A question for the Anti's

[rusty_rebar]

Lets play pretend. Assume that you are in charge, and able to implement your vision of the perfect gun control scheme. What would that involve? No handguns? No rifles? Register all gun owners? No guns at all?

I would also like to know. What is it that you would be attempting to accomplish by the actions that you take?

[hedgehog]

1. I would require family members and neighbors be notified of the

application for a gun purchase. If they approve, you can buy the gun.

[paulsby]

2. why not?

let's put the same restrictions on speech and voting. and assembly.

and right to privacy.

:sarcasm:

[rd_kent]

7. Hahahaha!

Just the next door neighbors or the neighbors down the block, or two streets over?


Can we also ask you neighbors to approve of the books you read, or the message boards you post on, or if they approve of your car purchase....?

[armueller2001]

9. Yeah that would really be too bad

if your neighbors or family members just didn't like guns. And you lived in a really bad neighborhood. You might die due to your neighbors' predjudices.

[X_Digger]

11. If your neighbor were a career criminal, he just found his next target. n/t

[FunkyLeprechaun]

24. I don't think that will work

However, I agree with the fact that if you have a young family, the interviewer could reject your firearm application because of that.

Pro-gunners, don't give me the spiel that you've trained your son/daughter to handle firearms... some people may have forgotten what Kip Kinkel, someone who trained at firearms under the supervision of his father, did to his classmates. Or even Andrew Goldman, hey, his father was so proud he actually gave his toddler son a firearm to pose for a photo!

But then again, I am about to give up on this forum because you know what, there are issues people are ignoring because they chime, "ITS MY RIGHT ITS MY RIGHT!" without any consequence. Someone with a CCW actually threatened me with his gun so I am actually against CCWs and people taking their guns out in public. It's like bikes on roads, you have to interact with people with caution or all of a sudden they will change direction.

[rrneck]

30. All you have to do

is figure out a way to insure that people won't be mugged, raped, assaulted, or robbed before whatever help is currently in place can arrive. Then they won't need to defend themselves.

[rd_kent]

35. "Where does it say that owning a gun is a constitutional right? " - This is YOUR quote!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=284311&mesg_id=284709

[burrfoot]

60. Funky-

there are ways to keep kids away from firearms in the home, while keeping the firearm very quickly available. Push button safes and biometric safes spring to mind. They come in a size small enough to be placed just about anywhere you could want one, and allow access to a firearm in seconds (the "bio-boxes" advertise a 1-second release after you press your thumb to the pad).

Fingerprint safes are a little on the expensive side, but well worth the investment in my mind. Good touch safes (push button) can be had for around a hundred bucks, so they're even easier to come by.

My only point here is that there are legitimate ways to balance access to weapons and young children in the home. In no way does that need to be a disqualifier for ownership of a firearm.

[SteveM]

62. The "interviewer" was used to determine gun-ownership. In the Jim Crow South...

Once you place into the hands of an individual your right to keep and bear arms (or your right to march in a street), corruption and discrimination WILL follow.

As to "young families:" Since the rate of gun-related child-hood injury/death has been falling for the last 10+ years, why would you restrict the father/mother from purchasing a firearm? I WILL give you "the spiel that you've trained your son/daughter to handle firearms..." Your anecdotal evidence not withstanding, this one of the most effective ways to raise your kids to know and respect firearms, even if they choose not to obtain one later on. (Check the National Safety Council on declines in gun-related childhood deaths.)

When you leave the forum to tend to "issues people are ignoring," please work to remove the "assault-weapons ban" advocacy from both the DNC Platform and President Obama's web page(s); this because the "issues people are ignoring" will suffer (as has been shown, time and again) as long as this fatuous, inflammatory and self-destructive language remains in the masthead of the Democratic Party.

Frankly, if you were to spread the word to junk this issue, it would lend more credibility to your stand that there are more important issues to deal with than gun-control than any number of postings here, and all of us would thank you for your actions.

[rrneck]

28. Does that include everybody in driving range? nt

[BobRossi]

3. Guns are fine.

Just make bullets illegal!

