Gun Controll question.

[SeaCat]

Okay this is not meant to become a political thread. I also don't want to have a flame war.

That being said;

What is Gun Control? Why is it desirable or not. How would you do it? Why would you do it?

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

My take on gun control would be centered around training.

In my opinion, anyone should get pretty much anything they wanted. I see no reason why someone shouldn't have anything short of military weapons such as machine guns, ATGW or LAWS. If they can prove they can handle them responsibly.

So I'd have a four step process.

First a psychiatric evaluation, the sort you'd give to someone in control of atomic weapons. The last thing you want is a Ted Bundy or Charles Whitman to have weapons.

Second, classroom training. Care and cleaning of weapons. How to store them safely. Make sure people know what they're doing where handling weapons are concerned.

Now the person can buy their gun. But they can't take it home. Instead it goes into storage at an accredited range.

Step three would be for the person to fire 1,000 rounds of ammo on the range, 10,000 rounds if they're shooting a full auto weapon. And their score had better be very good. If they can't hit what they're shooting at, they shouldn't have a gun.

Step four would be the same on a combat range, 1,000 or 10,000 rounds again. And again their score better be very good. A person who can't pick out the right target to shoot under pressure shouldn't have a gun.

I'd add retesting, especially the psych test as well. I know from experience how quickly you can lose your sanity.

How the U.S. is going to deal with the hundreds of millions of weapons already out there I have no idea.

Guns don't scare me, they're just tools. People on the other hand are scary, very scary.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

Guns don't scare me, they're just tools. People on the other hand are scary, very scary.

This is the key.

I don't think it's so much about "gun control" as it is about "people control."

 

[rgraham666]

This is the key.

I don't think it's so much about "gun control" as it is about "people control."

And that control best comes from within, not without.

Unfortunately I don't believe restraint or care are traits highly valued by our society.

 

[mikey2much]

That's a lot of test for a guy to have to pass.

My take on gun control would be centered around training.

In my opinion, anyone should get pretty much anything they wanted. I see no reason why someone shouldn't have anything short of military weapons such as machine guns, ATGW or LAWS. If they can prove they can handle them responsibly.

So I'd have a four step process.

First a psychiatric evaluation, the sort you'd give to someone in control of atomic weapons. The last thing you want is a Ted Bundy or Charles Whitman to have weapons.

Second, classroom training. Care and cleaning of weapons. How to store them safely. Make sure people know what they're doing where handling weapons are concerned.

Now the person can buy their gun. But they can't take it home. Instead it goes into storage at an accredited range.

Step three would be for the person to fire 1,000 rounds of ammo on the range, 10,000 rounds if they're shooting a full auto weapon. And their score had better be very good. If they can't hit what they're shooting at, they shouldn't have a gun.

Step four would be the same on a combat range, 1,000 or 10,000 rounds again. And again their score better be very good. A person who can't pick out the right target to shoot under pressure shouldn't have a gun.

I'd add retesting, especially the psych test as well. I know from experience how quickly you can lose your sanity.

How the U.S. is going to deal with the hundreds of millions of weapons already out there I have no idea.

Guns don't scare me, they're just tools. People on the other hand are scary, very scary.

Damn man,
That's a lot of test to take, and in todays PC world I don't think most people could get pass them. Hell, I couldn't push shopping carts for walmart because of a piss test. reckon they might let me have a legal gun?

But at the same time I have to the best of my knowledge never hurt anybody with a car or a gun or anything else.

I am already frozen out of so much by guys who are trying to protect me.
mikey

 

[Pure]

question:

some have proposed that if some of the VA Tech students were armed with handguns--perhaps concealed-- they would have been better able to deal with the situation and prevent (their) deaths. (iow, that the problem is that the VA Tech students were 'disarmed.')

discuss.

(one policeman i heard on the radio was *not* very enthusiastic about this proposal, since when the cops arrive at a scene (as proposed) they have to figure out, of those with guns, possibly firing them, who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys.')

---
note: perhaps rg's proposal amounts to this: to get a gun you should be professionally trained, i.e., have been a cop or in the army, etc. and you should be sane, no criminal record etc.

that, coupled with safe storage and 'fingerprinting'* and childproofing of guns, would satisfy me, more or less. (though i have a general problem with handguns in urban areas.)

---
*the gun is fired at the time of manufacture and its distinctive 'ballistics' markers recorded.

