“If gun control advocates were truly reasonable, they would have no problem with “shall issue” CCW.” Let us say I find your definition of “reasonable” unreasonable. I think there are reasons why a rational person might oppose the idea that anyone not on the current “no guns anytime” list should be allowed to walk around in public carrying a potentially deadly weapon. But I don’t have the time to discuss this now; poke me in about a week if you still want to argue about it.
“In fact, I challenge you to deny that you would support a broad gun ban throughout the U.S.” If by “broad gun ban” you mean “no private citizen is permitted to own a gun for personal use under any circumstances”, then no, I do not support that.
If I sell to Tom, and Tom commits a crime with it, what have I done wrong? Why am I being dragged into the matter at all? He committed a crime. I did not. If he’s a convicted felon with an honest face, a smooth lie and maybe a fake ID, I still don’t understand why it matters who sold him the gun.
If I buy a gun from an FFL, then sell it to Tom and Tom gives it as a gift to Dick who loans it to Harry who uses it to kill his ex, Harry should face a murder charge. My FFL, Tom, Dick, and I have nothing to do with it.
I object to needing any license to simply purchase a gun. I conceded to the peoples demand that I obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon, but I feel I’ve given up enough.
If the seller doesn’t need to verify the license is valid, or even exists, what’s the point? It sounds as effective as me asking the buyer if s/he is legally allowed to own one. Might as well do it my way and keep the government out of it. A paper trail doesn’t stop crime, it just makes life difficult for someone who didn’t pull the trigger.
The “big hug” comment I made earlier was because it seems to me that people are more interested in punishing a gun dealer or bartender than the shooter or drunk driver.
I’ve said it before, and although it has little to do with the OP I’ll say it again, the root of societal gun violence is not the gun but the society. I believe that we could cut all murder rates through education and opportunity.
Gun laws are like wiping your nose when you have a cold - It might make things look better, but it doesn’t cure the disease.
Jeez I hate to end on that note, it sounds like I’m trying to be quotable.
This is how I view the issue. I love the CCW laws because they impose standards of background checks and reasonable skill before we can carry (I have a CCW because I used to work for Loomis) and we’re effectively registered with the government, even although I strongly oppose gun registration.
You’d think that “I don’t want to ban guns, but I want reasonable limits” people would be all over that. Nirvana! A sensible system of control! Registration without pissing off the gun people!
But I see the lie behind their eyes when they oppose CCW. Push hard enough, and you eventually get to the truth. “I don’t like guns”. They only say that they don’t want to ban them because they know (now) that this is a losing proposition in this country and it tends to completely discredit them when they admit that they do. So they say “sensible laws” and then oppose sensible laws that don’t consist of gun bans and restrictions.
So no one can be against banning guns but also not want people carrying concealed weapons in public?
So no one can support gun registration for a purpose other than a ban, but still think registering guns isn’t worth the price of accepting CCW?
Where is the logical inconsistency with saying “I’m fine with people owning guns for hunting. I’m fine with people keeping a handgun in their house to defend themselves against a home invasion. I don’t want people walking down the street wearing a concealed weapon.”?
Honestly, I don’t even have a strong opinion on CCW. But for you to essentially say “People who oppose CCW must want to ban guns” makes no sense at all.
The CCW laws are retarded. The authorities insist on all sorts of training and such just to hide the weapon, but in many states Open Carry is completely legal, constitutionally protected, and in most of those, no training or license is required. I openly carry where ever it is lawful. It’s easier and a much bigger deterrent to crime.
Only Alaska and Vermont have their heads out of their asses when it comes to gun carry (no license needed to carry openly or concelaled).
tim314; Before CCW laws of the kind I’m talking of, CCWs still existed, but in many places they were generally at the discretion of the County Sheriff. He could chose to grant or deny one to anyone for any reason, without any required background check, without any proof of training and skill. He could given them to all his relatives if he so chose, and deny them to everyone else. The wealthy and the famous could generally have them at will, even for their bodyguards, but you and I would probably be denied.
For me, that’s another benefit of the CCW laws in that it removes that easily abused “Sheriff’s personal gift”. It also makes the CCW more sensible in that it applies to the entire state (more with reciprocity agreements) and you’re not going to run into a situation where Sheriff Joe gives you a permit in County A, but you spend a lot of time in County B and Sheriff Bob there makes things unpleasant for you because he personally doesn’t want you to have that permit.
And yes, my personal experience has been that the people who most oppose CCW permits, upon questioning, all break down and admit that they don’t want ANYONE to own guns. But that’s my personal experience and I do not pretend that it is universal; although I have had more than enough of these conversations with people who initially claim that they do not want to ban guns and only want “reasonable” laws, that I now am deeply suspicious of anyone who makes that sort of claim and yet, opposes CCW.
Lol. That’s because your views are unreasonable. And that’s why I don’t trust people in your camp when they push for “reasonable” or “common sense” gun control. Because their true goal is a level of gun control that is clearly unreasonable to my view.
