Because if you are going to defend yourself, you are going to use a gun. Not a chainsaw or lawnmower or power tool. Yes all things are prone to accidents but to answer your question, the handgun is the primary means of self defense and proper use of such a tool AND knowledge of local laws pertaining to use of force is something I see as a reasonable restriction to ownership of a gun.
What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?
- Thread starter yesit'sloaded
- Start date
- Status
Because if you are going to defend yourself, you are going to use a gun. Not a chainsaw or lawnmower or power tool. Yes all things are prone to accidents but to answer your question, the handgun is the primary means of self defense and proper use of such a tool AND knowledge of local laws pertaining to use of force is something I see as a reasonable restriction to ownership of a gun.
Mr. Designer
Member
Nothing more, nothing less.
Self-defense is frequently a "come as you are" event. People indeed used chainsaws, power tools, or whatever else is handy to defend themselves.
The idea of some kind of safety training for firearm ownership is nice, but it suffers from a fatal flaw: Any state/federal mandated training is then subject to all kinds of unoffical ownership bans by de-funding the training.
regulation is just laws that ban, it can be electing not to fund programs and systems that the law may have declared as necessary for ownership.
That's why mandatory safety training is a bad idea - you give pencil pushers the option to designate the content, rewrite the agenda, obscure the location or defund out of exsistence the safety training, which is then a ban without the political fight.
The idea of some kind of safety training for firearm ownership is nice, but it suffers from a fatal flaw: Any state/federal mandated training is then subject to all kinds of unoffical ownership bans by de-funding the training.
regulation is just laws that ban, it can be electing not to fund programs and systems that the law may have declared as necessary for ownership.
That's why mandatory safety training is a bad idea - you give pencil pushers the option to designate the content, rewrite the agenda, obscure the location or defund out of exsistence the safety training, which is then a ban without the political fight.
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
If I didn't have a gun you can bet I would have no problem with using my chainsaw to remove an attacker from the gene pool.
Good, now we've gotten to the real argument. In the future, please don't use accidents, morons, etc... in your argument. It makes it flawed and irrational.
This argument is something I can understand. I disagree with you, but at least now we have gotten to the point where both sides have a consistent arguement.
I think that such knowledge should be the responsibility of the gun owner. Only after misuse should there be governmental involvement. If a person chooses to use a firearm without knowledge of local laws and restrictions, that is their choice. I think such classes should be suggested by reputable gun dealers but never should the government place such a restriction on a right. As has been pointed out, such restrictions are ripe for abuse. Also, such restrictions are an increase of power of the government towards a "nanny state." People should be responsible for their own actions and the government should not be stepping in "for their own good."
Yes I agree that's how it SHOULD be however reality is a different story.
Like it or not we do accept govt restriction on things (rights & privilages).
We have a government because the flipside would be anarchy.
The government to a certain extent regulates what we do as a society and keeps us from falling into anarchy.
I see it as reasonable for government to be proactive in this rather than reactive.
Neither of us want to see the nanny state emerge. So please don't expound on my view of "reasonable restriction" into the nanny state.
I'll reiterate my views of "reasonable" gun laws
18yrs to purchase and carry (rifle, handgun, fully auto, suppressors, SBS, SBR) w/ background check
must pass test on gun safety, use of force, hunting regs
no firearms to felons or those adjudicated mentally incompetent (with recourse to re-instate rights)
No federal laws w/ state to state reciprocity on carry
I didn't say it should be state funded. It can be like a driving school or a class given at the local college. If people are going to buy guns then people will hold classes to pass the tests necessary to own them like a car, truck, motorcycle driving school.
I did not call it "nanny state," I said it moved us towards that.
However, I think the government becoming "pro-active" rather than "reactive" is the very nature of a nanny state.
Thus, we have reached an impasse. However, at least we have gotten to the basis of our disagreement:
You think the government should be pro-active to prevent mis-use.
I think the government should be reactive to punish crime.
Fair Assessment?
Gunnerpalace
Member
"If people are going to buy guns then people will hold classes to pass the tests necessary to own them like a car, truck, motorcycle driving school"
That interesting in Vermont any non felon over 16 can pack without taking a test and I have yet to hear about mass chaos there.
That interesting in Vermont any non felon over 16 can pack without taking a test and I have yet to hear about mass chaos there.
yes generally we agree, however my main point of passing test/classes was more geared towards education. ie: Hunters should know how many animals the can bag or when they should be allowed to hunt which animals.
People should know if their state has a castle doctrine or must retreat type law.
Ideally there wouldn't be these types of laws but many on this thread have advocated state control and so laws may differ from state to state.
So pro-active more in terms of education and thereby preventing misuse
People should know if their state has a castle doctrine or must retreat type law.
Ideally there wouldn't be these types of laws but many on this thread have advocated state control and so laws may differ from state to state.
So pro-active more in terms of education and thereby preventing misuse
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=319495
So should people like this get their "gun rights" back after they have paid their debt/done their time?
