Your views please

[SeaCat]

Okay, we have all seen the arguments for and against the right to posses firearms. I don't care to revisit that debate as it is a hot button and one that just leads to anger and bad feelings.

No what I want to visit is the lisencing of the owners. I think we all agree that the owners need to have a license of some kind, and training as well. Who would you preclude from ownership? How would you instruct the owners? How would you work the licensing? How would you enforce it?

Yes I have my views on this. I am interested in yours.

Cat

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Fairly easy

1. no criminal record
2. pass competency and safety course
3. reasonable psychiatric screening, like a MMPI
4. "Shall Issue" when the above are passed.

 

[TE999]

There is a credible school of thought among many gun owners that licencing would enhance the confiscation of weapons should the government decide to do so. I tend to agree with this.

I'm not a big fan of carry permits either, for the same reason.

Have guns registered at time of sale. Case closed.

Most gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens. Leave them alone.

 

[3113]

1. no criminal record
2. pass competency and safety course
3. reasonable psychiatric screening, like a MMPI
4. "Shall Issue" when the above are passed.

Well, what does "no criminal record" mean? I mean, what if some woman stole something from a shop when she was young and stupid? That's a criminal record, but it hardly seems like one that should keep her from getting a gun.

The rest sounds fairly reasonable. If we license people to drive cars, we really should license them to use firearms. Firing ranges could offer lessons and that would help with passing the test.

I'd also like to get down to one important point, however. The *KIND* of firearm. Certainly the person should be competent in using whatever kind they're going to buy--but I really think there should be limits on what kind of firearms people can casually own. Hunting with assault rifles is not only unsportsmanlike, but really, really dangerous and uncertain. You're likely to kill your buddies or other hunters that you think are creatures in the woods.

If we must arm the public for the sake of allowing them to have a revolution against a government, can we limit their use of such weapons to firing ranges? Take out the hunting guns and revolvers to play with out in the woods, but leave the deadly ones meant for war at home or only to be used in special areas. This is a weapon, for heaven's sake, it's only job and purpose is to kill things. It shouldn't be allowed to be bought by anyone and used anywhere as if it were a toy.

 

[rgraham666]

Step 1: Psych evaluation, a really strict one. If you aren't mentally stable enough you shouldn't be able to obtain a weapon.

Step 2: Pick the weapon you want to buy. And then receive full training on its care and maintenance.

Step 3: You can buy your weapon. It then gets shipped to a range and placed in storage.

Step 4: At the range you fire 1,000 rounds (10,000 if full auto) with it at a variety of targets at various ranges. You must be able to hit the targets consistently. I'm not familiar with how ratings are done but I'm thinking you have to be in the 90%+ range. If you can't hit what you're shooting at you shouldn't be allowed a weapon.

Step 5: At the range you fire another 1,000 rounds (10,000 if full auto) in a combat simulator under a number of different scenarios. This means not all targets are valid targets and you'll be under pressure. Again 90%+ is required to pass. If you can't select your targets under pressure and hit them you shouldn't be allowed a weapon.

Yeah I know a lot of people are going to hate this but I like to know that the people with weapons know what they are doing. If all a person knows is which end of the gun the 'bang' comes out of they're dangerous to themselves and others.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Fairly easy

1. no criminal record
2. pass competency and safety course
3. reasonable psychiatric screening, like a MMPI
4. "Shall Issue" when the above are passed.

Well, what does "no criminal record" mean? I mean, what if some woman stole something from a shop when she was young and stupid? That's a criminal record, but it hardly seems like one that should keep her from getting a gun.

I agree with 3113. No violent criminal record would be a much better qualification.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I agree with 3113. No violent criminal record would be a much better qualification.

I'll go with that, though juvenile records are usually sealed when the child reaches adulthood and that's what I think 3 was implying.

 

[3113]

Most gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens. Leave them alone.

Really? Every fourth of July gun owners go out and shoot their firearms up into the air. This is neither responsible nor law abiding. I can also tell you stories from my husband who often goes to a firing range of the number of irresponsible and generally stupid people he's seen there--and that, at least, was a firing range where someone's gun can be taken away.

