Your view on gun laws...?

[c0da]

A post in Sunstone's thread about Gun Laws/Racism, in which somebody outlined their views on gun laws, pushed me to ask the question of all the forum members. Where do you stand on Gun Control?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

 

[Jon]

Since the Police can't seem to rid the criminals of their weapons, it's only my opinion but I am in favor of being able to own rifles. Not assualt weapons(no automatics)
Hand guns are a problem and should be restricted if possible.
There should be a mandatory 20 year jail sentance if you commit ANY crime with a firearm, reguardless if anyone is hurt or not.
Canada just went through a horrible gun registry (long rifle) and it proved it was usless.

 

[PureX]

Very simple. Any adult should be able to own and carry a firearm, as long as they have taken and passed all the same tests and training that a police officer must take and pass to carry weapons as a police officer. They should periodically be re-tested just as police officers are, and they would lose their certification automatically if convicted of any crime, of if they should become mentally unballanced.

However, I think we could loosen up these restrictions a little bit in the case of single shot long guns used for hunting.

Automatic weapons of any kind should be banned for anyone but the military.

 

[sparc872]

I agree with the two posts above. We would be wasting money trying to get rid of guns, much like we are wasting money trying to get rid of drugs. No matter how much we fight against them, they will always be there. And rather than being legal, arms trades would become an illegal business with corrupt people running it.

Rather than tossing bills at the money pit, we could just regulate it more and place tougher penalties on those found not using them right, including law officials.

 

[finalfrogo]

I agree with what everybody previously said. If only the police can carry guns, criminals would still attain guns and people who be at a huge disadvantage in the protection of their families. Though it would be great if humanity as a whole could just toss them all away. But that just won't happen.

 

[Sunstone]

A post in Sunstone's thread about Gun Laws/Racism, in which somebody outlined their views on gun laws, pushed me to ask the question of all the forum members. Where do you stand on Gun Control?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

I'm ambivalent about firearms. I grew up in a small rural town where there had not been a murder in 125 years, eveyone and their dog owned a gun or two, and no one used their firearms to commit crimes.

Even today, it's still a pretty quiet town although a pistol was used in the murder of a local drug dealer recently. Overall, I think that most rural people treat guns differently than most city folks. There's a cult of gun safety in that small town that I haven't much noticed among gun owners in the city I now live in. To call it a cult of gun safety is almost to underemphasize how much social pressure is put on people in that small town not to use guns to hurt each other. But you simply don't see that approach to guns in the city.

 

[michel]

Very strangely, I am the only voter (so far) with:-
"Anybody, over a certain age, should be allowed to carry a fire arm, even if just basic. ", but that would be on licence, subject to being able to be seen to conform to certain criteria.

This is a total and radical move from my previous stance (This forum is making me think!).

I used to be the typical British "No guns, not even for the police" type of person, but recent events and trends have made me have to rethink my stance on this.

The problem here that we face is something like a 70% increase in knife attacks. The police's reaction was to try and deal with the problem by having amnesties where people could anonymously hand over their knives at police stations.

Unfortunately that was a ridiculous excersise because those with the determined intention of using knives for regular attacks most certainly did not hand in their knives; the ones handed in were those from young kids who thought twice about the idea.

The sad reality of our modern times (speaks old grandad here) is that people will use knives and guns if they wish to do so. I wouldn't know where to start, but I am sure that if I decided to get a gun, I could have one within 24 hours.

Not to legalise them serves no real purpose. In these times of terrorism, muggings and street violence, somehow the idea of being allowed to carry a gun (a small pistol) for self defense is beginning to appeal to me.

A sad reflection.
</IMG>

 

[Purple Thyme]

I believe in the right to bear arms being the traditional American I can be but I do believe in licencing as I have met people I don't think have the mental capacity to bear arms (or offspring for that matter).

