U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[LittleGrizzly]

Guns are easy to use. You point, you shoot. We're not talking about being a sniper or a western style duel...

I know what your getting at...

But imagine me (young healthy male) been practising shooting my pistol for years... and due to my years of computer gaming i also have cat like reactions... then we have an old woman whose son gave her the pistol but she's never practised with it, she has arthritis in her hands which makes squeezing the trigger a struggle her eyesight isn't what it used to be and her reactions are anything but cat like...

Im going to win that gun battle all day long... something would have to go freakishly wrong for me to lose that gun battle...

Obviously thats a slight exagerration but it applies to all situations as well, arming everyone with guns simply means the one with the quickest reactions and the best shot is king, if everyone is armed only with thier fists then the martial artist or the strong man is king...

I would concede that firearms probably levels the playing field slightly, my problem is that whilst the playing field may be levelled slightly it just got a whole lot more dangerous...

I would say give em the money either way...why risk death for $40?

Giving them the money would be the sensible thing to do but i would rather have the chance to fight with a bit less risk (attacker armed with knife) if i choose to do so

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Guns are easy to use. You point, you shoot. We're not talking about being a sniper or a western style duel...

I know what your getting at...

But imagine me (young healthy male) been practising shooting my pistol for years... and due to my years of computer gaming i also have cat like reactions... then we have an old woman whose son gave her the pistol but she's never practised with it, she has arthritis in her hands which makes squeezing the trigger a struggle her eyesight isn't what it used to be and her reactions are anything but cat like...

Im going to win that gun battle all day long... something would have to go freakishly wrong for me to lose that gun battle...

Obviously thats a slight exagerration but it applies to all situations as well, arming everyone with guns simply means the one with the quickest reactions and the best shot is king, if everyone is armed only with thier fists then the martial artist or the strong man is king...

I would concede that firearms probably levels the playing field slightly, my problem is that whilst the playing field may be levelled slightly it just got a whole lot more dangerous...

I'm not an expert it's true, and I don't know that anyone could say to what extent the playing field is leveled. I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.

Your points are viable for the mugging scenario you brought up, but that's not my concern; as I said, I would just give up the money. Someone breaking into your house is a different scenario. Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.

[LittleGrizzly]

I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.

I do imagine just doing target practice the average first time shooter would probably be fairly accurate... i would say though its a little different if your getting shot at and have to make the shot to save your life... this would usually fall in the favour of the attacker (who you would imagine would be used to or more used to such pressure) or a person with significant training...

Its probably easier to get good with a gun than become strong or a martial arts expert but it still takes some time to learn what you may need to know to keep you alive in a shootout... and even then your potential attacker can still simply out train you or out gun you...

which is another point i wanted to make it could be argued that it unevens the playing field to the rich... or maybe not rich but the poor certainly can't afford the latest guns... they may have to make do with some old crappy pistol... whereas someone with a bit of money could get something a bit faster a bit more accurate .... a bit more lethal...

This i would say would work against ordaniry civilians more than criminals as you could say a gun would be a tool of a criminals trade so he would ensure he has the best tools to do his job whereas your ordaniry citizen has other worries outside of purchasing a good gun to combat criminals with...

Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.

From the sounds of your scenario it would be better for them to both have guns... im sure we could both come up with 100 scenario's where the other would have to admit it would be better to have them both armed or both unarmed.

I suppose in the situations where someone is determined to kill the other person i would rather the potential victim had a gun to defend themselves.... (in a deseted area where there aren't innocent bystanders to kill) but then in your average day to day crime i would rather people didn't have guns...

Imagine if when some kids went to mug an old lady she reaches for her piece... these kids just wanted to snatch her bag but now she's reaching for her gun so they panic go for thiers and thanks to having youth on thier side end up shooting the old lady before she can shoot them... though i also think a young mugger being shot would be tragic as well....

Now without guns the old lady might have had a nasty time of it as well, she could have got beaten up a bit or the youths could have simply snatched the bag and run... but regardless of the fact this little old lady is relatively defenseless its actually less dangerous for her to have a gun...

Edit: the little old lady is supposed to be an example of how guns would escalate ordaniry crimes rather than a scenario where we say guns or no guns is better...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.

I do imagine just doing target practice the average first time shooter would probably be fairly accurate... i would say though its a little different if your getting shot at and have to make the shot to save your life... this would usually fall in the favour of the attacker (who you would imagine would be used to or more used to such pressure) or a person with significant training...

Its probably easier to get good with a gun than become strong or a martial arts expert but it still takes some time to learn what you may need to know to keep you alive in a shootout... and even then your potential attacker can still simply out train you or out gun you...

which is another point i wanted to make it could be argued that it unevens the playing field to the rich... or maybe not rich but the poor certainly can't afford the latest guns... they may have to make do with some old crappy pistol... whereas someone with a bit of money could get something a bit faster a bit more accurate .... a bit more lethal...

