[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[ABBEY]

You know what I mean... Army farmers yes... But little weak minded humans NO !

[Mike E]

Navy? RAF?

[Steve Moss]

Abbey so your stance is that the normal civilian shouldn't have a gun but:

Military? An apparent, yes.

Farmers? An apparent, yes.

What about:

Law enforcement?

Retired military?

Retired farmers?

Retired law enforcement?

Someone who has had a credible threat made against his or her life?

Someone who has a large amount of money on premises, such as a small business owner, which needs daily or periodic transport to the bank?

And if you answered yes to any of the above categories, why do they get a firearm and a normal citizen does not?

[ABBEY]

Abbey so your stance is that the normal civilian shouldn't have a gun but:

Military? An apparent, yes.

Farmers? An apparent, yes.

What about:

Law enforcement? Yes

Retired military?no

Retired farmers?no

Retired law enforcement?no

Someone who has had a credible threat made against his or her life?yes

Someone who has a large amount of money on premises, such as a small business owner, which needs daily or periodic transport to the bank?

No

And if you answered yes to any of the above categories, why do they get a firearm and a normal citizen does not?

Why? because police need them . Retired police no .

Guns for legal purposes yes but joe public no.

[Mike E]

Abbey so your stance is that the normal civilian shouldn't have a gun but:

Military? - Yes (part of the job).

Farmers? - Yes (ditto)

What about:

Law enforcement? - Yes (ditto, imo).

Retired military? - No (retired = no need for a firearm anymore).

Retired farmers? - No (ditto).

Retired law enforcement? - No (ditto).

Someone who has had a credible threat made against his or her life? - No (police protection w/ firearm is fine imo, but not a personal firearm).

Someone who has a large amount of money on premises, such as a small business owner, which needs daily or periodic transport to the bank? (Yes, held by someone with apt training or previous police/armed service).

And if you answered yes to any of the above categories, why do they get a firearm and a normal citizen does not?

Because there is no need for a civilian to hold one in our culture. Though I suppose if apt training and strict monthly checks were applied, I'd accept it but still not be happy.

[Tom]

A tragic story from Florida

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/zuri-chambers-shoots-self-father-charged_n_4897045.html

3 year old girl shoots herself with her dad's gun he left on a table

There must be responsible gun owners but they really really need to throw the book at guys like this and make an example of them if they aren't to change the rules on ownership

[Steve Moss]

Shockingly, up to 300,000 Connecticut "assault weapon" owners are ignoring the ban to register their weapons. Enforcement would bankrupt the state and would be a political disaster for the politicians who passed the law.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/editorial-connecticuts-gun-revolt/?page=1

[Stuart]

Wow, Steve. Was that piece written by the NRA or just a regular pro-gun lobbyist?

[5tevie]

As a person who lists "Air rifle shooting" as one of his hobbies (strictly firing at paper targets only) I have an interest in seeing just where any UK gun laws may be heading. One thing for certain is that a blanket ban on rifles and pistols of any kind just won't do any good. You don't need a ban on ownership. What you need is a strict set of rules about who can own them and where they can be used. For instance, at the present time, ownership of an air rifle with a power of less than 12 ft/lbs does not require the owner to have any kind of licence (6 ft/lbs for pistols)

For those of you old enough, think back to the Hungerford shootings and the aftermath with regard to the banning of ownership of guns. What happened? The good guys handed their guns into the local police station as required by law but, surprise, surprise, the bad guys kept theirs. This meant that crimes where guns were involved didn't reduce meaning that the ban was a complete waste of time.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be laws, more that any laws passed need to be very carefully thought out. For instance, if I was in charge of sorting out gun laws, here are my views on the matter. Anyone over 18 years of age may own an air rifle under 12 ft/lbs. It may not be carried around in the street and when being transported from home to a recognised shooting range it must be in a rifle bag or case in the boot or rear seat area of a car and must not be in reach of the driver. Any person wishing to own a more powerful air rifle or rifle/pistol that fires bullets rather than pellets must apply to the local police for permission to own such a gun.

[Husky]

I'm all for gun ownership just so long as people have to pass a psychological assessment first.

[thenodrog]

I'm all for gun ownership just so long as people have to pass a psychological assessment first.