I'm not going to take your assertion that "most gun owners" are either on faith alone. Just because you say it and believe it doesn't make it true. And what it leaves out is the most important part--are they also smart? And even if it is true, that doesn't get the off the hook. I could say, likewise, that most auto drivers are responsible and law abiding (which may or may not be true). I still want them to be licensed and have insurance in case of accidents.

It's all well and good to "trust" people to be responsible, but the fact is that most people are lazy fucks who are not responsible. Trusting people on faith to be responsible with a firearm, which, again, was created to do one thing only--to kill--is not responsible. Let them prove it before they can have it. We make them prove it before we give them the keys to a car don't we?

 

[amicus]

Seacat...I have no desire to enter into a discussion, merely to leave you a general question to consider, no answer required.

By what right do you, or any other person stand on, to regulate, control, restrict, license or forbid, anything I possess or consume or acquire?

Amicus

 

[TE999]

Really? Every fourth of July gun owners go out and shoot their firearms up into the air. This is neither responsible nor law abiding. I can also tell you stories from my husband who often goes to a firing range of the number of irresponsible and generally stupid people he's seen there--and that, at least, was a firing range where someone's gun can be taken away.

I'm not going to take your assertion that "most gun owners" are either on faith alone. Just because you say it and believe it doesn't make it true. And what it leaves out is the most important part--are they also smart? And even if it is true, that doesn't get the off the hook. I could say, likewise, that most auto drivers are responsible and law abiding (which may or may not be true). I still want them to be licensed and have insurance in case of accidents.

It's all well and good to "trust" people to be responsible, but the fact is that most people are lazy fucks who are not responsible. Trusting people on faith to be responsible with a firearm, which, again, was created to do one thing only--to kill--is not responsible. Let them prove it before they can have it. We make them prove it before we give them the keys to a car don't we?

You seem to have an overall dim view of humanity in general and how they abysmally manage their lives given your overall responses to threads like this one...

The gun owners I know are responsible, law abiding individuals who both collect and fire weapons at ranges. Some even make their own bullets. They do not 'fire their guns in the air' indescriminately. They also hold responsible positions in the community and are family persons...yes, some are female.

Tarring all persons having a weapon in their possession with the same brush of ignorance and lawlessness is both irresponsible and smacks of profiling. This is the typical reaction in many quarters when an incident involving persons being shot occurs. Throw the baby out with the bathwater...grab all the guns.

People have drivers licences and are tested once or twice in their lives, yet auto accidents continue to occur with alarming frequency. Maybe we all should be restricted to driving 30 mph so no one gets hurt.

Don't forget, all new dictatorships confiscate weapons right away...Nazi Germany's an example. Now Europe and the UK are on the same path...but somehow the criminals still have guns...how interesting.

The vast majority of people have the capacity to manage their own affairs without government interference in their daily lives. I, for one, treasure my freedom and am not about to surrender it bit by bit in the illusion that I will be kept safe from harm.

I fear the government that fears my guns.

 

[Weird Harold]

No what I want to visit is the lisencing of the owners. I think we all agree that the owners need to have a license of some kind, and training as well.

I do not agree that owners need to be licensed or pre-qualified any more than my granddaughter needed a driver's license to accept the car her late paternal grandfather gave her before he died.

I don't believe simple ownership should be restricted or qualified in any way for any reason. Irresponsible use -- like firing guns into the air on the Fourth and New Years -- should be outlawed and rigorously enforced.

There is some merit to the contention that certification or qualification should be required to carry a weapon in public places or on public land -- like city streets -- but a license/qualification requirement to own a weapon is an infringement on the right to keep arms and does absolutely nothing except make criminals out of people who inherit weapons or deprive them of property rights to an inheritance if they cannot qualify for an ownership license.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Step 1: Psych evaluation, a really strict one. If you aren't mentally stable enough you shouldn't be able to obtain a weapon.

Step 2: Pick the weapon you want to buy. And then receive full training on its care and maintenance.

Step 3: You can buy your weapon. It then gets shipped to a range and placed in storage.

Step 4: At the range you fire 1,000 rounds (10,000 if full auto) with it at a variety of targets at various ranges. You must be able to hit the targets consistently. I'm not familiar with how ratings are done but I'm thinking you have to be in the 90%+ range. If you can't hit what you're shooting at you shouldn't be allowed a weapon.