:stir pot:
Or should we just keep them locked up forever?
Who's going to pay for it?
So should people like this get their "gun rights" back after they have paid their debt/done their time?
:stir pot:
Or should we just keep them locked up forever?
Who's going to pay for it?
If they "pay their debt," they should get their rights back. If they cannot be trusted with firearms, they should not be out of prison.
As for who will pay for it, the prisoners should. It is only in recent history where people believed the government should be responsible for the price of the care of criminals. -really stirs pot-
K3
Member
Cut a bunch of other government spending and there's your money. Start with unconstituional programs like Social Security and Medicare.
The pot is really stirring now...
K3
Member
This has to be the best post ever.
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
Make the prisoners work, they ain't there on vacation. They might even learn a trade skill while working. In Mississippi they cut grass on state property, paint state vehicles, pick up trash, grow crops, make license plates,etc. It doesn't pay for their bills but it helps. If they prove themselves too violent to even be in the prison population...well sometimes things must be done. The problem we have now is there are so many victimless felonies that stick otherwise decent people in jail where they turn into criminals in the dog eat dog world of prison. The war on drugs hasn't done anything useful and has only criminalized people that would have been considered stupid before. I think smoking pot is dumb, and meth and crack are suicidal, but making stupid a crime only drives it underground. Make crimes committed carry stiff penalties, no matter what the reason, and people will think twice about driving drunk or stoned.
hnk45acp you keep talking about the restrictions and rules you want, can you show my with actual numbers that CA's rules about pre-purchase testing leads to a safer state than NH where people can carry guns without even having a permit? Or anything like that really? If you're going to restrict people's second amendment freedoms at least try to justify it with real numbers and not supposition.
the pistolero
Member
Me neither, even if it was proven that NYC's draconian laws had anything to do with that low murder rate. And as far as I know no one's even made that connection...and actually backed it up with hard evidence, that is.
Autolycus
Member
None are reasonable.
K3
Member
Yeah, but calling for the most inefficient organization in the history of man to be the body handling it makes it a huge endeavor.
Government, especially our illustrious federal government, could f*** up a cup of coffee.
You know, prior to 1968, there was very little gun control. At least compared to now. There was no government mandated safety training. What there was, I am told, was available classes in school for shooting.
Unfortunately in today's nanny-state, weak-willed pasture of sheep, you will not likely see any marksmanship classes in public schools. Not even as electives. Hell, if you draw a gun on paper you might get suspended!
Scroo mandatory safety training. If somebody wants to do it, there's classes readily available.
Of course, I am an absolutist, and I wish for the days you could walk into a store and plop down cash for a gun without any paperwork whatsoever. It worked for a long time in this country.
A question the gun control advocates and even gunnies who call for 'reasonable restrictions' can never answer is why hasn't violent crime dropped as a result of the 1968 GCA? According to gun control advocates, it should have. It should drop every time a new law is passed making it harder to obtain a firearm. I have some borderline Marxist cousins who always change the topic at this point. That's OK. I know their real motivation. They don't give a rat's arse about crime. Their use of crime as a reason for gun control is a smokescreen. The real purpose is obvious to anyone who cares to see it. This is PRECISELY why there should be less gun control and not more. Civilian ownership of guns keeps the government somewhat honest and in check. The less regulated, the more honest.
remember I'm not mandating that the state teach us. I'm saying that the state should have a requirement of basic knowledge which can easily be tested and approved quickly. No more. Absolutist will never find anything reasonable which I admire but they are living in a world parallel to the peaceniks' utopia. Ain't gonna happen.
Gunnerpalace
Member
Government quick and easy here is one:
"The Environmental Protection Agency for spending an extra $1 million to $1.2 million in 1980 to preserve a Trenton, NJ sewer as a historical monument."
That is one, there are thousands of others, and the exceptions for people in danger, Remember FOPA 1986 ,NYC,DC, areas of California and Chicago don't honor the "safe passage provision" hence if you drive through with a secured pistol and the cops catch you you go to jail and then get out later after much lawyering, laws like these may look good on paper but they rarely work in effect.
"The Environmental Protection Agency for spending an extra $1 million to $1.2 million in 1980 to preserve a Trenton, NJ sewer as a historical monument."
That is one, there are thousands of others, and the exceptions for people in danger, Remember FOPA 1986 ,NYC,DC, areas of California and Chicago don't honor the "safe passage provision" hence if you drive through with a secured pistol and the cops catch you you go to jail and then get out later after much lawyering, laws like these may look good on paper but they rarely work in effect.
K3
Member
Practically, there ain't a whole helluva lot of difference. When the government is involved, well....
MD's no test just watch a video requirement is useless. I had a permit in NY State and I was required to take a safety class, it was an NRA basic firearms class and it was well worth my time. (I also found a good shooting club and enjoyed my time as a member.)
- Status
