Anti gun legislation

[Metcalf]

If someone wants to take a gun into a bar....they are going to take a gun into the bar. The law is not going to stop them.

There isn't a law requiring everyone to take a gun into the bar.

I believe that its a crime to CCW while intoxicated....

Most people that legally carry a firearm are not knowingly going to break the law.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

Guns in bars. I didn't know about that either... I agree, a disaster waiting to happen.



x2... and I would add that I have no problem aquiring additional permits (or tax stamps) for my firearms, if it means making it a little harder for criminals to get them.

I carry frequently in a bar, however, it's a bar I worked at for over 20 years, and I never consume alcohol of any kind while carrying.

I go down and have coffee, and watch 'Gunsmoke' on DVD with a few other guys.

If I want to drink, the weapons stay home in the safe. Not locked up in my rig, at home.



As far as additional permits and tax stamps, I would be for it IF it did anyhing to deter or slow criminals from getting weapons.

But criminals are criminals, they don't care about the laws, any laws, and will aquire weapons by any means necassary should they choose to do so.


But weapon bans and tax stamps only burden and deprive honest law abiding citizens.

I do believe in training, and a lot of it. This should start with responsible parents, or be sought out by the person wishing to own a firearm. (if they grew up in a household without guns, or didn't get proper training, they really need to take some courses)


It's my belief that firearm safety should be availble to everyone, and tht everyone should take a class on the safe handling of firearms.

Even if a person doesn't want to own one, or is even dead set against firearms, they should know what to do should 'Timmy' find a handgun behind the garbage can, where some thug threw it while running from the cops.

 

[xtatik]

While I do not advocate its use, there are some middle eastern military units that train for high density crowds that use a 'head shot' from a kneeling position to minimize the chance of a shoot through at center mass crowd level.

I understand what you're saying here, but this can't be expected from the avg. overweight, middle-aged guy in an Arizona parking lot.

While it might sound like a good idea, access control has never worked. If someone wants to do harm to someone else, they will. If not a firearm, they could use a bomb, a hammer, a car, a plane, a boat, your shoe, your hands, your feet, etc.

I don't think access control has been implemented to the extent that some are discussing here. I don't recall any state mandating physical training and pass/fail testing with a gun. I don't recall hearing of a state mandating 730 (psych)evaluations. I think states should and I think the individual seeking ownership should have to pay for same. We all know we can inflict damage to another person with nearly any hard object, but overwhelmingly guns seem to be the weapon of choice, and I think ease of access has everything to do with this.

I carry a firearm in public every day. I have never had any formal military or police training. I have taken it upon myself to seek out training and pay for it out of my own pocket. I belong to the local gun club, shoot weekly, practice daily, etc. Don't lump all of us softy civvies into the same group.
Its a personal choice if your going to carry, I have made mine.

This is well and good, and it certainly speaks to your commitment to safe gun onwership. But, I wouldn't put too much credence into training coming from gun clubs. The type of training and testing I'd like to see mandated would ideally be administered by local law enforcement at the prospective gun owners expense.

 

[xtatik]

The person with the concealed carry firearm showed great judgement in my opinion. I wish the media would focus on this more.....

I agree. In the interview he seemed like a cool head. It would be interesting to hear more of what his thought processes were in those few seconds.

 

[Storz]

at the prospective gun owners expense.

So should 100% mentally competent, law abiding citizens be essentially barred from firearm ownership because they may not have the income to take the classes, pay additional tax stamps etc?

 

[Scott B.]

This is well and good, and it certainly speaks to your commitment to safe gun onwership. But, I wouldn't put too much credence into training coming from gun clubs. The type of training and testing I'd like to see mandated would ideally be administered by local law enforcement at the prospective gun owners expense.

You can't make a blanket statement like that. In my case, my club (of which I am a certified instructor) trains the local LEOs.

Speaking as an instructor, I do not believe that training coming from local law enforcement is sufficient/proper/ideal for the average (non-law enforcement) person who wants to learn how to operate a firearm safely and efficiently.

FBI and/or SWAT training is great - for their officers. We are talking about the average citizen.

 

[Scott B.]

So should 100% mentally competent, law abiding citizens be essentially barred from firearm ownership because they may not have the income to take the classes, pay additional tax stamps etc?

Absolutely not. This is a big problem with the typical "I believe everyone should be able to own a firearm as long as they are trained..." statements made by the liberal talking heads.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

This is well and good, and it certainly speaks to your commitment to safe gun onwership. But, I wouldn't put too much credence into training coming from gun clubs. The type of training and testing I'd like to see mandated would ideally be administered by local law enforcement at the prospective gun owners expense.

the training LEO's recieve is totally different than what an average citizen should recieve. LEO's have a massive legal fund and a team of lawyers waiting to defend them if they shoot someone... a civilian pays his legal fund out of his own pocket.

huge difference in required training there.

