Gun Control: Whose definition?

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
"Gun Control" is one of the most used and controversial terms these days, but I've almost never seen it defined and I think it means different things to different people.

If someone asks me I'll tell them I'm pro-gun and pro-gun control. Their inevitable reaction is you can't be both, quit waffling, you have to choose. I disagree entirely based on my definition of gun control.

Here's the pro-gun part: I believe that every adult American with no history of violent crime, major mental illness or other specified physical or mental conditions should be able to:

1)Own a gun
2)Concealed carry said gun
3)Concealed carry that gun anywhere in the 50 states including across state lines.

Here's the "Gun control" part

The gun owner must be competant and knowledgeable in the use, carry and storage of his gun, and able to pass tests measuring those abilities. He/she must not only be a competant shot, but also be able to retain self control in high stress situations so as to not unduly endanger himself or others. He/she should have at least rudimentary competence in low light operation of his firearm.

To assure that the gun owner is able to meet these qualifications mandatory, nationally standardized tests should be established administered by nationally certified testers and instructors. Any otherwise qualified candidate who fails the test may retake the test after obtaining remedial instruction from nationally certified instructors.

All testing and instruction will be free or very reasonably priced. After sucessful completion the gun owner will be issued a license, renewable every XX_years. Free or low priced "refresher" courses will be mandatory every_____XX time period.

The formation of shooting clubs shall be encouraged along with community wide programs of gun education, appreciation and respect. Participation in shooting clubs shall be especially encouraged for young people, perhaps as part of secondary school education, along with constant reminders of healthy gun practice, attitudes and relationships. America would hopefully become a gun-educated society in the finest sense of the term.

Clearly, I believe in gun ownership, but I want to feel secure in the knowledge that other (legal) gun owners are not a threat to my safety or the safety of my family.

I also believe that legal gun owners should be able to own virtually any semi-automatic weapon regardless of the terminology used to define it.

I'm not entirely comfortable with ownership of full automatic weapons and I'm still thinking about that one. Also, I believe there should be some limit placed on ordnance ownership, but I still haven't decided where or what it should be. I do believe, to give an extreme example, that no individual should be permitted to own a cruise missile. Humorous as this example may be to some, it highlights one of the contentious issues surrounding this subject.

I do believe in the "camel's nose under the tent" concept, but to a less urgent extent than many others.

Frankly, I would love to see American society encourage a healthy gun culture similar to that of Switzerland, but I'm not yet convinced of its viability in our culture.

So, that's my definition of and thoughts about gun control. What's yours?

Brightnorm
 

occ

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
15
The tests you speak of will only add to the high cost of firearms ownership for the law abiding. People will do what they're told in a controlled enviroment, then do ignorant things when on their own. What you suggest is more red tape and more cash out of pocket.

I do like the 50 state concealed permit. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
[ QUOTE ]
occ said:
The tests you speak of will only add to the high cost of firearms ownership for the law abiding. People will do what they're told in a controlled enviroment, then do ignorant things when on their own. What you suggest is more red tape and more cash out of pocket.

I do like the 50 state concealed permit. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I'm going to do a minor edit.

Brightnorm
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
So long as one adds "Don't Drink and Carry" (just like "Don't Drink and Drive") to this I agree fully. Personally it bothers me when otherwise competent gun owners with a carry permit don't lock their guns away if they decide to start drinking.

Yes, I carry legally, and I've carried since 1970 when I returned from Viet Nam. In all those years I've only cleared the holster twice, and never had to fire (excluding the military, of course).

When I decide to have a bit of alcohol, I put my firearms up because I don't believe the two mix. Usually, though, I'm the 'Designated Driver' rather than the 'Designated Drunk.' /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

T_sig6.gif

"Gun Control means hitting your target."
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
[ QUOTE ]
Tomas said:
So long as one adds "Don't Drink and Carry" ...When I decide to have a bit of alcohol, I put my firearms up because I don't believe the two mix. Usually, though, I'm the 'Designated Driver' rather than the 'Designated Drunk.' /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

T_sig6.gif

"Gun Control means hitting your target."

