[geeks] CCW for Ohio!

[Mike Hebel]

On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 11:54 PM, Francisco Javier 
Mesa-Martinez wrote:

> 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.

Fair enough.  I'll accept that for the moment there could _possibly_ be 
a working model.

> 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).

My point is that the common sense necessary to be a gun owner can not 
be legislated.
It has to be taught from the ground up.  Only parents can do that 
properly.  But then we get into the discussion of how to get parents 
to...well...parent.  A government or even a civil plan of any sort will 
never solve that problem.

> 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.

True.  However the argument is that the process in question has to be a 
solution workable by even a corrupt government.  The answer - there 
isn't one.  It has to start young and it has to start with the parents. 
  Even then the problem still exists - it's just put in the hands of the 
people that have to solve it on a case-by-case basis.  As it should be.

> 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.

Not necessarily.  The perfect could possibly come from the imperfect.  
I have to believe this otherwise why have faith in an imperfect 
universe?

> 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.

One acronym - DMCA.  A flawed system where no system would be better.

> 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.

I would accept this.  This would be necessary as a school class if 
"Mikey ran the world."
Firewarms 101 with under-sized loads and rock salt to start. Followed 
by police type situational training and progressively harder and more 
realistic courses.  How many gunfights do you think we'd see if 
everybody were trained to handle the situations?
Shooting a live load into a dead body would give a good visual for 
people to understand the results of the bullet.

> 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.

I think observation of the above police situational training would weed 
out the worst of the problems.  It's hard even with repeated diagnosis 
to spot a psychotic if they don't want you to.  I don't think we need 
to let psychiatrists further into our lives.

> 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.

Fair enough.  What happens when/if the constitution is changed?  Do you 
expect people to idly hand over their weapons that they've "earned"?  
This isn't mean as a jab against you - it's just a question.  I 
personally wouldn't.

> 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.

So you would deny them experience that could potentially save their 
lives in certain situations?  I personally want my daughter to be able 
to pick up the gun that the criminal dropped while abducting her and 
shoot him.  I expect my child to survive.  High standards I know and 
not a popular opinion but I still hold my own views fast.  (Oy.  The 
hate mail I'm going to get now... ;-)

Obviously there's safety issues and age issues but those are to be 
determined by the parent.
I'm personally waiting for certain awareness levels in my child so I 
can teach her about many things - combat and self-defense among them.  
That probably won't be for quite some time yet.

> 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.

There's no way for you to do this.  My parents should have done this 
raising me.
Unless you''re going to "analyze" me then you'll never be sure.
Again, no way for you to make sure of this.  The best you can do is 
prepare yourself and your children for any situation.  Teach them to 
think on their feet.  You're intelligent.
Just from this conversation I know you at least have the ability to 
learn.  If you can learn you can teach.  (Yes, I know people will argue 
that but consider that you can also "learn how to teach" and you'll see 
what I mean.)

> 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.

Fair enough.  I see no insult in your last statement.  I withdraw the 
Troll comment and mark you highly opinionated like the rest of us. 
*grin*

Mike Hebel