# Fair and effective gun control



## Lisa (May 5, 2006)

With the possibility of the gun laws changing in Canada and the registration fiasco hopefully behind us I am wondering, since our countries are diversely different in their laws, what you would consider fair and effective gun control.

Should waiting periods be put on those that wish to purchase firearms, should there be mandetory back ground checks and mandetory registrations and training.  Should you, as a private citizen be allowed to own any type of firearm you wish?

I am curious to know what your thoughts are.


----------



## bydand (May 5, 2006)

I feel that according to the US Constitution we are entitled to own firearms, but, that is not the question really and I don't want to throw the thread off topic.  The answer to fair and effective gun control is a very tricky two edged sword.  The ONLY people that gun controls affect is the law abiding citizen, to think that any controls will reduce the number in criminals hands is false.  They are going to break the law anyway, and gun controls are just a great way for the criminals to be assured that whomever they target will be either unarmed, or under-armed (you know what I mean).  Waiting periods (cool-down)sound good, but, if somebody is really pissed off enough to try and kill someone, if it involves going out and taking the time to buy a gun, they just crossed over from "crime of passion" to premeditated murder.  Those types are going to do it anyway and why buy a gun that IS going to be traced back, when there are plenty of other methods around (people have found ways to commit bodily harm to others way before guns came into being.)  Waiting periods for handguns?  same thing really - "What, I can't buy the .357 for 7 days?  OK give me that 12 gauge."  

On the other hand, what use REALLY does anybody have for a full-automatic weapon?  Other than being a riot to fire, there is no real reason for the general population to have access to them.  OK, back to original thought, but what if a criminal has one?  If you have somebody coming after you with a machine gun, you have pissed off the wrong people anyway.  

Fair and effective gun control?  buy the best you can, and then practice, practice, practice.  Fair, if you cannot afford one, there is a government program for everything else why not subsidize.  Effective, ENFORCE the ones already in place.  Crank up the punishment to be a real deterant, then follow through!

Sorry for the long rant.


----------



## Grenadier (May 5, 2006)

No waiting periods.  Period.  They simply don't work, since criminals tend to get their guns illegally.  Also, the cooling off theory is flawed.  If someone is going to try to kill another person, then he's going to use whatever's at hand.  

I do support the instant check system, provided that the data contained within is valid, and that law abiding folks are not stymied by flaws in the system.  If someone has a concealed carry permit, and is in good standing, then I don't mind their bypassing the background check entirely, since they've already had their check.  

As for full auto weapons, I have no problems with law-abiding folks owning them.  If you look at the current law-abiding civilians who own Class III weapons, there has only been one incident of a Class III automatic weapon being used in a crime, and that character was a rogue police officer.  

Full auto shoots are fun, and also teach you the proper handling of such weapons.  Also, the folks who partake in such shoots are wonderful people, in general, and are always more than happy to educate others on this matter.  

The best gun control is performed by severly punishing those who commit crimes.  People who commit crimes are often times repeat offenders, and if they were behind bars, they wouldn't be able to commit their crimes against others, plain, and simple.  Punishing the law-abiding does nothing to alleviate crime.  

Sure, some people might say "Well, look at Japan, where firearms ownership is forbidden, and they don't have nearly the violent crime rate of the US.  That's a matter of culture, though.  

I can easily flip the coin, and point out the country of Jamaica, where firearms ownership is all but forbidden, yet they have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world.  It all boils down to the culture.


----------



## mrhnau (May 5, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> As for full auto weapons, I have no problems with law-abiding folks owning them.  If you look at the current law-abiding civilians who own Class III weapons, there has only been one incident of a Class III automatic weapon being used in a crime, and that character was a rogue police officer.
> 
> Full auto shoots are fun, and also teach you the proper handling of such weapons.  Also, the folks who partake in such shoots are wonderful people, in general, and are always more than happy to educate others on this matter.



I'll agree with most of your points, except for this one. I think one of the reasons we don't have alot of crimes committed with full auto is that not alot of criminals have easy access to them at this point.

I try hard to think of a practical reason to own one of these guns. You can't really say hunting, since you don't want to totally destroy the animal. For self protection, what can you do with this gun that you can't do with a semi? Or a revolver? you are typically not going to want to shoot the assailant 50 times. normally a small handful would do the job sufficiently. Make access to hollow points easier. That should be sufficient for most decent caliber handguns.

I guess there is the "its fun" factor... however, alot of things could be construed as "fun" but are not legal... illegal drugs, drag racing your car on public streets, sky diving off the empire state building... so I don't see "its fun" as a legitimate reason to make full auto legal.

I think the way its done now is legit... from my understanding, you can have one, but you have some special permit and its pretty much restricted to collectors. I'm not sure if they are disabled or not, but I'd be in favor of letting them be fully enabled...

Criminals have access to enough firearms as it is... I don't want that access to become easier by opening up the supply of full auto. Columbine was rough enough w/out full auto. there are enough crazies for now 

just my .02


----------



## Cruentus (May 5, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> With the possibility of the gun laws changing in Canada and the registration fiasco hopefully behind us I am wondering, since our countries are diversely different in their laws, what you would consider fair and effective gun control.
> 
> Should waiting periods be put on those that wish to purchase firearms, should there be mandetory back ground checks and mandetory registrations and training. Should you, as a private citizen be allowed to own any type of firearm you wish?
> 
> I am curious to know what your thoughts are.


 
Although the US and Canada are similar, there are some major differences in Canadian culture and society compared to the US. Some of these differences good differences, imo.

One thing that I philisophically disagree with that seems to be prevelent in Canadian policy is the notion that laws should be made for the collective good rather then for the rights of the individual. Now, I am not so anarchist as to believe that society could function without government, nor am I so libritarian to believe that laws shouldn't be made for the betterment of society as a whole.

But, I think that the focus of government needs to be for the protection of individual rights and safety. Canadian policy (and some american policy as well that I disagree with) seems to be focused on what is best for most people (which can be good), but is willing to sacrifice individual rights to achieve that goal (which is very bad). Hence, firearms restriction.