 

[xtatik]

So should 100% mentally competent, law abiding citizens be essentially barred from firearm ownership because they may not have the income to take the classes, pay additional tax stamps etc?

There has always been a cost to be paid for gun ownership. Even back when the 2A was written. A long rifle in those times could be the most expensive possesion in their household. Let's face it, guns have a cost that may already pose a financial barrier to many Americans. I understand that I may be suggesting that this cost would go up. In order to hunt, I have to not only buy my own shotgun, but I also have to take a hunter safety course which I pay for myself. I have to show proof of having taken that course each year when I buy my hunting license. I don't see how this differs greatly. If programs like this were instituted and enrollments were high enough, the costs for such training could be reduced.

 

[Mr. Leary]

So should 100% mentally competent, law abiding citizens be essentially barred from firearm ownership because they may not have the income to take the classes, pay additional tax stamps etc?

The cost of the tax stamp and the class would be less then the price of one firearm in almost any case (not to hate on y'all Hi-Point aficionados). Besides, the weapons that require a tax stamp are already quite expensive, if you can't afford the extra $200, you probably don't need to be buying that firearm. For example, if I want to get a supressor for my .45ACP ($1200), I will have to invest in a threaded barrel ($250) and a tax stamp ($200) as well as the $600 or so for the supressor itself, which I have to obtain from an FFL holder (class 3), who will likely charge me a small fee for their services. If additional weapons were put into this same category, then the tax stamp would remain a small cost when compared to the cost to puchase and shoot the firearm.

Just sayin'

Tactical shooting is a very expensive hobby (I'm a recovering addict :sombrero: ) and, IMO, there is no reason to ban weapons when you can simply require additional hoops for people to jump through to obtain the equipment, then enthusiastically prosecute firearm possession laws. I would much rather fill up our prisons with firearm offenders then drug addicts, but thats a whole 'nother can 'o worms.

Firearm owners should have to take a gun safety class, just like hunters should have to take a hunter safety class. If they hunt with a gun, they can do both. Doesn't seem like too big a sacrifice considering the potential safety improvements.

 

[bajasurf]

This may be not the thread to post this article but you might find it interesting.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=177093

 

[xtatik]

You can't make a blanket statement like that. In my case, my club (of which I am a certified instructor) trains the local LEOs.

Speaking as an instructor, I do not believe that training coming from local law enforcement is sufficient/proper/ideal for the average (non-law enforcement) person who wants to learn how to operate a firearm safely and efficiently.

FBI and/or SWAT training is great - for their officers. We are talking about the average citizen.

I understand it's a general statement. I'm certain there are some fine programs offered by some guns clubs. My point is there are probably some pretty lame ones as well. If a program like this were to be administered broadly, there would need to be standards and oversight. Maybe a hybridization could occur where training could be offered at clubs and local LE would administer the tests.

 

[xtatik]

Absolutely not. This is a big problem with the typical "I believe everyone should be able to own a firearm as long as they are trained..." statements made by the liberal talking heads.

Keep the politics out of this discussion please!

 

[Mr. Leary]

Ok. So to respond the the consistent argument that "criminals will get the guns whether or not there are laws against it."

I have two things to say. First, is that not a problem that can and should be fixed by empowering law enforcement officers to shut down gun smuggler operations? Seems an awful lot like complaining about fuel economy when you drive a land cruiser. If you want a fuel sipper, then you are changing the goals that you are trying to acheive with your vehicle. Second, if the weapons are a titled entity, law enforcement could instantly track down who the firearm is registered to. A stolen firearm that is not reported would require a pretty good explanation from the owner, and the information would already be contained in the document, so the description would at least be close, and numbers could be checked if they have not been filed off. Any firearm without serial would be an automatic bo-bo requiring a very very good explanation or a get out of jail free card (like being a secret government agent on an important mission or something )

So with easier avenues for law enforcement to do their jobs and more emphasis on bringing gun offenders to justice, how would criminals continue to get all these firearms we are talking about?

The same could be applied to psych evaluations. Why not? Who is hurt by giving up some if their time so that at least some of these crazies will be unable to obtain a gun (they are a lot easier to seriously hurt someone with then a hammer).

 

[xtatik]

the training LEO's recieve is totally different than what an average citizen should recieve. LEO's have a massive legal fund and a team of lawyers waiting to defend them if they shoot someone... a civilian pays his legal fund out of his own pocket.

huge difference in required training there.

Backing up and reading this....I have to agree with you. But, I also think this could be the most important point/lesson to be taught in a class. I'm sure it's already heavily discussed in current classes. But, it's only getting to those gun owners that seek the training. The consequences of discharging a gun even in a self defense situation needs to be known very well by all gun owners.