the Gun Control thread

[Domesticated]

I could care less if some crumpled piece of paper from 200 years ago.

Your argument is invalid. If you have no respect, I won't either. I would carry in school if it was legal. It almost was in Idaho last year.

[cb7pr]

What I think?

I have a 7 month old son, so I went and got handguns for myself and my wife. We're taking matters into our own hands, nuff said.

[phatdoughnut]

well thats different, im talking guns, if a robber has a knife, yes it can be just as lethal but not nearly as efficent as a gun from a distance point of view..if he throws it...hes done, hes most likely got no more. if the guy had a knife, id attempt to stop him. if he had a gun, no. but when and if i do stop him successfully, id put him in a position where he couldnt move/leave and let the cops deal with him.

i mean, what if its a group of 13 year old kids, kids who are on the honor roll at school, just screwing around one night, stole a 6 pack of beer from their dads fridge and went out..the kids are drunk, one has a pocket knife and sees an open window, and in his drunk state of mind, he decides to jump in to see if theres any beer in your house to keep their buzz going. you hear him in your house at night when all the lights are off, you keep them off so you dont spook him and he runs off, you turn the corner and shoot and end up killing a 13 year old kid who was just trying to look cool infront of his friends. do you feel guilty at all?

i know these are all just what ifs, but it could happen.

All kinds of what if's, if he charges with a knife in his hand and doesn't leave yes I probably would shoot him. He shouldn't be in my house, if you are 13 you should know better. If there is no guns then anyone will be doing whatever they want with out reprocation because they know they can get away with it.

Lets get one thing straight, the last thing I want to do, and many others, is kill someone. I am not going to go out and blow shit up left and right, but if I need to I want my right to defend my self to be there.

Not to mention that a lot of people shoot competition and this involves "assult rifles."

[N9netwoAccord]

[QUOTE=phatdoughnut;3090216]All kinds of what if's,

Lets get one thing straight, the last thing I want to do, and many others, is kill someone. I am not going to go out and blow shit up left and right, but if I need to I want my right to defend my self to be there.
QUOTE]

I agree with these two statements. First things first, if someones in my house and doesn't belong there, I am not going to be too friendly about it, I guess the term "shoot first ask questions later" might come into effect in this situation. Someone is in MY house that to my knowledge, doesn't belong there, there will a defense action at that point in time, and for that reason is why I own a gun, I don't have the desire to kill people, but I am prepared to if I need to.

[owequitit]

yes, semi autos shoot 1 bullet at a time, full autos shoot 1 bullet at a time also...just at a much faster rate.

my uncle has a bolt action savage, ive used it hundreds of times, its not exactly hard...lets not forget, some people find driving hard..while others find it easy.

if someone breaks into my house wielding a firearm, fuck it, let em, if im home with my family or by myself, ill stand in a corner face the wall and let them do their thing, im not going to risk my life by trying to be a hero and shoot him first. im not even going to put myself in that scenario. theres way to many variables when you say "hes already breaking one law, whats another for him to shoot you?". me walking into a corner store and slipping a candy bar up my sleeve is breaking the law, im stealing, does that mean im any more prone to whip out a gun and shoot the clerk and take the money from the register?????

Wrong. Fully automatic guns unload the entire magazine with 1 trigger pull. A semi-auto requires 1 pull for 1 bullet. Totally different scenario. You are trying to backpedal to cover your ass because you are over-matched in this conversation, and you are starting to realize it.

1) In the US it is a RIGHT to own guns. We don't much give a shit what you think, nor have we ever, nor will we ever. There are approximately 270 million registered guns in the US, and what % were actually used in crimes? There is absolutely no factual, numerical, or scientific basis for your claims which is precisely why you are hanging onto your indoctrinated ideology. True enlightenment requires seeing actual facts. Not what your society has told you to believe.

Also, baseball bats were responsible for more American deaths and violent crimes last year than assault weapons. Should we ban them? Drunk drivers murdered twice as many Americans as all other homicides combined. Should we go back to prohibition? Cars killed even more than drunk drivers. Should we outlaw cars? This is what I mean by an ideological crusade.

