Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Paddy O Fernature]

Then again, enact legislation that actually goes after criminals, and not the fucking law abiding citizen who has done nothing wrong.

that's what background checks are.

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

[Llamalandia]

Then give private parties free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would get their background checks, and gun rights advocates can get gun control advocates off our backs (for a minute).

It does take a special kind of paranoid victimization complex to believe that a political movement you've had on the run for twenty years is breathing down your neck for offering up solutions your side itself proposed way back when as a counter to real gun control policies. But why would people advocating for more guns with less regulation and protection be paranoid and desperately afraid of being made someone else's victim?

Well but that's just it they did have great success only what 20 years ago when they passed the assault weapons ban. Given that history the paranoia is understandable, basically the " price of freedom is eternal vigilance" applies here. As soon as pro gun people back off for an instant the gun control crowd starts doing dumb things like passing awb based on how guns look rather than any real functional differences (or only very minor differences).

[Tel]

that's what background checks are.

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

I'll take a shot.

A woman walks into [REDACTED]'s Guns and states that she'd like to have a firearm. The guy says he'll need to have her fill out some paperwork. She obliges and fills it out. She gets her gun a little later and takes it home with a clip of ammunition.

Here are further details.

She was paranoid schizophrenic. The only question in this paperwork addressing her mental health was a "Y/N" circle the letter question regarding whether or not she had any mental issues. She, of course, answers no, because she's completely fine in her mind. She takes the pistol home, loads it and kills her husband when he asks her to take her medication, because, you know, she thinks she's the daughter of an ancient Pharaoh or something and to kill a mere peasant like her husband isn't a crime to her.

Here are further details.

Her paranoid schizophrenia was by no means a new affair-- a simple background check should've revealed her state of mind and the owner should've denied her sales, maybe called the authorities to notify them of what she had just tried to do. But he isn't required by law to give a background check like that-- nobody in my state is. So he was able to hand a ticking time bomb a loaded pistol completely legally and was not held accountable.

Got this story from the man that defended her in court, a friend of mine.

A lot of us aren't asking for 'Obamer to tek them guns, yessir' like so many Government-hating hicks seem convinced of. A lot of us just want to see a system where this sort of thing cannot happen in all but extraordinary situations. In this particular one, it could've been anyone asking to buy a gun and it just so happened to be a mentally unstable schizophrenic this time. The regulations in place were not strong enough to prevent it and frankly, it wouldn't have taken much.

[The New Lowlands]

It does take a special kind of paranoid victimization complex to believe that a political movement you've had on the run for twenty years is breathing down your neck for offering up solutions your side itself proposed way back when as a counter to real gun control policies. But why would people advocating for more guns with less regulation and protection be paranoid and desperately afraid of being made someone else's victim?

Well but that's just it they did have great success only what 20 years ago when they passed the assault weapons ban. Given that history the paranoia is understandable, basically the " price of freedom is eternal vigilance" applies here. As soon as pro gun people back off for an instant the gun control crowd starts doing dumb things like passing awb based on how guns look rather than any real functional differences (or only very minor differences).

Not everyone has the time or the inclination to investigate something unto minute details that they i) generally don't use and ii) want to have banned.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

I'll take a shot.

A woman walks into [REDACTED]'s Guns and states that she'd like to have a firearm. The guy says he'll need to have her fill out some paperwork. She obliges and fills it out. She gets her gun a little later and takes it home with a clip of ammunition.

Here are further details.

She was paranoid schizophrenic. The only question in this paperwork addressing her mental health was a "Y/N" circle the letter question regarding whether or not she had any mental issues. She, of course, answers no, because she's completely fine in her mind. She takes the pistol home, loads it and kills her husband when he asks her to take her medication, because, you know, she thinks she's the daughter of an ancient Pharaoh or something and to kill a mere peasant like her husband isn't a crime to her.

Here are further details.

Her paranoid schizophrenia was by no means a new affair-- a simple background check should've revealed her state of mind and the owner should've denied her sales, maybe called the authorities to notify them of what she had just tried to do. But he isn't required by law to give a background check like that-- nobody in my state is. So he was able to hand a ticking time bomb a loaded pistol completely legally and was not held accountable.

