LibriumArcana.Games

Alright, I have decided to get to the heart of the matter of gun control and gun civil rights. I believe the primary difference of opinion to stem from the individual's answer to this simple question.

Of the two statements in the poll which do you believe should be the guiding belief?

Generally, I follow the idea that guns should be pretty openly allowed except when it can be proven that the person should not be allowed to have them. I do believe in restrictions on automatic and concealable weapons however and licences would definately be needed for those.

You know my stance. I think that only criminals and children with no adult supervision should be prohibited from gun ownership. I also think that some of the places we dont allow guns are bullshit.

In keeping with the idea of innocence until proof of guilt, people should be allowed to carry weapons in general unless and until it is proven that they are not fit to do so. Licensing in general and restrictions on automatic fire and concealability are acceptable to me, but otherwise...

Option C: Guns should only be allowed if you can prove yourself competent in their use, storage, and maintenence.

I'm with SirNitram.

To be blunt guys that's putting the burden of proof on the individual and doesn't sound very different from option A. Which doesn't say by which reasons an individual should be an exemption from the rule.

Option B. Impose whatever tests you like, mandatory training, whatever. I'm all for making gun users safer, just don't take away that option of having a gun.

frigidmagi wrote:To be blunt guys that's putting the burden of proof on the individual and doesn't sound very different from option A. Which doesn't say by which reasons an individual should be an exemption from the rule.

The 'Prove you have need' is far too easily twisted in either direction. By requiring you know how to fucking use and own the thing without people getting injured unnecessarily, you at least have a more objective method to weed it out.

By requiring you know how to fucking use and own the thing without people getting injured unnecessarily, you at least have a more objective method to weed it out.

Who decides you've proved it and what you need to do to prove it however?

frigidmagi wrote:

By requiring you know how to fucking use and own the thing without people getting injured unnecessarily, you at least have a more objective method to weed it out.

Who decides you've proved it and what you need to do to prove it however?

Could always ask the military to determine the requirements for a competency exam. It's not an easy way to do things, I admit.

Could always ask the military to determine the requirements for a competency exam. It's not an easy way to do things, I admit.

We are not equipped to start testing civilians and I'm pretty sure that would attract a lawsuit on Constitutional grounds.

frigidmagi wrote:

Could always ask the military to determine the requirements for a competency exam. It's not an easy way to do things, I admit.

We are not equipped to start testing civilians and I'm pretty sure that would attract a lawsuit on Constitutional grounds.

Not the military issuing the test, but setting down the requirements.

ANd yea, someone who start a lawsuit over the idea of being required to be safe with firearms, sadly.

ANd yea, someone who start a lawsuit over the idea of being required to be safe with firearms, sadly.

I meant over the military having civil authority. I would bet on the lawsuit coming from the Gun Control crowd honestly.

The problem here is a practical one as well. No civil authority has the manpower or money to institute those sorts of programs necessary to test and train people in the use, storage etc of firearms. This could easily end up like the Marijuana Tax Stamp act (or whatever it is called) where the licenses exist, but cannot (or are not) ever actually issued.

Here we have the progression

Option A) the person seeking a license already has a gun, and he is incriminating himself by taking the exam, or presenting his gun to be legalized (this is what happened historically)

Option B) Expensive and time consuming training process that eats city resources and manpower, and limits the number of gun owners, regardless of how many responsible gun-owners there would be if this regulation were not in place . This is due to the fact that there are more people who currently own guns responsibly than municipalities probably have the capacity to train. EX. Drivers licenses. If anyone has ever been to the DMV, you know it is a nightmare. Now imagine of the training required was, necessarily, even more involved, because one has to prove they are competent (and as we know, they gave me a license, and I am horrible behind the wheel)

The simple fact is, the vast vast majority of gun owners are safe and responsible all by their big selves. It makes no sense to make them prove it, unless the government has the resources to do it quickly efficiently, and with minimal fuss.

In the meantime, criminals, who are really the people you dont want to have guns, will still have them. And irresponsible individuals will always exist who can pass the tests.

Just adopt Canada's hunting course standards as part of your licensing requirements. Your required to do both a written and practical exam on firearms to prove competancy. It covers longarms but I believe a course existes to cover pistols as well. Covers safety and basic use. I realise that the more right wing crowd in the US will cry socialism but between Canada's example and a course fleshed out by the military you should have a course the covers everything nicely.

You need to be trained and tested before you get a driver's liscence, I don't see why a gun should be different.

Well, the problem is, the training is difficult unless one already has a gun in hand. We have "learners permits" here in the US that allow for someone to learn how to drive under supervision. However, this would be impractical for gun ownership. Especially if you require a practical exam.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Well, the problem is, the training is difficult unless one already has a gun in hand. We have "learners permits" here in the US that allow for someone to learn how to drive under supervision. However, this would be impractical for gun ownership. Especially if you require a practical exam.

It wouldn't be precisely identical. However a written test with questions regarding safe handling, loading, and stowing is completely doable.

And furthermore, I think it should get yanked with a DUI. If you can't handly potentially deadly machinery responsibly, you can't handle deadly machinery responsibly.

Simple solution: teach gun safety in schools. Throw in marksmanship while you're at it.

Everybody's happy.

Cynical Cat wrote:

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Well, the problem is, the training is difficult unless one already has a gun in hand. We have "learners permits" here in the US that allow for someone to learn how to drive under supervision. However, this would be impractical for gun ownership. Especially if you require a practical exam.

It wouldn't be precisely identical. However a written test with questions regarding safe handling, loading, and stowing is completely doable.

And furthermore, I think it should get yanked with a DUI. If you can't handly potentially deadly machinery responsibly, you can't handle deadly machinery responsibly.

Perhaps that, with the same infrastructure as currently exists for our vehicular licensing system. But doing much else in terms of complexity would not be practical.

That of course assumes for the sake of argument that I agree with licensing the use of firearms, which I do not necessarily.

A couple of questions for those who responded:

1. How many here were taught gun safety by either family members or the military?
2. How many here currently own a gun?

LadyTevar wrote:A couple of questions for those who responded:

1. How many here were taught gun safety by either family members or the military?
2. How many here currently own a gun?

Family first, JROTC second, and yeah.

Cynical Cat has the right idea. A competency exam should be necessary to handle any piece of deadly machinery, like we demand drivers undergo.

LadyTevar wrote:A couple of questions for those who responded:

1. How many here were taught gun safety by either family members or the military?
2. How many here currently own a gun?

1) My ex-Marine grandfather. Not sure if that counts as both or not.
2) Not I.