Are You In Favor of Gun Control? To What Extent?

[CO Liberal]

Poll question: Are You In Favor of Gun Control? To What Extent?

Equal time....

[Catch22Dem]

1. What's the difference between #2 & #3?

[Downtown Hound]

2. I believe people should be able to buy a gun

after a background check and a waiting period. I also don't believe assault weapons should be legal.

[amber dog democrat]

3. Ah, but they are fun to shoot on a range.

This is so in appropriate, but if the automatic weapons ban is dropped for a little bit, i will be shopping for either an AK 47 or ... an M 14. I have a mini 14 now -
I am not into hunting, but i do like spending time on a range on occaisions.

[amber dog democrat]

5. However I draw the line at

crew served anti tank guns.. or 40MM anti aircraft guns...and as much as i like the idea of having a Schmiesser MG-40, or an UZI.. it just would not make good sense.

[Downtown Hound]

6. Hey, knock yourself out

I honestly could care less if someone wants to go to a range and blast away. You could shoot an M-60 for all I care. But certain weapons I think should stay at the range. And it's not you I'm worried about. It's some of the, well let's just call them "other people" I'm worried about.

In a perfect world, I'd say there should probably be no gun control. But given that we live in the world we do, we all might have to give up private ownership of certain firearms. Even if the only result is that in the next school massacre only 10 kids got killed instead of 20, I'd say it was worth it.

[amber dog democrat]

13. Its a paradox

I would love to fire an SAW or try the grenade launcher on the M-16 at a firing range.
Hell, even learning how to hit things with an RPG would be fun, but do I need to own one ?
No.
Hell, I don't even like to fish much less hunt.
I am very, very disturbed at the Bowling For Columbine elements who are socio pathological enough to run amok with firearms. In this situation some kind of control is needed. We have to find that balance where individual freedoms are not masked by larger societal needs to be secure from mayhem.

But I was trained properly and grew up respecting firearms. I wonder what will happen with the automatic weapons ban if it is allowed to expire. A part of me says ALRIGHT !!!!! Lets go find us an AK just to have one. Is that insane or what ?

Go pre-ban, Go !

[-..__...]

22. Youl'd have a blast at Knob Creek! (Warning: Gun Porn inside).

Fun for the entire family :D


http://www.machinegunshoot.com/

Rentals.

http://www.machinegunshoot.com/rental.htm

[MrBenchley]

38. Mingle with armed loonies in Nazi uniforms...

but don't worry...there's only a few of them (snicker)...

[-..__...]

39. Ohhhh....

so you've been there then and have seen these "armed loonies in Nazi uniforms? Interesting... I don't suppose you could post a few photos to back up this claim?

[MrBenchley]

40. Gee, D_S, you don't think Knob Creek's been brought up before?

Hilariously, it was the right wing propaganda piece that our "pro gun democrats" put up to pimp for that pep rally for loonies that mentioned the folks in Nazi uniforms...

And it sure was wonderful to see our "pro gun democrats" at that time try desperately to spin away the armed lunatics in Nazi uniforms...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=16515

[iverglas]

41. I love these trips down memory lane

Remembering all our fallen comrades ... there were only 3 dead fellas in that thread, but then it wasn't a very long one ...

[MrBenchley]

42. Ah, but what wonderful desperate silliness...

"...the denigration of all gun owners because a "tiny percentage" have Nazi uniforms...Do you have a problem with people enjoying sex in different ways? ...In public I have to tolerate anybody else I run up upon. But isnt that the American way? ...A typically liberal event like modern woodstock had people in Communist garb...Communist garb, like slogan Tshirts and whatnot. ...Can you tell the difference between a "Nazi uniform" and a "Wehrmacht uniform"? There's a pretty big fucking difference..."

[Endangered Specie]

43. Heil Hitler and Pass the Ammunition!

edit: How do you say that in Deutsch?

[slackmaster]

7. Assault weapons are semiautomatic, not automatic

I believe there are no transferrable M14 rifles. They're legally machineguns and AFAIK none has every been owned by a civilian. However, the Springfield M1A is a nice semiautomatic copy that isn't even an assault weapon. It accepts M14 magazines and accessories.

Expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in September will NOT enable you to buy a machinegun more easily.

[amber dog democrat]

10. I think you are absolutely correct...

however I did see one in use at a local range here not more than 2 years ago.
Maybe the owner had the federal license to go with it. Personally I think MGs are over rated. I suppose the same thing applies to the B.A.R. as well ( but they required a crew of 3 to operate ) .

Again, do I have to have one of these? No.
I don't think I ever felt any safer with one regarding protection either. And considering the proclivity of certain groups to build up private arsenals - maybe MGs need to be controlled. I did not know the M-14 was considered a machine gun.

I just like the idea that it has range, accuracy and power. They are nice looking rifles.

[FeebMaster]

12. There are semi-auto only

M-14s out there. I think NORINCO imported an M-14 clone for a while, at least until Clinton banned all of NORINCO's military clone imports. There is also the M1A from Springfield Armory. There must be a number of M-14s on the NFA registry since the M-14 was around long before 1986, although you can probably buy 10 semi-autos for what one will cost you.

The BAR is definitely a one man weapon, perhaps you are thinking of one of Browning's other machine guns.

[amber dog democrat]

17. That is probably what we are talking about

I have little need to lay down supressive fields of fire around the home... but I do like the range, accuracy and power of the M-14. You are looking at well over 1500.00 to own one I am thinking. Definately a toy for grownups. Beside with 30'06 30 round mags, they can be expensive to shoot.

I think you are right, it might have been a NORINCO clone.

[Wcross]

24. M1a is available in .308 only.

Also, 20 rd magazines are about the maximum. They have made "aftermarket" magazines in larger capacity but I would avoid them as they are worthless and very rarly function well.
You can still find standard m1a's for 1200. I own one and it is a very accurate rifle, there is plenty of surplus ammo floating around so plinking isn't a big expense.

[Warpy]

8. So license ranges to rent the things for use on the premises.

They don't belong on the streets of any society that pretends to be at all civilized.

[DonP]

11. They already do rent them

Just to be correct, we are talking about full auto or select fire weapons that have been heavily regulated and outright banned in some states since 1934, right?

Not the semi auto look-a-like versions covered by the stupid and rapidly expiring, so-called Assault Weapons Ban?

For those of us that live in a Class III restricted state, or just don't have the $200 per item tax due to the BATFE for a Class III weapon ...

(I'm assuming that everyone here would have no problem passing the extensive FBI background and national agency check and easily get the permission of your local chief law enforcement officer to own a Class III piece)

There are several ranges around the US that, after a familiarization session that you pay for of course, (and under direct supervision) will rent you a Thompson, Uzi, M-16 or other popular select fire weapon for use on their range. Not a cheap thrill since you have to shoot their $$$ ammo but fun enough for a grown up play date.

One or two even have an indoor "night" range where every fifth round is a tracer.

There are a couple in Vegas that are a very popular tourist attraction with international travelers.

One of the managers told me as much as 60% of their rental customers are from the Far East and the UK.

[Bowline]

19. Actually, very few of them are on the streets.

They're too big, heavy, and unwieldy to carry around for everyday use. Most of us keep them in a safe or closet at home and only load them up when we go to the range. I don't know anyone who actually carries an AK, AR-15, or any of the other so-called assault weapons, as their defensive carry piece. It's just not practical.

[skippythwndrdog]

21. There is no change in the automatic weapons laws coming.

The AWB does not address automatic weapons. We've cover that item here repeatedly.

[Wcross]

23. What? There is no Automatic weapons ban.

You can even buy versions of the m14 (M1a) and AK47 right now that comply with the ban. You can still buy full auto weapons if you pass the background check and pay a 200 dollar tax on the weapons.(subect to what state you live in).

[slackmaster]

9. You won't have to worry about those nasty assault weapons much longer

On September 13 they'll all turn back into pistols, rifles, and shotguns just like they were before the 1994 ban was enacted.

[Bowline]

14. Which definition of assault weapon should be used?

The old, pre-1994 version or the 1994-2004 version?

[Downtown Hound]

20. Can't really answer that

Mostly I'm referring to weapons such as the AR-15 or the many semi-automatic AK-47 clones. You know, the types of guns that fire dozens of rounds in a matter of seconds and can hold 20 or 30 rounds in a magazine. I don't know every specific type of weapon out there, but I just don't see what is gained in society by allowing people to run around with those things.

