Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Civilian firearm ownership
Topic Started: Jun 7 2016, 03:03 PM (1,704 Views)
+ Pelador
Member Avatar
Crazy Awesome Legend

Well we have extremely strict gun laws in the UK and everyone's cool with it. We rarely see shooting sprees and gun crime and gun suicides are very low as well. Doesn't mean I'm opposed to them being relaxed. I would like to build a nice collection. Guns are awesome.


Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Green
Member Avatar
Flashy Thing!

I don't mind civilians having guns, I actually would promote it. I do believe that there should be restrictions based on factors such as but not limited to: age, mental disability and criminal history.

Another thing to consider is a person's ability to carry a firearm openly outside of their home. That is where things vary greatly (at least in United States). The way things are now, people can be stopped by the police for legally walking with a firearm openly exposed which isn't fair for the civilian. It's almost like a cop stopping your car to verify that your license is legit. Such, there is a possibility that it may not be but without a legal reason to stop you, you shouldn't be stopped. Being from America "the home of the free", we should be allowed to carry weapons openly throughout the nation without a problem but unfortunately that isn't true.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Don't you ever worry that you're on the Devil's side without even knowing it? - DCI John Luther
Black power ranger; I do not belong... B.o.B - Mr. Mister
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Ketchup Revenge
Member Avatar
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"

Green
Jun 7 2016, 10:13 PM
I don't mind civilians having guns, I actually would promote it. I do believe that there should be restrictions based on factors such as but not limited to: age, mental disability and criminal history.

Another thing to consider is a person's ability to carry a firearm openly outside of their home. That is where things vary greatly (at least in United States). The way things are now, people can be stopped by the police for legally walking with a firearm openly exposed which isn't fair for the civilian. It's almost like a cop stopping your car to verify that your license is legit. Such, there is a possibility that it may not be but without a legal reason to stop you, you shouldn't be stopped. Being from America "the home of the free", we should be allowed to carry weapons openly throughout the nation without a problem but unfortunately that isn't true.
If someone is walking around a public area with an AR-15, the police should have every right to stop them and ask them why. There's no reason to carry an AR-15 into a Walmart "just because", or stand outside on the sidewalk in front of a school with one simply because you want to.

Particularly with guns, the first line of defense for the public (being the cops) should have the right to question if you're a potential threat to public safety or not.
There's no national central database for gun license holders, unlike the RMV who has a national database for licensed drivers. In addition to this, your analogy about drivers licenses doesn't work because information about your car is displayed on the outside of the car for the police to run and gather information from before they even stop you.
You're not required to display your gun license information for the world to see until a cop or game warden asks you to provide it.

This is where the division in opinions lies. I myself own a gun, but if you're not planning on using it outside your job that requires the use of one, hunting, the shooting range, or self defense, there really is no real reason to be walking around with one.

For example, I can also walk around with a dildo in my hand. It's totally legal, and I'm able to as I will not be arrested, but for what reason would I need to?
Posted Image
The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Yeah cars vs guns doesn't really work as a comparison like that because guns are killing machines, a gun is designed to kill or injure a car is transportation.

What need does anyone have outside of a job to be wandering around with a lethal weapon?

To bring it back to cars though pretty extensive testing goes on with those should be the same with guns, preferably more of course. A murder weapon shouldn't be a casual buy.

Wonder if there's ever going to be an event where some criminals with guns start shooting a place up and then tons of civilians with guns try to help stop them and then the police show up, highlighting how dumb everyone having guns and thinking they're Clint Eastwood would be.
The cops wouldn't know who's a criminal and who's not, the gun owners would be in the exact same boat. It'd be a huge mess.
The innocents caught in the crossfire would pay for it.

To open carry I think you should have to go under some sort of training or have a military or law enforcement background.
Though this would make the occasional crazy more dangerous at least it'd reduce the amount of people thinking they're going to be an action hero because they shot a deer once.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pyrus
Member Avatar


To need military/law enforcement training to open carry, you might as well conceal to make yourself less of a target.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

Extremely strict gun control can work, you just have to nip the problem at the bud. The UK managed to do it, but that's because guns weren't ingrained into its very culture. Seeing how it'd be impossible to impose extreme restrictions on gun ownership in the USA, it'd be best if there were more extensive background checks, mandatory lessons on how to handle, take care of and store your gun, and a ban on their use in public. Most people have them for home protection, right? What reason would you have to conceal-carry your gun, other than going out and looking for criminals with guns to fight back against? Open-carry, on the other hand, is just posturing and makes everyone uncomfortable, imo.

There have been so many cases of children getting a hold of guns and injuring/killing somebody. The owners of said guns were obviously incompetent enough to create situations in which that exact scenario can play out. If they were all aware of how to safely handle/store guns, I'd guess that the amount of cases of this happening would be minimal, if they were even happening at all.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that people need to know how to handle their weapons.

You shouldn't be able to just buy a gun and that's it you should have to learn how to use and respect what you're buying, while they can be used for amusement, they're not toys.

Concealed weapons I'd say are fine within reason. Just set up some rules like you have to leave your guns in reception if you go to the mall or work etc etc, in public places like that only security should be using guns.


Heard a lot of stupid stories about gun owners following Muslim's around in order to "protect" people on the off chance that the Muslim's are terrorists, say the people stalking them with lethal weapons.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pyrus
Member Avatar


One of the big problems is home care for the guns. Law enforcement can't control what people do with their guns in their own homes. The cops can't go into someone's house and inspect what they're doing with the guns and ammo daily. Bob could leave his gun on his night stand for his kid to find, and there's nothing authorities can do about it. It's unfortunate, but it also can't really be helped. That's why there needs to be stricter defenses up front to weed out the idiots and irresponsible people. A much more comprehensive background check and investigation of character should be enforced.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Ideally yeah but not sure how they'd get people to agree to that, it's probably impossible to find out who all has guns too.

I think at least if people were taught how to store their weapons safely and such a good portion of them would actually do it, some idiots wouldn't but...stupid people win stupid prizes.


It's a wonder there's no way to lock a guns firing mechanism with a combination lock, that'd be an excellent invention. That way you could make them easy to access in the event of a home invasion but only you know how to unlock it. Bike locks can be pretty small, surely something could fit in/on a gun like that.
There's safety switches obviously but they're hardly that complex.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


Allowing civilians to open carry is so asinine, it's laughable.

I can't think of a single reason for a civilian to want to open carry aside from intimidation, and in some cases rebellion. What I mean by this is that many people are so "pro gun," it clouds their better sense. They hate liberals, they hate liberal ideas, and they think that open carrying is going to piss people off. That's literally all there is to it, and I don't know why law-makers don't see that and prohibit civilians from open carrying. Does anyone actually think that these idiot rednecks who open carry are going to protect anyone? Even if there was (for some strange reason) a situation where they would need to out on the streets, they aren't trained for combat or civilian protection. There is absolutely no reason for them to be carrying a weapon like that. I believe in a person's right to own a gun, but taking it out in public, even if it's just a conceal carry...? What are you really going to do with it? It's so dumb.

The only people who need to open carry are police officers, since intimidation is a major part of their job description. Criminals need to see that they are armed.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

I don't know the actual specifics, but I'm happy with whatever my country's gun laws are (the UK). Shooting incidents are very rare and I prefer to live in a country where that is the case.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Green
Member Avatar
Flashy Thing!

Ice Queen Emeriti
Jun 7 2016, 11:51 PM
Green
Jun 7 2016, 10:13 PM
I don't mind civilians having guns, I actually would promote it. I do believe that there should be restrictions based on factors such as but not limited to: age, mental disability and criminal history.

Another thing to consider is a person's ability to carry a firearm openly outside of their home. That is where things vary greatly (at least in United States). The way things are now, people can be stopped by the police for legally walking with a firearm openly exposed which isn't fair for the civilian. It's almost like a cop stopping your car to verify that your license is legit. Such, there is a possibility that it may not be but without a legal reason to stop you, you shouldn't be stopped. Being from America "the home of the free", we should be allowed to carry weapons openly throughout the nation without a problem but unfortunately that isn't true.
If someone is walking around a public area with an AR-15, the police should have every right to stop them and ask them why. There's no reason to carry an AR-15 into a Walmart "just because", or stand outside on the sidewalk in front of a school with one simply because you want to.

