Originally Posted by major liability

Gator I disagree with ya on a few points there. Gun education should only be a requirement if you're - get this - actually going to buy a firearm. And the draft is a desperate measure, everyone knows draftees are far lower quality soldiers than volunteers. Maybe if they are put to work in the States or in a support role mandatory service would be useful, but not for fighting.

Draftees did just fine in World War II, the last big win for the United States Military, and, also won in World War I.

The Right to Keep and Bear is sitting right there in United States Law, why not take care of the Safety matter while the would-be recipients of such a Right are still in School?

Otherwise, Court challenges would no doubt be brought by those viewing any such Mandatory Safety Training after Public School as an infringement on the Constitutionally Protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Originally Posted by C/1Lt Henderson

Ok, say we do make sure the ones we control are given to responsible people...What about the ones we CAN'T? The ones that are given to the Cho Seung-Hui's and the Thomas Hamilton's and the Evan Ramsey's and the Eric Harris's and the Dylan Klebold's...What about them?


Bottom line...There is no possible way to get rid of guns given to crazy people. At all. Impossible feat. Therefore, gun control only hurts those who follow it.

Well just off the top of my head I can see that one of your people on that list actually purchased his gun legally (Cho). You are correct that crazy people will always be able to get guns, in some number at least. The only thing we can do is attempt to stop the amount of guns that they can get. Who knows, maybe if the background checks on Cho had been a bit more careful, the VT massacre may not have happened.

Bottom line - Trying to take the stance that having more guns in circulation will reduce the amount of gun crime is absolutly absurd. That is not reality, that isnt even common sense. Look at the countries with gun control, they tend to have a crime rate.

the answer imo is staged licensing


stage one: sporting shotguns and rifles
stage two: hand guns
stage three: MSSA/A (military style semi automatics/automatics)
Stage four: Collecters/dealers


each one of those steps should have increasing levels of background & psychological tests, and limits on the amount of weapons you can possess (up to the collector/dealer stage)


just a rough outline, but im interested in your thoughts (this is pretty close to what we have in NZ and i think it works pretty well)

Originally Posted by Infern0

the answer imo is staged licensing


stage one: sporting shotguns and rifles
stage two: hand guns
stage three: MSSA/A (military style semi automatics/automatics)
Stage four: Collecters/dealers


each one of those steps should have increasing levels of background & psychological tests, and limits on the amount of weapons you can possess (up to the collector/dealer stage)


just a rough outline, but im interested in your thoughts (this is pretty close to what we have in NZ and i think it works pretty well)

I have the full selection of licenses myself but I still don't understand or see the need to separate MSSA/A's from any other rifle they both perform exactly the same function in private ownership. I have always seen this separation as a kneejerk reaction from politicians who seem to think that crazys only want to go rambo with MSSA's.

On the whole I like our licensing system but I do believe that the separation of rifle classes was more for fund raising purposes than safety or practical reasons.

I also don't think this plan would get a lot of support as its very difficult to create a plan for the 21st century with people still clutching bits of paper from the 17th.

Originally Posted by Infern0

the answer imo is staged licensing


stage one: sporting shotguns and rifles
stage two: hand guns
stage three: MSSA/A (military style semi automatics/automatics)
Stage four: Collecters/dealers


each one of those steps should have increasing levels of background & psychological tests, and limits on the amount of weapons you can possess (up to the collector/dealer stage)


just a rough outline, but im interested in your thoughts (this is pretty close to what we have in NZ and i think it works pretty well)

Might work in Australia, I do not know, because I do not know Federal Law in Australia.

The U.S. Constitution seems to me pretty cut and dry on this issue......

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.

That would leave licensing requirements in the United States up to the States individually, and that's a lot of different rules and standards in my own opinion.... then any such requirement viewed by Citizens as too restrictive would no doubt be challenged in Federal Court.
Here also there would be an outcry dealing with the Peoples fear of the Government knowing who has what weapons in house for home defense, so lists can be made if and when the Government wants to come collect all Guns, lists which can also be hacked into by Criminals.

Also, noting that at least here in the United States it is seemingly possible that one can shoot only 2 Guns at a time, I still do not see a limit on the Amount of Firearms one can legally possess outlined in the United States Constitution... or why one would have to be more sane to own 5 instead of merely 1 Firearm.
As for Australia, I do not know how many Firearms they can shoot at one time..... perhaps more than 2, but, in any event as I understand it Guns are well liked by many in Australia, different kinds of Guns, for different kinds of shooting.

