What is an appropriate level of "gun" control?

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
In this thread I'd like to pose just that question, to you the reader, what is an appropriate level of "gun" control?

I use the quotes because the idea of gun control typically extends past what one might consider a gun. Is an anti-aircraft gun still a gun or a cannon? Is a cannon a gun? Is a missile launcher a gun? If not, what about exploding bullets, should they be controlled?

To begin, I don't see it as an abridgement of ownership to force someone to register an item (even an air gun). I think its a bit atrocious when said register is used in a subsequent seizure. I think that mostly because I don't think the government should have the right to stop me from owning a tank.

To me, forcing registration, forcing storage and usage requirements are acceptable, but if I so choose that I want to be the owner of a fully automatic I don't see why there shouldn't be an acceptable venue for me. Maybe it stays at a special range all the time, and the only time I can get ammo for it is when I am about to use it at the range. I don't know, but there are certainly ways of making it secure.

Probably I step on a lot of toes there. On the one hand, rifle owners probably don't like my opinion because I say it is reasonable to force registration of any guns. On the other hand, fans of gun control probably think the idea of private citizens owning missile launchers is absurd. I don't think police should be able to access a gun registry without an ex parte warrant application.

Where do you place the gray line?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I don't know the answer to the OP question, though I woudl say that a a minimum, "gun" education should definitely be compulsory for all who will handle one. I'd start with that as a minimum.

Now as a principle, I choose not to own a weapon unless necessary, and so don't own one.

As to the question of whether it's up to me or the government to determine whether I ought to own a gun, I lean more towards letting me decide as long as I be required to receive the appropriate "gun" education, but beyond that I'm still uncertain how much control there ought to be.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I guess an open and loose definition of "necessity" might be appropriate. In other words, under what circumstances would it really be necessary to own an F15 Eagle?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
What is an appropriate level of "gun" control?


I will have all the guns and I will decide when it is appropriate to use them, on your behalf , trust me, I'm a police ociffer.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
In this thread I'd like to pose just that question, to you the reader, what is an appropriate level of "gun" control?

I use the quotes because the idea of gun control typically extends past what one might consider a gun. Is an anti-aircraft gun still a gun or a cannon? Is a cannon a gun? Is a missile launcher a gun? If not, what about exploding bullets, should they be controlled?

To begin, I don't see it as an abridgement of ownership to force someone to register an item (even an air gun). I think its a bit atrocious when said register is used in a subsequent seizure. I think that mostly because I don't think the government should have the right to stop me from owning a tank.

To me, forcing registration, forcing storage and usage requirements are acceptable, but if I so choose that I want to be the owner of a fully automatic I don't see why there shouldn't be an acceptable venue for me. Maybe it stays at a special range all the time, and the only time I can get ammo for it is when I am about to use it at the range. I don't know, but there are certainly ways of making it secure.

Probably I step on a lot of toes there. On the one hand, rifle owners probably don't like my opinion because I say it is reasonable to force registration of any guns. On the other hand, fans of gun control probably think the idea of private citizens owning missile launchers is absurd. I don't think police should be able to access a gun registry without an ex parte warrant application.

Where do you place the gray line?

I think this is pretty simple to answer. There should be no restriction on handguns or rifles other than a criminal record check. They should not have to be registered either. It is nobodys business what I own for the purpose of feeding my family or protection. The people that misuse guns for crime do not own them legally under the present laws so it won't stop them. The laws we have are to keep tabs on the 99.999% of us honest, normal citizens.

Anything that is military heavy weaponry (rocket launcher, RPG etc) should be only for the military. That means not the police.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I think this is pretty simple to answer. There should be no restriction on handguns or rifles other than a criminal record check. They should not have to be registered either. It is nobodys business what I own for the purpose of feeding my family or protection. The people that misuse guns for crime do not own them legally under the present laws so it won't stop them. The laws we have are to keep tabs on the 99.999% of us honest, normal citizens.