Fact: an inherent human right is the right to self-defense, family, and community. 

The above is a human right that exceeds the boundries of government, constitutional rights, and laws. The fact is that weapons, guns in particular, in the hands of criminals are a threat to us today. In order to effectively exercise our rights to self-defense, we need to at least have the ability to own and carry firearms wherever we go, because that is the viable solution against criminal threat. To pass laws that make it more difficult or impossible to carry firearms is to pass laws that hinder our inherent rights as human beings to self-defense.

Fact: laws that take away inherent individual rights are human rights violations. 

It should be no mystery that evil dictators who violate human rights have classically placed weapons bans on its citizens

So, the many in the Canadian gov. (and some folks in the US as well) would rather pass laws that they believe will be for the collective good of society, even if it means impeding the individual right of self-defense.

So, what is the action plan or solution?

The answer is in education and lobbying.

Education is the most important. You and others need to be a vioce in your communities, educating people on these points. These are in order from easiest to convince to most difficult (I am guessing):

#1. The belief that gun regulation is better for the collective good is a myth. Most gun regulation does nothing to stop criminals. The focus of legislation needs to be on crime and criminals, not on guns.

#2. Self-defense is an inherent right; the ability to carry guns to effectively exercise that right are a necessity in the modern world. Therefore, gun regulation often can be a human rights violation.

#3. Individual rights need to be protected, despite what one may think is good for society as a whole. The ends often don't justify the means.

Once you and your friends and family are educated on the subject, it is important to lobby to get the facts out there to people in government and voters. You can do this through letters, public events, and by being a part of advocacy groups like the NRA, or GLSDA (the regional group I am a part of).

As far as details; like mag capacity and what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed, etc. Those issues are often addressed when analizing the 3 points I have provided, and how they relate to the issue.

Anyways, good luck. It takes a lot of education and work to lead others to change their own minds.

Paul


----------



## Lisa (May 5, 2006)

Great post, btw, thanks Paul. 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #1. The belief that gun regulation is better for the collective good is a myth. Most gun regulation does nothing to stop criminals. The focus of legislation needs to be on crime and criminals, not on guns.



Agreed, Agreed, Agreed.  You won't get any arguement on that from me, nor many of the people I have spoken to.  Punish the criminal, not the law abiding citizen.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #2. Self-defense is an inherent right; the ability to carry guns to effectively exercise that right are a necessity in the modern world. Therefore, gun regulation often can be a human rights violation.



I understand you point and I do believe I agree with you.  My original question was, what do you think is fair in regards to gun control.  What would you, as a law abiding citizen, like to see take effect to help protect those human rights.  Where does fair and just begin and end?



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> #3. Individual rights need to be protected, despite what one may think is good for society as a whole. The ends often don't justify the means.



Again, I agree.  What I have seen of my government is, IMO, are over zealous gun controls.  The belief that taking them out of my hands will somehow protect others is, simply put, flawed.

What I would like to see is gun control laws that can be agreed upon by not only the government whose job it is to protect society as a whole but by those citizens who are law abiding.  

So what are these things we can agree upon?  Mandetory registration and training?  Waiting periods?  What?

I am curious as to what people think are fair.


----------



## Grenadier (May 5, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'll agree with most of your points, except for this one. I think one of the reasons we don't have alot of crimes committed with full auto is that not alot of criminals have easy access to them at this point.


 
Getting illegal fully automatic weapons isn't too difficult, and anyone with a decent working knowledge of operating a milling machine could easily construct STEN receivers in their basements.  I will not discuss any more on this matter, though.



> I try hard to think of a practical reason to own one of these guns. You can't really say hunting, since you don't want to totally destroy the animal.


 
Hunting is irrelevant.  You won't totally destroy the animal with submachine gun fire, since those are pistol-caliber bullets.  Very feeble compared to even the entry-level centerfire rifle bullets.  

For some reason, people seem to think that full auto fire from a submachine gun, such as the infamous UZI, would be more deadly than a blast from a 12 gauge shotgun.  The bottom line is, that such full auto fire isn't any more deadly.  I can unload a greater volume of lead from my Remington 1100 semiautomatic shotgun in three seconds, than I could with a submachine gun.  



> For self protection, what can you do with this gun that you can't do with a semi? Or a revolver? you are typically not going to want to shoot the assailant 50 times. normally a small handful would do the job sufficiently. Make access to hollow points easier. That should be sufficient for most decent caliber handguns.


 
Again, it's not about a need.  After all, you don't need to have a car that has more than a certain amount of horsepower, or braking power, or cornering ability.  You have the right to buy a car that has more horsepower than you "need."  You have the right to buy a performance car, when all you would "need" is a 3 cylinder Geo Metro (or did they finally switch to 4 cylinders?).  You have the right to buy a SUV.  

As for an actual need, one need only look at what happened in 1992, when the LA Riots occurred.  It wasn't uncommon to see a dozen+ attackers trying to barge into your business, in search of looting and arson mayhem enjoyment.  For those who say that it's a fluke, guess again...



> I guess there is the "its fun" factor... however, alot of things could be construed as "fun" but are not legal... illegal drugs, drag racing your car on public streets, sky diving off the empire state building... so I don't see "its fun" as a legitimate reason to make full auto legal.


 
If I may, I would like to clear something up here; full auto is already legal, as long as you get a pre-GCA86 full auto weapon, and pay the fees for the Class III permit.  If you find a friendly chief law enforcement officer in your area, it's not too difficult to get.  Assuming that you can find a friendly CLEO, people who get rejected for Class III permits are going to be rejected from purchasing a firearm anyways.  

There is nothing at all illegal about a machine gun shoot, as long as all of the above are in compliance.  



> I think the way its done now is legit... from my understanding, you can have one, but you have some special permit and its pretty much restricted to collectors. I'm not sure if they are disabled or not, but I'd be in favor of letting them be fully enabled...


