An outsiders questions on US gun control.

a reply to: nonspecific

You get in trouble here too. Criminals are willing to accept that.

This link has the sentence for each individual state and circumstance.


www.cga.ct.gov...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: nonspecific


Everything has limits of course. Felons for example can't have guns,,,,,supposedly....
But on the other hand you can't give a psychological evaluation to everybody that wants to buy a gun.
Should we put a breathalyzer on every car just in case the owner was drinking?
No, we put one on somebody that has been caught drinking and driving.
The same should go for guns, that's what background checks are for.
Check the history of the purchaser, not read the future of the purchaser.
Should a man that was on antidepressants because of a bad divorce be eliminated from ever owning a gun?


This all comes down to who would get to determine who is going to be dangerous. That's the part that scares the hell out of me.

As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

We can own guns in the UK we just can't go to the movies with a loaded one in our pocket and not spend 10 years in prison.

Why would you go to watch a movie with a loaded handgun, I am from a different culture and this simply seems bizzare to me although I imagine not being able to you seems just as crazy but a lot less people get shot here. Can you understand my opinion on this?

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

originally posted by: nonspecific
...I perfectly understand wanting a gun in your own home for protection and having a cache stashed for the upcoming civil war but how does carrying a loaded weapon in a shopping mall or pizza joint benifit your society?...

To address this particular aspect of your question, one benefit to society is to protect a business owners payroll that must be hand carried from one place to another (business to home, business to bank, etc...). Not all small businesses can afford to pay a security company to perform this duty (paying them out of the profits would bankrupt them). Would you support someone needing to arm themselves in this case to protect themselves and business from would be thieves that will not follow the law?

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: nonspecific


Everything has limits of course. Felons for example can't have guns,,,,,supposedly....
But on the other hand you can't give a psychological evaluation to everybody that wants to buy a gun.
Should we put a breathalyzer on every car just in case the owner was drinking?
No, we put one on somebody that has been caught drinking and driving.
The same should go for guns, that's what background checks are for.
Check the history of the purchaser, not read the future of the purchaser.
Should a man that was on antidepressants because of a bad divorce be eliminated from ever owning a gun?


This all comes down to who would get to determine who is going to be dangerous. That's the part that scares the hell out of me.

As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

We can own guns in the UK we just can't go to the movies with a loaded one in our pocket and not spend 10 years in prison.

Why would you go to watch a movie with a loaded handgun, I am from a different culture and this simply seems bizzare to me although I imagine not being able to you seems just as crazy but a lot less people get shot here. Can you understand my opinion on this?

I specifically recommend universal unregistered concealed carry.

Besides the myriad intolerable caveats of registration, legal concealed carry benefits everyone in society whether they choose to carry or not.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: nonspecific

You get in trouble here too. Criminals are willing to accept that.

This link has the sentence for each individual state and circumstance.


www.cga.ct.gov...

Thank you for that, I would give you a dozen stars if I could, that's the kind of short but valuable post that really can make a difference.

I only skimmed the info but to an outsider it seems like the punishment is pretty light for such an offence in my opinion. mainly short prison terms of around 18 months to 3 years or a couple of grand fine.

Although the information is valuable it does however relate to the illigal ownership of a firearm and not as I suggested the carring of one in public without good reason(something I know many will say is a right but just seems odd to me.

a reply to: nonspecific


I understand your opinion on the subject.
I also would not go to a movie theatre that I felt the need to take my gun.
Just cultural differences I guess

originally posted by: nonspecific
Although the information is valuable it does however relate to the illigal ownership of a firearm and not as I suggested the carring of one in public without good reason(something I know many will say is a right but just seems odd to me.

It is the same thing. Illegal possession also means carrying one in public without a permit or by not observing your state's particular carry laws.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
Although the information is valuable it does however relate to the illigal ownership of a firearm and not as I suggested the carring of one in public without good reason(something I know many will say is a right but just seems odd to me.

It is the same thing. Illegal possession also means carrying one in public without a permit or by not observing your state's particular carry laws.

I interpreted his question as one of why allow even legally licensed carriers the legal option to carry in public at all....anywhere.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I took it as what are the current penalties for carrying in public when not legally permitted to do so.


Hey, Nonspecific, what exactly did you want to know?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

originally posted by: nonspecific
The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

What does drug and gang culture have to do with the legal rights of citizens? I am sure Madison, et al knew that, just as in their time, there would be criminal behavior in the future so why would it matter?

Sometimes people might get a little too dependent on their gun, and may not even recognize when there's no danger.

An American tourist who felt the need to pack heat in a Calgary park has set off a storm of social media ridicule. And now it’s emerging that the “very aggressive” strangers he encountered may have just been representatives from an oil company giving out free passes to the Stampede.