[/ QUOTE ]

Tomas,

How do you handle say, a party situation away from home. You're carrying and decide to have a few. What exactly do you do with your gun(s) and when and how do you retrieve them?

Brightnorm
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
While I am a law abiding citizen, I would like to see all gun regulation dropped. I don't believe that regulation is a deterent to the element that use firearms for criminal acts and I also believe that regulation is used as a bandaid to cover other more important flaws within the system such as a politically promoted and media enhanced stigma that discourages education and encourages ingnorance (if your child can learn to drive a car at sixteen he can learn to safely handle firearms too and there are more benefits than drawbacks) society also needs better education about recognizing and obtaining treatment for those with psychological problems or mental illness in society before they can harm themselves and others, also utilizing laws that are already in place to punish criminal use of firearms to their full extent is a good deterent to those who may toy with the idea of entering a life of crime (i.e. death penalty, life sentences)

Public ownership of firearms in itself is a deterent to criminal activity and should be promoted rather than discouraged. Federal firearms training programs should be free and encouraged by firearms dealers, maybe even with an added reward of additional cost savings if you present a valid training certificate to a dealer, but should in no way be absolutely mandatory, I was trained by a completely competent instructor, my Father who learned from a hunter in the Catskills as a youth, the Army and the NRA but I took a safety course myself as a teen so that I could hunt on a military post (it was required and I passed with flying colors). I would like to see a public service campaign to encourage voluntary firearms education for owners and non-owners alike. If people knew more about firearms generally, there would be less stigma attached to them and an educated public could save lives. When I was a small child I began to learn about how to handle firearms safely under supervision it was one of the most rewarding and character building experiences of my life and in some aspects the trust instilled by my parents presenting me with such responsibility has never left me and pervades many aspects of my life to this day. By the time I was a teen I could strip and service most of the firearms owned by my relatives and knew the types function and capacitys as well as many other characteristics of hundreds of other makes and models of firearms. I could spot details in movies and television as well as in real life that could one day save my or a family members (even a complete stranger's for that matter) life. Such as when a person had expended their ammunition for a certain type of firearm, whether or not the safety was on, if the action required the firearm to be cocked manually to fire, if there was a magazine at all present in a firearm or it was missing functional parts, whether the gun used in a holdup was even a real firearm or a BB gun etc., all of these things could give someone the edge over a criminal in a dire situation. Yet so many folks just prefer ignorance over enlightenment because they choose to follow the advice of those that promote ignorance as a means to serve a larger agenda that seeks to control individuals through their own fear. I have yet to fear something I can learn to control i.e. inanimate objects.

I have driven many different vehicles, operated heavy machinery and powertools (even been injured through other's negligent operation of such) and only two important things had to happen to make me confident and safe in their operation, I needed someone experienced and responsible to show me the ropes and someone to supervise my practice. We take chances everyday, assuming that the person driving or working next to us is competent and knows what they are doing, that is a falsehood, but if everyone were offered a free education with incentives to take it, maybe we could be even more competent and confident. I don't believe registration or regulation works, I see unregistered, uninsured and unliscenced drivers here in NYC everyday, never seems to stop some people from getting behind a wheel, they are best managed through criminal prosecution. Just as registration and regulation don't stop a criminal from obtaining or using a firearm either, they don't use legitimate channels and need to be managed through prosecution also (a healthy dose of fear that a residence or business they are about to enter may be presided over by a armed and trained individual may do wonders too).


Just my opinion. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

agent8698

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
99
Location
Tacoma, WA
I once read that legally owned fully automatic firearms are the best-behaved group of all firearms (with the least amount of crime and accidents). That sounds entirely plausible to me, considering how difficult it is in most states to legally aquire a machine gun. In my state no civilian can legally own a machine gun. Even Bill Gates cannot legally own a machine gun, simply because he resides in this state (Washington). Oregon is different: you may apply to own machine guns.

About the cruise missile, you can build your own:
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/procurement.shtml /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

Max
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
TSG,

You had an exemplary and enviable youthful education and experience with firearms, ethics, mature attitudes, hands on experience and training by highly competant people operating from the best and healthiest of motives. If this was the universal American young person's experience then the forms of regulation I mentioned would indeed not be necessary. And of course it's true that the bad guys will always find a way to get guns.

