Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[PhuturePriest]

Guns: necessary evil? Height of human good? Satan's scheme against humanity? God's gift and should be made the eighth and most important sacrament of the Church? Let me know your thoughts. You know, for science reasons. 

[Benedictus]

I'm somewhere between being a moderate and wanting harsher laws on guns. Most of the civil world does fine with less guns among the general population and with much stricter gun laws than the US. I think guns in the hands of the populace generally does more harm than good. I'd like to see strict measures on individuals introduced to restrict ownership of weapons that can do harm very quickly, especially any sort of automatic weapon.

[Nihil Obstat]

Not really knowing what is being implied by mild, moderate, and harsh, I chose mild. Specifically I think laws regarding firearms should always include provisions such that the average citizen can carry concealed, and with so-called "high-capacity magazines." Generally speaking I think automatic weapons should be both legal and possible to obtain without tremendous cost, though subject to more restrictions.

[PhuturePriest]

26 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Not really knowing what is being implied by mild, moderate, and harsh, I chose mild. Specifically I think laws regarding firearms should always include provisions such that the average citizen can carry concealed, and with so-called "high-capacity magazines." Generally speaking I think automatic weapons should be both legal and possible to obtain without tremendous cost, though subject to more restrictions.

Yeah, I can see where the ambiguity would be in the options. It's just hard to lay out specific ideas with limited space, plus some would like several ideas in one post but not all, and it would be a big unnecessary headache. I'm basically giving these options out and leaving it to the individual user to define what they mean with their choice.

[bardegaulois]

I'm going with mild here, primarily because the U.S. is awash in firearms, and I'd presume that a good share of them are not legally owned or purchased. So long as we have grave issues with street violence and even random violence, stiffening the restrictions on those who would legally and safely carry a firearm would diminish public safety, the exact opposite of what its supposed intent.

[Not A Real Name]

Sometimes I lean, depending on the recoil. 

[beatitude]

When I saw the title of this thread, my mind flashed back to a conversation I had with my mum when I was thinking about squeezing Texas into my visit to the US. She used to work there as a nurse.

Me: "What's it like there? Would I like it?"
Mum: "Well, it's very big and hot." And then, bemusedly, "And somebody advised me to get a gun to keep in my purse."

We're from the UK, where firearms are tightly controlled by law and gun ownership isn't common. Most of the guns people do own here are for shooting sports, which is why my mum was rather confused at being advised to add one to her accessories. I'm happy with things the way they are (the UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world) so I wouldn't want any changes to the strictness in the rules.

[NadaTeTurbe]

Like beatitude, I don't want the laws of my country to be changed. You can keep a weapon at home if you're a hunter or a professional shooter, you don't have a mental problem, and you don't have a criminal past. I'm both - hunter and I shoot for sport, but I don't keep a weapon at home, I don't see the interest. My hunter club have a special house where I borrow hunting guns when I need it. I've never heard anyone asking for more liberty in guns-owning, even people who are from the right (like me) and the far-right - people think it's too american.The only man I heard being frustrated with our guns laws was a neighbour who is now in Syria fighting for ISIS, thanks to God he did not have access to guns. 

[PhuturePriest]

Hm. So far, the majority of Phatmassers in the poll favor moderate to heavy gun control. I admit this surprises me. I had the impression Phatmass was mostly an NRA fest when it comes to guns, but now that I think about it there's only a few people who talk about their love of guns frequently.

[KnightofChrist]

I've just ignored this thread, because it's been done a bazillion times before.  I'm sure others have done the same.

The recent terrorists attacks in both France and California are yet more undeniable (for the honest person) evidence that heavy gun control is as ineffective and unrealistic as the war on drugs. Getting crack off the street is just as easy as getting automatic firearms, sometimes from the same dealer. Many people are waking up to the failures of the war on drugs and how ineffective it truly is due to the violence it prevents and even causes. It is likely after many deaths and many ineffective gun laws that most will come to a similar consultation on the war on guns.