Step 5: At the range you fire another 1,000 rounds (10,000 if full auto) in a combat simulator under a number of different scenarios. This means not all targets are valid targets and you'll be under pressure. Again 90%+ is required to pass. If you can't select your targets under pressure and hit them you shouldn't be allowed a weapon.

Yeah I know a lot of people are going to hate this but I like to know that the people with weapons know what they are doing. If all a person knows is which end of the gun the 'bang' comes out of they're dangerous to themselves and others.

The problem with that is the military doesn't even require that stringent of a test.

To qualify with my sidearm all I had to do is...at seven yards (this was because most handgun fire fights happen a five to ten yards) is put a smilie face on the target (a silhouette of man) two eyes a nose hole and three for a mouth from the hip. The standard is 4 out of 5 or 80%. And I was a cop.

For qualification on my rifle (M16 at the time) I just had to hit the target bulls eye four out of five times. Which is 80%.

With the M60 machine gun, it was just get familiar with the weapon as the proficiency came with experience.

So having the civilian population tested at a higher rate than the military is...what...questionable?...smart?...stupid?...expensive?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The problem with that is the military doesn't even require that stringent of a test.

To qualify with my sidearm all I had to do is...at seven yards (this was because most handgun fire fights happen a five to ten yards) is put a smilie face on the target (a silhouette of man) two eyes a nose hole and three for a mouth from the hip. The standard is 4 out of 5 or 80%. And I was a cop.

For qualification on my rifle (M16 at the time) I just had to hit the target bulls eye four out of five times. Which is 80%.

With the M60 machine gun, it was just get familiar with the weapon as the proficiency came with experience.

So having the civilian population tested at a higher rate than the military is...what...questionable?...smart?...stupid?...expensive?

. . . specifically designed to put all the arms in the hands of the police and under the control of the civic authorities. An armed populace is terrifying to those who govern.

 

[TE999]

So having the civilian population tested at a higher rate than the military is...what...questionable?...smart?...stupid?...expensive?

Nope...restrictive. An oh so legitimate way to make gun ownership difficult, if not impossible. All in the name of safety.

Think Poll Tax and Voting...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

. . . specifically designed to put all the arms in the hands of the police and under the control of the civic authorities. An armed populace is terrifying to those who govern.

Nope...restrictive. An oh so legitimate way to make gun ownership difficult, if not impossible. All in the name of safety.

Think Poll Tax and Voting...

Then that would be stupid.

 

[TE999]

Then that would be stupid.

Give the man a cigar!

 

[JackLuis]

The Second Ammendment was written to preclude the Government form getting too powerful.
See what happend in Austrailia when they banned guns or in Britain, Law abiding citiczens were at the mercy of the criminals who did not turn in thier guns.

Registration and licencing leeds to confiscation. I have been a gun owner for 40 years and seen many many stupid people at ranges, the rangemasters take care of them and try to teach them proper handeling techniques.

I thnik the only reason "W" doesn't declare himself Dictator is that the NRA would revolt and the rest of the country would join them. Thank God for the Second Ammendment!

If you think Iraq is a hell hole just think what this country would be like if that happened. There are probably over 400 Million guns in this country and most of them are repeateing weapons, from AK47's to 'Uncle Fudly's' Winchester 1873. If everyone with a weapon fired off a round at Midnight, to let Bush know where he stood, the noise would be heard from Canada and Mexico.

Anyway the number of misused guns in America is a much smaller % that the number of misused dicks.

I say the only thing we have to fear is Dick himself!

 

[DeeZire]

By what right do you, or any other person stand on, to regulate, control, restrict, license or forbid, anything I possess or consume or acquire?

I believe it would be in the interest of public safety, similar to licensing cars and their drivers. Of course, it would depend on the level of civility one aspired to in their chosen society.

It would appear to me that the USA has chosen to nourish a society with a level of sophistication above that of the 1600s. However, if one preferred to live like they did in the Old West, perhaps like-minded people could set up compounds where anarchy rules and only the fittest, or the most well-armed survive. There are vast tracts of land in places like Canada where societies like this could flourish.

In fact, this whole concept raises an interesting question. If one is unhappy with the restrictions of life in the USA, and one is unable to change those restrictions by utilizing the democratic process, perhaps one should either quit whining or get off their ass and go live their dream in a setting of their choosing. Life is too short to be wasted entirely on complaining.