[eqfan592]

4. The stupid......

....IT BURNS!!!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

6. "Good questions" but no answers, just abuse

Trying to get a straight answer to this kind of question really is like pulling teeth sometimes.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rusty_rebar]

10. I really am curious

on the second question. What exactly is the goal of gun control advocates? What is it that you are trying to accomplish? It does not make sense to be all anti-whatever without having a reason behind it. I am not all that clear on what the concrete measurable outcome is. Less violent society?

It is ridiculous to say. I would ban all guns, and that would drastically reduce gun crime. That is like saying outlawing cars would drastically reduce traffic accidents.

But I am not entirely clear on the reason why gun control is a good idea. What would it get us?

[Glassunion]

12. My 2 cents... Not an "anti", but we do need a bit of change.

If I were in charge and had a blank check I would do the following, and following each idea is what I would hope to accomplish;

1.      Close the gun-show loop hole. I do think that that ALL firearms purchases be accompanied with an NICS background check.

2.      Gun buy-back events, all firearms are checked against stolen firearm reports. If a firearm is found to have been stolen, the original owner be contacted for retrieval at the owner’s expense. The government never owned the firearms in the first place, so how can they buy them back?

3.      Before a firearm is purchased, proof of proficiency must be produced. I do find it irresponsible to purchase a firearm without having even the basics of firearm safety training. We all have to prove proficiency before we can drive; I think that the same should go for firearms.

4.      That brings me to CCW. Again further training should be required. Same reason as above, however it should cover more in depth topics about legalities, situational awareness, mental preparedness, etc...

5.      Put in place a systems check against prohibited felonies and CCW licensees. Meaning if you are convicted of a prohibited act, your name is run against the CCW database. If you have a license, it is automatically revoked by the issuing department and must under penalty of law surrender it along with your now illegal firearms.

6.      Which brings me to convictions of felonies, as soon as a verdict is reached. All firearms owned by the offender must be surrendered. Not given away to relatives or sold for profit. The department that receives the surrendered firearms should hold them for a reasonable period for the offender to appeal. I feel that the individual, who was convicted, surrenders their right to the 2nd amendment along with all of the rights and privileges that go with it.

I’m sure there are more things that I would change, but these are just a few that I can quickly come up with.

[rusty_rebar]

14. Those seem pretty common sense,

but I did not see the reasoning behind them listed. It seems that they are mostly aimed an ensuring that prohibited persons are not able to acquire firearms through legal means. A few of them seem to be pointed at making sure people who own firearms are competent in firearms safety and legalities.

So, this is your list. Here are my questions.

If I am a responsible, law abiding citizen, trained in the legalities and safety of firearms, then you would have no problem with me owning a fully automatic machine gun (like an M-60)?

What about a .50 cal sniper rifle?

What about a handgun with a 30 round magazine?

How about a grenade launcher?

A 20MM anti aircraft gun?

What if I want to walk down the street with a loaded handgun strapped to my hip?

Should I need any cause to get a CCW permit?

[Glassunion]

17. What did I forget?

When you stated that "You did not see the reasoning behind them listed"? I would have to state that you did not ask for reasoning in your OP, you asked for what we would hope to accomplish, which I did list following each point. Now you are asking for something else.

I'm sensing a series of loaded questions to follow. In your OP, you asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer. Now you want more answers to apparently loaded questions and I fear that you are making a futile attempt at backing a respondent into a corner for a verbal thrashing.

I answered your OP, and will answer any questions that follow my answer, however the route you are taking is leaving me a bit suspect.

[rusty_rebar]

19. Fair enough.

I am not trying to back you into a corner. I really just want to know what the point of gun control is. If you could have any gun control laws you wanted, what would you expect that to accomplish?

That is really the basis of the OP.

So, now for your answers, and my comments:

1. Close the gun-show loop hole. I do think that that ALL firearms purchases be accompanied with an NICS background check.

What would this accomplish? It seems clear to me that this would be a measure to prevent the legal purchase of firearms by prohibited people (felons, insane, etc...)

2. Gun buy-back events, all firearms are checked against stolen firearm reports. If a firearm is found to have been stolen, the original owner be contacted for retrieval at the owner’s expense. The government never owned the firearms in the first place, so how can they buy them back?

