PDA

View Full Version : Gun control


VAHEVAHE
08-06-2008, 12:47 AM
Gun control is such a complex word to define properly. What Laws do you feel should be taken out or implemented to make sure that the Good guys have access to guns they want while the bad guys cannot obtain any guns at all.

For example i feel like they should take out the AW's ban but have a more rigorous process in obtaining your first gun. For example going thought a psychological and background test to make sure your not the next Virginia tech guy.

I also believe that there should be a cool off period for the first gun someone purchases, but after that its cash and carry.

I also believe that there should be strict penalties for anyone who has a stolen gun on them, as in 15-20 years in jail.


Im putting my flame suit on , but seriously guys what ideas do you guys have?

Mississippi
08-06-2008, 1:03 AM
California becoming in line with the 2nd Admin would be a good start.

Waingro
08-06-2008, 1:11 AM
I think it is as simple as this: We should be able to have any kind of gun our military has in that configuration without any tax stamps just as long as we prove that we are not crazy.

Not that hard. I mean full-auto, 14" barrels, silencers, and big mags.

Why you ask?

If we ever need to defend our selves against our own government we are going to lose. It should be fair, if it is not fair then I don't think it is following the 2nd.

But I don't even own a rifle so what do you want me to say?

Rover
08-06-2008, 1:12 AM
Wrong forum, good topic though.

I think that a good starting point would be to make the rules the same for law enforcement and citizens. I's like those laws to remain basicly as they are for the LEO folks currently.

Mag capacity limits are a little goofy, confusing, not to mention useless and when they only apply to law abiding citizens, who do they protect?

The safe gun list is not only a misnomer (is any gun really safe?) but the few rules that make an actual difference between a gun being "safe" or not seem to encourage carelessness. My pistols both have a loaded chamber indicator, I've never looked at either, who cares what a piece of metal says, a gun is loaded until I physically unload it and inspect it. The mag disconnect is equally stupid, if you don't intend for it to fire, keep your finger away from the damn trigger. Other than that it's just a way for the DOJ to make a couple bucks.

You should need to take a safety course before your first purchase, and wait 10 days for the first rifle and 10 days for the first hand gun. I'm 5 days into a wait for a hand gun right now, and what would I do if I wanted to commit a crime, maybe one of my many other guns, so why do I need to wait for that one? A fresh background check should be done with each purchase, you mite have gotten a warrant, conviction, or who knows what to disqualify you since you got your first gun, but if pass that, pay the clerk and have a nice day. Oh, and get rid of the 1 per 30 rule.

The assault weapon rules are total BS, as are the "assassination tools" or whatever evil name they use for night vision scopes and suppressors. If it has existed at any time in history, a criminal can get it and use it, an illegal firearms charge isn't that big of an addition to a 1st degree murder charge, so who cares about breaking a few of them? Let the rest of us fill out the miles of paperwork and pay the sky-high fees so that we can shoot coyotes at night and not damage your hearing in the process.

csmintel
08-06-2008, 1:24 AM
I think it is as simple as this: We should be able to have any kind of gun our military has in that configuration without any tax stamps just as long as we prove that we are not crazy.

Not that hard. I mean full-auto, 14" barrels, silencers, and big mags.

Why you ask?

If we ever need to defend our selves against our own government we are going to lose. It should be fair, if it is not fair then I don't think it is following the 2nd.

But I don't even own a rifle so what do you want me to say?


From the G- man point of view... an army should have more capable weapons then the citizens of this country....precisely for the reason that some people might decide to "defend" themselfes against the government someday.

hawk81
08-06-2008, 3:07 AM
The second ammendment is a god given inalienable right. We should be able to have any firearm that is available to the military. There should be no tests to own a firearm, you do not have to take a test to vote or exercise any of your other right.

motorhead
08-06-2008, 7:39 AM
all gun laws (including nfa and gca) should be immediately repealed. all governments, federal and state should be forbidden to regulate firearms in any manner.

chsk9
08-06-2008, 8:50 AM
Gun control is such a complex word to define properly. What Laws do you feel should be taken out or implemented to make sure that the Good guys have access to guns they want while the bad guys cannot obtain any guns at all.

