What do we agree on? Current LTC/COP cases

[SecondAmdFirst]

What does need have to do with anything? why I can't have one?

Why would you ever allow the government tell you want you need.



Once again, why should the governement dictate gun design?

What is wrong with requiring some safeties? Who does that hurt. It's a more safe weapon. Let's say I'm in the stall next to you in a bathroom. You're dropping your pants and you drop your gun. Should I get shot in the a$$ because you decided not to buy a gun with a drop safety?

 

[Supermoto]

What is wrong with requiring some safeties? Who does that hurt. It's a more safe weapon. Let's say I'm in the stall next to you in a bathroom. You're dropping your pants and you drop your gun. Should I get shot in the a$$ because you decided not to buy a gun with a drop safety?

How much are you willing to give up for safety and security? Where do you draw the line?

A lot of things are wrong with safeties, Take the SW1911 grip safety, if the timing is not correct or if you don't get a good grip on the gun, you can pull the trigger, the hammer will drop, but the the firing pin safety will still be engaged.

Or the mag safety ( you have to put a mag in the gun to dissassemble it, how stupid is that) or the 10lb trigger, it never ends.

The government does not know how to give rights, ony how to take them away.

If you want a safeties on your guns, thats fine, don't require them on mine

 

[Titan]

Count me as a radical rebel if you wish, but I don't buy into the BS that 'convicted felons' should be permanently denied their gun rights.

Legislators are all too eager to label offenses as felonies in order to aid their efforts to disarm the populace.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.


Until very recently, possession of marijuana was a felony.

How exactly does that non-violent felony (among others of a similar nature) 'endanger the public'?


There should either be categories of felonies exempt from the gun ban, or individuals should have the right to have their felonies reviewed.


I feel the same way about mental health issues. TODAY guns are disallowed for anyone institutionalized for a mental health issue or judged a danger to themselves or society.

How long might it be, before anyone who takes medication for depression, or has suffered from PTSD is denied for life?


Slippery slopes really do exist!

.

 

[Mike-Mike]

No. NO ONE should be excluded from the fundamental human right of self defense and the means of that defense. Not ever.
Even the mentally ill. 99.99999% of people with mental illness never commit a crime and wouldn't hurt a fly. If you're an immediate danger or long term danger, you should be in a hospital, not wandering the streets.

I agree with everything here. The key word in my post is realistically . The 2 changes I suggest are thing we could put in place in MA soon and would make a big difference.

 

[drgrant]

What is wrong with requiring some safeties? Who does that hurt. It's a more safe weapon.

How do you qualify safety? You're suggesting that larding a gun up with crap will make it safer, I disagree- the ultimate assurance of safety is in the
hands of the person carrying the gun more than anything else. Many years ago when I was younger and dumber, and had more time to waste, I did research on this- eg, the intrinsic safety of handguns- and what I found was that, generally speaking, this notional of handguns being intrinsically unsafe is pretty dumb overall- I could only ever find a handful of incidents where someone got hurt as the result of a real defect in the intrinsic design of the firearm in question. Most of the incidents I found either involved really old crap or junkers that nobody buys anyways. (eg, jennings, lorcin, etc... ) Hell, a lot of gun stores even in free states don't even sell those kinds of guns because of customer complaints and liability. The issue is pretty moot, as far as I'm concerned. By suggesting "they're ought to be a law" you're basically flogging a dead horse.

ND's caused by firearm defects are a tiny fraction of all firearms discharge "accidents"- the overwhelming majority is simple human negligence/error- the disparity is so huge that any injuries caused by a defect get lost in the noise. The stat you're looking for is similar to the amount of deaths caused by
someone not having the right kind of muffler attached to their car, or something similarly inane.

Let's say I'm in the stall next to you in a bathroom. You're dropping your pants and you drop your gun. Should I get shot in the a$$ because you decided not to buy a gun with a drop safety?

The likelihood of that actually happening is in the "slim to none" category, especially given that nearly all modern handguns have some form of drop safety already in them. There really is no need to "mandate" it, because the industry has already decided that for guns people are likely to carry, that it's generally a good idea. No need for the government to FORCE them to do it- as it's basically already been done.

-Mike

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

How much are you willing to give up for safety and security? Where do you draw the line?

A lot of things are wrong with safeties, Take the SW1911 grip safety, if the timing is not correct or if you don't get a good grip on the gun, you can pull the trigger, the hammer will drop, but the the firing pin safety will still be engaged.

Or the mag safety ( you have to put a mag in the gun to dissassemble it, how stupid is that) or the 10lb trigger, it never ends.

The government does not know how to give rights, ony how to take them away.

If you want a safeties on your guns, thats fine, don't require them on mine

They don't have to be like the 1911. I own several Sigs. They have NO external safeties whatsoever. All the safeties are internal. I hope you guys didn't think when I said safeties I was talking about manual ones?

 

[TomH]

I'm not talking about a permitting process like we have now. Do you remember the old days when you went to go get a FID or a fishing license? That is how it should be. You go down to the PD, pay $25, they run an immediate background check, and hand you your license.

