Morgan v. Jones

Must be 18 to enter! Talk about anything but Football

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

My evidence of questionable storage and possession is anecdotal but since I don't run in gun circles, I can relate first hand to 4 different instances of where I have seen guns that were either restricted (illegal) or stored improperly (not locked). That scares me a little. Maybe I am just unlucky in that but it gets me thinking that if I as someone who has little to do with guns have come across such situations, what goes on that we don't know about? Or how closely are the rules being followed in more rural areas? I really don't know but where there is one, there is several. I'm not trying to find a moral high ground, I simply believe that people don't always attach the same level of significance to things, just like some people speed excessively and feel that there is nothing wrong with that. How many people run amber lights, drive after drinking? These things still happen regularly despite the best intentions. Unfortunately, with a firearm, the stakes can be higher. The fewer that are out there, the lesser the chance that someone is going to "drop the ball", react in a fit of peak and so on.

As for the want vs need. I was expecting that at some point. There is a place for the hobbyist/target shooter/collector somewhere in all of this. As a collector, I would be inclined to make such weapons not functional. Much the same way I don't sharpen my swords. As for the target shooter, I guess one has to draw the line somewhere. At what point does greater good vs the rights of the individual line get drawn? I for example would love to drive a Ferrari (just once) the way it was meant to be driven (after all that is what they are intended for), but on the other hand, to do so in most situations would be unsafe and irresponsible. I lean towards the greater good. side of the equation. There is nothing wrong with a weapon being handled safely and responsibly but if certain styles of weapons have a tendency to attract the wrong element, then I would argue that for the greater good, they shouldn't be available. It sucks for the responsible owners but then again so do speed bumps in parking lots. If people would just drive the appropriate speed, they would be unnecessary. It's a poor answer in some ways for your point about reasonable exceptions which I happen to agree with but it still comes down to a few bad apples spoiling it for the rest.

Although I didn't go into in my earlier post, I actually do think that the bigger problem over all in the US is the handgun. They are easily concealed, just as lethal and a tool just begging to be misused. They are the kind of thing that can be found in a drawer or a glove box, or that pile of junk that came from Grandpa's attic before his house was torn down. If I could choose just one to restrict, it would be the hand gun. The world doesn't need any more cases of 6 year old's bringing a handgun to school from the family home.

You may not have meant to imply it but you did suggest that talk of gun control spurs panic buying and that the consequence of that is more guns than ever. What would be the alternative? You either have gun controls or you don't. The fear of panic buying shouldn't be a consideration. With 300 million weapons in circulation already in the US, the panic buying of a few is hardly going to make the situation much worse. It is indeed their country and I don't know if they will ever have the collective consciousness to do things differently, nor is it my place to tell them how to live. I react more to the incessant, moaning and hand wringing that accompanies something like Sandy Hook followed up by a complete lack of political will to take steps that might help prevent it in future. I feel a sadness for them, but the challenge of changing their mindset is theirs to meet. Nothing I could say would ever change that. The saddest fact of all is my belief that no tragedy like Sandy Hook is ever going to be enough for them to reduce the number of and accessibility to guns in their country. It seems like a mass shooting or two every year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to have one or twenty.

No pardon required by the way. I enjoy a good discussion with someone who has a different point of view on an issue. It is the best way to learn I find.

As for the swords, it is a rather paltry collection by some standards. 2 or 3 genuine antiques of British origins circa the 1860's. A 1907 pattern Lee-Enfield bayonet. A few more modern era commemorative swords from the likes of Wilkinson before they got out of the sword making business, and some replicas of things like Gurkha Knives, Roman Short Sword etc. I also have a few hunting and jack knife blades. I enjoy the craftsmanship in the better examples It is pretty easy to tell the good metallurgy from bad. I still watch for them on Ebay and the like but the prices have gotten a little too steep for my tastes.

:beer:
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Like James, I'm a gun owner, with many, many years of target shooting and hunting behind me. I've always handloaded my own centerfire ammunition and, of course, observe the safe-storage provisions with respect to both my rifles and shotguns, and my handloading materials (gun powder, primers, bullets, cartridge cases) via heavy gun safes and locked storage cabinets. And, James, I've shot at the PoCo range many times, often just before hunting season to do drop tests out to 300 yards with my handloads (something not really possible at the range I used most--the Barnet Rifle Club in Burnaby). I might add too, I guess, that I do not lean right in my political thinking. Had I been an American, I would have voted for Obama in 2012.

I must say that, as I've followed this discussion, I've been a little disappointed in some of the name-calling in this thread. In particular, Gary Mauser has been unjustifiably vilified in my opinion. I know Gary (we both shot at Barnet for many years), although certainly not well. But I can tell you this: no "nutter" (at least with respect to his body of scholarly work--journal publications, books, conference presentations, speeches, etc.) could have achieved what Gary did in his career. I can't really comment on his classroom behavior (although I will say that, as a professor myself--at UBC--for several decades, I can well appreciate the annoyance caused by a late arrival to class, who then starts up a conversation with a classmate; those who've never taught a serious advanced university class have no idea of just how very distracting this kind of thing is), but I can tell you that no one gets to be a full professor (as Gary did) at a major university business school unless he's damn good at his research. The fact that one of you is put off by a business-school professor writing about public policy regarding guns (as Gary has) should be seen alongside the university's willingness to support this kind of research and to promote him to the highest professorial rank attainable. Obviously, those who were in administrative or academic positions at SFU and might care about these kinds of things saw nothing whatsoever improper about Gary's research topics and rewarded him for his research and writing.

As a social-science researcher myself, I can attest to the scholarly excellence of Gary's work. He's published in top journals--ones that have several independent subject-area experts vet every article submitted for publication (this constitutes the idea of a "refereed journal") and reject 80% of the articles submitted to them--places where "nutters" just don't get published.

The whole discussion of gun control is, unfortunately, for the most part rife with personal speculation bereft of any real empirical data, instead of being based on serious consideration of facts supported by rigorous research. Here are just three facts to consider:

1. In 1994, the US, during the Clinton administration, instituted an assault-rifle ban. In 2004, under the Bush administration, it was lifted. Right-wing nuttiness, right? Gun-related crime will go up, right? Well, actually NO; gun-related crime went down. So are we being rational in expecting a new assault-rifle ban to reduce gun-related crime?

2. If you examine the gun ownership of a number of European countries, you will find the following: Those countries with the highest rate of gun ownership have the lowest gun-crime rates, and those countries with the lowest proportion of gun ownership have the highest gun-crime rates. (Reference below) In Switzerland, for example, 29% of homes have guns in them (and in many, full-auto assault rifles), whereas in the US, the proportion of homes with guns is something on the order of 43%. Yet, despite this, Switzerland's gun-related crime rate is a miniscule fraction of the US's (far lower than the 2/3--or 29/43--we might expect if guns in the home were the key factor). So, is it the existence of guns in homes or something else that is the real underlying cause of the gun (and other forms of) violence in the US?

3. When the Canadian long-gun registry was set up by the federal Liberals in 1995-96 (Allan Rock being the cabinet minister responsible) via Bill C-68, although domestic violence generally went down (continuing a trend that had started much earlier), that due to guns stayed the same. This long-gun registry, advertised by the federal Liberals as expected to cost taxpayers only $2 million had, in fact, by 2004, cost Canada about $2 billion, according to the auditor-general, Sheila Fraser. Given the registry's now-known track record of failing to produce any documented improvement in public safety, the federal Conservatives should, in my opinion, be applauded for ending it, regardless of one's political affiliation.

Just saying "let's have fewer guns" and then enacting legislation to confiscate them is just the prototypical simplistic and superficially-obvious (and ultimately incorrect) solution to gun violence--adored by politicians and too often bought into by the citizenry who have done no real research on the problem, but naively believe the politicians who are desperate to be seen to be "doing something about it." The real solution is much much more complex and calls for some fundamental changes in our culture that no one is likely eager to embrace.

I could go on and on, but, instead, let me give you a link to one of Gary Mauser's articles, where much of what I've been describing is detailed with a ton of empirical data gathered internationally.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=998893

Remember, what you see in this article consists of facts--real empirical data. If you're really interested in learning about some of the complexities in this issue, this article is a good place to start.

