Gun Control

[Crosplat]

What are your thoughts on gun control and why?

I believe that anybody with a criminal record/current gang affiliation or a serious mental instability (I define serious as requiring medicine) should not be able to legally acquire any firearm. I also believe that when you go to purchase a firearm, you must take a safety course before you can take home your firearm. The length of the safety course should correspond to the type of weapon, such as a weekend for pistols, 2 weekends for shotguns and bolt action rifles, and a month for anything beyond that. The instructors would be veteran police officers who will be very familiar with the proper attitude and mechanics of safe firearm handling.

If a person commits and is found guilty of any criminal action/is caught affiliating with a gang/develops a serious mental instability at any point after they have acquired any firearms, then my belief is that they should lose all their firearm possession privileges for the rest of their lives. Any firearms that they currently own will be taken from them and not returned.

I believe that the only restrictions on weapons ownership should be no explosive projectile launchers or silencers.

On the issue of concealed carry, I believe that if you pass your pistol course and own your pistol for one year without being convicted of any criminal actions or developing any serious mental instabilities you should be able to carry it concealed. You would still have to obey rules in private establishments, but publicly could.

I will gladly address points as they come up, but I think that this is sufficient to get the discussion started. I know I am leaving things out, but the things I left out are, in my opinion, better dealt with as they arise.

[Boofu]

Oh goodness, This is one of my favorite issues. I will wait for the thread to develop before I dive in.

Guns cause crime.... like flies cause garbage.

[Spotter]

Originally Posted by Crosplat

I believe that anybody with a criminal record/current gang affiliation or a serious mental instability (I define serious as requiring medicine) should not be able to legally acquire any firearm.

1) Anyone with a felony conviction is already legally prohibited from owning firearms.
2) What do you mean be 'requiring medicine?' Anyone suffering from depression who takes Zoloft/Prozac/Cymbalta? Any manic-depressant who takes Lithium? There are already laws that prohibit firearm ownership by the criminally/legally insane.

Originally Posted by Crosplat

I also believe that when you go to purchase a firearm, you must take a safety course before you can take home your firearm. The length of the safety course should correspond to the type of weapon, such as a weekend for pistols, 2 weekends for shotguns and bolt action rifles, and a month for anything beyond that. The instructors would be veteran police officers who will be very familiar with the proper attitude and mechanics of safe firearm handling.

Okay, first off, your blind trust in the police is misplaced. I've never been a police officer, yet I am confident (heck, I've proven in competition) that my proficiency is well above that of your average beat patrol officer. And what's the point of these arbitrary time requirements? You can learn firearm safety in about 15 minutes and proficiency and maintenance in a couple of hours.

Originally Posted by Crosplat

If a person commits and is found guilty of any criminal action/is caught affiliating with a gang/develops a serious mental instability at any point after they have acquired any firearms, then my belief is that they should lose all their firearm possession privileges for the rest of their lives. Any firearms that they currently own will be taken from them and not returned.

Already part of the law.

Originally Posted by Crosplat

I believe that the only restrictions on weapons ownership should be no explosive projectile launchers or silencers.

Already covered under existing law, but I would pose to you why restrict people based on what they MIGHT do with something? Cops don't write you speeding tickets because you MIGHT exceed the speed limit since your car is capable of doing so. Punish me for what I do, not for what I may do.

Originally Posted by Crosplat

On the issue of concealed carry, I believe that if you pass your pistol course and own your pistol for one year without being convicted of any criminal actions or developing any serious mental instabilities you should be able to carry it concealed. You would still have to obey rules in private establishments, but publicly could.

The requirements for concealed carry in Texas far exceed your criteria save for the arbitrary requirement of the one-year waiting period.

If you're in/ever in Texas, feel free to PM me to take you to the range. I'll be happy to learn you up on how to use them shootin' irons.

S.

[drrty byl]

We can wish away guns or ban them, but that won't stop folks from using em' to cause trouble. Outlawing guns results in an advantaged criminal class.

