High Standards for Guns

[Maryhl]

The Infamous Unami

The problem is that Gun Control advocates do not have the trust of the NRA, or any other major gun rights organization for that matter, having said- for the most part, that they do not feel that there is a right to keep weapons for personal use. This spoils the chance of any discussion, as it just makes gun rights activists feel that they are trying to tiptoe towards an Australia situation, or a UK situation.

So there is not one step down the slippery slope. Certainly not a unilateral forfeiture of any freedoms.

I would be willing to entertain certain restrictions however, provided gun owners were given something in return. A ban on private sales, in exchange for mandated reciprocity of CCW permits across all state lines, for instance.

The problem with the NRA, is that it advocates and funds these PETA-style ideas that are as embarrassing to supporters of the principle as they are disturbing to the opposition.

Just for some reason, the embarrassed people don't speak up against the NRA... so they keep doing it. And the rest of us are left assuming you all really think like that way. Ie. crazy.

[The Infamous Unami]

Demon Kagerou

The Infamous Unami

The problem is that Gun Control advocates do not have the trust of the NRA, or any other major gun rights organization for that matter, having said- for the most part, that they do not feel that there is a right to keep weapons for personal use. This spoils the chance of any discussion, as it just makes gun rights activists feel that they are trying to tiptoe towards an Australia situation, or a UK situation.

So there is not one step down the slippery slope. Certainly not a unilateral forfeiture of any freedoms.

I would be willing to entertain certain restrictions however, provided gun owners were given something in return. A ban on private sales, in exchange for mandated reciprocity of CCW permits across all state lines, for instance.

The problem with the NRA, is that it advocates and funds these PETA-style ideas that are as embarrassing to supporters of the principle as they are disturbing to the opposition.

Just for some reason, the embarrassed people don't speak up against the NRA... so they keep doing it. And the rest of us are left assuming you all really think like that way. Ie. crazy.

Which of their positions are crazy, again?

[Maryhl]

The Infamous Unami

Demon Kagerou

The Infamous Unami

The problem is that Gun Control advocates do not have the trust of the NRA, or any other major gun rights organization for that matter, having said- for the most part, that they do not feel that there is a right to keep weapons for personal use. This spoils the chance of any discussion, as it just makes gun rights activists feel that they are trying to tiptoe towards an Australia situation, or a UK situation.

So there is not one step down the slippery slope. Certainly not a unilateral forfeiture of any freedoms.

I would be willing to entertain certain restrictions however, provided gun owners were given something in return. A ban on private sales, in exchange for mandated reciprocity of CCW permits across all state lines, for instance.

The problem with the NRA, is that it advocates and funds these PETA-style ideas that are as embarrassing to supporters of the principle as they are disturbing to the opposition.

Just for some reason, the embarrassed people don't speak up against the NRA... so they keep doing it. And the rest of us are left assuming you all really think like that way. Ie. crazy.

Which of their positions are crazy, again?

Like the armed guards in schools, to name the recent gem they have marked themselves for.

[The Infamous Unami]

Demon Kagerou

The Infamous Unami

Demon Kagerou

The Infamous Unami

The problem is that Gun Control advocates do not have the trust of the NRA, or any other major gun rights organization for that matter, having said- for the most part, that they do not feel that there is a right to keep weapons for personal use. This spoils the chance of any discussion, as it just makes gun rights activists feel that they are trying to tiptoe towards an Australia situation, or a UK situation.

So there is not one step down the slippery slope. Certainly not a unilateral forfeiture of any freedoms.

I would be willing to entertain certain restrictions however, provided gun owners were given something in return. A ban on private sales, in exchange for mandated reciprocity of CCW permits across all state lines, for instance.

The problem with the NRA, is that it advocates and funds these PETA-style ideas that are as embarrassing to supporters of the principle as they are disturbing to the opposition.

Just for some reason, the embarrassed people don't speak up against the NRA... so they keep doing it. And the rest of us are left assuming you all really think like that way. Ie. crazy.

Which of their positions are crazy, again?

Like the armed guards in schools, to name the recent gem they have marked themselves for.

Lots of schools have armed security. Heck, my kid sister's school has armed security. How is that crazy, especially in light of recent events?

[N3bu]

The Infamous Unami

Australia situation,

I feel I should point out that Gun ownership isn't illegal in Australia. Acquisition is just restricted and you must get a permit to buy a gun.

The primary difference is that in Australia, self-defence isn't legally considered a valid reason to acquire a gun, but a legally owned gun can be used for self defence.

[Pipebracket]

The Infamous Unami

Demon Kagerou

The Infamous Unami

Demon Kagerou

The Infamous Unami

The problem is that Gun Control advocates do not have the trust of the NRA, or any other major gun rights organization for that matter, having said- for the most part, that they do not feel that there is a right to keep weapons for personal use. This spoils the chance of any discussion, as it just makes gun rights activists feel that they are trying to tiptoe towards an Australia situation, or a UK situation.

So there is not one step down the slippery slope. Certainly not a unilateral forfeiture of any freedoms.

I would be willing to entertain certain restrictions however, provided gun owners were given something in return. A ban on private sales, in exchange for mandated reciprocity of CCW permits across all state lines, for instance.

The problem with the NRA, is that it advocates and funds these PETA-style ideas that are as embarrassing to supporters of the principle as they are disturbing to the opposition.

Just for some reason, the embarrassed people don't speak up against the NRA... so they keep doing it. And the rest of us are left assuming you all really think like that way. Ie. crazy.

Which of their positions are crazy, again?

Like the armed guards in schools, to name the recent gem they have marked themselves for.

Lots of schools have armed security. Heck, my kid sister's school has armed security. How is that crazy, especially in light of recent events?

It's crazy because it wasn't a democrat's idea.

[N3bu]

Tadpole Jackson

The Infamous Unami

Demon Kagerou

The Infamous Unami

Demon Kagerou

The Infamous Unami

The problem is that Gun Control advocates do not have the trust of the NRA, or any other major gun rights organization for that matter, having said- for the most part, that they do not feel that there is a right to keep weapons for personal use. This spoils the chance of any discussion, as it just makes gun rights activists feel that they are trying to tiptoe towards an Australia situation, or a UK situation.

So there is not one step down the slippery slope. Certainly not a unilateral forfeiture of any freedoms.

I would be willing to entertain certain restrictions however, provided gun owners were given something in return. A ban on private sales, in exchange for mandated reciprocity of CCW permits across all state lines, for instance.

The problem with the NRA, is that it advocates and funds these PETA-style ideas that are as embarrassing to supporters of the principle as they are disturbing to the opposition.

Just for some reason, the embarrassed people don't speak up against the NRA... so they keep doing it. And the rest of us are left assuming you all really think like that way. Ie. crazy.

Which of their positions are crazy, again?

Like the armed guards in schools, to name the recent gem they have marked themselves for.

Lots of schools have armed security. Heck, my kid sister's school has armed security. How is that crazy, especially in light of recent events?

It's crazy because it wasn't a democrat's idea.

Hardly. For those who aren't American it's crazy because it's not apart of their culture to put Armed Guards in elementary schools.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Demon Kagerou

Old Blue Collar Joe

Demon Kagerou

For those that believe in the rights of gun ownership, my question as the title implies is this... what's wrong with having high standards to own and carry firearms?

If your argument for having a weapon is defense, shouldn't you know how to use it like an expert? Wouldn't it be preferable that the illusive marksman that saves a mall under siege is actually a marksman?

We have these kinds of standards for doctors. Why not for people that can potentially take lives at a moment's notice?

We have such standards for government of course, but not so much for "professional" individuals. You need to jump through some hoops to own them in most states, but you don't really need to earn most of them beyond a background check, if that.