 

[rgraham666]

some have proposed that if some of the VA Tech students were armed with handguns--perhaps concealed-- they would have been better able to deal with the situation and prevent (their) deaths. (iow, that the problem is that the VA Tech students were 'disarmed.')

discuss.

(one policeman i heard on the radio was *not* very enthusiastic about this proposal, since when the cops arrive at a scene (as proposed) they have to figure out, of those with guns, possibly firing them, who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys.')

Only thing every body being armed would do is up the body count.

If the police have problems picking out the bad guy, just think of how little success a bunch of untrained people will have.

 

[R. Richard]

Gun control is not desirable. First you have to look at what gun control is. Gun control is a law(s) that keeps guns out of the hands of the law abiding. The politicians pass laws that make it almost impossible for the average law abiding citizen to legally own a gun. [If you have never lived in New York City, you really can't understand the situation.] Once the laws are passed, it is necessary to jump through all kinds of hoops in order for an ordinary citizen to even possess a gun. The gun must be registered with the scumbags and the decision to allow a citizen to possess a gun rests in the hands of an unelected person with no background or training to decide who should and should not have a gun. If you are rich, you can have a gun, even if you have no training and no mental check. If you are poor, the requirements are such that you really can't have a legal gun.

The we have the question, are guns necessary? The US Constitution thinks so. Howeer, there are many, like Rosie O'Donnel, who don't believe that private citizens should every have guns. Rosie does employ an armed bodyguard, but that is different [Can't you see? Her family is at risk.]

What happens when a law abiding citizen awakes in the middle of the night and hears a criminal breaking into their home? Call the scumbags? Right, then wait for the scumbags to finish their doughnuts before responding, while the intruder kills the householder and rapes his wife and kids. But wait, the householder has a gun and orders the home invader to stop. The home invader does not stop. The householder shoots in self defense and inside his or he own home. The householder is then going to jail for the felony crime of possessing and unregistered gun. [Thuis scenario happens frequently in NYC and you read about it in the papers.] If you think that the above scenario is tight and proper, I will agree with you that you should never own a gun. You are insane.

What about the criminal, the non-law abiding citizen? If you turn me loose, unarmed and penniless, at sunset, in any major US city, I will have a loaded, usable weapon by the time the sun rises. Will the scumbags stop me? The scumbags are the best source of the weapon I need. The scumbags will not stop me, they will supply me with a weapon [Whazzat? No, actually I don't eat doughnuts.]

 

[cantdog]

Serfdom results if no one can adequately resist their power structure. I'm nowhere near as worried about criminals having exclusive possession of guns as I am about cops being the only ones, or the army. Try speaking out against the established order then. In countries where this is the case, they shoot protestors and set up machine guns by the ballot box.

 

[R. Richard]

Serfdom results if no one can adequately resist their power structure. I'm nowhere near as worried about criminals having exclusive possession of guns as I am about cops being the only ones, or the army. Try speaking out against the established order then. In countries where this is the case, they shoot protestors and set up machine guns by the ballot box.

I seldom agree with you. However, you have history on your side. The first thing that communist regimes did was to disarm the citizens of their countries. No totalitarian regime wants armed citizens.

[For those who haven't learned the lessons of history, one of the things that brought the 'Evil Empire' down was the personal computer. The Evil Empire did not allow its private citizens to own printing presses. A PC with a printer, necessary to really use a PC, is a printing press. The Evil Empire was even more afraid of a private citizen with a printing press than they were of a private citizen with a firearm.]

 

[The_Fool]

I just wish that some of those lawful citizens would learn a little bit of gun etiquette and be a little more safe.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Serfdom results if no one can adequately resist their power structure. I'm nowhere near as worried about criminals having exclusive possession of guns as I am about cops being the only ones, or the army. Try speaking out against the established order then. In countries where this is the case, they shoot protestors and set up machine guns by the ballot box.

This is one of the only time I believe we are in agreement.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

A semantic quibble: While not as extensive or strict as some would like, there is gun control in the US. By federal law, certain weapons may not be owned by civilians. Local governments often have much stricter laws.

The nut-cutter concerns which weapons and how strict.

NRA types don't trust the government and fear any beefing up of current gun control laws will lead to a total prohibition on gun ownership. This has lead them to defend the "right" of individuals to own assault rifles, a stand this gun owner considers both immoral and illogical.

