Gun control laws

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You have to get a new drivers license every once in a while by taking a written or driving test. Why not do the same with firearms?

Driving Is a privilege in America, gun ownership is a right. Big difference when it comes to who you say can and cannot own firearms.

I am all for background checks and waiting periods. But to say that a person must pay money out of their own pocket to take a class and get a piece of paper from the government to exercise their rights then no way.

If the person wants to seek higher education on firearms that is their own business. But is shouldn't be required by law.

I agree with you on the right vs. privilege, but I dont mind the idea of safety classes. I dont even like the thought of telling people they are being denied a constitutional right, but the sad fact is that some people already are. Convicted felons can not own firearms in most states, if not all. The right to own does bear some responsibility to adhere to reasonable expectations of society, such as criminal activity. It is a fine line and one I do not want to see blurred by either side. Once the line starts to fade I fear it will disappear very quickly.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Gun control spoken by a conservative is proper background checks and safety classes. Gun control spoken by a liberal means taking guns away trying to create "gun free zones" like the one supposedly in Chicago, which is a glaring failure.

Okay! Thanks for explaining! I really didn't know it meant different things to different people!

I did not mean to refer to "gun free" zones.

Someone I know put up on Facebook this morning a video of a guy making commentary on this event, and he railed on about France being a "gun free zone".... which it is not, I just assumed he is an idiot.
But I guess if some people hear that France has "gun control " laws, that is what they are going to assume.

Really useful to know that- thanks again.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE

Really? Wow. I guess no one was hunting, sport(target shooting) personal protection of security that night, huh?

To analyze the situation as accurately as possible,
You would have to look at the elements of this particular context.

This was not in the USA, it was not Americans.

Americans and French have different cultures,
Different values, different ethics, a different worldview.

This effects their choices, even within the same limits of rights and freedom.



It is not because someone has the right to do something,
That they will do it.

The french are not excited by firearms, in the majority- not the way we Americans are.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Gun control spoken by a conservative is proper background checks and safety classes. Gun control spoken by a liberal means taking guns away trying to create "gun free zones" like the one supposedly in Chicago, which is a glaring failure.

Okay! Thanks for explaining! I really didn't know it meant different things to different people!

I did not mean to refer to "gun free" zones.

Someone I know put up on Facebook this morning a video of a guy making commentary on this event, and he railed on about France being a "gun free zone".... which it is not, I just assumed he is an idiot.
But I guess if some people hear that France has "gun control " laws, that is what they are going to assume.

Really useful to know that- thanks again.

There is an old joke that accurately sums it up: if a conservative doesn't like guns - he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns - he doesn't buy one and you cant buy one either.

France is not a 'gun free zone' in the same way that politicians tried to create in Chicago but the regulations on owning firearms in France are generally more stringent than in the US. There is no guaranteed right to own firearms in France. You have to apply for a license and re-new it ever five years to own a firearm. Only certain types of firearms are allowed as well as limits on ammunition. As far as I know, there is no conceal carry in France. Even if members of the general public owned firearms they would not have had access to them when they were needed the most. That factor may have contributed to the rant you witnessed on fb.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

France is not a 'gun free zone' in the same way that politicians tried to create in Chicago but the regulations on owning firearms in France are generally more stringent than in the US. There is no guaranteed right to own firearms in France. You have to apply for a license and re-new it ever five years to own a firearm. Only certain types of firearms are allowed as well as limits on ammunition. As far as I know, there is no conceal carry in France. Even if members of the general public owned firearms they would not have had access to them when they were needed the most. That factor may have contributed to the rant you witnessed on fb.

It doesn't sound like the laws are more stringent in getting a permit- I read someone say you are required to take certain classes there, and pay for them??

Here, there is a test questionaire, on the cleaning and storage methods, and you have to get it signed by a shooting club, with proof that you are a member. You have to declare a description of your storage methods. The club costs barely nothing to be a member, and the process is free I think... I'll check on that, we either paid nothing or next to it.

