Gun control status poll

[One shot]

I voted other. I’m a gun owner. I’m a high level competition shooter. I also hunt some. I think there are way, way to many guns in hands. I spend a lot of time around other shooters. It is frightening. People at the range waving LOADED guns in all directions. Plenty of bullet holes in the sheet metal roof. Owning a gun doesn’t mean you have any qualifications. Zero training. We don’t let people drive without training! Also, I think assault rifles are for the military. And I don’t see the need for anything semi auto. INCLUDING pistols. If I can’t get the deer in three shots the deer win. If you need a gun for home defense get a short barreled pump shotgun. Odds are you’ll die in a wreck driving to work though. I think there should be way more regulation. License, registration, insurance, training, a tax to support that training. Giving the government the bird and saying I won’t negotiate reasonable laws means they’ll just make laws without your input.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I see a lot of bi-partisan agreement on this issue, more than about any other generally partisan issue. So, just curious where we stand, with regards to gun control.

What is needed, more than anything else, is an "attitude adjustment" that will reduce the propensity of Americans to shoot each other over trivial reasons.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Whatever you have an opinion on. It's generally US though. I'd probably say Canada's are too restrictive, but they don't have the second amendment. I also have not much of an opinion or knowledge on Canadian politics.

The main difference between the Canadian gun control laws and the American gun control laws is that in Canada you have to show objective evidence that you actually know how to handle firearms safely before you are allowed to own them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

In the US..."shall not be infringed".

In other words, no gun control.

Yep, and that's why you've got "no gun control" - almost to the point where any deranged, mentally sub-normal, person who can come up with the purchase price can buy guns.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That is ridiculous. Having 10 year olds or convicted felons able to be legally armed is not a good (or even sane) idea.

I'm with you on the "10 year-olds", but why should someone who is 60 years old, who was convicted of "possession of marijuana" when they were 18, and who hasn't received as much as a traffic ticket since then, NOT be allowed to own a gun?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When my sons were 9 years old, they were just as competent at handling firearms as I am after half a lifetime in the Army. That's because I taught them.

A law that says a convicted felon who commits a crime involving a firearm gets the death penalty is sufficient.

"Convicted felon" - would that mean "convicted of a felony previously" or would the crime that they were just convicted of be sufficient?

"Involving" - would that mean

1. producing, using, and causing harm to a person​

​

2. producing, using, but not causing harm to a person​

​

3. producing but not using​

​

4. known to be in possession of but not producing​

​

5. not known to be in possession of but being in possession of and not producing​

​

6. having ready access to but not being in actual possession of at the time the crime was committed​

​

7. taking someone else's firearm during the course of a crime​

or what?

If someone was convicted of "felony possession of marijuana" when they were 18, had not received even a traffic ticket since then, then (to celebrate their 60th birthday) goes out and fires a neighbour's shotgun and accidentally wounds someone - should that person be executed?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I voted other. I’m a gun owner. I’m a high level competition shooter. I also hunt some. I think there are way, way to many guns in hands. I spend a lot of time around other shooters. It is frightening. People at the range waving LOADED guns in all directions. Plenty of bullet holes in the sheet metal roof. Owning a gun doesn’t mean you have any qualifications. Zero training. We don’t let people drive without training! Also, I think assault rifles are for the military. And I don’t see the need for anything semi auto. INCLUDING pistols. If I can’t get the deer in three shots the deer win. If you need a gun for home defense get a short barreled pump shotgun. Odds are you’ll die in a wreck driving to work though. I think there should be way more regulation. License, registration, insurance, training, a tax to support that training. Giving the government the bird and saying I won’t negotiate reasonable laws means they’ll just make laws without your input.

I feel perfectly capable of defending my home against any reasonably foreseeable threat with a six shot, cap and ball, .36 cal, 1860 Colt "Army" revolver.

Like you, I believe that, if you haven't bagged the deer by the third shot the game final is "Deer 1 - Hunter 0".