Actually what I meant was banning certain categories of guns. But let’s make it simpler: Why don’t you just describe for me the ideal level of gun control in the United States, where you would oppose regulation that was any stricter.
I totally agree. And note that things like driver licenses and dog licenses are essentially on a “shall issue” basis. In other words, you don’t need to demonstrate to anyone that you “need” a driver license or dog license in order to get one. You just meet the requirements, pay a modest fee, and that’s that.
So gun control advocates who claim to think that gun licensing should follow a driver license model ought to be in favor of “shall issue” policies. And yet they aren’t. Gun regulation, according to them, should should follow a driver license model only when it will INCREASE the amount of restrictions.
In other words, gun control advocates don’t really believe that gun regulation should follow a driver license model. That’s just a convenient argument used to conceal their “gun grabbing” agenda.
But if you sold a gun to Tom and that gun is used in a crime, wouldn’t you want proof that the gun is no longer in your possession and it was sold to Tom?
Wouldn’t you want the protection that little piece of paper might provide in proving you weren’t involved in a crime?
I’m afraid that the reasonable gun control folks have been put in the same basket as the totally anti-gun folks.
The reason (IMHO) is that while some of these folks might know a LOT about guns, it’s quite clear that the vast, vast majority of non-gun owners/gun control folks know stunningly little about guns.
And they are trying to pass laws about specific types of guns. Guns they know little to nothing about.
That’s why we get the ‘Any gun law is a good law’ legislation.
A typical quote might be “Sniper rifles should be banned, but hunting rifles are OK”. They say this not knowing that they are for all effects the same thing.
I had a discussion with a cousin of mine a while ago. She wanted to ban guns that had holes in the side of the barrel.
?
I suspect she saw something on TV. Maybe it was a semi-auto carbine with a cooling shroud/hand guard on it. MAC-10? I don’t know. But she was practically frothing at the mouth over this.
AFAIK, she has never fired a gun in her life. But thinks she has the knowledge to ban certain ‘dangerous’ guns.
For myself, the anti-gun crowd has pretty much lost any respect or trust that I might have had for them. They have shot themselves in the foot (take the pun if you want it) many times by showing they just don’t know what they are talking about.
Sure, some of them know guns. But the vast majority don’t. IMHO most of the anti-gun crowd are operating on an agenda of ignorance, media sensationalism and fear of the unknown.
To address the OP –
On a specific firearm? No. No more than I should have to take a driving test for a specific type of car. Safety is safety.
Basic firearms safety course? Perhaps. That should be available in Junior High School. I think every kid should be required to go through it.
I think the OP was thinking along the lines of separate requirements for rifle, shotgun, and handgun, like we may have motorcycle, auto, and commercial grades of vehicle licenses.
And I would agree with you that that would be unnecessary, but for different reasons; firearms simply aren’t complex enough to require three different types of licenses to be safe with any single type.
I would also disagree about making basic firearm safety required. Like taxation (does the phrase “a $200 tax stamp on a $20 gun” ring a bell? or Pat Moynihan’s proposed 10,000% tax on all ammunition?), once you give the state the power to compel, it has the power to destroy.
I can just see some fussy PTA busybody, or anti-gun D.O.E. official, blocking or severely hamstringing the “Universally Required Basic Firearm Safety Course” right out of their school district
Specific firearm and ammo. Sounds to me that the OP would like a course on every firearm that you purchase. And what amunition you use in it too. :rolleyes: It looks to me that the OP does not know much about firearms. And that’s part of the problem.
I’m sort of middle of the road there. You do need to have a firearms safey course to get a hunting licence in Colorado. I don’t have one. I’m not a hunter.
My sporting club’s insurance requires a safety course before someone can use the range. I find that pretty darn acceptable, and not needing a law to handle the matter.
And that came about sometime in the past 30 years because some jackass did something stupid and sued a range somewhere blaming them for his own idiocy. Ergo, we now have to make sure people are trained in safety, so we can hold them personally responsible for their own actions.
These was in indoor pistol range in Colorado Springs that was sued out-of-business in '95 or '96 by the widow of some guy who walked in, legally bought a gun and ammo, walked into the range, loaded the gun, stuck the barrel in his mouth, and ate a bullet.
How in the hell could that ever be considered the dealer’s fault?
You must be talking about the shoulder thing that goes up, right?
No doubt about it. Even teaching gun safety is a bad thing to those people. Anything to do with guns is a bad thing for them. Maybe by that same logic they should also stop teaching Driver’s Ed. because far more people are killed in car accidents than by guns in America every year.
No, he’s talking about a barrel shroud, like on this TEC-9. Holes in the barrel? I can see where someone who knows nothing about guns might say so, but there are no holes in the barrel, just in the shroud. There are compensated barrels, but those are lateral cuts on the top, not the sides, and in any event are not generally what one thinks of when they think of “holes in the barrel”.
