If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?

[shotgunjoel]

Duke, pointing the howitzer at his house is just like pointing a rifle at him in my opinion. Guys you say that you should have a permit to have nukes. Do you realize that like 90% of the countries in this world don't/ can't have nukes but you think that here if you only have a permit!! That's just nuts!

 

[expvideo]

And as we went through earlier,

cite?

it might be assault if you were in that window and I traversed the gun onto you. But pointing it at your window while you scream at me from your front steps as I flip you off? No, probably not an assault. Well, maybe if it was a 155mm.

Yeah but it would still be reckless endangerment, and that is also not a gun regulation.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

No such crime as "reckless endangerment" in my state. We do have "reckless conduct," but as I explained above, merely loading a mortar or howitzer and aiming it at your house probably doesn't qualify, any more so than would loading a rifle and aiming it at your house. Aiming it at YOU directly would be different, of course. And I don't entirely foreclose the possibility that aiming a loaded howitzer at your house could be reckless conduct. But I doubt it.

 

[SuperNaut]

So DoD wants to pass a law that keeps people from pointing howitzers at his house...

Whatever, it'll die in committee.

 

[Kind of Blued]

You didn't solve it. The mohammedean's nephew kills you for killing the mohammedean. Problem solved?

Regardless of how many fairy tale situations you want to come up with, if someone is trying to kill me, I will try to kill them first. Ghandi's cool with it, too. It's human nature; not something intended to be legislated, hence, the Bill of Rights (read: unalienable).

 

[expvideo]

No such crime as "reckless endangerment" in my state. We do have "reckless conduct," but as I explained above, merely loading a mortar or howitzer and aiming it at your house probably doesn't qualify, any more so than would loading a rifle and aiming it at your house. Aiming it at YOU directly would be different, of course. And I don't entirely foreclose the possibility that aiming a loaded howitzer at your house could be reckless conduct. But I doubt it.

The point I am trying to get at is that gun regulations only affect the law abiding that aren't going to be using guns in crimes anyway. If someone wants to threaten their neighbor, barring me from owning a howitzer isn't going to stop that.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

True -- but it would stop you from threatening them with a howitzer. Threatening them with, say, a butter knife is not so serious a situation that it requires regulation. I know, I know, Kind of Blued will chime in here that he would kill them all with his bare hands.

 

[expvideo]

True -- but it would stop you from threatening them with a howitzer. Threatening them with, say, a butter knife is not so serious a situation that it requires regulation. I know, I know, Kind of Blued will chime in here that he would kill them all with his bare hands.

So everything short of butter knives should be heavily regulated?

And no, it would stop him from threatening his neighbor with a
LEGAL howitzer. Trust me, all of those gangsters in LA aren't running around with CWPs. Why is that? Because regulations only affect the law abiding. And the law abiding are the problem.

And you are absolutely right. Freedom is dangerous and unsafe.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

expvideo: "So everything short of butter knives should be heavily regulated?"

Nope. My point is only that SOME regulation is desirable. Not a lot.

expvideo: "And no, it would stop him from threatening his neighbor with a
LEGAL howitzer. Trust me, all of those gangsters in LA aren't running around with CWPs. Why is that? Because regulations only affect the law abiding. And the law abiding are the problem."

Somehow I'm not too worried about illegal howitzers. Although they do exist, believe it or not. Years ago some drunken local college kids loaded up a Civil War cannon in a park and blew the doors off City Hall. And there's an old, abandoned American Legion Hall down the road with a rusty but live-looking Pak howitzer in front. I was tempted to liberate/rescue it, but if it's live, that would be a very serious crime.

expvideo: "And you are absolutely right. Freedom is dangerous and unsafe."

Not nearly so dangerous as anarchy.

 

[Titan6]

expvideo: "I was right. Public defenders are idiots."

Duke of Doubt:
Perhaps, kiddo ... but in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is God.

Well at least he doesn't have any self esteem issues.

And as we went through earlier, it might be assault if you were in that window and I traversed the gun onto you. But pointing it at your window while you scream at me from your front steps as I flip you off? No, probably not an assault.

