Would you guys be interested in...

[eliphalet]

Sounds like gun control to me, plain and simple.

 

[nplant]

Let's use the same system we use for buying sofas.

Blackfork - I love it.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Brentn, your approach is different only in detail from other gun control schemes. Although it's possible to debate those details, the essential problem is the approach.

Any details are as good as any other if what you're trying to accomplish is harrass gun owners and discourage gun ownership. That's what all such approaches accomplish and it's the only thing they do accomplish.

Those approaches are slightly more sophisticated versions of the literacy tests once required of black voters in the United States. They were justified on the grounds that only people who can read are able to know the issues and the candidates and make reasonable decisions. Their effect was to disenfranchise black voters, and in fact that was their purpose.

What you propose can be justified on similar grounds for equally lofty reasons, and all of those details either have been proposed before or are in operation now one place or another.

 

[whm1974]

Here are my thoughts on changing the system.

1. If you can vote then you can own guns.

2. Get rid of "once a felon, always a felon" After a person pays his debt to society then all rights should be restored.

3. Gun laws should be uniform all over the union. All legal firearms should be legal anywhere in the United States.

-Bill

 

[tbtrout]

The whole psyc test is a big problem. Too subjective

 

[rockinrussky]

Quote:
Let's use the same system we use for buying sofas.

Absolutely! Each gun comes with a tag that says 'do not remove'

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Well, Let's Look At It . . .

-Must be 18 years of age or older

Non-starter. Kids used to have a rifle of their own when they were 12 -- or even younger. Raise kids right. Require a "hunter safety" or "shooter safety" course for those under 18, perhaps.

-Must not have been convicted of a felony

Why? No, really, why? A felon can buy any other instrument of mayhem he wants down at the local hardware store. A gun is just another piece of inventory that all hardware stores should carry. A hundred and fifty years ago, when a fellow had served his time, he was set free and allowed to work, marry, defend himself, and all that stuff.

It's really pretty simple: if you can't trust the guy to own a gun, why on earth are you letting him back out on the street? If he's dangerous with a gun, he's dangerous with a chain saw, a knife, a can of gas, a bat, an axe, and so on. If you're letting him out, it's because he can be trusted in society again. So trust him already. Or don't let him out.

-Must pass a psychological test

Serious non-starter. Psychology and psychiatry are too broken to be allowed into the process. They've been "fixing" our school system for forty years. They can't find it with both hands and a flashlight. They don't get to play.

-Must hold a registered firearms license (sect 1)

No. Error. You don't "license" a right.

-No more registration of firearms with the government.

Fine.

From now on, all purchases made will only require the verification of your licence in which you are eligible to own and operate a firearm.

No. See "licensing of a right."

-There will be no more classifications of firearms, barrel length, magazine capacity and ammunition types.

Fine.

-Fully automatic firearms and silencers will be available to anyone with a valid licence.

-Fully automatic firearms and silencers will be available to anyone [strike]with a valid licence[/strike].

-Civilians are now required to pass a psychological test to ensure proper use of a firearm

Sorry, no way. You're talking about a field that's been pushing firearms ownership as a disease. THEY DON'T GET TO PLAY.

-Convicted felons will not be allowed to handle or purchase firearms

And that will be because they're still in prison. When it's okay for them to own a knife, axe, car, gun, chain saw, hammer, bat, scythe, sickle, spear, bow & arrows, or any other deadly weapon, then you let them out.

-All persons who wish to own or operate a firearm will now have to possess a valid firearms licence.

No. Licensing a right.

This licence is to ensure that the operator is mentally appropriate and has the proper safety training and understand of how a firearm is to be handled.

No. Assumes an authority capable of determining sanity. No such objective science exists at this time.

There is no registration of any firearm purchase, or any purchase made when the licence is to be verified. Verification is an anti-fraud measure only, it is to verify that you are the actual holder of the licence and that it is still in effect. Your licence will be removed if you are charged with a felony or if you are charged with a firearm related offence in which a firearms officer for your city/county/state/province will decide if the licence is to be revoked. The course will involve

See above remarks. No registration of guns, axes, bats, saws, drills, knives, swords, catapults, slingshots, air-soft, or tweezers.

You will be instructed on safe firearms practice, cautions, hazards and appropriate use. You will learn about different types of firearms, their actions, types of ammunition and proper use of ammunition etc. When the course is completed you will be required to pass an exam in which if you pass will be issued an official licence.

Sure, on the same day that a safety certificate is required to use the tools I've mentioned above.

You will also do a written psychological test to determine if you are mentally healthy candidate for firearm ownership and use. This must also be passed in order to be issued a licence.

What is this obsession with the mental health goons? NO!

I'm gonna have to go with Jefferson on this.

I'll put up with the inconveniences attendant on too much liberty.

Look. When EVERYONE owns a gun, it won't matter whether the bad guys have them. Think about it. Dude tries to hold up a jeweler. Oops. Dude tries to hold up a bank. Oops. Dude attacks someone on the street. Oops.