For example i feel like they should take out the AW's ban but have a more rigorous process in obtaining your first gun. For example going thought a psychological and background test to make sure your not the next Virginia tech guy.

I also believe that there should be a cool off period for the first gun someone purchases, but after that its cash and carry.

I also believe that there should be strict penalties for anyone who has a stolen gun on them, as in 15-20 years in jail.


Im putting my flame suit on , but seriously guys what ideas do you guys have?

I think you need a thermo nuclear suit on this one pal- there are more gun control laws on the books than IRS codes (j/k but almost)... criminals don't give a rats $%^ about breaking gun control laws as they rob a bank, etc.
Someone a bit smarter then I summed it up:
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."Thomas Jefferson

sorensen440
08-06-2008, 9:00 AM
What Laws do you feel should be taken out or implemented to make sure that the Good guys have access to guns they want while the bad guys cannot obtain any guns at all.


The bad guys will have the guns regardless of any laws made
the restrictions only serve to make it more difficult for me to defend myself

a1fabweld
08-06-2008, 9:10 AM
This is a cool discussion! I have come to terms with the fact that the gun laws are only going to get tighter & I expect them to. I'll continue to contribute to the NRA in hopes of making a difference though. The black market will always supply guns to those who shouldn't have them no matter what laws are passed. I think the politicians don't realize that there will always be kinky guns out there. I was recently at a gun shop making a purchase & a guy walked in selling a S&W .40 handgun. The guy behind the counter told him that the gun isn't really worth that much to them & offered the guy $100. He took it!!! I was blown away! It was a nice gun too! The seller could have gotten $300+ easily on the street. This is just one way of guns potentially getting into the wrong hands especially in a poor economy like today. How about all the guns that come in across the borders? In my opinion, there is no way to stop guns of any kind in CA. The laws are only making it hard for those that should legally own them. I think the penalties should be much stricter for unlawful use of a firearm instead of just banning them altogether. I think that 99.999999999% of the sound minded gun owners probably aren't going to mow down a school or shopping mall with their evil black rifle using hi-cap mags. Another law that does't work is the illegal substance law. Seriously, how hard would it be to obtain a sack of dope? They are everywhere in every variety but they are banned right? Same goes if guns were banned. We can only hope for the best. I invested quite a few bucks in the last year to get the guns I could possibly never have the chance to own due to the outcome of the upcoming elections. I have heard stories of guys that will not own anything registered to them in fear of the time when the law goes door to door collecting guns from the DOJ registration list.

civilsnake
08-06-2008, 10:23 AM
Mandatory basic firearm training. Nothing serious, just enough to prove proficiency in normal operations. How to handle, how to load, how to fire, how to unload, etc.

People should have access to the same equipment the government does. The second amendment is pretty much pointless without this. Even if they lifted all of the restrictions on weapon sales tomorrow, I imagine it wouldn't make much difference. There's no way the average person could afford weapon systems capable of disabling a tank. But it would make us more formidable in the event of invasion.

No guns for felons. I firmly believe in the bowling system (1 strike).

Concealed carry should be completely legal for anyone who can legally own a firearm.

No waiting period after the first weapon. If someone's messed up enough to go in for a murder 2 charge, that person will happily use any gun they already have.

akjunkie
08-06-2008, 11:08 AM
here's some Gun Control for U.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71435


WND WEAPONS OF CHOICE
State: Just in case, we'll take your gun
Cops allowed to seize firearms even before crime is committed
Posted: August 04, 2008
10:05 pm Eastern

2008 WorldNetDaily


A new report to the Connecticut state legislature shows police have used the state's unique gun seizure law to confiscate more than 1,700 firearms from citizens based on suspicion that the gun owners might harm themselves or others.

The state's law permits police to seek a warrant for seizing a citizen's guns based on suspicion of the gun owner's intentions, before any act of violence or lawbreaking is actually committed.

The law was first proposed in 1998, following a mass shooting at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation that left five dead, including the gunman. Since the law went into effect Oct. 1, 1999, according to new Office of Legislative Research report, police have made more than 200 documented requests for warrants to seize firearms from citizens, and only two of the requests have been denied.