I come from conservative Midwestern roots. My dad gave me my first rifle at the age of 12. I know the gun culture and I do respect people's right to bear arms. But for the life of me, I can't see why people would want those things. And I honestly don't think it's a huge sacrifice to give one up when it could save some lives. Just my humble opinion.

[David__77]

4. I favor a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

...along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. We must uphold weapons rights.

[Bowline]

15. Gun control = ...

...two hands, steady breathing, front sight focus, easy squeeze.

[amber dog democrat]

18. I always thought a neat bumper sticker would say.....

" Happiness is a tight pattern "

[iverglas]

16. damn, can't answer it

"Gun control" just means a whole lot more than regulating who gets to own a firearm.

It covers what firearms they get to own and, in some cases, under what conditions; and what restrictions their ownership of them is subject to (e.g. licensing of the owner for purchase of both firearms and ammunition, registration of the firearm, safe storage requirements, limitations on transporting).

Not that all of those measures must be taken in order for there to be some gun control -- *I* just couldn't choose any of the options offered without all of them.

Amazingly, once you toss all those things into the mix, and specifically make possession of handguns and certain other types of firearms and accessories/ammunition available only in very limited circumstances, and ensure that the "background check" includes relevant information by, e.g., inquiring of the applicant's spouse ... then amazingly enough, I'd be closest to #1.

But I don't think that's what you meant. ;)

[-..__...]

25. I can live with back ground checks.

Although I think the system is severely flawed (IIRC, with some states, not all records are available or are entered into the system). There was at least one state where only 30% of records had been in the NICS/III/NCIC database (that was about a year ago).

I have no problem with a permit and training for CCW. I firmly believe that CCW should be "shall issue" though.

AWB?... I await Sept 13th with great anticipation.

Registration, licensing, permits to posses? No way, no how.

.50 BMG bans?... Ditto.

Gun safety locks legislation? It's something that I wouldn't have any real problem with. I think there should be more emphasis and effort on education and safety.

Gunshow "loophole"? I see it as even more ineffective and a wasted effort than the AWB. If it came to pass, I wouldn't consider it a major or significant loss on our RKBA. I just see no reason for passing legislation that will have zero effect for what it's intended.

[Endangered Specie]

26. My stance:

Anyone looking to have a gun Needs to take (and pay for) a safety course and training course, and must pass. A psycholigical or polygraph test would also be in order. Also any gun purchase will have a minumum 10 day waiting period.

Certain guns will be banned in all forms for civilian use:
-Semi-auto shotguns (pump action ok, sawed off illegal)
-SMG, Assault rifle and MG, unless permanently put in semi-auto mode, -use of large magazines prohibited (>20 rnds or so)
-Guns which are designed to conceal fingerprints, blood spatter and things of that sort (if they exist).
-Scopes are to be very highly regulated, if not banned altogether
-Any gun firing a .50 caliber bullet or higher.

Any criminal record = No guns, serious offenses get a lifetime ban from owning guns. Commit a crime= all guns confinscated.

[Redneck Socialist]

27. Why scopes?

Your .50 caliber ban would affect many muzzle loading weapons. Would they be included?

[Endangered Specie]

28. ...

Scopes, because of snipers.

when I said .50 caliber I meant in cartridge form.

[Bowline]

29. Snipers don't need scopes.

I personally can hit a man-sized target at 500 meters using only iron sights. I may not be able to consistently hit head shots but I can definitely put 'em center of mass. Even the infamous "D.C. Area Snipers" realy weren't sniping at all. They were shooting from 50 - 75 meters. No competent marksman would need a scope from that distance. Anyone who's passed the basic military rifle course can hit a target at ranges of at least 200-300 yards with a .223 rifle and no scope.

[FeebMaster]

30. As I understand it

Simo Häyhä killed at least 505 Russians using a rifle with iron sights all in a hundred days.

http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp

[Endangered Specie]

31. That sights claims many of the kills were by SMG

[FeebMaster]

32. Well there's always

Suko Kolkka, who killed 400 with a rifle and another 200 with a submachine gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper#Snipers_in_history

[MrSandman]

33. Not much effect...

"-Semi-auto shotguns (pump action ok, sawed off illegal)"
Pump shotguns are less lethal?

"SMG, Assault rifle and MG, unless permanently put in semi-auto mode, -use of large magazines prohibited (>20 rnds or so)"
And how many legally owned machine guns have been used crime. Why semi-auto rifles, but not shotties?