Particularly with guns, the first line of defense for the public (being the cops) should have the right to question if you're a potential threat to public safety or not.
There's no national central database for gun license holders, unlike the RMV who has a national database for licensed drivers. In addition to this, your analogy about drivers licenses doesn't work because information about your car is displayed on the outside of the car for the police to run and gather information from before they even stop you.
You're not required to display your gun license information for the world to see until a cop or game warden asks you to provide it.

This is where the division in opinions lies. I myself own a gun, but if you're not planning on using it outside your job that requires the use of one, hunting, the shooting range, or self defense, there really is no real reason to be walking around with one.

For example, I can also walk around with a dildo in my hand. It's totally legal, and I'm able to as I will not be arrested, but for what reason would I need to?

I don't know what degree of legal knowledge you have or law enforcement experience but I have both in the state I live. With this knowledge, experience, and understanding of the legal ideologies, I have to disagree with your opinion.

I am strictly speaking of America where people believe strongly in their right to bear arms. Police, civilians, and law makers all disagree when trying to determine to what degree a person can exercise this right. Intent is huge when it comes to laws and law enforcement. I can't explain why someone would want to walk around with an AR but in the world many Americans want, they do not want to deal with laws on transportation and display of their weapons. There are parts of the country where you can buy a gun and ammo in Walmart, so it wouldn't be uncommon to see a person with a gun in or near the store. When it comes to schools, there are laws throughout the country that restrict the possession of a gun on or near school property.

Cops without a doubt should and are able to question if you are a threat to public safety but the constitution of the United States puts heavy restrictions on doing such. If you have a pistol permit and the police do their quick background and criminal history check, they will know that you have it, no matter where you obtained the permit.

My car analogy is in regards to license/permit checks and legal justification to stop. Sure, information about the car is on the outside but information about the driver (who can be anyone) cannot be obtained without speaking with the operator. A motor vehicle is not designed to kill people but can do so easily and does very often. A gun is "designed to kill" but some of that killing is legal (hunting) and there are non-lethal activities that people take part in with guns. So once again, I do not believe that a person should be stopped just for openly carrying a firearm, there must be legal justification.

I may not agree with a person carrying a gun out in the open just because but if it legal to do so, then so be it. Even if someone's reason for doing something is absolutely stupid, like carrying a dildo in public, if it isn't illegal then the only issue is of personal opinion. . .trivial.

Steve
Jun 8 2016, 01:06 AM
Yeah cars vs guns doesn't really work as a comparison like that because guns are killing machines, a gun is designed to kill or injure a car is transportation.

What need does anyone have outside of a job to be wandering around with a lethal weapon?

To bring it back to cars though pretty extensive testing goes on with those should be the same with guns, preferably more of course. A murder weapon shouldn't be a casual buy.

Wonder if there's ever going to be an event where some criminals with guns start shooting a place up and then tons of civilians with guns try to help stop them and then the police show up, highlighting how dumb everyone having guns and thinking they're Clint Eastwood would be.
The cops wouldn't know who's a criminal and who's not, the gun owners would be in the exact same boat. It'd be a huge mess.
The innocents caught in the crossfire would pay for it.

To open carry I think you should have to go under some sort of training or have a military or law enforcement background.
Though this would make the occasional crazy more dangerous at least it'd reduce the amount of people thinking they're going to be an action hero because they shot a deer once.


Many of your points are addressed in my response above.

To address the potential issue with a shooting; very simply people have the right to risk their lives. People can jump off of bridges, out of planes, zip lines between trees, hang glide, etc with little restriction. As I said before, I can't speak for all parts of the country but there are states where people have to take a class and go through a background investigation before they can obtain a firearm, there often is also an age restriction ranging from 18-21 years old. People who obtain a firearm are deemed adults and intelligent enough to use them safely and within the law. Sure they can help the police if they feel like it but once the police arrive they better drop their weapons or else whatever happens afterwords is on them. Police officers themselves have policies that discourage plain clothes officers from being too close to an active scene because they cannot easily be identified by their uniformed co-workers in the heat of the moment.