Not to mention that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Get rid of every gun and what happens? More murders with knives, bombs and who knows what else. The flaw in your logic is that you really don't understand the problem, and thus are ill equipped to suggest solutions. Your basic misunderstanding of the law shows that.

Furthermore, as to your assertions that some amendments are more protected than others, I am 100% glad you aren't American. They were all specifically created to be equal.

As for the validity, may I remind you that ~100 million people have been exterminated in the last 100 years by governments that first disarmed their citizens, so clearly you ARE in denial of history because you keep spewing this nonsense about 1791. By that logic, the freedom of speech and religion were granted at the same time, so they must also be obsolete right?

To our leaders? You will forgive me for not holding them above myself because

A) they have mismanaged our finances into what is quickly becoming an irreversible hole.

B) they make more decisions in favor of themselves

C) they came directly from the same ranks of human beings that I did

D) they continually tell people that not everyone is entitled to the same individual rights. Basically, it is OK to have an opinion, as long as it agrees with theirs. We have directly seen blatant challenges to the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments.

However, read the 2nd amendment VERY carefully. It says "being necessary to the security of a free state." It isn't about hunting, it is about saying "NO" to the government.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...of_rights.html

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendments 11-27

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

P.S. gun control has the opposite effect of what is intended. The mere mention of it has driven sales of assault weapons through the roof.

[steelbluesleepR]

Not to mention that a lot of people shoot competition and this involves "assult rifles."

<<=== like this guy. shooting competitions are fun as hell and by far the safest sporting activity i've ever been involved with.

come to think of it, literally everybody is armed at those, often with carloads of guns, and not a single mass-shooting has happened. but that's impossible right? oh wait, everyone there is properly trained and has respect for the weapons they carry, just like every person that legally concealed carries, hunts, is brought up with guns in the house, etc.

[owequitit]

id like to disagree with you there, how many stories on the news do you hear about a home invasion, compared to a death due to a home invasion? again, i dont watch local city news channels from across the US, just the major news channels that takes the top stories of the world. but i do watch the seatlle news since its always on tv, and quite honestly, i cant recall the last time i saw a story about a death due to a house invasion.

im aware of those signs, i see them everywhere as novelty signs and etc.

but do you think that a robber/mugger has a gun with the intent of using it? or weilds it for the fact that he thinks hes got the upper hand on you and that whoever hes picked thinks that their life is worth more than what they're holding in their pockets?

and im aware that even after all the debating we've done, like N9netwoAccord said, we will accomplish nothing and we'd get nowhere. i have seperate views than the majority of the people on here, is it wrong? by no means, but since other people are expressing their views, i'll express mine and stand up for what i believe in just as you all are.

If you are willing to bet your life on whether or not that will happen, good luck. May you bet correctly, because if you don't, then it doesn't matter.

[phatdoughnut]

1) In the US it is a RIGHT to own guns. We don't much give a shit what you think, nor have we ever, nor will we ever. There are approximately 270 million registered guns in the US, and what % were actually used in crimes? There is absolutely no factual, numerical, or scientific basis for your claims which is precisely why you are hanging onto your indoctrinated ideology. True enlightenment requires seeing actual facts. Not what your society has told you to believe.

I don't agree with the 270 million "registered guns". Most states don't require you to register them but they are run through the system and there is paper work which is "suppose" to be dispposed of after 3-4 years. I am in denial and I know they can be traced back.

Biggest win of all time.

[Domesticated]

Wrong. Fully automatic guns unload the entire magazine with 1 trigger pull. A semi-auto requires 1 pull for 1 bullet. Totally different scenario. You are trying to backpedal to cover your ass because you are over-matched in this conversation, and you are starting to realize it.

1) In the US it is a RIGHT to own guns. We don't much give a shit what you think, nor have we ever, nor will we ever. There are approximately 270 million registered guns in the US, and what % were actually used in crimes? There is absolutely no factual, numerical, or scientific basis for your claims which is precisely why you are hanging onto your indoctrinated ideology. True enlightenment requires seeing actual facts. Not what your society has told you to believe.