What possible "background" could possibly take away your right to self defense? Even a murderer, released from prison, although he may be a despicable human being, deserves the right to self defense. The tool for that right should be irrelavent, and he should have the same tools available as anyone else. Otherwise, we are a nation of hypocrites that don't follow our own Constitution. Just because it was done in the "old days" doesn't make it right. The old days I'm thinking of prohibited no one from owning.

They don't have to be like the 1911. I own several Sigs. They have NO external safeties whatsoever. All the safeties are internal. I hope you guys didn't think when I said safeties I was talking about manual ones?

The only safety needed is the one between your ears.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Not sure I can agree with the silencer thing, why does one need it? To shoot in peace?

Why do you need an AR?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

How do you qualify safety? You're suggesting that larding a gun up with crap will make it safer, I disagree- the ultimate assurance of safety is in the
hands of the person carrying the gun more than anything else. Many years ago when I was younger and dumber, and had more time to waste, I did research on this- eg, the intrinsic safety of handguns- and what I found was that, generally speaking, this notional of handguns being intrinsically unsafe is pretty dumb overall- I could only ever find a handful of incidents where someone got hurt as the result of a real defect in the intrinsic design of the firearm in question. Most of the incidents I found either involved really old crap or junkers that nobody buys anyways. (eg, jennings, lorcin, etc... ) Hell, a lot of gun stores even in free states don't even sell those kinds of guns because of customer complaints and liability. The issue is pretty moot, as far as I'm concerned. By suggesting "they're ought to be a law" you're basically flogging a dead horse.

ND's caused by firearm defects are a tiny fraction of all firearms discharge "accidents"- the overwhelming majority is simple human negligence/error- the disparity is so huge that any injuries caused by a defect get lost in the noise. The stat you're looking for is similar to the amount of deaths caused by
someone not having the right kind of muffler attached to their car, or something similarly inane.



The likelihood of that actually happening is in the "slim to none" category, especially given that nearly all modern handguns have some form of drop safety already in them. There really is no need to "mandate" it, because the industry has already decided that for guns people are likely to carry, that it's generally a good idea. No need for the government to FORCE them to do it- as it's basically already been done.

-Mike

Mike, it's baby steps here. Let's get rid of the certification process and then we can get into what is required. As I said in one of my other posts, pretty much all guns have drop safeties. I liken it to airbags....all cars must have airbags now...no big deal.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Why do you need an AR?

Because I like to shoot it at the range. Okay, I see your point Eddie. You win.

 

[Supermoto]

They don't have to be like the 1911. I own several Sigs. They have NO external safeties whatsoever. All the safeties are internal. I hope you guys didn't think when I said safeties I was talking about manual ones?

The only difference between the firing pin safety of the Sig and SW1911 is the Sig uses the trigger bar to actuate and the SW1911 uses the grip safety.

Both are internal, neither are needed,

Other than the French Army, who needs a drop safety?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

What possible "background" could possibly take away your right to self defense? Even a murderer, released from prison, although he may be a despicable human being, deserves the right to self defense. The tool for that right should be irrelavent, and he should have the same tools available as anyone else. Otherwise, we are a nation of hypocrites that don't follow our own Constitution. Just because it was done in the "old days" doesn't make it right. The old days I'm thinking of prohibited no one from owning.



The only safety needed is the one between your ears.

Tom, I'm torn on this one. On one hand I see what you are saying about it being an inherent right. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of a guy who just got out of prison for shooting someone being able to buy a gun. It's a tough call.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

The only difference between the firing pin safety of the Sig and SW1911 is the Sig uses the trigger bar to actuate and the SW1911 uses the grip safety.

Both are internal, neither are needed,

Other than the French Army, who needs a drop safety?

Okay....safeties I think are a good idea...
- Drop safety
- Hammer safety (if something struck the back of the hammer I don't want it going off)
- Essentially I like a gun that doesn't go boom unless I pull the trigger

 

[Titan]

Why do you need an AR?

Indeed! +1

The 'why do you need it' argument has to be among the weakest in the entire debate over RTKBA.


Why do you need more than one gun?

Why do you need a handgun if you have a rifle?

Why does anyone need a shotgun?

Why would anyone possibly need a 'semi-automatic' firearm?

etc. etc.



To quote former Sen Phil Gramm from Texas (in his finest Texas drawl)...

"I have more guns than I need, but not as many as I WANT!"

.

 

[jasons]

I'm not talking about a permitting process like we have now. Do you remember the old days when you went to go get a FID or a fishing license? That is how it should be. You go down to the PD, pay $25, they run an immediate background check, and hand you your license.

OK, I'll play along...

Why should we give the PD $25 for a piece of plastic with our name on it and the "privilege" of being listed in some database somewhere?

What is it about Vermont's licensing practices that you disagree with?

 

[jar]

Tom, I'm torn on this one. On one hand I see what you are saying about it being an inherent right. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of a guy who just got out of prison for shooting someone being able to buy a gun. It's a tough call.