 
Nope.  Just the above criteria.  They can be fully functional, although some states do impose a few more restrictions.  Some restrictions are sillier than others (i.e. Connecticut only allows full auto, no select-fire mode!).  



> Criminals have access to enough firearms as it is... I don't want that access to become easier by opening up the supply of full auto. Columbine was rough enough w/out full auto. there are enough crazies for now


 
Again, if criminals really wanted to get fully automatic weapons, it's really not that difficult for them to do so.  The best way to stop criminals is to keep them behind bars, so that they can't offend again.


----------



## Cruentus (May 5, 2006)

> Great post, btw, thanks Paul.


 
Thanks! 



> My original question was, what do you think is fair in regards to gun control. What would you, as a law abiding citizen, like to see take effect to help protect those human rights. Where does fair and just begin and end?


 
This question is much easier to answer when people are philisophically on the same page. So it is always important to start with the broader issues I mentioned before, otherwise discussion on the details tend to fall apart.

These issues always revert back to the broader issues, but I will explain in more detail.

As to what is fair? Well, any laws passed regarding gun regulation, in my opinion, should fullfill 3 rules. #1. It doesn't impede someones right to self-defense, or defense of their family and community, even in some of the most improbably possible scenarios. #2. It must do something significant to ensure the safety of the public, whether it be to prevent accidents or to fight crime. #3. When rules #1 and #2 conflict,

So, I'll provide some examples of how to apply the above rules.

#1. I would say that a law that requires one to attend a minimum standard safety course to carry in public is reasonable. This is provided that this can be done within a reasonable time frame for anyone who wants to carry (like within a month, give or take a week or so). Why? Well, it fullfills rule #1 first off in that doesn't impede ones rights to self-defense so long as they can take the course in a timely fashion. If anything it actually helps them because by taking a minimum course they will know the safety and legal concerns that they will need, which is always a part of the self-defense picture. And, it fullfills #2 because by knowing the safety and legal issues, they can be held accountable for handling a gun safely. This will prevent accidents or illegal shootings, thus being an effective law for public safety.

#2. I would say that a waiting period or other hurdles to buy a gun or get a permit is not reasonable. It doesn't fullfill the #2 criteria, in that it does nothing for safety or to prevent crime.

#3. Regulating magazine capacity isn't reasonable. Criminals will always have access to larger mags through black market, so it doesn't do a whole lot to for safety or crime prevention first off. But the main reason is rule #1 is violated; the fact is, there are reasonable circumstances (although not probable) where one may need a higher capacity mag for their own defense.

#4. Banning automatic weapons is unreasonable, although this is kind of on the line. Why? Criminals can manually shoot a rifle, pistol, or AK-47, or whatever with enough speed to do plenty of damage. Not to mention, it is easy to rig many guns to shoot auto. Auto's are actually overated; most of what they really do is help you run out of ammo faster. You would have seen the same damage at columbine if they had autos; no more or less. So, banning auto's doesn't actually do anything for safety, thus violating rule #2. Requiring special permits or a safety course for them, provided that one can get the permit reasonably, might be OK, though. 

#5. Banning plastic explosives sounds reasonable. Plastic explosives does nothing to really help us in self-defense, because it doesn't equalize anything, and there could be obvious public safety issues.

So, I think you get the idea. If you go with the above principles, you can answer most of your own questions...

Paul


----------



## Bigshadow (May 5, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I try hard to think of a practical reason to own one of these guns. You can't really say hunting, since you don't want to totally destroy the animal. For self protection, what can you do with this gun that you can't do with a semi? Or a revolver? you are typically not going to want to shoot the assailant 50 times. normally a small handful would do the job sufficiently. Make access to hollow points easier. That should be sufficient for most decent caliber handguns.
> 
> I guess there is the "its fun" factor... however, alot of things could be construed as "fun" but are not legal... illegal drugs, drag racing your car on public streets, sky diving off the empire state building... so I don't see "its fun" as a legitimate reason to make full auto legal.


It is so funny how people dance around the whole purpose of having guns and trying so hard not to touch the true meaning behind the right to bear arms and the REAL reason why law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed ownership of fully auto weapons as well as many other weapons of war.

The fact is, fully automatic weapons in this day and age are a threat to a despotic government.  So if the law-abiding citizens of a country can truely fight back then despotism cannot grow and the law-abiding citizens wield real power.

When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR!  But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.


----------



## bydand (May 5, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> It is so funny how people dance around the whole purpose of having guns and trying so hard not to touch the true meaning behind the right to bear arms and the REAL reason why law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed ownership of fully auto weapons as well as many other weapons of war.
> 
> The fact is, fully automatic weapons in this day and age are a threat to a despotic government.  So if the law-abiding citizens of a country can truely fight back then despotism cannot grow and the law-abiding citizens wield real power.
> 
> When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR!  But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.




AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not that you were preaching, but, you know I agree.


----------



## mrhnau (May 5, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> It is so funny how people dance around the whole purpose of having guns and trying so hard not to touch the true meaning behind the right to bear arms and the REAL reason why law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed ownership of fully auto weapons as well as many other weapons of war.
> 
> The fact is, fully automatic weapons in this day and age are a threat to a despotic government.  So if the law-abiding citizens of a country can truely fight back then despotism cannot grow and the law-abiding citizens wield real power.
> 
> When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR!  But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.



Lets take this to the extreme then... 

[Sarcasm] why shouldn't I have access to other armaments? I'd enjoy have a rocket launcher, maybe a grenade launcher.  I think grenades are fine, since they put power back into the hands of law-abiding citizens. Plastic explosives and other type of munitions should be legalized. same reason. I'd enjoy having a tank or two, perhaps a F-18... if I have the money, why not? It puts power back into the hands of those who deserve it... Walmart would make a killing selling TNT to everyone. Grenades on Isle 2! Price Rollback!
[/Sarcasm]

So, seriously speaking, what limit do you impose? Where do you strike the balance? I'm not a huge fan of gun control myself, but I do understand the logic of limiting things at some point. BTW, this comes from someone having 3 guns, and between father/brother inlaw we have enough to start a small army LOL I'm not a hunter, but I do enjoy going out shooting from time to time. I'd also would enjoy shooting an M1 Cannon, but I also understand that is not safe, practical or legal.

so, that being said... where would you draw the line on legality?

