive line of thinking that you seem to presume.
You're going to have to find another utopia if you wish to be able to protect yourself and your family from every danger out there. That society is a fallacy that simply does not exist, nor can it be created, but people keep trying. The means by which they attempt to do so is a part of what scares the crap out of me.
I am not posturing. From where I stand you seem hell bent on arguing, in this and most of your other posts. You simply have a tact for doing it that I would liken to that of the fictional character that was Ray Romano's mom. I honestly now believe what I suspected shortly after you arrived and mentioned FICO scores as some unit of measure, that is precisely the reason why you're on this forum, I'll not play your game.
There is an old sayin, or not so old... 'you can't fix stupid'. My own impression at this point is that you would deny yourself the very right that you claim to support based on the fact that....
.... and it has absolutely nothing to do with literacy.
Last edited:
Murbob I agree with 44 Amp that your system of determining value, or risk if you prefer, is bigotry. I say it is disguised as reason. Is it reasonable to deny the basic right to defend oneself to a person based on their credit report, financial status, marital status, zip code, religion, race, education, gender or any other arbitrary measure? You make an argument that John's failures make him unqualified to carry a weapon. I will take my chances with John. He is smart enough to have stayed out of jail while struggling to live. John and I may come from the same place. He is far less a threat to me than self-righteous people who would protect me by taking my liberty.