Gun Bans

[Esternial]

I hadn't pegged you as such a timid person, Frissy.

I'm hardly timid, I just don't like the idea of you with a gun.

Well, I may be a bit crazy at times but still...

I could use it to make holes in my ready meals before I put them in the microwave

[Frisivisia]

I'm hardly timid, I just don't like the idea of you with a gun.

Well, I may be a bit crazy at times but still...

I could use it to make holes in my ready meals before I put them in the microwave

Never a bad idea.

[AiliailiA]

Yes I do. Yes you should. This is the standard imposed by law on licensed arms dealers: that they check whether the buyer is a legal buyer.

You sold guns to people without knowing whether or not they were criminals? You just assumed they were legally qualified to own a gun "due to statistics"?

Such incompetence should be illegal.

ITT: Not having access to FBI databases equals incompetence.

Yes. Incompetence to sell a firearm.

Sell your gun to a licensed gun dealer who does have access to those databases, apply for a license yourself, or don't sell the gun.

Or if you're OK with anyone and everyone having access to the FBI database on who owns guns and who does not, you can do a private sale. Don't even think about trying to restrict that public access to information to legal gun owners: that won't work. It's access according to license (a fairly strict one that costs money and on which a livelihood depends) or free access to the public. There's no in-between.

[AiliailiA]

I'm hardly timid, I just don't like the idea of you with a gun.

Well, I may be a bit crazy at times but still...

I could use it to make holes in my ready meals before I put them in the microwave

SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: remove pellets from food prior to consumption. Consumption of metallic lead may impair your health.

[Big Jim P]

ITT: Not having access to FBI databases equals incompetence.

Yes. Incompetence to sell a firearm.

Sell your gun to a licensed gun dealer who does have access to those databases, apply for a license yourself, or don't sell the gun.

Or if you're OK with anyone and everyone having access to the FBI database on who owns guns and who does not, you can do a private sale. Don't even think about trying to restrict that public access to information to legal gun owners: that won't work. It's access according to license (a fairly strict one that costs money and on which a livelihood depends) or free access to the public. There's no in-between.

You make a lot of assumptions about the competence of people you do not know. I have the right to sell any property I own.

[Gun Manufacturers]

To be completely absolutely fair to people who want more gun control and gun bans...

Someone should probably take my gun away from me.

Can I have it?

[Gun Manufacturers]

Right, and the reason criminals don't have unregistered RPGs is...? You're all claiming any attempted weapons ban will just leave the streets flooded with criminals who will have the weapons regardless of registration requirements, sooo...

RPGS are simply obsolete for the purposes a criminal would need it for. It's expensive to fire, hard to conceal, and has limited uses, of which is is limited mostly to "Blow up a car in an action movie starring a bald white guy to show you mean business". Why WOULD you use an RPG for any reason if you're not trying to kill someone in an armored vehicle, which is the entire point of the RPG?

They're making another one.

[Kanery]

Just list the amount of ammo that a company can make per gun per year that automatically would make it harder for people to shoot eachother unless in self-defense you'll probably still have enough for that.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I have an honest question, actually:

What makes a member of the United States Army Infantry, or a NYPD officer have more right to own an automatic weapon than I do?

What specifically gives the MILITARY a right to own something that a CIVILIAN can't? Where is it written that wearing a uniform means you are more responsible or in the right to own something than anyone else? I'm not trying to be insulting, but I do not think that they need an automatic weapon any more, or less than I do, and I don't think anything should give certain institutions, wheter they are federal or not, more rights than the common person. I think all people should have the exact same amount of rights to be allowed to own more than this or that class of people.

Why, I ask, are politicians defended by a team of men with sub-machine guns, if I couldn't carry an MP5 to defend myself? What gives THEM the right to be defended with an automatic weapon? Why not me? Am I worth LESS as a person than they are? I don't think so. 'The state', as a term in the United States Constitution, refers not to the federal government, but to the people as a whole. In that regard, who is protecting me? The military acts under the orders of the federal government. Police departments work under their own orders, and follow the law of the land. So who, then, takes the orders from me, to defend me? Only one person will do that: Myself. So why, then, am I to be less armed than our federal government? Why am I deemed to be worth less than a politician, or a general, or an officer?

Of those three, I do respect the general and the officers, and maybe a couple politicians on a good day, but at the end of the day, none of them are going to protect me from anything. They've got much bigger fish to fry than threats to my personal safety, and it's my responsibility to protect my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in their absence, inability, or lack of directive to do so for me.

Because they have to answer to the chain of command, are not allowed to be insane nutbags, are properly trained, and have rules about when they can use their guns. Because they actually need them, and the benefit of them having them outweighs the potential harm of them not. Unlike civilians, who are varied, sometimes very stupid or insane, not trained well if at all, and don't have commanders to stop them from murdering people.