Regarding a "despotic government"... civil wars do happen. However, what I -don't- want is some looney that does not like Bush rolling up to the capital in his tank and wrecking havoc. Regardless of the person in office, there is always going to be someone mentally unstable enough to try stupid things. We still live in a democracy and there is a process for dealing with problems in the government. Go vote! Make your voice heard! Get involved! you can do this WITHOUT a tank or a bomb. I'm not interested in the US turning into something like Iraq right now...


----------



## mrhnau (May 5, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR!  But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.



Can we apply the same logic to Uranium enrichment in Iran? Or North Korea?

out of pure curiousity, i'd be curious to see what the founding fathers would say. were cannons legal to own personally back then? war was often waged with guns, but when the gattling gun came around, was that legal for people to own? I'm not sure, I'm just asking...


----------



## mrhnau (May 5, 2006)

Just found this...
Gun Control Time Line

its a bit rough, but interesting...


----------



## Cruentus (May 5, 2006)

Rule #3 was when #1 and #2 are in conflict, #1 always trumps #2.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 5, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets take this to the extreme then...
> 
> [Sarcasm] why shouldn't I have access to other armaments? I'd enjoy have a rocket launcher, maybe a grenade launcher.  I think grenades are fine, since they put power back into the hands of law-abiding citizens. Plastic explosives and other type of munitions should be legalized. same reason. I'd enjoy having a tank or two, perhaps a F-18... if I have the money, why not? It puts power back into the hands of those who deserve it... Walmart would make a killing selling TNT to everyone. Grenades on Isle 2! Price Rollback!
> [/Sarcasm]


Why not, we ARE talking about law abiding citizens, aren't we?



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> So, seriously speaking, what limit do you impose? Where do you strike the balance?
> so, that being said... where would you draw the line on legality?


What balance are we talking about?  What line of legality?  We are talking about law abiding citizens, so what do we have to fear?

Criminals on the other hand should be dealt with severely and quickly. An idea might be... Take for instance, someone who is caught stealing one of those weapons from a law abiding citizen, give'em a horrible death, something that would severely punish those who steal those sorts of things.  [sarcasm]This would be a law built on the same priniciples of hate crime laws, instead it is a "special" crime due to it being a theft of an object of "special" importance.[/sarcasm]




			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> We still live in a democracy and there is a process for dealing with problems in the government. Go vote! Make your voice heard! Get involved! you can do this WITHOUT a tank or a bomb.


BTW, I do participate in the federal charades program.  But I don't expect much from it. That is a subject for a different thread.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 5, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Can we apply the same logic to Uranium enrichment in Iran? Or North Korea?


Actually, I personally don't believe that is any business of ours (the USA).




			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> out of pure curiousity, i'd be curious to see what the founding fathers would say. were cannons legal to own personally back then? war was often waged with guns, but when the gattling gun came around, was that legal for people to own? I'm not sure, I'm just asking...


I believe that is yes and yes.  It was more controlled by who could afford such things as at that time, it would be like buying an F-18 now.


----------



## Cruentus (May 5, 2006)

lol whew.

One last point, then I have to walk away from MT until next week sometime because I am getting nothing done that I need to get done! 

As owning large amounts of firepower, like tanks and such...

Although the point in part of the right to bear arms was so that we would have the ability to overthrow a tyranical Government, you can still draw the line following the rules I illustrated above.

The reason is that if there were a need to overthrow a tyrannical government, we could do so without superior firepower. The objective of the second amendment was not to offer citizens the opportunity to take down the government army, as small groups could never achieve the firepower of a larger army. But it does allow citizen in mass to decide to not follow the tyrannical rule. This is because you could fight back the tyrannical government if they were to try to enforce it without superior firepower. This is because that even in tyrany there is a balance between those and power and the people that has to be maintained; so the tyrannical government can't just send in tanks and bombs and kill everyone, they have to actually round people up and force compliance, not death.

Firearms prevent forced compliance enforced by a tyrannical government.

This issue goes a lot deeper, where we can also talk about how back then each state was supposed to have their own army, and all sorts of historical and philosophical details. But the main point is that a certian amount of firepower allows for both self-defence and for non-compliance to a tyranical force. That is enough to preassure an overthrow. Therefore there is no need or logic behind "we should be able to own tanks or missles if we could afford it."

But I think that gun rights advocates aren't even lobbying for the right to carry that kind of firepower, so it is really kind of a strawman anyways...

Paul


----------



## Bigshadow (May 5, 2006)

Paul, you make great points!  Thanks!  I still would like to own one of those F-18s... though.


----------



## Carol (May 5, 2006)

Personally, I am a big supporter of states rights.

If Massachusetts wants to have restrictive gun laws and New Hampshire doesn't, I'm all for that.

I don't like gun law decisions being made by Congress


----------



## Lisa (May 5, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> It is so funny how people dance around the whole purpose of having guns and trying so hard not to touch the true meaning behind the right to bear arms and the REAL reason why law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed ownership of fully auto weapons as well as many other weapons of war.
> 
> The fact is, fully automatic weapons in this day and age are a threat to a despotic government.  So if the law-abiding citizens of a country can truely fight back then despotism cannot grow and the law-abiding citizens wield real power.
> 
> When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR!  But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.




I agree that all law abiding citizens should be allowed ownership of firearms, I however, don't have your constitution to back me up on that. 

So I posed the question as to what laws/guidelines are needed to allow that to happen?  I am curious as to what people think are good guidelines to ensure that your right and the rights of others are not violated.  What is fair?


----------



## KenpoTex (May 5, 2006)

I'm about to walk out the door but I'll answer real quick.



			
				Lisa said:
			
		

> I am curious as to what people think are good guidelines to ensure that your right and the rights of others are not violated. What is fair?