Use the system we had 150 years ago. We don't need nerfing. We need freedom. I'm willing to let ex-felons defend themselves. The felons will just have to be aware that felonies carry the additional risk of being shot.

Sorry, man, your plan begins with the flawed premise that a) we need to be protected from our fellow man, b) that government can do that, c) that bad guys will play by the rules.

That's already not working.

Here's an alternative: everyone is issued a gun and ammo when he turns twelve.

It will cost less, and requires no administration beyond keeping track of who's born -- and they already do that.

Parents will take pride in how well little Johnny is trained in safety and marksmanship. Rifle teams will be the norm in schools. Child molesters will have to find another line of work.

Now, the really big debate will be what rifle to issue to kids when they turn 12. Probably should be something in .223/5.56, as this allows the .gov to standardize on a single calibre. Imagine the reduction in training costs for the military. Every single recruit will already know how to shoot and clean his weapon.

Just give everyone a gun when he's old enough.

Problem solved.

 

[bluestarlizzard]

"everyone is issued a gun and ammo when he turns twelve."

i'm ok with everything in your post till this. there are people out there who don't want a gun. just like there are people who don't want a car or a free lunch. my best friend from high school is not antigun at all. but she will most likley never shoot a gun. she still doesn't have a drivers license and she doesn't even like using knives when preparing food. don't push guns on people who don't want them. it just makes everyone cranky.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Here's an alternative: everyone is issued a gun and ammo when he turns twelve.

It will cost less, and requires no administration beyond keeping track of who's born -- and they already do that.

Parents will take pride in how well little Johnny is trained in safety and marksmanship. Rifle teams will be the norm in schools. Child molesters will have to find another line of work.

LOVE THAT!!!




NTM, I also agree with Arfin 100% on every point he made.


Here's how it should work:

Tom ses a gun he likes. Dave tells Tom the price for the gun. Tom hands Dave the money. Dave hands Tom the gun.

End of transaction. No forms, no background checks, no 4473s, and damn sure no "Mental Health" professionals issuing -gasp- licenses.

If someone is too bad to have a gun, then they're too bad to be in the general population.

If kid wants a gun, dealer calls kid's mom or dad (used to be just Dad, but I realize many children are growing up in fatherless homes nowadays) and asks if it's ok.

Let the parents do the parenting, not Uncle Sucker, Diane Fienstein, or anyone else.



In short, I admire your attempt, but your whole logic is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional, just like every gun law on the books now.

 

[crebralfix]

Not only "NO!" but "HELL NO!" and here are my bullets at full velocity.

 

[anygunanywhere]

I shouldn't need no stinkin' license to exercise a God given right.

Even if some people think I am nuts.

Anygunanywhere even while talking to my other personalities.

 

[jungleroy]

Psyche test = bad idea.
Test given by a doctor, not likely a doctor who is a shooter like we are.
I survived alot of bodily damage 5 years ago, and am lucky to still have all my rights intact.
I know from experience that Those who give these sorts of tests, don't have my best interest at heart.
Tricky question by the hundreds, things you don't want to answer often duplicated and asked from a different slant.
Questions that ask your feelings, feelings you may or may not know until the scenario in the question is reality.
Purchasing personal tools what ever they may be is your business and yours alone.

 

[S&Wfan]

This idea is just as bad as all the current federal laws implemented to limit rights of citizens . . . while creating procedures whereby the government can impose profitable "fees" to implement the ideas.

Not good.

I'm with the others . . . do it like selling sofas!

Don't surrender constitutional rights . . . and stop endorsing ideas that allow the goverment to take more of our money to "administer" a law.

We need LESS things that the government be allowed to stick their taxin' little fingers on!

T.

 

[brentn]

heh.. that got shot down pretty fast. Fortunatley I understand why.
You guys should remember that I don't have the second ammendment, thus I have no familiarality with 'owning a firearm is a right'... But yea what you guys are saying defenitly makes sense.

I am just having a hard time trying to figure out how to stop the crazy people from going on a killing spree. I suppose if everyone had a firearm, the chances of that would be very low because the minute someone starts shooting in a mall, the closest customer would take him/her out.

Another thing too is firearm safety, I think it should be mandatory and I think that you could all agree with that. Maybe it should be taught in school as a once a year course that lasts a week. Constantly reminding our future how firearm safety is important. By the end of high school it would be severley embedded in their heads.
What do you guys think?

Thanks for the replys btw, its given me some good incite

 

[Regolith]

This might work for Great Britain; it'd be an improvement over what they've got now. Here in the US though most would find it repugnant, as you have already seen.

 

[Jdude]

I am not very sure I like the sofa method...

I don't think I am willing to sit on every firearm I intend to purchase. My butt may get sore.





Pick gun. Give money. Go home. That is all it should be.

 

[matt87]

We don't have mandatory safety training or testing, and attempts to implement such have failed (touch wood). As a rule, legal shoters in this country are safe in their doings and dealings. Safety -- whether concerning guns, rocks, cars or sex or whatever -- is to do with the individal taking responsability for their own actions and recognising that they could hurt themselves or those around them. It is not about laws.