No. You just don't need one, might not be trustworthy enough to own one, and could potentially do a massive amount of harm with one. You shouldn't need defense beyond the laws of the land.

Not true. The Police exist to protect people. They just sometimes don't have the funding or manpower to do so in every case. But you don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself from criminals. This ain't Death Wish, and you ain't Charles Bronson. Get over it.

Now, I do think you should be allowed to own automatics, provided you can qualify for an ATF Class III license. If you can't? Cry me a river.

You mean an ATF tax stamp, correct? Because a Type 3 FFL (Federal Firearms License) is a Curio and Relic license, and the Class 3 SOT (Special Occupational Tax Class)is a dealer in NFA items (and requires a Type 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11 FFL). There is no Class 3 license to own full auto/select fire weapons.

[Hondorain Empire]

I believe that "gun control" and "gun bans" is the wrong way to do things. Instead of stopping criminals, gangs, psychos and etc these policies only bind your average law abiding citizens and police force. Instead we should be thinking more offense than defense. Purchase firearms and ammunition for ourselves, give our police force more power and or equipment to get the job done, and even post guards in schools if need be. Gun control will never because all we hear is that "we need more gun control", how about we all stop bashing our heads against a stone wall and look for another way.

[Gun Manufacturers]

That is meaningless without background checks.

If you're looking to sell something, and a buyer is there offering the asking price, you have no incentive to check their criminal or mental health status. Maybe you ask them politely and maybe they lie to you, but to say to them "I need your name and social security number, or current address, and I need to sight some ID, oh and you'll have to wait a week before taking possession of this fine gun" is very likely throwing away the money YOU want in exchange for the gun you want to sell.

Gun dealers do that because they're required to by law. Private owners should be similarly compelled before selling (or gifting) a gun to anyone.

You should have to take the weapon to a dealer, with the person you want to give/sell it to, and transfer the weapon there. It gets registered to the other person, and the dealer can run a background check and hold the weapon for a period, as well as serving as a witness. The dealers could potentially charge a small fee for doing this.

FFLs usually have a transfer fee when making an online firearm purchase, because it costs them time (aka money) to log in the firearm when they receive it, and again when it goes back out (because they have to fill out the paperwork and perform the NICS check).

That's why I bought this from a dealer in my home state (so I could pick it up and save myself the transfer fee and shipping). There's a local buyback coming in March, and $25 will get me $100.

[Dyakovo]

I hadn't pegged you as such a timid person, Frissy.

I'm hardly timid, I just don't like the idea of you with a gun.

Belgians, and especially Belgian alpacas shouldn't be armed.
*nods*

[AiliailiA]

Yes. Incompetence to sell a firearm.

Sell your gun to a licensed gun dealer who does have access to those databases, apply for a license yourself, or don't sell the gun.

Or if you're OK with anyone and everyone having access to the FBI database on who owns guns and who does not, you can do a private sale. Don't even think about trying to restrict that public access to information to legal gun owners: that won't work. It's access according to license (a fairly strict one that costs money and on which a livelihood depends) or free access to the public. There's no in-between.

You make a lot of assumptions about the competence of people you do not know. I have the right to sell any property I own.

You're only strengthening my conviction that limits should be placed on the property you should be allowed to own.

"I'm a legal buyer of guns, therefore I can sell them however I like. Fuck the government and their puny attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. My property to sell how I like!"

Gun rights, done wrong.

[AiliailiA]

That is meaningless without background checks.

If you're looking to sell something, and a buyer is there offering the asking price, you have no incentive to check their criminal or mental health status. Maybe you ask them politely and maybe they lie to you, but to say to them "I need your name and social security number, or current address, and I need to sight some ID, oh and you'll have to wait a week before taking possession of this fine gun" is very likely throwing away the money YOU want in exchange for the gun you want to sell.

Gun dealers do that because they're required to by law. Private owners should be similarly compelled before selling (or gifting) a gun to anyone.

You should have to take the weapon to a dealer, with the person you want to give/sell it to, and transfer the weapon there. It gets registered to the other person, and the dealer can run a background check and hold the weapon for a period, as well as serving as a witness. The dealers could potentially charge a small fee for doing this.

Excellent.

I'd let people make the same trades at a local courthouse or police station ... also with a small fee. $20 bucks or so, which is perhaps not enough to cover government costs but at least a government authority would be getting the payment. Government is going to incur costs operating the database, getting a yay or nay back to the private gun dealer or the police or court official, so every private trader using the government service instead would put the government $20 ahead.

I don't mind public subsidy of my gun control measures. They're intended for public safety, and should be paid out of the government budget not cast in the form of "user pays" or a punitive tax on gun owners. So maybe no fee at all to do the transaction at a courthouse or police station!