The law has remained hotly debated since its passage, as some point to possible murders and suicides it may have prevented, and others worry that police would abuse the law.

"It certainly has not been abused. It may be underutilized," Ron Pinciaro, co-executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, told the Waterbury Republican American. "The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives."

Attorney Ralph D. Sherman, who has represented several of the gun owners whose firearms were confiscated under the law, disagrees.

"In every case I was involved in I thought it was an abuse," he told the newspaper. "The overriding concern is anybody can report anybody with or without substantiation, and I don't think that is the American way."

Joe Graborz, executive director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, an affiliate of the ACLU, told WND the law "continues to invest unusual and far-reaching powers in police authority that does not belong there" by requiring "police to act as psychologists in trying to predict and interpret behavior."

"What is the standard of proof on this?" he asked. "The way this law is written, it can and will be easily abused by police."

(Story continues below)

Under the statute, dubbed the "turn in your neighbor" law by opponents, any two police officers or a state prosecutor may seek a warrant, following a specified process of investigation, to confiscate guns from people deemed a risk to harming themselves or others. The vast majority of cases, however, begin when a person usually a spouse or live-in, according to the OLR report file a complaint.

Shortly after the law was passed, Thompson Bosee of Greenwich, Conn., had his guns and ammunition seized by police. Bosee told WND in 1999 he suspects a neighbor, with whom he has had words regarding the neighbor's driving on Bosee's property, might have reported him.

"They had a warrant for my guns, they arrested my guns," said Bosee.

A member of both the NRA and the American Gunsmithing Association, Bosee said he works on his guns in his garage and is not ashamed of it.

Although Greenwich Police would not comment, they released a list of the guns and ammunition they seized from Bosee, including six handguns, three rifles, one shotgun, one submachine gun and 3,108 rounds of ammunition.

The new OLR report shows that in most cases, relatives or neighbors of the gun owner filed the complaint when they feared for their own safety or feared the owner was suicidal. In a case from Southington, however, a man had his gun taken for threatening to shoot a dog.

Attorney Ralph Sherman told WND the law's cruelty to animals justification for gun seizure worries him.

"If I throw a rock or a newspaper at a dog in my yard or in my garden, that doesn't mean I'm mentally unbalanced," he said. "What if a neighbor doesn't like me and sees that?"

In October 2006, according to the Republican American, police obtained a seizure warrant after a man made 28 unsubstantiated claims of vandalism to his property. The police application for seizure described the man as paranoid and delusional, citing extensive self-protection measures installed on the man's property, including alarms, cameras and spotlights.

Four months after the man's guns were taken, a judge ruled that police had failed to show the man posed any risk and ordered the guns returned. According to the ruling, the gun owner had no history of documented illness, criminal activity or misuse of firearms. "In fact, the firearms were found in a locked safe when the officers executed the warrant," the ruling said.

The law dictates that courts hold a hearing within 14 days of a seizure to determine the eventual fate of the guns. In most cases, according to the OLR report, the guns are held for a period of up to a year, destroyed or sold. The Republican American reports that in 22 of the more than 200 cases, the guns were ordered returned.

Connecticut State Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, House chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the chief authors of the law, told the Republican American he wasn't aware of any pending challenges to the law's constitutionality.

"The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said.

Sherman however, said the law hasn't been challenged yet, simply because it is used sparingly and a test case would prove too costly for the average gun owner.

berto
08-06-2008, 11:43 AM
Those not falling in prohibited categories should be able to cash and carry as long as they pass the instant background check.

a1fabweld
08-06-2008, 11:50 AM
I'm sure alot of you have seen this one about police siezure of guns. It's kinda long. http://www.nraila.org/Multimedia/MMPlayer_Set.aspx?ID=105

bohoki
08-06-2008, 12:06 PM
the second amendment laws should be written as the first amendment laws

which are based on their use not possession

like it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater that would cause great panic so brandishing in a threatening manner should be illegal

but as with the yelling fire in a crowded theater it is allowed if there is infact a fire so brandishing should be allowed when there is an immediate threat

there are laws about counterfeiting so it should too be illegal to violate copyrights and trademarks on firearms

as with big newspapers having to have buisness licences and such but a little xerox leaflet printer doesnt as should be the manufacture big firearm manufacturing should be controlled as newspaper printers

if it is low volume personal printing than that is ok

as to cuttoffs on what people should buy i dont really know about that

nunchucks ,ninja stars,little knives that look like beltbuckles tire gauges or lipstick ought to be allright along with as big of a switchblade you want

silencers yes that is a health and safety issue and should be required whenever convienient

short barreled rifles shotguns why not if pistols are allowed why cant they have a stock?