Also, baseball bats were responsible for more American deaths and violent crimes last year than assault weapons. Should we ban them? Drunk drivers murdered twice as many Americans as all other homicides combined. Should we go back to prohibition? Cars killed even more than drunk drivers. Should we outlaw cars? This is what I mean by an ideological crusade.

Not to mention that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Get rid of every gun and what happens? More murders with knives, bombs and who knows what else. The flaw in your logic is that you really don't understand the problem, and thus are ill equipped to suggest solutions. Your basic misunderstanding of the law shows that.

Furthermore, as to your assertions that some amendments are more protected than others, I am 100% glad you aren't American. They were all specifically created to be equal.

As for the validity, may I remind you that ~100 million people have been exterminated in the last 100 years by governments that first disarmed their citizens, so clearly you ARE in denial of history because you keep spewing this nonsense about 1791. By that logic, the freedom of speech and religion were granted at the same time, so they must also be obsolete right?

To our leaders? You will forgive me for not holding them above myself because

A) they have mismanaged our finances into what is quickly becoming an irreversible hole.

B) they make more decisions in favor of themselves

C) they came directly from the same ranks of human beings that I did

D) they continually tell people that not everyone is entitled to the same individual rights. Basically, it is OK to have an opinion, as long as it agrees with theirs. We have directly seen blatant challenges to the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments.

However, read the 2nd amendment VERY carefully. It says "being necessary to the security of a free state." It isn't about hunting, it is about saying "NO" to the government.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...of_rights.html

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendments 11-27

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

P.S. gun control has the opposite effect of what is intended. The mere mention of it has driven sales of assault weapons through the roof.

My uncle picked one up today, my roomates picked one up on Tuesday, and my dad picked an extra up for me to buy off him when I get the funds together. I might pick up a Beowolf too depending on how this affects Alexander Arms. Sorry for quoting the whole thing, im on my phone.

[stewie]

...sigh...(each paragraph is a responce to each of your paragraphs)

dear owequitit, i am a gun owner myself, i am fully aware what a fully automatic rifle is the way i described may have been vague but i know what a fucking fully auto is..i am not trying to back pedal, i have my views and i'll stand up to them just as you are right now. yes, i may not be 100% aware of your laws and etc and it doesnt even matter, cause this is about controlling guns, and in order for control, you need change. but how bout you stand up to an anti gun rally and go head to head at them? lets see how far you get before they throw every loop hole at you. here im just 1 person, out of this forum thers MILLIONS. but then again, the NRA has some deep pockets, you throw a loop hole at them, they throw one back at you, its a never ending circle.

yes, i know it is your RIGHT to own a gun, and you may not give a fuck about my opinion, and quite frankly, i dont care for yours, this thread is to talk about gun control, which we both have different views on, which is what were doing now. you point my flaws, i'll point yours.

as for your talking towards a baseball bat and a car, anyone can purchase a baseball bat from a store without any psychological testing prior or background checks, and last time i checked, anyone can drive so long as they're of legal age. do i care that people die from bats or cars? sure i'll have some sympathy for them, but when your government lets people get a hold of instruments designed for death, thats different to me.

no. why? cause a bat and a car weren't designed for the specific function to KILL.

yes, people kill people, and they alwasy will. one way or another they will find a way. but when the easiest way is through a gun which seems as if any civilian can purchase...something seems wrong

yes, i am canadian and damn fucking proud of it, our laws are very different. i can admit im not fully aware of your laws, as your not with mine. everything i said is my views on your laws, and my suggestions as to how i see fit that they need changed. im not here to argue about your what your amendments say, the fact im here is that i think they need changed.

im glad im not american and im glad your not a canadian. its people like me with my views that "ruin" your country, whereas people like you "ruin" mine.

i did not say to completely disarm your fucking civilians..i said make it tighter to aquire and to ban fully automatics, but sure, they're already banned, well they're also registered to owners, and they serve no purpose other than an "O0o0o0h" factor like silvershadow said, its nothing more than you to get a fucking hard on.