1. I have no problem with the NICS (National Instant Check System) as a tool to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals to the extent that it's possible to do so. However, no records of the transactions should be kept.

2. I do not believe that there should be any type of waiting period.  Waiting periods only serve to impair the ability of a law-abiding citizen to obtain a weapon that they may need to defend themselves.

3. I am adamantly against registration of any kind simply because confiscation is always preceded by registration. Just as importantly, I just don't think it's any of the government's business what types of firearms are owned by law-abiding citizens.

4. I think full-auto weapons should be legal for law-abiding citizens w/o any extra hoops to jump through on their part.

5. I think concealed carry should be legal for any law-abiding citizen.

As others have said, the only people affected by gun-control legislation are those who are actually going to follow the laws. The criminals certainly aren't going to follow them.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 12, 2006)

Well If I'm going to do this, I may as well do it right and begin at the beginning. I begin with the assumption that the right of self-defense exists. There exist many in the world who do not. This entry is not for them.
Also let us cast aside affiliations of this or that political party on the issue and merely look at the issue itself as that is all that interests me and all that is relevant to this entry.
It's very easy to understand my beliefs about this issue once I have explained them to you:

The first point of my central belief system is centered on the premise that every human being has rights. You may, if you wish, say that they come from a god, or from nature, or from written law, as suits your preference, but the underlying premise is that they are THERE, irrespective of their form.

The second point is that whatever the number of rights one possesses, they all stem from the right to EXIST, and to try to preserve that existence. This is simple brain-dead logic; one can neither possess nor exercise ANY rights if one does not exist.
Now , the last time I tried explaining this to someone who was less interested in hearing my view as in ridiculing it, this is the point at which I had this incredibly intelligent person interrupt me with"Yeah, well y'know what? Y'know what?....."
He waited for me to say "what". I thought that was cute....ly retarded.
"Yeah, y'know what? But you just said everybody had the right to exist, so if you shoot 'em that's hypocrisy, so you're just as bad, yeah, so there".
So I will answer that here as well: 
No.
It is not "Just as bad, yeah, so there."
Self-defense is NOT the moral equivalent of homicide.
The person defending themselves from death or grievous bodily harm has not made the same decision as the person who has already demonstrated the ability, opportunity and intent to kill him/her. 
The concept that both these people should be held to the same standard should be self-evident in its sheer ludicrousness.
How does my belief system tie into this? It ties into this because when a person decides to make an unjustified attempt to remove another person's right to exist( in plain English this is called assaulting or murdering them), that person has chosen to arrogate to themselves a right that they do not possess, and in so doing sacrifices their right to exist that the innocent person who has done NO wrong, and deserves to live, may live.

The third point is that therefore, in order to attempt to preserve one's existence, one must know of, and have available, and have ready, the means to resist attempts to jeopardize one's existence. Learning how to use one's body will only take one so far, and address the threat only to a certain point on the threat range.. Learning weapons driven only by leverage and muscle power will broaden one's area of defense as well, but the fact remains that in the modern era the main and most effective such weapon is the firearm, whether one likes it or not.

Which brings us to the fourth point, and that is that therefore, those who support gun control are attempting to impose their will on those of us who do not, in a way that would strip me of the primary modern means of preserving my existence, and therefore, whether they realize it or not, are, for all practical intents and purposes, trying to kill me.

Sometimes a thing really IS "just that simple."


----------



## Lisa (Jun 12, 2006)

Mr. Moynihan,

While I agree and follow most of your post the last one has my jaw dropping a bit, I will admit.  Maybe it is just the Canadian in me   I firmly and honestly believe in the right to bare arms.  I however, am in the wrong country to be able to do so.  We are fighting our own demons here with too much legislation, IMHO.

However, you made quite a jump in saying that if I believe in gun control means I am trying to kill you.  

You are of the belief that any form of firearms restriction is wrong?  Even age limitation to buying a firearm?  Even trying to control under ground buying and selling of firearms, that shouldn't be restricted?  Those are both gun control laws, should we get rid of those too?

Just curious, and again, welcome to MT.  I look forward to your answers and thanks for adding to my thread.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 12, 2006)

Fair enough, I had to step out for a bit and was a bit less complete than perhaps I should have been.
When I wrote thet sentence I was using "gun control" in what appears to be a different context than you mean it ( ah, the joys of a text only medium). When I hear "gun control" all I think of is banning and confiscation, whereas you appear to take into account the smaller details such as background checks, age limits and so on.

I was referring to those politicians and activist groups which cannot see what they are doing, or don't care who is infringed upon in the name of their vision, not to you.

As far as age limits go, whatever the age a person becomes a legal adult and thus responsible for his/her own actions sounds like a good age requirement to me, and I've no problems with instant background checks, so long as at the end of the day an otherwise lawful citizen is not denied that natural right they seek to exercise.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 12, 2006)

Keep guns out of the hands of criminals (certain criminal offenses) and those who have shown that they cant be trusted with them. Enforce illegal weapon possession laws on offenders swiftly and harshly.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 12, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:
			
		

> Fair enough, I had to step out for a bit and was a bit less complete than perhaps I should have been.
> When I wrote thet sentence I was using "gun control" in what appears to be a different context than you mean it ( ah, the joys of a text only medium). When I hear "gun control" all I think of is banning and confiscation, whereas you appear to take into account the smaller details such as background checks, age limits and so on.



Fair enough.  Yes, the text medium does lose the human emotional aspect and is frustrating at times. 



> I was referring to those politicians and activist groups which cannot see what they are doing, or don't care who is infringed upon in the name of their vision, not to you.



This point, I agree wholeheartedly on.  Again, I remind you, I am Canadian and know all about the politicians and their "visions" 



> As far as age limits go, whatever the age a person becomes a legal adult and thus responsible for his/her own actions sounds like a good age requirement to me, and I've no problems with instant background checks, so long as at the end of the day an otherwise lawful citizen is not denied that natural right they seek to exercise.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.



Thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil (Jul 1, 2006)

Greetings to all,

This is a great thread!!!

What I have to add has in some ways already been stated by Scott G., and some others


*Regarding GUN CONTROL:*
In an article published in Guns & Ammo a couple of years ago a group of inmates from Arizona State Penitentiary were interviewed and asked; what do you think of GUN CONTROL? As was reported in the article When the laughter died down, the inmates responded; GUN CONTROL!!! We love GUN CONTROL!!! It makes us feel more comfortable when we break in to your home in the middle of the night. Most people dont have guns, so when we break in to you home, we have the advantage!!!

*As was stated:*
Criminals dont go down to the local Police to file their info and fingerprints to go through a background check in order to get a purchase permit.


A training partner of mine who has been an Sheriff in Oakland County, Michigan for 25 years was walking through a mall parking lot with Christmas presents for his family when a man came at him who was hiding between a couple of parked vans. The man was pulling a stainless 357mag. Out of his waistband as he was approaching my friend. My friend saw the gun and instinctively dropped his bags and charged the assailant. He got control of the assailants gun hand, put his right thumb through the assailants left eye, stomped through the assailants left knee, got him face down on the ground, cuffed him and called for backup. When they ran the assailants info through the system they learned that he had just been released from Jackson Prison four days earlier. Like so many repeat offenders, this idiot was able to get out of prison and be back to work in just a couple of days with the primary tool of his trade in hand a loaded revolver.

I say; "Back to Work" because we all have jobs that we wake up and go to each day. I am a Martial Arts Instructor, my friend is a County Sheriff, you are what ever you are, and this idiot (when he isn't in prison) is a fellon. It's his job to put a gun to your head and hold you up (and possibly kill you in the process).


*My Definition of GUN CONTROL:*
"GUN CONTROL" is; my ability to retrieve my firearm from my place of concealment in a safe and responsible fashion, acquire my target or targets and place the necessary number of rounds in them to REMOVE THE THREAT from my person, or others who have been placed in a threatened position around me, being cognizant of all others in the proximity of the assailant(s), as to keep from harming non-assailants.

In my mind, GUN CONTROL should include mandatory training. Before you are allowed to receive a drivers license you have to go through drivers training and pass a drivers test that is state regulated. 

I have been teaching tactical shooting for many years. It never ceases to amaze me when I go to the local gun ranges, how many people there are who have guns that cant shoot, and these are the guys & gales that are at least going to the range How many more are at home or work with a gun that have not been to the range at all?

*Anyone who is going to own a gun should be fully trained in:*

1) How their gun of choice is operated

2) If they are going to carry; what kinds of concealment holsters and rigs are available, and be trained extensively in how to get their gun out of that concealment Safely, Responsibly and accurately

3) What ammunition is best in a given situation? (Example) I work in a building where all of the suites are drywall. I may want to choose Glazer Safety Slugs as opposed to 147gr jacketed hollow points. Knowing what ammunition is appropriate in a given environment is crucial, but most people never think about it. All they are interested in is; what is the most powerful ammunition that they can use period.

4) Shooting with: Strong Hand-One Hand, Weak Hand-One Hand, Strong Hand-Both Hands, Weak Hand-Both Hands

5) How to move through a building in a CLEARING SITUATION. Moving around corners and keeping the smallest possible profile by changing from Right Side to Left Side while maintaining sight acquisition and avoiding coming around corners, Head-First

These are just a couple of the things that I feel should be mandatory for anyone who is going to own and carry a firearm. These are, in my mind, things that you should want to know, and the state should not have to make them mandatory. These are all things that make you a responsible gun owner.

When we train in martial arts, before our instructor lets us get out on the floor and spar, we learn the basic blocks, kicks and punches that we will use. We are taught about technique, timing and distance in order to be safe and successful in our implementation, both on the floor and in the street. These practices should be applied for firearms training as well


These are just a couple of my thoughts What do you think?


All the best,


Master Jay S. Penfil
7th Degree Black Belt-Tang Soo Do
International Association of Korean Martial Arts
Grandmaster Chung Il Kim-President


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 2, 2006)

> "GUN CONTROL" is; my ability to retrieve my firearm from my place of concealment in a safe and responsible fashion, acquire my target or targets and place the necessary number of rounds in them to REMOVE THE THREAT from my person, or others who have been placed in a threatened position around me, being cognizant of all others in the proximity of the assailant(s), as to keep from harming non-assailants.


 I like that!  Good post


----------



## Lisa (Jul 2, 2006)

Jay,

Truly an excellent post and thank you for taking the time to shar with us your opinions.

I have to say all of your points make such perfect sense and probably do to many others.  

What I would like to add is another point regarding caring for and cleaning of your firearm.  I think it is of the upmost importance that everyone who owns a firearm takes proper care of it.  Going to the range, firing off a bunch of bullets and then placing the one thing that may save your life in a place of concealment and expecting it to work when you really need it without proper maintenance, is foolish on the part of the gun owner.

Every gun owner has a responsibility to himself and to his loved ones to make sure his firearms are well cared for, for their safety as well has his/her own.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil (Jul 5, 2006)

Lisa,
This is a great point to make

Proper maintenance of your firearm is crucial. There are many old-timers out their who grew up in the 1911 era (Colt 45cal. Semi-Auto), where the gun was designed to work, even if it had been dropped in the mud and had to be fired before having a chance to clean it. I have heard many such individuals proclaim that their firearm works better if you dont clean it, as the dirt tightens up the action and makes the slid function smoother

This may have been accurate in the case of the Colt 1911, and others of its time, but most firearms need to be kept in pristine condition to be reliable.

In choosing a firearm there are three critical concerns that I have to be satisfied with prior to making a final decision to purchase. They are:

1) Is this firearm designed with good safety features?
2) Does this firearm function consistently and with accuracy right out of the box, without having to be worked on by a gunsmith?
3) Is this firearm reliable?