But your background is unfortunately the exception rather than the rule, and your very responsible, healthy, straight-shooting direct way of looking at things is not as common as you might think. We agree on virtually all points, including the idea that a well armed and trained populace is a critical deterrant to crime.

But I still firmly believe that for many or even most people, the type of program I mentioned may be the only way to ensure gun safety and competance.

Brightnorm
 

BF Hammer

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
481
Location
Wisconsin, USA
We live in an age where most localities (especially east of the Mississippi and west of the Rockies) have made it essentially unlawful to protect yourself from crime. Laws are written that require that police to be the only agent of public and personal safety. I'll give examples from my home state, Wisconsin. Here you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force legally only up to the point that the threat is non-life threatening to yourself. You cannot under any circumstances use more force than is "necessary" to stop the threat. A district attorney with an anti-gun bias in this state will probably prosecute somebody who shoots another in self-defense. Shooting somebody threatening you with a knife may only be "reasonable force" if the attacker is in the process of stabbing you. My personal opinion is that if you are stabbed, you waited way too long to pull the trigger. A strong-arm robbery means deadly force cannot be used, because the victim cannot be reasonably considered to be in mortal danger. The legal way of proceding is to politely hand over your valuables and call the police afterwards. You cannot initiate a fistfight until you are personally attacked, and you definitly cannot chase down the offender and beat them to get your stuff back - that's vigilanteism. I personally don't want vigilantees roaming the streets with guns, but some sanity in the laws about personal responsibility is really needed. First and foremost it needs to be stated that everybody should have the right to not be a crime victim. Overwhelming force needs to be allowed for in the law as an extention of personal freedom and general welfare. The popular idea of "gun control" only erodes the ability of people to help themselves in the absence of law-enforcement on-scene.

I hope I made that mess of random thoughts relavent to the topic. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
That's true Norm, I had a great opportunity as a youngster and even as a young adult. Now as an older adult, living in environs that are more limiting (NYC) I find that I am subject to regulation that makes it expensive and beaurocratically more and more difficult to enjoy something that I am educated in and even competent at I even belong to the oldest civil rights protection association in the country the NRA which originally resided in NY, yet I can't legally possess a firearm here without great inconvenience and expense so I don't keep them here, they reside with relatives till such day I find myself living in a locale with fewer restrictions. I find that it would be more beneficial to society as a whole to attack the environments that spawn firearms ignorance and misuse and de-mystify and dispell the stigma attached to firearms utilizing the educational system earlier on, for all, not just those seeking to own firearms, rather than to degrade the right to own them by dilution of the potential for all to legally possess them as is guarranteed in the Constitution. I completely believe in education, but mandatory courses and narrowly selective qualifications I kind of draw the line at. I myself despise certain aspects of academic environs and tend to respond poorly in some situations, especially in an area where there is room for personal bias or instructional abuse of priviledge or misinterpretation of action, and I have seen this happen in awarding certification for other more pedestrian activities. I like to choose the instructor and focus of instruction as well.

I recently did some work for a friend who is staunchly anti-gun, her son just turned 13 and being in public school he is friends with kids who probably have older siblings or may even themselves illegally carry a firearm and have no education on the subject other than point and pull the trigger. It is my opinion that her stance has already, in a way handicapped his ability to properly handle a situation where he may be presented the offer to "check this out" and through her own ignorance and the fact that boys will be boys, despite what mom has asked him not to touch or associate with, she may be inadvertantly placing his life in danger. I haven't broached the subject due to the fact that it would more than likely cause a rift between us and she is an old and dear friend. I don't want to tell her how to raise her kids but I also don't want to see something bad happen to him or any other kid either. If kids were required to take a small course in familiarization with firearms, it may do complete wonders for many. It does not even need to be a complete shooting course but a "familiarization" course that could point those that become interested, in the direction of further education on ownership and also offer a child from a non-ownership household some pertinent information that could save them in a confrontation or from accidents during "curious" or peer driven handling.

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
As far as I'm concerned Gun Control is a good sight picture and steady trigger squeeze.

