General Question

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

What limits should there to owning and carrying guns?

Asked by Captain_Fantasy (11426points) April 26th, 2010 from iPhone

What seems reasonable to you?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

18 Answers

marinelife's avatar

1. You should have to pass a background check before you get your gun.

2. There should be a waiting period of several weeks before you can own a gun.

3. You should have to take a firearms safety course.

4. You should be subject to a home inspection to demonstrate safe gun storage.

rebbel's avatar

5. You should have a blank criminal record.

nikipedia's avatar

In my ideal world, owning and carrying guns would be completely illegal. That’s the most reasonable law to me.

Cruiser's avatar

I feel if you can truly demonstrate a need or requirement to carry a weapon then it should be allowed and enforced with proper training requirements and the applicant should demonstrate proficiency and command of owning and securing the weapon they intend to carry. I feel that would greatly reduce the “accidents” that occur with privately owned firearms. Filling out a questionnaire just doesn’t cut it for me.

dpworkin's avatar

Ex-Felons and people with proven psychiatric and/or intellectual development difficulties should be barred from owning them.

All others should take and pass a gun-safety course in order to receive a license, and each weapon should have its ballistics recorded and placed in a database.

Other than that, assault weapons and military ordinance should require special licensing,in the same way that we require taxi-cab drivers and long-distance freight haulers and small-plane pilots to undertake special licensing.

wundayatta's avatar

I think it should be restrictive and cautious. The qualifications that people have mentioned above all seem reasonable (even the idea of forbidding anyone to carry, except for hunting weapons, with a very restrictive definition of what “hunting” is).

I don’t see the need for weapons. We don’t need militias. We’ve got the Army. Do we want militias to fight the army? I don’t think so.

I also don’t see how guns are useful with self-protection or property protection. Guns are much more likely to hurt their owners than anyone else. People will always cite cases where a gun foils a home invasion, but I’m sure there are far more cases that are resolved without harm where guns are not involved.

Guns create the wrong kind of mentality, I think. I would like to see them gone or their use restricted as strongly as possible.

Taciturnu's avatar

Massachusetts has some of the strictest laws in the country, and I don’t think they are unreasonable.

It really doesn’t matter how far we take firearms licensing, because criminals will always find access. I do not think forbidding guns would do any better.

kenmc's avatar

1) No violent criminal record (aka background check)

2) Take and pass a safety course

3) Carrying guns in public should be allowed to those that have a permit, which would be granted after more testing

missingbite's avatar

@boots Has it pretty close although the safety course should only be for people who are going to carry in public. You shouldn’t have to have a safety course for long guns, or guns for home protection. That should be left up to the individual if they want training or not. Some people don’t need it. If you want to carry concealed or open in public, fine, a safety course wouldn’t hurt.

Strong gun laws only allow criminals to arm themselves against you.

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Open carry is a controvery here lately.

They say you should be able to display guns anywhere becase it is a constitutional right.

So does this crowd think it’s unconstitutional for their work to prohibit bringing in guns to the office?

Taciturnu's avatar

@Captain_Fantasy Yes, I consider it to be unconstitutional so long as the individual is properly licensed.

missingbite's avatar

@Captain_Fantasy I think a business has a right to ban their employees from bringing guns to work if they feel like it. I also think a person should have the right to carry anywhere else that is public if they choose. Banks, and federal buildings should be off limits. I would bet that most open carry people wouldn’t have a problem with not being able to carry in their work environment. Some will. But most won’t. If I own a business and don’t want guns allowed that is my right to not allow them inside.

TexasDude's avatar

1. You should not be a violent criminal.
2. You should be mentally competent.
3. You should be over 18 to purchase.

I’d like to point out that it isn’t the so called “gun nuts” who partake in open carry and who get concealed carry licenses that you should be worrying about. It’s the gang bangers who can’t legally own guns anyway who still manage to get them through illegal sources. I firmly believe that instead of putting more arbitrary restrictions in place that punish law abiding citizens, we should be addressing the socioeconomic factors that propagate violent crime in impoverished areas as a solution to gun crime. Banning me (a self-described gun nut) from having magazines that hold over ten rounds, or from having guns with the dreaded barrel shroud or those super scary bayonet lugs or whatever isn’t going to affect an impoverished criminal in the ghetto’s ability to kill in a crime.

So to restate…

1. No violent criminals
2. No people who are certifiably deranged (and no, people you just think are deranged don’t count)
3. Be over 18 to purchase.

Nullo's avatar

I think it reasonable to prevent people with a significant criminal record, or a history of relevant psychological issues, from owning firearms. Waiting a few days isn’t bad either. I also think it reasonable for an employer to have rules preventing his employees from carrying at work; it’s his establishment, after all.
In Missouri, the Conservation Department collaborates with the NRA to offer inexpensive firearms and hunting safety classes.

Building on what @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard said, it’s been my experience that the so-called ‘gun nuts’ are actually the safest owners. They know their firearms’ potential, and they know how to handle them properly.
Go to a gun store (or a private collector) and ask to see a display model. Wave it about, say around vital-organs height, and see if you aren’t stopped and cautioned.

@dpworkin Unfortunately, “assault weapons” is a very, very broad term. You wouldn’t think that it is, but legislators are a weird bunch.

stratman37's avatar

My idea of gun control is using both hands!

beancrisp's avatar

@marinelife So in order for me to keep my second amendment rights I should be required to give up my fourth amendment rights.

JeffVader's avatar

I think gun ownership should be limited to those people who either use one as part of their job, or are involved in shooting as a sport.
I don’t believe anyone should be allowed to keep a gun in a residential property. It should be secured either at their place of work or shooting range.
Licences for gun ownership should be limited to 12mths at which point reapplication, including both physical & psychological reviews, should occur.
Any civil or criminal offence should disqualify a person from gun ownership for life.

missingbite's avatar

@JeffVader Why do you believe it should be so difficult? Do you feel the same way about knives, bats, tasers, ect.? I am really trying to figure out the mindset. If I am not allowed to keep a firearm in my private home, how am I supposed to defend myself and family if an armed intruder enters my home? I fully understand if you don’t want a firearm, that is your right. But why in your mind should I not be allowed to?

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther