Cop - Soldier - Law-Abiding Citizen...What's the Difference Where Weapons are Concerned?

reply to post by Biigs

after reading this post, i'd imagine the phrase ... "7 year itch" might take on a whole new meaning.

besides, a 'right' doesn't involve qualifiers or conditions.
and, what about those who do not have permits ??

here, we have roughly 6 million gun owners but only about 1 million permits issued.
how do you 'evaluate' those who choose to not be CCW permitted ?

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


No, i do not mean anyone with mental health issues.

Only those that suffer from violent or aggressive mental issues. Where to draw the line? Well im not a psychologist. It is my opinion there are people who are not dangerous enough to be put in a psychiatric hospital, who work normal jobs and do everyday things, perhaps much more likely to 'flip out' one day under certain life pressures etc - right now they can still buy a gun as per the 2nd.

Sort of like a driving test, right now, you only need to have the money and wait a week for your permit to purchase a firearm. More people die from cars, thats why we have the driving exam, to prevent deaths and injury through lack of training. Should there be a mandatory gun exam too? very possibly and its my belief that some mental health questions should be a part of that too. Cars are only for transport, where as a firearm is designed purely to kill things - we have a drivers license and test to be eligible, yet nothing remotely close to that for deadly weapons.

reply to post by Honor93


We have all right to vote, unless you are a felon.

Someone who has proved to be a danger to society no longer is aloud that right to vote.

Why cant the government add in a few basic rules to gun ownership, to make it safer all round, you might need a gun to protect yourself from them, but if they didn't have access to one in the first place to go crazy.... its only the criminals you have to worry about.

If you are not trust worthy to own a gun, the same way if you cant drive you cant have a car and the same way a felon cannot vote. All basic rights are still subject to some form of realistic perspective and restriction.

reply to post by Biigs

Someone who has proved to be a danger to society

yes, so why aren't mental health checks working in the LEO industry?

actually, felons can apply to have their rights restored ... but that is another discussion for another thread. just because someone has been a felon, does not mean they can never own a gun legally. for anyone to believe otherwise is a fallacy.

because Rules don't make guns safer, ppl do.

driving commercially is a privilege, travel is a right and since you don't know the difference between them, i wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

No, i do not mean anyone with mental health issues.

Only those that suffer from violent or aggressive mental issues. Where to draw the line? Well im not a psychologist. It is my opinion there are people who are not dangerous enough to be put in a psychiatric hospital, who work normal jobs and do everyday things, perhaps much more likely to 'flip out' one day under certain life pressures etc - right now they can still buy a gun as per the 2nd.

Sort of like a driving test, right now, you only need to have the money and wait a week for your permit to purchase a firearm. More people die from cars, thats why we have the driving exam, to prevent deaths and injury through lack of training. Should there be a mandatory gun exam too? very possibly and its my belief that some mental health questions should be a part of that too. Cars are only for transport, where as a firearm is designed purely to kill things - we have a drivers license and test to be eligible, yet nothing remotely close to that for deadly weapons.

OK...I'll set aside the whole "right" vs. "priviledge" argument, for now, but...

What you are saying, really has no merit, with regard to mental health. Psychiatry and Psychology, are two completely different fields. And, as such, approach the science of mental issues, from two completely different angles. Granted, sometimes they compliment each other, but they are still separate, in terms of diagnoses and treatments.

The problem arises, when one gets into the whole "prediction of violence" approach. There are NO proven ways to predict that someone mentally ill, or completely sane, are "more likely to 'flip out' one day under certain life pressures" than anyone else! You are simply buying into the propaganda, that incites a "fear response" that TPTB want you to feel!

Who is a threat, regardless of mental capacity, that has nothing to fear? It is only those with an irrational response to stimuli or someone who harbors paranoia, as a result of a mental defect. But, to restrict a right, and remove the ability of someone who meets that criteria, would only exacerbate that condition! Would it not?

Again I ask...Where do you draw the line?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Biigs

 

Someone who has proved to be a danger to society

yes, so why aren't mental health checks working in the LEO industry?

actually, felons can apply to have their rights restored ... but that is another discussion for another thread. just because someone has been a felon, does not mean they can never own a gun legally. for anyone to believe otherwise is a fallacy.

because Rules don't make guns safer, ppl do.

driving commercially is a privilege, travel is a right and since you don't know the difference between them, i wouldn't expect you to understand this.

If a felon got charged with a gun crime, their request for legal gun ownership to be restored, is highly unlikely.

The same way if you crash your car into a bus full of nuns, you get your driving license revoked.

That was the only similarity i was trying to make, and since cars are dangerous in the wrong hands, we have exams and practical test - something completely missing from gun ownership.

Of course many many responsible gun owners do go on safety courses, since you can injure yourself or others without proper maintenance or due care. But it not a requirement.

@GoOfYFoOt - i dont draw the line, i only think it should be some part of legal gun ownership.