Oh, re the NRA, what you are seeing is their having to "stick to their guns" so to speak (and no pun intended) with respect to confiscation of guns to be true to their cause. For them to be internally-consistent in their argument, they can't very well give in on assault rifles. The fear among members of the Institute for Legislative Action wing of the NRA is that any breach in this position will be the thin edge of the wedge with respect to gun ownership in the US. In other words, they feel that, if they give in on assault rifles, the next battle they'll have to face could be on, perhaps, all guns other than single-shot rifles and shotguns, and, eventually, on all guns of any description. I fully agree that the 2nd Amendment has been ridiculously stretched by the NRA, but Americans are very loathe to tamper with anything in their Constitution or Bill of Rights even though two hundred years have passed, and times are very different now. I must confess that this is something that I don't understand. You see this with other components of these documents and constitutional amendments too. In my opinion, the passage of time (say a couple of hundred years) should allow US citizens to modify the particulars of these documents, all the while ideally adhering to the spirit that generated them in the first place. However, I may be wrong about this, and it's clear that most Americans would not agree with that.

I might add that, despite the beating the NRA takes regularly in the more-liberal places, it has been a very important and effective organization in putting the shooting sports on a firm, responsible, and respectable footing in the US--teaching about gun safety, gun-handling, and in providing shooting clinics, youth training, and shooting competitions. In addition, it has published a number of really top-notch magazines, books, and videos over the years that have been a boon to shooters worldwide. This is the part of the NRA that people don't see. Instead they see only the activities of its Institute for Legislative Action, its political-action wing.

Although guns and shooting may not be your thing, I think it's important to respect the interests of others. Maybe you see no reason why anyone should like guns and shooting, but remember that others likely see no reason for anyone to like football. (It does, after all, maim some participants, and now we're learning that it is setting the stage for very-early dementia in many college and professional participants). We shouldn't condemn others because they have interests we don't share. Also, remember that shooting in some form has been an Olympic sport event since 1896 when the modern Olympics began. Today, there are men's and women's Olympic events in pistol, rifle, and shotgun. The NRA has been a big contributor to the success of American shooters in these events over the years.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

No comments from me to go along with these pictures from CNN.

http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/ ... &hpt=hp_c2
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

Two more ...

A Colorado hunter and gun enthusiast holds a shotgun and poses at his home for a portrait surrounded by mounted animal heads he has killed.

University of Colorado law student Jim Manley and his brother Peter Manley shoot on public land in the mountains of Colorado during a Students for Concealed Carry on Campus sponsored shooting event.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

World War II re-enactors Tom Spettel and Kent Strapko pose for a portrait wearing German military uniforms at the Rocky Mountain Fifty Caliber Shooting Association's annual shooting event in Cheyenne Wells.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le6704341/
Officials challenge NRA’s claims about Israeli gun policies

AMY TEIBEL

JERUSALEM — The Associated Press

Published Monday, Dec. 24 2012, 4:57 PM EST

Last updated Wednesday, Dec. 26 2012, 8:01 AM EST

Israel's policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America's top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.

Far from the image of a heavily-armed population where ordinary people have their own arsenals to repel attackers, Israel allows its people to acquire firearms only if they can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger. The country relies on its security services, not armed citizens, to prevent terror attacks.

Though military service in Israel is compulsory, routine familiarity with weapons does not carry over into civilian life. Israel has far fewer private weapons per capita than the U.S., and while there have been gangster shootouts on the streets from time to time, gun rampages outside the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are unheard of.

The National Rifle Association responded to the Dec. 14 killing of 20 first-graders and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school by resisting calls for tighter gun control and calling for armed guards and police at schools. On Sunday, the lobby's chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, invoked his perception of the Israeli school security system to back his proposal.

“Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing: They said, ‘We're going to stop it,’ and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then,” Mr. LaPierre said on the NBC News show Meet the Press.

Israel never had “a whole lot of school shootings.” Authorities could only recall two in the past four decades.

