(November 30, 2013 at 11:04 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 10:59 pm)Owlix Wrote: I appreciate firearms for their defensive capabilities, but also, I would like to own a couple guns to go shooting from time to time. It's an acquired skill like any other, archery, knitting, quilting, or cooking. I would not relinquish any quilter of her needle or knitter of her darning needle just because those things could be conceived as weapons in a modern society. Nor would I take spikes from a mountain climber simply because they could penetrate vital organs of passers by.

An item only becomes a weapon if you choose it to be so. I will use anything as a weapon if necessary. Guns? Don't worry, I don't own 'em. But I do have some little bats, knives, scissors, and a myriad of heavy, hurtful objects that will become prime weapons.
So don't push me.

It is true that something can only kill if operated to do so (or handled incorrectly by someone who is not adequately trained). But guns (unlike the sewing needles but like some of the bladed weapons you mention) are designed to kill. It would seem only reasonable that if we require car owners to demonstrate proficiency with an automobile before they can use it in a way that impacts the public, and if we require insurance for that too, then why not require those who buy guns with intent to use them for whatever purpose (self-defense, hunting, stress relief at a firing range, etc), be required to have training (regardless of gun type, or private vs public carry/use), a license, and insurance?

And in some jurisdictions training is a requirement.

But there are 50 states with separate laws, plus the federal laws, plus local laws.

(November 30, 2013 at 11:15 pm)Chas Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 11:04 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: It is true that something can only kill if operated to do so (or handled incorrectly by someone who is not adequately trained). But guns (unlike the sewing needles but like some of the bladed weapons you mention) are designed to kill. It would seem only reasonable that if we require car owners to demonstrate proficiency with an automobile before they can use it in a way that impacts the public, and if we require insurance for that too, then why not require those who buy guns with intent to use them for whatever purpose (self-defense, hunting, stress relief at a firing range, etc), be required to have training (regardless of gun type, or private vs public carry/use), a license, and insurance?

And in some jurisdictions training is a requirement.

But there are 50 states with separate laws, plus the federal laws, plus local laws.

Training is a requirement for all gun types?

But yes, that would be a big part of the issue. 50 states with 50 different sets of laws, and then add local laws on top of that. That is moronic in its complication.

(November 30, 2013 at 11:04 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: ...be required to have training (regardless of gun type, or private vs public carry/use), a license, and insurance?

Training, yes, and annual re-certification in proficiency and safety/lock-out maintenance.
License, yes, to aid in regulation and tracking of firearms across state lines.
Insurance, no, because it would over-inflate the market and raise the price of firearms.

(November 30, 2013 at 11:24 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 11:04 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: ...be required to have training (regardless of gun type, or private vs public carry/use), a license, and insurance?

Training, yes, and annual re-certification in proficiency and safety/lock-out maintenance.
License, yes, to aid in regulation and tracking of firearms across state lines.
Insurance, no, because it would over-inflate the market and raise the price of firearms.

"Training, yes, and annual re-certification in proficiency and safety/lock-out maintenance."

Where? Because I can safely say there was no such requirement in Tennessee when I lived there.

"License, yes, to aid in regulation and tracking of firearms across state lines."

For all guns you have to have a license? I know that one isn't true.

"Insurance, no, because it would over-inflate the market and raise the price of firearms."

Cost isn't an issue I am concerned with.

(November 30, 2013 at 11:29 am)Rahul Wrote: It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

But for all of you that want to voluntarily disarm yourselves, go for it. After all, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Fuck the police. You're more likely to be shot by them than a stranger.

Quote:Free Republic: 240 years
Tyranny: 0

Chas, I never let jesus freaks....or their muslim cousins get away with substituting mythology for reality and I can't let you do it either.

The same dickheads who are wandering around waving their M-16s think we have a "tyranny" now? How come your precious "patriots" did not stop that?

If there were ever a military coup in this country ( and please don't insult either of our intelligences by saying "it can't happen here") those gun nut fuckheads would be cheering the generals on. Fascism knows its own. These people are not "freedom fighters" except for themselves and what they want is to be free of black guys running the country.

There has never been a successful armed revolt in the US. And I don't think these phony shits are capable of pulling it off, either.

(November 30, 2013 at 11:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 11:29 am)Rahul Wrote: It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

But for all of you that want to voluntarily disarm yourselves, go for it. After all, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Fuck the police. You're more likely to be shot by them than a stranger.

Quote:Free Republic: 240 years
Tyranny: 0

Chas, I never let jesus freaks....or their muslim cousins get away with substituting mythology for reality and I can't let you do it either.

The same dickheads who are wandering around waving their M-16s think we have a "tyranny" now? How come your precious "patriots" did not stop that?

If there were ever a military coup in this country ( and please don't insult either of our intelligences by saying "it can't happen here") those gun nut fuckheads would be cheering the generals on. Fascism knows its own. These people are not "freedom fighters" except for themselves and what they want is to be free of black guys running the country.

There has never been a successful armed revolt in the US. And I don't think these phony shits are capable of pulling it off, either.

So far, all you've done is insult people who support gun rights without bothering to establish your own position. What is your stance on guns?

(November 30, 2013 at 11:32 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 11:24 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Training, yes, and annual re-certification in proficiency and safety/lock-out maintenance.
License, yes, to aid in regulation and tracking of firearms across state lines.
Insurance, no, because it would over-inflate the market and raise the price of firearms.

"Training, yes, and annual re-certification in proficiency and safety/lock-out maintenance."

Where? Because I can safely say there was no such requirement in Tennessee when I lived there.

"License, yes, to aid in regulation and tracking of firearms across state lines."

For all guns you have to have a license? I know that one isn't true.

"Insurance, no, because it would over-inflate the market and raise the price of firearms."

Cost isn't an issue I am concerned with.

Sir, I am saying that I would happily agree with the aforementioned requirements should they be introduced.

I wonder how much "training" this fellow had during the years?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1311459

(November 30, 2013 at 11:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I wonder how much "training" this fellow had during the years?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1311459

You still haven't bothered to explain your stance on guns.

(November 30, 2013 at 11:48 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 11:32 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: "Training, yes, and annual re-certification in proficiency and safety/lock-out maintenance."

Where? Because I can safely say there was no such requirement in Tennessee when I lived there.

"License, yes, to aid in regulation and tracking of firearms across state lines."

For all guns you have to have a license? I know that one isn't true.

"Insurance, no, because it would over-inflate the market and raise the price of firearms."

Cost isn't an issue I am concerned with.

Sir, I am saying that I would happily agree with the aforementioned requirements should they be introduced.

My bad, I thought you were saying that these were things already implemented in the US.