In theory thats almost what happens now. Gun licences are required now with (I think 2) references required from local citizens.

[Steve Moss]

I wish I knew how to paste this image into the thread, but it sums up my thoughts on school shootings:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/1920041_10152273589122726_589681385_n.jpg

[jim mk2]

That chart misses the biggest causes of shootings - 1) easy access to guns and 2) an inherently violent society. 1 leads to 2 therefore the US will always suffer mass shootings.

[ABBEY]

1. People with inferiority complex , who need to feel the hard on by carrying a penis extension .

[Baz]

I wish I knew how to paste this image into the thread, but it sums up my thoughts on school shootings:https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/1920041_10152273589122726_589681385_n.jpg

The lack of reasoning fairly sums up my thoughts on you and this issue too.

[otto man]

The lack of reasoning fairly sums up my thoughts on you and this issue too.

So your thoughts on Steve and the whole issue lack reason? Seems fair to me as you obviously don't understand that; (a). Guns don't kill people,people kill people and that,(b)Banning guns doesn't work either. Proof of the pudding being the rise of gun crime in the UK (Hand gun crime has more than doubled in the last 20 years or so) Do you think the drugs ban is working too? When will people realise that the answer is not to Legislate but to Educate?

[Stuart]

I wish I knew how to paste this image into the thread, but it sums up my thoughts on school shootings:

The easiest way is to type (img) before and (/img) after your URL picture link. No spaces.

Replacing the ( ) with [ ] because the board software won't let me type it properly!

[ultrablue]

Ok Steve, mass shootings are committed when crazy people shoot innocent people. And that's where you've stopped your analysis.

Well, let me blow your mind here. Ready.

You can't shoot people without a gun.

(Sorry for the toddler tone, but that picture was just moronic).

[otto man]

Ok Steve, mass shootings are committed when crazy people shoot innocent people. And that's where you've stopped your analysis.

Well, let me blow your mind here. Ready.

You can't shoot people without a gun.

(Sorry for the toddler tone, but that picture was just moronic).

Yep that's true. But you can sure as hell still kill them if you're determined enough and as is evidenced by the UK a ban won't stop people acquiring guns.

[K-Hod]

True enough, but just their being in circulation means that by default you could obtain one more easily by hook or by crook....

[otto man]

True enough, but just their being in circulation means that by default you could obtain one more easily by hook or by crook....

Doesn't that just reinforce the point that the problems lies not in ownership but in misuse by those determined to do so? Like it or not,guns will never be totally out of circulation, The only way to deal with the problem is not to legislate but educate.

[ultrablue]

Otto you've missed the point man. There needs to be legislation against mentally deranged people getting their hands on guns, precisely because they can't be educated. Now you are right , legislation doesn't work all the time as humans have free will. But laws should make it as hard as possible for the homicidal to get such a deadly weapon. At the moment the US does not have those laws.

[otto man]

Otto you've missed the point man. There needs to be legislation against mentally deranged people getting their hands on guns, precisely because they can't be educated. Now you are right , legislation doesn't work all the time as humans have free will. But laws should make it as hard as possible for the homicidal to get such a deadly weapon. At the moment the US does not have those laws.

Oh I agree. There should be a way of weeding out unsuitable owners/ applicants. However those inclined to murderous acts will simply resort to the black market to fulfill their need.

[jim mk2]

Here in England I'm sure if I wanted to acquire a gun I could do so but it would be very difficult and risky. The difference is in the US I can walk in off the street into a gun shop and walk out with a weapon. The US is comfortable with this so presumably it is also comfortable with its children being killed in mass shootings on a regular basis.

[otto man]

Here in England I'm sure if I wanted to acquire a gun I could do so but it would be very difficult and risky. The difference is in the US I can walk in off the street into a gun shop and walk out with a weapon. The US is comfortable with this so presumably it is also comfortable with its children being killed in mass shootings on a regular basis.

In England it's a simple process to acquire a shotgun license and then purchase the weapon. Now please qualify your last statement, because frankly it's a ridiculous and also an offensive thing to say. Have an opinion by all means but at least make sure it's an informed one before expressing it. After all you wouldn't want to look stupid, would you?.