Are some gun restrictions reasonable??

[ZeSpectre]

Unrestricted weapons...

The good guys won't do bad things regardless of what "weapons" they have.

The bad guys will break the other laws (hence the label criminal) and enforcement can hinge on those other things.

No possible set of laws can prevent the stupid from being, well, stupid.


Should unrestricted access apply to convicted criminals, the mentally ill, etc? In my mind "we the people" applies to those of us, of the "age of majority", willing to operate in the framework of our overarching social contract. That is part of my definition of a full citizen. Someone (mentally) incapable of doing so can never be a full citizen but is more like a "ward of the state". Someone who willfully chooses to break that "social contract" via criminal activity has, by choice, forfited their status as a full citizen.

That's how it works in my head, you may disagree.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Adults Only

With the proviso that anyone who is to carry must have either

• a) reached the age of majority (adulthood), or
• b) been trained and certified as being competent, safe, and responsible at some minimum prior age,

and given that the only people walking the streets are those people either

• a) known to be trustworthy, or
• b) with no criminal record of any kind,

then if one wishes to go about armed with a rifle, pistol, sword, large knife, or whatever, there should be no reason to restrict said arms.

There ARE places where people known to be dangerous or unstable are housed, and carrying weapons in such a place is seriously contrary to common sense. Asylums, prisons, mental wards, and the like are places where you either don't take a weapon, or you take enough armed people that the disparity of force favors the armed folks.

 

[22-rimfire]

One man's definition of "reasonable" is another man's definition of "unreasonable". I support no additional reasonable or unreasonable restrictions concerning civilian ownership, use, or carry of firearms whether it be registration or defacto registration, national or state databases of firearm owners, ammunition restrictions, taxes on ammunition or reloading components, requirement for development of smart guns, firearm storage requirements, requirements for training classes for ownership, permits to purchase or own a firearm.

Personally, I would like to see the requirement for the distruction of all Form 4473's after the NICs background check is conducted. Any records of the NICs check should be destroyed within 30-days following accessing the check.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

To those who keep repeating "laws only affect law abiding citizens": I agree. That is not part of this debate. This topic is about the absolute best effort to prevent firearms from entering said place/building, IF it is warrented. Now... where is that effort warranted?

And you did compare bombs to guns with "...also allowed on planes."

If I ask "should people who drive cars also be allowed to drink Pepsi?", did I just compare cars and Pepsi? I don't see how.

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.

That is what would need to be done to enforce a restriction. It would clearly only be done for the most critical of locations. My question is, "are there any of these types of places?" Some of the responses here are saying that there is not a single place where guns should be restricted.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

I worked at an airport.
I can tell you for a fact I could have put anything I wanted on any airplane there.

I believe you. Security and protection, in most cases, is just something that is supposed to appease people. Security is not something you can do half-assed!! Still, most people believe that a phone call to the police will make everything safe.

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?

I am not talking about making things only as secure as they are today (in those areas that require it). I am asking if people think there are actually areas where guns should be restricted by using the highest level of security/restriction possible. NOT just a sign on the door that says "Please don't carry guns here".

...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.

"declare if they are carrying a firearm"?? No good. Security screening must be in place to examine those who do not declare that they are carrying.
I agree that LEOs and the judge should have the right to carry in a courtroom. What about concealed carry in criminal trials? It is a pretty emotional and intense situation when a rapist confesses to raping your son or daughter.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

...I think Anyone should be allowed to carry anything, in any manner they choose, anywhere they want to go...

Bombs on planes? High caliber on planes? Should there be any limits to anyone's firepower on a commercial airplane??

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)

I agree with you there! The biggest crime that took place on 9/11 was that committed by our security system (i.e. gov't regulations, gov't restrictions, and the apathy of the airline industry to implement real security).

Personally, I do think there should be some restrictions on what can be carried on an airplane (bombs, explosive devices, and some high calibers). However, I do not agree with the restriction of defensive firearms on planes in whole.

I believe that guns on airplanes should be allowed as long as they are declared.

Declaring guns before boarding seems nice to me, but still ineffective. Don't we still need all the screening processes for those who are not declaring, or for those who carry explosive devices?

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.

Yes, I think you and I are on the same page.
I think the White House and Pentagon are clearly areas that need this type of security. I hold airplanes as another place that needs this security, although not the same restriction. The reason is that planes hold many people, reliant on the functioning of a machine (the plane). Damaging the plane can mean killing everyone. I don't think all firearms must be restricted, but I think they (really their handlers) all need to be examined. Essentially, a background check and age requirement. I don't think children under 14 (maybe) should be carrying concealed.

No.

Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.

Seeing as how they've already got several miles, it's best they get no more inches.

Clearly, I have miscommunicated my intent. I advocate removing all gun restrictions down to those that are absolutely essential (i.e. White House, Pentagon, others to debate here). Guns are already restricted from airplanes. I am asking us to question whether it is reasonable? Some states restrict guns from prisons (visitors), mental institutions (visitors), courtrooms, and other places. Are any of those reasonable to REMAIN in effect?

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Unrestricted weapons...
...Should unrestricted access apply to convicted criminals, the mentally ill, etc? In my mind "we the people" applies to those of us, of the "age of majority", willing to operate in the framework of our overarching social contract. That is part of my definition of a full citizen. Someone (mentally) incapable of doing so can never be a full citizen but is more like a "ward of the state". Someone who willfully chooses to break that "social contract" via criminal activity has, by choice, forfited their status as a full citizen.

That's how it works in my head, you may disagree.

No disagreement here. I think that people should be labelled as "felons" only after a conviction of a serious, violent crime, including rape of course (no, not drugs or speeding), and they should NOT be walking our streets. We still have to realize that there are many people travelling on our airplanes that are not citizens of this country or abide by our societal ideals. Should people from Durka-Durkastan be afforded all the rights of US citizens (i.e. to carry), while travelling on US flights??

There ARE places where people known to be dangerous or unstable are housed, and carrying weapons in such a place is seriously contrary to common sense. Asylums, prisons, mental wards, and the like are places where you either don't take a weapon, or you take enough armed people that the disparity of force favors the armed folks.

I think I agree with you here. In certain places, I think that guns should be checked at the entrance, and a serious force of armed guards must be in place.

I support no additional reasonable or unreasonable restrictions concerning civilian ownership, use, or carry of firearms

Again, I am not advocating and increase in gun-carry restrictions. I advocate questioning what restrictions are reasonable, and should be maintained, and which are clearly unnecessary and infringing upon our rights.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Are some gun restrictions reasonable??

Reasonable? Perhaps.

Constitutional? Nope. Y'all do understand the definition of "infringe," do you not? To "infringe" means to restrict.

Next question?