What would this accomplish? I really don't have a clue. Returning property to the rightful owner? I fail to see what that will accomplish from a gun control standpoint. From a gun control standpoint, it would make more sense to just destroy the firearms. (By the way, I think they do check this stuff at a gun buyback, just back at the station after they collect all the firearms. They have no way to associate it with who turned it in, but I am pretty sure they do this already)

3. Before a firearm is purchased, proof of proficiency must be produced. I do find it irresponsible to purchase a firearm without having even the basics of firearm safety training. We all have to prove proficiency before we can drive; I think that the same should go for firearms.

I will not get into the whole: firearms is a natural right, driving is not debate with you. I also tend to agree that some basic safety training is in line when purchasing a firearm. Again, I think this is generally done now, at least in California, but fair enough.

And what would this accomplish? Again, this one seems pretty clear. The point of this is to ensure that firearms owners are at least acquainted with firearms safety. The goal of that, is to ensure that people are acting, or at least know how to act, in a safe manner with firearms.

Added question here: Should this firearms safety course be taught in the schools? Say to 4th or 5th graders?

4. That brings me to CCW. Again further training should be required. Same reason as above, however it should cover more in depth topics about legalities, situational awareness, mental preparedness, etc...

Again, here you did not tell us what you hope to accomplish with this regulation. And again, it seems pretty clear that you want people who are carrying a concealed weapon in public to be more trained then.... I am not sure what. And again, I an not disagreeing with you.

5. Put in place a systems check against prohibited felonies and CCW licensees. Meaning if you are convicted of a prohibited act, your name is run against the CCW database. If you have a license, it is automatically revoked by the issuing department and must under penalty of law surrender it along with your now illegal firearms.

Once again, no description of what you want this to accomplish. I am left to assume you do not want convicted felons to legally carry a concealed weapon. Never mind the fact that a convicted felon is not permitted to touch a firearm at all, let alone carry one concealed. What would this accomplish?

6. Which brings me to convictions of felonies, as soon as a verdict is reached. All firearms owned by the offender must be surrendered. Not given away to relatives or sold for profit. The department that receives the surrendered firearms should hold them for a reasonable period for the offender to appeal. I feel that the individual, who was convicted, surrenders their right to the 2nd amendment along with all of the rights and privileges that go with it.

And what would this accomplish?


I guess what I am trying to say, is you did not tell me what you wanted any of those regulations to accomplish. I can presume what they are aimed at, at least for most of them. I just want to hear what pro gun control advocates think is reasonable (ideal even), and what they expect those regulations to accomplish.

I am not trying to back anyone into a corner. Yes, I may have follow on questions about your answers.

[Glassunion]

20. Once I have oportunity to sit in frot of a computer, I will reply

Typing on an iPhone is a bit difficult.

[Glassunion]

42. Sorry for my lack of detail in my earlier posts

To answer your questions and affirm some of your assumptions.

1. In my opinion, by closing the "gun-show/private sales" loop hole, you would decrease the opportunity for prohibited individuals from obtaining a firearm illegally. It would close an avenue for a criminal to use.

2. I would hope that it would help return stolen property to its rightful owner. I have yet to be made aware of any gun buy backs where the firearms were returned to the owner.

3. I would hope to accomplish a level of proficiency in the use and safe keeping of firearms. I do not think that it would infringe on the right. We learn in grade school that you have the right to free speech, and we also learn the rules about it. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, unless you believe that it is indeed on fire.

4. See above, however with the additional responsibilities of CCW, I believe that there should be more education. I think that a more educated population is a more productive and safe population.

5/6. The next two are similar and the goal the same. Right now there is very little in the way of taking firearms away from convicted felons. I was unhappy to find that in my state, if you are convicted of a felony, it is your responsibility to turn your own CCW back into the sheriff's department. I would hope for a more consistent way of taking firearms away from those who proved to society that they not longer can exercise the right.

Again, to your last statement I am not all that pro gun-control at all. I fully enjoy my right to bear arms, I do not feel that it should be infringed. These are all hypothetical anyway.

As to your questions two posts ago...

"So, this is your list. Here are my questions."

"If I am a responsible, law abiding citizen, trained in the legalities and safety of firearms, then you would have no problem with me owning a fully automatic machine gun (like an M-60)?" No I would not. There are currently ways to legally obtain Class III firearms, however I think that the manufacture date(currently no one but law enforcement can purchase a Class III manufactured after 1986) of the firearm should have no bearing on obtaining one.

