I support gun ownership, and gun control.

[SFGOON]

Gun control is very much needed. An item as potentially dangerous as a firearms should be subject to the exact same regulations as car ownership - taxation, registration, and licensing to operate. Also, they should work out some sort of thingy where before you can pull the trigger you breathe in to it and if it smels booze on your breath it won't fire.

[Anna Kovacs]

I'm mostly happy with the laws as they are.

Things I would change: A concealed carry liscense is honored nation-wide just like a drivers liscense.

All states are "shall-issue" on concealed carry liscenses as long as the applicant can display reasonable competance and pass the background checks.

The 1986 ban on the manufacture of new machine guns should be lifted. The 1934 NFA was 100% successful at stopping legal machine guns being used in violent crimes so why did new manufacture of them need to be banned and drive prices sky-high? (You can still get them, you just pay about 15-20 times the guns actual value)

Short barrel rifles and Short barrel shotguns should be removed from the NFA and considered as just another firearm.

The transfer tax on suppressors should be lowered from $200 to $5 like AOW type weapons. In many european countrys suppressors can be bought over the counter for as little as 50 dollars. Yet here in a country with much laxer gun laws as is a $50 suppressor would probably cost you $450. Doesnt make any sense.

[Neildo]

It is illegal to carry knifes larger than certain blade lenght, swithcblades, bras knucles, maze, extensible clubs and the like. Why? because gangs and assaulters use them. So now, I, a legal-avidign citizen I´m unarmed against would-be assaulters. But since such stuff is available in the black market, criminals have some degree of access to it. Do you think that somebody determined to stab somebody would be stopped by the fact that carrying that stuff is illegal? No, but since they know that law-aviding citizens, such as myself, do not carry blades, maze o, much less, guns, they are encouraged to carry and use that stuff.

It's the same here in Kanuckistan.

I know where i can get all that stuff (guns too), but if i'm caught with it, it means jail time.

Gun control is very much needed. An item as potentially dangerous as a firearms should be subject to the exact same regulations as car ownership - taxation, registration, and licensing to operate.

I ride a bicycle on occasion.
In Vancouver, i might as well be wearing a giant placard that says: TARGET PRACTICE.
Stupid motherfuckers in their cars talking on cellphones, smoking cigarettes, applying make-up, doing taxes, eating dinner, getting BJ's, and just generally driving like they don't know how, because they don't, try to kill me all the time. I should be allowed to take a few pot shots every now and then, but alas...

My point is, even after all those control measures are in place, people still drive like idiots.
Gun control should be a teensy bit stricter.

edit: stricter? is that even a word?

[Plasma]

A concealed carry liscense is honored nation-wide just like a drivers liscense.

All states are "shall-issue" on concealed carry liscenses as long as the applicant can display reasonable competance and pass the background checks.

Ever since getting into firearms, the fact this isn't way things work now annoys me the most.

[saturnjunkie]

I found your post kind of hard to read so I'm going to reply to each section individually.

Then why should jails exist exist? Since there are gonna be people sho would commit a crime despite the imprisionment threat, jails ara pruposeles... see where this argument leads ya?

Jails are not equal to guns. Guns are a tool. Jails, are either for incarceration or rehabilitation, depending on what you're using it for. Jails can also be a source of cheap labor for the state too, but let's just avoid that arguement for now. What exactly is your point here? I've looked at this several times and I don't get it. Jails (in theory) remove unlikeable elements from societies so that the rest of society is not spent trying to defend itself against it. Guns on the other hand, I contend, are a tool. It's a proven fact that criminals prey on the weaker people out there - that they choose their victims based on how easy it would be to make said person a victim.

Path of least resistance and all that jazz.

Anyways I think I need you to reexplain this part of your arguement for me to properly understand the context for which you are applying it.

Look, if you drive under the influence, you get your driving license forfeited, at least for a period (in my country, I mean, I think there is something similar in yours, am I correct).

You can get alot more than just that over here. You pay thousands in court costs, fines, have the potential for jail time, and god only knows what else. So are you saying if I get busted for a DUI I should never be able to drive again? Because that is basically how gun control would work.

People who have a record on violent crimes shouldn´t be allowed to own firearms becuase it would meake harder for them to get one, and probably it would be harder for them to commit a violent crime which may be fatal in nature.