This i would say would work against ordaniry civilians more than criminals as you could say a gun would be a tool of a criminals trade so he would ensure he has the best tools to do his job whereas your ordaniry citizen has other worries outside of purchasing a good gun to combat criminals with...

Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.

From the sounds of your scenario it would be better for them to both have guns... im sure we could both come up with 100 scenario's where the other would have to admit it would be better to have them both armed or both unarmed.

I suppose in the situations where someone is determined to kill the other person i would rather the potential victim had a gun to defend themselves.... (in a deseted area where there aren't innocent bystanders to kill) but then in your average day to day crime i would rather people didn't have guns...

Imagine if when some kids went to mug an old lady she reaches for her piece... these kids just wanted to snatch her bag but now she's reaching for her gun so they panic go for thiers and thanks to having youth on thier side end up shooting the old lady before she can shoot them... though i also think a young mugger being shot would be tragic as well....

Now without guns the old lady might have had a nasty time of it as well, she could have got beaten up a bit or the youths could have simply snatched the bag and run... but regardless of the fact this little old lady is relatively defenseless its actually less dangerous for her to have a gun...

Edit: the little old lady is supposed to be an example of how guns would escalate ordaniry crimes rather than a scenario where we say guns or no guns is better...

The key difference between the two scenarios to me is this:

In the ex-girlfriend scenario, it is entirely possible that she has done nothing wrong. She can't be held responsible for her ex's actions. If guns are legal then she has the capability of defending herself if she wants to, to practice if she wants to, and the chance to at least try to deal with the pressure of the situation. She might not buy a gun, she might not practice with it, she might not remain calm enough under pressure to shoot straight, but she has the freedom that is a prerequisite for all of those things.

In the granny being mugged scenario, she broke the law by drawing her gun first. The law is fairly strict about when you are allowed to brandish your weapon. She had the freedom to not buy a gun, not carry a gun, and the poor decision was hers.

I don't think the issue is how many scenarios are beneficial to the person vs how many are harmful. I have seen statistics, though I don't know if they are reliable, that people who own guns are more likely to die in the event of a break in. Viewed from the top down (what appears to be your approach), this would indicate that owning guns causes deaths and therefore shouldn't be allowed (disputes about statistics aside, I don't want to go into the practicality of banning guns because that's been done to death and is fairly one-sided). But viewed on the individual level, the death someone who chooses to own a gun and chooses to use it when they're house is broken into is very different from the death of someone who was attacked and was not given the freedom to defend themselves with the necessary tools.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, I don't want to promote the image that I am full on hard core gun everyone with no laws whatsoever. I just don't like the idea of banning guns.

I thought about it for a while and have come up with what I hope is a more moderate approach.

A 1 day background check and waiting period.
A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!

However....
You are allowed to buy whatever gun you may want, assault rifles, whatever you want (if you are that afraid of the government).

So, any type of guns for those not suspected or convicted, terrorists, gang members, mentally unstable etc... with overall minimal restriction, but with key tough measures on being safe with your gun and being accurate with it at all times (to prevent/curb accidental deaths when exchanging fire with a hostile madman or just preventing bad things from happening period).

Opinions?

Excuse me if I am ignorant and these are already in place. But I have not seen or heard of a law that requires an accuracy test to be allowed a gun.

[Strike For The South]

Ok, I don't want to promote the image that I am full on hard core gun everyone with no laws whatsoever. I just don't like the idea of banning guns.

I thought about it for a while and have come up with what I hope is a more moderate approach.

A 1 day background check and waiting period.
A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!

LOL. What would this do? Other than tax expenditures and bearucratic BS?

[a completely inoffensive name]

LOL. What would this do? Other than tax expenditures and bearucratic BS?

I am just trying to bridge the gap here. And it is important for people who own guns to be responsible with them. To me responsible means being able to use it accurately and with the skill to accomplish its job with no collateral damage.

EDIT: If it really was me making policy, there would many other pointless things cut so that accuracy tests every 3 months would not be another nail in the coffin for the Treasury.

[LittleGrizzly]

A quick visit to a physcologist before you acquire your gun license could be a good thing also...

Maybe after that every 5-10 years a renewed physcological test and then the accuracy test ect. every 3 months seems to short a timespan... though i could see the logic in testing thier accuracy more frequently as age goes on and also maybe physcological status...

I was also trying to think of some way that parents could prove thier guns are kept in locked cupboards and the like where thier kids cannot access them... other than some kind of home visit i can't see how to do it...

It could be another thing checked out every 5-10 years come renewal time...

TBH i don't see how much effect this would have on the problems though... do you think it would help ?

[a completely inoffensive name]

A quick visit to a physcologist before you acquire your gun license could be a good thing also...

Maybe after that every 5-10 years a renewed physcological test and then the accuracy test ect. every 3 months seems to short a timespan... though i could see the logic in testing thier accuracy more frequently as age goes on and also maybe physcological status...

