OK, i started this thread specifically to to find out what is your take on Gun laws and Gun control. Is it a necessity that all people should be allowed a weapon? Should there be restraints as to what types of weapons one can have or should we allow anyone to possess any weapon? Most importantly, should there be parameters as to who can own a gun and who can't?

To answer my own questions: I am against complete freedom of ownership, but i do feel that people should be allowed to own weapons. In my country (and i like the gun controls in my country) one must get a gun license to own a gun, and there are different types of gun licenses which specify what type of guns one can own. To get a gun license, you have to undergo a thorough background check, and even then, there is the possibility that you might not get it.

The most common type of gun license is a hunting license, which allows a person to own shotguns and rifle. The rifles cannot be automatic or assault, they must be cocked. Shotguns cannot be pump action or automatic, they must be single or double barrel only.

Another beauty is that a person can get a permit for a handgun but they then must go to a shooting range of any kind at least 12 times a year with it and, if a police officer ever checks your identification, you automatically come up as 'possibly armed and dangerous'.

So, what about you? What do you believe in regards to the questions?

__________________

The criminals are going to have guns either way. So will the cops, but they can't be everywhere. If everybody in the populace owned a gun, it would be harder and riskier to try to victimize people. In fact, universal gun ownership would be the surest defense against terrorism. There should be an absolute right to ownership of a gun for adults provided the person is willing to pay for some safety classes. In fact, responsible gun ownership should be openly encouraged. I also do not think that just because somebody is an ex-con that they should not have the right to own a gun.

As far as heavier weaponry like assault, automatic, and the like, there should be a special permit required.

Noone should be able to own a gun without prior passing a thorough background check and a psyhological test. If he passes it, give him the permit and let him own as many guns as he wants as long as he registers them. If he does not pass the tests, well good thing for everyone else, for he should not own a gun then.

Why the need for registering? There needs to be a way for authorities to differentiate between legal and illegal guns. The whole argument that the government must not know how many guns are among the population is parannoid. If police officers for whatever reason detain a person and find him in posession of a non-registered weapon, then they should confiscate it. There's no reason why law-abiding, mature citizens should not register their guns if this makes it easier for police to crack down on illegal aka non-registered guns.

Carrying permits like they have in Switzerland (where in order to transport a weapon and carry it outside your house you need an additional permit) do make sense, but as long as the conditions I mentioned above are applied, I personally don't see a problrem with people also being allowed to carry their weapons (almost) everywhere.

__________________

For those in countries other than the U.S., you may do as you wish as to enacting any gun control legislation. It is your country.

However, if you are suggesting that the U.S. enact any gun control legislation, mind your own business. It is our country; it is our Constitution.

How would universal gun ownership have stopped 9/11 ?

__________________
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement towards union of the European states. Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be accompanied and followed by other steps." — Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt

Well, if the Pilots would have been Armed, it wouldn't have happened.

There is no argument against the pilots having guns, what are they going to do hijack themselves?

__________________

No gun control law will prevent someone who wants a gun from getting one. The law will simply make it more expensive, as black market channel will be used.

As law abiding citizens are not likely to buy a gun illegally, and because of the laws making obtaining a weapon difficult, they are inherently less likely to be armed.

So while all the criminals have guns, most of the citizens do not. As the best home defense is to have a shotgun in your bedroom, citizens are more subject to being victimized.

Stricter gun control laws will not prevent the criminals, and people that we really worry about having guns from owning them. Just as cocaine is easy to obtain on the black market, so are firearms.

__________________

I can think of one or two ...

Well assuming the pilots were not taken by surprise (possible) they confront the Hijackers who were prepared to die for their cause and start shooting in the cockpit at several thousand feet the plane would still crash ....could a Pilot pull the trigger in those circumstances ? ...remember this attack was out of the blue, no warning they would not have known the hijackers awful intentions.
Having a secure door to the cockpit seems the better option.

If a Pilot has a nervous breakdown (Unlikely but possible) not great to start with having a gun to hand may be rather problematic .

The firearm must be ready to use at extremely short notice ....do accidents ever happen when handling firearms ? + 30,000 feet

__________________
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement towards union of the European states. Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be accompanied and followed by other steps." — Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt

Pilots mostly set the plane to auto pilot and kick back and relax. They could easily grab their gun and shoot, while the plane flies itself.

The cockpit door is kept closed while in flight, and the flight attendants always knock first. The pilots would have seen the attack coming, or at least knew something was up. I would agree a strong locked door would help too, but guns alone probably would have gotten the job done.
The pilot could also crash the plane into the ground if they had a nervous breakdown. Them shooting a few people should be the least of your worries.

They also currently keep an axe in the cockpit, albeit it is a little difficult to get to. But they could go aswingin if they went mad.

Accidents only happen with firearms on the very rare occasion of mechanical defect and misfiring, or when the handler screws up. If they kept it in a holster by their seat (loaded), it could be used at quick notice, without any foreseeable issues.

__________________

Yes but the chances of a bullet hitting something vital in the cockpit or puncturing the skin of the plane must be high .

The terrorists planned for the situation they faced if the pilots were armed they would have come a packing pre 9/11 security was not good on US domestic flights .... but i agree it would be harder to sneak a firearm on board.

If i was a co pilot i would rather be sitting next to an unarmed nutcase or one who only had access to an axe

I am sure sensible procedures would limit the risk but even highly trained people have accidents, at 30,000 feet this would prove disastrous.

All it would take is one serious firearm accident or one nutball pilot losing it and firearms would be banned from all cockpits , as in many cases the risk associated with having access to the firearm is greater than the danger it is supposed to prevent .... there are better ways to combat terrorism .

__________________
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement towards union of the European states. Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be accompanied and followed by other steps." — Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt