Hijack!
Man, those Youtube comments are hilarious! Like these choice words of wisdom, from a poster called RetardedAdult: “the first time i saw this vid i pissed my pants laughing. what a dumb old bitch! just ban everything, right? how about we ban your ugly baggy face?”
Reading the comments on ANY Youtube video should make everyone mighty appreciative of the civilized discourse we enjoy on this message board.
End Hijack!
Very interesting posts so far. I am surprised that there is no desire to prohibit ownership of fully automatic weapons.
What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?
*Unrestricted, as many as want to.
Would people carry guns openly or concealed?
*Either is OK.
Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?
*Yes, this is the flipside of the unrestricted carry principle. I would allow any business owner or government office to set rules on or prohibit entry to armed individuals.
Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?
*I would separate owning from carrying. I would probably restrict small children carrying. However, felons and the mentally ill have just as much right to protect themselves in normal situations as the un-convicted and sane. Also, I am unconvinced of the authorities ability to define mentally ill sufficiently and to decide which felonies qualify and which don’t.
Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?
*No
For me the “end-game” is that guns become a non-issue, that their mystique and magical power would be eliminated. This would be achieved through ubiquity. I am not denying that they could indeed cause great bodily harm and death, so can an automobile.
And you wonder why some people laugh at you gun nuts, others maybe even fear for your sanity.
I find no point in discussing the matter further. You’re out of touch with reality.
Can we explore which buildings/grounds would be permitted to ban firearms?
Private Homes: I think pretty much 100% that you can tell a visitor that they can’t bring in a gun.
Businesses: Ditto. But as a practical matter, in a heavily gun-toting society, business owners might want to have gun checks at the entrance so that people carrying on the street (but without, say, a car in which to store the gun … some of us DO still walk places …) won’t be discouraged from patronizing your business. Of course, this immediately “outs” anyone practicing concealed carry. [Side question: What’s the rule on concealed carry now? Do restaurants and stores have to post signs that say, “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED” in order to restrict CCW permit holders? Are they NOT allowed to restrict permitted concealed weapons?]
Churches, nonprofits: Same as other businesses.
Hospitals, Malls, Public Stadiums, Universities: We’re getting into quasi-public facilities now. Can you ban guns from university buildings? What about the whole campus? Only private colleges, maybe? Stadium security already frisks people. Does that continue? What about Malls: different policies for stores vs. main Mall hallways? What about parking garages for any of these facilities? Can you leave your gun in the trunk without harassment, or is even bringing it onto the property in your car (say, a garage at a college campus) bannable?
Courthouses, Police Stations: I think we can safely ban things here.
DMV, unemployment office, other government service-facilities: ??? Not sure about this one. Govt. bldgs. that serve public patrons, but the employees are less targeted than judicial/law enforcement personnel and those under their care.
Post office: Jokes about angry postal workers aside, seems that there’s a definite theft risk here, and banning would be acceptable.
Non-public govt. offices (IRS, etc.): For places where the public is not served (i.e., it’s just an office building, but the employees happen to be working for the govt.), seems no particular need to uphold a ban.
Public Transportation: This is a real fuzzy area. The subway and public buses seem a prime place to NEED a concealed weapon. What about Amtrak? (Quasi-public) What about Greyhound? (Private business) I think airlines are clearly private and ban-worthy. Taxi cabs? Does it matter if these are totally private companies (like here in Portland) or are tightly regulated by the city (like in NYC)?
The OP asked a series of questions, which I answered to the original poster. You are definitely welcome to leave the thread.
Which speaks volumes of your own prejudices, no offense intended. In your OP, you addressed gun proponents, most of whom realize that a full auto rifle is no more or less dangerous than its semi-auto cousin. I don’t understand why you would be surprised that no one has yet to agree with that position.
My endgame in fact would the the removal of the 1986 MG ban, and the removal of the individual states rights to restrict full auto and other “class three” firearms from private ownership.
I would also scrap most/all of 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA as well. Keep the 4473 forms, and allow restrictions upon cannons, RPGs, and hand grenades, and such, but remove the tax stamps required for each cannon round and other such nonsense.
You can carry a gun in a bar, or to a BBQ at your neighbors house.
But if you drink a beer, you need to put the gun away.
It varies from state to state. I like the way Texas has it.
A business needs to post, clearly at every entrance, “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED” in contrasting colors (I believe it also has to do be a certain height), anything other than contrasting colors, or the approved signage acts as a sort legal doublespeak. Or, a member of the faculty can ask you to put your gun in your car, and you’re required to do so.
IIRC, there are rifles in the front of every classroom in Israel, and I don’t recall there ever being an incident there.
Then again, perhaps he pulls out his pistol to shoot someone, and because it’s legal, and not smuggled, the criminal isn’t the only one with a firearm, he’s shot before he has a chance to shoot anyone, or after he gets a single shot off.
Keep in mind, criminals tend not to pay attention to firearm laws, therefore, firearm restrictive laws are typically ineffective. You remember Virginia Tech? How that was a Gun Free Zone? Didn’t stop the shooting, did it?
Legal Fully Automatic firearms haven’t been used in the commission of a crime in… well, a very long time, if I recall correctly.
As best I could find, only two murders have been committed with fully automatic firearms, one of them by a police officer with a police .380 Mac10 to a police informant, the other was a tragic case of negligence.
Fully Automatic weapons are not more dangerous than semiautomatic weapons rifles, in my experience, they’re far less dangerous, because they’re far more difficult to control.
I would expand on my OP and state that the only way one could be barred the right to carry or own a firearm (two separate things) would be through Judicial order. In the case of mental competency, a mental healthcare professional would consult a judge, who would then tell him to get 3 or 4 other opinions, and review them. This would likely bar the person from owning a gun at all. In the case of someone who is simply unable to carry safely (multiple infractions), it would bar them the right to carry a gun. If they continued to carry a gun, they would be barred the right to own a gun.
I concur with your decicsion to step back from this discussion since you appear unable to participate without being personally insulting.
[ /Modding ]
ENOUGH!!
We just went through one vitriol-laced thread on gun ownership.
We will not repeat that hostility here.
Any slurs directed toward those, (in or out of this thread), who are proponents or opponents of gun use or possession (e.g., “gun nuts,” “Bambi lovers)”, will receive Warnings.
Do Not talk about the personalites or the mindests of your opponents. Stick to a discussion of the issues or go play in the BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
I always rather liked Bambi…
-XT
What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?
I agree with the general notion in the thread that there’s no ideal percentage, just that as many as wanted to could.
Would people carry guns openly or concealed?
However they chose. In Virginia, no permit is required to open carry, but one is required for concealed carry. Ideally, I’d have no additional restrictions for concealed carry.
Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?
I wouldn’t place any restrictions on where guns could be carried. I would say businesses would have a right to restrict guns in their store, if they so chose, but that would be about it.
I would especially be fond of seeing citizens carrying guns in schools because some of the most tragic occurences of gun violence have been in schools (think Columbine and VT) where the gunmen knew they’d have no resistance; I believe an armed teacher or student in those cases probably could have saved lives or, had the gunmen known there’d likely be resistance, possibly even prevented them altogether.
As far as bars, no problem. I wouldn’t resist any attempts to make carrying illegal while drinking similar to DUI, but I’m not really sure how necessary it would be either.
Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?
Felons, I think they should be restricted. Part of the punishment of crimes is a loss of rights, like voting, so anyone convicted of a violent crime should likely have that right revoked as well.
Mentally ill is a little iffy. Perhaps in some cases where someone has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness that could make them dangerous, but I honestly don’t know enough about what diseases may make someone sufficiently dangerous to warrant removing that right. So I’d say, generally, no restriction, but I’d leave room for consideration when making a law if there’s any mental illnesses that may require it. Then again, chances are anyone that is that nuts is probably commited anyway and not a problem.
Can children even legally own anything? I’d have no problem with a child carrying a weapon under adult supervision for training, hunting, or target practice, but I’m fine with setting a limit on when they can own or carry without adult supervision, say 18 to own, and 16 to carry or something like that.
Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?
No. I think the need for covert weapons like cell phones would pretty much disappear since you wouldn’t have a need to pretend you wouldn’t have a gun. I don’t really see a reason in limiting automatic or larger caliber either since you can kill someone just about as easily with a semi-automatic and smaller caliber. I do believe there’s probably an upper limit on what constitutes arms, I’d probably say anything that can be classified as small arms should be completely unrestricted. For light weapons and higher, I’d still prefer to err on the side of individual rights since demand for and availability of light weapons would be extraordinarily low anyway (do to expense and a complete lack of usefulness for anything 99.9% of people outside the military would run into in their lifetime), but I’d be fine with requiring licensing and restrictions on these weapons.
You’re kidding, right?
They’ll force ME to carry a gun when they place it in my COLD, DEAD FINGERS.
No, not kidding at all. They will staple the gun to your forehead if you won’t carry it…
-XT
I’m asking this to be informed, not in an argumentative way. If fully automatic weapons are not more dangerous (i.e., effective in killing) then why are they used in the military?
Also, is there any concern that large caliber weapons would be useful for sniping, but otherwise not effective for personal defense?
Thanks to posters for keeping this discussion on track (for the most part).
Actually, I’m still not convinced you’re serious in any way about this.
But in case you are, I am a weak, fearful, anger-prone man who specifically doesn’t touch guns because if I did, if I owned or carried a gun, sooner or later I’d probably kill someone with it with no cause or justification at all. And you would force me to carry one?
Because in the military small arms are used more for suppression (too allow maneuver) than to directly kill someone. It generally takes hundreds (or thousands in earlier wars) of bullets to actually kill someone.
The big killers on the battle field are artillery and various types of bombs.
Large caliber weapons are very effective for personal defense. That doesn’t necessarily mean they should all be available to everyone, but their very lethality makes them, by definition, effective for personal defense.
-XT