Gun Permit

[Liriena]

A gun was intended for hunting and protection. If stupid ppl obtained a gun for criminal purposes, let them not make the legal gun carriers be stripped of their rights to protect themselves.

And asking you to pass exams to get a gun permit strips you of your rights because...?

[Individual]

Stuff like that happens, you know? It's not good, nor is it especially bad. Either way, shit happens.

But we, unlike you, want to prevent preventable shit from happening, starting with making surely dangerous mentally ill individuals can't own a gun, and that some unqualified idiot doesn't try to play hero, getting himself and others killed in the process.

Sigh... “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” --Benjamin Franklin

[Individual]

Oh, I'm SO sorry about that mistake I made. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings or anything.


So I shall leave them to die, then. No problem at all. Works for me, that one too.

You get that this isn't about bulletproof vests, right? If you want to talk about protection from getting shot, maybe start another thread.

I repeat: sorry about that. To err is human. Got an issue? Go get a tissue.

[Individual]

No one, if they can take care of themselves just fine. Your scenario described that they actually did quite fine without me.

[Individual]

No one, if they can take care of themselves just fine. Your scenario described that they actually did quite fine without me.

They are shooting at each other, one of them is mad man who is going to kill innocents nearby and "they are doing just fine". Yea...

The one who defends him- or herself is doing fine. I see no need to intervene in that case.

[Liriena]

But why should I allow you to carry a sniper rifle if I don't know whether you can use it properly? If I don't know whether you are psychologically, physically and neurologically healthy? What if you were suffering from psychosis, or schizophrenia, or Parkinson's?
Should I give you my vote of condidence to kill a mass shooter in such a case? On what grounds?

Why should I care what you allow or not?[/quote]
If I were the law? You sure as hell should care.

Votes on me?

No. Votes on everyone.

Sorry, but I will be on the case either way (especially if it's going to threaten my own life and liberty) or just GTFO of the town he's at.

Yeah, go ahead and advocate for turning our entire society into an irresponsibly gun-wielding, murder-glorifying psycho-fest.

[Great Nepal]

They are shooting at each other, one of them is mad man who is going to kill innocents nearby and "they are doing just fine". Yea...

The one who defends him- or herself is doing fine. I see no need to intervene in that case.

There are innocent people around who will get hurt, so overall the situation is not fine.

[Liriena]

But we, unlike you, want to prevent preventable shit from happening, starting with making surely dangerous mentally ill individuals can't own a gun, and that some unqualified idiot doesn't try to play hero, getting himself and others killed in the process.

Sigh... “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” --Benjamin Franklin

Said the misogynistic slave-owner of the eighteenth century.
Just because a prestigious philosopher says something, doesn't necessarily mean he's right. Hobbes said that, without the state enforcing the law, we would all revert to our natural state and kill each other in the blink of an eye. Was he right about human nature in this regard? Probably not. Do we respect Hobbes for his work? Of course, but his word is not divine.

[Individual]

But why should I allow you to carry a sniper rifle if I don't know whether you can use it properly? If I don't know whether you are psychologically, physically and neurologically healthy? What if you were suffering from psychosis, or schizophrenia, or Parkinson's?
Should I give you my vote of condidence to kill a mass shooter in such a case? On what grounds?

Why should I care what you allow or not?

If I were the law? You sure as hell should care.

Votes on me?

No. Votes on everyone.

Sorry, but I will be on the case either way (especially if it's going to threaten my own life and liberty) or just GTFO of the town he's at.

Yeah, go ahead and advocate for turning our entire society into an irresponsibly gun-wielding, murder-glorifying psycho-fest.[/quote]
If you were the law I'd abuse the hell out of you. Because that's what laws are for.

But seriously, that would be actually quite entertaining to watch.

[Individual]

The one who defends him- or herself is doing fine. I see no need to intervene in that case.

There are innocent people around who will get hurt, so overall the situation is not fine.

I am not hurt (yet), so I do not see why I should intervene.

[Liriena]

If you were the law I'd abuse the hell out of you. Because that's what laws are for.

But seriously, that would be actually quite entertaining to watch.

Callow does not even begin to describe this post of yours.

[Great Nepal]

There are innocent people around who will get hurt, so overall the situation is not fine.

I am not hurt (yet), so I do not see why I should intervene.

So this part isn't true?

and sorry, I meant also protecting others.

[Big Jim P]

From afar with a sniper rifle, maybe? Or with an assault weapon?

Anyway, I guess I'll try...