dont like your leaders? heres an option, go to school and change it yourself. whats stopping you?

ive read your bill of rights, and again...its outdated in my mind...again, this is a thread on gun control and these are my views. you dont agree with them as i dont agree with yours.

ive read your bill of rights...i dont agree with them all. plain and simple, get over it, its life, not everyone will agree with you.

as for phatdoughnuts picture, i fully agree with piers morgans point of view. muskets were in mind at the time. 200 years from now, lets say they make some sort of a publicly available weapon that can kill everyone within a 10km radius with a click of a button other than the person who triggered it. is that a form of self defence?? in the constituion it says you may defend yourself, but it doesnt say to what limits.

steelbluesleeper, your comment about shooting competitions, again, i didnt say ban guns, i said those who shoot for competition or sport or hunt will take the lengthy process to aquire a firearm. i bet you more than half of those people at the shooting competitions are gun safe and if there ever were to be a conflict at a competition, they'd use their words rather the gun to solve a problem...if not, there would be so much cross fire that people not even involved would be shot and possibly end up dead.

again, these are my views, as you take them with a grain of salt. but too bad, im expressing my views as you express yours. plain and simple.

i kinda wish that dec 21 was the end of the world...right now more than half the world is so fucked up that we should just start from scratch...

[evil_demon_01]

Stewie, I agree with you.
I'm on your side, And also happen to be an "Outsider", Yep I'm not American, Surprise, surprise.
But Owequitit is right on one point -

1) When you craft laws in your country based on what WE want you to do, then maybe we will talk. Until then, you can keep your political opinions in your country.

Just to add to that owequitit, only because you brought it up -

You don't like it when we try to influence law worldwide, and in fact, criticize us for it, and yet here you are... Pretty hypocritical.

Did I read that right?
When YOU try to influence law worldwide?
Say what?
Worldwide law governed by America?



Before we get too far I want to point out a fact to start with - This thread is serious and instant borderline BAD politics.





Owequitit - I know I'm not from US of A, and I know my opinion means Sweet fuck all to you but I'm going to give it anyway.
(And I'm not going to comment AT ALL on the Constitution, because honestly I've never read it and have no need to)


The "Right" to own a firearm isn't the issue, The "Right" to own a firearm without adequate training and responsibility is the issue.

The worlds perception is that anyone in America can own a gun, and you can buy one from the local supermarket.
Am I wrong? (If I am please enlighten me, and the rest of us)


Those kids were murdered because somebody owned a collection of guns, and somebody who shouldn't have access to them, DID have access.
THAT is the reality.






Honestly I have NO Idea what it takes to be able to buy a gun in America.
I've never looked into it, and I don't know the laws.
However . . . . My general understanding is that it is too easy, and anyone can own a gun.

[stewie]

thank you evil demon

as to what it takes to be able to buy a gun in america, im guessing pretty damn easy so long as your over 18..since they sell them at walmart..i see it as living in a state of fear, where guns are used as a comforting item to let them know they're safe and sound.

the fact that gun sales went through the roof after this school incident is what shows me...newspapers saying people were buying bullet proof backpack liners for their children...stocking up on pistols and rifles...for what? a false sense of security? if your city is that much of a nightmare where you need a weapon to carry or have loaded near you at all times in your house, then i feel sorry for you and hope you move somewhere safer.

[evil_demon_01]

thank you evil demon

as to what it takes to be able to buy a gun in america, im guessing pretty damn easy so long as your over 18..since they sell them at walmart..i see it as living in a state of fear, where guns are used as a comforting item to let them know they're safe and sound.

the fact that gun sales went through the roof after this school incident is what shows me...newspapers saying people were buying bullet proof backpack liners for their children...stocking up on pistols and rifles...for what? a false sense of security? if your city is that much of a nightmare where you need a weapon to carry or have loaded near you at all times in your house, then i feel sorry for you and hope you move somewhere safer.

