Do you feel the need to be unarmed and defensless while camping?

[MTSN]

What additional controls would you like to see?

That question has been asked a few times in this thread with little response from those asking for more laws. I think many of us are wondering what additional laws (that will be ignored by criminals as admitted earlier in the discussion) will do for the general safety of the population compared with the additional scrutiny and hoop jumping it will cause for law abiding citizens.

 

[JWP58]

That question has been asked a few times in this thread with little response from those asking for more laws. I think many of us are wondering what additional laws (that will be ignored by criminals as admitted earlier in the discussion) will do for the general safety of the population compared with the additional scrutiny and hoop jumping it will cause for law abiding citizens.

Absolutely nothing, it will only keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

[Ray_G]

That question has been asked a few times in this thread with little response from those asking for more laws. I think many of us are wondering what additional laws (that will be ignored by criminals as admitted earlier in the discussion) will do for the general safety of the population compared with the additional scrutiny and hoop jumping it will cause for law abiding citizens.

For the sake of discussion, I'll throw out something out: I think an interesting debate could be had regarding the need to prove competency with a firearm for individual private ownership; i.e. you can't just drive a car without a license (well, you can...but the penalties are significant if you are caught-which applies here too). A simple written and range test for both handguns and long guns would suffice, and perhaps go a long way toward cutting back on the masses of folks wandering around with weapons who are as much a danger to themselves as anyone else.

I'll put my flame suit on, but keep in mind the notion is one for discussion-not mandate-and I'm bringing it up from the perspective of having spent my entire adult life employing weapons as part of my job description, a life member of the NRA, etc.

 

[Joker]

it will only keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

But that's what they want.

 

[Dalko43]

For the sake of discussion, I'll throw out something out: I think an interesting debate could be had regarding the need to prove competency with a firearm for individual private ownership; i.e. you can't just drive a car without a license (well, you can...but the penalties are significant if you are caught-which applies here too). A simple written and range test for both handguns and long guns would suffice, and perhaps go a long way toward cutting back on the masses of folks wandering around with weapons who are as much a danger to themselves as anyone else.

I'll put my flame suit on, but keep in mind the notion is one for discussion-not mandate-and I'm bringing it up from the perspective of having spent my entire adult life employing weapons as part of my job description, a life member of the NRA, etc.

No one is going to flame you for expressing a coherent and well articulated point of view (or if someone does, they won't be taken seriously). I will say that I disagree with your view that there are "masses" of firearm owners who are danger to society. Out of curiosity, who are these firearm owners you are talking about? I assume you are referring to legal owners and not criminals.

That objection aside, I've at times thought about enacting weapons testing/certification for firearms owners as well. However, I've always recognized two big issues with this concept:

1) Weapons certification, and even some introductory training, does not make a person more responsible or wiser. If you've spent any time in the military, you'll know what I'm talking about. Every service man and woman is trained and educated on weapons employment, but there are still plenty of them that I wouldn't trust in combat or even to safely conduct a live fire training exercise. Training may make a civilian firearms owner more educated on weapons employment/safety, but the responsibility with which they use that firearm will depend on their own personal code, behavior and decision-making process. Also, I see plenty of "licensed" drivers who seem to have all but forgotten the basic rules of the road. That issue is borne out by the fact that annually there are over 30k deaths and over 2 Million injuries as a result of car accidents (alcohol-related and otherwise)...so training and certification definitely isn't permanent for everyone.

2) Weapons certification cannot become a strict, weeding out process for prospective firearm owners. They key part of the 2nd Amendment is that it "shall not be infringed." I already see outrageous wait times (year long at least) and high licensing fees for getting a pistol permit in my own state of NY; my own personal theory is that the state does this to discourage firearm ownership. Subjective on my part maybe, but I don't want to see additional measures that inhibit or restrict the average citizen's ability to get and own firearms.

Those two issues aside, you bring up an interesting point and certainly one worth discussing. IMO, as long as there are realistic expectations, I could potentially see a certification program having a place in American society.

 

[calicamper]

For the sake of discussion, I'll throw out something out: I think an interesting debate could be had regarding the need to prove competency with a firearm for individual private ownership; i.e. you can't just drive a car without a license (well, you can...but the penalties are significant if you are caught-which applies here too). A simple written and range test for both handguns and long guns would suffice, and perhaps go a long way toward cutting back on the masses of folks wandering around with weapons who are as much a danger to themselves as anyone else.

I'll put my flame suit on, but keep in mind the notion is one for discussion-not mandate-and I'm bringing it up from the perspective of having spent my entire adult life employing weapons as part of my job description, a life member of the NRA, etc.