It seems like tiering gun makes to abilities and qualifications would be helpful to both sides... those that want the guns available, and those that don't want the craziest to have them by simple means.

The best example for this may actually be video game where new abilities/skills are earned by leveling the character to appropriate levels. Seems like it would give "deserving" wielders more prestige as well.

Just a thought.

Where are these supposed standards for government? Seriously? Have you ever SEEN the requirements for qualification of a firearm for most law enforcement? It is nothing like you see on CSI or Criminal Minds. They stand there, shoot a box of ammo at a paper target 20 feet away, then go get doughnuts, qualification over.
That's it.

Depends on the rank in government. Local police are armed, and skilled, differently than a marine... which by the way, are both government employees.

When's the last time a civilian called 911 and a marine showed up? You're comparing apples to oranges and calling them grapes.

[Omnileech]

Tadpole Jackson

Stupid is going to be stupid, you think a chamber flag is going to stop people from being stupid?

No, but I think it would prevent nearly every instance of someone thinking a chamber is empty when it is not and that would prevent a great deal of injuries and fatalities.

Quote:

You can put as many warning labels and bells and whistles on something as you like, there's always gonna be that guy that drinks bleach.

Well, so far the NRA and other lobbying groups have opposed every "bell or whistle" that would cut down on accidental deaths. It's irresponsible for something that kills so many children every year. And no, just because mandatory chamber flags won't eliminate every instance of a gun-related accidental injury does not make them useless. Even a simple 5% reduction would be a lot of people who don't die.

Quote:

Almost every recently made gun has something called a drop safety, prevents the gun from discharging if it's dropped.

It's not mandatory in many parts of the country for manufactured guns. It should be.

Quote:

Actually, no, they can't. That's one of the wonderful fallacies put out by the anti-gunners to inspire fear. First point, a LOT of gun shows will NOT let someone in who is just wandering around with a firearm for sale. 99% of those you encounter are licensed FFL dealers, who run the check on the spot for the 4473.

It's not a fallacy. It's not a myth. Here's an example of the loophole at work. Criminals getting guns through straw purchases and private dealers at gun shows.

[quoteIt is illegal to buy firearms for the purpose of selling them at a profit. If you buy a firearm and the value goes up and you choose to sell it, that's a different issue. But buying and selling, and this also includes magazines and any part that attaches to a gun without an FFL is a major no-no.
Private sellers is rather an iffy proposition. My solution to that would be 'consignment firearm shops' where the firearm to be sold is dropped off at a licensed FFL, they sell it and get $X for running the background check.]

Or you can mandate a background check for every gun sale. The simplest thing to do. Background checks aren't hard to do. Easier than inventing a type of shop anyways.

Quote:

But there is definitely a lot of myth concerning gun shows.

I've provided hard data. Where's yours?

Quote:

This is basic firearms safety. Although I have no issue with manufacturing a green/red indicator on top of the slide to indicate a round in the chamber, but in the two cases mentioned? It wouldn't have made a difference. Those two were flat out operator error, and now the inanimate object is being blamed for an idiot having hold of it. Sad the kid died, but the gun wasn't at fault. The operator, his father, was.

The father said he believed that the chamber was empty. It wasn't. That's one life saved if the gun had a indicator.

Quote:

Biggest problem is, again, stupid gun operation. If they could make the ring thing work without major problems, I'd like that. But it would have to be a very limited range, like 'contact', otherwise it's just another gadget to buy that doesn't really accomplish s**t, or one that can be removed from someone, thus gaining access to their weapon.

The ring works 99% of the time. It literally has less of a chance of causing a gun to fire than a mechanical issue for some guns.

[The Infamous Unami]

N3bu

The Infamous Unami

Australia situation,

I feel I should point out that Gun ownership isn't illegal in Australia. Acquisition is just restricted and you must get a permit to buy a gun.

