GUN CONTROL!

[The Truth and Light]

I was referring to the fact that NC thinks they're statistically negligible.

Well they are statistically negligible when you compare them to the number of other shootings that take place. It would be like focusing legislation on 10 car plus pileups instead of on dealing with crashes in general. While the former is certainly more horrific on an individual basis they are less damaging over all because of how rare they are.

Then again, they're rare for a reason. Hence my point.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well they are statistically negligible when you compare them to the number of other shootings that take place. It would be like focusing legislation on 10 car plus pileups instead of on dealing with crashes in general. While the former is certainly more horrific on an individual basis they are less damaging over all because of how rare they are.

Then again, they're rare for a reason. Hence my point.

Accept there mostly rare because the type of person who goes on a mass shooting is rare. Honestly the type who goes on a mass shooting tend to be rather intelligent, and can probably get there hands on a weapon anyways.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Then again, they're rare for a reason. Hence my point.

Accept there mostly rare because the type of person who goes on a mass shooting is rare. Honestly the type who goes on a mass shooting tend to be rather intelligent, and can probably get there hands on a weapon anyways.

Man, that hit me right in the Grammars...

[Occupied Deutschland]

lol punish the majority for the acts of the minority....I thought democrats were against that?

stay classy....

a permit is not punishment.

Depends on how the permit is applies and one's view on what it's being applied to.

After all, it seems commonly agreed that mandating ID laws for voter registration is a shit idea and if not deliberately undertaken as a demographic-targeting political advantage-winning strategy has that effect anyways.

Many a proposed 'permitting' system encounters similar issues. Even disregarding direct costs like permitting fees or required costs to pay for the background check et. al., people still must take the time to achieve the proper paperwork and spend time and money getting the training that allows them to qualify for the permit to begin with. Either one recognizes the demographic targeting of mandated costs to exercise rights and its specific disenfranchisement of poor/minorities or one doesn't. Whether the right being exercised by these same minorities/poor is that of voting or that of owning a firearm bears little relevance to the effects of similar legislation.

Now one could argue such a thing is beneficial anyways because of the required education and lesser number of statistically-likely-criminals able to legally acquire firearms easily but...well the former is commendable but the effects carry over into the latter anyways no matter what the intent of these laws (much like how, no matter how pure the intent of voter ID laws are, they'd still have an effect).

Which all carries into punishing the 99+% number of legal firearm purchasers in the US who do not use their firearms in a criminal manner by forcing them to incur higher costs and more difficult access because of a statistically insignificant minority which hasn't actually even been tied to getting a plurality, much less a majority, of their firearms from legal sources as these purchasers do but instead through straw purchases, family/friends and stealing (from the Prisons survey that always comes up here at this point that was done in the mid-90s I believe?)

Make the permit free and accessible easily and it eliminates most of this criticism, but then becomes essentially just an upgraded NICS system with unneeded steps added in. At which point it'd probably be easier to just un-fuck the NICS system. Incentivize FFL transfer routing by the simple act of offering immunity towards those who use a dealer to transfer a firearm between private parties. This could use some refinement and narrowing down I'm sure, but with such a system one wouldn't have to be bothered with needless paperwork if they were selling to their brother/uncle/etc. and knew they weren't a felon while the market everyone's actually worried about (all them private sales at gun shows and on the internets and in the newspaper, oh my!) would be even less attractive to one selling their firearm because the sale could well mean a criminal investigation if that weapon gets used irresponsibly by the person they're selling to.

[Tekania]

Honestly, I use the 105mm howitzer for squirrel hunting.

[Big Jim Pimp]

a permit is not punishment.

stacking regulation after regulation is in my opinion.

" Oh we just want you to have a few more regulations" Anti-Gun

regulations pass and shooting still happens

" Just some more regulations" Anti-gun

regulation passes and shooting still happens

" we need more laws!" Anti-gun

"No more laws" pro-gun

"Why can't you be reasonable and compromise!!!" Anti-Gun

we always compromise little by little and nothing changes and yet we get called gun nuts....fucking pathetic.

Indeed. Every "compromise" has ended up costing the pro-gun people, while profiting the gun-controllers. All the gun-control people have given up is having their way all at one go. Instead, they go at the rights of legal gun-owners piecemeal.

