Stance on gun control

[Excalibur]

It's never occurred to me to ask my fellow "co-workers" here about what their opinions are. We're all from different backgrounds from mostly in North America I think and all we do is essentially cataloging guns in media but...I've never asked anyone about their opinions on gun control and the current climate going on.

[Jcordell]

I'm forty-eight years old and I have been shooting since I was twelve. All of my adult life I've either been a soldier or a police officer. I am also married and a father (boy and girl - both now young adults). I collect vintage handguns and I'm a Lifetime member with the NRA. I have no solutions and I understand and acknowledge some of the concerns and arguments from the other side. I'm well aware of the carnage that has been caused over the past few years by individuals equipped with high capacity semi-automatic rifles. I also have first hand experience with the carnage that can be caused by a firearm. However banning and prohibiting firearms wouldn't work in the United States if for no other reason then there are too many guns and millions of gun-owners and case law that supports gun ownership (both directly and indirectly) and now the 2nd Amendment has been "incorporated" so that's a whole other can of worms.

I don't like gun control, but at the same time I have dealt directly with people who are dangerous, unbalanced and definitely should not be in possession of a firearm - ever. But banning firearms and going after private citizens will require some serious gerrymandering with the constitution and could lead to some serious blowback. Not all gun owners fit the stereotype of the big-belly blowhard who drinks too much beer and has a backbone of mush. Both sides tend to be intractable and often seem more focused on screaming at each other rather than trying to discuss the issue. But I was more willing to be flexible until 1994 and Clinton's Crime Bill. Suddenly with that thing passing the anti's just wanted more and more and I dug my heels in - hard. I've become more moderate in the past few years, but it comes with conditions. So does this help?

[Spartan198]

I consider mandatory trigger locks, background checks, and closing loopholes that circumvent such checks in any way to be reasonable. I also don't think civilians not affiliated with law enforcement or government agencies need "machine guns" as the AFT calls them or destructive devices such as grenade launchers. Beyond that, I consider everything else like magazine capacity limits, barrel length, and feature bans to be frivolous because they don't really actually prevent any crime from being committed.

[funkychinaman]

The "gunshow loophole" is a ludicrous term, because I don't know about you guys, I've never bought a gun at a gun show or even online without passing a background check first. They should call it the Craigslist loophole, and I have no idea how they would intend to enforce such a thing.

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

The "gunshow loophole" is a ludicrous terms, because I don't know about you guys, I've never bought a gun at a gun show or even online without passing a background check first. They should call it the Craigslist loophole, and I have no idea how they would intend to enforce such a thing.

Same here. Now ,on the other hand, I have purchased several firearms through estate auctions and background investigations are not required. The auction company is merely acting as an agent in the sale of property. Legally it is considered to be a sale between two private citizens and ,so far, the Federal government is not messing with that. The only time that I have had to fill out the federal paperwork was when a longtime pawnshop went out of business in my hometown and I won the bid on my Webley. Since the pawnshop had an FFL the business was following Federal requirements. The last two handguns I've purchased have been at estate auctions. I don't see estate auctions being viewed as an "easy" way for badguys to obtain guns. The bidding can get pretty intense and the auction company has you provide information before you can get a number - which you need to enter into a bidding. I'm a collector and I can tell you that a typical lowlife will get steamrolled if they think they can obtain that Colt Python or even an Astra .357 magnum for just a few hundred bucks.

[SPEMack618]

I'm 29. Have spent the last 12 years in uniform of some sort for my country. Have a bunch of pretty ribbons, too.

And I think the BATFE is a bunch of corrupt jack booted thugs and should be disbanded yesterday.

I actually support the NFA '34, and would happily write a check to the IRS for a tax stamp, but don't think the BATFE should be involved.

The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA '86 is un-Constitutional and a threat to National Security.

I think that if I sell a rifle to Joe down the street the Government shouldn't give a damn.

However, making FFLs run background checks before new guns are sold is reasonable. However, I would do away with the paperwork. Too much potential for abuse.

I don't think safe storage and mandatory trigger lock laws are a joke; but, if Ruger wants to give me a trigger lock with every gun I purchase, cool beans.

[Nyles]

Gonna stir the pot a little here, just keep in mind I'm coming at this from a non-American perspective. I'm 30, I've been in the Canadian army reserve for 10 years (including a tour to Afghanistan), I ran the gun counter at a Cabelas for 5 years, I'm now an investigator for an insurance company (which incidentally involves a lot more contact with organised crime than you'd think). I've been a shooter and gun collector since I was a young teenager and I'd wager that I own more guns than anyone here except the armorers.

I find the older I get, and the more time I spend around "gun people", the more moderate I get. Working 5 years at the gun counter did a lot to open my eyes about how many idiots and yahoos out there own guns, and 9 months in Kandahar showed me what a society that has NO gun control really looks like.

Is there any reason an intelligent, responsible gun owner shouldn't be able to own whatever they want? Not really, no. But the reality is there's no real legal way to distinguish the responsible people for the irresponsible ones - just because you've never been convicted of a criminal offense does not mean you're responsible enough to own a machine gun.

