the_2nd | Gun Control? Why yes, I have excellent gun control.

Entry tags:

Gun Control? Why yes, I have excellent gun control.

Guns. I'd like to talk about guns. It's part of the namesake of this community, isn't it?

I'm pretty decently to the left on a lot of things, but private ownership of firearms is one where I take a fairly conservative stance.

So, who among you thinks the legally insane should have guns? What about violent felons? Maybe some of the more hardcore libertarians, but I'm not among them. When some batshit psychopath blows someone's head off with a sawed-off 12 ga. people get this stupid idea that it's deer hunters in upstate NY who do this, and it's not. There are people that rightfully shouldn't have guns - kids too young to safely operate them, people fresh out of the loony bin, violent felons, idiots who have previously demonstrated wanton and careless disrespect with guns (someone actually using their shotgun at a wedding), and people who have no issue with beating their wives, children, animals, etc. None of these people would ever form a well-regulated militia.

If you're not in one of those categories, congratulations, I support your right to legally obtain and operate the firearm of your choice, from a .22 bolt-action rifle to any gun that a single person can carry and operate (even if it might be done by two people in the field). I have to draw the line at bombers and nukes though. I support your right to own as many of them as you wish, with as much ammo as you want, contingent on your ability to keep it secure. I support your right to carry weapons on your person, concealed or openly carried, and in your vehicle (but unloaded, just in case you hit a bump and the gun malfunctions). And I support your right to safely enjoy them. These are rights you and I have as legal residents of the United States.

Now anytime anyone says those dreaded words "gun control", do you think of the UK? Or of BATF agents kicking down your door searching your home with dogs looking for your weapons? I don't. I think of people in the middle of large cities being grateful that someone's willing to do something about getting the Saturday Night Specials off the streets.

I'd like to mention a problem here in Albany, NY. Because of the current gun laws, illegal possession of a firearm will get your ass sent up the river. So, in order to get around this, the locals have taken to the concept of a "community gun". Basically, it's a handgun, usually some cheap POS that's as likely to jam as fire, with some rounds, where a good number of people know about where it is (usually an abandoned house or some other out of the way hiding spot), that anyone who feels the need to keep the peace in the neighborhood can go and get it and return it. Screw getting assault weapons off the street, people don't kill each other with AKs in the city, nobody can afford them. They do it with guns like this. This is a side effect I think of institutional racism in police forces, but that's another rant entirely. Long story short, people are going to do this when they don't feel like they can trust the police. Wait a second here - full circle? How many gun owners don't trust the government? I'm sure that's more than a few of us.

So, the issue here is the government is responsible for protecting both a fundamental American right, as well as providing for the general safety and welfare of the public. It seems like they fail at both. What we need is the promotion of responsible gun ownership, with government recognition of the people who responsibly keep and bear arms. This is where gun control comes in - I would like to see a universal system where gun owners are licensed and registered.

Now, I'm sure I've got y'alls blood boiling already. Simmer down, have a homebrew or other tasty beverage. How many of you live in states where the police make final determination as to who can get a carry permit, and don't generally hand them out at all? That system needs to end. Part of universal licensing is to eliminate that system. If you aren't one of those categories of people I talked about earlier, you have a protected right to get a gun and the cops can shut up about it.

Second, how many of you have seen some idiot at the range or somewhere else being STUPID with their guns, things that five minutes of time with a qualified instructor who would be just about ready to beat the crap out of them for? We make drivers go through written and practical exams to demonstrate they know the rules of the road and can operate a vehicle on a basic level before we let the drive unsupervised on public roads. I don't think it's unreasonable to require a prospective gun owner demonstrate that they have enough knowledge of the various types of guns and know how to be safe with them before they're allowed to own one. I also want the kind of idiot that rounds off the hammer on a TEC-9 so it will cook off its mag to have to wear a sign saying I'm Stupid, and that license revoked. No, ya can't stop him from ever using a gun again, no more than a suspended drivers license actually stops a person from driving, but you can drag his ass in court for it and take the guns from him you can find.

(Oh, and to Joe Six-pack who gets trashed and then plinks the cans in the backyard, F you. You give the haters reason to hate us.)

To address the problem of community guns, I would like to see a full amnesty given to anyone who turns in a gun to law enforcement (for having the gun, not for anything they might have done with it). In fact, post a bounty on the things - $100 for no more than showing ID at the local cop shop would go a long way to getting these guns gone. If the gun is safe to operate, sell it back to a registered dealer who can find it a nice home, or destroy it if you must. If the gun is registered to someone, give them a call first to find out what happened. This is a good reason to actually register your guns - if someone finds it, or steals it, you can get the thing back. It's also a good reason for new owners to register the sales, so that they get the same protection.

