Gun Control V3.0

So, for those of you who do own/carry, what do you have?

I just purchased a S&W 38 Special Airweight for concealed carry. It replaced my Ruger 9mm which was just a tad too large for CC, at least the way I do it. I want to buy a friend's .357 but the wife isn't sold on the idea yet.

 

Fred, from re-reading this you don't believe in any form of control, you don't believe in licenses, you don't believe in mandatory safety courses...

So outside of sticking your head deeper into the sand what do you believe in?

E_S

 

Good or not-so-good, I believe in enforcing the gun "control" laws we already have in effect, NOT writing new ones, which won't be enforced properly anyway.

Same could be said about all the illegal immigration into the US from Mexico, but that's another thread.

 

Special_Fred, the first thing to be said about that article is that it doesn't quite accurately characterise British law. The relevant provision is section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968, as inserted by section 287 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and I quote:

"(2) The court shall [in such cases] impose an appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention) for a term of at least the required minimum term [defined by subsection (4) as five years for those aged 18 or over] ... unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so." (Emphasis added)

It is important to note, in other words, that the mandatory sentence isn't quite mandatory.

Now, I actually think that this provision is quite reasonable. This is one of those cases where the middle way between two discrete and incompatible policies gives the worst of both worlds. Permitting handguns has something to be said for it, as does banning handguns entirely (regardless of which position one personally takes). However, a policy of 'soft' gun control--whereby possession is banned, but isn't severely punished--would give the worst of both worlds: it would deter law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons, but it wouldn't make any difference to criminals facing substantial terms of imprisonment in any event. The theory of gun control involves removing firearms from circulation so those who would use them to commit crimes don't have access to them. Strong sentences are necessary to achieve that objective; a weak gun control law would be the worst possible thing.

It does seem, however, that including pepper spray in the category of weapons to which this provision applies has little sense to it.

 

to answer Jorge's question
I carry a Kel-Tec P-32 almost everywhere I go.

I've been surprised that the JPFO has not said anything about the reccent
loss of property rights, they have however stated that in Zimbabwe farmers had thier land taken by the government
and then there was a massive arms confiscation....

 

I carry a Kel-Tec P-32 almost everywhere I go.



Thats an ideal carry piece - automatic, light, and extremely accurate. I am an advocate of gun control to an extent, however. Some weapons were never meant for civilian use.

 

So, for those of you who do own/carry, what do you have?

Nothing personal, but I'd rather not discuss it.

Fred...outside of sticking your head deeper into the sand what do you believe in?

Liberty.

...I believe in enforcing the gun "control" laws we already have in effect...

Why? What do current gun control laws accomplish, exactly, that makes you support them so?

Permitting handguns has something to be said for it, as does banning handguns entirely...

Could you explain, in your own words, what banning guns has "to be said for it"?

The theory of gun control involves removing firearms from circulation so those who would use them to commit crimes don't have access to them.

That "theory" has been proven wrong everywhere it has been implemented. In any of the countries where guns have been banned, has crime disappeared? Has every single gun been "taken off the streets"? Even if every gun in the world could be removed from circulation, criminals would still misuse other inanimate objects, and the police would be unable to protect their targets from attack 100% of the time. The way to stop violent criminals is identical to the way animals deter predators in the wild: make an intimidating "threat display," and critically wound (or kill) any predator who ignores it.

Some weapons were never meant for civilian use.

So...a policeman's life is worth more than a civilian's?

 

So...a policeman's life is worth more than a civilian's?



I didnt exactly say that did I? What the hell are the cops packin in your neighboorhood, anyway? There are most certainly types of fire arms that the average citizen doesnt need to have.

 

Question: What are the first ten amendments to the US Constitution called?

A) The Bill of Needs
B) The Bill of Rights

The question of "need" is irrelevant. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But all arguments over the amendment itself aside, can you give me one reason why the police and military should enjoy access to weapons that civilians don't "need"?

 

Fred, far be it for me to implore you to put aside your intractable idealism, but you simply think a carte blanche firearm policy is perfect?

