Your views please

[Liar]

No more (or less) strict than a driver's license.

A car's a lethal weapon, too.

No, a car is a lethal vehicle.

And that's the entire point I was trying to make in my post earlier, and that as usual got lost it seems.

 

[impressive]

No, a car is a lethal vehicle.

And that's the entire point I was trying to make in my post earlier, and that as usual got lost it seems.

That's okay. My entire point got smothered, too.

 

[Liar]

A weapon is a tool to direct, focus and concentrate force. It's a device to replace mankind's meager natural weapons with something more effective. In the case of projectile weapons, a device to extend mankind's reach by aiding in the throwing of rocks through mechanical advantage.

Ok, we'll just have to disagree there. Every tool to direct, focus and concentrate force is not a weapon. Just as every action of force is not violence. It's force with a very specific purpose.

I own guns, but I'm against "gun control" -- especially restirctions on simple ownership -- because "gun control" is a stupid, irrational and ineffective Prohibition of an object in fearful response to actions involving said object that have nothing to do with the object itself.

"Gun Control" does nothing to adress the issue of irresponsible and criminal people doing deliberate or accidental violence to their fellow humans except punish those who aren't contributing the problem and resent the infringement on their lives over the actions of others.

Nice talking points. But not even remotely adressing the quote you were trying to reply to. I didn't say a peep about gun control. I'd appreciate if you read before you reply.

 

[Lee Chambers]

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

Why do the owner's have to have a license? As long as their keeping their weapons in their homes it's not an issue. If they want to take their weapons out into the streets with them, then it becomes an issue.

So instead of licensing gun owner's I would license gun carriers. Texas does this, as Lisa mentioned. My standard is pretty much the same as the Texas standard.

To get a concealed carry permit for a handgun the regulations are pretty tough.

No felony criminal record, when I got the permit it was 18 hours of instruction, safety and when, what, where you can carry, and use your weapon. The test at the firing range was the last part. Everyone knew the safety, and the test was to see if you could use the weapon you applied for the permit to get. You could either get smaller caliber handguns up to a 38 caliber, or what I got was the one where I can carry any caliber, by firing a 9mm at the proficiency test.

I know where I can legally carry my handgun, under what circumstances I can use it, and that I can hit my target. During the safety and insruction we were also taught (if you didn't know) that we were likely going to hit anything behind or to the side of the target.

One change I would make, and this is my own personal choice, is that I would allow open-carry permits rather than concealed. In other words, you can wear your in the open. All other rules apply, including where you can carry your weapon. This is because I see carrying a gun not only as a means of self-defense but also as a tool of intimidation. If a criminal walks into a store and sees three guys and the person behind the counter all carrying handguns, they might just be more reluctant to start trouble.

Or, as Robert Heinlein put it "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

 

[Liar]

That's okay. My entire point got smothered, too.

Hot button threads are awesome, aye?

 

[rgraham666]

Heinlein never saw Yugoslavia collapse. Lots of guns there. Didn't do much for the level of courtesy.

And they did ensure that there would be many more dead.

 

[R. Richard]

Ogg, Switzerland has more has a higher percentage of homes with guns than the US does because they have a true militia where every adult male is required to keep and maintain a weapon in his home.

The US may have more guns in the homes that have guns and a higher per capita rate of gun ownership, but there is nothing even close to the consistency of operable guns in the hands of trained shooters that exists in Switzerland.

During WW II, the German High Command decided that they needed to use Switzerland to connect with their Italian co-conspirators. The told the Swiss that they were going to use Switzerland as the Germans pleased. The Swiss asked for a day to reply.

The next day, the Germans were told. "We Swiss have mined ever road and railroad tunnel between Germany and Italy. The day one armed German soildier crosses the Swiss border, we blow ourselves up. The head of the Swiss army said that he had some large number of Swiss under arms and the Germans would wade through German blood to use each mountain pass.

The Germans had enough trouble already and the Swiss remained free.

By the way, it's not unusual, during summer training, to enter a Swiss home where there are no small children to find an assault rifle or two in the umbrella stand as a couple of Swiss soldiers have snuck off to get a little of Mama's home cooking instead of what they serve the troops. The Swiss don't worry about the Swiss, it's the damn foreigners.

 

[impressive]

Hot button threads are awesome, aye?