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

Well just off the top of my head I can see that one of your people on that list actually purchased his gun legally (Cho). You are correct that crazy people will always be able to get guns, in some number at least. The only thing we can do is attempt to stop the amount of guns that they can get. Who knows, maybe if the background checks on Cho had been a bit more careful, the VT massacre may not have happened.

Bottom line - Trying to take the stance that having more guns in circulation will reduce the amount of gun crime is absolutly absurd. That is not reality, that isnt even common sense. Look at the countries with gun control, they tend to have a crime rate.

Ok, one...I can go back to the website and get plenty others to take Cho's place... "Trying to take the stance that having more guns in circulation will reduce the amount of gun crime is absolutly absurd. That is not reality, that isnt even common sense. Look at the countries with gun control, they tend to have a crime rate."

So, what do you propose we do? We can't stop them from happening, but, what you're saying is if we have only the criminals and people crafty enough to pass background checks have weapons, we will decrease the crime rate?

I don't think so. Look, if we have stricter gun control and access, as you said, then we control access to legal fire arms. Now, access to illegal fire arms will remain the same...Easy. Or it might even become a little harder. Still, they will be READILY available for criminals. The point we(5.56 and I) have attempted to make over and over that no one seems to have a real, straight argument for is that if we restrict access to law-abiding citizens, we take away the protection for them. We take away their ability to defend themselves against the criminal who has absolutely no regard for laws.

Think about it this way. Really, how much does the fact that someone is armed change the amount of crime that is committed? From countries where there is stricter gun control, the crime rate is less. In STATES where gun control is stricter there is generally lower crime rates. Putting more weapons on the street is not going to help the matter. You make guns that are more deadly readily available to criminals, and you give every would-be petty criminal access to a firearm. Leave weapons in the hands of those that are responsible with them, and dont allow those who are irresponsible to have them. Do you know how Cho was able to purchase his weapons. A - Due to his "type" of mental illness, he was still permitted to own a firearm. He also lied on his application. Both of these things could have been detected if more effort, or really, more money, was put into gun control.

Here is a fact. Even today your average citizen doesnt own a gun. Most average citizens arent even interested in owning one. Your excuse that we are "taking away a someones ability to defend themselves" is just that - an excuse. The likelyhood of someone who owns a gun firing them at a criminal is incrediably low. The likelyhood of a weapon finding itself in the wrong hands is exponentially higher. By handing out more guns we arent solving the problem, we are making it worse.

Isn't full-auto ususally used for suppressing fire anyways? I would've thought semi-auto would be more useful for, you know, actually killing stuff.

The guns are the first to go....after that the Right to Knowledge....

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

Think about it this way. Really, how much does the fact that someone is armed change the amount of crime that is committed? From countries where there is stricter gun control, the crime rate is less. In STATES where gun control is stricter there is generally lower crime rates. Putting more weapons on the street is not going to help the matter. You make guns that are more deadly readily available to criminals, and you give every would-be petty criminal access to a firearm. Leave weapons in the hands of those that are responsible with them, and dont allow those who are irresponsible to have them. Do you know how Cho was able to purchase his weapons. A - Due to his "type" of mental illness, he was still permitted to own a firearm. He also lied on his application. Both of these things could have been detected if more effort, or really, more money, was put into gun control.

Here is a fact. Even today your average citizen doesnt own a gun. Most average citizens arent even interested in owning one. Your excuse that we are "taking away a someones ability to defend themselves" is just that - an excuse. The likelyhood of someone who owns a gun firing them at a criminal is incrediably low. The likelyhood of a weapon finding itself in the wrong hands is exponentially higher. By handing out more guns we arent solving the problem, we are making it worse.

"Really, how much does the fact that someone is armed change the amount of crime that is committed?" Well, considering that if someone was armed, the crime could be deterred, I'd say quite a lot, actually.

By the way, as to Cho, was there a B? Anyway...Beside the point.

"Both of these things could have been detected if more effort, or really, more money, was put into gun control."Ok, you pay more money, see how much it actually does...

"Your excuse that we are "taking away a someones ability to defend themselves" is just that - an excuse. The likelyhood of someone who owns a gun firing them at a criminal is incrediably low. The likelyhood of a weapon finding itself in the wrong hands is exponentially higher. By handing out more guns we arent solving the problem, we are making it worse."
And guess what? My exucuse is the exact reasoning that criminals prey on those without guns...How many times do you hear about an armed person being successfully raped versus an unarmed?

Quite honestly, I'd like to see some sources for you reasoning of the likelI(that's an i. btw)hood that someone wouldn't fire at a criminal, and how the likelihood that a gun would fall into the wrong hands would fluxuate either way wether we gave them guns, or the aquired guns themselves.