Are you allowed to own pistols where your from?
We can own pistols ONLY with a special license (and you cannot carry them in public). Same applies to automatic rifles and specialist firearms.

To me owning a firearm doesn't make me feel any safer that not owning one.

[stewie]

Are you allowed to own pistols where your from?
We can own pistols ONLY with a special license (and you cannot carry them in public). Same applies to automatic rifles and specialist firearms.

To me owning a firearm doesn't make me feel any safer that not owning one.

for me, yes.

i hold a restricted firearms licence, with an ATT (authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms).

i can only transport a restricted firearm from my house, directly to a gun range using direct routes, if caught off route, i have the risk of my licence being taken away. during the route to the gun range, the firearm has to be locked and completely out of reach from the owner, and we're not allowed to carry it outside. not even if a friend lived on a farm with acres of land..the pistol may only be used at a range. if my gf wanted, if we ever had a fight, all she would have to say to police is that i threatened to kill her, once cops do their search and it shows up that i have a firearms licence, its immediatley taken away for 10 years. if the cops type in my DL number, it'll show up that i own firearms, if they run my plate number, it will show up as well.

theres 3 licences, regular firearms, restricted, and grandfathered(having a licence pre 90's allows you to buy specialty weapons that the majority of the population arent allowed to buy..again these weapons may only be used at a range). in order to apply for either, you need to study, take a written test followed by a practical test of you being able to identify weapons, arming them, disarming them, correctly load the right ammunition out of a bowl full of mixed ammunition. once thats done, if you've passed, your given paper work, fill it out, mail it in. then many months later the police interview you, followed by the police interviewing 3 proffesional refferences: family doctor, lawyers, anyone but family, or anyone who is currently holding a respectable full time job who will vouch for you that you are sane and basically not going to go ape shit and go on a shooting spree (my interview was just over 30 minutes long). after that, it takes around 6-18 months for the paper work to be completed, and after that, you get your photo ID in the mail.

if you walk into a gunstore, you cant even touch a rifle without showing proof of your licence, and all ammunition is kept behind counters as well.

with the firearms i own, i personally do not feel any safer as i did without them. but then again, i feel extremely safe as is.

[evil_demon_01]

for me, yes.

i hold a restricted firearms licence, with an ATT (authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms).

i can only transport a restricted firearm from my house, directly to a gun range using direct routes, if caught off route, i have the risk of my licence being taken away. during the route to the gun range, the firearm has to be locked and completely out of reach from the owner, and we're not allowed to carry it outside. not even if a friend lived on a farm with acres of land..the pistol may only be used at a range. if my gf wanted, if we ever had a fight, all she would have to say to police is that i threatened to kill her, once cops do their search and it shows up that i have a firearms licence, its immediatley taken away for 10 years. if the cops type in my DL number, it'll show up that i own firearms, if they run my plate number, it will show up as well.

theres 3 licences, regular firearms, restricted, and grandfathered(having a licence pre 90's allows you to buy specialty weapons that the majority of the population arent allowed to buy..again these weapons may only be used at a range). in order to apply for either, you need to study, take a written test followed by a practical test of you being able to identify weapons, arming them, disarming them, correctly load the right ammunition out of a bowl full of mixed ammunition. once thats done, if you've passed, your given paper work, fill it out, mail it in. then many months later the police interview you, followed by the police interviewing 3 proffesional refferences: family doctor, lawyers, anyone but family, or anyone who is currently holding a respectable full time job who will vouch for you that you are sane and basically not going to go ape shit and go on a shooting spree (my interview was just over 30 minutes long). after that, it takes around 6-18 months for the paper work to be completed, and after that, you get your photo ID in the mail.

if you walk into a gunstore, you cant even touch a rifle without showing proof of your licence, and all ammunition is kept behind counters as well.

with the firearms i own, i personally do not feel any safer as i did without them. but then again, i feel extremely safe as is.

Very very similar laws to us, I'd be hard pressed to find a major difference and I'm happy with that.

And your last paragraph is the same as me.