Gun Control

[Erik_Twice]

This was a Massacre that Happened in the UK in 2010.....

[Forlorn Drifter]

Continuing with the analogy with driving (although with that key difference): should not both have age restrictions? Should - say - teenagers at 16 be able to own guns and ammo, given that the legal driving age in some places is 16? Should someone with impaired vision that is restricted from driving be allowed to own a gun and ammo? Surely some restrictions are reasonable. Lets not put everything together and reject restrictions wholesale just because they "reduce our freedom". They reduce some freedoms to protect others (like the freedom not to get run over by someone that should not be driving ).

Well, I agree with current laws, where you need to be 18 to buy any kind of firearm, and 21 to buy handguns or handgun ammo. A person may own a gun under 18, but they have to have it given/bought for them by someone else, hopefully a repsonsible adult who knows the underaged person and whether or not they are ready for a firearm.

I think nobody in the thread questions that a government quasi-automatically has justification for taking high-powered explosives away from regular citizens (unless the citizens themselves have a good reason to have them, due to their line of work etc.). Honestly I see owning hundreds of bullets as pretty similar to owning high-powered explosives. Either you have a justification or you just should not have it (maybe you are a collector and have a few of each type to many different weapons - I would say that is reasonable; it is pretty different from having loads and loads of ammo for a single weapon, what is possibly the purpose of THAT).

Explosives shouldn't be available to the general public. I'll agree with that. I don't personally think that the amount of ammo a person owns should or easily could be controlled, seeing as I could buy from other states, countries, over the internet, etc. Personally, I don't really see anybody wanting or needing to keep anythng more than 200 rounds for any firearm. If they have more, they probably should be monitered. Either way, I stand by the idea that "The people should not fear the government- the government should fear the people."

If even police officers (who are professionals) are not trained, then how do you expect regular citizens, who have other jobs, to be trained? Maybe it happens to be their hobby of choice, but how many of those do you expect to be around to "save the day" when a criminal is causing trouble? What if instead, people that WANT to own the gun are "forced" to be trained? That seems sensible to me. You WANT to drive a car? Sure, but you have to prove that you can do it safely.

Also, genuine question: you want a gun, fair enough. Someone wants to drive a car, fair enough. Both should have restricted access. Further, do you want a gun and a few bullets (and if you happen to use those buy some more), or do you want a gun and keep a stock of hundreds of bullets? I think there is a very important difference there.

In Texas, part of getting ones CHL is proving that you can be effective and safe with a firearm, or learning how to do so. I think it should be mandatory to prove/learn in this fashion, although I don't think we should force everybody who buys a gun to learn how to use it. When it comes to the common citizen and his training... I honestly admit that I give them a bit too much credit. I just have a certain dislike of law enforcement and how poorly some seem to do their jobs, so I tend to put the average citizen over them.

Personally, I want multiple firearms for multiple uses, and I usually keep somewhere between 1 1/2 to 3 boxes of ammo around per firearm (more if I own firearms that share ammo) I don't need hundreds, so it seems dumb to buy hundreds. (I admit to stocking up when prices get low.)

[nightrnr]

Personally, I want multiple firearms for multiple uses, and I usually keep somewhere between 1 1/2 to 3 boxes of ammo around per firearm (more if I own firearms that share ammo) I don't need hundreds, so it seems dumb to buy hundreds. (I admit to stocking up when prices get low.)

I could have quoted someone else, but I'm just responding to the excessive ammo issue:

Some people like to prepare for the unlikely. What if there is a complete breakdown of modern society, or even a Zombie Apocalypse (not that I'm worried, just sayin'). I'll never fault someone for securing a valuable resource for themselves.

[Luke]

Personally, I want multiple firearms for multiple uses, and I usually keep somewhere between 1 1/2 to 3 boxes of ammo around per firearm (more if I own firearms that share ammo) I don't need hundreds, so it seems dumb to buy hundreds. (I admit to stocking up when prices get low.)

I could have quoted someone else, but I'm just responding to the excessive ammo issue:

Some people like to prepare for the unlikely. What if there is a complete breakdown of modern society, or even a Zombie Apocalypse (not that I'm worried, just sayin'). I'll never fault someone for securing a valuable resource for themselves.

My Father shot over 500 rounds with his Colt 1911 on Saturday (in less than two hours I believe). He is Vietnam Vet, and enjoys target practice for pure fun. Wouldn't want to limit the ammo he could buy, or the ammo I buy for him as a gift.

Not saying I'm Nostradamus, but I believe this will continue to be a circular argument with no "correct" answer. I mean, no offense, but a zombie rising has been mentioned, and it hasn't been the most ridiculous mentioned.

[Ivo]

I could have quoted someone else, but I'm just responding to the excessive ammo issue:

Some people like to prepare for the unlikely. What if there is a complete breakdown of modern society, or even a Zombie Apocalypse (not that I'm worried, just sayin'). I'll never fault someone for securing a valuable resource for themselves.

As one of a leading supporters of quantity limits, I admit I didn't think about that particular justification which I agree holds some merit (not the zombie one, the complete breakdown). Fortunately that is rather unlikely, and beyond that, that reasoning could just as well be used to justify owning high-powered explosives as they too could be handy under such extreme circumstances.
I propose that at least someone wanting to have an arsenal beyond a certain magnitude, for such a reason or not, should have to go through additional screening (e.g. psychological) and give a solid guarantee that he/she keeps that arsenal safe from other persons getting their hands on it.