machine guns sure why not i think their tax is self imposed on the magnitude of ammo they expend

as with grenades, mines ,explosive artillary should be controlled as with any other high explosive require i'd for purchase ,regulate storage and use

nuclear biological chemical well i personaly believe there should be a 1 year cooling off period for doomsday devices

lrdchivalry
08-06-2008, 12:47 PM
From the G- man point of view... an army should have more capable weapons then the citizens of this country....precisely for the reason that some people might decide to "defend" themselfes against the government someday.

This g-mans perspective.

So your anti 2A? The premise of the 2A is so the citizens of the country, if need be, can take back the country from a tyranical government. How could citizens of this country do so without access to the same weapons? Doesn't the government work for the people? The purpose of the 2A is to let the government know that ultimately they answer to the people.

Sorry for hijacking the thread but the quotes by csmintel above are the precise reason why citizens should have access to the same weapons as the military and the crazy guns laws are IMHO an attempt to take the power out of the hands of its citizenry because the BOR allows for armed resistance to government tyranny. Who gets to decide if the government is being tyrannical, the government?

Am I advocating the overthrow of the government? Not at all, just pointing out that the BOR's gives the citizens the right to do so if they feel it is necessary.

Back on topic.

I agree with some of the other posters in regards to some type of basic training for a first time buyer of a firearm, however, I am against the waiting period, if the background check comes out ok then we should be able to walk out with the gun.

Eliminate these stupid laws such as the AW ban, microstamping, and other such ridiculous laws. Punish the law breakers not the law abiding.

As for concealed carry. I think all states should be shall issue and no micro bans. Crime will go down if criminals know that the person they are about to rob might be armed and people who decide to shoot up a mall or other facility would get taken out either before any casualties occur or at least cut down on the number.

torquemada055
08-06-2008, 1:21 PM
Here's some good historical data for you all to think about, gun control has always meant people control.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

Makes for an interesting read and more interesting thoughts.

M. Sage
08-06-2008, 1:27 PM
I'm Ok, barely, with NICS, but it has to be an instant check like in free states.

You shouldn't have to prove that you're not crazy. You don't have to prove anything to exercise any other rights. To have a right restricted, they have to prove that you're insane or a criminal.

Other than an instant check, I don't see much use for any other gun control laws. The number of guns is not tied in any way to crime rates.

Glock22Fan
08-06-2008, 2:00 PM
The bad guys will have the guns regardless of any laws made
the restrictions only serve to make it more difficult for me to defend myself


+1000

I don't support any new laws that curtail our rights more than they are curtailed already.

If you don't want bad guys to have guns, the only way to (nearly) achieve this is to lock them all up.

sorensen440
08-06-2008, 2:16 PM
I would however be for mandatory firearms training in highschool
I wouldn't require them to shoot but they damn well better know how to handle saftley

bohoki
08-06-2008, 2:50 PM
I would however be for mandatory firearms training in highschool
I wouldn't require them to shoot but they damn well better know how to handle saftley


i would love to hear the anti-gunners using the same tactics as the anti-sex ed people

oh you cant teach them to shoot safely or it will encourage them

Ironchef
08-06-2008, 3:15 PM
In the interest of a waiting period, I'm inclined to think that it is an indicator for the government to know that someone is buying a gun, and therefore gives them a name, address, and duty to research what was purchased..and bam, they have a list of gun owners.

Otherwise..
1) Firearm training should accompany a first firearm purchase and a privacy ensured waiting period should also be applied.

