Jump to content
 
Sign in to follow this  
kuhla

Gun Laws

Recommended Posts

Alright. Let's hear it. All views, all opinions. A lot of people are discussing it. Post up your opinion if it's ban-em-all or I-want-cruise-missles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, my preliminary views.

  • There are currently some age related laws on purchases. I'm ok with all of them being set to 18. Can't own one if you are younger than that and if you can join the military at that age then I think it's young enough.
  • Background checks. I would be in favor of them for all purchases of all gun types. I don't want people with prior criminal history to have one because I think this increases their likelihood of misuse.
  • 5 day waiting period. I would be in favor of them for all purchases of all gun types. The whole "crimes of passion" I think is helped by this a bit by forcing people to cool off.
  • Sales from one individual to another individual via something like a gun show. I would want for all these transactions to go though a FFL licensed person/business. I assume a transaction fee of some kind would probably be in order and the FFL holder would have to verify everything was done legally, proper forms filled out kinda thing. That should close the gun show loopholes.
  • A national gun registry. I would be in favor of one. I realize that this has a lot of carryover to a national identity card/registry system which is also very unpopular but I'm ok with that too. I just feel like there are so many state equivalents at this point, why not consolidate them.
  • Restricted calibers. I'm strongly against this because I think it's an emotional argument. A .22 can kill you. A .50 can kill you. Where it hits you is 10x more important to whether you survive or not than what you are hit with.
  • Restricted cosmetic/ergonomic bits. I'm strongly against this because I think it's an emotional argument. A pistol grip lets you spray more? A folding stock lets you better conceal an already long rifle? Please. I usually assume the people I hear making these arguments have never touched a firearm in their life.
  • Restrictions on overall length (i.e. a rifle that is "too short"). Strongly against. More people are killed with handguns than rifles. You aren't going to tell me a super short rifle is somehow now more deadly even if it's close to the size of a handgun.
  • Restrictions on suppressors/silencers. I'm actually against this mainly as a safety measure. Guns are really really loud. Hearing protection is already a must. If someone wants to quiet down their firearm to help deal with the hearing safety hazard, I'm ok with this.
  • Magazine size limits. I'm actually on the fence about this. If you are hunting then you really shouldn't need 30 rounds. If you are recreationally shooting, I think you can get a good feel and have a good time with less than 30 too. Having a big magazine would be just for the "fun" of it at most.
  • Automatic weapons. I'm pretty on the fence about this too. In the end it would really all come down the same as the last point, "it's cool, silly fun but has zero practical usage not even in self defense"
  • The 2nd amendment argument. I'm NOT one of those people who holds the opinion of constitution as a sacred text, to be read literally and never to be changed. So I wholly dismiss anytime people argue about "...but the right to bear arms.... militias.... etc." means nothing to me.
  • Concealed Carry. I'm pretty much OK with the way the CCW laws work right now, here, in California.
  • A few states have laws that allow local law enforcement take away guns in a "state of emergency." Most states actually have laws that prohibit law enforcement being allowed to do that so I see it as kind of a non-issue.
  • I don't think firearms makers or dealers should be dragged into court for the unlawful acts of criminals or the misuse of their firearms.
  • I can see myself favorably supporting restrictions on ammunition sales along the lines of over-the-counter medication. Present an ID at a counter with a licensed person on the other side, they verify when you last bought, there is a certain cooldown, then you are good to go again.
  • In many ways I could summarize my views on firearms as I do other luxury activities. I don't feel there are any rights that guarantee you should be able to own one but if you have the means to do so then you got to pay to play. I don't consider myself anti-gun laws but it would hurt me to label myself pro-gun laws either since I feel there is just too much illogical, emotional arguments being made these days.
  • It does bother me when Europeans try to weigh in on the whole debate. I don't have an entirely logical reason for this, it just does.
  • No I don't see guns as "death dealing devices" or whatever other silly label. It doesn't matter if it was designed as a weapon for the military. It's a mechanical device. It's destructive power is in the mind of the handler, not the device. People are anthropomorphising an inanimate object. It's just a tool. You could plow your car into a crowd, intentionally, at high speed and kill many many people. Yet we have a general level of trust for people driving cars.
  • "Castle laws". Where you can defend your home with deadly force without fear of legal retribution. I'm a bit on the fence for this one too but I guess GENERALLY I'm in favor of it. Read up on it on wiki if you are curious about some of the more specific bits of it.