The primary difference is that in Australia, self-defence isn't legally considered a valid reason to acquire a gun, but a legally owned gun can be used for self defence.

The ownership of every firearm that I or any of my friends own is illegal in Australia. Including for the purpose of hunting (pump action ban.)

The "situation" I was referencing was your famous little gun grab.

[Maryhl]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Demon Kagerou

Old Blue Collar Joe

Demon Kagerou

For those that believe in the rights of gun ownership, my question as the title implies is this... what's wrong with having high standards to own and carry firearms?

If your argument for having a weapon is defense, shouldn't you know how to use it like an expert? Wouldn't it be preferable that the illusive marksman that saves a mall under siege is actually a marksman?

We have these kinds of standards for doctors. Why not for people that can potentially take lives at a moment's notice?

We have such standards for government of course, but not so much for "professional" individuals. You need to jump through some hoops to own them in most states, but you don't really need to earn most of them beyond a background check, if that.

It seems like tiering gun makes to abilities and qualifications would be helpful to both sides... those that want the guns available, and those that don't want the craziest to have them by simple means.

The best example for this may actually be video game where new abilities/skills are earned by leveling the character to appropriate levels. Seems like it would give "deserving" wielders more prestige as well.

Just a thought.

Where are these supposed standards for government? Seriously? Have you ever SEEN the requirements for qualification of a firearm for most law enforcement? It is nothing like you see on CSI or Criminal Minds. They stand there, shoot a box of ammo at a paper target 20 feet away, then go get doughnuts, qualification over.
That's it.

Depends on the rank in government. Local police are armed, and skilled, differently than a marine... which by the way, are both government employees.

When's the last time a civilian called 911 and a marine showed up? You're comparing apples to oranges and calling them grapes.

You seem to assume that it would be overly difficult to qualify for guns that would be sufficient to defend your family.

I haven't made any specific proposals to how or which firearms get tiered... I'm just putting the possibility out there.

[N3bu]

The Infamous Unami

N3bu

The Infamous Unami

Australia situation,

I feel I should point out that Gun ownership isn't illegal in Australia. Acquisition is just restricted and you must get a permit to buy a gun.

The primary difference is that in Australia, self-defence isn't legally considered a valid reason to acquire a gun, but a legally owned gun can be used for self defence.

The ownership of every firearm that I or any of my friends own is illegal in Australia. Including for the purpose of hunting (pump action ban.)

The "situation" I was referencing was your famous little gun grab.

You mean where the government offered money to buy back all the old widespread rifles that were unregistered and about to end up illegal?

Because they could of just told people to go ******** them and not done that, then a whole bunch of people are just breaking the law.

As to the illegality of ownership you need to apply for a permit for a specific kind of gun and provide a reason to have said permit. That you own no guns of legal value in Australia doesn't say much to me

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Demon Kagerou

Old Blue Collar Joe

Demon Kagerou

Old Blue Collar Joe

Demon Kagerou

For those that believe in the rights of gun ownership, my question as the title implies is this... what's wrong with having high standards to own and carry firearms?

If your argument for having a weapon is defense, shouldn't you know how to use it like an expert? Wouldn't it be preferable that the illusive marksman that saves a mall under siege is actually a marksman?

We have these kinds of standards for doctors. Why not for people that can potentially take lives at a moment's notice?

We have such standards for government of course, but not so much for "professional" individuals. You need to jump through some hoops to own them in most states, but you don't really need to earn most of them beyond a background check, if that.

It seems like tiering gun makes to abilities and qualifications would be helpful to both sides... those that want the guns available, and those that don't want the craziest to have them by simple means.

The best example for this may actually be video game where new abilities/skills are earned by leveling the character to appropriate levels. Seems like it would give "deserving" wielders more prestige as well.

Just a thought.

