Written essay in order to get your pistol permit?
- Thread starter gunnerk19
- Start date
kilimanjaro
New member
While you are at your drawing board, consider that all the actuarial tables, statistical cross referencing, database linkage, and well-meaning insurance policies you are so certain are the answer to your self-annointed cries for solutions mean absolutely nothing when the object of your intellectual fantasy decides not to buy insurance.
People have rights. They are not objects of experiment or manipulation.
When Personnel became a Human Resource, that was a clue to how some perceive the sovereignty of their neighbors.
So go ahead, buy an island and build your Utopia. Don't be surprised when the criminals continue to be criminals and the John Does continue to be a non issue.
By the way, is that NonFly List you are crowing about above the same arbitrary and capricious list containing thousands of innocent persons, many of them added by venal politicians or functionaries? That's exactly the reason we have the Bill of Rights. People like you, given power and authority, are dangerous.
People have rights. They are not objects of experiment or manipulation.
When Personnel became a Human Resource, that was a clue to how some perceive the sovereignty of their neighbors.
So go ahead, buy an island and build your Utopia. Don't be surprised when the criminals continue to be criminals and the John Does continue to be a non issue.
By the way, is that NonFly List you are crowing about above the same arbitrary and capricious list containing thousands of innocent persons, many of them added by venal politicians or functionaries? That's exactly the reason we have the Bill of Rights. People like you, given power and authority, are dangerous.
Last edited:
Ok.. well.. first things first.
CarGuyChris has single handedly invalidated my proposal with a well thought out and uncontestable fact in that it would discriminate against the poor. See his post for specifics.
It was something I had not considered and I applaud his thoughtfulness.
Until I come up with something else (if ever), I must concede my idea as flawed in a in such a significant way as to invalidate it.
That said, I'd still like to make the following response(s) to your comments but will not beat a dead horse and waste time afterwards so you can have the last word if you wish.
But insurance companies do set your insurance premiums based on other criteria you mentioned. Credit worthiness, zip code, education as well as others. I can't attest to the effectiveness or weight that is applied to each, but they're there.
One thing is for sure.. I think we can all agree that an essay isn't going to help anything.
CarGuyChris has single handedly invalidated my proposal with a well thought out and uncontestable fact in that it would discriminate against the poor. See his post for specifics.
It was something I had not considered and I applaud his thoughtfulness.
Until I come up with something else (if ever), I must concede my idea as flawed in a in such a significant way as to invalidate it.
That said, I'd still like to make the following response(s) to your comments but will not beat a dead horse and waste time afterwards so you can have the last word if you wish.
Bigotry is not tolerating different opinions. I do not see that in a system that judges others on their own behavior.
Not on any one thing alone but as a larger picture of a pattern of behavior.. And certainly NEVER EVER include any data on the basic and well known discriminatory factors such as gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.
But insurance companies do set your insurance premiums based on other criteria you mentioned. Credit worthiness, zip code, education as well as others. I can't attest to the effectiveness or weight that is applied to each, but they're there.
We have a difference there. While I have no issue with John owning a weapon, I don't want someone who demonstrates such poor judgement behind me in a theater with a loaded gun. We differ on that, maybe its because I don't frame John's limited right to carry a loaded weapon in public as a choice between him and my liberty being threatened. I should add that even if I did, I would consider John the bigger and more immediate threat to my family anyhow.
One thing is for sure.. I think we can all agree that an essay isn't going to help anything.
I would be embarrassed if I had to resort to an ad hominem attack like this. But I'm me and you're you so it is what it is.
In the future, please consider limiting your attack(s) to the ideas and concepts being presented and not the person presenting them. Its unproductive and unethical.
I own about a dozen guns and am about to have my wife carry one herself. Do you really think I'm some power hungry anti-gun liberal trying to covertly change the gun laws to limit your freedoms? Seriously?
Armalite AR10 (.308cal) w/Springfield Armory Scope and Bipod
Remington 870 Slug gun w/Nikon Slughunter
Remington 1100
Ruger 10/22
Beretta 92 in stainless w/multiple 30 round extended clips
M&P Shield 9mm (New for the wife this month)
I have about 8 or 10 more guns but I'm too lazy to go get the model numbers as I inherited them instead of purchasing them myself.
I'd be happy to take a photo of any of them for you and would even put this thread in the background of the photo so you know the photo isn't faked.
Do you really think I'm trying to limit your freedoms or mine? Or did you just run out of intelligent arguments and resort to a personal attack?
It was an idea dude.. not even a good one.. but just an idea.. Why get so upset?
You may have the last word if you wish.
turkeestalker
New member
Bottom line, yes.
Bigotry is a lot of things, small and large, and it includes prejudging others based on your opinions, not on the actual facts.
Nor do I. And we have a system that does that, in principle, with varying degrees of success. It is called the Criminal Justice System. But that's not directly what we are talking about here.
I understand you make a distinction between the right to keep, and the right to bear arms. So do some states, which is wrong (but that's another argument, something for a different thread, I think) which is the reasoning behind the existence of permits.
Now we come to what is, and is not justification for the individual to be granted a permit. This is stated in law. Also in law are the specific disqualifiers. Behavior(s) that do not meet those disqualifiers should not be used to disqualify an applicant.
However, what those disqualifiers are can vary widely, all depending on the applicable laws. This is where the writing of essays, character references etc., comes in. The governing laws say things like "demonstrated responsibility" or "good character" or other language with the same general intent.
Now take Mr Doe you have created. He's borderline fail in several areas of his life. But not to the point where he has been convicted of anything, or judged incompetent through due process. Although he isn't a prohibited person, he doesn't seem like a good risk. Right?
And he probably isn't a good risk, going by "the numbers". However, he might be the kind of guy who is poor or borderline fail at some things and competent, or even hyper-capable at something else. Perhaps safe and sane gun handling is one thing he is actually very, very good at. You simply don't know.
How do you find out? There seem to be two schools of thought. On is that you create a set of standards, some kind of test, which must be passed before approval is granted. Lets call this "may issue".
The other is that absent the legally stated disqualifiers, LIFE is the test. You accept the risk as part of the price of freedom. Call this "shall issue".
With John Doe, by looking at things that aren't legal disqualifiers I feel you are judging a book by its cover, or not heeding that little warning in all the ads that want you to buy stock "past behavior is no guarantee of future performance,..."
This is the essence of "may issue"
I also think it is a mistake to look at insurance companies and their rate practices and apply it to anything else. For one thing, they are in business to make a profit! I spent more than a little bit of my life working in the industrial safety field (mostly the "field" part), and I think I have a basically sound understanding of risk assessment and the graded approach, among other things.
Insurance companies have their own approach, and I assure you it is not 100% about safety, it's about calculated risk, both individual and in general terms for their company. Clearly this works well enough for them to not only stay in business, and profit enormously, but I don't think it is the way we should look at fundamental human rights.
MurBob said:
That is a considerable impediment in a discussion of limitations on a right set forth explicitly in the COTUS.
MurBob said:
You've repeated this idea several times, so may believe that it has merit.
Actuarial predictions are not individually accurate to a high degree; they only need to work in aggregate to predict frequency in a population rather than likelihood for a specific individual.
They do not approximate due process.
Lacking further clarification, I am left to assume the "irrelevant..." parts are those pesky sections after "We The People"......
Ducking that subject, claiming ignorance is a cowardly tactic. If you are unskilled, or just unwilling to engage in the duel, you should NOT slap us with your gauntlet!!!!!
Trust me on this, if you are incorrect or inaccurate about the Constitution, someone(s) here WILL point it out to you. Possibly someone with a real law degree (we do have a couple of those on the forum).
Murbob I don't give a rip about having the last word 
What I do passionately care about is being able to live my life enjoying the freedom that is afforded to me by our Constitution and our system of government. I understand there is sometime tension between individual freedom and the greater good.
Our founding fathers understood this too. What they came up with is as valid today as it was then. To quote that old book that is sometimes waved around and used as a compass, "There is nothing new under the sun." One can reject the reference, but human nature, technological advances notwithstanding, has not changed. The founding fathers developed a system of government that gave the people the final authority, recognizing that government by its nature will always overreach in its efforts to protect and control.
I think that discussion of how to reduce violence within our society and the governments role in this is important. For me enforcement of existing laws and a meaningful commitment to helping people help themselves is the answer, recognizing that the cost of ignoring poverty, mental health, and many other social issues is too high. It is far easier place Band-Aids, demand more laws and blame guns.
What I do passionately care about is being able to live my life enjoying the freedom that is afforded to me by our Constitution and our system of government. I understand there is sometime tension between individual freedom and the greater good.Our founding fathers understood this too. What they came up with is as valid today as it was then. To quote that old book that is sometimes waved around and used as a compass, "There is nothing new under the sun." One can reject the reference, but human nature, technological advances notwithstanding, has not changed. The founding fathers developed a system of government that gave the people the final authority, recognizing that government by its nature will always overreach in its efforts to protect and control.
I think that discussion of how to reduce violence within our society and the governments role in this is important. For me enforcement of existing laws and a meaningful commitment to helping people help themselves is the answer, recognizing that the cost of ignoring poverty, mental health, and many other social issues is too high. It is far easier place Band-Aids, demand more laws and blame guns.
Last edited:
I was all ready to debunk the so-called science of insurance actuarial tables, because no one seemed to understand that these tables start with an assumption of risk based upon mob behavior.
Only then do personal traits enter into the picture.
Positives do not decrease your rate, below the mob threshold. Negatives will increase your rates and that is a given. It is how those tables work. Real science would decrease your rates to below the mob level if there were positives. In the insurance world, you can not go below the mob rate for your area or state.
Thank you zukiphile, for bringing up the obvious fallacy of the "science" behind insurance rates.
Only then do personal traits enter into the picture.
Positives do not decrease your rate, below the mob threshold. Negatives will increase your rates and that is a given. It is how those tables work. Real science would decrease your rates to below the mob level if there were positives. In the insurance world, you can not go below the mob rate for your area or state.
Thank you zukiphile, for bringing up the obvious fallacy of the "science" behind insurance rates.
Certainly, though I do not want to overstate the critique.
Actuaries do real work and what they do does carry a predictive value. However, they will be the first to tell you about the limits of what they do.
If out of a group of 1 million people who have been screened for a half-dozen traits, the actuary concludes that 15,000 of them will contract lung cancer prior to age 65, his prediction may turn out to be a bit low or a bit high, but he is probably about right on the number. Insurance companies don't need individual predictions; they just need to be able to forecast the future cost of claims made by insureds.
That isn't anything like an individualized prediction that Al Norris will get lung cancer before the age of 65.
Consequently, using even sound actuarial methods to effectively convict individuals of a pre-crime involving a firearm is not a sound use of those methods.
On the other hand, if you are standing in front of the judge because you've been convicted of armed bank robbery, you have received due process and are the subject of an individualized determination about whether you should have several civil rights available to you in the future.
Last edited:
I'm not in favor of this law because of it's potential for abuse. Having said that, it strikes me that many victims of inner city education, can't read or write. Many immigrants can't write in English. I was taking a work related exam once, and a Hispanic girl next to me copied my paper to the extent of filling out my name instead of hers. I kid you not.
For better or worse this would eliminate a lot of people, many of which should be eliminated.
For better or worse this would eliminate a lot of people, many of which should be eliminated.