In 1974, 22 children and three adults were killed in a Palestinian attack on an elementary school in Maalot, near the border with Lebanon. The attackers' goal was to take the children hostage and trade them for imprisoned militants.

In 2008, another Palestinian assailant killed eight young people, most of them teens, at a nighttime study session at a Jewish religious seminary in Jerusalem. An off-duty soldier who happened to be in the area killed the attacker with his personal firearm.

Israel didn't mandate armed guards at the entrances to all schools until 1995, the Education Ministry said — more than two decades after the Maalot attack and two years after a Palestinian militant wounded five pupils and their principal in a knifing at a Jerusalem school.

Israel's lightly armed school guards are not the first or the last line of defence. They are backed up by special police forces on motorcycles that can be on the scene within minutes — again bringing out the main, but not the only, difference between the two systems.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor spelled it out.

“We're fighting terrorism, which comes under very specific geopolitical and military circumstances. This is not something that compares with the situation in the U.S,” Palmor said.

Because it is aimed at preventing terror attacks, Israel's school security system is part of a multi-layered defence strategy that focuses on prevention and doesn't depend on a guy at a gate with a gun.

Intelligence gathering inside Palestinian territories, a large military force inside the West Bank and a barrier of towering concrete slabs and electronic fencing along and inside the West Bank provide the first line of defence.

Guards are stationed not just at schools, but at many other public facilities, including bus and train stations, parking lots, malls and restaurants.

“There are other measures of prevention of an attack taking place, which are carried out 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all over the country,” police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. Many are not for public knowledge.

Gun lobbyists who might think Israel hands out guns freely to keep its citizens safe might be less enamoured of Israel's actual gun laws, which are much stricter than those in the U.S. For one thing, notes Yakov Amit, head of the firearms licensing department at the Ministry of Public Security, Israeli law does not guarantee the right to bear arms as the U.S. Constitution does.

“The policy in Israel is restrictive,” he said.

Gun licensing to private citizens is limited largely to people who are deemed to need a firearm because they work or live in dangerous areas, Mr. Amit said. West Bank settlers, for instance, can apply for weapons licenses, as can residents of communities on the borders with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Licensing requires multiple levels of screening, and permits must be renewed every three years. Renewal is not automatic.

The policy is designed “to strike a balance between needs and risks,” Mr. Amit said. “We know that weapons are a dangerous thing, and in the hands of someone who isn't trained or isn't reliable, it causes problems.”

The gap between Israeli gun ownership and U.S. gun ownership is consequently staggering. A total of 170,000 guns are licensed for private use in Israel, or about one gun for every 30 adults.

In addition to the privately held weapons, 130,000 guns are licensed to Israeli security companies, firing ranges, government ministries and companies that operate in areas deemed dangerous. Soldiers who carry assault rifles off base during their regular or reserves service turn them in when they complete their tours of duty.

By contrast, U.S. authorities estimate that at least one-third of all American households have firearms — and in many cases, not only one.

Americans are also much freer to choose what type of guns they buy. Automatic weapons of the type gunman Adam Lanza used to gun down his victims are banned for private ownership in Israel. It is also rare for a person to be authorized to own more than one firearm, Mr. Amit said.

Eighty per cent of the 10,000 people who apply yearly for licenses are turned down, he said. In the U.S., people can purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check or a license of any kind.

In Israel, applicants must undergo police screening and medical exams, in part to determine their mental state, Mr. Amit said.

Many Israelis receive weapons training in the military. But to be licensed to receive a weapon outside the military, they must undergo at least two hours of additional training, then repeat the training and medical exams every three years before they can renew their licenses.

Anybody who possesses a legally acquired gun waives the right to confidentiality, and authorities cross-reference for new information about the gunholder every three months.

“The point is not to complicate, but to make sure the system makes things safer,” Mr. Amit said.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le6684477/
America’s obsession with guns

ADRIAN MORROW

CHANTILLY, VA. — The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Dec. 21 2012, 9:47 PM EST

Last updated Wednesday, Dec. 26 2012, 7:58 AM EST

About 13 kilometres from the National Rifle Association’s headquarters, Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Va., is bustling as the days count down to Christmas.