"-Guns which are designed to conceal fingerprints, blood spatter and things of that sort (if they exist)."

Not many firearme left lying around crime scenes. Don't know how common they are anyway.

"-Scopes are to be very highly regulated, if not banned altogether"
Not much use in crime.

"-Any gun firing a .50 caliber bullet or higher."
What about the 12/16/20 gauge? What about the .45-70, .444 ...?

"Any criminal record = No guns, serious offenses get a lifetime ban from owning guns. Commit a crime= all guns confinscated."

The current law is?

[skippythwndrdog]

34. Clarification, please.

Scopes? What about those of us who have minor vision issues that a scope can correct? In my case, it's an early cataract that marginally diminishes the sight in my dominant eye. With iron sights, I hit paper plates at 100 yards. With optics, I hit a 2" group at 500 yds. I also hunt in AZ and CO each year. The necessary shots to cleanly kill my game are often in excess of 500 yds. Try that one with iron sights. I'm not a Camp Perry contender. Very few shooters are that good. Remember, better accuracy means fewer stray shots which equals safer hunters.

Semi-auto shotguns? What about my one-armed friend, (we'll call him Conrad) who lost his left arm in Nam? I can't see him using a pump action anything effectively, but he breaks 20+ clays with a semi-auto.

.50 cal ban? Gotta be more specific. That would ban many muzzle loaders and all shotguns over .410 ga. Shotguns do fire slugs, you know.

What kind of crime? A speeding ticket? Some misdemeanors? What class of misdemeanors? Understandable with felony crimes, with which I completely agree on a ban from ownership.

[Endangered Specie]

35. Ok, you want more details (I was trying to keep it consice)

I said scopes should be regulated... Im no expert on this but Id prefer not to see any high level military style scopes on the civilian market.

In reference to .50cal bans, I said that assuming it would imply cartridges (not ball and powder), (my gun termanology is not up to par with most gun folks). As far as slug firing shotguns, not sure on that, I think the ban on semi-auto shotguns should take care of it.

Ok, unto crime... All felony's especially violent ones = ban/confiscation. However, there are some mistameanors that should result in similar action (all the violent, drug, and alcohol related ones for starters). Im no expert on laws but I assume that there is a good order for these things and it could be worked out, If I had the time Id study it.

Im trying to strike a "compromise", in truth I dont much care civilian ownership of guns of any form, but I know that is unreasonable and unconstitutional, so its an attempt to form a happy medium where the rights of people to enjoy recreation and defense are balanced with public safety (its almost like first amendment rights, how far do they go, fire in a public theather, that sort of thing).

[skippythwndrdog]

36. Thanks. n/t

[enfield collector]

37. shotguns fire cartridges too. n/t

[mbnd45]

45. "High level military scopes"

are not much different than a scope on a hunter's rifle. They just look different, and are designed to take more abuse. The Trijicon ACOG, for example, might look evil and scary to you, but it's nothing more than a 4x magnification scope with a fiber optic light collector to help you see targets more clearly in dim light conditions. Many hunting scopes do the same thing, except they usually have up to 22x magnification. I really don't see the point of regulating (read: "banning") scopes. That would piss off a lot of hunters and lose elections for politicians who support "scope control", and won't do a thing to reduce crime.

A ban on semi-auto shotguns would do nothing to "take care of" slug firing shotguns. Any shotgun is capable of firing slugs. I will give you credit for admitting that you are not knowlegeable on the subject, though. Oddly enough, most "tactical" shotguns are pump action, while most semi-auto shotguns are used by target shooters to break clay pigeons. I don't know why, but it's true.

What's a "mistameanor"? did you mean MISDEMEANOR? (I hope I spelled it right)

[iverglas]

48. got yr Strunk & White handy?

What's a "mistameanor"? did you mean MISDEMEANOR? (I hope I spelled it right)

Very good. Unfortunately, you don't get a gold star unless you pay.

High level military scopes are not much different than a scope on a hunter's rifle.

Hmm, did you mean DIFFERENT FROM? I'm very sure I got that right.

[mbnd45]

64. Thanks for the correction.

[TX-RAT]

47. I hit a 2" group at 500 yds.

What are you shooting them with?