"What about a .50 cal sniper rifle?" Again, I have no problem with that. I am currently saving up for one myself.

"What about a handgun with a 30 round magazine?" Again, no problem. Good luck with that if you are using an IWB holster for it.

"How about a grenade launcher?" Hmmm... I don't think I can answer this one. I usually disagree when something is legal for the government, however illegal for the people. To me it seems to step on the ideals of democracy. However on the other hand I do not think that I could effectively defend the position of owning one. So I would have to decline in answering that one. But, I would love to hear some discussion on both sides of that fence.

"A 20MM anti aircraft gun?" I would have to give te same answer as above.

"What if I want to walk down the street with a loaded handgun strapped to my hip?" I have no issue with this one. I do it myself every day.

Should I need any cause to get a CCW permit? Nope. I think all CCW should be "shall-issue".

Thanks for the conversation. There are more laws that I would like to enact if I were dictator for a day, but they go the other way and would be off topic. These were just my laws that could be construed as pro gun-control.

[rusty_rebar]

51. No, thank you.

I actually largely agree with most of your points. Unfortunately, your views do not represent the opinions of most of the pro gun control advocates. I was really hoping that one of the prolific posters could explain this to me.

To arrive at a solution, one must first determine the scope of the problem. My problem with the gun control crowd is that they never define that. What is it exactly that they are trying to achieve with gun control. It is really vexing that they will come in and bring up all these opinions, but never define why they have them.

Once we have an understanding of why, maybe we can have a discussion as to how.

[eqfan592]

15. A couple of points

1. There is no "gun show loophole" but rather its a "private sales" loophole, and assuming they could devise a way to allow private sales to go through the background check system while still protecting the privacy of everyone, I'd be 100% all for it.

3 & 4. I wouldn't have a problem with this if any required classes were free, held regularly, and held at different times of the day so that people who work different shifts may participate. Also, the proficiency standards would have to be within reason.

[Glassunion]

16. I totally agree.

As far as the loophole, you perfectly described my intent.

[PavePusher]

18. I have to disagree with much of your post.

I've got to get some things done right now, but I will do a point-by-point response later this evening.

[Glassunion]

21. Look forward to the discussion

[X_Digger]

46. We disagree on a few points..

1. Allow private citizens to access NICS via some privacy protected method. I already ask to see TX DL (preferably CHL) when I sell to someone, but I would like the option of accessing NICS. However I wouldn't require it, as running a check on your son / neighbor when you give / sell him a rifle is asinine. Others who propose this in actuality mean registration (after all, if every transaction had to go through a dealer, there's a de facto list of who owns what- and we know where that leads )

3. You have to have training to get a driver's license, but you don't to purchase a car. Same with guns in most states (drivers license vs CHL.) Prior restraint for free speech isn't usually constitutional, why is it acceptable for firearms?

6. Seizure of private property must include compensation or it's theft.

[Electric Monk]

13. A question for the Anti's what?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

22. I'm not anti-guns

I don't like stupid people handling guns. Which is most of the news items about shooting I read... yes... that includes you CCWs.

I have a very good aim (good hand-eye coordination because of a loss of one of my senses) and I don't think I need guns (or all the stuffed animals and all the money I won at a bet at, people clearly didn't think I would hit all those clay pigeons at a distance). I am not afraid. I don't need a gun because people will sense I'm frightened If I have one.

I realise laws will not be changed much and I agree with some that the manufacture of firearms should be restricted. Stop the flow. If you have a firearm... why do you feel the need to buy more?

[eqfan592]

25. Because no one gun can cover everything a person may want to do with a firearm.

Most guns are specialized to a large degree, and to wish to restrict people to only one firearm (without any evidence that doing so have any beneficial impact) is ludicrous.

And as for calling CCW permit holders "stupid," that's a fairly shocking demonstration of intolerance and ignorance.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

27. Oh yeah

Can you please tell that to the CCW holder who actually said to me, "You can't argue with me, I have a gun." and showed me his weapon as if he wanted to do something to me because all he was doing exercising his right to have a firearm?