A businessman buys a pair of pistols to give as gifts to his father and girlfriend; a young woman, hoping to purchase a gun for protection, listens intently as her date instructs her on the finer points of firing one; a middle-aged welder puts an assault rifle to his shoulder and takes aim at a paper target emblazoned with the likeness of Osama bin Laden, each shot echoing between the range’s cinderblock walls.

The store, located in a northern Virginia industrial park, is at the epicentre of the gun debate coursing through the nation in the wake of last week’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Customers here represent a cross-section of their nation’s gun owners: young professionals, middle-aged women, college-age hipsters.

Neither the caricatures of whiskey-swilling men in overalls en route to a turkey shoot nor the shabby survivalists gearing up for the next Armageddon, many appear prosperous, polite or subdued. They’re just a bunch of people going shopping. And for them, driving to Blue Arsenal is a reflexive way of life, like someone from North Vancouver or Mississauga heading to the nearest Canadian Tire.

Mark Warner, a gregarious clerk at Blue Ridge, says he acquired his passion for guns during a childhood spent on a farm, where he learned to hunt. Today, he shares the pastime with his twin 12-year-old daughters. “To me, an assault rifle is a recreational tool that’s fun to use. … It’s a great, fun thing to do in a controlled environment,” says the 41-year-old, who shares the same name as the Democratic senator who this week became one of a handful of “pro-gun” lawmakers to come out in favour of stricter gun control.

Brian Patti, a 28-year-old with red hair and a cheery disposition, stands a few metres away, waiting on a friend he is instructing in the use of a pistol. He inherited his interest in the weapons from his grandfather and sees in them a connecting thread through his country’s history.

“It’s more than a gun. It’s a piece of national identity,” he says. “And I like the challenge of going to the end of the range and trying to shoot something the size of a quarter.”

Drive west from the nation’s capital and you will quickly encounter states where the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and firearms pervade society – whether used for hunting, kept as collectibles or purchased for the sheer fun of blasting off rounds at targets. And in these places, many see no connection between these quotidian objects that permeate their everyday lives, and the otherworldly violence that a troubled young man wrought with an assault rifle on Sandy Hook Elementary School. Such things seem to unfold in a faraway parallel reality.

Which shows how difficult it will be for President Barack Obama and the lawmakers a half-hour’s drive away to bring in tougher controls on gun ownership.

The politics

The Connecticut shooting that left 20 young children and six educators dead has put guns back on the nation’s agenda. Mr. Obama is promising a set of legislative proposals – likely to include a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines that allow guns to fire up to 30 rounds without reloading – next month. He has found support in unexpected quarters.

Senators Mark Warner of Virginia and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, both of whom enjoy high ratings from the NRA – the country’s influential pro-gun lobby group – have called for action.

On national television, Mr. Warner declared “enough is enough,” while Mr. Manchin said “everything should be on the table.”

Congressman John Yarmuth, who represents staunchly conservative Kentucky, released an emotional statement, arguing that the only way to make the nation safer was to cut down the number of firearms.

“Like so many Americans, when I was growing up I thought guns were the things that protected us from the bad guys – the outlaws, the Nazis, the red menace and the gangsters,” he said. “Now I know, through painful history, that guns are much more likely to be used by the bad guys or the mentally unstable against the rest of us.”

Control advocates point to a simple United Nations metric to make their case: In 2009, the rate of intentional murders in the United States was 4.4 per 100,000 people, more than double that of Canada and the United Kingdom. In Japan, which has one of the most restrictive gun-control regimes in the world, that figure was 0.4.

The gun lobby and its political supporters, for their part, frame the issue as a question of individual freedom. The constitutional right to bear arms, they contend, ensures everyone can have a weapon and that the state never attains a monopoly on the use of force.

Speak with most gun owners, however, and the motivation is more complicated. History plays a part: This was a nation whose roots are steeped in the use of weapons, from the wars that protected it to the pioneers that settled it. Lifestyle is important, too, from those who shoot for sustenance to those who do it for recreation. Firearms are an important part of their lives, and they fear any attempt to restrict the weapons will see a part of something they love slip away.