2) CCW and OC should require appropriate training and be a pass/fail issue. Sorry, if it's unrestricted, there will be brandishing and negligent discharges daily. The right to own the gun should not be confused with the right to negligently dishcarge one in public. As long as our loved ones are at risk to fools having road rage (vehicle is considered a deadly weapon, answerable with gunfire to some) or whatever...they should require training.

3) Any small arms the military has, the civilian should have access too also. Anything bigger than whatever small arms are considered as, should require restricted USE and obviously appropriate training.

Post 11 is right on the money.


I would however be for mandatory firearms training in highschool
I wouldn't require them to shoot but they damn well better know how to handle saftley

I like this idea too. DIdn't our parents have something like this starting in the late 40's? What went wrong? Loss of gun culture.

HotRails
08-06-2008, 3:20 PM
Gun cntrol doesnt prevent criminals from getting guns, thats been established just like drug laws dont prevent them from getting drugs. Instead, I would like to see the gov't (state and fed) to trim spending on useless programs and do something about illegal immigration (which saps tax dollars but provides no revenue since illegals pay no income tax). This would free up tax dollars to build more prisons to relieve crowding and hire more law enforcement.

HR

kp94ss
08-06-2008, 3:25 PM
No gun laws of any kind. Cash and carry ANYTHING you want without restriction.
Period.

M. Sage
08-06-2008, 4:46 PM
There are problems with mandatory training.

Who decides what constitutes a "pass"? Who funds the training? If it's paid for by the prospective gun owner, how much does it cost? Who decides who can give the training? How are the instructors licensed, and what restrictions can be placed on them?

A training requirement could turn into a "poll tax" very quickly. Make the training nigh impossible to pass, nearly impossible to attend, prohibitively expensive; or if it's publicly-funded, just de-fund it.

Remember to look for unintended consequences to these kinds of things. For everything you agree to, you're opening a door to potential abuses by those in power.

1911su16b870
08-06-2008, 4:50 PM
In the framers time, the citizenry owned what the military used. In post WWII eastern Europe, the opposition was exterminated and then the guns confiscated. The two sides of the coin.

IMO firearm laws should be those originally intended by the founders, however, I do not think felons or 5150s should be allowed to possess guns.

redneckshootist
08-06-2008, 5:27 PM
all gun laws (including nfa and gca) should be immediately repealed. all governments, federal and state should be forbidden to regulate firearms in any manner.

+1
what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand.

motorhead
08-07-2008, 1:19 AM
yup, that's like asking me what diseases i'm o.k. with. (oh i like crabs and boils but aids and ebola have to go) take the f out of atf. actually they should be disbanded, i'm pro alcohol and tobacco too.

kp94ss
08-07-2008, 7:37 AM
yup, that's like asking me what diseases i'm o.k. with. (oh i like crabs and boils but aids and ebola have to go) take the f out of atf. actually they should be disbanded, i'm pro alcohol and tobacco too.

There's a t-shirt I saw that said, "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency"

I agree.

sorensen440
08-07-2008, 7:53 AM
There are problems with mandatory training.

Who decides what constitutes a "pass"? Who funds the training? If it's paid for by the prospective gun owner, how much does it cost? Who decides who can give the training? How are the instructors licensed, and what restrictions can be placed on them?

A training requirement could turn into a "poll tax" very quickly. Make the training nigh impossible to pass, nearly impossible to attend, prohibitively expensive; or if it's publicly-funded, just de-fund it.

Remember to look for unintended consequences to these kinds of things. For everything you agree to, you're opening a door to potential abuses by those in power.

Thats why I think it needs to be mandatory for anyone getting out of highschool
They wont make it so hard that you cant pass

motorhead
08-07-2008, 8:27 AM
alcohol, tobacco and firearms, who's bringing the snacks?
reminds me of hirams guns and liquor back in the day.

lrdchivalry
08-07-2008, 10:46 AM
alcohol, tobacco and firearms, who's bringing the snacks?
reminds me of hirams guns and liquor back in the day.

LOL..... I was about to mention the same thing.

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 11:34 AM
Otherwise..
1) Firearm training should accompany a first firearm purchase and a privacy ensured waiting period should also be applied.