Where are these supposed standards for government? Seriously? Have you ever SEEN the requirements for qualification of a firearm for most law enforcement? It is nothing like you see on CSI or Criminal Minds. They stand there, shoot a box of ammo at a paper target 20 feet away, then go get doughnuts, qualification over.
That's it.

Depends on the rank in government. Local police are armed, and skilled, differently than a marine... which by the way, are both government employees.

When's the last time a civilian called 911 and a marine showed up? You're comparing apples to oranges and calling them grapes.

You seem to assume that it would be overly difficult to qualify for guns that would be sufficient to defend your family.

I haven't made any specific proposals to how or which firearms get tiered... I'm just putting the possibility out there.

Standards should not be higher than law enforcement is required to meet. If Joe Bob can qualify for a job as a police officer, then the standards should be at that level.

[The Infamous Unami]

N3bu

The Infamous Unami

N3bu

The Infamous Unami

Australia situation,

I feel I should point out that Gun ownership isn't illegal in Australia. Acquisition is just restricted and you must get a permit to buy a gun.

The primary difference is that in Australia, self-defence isn't legally considered a valid reason to acquire a gun, but a legally owned gun can be used for self defence.

The ownership of every firearm that I or any of my friends own is illegal in Australia. Including for the purpose of hunting (pump action ban.)

The "situation" I was referencing was your famous little gun grab.

You mean where the government offered money to buy back all the old widespread rifles that were unregistered and about to end up illegal?

Because they could of just told people to go ******** them and not done that, then a whole bunch of people are just breaking the law.

As to the illegality of ownership you need to apply for a permit for a specific kind of gun and provide a reason to have said permit. That you own no guns of legal value in Australia doesn't say much to me

Semi-auto rifles, pistols and pump shotguns are all banned in Australia. Those are weapons with various purpose, and by far the most commonly owned weapons here in the US. Your insinuation that Aussie law wouldn't be so bad for US gun owners is false, as the vast majority of weapons would be confiscated under your laws. Not just "old widespread rifles."

And the "legal value" of various weapons systems in the US and Australia is of great relevance when discussing of we should adopt the latter's laws.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

The Infamous Unami

N3bu

The Infamous Unami

N3bu

The Infamous Unami

Australia situation,

I feel I should point out that Gun ownership isn't illegal in Australia. Acquisition is just restricted and you must get a permit to buy a gun.

The primary difference is that in Australia, self-defence isn't legally considered a valid reason to acquire a gun, but a legally owned gun can be used for self defence.

The ownership of every firearm that I or any of my friends own is illegal in Australia. Including for the purpose of hunting (pump action ban.)

The "situation" I was referencing was your famous little gun grab.

You mean where the government offered money to buy back all the old widespread rifles that were unregistered and about to end up illegal?

Because they could of just told people to go ******** them and not done that, then a whole bunch of people are just breaking the law.

As to the illegality of ownership you need to apply for a permit for a specific kind of gun and provide a reason to have said permit. That you own no guns of legal value in Australia doesn't say much to me

Semi-auto rifles, pistols and pump shotguns are all banned in Australia. Those are weapons with various purpose, and by far the most commonly owned weapons here in the US. Your insinuation that Aussie law wouldn't be so bad for US gun owners is false, as the vast majority of weapons would be confiscated under your laws. Not just "old widespread rifles."

And the "legal value" of various weapons systems in the US and Australia is of great relevance when discussing of we should adopt the latter's laws.

Do you find it amazing how many people are more than happy to live completely defenseless, with this bizarre belief that the police will show up and save them?
Even though the US Supreme Court has already ruled that the police do NOT have to do so? They aren't there to protect. They are there to clean up the mess and arrest, and hopefully convict the guy that rapes/kills you.
Nothing more.
We have 370,000 house fires a year. Everyone has smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

But we had over two million break ins.
But there is this hue and cry to prevent defending one's home.
You're four times more likely to be the victim of a break in than a fire, but people prepare more for the fire because that is 'common sense' but protecting yourself is 'paranoia'.