Well, I obviously have nothing to add to them, else every once in a while it'd be noticed.

S'okay. I'll take the Cindy Lou Who pat on the head with a smile. I enjoy being underestimated.

 

[snap1415]

The state of Vermont seems to do pretty well with their mostly hands off approach.

They have no CCW laws. If a resident of Vermont can legally own a firearm, they can legally carry it concealed.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=085

 

[SeaCat]

Okay this has been an interesting thread so far, and much longer than I expected. (Not to mention much more civil than I expected.)

Now as for my views on this, and it is only right that I expose them as I did happen to start the thread.

1) Ownership. Non lisenced but with a background check for the purchase. (Background check to look for violent Criminal Past and or Psychological Problems.)

2) Carry of a weapon in public venue. In my mind this should be lisenced in a manner. You get your lisence after passing a short class covering the information of weapons safety and where you can and can't carry. Limit the number of places where you can't carry.

3) No registration of weapons.

In other words if you want o own and aren't a convicted violent felon or have a history of violent tendancies then go for it.

If you want to carry then go through a basic course. One that tells you what end of the gun goes bang, what not to point it at and where you can't carry it.

Make this a nationaly recognised standard. If you can carry in one state then you can carry in all.

Where I currently live you can buy a firearm with just a background check. You can carry concealed after going through a short course. (No you can't carry open, although I do think this should be not only allowed but encouraged.)

Where I come from your right to even buy or own a firearm is granted by the local police chief, and can be shot down, (No pun intended,) on the local chiefs whim. (You even need a lisence to carry such things as Mace or Pepper Spray.) Your ability to carry concealed is a tightly controlled thing. (I have stories from there that would make you shake you head.)

To make you feel better or not, my wife and I currently own three firearms between us. I have a Beretta 92FS. My wife has a Ruger Mk. II. We also ahve a .22 rifle. We both have concealed carry permits. (I have two. I have the ATF Class 3 and the Concealed Carry for my County. One is not recognised by the state where I come from and the other is looked upon with suspicion.)

Now as many people have pointed out the laws regulating the ownership of firearms can be draconian and in many cases all they do is limit the number of honest people owning a firearm. What I feel needs to be done is a revamping of the laws and then the enforcement of said laws. A good case in point is the State of Florida 10-20-Life law. This is a mandatory sentancing law which reads that the illegal carrying of a concealed weapon gets you 10 years in jail. (ie. a violent felon carrying a firearm.) The carrying or brandishing of said weapon in the commision of a crime gets you 20 years. The use of said weapon, ie. the firing of it even without injury is punishable by life imprisonment. In more than seven years of living here and watching this with interest I have yet to see this law enforced. (Yet I do see pols. trying to enact more laws every year.)

As for the contention that a firearm is nothing more than a weapon designed to take a life, I have to disagree, with a caveat. Many things can be viewed in the same way.

Anything can be used as a weapon, and many things have been designed with the idea of killing. Many of these things are not deemed illegal or face the same scorn as firearms. I have several swords. For what use other than killing were swords designed? I have an 80 pound Recurve Bow. For what use other than killing was the bow designed? (I can kill you just as quickly and much quieter with either of these weapons than I can with my handgun.) Why do these items not face the same scorn? With a little bit of effort I can creat a weapon from the thngs under my sink or in my shed. A weapon that will kill or maime many people and yet these things are not controlled or face the same scorn.

Cat

 

[epiphany65]

Anything can be used as a weapon, and many things have been designed with the idea of killing. Many of these things are not deemed illegal or face the same scorn as firearms.

Cat

My sister's a retired R.N. and since she did shift work she kept a metal pipe with a bolt on the end next to her car seat for protection. One night she got stopped for speeding and when the Mountie saw the pipe he said "I could charge you for carrying a concealed weapon." She said "It's not a weapon till I hit someone with it." He let her go.

 

[rgraham666]

Cat, it's because most other weapons require skill to use effectively. You need at least a little training and practice to use a bow.

As I said earlier all you really need to know to use a gun is to know which end of the gun the bang comes out of.

As Michael Crichton put it, "It's not the black belt in karate who snaps and kills his wife and kids."