We all know criminals prefer unarmed targets. An armed society is not necessarily a polite society, but the knowledge that someone down the street is trained and capable of keeping the peace will keep the peace on the street. I want legislation that promotes our right - not restricts it in ways that only make it more difficult for us to legitimately police our communities.

So, let's hear your thoughts.

Edit: To be more rules compliant, I have cleaned up my language a bit.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I like your thoughts very much.

They make very good sense to me.

I'm not sure I'd ever thought about universal licensing, but it makes good sense to me. And I agree with your thought that having individual police departments making decisions about who gets carry licenses is a bad long-term plan and bad enforcement of the 2nd.

But your thoughts would be much nicer on my Reading page if there was a cut...

I got long-winded and ranty. I'll cut some of it. :)

Thank you so much, awesome!

I can't wait to see what other opinions you get.

I may be just as interested when the rest of my circle gets to chime in that make me look positively American-centrist.

See, I'm at the far, far end of the firearms tolerance spectrum in my country - I've fired a gun which, given that I'm not a farmer, police officer or soldier, puts me in a *tiny* minority. I'm in fact a member of my college rifle club (mostly shooting 10m air rifle, although I've had a go at .22 prone), and get "so, you're a gun nut?" comments because of this. I spent two months over the summer carrying a .308 because if a polar bear showed up you'd need it. And yet, the idea of freely available handguns (for a given value of 'free', as outlined above), and even rifles, makes me more uncomfortable than you'd believe. Like, shivers running down my spine.

What do you think are the benefits of carrying a handgun? And are they sufficient to negate the associated costs (the easier it is to obtain firearms, the easier it is for them to be acquired for committing crime, and more firearms in circulation = greater opportunity for them to enter the black market)? I'm asking, not to be antagonistic, but to find out your views on the topic, if that's okay?

In this country getting a gun is dirt simple - in any largish city, find a pawnshop. Most carry guns. Many don't ask questions. The guns are junk, but if you only need them once, do you really care? Guns are such an ingrained part of our culture that trying to rid ourselves of them would be a fool's crusade. We have to live with them. The black market for firearms is massive, especially when you have states like Vermont which only enforce the bare minimum of gun laws (but consider for a moment you never hear about guns traded in Vermont being used in major crimes).

Personally, I think a handgun carrier is accepting a tremendous responsibility and must be mentally prepared for it. I firmly believe that nobody should carry a gun for purposes of self-defense that is not prepared to use it at a moment's notice should the situation demand it. Furthermore, that gun stays in its holster unless you fully intend to use it, with full knowledge of the risks of that, and the ability to accept whatever consequences may arise. Seriously, people need to think about this. This isn't a matter for law as much as ethics, though.

Still, it makes some people feel safer, or like they are contributing to a safer society, because they carry in public. And given what it's like to be a minority of many different sorts in this country, I can fully appreciate feeling the need for an extra layer of protection. But I personally would caution anyone who is considering it to think long and hard about all of this.

I hope it's okay! As long as the conversation stays away from being antagonistic, then I really hope we get lots of back and forth over the issues. That's the best way to actually come up with an opinion, IMO, by actually discussing the issue and seeing all sides. (And, I hope that this community doesn't end up an echo chamber, so, thank you for commenting!)

To jump in here, personally, I agree that it's kind of weird that handguns are just left out and about (well, in a 'known' location that anybody can get to) because that goes against what I believe is the safe and proper respect of a firearm. While I don't think I want people to be required to have gun safes (I don't yet) I do think that people should be expected to treat them with care like any weapon.

As to the benefits of carrying a handgun: while I personally have not had the experience of being mugged or assaulted, I have had friends who have. I have one friend who used a handgun to successfully halt a situation where a man was threatening a woman in a parking lot. In that situation, if he hadn't had the weapon he wouldn't have felt comfortable stepping in to stop the situation and it's unknown what would have happened to the woman if all my friend could do was call 911 and pray.

Of course, the counter argument I've heard is: what if the man had had a gun, and what if the situation escalated, what if, what if... well, personally, I think that options are good. I would rather have the ability to defend myself than not, and if the other person is unstable enough that they are willing to escalate to violence, my having a gun or not wouldn't have changed that fact. Given that I know I'm sane, I'd rather have more options at my disposal when it comes to dealing with situations.