 

Phew. Lots of typing. Well, I guess that about wraps up all my opinions on the issue... I think I covered most of the bases....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Age related laws make sense.

Background checks. I would also put forth another mention that there are state agencies that are dropping the ball on this one. Various state mental health agencies are required to report certain incidents (such as being committed to a mental hospital) and they often are not reporting it. I would like to see this be taken substantially more seriously than it is. I think that mental health is a very large factor in contributing to these shooting incidents.

5 day wait is fine.

Oversight for person to person sales is fine. I would imagine that this would be similar to the dmv being kept appraised of a private car sale. I in some ways would prefer if this was not done by a private party but the forms were required to be filed with a national agency.

National gun registry would be absolutely fine. Along with your tangent I do not necessarily mind a national id system either, but I also don't want it over extending itself much beyond what a driver's license is.

Restricted calibers make sense only up to a point. I would want some slightly more advanced license for anything over .50 cal mostly because I don't think anyone needs much more than that.

Cosmetic and length restrictions are pure bullshit. End of story.

Silencers/Suppressors. I wouldn't mind these being made legal. However, I do think that this does create some additional liabilities, mostly because a loud gun is easily identifiable, a more quiet gun might go unnoticed. Maybe use a second class gun license to allow access for this as well as the over .50 cal.

Magazine size limits are once again more for liability. I would have no issue with using that second class gun license for. I do believe that the standard magazines should be reasonable in size.

Automatics could be rolled into a second class license. You'll notice I keep referring to this I will expand at the end.

Guns should be treated similarly to a drivers license. If you meet various criteria you are allowed the PRIVILEGE of being able to purchase firearms and operate them in a legal matter. If you proceed to fuck this up, your PRIVILEGE should be revoked.

Concealed Carry is very limited currently, I might suggest it being slightly more open than it currently is, but not available to just anyone. Special circumstances must be present, but these circumstances should follow some basic guidelines and not be purely subjective.

I don't understand the taking away guns, I assume that's on a larger scale rather than a smaller one. I would need clarification.

Gun manufacturers should be above and beyond lawsuit unless there is a clear issue with the gun itself being unsafe. There are legal standards for this, it's why you don't see car manufacturers liable for every car crash or power tool makers liable for every injury. Sellers should have some liability with regards to following rules/regulations about background checks and waiting period.

Restrictions on ammunition seems valid, a cool off period would be fine, or likewise, some sort of accrual system where if you haven't purchased ammo in 1 year you can make a large purchase, if you just made a large purchase last week, you need to submit a request and wait a small period of time.

Euros and especially british know nothing about this shit and need to shut up.

Castle laws are a little scary, there have been instances of people shooting at officers, but officers should be clearly identifying themselves. I do believe very seriously in self defense, so I respect the basis for castle laws, I would need to delve more deeply into them to make a more educated statement.

 

EDIT:

The reason why I suggest multiple classes of gun ownership is twofold. The framework for this already exists, and it allows you to play both sides. You can suggest that you would be more free regarding certain weapon types becoming legal and certain accessories like suppressors. You can also turn around and regulate the people with that license and make them pay a premium for it. The average person doesn't need much more than a basic rifle/shotgun/pistol. The collectors and more serious gun owners would spring for a second level license to gain access to the cool toys. They would also be less likely to do something stupid with that privilege, because it could be taken away. For example I don't know about too many people with conceal carry permits going on shooting sprees, those people know not to be so stupid as to ruin it for the rest of us,and they've also generally gone through a more stringent background check. My idea is to extend the rights of the more serious gun owners, while keeping the rights of a standard owner relatively unchanged. I do believe that more federal oversight/databases would be needed, and that having reasonable restrictions and waiting periods in place

 

I feel the need for government to stress the privilege rather than the right to own firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe its a given natural right as in stated in the constitution just the same as the right for human equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government already regulates your rights. Also, according to your argument Richard there is no right to privacy. The judges had to create that right by "interpreting the 4th amendment " This is why literal readings of the constitution do not work. It's also why I believe the constitution should be a living document that is capable of changing with time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not up to date on the gun laws/issues so I don't have much to contribute. I do believe that the right to bear arms is necessary more so in dangerous parts as a means of self-protection.

