Responsibility: Compare and Contrast

Guess there's no snowbike lobby yet (4.00 / 1)

to grease the skids, so to speak....

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." Albert Einstein

---

by: susaninrindge @ Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:42:45 AM CST

But remember, guns don't kill people... (4.00 / 2)

snow bikes kill people.

Or something like that.

---

by: Mike Emm @ Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:48:05 AM CST

I don't think it's comparable. (4.00 / 2)

Presumably, the snow bike regulations are imposed by the owner/renter of the equipment, who has to impose standards to be able to afford the liability insurance in case the users are injured.  Very likely, the rental process also involves a sort of informed consent which relieves the owner of liability.
There's a difference between owning property and renting, even renting a car.  Ownership of property has always come with more rights than the natural person enjoys, otherwise some natural persons could not have been deprived of their personal natural rights on the grounds that they were owned by someone else (as children still are).
As Justice Kennedy explains it, permits that are issued by governments are not a "matter of grace."  The activity (in this case owning a gun) is presumably good and non-injurious per se.  So, the requirement for a permit has to be largely pro forma (to create a record in case the gun is stolen?) and, when the forms are filled out, has to be issued.  I suppose the reason people who conceal guns can be required to have more stringent license requirements rests on the assumption that a hidden gun is inherently more likely to cause injury than one that's carried in the open.
If you want to regulate guns like vehicles, you're going to have to demonstrate first that they are inherently dangerous in normal use -- i.e. as is a car rolling down the street.  Guns carried in someone's pocket aren't inherently dangerous.  I don't know how you get around that.

Trying to regulate human behavior by limiting their tools just doesn't work real well.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 11:13:32 AM CST

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

but limiting the ownership and carrying of firearms seems to be a common thread in most civilized societies.  There must be a reason for that.  It might be that these societies learned from watching others that when there are lots of guns around, there are lots of killings and other injuries that cause a great deal of pain and suffering, and expense.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 17:37:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Which suggests that, (0.00 / 0)

just maybe, the U.S. is still a long way from being civilized.  After all, civilization is derived from lots of people living in close proximity to each other and respecting each other's privacy.  That's not yet an American ideal.  There still seems to be much interest in atomizing the population, perhaps because that makes them easier to control.
The question is why are Americans so insecure that they fear some enemy hiding behind every bush?

---

by: hannah @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:46:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please cite the RSA creating these 'licenses' (0.00 / 0)

I searched the RSAs and I can't find one.

I suspect the 'license' is entirely local to Pats Peak, as is their 'training'.  In other words, it's a license because Pats Peak calls it that?
(I might be wrong, but searches for ski, snowbike and so on all failed...)

This is really the winter equivalent to going scuba diving: you should learn how to do it and get 'certified', but that's not a law, that's just good sense.  Nothing stops you from buying your own scuba gear and just having at it... (please don't!)

But if you want to learn the right way to scuba, there are safety courses and instructors.

And about half a page of 'safety rules' in statute, mostly to avoid boating injuries, but nothing about licensing of scuba otherwise.
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rs...

And guess what, there are private gun safety courses and private gun safety instructors too.

I'll bet I could buy a snowbike for cash, take no lessons, pay no license, and use it anyplace in NH... but the smart move would still be learn to use it safely, just like scuba, and just like firearms - safety first, it's a tool.

Anyone telling you that firearm ownership should be done irresponsibly (untrained for example) isn't being responsible.  That says nothing about their guns, only about what sort of person they are, gun or not.

---

by: SethCohn @ Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 20:49:57 PM CST

your CONCERN (0.00 / 0)

is admirable, Seth, despite your rather lame  attempt at removing focus from the fact that any idiot can buy a gun in the state of NH, without knowing doodley squat about how to use it. In fact, any idiot can get a license to carry a concealed weapon without knowing how to use the safety, or load the gun.

You support this. No matter what you bleat about 'anyone telling you firearm ownership should be done irresponsibly isn't being responsible' - the bottom line is that you support this.


sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 09:59:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Any idiot..." (0.00 / 0)

Any person in NH can do all manner of things, some of them dangerous to themselves, or even to others, without asking permission or proving they know what they are doing, and even if they know what they are doing, could still be hurt or hurt others.

Having a driver's license shows that you have proven to state employees that you know how to drive, but it doesn't stop you from having accidents that harm you or someone else.  Licensing doesn't stop anything bad.  99% (or some similarly high percentage) of all car accidents involve licensed drivers.

