For or against?

I once worked for a company that designed and manufactured scopes for handguns and rifles. Naturally, the company is very pro-NRA, simply because outlawing guns hurts their business.

On a realistic side, I'm pro-freedom to defend oneself, and pro-freedom to hunt. And yes, this includes firearms. Now, I'm not going to bring-up questions about rights and all that political crap. Rather, I'm going to point this out in a realistic light.

Do you need a gun to defend yourself? No, you can also always take Judo. Do you need a gun to hunt? No, and there are several bows on the market arguably more accurate than many firearms. However, let's look at the issue like this:

Why shouldn't guns be legal?

The most importand, and most voice opinion/reason, is that they are too dangerous. Let's face it: So are automobiles.

Which is where my solution comes into play. Why have a manditory 3-day waiting period for owning a gun? To keep you from killing someone in "the heat of the moment", background checks, etc. So why is that all you need to do to obtain a gun?

Requre all prospective gun owners, all current gun owners, and the immediate family members of gun owners/pgo's to take gun safety classes. Familiarize people with their gun. Teach people that they are not toys. Have professionals demonstrate exactly what a gun can do to a person. Seeing someones' head shot on TV is one thing; seeing a manniquins' head full of tapioca pudding and ketchup get shot is quite the other. Teach people how to use their gun.

Granted, this won't keep criminals from getting a gun, nor will it hinder those who REALLY want a gun. Especially since I am completely against a national registry for gun owners (Poland, anyone?). However, it WILL teach normally honest kids that the gun they want to show off isn't a plaything. It will teach responsibility. And it would lower the accidental shooting rates in America.

This is what my old company did. They sponsored people coming to to teach gun safety classes, and they encouraged us to bring in our own guns to learn how they work (and provided guns should we not actually own one). They taught us the parts, how they work, how to clean and care for them. How to hold them (there are lots of stances). How to target. How to shoot properly, and where to aim if you eve point a gun at a person in self defense. That if you point a gun at someone, you better be ready to shoot them, and not using the gun for anything but your last option.

And yes, I do say that I'm quite proud to be one of the best shots in that company's history, having hit a simulated (steel) duck head at fifty feet with a semi-auto pistol 8 out of 9 shots on average. The head, not the body (which is what we were supposed to be aiming at).

Now then, I also don't think ALL guns should be legal. Machine guns? Please, as if those are hunting guns. All they're good for "hunting" are people. Let's use a little common sense. I liked that Brady Bill...and it's a shame it wasn;t renewed while the Patriot Act was...but that's another barrel of fish.

And I'm not one who sees the sport or fun in shooting fish in a barrel.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Dead Horse, how can there be required classes for all prospective and current gun owners if there is no structure with which to know who has, and does not have one? Without any kind of registry, there can be no way to enforce the course you suggest.

And who's going to pay for that?

Admittedly, requiring all gun owners to take these classes will be difficult without a national gun registry. Which is why I added all prospective owners. If you want to purchase a gun, then you have to provide proof (certificate, what have you, etc.) of completing said courses.

And if you can afford to buy a gun, then you can afford to take the class(es)/pay for the class(es) yourself.

Even if you can't require current owners to take the classes, forcing new owners to take them will, over time, have the cumulative effect of the majority of lawful gun owners and immediate family taking the classes.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

See, the problem I'm having with this argument is the concept of a "law-abiding citizen". I've already elaborated on it in this thread. There's no common definition of a "law-abiding citizen" and nobody can tell a criminal from a law-abiding citizen before they have actually committed a crime. This is why I think nobody should be allowed to have such a weapon in the first place. I think the chances of abuse outweigh the positive aspects of having a gun by far. Besides, I think a positive aspect can only be achieved with a gun that's never actually fired.

I don't know how you feel about this, but I just couldn't entrust a person with a gun just because they claim to be "law-abiding citizens". There is no scientific way to even prove this, so you're basically argueing to trust random with deadly weapons. I'm just not comfortable with that and will probably never understand where this trust comes from given the relatively high amount of homicides that involve firearms legally purchased by your a law-abiding citizen.