[Nihil Obstat]

I like Canada's system in that in order to get your possession/acquisition licence, you have to sit through a fairly comprehensive gun safety and gun law course, then pass a test showing your retention of that information. After that the background checks are relatively in-depth, and often require personal references. Basically, as long as you're a reasonably intelligent person without major mental or legal issues, you can get your licence, but you do have to go to a bit of effort to show good faith.

What I do not like about the Canadian system is the almost total impossibility of carrying a concealed weapon. Unfortunately on that point both firearms laws and the criminal code regarding weapons would have to be altered to allow for it.

Currently there are two types of licences: the Possession and Acquisition licence (PAL), and the Restricted Possession and Acquisition licence (RPAL), which covers restricted guns including all handguns and some rifles. There was also a recently phased out Possession Only licence. In my opinion an ideal system would have a third tier, being an RPACL, a restricted possession acquisition, carry licence. Subject the applicant to further background checks and more advanced testing. Even require some form of qualification test. But make it so that a reasonably intelligent and law-abiding person can obtain it, as long as they again show that good faith effort, simply to a greater extent.

 

Also under the Canadian system certain rifles are prohibited or restricted under criteria which is by definition arbitrary. I think those prohitibed and restricted rifles should be loosened up a fair amount. For example, move the AR platform to non-restricted.

[PhuturePriest]

18 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I like Canada's system in that in order to get your possession/acquisition licence, you have to sit through a fairly comprehensive gun safety and gun law course, then pass a test showing your retention of that information. After that the background checks are relatively in-depth, and often require personal references. Basically, as long as you're a reasonably intelligent person without major mental or legal issues, you can get your licence, but you do have to go to a bit of effort to show good faith.

What I do not like about the Canadian system is the almost total impossibility of carrying a concealed weapon. Unfortunately on that point both firearms laws and the criminal code regarding weapons would have to be altered to allow for it.

Currently there are two types of licences: the Possession and Acquisition licence (PAL), and the Restricted Possession and Acquisition licence (RPAL), which covers restricted guns including all handguns and some rifles. There was also a recently phased out Possession Only licence. In my opinion an ideal system would have a third tier, being an RPACL, a restricted possession acquisition, carry licence. Subject the applicant to further background checks and more advanced testing. Even require some form of qualification test. But make it so that a reasonably intelligent and law-abiding person can obtain it, as long as they again show that good faith effort, simply to a greater extent.

 

Also under the Canadian system certain rifles are prohibited or restricted under criteria which is by definition arbitrary. I think those prohitibed and restricted rifles should be loosened up a fair amount. For example, move the AR platform to non-restricted.

In my State, pretty much anyone can buy a gun and do both concealed and open carry without any training whatsoever.

[veritasluxmea]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

Hm. So far, the majority of Phatmassers in the poll favor moderate to heavy gun control. I admit this surprises me. I had the impression Phatmass was mostly an NRA fest when it comes to guns, but now that I think about it there's only a few people who talk about their love of guns frequently.

I think that may be due to the ambiguity of the poll- I'm all for background checks, waiting period, ect (basically the current laws in my state). I would classify that as heavy/moderate gun control. Some people might not. It depends. 

[PhuturePriest]

1 minute ago, veritasluxmea said:

I think that may be due to the ambiguity of the poll- I'm all for background checks, waiting period, ect (basically the current laws in my state). I would classify that as heavy/moderate gun control. Some people might not. It depends. 

Perhaps relatively speaking. Heavy gun control would be an Australian or British system where it's very difficult to get a gun. But again, it's hard to make the poll unambiguous because if I made every option a list of laws, no one would be happy then, either, because they would like some laws on an option but not others. 

[Nihil Obstat]

9 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

In my State, pretty much anyone can buy a gun and do both concealed and open carry without any training whatsoever.

Yes. And I think that is within a state's proper authority to decide as being in accordance with common good. I am considering what I would do myself if I were to build a country's firearm laws from the ground up.