 

[Liar]

Anything can be used as a weapon, and many things have been designed with the idea of killing. Many of these things are not deemed illegal or face the same scorn as firearms. I have several swords. For what use other than killing were swords designed? I have an 80 pound Recurve Bow. For what use other than killing was the bow designed? (I can kill you just as quickly and much quieter with either of these weapons than I can with my handgun.) Why do these items not face the same scorn?

Um. They do from me. All weapons, the actual idea behind weapons do. Or not scorn, really. Disdain and disgust.

If you can't see the difference between a weapon and a non weapon, and consider what the people who sat down at the drawing board and designed them thought, I don't know what else to say.


That being said, I think your suggestions for lisencing sounds pretty reasonable. My view on weapons is another issue really. And even though I think the idea of weapons is perverted and uncivil, people have the right to be as perverted and uncivil as they like. And not only in bed.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

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

I have no problem with a gun owners license, but I am vehemently opposed to licensing of individual guns themselves.

Licensing only has two possible reasons: Taxation or confiscation.

Licensing guns will have NO impact on crimes, or crime statistics. It would simply be another case of the law abiding doing what they're supposed to do, and the criminals doing whatever they want.

I do think there should be some form of competency testing to be a gun owner. We do it for driving. A person must demonstrate that they know the laws, and can reasonably operate a car. It's no different with a gun.

I also think that Doctors should be able to report an unstable person that has come under their care. Current privacy laws prohibit this.

 

[SeaCat]

Um. They do from me. All weapons, the actual idea behind weapons do. Or not scorn, really. Disdain and disgust.

If you can't see the difference between a weapon and a non weapon, and consider what the people who sat down at the drawing board and designed them thought, I don't know what else to say.

And me? I don't look at objects, even those designed with the intent of killing with scorn. No I look at the people who use these objects to kill for reasons other than sefl defense or food with scorn.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

Cat, it's because most other weapons require skill to use effectively. You need at least a little training and practice to use a bow.

As I said earlier all you really need to know to use a gun is to know which end of the gun the bang comes out of.

As Michael Crichton put it, "It's not the black belt in karate who snaps and kills his wife and kids."

True Rob, nor is it the normal firearms woner that snaps and kills his wife and kids. (Hence my wanting the background check including the Psych. Check.)

A sword can be used by one untrained in it's use to kill an unarmed person just as easily as a firearm. (It is only when you come up against another person trained in the use of a sword that training comes into play.)

Cat

 

[R. Richard]

Um. They do from me. All weapons, the actual idea behind weapons do. Or not scorn, really. Disdain and disgust.

If you can't see the difference between a weapon and a non weapon, and consider what the people who sat down at the drawing board and designed them thought, I don't know what else to say.

Really? I can kill with a cane, a common cane such as people use to overcome partial walking disability. I can kill with a stick, although I prefer to use sticks in pairs. I can kill with a garote [a length of rope.] I can kill with a hiking staff, that people often use in the back country as a sort of long cane and a probing tool before they step on something that might not hold their weight [a truly effective weapon, by the way.] I can kill with a tonfa [oriental rice grinder.] And those are just the more obvious weapons I can kill with. Please explain how you can instantly see them as weapons. TIA.

 

[R. Richard]

Cat, it's because most other weapons require skill to use effectively. You need at least a little training and practice to use a bow.

Back in the days when a bow was a normally used weapon, it was said that the time to begin training a bowman started with his grandfathers.

 

[Liar]

Really? I can kill with a cane, a common cane such as people use to overcome partial walking disability. I can kill with a stick, although I prefer to use sticks in pairs. I can kill with a garote [a length of rope.] I can kill with a hiking staff, that people often use in the back country as a sort of long cane and a probing tool before they step on something that might not hold their weight [a truly effective weapon, by the way.] I can kill with a tonfa [oriental rice grinder.] And those are just the more obvious weapons I can kill with. Please explain how you can instantly see them as weapons. TIA.

Way to entirely miss the point. Actually, it is who I should ask you that instead.

Weapons are weapons, cooking utensils are cooking utensils and walking aids are walking aids. The fact that I can use a car, a walking stick, a pink, fluffy stuffed rabbit or Sahah Palin's fuck-me-pumps as weapons, doesn't change what those objects were in fact made for.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

...

I do think there should be some form of competency testing to be a gun owner. We do it for driving. A person must demonstrate that they know the laws, and can reasonably operate a car. It's no different with a gun.

...

As others have pointed out...you don't need a license to own a car, only to drive it on the public roads.

And in many farm states not even then...as there are no licensing requirements for driving your tractor down the public road to your south forty to till the ground for planting.

So why should there be a competency test for ownership. I can acquire collectible weapons, with no intention of ever firing the, just for their historical worth. So why should I be tested when my guns that I own are kept in a museum?

Now if I am going to leave my property with them then it becomes a licensing issue and I will willingly submit to a test of my knowledge of when, where, how, why, what are the proper uses of deadly force, which I know already. So I would be deemed knowledgeable enough to care a firearm.

 

[Weird Harold]

Weapons are weapons, cooking utensils are cooking utensils and walking aids are walking aids.

Actually, "walking aids" are as often built, designed and purchased as "weapons that can be leaned on" to get around weapons restrictions as they are for wlaking assistance. It is no accident the the second most popular cane handle style (after the simple crook handle which also derives from a traditional peasant weapon) strongly resembles an armor piercing war-hammer.

Almost any cane that isn't purely functional as a support device -- those that are stylish and/or decorative as well as functional -- or that is carried by a person who doesn't actualy require it's support is probably present as a self-defense weapon first and support second.

Some canes carry the "disguised weapon" design and intent into what you would consider a weapon -- sword canes and sword guns.

Most weapons are derived from farm implements or from hunting tools and the definitionof what is considered a "weapon" or "potential weapon" is constantly changing. Before 9/11 the 2 inch pen-knife I carry in my pocket was considered a non-lethal tool, now it's considered a deadly weapon when it comes to entering a courthouse for jury duty or boarding and airplane. I've had a set of titanium darts banished to checked baggage (long before 9/11) because they were metal and pointy and therefore a "potential weapon" -- and the darts you chuck at the board at your local pub are weapons that were turned into toys and the game of Darts evolved from target practice with the "saturday night specials" of their heyday.

 

[SensualCealy]

I have no problem with a gun owners license, but I am vehemently opposed to licensing of individual guns themselves.

Licensing only has two possible reasons: Taxation or confiscation.

Licensing guns will have NO impact on crimes, or crime statistics. It would simply be another case of the law abiding doing what they're supposed to do, and the criminals doing whatever they want.

I do think there should be some form of competency testing to be a gun owner. We do it for driving. A person must demonstrate that they know the laws, and can reasonably operate a car. It's no different with a gun.

I also think that Doctors should be able to report an unstable person that has come under their care. Current privacy laws prohibit this.

If you dont do anything stupid with the guy why would big brother come along and take it?

Like I said before it isnt the ones 'trained' on how to use them that are the problem, it's the idiots that get them with opening their new bank account and start firing rounds off at the party they go to that night!

C

 

[cloudy]

Like I said before it isnt the ones 'trained' on how to use them that are the problem, it's the idiots that get them with opening their new bank account and start firing rounds off at the party they go to that night!

C

um...what???

No one gets a gun by opening a new bank account.

 

[Weird Harold]

um...what???

No one gets a gun by opening a new bank account.

Not anymore, but when I was very young, the local bank had a graduated incentive program for new accounts that included a brand new Remington Model 700 in 30-06 for a new account or certificate of deposit over some rediculous amount nobody in town could afford ($1,000?).

I remember it because I got the bottom tier incentive of a transistor radio for my initial $5 deposit for my first passbook savings account -- but I wanted that rifle.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Not anymore, but when I was very young, the local bank had a graduated incentive program for new accounts that included a brand new Remington Model 700 in 30-06 for a new account or certificate of deposit over some rediculous amount nobody in town could afford ($1,000?).

I remember it because I got the bottom tier incentive of a transistor radio for my initial $5 deposit for my first passbook savings account -- but I wanted that rifle.

Harold, we are showing our age...that was long before any gun control. When I lived in Colorado I walked into a gun shop, plunked down my $150 and walked out with my brand new 9mm Browning High Power. I only had to show them my drivers license, which was expired and without a picture and from a different state, and my military ID, which had a picture.

I was up in the mountains that afternoon at an outdoor range popping off rounds at paper plates along with about five other people.

Those were the days.