Got this story from the man that defended her in court, a friend of mine.

A lot of us aren't asking for 'Obamer to tek them guns, yessir' like so many Government-hating hicks seem convinced of. A lot of us just want to see a system where this sort of thing cannot happen in all but extraordinary situations. In this particular one, it could've been anyone asking to buy a gun and it just so happened to be a mentally unstable schizophrenic this time. The regulations in place were not strong enough to prevent it and frankly, it wouldn't have taken much.

What state did this supposedly take place in?

Cause every state I've ever bought a handgun in from a FFL required a mandatory waiting period if you didn't have a state recognized CCW permit...

[Gun Manufacturers]

Then give private parties free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would get their background checks, and gun rights advocates can get gun control advocates off our backs (for a minute).

It does take a special kind of paranoid victimization complex to believe that a political movement you've had on the run for twenty years is breathing down your neck for offering up solutions your side itself proposed way back when as a counter to real gun control policies. But why would people advocating for more guns with less regulation and protection be paranoid and desperately afraid of being made someone else's victim?

Wait, the NRA has proposed "assault weapon" bans, "high" capacity magazine bans, registration, import bans, and (in certain cases) confiscations? That's really news to me.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

I'll take a shot.

A woman walks into [REDACTED]'s Guns and states that she'd like to have a firearm. The guy says he'll need to have her fill out some paperwork. She obliges and fills it out. She gets her gun a little later and takes it home with a clip of ammunition.

Here are further details.

She was paranoid schizophrenic. The only question in this paperwork addressing her mental health was a "Y/N" circle the letter question regarding whether or not she had any mental issues. She, of course, answers no, because she's completely fine in her mind. She takes the pistol home, loads it and kills her husband when he asks her to take her medication, because, you know, she thinks she's the daughter of an ancient Pharaoh or something and to kill a mere peasant like her husband isn't a crime to her.

Here are further details.

Her paranoid schizophrenia was by no means a new affair-- a simple background check should've revealed her state of mind and the owner should've denied her sales, maybe called the authorities to notify them of what she had just tried to do. But he isn't required by law to give a background check like that-- nobody in my state is. So he was able to hand a ticking time bomb a loaded pistol completely legally and was not held accountable.

Got this story from the man that defended her in court, a friend of mine.

A lot of us aren't asking for 'Obamer to tek them guns, yessir' like so many Government-hating hicks seem convinced of. A lot of us just want to see a system where this sort of thing cannot happen in all but extraordinary situations. In this particular one, it could've been anyone asking to buy a gun and it just so happened to be a mentally unstable schizophrenic this time. The regulations in place were not strong enough to prevent it and frankly, it wouldn't have taken much.

FFLs, by federal law (The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993), are REQUIRED to perform a NICS background check for every firearm they sell regardless if they're used or new.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I'll take a shot.

A woman walks into [REDACTED]'s Guns and states that she'd like to have a firearm. The guy says he'll need to have her fill out some paperwork. She obliges and fills it out. She gets her gun a little later and takes it home with a clip of ammunition.

Here are further details.

She was paranoid schizophrenic. The only question in this paperwork addressing her mental health was a "Y/N" circle the letter question regarding whether or not she had any mental issues. She, of course, answers no, because she's completely fine in her mind. She takes the pistol home, loads it and kills her husband when he asks her to take her medication, because, you know, she thinks she's the daughter of an ancient Pharaoh or something and to kill a mere peasant like her husband isn't a crime to her.

Here are further details.

Her paranoid schizophrenia was by no means a new affair-- a simple background check should've revealed her state of mind and the owner should've denied her sales, maybe called the authorities to notify them of what she had just tried to do. But he isn't required by law to give a background check like that-- nobody in my state is. So he was able to hand a ticking time bomb a loaded pistol completely legally and was not held accountable.

Got this story from the man that defended her in court, a friend of mine.

