XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: murff@warlock.org   
      
   On Wed, 07 May 2014 14:42:27 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
      
   > Murff  wrote in news:lke062$42j$3@dont-email.me:   
   >   
   >> So   
   >> law abiding owners have no choice but to oppose those sanctions and get   
   >> tarred as gun nuts by the antis.   
   >   
   > You think that they would be better off accepting those misplaced   
   > sanctions?   
      
   No, but I'm not convinced that the current shouting match will ultimately   
   be successful. I think they'd be better off with laws that head off the   
   antis arguments.   
      
   >>  I don't know what shooters do regarding insurance   
   >> in the US. But it would be possible for example for a private   
   >> initiative to recognise classes and the like as part of an insurance   
   >> scheme.   
   >   
   > I am insured up to a million dollars in a shoot on my property as long   
   > as the shoot was a legal one.   
      
   I'm insured for up to GBP 10 million anywhere I have legal authority to   
   shoot, with each of two organisations: one primarily shooting and the   
   other primarily fieldsports based.   
      
   >   
   > That happens here: in my pheasant syndicate you have to be   
   >> insured, and you have to display safe gun handling. Being insured and   
   >> showing evidence of qualifications in game handling gets me authority   
   >> to shoot over other peoples' private land, including at night, at no   
   >> cost. The government has nothing to do with it.   
   >   
   > That, really, does not seem a safe practice. There has to be more to   
   > that than what you just stated.   
      
   It is based on the various checks and police interviews on which issuance   
   of the firearm and shotgun certificates are based. And demonstration of   
   continuing law-abiding-ness on my part.   
      
   But other than that, why is it not safe ?  I've demonstrated (and can   
   show references to the same) experience, legal and financial   
   responsibility and (obviously) shown that I don't act like a jerk.   
      
   >> ... which looks very much like advocacy of anti-gun measures of the New   
   >> York variety.   
   >   
   > Then you didn't look at Project Exile.   
      
   The *paragraph* looked that way.   
      
   > We are against licensing since it has been practiced too often as a   
   > method of banning ownership of firearms....or for initiating  a   
   > registration database which I, personally, and most gun owners,   
   > generally, are flat against.   
      
   An interesting - if impractical - experiment would be to see how accurate   
   a list could be constructed from incidental information leaked through   
   financial records, internet sites, mobile phone metadata, patterns of   
   fuel usage, what sort of vehicles people drive and so on.   
      
   Most of that experimental list probably already exists, in private hands   
   where no matter who you elect you've no control over its compilation,   
   maintenance and use. Including by those looking for homes that might be   
   worth burgling.   
      
   Of course you're right about licencing: and that goes back to the point   
   about flawed analyses and action. So you end up with "ban guns" or   
   "control guns" as the starting point. And absent sunset clauses you're   
   going to have to guarantee to win every time against the antis. Each   
   small win they have ratchets things more, a little at a time against   
   lawful gun owners.   
      
   >> I actually think that the majority of it is. But I also think that it   
   >> has a woeful record because its approach is based on flawed analysis   
   >> and badly-directed action.   
   >   
   > It wasn't badly directed in the eyes of those who wished to limit   
   > firearms in the hands of most citizens.   
      
   It got passed despite its being based on a debate that is far from   
   settled. That may be OK if you can rely on always having sunset clauses,   
   but can you rely on that all the time ?  Market behaviour such as the   
   recent panic buying suggests that people aren't convinced.   
      
   > All laws should have an automatic sunset.  They should show, in plain   
   > language, what problem that they addressing, how the law will address   
   > that problem, what measurement system is used to determine if the law   
   > works and it it doesn't, an automatice sunset and the law goes away.   
      
   Absolutely, I agree. There is an awful lot of very bad law that would be   
   usefully dealt with that way: even just by the requirement of making them   
   think about it a bit before enacting it.   
      
   > Hmmmm, how many crimes in the US do you think are committed with small   
   > sub machine guns?  You have been watching too much telly or too many   
   > movies.   
      
   I was thinking of London. There was a spate of street shootings a few   
   years ago after some gangs got hold of a consignment of MAC-10s.   
      
   --   
   Murff...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)