Thanks.

[rd_kent]

33. oh yeah - "Where does it say that owning a gun is a constitutional right? "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=284311&mesg_id=284709

[eqfan592]

34. Oh, so you came accross an asshole...

....so we should base all our public policies off that one asshole?

Using that logic, we should outlaw driving ASAP!

[inkool]

38. Did you see this persons CCW?

or are you just assuming that they had one?

[Euromutt]

45. And which state was this in?

Because when it comes to sheriffs in "may issue" states, stories abound of cronyism; permits issued to people who made generous donations to the sheriff's campaign fund, and then thought they were hot shit because they'd managed to get hold of something denied to the less affluent and/or well connected.

So I'm pretty curious whether this was a "may issue" state or a "shall issue" state.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Actually he was committing a felony. You should have had him arrested.

[Euromutt]

47. Definitely a criminal offense, but a felony?

In Washington state, "display<ing> any firearm in a manner that manifests an intent to intimidate another" (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270) is a gross misdemeanor, not a felony.

[Glassunion]

48. Then again...

I cannot remeber the state, but the act of displaying a firearm was a greater offence then actually discharging it.

http://www.stupidlaws.com/ (somewhere)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. It would depend on the state...and the DA.

He wouldn't have gotten convicted of a felony but he could have been charged with one in some states. I'm sure of course that the leprechaun had the guy show his CCW permit. There is no chance it was some armed felon. LOL.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. So you assume everyone with a gun is a ccw?

[Euromutt]

26. You're anti-private ownership, then

If you have a firearm... why do you feel the need to buy more?

Because not all firearms are interchangeable, perhaps? You can't go clay pigeon-shooting with a deer rifle, and you can't hunt deer with a 9mm handgun. A .22 target pistol is good for cheap range fun (.22 is comparatively cheap), but it's inadequate for self-defense.

Here's a tip for you on evaluating information: the news, generally speaking, wants to capture and hold your attention, because that sells advertising. The best way to capture and keep your attention is to make you think something might be a threat to you. Essentially, it is in the news media's to scare you. Thus, if you think that the image you are getting of gun owners in the news media is representative, you really have another think coming.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

29. All I'm interested in is a reliable shotgun

That does everything, to shoot clay pigs and hunt duck. That's what Britain has. The shotgun I borrowed shot dead four ducks the next day, he let me have one, it was delicious.

I guess... that means that America is far behind in developing multi-faceted shotguns for everyone to enjoy!

That's why they cling onto the handguns like American King George IIIs.

[rd_kent]

31. "Where does it say that owning a gun is a constitutional right? " -FunkyLeprechaun, today, 9:15 am

How come you ran away from this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=284311&mesg_id=284709

[FunkyLeprechaun]

53. Oh that?

Because that's right and the rest of the answers were just nonsense. "Have you read the constitution!!!" Yes I have. And we can interpret it in different ways. You see it as an individual right, I see it as a well-regulated militia's right (such as the National Guard, etc).

Don't be so petulant.

[rd_kent]

56. Well, it DOES say it, right there, and it has been interpreted AND upheld as an individual right.

But you knew that.



Don't be so obtuse.

[armueller2001]

58. Just for accuracy's sake

"well-regulated" does not mean restricted or controlled. It means well functioning. And the militia is the entire population of able bodied men, including the state or federal militia (organized militia). It is not exclusive to the state or federal militia.

I'm an able bodied man, so I'm part of the population known as the militia. I own firearms, keep them in functional condition, and am competent in their use, therefore I am well regulated.

You can interpret it however you like, but unfortunately for you, your opinion doesn't mean a god damned thing. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, and that's the bottom line.

[rrneck]

36. I don't know if you have noticed,

but the geography is a little different here in the United States.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

54. I have noticed

I've lived in the US for 25 years. I was in high school during the era were high school shootings seemed to never end (1995-1999) and we had major discussions about firearms during classes such as Government class.

You can argue over geography, argue over how "responsible" you are with firearms but those don't really answer the question about how mentally ill people, criminals, etc., obtain firearms when the law states they can't purchase them.

