[geeks] CCW for Ohio!

[Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Mike Hebel wrote:

> > No what I meant is that in order for a person to own a gun, he or she
> > needs to demostrate some sort of ability to operate a gun, understand
> > the responsabilities involved
> > in owning a fire weapon, and make sure he or she is mentally fit.
>
> The problem here becomes who decides what the criteria are.  If from
> the heat of this discussion if I yell "I FULLY INTEND TO KILL $blank"
> there are some who would find me unfit even were I to pass a full
> psychiatric inspection.

I assume ther could be some sort of standards that could be developed, I
understand that trying to port other system's to America and vice-versa
are not good. But for example a Swiss like model, or even the German
model. Whereas none of them are perfect, the sort of incidents of
gurvernamental intromission or denial of ownership for whatever arbitrary
reasons, which I sense is the main fear among some of the members in this
thread, has not materialized.

> > The process should be made so that it is neutral with respect of the
> > will of
> > the pro-gun and anti-gun people.
>
> Not possible in my opinion.  The two are far too divergent to be
> brought together in this manner.

I understand, and it may not be possible. But the radicalization in the
positions of both parties would in the end bring nothing good out of it.

> About the only method that would
> closest to acceptable by both parties is DNA sensitive "smart weapons".
> Even then those do not prevent a gun from being used they only bring
> almost total responsibility to the shooter.

I do not think there is a way of preventing the use of a gun. But enabling
common sense to prevail, albeit may not erradicate any of the side-effects
of private gun ownership. My position is stated under the premise that I
chose not to own a gun, i am not forcing other people to now own a gun
-because of the choice I made- but the ability that I can trust whoever
decided to legally own a gun (I know I can not expect that from illegal
gun ownership).

> Again - who decides?  A test?  Who makes up the tests?  The government?

To this sort of approach to every question I do not have an answer. If you
can not trust your own government, then you must made sure the government
is made accountable. I know it is a pipe dream, but it is also the
responsability as a citizen.

>   Again, you are assuming that the government is composed of fair and
> sane people.  A quick glance at the contents of several of the laws and
> bills being passed and presented will tell you that is not the case.
> The anti-gun lobby?  No one would ever be able to pass the test!  A
> panel made up of both pro and anti gun people?  No test would ever be
> approved!
>
> Please for the sake of the clarity of this argument specify who would
> make up these requirements in a fair and impartial manner.  I
> personally can't think of anyone - myself included - along with the
> members of this list.

Well, as far as I understand is that since I am proposing a human idea,
and since humans are inherently "non perfect" that idea is atomatically
wrong or not viable.

Whatever I propose will have flaws, and as such i just happen to be of the
opinion that it is better to have a flawed system, that not system at all.

So these are three items I would like to have a guarantee that every legal
gun owner has passed:

1. Markmanship, and safety training pertaining to whatever weapon they
want to own and operate. Training is training, and as such it is
impartial, so it is the testing of such knowledge (of course there can be
crooked instructors, testers... I can not do anything about that). A gun
is a relatively complex system, just by owning it does not make you a
"user", in fact an inexperienced user may get more harm from owning a gun.
This could be part of the educational process, i.e.high-school, mandatory
service or whatnot.

2. Some sort of psychological or psychiatric test, at the very least some
sort of possible personality dissorders should either be tracked or diagnosed.
There is always the question of privacy, to which I do not have a clear
answer.

The way I see it, once you own a gun and have demostrated the ability to
own and operate it, the government should not be able to take it away, as
your ownership is explicitly protected in the constitution.

Of course my position comes from personal gun experience, and the fact
that I would not want my kids, if I ever have them, to live or have to
experience guns. Again it is a personal choice, and I respect that other
people want to have a gun, but I need to have some sort of reasurane or
mutual trust. In the sense, I do not want to take your gun away, but I
wanna make sure you (and this is a generic you, in case people are gonna
find this insulting and what not) are not a complete moron that may
endanger my family, or my persona.

I try to keep this as civil as possible, and that is my position. I am
sure most of you disagree with it, but I just wanna make damn sure that
this is not taken as an insult.

Cheers.