 

[niceguy]

Just the law enforcers should be able to carry firearms plus anyone with the correct license. This is basically how it works here except there are no "correct licence" avalible to allow people co carry weapons in public places. Licenses allow for the licence holder to carry their weapon when they do whatever they are licenced to do with their weapon. Hunters can carry their guns on their hunting grounds and the fireing range, sport shooters are pretty much restricted to the fireing range.

There are no licenses avalible for "self defence" here in Sweden, it would be rather pointless since guns here must be stored dissasembled, lacking a crucial part like the fireing pin AND locked into a special weapon safe. An improvised melee weapon are a so much better option then to spend five minutes reassemble your gun and load it before using it against an intruder.

 

[Rejected]

To me gun control is a pretty complicated issue. The founders of this country set up the second amendment to protect our right to keep and bare arms. This wasn't to protect our right to hunt, or for sport shooting. This was to assure that the people had the means to protect themselves and their loved ones, and in the event of the government decaying into a destructive burden on the people then the people would have the means to reclaim their rights.

Enter the 20th century and we now have automatic weapons and the like. There is no reason other than for military purposes for a private citizen to own and use these weapons. They were designed for one thing.

To take a human life.

And as reprehensible as that always is, sometimes it is necessary.

"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike" - Thomas Jefferson.

It is the government who should live in fear of the people, not the other way around.

I don’t like saying that we should require licensing to own firearms or that any sort of firearms should be banned, but at the same time I don't like the idea of just anyone running around with an automatic weapon. I don't own any guns, yet, so I’m not sure what the protocol for approving or rejecting applicants is. It just seems to me that the requirement of a license is an easy way for Uncle Sam to pick who gets the guns and who doesn't. That way they don't have to worry about open revolt when the people finally get sick of the bulls*it because they will have taken away any viable threat.

"Oh, you're a veteran? Have you ever been convicted of a felony? Do you live for your God and country? Here, have a bushmaster AR-15

And a Barrett."

"You protested the war in Iraq? You don't vote? You don't believe in God? here have a black powder rifle

and a recurve bow" http://images.google.com/images?q=t...com/images/thumb/a/ab/150px-Bow_and_arrow.JPG

Guess who wins that conflict.

 

[Comet]

I think that people who are educated in firearms should be allowed to own them. I've been around guns all my life. My dad started to teach me to shoot when I was 3. It is all in how it is approached and how responsible you are with your guns. Gun safety is something I'll teach my kids (if I ever get to have any!) and I will allow them to own firearms when I think they are mature enough to handle the responsibility they bring. I keep all my guns unloaded and locked up. I carry the only key to the lockboxes and gun locks. I lock up the bullets away from the guns as well. There is nothing wrong with owning firearms for hunting, protection, or just for fun. It is all a matter of the people who own the guns....

 

[Faint]

I'm all for gun control. It helps if you keep your wrist steady when aiming. Try to group your shots as tight as possible.

For the record I have a Kimber .45 (semi-auto handgun). I bought it thinking, "I may need to use one someday", and in my mind the scenario would either be (a) to protect myself or a girlfriend, or (f) in case civilization crumbles and society becomes a Mad Max movie, or (5) in case I become a wealthy rapper and I need to get caught concealing something that will generate publicity.

The "test" for me to get the weapon included answering thirty or so "common sense" questions, and a background check (for felonies if I remember correctly), as well as the waiting period. The test could be retaken until I got all the answers right (this was not necessary though, questions were like, "I enjoy robbing banks: true or false").

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe you should have to get a liscense, but that doesn't prevent people from getting guns without a liscense.

 

[PureX]

I think that people who are educated in firearms should be allowed to own them. I've been around guns all my life. My dad started to teach me to shoot when I was 3. It is all in how it is approached and how responsible you are with your guns. Gun safety is something I'll teach my kids (if I ever get to have any!) and I will allow them to own firearms when I think they are mature enough to handle the responsibility they bring. I keep all my guns unloaded and locked up. I carry the only key to the lock-boxes and gun locks. I lock up the bullets away from the guns as well. There is nothing wrong with owning firearms for hunting, protection, or just for fun. It is all a matter of the people who own the guns....