 

[Maccabee]

I see a lot of bi-partisan agreement on this issue, more than about any other generally partisan issue. So, just curious where we stand, with regards to gun control.

I'm of two camps on this one.

1. Shall not be infringed

2. Some laws I'm ok with as long as I get something like national reciprocity.

 

[TurtleDude]

tougher punishments on felons who break the law and harm others with firearms

get rid of moronic restrictions on honest people like the 1934 NFA and the Hughes Amendment, and idiotic state laws banning this or that

 

[TurtleDude]

I voted other. I’m a gun owner. I’m a high level competition shooter. I also hunt some. I think there are way, way to many guns in hands. I spend a lot of time around other shooters. It is frightening. People at the range waving LOADED guns in all directions. Plenty of bullet holes in the sheet metal roof. Owning a gun doesn’t mean you have any qualifications. Zero training. We don’t let people drive without training! Also, I think assault rifles are for the military. And I don’t see the need for anything semi auto. INCLUDING pistols. If I can’t get the deer in three shots the deer win. If you need a gun for home defense get a short barreled pump shotgun. Odds are you’ll die in a wreck driving to work though. I think there should be way more regulation. License, registration, insurance, training, a tax to support that training. Giving the government the bird and saying I won’t negotiate reasonable laws means they’ll just make laws without your input.

I am laughing at how silly this is. You clearly don't know what an assault rifle is-despite your claims of being a "high level competition shooter". You apparently don't understand that most pistols sold today are semi autos. I find your claims to be utter bullshit

 

[TurtleDude]

I feel perfectly capable of defending my home against any reasonably foreseeable threat with a six shot, cap and ball, .36 cal, 1860 Colt "Army" revolver.

Like you, I believe that, if you haven't bagged the deer by the third shot the game final is "Deer 1 - Hunter 0".

Just hope you don't have multiple attackers who have body armor or have some training.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Just hope you don't have multiple attackers who have body armor or have some training.

Very little "body armour" actually covers the top of the bridge of the nose, the temple, or the auditory canal.

However, you are correct, if there are more than six of them then I might have to resort to changing cylinders. That takes around 5 seconds (max) - which is about the same length of time that it takes to change the magazine of a semi-automatic pistol.

Then I'm ready for the next six.

My training stressed not wasting ammunition so, at "close personal encounter" range, the expectation was "One round = one corpse". "Shoot to incapacitate" was considered a joke.

PS - The amount of "training" that the average thug has is roughly equivalent to the amount of knowledge that a 12 year old has of nuclear physics.

 

[TurtleDude]

Very little "body armour" actually covers the top of the bridge of the nose, the temple, or the auditory canal.

However, you are correct, if there are more than six of them then I might have to resort to changing cylinders. That takes around 5 seconds (max) - which is about the same length of time that it takes to change the magazine of a semi-automatic pistol.

Then I'm ready for the next six.

My training stressed not wasting ammunition so, at "close personal encounter" range, the expectation was "One round = one corpse". "Shoot to incapacitate" was considered a joke.

PS - The amount of "training" that the average thug has is roughly equivalent to the amount of knowledge that a 12 year old has of nuclear physics.

Hardly. I think my best was about .7 but that was forty years ago but under 2 seconds is easy. I have seen my son shoot 8 shots out of a SW Performance Center 9mm revolver, reload it and fire another 8-all in the A zone at 10 yards in less than 6 seconds. Five seconds for a semi is about 2.5 X normal. But you are right about your average thug

 

[iguanaman]

Anyone who commits a crime with a gun gets the death penalty. Problem solved.

Nukes are not arms that people can "bear". That is, you can't go to the store and buy one and building one isn't something the general public even knows how to do...even if they could somehow get the materials.

