Too Stupid To Own A Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lizziedog1

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
942
Location
The Silver State
There are many threads here about the stupid things that people do with guns. If they only endangered themselves that would be one thing, but when they put innocent bystanders in danger, that is unacceptable.

Do you guys feel that there are people that are too stupid to own guns? If so, how could they be weeded out? A few idiots do make all of us look bad. They can also make us dead.

There are knuckleheads that operate automobiles. However, there is some testing involved in the process of getting a driver's license. At least, in theory anyway, a complete moron is not allowed to drive. It is not only for his safety, but for the public's safety too.

Many states have some sort of hunter safety requirement before a license is issued. From what I have heard, hunting accidents seem to have been reduced by this. But, what about a gun owner that doesn't hunt? He could be a "hamburger short of a happy meal" and allowed to own a device that can hurt or kill others. He can even take that firearm to some legal, public area and proceed to use it.

So, are there people, due to their stupidity, that should not be allowed to own or operate guns? Is there a solution to this?
 
Do you guys feel that there are people that are too stupid to own guns?
Click to expand...
yup, i certainly do......

If so, how could they be weeded out?
Click to expand...

unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately)....there is not intelligence requirement on the 2A

stupid people have rights too.
 
You have to take the bad with the good. If you regulate who can own firearms based on someones opinion on competency then ALL gun owners will be subject to denial.

I think you will find there are alot more safe gun owners out there than the "stupid" ones. I don't think there should be any regulations enforced that gives some "expert" the ability to say yey or ney.

Who would set this regulation? who would draw the line, so to speak, how would you know what side of the line YOU would be on? If some sort of test was made to sort out the competent gun owners, how do you know that some of the failing takers wouldn't be great gun owners that support all of the other genius owners 2 amendment rights? Are only smart people entitled to the right to defend themselves and their family?

Way to many downsides to regulating something of this nature IMHO.
 
Seriously? No.

You're pretty much having to pass beyond what you're describing as "stupidity" and get into mental handicap/retardation before someone could possibly be inherently dangerous because of their lack of mental capacity.

So...you want to deny someone their second amendment rights based on their handicap? That's a happy thought...

If a blind person can own a gun (and they can) then I think you're arguing a losing proposition.

Is this an actual PROBLEM that you can quantify? Are you seeing reports of stupid-related gun deaths in some endemic quantities? Is this something we really need to stamp out for the sake of the children(TM)? Or are you just contemplating "why not" legislation to solve non-existent social ills? I think we have enough of that kind of stuff coming out of Washington and our state capitols already.
 
re:M-Cameron

unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately)....there is not intelligence requirement on the 2A

stupid people have rights too.
Click to expand...

What about the rights of innocent bystanders? The first amendment gives stupid people the right to speak their mind. But the old yell fire in a theater agruement comes up. Yelling fire in a crowded theater will cause harm to others, therefore public safety overrides the first amendment.
 
What about the rights of innocent bystanders? The first amendment gives stupid people the right to speak their mind. But the old yell fire in a theater agruement comes up. Yelling fire in a crowded theater will cause harm to others, therefore public safety overrides the first amendment.
Click to expand...
what rights?....last i checked, theres no right that protects you from stupid people

this is a free country, freedom can be a dangerous thing........if you dont like it, you can

1) never leave your house....
2) find some place to live that 'protects' you from your freedom
 
This is one of those issues that walks the fine line of freedom vs further regulation. At first you have to think that yeah something like this makes sense because it has a good cause. However, once you start deciding where to draw the line and who gets to draw the line quickly nullifies the warm fuzzy feeling inside.

It's painfully clear that even people who've shown up on radar as not only a danger to others but even themselves yet the system with it's current standards failed to keep them unarmed. Ie. Cho & Loughner. With that said I can't see how any further regulations or requirements will change anything if the current system isn't even enforced.
 
I don't think you understand. If you regulate or deny people from owning guns based on something that is not against the law, all you are doing is feeding the "blackmarket". Just look at how many people (criminals) that are already not allowed to own guns legally but still do.

All more regulations do is add to the line of crap a responsible gun owner has to do to obtain a constitutionally protected item.
 
What about the rights of innocent bystanders?
Click to expand...
What about them? If someone actually harms another person, we have laws to deal with that.

Denying fundamental rights to a person because of what you think they might do is contrary to our entire system of government.

Telling someone they can't yell "fire" in a theater is a modest, temporary and situational abridgment of that right. That same person has the right to go elsewhere and exercise that right. Telling someone they can't own or possess a weapon, period, because we're afraid that they might endanger someone else in some unspecified way and hypothetical later time is a total infringement.

And, try to imagine how this would work, practically. Are we going to make up a test for stupidity? Is it going to in some way actually relate to guns and the (non-existent) problem you're trying to solve? Or are we just saying, as a blanket statement, "If your IQ is measured to be below 85, you are to stupid to own a firearm?" How does that actually relate to the problem? There are plenty of people who might not score well on one test or another but who understand and respect firearms very clearly.

What you're trying to do is arbitrary, irrelevant, and unfair on a cosmic scale.
 
But the old yell fire in a theater agruement comes up. Yelling fire in a crowded theater will cause harm to others, therefore public safety overrides the first amendment.
Click to expand...
No. What's the intent of yelling fire in a movie theater? There is speech that is not protected (like communicating a threat of violence).