I lived in Scottsdale, Arizona from 1987 to 1990, and spent a couple of hours a day, three days per week at Mandalls Gun Range on Scottsdale Road during my time in Arizona. Mandalls had a policy that; you could rent any gun it the store for $15.00 per visit and shoot as many round as you wanted through them on their range. If you chose to purchase the firearm, the rental fee would be applied to the purchase. My shooting partner and I rented three guns per day, and over a six month period we rented and shot every 9mm, 40cal. and 45 cal. in the store. They had every manufacturer that you could think of in stock.

At the end of our six month trial period I chose the Heckler & Kock (H&K) P-7 M13 as my primary carry firearm. It had the best safety mechanism, fired virtually any ammunition, without any malfunctions, and had an accuracy level that I have yet to find in any other firearm on the market. The trigger action has a two pound trigger pull that is consistently crisp and smooth. 

Many people asked me: why spend (at that time) $1,050.00/plus tax for a 9mm when there are so many other models available for one half or even one third the cost? My answer was simply; My life is worth the additional investment in cost, to have a piece of equipment that I may have to rely on to save my life in a critical situation. You dont want to decide on a firearm, based on price, only to find in a heated moment that it doesnt function reliably when needed. I now have two H&K P-7 M13s; one for a primary and one for a back-up. They are definitely worth the investment.    

I had a Glock 23 for a short time. Glock is the kind of firearm that you either love or hate. I have not met anyone yet that has a middle of the road opinion where Glocks are concerned. With the (so called) safety located in the trigger, I didnt feel safe with this design. In Detroit alone, in the early to middle 1990s there were at least 4 Detroit Police officers who shot themselves in the butt or thigh while either coming out of their holster or placing their Glock back in their holster. While every one of these accidental shootings were USER RELATED, and not the fault of the Glock, there is enough evidence for me to show that the safety is not safe enough. 

If you allow your finger to slip in to the trigger guard while you are drawing and your Glock gets stuck or caught up in the holster of your clothing and your hand is still traveling, you have a more then good chance of having an accidental discharge, and injuring yourself. If you are placing your Glock back in the holster and accidentally slip your finger into the trigger guard with your palm pushing the Glock downward, your finger will get pinned between the sides of your holster and the trigger, causing you to have an accidental discharge, and causing yourself an injury.

As stated earlier these are BOTH issues that speak to a lack of training and are USER RELATED, but with the number of individuals that have experienced these issues (and the fact that they are all Law Enforcement Officers), it makes sense that this safety mechanism needs some rethinking

If you would like to talk about these of other topics, I can be contacted directly at:

248-561-5700-Cell

masterjayspenfil@yahoo.com



All the best,


Master Jay S. Penfil
7th Degree Black Belt-Tang Soo Do
International Association of Korean Martial Arts
Grandmaster Chung Il Kim-President


----------



## Radhnoti (Jul 6, 2006)

I oppose mandatory training.  One of the most wonderful things about firearms, in my opinion, is that it's potentially the ultimate equalizer.  A 6'4'' streetfighting criminal SHOULD be afraid that my 88 yr. old grandmother (who is basically confined to her home with a broken hip) can kill him with a firearm if he attempts to break into her home.
Furthermore, anti-firearm zealots proudly proclaim that small restrictions are simply first steps toward an eventual complete ban.  Small rule changes to seemingly harmless restrictions could be used to enact a defacto ban on firearms.  If everyone had to take a firearm safety course before being permitted to own a firearm, what's to stop a hostile (to gun owners) administration from raising the price to take the course to $500...every 5 years? Yearly? Monthly?
The U.S. Constitution (and yes, Lisa, I know you're writing from up North ) didn't mention restrictions, it stated plainly "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  There's a reason for that I think.  Gun restrictions are a slippery slope, like many other of our rights it only takes one bad decision in 50 to whittle them away.


----------



## mj_lover (Jul 6, 2006)

i'm for manditory training, a firearm is a very dangeroes weapon in the hands of an untrained person. i understand the concern of prices, should be roughly same price as obtaining a drivers licence IMO. I also think that extra training, and a full competence test are required for concealed or open carry. my reasonng here is that people use power, the weapon will be used even if the situation does not call for it, or a startle will have it drawn, or worse discharged into a inocent, who startles the carrier late at night. 
guns are a touchy subject, guns are designed to kill people, and i'm scarred of people who do not take that seriously, and there are alot of people like that. i have nothing against a competent person owning a firearm, i just know there are too many reckless people out there


----------



## Sigung86 (Jul 7, 2006)

mj_lover said:
			
		

> i'm for manditory training, a *baseball bat* is a very dangeroes weapon in the hands of an untrained person. i understand the concern of prices, should be roughly same price as obtaining a drivers licence IMO. I also think that extra training, and a full competence test are required for concealed or open carry. my reasonng here is that people use power, the weapon will be used even if the situation does not call for it, or a startle will have it drawn, or worse discharged into a inocent, who startles the carrier late at night.
> *baseball bats *are a touchy subject, *baseball bats* are designed to kill people, and i'm scarred of people who do not take that seriously, and there are alot of people like that. i have nothing against a competent person owning a *baseball bat*, i just know there are too many reckless people out there





			
				mj_lover said:
			
		

> i'm for manditory training, a *large can of green beans* is a very dangeroes weapon in the hands of an untrained person. i understand the concern of prices, should be roughly same price as obtaining a drivers licence IMO. I also think that extra training, and a full competence test are required for concealed or open carry. my reasonng here is that people use power, the weapon will be used even if the situation does not call for it, or a startle will have it drawn, or worse discharged into a inocent, who startles the carrier late at night.
> *large cans of green beans *are a touchy subject, *large cans of green beans* are designed to kill people, and i'm scarred of people who do not take that seriously, and there are alot of people like that. i have nothing against a competent person owning a *large can of green beans*, i just know there are too many reckless people out there



Sorry mj_lover, not trying to make fun of you.  Simply trying to put things into a perspective.  The values for use and intent are, generally, in the eyes of the beholder.  We have laws that are on the books that specifically govern things like the intentional, and often unintentional taking of life.  However, and this is an observation on man-made law only.  We, the people, only seem to write laws that are based on "guilty until proven innocent", and not the way they should be, "innocent until proven guilty".