Skiers die, too, shall we require everyone on skis to have a license?  If Pats Peak decided to 'license' these bikes by requiring a class before they choose to rent one, they did so themselves, because they want safer educated users on their slopes.  But they did it privately themselves, and there is no need for the force of law to be involved.  A person buying a snowbike because they want to ride one can use anyplace in NH "license-free", except for Pats Peak now.

We have a fundamental difference in how we view people: you see idiots who can't be trusted and I see people who can and should be allowed make their own personal decisions.

---

by: SethCohn @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:41:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

it's true (0.00 / 0)

that we have fundamental differences, Seth. In fact, you can carve that in stone.

One of them is pretty simple. I'm not a bamboozler. You're throwing a lot of straw into the soup hoping to distract.

Skis aren't a weapon. That's not their intended purpose. Cars aren't weapons, either.

Guns are. A gun is a machine for the purpose of killing. You believe that anyone should be able to buy guns, and carry them concealed without ever demonstrating any proficiency whatsoever, in their use. That's where we differ, pal. I'm not opposed to guns. When I started getting death threats from  far right lunatics in 2001, I learned how to shoot. I spent hours learning how to be a responsible gun owner.

That's the big difference. Your party loves to call itself "the party of personal responsibility" but Republicans never take any. I believe if people are going to own killing machines, they should have to demonstrate basic  proficiency in their use.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:52:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So let me see if I understand... (0.00 / 0)

You can't have one, unless you are good at using one, and if you don't have one, you can't practice at learning how to use one better.

See the catch-22 your approach causes?  It's well intentioned but ill-conceived.

So as a new gun owner, did you get your training first, before you bought a gun, or many in NH, did you realize you wanted to protect yourself, got some advice, got yourself a gun, and then got trained in how to shoot correctly and be responsible with it?  And yes, training first is a great idea and recommended, so you know what you want before you buy, especially if you don't have friends to try theirs or recommend one.  But nobody insisted you learn all of that and prove so to a government bureaucrat before you owned one.

Wanting to see people take responsibility doesn't mean that I need to pass a law to demand it.
Common sense can be a good idea without needing to be the law.

Oh, and BTW, at risk to my personal credibility (aka teasing among my colleagues): I don't own a gun.  I don't carry one.  Even in the State House.  I'm one of those folks who can be extremely pro gun, without owning a single one, because I believe in the principles at stake.

So let's review: non-gun owner who supports the unlimited right to self-defense including easy gun ownership VS gun owner who wants to insist that she's good/smart/safe enough to own a gun but not everyone is and believe we need laws to stop other people besides her from owning them.

---

by: SethCohn @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 13:51:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

why stop there (0.00 / 0)

Seth? Why should anyone have to get a driver's license?  Why should we have to register cars? Why  bother with artificial age limits - shouldn't anyone that wants a gun, car, or a drink be able to get one?

Not an especially clever summary, either. You'd give anyone a gun, in the name of "rights." I think anyone who owns a gun should have to demonstrate that they know how to use it - and should have to register/license it. I was willing to do that - because I'm responsible. I also believe in background checks.

Furthermore, I think that allowing only women to have guns would solve an awful lot of problems. As always, your CONCERN is touching.


sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 14:07:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting ideas... (0.00 / 0)

I know folks who would agree with all of your questions... And I think having those discussions would be interesting to say the least.

I wouldn't give anyone a gun, I'm saying if they choose to get one for self-defense, I'm ok with that.  Again (and again and again): blame the person not the tool, when the tool is misused.

As for "only women can have guns" idea, if you would like that submitted next year, I'm sure we can find someone to submit it as a constituent request for you.  I would vote against it, because of Article 2, as a clear breach of the equal protection of rights based on the obvious gender discrimination. (grin)

---

by: SethCohn @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 17:04:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, sure it's unconstitutional discrimination, but -- (0.00 / 0)

-- constitutionality doesn't exactly seem to be a bar the Leg feels obliged to clear of late.

Setting that aside, and setting aside the impossibility of getting it through a now overwhelmingly male Legislature, I think you have to admit that it would rectify a number of social imbalances, or at the least realign them in eye-opening ways, with a net social benefit.

Best of all, it would profoundly rejigger the worldviews of a lot of people whose worldviews need to be profoundly rejiggered.

And it'd be good for unionized American jobs, too, as Corvette sales would soar from all those men suddenly deprived of their first avenue for compensation.

---

by: Tim C. @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 22:20:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]