[ronabop]

44. Not enough options.

I would have voted:

"Gun ownership should be regulated to those who not only pass a history test (background check), but can also regularly pass basic safety and ability tests".

If you cannot maintain, hold, point, and fire a weapon safely and consistently, you are a danger to the whole point of a having a well regulated militia.

-Bop

[CO Liberal]

46. While That Sounds Perfectly Logical...

...it flies in the face of a thread someone started here last week about seniors in Nevada packing heat.

[slackmaster]

66. How so?

Nevada has a more stringent shooting test for concealed-weapons permits than do most states including California. Those seniors discussed in the Nevada thread all had to pass the same test as everyone else.

[Bogus W Potus]

49. You should be licensed.

If you need a license to drive, you should also need a license to own a gun. A license should not be incredibly hard to obtain, in my view. It should just require that the applicant be 18 years of age or older and have no felony convictions. This new law granting the license power would also include a clause guaranteeing that the government could never use the registry to confiscate the guns of innocent citizens, for obvious reasons.

[FeebMaster]

50. What's the point?

It would just be a gun owners tax like a driver's license is just a driver's tax. We should get rid of driver's licenses.

[iverglas]

52. can you refresh my memory?

What is it about your political opinions that leads you to characterize yourself as "liberal"? (Assuming you do, or you wouldn't be here. Although feel free to answer for "progressive", as I might.)

Perhaps I should ask put it a different way.

What is it about your political opinions that would prompt anyone else, applying any commonly accepted definition of the word, to characterize you as "liberal" ("progressive")?

I'm not sayin' nuttin. I'm just asking.

[FeebMaster]

56. Well I'm sure as hell not a conservative.

"What is it about your political opinions that leads you to characterize yourself as "liberal"? (Assuming you do, or you wouldn't be here. Although feel free to answer for "progressive", as I might.)"

I don't characterize myself as a liberal. I guess you could consider me progressive, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, since I'm certainly not a conservative. Frankly I think conservative, liberal, and progressive are completely meaningless words and the sooner people realize that the better off we'll all be. The real political split, as I see it, is between authoritarians and not authoritarians. I'd say libertarians, but those lesser of two evils jackasses seem to have hijacked that one.


"Perhaps I should ask put it a different way.

What is it about your political opinions that would prompt anyone else, applying any commonly accepted definition of the word, to characterize you as "liberal" ("progressive")?"

Well what is the commonly accepted definition of the word? If I were to go up into a mandatory national service thread in GD, are the liberals the ones arguing for mandatory national service or against mandatory national service? In all these gun control threads, are the liberals arguing for gun control or against it? In a thread about the drug war are the liberals arguing for the drug war or against it? When we discuss suicide, are the liberals arguing for the right to die or against it? I'm arguing for the pro-choice option in all of those threads or whatever is likely to result in the most freedom. So why don't you tell me which side is the liberal side and let me know if I'm on it.


"I'm not sayin' nuttin. I'm just asking."

Right. If you don't like me posting here why don't you go cry to the administration and ask them to ban me? I'm nothing if not respectful of private property and will be more than happy to abide by their decision.

[iverglas]

58. "I guess you could consider me progressive"

Mmm, no, I couldn't. Not me.

If I were to go up into a mandatory national service thread in GD, are the liberals the ones arguing for mandatory national service or against mandatory national service?

Well, I guess I'd have to go and examine each post, and each argument presented by each poster. I don't happen to think that there is one true party line for all time on all things. Taking this example, advocacy of mandatory national service could be a "liberal" or "progressive" position (or both a liberal and a progressive position) in certain circumstances, and not in others.

Kinda how like homicide might be justified in some circumstances and not in others, eh?


Right. If you don't like me posting here why don't you go cry to the administration and ask them to ban me?

Goodness, that's a bit of an over-reaction to a simple question. I'm everlastingly curious about what it is that makes whole loads of people at DU -- people who never post in J/PS included -- characterize themselves as "liberal" or "progressive". Whatever their basis is, it often eludes me, and I just get to wondering when I see all these scads of people who, where I'm at, would be described as right-wing loony, calling themselves "liberal", is all.

[FeebMaster]

61. See what I mean?

"Mmm, no, I couldn't. Not me.

Well, I guess I'd have to go and examine each post, and each argument presented by each poster. I don't happen to think that there is one true party line for all time on all things. Taking this example, advocacy of mandatory national service could be a "liberal" or "progressive" position (or both a liberal and a progressive position) in certain circumstances, and not in others.

Kinda how like homicide might be justified in some circumstances and not in others, eh?

Goodness, that's a bit of an over-reaction to a simple question. I'm everlastingly curious about what it is that makes whole loads of people at DU -- people who never post in J/PS included -- characterize themselves as "liberal" or "progressive". Whatever their basis is, it often eludes me, and I just get to wondering when I see all these scads of people who, where I'm at, would be described as right-wing loony, calling themselves "liberal", is all."

They're meaningless or at least their meanings change based on who you ask so they might as well be meaningless. That's why authoritarian and 'not authoritarian' are better. You can be sure that I'll be on the 'not authoritarian' side no matter what the question is.

[iverglas]

51. about as obvious

This new law granting the license power would also include a clause guaranteeing that the government could never use the registry to confiscate the guns of innocent citizens, for obvious reasons.

... as the reasons why the laws requiring motor vehicle registration guarantee that the government may never use the registry to confiscate the motor vehicles of innocent citizens.


Isn't it going to be pretty hard to fight that glorious revolution without wheels?

[Bogus W Potus]

53. Who spoke of a revolution?

I was just remembering what happened in Britain. The UK promised that they would never use the gun registry to confiscate the guns of innocent civilians until they did!

Citizens: WALK, not RUN, to your nearest depository and turn in your weapons of death. You are too immature to own them.

Not to mention that the first step of trampling on minority rights is to take away their guns. Jews in Nazi Germany, in addition to having to wear the Yellow Star, were required to turn in their guns.

Most people don't own guns as a means to start a revolution. Most people own guns to protect their families and their property, and for hunting/sporting reasons.

Considering what happened in Britain after they introduced their draconian gun laws, I do not want that to happen here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.

There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

Overall crime in the year to September was up 9.3%, with domestic burglary up 7.9%, drugs offences up 12.3% and sex offences up 18.2%.

Pardon me, iverglas, but I couldn't ascertain your position on this issue from your response. It sounded like you were mocking me. Do you feel it appropriate to confiscate firearms from civilians for no apparent reasons, or do you respect the right of an individual American to choose for themselves. whether they would or would not like to own a firearm.

[iverglas]

54. bogus

I do believe this sums up my position on that.

And I'll bet you're gasp surprised.

[Bogus W Potus]

55. I don't understand what you're saying at all.

Color me confused, I guess. If you don't wish to elaborate, then I guess we'll just leave it at that...

Basically, you posted a nonsensical sentence. I was not able to understand any of it.

I am wondering what your position on gun control is.

You wrote:

I do believe this sums up my position on that.

What is "this"? What is "that"? I can't tell where your prounouns are directed.

[iverglas]

57. allow me to help you

... obvious though I thought it was.

"this" = "bogus"

"that" = your post, to which I was replying

[Bogus W Potus]

59. Oh, okay.

So you were just being rude and insulting my post.

[iverglas]

60. nonono non

I was giving my wise and enlightened analysis of your post.

Don't be taking the wrong fork so early in what will doubtless be a long and illustrious journey, eh?

[Bogus W Potus]

62. Is that a threat?

We're done talking...

Might I add that you come off as very narcissistic. Your "wise and enlightened analysis"? :eyes:

[iverglas]

63. that's just dandy rooney by me, chummy

We're done talking...

I actually hadn't begun, but that's all right.

Might I add that you come off as very narcissistic.

You might add whatever you like, although you might want to avoid unflattering personal commentary, which tends to be frowned upon. Now, if you thought I'd be interested in your opinion, I have to disappoint you. You were wrong.

If I were prone to making personal commentary myself, I might say that someone who wrote such a post, with such a title, comes off as humourless and/or paranoid and/or protesting far too much, and someone who jumps feet first into a discussion and purports to educate those involved in it about things they really aren't uneducated about, by spouting stuff that many of them could recognize as bullshit in their sleep, comes off as either a tad disingenuous or a teeny bit dim. But then I'm not real prone to that sort of thing, so I don't say it.

[Vladimir]

65. I believe people should be allowed to buy and own

Whatever weapons they like, so long as they are kept in official shooting ranges/marksman's clubs at all times. Oh, and for the hunters - taken out for hunting after one has registered the fact that one is going hunting with the club. And returned following the hunt. Within those parameters, someone can buy a gatling gun for all I care ;).