[Dyakovo]

Compared to our entire history we have significantly lower crime, it's just that there's a recent spike. What bans are you speaking of?

fuck if I know, I just keep hearing about new gun laws passing yet we still have all these shootings

(which in all honesty is a joke when you consider how many shooting actually happen, they are really blown out of the water)

So you just decided to rant about gun bans when everyone (or most everyone) here arguing for gun control have explicitly stated that they are not talking about gun bans...

[Imperializt Russia]

Don't know if you've ever watched a cop show on TV.
Or seen the police try to deal with someone yourself.

People fucking hate having the police tell them what to do, no matter how in the wrong they are.
If you make it a law that the police are as well armed as the populace, there will be no law enforcement.

You know the shit on TV is over dramatized, or only the best clips from an otherwise boring patrol.

And, let me see...they pull people over all the time and people don't start busting caps, even though we already have legal guns with put us on par with most policemen...

If you mandate that the populace should be as well armed as the police, because the police shouldn't be more capable than the populace, it's only going to further foster the opinion held by some that the police are jackbooted tools of the state existing solely to oppress you and that you should defend yourself against them.

Dick move.

I had no firearms training whatsoever, on my first try with a shotgun I blasted all of the clay discs out of the air except one. You don't want a pistol or a rifle in a home because you can miss if you're not precise. What the shotgun has going for it is power, spread, and not too far of a range for the shot to travel. If you are a civilian, a shotgun is all that you should need for a home defense scenario. It is favored for hunting birds.

Your comment on the spread of shot was wrong. At home defense ranges, shot-spread is negligible.

Dinner-plate size is not negligible.
Though it's far from "everything on that side of the room has a hole in it".

Is lots of informal training meaningless or something?

do you know what an average is?

Skewed by extremes, is what it is.

Well they are statistically negligible when you compare them to the number of other shootings that take place. It would be like focusing legislation on 10 car plus pileups instead of on dealing with crashes in general. While the former is certainly more horrific on an individual basis they are less damaging over all because of how rare they are.

Then again, they're rare for a reason. Hence my point.

Several reasons, one of which is likely not increased regulation on firearms.

[Ifreann]

Honestly, I use the 105mm howitzer for squirrel hunting.

The squirrels have howitzers too, it's only fair.

[Len Hyet]

Honestly, I use the 105mm howitzer for squirrel hunting.

The squirrels have howitzers too, it's only fair.

I heard the Deer are working on Railguns.

[Ifreann]

The squirrels have howitzers too, it's only fair.

I heard the Deer are working on Railguns.

So that's what their antlers are for. Gun racks.

[Len Hyet]

I heard the Deer are working on Railguns.

So that's what their antlers are for. Gun racks.

Nah, they're really antenna to relay the targeting signal for their over the horizon weapon systems.

[Sociobiology]

a permit is not punishment.

Depends on how the permit is applies and one's view on what it's being applied to.

After all, it seems commonly agreed that mandating ID laws for voter registration is a shit idea and if not deliberately undertaken as a demographic-targeting political advantage-winning strategy has that effect anyways.

Many a proposed 'permitting' system encounters similar issues. Even disregarding direct costs like permitting fees or required costs to pay for the background check et. al., people still must take the time to achieve the proper paperwork and spend time and money getting the training that allows them to qualify for the permit to begin with.

good if you are not willing to invest at least an afternoon in training/testing I don't want you to have a gun, because you are to irresponsible to use it properly.

Either one recognizes the demographic targeting of mandated costs to exercise rights and its specific disenfranchisement of poor/minorities or one doesn't.

unless the cost is insignificant compared to the cost of the item, which is what 15$ fee for the first gun only would be.

Now one could argue such a thing is beneficial anyways because of the required education and lesser number of statistically-likely-criminals able to legally acquire firearms easily but...well the former is commendable but the effects carry over into the latter anyways no matter what the intent of these laws

not being allowed to own a gun if you are convicted of a violent crime will not carry over.

(much like how, no matter how pure the intent of voter ID laws are, they'd still have an effect).

no they wouldn't they would not prevent voter fraud, only one instance of the fraud they would prevent has occurred in the country in the last fifty years.

Which all carries into punishing the 99+% number of legal firearm purchasers in the US who do not use their firearms in a criminal manner by forcing them to incur higher costs and more difficult access because of a statistically insignificant minority which hasn't actually even been tied to getting a plurality, much less a majority, of their firearms from legal sources as these purchasers do but instead through straw purchases, family/friends and stealing (from the Prisons survey that always comes up here at this point that was done in the mid-90s I believe?)

actually almost half of firearms used in crimes are legally purchased.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

and more than half of them would have not occurred if a permit system existed.

The majority of all citizens would obey the majority of laws most of the time, the laws exist for the rest of the time.
I have never used dynamite illegally but I have no problem having to have an explosives permit, and I have to re-up that permit unlike the one I am proposing which would be updated automatically. requiring me to get a permit to buy dynamite is not punishment, it is a check to make sure I can and will use them responsibly.

Make the permit free and accessible easily and it eliminates most of this criticism, but then becomes essentially just an upgraded NICS system with unneeded steps added in.

no it prevents private sale to violent criminals, which is one of the major problems.
It also make purchase EASIER for lawful persons.
as for free a 15$ is an insignificant addition to the cost of a firearm.

At which point it'd probably be easier to just un-fuck the NICS system. Incentivize FFL transfer routing by the simple act of offering immunity towards those who use a dealer to transfer a firearm between private parties.

incentivising will not do shit, because the people making otherwise illegal sales will not be breaking any laws by not doing it.
The permit needs to be mandatory for ALL purchased to work.

This could use some refinement and narrowing down I'm sure, but with such a system one wouldn't have to be bothered with needless paperwork if they were selling to their brother/uncle/etc. and knew they weren't a felon while the market everyone's actually worried aboutn(all them private sales at gun shows and on the internets and in the newspaper, oh my!)

family sales to felons is one of the major problems.
gun shows are a minor problem compared to those.

would be even less attractive to one selling their firearm because the sale could well mean a criminal investigation if that weapon gets used irresponsibly by the person they're selling to.

did you actually read my proposal?

[Sociobiology]

have you read my proposalhttp://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=17430102#p17430102

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety and law, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the permit can be revoked for gun violations (reckless endangerment, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers), and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant. so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales, but not invade privacy without just cause.

things like concealed carry, special collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, so only one card would be needed.

Yeah, mine is almost basically equivalent to yours, isn't it? The only places, so far, where I think it should differ from yours is:

- I think gun classes and education as an incentive to reduce registration fees for the purchaser would be more proactive than a first-time, catch-all class and training session. It makes a profit incentive on the back end for owners to get continuing education, which - while annoying, even for me - would probably be better in the long run.

I like it but it might be difficult to implement.

- I think there shouldn't be a cost for initial permits, only because that portion of a law could get thorny in a hurry. Adding a bit of cost to the registration of a gun would either cover the cost of license processing or add to the motivation for purchasers to go through education.

I like that I'm gonna add it

The warrant thing, too, is pretty tricky, but it seems the best option available because that information should be private, but accessible by proper channels.

agreed, dirty dealers is a major problem it could combat.

[Imperializt Russia]

Which all carries into punishing the 99+% number of legal firearm purchasers in the US who do not use their firearms in a criminal manner by forcing them to incur higher costs and more difficult access because of a statistically insignificant minority which hasn't actually even been tied to getting a plurality, much less a majority, of their firearms from legal sources as these purchasers do but instead through straw purchases, family/friends and stealing (from the Prisons survey that always comes up here at this point that was done in the mid-90s I believe?)

actually almost half of firearms used in crimes are legally purchased.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

and more than half of them would have not occurred if a permit system existed.

The majority of all citizens would obey the majority of laws most of the time, the laws exist for the rest of the time.
I have never used dynamite illegally but I have no problem having to have an explosives permit, and I have to re-up that permit unlike the one I am proposing which would be updated automatically. requiring me to get a permit to buy dynamite is not punishment, it is a check to make sure I can and will use them responsibly.

What he said is still likely correct. Whilst half of crimes may have been committed with legally-acquired firearms, criminals make up a stark minority of gun owners.

In 1998, fewer than 200,000 persons were arrested on suspicion of a weapons offence, of whom 35,000 were convicted.

There are three hundred million firearms in the US, owned by possibly a third of that number.
Making the percentage of criminals convicted as a proportion of firearms owners far below 1%

[Sociobiology]

actually almost half of firearms used in crimes are legally purchased.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

and more than half of them would have not occurred if a permit system existed.

