Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
This would work fine, except in terms of success.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

"Vote of No Confidence" gun control.

  (+9, -12)
(+9, -12)
  [vote for,

Gun control is hard. People have a right to bear arms but sometimes bad people get guns. Sometimes good people accidentally do things with guns, but that is a different matter.

There are some limitations on the right to bear arms in the US. For example if one is found guilty of a crime by a jury of one's peers, the right to own a gun is lost. There are background checks required during which one can turn up reasons that an individual should not acquire a weapon. But as the shooter in Virginia demonstrates, one can be widely perceived as dangerous and still have the right to buy a gun.

I propose that there be a mechnanism by which one's peers (meaning society as a whole) can remove an individual's right to bear arms absent a documented crime. This would limit the ability of people who are perceived to be unstable and dangerous to obtain a weapon - even if that person had not previously committed a crime. Neighbors in heated disputes could prevent each other from acquiring weapons. Estranged boyfriends looking to get armed would find that they no longer have the right to do so. Who registered their vote of no confidence? Maybe his ex. Maybe her friend. Maybe his own mom? Just as jurors are anonymous, so would this mechanism protect those who entered a "no confidence" vote.

The result: only those who have no doubters in the populace as a whole would own guns.

bungston, Apr 18 2007

votes of confidence gun licensing _22Votes_20of_20con...2_20gun_20licensing
shameless self promotion and imitation. [ye_river_xiv, Apr 20 2007]


       I thought it was the quiet ones you have to watch.   

       Also, naturally there would be people who vote against their enemies for personal protection or for revenge.
phundug, Apr 18 2007

       So anyone with access to a phone book could impose a gun ban on society. Bone, I think.
lurch, Apr 18 2007

       Also, people would buy guns preemptively, just in case they couldn't get one later. so more guns now by people who haven't learned to use them yet.
phundug, Apr 18 2007

       You're reinventing the wheel, um, gun license.   

       Every state that requires gun licenses also has mechanisms for revoking them. But I do think that allowing some form of community consensus to revoke gun licenses makes a lot of sense. We all know who the loonies are.
DrCurry, Apr 18 2007

       So the illegal gun dealer up the road is going to have this list of doubted individuals handy?
jhomrighaus, Apr 18 2007

       Ooh, I like it, as long as if I get a long enough list of respectable individuals to endorse me, I can carry both concealed and open.   

       I'm a very cool-headed and friendly person, (despite some impressions I've made here, probably), the sort of fellow you would trust to take responsibility for the safety of those around him. In fact, my profession leans in that direction. So I think I could line up the votes required.   

       "Only those who have no doubters" ? That would be like not allowing somebody to sell on Ebay once they get their first negative feedback.
normzone, Apr 18 2007

       We're all feeling a bit topical around here, aren't we?   

       I think perhaps it's simpler to simply reinforce the fact that states can revoke gun licenses. I agree with you that there should be a reporting mechanism so that you can say, "Hey, Stan's a little off his rocker, can you maybe revoke his license?" But the thing is that this system already exists.   

       A much better solution would be to have the state advertise this mechanism to the public, so that people can know how to report crazy old Stan so that he doesn't have as easy an avenue to vent his rage.   

shapu, Apr 19 2007

       sp: mechnanoism
theleopard, Apr 19 2007

       In California this already exists. That might qualify this idea for "baked". If you have a restraining order against you, or someone has recently filed a report concerning violent behaviour on your part with the police, no gun sale. I don't know how well the system works, though.   

       Probably like any other federal mechanism, erratically.   

       I like "mechnanoism".
normzone, Apr 19 2007

       //We all know who the loonies are.//   

       I beg to differ, and so do the voices.
pertinax, Apr 19 2007

       //I thought it was the quiet ones you have to watch.// I don't suggest revoking the right to be alone, but I do think it is one small example of the active seaking of agreement should be the only excepted practice.   