I don't like the idea of a guy who shot someone and is likely to do so again getting out of prison.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I don't like the idea of a guy who shot someone and is likely to do so again getting out of prison.

+1
I agree. Perhaps that is the solution.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

OK, I'll play along...

Why should we give the PD $25 for a piece of plastic with our name on it and the "privilege" of being listed in some database somewhere?

What is it about Vermont's licensing practices that you disagree with?

Maybe I've been in MA too long and am okay with something that makes even a little more sense.

 

[jasons]

I don't like the idea of a guy who shot someone and is likely to do so again getting out of prison.

Yeah, really. Criminals that murder or attempt to murder citizens should get life behind bars at a minimum. The fact that many get off with a little more than a slap on the wrist is part of the larger problem.

 

[jasons]

Maybe I've been in MA too long and am okay with something that makes even a little more sense.

But then that's the point isn't it? Logically it doesn't make any sense!

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Would it be great that I didn't have to go through the whole crappy process? Absolutely! We know we will never be like VT though. If you guys know of a way for us to get there, I'm all ears. So if we can't, what compromises can be made?

 

[jasons]

Would it be great that I didn't have to go through the whole crappy process? Absolutely! We know we will never be like VT though. If you guys know of a way for us to get there, I'm all ears. So if we can't, what compromises can be made?

I think that's pretty much the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[TomH]

+1
I agree. Perhaps that is the solution.

Think on this one for a while, I think you'll find it makes sense. There will always be someone willing to compromise your rights more. More and more and more.... then you get MA and CA gun laws. You can't prevent all crimes. You can't. Once people realize this, things become much clearer. Someone let out of jail might kill again. That is reality. Federal law won't prevent this. The solution is finding better ways of determining when or if a person should be released. Perhaps it shouldn't be based on the fact you did your time... but HOW you did your time. Has that persons attitudes changed, have they done something while there to make a positive contribution, etc. Or have they just sat and become more angry, joined gangs, got into fights, etc.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I think that's pretty much the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I would love to have that Jason. We are the worst gun control state in the entire country. Let's just try to move the bar forward one step at a time. Don't you realize there are 49 other states jealous of the gun laws in VT? We are 49 states away from where they are.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Think on this one for a while, I think you'll find it makes sense. There will always be someone willing to compromise your rights more. More and more and more.... then you get MA and CA gun laws. You can't prevent all crimes. You can't. Once people realize this, things become much clearer. Someone let out of jail might kill again. That is reality. Federal law won't prevent this. The solution is finding better ways of determining when or if a person should be released. Perhaps it shouldn't be based on the fact you did your time... but HOW you did your time. Has that persons attitudes changed, have they done something while there to make a positive contribution, etc. Or have they just sat and become more angry, joined gangs, got into fights, etc.

Actually, for true first degree murder.....no time...just a .45 to the back of the head. The trick is having a further evidence burden. None of this stuff where only killing a cop or a child gets the death penalty. If you commit cold-blooded murder, you are on the chopping block. You just create an additional evidence burden so we don't end up killing an innocent person.

 

[yanici]

If you use Vermont as the nearly perfect model there is still, and will always be, Federal controls and hoops to jump through. In effect owning a gun would become only Federally controlled.

If GOAL's bill in the Mass. House would pass, we would go a long way and most of the nongun owners would still feel some sense of protection from irresponsible gun license applicants. I think this is probably the best we can hope for in the near future.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

If you use Vermont as the nearly perfect model there is still, and will always be, Federal controls and hoops to jump through. In effect owning a gun would become only Federally controlled.

If GOAL's bill in the Mass. House would pass, we would go a long way and most of the nongun owners would still feel some sense of protection from irresponsible gun license applicants. I think this is probably the best we can hope for in the near future.

I agree and have called all four reps. for Medford to try and get their support. If Jim needs me at Beacon Hill I will be there.

 

[TomH]

Actually, for true first degree murder.....no time...just a .45 to the back of the head. The trick is having a further evidence burden. None of this stuff where only killing a cop or a child gets the death penalty. If you commit cold-blooded murder, you are on the chopping block. You just create an additional evidence burden so we don't end up killing an innocent person.

Agreed on all points. It also shouldn't matter what the tool of the murder was.

 

[jasons]

I would love to have that Jason. We are the worst gun control state in the entire country. Let's just try to move the bar forward one step at a time. Don't you realize there are 49 other states jealous of the gun laws in VT? We are 49 states away from where they are.

I agree that change is likely to be incremental and that incremental improvements are better than no improvements. I just think it's important to keep focused on the end goal so that we don't get sidetracked with the pit stops along the way.

That and the fact that defeatist attitudes are contagious and bad for morale....

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I agree that change is likely to be incremental and that incremental improvements are better than no improvements. I just think it's important to keep focused on the end goal so that we don't get sidetracked with the pit stops along the way.

That and the fact that defeatist attitudes are contagious and bad for morale....

I know....I'm just trying to come up with MA pallatable reforms. We all want to be VT.