Why the NRA worries about a total prohibition on gun ownership is beyond me considering the government's less than steller record in enforcing prohibitions on alcohol and drugs.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Mr. Mugabe is a clear case of why gun control is bad. If a few thousand farmers had owned assault rifles, Mugabe would be dead and Rhodesia would be a free country, instead of chafing under the yoke of Africa's answer to Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. There is sometimes a need for armed insurrections. That's why we don't need gun control. We need to have an armed and trained populace. I favour a militia, however, as the Second Amendment states. A militia should ideally have some training, as they do in Switzerland (nearly everyone owns an assault rifle in that country and they have no problem with school violence). Rob has a good point there. But can'tdog, Zeb, and others are right about the gun law thing. It's just plain wrong to deprive people of the right to weapons that might be needed against tyranny. Given the Orwellian nature of many regimes in Western, liberal countries, even, a protection against an arrogant police state isn't such a bad idea.

 

[starrkers]

An Aussie point of view (beware, we have never had a constitutional right to gun ownership - whether that be actual or just perceived - and I have no idea what gun laws exist in the US).
After the Port Arthur massacre (nutjob killed 35 and wounded 37 at a tourist attraction) gun laws were considerably tightened in Australia, with an attempt to make them the same in all states (This didn't quite come off).
Where I live it is now illegal to own any automatic or semi-automatic rifles, pump action shotguns or use magazines with more than a 5-shot capacity.
All weapons must be registered and all gun users must be licensed whether or not they own the gun.
To get a licence you must prove a need - vermin control in rural areas and members of gun clubs are the two I can think of. You must also pass a screening by the Police. Every year you must get this licence renewed and pass the screening again. Whether or not you pass seems arbitrary - my brother in law (20-year Army infantry veteran, who has seen active service, and current firearm safety instructor with his branch of the Sporting Shooters Association) had his renewal knocked back last year. He bitched. They gave it to him. Go figure.
Possession of an unregistered slug gun will get you the same penalty as a high powered automatic rifle.
Have these laws made a difference?
Only to the law abiding citizens that surrendered their guns. It is now bloody difficult to get a firearm for a legitimate purpose and within the law.
I can get any number of black firearms of all types tomorrow if I ask the right people.

Retroactive tightening of gun laws will not help. It just drives more people across the line into illegal activity and, if you're gonna do something illegal, you might as well do it properly.

 

[Liar]

Serfdom results if no one can adequately resist their power structure. I'm nowhere near as worried about criminals having exclusive possession of guns as I am about cops being the only ones, or the army. Try speaking out against the established order then. In countries where this is the case, they shoot protestors and set up machine guns by the ballot box.

Yah, it sucks over here. The Man shooting rounds at me everytime I leave the house.

Uh... you live in a stable and functioning democracy. (Yeah yeah, I know RR, democratic republic. What. Ever.) Take three steps back and try again. Compare your situation to other stable and functioning democracies please, not to Mugabe-land.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

An Aussie point of view (beware, we have never had a constitutional right to gun ownership - whether that be actual or just perceived - and I have no idea what gun laws exist in the US).
After the Port Arthur massacre (nutjob killed 35 and wounded 37 at a tourist attraction) gun laws were considerably tightened in Australia, with an attempt to make them the same in all states (This didn't quite come off).
Where I live it is now illegal to own any automatic or semi-automatic rifles, pump action shotguns or use magazines with more than a 5-shot capacity.
All weapons must be registered and all gun users must be licensed whether or not they own the gun.
To get a licence you must prove a need - vermin control in rural areas and members of gun clubs are the two I can think of. You must also pass a screening by the Police. Every year you must get this licence renewed and pass the screening again. Whether or not you pass seems arbitrary - my brother in law (20-year Army infantry veteran, who has seen active service, and current firearm safety instructor with his branch of the Sporting Shooters Association) had his renewal knocked back last year. He bitched. They gave it to him. Go figure.
Possession of an unregistered slug gun will get you the same penalty as a high powered automatic rifle.
Have these laws made a difference?
Only to the law abiding citizens that surrendered their guns. It is now bloody difficult to get a firearm for a legitimate purpose and within the law.
I can get any number of black firearms of all types tomorrow if I ask the right people.

Retroactive tightening of gun laws will not help. It just drives more people across the line into illegal activity and, if you're gonna do something illegal, you might as well do it properly.