There are plenty of things I don't like about our gun laws, but I'm actually very in favor of licensing firearms owners. Guns aren't the problem, the people who have them can be. I know that it would never fly in the States, but the fact that in Canada you need to have a license to buy or possess a firearm or ammunition is, I think, the main reason we don't have nearly the same problem with mass shootings as you do. If you're unable to pass a 6 hour safety course and unwilling to fill out a background check form, I don't want you to have a gun.

We used to have registration of long guns, which I think was a waste of time and money. It never really bothered me on a personal level, it took 5 minutes on the RCMP website to register a rifle, but I'm glad we got rid of it as a cost-saving measure. We still register handguns, which I'm still pretty indifferent to - it's not that much of a hassle on me personally and the rate of handgun ownership here is low enough that I doubt it costs much.

We don't have handgun carry in Canada, which frankly doesn't bother me. I've carried a gun enough that it doesn't hold much excitement for me anymore. I've spent all of my life living and working downtown in one of our most violent cities and never felt the need for a gun on my person, and sold plenty of guns to people I've very glad AREN'T able to carry one on my bus to work.

I don't like that we can't own .25s, .32s or short barreled handguns, I think that's foolish and arbitrary. I don't like that I can only shoot handguns on a range (or some tactical rifles if I actually owned any), I think it's way safer to be shooting 9mm in the bush than .30-06. Our laws relating to tactical rifles in general are also arbitrary and convoluted to the point of being unenforceable. I'm glad we don't have your destructive devices law - I own a 14.5mm anti-tank rifle that qualifies as such in the States and I think it's the last gun in my collection a criminal would want. We can ship guns across the country without involving a dealer, I never understood the point behind that one.

But mostly I don't like the loud and aggressive gun culture that's becoming more and more prominent here and from what I can see in the States. Guns are my hobby, you might even say my passion, but they're not my identity. I don't like that more and more being a gun owner seems to come packaged with a whole set of unrelated conservative social and political viewpoints. I think the loud "no compromise", "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric is completely unproductive and mostly just scares people who might not care about gun control into thinking we're all a bunch of irrational aggressive rednecks who probably shouldn't have guns.

[Excalibur]

No offense to Canadian gun owners, but there is a distinction between the "gun culture" of America compared to Canada. I don't believe the mentalities are the same on a fundamental level. With the US, its very founding was partly over the problems of government oversight without representation, and even involving confiscation of arms from the people. A permanent point on the Constitution was made solely for this situation. It's designed to be very clear cut.

To a lot of people, having guns is mostly a hobby, but people tend to forget that your right to own guns is guaranteed by the Constitution and shouldn't be taken for granted. The protection of our rights has to be loud and aggressive because the opposition are just as loud and aggressive in how they want to paint guns being evil things and think that somehow they can just be wished away with fairy dust. The people who seek more strict gun controls don't know guns, don't own guns, nor do they want to understand guns. They just see "Oh that looks scary", let's ban it.


Also to compare western countries like the US and Canada to the Stan and Iraq is like comparing the Ming Dynasty to the Zulu. We're talking about completely different environments, cultures, history and people with almost nothing alike. We're talking about a people that's still heavily influenced by their ass backwards religion that it goes deep into any form of government.

The middle east has mostly been a shit hole for a long time. Sure, spots of civilization and great culture has popped up in the ancient past, but other than the Persian Empire and the following golden age that has brought things like coffee and the number ZERO, the middle east never been a place of evolving moral standards and civilization.

It's not gun control that solves the crime problems of America. If it does work, LA, Chicago and New York City would be some of the safest cities in America, but they are not. Just this passed week, over 50 people were killed as a result of crime in Chicago and that city has some of the strictest gun laws in America.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

A permanent point on the Constitution was made solely for this situation. It's designed to be very clear cut.

The problem that I have with the 2nd amendment, is that it is really not very clear cut at all. In fact, to me at least, it is very ambiguous to whom the right is being bestowed. To me the wording "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would seem that the right to bear arms is only protected if you are part of a regulated Militia. This was also the opinion of the US Supreme Court until 2008 when they ruled that it also applied to individuals (in a split 5-4 decision).

Having said this I am against any additional forms of gun control in the US. This isn't because I think gun control is in and of itself a bad thing, but it just wouldn't work due to the history/culture of the USA and the huge amount of firearms that are already in circulation.

[Excalibur]

Most of the people of the period went into great details on what the 2A actually meant and all of them say it's the people's rights to protect themselves, be it from anyone who wish you harm or a government that wishes to oppress you.

The 2A is in 2 parts. The first is establishment of a militia which is different from an actual state controlled military and it needs to be regulated to protect a free state. The second part specifically mentions people, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To keep, meaning to have - to own, possess.
To bear, meaning to carry around, open or otherwise.


I think that is the point established that whoever is the people is, they have the right to keep and bear arms.

That seems pretty clear to me.


What I think should be set into law is harsh consequences for being irresponsible.