Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[Quetzalcoatl]

Let me preface this topic with a quick disclaimer. I thought N&P was the most appropriate forum as firearms have become a highly politicized issue in the United States (and indeed around the world). If a mod feels this isn't the right place, please accept my humble apologies.

About two weeks ago I got my first firearm with the help of my brother, who is ex-military. It's a .22 rifle. I plan to on using it to gain a general feel for firearms and learn marksmanship. As an expatriate abroad, I never had the chance to do so, so I was pretty curious. My family, most of whom are very left-leaning, are largely horrified. I'm sufficiently weirded out by this, hence the following question.

This forum sees a lot of bashing of 'Republitards' and what might be collectively labelled 'right-wing' issues. Gun rights are of course a huge example of such an issue, but I've actually never really had any sense as to how everybody on SD.net feels about the topic (besides a universal condemnation of outrageous stuff-owning miniguns, etc.) So...

Do you support the right of a private citizen in the United States to own a firearm?
If yes then to what extent? Are handguns okay? Automatic weapons? Concealed weapons?

And for anybody who actually does own a gun, any general tips? My brother is ex-mil so he'll be covering safety very extensively.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Reference this thread from the SCOTUS decision about a year ago.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4205&hilit

Users + Mike take interesting (and I think in light of this board's political 'bent', suprising) stances.

[Darth Wong]

Do you support the right of a private citizen in the United States to own a firearm?

Yes, provided he can meet licensing requirements. The idea that firearms should not require licensing seems incredibly stupid to me. We require people to get licenses to drive cars; why not guns?

If yes then to what extent? Are handguns okay? Automatic weapons? Concealed weapons?

I would prefer that easily concealed weapons are outlawed for private use, and that gun companies be vigorously prosecuted for failure to take measures to limit sales of such weapons to the general public. Handguns and machine pistols are far too amenable to criminal activity. The long guns are OK; they're harder to conceal and they're more accurate.

Yes, I know, you can still commit crimes with a long gun. That doesn't mean it isn't easier with a concealed weapon.

[Knife]

There is quite a mix of opinions on the issue here. Personally, I have no problems with a government list of people who should NOT have guns, and a 'background check' system to see if that person is on the list, before buying a gun. I don't mind a reasonable wait period either for weapons. As for the list, violent criminals, mentally unstable people with either behavior problems and/or sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies, extreme bi-polar, and other judgment impairing disease, as well as an appropriate age limit, would go on the list.

As far as what we do have in the US, I'm not a big fan of the ease of getting 'midnight specials', and I'm a little bit worried about the stockpiling of ammo and stuff the far right is doing right now, but other than that, if you want a gun I'm ok with it. I have quite a few in my gun safe right now.

[Vendetta]

Do you support the right of a private citizen in the United States to own a firearm?

Ownership of a firearm should be considered a privelege not a right and subject to the person proving that they are competent and safe to do so, just like with a motor vehicle.

[Darth Wong]

Reference this thread from the SCOTUS decision about a year ago.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4205&hilit

Users + Mike take interesting (and I think in light of this board's political 'bent', suprising) stances.

I think that if you find those views surprising, then perhaps you are subscribing to the widespread tribalistic view of politics in North America, where people are assumed to belong to one tribe or another. That is absolutely not the case; the fact that someone doesn't drink the Konservative Kool-Aid does not mean he necessarily drinks the other brand of Kool-Aid.

The fact that one is a moderate does not mean he can't bash Republitards, who are exactly what I describe them to be: mindless party-line drones.

[SirNitram]

This forum sees a lot of bashing of 'Republitards' and what might be collectively labelled 'right-wing' issues.

Sorry to upset expectations, but we're not the 'Ban the all' crowd. I myself am proficient with a small calibur rifle, my wife with a shotgun. She's been trained to hunt squirrels and the like, I was trained by the Scouts.

I do vigorously support more basic skills in obtaining a liscense. CLeaning a gun. Proper, safe, secure storage. ANd I agree with Mike on levying alot more regulations, if not an outright ban, on handguns.

[Knife]

Do you support the right of a private citizen in the United States to own a firearm?

Ownership of a firearm should be considered a privelege not a right and subject to the person proving that they are competent and safe to do so, just like with a motor vehicle.

Problem being, in the context of the OP is the US and ownership. Here it is a right. So in the context of the thread, you're saying you'd want to have a movement toward amending the Constitution to fix that, right?