Anything that is military heavy weaponry (rocket launcher, RPG etc) should be only for the military. That means not the police.

No "gun" education? What about people who don't know the safe maintenance and use of a weapon, including but not limited to safe storage away from children, etc.?
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I think this is pretty simple to answer. There should be no restriction on handguns or rifles other than a criminal record check. They should not have to be registered either. It is nobodys business what I own for the purpose of feeding my family or protection. The people that misuse guns for crime do not own them legally under the present laws so it won't stop them. The laws we have are to keep tabs on the 99.999% of us honest, normal citizens.

Anything that is military heavy weaponry (rocket launcher, RPG etc) should be only for the military. That means not the police.

So if someone committed a certain class of crimes they would be denied the privilege of buying a new gun? What if they previously owned one?
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
No "gun" education? What about people who don't know the safe maintenance and use of a weapon, including but not limited to safe storage away from children, etc.?
I can agree to proper education before purchasing but Big Brother doesn't need to know what I'm buying.

So if someone committed a certain class of crimes they would be denied the privilege of buying a new gun? What if they previously owned one?

The criminals with guns now don't buy them legally so what does it matter. I can get a 9mm in an hour downtown Vancouver and cheaper than in a store. It is well proven that violent crime and crime using guns are lowest where it is easy for everyone to own a firearm. Most crooks only pull a gun because they are pretty sure you don't have one, if they were pretty sure you did they would worry.
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
140
63
Backwater, Ontario.
If someone points a gun at you it's important to have your sphincter under control.

Other than that, complete freedom to shoot and maim would be quite nice.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I can agree to proper education before purchasing but Big Brother doesn't need to know what I'm buying.

The government might not need to know, but it could require you to receive the appropriate education and require you to provide the proof of receipt of that education before any "gun" seller would be allowed to sell to you. Reasonable I'd say.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
The government might not need to know, but it could require you to receive the appropriate education and require you to provide the proof of receipt of that education before any "gun" seller would be allowed to sell to you. Reasonable I'd say.

I think that is acceptable.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
All my guns have always been registered....


My own persoal registration from the first one I ever had..around age 9 or 10. a .22 Cooey.

Always kept serial # make and model in a safe place at home just in case...
Plus the inside of the butt plate of every long gun I ever owned has has day/month/year of birth engraved, and on the inside of the right hand grip of every handgun I ever owned.......
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
I'd be happy to have free access to any weapon I could carry away.

:)

But that is just me. Despite the silliness below, let's make it clear that we are discussing firearms............and not RPGs, M1 Abrams Tanks, F-14s or nuclear weapons....just personal arms.

I do deeply believe that free men (women, etc) have a right to easy access to the means to defend themselves against criminal activity and against tyranny.

That said, I am willing to compromise. I prefer that those who share the ranges and hunting fields with me have some modicum of skill, and are not criminally insane. To that end, I accept that licensing serves some purpose, with background checks and safety training a prerequisite. I would have them graduated, from long gun possession and acquisition up to concealed carry of handguns.

I think the classification of weapons is ludicrous. When the deadliest short range weapon on earth is the standard duck-hunters' gun, the classification system simply serves no purpose. With a normal, every day five shot Rem 870 12 ga pump gun, I can put 60 .33 caliber bits of lead (2 3/4" magnum 00 buckshot) into the air much quicker than you can fire two mags (60 rounds) of .36 caliber lead out of a full auto 9mm machine gun. Think about that.

There should be merely two classes, and that only for licensing purposes....... shortguns (less than 660 mm long) and long guns (more than 660 mm long)....that's it! Well, and seeing as full auto disturbs people so, I'd be willing to throw the machine guns out of the sleigh and have them completely prohibited.

That's it.

BTW, I listened to CBC "as It Happens" yesterday, and heard an Arab reporter discuss how desperate the Syrian people are for firearms with which to defend themselves against the army.

Kinda solidified my already concrete position.