[Lucario EX]

The people who we don't want having guns are the bad guys. And because they're the bad guys, they don't care whether it's legal for them to have guns or not. They'll find ways of getting them anyway. Which would mean that if some insane murderer broke into your house, they would have a gun and you probably wouldn't, so you would have no way to defend yourself.

In short, bad idea.

[Otaku]

To be fair, an insane murderer would just use what is on hand or whatever they find more fun, I would think.

[V_For_Vendetta]

Speaking as an insane person, I would sooner use a straw to kill than a gun.

[deckmaster]

Originally Posted by Boofu

Oh goodness, This is one of my favorite issues. I will wait for the thread to develop before I dive in.

Guns cause crime.... like flies cause garbage.

I disagree. Guns prevent crimes, not cause them.

[rhodesia123]

Originally Posted by deckmaster

I disagree. Guns prevent crimes, not cause them.

it was sarcasm .

[Darkwater]

Ok ok. I was thinking about the advantages of carrying a concealed weapon when I first turned 21.
I think there are dif. types of guns first off.
Pistols= Shooting people.( please don't argue cause it's true)
Shotguns= Hunting/Shooting People
The dif here is that shotguns atleast have a chance of being something other than human slayers.

So back to me thinking about CHL.1. I realized I have never gotten a gun pulled on me and I will never put myself in
the situation to get one pulled on me. 2. If a gun was pulled on me.. it is already there. So unless I practice alot
of gun drawing I have a chance of 0%. 3. If I carry a gun and am robbed by a guy with a gun.. He now has 2 guns, 1 of which has no connection to him. and dead people don't talk.

I think there should be regualations on firearms however in all reality bad guys= bad things. If they want
a gun they can get one. I think there should be more sharp punishments for abuse of firearms. I know the human rights
people disagree, but they took away that freedom when they made the decision.

[Boofu]

Originally Posted by KindaFighting

Ok ok. I was thinking about the advantages of carrying a concealed weapon when I first turned 21.
I think there are dif. types of guns first off.
Pistols= Shooting people.( please don't argue cause it's true)
Shotguns= Hunting/Shooting People
The dif here is that shotguns atleast have a chance of being something other than human slayers.

So back to me thinking about CHL.1. I realized I have never gotten a gun pulled on me and I will never put myself in
the situation to get one pulled on me. 2. If a gun was pulled on me.. it is already there. So unless I practice alot
of gun drawing I have a chance of 0%. 3. If I carry a gun and am robbed by a guy with a gun.. He now has 2 guns, 1 of which has no connection to him. and dead people don't talk.

I think there should be regualations on firearms however in all reality bad guys= bad things. If they want
a gun they can get one. I think there should be more sharp punishments for abuse of firearms. I know the human rights
people disagree, but they took away that freedom when they made the decision.

Not to belabor the point, but pistols can also be used for sport (eg. targets, speed shooting).

However, regardless of firearms use in recreation, the 2nd amendment was not written with recreation in mind.

[evil psyduck]

Hand guns can also be used for hunting. I myself hunt with a .44 mag revolver.

[Darkwater]

What do you hunt with it? is it your main or a side arm? also just out of curiousity when do you store this gun at night? also real quick do you keep it loaded in your house? I am sorry for all the questions. I just have never heard of
someone hunting with a pistol as their main firearm. Curious if you use it for "home protection" is why all the questions.

[jkwarrior]

I have never been more proud to be a Texan. When I clicked on this thread, the first 3 responses were from my fellow Texans.

[Crosplat]

I guess I came across as somebody who thinks gun ownership is bad. That is so far from the truth it is not funny. I come from a family that is heavily into guns and hunting (dove and quail are the best), and I believe in the 2nd amendment all the way.
Spotter, I am not familiar with Texas law concerning guns, but after reading what I wrote and reading what you wrote, I find myself agreeing with your post more than my own. If I am ever in Texas, I will take you up on your offer.

[Brady1]

Guns are the only way to protect ourselves from a corrupt/abusive government. Enough said.

[Wood811]

I was just wondering if anybody knew but,..does obama want to make guns illeagal for the average citizen?

