🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1noaq4INNqb3@sol.tis.com>, mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
|> >Trying to 
|> >divine the "evilness" of a firearm is difficult at best; some say that any gun
|> >thats black is evil; some contend that small is evil; others yet contend that
|> >high capacity (or the potential) is evil; its a subjective, elastic line thats
|> >doomed to failure and abuse.  
|> 
|> 	Yep, it sure is.
|> 
|> 	The problem is maintaining a just system while using subjective
|> experience meaningfully. There *are* some correlations in human behavior
|> but they are never absolute. You want to protect people, and still give
|> them liberty - two things that are directly in opposition.
|> 
|> 	For example, if I go to a liquor store and buy a bottle of
|> vintage sandeman port for $65/bottle, the guy at the counter, and
|> most other folks, are not going to expect me to sneak into the alley
|> and chug half of it. Why? It's an expensive vintage that is not
|> usually *used* to just get hammered. On the other hand, if I come in
|> and buy 2 bottles of mad-dog 20/20, you probably have a reasonable
|> basis to assume I am not taking it to serve my friends with dinner.
|> I *might* be doing either, but it's contrary to the common experience.
|> 
|> 	That's where the idea of good/bad guns comes from. Not many
|> serious hunters hunt with a Tec-9. Not many drug dealers carry
|> Sako hunting rifles with Unertl optics. Often, stereotypes are based
|> on reality to some degree, with the usual standard deviations
|> applying. Whether it's accurate, OR NOT, these kinds of statistics
|> affect our lives every day. I live in the city. My car insurance
|> is *MUCH* higher, based on actuarial statistics. That means that I
|> am paying more because the past has indicated that there is a higher
|> correlation between my living in the city and having expensive
|> auto wrecks. Makes no sense, but those are the statistics.

Note that you can buy 20/20 and drink it; its not a crime.  It is, however,
a crime to get drunk, reguardless of method, and drive a motor vehicle.  The act
of driving drunk is regulated, not the act of buying alcoholic beverages with
"no purpose but to get drunk".

I'd rather try and create an objective standard that can't be exploited; heres
an attempt at that.

I believe that rifles and shotguns (lets say > 18" barrel, maybe
even a overall length rule) are not the weapons of choice for criminals.  I
justify this because they are not easy to conceal [if you can conceal a rifle
or shotgun, you probably don't need it!].  Don't regulate them further.

Regulate the short rifles [i.e. Tec-9, which fails the OAL test] as handguns.

Perform a point of sale check on handgun purchasers to ensure legality of the
transaction.  The check must have balances, so that a denial can be righted
without resorting to lawsuits (a right to appeal - even criminals have that!).
It must penalize authorities who abuse the systems.

In return, I want to ensure that any citizen who passes the background check
[not ajudicated mentally incompetent, not a criminal] can get a handgun legally.
Now theres no reason why anyone should own a handgun illegally.  Throw the damm
book at anyone who has one illegally.

What am i risking?

 - i have to trust that the goverment will not be able to make the OAL rules
   absurd, or change the rules to screw the law abiding.

 - i have to trust that the goverment will not renege on it's promise to make
   handgun licenses available; in other words, they guarentee that every legit
   citizen will have a minimum level of rights everywhere, just like civil
   rights.  States are free to offer more freedom, but they can't have less.

What does it mean?

 - there would be a clear standard to be measured by.  It would be abundantly
   clear, for example, that a semi automatic rifle longer than the OAL rule 
   would be legal.  

 - Anyone who could own a handgun could own a Tec-9, if they so desired.  Frankly,
   i'd take the handgun!

 - it avoids the crazed "no sporting purpose" debate.  A rifle is a rifle is a 
   rifle, doesn't matter if its being shot at paper, game, or tin cans as long 
   as its being used lawfully.
 
Could it happen?  I don't know.  I've seen enough goverment regulations be 
abused (look at the Sullivan laws in NY state; some counties abuse it, some
don't.  I live in one that doesn't, but if i lived in Ulster county, its a 
different story); i'm deeply suspicious not by nature, but by experience.

What do you think?
-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..