A problem

Between the homey, wood-panelled walls of Antique and Modern Firearms in a Lexington, Ky., strip plaza, you can find guns spanning more than 200 years of American history: a flintlock pistol from the late 18th century; Wild West cowboy rifles; modern shotguns suitable for hunting birds.

But one type of weapon isn’t for sale.

After the Connecticut shooting, Antique and Modern’s owners decided to stop selling assault rifles, the sort of gun Adam Lanza used to perpetrate his massacre.

Proprietor Charles Layson, a bespectacled, silver-haired 70-year-old, says a national debate on gun control in the wake of the shooting is a good thing. He points to some loopholes in the law – one that allows travelling gun shows to sell weapons without conducting a background check, for instance – that could be closed. He is adamant, however, that gun ownership is a right.

“There are some things that could be debated – there is some room for improvement,” he says. “But if you’re an honest citizen who’s never done anything wrong, why shouldn’t you be allowed to sell a gun to someone else who’s never done anything wrong? How much do you restrict the freedom of the majority in hopes of thwarting a criminal?”

Public opinion, meanwhile, has barely moved, even as funeral after funeral of each Connecticut child runs on cable television. Of the 1,219 people surveyed across the country this week in a Pew Research poll, 49 per cent said it was more important to restrict gun ownership than to protect the right to acquire the weapons. That number was up only 2 per cent from a similar survey in July, within the margin of error.

A necessity

Caldwell, W.Va., is nestled in an Appalachian valley, where forested mountains once marked the frontier between the nascent nation and the vast unknown beyond. Today, they form a neat barrier between the coast and the country’s heartland. The economy has changed over the years – this hamlet relies largely on seasonal tourism for its livelihood – but locals still bag game to help feed their families.

“When the weather gets bad, there’s no work. You’d better get that meat in the freezer,” says Steve Hudnall, 40, who owns the local L & S Pistol Range with his wife, Lisa.

His father, Jack, makes his living dealing with the wildlife that encroaches on homes and farms in the area. A semi-automatic assault rifle, he says, is a useful tool of the trade.

“If you’ve got a pack of coyotes and you have to knock them out, sometimes that’s a good way to do it,” he says.

The television set in the Hudnalls’ business is tuned to a news channel, which has been dominated by non-stop coverage of the shooting for days.

“That makes me sick, because I have kids,” Ms. Hudnall says. “I could never use a gun on a person. Could you? Gun safety is of utmost importance to me.”

The only situation in which she could imagine shooting someone, she says, is to protect innocents from a gunman such as Mr. Lanza.

She isn’t alone. The idea that the nation would be safer if citizens used guns to kill those who would do harm is one of the NRA’s central principles. And, in some ways, it perpetuates itself in a positive-feedback loop: The more people have guns, the more others feel the need to pack heat to defend against potential threats.

John Carter, a clerk at Antique and Modern, sometimes carries a concealed pistol. He’s never pulled it out, but says he wouldn’t hesitate if his life were at risk.

“I’d rather be judged by a group of 12 than buried by six,” he says. “If you read about me, it won’t be in the victims’ column.”

A thrill

For all the practical reasons gun owners proffer for their choice of weapon, the sheer enjoyment of firing them seems to be the most common attraction.

Patrick McMillion, a 45-year-old systems analyst at a high-tech company in Lewisburg, W.Va., started shooting BB guns competitively in elementary school. He later hunted with shotguns and eventually took up target practice as a hobby. Now, he stops by a pistol range to shoot four or five nights every week, and competes on Fridays.

“It’s hard to explain to some people, but it’s relaxing,” he says, reloading his Ruger Mark II, a handgun built for marksmen like him. “After a day of clicking a mouse and sitting in front of a keyboard, you come down here and you can do something where you see the results right away. It’s a form of relaxation for me.”

Tony Drosos, a 31-year-old contractor who stopped by Blue Ridge to pick up a couple of assault rifles, describes the weapons simply: “They’re fun, man.”

He and his brother, 30-year-old restaurateur Peter, are buying the rifles ahead of the expected ban, partly as an investment in case they go up in price. They’re also looking for pistols to give family members for Christmas.