In my state of you point a loaded howitzer at someone and you have committed assault. You were asked to reference/ cite a source that said something different. Since you did not I have to conclude you don't know of any. You could quit your idiotic argument that is doesn't but more likely you will obfuscate and change the subject yet again. But you are still wrong.

 

[shotgunjoel]

Guys this was not my intention when I started this thread, if you want to argue it use PM. Here just discuss what gun laws you would have if everyone liked guns or at least didn't have a problem with them.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Titan6: "In my state of you point a loaded howitzer at someone and you have committed assault. You were asked to reference/ cite a source that said something different. Since you did not I have to conclude you don't know of any. You could quit your idiotic argument that is doesn't but more likely you will obfuscate and change the subject yet again. But you are still wrong."

In my example, the howitzer is pointed at your house, not at you.

You can conclude whatever you like, skippy, but as I stated, every state has a different system of criminal statutes. When Justin asked if I had a source, I asked what state. I never got a response. And I don't generally do legal research for free. Anyone can google their state laws.

 

[jerimiahjohnson]

hoppy590 do you really think a criminal would tell you the truth on the pre purchase form?

 

[Titan6]

Well feel free to run with your howitzer strawman.

I just wanted an explanation of your position on:

2. No sales of handguns to or possession by those under 21.

7. No sales of full auto weapons without the purchaser paying a substantial bond and completing either an authorized extensive training course or military qualification.

8. No export of firearms without federal export license.

9. No import of firearms without federal import license.

11. No sale of firearms not meeting reasonable safety standards, said standards based solely on safe operation of firearm as designed, and NOT to include safety devices, locks, or specific features or designs.

13. Firearms on airplanes must be checked and secured in baggage, inaccessible to passengers.

16. No possession of, IN A PUBLIC PLACE, by persons otherwise prohibited from firearm possession of realistic non-guns. Realistic non-gun is defined as a non-gun likely to be mistaken for a genuine firearm by a non-expert. A rebuttable presumption that a firearm is NOT realistic is created by the addition of a conspicuous orange colored muzzle cap.

Cuz, I am not tracking here boobie. So any insight into how your mind works on these issues would be useful.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Titan6: "I just wanted an explanation of your position on:"

2. No sales of handguns to or possession by those under 21.

Incremental introduction to guns, like cars and alcohol, is useful and I'm uncomfortable around teenagers with handguns. They lack the necessary judgment and maturity. And no, I'm not interested in hearing about how mature you were at 18. This is one for the old fogies.

7. No sales of full auto weapons without the purchaser paying a substantial bond and completing either an authorized extensive training course or military qualification.

Full auto weapons are more powerful and require training to use safely without endangering others. I see no need to ban them, but I do see a need for regulation. I'd probably open up more destructive devices to civilian ownership, by the way.

8. No export of firearms without federal export license.

This discourages firearm theft and customs evasion, and controls the depletion of our gun pool. It's not hard to get an export license.

9. No import of firearms without federal import license.

This reduces customs evasion and reduces the supply of unsafe or stolen guns. It's not hard to get an import license.

11. No sale of firearms not meeting reasonable safety standards, said standards based solely on safe operation of firearm as designed, and NOT to include safety devices, locks, or specific features or designs.

You wouldn't believe the explosive tinkertoys that were imported and sold here before 1968. I used to oppose these rules, but I'm under 40. When I saw some of the guns which prompted these laws, I understood them better. It's a consumer safety issue. I do NOT support mandatory safeties, locks, etc. Maryland has a good "drop test" which unfortunately has been abused due to a fatal flaw -- approval of each gun by a politically appointed board. I'd set standards and presume each gun approved barring a motion to ban a model or manufacturer as unsafe following hearings.

13. Firearms on airplanes must be checked and secured in baggage, inaccessible to passengers.

You really need an explanation for this?