[Gun Manufacturers]

I speak as one who has enjoyed hunting, target shooting and skeet over the years. First .22 at the age of 10. I am not an American and I am NOT in favour of banning or tightly and obtrusively controlling weapons in the hands of hunters, sport shooters, farmers etc.

I know the difference between an Assault Rifle and it's close cousin i.e. the AR15. If I am not mistaken, an AR15 can be converted to full automatic with the illegal purchase of a few internal parts and the aid of a gunsmith.

I don't understand the need for an AR15-type weapon. My understanding is that they do not make good target rifles or adequate hunting weapons. Home defense? Perhaps a bit of overkill here? Special-license military collectors? Why not...if they are legitimate.

I also don't see the need for 30 round clips. Any decent hunter needs no more than 5. Target shooters as well.

I am sure that there are more than a few people out there who can tell me if my thoughts are offside and why. In a rational and intelligent way, please.

My AR15 is a great target rifle. There are also service rifle competitions with the AR15. Plenty of people hunt with them too (they're excellent varmint rifles, and with a caliber change, are capable of taking larger game like deer).

As to 30 round magazines, they're great when I'm paying by the hour at the range (I'd rather be shooting than loading rounds into magazines). As to your claim that target shooters don't need more than 5 rounds, there are plenty of matches where there are more than 5 targets, therefore they'll need more than 5 rounds.

[Dyakovo]

You make a lot of assumptions about the competence of people you do not know. I have the right to sell any property I own.

You're only strengthening my conviction that limits should be placed on the property you should be allowed to own.

"I'm a legal buyer of guns, therefore I can sell them however I like. Fuck the government and their puny attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. My property to sell how I like!"

Gun rights, done wrong.

What makes you think that we value your opinion at all after your stating that you view all gun owners as criminals?

[AiliailiA]

You're only strengthening my conviction that limits should be placed on the property you should be allowed to own.

"I'm a legal buyer of guns, therefore I can sell them however I like. Fuck the government and their puny attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. My property to sell how I like!"

Gun rights, done wrong.

What makes you think that we value your opinion at all after your stating that you view all gun owners as criminals?

"We"?

Well since you speak for all of us, I'll just shut up.

You'll miss me, Dyakovo.

[Dyakovo]

What makes you think that we value your opinion at all after your stating that you view all gun owners as criminals?

"We"?

Well since you speak for all of us, I'll just shut up.

You'll miss me, Dyakovo.

We, as in myself and Jim at the very least.
No, I won't miss you spouting ignorant assertions and accusations in this thread.

[Greed and Death]

ITT: Not having access to FBI databases equals incompetence.

Yes. Incompetence to sell a firearm.

Sell your gun to a licensed gun dealer who does have access to those databases, apply for a license yourself, or don't sell the gun.

Or if you're OK with anyone and everyone having access to the FBI database on who owns guns and who does not, you can do a private sale. Don't even think about trying to restrict that public access to information to legal gun owners: that won't work. It's access according to license (a fairly strict one that costs money and on which a livelihood depends) or free access to the public. There's no in-between.

I sell my guns to my friends, I am more likely to know if they have a mental issue or are likely to use the gun for a crime than the FBI.
Also I know if I knowingly sell the firearm to someone mentally unstable or likely to use said gun for a crime that I can suffer criminal penalties.

The FBI data base is for people who sell their guns to strangers.

[Alford]

Why do citizens even need ARs and AKs? I mean seriously. I live in a rural area. I like to go out and hunt. But I do it like a real man and shoot a bolt-action. One shot, one kill.

[Mossbergia]

i like my firearms and i dont like our "wonderful" president and im white to top it all off im a dumb redneck yall no where this is going.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Why do citizens even need ARs and AKs? I mean seriously. I live in a rural area. I like to go out and hunt. But I do it like a real man and shoot a bolt-action. One shot, one kill.

AR and AK pattern rifles are used for more than just hunting. They're also for target shooting and collecting.

[Grinning Dragon]

Why do citizens even need ARs and AKs? I mean seriously. I live in a rural area. I like to go out and hunt. But I do it like a real man and shoot a bolt-action. One shot, one kill.

Need is irrelevant. It is the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.

[Caninope]

There is no reason to restrict it either.

Handgun, rifle and shotgun. Just a basic battery is three guns.

A right to 3 guns would be an acceptable compromise.

Except it's not.

[Caninope]

How much longer do we have to keep this up until you provide proof I used any fallacy at all?

A computer cannot kill people, that's why they aren't already regulated like guns are. To use computers in an analogy as if they were guns is therefore a false equivalency.

Tell that to the people in the DOD who are worried about a cyber attack on the nation's critical infrastructure.