       Allow me to envoke some Half bakery lingo: Parents are widely known to exist. To the extent that society can function at all we can thank them and other members of the community. You are not however going to circumvent crazies without that level of envolvement. These large scale incidents of violence are not generally perpetrated by people who don't have the capibility to learn right and wrong. Teaching your neighbor right from wrong is dangerous and time consuming. It is dangerous not to do it though and more time wasting and distructive not to.   

       Someone you ideologically oppose is not going to take this lieing down. Who will bell the cat? I personally would be upset by your lack of dirrect dialog. I can't imagine it being any other way, especially for someone who has a gun to begin with. You would definitely want aninimity as you suggest. I think you are not just hiding with this tactic, but invoking a right you should not invoke. Anonimous injunctions are and can only be temporary because people do need the right to face their accuser.   

       Lets go ahead and start the conversation with,"Not only do I not want to waste my time to talk with you, but you are unsafe and incapable of reason, and I would gladly use any cheap tactic to get in your way and imply the worst of you to others."   

       I also dispise the phrase //vent his rage// There is no rage in most people when you convince them there is nothing to be outraged about or you change your outrageous behavior. It makes it sound like rage is a bladder and this guy has got to go somewhere somehow. Better on the linolium than on the carpet? What this is generally is a need to change people combinded with lack of responce. The idea of venting rage is probably best cured with a friendly neighborhood Socrates. I suggest you show him the bathroom to fill out the analogy.
MercuryNotMars, Apr 19 2007

       If murder mystery films and Cluedo have taught me nothing else, it's always the one you least suspect.   

       Would this require any justification? Would evidence be required? Would the person that is to lose their 'right' to bear arms get any chance to rebut the accusations?
hidden truths, Apr 19 2007

       //seaking of agreement//
Scene 1. Int, Neptune's House, underwater
Court page: I propose that we prevent the humans trepanning the whales.
Neptune: Yes. Good idea.

       I think the idea itself has a sort of domino-effect elegance. An emasculating wave of secret McCarthy-eqsue accusation spreads and interlinks across America to the point where every person has been "voted" against and no-one is allowed to bear arms. I seem to be unable to phrase this satisfactorily, but the maximum-implementation result of this scheme is a kinda sorta mirror/inverse to "An armed society is a polite society."
calum, Apr 19 2007

       Did it hurt when your knee jerked that hard? That's gotta be at least a sprain.
Noexit, Apr 19 2007

       [calum] figured it out.
bungston, Apr 19 2007

       I guess the basic principle of ensuring more mental stability in gun-licensed individuals is probably desirable, and may fall under the disputed "well organized militia" segment of Amendment #2.   

       For that, and a more or less well balanced knee jerk reaction after such a tragedy, you earn my bun.   

       However, I think the concept itself could use refinement. As mentioned, anonymous injunctions can only be temporary, and one sick individual can poison the well of another for life.   

       For this reason, I suspect that a vote of no confidence would likely have to have an effective time limit, and perhaps more than one would be needed to ensure that it was not just a revenge idea. People can change after all, so I wouldn't think any such vote should last more than... five years, tops. I also would think that at least two votes would be needed to stop the purchase.   

       On the "well regulated militia" argument, one might suggest that having the prospective licensee need a certain number of signatures from people who... Hmm, maybe that's a different idea. I guess I'll find out. [link]
ye_river_xiv, Apr 20 2007

       I'll bun it, because if this idea was implemented with a %clause (eg, you have your lisence revoked if more than 75% of people 'fishbone' your file, minimum 10 votes for it to take effect).   

       Then I guess it would only apply to people the general community considers dangerous.
Germanicus, Apr 20 2007

       The recent college campus shooting in Indiana shows that you can't even trust the "undoubted" with a gun; and even the shooter couldn't trust - himself!   

       I think that's why we, as miniature god replicas, have extremely limited 'God' powers.
Macdaddyx1, Feb 16 2008


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle