Gun Permit

[Big Jim P]

I would not support this law.

Care to explain why? I know we have the right to bear arms, but this is an attempt to address the responsibility that goes along with that right.

[Ainin]

Canada's been doing it for a while already. Gun permits work fine.

A Daycare just got shot up in Quebec...

Your point is...?
Firearms Homocide Rate:

US: 3.6
Canada: 0.5

Source: UNODC

[Sociobiology]

No, it didn't. Someone got shot near a daycare.

The NSG Thread LIES!

I'm shocked

[Ifreann]

No.

alternative?

A permit that needs renewing.

There is no way $5-15 would cover that.

It does in my state for hunting licences but there may be scaling issues.

Rather. You want this permit to be good for any firearm, so presumably your afternoon class and examinations will be covering every extant class of firearm. I doubt $15 would even cover the paper targets.

Hah, no.

so whats the problem?

Per the above, the cost of teaching people how to use every kind of firearm and testing them on them would either cost vastly more than $15 and take far longer than an afternoon, or you're going to let people buy rifles and shotguns and things normally mounted on A-10 Thunderbolts on the basis that they safely operated a revolver once. And those are both rather absurd positions.

No.

why?

For tracking transaction statistics and flagging suspicious purchase patterns.

you really need the record for the permit to work, otherwise it is
"did you buy this with with a permit?"
"Yeah" {lie}
"well OK then"

My objection was requiring a warrant to access the record of sales.

[Alimprad]

vote things a bit hazy, of course id support it with modifications, thats like asking me if i support
democratic rule with modifications, obviously, because then i could modify it to a facist dictatorship rule.
i wouldnt allow permits, id make it like getting crip-checked, youd need a few respected people in society to say they think u are fit to own a gun, then you'd need to take certian checks (to check ur mentally stable) and you're history would be checked to make sure you're not a terrorist syphasiser or ever commited any crimes, once all thats cleared u then get the gun but have to go through the hole procsses agian to get ur next gun.
EDIT: for each permit ud also have to pay about £20-£30

[Ainin]

vote things a bit hazy, of course id support it with modifications, thats like asking me if i support
democratic rule with modifications, obviously, because then i could modify it to a facist dictatorship rule.
i wouldnt allow permits, id make it like getting crip-checked, youd need a few respected people in society to say they think u are fit to own a gun, then you'd need to take certian checks (to check ur mentally stable) and you're history would be checked to make sure you're not a terrorist syphasiser or ever commited any crimes, once all thats cleared u then get the gun but have to go through the hole procsses agian to get ur next gun.
EDIT: for each permit ud also have to pay about £20-£30

Wut.

Lrn2Grammar

[Sociobiology]

OP note

change to poll.

[Vainakh]

I'm just going to put in a clip from good old Red Dawn [not the modern shitty remake]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mWKqhLzJQo
Form 4473 allows the invading Soviet Bastards to track down all gun owners. [It already exists, but your proposal would basically do the same thing on a larger scale, if I understand correctly.]

And that right there is an argument you'll hear from some of the more paranoid right-wingers [and hell, I've heard it from more than a few left-wingers {who were also paranoid}].

[Ifreann]

I'm just going to put in a clip from good old Red Dawn [not the modern shitty remake]:

And I'm not going to watch. Hoorah, everyone wins!

[Sociobiology]

It does in my state for hunting licences but there may be scaling issues.

Rather. You want this permit to be good for any firearm, so presumably your afternoon class and examinations will be covering every extant class of firearm. I doubt $15 would even cover the paper targets.

well we do have the option of an endorsement system, I was thinking basic long arms and perhaps handguns on the basic permit.
But I have no problem in doing separate endorsements for shotgun, handgun, ect.

and replacing the current stamp tax on manufacturers would go a long way to paying for this.

so whats the problem?

Per the above, the cost of teaching people how to use every kind of firearm and testing them on them would either cost vastly more than $15 and take far longer than an afternoon, or you're going to let people buy rifles and shotguns and things normally mounted on A-10 Thunderbolts on the basis that they safely operated a revolver once. And those are both rather absurd positions.

this is why some explanation is important, I thought you were against making private sellers do this.

why?

For tracking transaction statistics and flagging suspicious purchase patterns.

well sellers are what I am most worried about and their records are not necessarily protected in this wording.
and dealers would be a whole different can of worms.

you really need the record for the permit to work, otherwise it is
"did you buy this with with a permit?"
"Yeah" {lie}
"well OK then"

My objection was requiring a warrant to access the record of sales.

well as an example your tax records cannot be accessed without a warrant, but law enforcement usually has no problem getting a warrant to check on people under reasonable suspicion.

[Ovisterra]

and ONE firearms violation leads to a suspension or revocation of said license.

I find myself agreeing with you on a gun control matter. This cannot be!

[Sociobiology]

and ONE firearms violation leads to a suspension or revocation of said license.

I find myself agreeing with you on a gun control matter. This cannot be!

the sad thing is most people are for a permit of some kind, but the nutters on both side keep such a sensible law from ever getting near a vote.

really weird 30yrs ago the NRA was for this, even if they consider it the work if the Antichrist now.

[Big Jim P]

alternative?

A permit that needs renewing. ¹

It does in my state for hunting licences but there may be scaling issues.

Rather. You want this permit to be good for any firearm, so presumably your afternoon class and examinations will be covering every extant class of firearm. I doubt $15 would even cover the paper targets.²

so whats the problem?

Per the above, the cost of teaching people how to use every kind of firearm and testing them on them would either cost vastly more than $15 and take far longer than an afternoon, or you're going to let people buy rifles and shotguns and things normally mounted on A-10 Thunderbolts on the basis that they safely operated a revolver once. And those are both rather absurd positions.³

why?

For tracking transaction statistics and flagging suspicious purchase patterns. ⁴

you really need the record for the permit to work, otherwise it is
"did you buy this with with a permit?"
"Yeah" {lie}
"well OK then"

My objection was requiring a warrant to access the record of sales.⁵

1: Why require renewal? Firearms technology doesn't change that quickly?
2: As long as the cost doesn't start to interfere with everyone's right to bear arms, then the amount can be adjusted to reflect cost.
3:Covered by multiple endorsements on one license. Similar to car, motorcycle and commercial endorsements on a drivers license.
4:Why would this be necessary, and how would it not be an infringement on personal rights?
5:A warrant would have to be a requirement, otherwise we are infringing on personal rights.

[Sociobiology]

I'm just going to put in a clip from good old Red Dawn [not the modern shitty remake]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mWKqhLzJQo
Form 4473 allows the invading Soviet Bastards to track down all gun owners. [It already exists, but your proposal would basically do the same thing on a larger scale, if I understand correctly.]

And that right there is an argument you'll hear from some of the more paranoid right-wingers [and hell, I've heard it from more than a few left-wingers {who were also paranoid}].

but not from the majority on either side, compromise, the halmark of democracy.

[Vainakh]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. None of this is my actual opinion and I personally find it rather ridiculous, but I'm interested in counter-arguments [please be more specific than just 'that's stupid' {though honestly I agree with that point}]
What if America is invaded? Then we'll need firearm-bearing civilians, provided that they're well trained and not psychotic. In that regards your proposal is sound, but if the Enemy were to crack the registries, they could hunt down possible Partisan resistance groups within their occupation zones.
In Bosnia during the Bosnian War, the Army was severely deficient and had to be supported heavily by armed civilians to defend their homes and families. A UN arms embargo effectively deprived the Bosnians from arming themselves for self-defense.
Another perhaps more [relatively more!] applicable example is that of partisan warfare. If the Enemy [god I sound absurd. Devil's Advocate...] manages to push the army back and occupy a significant area, the Civilian population must do everything within its power to combat the occupiers. If the Enemy can track down all gun owners, then they'll be able to nip this in the bud very effectively, more so if they also arrest and/or execute the firearms holders [as the bulk of the people with the basic know-how of how to at the very least manufacture rudimentary firearms for the Resistance will be removed].