 

[emap]

An unarmed population is nothing more than an easy prey for bandits and raiders. If there were no guns to be found in the law abiding citizens and only the police and lawbreakers had guns, there would be a problem.

Case in point, England for the longest time had no guns in the police below a sergeant. A man with a revolver could escape because the arriving police could do nothing but call in for a gun toting cop and try to keep the passerby safe. Now there are alot more guns to be found in the British police, I believe everyone except the strolling cops, because it did not work.

No matter what laws you enact the law breakers will always have guns, they will always be able to get more and they generally will be better armed than the police.

Now to me, the current laws are fine, you hav eto pass a criminal record test to buy a gun, have to pass a safety and useage test to get a carry permit and you can't own certain kinds of guns.

Should there be better laws for owning a gun? Probably but nothing works quite as well as a news report on a 4 year old who died because they played with daddies gun that was kept loaded. Horrific and scary, and nothing will ever work quite as well.

Same principle as letting your toddler touch the hot pan. Only takes once and they know better. Luckily guns are only one child dead for every 5-6 years. I'd prefer less but dang they don't license fertility.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

An unarmed population is nothing more than an easy prey for bandits and raiders. If there were no guns to be found in the law abiding citizens and only the police and lawbreakers had guns, there would be a problem.

Case in point, England for the longest time had no guns in the police below a sergeant. A man with a revolver could escape because the arriving police could do nothing but call in for a gun toting cop and try to keep the passerby safe. Now there are alot more guns to be found in the British police, I believe everyone except the strolling cops, because it did not work.

No matter what laws you enact the law breakers will always have guns, they will always be able to get more and they generally will be better armed than the police.

Look at the statistics for death by firearms in the UK compared with the US. Adjust it by size of population if you like but the UK has far fewer murders by firearm or any other means than the US.

When the UK police were totally unarmed that didn't mean that the police would wait for an armed response unit. They didn't have armed response units. The policeman would still attempt to arrest an armed offender. Some police died. Many police succeed in arresting armed offenders.

Now the police have armed response units but offenders are not allowed to rule the streets until the armed officers arrive. They are still confronted and contained by unarmed policemen and women.

Whether we agree with the firearms legislation in the UK is irrelevant. Our police will tackle armed criminals on our behalf and their success rate is high.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

I've got lots to say, but I'm not going to.

Keep your fantasies.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Trusting people on faith to be responsible with a firearm, which, again, was created to do one thing only--to kill--is not responsible.

I find it interesting how most people chose to overlook this point.

Sure there are plenty of other things you could own that have the potential to cause death and destruction to others - cars, chainsaws, kitchen knives... But all of those inventions have other primary uses. Firearms are different. Why should it be anyone's "right" to own something that serves no purpose other than to kill other people?

Are you that afraid of life that you need to have the power of death and your fingertips?

 

[Liar]

I believe it would be in the interest of public safety, similar to licensing cars and their drivers.

I owned a car before I had a license to drive it. Not sure what that says about anything, but anyway.

 

[Liar]

I find it interesting how most people chose to overlook this point.

Sure there are plenty of other things you could own that have the potential to cause death and destruction to others - cars, chainsaws, kitchen knives... But all of those inventions have other primary uses. Firearms are different. Why should it be anyone's "right" to own something that serves no purpose other than to kill other people?

I've tried to ask this in threads here and in other places since the beginning of time, without ever getting a straight answer. et's see if you have better luck than me.

"You can...uh...do other things with guns too. Like...uh...open locks and stuff."

What is a weapon? Sword, dagger, gun, landmine... It's a tool designed to maximize the effect of violence.

I'm not saying guns are not sometimes needed. But they are what they are, and when they're needed they are a nessecary evil.

The way some people seem to have affection for weapons, is downright creepy.


And to get back on topic, there are a lot of volatile tools, substances and such that I need a license and proper training to handle. From cars to chemicals to kids in a classroom. Why not weapons?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Whats missing from the mix is common sense.

The wise always take the trouble to reduce risk and incompetence with training and prudent conduct. The rest either dont bother or go thru the motions when someone is watching. More rules will change nothing.