It's not just about handling the guns, themselves, it's about handling one's self.

I had a guy at work recently tell me a story about how one of his friends finally went out and bought a hand gun, and how this is good because now he's more sure of himself, or something like that. And as an example, he told me about how he and this friend got cut off by some guys in a cadillac and so they they raced up behind them to give them "the finger" and then the cadillac pulls over and the guys get out with a ball bat so this friend (the previously timid one) pulls out his pistol and the other guys run back to their car and drive off.

He's telling me this story to show me that hand guns are good because they gave his friend the "backbone" to confront these guys with the bats. But of course I'm thinking that everyone in the story is a complete moron and NONE of them should EVER be allowed to own a gun of any kind. They can't even drive their cars responsibly, let alone own a gun! And sadly, this idiot-tough guy thing is real common around here, and all over the rest of the U.S., too. And these are exactly the people who are buying guns: the very people who should never be allowed to have them. I'm sure they know how to work the mechanism, and most of them know how to hit what they're aiming at. The problem is that they don't know when to KEEP IT HOLSTERED! They think they're living in a John Wayne movie. They think guns are for bracing up weak self-esteem. And these are the same idiots that will get drunk some night and shoot their girlfriend because she wants to break it off with them, or one of their kids will find the gun and shoot himself with it because dim-wit daddy had to keep a loaded pistol in the night stand for the robbers and rapists that he's so sure are just waiting outside the bedroom window. And then when someone does break in, of course it will be when the dim-wit's not home (as any robber will do) and then the thief will steal all of dim-wit's guns, and sell them illegally on the street to other thieves and miscreants who will now show up at someone else's house armed.

I want people to be able to own and carry guns, but they MUST be strictly governed. They should be exactly as qualified as a police officer. And I feel quite sure that most of the dim-wit's I'm aware of that are now carrying around hand guns in their cars and night tables at home would not be able to pass such a rigorous qualification procedure. Which is exactly as it should be.

 

[Booko]

To me gun control is a pretty complicated issue. The founders of this country set up the second amendment to protect our right to keep and bare arms. This wasn't to protect our right to hunt, or for sport shooting. This was to assure that the people had the means to protect themselves and their loved ones, and in the event of the government decaying into a destructive burden on the people then the people would have the means to reclaim their rights.

Enter the 20th century and we now have automatic weapons and the like. There is no reason other than for military purposes for a private citizen to own and use these weapons. They were designed for one thing.

To take a human life.

And as reprehensible as that always is, sometimes it is necessary.

"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike" - Thomas Jefferson.

It is the government who should live in fear of the people, not the other way around.

I don’t like saying that we should require licensing to own firearms or that any sort of firearms should be banned, but at the same time I don't like the idea of just anyone running around with an automatic weapon.

I have the same reservations. I would like to see some sort of test to ensure safe handling and proficiency, because times have changed and we don't live in a hunting culture in most parts anymore. But it's also an ideal way for a tyrannical gov't to track down potential opponents, and I don't like that much either. I think the Founding Dads had a point in giving people the right to bear arms, and you pointed it out well above.

I don't own any guns, yet, so I’m not sure what the protocol for approving or rejecting applicants is.

Depending on where you go, you can plop down the cash and walk out with the gun. Admittedly, I have more of a problem with handguns than, say, your average hunting rifle.

For those of you living elsewhere, there are legitimate reasons why someone should own a rifle. There are some very remote places with some dangerous large animals. Having faced a black bear once before, I can personally attest to this. Fortunately, I knew enough not to do anything to annoy the bear, and it continued on its way.

I really can't imagine living in most of Montana or the UP of Michigan and not owning at least a rifle or a shotgun.

It just seems to me that the requirement of a license is an easy way for Uncle Sam to pick who gets the guns and who doesn't. That way they don't have to worry about open revolt when the people finally get sick of the bulls*it because they will have taken away any viable threat.

Precisely why I would prefer to leave well enough alone.

There are some other reasons also, namely in some areas the police are simply not responsive, either because they are too far away, or they are simply not interested in protecting someone who is part of an unpopular group. In those cases, if you can't depend on the police to protect you from intruders, then you had better be able to deal with things yourself. I believe I have a right to defend myself, and if he comes armed with a gun, I don't see why I should be limited to a baseball bat.

If I lived somewhere like Sweden, I would likely have a different opinion. They don't have readily available guns floating about, seem to actually have some control over their borders, have professional police, and to my knowledge the moose aren't terribly dangerous, unless you go riding your minibike in the woods at night maybe.

 

[NeoWayland]

I wanted to see how this thread would shape up.

I think it says a lot about the people here that 1) they can discuss this rationally without getting in each other's faces, and 2) some of you recognize that inherent danger in giving government the authority to decide who gets to have a gun.

Historically, that power over guns has been extended to deciding who gets to own property, vote, or even speak.

Inflict government on someone today, and don't be surprised if someone else inflicts it on you tommorrow.

I am a big beliver in the free market, the voluntary exchange of goods and services. That is even more important with ideas. That is why it is so vital to talk things out without fighting whenever we can.

Libertarians go by something called the Nonagression Principle. "Thou shalt not initiate force." In most cases, I think it is a great idea. The flip side is that once someone else starts the fight, you should defend yourself with everything at your disposal.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would love for a test to be required, but am worried that this may be non-constitutional.

 

[PureX]

I wanted to see how this thread would shape up.

I think it says a lot about the people here that 1) they can discuss this rationally without getting in each other's faces, and 2) some of you recognize that inherent danger in giving government the authority to decide who gets to have a gun.

Historically, that power over guns has been extended to deciding who gets to own property, vote, or even speak.

Inflict government on someone today, and don't be surprised if someone else inflicts it on you tomorrow.

I am a big believer in the free market, the voluntary exchange of goods and services. That is even more important with ideas. That is why it is so vital to talk things out without fighting whenever we can.

Libertarians go by something called the Nonaggression Principle. "Thou shalt not initiate force." In most cases, I think it is a great idea. The flip side is that once someone else starts the fight, you should defend yourself with everything at your disposal.

It's the necessary purpose and function of the government to regulate citizen's behaviors relative to each other. To imply that this is somehow unnecessary, or not the government's place is foolish. Human beings have lived with government, and without it, and so far we have found that living with reasonable government is much preferred.

I agree with you that we must have some method of changing or even eliminating the present structure of government if it should become tyrannical, but for one thing I don't believe that we have reached anything like that here in the U.S., nor are we about to. And if I'm wrong about that, I'm quite certain that the American military will never act against American citizens. So the argument for idiots being allowed to have guns based on the possibility of our needing to fight our own government is a very weak argument, indeed.

I don't know what free markets have to do with any of this, but just as it's necessary for the government to regulate, say, property rights, it's also necessary for the government to regulate commerce. And for exactly the same reasons: that we have found and decided that anarchy is not the way we wish to live.

The whole purpose of government in the United States is to protect us from each other, and from the threats of other nations. And we need protected economically just as we need protected physically, and with violent force if necessary.

My point is that if a citizen want's the right to act as a policeman (use deadly force against "criminals"), then he/she should be trained like a policeman, and should be held accountable like a policeman. And if he/she can't make the grade, then they shouldn't be given the responsibility. We don't let children drive automobiles because they're too dangerous for children. And the same necessity for regulation is true of fire arms. Even moreso.

 

[NeoWayland]

It's the necessary purpose and function of the government to regulate citizen's behaviors relative to each other. To imply that this is somehow unnecessary, or not the government's place is foolish. Human beings have lived with government, and without it, and so far we have found that living with reasonable government is much preferred.

I'd have to disagree with you there. Government's only justifiable reason is to protect the rights of the individual.

