What if someone threw a gun party, and no one came?

[davjohns 1]

There are laws against bigamy???

That's just wrong.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

There are laws against bigamy???

That's just wrong.

I just said it included it's own punsihment



two wives!

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

The open container law has as much justification as laws against bigamy. There's no problem with a sober person cracking open a beer instead of a coke. Unfortunately, too many people want to crack open 6 beers and drive, and we're still seeing 20k deaths/year. Or more accurately, they're rationally drank the first beer, and then their judgement clouds and drinking more seems like a good idea too. Few DUI deaths are intentional

And this is the crux of my issue. The argument from the pro-gun crowd is that it makes no sense to ban guns since it takes away guns from law abiding citizens. The argument continues that law abiding citizens should not be penalized for what a nefarious person would do with a gun.

Open container laws go directly against the above stated principle. It bans an object from law abiding citizens because nefarious people might do something bad with that object.

It is hypocritical to use a principle in favour of one subject, but completely disregard that principle on another subject.

Quote

The other half of Dekker's comparison was to firing guns randomly at innocent people.

Actually it was Davinci who introduced that comparison. My argument was based on the principle outlined above. If your argument is that this principle needs to be abandoned after a a certain number of deaths is reached and therefor it is acceptable to use in open container laws, then we can obviously talk about that.

Quote

Last note - once again it needs to be pointed out that driving is not a right and there are no Constitutional (or rationale) reasons against enforcing safe practices, even if it means that people will have to drink Coke instead of Coors.

Right, but that isn't the topic of dicussion in my argument. The principle brought forward wasn't: it doesn't make sense to ban guns because it is against the second amendment. That is a stance and logic I could completely support. (Even though I don't agree that the historical justification for the Amendment still holds water).

[Dewhast 0]

Quote

Open container laws go directly against the above stated principle. It bans an object from law abiding citizens because nefarious people might do something bad with that object.

Open container laws are the banning of an improper use of an object/substance. There are many laws already banning the improper use of firearms which most people have no problem with. I don't think anyone is advocating the legalization of firing off a gun into a crowd of people (clearly an improper use of an object)

A more direct comparison with taking away guns (the object) would be the complete banning of beer because there are drunk drivers.

Your comparison doesn't make any sense.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

Open container laws are the banning of an improper use of an object/substance.

Not at all. In many if not most jurisdiction you are anot allowed to possess an open container in your vehicle. Even if you don't use the open container, by drinking from it. It is a clear banning of the possession of an object.

Equivalent to the banning of a gun on your own private property, or for instance the banning of a gun in a vehicle.

[Dewhast 0]

Careful with the use of the word equivalent. It is currently illegal for me to carry a loaded fire arm in my car. That sounds a lot like an open container law.

ETA: But I do think it is legal for my arms to be on fire

[havoc996 0]

Quote

Quote

The kind that blames an object for the act of a person.

So you are in favour of allowing open containers of alcohol in a car?

Are you in favour of allowing a person to drink their first beer of the day while they are driving?

Those are all restrictions on possession of an object to prevent the act of a person.

Are you in favour of changing those laws?

Those are examples of objects being restricted in specific locations. By the way even for a legal carry conceal permit holder there are places that the owner still cannot legally carry. So in fact your examples here are no different than the fact that a legal CC owner cannot carry in any sort of fed building. If you are 21 years of age you can buy a handgun or beer. If you want to carry the gun concealed you have to pay money and get fingerprinted and then wait for the permit after a background check (3 months average depending on the state). If you want to carry a beer concealed no problem. Even after you have that permit you will never legally be able to carry in certain locations (same thing for beer) so how is your argument valid in the least? There are already more laws for firearm users than there are for beer and yet the number of drinking and driving fatalities exceeds the amount of firearm deaths each year. Know your enemy and get educated before you preach the banning of something you clearly know little about other than regurgitating things you have read in the news or heard on the INTARDWEB. My guess is you have very little if any knowledge of firearms and are just passionate about this due to a total lack of situational awareness. One of the main reasons I am not afraid of losing my right to keep and bear arms is because more often than not when the anti gun groups get into a real discussion about banning firearms their total lack of knowledge almost always tarnishes their argument. You have spouted off the same things in a few different threads now and nothing new has come out of your mouth other than (Ban them because they are bad) I'm paraphrasing of course. Yet you haven't once even considered another users point of view. I'm not making you buy a gun so why are you trying to affect my ability to get one? If you're afraid of those with guns then get one and learn how to defend yourself with it. If nobody has them you're always going to be a victim to any person or group of people who are bigger, stronger or more violent. There are NO guns in prisons and yet they are extremely violent places where deaths are not uncommon due to home made weapon constructed with everyday items. If you don't see a place for guns in our society then you obviously have nothing to do with any sort of job protecting others. If you know of another tool to protect yourself from multiple attackers I am open to it. With gang violence and their prevalence in our society today that is a real risk.

oh and it's favor not "favour".

Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

[kelpdiver 2]

paragraphs! FFS!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Open container laws are the banning of an improper use of an object/substance.

Not at all. In many if not most jurisdiction you are anot allowed to possess an open container in your vehicle. Even if you don't use the open container, by drinking from it. It is a clear banning of the possession of an object.

If we're talking about an open beer, Dewhast correctly defines it as use, not possession. An open beer has a very short life - if you aren't drinking it, you're throwing it away.

OTOH, bottles of wine or liquor that have been partially consumed but then corked/capped are still considered open containers. I've driven home with such and had to debate merits of putting them in the footwells of the backseat, where they are best secured, or the back cabin where they're clearly out of arm's reach of the driver (me).

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

So in fact your examples here are no different than the fact that a legal CC owner cannot carry in any sort of fed building.

Uhm no. I see a car as private property and not comparable to federal property.

Quote

(Ban them because they are bad) I'm paraphrasing of course. Yet you haven't once even considered another users point of view. I'm not making you buy a gun so why are you trying to affect my ability to get one? If you're afraid of those with guns then get one and learn how to defend yourself with it.

I haven't said ban guns. Actually If you read subsequent posts you would have clearly seen that I fully support the argument that you have a right to arms based on the 2nd Amendment.

Lastly, where I live defending myself with a firearm would most likely get me in trouble. But I have been to the "local" range and enjoyed myself.

Sorry that burst your bubble, but life isn't as black and white as pro-gun and anti-gun.

[havoc996 0]

"Sorry that burst your bubble, but life isn't as black and white as pro-gun and anti-gun."

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

You didn't burst my bubble and the majority of my post was directed at the starter of this thread and not you. I apologize for my mistake.

Hey, thanks for clarifying! No apology needed.

Quote

On a separate note Your statement about defending yourself with a firearm most likely getting you in trouble is exactly why I speak out when it comes to people trying to take away my rights to own a firearm. Why on earth would someone ever get in trouble for defending themselves? Who decides what is excessive force or whether or not your life was in danger?

Our gun laws in Canada are just significantly different.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

So perhaps we should be a little more strict on the guns.

Gee-I've owned at least one gun since I was 13. I started driving at 15. Despite the two year lead time I've had quite a few vehicle accidents and zero gun accidents and never tried to intentionally harm another with either one.
I respect your right to be unarmed and you're just going to have to deal with the fact that as long as I'm alive and not locked up, I'll have a firearm.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[champu 1]

Quote

Uhm no. I see a car as private property and not comparable to federal property.

The road isn't private though.

For the lawyers out there, are you aware of any case law involving someone being drunk and driving a registered vehicle but on private property and getting in trouble for it?

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

The road isn't private though.

Right.

Though I doubt you would want to argue that since open containers in a vehicle on public roads are banned, so should firearms. Since that would only hamper law abiding citizens wanting to be armed while in their car.

You still end up on opposite sides of the same principle.

[wolfriverjoe 1,353]

Quote

Quote

Uhm no. I see a car as private property and not comparable to federal property.

The road isn't private though.

For the lawyers out there, are you aware of any case law involving someone being drunk and driving a registered vehicle but on private property and getting in trouble for it?

Not a lawyer, and no cases to cite, but a number of years back, someone at my old DZ had driven a car out onto the runway to provide lights for the plane. A county cop saw the car on the runway and drove out to check. The driver had been drinking, and was arrested for OWI. After a few court dates (and a lot of cash), the case was dismissed because it happened on private property (the airport is a private airport).

My understanding is that on private property held open for public use (like a parking lot at the mall) they can cite you, but not on private property that isn't open to the public.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Shotgun 1]

I'm not a lawyer, but here is a case from CA where the court decided that the DUI could apply to private property:

http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/70040

Probably only applies to CA though.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

The road isn't private though.

Right.

Though I doubt you would want to argue that since open containers in a vehicle on public roads are banned, so should firearms. Since that would only hamper law abiding citizens wanting to be armed while in their car.

You still end up on opposite

sides of the same principle.

I think I see the point you're trying to make but, as others have pointed out, your use of the open containers to firearms comparison seems to be broken at this point. Driving with an open container is quite arguably a use of alcohol. In some places, the "but the driver isn't drunk, so who cares" argument wins and there's no open container law in those places. Point being, state and local governments place restrictions on certain uses of certain things while you're in public, but they don't directly go after the things themselves. I don't have a problem with that conceptually, and I don't think it is a problem to argue the merits of applications of that concept independently.

There remains the use vs. possession argument, but that's a semantic tar pit, and I think the more important distinction is "certain uses / possessing in certain places" vs. "any usage or possession."