I just returned from Ireland. Interestingly enough I picked up a nail in the rental tire and while waiting to get it plugged one of the shop kids was cleaning a hunting rifle and welding anothers barrel closed. The gun being welded was old and worn out and being set up for a mantle piece. He said every two yrs all gun owners go through a home inspection, written test and fairly comprehensive skills test at the range by certified police. All to retain their license to have a firearm. He said if your serious about firearms you can have one but he said even the gun owners support the process given the ability to have a firearm could be removed if people do not police it and treat it seriously. The gun he was welding up was being inspected later that day so propper records could be updated on its status etc.

Our issue here in the US is that our Constitutional right to bear arms has resulted in lax firearm policies and its just too simple for people who should never have access to a firearm let alone a military grade gun given there is zero oversight once a gun is purchased.

 

[Dalko43]

Our issue here in the US is that our Constitutional right to bear arms has resulted in lax firearm policies and its just too simple for people who should never have access to a firearm let alone a military grade gun given there is zero oversight once a gun is purchased.

Not that I don't have some level of admiration for the individual responsibility that is exhibited in your Ireland example, but there seems to be one defining difference between Irish firearm ownership and American firearm ownership: it is a Constitutional right in America, as you noted.

Other countries, like Ireland, can get away with making their citizens jump through hoops and bureaucratic processes, because firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right.

Also, what exactly is the difference between a "military grade" weapon and a civilian one?

 

[calicamper]

Not that I don't have some level of admiration for the individual responsibility that is exhibited in your Ireland example, but there seems to be one defining difference between Irish firearm ownership and American firearm ownership: it is a Constitutional right in America, as you noted.

Other countries, like Ireland, can get away with making their citizens jump through hoops and bureaucratic processes, because firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right.

Also, what exactly is the difference between a "military grade" weapon and a civilian one?

The right to bear arms can still have licensing requirements, skills test, every x months along with firearm inspection. If you dont have your firearm, dont have it secured etc then your license and ability to bear arms should be placed on hold till you can prove that your a responsible gun owner. I dont know any gun owners who would disagree with that and most would welcome it. Even gun owners are not happy with how things have become regarding untrained, unskilled people easily having firearms. My oldest child is just reaching the age where going to friends houses unattended is happening. I ask those parents if they have firearms in the house. If they say yes or refuse to answer Or explain I simply suggest that my child invite the kid to come to our house instead. I own and store off site. Others I know either do the same or have a serious gun safe locked down zero guns accessible unless you know the combo or finger print. I lost too many friends as a kid to found unsecured guns ending up in a childs hands. I'll never forget the day I caught the neighbor kids many yrs younger than I running around out side with their dads loaded .45 playing with my little brother. I took the gun, called my dad. The neighbor kids dad was over seas for a week. My dad tracked him down talked with him. He had no idea his two 10yr olds had found his gun. When he got back my dad took him to a storage facility where he stored it and two hunting rifles. I, my brother or one of his kids easily could have been shot and killed from that level of stupidity.

 

[Christophe Noel]

What additional controls would you like to see?

I'll answer, only for the sake of discussion, not to change anyone's position. These are just my humble opinions.

And it's important to note, I would not aspire to have anyone's guns taken, or deprive them to the right to own any gun their little heart desires. However, I would prefer to see the sale and trade of guns regulated for the greater good of our society. By this, I think the unchecked sale of weapons on the private sector needs to be controlled. The same goes for gun show sales. I mostly think it is prudent for gun owners, handling devices with lethal potential, should be required to complete a significant level of training and demonstrate their competency. I also think misuse of a firearm should carry stiffer penalties. If we can lock up some poor dude for a decade for having ten joints in his pocket, we should do the same for someone who discharges a weapon recklessly. Which happens in my little hamlet all the time.

I don't see bans on black guns or clip sizes as being relevant or effective. I do think anyone with a desire to own such a weapon should prove they are worthy of the priveldege, and it is just that. The 2nd amendment says you have the right to be armed, it doesn't say you have the right to a mini-gun and a flame thrower.

The duplicitous argument about criminals and their disregard for gun laws is a weak one and can be turned on its ear in many ways. Just because people speed, that doesn't imply speed limits are not worth having.

Ultimately, fewer guns in circulation should be an end goal. It even benefits current gun owners by increasing gun values and hopefully reducing the numbers that get into the hands of criminals.

There are lots of things that could be done to reduce the implications of 300+ million guns in the US right now. And, without depriving good citizens from owning what they want to own. I do think gun owners are apathetic. I think they're also selfish. They don't want to be inconvenienced by regulations, certifications, or even basic training. That's the only opinion I have that might sound egregious to some.

I wanted to ride a motorcycle. I took the training. I passed the tests. I proved I was capable of doing so safely. It was pretty easy to do. Should be the same for gun ownership.