As an example, I wouldn't want to live in a neighbourhood with the thought of guns being stored in every household - no matter how peaceful and trustful this neighbourhood might be. I prefer to be relatively certain that the place I'm living in is just free of guns. Maybe it's just a matter of trust and I don't feel like taking unnecessary risks.

Have you ever been convicted of or accused of committing a crime?

No?

There you go.

Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are more likely to commit a crime, or to even use it. Just as purchasing a hammer doesn't make you more likely to become a carpenter.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Calling America ethnically diverse is a laugh and a half. Maybe in the border states, and the big cities, but by and large, you won't find Black people outside of the south, and you won't find Poles in Washington state.

Per square mile perhaps you would be correct, but American population isn't evenly distributed. The major cities are hugely diverse ethnically, and a vast amount of Americans live in these major metropolitan cities, or in the surrounding cities/towns.

And as Gumby wrote, Oregon is a microcosm in itself. The largest city, Portland, is home to European Caucasians (with Germans and Poles in their own sub-cosms), Russians, Chinese, Japanese, African Americans, and Mexicans...and let's not go into individual religious groups. I can't say there are many native French speakers, but you can't have them all. Most of these groups live in "their own areas" within the city, but constantly intermingle. Then in the "outlying areas" the ethnicities become even more obvious. Woodburn, for example, is a prime example of a small(ish) town hosting a large amount of Mexicans, Russians, Euro-Caucasians, and a minority of Asians. Other towns aer set-up in a similar manner, though many of the smaller towns, towns in the "high desert", or aren't along the I-5 corridor are typically less diverse.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

What

Yeah, people are always buying hammers without any intent of engaging in carpentry. Why would anyone do that? Why would you buy a hammer unless you wanted to pound some nails? Why would you buy a piece of hardware unless you intended to work with it?

People own tools because they are operating under a reasonable expectation that they might be called upon to use such tools. I don't know anyone who owns a hammer but is morally opposed to hammering things.

You rather missed the point, lad. Yes, you buy the hammer with the expectation to use it, but you don't have to buy a hammer then take up carpentry as a profession because you bought one. The same is true with guns. You don't buy a gun unless you feel there may come a time in which you will need to use it. But you don't become more inclined to become a criminal because you bought a gun.

Guns are a limited use tool, but don't forget that they are only a tool. It still takes a person for a gun to be harmful.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

Well, no, guns aren't magical, Charlie, they don't have a curse cast on them which transforms you into an evil man. (And, again, this issue pops up again — the idea of "criminals" as some kind of nebulous OTHER)

No, what is gun is, indeed, is a "limited use tool", where all of its intended uses are basically blowing ragged holes through things. Mostly living things. Whether or not it's CRIMINAL to blow off your teenage son's head when he sneaks in late (because you thought he might be a criminal!) is kind of beside the point.

But GAWRSH, Mickey, I'm not a CRIME-INAL, a CRIMINAL, and that has made all the difference.

Go back to my earlier post and read-up on my proposal for manditory firearm safety education prior to purchasing any firearm.

If the user isn;t stupid, and those in the household are educated in proper safety ettiquite (whicn includes teaching kids that a gun is not a show-and-tell toy for your friends at home), then accidental death or injury incidents WILL drop.

You know, it's rather like sex ed: One side believes teaching children about sex, thereby informing them of both the dangers and the protections, will reduce teenage pregnancy...while another side believes teaching children to just say no to sex completely will stop teenage pregnancy.

In regards to guns, I'm on the former side rather than the latter. An informed public is a public that knows better. But sex? Wrong topic, so don't ask.

I was speaking idiomatically.

That's a problem, too. There's always going to be a gun, or a knife, or a bat, or a stapler, or a dry-eraser...we're limited in our ways to kill only by our imagination.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Don't forget body parts. People have died from being headbutted. Now there's "using your head".

at my own dumb joke.