[Crosplat]

Originally Posted by PokemansForGeeks

Quote deleted
~Duke

I suggest you talk to some people who were caught up in the L.A. Riots. The Korean store owners who had guns did not get their stores destroyed, and the ones who didn't lost their business to looters and rioters. Guns are the way civilized people can protect themselves when law enforcement and the National Guard are overwhelmed.

Do you think fishing is for people with half a brain too?

Your comment that hunting is for hicks is COMPLETELY out of line. Do you consider Ernest Hemingway and Theodore Roosevelt to be unintelligible hicks?

[DukeFireBird]

guys, this thread is veering way off topic. Please bring it back on track.

~Duke

[Darkwater]

My bad Duke. It was all in fun.

[The Knee]

Well, im going to throw a wrench into this. Living in Georgia and being heavily tied to the food business, many restaurants we're hesitant about allowing guns into our restaurants. It's not because we are anti-gun, however, the controversy stems with the fact that, under this law, if you carry a concealed weapon into a restaurant you are not allowed to drink any alcholic beverages. Now, this is all well and good, but how are the restaurants going to be sure someone who is drinking at the bar doesn't have a gun? Do you want to be frisked at the door, or is that an invasion of privacy? Is it the restaurant's right to refuse service, or is that discrimination?

I personally would have no problem with "Law-abiding Citizens" carrying concealed weapons into restaurants if it didn't adversely affect the restaurant's business. When customers happen to see a concealed weapon, it does indeed make them uneasy, and if someone were to drink one two many, with his or her inhibitions hampered, that gun makes that person that more dangerous.

Im curious to how all of you would handle the situation.

Pro-gun for protection purposes by the way.

[V_For_Vendetta]

I'm pro gun all the way. People who would commit crimes with firearms would simply get them illegally, and those who are unfit to get guns are already unable to get them legally using out current laws.

Honestly, why WOULDN'T you be pro gun?

[Dr. Mason]

People have made this argument--Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

That's all well and good. Fact is, People kill people....with guns.

Honestly, I don't believe that was the intent of the second amendment. I thought that just had more to do with militias and such.

Theodore Roosevelt? Don't get me started on Teddy. Teddy had the biggest case of'compensation syndrome' I've ever seen in history. People called him a momma's boy when he was little, and he carried it ever since. Teddy, an honorable man? Teddy Roosevelt was effectively a big bully with 'a big stick' trying to compensate.

People...aren't particularly good at judging either. If John has a gun and gets mad and a bit too drunk, it could get ugly for Karen and kids.

[V_For_Vendetta]

Originally Posted by The Supes

People have made this argument--Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

That's all well and good. Fact is, People kill people....with guns.

...and other tools as well. Not allowing guns won't reduce the murder rate, people will simply use Knives, heck a couple of people hijacked the planes to do the 9/11 attacks with BOX CUTTERS. People determined to murder would simply get a gun illegally, and people who would have been able to defend themselves with their gun before will be unable to because you decided they shouldn't have it.

Originally Posted by The Supes

Honestly, I don't believe that was the intent of the second amendment. I thought that just had more to do with militias and such.

That was it exactly, for people to be their own armed militia and be ready to fight for their rights at any time.

Originally Posted by The Supes

Theodore Roosevelt? Don't get me started on Teddy. Teddy had the biggest case of'compensation syndrome' I've ever seen in history. People called him a momma's boy when he was little, and he carried it ever since. Teddy, an honorable man? Teddy Roosevelt was effectively a big bully with 'a big stick' trying to compensate.

...no comment, just bashing and opinion irrelevant to what I am arguing.

Originally Posted by The Supes

People...aren't particularly good at judging either. If John has a gun and gets mad and a bit too drunk, it could get ugly for Karen and kids.

It would get ugly John were to have a knife, or even his fist. Not to mention drunk people who lower their ability to reason lower everything else, including AIMING. Meaning John would need to be in close range to truely be effective with a gun, the same range as a knife. And unlike a knife, a gun will run out of ammo, and reloading the gun while John is drunk won't take 10 seconds, it will allow for some time for Karen to call the police/escape the house.

Given the scenario, I would take John having a gun over a knife.

[Dr. Mason]

I Wanna Talk About Teddy Roosevelt. :[