Are some gun restrictions reasonable??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
629
I have read posts from some of you who seem to want absolutely unrestricted carry of firearms. For people who feel inclined towards that type of a policy.... Are the restrictions on firearms reasonable in some places??

-aircraft?
-courtrooms?
-prisons?
-mental institutions?

I would like to hear thoughts on those or any other restricted areas that may be debatable.


For those who believe in completely unrestricted carry.... What about other weapons? Should bombs also be allowed on planes?
 
Bombs are indiscriminate, possibly unstable and have no defensive use (outside of minefields and claymores, which I don't think you were getting at). Comparing guns to bombs is a pretty fantastic way to get your entire argument hosed within a few seconds.

As far as restrictions, I would really like to see the general CCW requirements adopted for purchase of a firearm period, I would like felons to have the right to carry if they are released from prison (which would require a pretty substantial overhaul of the justice system, too) and a few other things. I'm largely in favor of getting rid of limitations, but I think a few new ones properly implemented would do a lot more good than harm.

As far as restrictions on where one might be allowed to carry, screw that. Church, school, courthouses and so forth might seem safe, but they certainly aren't, not any more so than anyplace else. I don't particularly like the idea of a "go right on in" policy for courthouses and the like, but I haven't given enough thought to it to develop my own complex solution to that - I just think there's a better one than completely barring arms in certain locations.

Prisons, as far as I'm concerned, need to be built Alcatraz-style and run by ex-Marines with NFA goodies and lots of checkpoints. Conjugal visits kind of mess up the whole "this is supposed to be a punishment" thing.
 
Well, supposedly, it;s illegal to bring a gun into a school. History has shown time and agian how well that one has worked. If a law is junk and it doesn't work, it shouldn't be kept around. You can tell me all day long I can't take a gun into court, but for the guy who goes in to shoot the judge that sent his brother up for life, I'm sure that's the furthest thing from his mind. Creating gun free zones just means that the guy who doesn't obey knows he can have some fun for just that much longer.

As far as bombs on planes go, no. No airline is that hard up that they need to start doing bombing runs en route to their passenger's destination, although that'd be better then looking to the right and seeing the Grand Canyon.
 
You're running into a fundamental problem: restriction. In reality, restrictions are piecemeal, spottily enforced, and largely depend on voluntary compliance in a large scale setting. Laws. Good for reaction, less so for preemption. A lawful, decent individual will generally abide by laws. Those who have contempt for laws and disregard for others are unlikely to be deterred by the prospect of retroactive punishment. I have little to fear from a suitcase nuke in the right hands; everything to fear from a broken bottle in the wrong hands. I don't pretend to be able to determine people's future actions. Therefore you are left with a continuum ranging from theoretical zero-tolerance to no restrictions. It's the height of foolhardiness to expect that someone intent on harming others will respect laws that get in their way.
 
Maybe it sounded like I am pushing for some restrictions.... I never said "I think our restrictions should be X, Y, and Z". It was an open-ended question.

I never compared guns to bombs. I posed the bomb question to those who want absolutely no restrictions on any type of weapon.

I am NOT talking about a law here. I am talking about a "restriction". This means checkpoints, security, x-ray, metal detectors, bars on windows, etc. I have no problem with guns in schools, and I don't think we can restrict them.

Creating gun free zones just means that the guy who doesn't obey knows he can have some fun for just that much longer.
How many shootings have we had on commercial airplanes recently?

Laws. Good for reaction, less so for preemption. A lawful, decent individual will generally abide by laws. Those who have contempt for laws and disregard for others are unlikely to be deterred by the prospect of retroactive punishment.
I never mentioned the word "law". For this topic, let's realize that a "restriction" does not mean telling someone that they are not allowed to carry. It's about sealing off a building and using serious security to prevent the carrying of weapons.
 
-Airplanes.
Once upon a time, not long ago, Pilots in the US did carry firearms in the cockpit.
I do not have the bookmark anymore, still Pilots did , mail runs and other runs.
Folks like LEO and such would board, with firearms , in uniform or plain clothes.
I sat next to folks / traveled with some of these folks.

-Courtrooms.
Probably depends on where one lives and political flavor, still I grew up before this state had "permission papers" [CCW]. Everyone carried, Judges often recommended that folks "carry a gun, and at least have one in vehicle" - Judges told me this, told me this as a kid and again when I was in high school. Judge come to school for a talk, we knew each other and asked me right there in private in the HS "you do have a gun in the car - right?'

Yep, many a time walked in to watch a proceeding, with a concealed handgun and no problem. Judge invited me to come see what was going on. Invited to his chambers "you packing?, got one in the car?".

Sorry, but I never had blood baths on any planes, or courtrooms, in school or anywhere , .gov, politicians and teachers are full of crap IMO.

WE had knives in our pockets at school and <gasp> Guns in our vehicles at school, on school property.
We brought guns into schools and did show and tell, and messed with them in Shop class.

Prison.
Hey, I am a regular citizen. Some real bad folks behind them bars. I have gone and visited a Prison - hey, I wanted my buds in LEO and the Correction officers watching me . Heck grab an extra shotgun and if matters go south toss me one!

Now here, I can understand Security. The BGs far outnumber the good guys.
BGs in a Prison don't care, what is one going to do - send them to Prison?

Common Sense comes into Play. We do not need to legislate common sense.
In an environment such as a Prison I can see where Security is paramount.
Hey, I was driven to this prison, my vehicle left elsewhere, and my guns left with a trusted person - who left (dropped me off) and picked me where allowed to.

Mental Health.
I did a rotation for a bit in a Private Mental Health hospital. Mostly kids to young adults, with very few geriatrics.
Now they had armed security. I / we were not allowed weapons on campus.
I did have a pocketknife - which was fine according to Policy.

I got to sit , in a special room and experience a Schizophrenic undergo two of his "voices in his head". I mean total transformation in voice, physical language and the whole bit.

Just he and I , my pockets empty, except for cigarettes and book of matches.
Lamp and everything else bolted down.
Now armed security, Docs, Staff were viewing my assessment with this guy.
Game plan was - he come at me, do what I had to do to get out that locked door behind me [electronic lock] and let the Professional Personal get to him from behind him through a access.

I did not met the "Beast" - sorta wanted to, sorta did not. Handsome young man, beautiful , handsome young son. One day landlord came to collect rent and the Beast voice in his head said to kill this guy.
Sad, really really sad.
I did not want a firearm. Sounds dumb, my sincere reasoning was, I wanted to learn, I wanted to experience this patient, for some reason he allowed me to visit with him, and did not want anyone else to do so.
I cared about the "why" and the "what" and getting this person "whole" - whatever that means to a devastated wife, confused and scared young boy and disrupted family - one that "thought" they would always have a normal life.


Common Sense, What a Prudent Person would do, Passing Forward and educating kids, Parenting.

Blasting Caps. Dear me, in grade school they went on about teaching us kids what to do if we ran across a blasting cap.
We were also doing Civil Defense Drills more than fire drills.

The way I was raised, Firearms, Matches, Fires - WE knew about. How raised.
Blasting caps and with Cuba pointing missiles at the US, and other "Threats of Communism" - they made sure we kids, all persons were educated and knew what to do.

None of this lying, making up stats, skewing stats , hiding us from things to "protect us".

Toss the cards on the table and show us.

I assure you, when there was a inmate escape , and folks living near these prisons, inmates knew pretty much not to mess with the folks, in fact best to avoid certain areas.
Folks were armed with knowledge, firearms, and knew how to shoot.
Including a kid .

Just because TPTB "says so" does not make it true. Gov't lies, Politician wanting control, and brainwashing the masses about the evils of guns - nothing more that Tyranny gaining control.

Criminals are not made up like regular folks, hence we call them criminals.
All throughout history criminals have not obeyed laws, no matter who enacted them or the penalties for breaking them.

Disarming folks does nothing more that give Criminals easier freedom to take down Prey and makes the law abiding easier prey by adhering to Tyranny under the guise of being protected by Gov't.


I carry a Case Bare head Trapper often, have for years. Did so on planes too, even to Jamaica.
Nothing ever happened . Used it to cut my food, get stuff out of a package, cut fruit and what not.

It is the intent of the user of a tool - not the tool.


I suggest folks take a look at the UK and the laws they have and how they read.
Please note how matters have played out and how less safe one is.
 
The cost of "sealing off" a building is prohibitedly expensive, which is why it's not usually done for anything less important than the Pentagon.

You asked about planes; in response I will ask how many shootings have occured in schools recently. While nothing's happened at an airport yet, it really wouldn't be that tough for a couple of guys (from what I've seen flying recently) to make their way to a plane popping off TSA agents along the way. All TSA consists of, at least in the airports I've been to, is a checkpoint with a couple of metal detectors, x-ray units and eight or so TSA guys milling around, one or two of which are armed.

I can't think of a reason why anyone would want to attempt a frontal assault on an airport, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet. Plenty of other victim disarmament zones for loonies to take their frustrations out on that don't have armed agents patrolling (for instance, schools).

And you did compare bombs to guns with "...also allowed on planes." Along with what? - guns? :D Most here will agree that bombs, nukes, etc. really have no legitimate place in the civilian defense hierarchy outside of a SHTF, American Revolution Take Two scenario.
 