One thing that is taught to most drivers (at least in my experience) is that "you are responsible for your own safety", i.e., the concept of defensive driving. This is especially true for motorcycle riding (which I do) -- you can't trust that cars are going to do the safe and sane thing. You take responsibility for your safety into your own hands, and you do your best to ensure that you make it to your destination in one piece.

I view guns (and weapons in general) in the same light. I think that it's my responsibility to, as much as I can, protect myself and my family. Gun ownership is one part of that for me.

To jump in here, personally, I agree that it's kind of weird that handguns are just left out and about-

I think there's been a bit of crossed wires here - it's the idea that anybody (subject to security checks) can walk into a shop and buy a handgun is what gives me the shivers. The concept of civilian handgun ownership simply doesn't exist here. (Hi, welcome to Europe!) The only people who would possess handguns, apart from certain special police branches (normally, police are unarmed), would be those connected with organised crime, or UDA/IRA paramilitaries.

Which, to a certain extent, explains the differences in reaction between ourselves. It's rather easy to declare guns = bad when muggers are armed with knives and syringes, not revolvers. My personal reaction, though, is that I can't see a way to reduce gun crime (and so a need for self protection) without greater restriction on personal rights to bear firearms - a vicious circle.

I added some tags, if you can think of any others I'd be happy to add them.

As to the topic at hand: I agree with your ideas on who may possess a firearm, what they are allowed to own, and most of your comments on people who are stupid -- especially the part about 'giving the haters reasons to hate' -- gah!

I'm not sure about a universal licensing and registration system. The problem with something like that is that the very act of creating a database of guns and owners (as with any information database) means that someone can now use that for evil. Yes, it can be used for good, but it can also be used for evil.

If we don't have a database to begin with, then it can't be misused. I don't have to worry about the people who are going to be in office in ten years and what they might believe about the right of people to bear arms. If they know that I possess a weapon, they very well might show up and take it. Sure, maybe I can fight them in court, but... that's a lot of time and money that I may not have at that point.

FWIW, I haven't made up my mind about which way I'd like to see things go on that front. I can certainly appreciate your arguments about why a universal system would beat a local system, and some of the benefits of that system. I'll watch for other comments and see what people say.

On the issue in general, though, I'd love if anybody have any articles, books, or other reference materials. Especially as it relates to the case I posted about originally.

The issue of a database to be used or misused is less a matter of guns in and of themselves and a matter of our ability as citizens to put faith in our government. As it stands, though, I don't see where such a database would create a form of surveillance that doesn't already exist. Really, if the government wants you, or wants to find out who owns what (legitimately), they pull some records from FFL holders and get it that way, or from state records for those states that require carry permits already. I support the idea of universal licensing because it would actually make a system that's broken and not helping us actually help us.

That's true - but, as it is, if John Doe buys a gun and then I buy it from him, the government only knows about John Doe's purchase, unless I live in a state where citizens can't do that without a FFL as intermediary. (Of course, if I commit a crime with the gun, they come knocking on his door, at which point he says "oh no, I sold it to

cheyinka!"... so I see your point.)

The carry permits thing is certainly true, though, and I guess it's just my distrust of the federal government that makes me not want that centralized, even though people licensed to sell firearms (for a living) or own machine guns or what-have-you are licensed through the federal government, and that works.

By letter of the law all gun sales have to go through a FFL, and as part of the conditions of having an FFL the ATF can come and inspect your premises and firearms. Intrastate transfers are federally regulated as well.

Not in all states. If I'm not selling guns for a living, I (living in Texas) can sell a gun (handgun or rifle) to another resident of Texas for whatever price we agree upon, and that's the end of it.

My understanding was different, and a notable exception to the general sovereignty of states. Anyone else wanna jump in here with a more educated opinion than ours? :)

Edit: Egg is on my face, you're right. :)

Edited 2010-03-16 03:48 (UTC)

"your" being the seller's? (If I buy a weapon above board in the US, I would hope that I'm not at the same time waiving my rights under the 4th.)

Purchasing a firearm does not waive Fourth Amendment protections, however possessing a FFL does. If you are a registered arms dealers the BATF has the right to inspect your facilities and weapons without notice. The difference is in owning guns and trading in them, which for the sake of national security regulations on arms dealers of all stripes are necessary.