[Darth Wong]

Ownership of a firearm should be considered a privelege not a right and subject to the person proving that they are competent and safe to do so, just like with a motor vehicle.

Problem being, in the context of the OP is the US and ownership. Here it is a right. So in the context of the thread, you're saying you'd want to have a movement toward amending the Constitution to fix that, right?

Why not? It's not as if people don't bring up the possibility of constitutional amendments over other issues.

[Vendetta]

Do you support the right of a private citizen in the United States to own a firearm?

Ownership of a firearm should be considered a privelege not a right and subject to the person proving that they are competent and safe to do so, just like with a motor vehicle.

Problem being, in the context of the OP is the US and ownership. Here it is a right. So in the context of the thread, you're saying you'd want to have a movement toward amending the Constitution to fix that, right?

Yes. I would suggest that it should not be a right, the justification in the constitution itself is nonsense in the face of modern military hardware, and the right to ownership of no other tool or sporting equipment is guaranteed by the constitution.

I would also say that background checks are not enough. Just like with motor vehicles, prospective gun owners should go through mandatory training and safety education before being licensed.

[General Zod]

I support ownership with heavy regulation to ensure that the people who own them actually know what they're doing, but an outright ban seems rather ridiculous to the point of being unenforceable. Proper training in their use tends to help with a lot of the "bogeyman" status that guns seem to have among certain groups.

[aerius]

As far as I'm concerned you can own whatever you want as long as you meet the licensing requirements. I'd make the requirements a fair bit higher than they are in most States, but if you pass them you can go buy a fully functional tank and load it up with live shells for all I care. But if you have a criminal background, mental problems, or other such issues, you ain't getting a license.

[Knife]

Yes. I would suggest that it should not be a right, the justification in the constitution itself is nonsense in the face of modern military hardware, and the right to ownership of no other tool or sporting equipment is guaranteed by the constitution.

I would also say that background checks are not enough. Just like with motor vehicles, prospective gun owners should go through mandatory training and safety education before being licensed.

Fair enough.

Why not? It's not as if people don't bring up the possibility of constitutional amendments over other issues.

Oh, I don't care if his position is to repeal that right, just pointing out that in the context of the OP, saying it should be/ or is a privilege and not a right, isn't quite right.


Yeesh, fixed tag problems.

[Serafina]

I am generally for very strict rules for guns.

Face it, when you buy a gun, you have a reason to use it. There are three potential uses:
-hunting
-self-defense
-criminal uses

Hunting is not a problem, but you really only need longguns for that - handguns and automatic weapons have no use there.

Self-defense: They may be good for that on a small scale, but if you look at the larger picture, they are very detremential to that.
Why? Well, simple - the more guns there are, the more criminals have guns.
And someone with a gun is far more likely to kill someone than someone with a knife.
Besides, a higher gun-count also means that "normal citizens" have easier acces to them - which gets bad if they want to kill someone while enraged and in similar situations.
While you are safer with a gun than without one, you are even safer in a country with few guns than in one with lots of them.

I like the german laws on guns:
You can get a gun if you get a license, with requires a flawless criminal record (no crimes at all, ever - which includes minor stuff during your youth etc.), you have to proove that you can handle a gun and you need to proove that you are a "reliable person" (which you are not with certain psycholgical symptoms).
Furthermore, you have to proove that you have a legit reason to have the gun - being a hunter or a registered competetive marksmen.

This only allows you to HAVE the gun and transport it in a manner which does not allow fast acces (e.g. in a case with multiple locks). As a private person, it is impossible to aquire anything but semi-automatic pistols and rifles.

Security personell and guards for sensitive areas (e.g. in a bank) may aquire automatic firearms, but that is very restricted.

[The Spartan]

I support gun ownership and have some myself.

That said, I also support much more stringent training requirements. We already have similar requirements to be allowed a hunting license, even if they're more lax than I'd care for them to be, so I see no contradiction requiring training to own a firearm. Especially since a great number of hunting accidents would be prevented if certain people either had more stringent training or simply failed out and were thus disallowed to own them. Much like a story posted by Alyrium here about two students being shot while collecting frogs for study.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with the USA is that the gun argument is essentially self-fulfilling: they demand that guns are made easily available with little regulation (yes, I know, NRA types complain that there are actually loads of regulation albeit weak enforcement, but the result is the same, and quite frankly, you can't tell me that this isn't deliberate; it's the same policy of neglect that they used to make the SEC useless). This creates a large supply and flow of weapons, which in turn makes it easier for criminals to acquire weapons legally or illegally.