During a trip through Nose Hill Park with his wife, the couple were asked by two men if they had “Been to the Stampede yet?”
Wawra didn’t reply, and was asked again. The aggressive tone had the off-duty cop instinctively reaching for his handgun.[ex]

news.nationalpost.com...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Krakatoa

I took it as what are the current penalties for carrying in public when not legally permitted to do so.


Hey, Nonspecific, what exactly did you want to know?

I was curious as to how a law that prohibited the carrying of a loaded firearm in public carried a heavy prison sentance but the right to own arms was still legal would go down with the average US citizen, your laws are complex so maybe I am not understanding exactly how things work?

originally posted by: nonspecific
I was curious as to how a law that prohibited the carrying of a loaded firearm in public carried a heavy prison sentance but the right to own arms was still legal would go down with the average US citizen, your laws are complex so maybe I am not understanding exactly how things work?

I think that link provided what the penalties are. They can be pretty serious for violating the law and carrying a firearm in public without a permit or if the particular state does not allow public carry.

So we already have harsh sentences for illegal carry but we still have many places were it can be done within the boundaries of the law.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

So, I guess the pirate culture of the preceding century (17th century into the early 18th century) doesn't count in their calculus. The largest variable in their calculus was YOUR government to be honest. The British empire of King George III that attempted to tax and otherwise control (militarily even) the remote colonies. The attempt to confiscate our firearms, being forced to quarter your troops in our homes with no compensation or permission. Therefore, I am not surprised you do not understand our culture and unique history.

This isn't a slight or flippant answer, but an honest one.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
Although the information is valuable it does however relate to the illigal ownership of a firearm and not as I suggested the carring of one in public without good reason(something I know many will say is a right but just seems odd to me.

It is the same thing. Illegal possession also means carrying one in public without a permit or by not observing your state's particular carry laws.

I interpreted his question as one of why allow even legally licensed carriers the legal option to carry in public at all....anywhere.

Yes, that is the general attitude among anti self defense advocates; why should anyone be trusted to possess the ability to defend themselves?

It isn't a legal question but, a philosophical one. The conversation must eventually devolve into specific examples and hypothetical tests upon the validity of the principal of pacifism.

Should martial artists register their limbs?

Should criminals possessing martial arts abilities have their limbs surgically removed?

etc...

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

So, I guess the pirate culture of the preceding century (17th century into the early 18th century) doesn't count in their calculus. The largest variable in their calculus was YOUR government to be honest. The British empire of King George III that attempted to tax and otherwise control (militarily even) the remote colonies. The attempt to confiscate our firearms, being forced to quarter your troops in our homes with no compensation or permission. Therefore, I am not surprised you do not understand our culture and unique history.

This isn't a slight or flippant answer, but an honest one.

It certainly is not a judgement of your culture on my part, as I said I am glad that you have the legal right to own firearms.

The question was how you would feel if you lived in a society where you were not allowed to carry one in day to day society without severe conciquences?

Basing this on the assumption your fellow citizens also adhered to this and the need for self defence with a firearm was drastically reduced.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.

You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.

This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?

So, I guess the pirate culture of the preceding century (17th century into the early 18th century) doesn't count in their calculus. The largest variable in their calculus was YOUR government to be honest. The British empire of King George III that attempted to tax and otherwise control (militarily even) the remote colonies. The attempt to confiscate our firearms, being forced to quarter your troops in our homes with no compensation or permission. Therefore, I am not surprised you do not understand our culture and unique history.

This isn't a slight or flippant answer, but an honest one.

As I said I understand the government at the time and there decision(it was not my government that threatened that btw I was not alive and they are now long dead)

The issue I was interested in was the one of carrying loaded firearms in a modern society and the necciasity for it.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
Although the information is valuable it does however relate to the illigal ownership of a firearm and not as I suggested the carring of one in public without good reason(something I know many will say is a right but just seems odd to me.

It is the same thing. Illegal possession also means carrying one in public without a permit or by not observing your state's particular carry laws.

I interpreted his question as one of why allow even legally licensed carriers the legal option to carry in public at all....anywhere.

Yes, that is the general attitude among anti self defense advocates; why should anyone be trusted to possess the ability to defend themselves?

It isn't a legal question but, a philosophical one. The conversation must eventually devolve into specific examples and hypothetical tests upon the validity of the principal of pacifism.

Should martial artists register their limbs?

Should criminals possessing martial arts abilities have their limbs surgically removed?

etc...

I could be wrong in this but I am pretty sure that if you recieve a certain level of martial arts training in the UK then you do indeed need to register yourself as your arms and legs are actually deemed leathal weapons and you may need to justify your actions in any incident that leads to violence.