PS I am a baad authoritarian, aren't I? :P

[slackmaster]

67. Gatling guns aren't presently regulated

Anyone who can legally possess an ordinary rifle or handgun or can own one.



Vladimir wrote:

PS I am a baad authoritarian, aren't I?

No, just someone with an unrealistic view of how much control over their personal possessions people in this country (the USA) would be willing to tolerate.

[Vladimir]

68. Hahaha

didn't know that... but then it was a saracstic reference to fully automatic weapons anyhow (which are banned AFAIK).

PS I know full well that the idea was unrealistic - but then then question was asking how much gun control I was in favour of. And I am in favour of as much as I can get :).

[slackmaster]

70. Automatic weapons are not exactly banned

They've been tightly regulated since 1934, and beginning in 1986 no new frames or receivers for other than police or military use can be imported or manufactured here legally.

[Vladimir]

71. Point noted n/t

[iverglas]

69. not an unreasonable approach

Up here, handguns, for instance, are "prohibited weapons". People can be licensed to possess them (other than in limited cases for business/employment or protection purposes) only if they are members of recognized shooting clubs:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-212/whole.html
and the regulations regarding where such weapons may be kept and transported are quite strict:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-209/whole.html
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-206/whole.html

Unfortunately, there are still too many handguns getting stolen in Canada.
http://www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2004/040122pmm.pdf

Missing/Stolen Firearms

All stolen or missing firearms in Canada are required by law to be reported to the police. The police are required to report this information to the Canadian Police Information System (CPIC).

Many of these firearms end up in the hands of the street criminal to commit crimes, provide protection, demonstrate status and intimidate or inflict violence on their peers, law enforcement, the community and innocent victims. According to the RCMP Annual Firearms Report to the Solicitor General of Canada, since 1978 over 97,000 firearms have been recorded on CPIC as stolen or missing, a large portion remain unrecovered, with more than 50% of this total being restricted firearms such as handguns. While annual reported incidents have slowly declined since 1997, these incidents still account for 2000 -- 3000 firearms per year potentially entering the illicit market.

Since handguns possessed for sport shooting purposes can generally only be used at shooting ranges, I think, I don't know why they can't be stored there. I suspect that a lot of the problem is with grandfathered handguns (which may be possessed but not transferred, under current legislation).

(By the way, applying the 9:1 population ratio, that would be 18-27,000 stolen firearms entering the illicit market in the US, except that I would expect that, with firearms possession more widespread and more casual, the figure would be considerably higher.)

The situation is not as clearcut with firarms held for hunting, since in rural areas this is a more on-going sort of activity, and is not just a sporting activity, but a subsistence activity (particularly among Aboriginal people). The kind of requirement you suggest could be more than a minor inconvenience, and in the case of Aboriginal people, an interference in the exercise of their constitutional aboriginal rights, in Canada.

(Such rules could of course be "adapted" for Aboriginal people, as certain others are now:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-205/whole.html)

So I agree that your suggestion has merit in specific cases, but it might not be applicable to all firearms owners/activities.

[Lefty48197]

72. Here's my two cents

I fully support the handgun registration requirements. I would strengthen the laws and require a permit/license to purchase handgun ammo. It's ridiculous that all the criminals who steal guns can walk into Walmart and buy ammo for them, no questions asked.
I would group high powered/ high capacity rifles with full autos, and perhaps some other high capacity semi autos like tec 9's into a highly restricted category of guns. Ownership would be allowed, but would be stricly regulated. Permits and licenses would be required for all of the weapons, and ammunition sales would be limited to licensed owners only.
I would only regulate shotguns and small caliber rifles, by limiting the number of rounds they will hold. Hunting regulations usually limit you to so many shells or rounds in your weapon anyway.

[MrBenchley]

73. That all sounds good to me...

[TX-RAT]

74. I like it.

[MrBenchley]

75. Can't see anything in Lefty's proposal

that in any way hinders law-abiding responsible gun owners...

If I had anything to add, I'd like to see public hearings into gun industry marketing and lobbying practices....You might recall that Sun Myung Moon owns a bunch of gun factories and that the chairman of S&W was discovered to have been a convicted stick-up artist....