2) CCW and OC should require appropriate training and be a pass/fail issue. Sorry, if it's unrestricted, there will be brandishing and negligent discharges daily. The right to own the gun should not be confused with the right to negligently dishcarge one in public. As long as our loved ones are at risk to fools having road rage (vehicle is considered a deadly weapon, answerable with gunfire to some) or whatever...they should require training.

Negligent discharges etc. are not a problem in Alaska or Vermont, or anywhere else that firearms ownership and carrying is relatively unrestricted (think Texas and Florida), so why should they be a problem here? Or are you one of those people who think that Californians just can't be trusted?

And do you think that teenage gangbangers (the ones most likely to fire when they shouldn't) would go through this process?

Ironchef
08-07-2008, 11:52 AM
There are problems with mandatory training.

Who decides what constitutes a "pass"? Who funds the training? If it's paid for by the prospective gun owner, how much does it cost? Who decides who can give the training? How are the instructors licensed, and what restrictions can be placed on them?

A training requirement could turn into a "poll tax" very quickly. Make the training nigh impossible to pass, nearly impossible to attend, prohibitively expensive; or if it's publicly-funded, just de-fund it.

Remember to look for unintended consequences to these kinds of things. For everything you agree to, you're opening a door to potential abuses by those in power.

I wouldn't want a pass/fail type of training, just something that walks someone through in a way that they can't fail at where they learn at least the most basic safety. Could be state run or private, whichever worked best. Maybe gun shops could operate such a training funded by the brady campaign since they'd naturally be working hand in hand by then (aka "Hell freezing over"). Or, go back to the old days and have shooting in public school! If our citizens were all trained in basic firearm safety, it would go along way to safeguard against accidents.

Negligent discharges etc. are not a problem in Alaska or Vermont, or anywhere else that firearms ownership and carrying is relatively unrestricted (think Texas and Florida), so why should they be a problem here? Or are you one of those people who think that Californians just can't be trusted?

And do you think that teenage gangbangers (the ones most likely to fire when they shouldn't) would go through this process?

Wow, nobody accidentally shoots their guns? Please. And no, I'm not assuming or advocating my lack of trust in citizens. Calm down tiger. I"m acknowledging that even the pros, professional enuff to handle a glock fotay, can and will negligently discharge..regardless of how common carrying a gun is. There's nothing INFRINGING in teaching safety, even if it's mandatory.

There is a safe handling demonstration required when you buy a handgun. perhaps this can be elaborated. Gun shops would be perfect at this..and as a money maker, they can offer additional, yet quick training for a small fee..or fully elaborate classes like Bullseye offers.

Meplat
08-07-2008, 1:11 PM
I think it is as simple as this: We should be able to have any kind of gun our military has in that configuration without any tax stamps just as long as we prove that we are not crazy.

?

NO. We should be able to have any kind of ARM our or any other military has (un-infringed), as long as the government cannot prove we are crazy.

Meplat
08-07-2008, 1:21 PM
In the framers time, the citizenry owned what the military used. In post WWII eastern Europe, the opposition was exterminated and then the guns confiscated. The two sides of the coin.

IMO firearm laws should be those originally intended by the founders, however, I do not think felons or 5150s should be allowed to possess guns.

Then all you have to do is make everyone a felon. I think you have to be carful with this one. You might be able to change my mind if you say violent felon, and put a sunset on it of a given number of years if the person does not re-offend.

M. Sage
08-07-2008, 1:35 PM
Thats why I think it needs to be mandatory for anyone getting out of highschool
They wont make it so hard that you cant pass

You have too much trust in the educational system...

sorensen440
08-07-2008, 1:59 PM
You have too much trust in the educational system...

I'm not talking about a semester long class
it doesn't even have to be at the school just mandatory safety training or they don't graduate

They are not going to be able to make it very difficult if they know it means kids are going to not graduate.

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 2:08 PM
Wow, nobody accidentally shoots their guns? Please.And no, I'm not assuming or advocating my lack of trust in citizens. Calm down tiger. I"m acknowledging that even the pros, professional enuff to handle a glock fotay, can and will negligently discharge..regardless of how common carrying a gun is. There's nothing INFRINGING in teaching safety, even if it's mandatory.