The brothers are in favour of at least some increased controls. Peter suggests registering guns in peoples’ names, so they can be better traced; Tony says a cooling-off period is also a good idea.

Such nuance is unusual in the highly charged debate.

At a shooting range in suburban Lexington, the owner is reluctant to go on record, but eager to casually share his views with a reporter. He likens gun control to Prohibition: Ban the most powerful weapons, he says, and criminals will simply procure them illegally.

And what of Japan, where strict gun laws seem to have worked?

He pauses for a second before responding: “You know, I don’t think I’d want to live in a country where I couldn’t defend myself.”
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

Some information about Israel and its gun laws ...

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07 ... lence-down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-zel ... 18352.html

http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Israel+ ... story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... s-suggest/
.........................

Proposals for preferred gun laws?

Assault weapons?

Large clips?

Registration of guns and owners?

Storage of ammunition?

Violent video games?
..........

I find this topic boring, and without resolution, but it is right there in front of us. Safety in the public realm and in one's home.

I personally have zero interest in owning any weapons, nor in shooting them. If everyone had guns, in a lawless society, then that might have to change.

In the meantime I am relatively happy to reside in Canada. Next choice might be Switzerland.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.costaricalaw.com/guns-in-cos ... ation.html

If not Canada, another place I might reside.
Guns in Costa Rica - Ownership and Registration

Costa Rica does have defined laws and regulations regarding the ownership, possession, registration and carrying of guns. The law which regulates weapons in general is appropriately named the Law of Arms and Explosives [Ley de Armas y Explosivos] and its accompanying regulations to the law [Reglamento a La Ley de Armas y Explosivos]. You can download the full text of those laws in Spanish by clicking on the link located at the end of this article.

The law allows the inhabitants of the Costa Rica to purchase, possess and carry weapons as authorized and according to the requirements established in the Law of Arms and Explosives (Art. 2 Law of Arms and Explosives]

The government office that is responsible for oversight of weapons in Costa Rica is the Department of Arms and Explosives which is division of the Ministry of Public Security and the Police.

Now that we know a bit about the law and the office that oversees those laws and regulations let’s look at the basics

How do I register a gun ?

The first thing you need to know is that only citizens of Costa Rica and Permanent Residents with valid permanent residency status are allowed to own, register or carry weapons in Costa Rica. If you have a Temporary Residency category you will be restricted.

In the majority of cases those that want to register their weapons in Costa Rica either (a) Purchase the weapon in a gun shop or from a private individual in Costa Rica, (b) Had inherited weapons which were never registered and (c) Imported the weapon from abroad which then had to be registered in Costa Rica.

The initial shocks for those that intend to purchase a gun in Costa Rica are the prices. Guns are significantly more expensive then what they may have been accustomed to. However, the hassle and paperwork required to try and import your gun into Costa Rica may not be worth the savings in price. It is much easier to purchase your weapon at a local gun shop and they may even assist you in the gun registration process.

Once you decide to purchase a gun in Costa Rica there are two ways in which your gun can be owned. In your personal name (persona fisica) or in the name of a Costa Rica corporation (persona juridical). The requirements are similar the only difference is that with the corporation you will have to provide additional documents regarding corporate standing and authority of the corporate office to sign for the corporation.

To register a weapon you will need:

1. Application. This is the formal written application addressed to the Department of Arms and Explosives requesting the registration of the weapon in either your personal name or in the name of a corporation.

The application must state the (i) Full legal name of the applicant, (ii) Indicate the Costa Rican identity card or in the case of a foreigner the permanent residency card number. (iii) Exact physical address of the applicant, (iv) Full legal description of the weapon that will be registered (type, caliber, manufacturer, model number, serial number) (v) Proof that the applicant has passed the weapons handling test (examen teórico práctico).

The application must be signed by the applicant. If the applicant is not personally filing the application then the signature must be certified by a Costa Rican Attorney or Notary Public.