You know what disgusts me here? Whenever there's a major shooting (Virginia Tech, Utah Mall Shooting), the first answer from the RKBA crowd is "they should have had guns to defend themselves." The logical fallacy of that statement astounds me, why do people think the answer to a shooting is more guns?

[Euromutt]

57. How do criminals in other countries get guns?

You can argue over geography, argue over how "responsible" you are with firearms but those don't really answer the question about how mentally ill people, criminals, etc., obtain firearms when the law states they can't purchase them.

How do they do it elsewhere? The number of nonfatal shootings in the UK almost tripled from 2000 to 2008, and most of them were committed with handguns, in spite of handguns being in effect completely illegal in the UK. In the past three years, the Netherlands has seen one marijuana trafficker murdered with an automatic weapon, and a maximum security courthouse attacked with a rocket launcher, and last year saw an unprecedented number of shooting incidents in Amsterdam Zuidoost, resulting in three fatalities. In Germany, the massacre in Winnenden was another in a lengthening list of school massacres (Erfurt, Coburg, Emsdetten), though another attempted massacre in Ansbach in September indicated firearms weren't the problem per se as, that time, the would-be killer used petrol bombs and an axe. At a Dutch symposium on school massacres, a policy wonk from the Dutch ministry of justice said the reason the Netherlands had not experienced a mass killing in a school was, basically, dumb luck.

The main source of crime guns in western Europe at present is south-eastern Europe, notably Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania, where corruption in government and arms manufacturing combines with a strong organized crime presence; organized crime steals the guns from the factories (with inside help) and funnels them to contacts in western Europe. Much the same happens in China, except the Chinese mobs aren't exporting their stolen goods. Yet.

Basically, when there's a criminal demand for firearms, somebody will pop up willing to supply them. As stated, not even China can keep guns out the hands of its mobsters. If American gun traffickers couldn't get their guns in other states (using straw purchasers), they'd smuggle them in from eastern Europe (like the western Europeans do), or possibly China. If anyone in western Europe wants to acquire a gun illegally, they can; the only barrier to gun crime is criminals' sense that they don't need guns.

You know what disgusts me here? Whenever there's a major shooting (Virginia Tech, Utah Mall Shooting), the first answer from the RKBA crowd is "they should have had guns to defend themselves." The logical fallacy of that statement astounds me, why do people think the answer to a shooting is more guns?

Why is it fallacious? Almost invariably, the thing that stops a mass shooter is bullets; sometimes the cops', more commonly his own once he knows the game's up. The answer to a mass shooting is already guns. The problem is, the guns that currently form the answer have an annoying tendency of taking time to arrive, during which the body count is rising.

It's been pretty definitively proven that sticking up signs saying "no guns" doesn't work. The bulk of mass shootings already occur in places where guns are notionally prohibited, which means that the shooter has a defenseless-target-rich environment. What might actually work is actually giving the prohibition some teeth by installing limited entries, with metal detectors and armed guards. But apart from courthouses and other government buildings, few seem to willing to turn the place into "a fortress."

Gun control laws don't seem to do it. German gun laws are pretty restrictive, were tightened more after Erfurt, and yet that didn't stop Winnenden from happening. It didn't stop a Yardie opening up with a sub-machine gun outside Chicago's in Peckham High Street in 2000, wounding nine people (I'd call that a "mass shooting," wouldn't you?).

Given unwillingness and inability to do anything concrete to prevent mass killings, or to stop it as soon as it starts, it seems highly unfair to deny the prospective victims the means of at least having a fighting chance of knocking out the shooter.

[rrneck]

61. Why do you think they are called

senseless killings? Rampage shootings defy logic because of the irrational behavior of the shooters. When the fight starts there is no logic. The answer to the question you pose is that they break the law.

I remember the school shootings. I also remember the Tylenol poisonings. And the anthrax attack. And it's a little hard to forget that the largest terrorist attack in the history of the county occurred using box knives and our own commercial aircraft. You simply don't need a gun to do great harm. There will always be somebody crazy enough to terrorize people. Why? Because it's what some people do. Jack the Ripper used a knife 120 years ago and he's still scary.

The call for somebody to be armed if a rampage shooter appears is not just an attempt at a response to the potential crazy shooter. It isn't just an attempt to fill the gap that will always exist between the need to protect the public and the logistical impossibility of accomplishing that feat. At its base, it is a call for a response to the fluidity of human interactions between imperfect creatures that sometimes go horribly wrong.