Once large numbers of criminals have them, the people peddling the guns say "Aha! Criminals have them! We have to make them easier to obtain for everyone, since criminals have them anyway!" so they keep pumping out huge supplies of guns in a very poorly regulated market, which only makes it easier for even more criminals to acquire guns, and so on. It's a nice incestuous little argument.

[Knife]

I am generally for very strict rules for guns.

Face it, when you buy a gun, you have a reason to use it. There are three potential uses:
-hunting
-self-defense
-criminal uses

Collecting and target shooting (hobby or entertainment) are also possibilities. You have a rather narrow view here.

Hunting is not a problem, but you really only need longguns for that - handguns and automatic weapons have no use there.

True, but I know people who take handguns for a finishing or killing shot to put the animal out of it's misery. But for the most part, yeah, hunting is a long gun game.

Self-defense: They may be good for that on a small scale, but if you look at the larger picture, they are very detremential to that.
Why? Well, simple - the more guns there are, the more criminals have guns.

Most petty criminals go for the easy and soft target. The more guns there are, the higher the chances the house you are robbing or the person you're about to mug has a gun.

And someone with a gun is far more likely to kill someone than someone with a knife.

I'd like to see your proof of that.

Besides, a higher gun-count also means that "normal citizens" have easier acces to them - which gets bad if they want to kill someone while enraged and in similar situations.
While you are safer with a gun than without one, you are even safer in a country with few guns than in one with lots of them.

I'd like to see numbers on that too.

I like the german laws on guns:
You can get a gun if you get a license, with requires a flawless criminal record (no crimes at all, ever - which includes minor stuff during your youth etc.), you have to proove that you can handle a gun and you need to proove that you are a "reliable person" (which you are not with certain psycholgical symptoms).
Furthermore, you have to proove that you have a legit reason to have the gun - being a hunter or a registered competetive marksmen.

For the most part, I don't have a problem with that. I little extreme, I'd like to have a system with some sort of appeal or something so if you were a douche in your youth and stole a candybar or something, you can still get a firearm 20 years later.

This only allows you to HAVE the gun and transport it in a manner which does not allow fast acces (e.g. in a case with multiple locks). As a private person, it is impossible to aquire anything but semi-automatic pistols and rifles.

Ok.

Security personell and guards for sensitive areas (e.g. in a bank) may aquire automatic firearms, but that is very restricted.

Sorry, the last thing I want a bank security guard to have is an automatic weapon. Spray and pray in a crowed room with multiple innocent people to deter a bank robbery? Screams bad idea to me, rather they have semi-auto weapons and training for one shot-one kill than use automatic suppressive fire indoors.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I guess the classic right-wing concern would be to claim that a license of any kind would be a method in which the government could disarm its populace or muzzle political dissent. I also appreciate the point Knife is making about 'rights' versus 'priveleges'.

[loomer]

I am ardent supporter of private firearms ownership. I would also like to own a tank, but that ain't gonna happen if anyone anywhere has even the smallest lick of sense.

However, as others have said, there needs to be government oversight of people who can have a gun and people who cannot, especially the mentally ill or recurring violent criminals. Safely enjoyed, a firearm can be such great fun that it'd be a damn shame to prevent the average man from having monitored access to them.

[Knife]

I guess the classic right-wing concern would be to claim that a license of any kind would be a method in which the government could disarm its populace or muzzle political dissent. I also appreciate the point Knife is making about 'rights' versus 'priveleges'.

Well, I'm in full support of the ban on automatic weapons. Well, you can still get one but the rules and what not to get one is insane (and rightfully so). I'm more worried about the cheap and easy weapons that flood the streets. Those are the ones I'd like to see taxed to oblivion, closed down, or regulated some how to slow the flood down. I'm more concerned about them than assault weapons on the street.

[Mr Bean]

I am a firm believer in the gun ownership it's one of the areas I retain my "traditional" upbringing. I'll notch the "self defense" and "hunting" blocks as I've done both. I do support hand-gun ownership but under a more stringent requirement than purchasing shotguns or rifles. I am in extremist in that I also support assault rifle and submachine gun ownership for (Wait for it) active or reserve members of the military. Let be honest that last one? I love Switzerland's views on the matter that reservists and active duty personnel keep their weapons and an ammo supply at home. In the US I'd add a requirement for a gun safe in the home and a restriction based on branch of service. For example a line grunt could keep his M4 at home no problem. But I'd question a Airforce Radioman having a dozen Avtomat Kalashnikova at home.