The majority of all citizens would obey the majority of laws most of the time, the laws exist for the rest of the time.
I have never used dynamite illegally but I have no problem having to have an explosives permit, and I have to re-up that permit unlike the one I am proposing which would be updated automatically. requiring me to get a permit to buy dynamite is not punishment, it is a check to make sure I can and will use them responsibly.

What he said is still likely correct. Whilst half of crimes may have been committed with legally-acquired firearms, criminals make up a stark minority of gun owners.

In 1998, fewer than 200,000 persons were arrested on suspicion of a weapons offence, of whom 35,000 were convicted.

There are three hundred million firearms in the US, owned by possibly a third of that number.
Making the percentage of criminals convicted as a proportion of firearms owners far below 1%

the number of murderers is a far smaller percentage of the population yet we still make murder illegal.
illegal use of dynamite again makes up a much smaller percentage yet we still require a permit.
your comparison fails, utterly, when compared to other laws.

the potential harm if left unregulated far outweighs the loss of utility caused by regulation.

[Big Jim P]

What he said is still likely correct. Whilst half of crimes may have been committed with legally-acquired firearms, criminals make up a stark minority of gun owners.

In 1998, fewer than 200,000 persons were arrested on suspicion of a weapons offence, of whom 35,000 were convicted.

There are three hundred million firearms in the US, owned by possibly a third of that number.
Making the percentage of criminals convicted as a proportion of firearms owners far below 1%

the number of murderers is a far smaller percentage of the population yet we still make murder illegal.
illegal use of dynamite again makes up a much smaller percentage yet we still require a permit.
your comparison fails, utterly, when compared to other laws.

the potential harm if left unregulated far outweighs the loss of utility caused by regulation.

If left unregulated? Firearms are already regulated.

[Dyakovo]

the number of murderers is a far smaller percentage of the population yet we still make murder illegal.
illegal use of dynamite again makes up a much smaller percentage yet we still require a permit.
your comparison fails, utterly, when compared to other laws.

the potential harm if left unregulated far outweighs the loss of utility caused by regulation.

If left unregulated? Firearms are already regulated.

With gaping holes in the regulations allowing people to purchase firearms with no background check.

[Big Jim P]

If left unregulated? Firearms are already regulated.

With gaping holes in the regulations allowing people to purchase firearms with no background check.

It is not my job to prove my innocence.

[Hathradic States]

If left unregulated? Firearms are already regulated.

With gaping holes in the regulations allowing people to purchase firearms with no background check.

Where? Vermont, maybe. But when I lived in Arizona, one of the most pro-gun states in the Union, I had to get a background check done before buying ammo, let alone a rifle.

[Dyakovo]

With gaping holes in the regulations allowing people to purchase firearms with no background check.

Where? Vermont, maybe. But when I lived in Arizona, one of the most pro-gun states in the Union, I had to get a background check done before buying ammo, let alone a rifle.

Every state that does not require a background check for person to person sales.

---

With gaping holes in the regulations allowing people to purchase firearms with no background check.

It is not my job to prove my innocence.

It is your job to prove that you are/will be a responsible gun owner.

[Hathradic States]

Where? Vermont, maybe. But when I lived in Arizona, one of the most pro-gun states in the Union, I had to get a background check done before buying ammo, let alone a rifle.

Every state that does not require a background check for person to person sales.

True. I didn't go through a background check when I bought my Nagant off of my father. But, it is ridiculous to force individuals to do a background check. That is likely more expensive than the weapon they are trying to sell.

[Dyakovo]

Every state that does not require a background check for person to person sales.

True. I didn't go through a background check when I bought my Nagant off of my father. But, it is ridiculous to force individuals to do a background check. That is likely more expensive than the weapon they are trying to sell.

No, it isn't.

[Big Jim P]

True. I didn't go through a background check when I bought my Nagant off of my father. But, it is ridiculous to force individuals to do a background check. That is likely more expensive than the weapon they are trying to sell.

No, it isn't.

I certainly is. Private transactions are just that: Private.

[Hathradic States]

True. I didn't go through a background check when I bought my Nagant off of my father. But, it is ridiculous to force individuals to do a background check. That is likely more expensive than the weapon they are trying to sell.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It infringes on the right of a person to conduct private sales.