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"
"Right Freddie, so what do you we do about people killing people?"
"It's their right to have a gun!"
"But clearly they're abusing it."
"I have no soundbyte to answer that."

E_S

 

...you simply think a carte blanche firearm policy is perfect?

Not at all. There is no such thing as a "perfect" policy regarding any issue. However, I do believe the best solution is the one that offers people the most liberty.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"
"Right Freddie, so what do you we do about people killing people?"

Prosecute the perpetrator(s) of the crime(s).

"It's their right to have a gun!"
"But clearly they're abusing it."

Abuse of rights by a tiny criminal minority does not justify infringing upon everyone else's rights.

 

Right, so you really don't have an answer, besides reactivity.

It's done a bang up job thus far.

E_S

 

Sorry Fred but I doubt you'll be convincing many people that an Uzi is an acceptable personal fire arm. Ive no problem with a law abiding adult having A gun, but an arsenal of fully automatic rifles would be taking things a little too far. You speak of rights vs. needs Fred and you do seem to realize that everything in this country is regulated to some extent, so why the " dont tread on me " about the guns? If theres ever a need to form a civilian militia I doubt firearm availablity will be the key concern in its formation.

 

Special Fred, tell that to the crowd that wants to do away with as many defendant's rights as possible.

 

I am so glad I live here. I don't care what anyone says about rights and such. I'm glad I live here.

 

Alright, lemme ask this;

Why would any of you care if I have a arsenal of fully automatic weapons in my house under lock and key? Is it even any of your business?

Just asking.

 

I guess it would become my business if you ever lost the plot and decided that your neighbour's barking dog needed exterminating together with the rest of your neighbours.

 

Yes. It is our business if you are stockpiling deadly weapons.

 

Sorry Fred but I doubt you'll be convincing many people that an Uzi is an acceptable personal fire arm.

I don't have to convince anyone. I don't have to explain to you why I "need" an Uzi any more than I have to explain to you why I "need" to go to church. It is my right to do those things, and as long as I am not infringing on anyone else's rights, my personal possessions require no explanation.

Ive no problem with a law abiding adult having A gun, but an arsenal of fully automatic rifles would be taking things a little too far.

Why? It's not like you can use all of them at once. What is so scary about a collection of firearms?

You speak of rights vs. needs Fred and you do seem to realize that everything in this country is regulated to some extent, so why the " dont tread on me " about the guns?

Because I don't believe law-abiding Americans should be treated like criminals. When the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, says that a certain right "shall not be infringed," it means exactly that.

I guess it would become my business if you ever lost the plot and decided that your neighbour's barking dog needed exterminating together with the rest of your neighbours.

Exactly! That's exactly it! A person's guns only become your business when that person misuses them by harming others. My pistol is not your business as long as I am using it properly (i.e., keeping it holstered unless I'm at the range or in a life-or-death situation).

Yes. It is our business if you are stockpiling deadly weapons.

I am a deadly weapon. I can easily kill without a gun. Does that make my body "your business"? There's a lot of knowledge "stockpiled" in my brain that would probably scare the **** out of hoplophobes like you. Does that give any government the authority to put me in a padded cell, even though I have never harmed an innocent human being, and never plan to?

 

You were warned about posting this way in this forum.

 

Are you kidding me?

 

But Special_Fred isn't that the problem? How can you guarantee that as an owner of automatic weapons you won't misuse them, either as a result of mental illness or mental trauma, drug addictions alcoholism etc or that someone under your roof won't misuse them?

You can't.

 

Loopster, I miss Australia. It's objectively the greatest Western country, but so long as people believe otherwise it remains less likely to be spoiled.

Albert_Normandy; ah, you're still posting like a damaged person. How quaint.

Fred, please don't enter public office.

E_S

 

LostOnHoth:

Of course you can't. But people cannot be punished for crimes that have not been committed. Most gun owners are extremely responsible, "safety-first" types of people. Only a tiny criminal minority would ever think of deliberately shooting an innocent person--and gun bans don't keep automatic weapons away from those twisted ****s.

 

I guess as an Australian I don't equate the inability to store automatic weapons in my house as a punishment, it is more like prudence.