Well, there's always the scene from Red Dawn where the Communists get the sporting-goods store's file cabinet full of Form 4473s... :D

...but yes, I tend towards your view of things, that if we don't have a national database, it can't be misused. I tend towards that view of things in general - that the federal government, while not intrinsically malicious, shouldn't have any more information than it absolutely needs to do its job, because if it doesn't have it, it can't abuse it.

I mean, yeah, the folks in power when the database is set up might be the least-corrupt politicians ever to grace a government building, but that says nothing about who'll have access to the database in two or four or ten years, not to mention anybody who might get access to it illegally.

And this is to suggest that the government doesn't already have too much power by virtue of there being things like social security numbers? Or that malicious people can't already destroy our lives through accessing our credit and committing fraud with it? Or that hell, the government can't already destroy a person and have it go completely under the radar? Part of the issue is that the present administration is marginalizing legitimate gun owners, and the practice of any protected right should not be marginalized. I don't want glorification, hell, I don't even want personal attention. I want the basic acknowledgement that the government accepts that I wish to exercise my rights and that they'll do their job in protecting it.

How can the government protect legitimate rights of a group of people if they don't know who they are, especially if they are easily confused with threats to public safety and welfare?

My liberal blue is starting to show... ;)

Yeah, you're right, which is why I brought up Form 4473s and added a nice big grinning face. I just worry about more information becoming available, and the inevitable creep of how that information will be used - e.g. SSNs were only supposed to be for Social Security, never be used for anything else, really really, and now they're a de facto national ID number, right?

My thoughts:
If somebody only drives around on eir own property, e does not need a driver's license, at least in most states. If somebody's only keeping a gun at home to defend eir home, e should not need a license, either. (I feel much more strongly about that than about driving a car, too, because there's no right to drive a car, but I do think there's a right to protect one's home.)

On the other hand, if someone wants to carry a gun around in public, e should have a license - but it should be shall-issue rather than may-issue. (On the other hand, Vermont doesn't require licenses, and to the best of my knowledge their crime rate is comparable to neighboring states, so I could be convinced that no one should need a license for this either.)

My issue with needing to have competency checked in order simply to own a gun is that I shouldn't need to be comfortable with rifles to own a handgun, or revolvers to own a semi-automatic, but having to get a license for every type of firearm would rapidly become very onerous, especially in states that do their best to make firearm ownership difficult. If I am an adult, am not a felon, have never had a judge declare me a threat to myself or others (i.e. if I voluntarily seek psychiatric treatment that should never be an issue, even if that means a voluntary stay in the loony bin), and I see a firearm of a type I don't own for sale, I should be able to buy it if I can afford it. On the other hand, if I should decide that I want to carry a gun for my protection (either openly or concealed), the government has an interest in making sure I am competent with that gun, which is why I'm okay with needing a carry license.

I also tend to think that the machine gun registry should be reopened, such that the process of purchasing one is generally the same, but new ones can be manufactured, so that it doesn't become an issue of "there are only n machine guns in existence, so any time one is destroyed or damaged the others become accordingly more valuable, such that no one who has one will sell it for anything less than an exorbitant amount". I also think that the restrictions on suppressors are counterproductive, but I think it'd be easier (politically speaking) to reopen the registry than to stop restricting suppressors.

(Bombs are easy to regulate - bombs are "destructive devices", and already restricted in different ways than rifles and handguns. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with somebody owning a tank. Tanks fire destructive devices, so naturally you can't pick up the ammunition for your tank's gun at Wal-Mart, but I don't have any problem with anybody owning the vehicle itself. Ditto somebody owning a fighter or bomber airplane, actually.)

May-issue is one of the biggest travesties against Second Amendment rights currently around, and the liberal in me says we're giving police way too much power, especially to deny civil rights to others. But also, I am in generally a supporter of castle laws, and that a person has no obligation to retreat when a credible threat to life, limb, or major property occurs on their property (you can't shoot someone for TP'ing your yard), or in preventing or interrupting a violent felony in progress.

I don't think of having to qualify on a given type of firearm to be onerous - you can go to almost any range and rent a gun in any given category, and demonstrate to an instructor that you can use it. Ten minutes and a few bucks (most of it in ammo) and you're on your way. It's far more cumbersome to get a CDL or taxicab license.

The problem with restrictions on accessories such as flash suppressors and silencers is that a competent gunsmith can manufacture them completely off the radar. Same goes with things such as subsonic ammo - odds are good that they're handloads. If someone has a nefarious use in mind for them they're not going to bother going to a shop and picking them up off the shelf.