Some degree of training should definitely be required to carry a weapon openly but the training doesn't have to go to the degree of military or law enforcement.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Don't you ever worry that you're on the Devil's side without even knowing it? - DCI John Luther
Black power ranger; I do not belong... B.o.B - Mr. Mister
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Steve
Jun 7 2016, 04:07 PM
Pretty much what has been said but also I don't think anyone should be allowed to have anything other than a handgun in public.

You're not allowed automatics I believe but over there you can still walk around with semi-auto submachine guns and whatnot right? That's just nonsense, it's just asking idiots to run around thinking they're Rambo if there's ever a shootout or something they shouldn't be involved in.
Moreover it no doubt just makes people feel unsafe.
Considering there's a mass shooting basically every day over there not sure why anyone would be happy seeing a guy walking towards their café with an assault rifle, it's just unnecessary.

Do whatever recreationally but in public it should be handguns at best. Idiots being able to outgun law enforcement is crazy.
Semi-auto and (sub)machine gun are two things that aren't similar. Semi auto is 1 shot per trigger pull, machine guns are full auto. Assault rifles and machine guns are heavily regulated and anyone walking around with one in public will go to prison for it. Open carrying a semi-automatic rifle is allowed in most states, but not all.

As an example, AR-15s are not assault rifles, they're classified by our own government as Semi-automatic Sporting rifles because they lack an auto sear and specialized bolt carrier group to enable reliable fully automatic fire. WASR-10/63s (AKM)s are also classified as a modern sporting rifle because they lack the same equivalent components to enable fully automatic fire and lack a selector switch. Ar-15s look like M4s, but they are not. WASR-10/63s look like AK-47s, but they are not. The definition of assault rifle is:

Quote:
 
An assault rifle is a fully automatic selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.


I personally do not see a reason to carry a rifle outside of your own property or on hunting trips, but so long as it's secured I see no problem with keeping one or two in your vehicle while out and about or at work. Anyway, unless someone is brandishing the rifle, I don't care if someone has one strapped on their back and are walking around although I make sure to keep an eye on them until I'm out of their vicinity. They have every right to open carry a rifle here, especially if they don't have a means to secure it at home or in their vehicle.

Quote:
 
Some degree of training should definitely be required to carry a weapon openly but the training doesn't have to go to the degree of military or law enforcement.


So this is at the whole quote chain but to mitigate page stretching I just quoted the last sentence.

Federal law already has restrictions on age, mental disability, and criminal history but it's not enforced as well as it should be and so you have people running around with guns that aren't legally allowed to because laws don't work if they're not enforced. Age is 18 for rifles and shotguns, and 21 for pistols from a dealer. You can buy a pistol at 18 in a private sale or as a gift from your parents. Any other law regarding age is at state level. I'm sure you know people with documented mental disabilities and criminals can't legally get firearms.

Anyway training is left up to the state to decide. Some states require a lot, others require none. My state requires no training to openly carry a firearm, but you must have some training to apply for and receive a concealed handgun/concealed pistol permit.
Edited by Helvius Pertinax Augustus, Jun 8 2016, 03:24 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daemon Keido
Member Avatar
Warmaster of Chaos

I have no real issues with civilians owning firearms. I have a bolt-action rifle of my own; but I will say I have issues with civilains having access to military-grade weapons outside of specialty firing ranges that have such guns as a selling point to come out and rent ones usage for an hour.

Specifically, I will not accept any reason why a civilian should have access to firearms whose caliber approaches or exceeds .50 cal. That is simply too much gun for use outside of a battlefield or novelty gun range.
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light


Posted Image

Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig!

The Emperor Protects
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

There's not much a civilian in the U.S can own beyond .50 caliber rifles. There's a few .90 caliber rifles on the market but they're not practical in any way or form. Ammunition on the civilian market is few and far between for anything above .50 caliber anyway, you'd have to load the cartridges yourself and not many people have the proper tools to load anything beyond it because they don't manufacture them for civilian use.

Those larger calibers accessible to civilians have the unfortunate side effect of being inaccessible to a majority of those interested in it, rifles/cannons costing $10,000 for low end, low quality and going as high as $90,000.

I know in Canada you guys have some really tough restrictions on lame things like magazine capacity and how scary a gun looks but you guys do have the advantage of being able to import some guns that are illegal to import here in America.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Theme Designed by McKee91