I don't think there should be restrictions on firearms.
I think there should be strict punishment and restrictions on those who misuse them.
Not allowing me to carry everywhere does not reduce crime.
I have never shot or threatened to shoot anyone.
A bomb is not a firearm and therefore should be restricted from some places.
A bomb can and has on occasion gone off accidentally.
My firearms cannot go off by themselves, they need help.
If the police department can have it I should be able to have it.
AC
 
I have read posts from some of you who seem to want absolutely unrestricted carry of firearms. For people who feel inclined towards that type of a policy.... Are the restrictions on firearms reasonable in some places??

-aircraft?
-courtrooms?
-prisons?
-mental institutions?


It is my personal belief
That mental institution patents should not have firearms.
That prisoners should not have firearms.
That people being tried for crimes should not be allowed a firearm in the courtroom.
That all terrorist types should not be allowed to carry on planes.
 
You asked about planes; in response I will ask how many shootings have occured in schools recently. While nothing's happened at an airport yet, it really wouldn't be that tough for a couple of guys (from what I've seen flying recently) to make their way to a plane popping off TSA agents along the way. All TSA consists of, at least in the airports I've been to, is a checkpoint with a couple of metal detectors, x-ray units and eight or so TSA guys milling around, one or two of which are armed.

I worked at an airport.
I can tell you for a fact I could have put anything I wanted on any airplane there.
Saw a video camera alarmed in the explosive detector.
After everyone checked it and rechecked it and couldn't determine if it was an explosive they called the port police.
Port police showed up, she picked it up looked at it and said "it's a camera", sat it down and walked off. That device went onto a flight without another question.
Airport security is just like gun control.
It does nothing to stop the bad guys but it is a pain in the butt for the honest person.
 
Fair enough.

The places you mention, however

-aircraft?
-courtrooms?
-prisons?
-mental institutions?

lead me to think of laws, as they are largely gov-run facilities. Aircraft are the exception, but with HEAVY gov regulation. Gov restriction = laws.

I'm pragmatic regarding the aforementioned restrictions. Doesn't mean I approve of them. Felons and mental patients are prohibited from possessing firearms because of WHAT they are rather than WHERE they are at the most fundamental level (admittedly, a technicality of sorts). Aircraft/Courtrooms? There might be accident-safety concerns, but those are shared by the individuals permitted to carry firearms in those locations already. The same goes for weapon retention concerns to a degree. Oh, and btw, you'd be surprised at the actual efficacy of some "restricted" locations you allude to. I don't claim to have broad knowledge or firsthand experience, but I rather suspect there are security breaches on a daily basis. Ever heard of red teams? Remember the French screeners who "lost" high explosives during a training scenario? People who accidentally carried prohibited items without knowing and only later found out? These are the ones you hear about. With the sheer volume of traffic, things slip through. Courtrooms are a joke. Maybe in states with lots of per capita guns they're more careful, but where I live the screening is cursory at best. :uhoh:
 
Let me get straight to the point. In the second ammendmet it finishes by saying the right "Shall Not Be Infringed". this means that there are absolutely no limitations. Case closed.
 
I'm against violent felons possesing firearms then again I'm against them ever being released from prison (that includes pedofiles who have molested and hurt children), then again whats to stop them from obtaining a gun? Thats why I don't support them being released from prison.

I'm unsure about background checks, there have been cases where mentally ill have bought a gun from a walmart or gun store where they were diagnosed incompetent to handle a firearm or are suicidal. Then again, what will stop a mentally ill person from using another tool to kill themselves?

There are a few gun owners who are just overall dumbasses, not safe with their guns, finger on trigger, and wouldn't trust them for 2 seconds even driving a car. I guess education can help but I don't believe education should be mandatory or forced.

other than that, I think we should be able to possess fully automatic firearms, carry concealed without a permit anywhere (including airplanes), and no waiting periods.
 
the short and sweet answer

Laws only affect law abiding people.

Now I know that is a news flash, but think about it. Society passes a law prohibiting people from carrying a gun in certain places because they are afraid that person will do something illegal there with that gun. That same person, however, is considered, by the same society to be a responsible law abiding person everywhere else with the same gun... I don't know about you, but that makes no sense to me.

I feel that independent businesses, corporations, etc should be able to decide for themselves, but when it comes to gov't buildings and any where that if funded by tax payer dollars, then if that same gov't licenses some one to carry, they should be allowed to carry there.
 
I support CCW basically everywhere and by anyone who is not a criminal (again, no violent felons released from prison). The only place I would have objections to CCW would be in certain gov't installations, such as the Pentagon and White House. In that case, it should be screening and open carry after your screening (sorry, we can't have just anybody walking into the Pentagon armed).
 
"Absolutely no limitations - case closed."

OK, so a seven year old should be able to buy a machinegun. A certifiable lunatic should be able to carry an auto shotgun anywhere without question. Escaped prisoners should have no problem buying or carrying guns. It should be OK for gangs to carry guns openly. No restrictions at all? Really?

All rights entail responsibilities and all rights are subject to some reasonable restrictions. The question is when do those reasonable restrictions become so unreasonable that they negate the right itself.

Jim
 
A private business should have the right of declaring anything and anyone forbidden in or on their private property. Leave it to the consumers if they want to keep those individuals in business or not. Government-owned locations and public areas generally should not limit carrying a firearm. Patients in mental institutions and inmates in prisons, and courtrooms are all deserving exceptions. The first two off-limits on my list seem obvious, and in any case are touched on by previous posts, but I will add that visitors to either should have to declare if they are carrying a firearm. Courtrooms with criminal trials are places where the law is to be enacted on individuals, whether finding the person guilty or not. An individual in custody cannot carry a firearm for self-protection, and rightly so. However this person, innocent of a crime until proven otherwise, deserves protection and guarantees of protection within the court. This includes reasonable precautions such as not allowing firearms, besides those of the LEOs (and I would allow the judge, too), brought into the courtroom. For civil suits, though, I don't see a strong argument for firearm restrictions.

Carrying around bombs is not a protected right, and not necessary. It's hard to justify that a bomb is for self-defense purposes, since using it without killing yourself in the process typically (though not always, I'll grant) would require fore-thought in placement and detonation. Tossing a grenade at a car doing a drive-by may be an exception, but it takes a lot of careful thought to know your target and beyond when detonating a bomb.
 
Shooter? I will address this post as if it is addressed to me. It may be, I am an "absolutist", as far as the second amendment goes. I think Anyone should be allowed to carry anything, in any manner they choose, anywhere they want to go.
If someone does bad, arrest him, and convict him, and his rkba goes away, along with his right to freedom. IF/WHEN he is released he regains all rights.
No one should lose his RKBA because he is black or white or cross eyed or too old, or too young, not because he fought with his wife, or abused his dog. Not because he retired, and is now living in a camper with no permanent address. Not because they are female, and afflicted with a monthly period of irritability, and irrationality.

My problem, and yours, if you think about it is,,,, How long will it be before someone thinks, "We need to bar anyone with a name beginning with a "K" or an "S" from having a dangerous firearm.

I have one final thing to say, in direct response to your question of, "How many shootings have we had on commercial airplanes recently?" I say that we have had four too few. Eight firearms, divided between four airplanes on sept 11 of 2001 should have had no trouble neutralizing six 59 cent box cutters on each of the four airplanes involved in our most damaging national tragedy that ever happened. (Yes, I mean worst, more people killed than on the "day that will live in infamy", Pearl Harbor attack, Dec 7, 1941)
 
have read posts from some of you who seem to want absolutely unrestricted carry of firearms. For people who feel inclined towards that type of a policy.... Are the restrictions on firearms reasonable in some places??

-aircraft?
-courtrooms?
-prisons?
-mental institutions?

I would like to hear thoughts on those or any other restricted areas that may be debatable.


For those who believe in completely unrestricted carry.... What about other weapons? Should bombs also be allowed on planes?

I believe that guns on airplanes should be allowed as long as they are declared. Courtrooms same deal, no guns in prisons except for guards and same goes for mental institutions. Federal installations yes as long as they are declared.

Bombs are indiscriminite and are not firearms so applying them to this would be a waste of time.
 
Gun restrictions reasonable== NO

Bombs on planes== NO, unless you can come up with a valid reason which I doubt anyone can.

Shall not be infringed... Why is this so difficult to understand?


C
 
I can agree with declaring, in fact I think thats a very good compromise. I get to carry my gun anywhere and the people in charge of the area get to know that I am carrying. So long as that doesn't equal harrasment like someone breathing down my neck the entire time I think thats a good compromise.

Bomb on the plane? Well bit tricky. You have many types of bombs and materials. You have very stable materials that require certian things to actually be dangerous. Chemicals that need to be mixed, needs a blasting cap, etc. Without these they are about as safe as a block of clay. Then you things like nitro glycern which is pretty unstable and subject to shock. If it is a stable explosive and isn't activated (such as chemicals mixed or blasting caps inserted) and can not be easily activated by radio or other communication it goes into a lock box and he gets it back after the flight.
 
"Are some gun restrictions reasonable?? "

2 i can think of.

1. never point a firearm at anything that you do NOT want to destory.
2. do not destroy anyone that does not need it.
 
Restricted Areas

The only ones that can be made to work are backed up by a rigorous X-ray, look in bags, pat-down multi-level system creating a sterile area. And these places need a place to check weapons just outside the entrance.

Any other kind of location is a joke. Should be established for fixed, high value targets - i.e. the White House, Pentagon, airport gate areas, etc., but is not a solution for every mall, stop and rob, restaurant, or public facility that can not be built and maintained as a sterile area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top