FWIW, there are a number of people who own P-51's (with the weapons systems removed), and even a few MiG-29's in private ownership. The armaments are highly illegal for private ownership and sale, but the planes themselves I'm sure are a lot of fun, and horrendously expensive to operate and maintain.

Well, it's more of an issue of - okay, yes, before buying a gun you should shoot one like it just to be sure it's comfortable in your hands, that the safety and magazine release and the like are readily accessible, ideally that it's one you can assemble and disassemble (...says the MK III owner...) and so on. But if somebody feels eir life to be in danger, whether because e lives in a dangerous neighborhood, or has been threatened in the past, or whatever, it shouldn't be any more difficult than it has to be for em to get a gun. And in practice restrictions on gun ownership just make it more difficult to do legally, so...

Totally agreed on accessories, especially since one can construct an adequate single-use suppressor relatively cheaply (just not, y'know, legally). Especially for indoor ranges (not that I ever want to shoot in one again), it'd be nice for suppressors to be available. I can see their use when hunting, too. But oooooo scary silencer, bad guys use silencers, oooooo, whereas opening the machine gun registry to new machine guns doesn't make it necessarily any easier to get one, just brings the price down into "affordable by people who aren't ridiculously wealthy" territory. (Of course, shoelaces can be machine guns, and I am aware of a query sent to the ATF about whether hamsters might also be machine guns...)

As fond as I am of the image of a room full of armed college students blowing away the nut who chains the building door shut and comes in to kill the helpless. . .I'm scared to death of those same armed students sucking down brew at a frat party. You can test for skills and training, those are easy. But nobody that I know of has come up with a foolproof test for idiocy.

...they'll build a better idiot.

I would never suggest trying to idiot-proof the law. What I'm saying must be done is when you find a genuine idiot do whatever is necessary to keep that idiocy from endangering the public. They might be too far gone to prevent from endangering themselves.

I'm... actually not, honestly. Like you said, it wouldn't matter whether those college students had passed a skills test or not, or whether or not they knew it was illegal to carry after drinking, so requiring a skills test or a test on the laws wouldn't prevent idiocy.

I mean, every US state licenses drivers, and in the two states where I've taken the exam (Montana and Texas) the exam materials emphasize that driving after drinking is Not Okay. And yet... people do it anyway, even people who should really know better, and as a result the government responds with education campaigns (there's a nice billboard I've seen of a car where the front half is a taxi and the back half is a police car and the caption is "Your Choice - Don't Drink And Drive" or something along those lines) rather than by making it harder to get a driver's license.

In general I don't like "gun-free zones", because the same restriction that might keep a drunk frat boy from shooting a friend negligently will also make every law-abiding student living on campus an easier target for someone who isn't law-abiding, and won't keep a drunk frat boy who doesn't think the rule applies to him just this once from still causing a tragedy. (For the record I am okay with government buildings not letting people who aren't the police carry, because government buildings tend to have guards; also, I'm okay with places of worship requesting that their congregations not carry weapons.)

Yeah, I don't think you can test for that. Philosophically speaking, is the goal of law to create a system that prevents people from being stupid? Similarly, I'm not sure that the goal of the law should be to make people feel safe.

Of course, if you were to toss me into a room/house/whatever full of armed and drunk people, I'd probably feel pretty damn unsafe and get out ASAP. Guns and alcohol do not mix, and I could see arguments for making it like cars: if you're intoxicated and you're carrying, it's a felony.

If I had my way, public carrying of sidearms would not exist for civilians. As I mentioned earlier, I think the vast majority of carry permit holders have not thought through the ramifications of carrying their sidearm. I would rather extend the right to all than to have the haphazard and abused system we have now, but realistically, a gun is a considerable liability to its owner in a physical confrontation, especially within grappling range. Simple logic is if an attacker closes with you and manages to wrest the gun from your grip, you're dead, even if you might not have shot the attacker. All academic arguments aside, if self-preservation is your goal, I would highly discourage carrying a gun in favor of simple street smarts coupled with hand to hand self defense training.

That said, I accept that bearing arms is a protected right. But I still think it's a dumb thing to do in practice.

I reckon a lot of this comes down to trust. Obviously *I* am entirely trustworthy with a gun, but do I trust everyone else to be? And the answer has to be no, I do not. I acknowledge this is a very anti-libertarian stance but the fact is I still don't trust them.