I work in a corrections environment, and still believe that the people who are there after being involved in commission of a violent act or murder, for the most part would be there, even if viewed from the "innocent until proven guilty" point of view.  Those deeds are already done, and little fell in place that would have prevented the deeds.  And the interesting thing is that, most of the "murderers" whom I have seen or been in contact with did not use a firearm in commission of their particular act of violence.

In my own opinion, gun control should be an after the fact type of situation where no one questions an individuals right to own or operate a firearm until that individual begins to show less than satisfactory, pyschological  responsibility in their application of use of a firearm.

Gun control, the way it is currently used, I sincerely believe, is merely an after the fact tool.  If I want a gun, I can get a gun, legally or illegally.  Living in a rural area, as I do, I can come up with a firearm in a very small amount of time.  I will, if desiring to do so, then commit a crime and be done with it.  Or ... I could use that large can of green beans ... or a baseball bat ... or a length of electrical wire ... or a kitchen knife ... or a length of two by four lumber ... a rolled up pair of socks ... a shoe ... an automobile ... a computer keyboard ... a guitar ... etc. etc. etc.

Ownership and use, or intent of use are two parts of a whole and not really divisible in the final.  Ownership and use, or intent should be viewed on an individual basis, and not pre-mandated.

Quoting the theme song from "Monk", "I could be wrong, but I don't think so ... It's a jungle out there ..."

:mp5::whip::flame::ak47::knight::2pistols::ripper::goop::duel::zap::bazook::rockets::uzi::sniper: :apv:


----------



## mj_lover (Jul 7, 2006)

guess my point didn't come accross right. my point is, guns are dangerous, much more so then a baseball bat, or a can of your favorite food. you don't want just everyone driving a car do you? you want them to know how to use it 1st, and how to deal with driving condions. same with guns.

hope that clarifies


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 7, 2006)

Your intentions are good, but you're missing out on an important detail.  Firearms-related accidents are already very low to begin with, showing that the current methods, where the individuals in question, already seek out training on their own, are more than sufficient.  Getting firearms training is certainly a good thing, but such training can be given from a responsible parent, or even a responsible friend.  


If we look at the year 2000, in the United States, using 2003 Edition of the National Safety Council's "Injury Facts," it's clearly evident that with a measly total of 776 deaths due to firearms accidents, that it's a very small number compared to the more pronounced causes.  I would *guess* that a lot of those accidents are from people who do not lawfully own firearms, in which case, the mandatory training requirement proposal would not have affected them one way or another.  

Death by drowning, for example, was listed at 3,402 people from that year, yet swimming classes are not mandatory.  Death by drowning is so uncommon of a thing, that we don't really label it as a significant cause of accidental death.  

Does that mean that I oppose any kind of swimming training?  Of course not.  Training in swimming can be of great benefit to the person, but it should still be up to the individual to learn how to swim, even though well over four times as many people die from accidental drowning than they do from firearms accidents.  

The bottom line is this: if someone really, honestly wants to save every life possible from accidents, then his efforts would be much better spent towards dealing with drowning, fire, choking, poisoning, and falls.  Those five combined would have for 37,171 deaths, almost 48 times as many as firearms-related accidental deaths.  




			
				mj_lover said:
			
		

> i'm for manditory training, a firearm is a very dangeroes weapon in the hands of an untrained person. i understand the concern of prices, should be roughly same price as obtaining a drivers licence IMO. I also think that extra training, and a full competence test are required for concealed or open carry. my reasonng here is that people use power, the weapon will be used even if the situation does not call for it, or a startle will have it drawn, or worse discharged into a inocent, who startles the carrier late at night.
> guns are a touchy subject, guns are designed to kill people, and i'm scarred of people who do not take that seriously, and there are alot of people like that. i have nothing against a competent person owning a firearm, i just know there are too many reckless people out there


----------



## Sigung86 (Jul 7, 2006)

mj_lover ... Glad you didn't really take my use of your post in a bad way.  That is pretty respectable in my book, and thanks to you.

Grenadier, from the quality of your post, I can see why you are a mentor, while I maintain the Black Belt status.  LOL!  Thanks for the clarification.

Another aspect of the gun training/gun control "thing" is that many states in the US are now legislating concealed carry laws that aren't too terribly restrictive.  However, they are still based on the guilty until proven innocent concept.  I still like the old saw, "God made man ... Samuel Colt made us equal".  However, despite the prophecies of doom and mass extinction put forward by the gun control crowd, there have not been episodes of massive gun battles or piles and masses of massacre.

People who want to regulate and legislate everyone elses lives are to be suspect of malicious traits! :lol:

I think that in the reality of, well, reality, most people are mature enough and responsible enough to deal with something like a firearm.  The main reason, in my opinion, that there is mandatory training for CCW licensure is so that money gets spread around.  Training, in Missouri, runs from about $85.00 at the local community college to $100.00 or thereabouts for private tuition, and is a requirement for the "right" to carry a concealed firearm.  I suspect that one good reason for it though, is that, if you should find yourself in a shooting situation, you will be arrested.  When you do come to trial (it is pretty much inevitible in the US due to our litigating nature), you will have someone to back the fact that you were trained in the basics of concealed carry wisdom and strategy.

I still maintain that freely carried weaponry is the mainstay of law and order, and not necessarily the police, or prisons, or capital punishment.
The fact that jails and prisons are full to overflowing is pretty much a self fulfilling example of that.

I presume to remember that in the early states where concealed carry became the law of the land, that murder and crimes of violence went down considerably.

Of course there are jerks, morons, and just plain psycho folks out there who will murder with a gun, at the drop of a hat, but they will still do the same things with other methods, and weapons.  I can think of several instances where people who have been killed by the "psychos" might possibly be alive today, had they been carrying a firearm at the time of the attack.

And I appreciate the platform to voice those kinds of heretical thoughts.


----------