The only sure way to end all rampage shootings is to ban all guns and make it stick. Fine. But what remedy do you offer to those who will surely have to defend themselves against a single or multiple assailants armed with knives, clubs, fists or feet?

[PavePusher]

63. Ummm, how do you propose to stop an active shooter?

There was a recent police article that stated that the best way to end the incident was to get armed people into place (hunting the shooter) immediately, instead of sitting around waiting for backup.

[oneshooter]

37. You did have a government issued permit

to posses a firearm, didn't you? Because without it you are in violation of the law.

the Shotgun Certificate - will show the names and serial numbers of any shotguns possessed. There are currently no restrictions on the acquisition of shotguns, providing the details of any transaction are noted on the certificate, and the issuing police authority informed. It is necessary to produce your certificate when purchasing cartridges. For the purposes of the certificate, a shotgun is defined as a smoothbore gun, with barrel(s) at least 24" (610mm) long. Semi-automatics and pump-actions must have a magazine capacity of no more than two shots: this has be a permanent restriction, verified by either the London or Birmingham Proof Houses.

http://www.gunrunner.cc/firearms_laws.htm


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[FunkyLeprechaun]

55. First the gun wasn't mine

It's okay to do that in the UK as the guy who owned the gun was there supervising me. It was only a one-time thing. I think at the shooting range we were at we could "rent" a shotgun for the day and as collateral, they have the keys to your car to make sure people don't go off with the gun.

Secondly, there is a long process to obtain that certificate. I'm not really interested in buying a gun, they're so overblown.

[oneshooter]

64. It would behoove you to KNOW THE LAW

I e-mailed this question to a UK business that imports, and exports hunting weapons into the country. I asked for the law covering an American handling and shooting a shotgun without a permit. Here is the answer I got.

Sections 11(5) and 11(6) -Firearms Act 1968 allow non-certificate holders to shoot shotguns in the
following circumstances ONLY:

a) when using the occupier’s gun, on the occupier’s private land and in his/her presence

or

b) when at a police approved clay shoot.


It is apparent to me that you violated the law. You should now, being a law abiding person, turn yourself in to the nearest police station.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Katya Mullethov]

39. Lagging , yes that would be us , what what .

Many Americans do share your love affair with the multifaceted and ubiquitous shotgun .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j42LisXBXQg

[eqfan592]

43. Nobody will question the versatility of shotguns.

But they are far from covering all the bases. You should really do some reading up on the subject.

[Katya Mullethov]

59. Concealed carry ....target/trap

Hunting

[eqfan592]

65. lol, nice!

But hunting what? You'd have to be on top of a deer to hunt with the thing if your using either buck shot or a slug, because of how inaccurate it's going to be! :p

[rd_kent]

32. "Where does it say that owning a gun is a constitutional right? " - FunkyLeprechaun

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=284311&mesg_id=284709

How come you ran way?

[taurus145]

40. I can't legally hunt deer with a .22

I can't reasonably shoot varmints that damage crops and livestock with a 30-06.

I can't reasonably hunt birds with a rifle.

I can't reasonably carry a concealed rifle or shotgun.

There's a long list of reasons to own specific firearms for specific purposes. Think of it as a toolbox with only one screwdriver.

[Glassunion]

44. Point of order...

"I can't reasonably shoot varmints that damage crops and livestock with a 30-06." Sure you can, they just explode when you hit them.
"I can't reasonably hunt birds with a rifle." Sure you can, just use a Class III rifle. Again, they may explode when you hit them.
"I can't reasonably carry a concealed rifle or shotgun." Sure you can, just saw off the end. :sarcasm:

Me personally, I quite agree, I have several tools for several jobs. Hell, I have a couple of tools for the same job, but make my choice based on what I want to wear that day.

[paulsby]

66. the need and fear canards

in one post. not bad

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. Perfect gun control involves

Treating all firearms as if they are always loaded.
Always keep a firearm pointed in a safe direction.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
Always be sure of your target and know what is behind it along the bullet's trajectory.

[Electric Monk]

52. never having to say "I missed you"