2. Documentation Regarding Origin of the Weapon.

In this section you will have to indicate to the Department of Arms and Explosives how you acquired the weapon. The options are:

(a) Bill of Sale (Carta de Venta). This is applicable only if the weapon was already registered to somebody else and you are purchasing the weapon and thus requesting a transfer of ownership. The Bill of Sale to be binding in Costa Rica must be issued be authenticated by a Costa Rican Notary Public.

(b) Gun Shop Invoice. If you purchase the weapon from an authorized and registered gun shop then the invoice they provide to you will be sufficient to Register the weapon.

(c) Import Customs Declaration (Póliza de Desalmacenaje) . If you have imported the weapon then you must provide proof that it went through the Costa Rican customs process by providing the Customs import declaration form.

(d) Registration by Sworn Statement. If you do not have any documents for your weapon you can still register it by rendering a Sworn Statement Under Oath (Declaración Jurada) before a Costa Rican Notary Public. In that statement you must indicate how you obtained possession of the particular weapon along with the full description of the weapon.

3. Identification Documents. Photocopy of both sides of your Costa Rican identity card or permanent residency card. You will have to present the original for verification or certified copies of the original certified by a Costa Rican Attorney or Notary Public.

4. Present the Weapon to the Department of Arms and Explosives. The registration process requires an inspection of the weapon (unloaded!) by the Department. If you purchase the gun from a Registered Gun Shop then they will often do this part of the process for you.

5. Fingerprinting of Applicant. The applicant must be fingerprinted by the Department of Arms and Explosives. You will need to provide a passport size photograph for fingerprinting. As you face the front of the office building where the Department of Arms and Explosives is located the line on the right is for fingerprinting “huellas”.

6. Psychological Exam Certification. You will need to hire a Psychologist or Psychiatrist to administer the competency exam that is required to use firearms. The original and a copy of the certification must be provided.

If you are registering the weapon in the name of a corporation then the corporate officer must provide proof of the exam. If the corporate office will not use the weapons then the application must indicate who will use the weapons and those individuals must provide proof of the exam.

7. Certification of no Criminal Record from Police Archives. The applicant will need a certification from the Costa Rican criminal archives indicating that the applicant does not have a criminal record. You can get that certification in person at the department of the O.I.J. (Organismo de Investigaciones Judiciales) in San José or authorized somebody to get it for you.

Confused ? That is the intent. Although the law allows the possession and ownership of weapons the reality is that from a governmental policy standpoint it is discouraging gun ownership by increasing the bureaucratic hurdles for those that want to legally purchase and own weapons in Costa Rica. You will more than likely need to hire somebody to guide you through the process gun registration process.

The requirement specifications for registering guns in either personal capacity or corporate capacity as issued by the Department of Arms and Explosives, in Spanish, are set forth below:

Costa Rica Weapons Registration Corporate (in Spanish)

Costa Rica Weapons Registration Individual (in Spanish)
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

jcalhoun wrote:WCJ --I don't understand the point you're trying to make in posting those photographs. Are they supposed to be scary? To speak for themselves? About the only one I'd take issue with is the fouth of the five --those lads should be wearing ear protection.

Cheers,

James
James,

I think each picture could be the basis for much discussion. Some ideas ...

Kids play with toy guns. How does that play out in their lives?

Some people find shooting animals for sport to be offensive.

Some people find the war games thing to be kind of juvenile.

Some people would not want to reside in a country where students would be allowed to carry weapons in school.

WCJ
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

I have spent quite a bit of time there including doing road safety work for the gov't which lead to their GRSP sponsorship and a national safety congress.

Costa Ricans will tell you how much they value freedom and how they have no army and this is a peaceful nation that has addressed its poverty problem that shocked me the first time there in 1968 and was impressed by in 1999-2000 where I spent some time there. It is hardly a place where you will see guns even out in the remote places where I have been.

If I had to compare Costa Rican people to any other country in the world it would be to Canadians. It is just that they speak Spanish.

One flaw is that their belief in freedom extends to freedom to drive like crazy.

My presentation to their national congress and message was that it real freedom is freedom from the dangerous driving - not freedom to do what you want on the roads.

It is in my view the same with guns. Freedom should be freedom from fear of guns in schools.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
Post Reply