On a more serious note, it's not terribly difficult to manufacture simple guns. Actually, a huge problem your proposed law will encounter will be the fact that parts kit- rifles without recievers- will be readily bought and sold. An AR-15 type rifle is very easy to assemble without tools, if a black-market source of receivers [which can potentially be manufactured illicitly to avoid licensing issues] can be found. A much more basic example is that of the STEN-type gun, which can be manufactured very easily. Yes, it jams like hell, and it's much less effective than other guns, but it's still a gun.

[Cosara]

I'm just going to put in a clip from good old Red Dawn [not the modern shitty remake]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mWKqhLzJQo
Form 4473 allows the invading Soviet Bastards to track down all gun owners. [It already exists, but your proposal would basically do the same thing on a larger scale, if I understand correctly.]

And that right there is an argument you'll hear from some of the more paranoid right-wingers [and hell, I've heard it from more than a few left-wingers {who were also paranoid}].

Exactly.

[Big Jim P]

and ONE firearms violation leads to a suspension or revocation of said license.

I find myself agreeing with you on a gun control matter. This cannot be!

It's the apocalypse. Everybody, arm yourselves.

[Greed and Death]

We already require background checks with limited exception for private sales.
It is not necessary to remove this private sale exemption.
Most of these sales are between friends and relatives who already know more about each other than background check would reveal.

Gun registration should not be required under any circumstance, it is none of the government's business if I am exercising or declining to exercise my rights.

Permits should only be required for concealed carry, and if permits are issued on the federal level they must preempt state requirements.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
really weird 30yrs ago the NRA was for this, even if they consider it the work if the Antichrist now.

Y'know, I've read somewhere that someone said the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban was meant as a first step towards more strict gun control measures in other areas, and it was meant as just a symbolic stepping stone.

It seems like it's had the reverse effect, especially in relation to groups like the NRA. It went from relatively open to compromise (background checks/Form 4473) to completely opposed to any measures whatsoever on principle (universal background checks, etc.) which is decidedly not the response one would want if they were interested in seeking further gun control measures. Now whether that's a legitimate viewpoint even is debateable, but it seems to me like it's one that developed in response to gun-owners getting 'burned' by gun control measures in the past and then skewing hard the other way to avoid it.

[Sociobiology]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. None of this is my actual opinion and I personally find it rather ridiculous, but I'm interested in counter-arguments [please be more specific than just 'that's stupid' {though honestly I agree with that point}]
What if America is invaded? Then we'll need firearm-bearing civilians, provided that they're well trained and not psychotic. In that regards your proposal is sound, but if the Enemy were to crack the registries, they could hunt down possible Partisan resistance groups within their occupation zones.
In Bosnia during the Bosnian War, the Army was severely deficient and had to be supported heavily by armed civilians to defend their homes and families. A UN arms embargo effectively deprived the Bosnians from arming themselves for self-defense.
Another perhaps more [relatively more!] applicable example is that of partisan warfare. If the Enemy [god I sound absurd. Devil's Advocate...] manages to push the army back and occupy a significant area, the Civilian population must do everything within its power to combat the occupiers. If the Enemy can track down all gun owners, then they'll be able to nip this in the bud very effectively, more so if they also arrest and/or execute the firearms holders [as the bulk of the people with the basic know-how of how to at the very least manufacture rudimentary firearms for the Resistance will be removed].

On a more serious note, it's not terribly difficult to manufacture simple guns. Actually, a huge problem your proposed law will encounter will be the fact that parts kit- rifles without recievers- will be readily bought and sold. An AR-15 type rifle is very easy to assemble without tools, if a black-market source of receivers [which can potentially be manufactured illicitly to avoid licensing issues] can be found. A much more basic example is that of the STEN-type gun, which can be manufactured very easily. Yes, it jams like hell, and it's much less effective than other guns, but it's still a gun.

and my argument for the latter is it works in every country that does it, completely home made guns are not a big problem in practice.

for the former, if the enemy has gotten that far, you lose, period, all the handguns on earth will not help you.

[Big Jim P]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. None of this is my actual opinion and I personally find it rather ridiculous, but I'm interested in counter-arguments [please be more specific than just 'that's stupid' {though honestly I agree with that point}]
What if America is invaded? Then we'll need firearm-bearing civilians, provided that they're well trained and not psychotic. In that regards your proposal is sound, but if the Enemy were to crack the registries, they could hunt down possible Partisan resistance groups within their occupation zones.
In Bosnia during the Bosnian War, the Army was severely deficient and had to be supported heavily by armed civilians to defend their homes and families. A UN arms embargo effectively deprived the Bosnians from arming themselves for self-defense.
Another perhaps more [relatively more!] applicable example is that of partisan warfare. If the Enemy [god I sound absurd. Devil's Advocate...] manages to push the army back and occupy a significant area, the Civilian population must do everything within its power to combat the occupiers. If the Enemy can track down all gun owners, then they'll be able to nip this in the bud very effectively, more so if they also arrest and/or execute the firearms holders [as the bulk of the people with the basic know-how of how to at the very least manufacture rudimentary firearms for the Resistance will be removed].

On a more serious note, it's not terribly difficult to manufacture simple guns. Actually, a huge problem your proposed law will encounter will be the fact that parts kit- rifles without recievers- will be readily bought and sold. An AR-15 type rifle is very easy to assemble without tools, if a black-market source of receivers [which can potentially be manufactured illicitly to avoid licensing issues] can be found. A much more basic example is that of the STEN-type gun, which can be manufactured very easily. Yes, it jams like hell, and it's much less effective than other guns, but it's still a gun.

Secure the database. Not all computers have to be connected to the net.

[Sociobiology]

We already require background checks with limited exception for private sales.
It is not necessary to remove this private sale exemption.
Most of these sales are between friends and relatives who already know more about each other than background check would reveal.

Gun registration should not be required under any circumstance, it is none of the government's business if I am exercising or declining to exercise my rights.

Permits should only be required for concealed carry, and if permits are issued on the federal level they must preempt state requirements.

so what is you justification for concealed carry and why does it that justification apply to handguns in general.

[Ifreann]

Rather. You want this permit to be good for any firearm, so presumably your afternoon class and examinations will be covering every extant class of firearm. I doubt $15 would even cover the paper targets.

well we do have the option of an endorsement system, I was thinking basic long arms and perhaps handguns on the basic permit.
But I have no problem in doing separate endorsements for shotgun, handgun, ect.

and replacing the current stamp tax on manufacturers would go a long way to paying for this.

Seems to me that if purchasing firearms is going to depend on proving you can handle them safely then it should work only for firearms of reasonably similar operation.

Per the above, the cost of teaching people how to use every kind of firearm and testing them on them would either cost vastly more than $15 and take far longer than an afternoon, or you're going to let people buy rifles and shotguns and things normally mounted on A-10 Thunderbolts on the basis that they safely operated a revolver once. And those are both rather absurd positions.

this is why some explanation is important, I thought you were against making private sellers do this.

Don't worry, I'm not in a rush or anything.

For tracking transaction statistics and flagging suspicious purchase patterns.

well sellers are what I am most worried about and their records are not necessarily protected in this wording.

Protected from whom?

and dealers would be a whole different can of worms.

Are dealers not sellers?

My objection was requiring a warrant to access the record of sales.

well as an example your tax records cannot be accessed without a warrant, but law enforcement usually has no problem getting a warrant to check on people under reasonable suspicion.

Which doesn't mean that they should need a warrant to look up what guns you own, what guns you've been buying, or what guns you've been selling. Because guns and taxes are different things.

[Big Jim P]

We already require background checks with limited exception for private sales.
It is not necessary to remove this private sale exemption.
Most of these sales are between friends and relatives who already know more about each other than background check would reveal.

Gun registration should not be required under any circumstance, it is none of the government's business if I am exercising or declining to exercise my rights.

Permits should only be required for concealed carry, and if permits are issued on the federal level they must preempt state requirements.

so what is you justification for concealed carry and why does it that justification apply to handguns in general.

The only purpose for concealed (or open) carry is self defense.

[Ifreann]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. None of this is my actual opinion and I personally find it rather ridiculous, but I'm interested in counter-arguments [please be more specific than just 'that's stupid' {though honestly I agree with that point}]
What if America is invaded? Then we'll need firearm-bearing civilians, provided that they're well trained and not psychotic....

No, they won't, because they have an army. A rather large and well funded one.