I would have to say it's all about vetting, training, and control. Both police and military are pretty heavily vetted for obvious reasons. And they all have pretty extensive training. And those organizations have fairly tight control over who has what weapon and where that weapon is. A citizen has none of those, or at best a limited amount of each.

reply to post by Biigs

not all felonies are the result of gun crime
again, what you said is NOT true and until you can accept that, twisting your statement still doesn't prove your argument.

license revocation happens for alot of reasons but having an accident isn't usually one of them.

again, cars and the like are NOT 'rights'.
ownership/utilization of arms is.

reply to post by Biigs

@GoOfYFoOt - i dont draw the line, i only think it should be some part of legal gun ownership.

Thank you, for your honesty.

But the bottom line is this: It is a part of legal gun ownership. To a point.
Here are the facts....It is not against the law, to have a mental defect. But, when a law is broken, whether the one convicted is mentally ill or not, typically has no bearing on the punishment. Only in extreme cases, can one's mental condition be used as a defense! It could be argued, that ANYONE convicted of a crime has some form of limited mental capacity. But, we can not legislate morality or criminality, no more than we can enforce it, prior to a criminal act!

The same goes for, anyone who buys a weapon from a legal source, such as a gun dealer. The Feds have established the criteria, that determines whether a buyer meets the requirements set forth, for gun ownership. Anyone who has proven that they would willfully break the law, and have been found guilty of such acts, are barred from completing their purchase. But, there is NO WAY to predict who may, at some point in the future, decide to commit a crime that would bar them from owning a gun!

So...What do you suggest, that would incorporate a reasonable clause to do that with?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Biigs

 

not all felonies are the result of gun crime

At no point did i say all felonies were gun related. I said that if you are a felon due to a gun related criminal act, you are unlikely to be aloud your 'right' to own a gun back. Which is a perfectly logical standpoint for public safety.

I used car license as a comparison, to show that potentially deadly equipment is controlled and that owners/users are tested to ensure competence, same as explosive license or a flying license.

While owning and using a vehicle isnt a stated right in the constitution, it is an assumed right which is moderated through testing.

I apologize to the thread owner if i have derailed or spammed the thread, i only posted to propose a view and opinion for the sake of an open debate.

Originally posted by redtic
I would have to say it's all about vetting, training, and control. Both police and military are pretty heavily vetted for obvious reasons. And they all have pretty extensive training. And those organizations have fairly tight control over who has what weapon and where that weapon is. A citizen has none of those, or at best a limited amount of each.

Thanks for your response...

Like I have been saying in my discussion with Biigs, we have no way of ensuring that bad things will never happen...

Vetting - Does nothing but examine one's past for instances of mental instability, disobedience, or criminality. It can, in no way, predict whether one will always remain vigilant, against such errant ways!

Training - I can not speak to the standards of military training with firearms. Perhaps someone knowledgable about such, will bring those standards to bear. But, as for Law Enforcement, we have a local Police Academy, in the next county. All of our officers from our area have attended this school. Their firearms training consists of 4 days on the range, firing a grand total of 450 rounds. 400 pistol and 50 shotgun., with an accuracy test on the final day. 4 out of 5 of all of their bullets must meet the standards set forth to receive their LEO Certification.
Meaning, 20% of them, do not! They could sail up to 80 pistol rounds into who knows where, and they could still be a cop!
Training, you say??? Ok....

Control - This is a fallacy. There is NO control of weapons on the battle field, short of the hands and minds of the users! And, the only control during peace time, is but to ensure that the weapons are accounted for. I believe it to be a cost incentive rather than a safety one...

Personally, I would feel much safer with armed citizens in our midst, than those who have been subjected to the horrors of war....Just sayin'........

reply to post by Biigs

I apologize to the thread owner if i have derailed or spammed the thread, i only posted to propose a view and opinion for the sake of an open debate.

No worries, mate! This thread is simply a refreshingly civil discussion on several related topics, that can't seem to provoke rational responses on all of the other similar threads...

Thank you for your reserved and thoughtful input.

reply to post by Biigs

At no point did i say all felonies were gun related.

nor have i said you did.

so, let's look at what you have said ...

You can have never committed a crime, be a loner and totally insane - this is the potential danger.

which is completely false.
committing a crime does not prevent you from legally owning a firearm.
(however, some specific crimes do)

many loners have guns and permits, where did you get such an idea?
and since when are 'loners' a threat of any kind ??

lastly, ppl who are totally insane are generally institutionalized without any access to guns.

and ...

Only those that suffer from violent or aggressive mental issues

drs are required to report such persons to the NCIS database, hence we already have checks for that.

and ...

If you are not trust worthy to own a gun

do you mean like Hitler's standard of 'trustworthiness' ??
please expand on this comment.

and ...

If a felon got charged with a gun crime, their request for legal gun ownership to be restored, is highly unlikely.

yeah this is true, so, what would possibly be stopping them from obtaining one 'illegally' ?? certainly NOT background checks

and ...