What kind of govt. would do that? What's next? Chopping off the hands of pickpockets? That punishment would be unconstitutional too. I do think we should go after the parents whose children get their hands on their guns though. Your son commits suicide with your gun and you get 2nd degree murder conviction.

 

[TurtleDude]

What kind of govt. would do that? What's next? Chopping off the hands of pickpockets? That punishment would be unconstitutional too.

It would also make hold up victims or bank tellers "freebies" because if a robber is going to get the needle, he might as well eliminate witnesses. Read the Onion Field for further edification

 

[brianpatrick]

When my sons were 9 years old, they were just as competent at handling firearms as I am after half a lifetime in the Army. That's because I taught them.

A law that says a convicted felon who commits a crime involving a firearm gets the death penalty is sufficient.

At nine years old children’s brains are not fully formed. They are not neurologically able to be as competent as an adult in anything. I’m not saying you shouldn’t teach your kids to hunt or shoot, but this statement is just bullshit. I’m sure you knew that when you made it though.

 

[TurtleDude]

At nine years old children’s brains are not fully formed. They are not neurologically able to be as competent as an adult in anything. I’m not saying you shouldn’t teach your kids to hunt or shoot, but this statement is just bullshit. I’m sure you knew that when you made it though.

I believe that some 9 year olds can HANDLE a firearm as many adults. As well as a professional shooter-no.

 

[ASHES]

I believe that some 9 year olds can HANDLE a firearm as many adults. As well as a professional shooter-no.

I bet some 9 year olds can drive real well, we still don't give them a driver's license. You're setting the exception as the rule. As a rule, 9 year olds are not capable of handling the responsibilities of firearms or driving.

 

[TurtleDude]

I bet some 9 year olds can drive real well, we still don't give them a driver's license. You're setting the exception as the rule. As a rule, 9 year olds are not capable of handling the responsibilities of firearms or driving.

handling is far different than "shoot-no/shoot scenarios.

 

[brianpatrick]

I believe that some 9 year olds can HANDLE a firearm as many adults. As well as a professional shooter-no.

I was talking more about the mental ability to “reason” like an adult.

 

[TurtleDude]

I was talking more about the mental ability to “reason” like an adult.

then I would agree

 

[Arby]

I voted other. I’m a gun owner. I’m a high level competition shooter. I also hunt some. I think there are way, way to many guns in hands. I spend a lot of time around other shooters. It is frightening. People at the range waving LOADED guns in all directions. Plenty of bullet holes in the sheet metal roof. Owning a gun doesn’t mean you have any qualifications. Zero training. We don’t let people drive without training! Also, I think assault rifles are for the military. And I don’t see the need for anything semi auto. INCLUDING pistols. If I can’t get the deer in three shots the deer win. If you need a gun for home defense get a short barreled pump shotgun. Odds are you’ll die in a wreck driving to work though. I think there should be way more regulation. License, registration, insurance, training, a tax to support that training. Giving the government the bird and saying I won’t negotiate reasonable laws means they’ll just make laws without your input.

What do you use? What class? What caliber? Bullet weight? Powder?
Why do you allow idiots at your club? Mine's private and stupid members
caught shooting up the target frames get booted, much less shooting
holes in the roof. It's very well kept and we have a very nice clubhouse.

 

[molten_dragon]

Reversing the ban on full auto isn't a small tweak.

On the contrary. There weren't all that many full-auto weapons owned by civilians before the ban, and nothing noteworthy ever happened with any of the legally owned ones. I don't expect it would have much of an effect on anything.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm with you on the "10 year-olds", but why should someone who is 60 years old, who was convicted of "possession of marijuana" when they were 18, and who hasn't received as much as a traffic ticket since then, NOT be allowed to own a gun?

That is an excellent point, but was covered by my initial post (#10) which was ”exactly the same individual qualifications (limitations?) should be used for the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms”.

 

[VySky]

I think its a dumb idea. Especially after what we saw last summer. Everyone and their brother is buying guns. And they are not all Republicans