I was also trying to think of some way that parents could prove thier guns are kept in locked cupboards and the like where thier kids cannot access them... other than some kind of home visit i can't see how to do it...

It could be another thing checked out every 5-10 years come renewal time...

TBH i don't see how much effect this would have on the problems though... do you think it would help ?

I don't know why you mention for them to see psychologist unless they have been through some trauma....

3 months should not be that much of a bother, I mean they can choose whatever gun they want and if they truly use it for sport then the accuracy test should be a breeze for them, if they are using it for self defense I can only hope that they would want to be as accurate as possible so when the intruder comes in he/she does not start blasting holes in his own wall.

I can understand a gun under law needing to be sold as part of a "package" of some sort. Trigger guards, lockbox...etc could be included and really should be bought along with the gun in first place.

[scooter_the_shooter]

A 1 day background check and waiting period.
A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!(emphasis by me)
.

Two things

I am opposed to any waiting periods at all, Even if I wasn't it makes no sense to give somebody a waiting period for their next purchase if they already have a gun.


Also I've got over twenty different guns, that means I'd be taking over 60 test a year Which isn't going to happen.

Another thing, the four basic saftey rules are the same wether it's
a long gun or a hand gun. So why would you need to test for each gun?


The gun debate in this country is a joke, we've got people who know nothing guns; trying to set rules about them for people who do, its makes no sense.

Here's an example


here's another one http://(there are no heat seaking bullets)

Come on people. You are A CIVLLIAN. Why the hell do you need a Ak-47? Please give me a logical reason beside the "Self-Defense" and "Taget Pratice" arguments. Those people typically can't give you one.

Why do people need anything extravagant? Like mansions or cars that go over 120mph, Speakers that are loud enough to shake your neighbors house. No body ever "needs" that stuff but in a free country you should be able to obtain all of those things.

[Strike For The South]

Long time no see, sweetheart.

20 guns? All for hunting or do you have some collectables?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's one of the most ridiculous gun-related proposals I've read. Even outright bans are straightforward.

This undermines the whole concept of having a right and freedom. It'd be a huge bureaucratic snarl. Have you ever used a gun?

CR

With these rights, you need to be responsible for them. A baby is a human being, why don't we allow it to have a gun? It has the right to have one as a human. Because it is not developed enough to handle the responsibility of owning and handling a gun.
To argue that any and all restrictions on guns are stupid is to advocate an extreme that is as ridiculous as banning guns completely. I am open to suggestions, what do you want? Just one safety test and accuracy test every year no matter how many guns? Alright, present it to me. Don't whine about how nobody understands because they don't own guns and call them ridiculous for their suggestions. At least those proposing a ban on guns are mostly attempting to convince me with examples of other countries. Work with me man.

Two things

I am opposed to any waiting periods at all, Even if I wasn't it makes no sense to give somebody a waiting period for their next purchase if they already have a gun.


Also I've got over twenty different guns, that means I'd be taking over 60 test a year Which isn't going to happen.

Another thing, the four basic saftey rules are the same wether it's
a long gun or a hand gun. So why would you need to test for each gun?


The gun debate in this country is a joke, we've got people who know nothing guns; trying to set rules about them for people who do, its makes no sense.

Alright, bad idea about the each gun part. I forgot that some people do have guns upwards of 10+. My mistake. Like I said above, A yearly safety and accuracy test is more suitable and less absurd?

I am getting sick of gun owners turning me off from their side when they accuse me of ignorance because I'm not a gun owner. I know I am ignorant about guns, thats why I am trying to reach a middle, because even though I know nothing about them, I still think that people should have guns. but use them responsibly. To me responsible isn't buy as many guns with no restrictions and no accountability for whether or not it is being handled properly or not.

[Crazed Rabbit]

With these rights, you need to be responsible for them. A baby is a human being, why don't we allow it to have a gun? It has the right to have one as a human. Because it is not developed enough to handle the responsibility of owning and handling a gun.
To argue that any and all restrictions on guns are stupid is to advocate an extreme that is as ridiculous as banning guns completely. I am open to suggestions, what do you want? Just one safety test and accuracy test every year no matter how many guns? Alright, present it to me. Don't whine about how nobody understands because they don't own guns and call them ridiculous for their suggestions. At least those proposing a ban on guns are mostly attempting to convince me with examples of other countries. Work with me man.

No tests. You don't test for rights. If someone misuses a gun, then and only then do you punish them.

Upon reaching the age of majority (18 in this country) you can buy any gun you want, with an instant background check.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

No tests. You don't test for rights. If someone misuses a gun, then and only then do you punish them.

Upon reaching the age of majority (18 in this country) you can buy any gun you want, with an instant background check.

CR

I understand that the concept of testing means that it is not really a right but a "privilege" technically. But a part of me wants to see at least some sort of preventive action taken. I mean, you work your *** off to make sure you don't get a heart attack in the first place, you don't want to wait until you get a heart attack before you start acting. The first time might be enough to be fatal, same thing with guns. You understand where I am coming from?