So violent criminals lose their ability to defend themselves as well? What if they live in a rough neighborhood, have rehabilitated, and are trying to make a life for themselves while protecting their family? Rehabilitation is the key. A violent person is just that - A VIOLENT PERSON. The gun is simply a means to an end. Someone can kill me just as easily with a knife as a gun or a rock for that matter.

i mean, it´s easier to kill or seriously maim somebody with a firegun than with a knife.

Tell that to britain. You think people would want to mug grandma if she wore a 357 revolver around and was trained on how to use it for defense? Possibly, but you know they'd think twice, at bare minimum. Also, for the record I'd much rather be shot than stabbed.

Of course, someone determinde to do something, won`tt be stoppes just because he can´t legally buy a gun, but that doesn´t mean we should make it easier for them to get one and commit a crime.

On one level I agree, and on another I disagree. For one, if you're going to say violent crime, you really need to quantify WHICH violent crimes. Rape? Murder? Terrorism? Technically the american founders were murdering terrorists. So more quantification is necessary. I should start a thread on the symantics of the word terrorism and how IT needs more quantification. But I digress. I see your point but I think this issue will never be resolved until people can learn to be more disciplined with their own lives. Humankind is a mess right now.

Let´s see if I can make myself clearer. I´m pissed that my country has stripped me of the right to protect myself, and I´m not just talking about guns.

ok...? So are you contending that you've NOT commited a violent crime, therefore you should be eligible for self defense weapons? Even though that makes you a potential threat against your governmental officials?

It is illegal to carry knifes larger than certain blade lenght, swithcblades, bras knucles, maze, extensible clubs and the like. Why? because gangs and assaulters use them. So now, I, a legal-avidign citizen I´m unarmed against would-be assaulters. But since such stuff is available in the black market, criminals have some degree of access to it. Do you think that somebody determined to stab somebody would be stopped by the fact that carrying that stuff is illegal? No, but since they know that law-aviding citizens, such as myself, do not carry blades, maze o, much less, guns, they are encouraged to carry and use that stuff.

And this is the other arguement of 'gun control'. Are you really controlling anything? The devices still exist so unless you completely unmake what a gun is and the knowledge of how to produce one, a criminal can get them no matter what. All you're doing is reducing the non-violent civilian populace's accessibility to one. Unless of course you're stating violent criminals,

Now, if it was hard for them to get a gun, a switchbaled, maze, bras knicles or the sucha, and they knew that people like me could pe packing a 9 mm. well, maybe they would think twice before starting ****, or trying to rob me.

So are you saying non criminal civilians should be able to get defensive weapons and violent criminals should not? What about people who haven't been caught yet? Does it make a difference? No. Educate them well, hopefully they won't denegrate, give everyone an equal opportunity to defense, and then find an EFFECTIVE way to rehabilitate the offenders. That would be my 2 cent solution.

[Antifa]

That being said, the question is how far should gun control go.

Lets start the discussion on some neutral ground. Should violent offenders be prevented from owning firearms?

I'm an Anarchist so... in principle... No.

I believe in direct community control so... maybe a village or neighboorhood might want to have some rules about what sorts of things they have around.

But generally speaking if you dont want a certain kind of somebody living near you with a gun, they you dont want them living near you at all... or even living at all.

Thats my 2 cents

[Zendetta]

It's the same here in Kanuckistan.

I'm so happy this label has stuck!

Greetings from JeesusLand!

[Mjelva]

I think it's fine that you can't carry a firearm on the street in Norway.
Most criminals don't have guns here and the police only carry guns when they need them for a specific assignment. Letting private citizens carry guns would only serve to escalate violence.
I also like the fact that you need to be an active member of a pistol club for a minimum of six months in order to purchase a pistol. Sure, people who want to shoot someone won't bother going through that, but at least it insures that law abiding citizens know how to use a gun if they're in the market to buy one.
And I like the fact that you're required to own a gunlocker, and keep your pistol locked in it when you're not using it. It helps keep children from playing around with them, and getting themselves killed.

[SFGOON]

If - with the above requirements, we were allowed to own any firearm we wanted .50 and under, as well as carry them with a license, I would be a very happy man.

[Zendetta]

"And mine says 'Desert Eagle .50' on the side."