16. No possession of, IN A PUBLIC PLACE, by persons otherwise prohibited from firearm possession of realistic non-guns. Realistic non-gun is defined as a non-gun likely to be mistaken for a genuine firearm by a non-expert. A rebuttable presumption that a firearm is NOT realistic is created by the addition of a conspicuous orange colored muzzle cap.

Fake guns are a nuisance at best, and a danger to their owners. I'm not comfortable banning them outright, as they have training uses and are useful as props on stage and screen. But if you can't carry a real gun in a public place, you shouldn't be able to carry a realistic fake gun in a public place.

 

[Flyboy]

Incremental introduction to guns, like cars and alcohol, is useful and I'm uncomfortable around teenagers with handguns. They lack the necessary judgment and maturity. And no, I'm not interested in hearing about how mature you were at 18.

This is why the military gives 18-year-olds machineguns, but not pistols.

But hey, if you're uncomfortable, I'm sure we can restrict people's rights to accommodate you.

Full auto weapons are more powerful and require training to use safely without endangering others. I see no need to ban them, but I do see a need for regulation. I'd probably open up more destructive devices to civilian ownership, by the way.

Really? I thought 9mm was 9mm regardless of the firearm.

You might also look up the relative power between 5.56mm NATO (a common machinegun) and, say, 300 Winchester Magnum, or even .375 H&H, which are rarely found in fully-automatic firearms.

8. No export of firearms without federal export license.

This discourages firearm theft and customs evasion, and controls the depletion of our gun pool. It's not hard to get an export license.

9. No import of firearms without federal import license.

This reduces customs evasion and reduces the supply of unsafe or stolen guns. It's not hard to get an import license.

So...you're concerned about depletion of the "gun pool," but want to restrict addition to it. And in both cases you're more worried about taxes than anything else. Good to know where your priorities lay.

11. No sale of firearms not meeting reasonable safety standards, said standards based solely on safe operation of firearm as designed, and NOT to include safety devices, locks, or specific features or designs.

Because conventional product liability laws aren't enough?

13. Firearms on airplanes must be checked and secured in baggage, inaccessible to passengers.

You really need an explanation for this?

Well, given that we allowed carry for decades and never had a problem*, and that allowing people defensive arms would give them the opportunity to reasonably fight back, yes, I do.

(*In point of fact, this was used as a plot device in Ernest Gann's The High and the Mighty. It wasn't even considered out-of-the-ordinary.)

 

[Kind of Blued]

13. Firearms on airplanes must be checked and secured in baggage, inaccessible to passengers.

You really need an explanation for this?

Yes. It would appear that your iteration of common sense is in the minority here.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

This is why the military gives 18-year-olds machineguns, but not pistols.

The military does not "give" them guns, it issues them weapons after considerable training.

But hey, if you're uncomfortable, I'm sure we can restrict people's rights to accommodate you.

Thank you.

Really? I thought 9mm was 9mm regardless of the firearm. You might also look up the relative power between 5.56mm NATO (a common machinegun) and, say, 300 Winchester Magnum, or even .375 H&H, which are rarely found in fully-automatic firearms.

I wasn't referring to the power of one individual cartridge, and you know it. If full auto weapons weren't more effective than repeating rifles, the Army wouldn't have them.

So...you're concerned about depletion of the "gun pool," but want to restrict addition to it. And in both cases you're more worried about taxes than anything else. Good to know where your priorities lay.

Not restricting the flow of guns in or out so much as controlling/identifying WHO may take them in or out.

Because conventional product liability laws aren't enough?

They aren't quite enough. Special rules exist for many products.

Well, given that we allowed carry for decades and never had a problem*, and that allowing people defensive arms would give them the opportunity to reasonably fight back, yes, I do.

This is not correct. Skyjacking planes to Cuba and Mexico with guns was a serious problem in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

 

[Golden Hound]

2. No sales of handguns to or possession by those under 21.

Incremental introduction to guns, like cars and alcohol, is useful and I'm uncomfortable around teenagers with handguns. They lack the necessary judgment and maturity. And no, I'm not interested in hearing about how mature you were at 18. This is one for the old fogies.