But why should I allow you to carry a sniper rifle if I don't know whether you can use it properly? If I don't know whether you are psychologically, physically and neurologically healthy? What if you were suffering from psychosis, or schizophrenia, or Parkinson's?
Should I give you my vote of condidence to kill a mass shooter in such a case? On what grounds?

Who are you to judge? Unless they are shooting at you, you could, I do not know, mind your own business?

[Big Jim P]

I would prefer not to wear them around 24/7.


You come out of a room and hear gun shots and two people: Person A and Person B. Both of them are moving and shooting at each other. Who do you shoot?

The winner. Obviously.

Only if the winner continues shooting innocent bystanders.

[Veceria]

The winner. Obviously.

Only if the winner continues shooting innocent bystanders.

I hope you realize that I was joking from the very start of this small conversation :/

[Big Jim P]

A gun was intended for hunting and protection. If stupid ppl obtained a gun for criminal purposes, let them not make the legal gun carriers be stripped of their rights to protect themselves.

We are not talking about restricting rights, we are talking about insuring that the responsibility that comes with those rights are met.

[Liriena]

But why should I allow you to carry a sniper rifle if I don't know whether you can use it properly? If I don't know whether you are psychologically, physically and neurologically healthy? What if you were suffering from psychosis, or schizophrenia, or Parkinson's?
Should I give you my vote of condidence to kill a mass shooter in such a case? On what grounds?

Who are you to judge? Unless they are shooting at you, you could, I do not know, mind your own business?

I'm speaking as a hypothetical state gun law enforcement, not as myself.

[Big Jim P]

Only if the winner continues shooting innocent bystanders.

I hope you realize that I was joking from the very start of this small conversation :/

Yes, and I am half way doing so myself. Most likely, if the defender wins, he will quit shooting.

Not that this really applies to the subject at hand: Gun permits and licensing.

[Big Jim P]

Who are you to judge? Unless they are shooting at you, you could, I do not know, mind your own business?

I'm speaking as a hypothetical state gun law enforcement, not as myself.

Point in your favor.

Now, If someone is carrying a "sniper" rifle, what business of the states is it until he starts firing? Just like a traffic stop: stop and check his permit (assuming you have reasonable suspicion that he may not). If he has a permit, he goes about his business. If not, arrest him.

Kinda the point to the whole permit/license subject.

[Big Jim P]

They are shooting at each other, one of them is mad man who is going to kill innocents nearby and "they are doing just fine". Yea...


What if Person C is waiting for same thing and shoots you after you shoot the winner?

Such is the circle of life!

Simba?

[Liriena]

I'm speaking as a hypothetical state gun law enforcement, not as myself.

Point in your favor.

Now, If someone is carrying a "sniper" rifle, what business of the states is it until he starts firing? Just like a traffic stop: stop and check his permit (assuming you have reasonable suspicion that he may not). If he has a permit, he goes about his business. If not, arrest him.

Kinda the point to the whole permit/license subject.

That's actually what I would prefer.
On a related note, I would tentatively endorse several "levels" of permit, depending on the weapon one wishes to purchase, and with different levels of examination and control accordingly. Much in the same way as (in my country at least) different land vehicles require different levels of permits.

[Big Jim P]

Point in your favor.

Now, If someone is carrying a "sniper" rifle, what business of the states is it until he starts firing? Just like a traffic stop: stop and check his permit (assuming you have reasonable suspicion that he may not). If he has a permit, he goes about his business. If not, arrest him.

Kinda the point to the whole permit/license subject.

That's actually what I would prefer.
On a related note, I would tentatively endorse several "levels" of permit, depending on the weapon one wishes to purchase, and with different levels of examination and control accordingly. Much in the same way as (in my country at least) different land vehicles require different levels of permits.

I believe both mine and Socios proposal address that issue (mine being Dyakovas refinement of my original proposal) with multiple independent endorsements (rifle, shotgun, handgun) on the one license.

[Individual]

I am not hurt (yet), so I do not see why I should intervene.

So this part isn't true?

and sorry, I meant also protecting others.

I applied it onto other people. My own self-interest matters to me first and foremost. I was probably too unclear in my posts, and to that, I apologize.

[Big Jim P]

So this part isn't true?

I applied it onto other people. My own self-interest matters to me first and foremost. I was probably too unclear in my posts, and to that, I apologize.

First you defend yourself, then your family/friends, then the innocent of your community.

[Mike the Progressive]

No, I don't think you should be able to have one...

No offense.