I said that if you are a felon due to a gun related criminal act, you are unlikely to be aloud your 'right' to own a gun back.

and the point is, legal or not is kinda irrelevant to the discussion since criminals don't adhere to 'legal' standards.

and ...

While owning and using a vehicle isnt a stated right in the constitution

sure is, see the 10th Amendment but that isn't really what we're discussing here, is it ?

Originally posted by Honor93
not all felonies are the result of gun crime

Originally posted by Biigs
At no point did i say all felonies were gun related.

nor have i said you did.

Originally posted by Honor93
committing a crime does not prevent you from legally owning a firearm.
(however, some specific crimes do)

unless that crime is involves the use of a firearm and is a felony

Originally posted by Biigs
If a felon got charged with a gun crime, their request for legal gun ownership to be restored, is highly unlikely.

Originally posted by Honor93
yeah this is true, so, what would possibly be stopping them from obtaining one 'illegally' ?? certainly NOT background checks

illegal guns are not the topic here

Originally posted by Biigs
While owning and using a vehicle isnt a stated right in the constitution

Originally posted by Honor93
sure is, see the 10th Amendment but that isn't really what we're discussing here, is it ?

Originally posted by Honor93
again, cars and the like are NOT 'rights'.

quite a bit of contradiction here....

reply to post by Biigs


comprehension block or what ??
how is my statement of fact ... not all felonies are the result of gun crime ... accusational of you in any way, shape or form ?

how does what i said = you said in your mind ??

unless that crime is involves the use of a firearm and is a felony

not entirely true.
any conviction of domestic abuse is a disqualifier.
any conviction within a certain time frame is a disqualifier.
and there are others, so please, stop talking like you have a clue when you don't.

Illegal guns are the ONLY real topic here.

how does restricting legal gun owners reduce crime with illegal guns ?
the SH shooter did not legally own his weapons according to reports.
the NY firemen shooter was a prior 'convicted murderer' but still got and used 'legal' purchased guns, illegally.

it is not legal gun owners who are the concern or problem or are you insinuating it is ??

contradiction, where do you see that ??
are you offering any clarification for such a blanket statement ?

I'm sorry, i've got lost; i thought this thread was about the legal ownership and use of weapons unavailable to the law abiding citizen vs. the use of fully automatic weapons used by police and military?

When did this become a topic about illegal guns?

Any fool with a wad of cash and the knowledge to look in the right place can buy anything they want.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
Again I ask...Where do you draw the line?

I think the real question should be, who draws the line? If we leave it to the government, then the government will say that only the government is allowed to have weapons.

I would prefer a national vote on which weapons are banned and which ones are allowed, and weapons banned from private citizens should also be banned from the government.

reply to post by Biigs

i suppose that interpretation could apply, however, i read the title a bit differently.

as in ... what is the difference between law-abiding civilian vs LEO/military carrying arms in public.

and given either interpretation, why are you talking about restricting law-abiding citizens any moreso than LEOs/military ?

i didn't read anything about fully automatic weapons and civilians don't carry them in public anyways.

When did this become a topic about illegal guns?

about the time you brought this into the conversation ...

its only the criminals you have to worry about.

and, because the variety of weapons LEO/military carry are generally obtained illegally on the streets. (doesn't matter if we're discussing billy clubs, riot control sprays or guns)

reply to post by Honor93


this guy walks into JC Penny with a semi auto AR-15 strapped to his back

www.abovetopsecret.com...

my entire point behind all of my posts is that:

Anything remotely dangerous is subject to a strict test, be it a license to drive or one to operate a demolition crane and even explosives (for blasting), yet a firearm is subject only to a 7 day wait or a gun show a + criminal background check.

Guns are primary designed to kill, yet theres no hoops to jump through to own one, unless of course as discussed above, you have a gun related felony.

Now why fully auto is military or police only, is not really important compared to the fact that a bump-fire semi is acceptable for the average law abiding citizen, both are extremely dangerous in the hands of a violent or mentally unstable individual. But the fact remains, LEO's are subject to strict rules to open carry, full auto or otherwise, we consider them safe because of the intense training and constant checks on both mental and physical.

Illegal guns however, are the exception to the would be rules and cant be monitored since they are unregistered, while that will always remain a problem, making the legal guns safe is something you CAN do something about.

The police and military for the most part are better trained than civilians (exc for former police and military) for bellicose situations. The military is especially trained to kill people and break things while the police are assumed to serve a more moderate law enforcement role in society (altho the militarization of the police is blurring the line). The big difference is how the service is framed: do they work for us (citizens of the USA) or do they work for "the government" (local or federal). Under Posse Comitatus the military is not supposed to be deployed domestically. Therefore our security at home is dependent on law enforcement and ourselves. Since we know that the police are more concerned with solving than preventing crime the onus for our protection lies with ourselves....the law abiding citizen (the same ones singled out by our founders as the "militia").