When you are 18, you are an adult by law. I think either they should change the damn law to make 21 the age of majority, or you should be able to do anything that any other adult can do if you are 18 or 19 or 20. This is an absurd and totally arbitrary twist of the law.

Someone who's 20 years old, who has to walk through a dangerous area on the way to work or whatever, isn't allowed to carry to protect his life - but someone who's 21 is? Where is the sense in that?

Isn't it abundantly obvious that there are a hell of a lot of people who are OVER 21 that are still able to behave in an insanely irresponsible way with firearms (and alcohol?) Look at all the people OVER 21 who kill people or injure them through acts of negligence, irresponsibility and stupidity! Look at all the people OVER 21 who let their lives and those of their family be completely wrecked by alcohol abuse!

Responsibility is unconnected with age. There are a lot of very mature and responsible 18 year olds, and there are a LOT of very, very stupid, untrustworthy, dangerous, and insane 30, 40 and 50 year olds.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

I agree with age restrictions, 18 for rifles, 21 for handguns, because like other posters have said, a significant number of 18 year olds are immature punks, I would absolutely NOT trust these fools with handguns. A significant number of teens are not taught responsible gun use/ownership, a lot of them have absentee parents. This is a prescription for disaster. Usually by age 21, the maturity level has increased, so its not as much of an issue.

 

[Golden Hound]

Yes, because all of the thousands and thousands of completely insane, dangerous, violent and untrustworthy criminals who pack our jails every year over the age of 21 were obviously cured of all their childish ways once they turned 21.

The under-21 people who might be dangerous and reckless with a gun should NOT be allowed to spoil it for the majority of late-teenagers who are normal and responsible people. This is just like denying the law-abiding public the right to arm themselves because a small minority of criminals commit crimes with guns. It's ANTI-style logic.

Do you also think that the driving age should be 18 or 21 instead of 16?

 

[MachIVshooter]

if everyone in the whole world was pro gun and no one wanted to take away your gun rights what kind of gun laws would you think would be appropriate?

Gun laws, none (for small arms). Things like 105mm artillery, a certification in ballistics of such arms would be a prerequisite of ownership, because an errant artillery round (even non-explosive) is a wee bit different than a .30 caliber richochet.

Anything involving explosives would require a certification to purchase, simply because the danger level for an untrained person handling them is far too high. People would have the right to possess any and all non-nuclear explosives and incendiaries, as long as they were certified in the safe handling, storage and use of each class of explosive.

Nuclear explosives would be prohibited, both from civilians and governments. Penalty for possession would be death for any person who had knowledge of their existence and allowed it. No person or government should be allowed control of an impliment that can wipe out an entire country, as absolute power corrupts absolutely. Though I doubt it, there may be one or two people here who disagree with my stance on nukes. They are welcome to debate me on it, as I have a highly defensible position.

The dangerous misuse or criminal use of any weapon would be prosecuted with a penalty increasing in magnitude directly proportionate to the destructive power of the weapon.

 

[okespe04]

Same as they are now in Oregon except 18 years old to buy any gun, full autos should be legal and ccw legal everywhere including school. I don't mind the quick background check and other restrictions. Once a felon always a felon (sorry but your loss of your rights is your own fault). No guns for insane people either.

 

[jackdanson]

I believe it should be worded somehow that any arm legal for use by any level of domestic law enforcement should be legal for private ownership, no ifs ands or buts. If the military were EVER for ANY reason allowed to enforce any laws domestically then anything the military uses would be legal.

MAYBE have an 18+ or parents with you rule for purchasing firearms, but not for ammo. I was plenty mature to handle a pistol at 18. We trust them with grenades, tanks, and missles at 18, why can't they own a pistol?

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Based on what I see in today's high schools, god help us all if they get to pack handguns, hell, most of them would probably shoot themselves anyway, because they are ignorant of safe gun handling.

An 18 year old in the Army, has a load of training, before he gets deployed with an M-16. They don't just hand it to'em and say "here, shoot this thing".