So, all these pros having ND's despite their extensive training . . . How much training do you think a civilian needs to prevent this? Much more than a pro?

My point wasn't that ND's don't occur. I just see no point in legislation to stop something that isn't a major problem in areas that don't have that legislation. And, as you point out, even extensive training doesn't stop pros from having ND's, so how will your suggestions help?

Meplat
08-07-2008, 4:48 PM
I wouldn't want a pass/fail type of training, just something that walks someone through in a way that they can't fail at where they learn at least the most basic safety. Could be state run or private, whichever worked best. Maybe gun shops could operate such a training funded by the brady campaign since they'd naturally be working hand in hand by then (aka "Hell freezing over"). Or, go back to the old days and have shooting in public school! If our citizens were all trained in basic firearm safety, it would go along way to safeguard against accidents.



Wow, nobody accidentally shoots their guns? Please. And no, I'm not assuming or advocating my lack of trust in citizens. Calm down tiger. I"m acknowledging that even the pros, professional enuff to handle a glock fotay, can and will negligently discharge..regardless of how common carrying a gun is. There's nothing INFRINGING in teaching safety, even if it's mandatory.

There is a safe handling demonstration required when you buy a handgun. perhaps this can be elaborated. Gun shops would be perfect at this..and as a money maker, they can offer additional, yet quick training for a small fee..or fully elaborate classes like Bullseye offers.

The solution to this is NEVER EVER let your gun point at anything you wouldnt want to destroy. If that is drilled into you from the age of 3 you are good to go. The rest of you I just pray for.

KDOFisch
08-07-2008, 5:17 PM
alcohol, tobacco and firearms, who's bringing the snacks?
reminds me of hirams guns and liquor back in the day.

If this store would be like any gun show I've attended, there will be jerky:p

KDOFisch
08-07-2008, 5:25 PM
I'm not talking about a semester long class
it doesn't even have to be at the school just mandatory safety training or they don't graduate

They are not going to be able to make it very difficult if they know it means kids are going to not graduate.

Would the class look anything like...this?

http://www.youtube.com/v/5IZlcbJwfP4&hl

M. Sage
08-07-2008, 5:56 PM
Are you guys sure that mandatory classes don't infringe? What if we had a mandatory class to be able exercise your 5th Amendment right? Or a mandatory class to be able to be protected under the 4th? Mandatory classes to exercise your freedoms of speech and religious choice?

The solution to this is NEVER EVER let your gun point at anything you wouldnt want to destroy. If that is drilled into you from the age of 3 you are good to go. The rest of you I just pray for.

+1. That's the biggest one, right there.

dwa
08-07-2008, 7:36 PM
if its a small arm u can get it. 10 day wait period for 1st gun, no wait after that but fresh background check with each additional purchase. i doubt anyone can come up with a logical reason for owning anything larger than a small arm. Laws that allow only defensive use of firearms ie cant pursue attacker after incident. mandatory training for each new type of firearm purchased like 1 for handgun 1 for rifle 1 for shotgun, this training should be like drivers ed in organization. extremely strict penalties for use of firearm in crime or position of stolen firearm(excluding legally purchased firearms that were not known at time of purchase to be stolen)

Toolbox X
08-07-2008, 7:56 PM
To play Devil's Advocate...

What laws/rules/regs should be put in place to prevent violent criminals, gang members, and people who smuggle guns out of the U.S., from easily getting guns from legitimate gun stores?

VAHEVAHE
08-08-2008, 12:51 AM
Are you guys sure that mandatory classes don't infringe? What if we had a mandatory class to be able exercise your 5th Amendment right? Or a mandatory class to be able to be protected under the 4th? Mandatory classes to exercise your freedoms of speech and religious choice?



+1. That's the biggest one, right there.


Your rights END where the next persons rights begin. The reason why a firearms class should be mandatory is the same reason a drivers license is necessary to decrease your chances of having a accident/ ND. And make you better at getting familiar with firearms and how to use them.

tombinghamthegreat
08-08-2008, 12:56 AM
alcohol, tobacco and firearms, who's bringing the snacks?
reminds me of hirams guns and liquor back in the day.

Sounds like oak tree gun club.