 

This has been said so many times it's almost cliche: It's not the guns that kill people, it's people that kill people.

 

If you want to fix the problem and go to the source-- start at schools and restart those DARE programs that informed and dissuaded children from drugs and violence. It worked fine in our generation. I came out okay.

 

(Ren may attest otherwise-- don't listen to him.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden were arguin how fast you reload, small capacity = more reload. less people died

 

 

lol limiting clip, i laugh so hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you want to fix the problem and go to the source-- start at schools and restart those DARE programs that informed and dissuaded children from drugs and violence. It worked fine in our generation. I came out okay.

 

 

You do realize the DARE programs are a complete failure right? They're already having to restructure them with regards to marijuana. I have no issue teaching basic gun safety to young adults, and I firmly believe you should have to take a basic gun safety/maintenance class before you can buy a gun. But I would never model any program after DARE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it really? Hm.

 

I thought they were pretty good back in the days. We learned about the law, proper social behavior, and we got the friendly side of the cop.

 

I digress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it really? Hm.

 

I thought they were pretty good back in the days. We learned about the law, proper social behavior, and we got the friendly side of the cop.

 

I digress...

I think DARE also really affected me a well. Had it not been for DARE, I might not have had such a negative view of smoking/drinking/drugs.

 

While, I agree that the Constitution should be a living document, I believe that individuals should have the right to defend oneself either for protection from others or anyone. That was the intent of the amendment as intended by the original authors and I believe that reason has not yet been outdated. As Thomas Jefferson said:

 

 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the right to freedom of speech, but that freedom has limits. During wartime certain speech can be considered harmful and even land you in prison. Likewise you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Can an "average" law abiding citizen buy a firearm? Yes. Does that mean you can go buy a full auto P90 with a suppressor on it? No. Let me put it another way. Your "rights" have limits. No matter if it's word for word put down in the constitution there are always limits. If you believe you have absolute rights, then guess what? You're full of shit. The rights of an individual are only valid if they do not disrupt the rights of a larger group.

 

The pretense for when the constitution was written was after a war, the vast majority of people were soldiers and the constant threat of the frontier/native americans were yet another reason to be armed. It doesn't mean your second amendment rights of today allow you to walk into a bank with a gun on your hip.

 

If you are just looking to defend yourself go buy a shotgun or a basic pistol. Neither of those weapons have any serious restrictions on them and are both more than capable of defending you from unwanted trespass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While, I agree that the Constitution should be a living document, I believe that individuals should have the right to defend oneself either for protection from others or anyone. That was the intent of the amendment as intended by the original authors and I believe that reason has not yet been outdated. As Thomas Jefferson said:

 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

 

 

 

It is outdated. We do not live in the world of 1789. At that time the difference between the government's military and the average person was not a question of armament but just a bit of soldiery training. In some crazy universe where the government was able to turn the military against the people, we wouldn't stand a chance against the drones, tanks, rocket launchers, ships and bombers that the military has. Before you say "....but you could say the same thing about the Afghans and they are leaving a dent...." that analogy doesn't work because (1) they have lots of help from Iran in the form of weapons and (2) they had a whole generation to practice on the soviets along with training and weapons from us. And I'm not willing to let private civilians own rocket launchers and attack planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand there are limits, and I never once stated where I believe the exact limits should apply. I merely believe that we should never ban arms entirely.

 

I also just love how MrBlah loves to put words in my mouth as everything else he said about me was completely assumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that individuals should have the right to defend oneself either for protection from others or anyone. That was the intent of the amendment as intended by the original authors and I believe that reason has not yet been outdated.

 

I do not believe this was the original interpretation. I believe the original interpretation was regarding militias and the right to defend one's country. I also would seek to remind you that you don't have the right to defend yourself from the government. While some states take certain principles to heart regarding castle laws, I know of very few states that would allow you to defend yourself against a police officer or first responder. Unless that police officer is completely and truly breaking the law, and you have some evidence or way of proving this, you would be out of your mind to see this as a pretext to defend yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I merely believe that we should never ban arms entirely..