"if members of the general public owned firearms" ? We own firearms. Our neighbors all own firearms. Yes, they have access to firearms. If they want to carry it all day long and everywhere, they have to make a claim of doing so for personal protection and have it approved. Everything here goes through such channels to be officialized, it is not a big deal.

But most of the french people I know are repulsed by the idea of carrying a weapon and do not want to. I know it sounds hard to imagine, considering the current events. I do not want to spend too much time trying to describe their point of view- it has some merit and logic, it isn't completely unreasonable. -And that is coming from me, someone who prefers having a weapon and wouldn't hesitate to use it. I have still come to understand their point of view.
That no one had a gun in that crowd is not totally due to them not having the right to!

a reply to: Bluesma


Here's the thing .. I am only going to say this once, so please pay careful attention.

Every single hostage inside that concert hall was killed. Not a single one of them was armed. The terrorists were killed by guns, when the police, who had them, arrived.

What could have prevented every single hostage from being killed?

Would having 10 armed hostages only create more fatalities (no - they were all killed, and they were all unarmed).

If one is required to take a class and pay a fee to get a permit to own or carry a weapon, a right has been turned into a privilege one pays for and that privilege can be taken away for for arbitrary reasons.

If you believe that one should have to pay for the privilege of owning or carrying a firearm, you are not for second amendment rights, you are against them.

When america was founded, it was founded to get away from the European way of doing things, among a very large number of other right/privilege issues.

When we are fully Europeanized we will see the exact same things here as happen in Europe.

The same as France the day before yesterday.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You have to get a new drivers license every once in a while by taking a written or driving test. Why not do the same with firearms?

I am all for background checks and waiting periods. But to say that a person must pay money out of their own pocket to take a class and get a piece of paper from the government to exercise their rights then no way.

I got that piece of paper.
Its called a DD214 and i got it after serving in the US military.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
a reply to: Bluesma


Here's the thing .. I am only going to say this once, so please pay careful attention.

Every single hostage inside that concert hall was killed. Not a single one of them was armed. The terrorists were killed by guns, when the police, who had them, arrived.

What could have prevented every single hostage from being killed?

Would having 10 armed hostages only create more fatalities (no - they were all killed, and they were all unarmed).

Okay, here's the thing, and I have already said it twice, but will say it a third, trying another wording, to see if you get it-

Those people had the right to have a gun.

Those people did not want to.

They did not choose to.

It is their cultural values and ethics that make them feel uncomfortable with guns,

Not the government or laws.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner


When america was founded, it was founded to get away from the European way of doing things, among a very large number of other right/privilege issues.

When we are fully Europeanized we will see the exact same things here as happen in Europe.

The same as France the day before yesterday.

For crying out loud.... Apparently you do not know much about the history and circumstances within France.
America does not have the same sorts of problems (it has different ones)

If you become "europeanized" then you will no longer have to take and pay for a class for your permit-
you will have to simply take a written test/questionaire, that costs barely nothing,
and have a gun club (our membership costs us 20 dollars a year) sign to the effect that you have a membership and that you have a locked storage for it at home. (that is to protect children)

The fact is, this is a rural area- so just like in the states, more people are comfortable with firearms.
But in general, more urban and metropolitan people simply don't feel comfortable with guns.
They have the exact same rights! They just feel a repulsion to guns and don't want to own them.

Having a right will not force people who do not want to exercise it, to do so!
(and if it did, then individual freedom is no longer)

_just as a convenient illustration of my point here,
yesterday they decided to deal with the many people here with a file "S" -meaning they have been having contact with terrorist groups and travelling between France and countries like Afghanistan.

They found many of these had illegal weapons (the Kalashnikov is apparently very popular amongst them) which allowed these people to be taken under arrest.

Without those, there is no legal reason to arrest them. It is not against the law to talk on the phone or through internet with suspected terrorists in other countries, and without proof of their stay in training camps on their vacations to such countries, there can be no charges either. But the weapons they have, make it possible.