I'm all for CRIMINAL CONTROL though... I just read an article about a guy who was sentenced to three consecutive life terms FOR MURDERING THREE PEOPLE; yet he is teaching at the College of Education at Penn State rather than in prison where he belongs..

That just "ain't right".
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
[ QUOTE ]
Brightnorm asked: "How do you handle say, a party situation away from home. You're carrying and decide to have a few. What exactly do you do with your gun(s) and when and how do you retrieve them?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's put it this way. I am an adult and I can override the "Gee! I want a drink!" quite handily. If there is no way to handle the situation that is safe (my estimation of safe, which includes no driving or flying or firearms while, or immediately after drinking alcohol) then I don't drink alcohol.

Yes there are "easier" ways to handle that - just go ahead and drink while carrying then drive home drunk so you can get ready to fly that airliner in four hours ...

Thing is, that does not meet the guidelines I have set for myself. I'm am a bit more responsible than thet. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If at a party and I'm offered alcohol, a place to spend the night or a ride home, and a safe place to store my firearm(s) until I am home or sober, that's OK to.

====
BF Hammer, the police have absolutely zero requirement to protect you or come to your aid. Their duty in long extablished US law at both federal and state level is to arrest, ticket, apprehend, etc. the wrongdoers.

True. In fact, it might surprise some people, but there have been actual court cases where the courts said police have absolutely no legal obligaiton to respond to calls for help.

For example:

...Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen..."

...and that's why I carry a gun.

T_sig6.gif
 

geepondy

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 15, 2001
Messages
4,896
Location
Massachusetts
Good points about mixing alcohol with guns. I grew up in Vermont where the gun laws are still very lax and I don't even think you need a permit to carry (notice very low murder rate though). Here in Massachusettes you need a firearms identification card to carry mace or a slingshot wristrocket and God forbid if you actually wanted to carry a gun. I do have an FID card but choose not to have any weapons in my semi-urban dwelling because I do tend to pound the alcohol some on the weekends and don't wish to be confronted with a choice of having to use the weapon while under the influence. So I stick with my heavy metal rod. Lots of points can be made for both sides concerning gun control. I could use Vermont as an example for nearly non-existant gun laws yet low murder rates but that is a rural environment and perhaps the same doesn't apply to urban situations.
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
TSG,

Though I'm not a conservative I often find myself at odds with more liberal colleagues and friends over these and other issues, and find, as you have, that sometimes discretion is necessary to avoid scarring relationships. Living in NYC must not always be easy for you.

Brightnorm
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
[ QUOTE ]
Tomas said:
... it might surprise some people, but there have been actual court cases where the courts said police have absolutely no legal obligaiton to respond to calls for help.

For example:

...Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen..."

...and that's why I carry a gun.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tomas,

That is a shocker; I had no idea. So the police have an obligation to provide such services to the public in general, but not to specific citizens just because they ask for it? Is that a correct interpretation.

Brightnorm
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
That's correct., Norm... I mentioned the same thing on a thread here several months ago, Guess you must have missed it.

I believe that the US Supreme Court has upheld such decisions.
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
Norm it can be difficult in more ways than just this topic, We do afterall live in Hillary country! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/faint.gif

Tom, my brother in law is NYPD and I love the guy but, I think I'd fair better if Barney Fife responded to my calls! (He retires next April, Thank God!)

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
[ QUOTE ]
Silviron said:
That's correct., Norm... I mentioned the same thing on a thread here several months ago, Guess you must have missed it.

I believe that the US Supreme Court has upheld such decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry Silveron, I did miss it. CPF has gotten so huge I feel like I'm constantly playing catch up. I recall that Sasha mentioned that she used to be able to take in much of CPF. Now she struggles to stay currant with a fraction of it.

Such an incredible wealth of information; even though much of it is available through SEARCH it's basically like looking for something in a swamp. Unless you know exactly what you're looking for and where it is you'll never find it.

The only answer is a team of dedicated flashaholics collating and catalogueing daily. I have a huge CPF folder with multiple files where I save stuff according to category. That's the best way I've found.

Brightnorm
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
I can't keep up either Norm... I quit even trying, except on the things that I'm particularly interested in....
 
Top