 

Yes but you then quoted Thomas Jefferson regarding people taking up arms against government with the idea to prevent tyranny. This a whole other point and the one I was trying to address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DARE also really affected me a well. Had it not been for DARE, I might not have had such a negative view of smoking/drinking/drugs.

 

While, I agree that the Constitution should be a living document, I believe that individuals should have the right to defend oneself either for protection from others or anyone. That was the intent of the amendment as intended by the original authors and I believe that reason has not yet been outdated. As Thomas Jefferson said:

I'm probably posting in the wrong section: but I'm beating the old horse of social stigma is ridiculously lax. The good stick to the rump for misbehavior is ousted from our society and in its stead is complacent parenting and asinine coddling which depraves the next generation of proper social upbringing.

 

In the utopian world we wouldn't need guns. But realistically, we do; we need some means of protecting ourselves. I think Richard is getting at that fact but didn't go into detail on his thoughts.

 

 

 

I have the right to freedom of speech, but that freedom has limits. During wartime certain speech can be considered harmful and even land you in prison. Likewise you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Can an "average" law abiding citizen buy a firearm? Yes. Does that mean you can go buy a full auto P90 with a suppressor on it? No. Let me put it another way. Your "rights" have limits. No matter if it's word for word put down in the constitution there are always limits.

 

[...]

 

If you are just looking to defend yourself go buy a shotgun or a basic pistol. Neither of those weapons have any serious restrictions on them and are both more than capable of defending you from unwanted trespass.

I like this post. Readily agreed points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight tangent but still related, I just found out about http://defcad.org/ which is apparently a site dedicated to provided diagrams/downloads to make gun parts/accessories with a 3D printer. How the hell do you restrict that? If you have a 3D printer, buy the "ink" and download the files from somewhere then you can make a lot of stuff without any oversight. I'm almost wondering if you run into a "too difficult an issue to even legislate/enforce" at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know all the legal issues for individual states/counties/cities but this would generally be illegal. If you discharge a firearm within city premises (not at a gun range) you can be cited/arrested for it. You would have to establish that you were discharging the weapon for self defense. Also keep in mind that firing a weapon into the air is rather stupid on multiple levels, people can be killed by stray rounds, or you might end up shooting at an aircraft. You'd probably be better off firing at the ground (if it's soil not concrete), even then I would recommend not firing unless your person/property is being threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of big news, especially regarding California.

 

The highlight is probably this:

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/

 

Most people are thinking that this will end up at SCOTUS pretty soon, there have been several district rulings regarding the issuance of licenses and the legality of open/concealed carry. I sincerely hope that concealed carry becomes an option for law abiding citizens, and that the severely anti-gun mentality that is often present in California legislature gets smashed by court rulings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those applying for a CCW today can expect to wait until August or September until the application is processed, he said.

That’s because the number of applications submitted immediately after the ruling has created a backlog for required interviews, Hallock said.

Last year, the Sheriff’s Department approved a total of 438 concealed-weapon permits and denied 101.

In comparison, more than 500 applications were received since Feb. 13, Hallock said.

 

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/applications-603207-sheriff-concealed.html

 

I did not realize that many approvals came out of OC. I do wonder if there was also some self selection going on previously, where people didn't bother wasting their time and money applying if they did not know for certain they would be approved. Even so, it's interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.kltv.com/story/25635541/gun-homicides-down-dramatically-americans-unaware

 

More than half of Americans believe gun violence has increased over the past two decades, but what you’re watching on the news, may be skewing your view.

That recent study said compared to 1993, the peak of US gun homicide, the rate was 49 percent lower in 2010, even though the population had grown. In other words, fewer people are dying by guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason why I post this article is this particular statistic:

In a county with more than three million residents, 1,640 of them are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. More than 2,800 more have pending applications with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/09/01/ccw-permits-poised-to-double-in-orange-county/

 

I'm curious where they got both of those numbers, especially considering some of the previous statistics I've posted. Either way it's interesting to see this unfolding. I haven't heard of any denials for applications, just that the process is very slow because of the huge number of applicants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...