Luke, did your dad shoot in a target range or just in private property?
This may sound a bit too Europe-minded here, but I don't think limiting target practice of that magnitude (500 shots?) to dedicated target ranges would be such a bad idea (this would be a restriction done together with others to limit access to vast ammounts of ammo). He could still own his own bullets but they would be kept at the range for example.
I will once again bring a driving comparison: people that want to drive really fast need to go to a dedicated track designated for the purpose so that it is done under controlled conditions. Target practice with certain kinds of weapons or with a large amount of rounds (I'm not defining large here so there is a number to be tweaked) could be accessible to people that really like it, while still keeping large amounts of ammo limited controlled conditions. I understand it would be an inconvenience for the adepts, but so is needing to rent a track to drive over the speed limit and people consider that sensible.
Or once again, people that want to shoot that many rounds frequently would go through additional screening etc. which again is an hassle but I think a sensible one to accept (given the huge hassle in terms of security to go to flights I don't think this one for enthusiastic shooters is particularly limiting of personal freedom).

Anyway, I agree with Luke - this is going to go around and people are generally not changing their minds on it. I've been trying to address the most reasonable points brought up but I haven't really seen that many new points, so I'll see if I drop out of the discussion.

Just to make it clear, I personally don't want to have full prohibition. I think keeping legal access from being quasi-automatic is important and overall contributes positively (as easy as a fishing license really does not make sense). The type of restrictions that I think are reasonable is up for discussion, but I think that restrictions should exist, and be based basically on the reducing and limiting potential for harm to 3rd parties - licenses should be required, with required instruction and testing, much like there is for driving.

[Luke]

[quote="Ivo"]

You said a mouthful, so I apologize if this takes some time to respond.

My Father, and now also my Mother, shoot at firing ranges, usually outdoors. He has several guns for collecting and historical purposes that he will never fire (who shots a revolutionary rifle equipped with a bayonet these days?), but he enjoys target practice with his Colt 1911 and Colt SAA. He doesn't open up often, but he once told me "When you fire a sidearm without fearing for your life, it's surprisingly relaxing".

He buys his ammo from the range, which beside membership fees, is where the bottom line grows. Doubt there is a limit on purchases because of that. That, and another quote from Pops "Wal-Mart has great prices, but so do ranges. $0.47 vs. $0.50 a bullet doesn't bother me if I hope a local business".

I believe your car analogy is somewhat correct, but like drinking and driving after a night at the bar unfortunately two parties are bound by law. I would LOVE that personal responsibility would trump all, but it doesn't in the States. You have to cover your own ass. Like a bartender telling a drunk "that's enough" a gun range owner highly hesitates to say "you don't need all of that ammo".

Don't drop out of the discussion if you have something on your mind Ivo. When something makes sense, it's not really that subjective and your opinion could open some eyes. And check it out...the conversation has stopped being circular but bringing up good points.

[Menegrothx]

I think that it shouldnt be a problem if people stock pile ammo or have explosives in their house as long as they containt them in a safe era. Having a lot of excess fuel and ammunition lying around in your house can be dangerous but also a pretty good idea if you want to prepare for catastrophes.

With freedom comes responsibility. I think that as long as you are not potentially dangering innocent people around you (neighbors etc) it's all good. If you store your ammunition, fuel etc in a fireproof underground basement that migitates all the damage, should something unexpected happen, then it's not a problem to people around you. But if there's a chance that it might set up your house on fire, projectile something towards your neighbors house etc, then you should not be allowed to store things like that in your house.

As another example of the same principle, I think that people should be allowed to modify their cars as they please, as long as they dont cause any potential danger with their modifications. Like trucks that have been lifted up so high that they'll roll over in a sharp turn and super powerful lights that temporarily blind people who stare at them.

[Hobie-wan]

Like trucks that have been lifted up so high that they'll roll over in a sharp turn and super powerful lights that temporarily blind people who stare at them.

Or the great combination of drunk, suspended license, and idiot in a lifted truck.

[Menegrothx]

Or the great combination of drunk, suspended license, and idiot in a lifted truck.

I really like pick up and monster trucks but it's just pathethic when white guys who live in a big city feel the need to drive around in a ridicolously big lifted up pick up truck and it some how makes them feel manly. Mean while people who actually live in rural areas manage just fine with normal offroad vehicles and (small) normal cars with out 4 wheel drive. If you go to a third world country, you'll see people driving shitty old cars like Lada 1200 and 1970s/80s Toyota Hilux trucks and doing fine despite the abysmal driving conditions. And I've read many cases about guys with big trucks who are also really bad drivers (cant handle ice/snow at all, cant drive stick shift, failing miserably in parking etc).

[ZeroAX]

Or the great combination of drunk, suspended license, and idiot in a lifted truck.

I really like pick up and monster trucks but it's just pathethic when white guys who live in a big city feel the need to drive around in a ridicolously big lifted up pick up truck and it some how makes them feel manly. Mean while people who actually live in rural areas manage just fine with normal offroad vehicles and (small) normal cars with out 4 wheel drive. If you go to a third world country, you'll see people driving shitty old cars like Lada 1200 and 1970s/80s Toyota Hilux trucks and doing fine despite the abysmal driving conditions. And I've read many cases about guys with big trucks who are also really bad drivers (cant handle ice/snow at all, cant drive stick shift, failing miserably in parking etc).

At least it's easier for penis enlargement ads to find a bunch of potential customers in once place/group.