Subject:
|
Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 01:28:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
733 times
|
| |
|
|
> But who are we limitng access for? There will ALWAYS be an illegal
> underground firearm market where criminals will go for the weapons - the
> new gun control laws are only limiting law abiding citizens access.
That's why I think parts of the law are -stupid-, but parts of it to my mind
make sense- such as requiring licences that have as a requirement, training.
It comes down to the fact that we needed some changes to the law, but what we
got was not what we should have got...
I'm for licences to own, restrictions on type (pistol/"military" weapons), but
against the whole idea of registering how many rifles, and the restrictions on
weapons being transfered. I think the old 3 tiered system of weapons was a
good one at heart, but needed changes.
How I think it should be is:
Rifles (Bolt/single shot/fixed cap. semi auto, 5 or less rounds)- licence
required
Pistols (any,up to 6 rounds in)- Licence in good standing (5 years no crime),
registration of weapon required
Military style (changeable mag) weapons-should not be available to new
purchase, but should be bought by government at death of current owner based on
"book" value at that time. Registration most definitely required
Deactivated- well, it is now a paperweight, no registration required.
Ammo- Purchase requires licence, applicable to class (so, a person who has a
licence for a rifle would NOT be able to buy ammo for pistol- it gets more dicy
with the military ammo, because 5.56 and 7.62 are both dual use rounds
How is that?
I don't know that it would make _much_ difference in the crime rate however-
but, I am for removing pistols/military style weapons as it becomes possible to
do so.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) Well I guess that you and I aren't acutally debating that much then since my original post to start this thread was arguing specifically the new gun registration laws. Requirements for a liscence and training are and have been for at least a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) I think we're arguing about a matter of wording here - While it is true that you should never point a gun at a person without AT LEAST being in a state where it is "OK" _IF_ the gun does get fired and does kill (in a situation where the other (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