On the other hand, I am willing to trust them with cars, shotguns, knives and numerous other devices which can kill and maim, so its not exactly a consistent stance. So what may in fact be being observed in the UK is just a widespread fear of guns arising from a culture that has very little experience of them. I know the first time I saw an armed policeman I freaked out.

But then there is pretty much no desire for handgun ownership in this country. The only people who cared when it was made illegal were the tiny number of people who shot competitively. It's been a long time now so I presume most of them have gone over to rifle shooting or taken up knitting or something.

Shotguns and rifles are another matter. If those were made illegal there would be an outcry. You can have a shotgun or a rifle if you can show you have a legitimate use for it - that means showing that you either shoot competitively in a club or shoot game. Just wanting one at home to scare off burglars isn't considered a legitimate reason (and anyway if you used it you would be done for assault or worse). You also have to keep it in a secure cabinet (hah hah - that is definitely more observed in the breach) and the police have to interview you to try to judge if you are a steady reliable sort of person. That means upper middle or upper class, or if working class an obvious countryman. I'm not sure how much discretion the police have to refuse a licence, probably more these days than they used to, they certainly seem to visit people who are renewing their licences quite often.

If someone on an inner city housing estate wanted a gun they would almost certainly be refused. Kids can have them if they are older than 12 (I think - it might be a year or two older or younger) but again they have to show they have a legitimate reason which comes down to class and/or where you live.

I also think it's worth remembering that the concept of someone being sane or responsible enough to handle a gun is a dodgy one. Obviously some people will have shown by their past actions that they are not responsible but that is no guarantee that the remainder are responsible. Mental health problems can strike anyone at any time. So can being drunk or stoned, or just having been pushed too far past your limit of tolerance for the actions of others. The police just have to do their best. And crime with licensed guns is minuscule in this country so by and large they probably get it right.

Incidentally I know or know of lots of people with tanks - they are quite often used for recreational purposes.

I'm from a country that is famous for making soldiers (and pretty much every guy has to go to the military when he is around 20, even if they are starting to relax that now) keep their assault rifles at home (yet that is also slowly chancing) ....
Yet we have pretty low crime, and if there is, it's more likely to involve knives.... I guess because you can't really carry an assault rifle around without being in uniform and not have people suspicious about it, while handguns are heavily regulated and hard to get without a permit. (And permits are not that hard to get if you are a member of a shooting or hunter club - just that hardly anyone I know wants to join such a club, or handle guns at all... and those who do preach about how it is a good thing that you have to join a club to get a permit and learn how to safely handle a gun)

So yeah, I can't really see how the society in which I live would profit from guns being freely available to everyone

Your society wouldn't. In fact, truth be told, I would rather our society be closer to yours. The problem here is that there is a concept of firearm ownership being a protected right, one that many more militant gun owners would die to protect. That scares me. I would furthermore be scared of any serious attempt by our government to stamp out gun ownership - it would lead to social ills that would make the status quo look like paradise.

We have voluntary clubs here (often referred to as rod and gun clubs) that promote sport and game hunting and where they exist responsible ownership likely does as well. But I've yet to see a highly visible urban gun club in any of the cities I've lived in, or people otherwise promoting firearms for sport.

Our crime tends to extend from two major sources - marginalization of social classes (be they race, wealth, etc.), and cultural norms that dictate beliefs in socially sanctioned violence. Certainly nothing prevents all crime, but eliminating bigotry and fighting the stereotypes that permit violence to go unchecked would be a very good start here.

Most of the discussion has been about firearms, but I'm curious. What is the general attitude about carrying (or owning) other weapons, both melee (sword, pike, mace, quaterstaff, axe, ...) and range (sling, javelin, bow, crossbow, sarbacan, ...)? One interesting feature is that it takes months (at least) of intensive training before being able to use those effectively, which limits ownership (other than as collectibles) to people prepared to work hard to master them and negates or lowers the opportunity for militant weapon-ownership opponents to trot out the "idiots who will hurt themselves or innocent bystanders" argument.

As far as simply owning and using them, sure. But I think the public alarm that would be created by someone with a crossbow strapped to their back is a bit too much. It would be about like openly carrying an assault rifle on your back, which isn't exactly practical to carry concealed.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Gun Control? Why yes, I have excellent gun control.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Probably coming down to the left of where you intended...

Re: Probably coming down to the left of where you intended...

Re: Probably coming down to the left of where you intended...

Re: Probably coming down to the left of where you intended...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

This may be worth a post of its own, but I'm lazy

Re: This may be worth a post of its own, but I'm lazy