As far as stupidity being a disqualifier for gun ownership, what would your standards be? Who would set the standards and who would enforce it ? (Government).

I had a great uncle that was mentally handicap. Great man with a huge heart! He was also a safe hunter. I’ve been around some very intelligent people that scared the crap out of me with their firearm handling.

If we’re going to start setting intelligence standards for something, let’s start with voter registration
 
bikerdoc said:
We need less regulation and more personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Should just stop right here. Sadly I think those days have passed, but it's absolutely the right answer.

If you DO choose to pursue the idea of "too stupid to own a gun" then the follow on question becomes, who decides?

You really want a committee appointed by politicians to rule on when there is a Second Amendment? Some years you will have one, some years you won't.

They will get some medical "professional" to testify that anyone who WANTS to own a gun must have an intelligence issue.

I think I'll have to vote against this plan.
 
Freedom comes with no guarantees; guaranteed safety / security comes with strings attached (well actually chains and reeducation camps).
 
So, why are we here, if the best we can do is try to impose further limits on RKBA? I was working under the impression that what THR was all about was SUPPORTING RKBA, not further limiting it. I was thinking that one of our main purposes here was to assist in the education of gun owners and prospective gun owners, to encourage mutually beneficial association in various organizations that support RKBA and help educate and train shooters and prospective shooters, and provide a gathering place where we could exchange ideas so we could do these things better.

Was I wrong?

lpl
 
So, why are we here, if the best we can do is try to impose further limits on RKBA? I was working under the impression that what THR was all about was SUPPORTING RKBA, not further limiting it. I was thinking that one of our main purposes here was to assist in the education of gun owners and prospective gun owners, to encourage mutually beneficial association in various organizations that support RKBA and help educate and train shooters and prospective shooters, and provide a gathering place where we could exchange ideas so we could do these things better.

Was I wrong?
Click to expand...

well yes and no....

working towards furthering RKBA....yes.


but we shouldnt not have a discussion because someone posts a question/ or has a belief that is contrary to the general norm.....so long as it remains civil and is not a troll.

even if you know your beliefs are 'right', its always good to question and think about your position on certain topics.....its important to keep an open mind.

and who knows, maybe this discussion will change someones mind for the better....

...i know in my case, i at one time had views that many would call "liberal" .....and mostly due in part to discussions like this, i was able to form my current beliefs....

intelligent discussion isnt harmful......its when people let things get out of hand that you need to watch out.
 
Is it stupidity or lack of knowledge. I've seen some people act stupidly because they didn't weren't taught any better.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk
 
I've met more than a few people who seem too stupid to have kids but do...seems to me that is far more dangerous to the "general good" of society than an idiot with a gun.The problem is still the same: who decides who should have kids? what is the test?

In order to enjoy the freedom to do our own thing we have to let others do so as well,when we start making exceptions to that we end up with the mess that is political correctness and most of the state of California.
 
Last edited:
I know plenty but they have the same rights that I do. I hunt by myself, just don't feel comfortable with a lot of people. I know several that I think shouldn't carry but I nor anyone else should be able to make that judgement.
 
You have to get beyond the kneejerk "some people are too stupid to have guns" and think this through to its logical conclusion. Who do you want to decide who gets to own guns and who doesn't? Where can that lead? What further restrictions can easily be implemented as a result?

If you want to live in a "safer" yet more restrictive place, move to Europe. Leave my Constitution alone.
 
Although it is not a right, we do let stupid people drive. That is far more dangerous.
 
The cost of freedom is risk and responsiblity.

Freedom= Risk + Responsiblity. We only harm ourselves when we attempt to alter this equation. IMHO

However I disagree with this statement:

I think you will find there are alot more safe gun owners out there than the "stupid" ones.
Click to expand...

There is really no way to know this. I personally see unsafe gun handling almost everytime I go to a gun shop or public range. 99% of the time these unsafe actions do not result in any harm so they go unreported & too often un-noticed but that does not negate their occurance. Most gun owners in this country do not handle or shoot their guns often enough thankful for their bad habits to result in injury. IMHO

This does not mean I or anyone else should take away their right to bear arms but personally am not ready to declare the majority of gun owners as safe.... well maybe 51% LOL
 
Last edited:
Along the lines of the OP's thinking, dumb folks should not be allowed to walk, talk, ride bikes, drive cars, play golf, fish, jog.....

Where does it stop, and who decides who is "dumb" and loses their rights? Just remember, they might think you are dumb too. :)
 
I suppose there are people who should not drive, who could easily plow into a sidewalk-full of pedestrians due to their lack of knowledge and lack of experience. The same is true with a sharp kitchen knife or scissors!

If we are going to put a regulation on low-IQ and/or lack of experience, just where does that line get drawn? Some people you could not trust with a sharp pencil (thinking of certain persons behind bars).:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Even gun owners can be stupid
Replies
1
Views
584
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
N
  • Locked
I need Ideas
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
billybobjoe
B
stillquietvoice
  • Locked
Unbelievably stupid
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
5K
Trey Veston
Trey Veston
T
  • Locked
Too many unsafe NEW gun owners
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
4K
Hoppy590
H
S
  • Locked
Stop comparing RKBA to driving
Replies
14
Views
547
silicosys4
S
Back
Top