So again, shotguns and rifles for civilians? Fine. Pistols? Fine but with much tougher requirements. Mandatory licensing requirements and classes before you can buy a gun. I'll throw in a two week waiting period and a requirement that if you intend to purchase more than one weapon per household that you notify the local law enforcement of each additional purchase and that you prove you have a safe place to store the weapons in your house. You have kids? You must have a safe or gun-locks.

So liberal gun ownership combined with requirements that would make the NRA scream.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'd accept the idea that handguns should be restricted to people who've passed extremely rigorous background checks and have conducted an extensive safety course in their use. Such background checks are already provided for people getting a Concealed Carry permit, and in some states the training is mandatory, too. Perhaps concealed carry permits should simply be the basis for handgun ownership--you cannot purchase or own one unless you are able to meet the background check scrutiny and complete the training courses for your concealed carry license. Most people shouldn't be using a handgun for home defence, anyway, but rather a shotgun loaded with birdshot so that they can turn some intruder's face into pink goo but not put bullets through the wall to someone else's apartment or whatnot, and there is a legitimate argument which can be made that handguns should require some high standard of stringency in background checks and training, but after that there's absolutely and utterly no reason to keep the people who passed from carrying concealed.

[General Zod]

I am ardent supporter of private firearms ownership. I would also like to own a tank, but that ain't gonna happen if anyone anywhere has even the smallest lick of sense.

Civilians are perfectly capable of buying tanks if they have the money. But generally when they're sold to civilians they get "sanitized" of their sensitive military hardware, so you get a lot of the electronics and weaponry stripped out or otherwise disabled.

[Alferd Packer]

I think there should be varying levels of restrictiveness, tiered based on population density. You live out in the woods and are an avid hunter? Fine, your licensing requirements are the least rigorous. You live a suburb? You should have to jump through a shitton more hoops to get a weapon. And if you live in a superdense high rise in a big city, the fees and requirements should be so absurd that essentially no one will bother.

I myself live in a urban suburb with an average population density of about 7,000 per square mile. Thankfully, gun laws in New Jersey are pretty damn strict. Still, when I think of how many people live around me, I get a little nervous knowing that a good number of them, perhaps even including close neighbors, are packing heat in some form.

Especially considering how nuts my neighbors are.

[Serafina]

Collecting and target shooting (hobby or entertainment) are also possibilities. You have a rather narrow view here.

Well, ok, i forgot to mention them. Consider them included under "hunting", with the added issue that the misuse-chances are higher.

Most petty criminals go for the easy and soft target. The more guns there are, the higher the chances the house you are robbing or the person you're about to mug has a gun.

Which means that you arm yourself if your are a criminal. A gun becomes a necessary tool of your trade - while it remains a "just in case"-tool for normal people.

I'd like to see your proof of that.

Which one makes it easier to kill an unarmed person - a knife or a gun? which one makes it easier to kill a number of persons?
The psychological treshold is way lower, since the gun makes you feel superior.

I'd like to see numbers on that too.

Hm - rates of armed crimes are way lower if access to guns is harder.
I admit that i do not have any good sources handy right now, but i will look for some later.

For the most part, I don't have a problem with that. I little extreme, I'd like to have a system with some sort of appeal or something so if you were a douche in your youth and stole a candybar or something, you can still get a firearm 20 years later.

Ah, those are not considered crimes, since you are totally unaccountable.

Sorry, the last thing I want a bank security guard to have is an automatic weapon. Spray and pray in a crowed room with multiple innocent people to deter a bank robbery? Screams bad idea to me, rather they have semi-auto weapons and training for one shot-one kill than use automatic suppressive fire indoors.

Ah, i was rather refering to people guarding money transports and such.
But i think a bank-guard would legally qualify - does not influence wether they choose to carry it or not.


Anyway, note that you are NOT allowed to carry the weapon in public under any circumstance as a private person.
You are allowed to "transport" them - but that is done in a locked case (i think the treshold is that acces must require more than 30 seconds or something like that).
The only people allowed to carry guns in public are cops, soldiers and security personell.