YN
Posts: 699
Status: offline
|
Under our countries particulars and my personal circumstances, I voted that I was for the type of g"gun control" we currently have. I think that firearms are necessary for certain people, rurales need the types of shotguns, and .22 rimfires. or the local animals would haul off their crops and kill and eat their animals with relative impunity. As we have banned hunting save under special circumstances, the need for center-fire rifles for that purpose, save for those Indians designated by their bands, and those government hunters designated for that purpose, there is not the necessity. Handguns are the proper tool for self defense, however those licensed to carry them should be especially vetted, both in terms of their personal characteristics, and training, as we do. Various firearms, including military ones are also properly used for sport target shooting, and the regulations should allow that, again after the proper vetting. Finally security companies, those living on borders, vessels and others with the legitimate need should have the necessary weapons available to them. The screening process should weed out the mentally ill, and those with a violent history, and the required training should include the safe handling and use of firearms, the legal requirements, and impose some minimal accuracy requirements for those carrying them to be armed, and should insure the firearms allowed to be possessed have the reasonable use for which the person desiring them claims (no 30 round magazine semiautomatic center-fire rifles for killing small agricultural pests, nor drum fed automatic shotguns for skeet shooting, etc.) I have no problems with those needing these tools having them, and with relatively easy access, providing the appropriate screening, vetting, and training requirements are met. The local pimp needing a Kalashnikov and a Glock 17 to defend himself, or the drug gangsters wishing to buy a stand of Uzis for their corporation, is another and different tale.
|