 

[Christophe Noel]

But that's what they want.

Patently untrue.

 

[JWP58]

Patently untrue.

No its not. You openly admitted you would like to see the end goal be less firearms in circulation. You want to legislate firearms out of circulation. You say you don't want to confiscate firearms, but from your statement I think you're perfectly ok with making it almost impossible to acquire new firearms (which is a not-so-slick way of eventually getting rid of guns completely).

You see the problem with folks of the "gun control" ilk, is they cant accept that evil will be done by whatever means are available, and they also have a misguided fear of firearms. They cant fathom that criminals will be criminals, even without firearms. They will use knives, bats, clubs, hammers, axes, whatever they can get their hands on (including guns via the black market). Me personally I would prefer to have a means to defend myself, family, and property.

Guns are objects. The are inanimate. They are not inherently evil. They are a useful tool.

I get that some people have never been in a situation where a gun saved their life, I get that some people have never seen first hand the evil that exists in this world. But some have, and those that have are glad that we (for now) are still able to defend ourselves in this country. I know a growing hoard of mindless folks want to be just like the UK, where you cant even buy a pocket knife....but you sure as hell can be beaten with bat or stabbed with a chef's knife....with your whistle to defend yourself.

Logic and reason is not he mindset of the gun control crowd. Fear and unreasonableness is the motivating thought process behind gun control.

And to confirm your opinion, I am not only a gun owning American, I carry everywhere I go. I carry at work, and on my own time. I am selfish (as you proclaim), I want to be able to defend myself, my family, and my home....very selfish of me.

 

[calicamper]

No its not. You openly admitted you would like to see the end goal be less firearms in circulation. You want to legislate firearms out of circulation. You say you don't want to confiscate firearms, but from your statement I think you're perfectly ok with making it almost impossible to acquire new firearms (which is a not-so-slick way of eventually getting rid of guns completely).

You see the problem with folks of the "gun control" ilk, is they cant accept that evil will be done by whatever means are available, and they also have a misguided fear of firearms. They cant fathom that criminals will be criminals, even without firearms. They will use knives, bats, clubs, hammers, axes, whatever they can get their hands on (including guns via the black market). Me personally I would prefer to have a means to defend myself, family, and property.

Guns are objects. The are inanimate. They are not inherently evil. They are a useful tool.

I get that some people have never been in a situation where a gun saved their life, I get that some people have never seen first hand the evil that exists in this world. But some have, and those that have are glad that we (for now) are still able to defend ourselves in this country. I know a growing hoard of mindless folks want to be just like the UK, where you cant even buy a pocket knife....but you sure as hell can be beaten with bat or stabbed with a chef's knife....with your whistle to defend yourself.

Logic and reason is not he mindset of the gun control crowd. Fear and unreasonableness is the motivating thought process behind gun control.

And to confirm your opinion, I am not only a gun owning American, I carry everywhere I go. I carry at work, and on my own time. I am selfish (as you proclaim), I want to be able to defend myself, my family, and my home....very selfish of me.

I dont see the link between smarter gun ownership regs and gun sales / accessability issues. Even in countries with very strict gun laws propperly trained and qualified people can own guns, they dont seem to have any trouble getting a gun. I really dont get this weird phobia or fear that people have that guns would poof disapear and become misteriously impossible to get if modern smarter regs were in place? I have never understood why guns can be swapped and sold privately without some type of trackable paper trail. Hell we cant even move money without documented paper trails. LOL

The recent CA mass shooting would have been a little more challenging had the not so sharp owner/purchaser been required to get his guns inspected and his license status reviewed every x number of months. "What do you mean you gave them away? To who? - those two get tracked down and go through a vetting process I'd bet the two shooters would have landed on a watch list 2yrs ago instead of having free willy nilly do what you like with those guns under the radar status. Lets face it most of the people we really dont want fooling with guns aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box to start with. I bet a large percentage of our gun related drama can be fixed by simply having qualified officials ask these people a few simple questions. Sandyhook no sane law enforcement officer doing a licensing process would have found that situation to be firearm safe. Especially with knowing the kid was using the guns with mom and would never have qualified to have a license due to his known documented mental history with a proffesional counselor.

 

[Christophe Noel]

JWP58, Let me reiterate. I don't see the proliferation of guns as conducive to creating a society that is intrinsically less violent, but again, that is just my opinion.

Let me also say again, there are millions like me that don't wish to see good citizens separated from their ability to own and carry any weapon they chose to carry. I simply feel it is imperative that those people be required to do so safely. To that end, training and certification will go a long way to ensuring those with the tools to kill, use them properly. For their safety and also to protect YOUR right to carry. The irresponsible gun owners will be the bad apples that erode that right, not the anti-gun crowd.

I actually applaud your decision to carry, don't feel threatened that you do, but assume you're like the many responsible owners who have been trained, and continue to be trained, on its proper use. Look how many people in this world can't change lanes and use a turn signal at the same time. Humans are inherently prone to gaff. I simply think it would be wise if anyone in possession of a deadly weapon have at least the basic understanding of how to use it properly. In many states, no training, permits or certifications are required. That...could be improved upon.

Regarding my comment about fewer guns in circulation, I don't see that as a bad thing. I'm still not advocating that those capable of responsible gun ownership shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. However, we're probably too liberal with those requirements. For example being listed on a national terrorism database doesn't preclude anyone from owning a gun. There are lots of areas whereby stricter regulations would only serve to protect both responsible gun owners and non-gun owning citizens alike.

There's plenty of logic in both the pro-gun audience and within segments like mine, which are not "anti-gun," but advocate for a more prudent level of regulation, one that not only protects the rights of citizens, but their safety as well, as best as possible.

Keeping this within the scope of this topic. The US has a dire problem with violence. Even then, some of us lucky enough to live and travel where we do, don't feel the need to carry. But, I do feel we could do more to make the public safer AND still allow people like yourself to enjoy gun ownership to the fullest. If that means you fill out a few more forms, take a few more hours of training, and prove you're capable of the responsibility....what's the big deal?

I'd be willing to do it. Maybe I'd be a more responsible gun owner than you. [just teasing.]

 

[Longrange308]

I'll answer, only for the sake of discussion, not to change anyone's position. These are just my humble opinions.

And it's important to note, I would not aspire to have anyone's guns taken, or deprive them to the right to own any gun their little heart desires. However, I would prefer to see the sale and trade of guns regulated for the greater good of our society. By this, I think the unchecked sale of weapons on the private sector needs to be controlled. The same goes for gun show sales. I mostly think it is prudent for gun owners, handling devices with lethal potential, should be required to complete a significant level of training and demonstrate their competency. I also think misuse of a firearm should carry stiffer penalties. If we can lock up some poor dude for a decade for having ten joints in his pocket, we should do the same for someone who discharges a weapon recklessly. Which happens in my little hamlet all the time.

I don't see bans on black guns or clip sizes as being relevant or effective. I do think anyone with a desire to own such a weapon should prove they are worthy of the priveldege, and it is just that. The 2nd amendment says you have the right to be armed, it doesn't say you have the right to a mini-gun and a flame thrower.

The duplicitous argument about criminals and their disregard for gun laws is a weak one and can be turned on its ear in many ways. Just because people speed, that doesn't imply speed limits are not worth having.

Ultimately, fewer guns in circulation should be an end goal. It even benefits current gun owners by increasing gun values and hopefully reducing the numbers that get into the hands of criminals.

There are lots of things that could be done to reduce the implications of 300+ million guns in the US right now. And, without depriving good citizens from owning what they want to own. I do think gun owners are apathetic. I think they're also selfish. They don't want to be inconvenienced by regulations, certifications, or even basic training. That's the only opinion I have that might sound egregious to some.

I wanted to ride a motorcycle. I took the training. I passed the tests. I proved I was capable of doing so safely. It was pretty easy to do. Should be the same for gun ownership.

But your desire to own and ride a motorcycle is a privilege, not a constitutional right, that specifically states "Shall not be infringed"

The fact that people speed is not a reason for tossing speed limits aside, because law abiding citizens follow the speed limit. Those same law abiding citizens that follow the speed limit are also punished for the actions of reckless drivers through the increased costs of insurance, as well as increased taxes needed to pay for more law enforcement, EMS and other services needed to attend to the wrecks that are now more likely.

Responsible gun owners are mostly tired of taking flak for evil things that are perpetrated by evil people. Gun owners have already compromised multiple times, and none of which have ever had a positive impact on violent crime involving a firearm. The only thing that seems to have any positive affect is the proliferation of more guns within our society and the increasing number of licensed concealed carriers of firearms. Thugs want to victimize, they don't want to be victims themselves. They go for the easy "soft" target. They avoid situations where the tables will likely turn on them.

 

[calicamper]

When self regulation fails GOV policy gets created. Gun owners today should have the highest interest in smart gun policy given the view or perception is that the hands off self regulation is not working today. Of all interested parties gun owners should have the most invested and interest in establishing policy that works and ensures that their right to bear arms remains as such. Amendments can be made to the constitution if the demand to do so is great enough. The gun policy we have today is not working and needs major work if your to reverse the growing public interest to fix it be it fixes fun owners do not want or more logical more acceptable fixes that begin to address the issue.