Oh and as a side note, the second amendment is a recognition of an inherent right not the creation of it. Tomorrow your government or mine could pass a law saying you had a right to life. The next day they could pass one to say that you do not. Doesn't mean that you don't have the right to life, or that you didn't have the right to life before they passed the first law!

 

[SigfanUSAF]

My thought on the mental exam prior to gun ownership.....

Ahem...

Mentally stable enough to get drivers license?
-Yep, 1996. First time, no problem. However, If I had failed, I could have retaken it indefinately.

Mentally stable enough to enlist and serve in the USAF?
-Yep, 1998. No comments on the AF entrance exams guys.

Mentally stable enough to get married and have kids?
-Since 2002, though w/o the occasional Sam Adams, times could get rough.

Mentally stable enough for a NC CCW permit?
-Yep.

Mentally stable enough to take a mental exam for firearms ownership, knowing if I get a question wrong I could forever be denied my right to own a gun?
-Hell no! I'd buckle like a bulkhead on the Titanic under that kind of pressure.

Example:

Federal Mental Health Examiner for Firearms Ownership:
"Uh, Mr. X, would you ever hurt anything if you're issued this license?"

Me:
Daydreaming of the neighbors dog, who intentionally craps in my driveway every other day, meating a burst from an MG42
"Oh yeah!......................Oh no, wait, no, no! I meant NO!":banghead:

Federal Mental Health Examiner for Firearms Ownership:
"Well, sorry, Mr. X, but we have to deny you're right to own a firearm"

 

[The-Fly]

The problem with such ideas as yours, is that they end up being abused to harass and abuse legal gun owners. Government usually butchers such programs to the point that they are both useless, and expensive (i.e TSA, DHS, Dept of Education, etc etc etc).

I am sure that if YOU ran this program, it would be fine. But remember its worthless bureaucrats and vote buyers who run these things.

 

[rbernie]

As paraphrased from a quote by ElTejon: You cannot impact human behavior by attacking (or regulating) inert mechanical devices.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Here's how it should work:

Tom ses a gun he likes. Dave tells Tom the price for the gun. Tom hands Dave the money. Dave hands Tom the gun.

End of transaction. No forms, no background checks, no 4473s, and damn sure no "Mental Health" professionals issuing -gasp- licenses.

That's just about the way it worked when I was younger and for all the time before then. But you omitted some important details.

First, it was considered good form for Dave to own the gun he sold Tom. Second, guns were widely available so in addition to Dave there were Sears, Western Auto, Montgomery Ward, and other chain stores, every hardware store sold at least rifles and shotguns, and they were advertised in newspapers and magazines for purchase by mail order.

Safety was considered vital but no one had yet invented trigger locks, gun safes, and all the other safety devices that exist today. Fortunately both the finger and the brain had been invented a few years earlier, and someone used his brain to develop a complex system that involved keeping the finger away from the trigger until it was time to shoot the gun. News of this discovery spread like wildfire. Before that time people wandered the streets wailing out the magic names "Sarah Brady," "Chuck Schumer," "Diane Feinstein," "Ted Kennedy," and "Michael Bloomberg," but there was no response because they hadn't yet been invented. Some fool in Queens, NY, was heard to mutter "Carolyn McCarthy" but he was too dumb to cross the streets by himself, got his toe caught in a trolley car track, and starved to death.

There were no children either. None. They had disappeared because guns were all around and there were no gun safes or trigger locks or anything else to keep them safe except people with fingers and brains. I think we had California but nobody paid much attention to it then because it was widely known that people there were whacky. That was before California became the intellectual center of America, of course, so we didn't have the benefit of Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Arnold Schwartzenegger who--as everyone knows--are among this country's brain trust today.

 

[stephpd]

new system

We follow the constitution. As long as your not a slave you can own a gun.
No age restrictions
No permits
No government intervention or law restricting ownership.

Instead, kill everyone who commits a crime with a weapon.
Armed robbery-dead
Armed assault- dead
Nothing less then life imprisonment. 20 years or less for murder is way to light.
And this is coming from someone who thought I'd never see 30. Getting close to 50 now.

 

[LaEscopeta]

...but at the same time we don't want firearms to fall into the wrong hands.

Reading the posts above, apparently not all of us are concerned about guns in the wrong hands, or even agreeing that there is such a thing as wrong hands.

 

[Mannix]

Guns get into the "wrong hands" as it is, just like everything else we've tried outlawing/regulating. The fact of the matter is that the people we should be worried about don't give a damn if there are laws against them owning or carrying a firearm, and can and do circumvent them easily, so why should we restrict gun access to the rest of us?

Everyone should be able to own anything they want. No psych tests, no licenses, no background checks, criminals are going to get and carry guns anyway, so why the hell shouldn't I?

 

[4v50 Gary]

I dislike the psychological testing portion. While I agree with the idea, pscychology is an imperfect tool and it can be unfairly used to prevent firearms ownership/possession. In Germany, you have to belong to a gun club and after a year, the club's president writes you a letter stating you are fit. That year is you wait is used by the club to observe you and your habits on the range.