Precisely. Criminals are not known for obeying laws...that's what makes them criminals in the first place.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Yah, it sucks over here. The Man shooting rounds at me everytime I leave the house.

Uh... you live in a stable and functioning democracy. (Yeah yeah, I know RR, democratic republic. What. Ever.) Take three steps back and try again. Compare your situation to other stable and functioning democracies please, not to Mugabe-land.

The trouble is that there is no guarantee that functioning democracies shall last. At the moment that Mugabe was installed as prime minister of "Zimbabwe", it was at its most democratic point in our history. Afterward, democracy vanished as quickly as it had been instituted. It was one of the most short-lived democracies ever, not counting perhaps the Provisional Government in Russia under Kerensky. The point of an armed populace is to discourage a police state before it can even start.

 

[gregg4]

Sherry is on to something

I think Sherry has it. Regardless of your personal or political thoughts these are the facts:
* People kill people, not guns.
* Gun control is the ability to hit your target.
* The English have severe gun control, and tons of gun
related crimes!!! How does that work??? (You know!!!)
* Hitler was onto something, he didn't get away with it, and
neither should we let our polititians get away with it
either!!!


Disagree? Educate me.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

Yah, it sucks over here. The Man shooting rounds at me everytime I leave the house.

Uh... you live in a stable and functioning democracy. (Yeah yeah, I know RR, democratic republic. What. Ever.) Take three steps back and try again. Compare your situation to other stable and functioning democracies please, not to Mugabe-land.

The problem here, though, Liar, is what happens to all the guns already out there?

In countries where very strict gun control has been around forever, it's not a big deal, but if it were to suddenly tighten up here, there would be millions of guns left in the hands of not-so-law-abiding folks in addition to the police.

What happens then, when the only ones without guns are precisely the people that should be able to have them?

 

[rgraham666]

Guns are a good way to deal with danger. They're a very poor way to deal with fear.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

I think Sherry has it. Regardless of your personal or political thoughts these are the facts:
* People kill people, not guns.
* Gun control is the ability to hit your target.
* The English have severe gun control, and tons of gun
related crimes!!! How does that work??? (You know!!!)
* Hitler was onto something, he didn't get away with it, and
neither should we let our polititians get away with it
either!!!


Disagree? Educate me.

Excellent.

 

[R. Richard]

Let me add something to the debate.

I was penniless. I got a gun from the scumbags. I am now armed and dangerous. However, I am still penniless. No sweat! I use the gun to steal guns from the criminals who deal them in the city I am in. I then take the guns to aniother big city and sell the stolen guns there. I then rip off more criminal dealers in the second city. I then go to another city [perhaps the city where I started, although that is dangerous at the start] and repeat the process.

You see, the gun control people have set me up a business that will allow me to make big bucks. Of course, I can only run my business in the manner I have indicated for so long before I begin to clash with other real professionals. No sweat! I will just add drugs and maybe a little 'shine to my operation and then build a truly professional operation. After I get my truly professional operation built I will of course add 'hos' and bookmaking to the mix.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

Let me add something to the debate.

I was penniless. I got a gun from the scumbags. I am now armed and dangerous. However, I am still penniless. No sweat! I use the gun to steal guns from the criminals who deal them in the city I am in. I then take the guns to aniother big city and sell the stolen guns there. I then rip off more criminal dealers in the second city. I then go to another city [perhaps the city where I started, although that is dangerous at the start] and repeat the process.

You see, the gun control people have set me up a business that will allow me to make big bucks. Of course, I can only run my business in the manner I have indicated for so long before I begin to clash with other real professionals. No sweat! I will just add drugs and maybe a little 'shine to my operation and then build a truly professional operation. After I get my truly professional operation built I will of course add 'hos' and bookmaking to the mix.

What does that have to do with anything?

Good lord, you ramble sometimes.

 

[Liar]

The problem here, though, Liar, is what happens to all the guns already out there?

In countries where very strict gun control has been around forever, it's not a big deal, but if it were to suddenly tighten up here, there would be millions of guns left in the hands of not-so-law-abiding folks in addition to the police.

What happens then, when the only ones without guns are precisely the people that should be able to have them?

No arguments there. I only objected to the Fear of Guv'ment argument in Can't post. it doesn't hold water in a reasonably free democracy.

And if it wasn't a reasonably free democracy, I'm not sure you'd have enough guns to revolt against the world's biggest army anyway.