The real question is what constitutes a "reasonable government." For example, you could argue that American's are freer today than we were in the 1950s because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'd point out that the tax and regulation burderns are much higher now than in 1950.

The two aren't necessarily related, except in the sense that they both are supposedly a measure of freedom. One isn't the cause of the other. But because of government's intervention in one, it was easier to sell the other to the public.

I agree with you that we must have some method of changing or even eliminating the present structure of government if it should become tyrannical, but for one thing I don't believe that we have reached anything like that here in the U.S., nor are we about to. And if I'm wrong about that, I'm quite certain that the American military will never act against American citizens. So the argument for idiots being allowed to have guns based on the possibility of our needing to fight our own government is a very weak argument, indeed.

Don't look at the military, that is the distraction. Look at the rise in the number of SWAT teams, mostly equipped with "surplus" military gear. Look at the number of "no-knock" warrants, or in some cases, no warrants at all. Look at the willingness of local governments to ignore Constitutional protections in the name of "economic development" or "blight prevention." Look at the willingness of some Congressmen to suppress any dissent from their own views, especially around election time. Look at the FCC's newly found mission against obscenity with fines that increased tenfold overnight.

So much depends on the definitions. Today's patriots may be tommorrow's idiots, or yesterday's undesirables.

As with any government, ours teeters on the brink of tyranny. You'd be hard pressed to find a single activity that isn't affected by government regulation. That didn't used to be true even just a few decades ago, and the benefits don't outweigh the costs.

I don't know what free markets have to do with any of this, but just as it's necessary for the government to regulate, say, property rights, it's also necessary for the government to regulate commerce. And for exactly the same reasons: that we have found and decided that anarchy is not the way we wish to live.

The free markets are just the best example of choice that I know of, no one requires you to buy X brand of oatmeal, or even to buy oatmeal at all. Or even to walk into the store. It's your choice to do this or that, or indeed neither.

Other than protecting rights, I don't think government should have any power at all. Yes, there should be antifraud laws, products should do what they promise. Yes, companies and people should be held accountable for their actions if they interfere with another's rights. But imposing ergonomic standards on home offices? Requring banks and other financial companies to spy on their customers? Creating wheelchair accessibility that makes it harder for the blind to get around?

The whole purpose of government in the United States is to protect us from each other, and from the threats of other nations. And we need protected economically just as we need protected physically, and with violent force if necessary.

I disagree with the purpose, but you already knew that.

My point is that if a citizen want's the right to act as a policeman (use deadly force against "criminals"), then he/she should be trained like a policeman, and should be held accountable like a policeman. And if he/she can't make the grade, then they shouldn't be given the responsibility. We don't let children drive automobiles because they're too dangerous for children. And the same necessity for regulation is true of fire arms. Even moreso.

I am not talking about walking around like a policeman, I am talking about self-defense. Part of this rests heavily on the deterrent value. If Joe Crimminal doesn't know if Granny at the ATM is armed or not, he is going to think twice about trying to rob her. If John Law doesn't know what kind of weapons they'll be facing when they kick down the door on the narcotics warrant, you better believe they'll think twice.

The "responsiblity" issue is the most slippery part of the whole slope. Arguably it is not the same as driving a car because the Constitution doesn't say one word about cars.

Once people in government start deciding that Group Z "can't be trusted," there is nothing in principle from those same people from deciding that Groups A-Y can't be trusted either.

Oddly enough, the prompt for me to dig up the gun control=racism article for my blog in the first place was another article that said all Muslims should be disarmed.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I don’t like saying that we should require licensing to own firearms or that any sort of firearms should be banned, but at the same time I don't like the idea of just anyone running around with an automatic weapon.

The thing I've found so surprising with the US, are the instances where the criminals have been better equipped than the police. There have been several instances (the documentary I was watching a couple of months ago outlined about half a dozen), where the police had to commandeer weapons from nearby gun stores in order to be able to deal with people considerably better armed than they were.
Maybe just me, but there's something wrong with that picture.:areyoucra