Guy at my old high school head-butted another kid (both were on the football team, but the head-buttee was rather scrawny) , which sent the head-buttee to the hospital room with a concussion.

...yeah...school made a few new rules after that one.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

Yes, and then you introduce the inevitable problems of any government-run program: apathy, ineffectuality, double standards and bribery. You'd see the same thing that goes on with the DMV; lots of rich folks and pretty girls getting the nod regardless of their competence. Besides, if you make the safety classes mandatory, then gun ownership becomes a privilege rather than a right and that won't satisfy anyone. Furthermore, it limits firearm ownership to whoever can pay for the classes. They'd have to charge a "nominal fee", after all, and charging a nominal fee so that people can make use of their basic constitutional rights is apparently completely acceptable.

And Gun ownership isn't restricted to whose who can afford the gun, ammunition, and maintenance? And wouldn't SOME system of pre-education be better than no education at all? Unless, of course, you also have a proposal to fix the DMV, as you exampled. And as far as denying rights, this does no such thing. You can get a gun anytime you want, you just have to prove you know how to handle it. Just like a car, really. Though there is no direct right regarding automobiles (for obvious reasons: These rights were drafted in the 18th century), you still have to have a license in order to drive it.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

See, this always cracks me up, because unlike the gun debate this one is demonstrably one-sided. You can look at any given town or state's teen pregnancy rates before and after the Paranoid Parent Collective freaks out and cancels the sex-ed classes, and the result is always the same. This is all off-topic, of course, but it just shows how useless statistical data is when people just WANT to believe otherwise anyway.

It's one sided to you, because that is the side you choose. However, there ARE two sides to that argument, and the other side has their own data to back up their claims.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

The Flat Earth Society is also operating under the delusion that all debates are two-sided. Good for them! The world needs more idealists.

And yet the Abstience policy is still mandatory in how many Federally Funded schools again?

It doesn't mean that side is completely right, and it doesn't mean that side is completely wrong. After all, the Abstinence Only group holds their belief strongly in religion, and religious freedom of definately something you wouldn't want to step on in America. For you to disregard their stance is akin to my disregarding yours simply on the basis that I don't view "Right to Bear Arms" the same as you do.

See how the "I am right because I just am!" idea falls flat on its face? Debate becomes nothing more than a shouting match.

So, really, you've argued the implemntation of gun education...but not the idea(l). Which is exactly the opposite of how you feel about sex ed, apparently, though you would meet severe opposition on your views based on others views and religious beliefs were you try to impliment your apparent beliefs onto others.

You see how the similarity works now?

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

To me, it just seems obvious.

"Well, the gun used in the killing belongs to Joe Smith."

"We should arrest Joe Smith, in that case!"

"WTF NO THAT'S PERSECUTION OF GUN OWNERS"

I mean, hello? I'm not a POLICE COP but it seems like determining the origins of the weapons used in a crime is a PRETTY CRUCIAL STEP!

Only if the owner knowingly allowed his weapon to be used in a crime.

Now then, if it had been stolen from the owner, then the owner is clearly not liable. You WOULD make arguements about how the gun was stored, etc., in regards to such a theft, and some states do have such laws. But if the owner had taken reasonable steps to secure their weapon, yet the weapon is stolen (or taken in other, extenuating circumstances) and used in a crime anyways, then how is the Owner at fault?

"Hey, someone stole my baseball bat from the locker room and used it to beat Billy to death...why are you taking me to jail instead of/with the guy that stole and used it criminally?"

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

Right, exactly, my gun was "stolen" from my "locked gun case" which "only I had the key to" and then it was used to "rob and kill and old lady" "completely without my knowledge".

Honestly!

And what else was stolen when your home was burglarized?

The cynisism doesn't suit you, especially when your words are hollow and your logic fuzzy.

So if, say, someone steals your car and uses it during a Bank Robbery, you should be held accountable as well for providing the criminal the means to carry out their crime.

Fuzzier than 7-year-old Jello...

How ya doing, buddy?