A lot of us aren't asking for 'Obamer to tek them guns, yessir' like so many Government-hating hicks seem convinced of. A lot of us just want to see a system where this sort of thing cannot happen in all but extraordinary situations. In this particular one, it could've been anyone asking to buy a gun and it just so happened to be a mentally unstable schizophrenic this time. The regulations in place were not strong enough to prevent it and frankly, it wouldn't have taken much.

FFLs, by federal law (The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993), are REQUIRED to perform a NICS background check for every firearm they sell regardless if they're used or new.

^ This.

If anything, this "story" is a prime example of the health care system yet again failing to properly diagnose and report people that may have mental issues. For if she would have been properly diagnosed and reported in the system, then the NICS check should/would picked up on it, regardless of what she circled on the form. Can't blame NICS for "failing" to catch someone when said person hasn't been properly flagged in the system to begin with.

[Llamalandia]

Well but that's just it they did have great success only what 20 years ago when they passed the assault weapons ban. Given that history the paranoia is understandable, basically the " price of freedom is eternal vigilance" applies here. As soon as pro gun people back off for an instant the gun control crowd starts doing dumb things like passing awb based on how guns look rather than any real functional differences (or only very minor differences).

Not everyone has the time or the inclination to investigate something unto minute details that they i) generally don't use and ii) want to have banned.

Yes, and thats why we had a federal awb but yet private sales and the gun show loophole remained unclosed. Note the irony, had gun control advocates actually done the research and picked the right battle they might have actually achieved something more permanent and less offensive to the opposition.

[Big Jim P]

that's what background checks are.

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

And are a perfect example of gun=control freaks getting something then asking for more. You cannot "compromise" with these people. It is like negotiating with terrorists. It only encourages them.

[Geilinor]

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

And are a perfect example of gun=control freaks getting something then asking for more. You cannot "compromise" with these people. It is like negotiating with terrorists. It only encourages them.

People can't seem to "compromise" with you either.

[Llamalandia]

And are a perfect example of gun=control freaks getting something then asking for more. You cannot "compromise" with these people. It is like negotiating with terrorists. It only encourages them.

People can't seem to "compromise" with you either.

Well ok, let me propose a compromise. We expand background checks to be univesal and in exchange we make it legal for people to own post ban fully automatic machine guns.

Compromise is about more then meeting in the middle it's about give and take.

[Geilinor]

People can't seem to "compromise" with you either.

Well ok, let me propose a compromise. We expand background checks to be univesal and in exchange we make it legal for people to own post ban fully automatic machine guns.

Compromise is about more then meeting in the middle it's about give and take.

I'm expecting complaints about being treated like a criminal and people can already own automatic weapons.

[Gun Manufacturers]

And are a perfect example of gun=control freaks getting something then asking for more. You cannot "compromise" with these people. It is like negotiating with terrorists. It only encourages them.

People can't seem to "compromise" with you either.

Gun rights supporters in this thread (including Big Jim P) have offered up suggestions if gun control advocates want to have a REAL discussion on the subject, but we've been ignored multiple times.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Well ok, let me propose a compromise. We expand background checks to be univesal and in exchange we make it legal for people to own post ban fully automatic machine guns.

Compromise is about more then meeting in the middle it's about give and take.

I'm expecting complaints about being treated like a criminal and people can already own automatic weapons.

If I read his post correctly, Llamalandia is talking about repealing the Hughes Amendment to FOPA, which limits civilian ownership of full auto/select fire weapons to those made/registered with ATF before May 19, 1986.

[Llamalandia]

I'm expecting complaints about being treated like a criminal and people can already own automatic weapons.

If I read his post correctly, Llamalandia is talking about repealing the Hughes Amendment to FOPA, which limits civilian ownership of full auto/select fire weapons to those made/registered with ATF before May 19, 1986.

Yeah, pretty much. Oh and we should be able to import them from other countries as well.

[Llamalandia]

Well ok, let me propose a compromise. We expand background checks to be univesal and in exchange we make it legal for people to own post ban fully automatic machine guns.

Compromise is about more then meeting in the middle it's about give and take.

I'm expecting complaints about being treated like a criminal and people can already own automatic weapons.

Maybe some but I bet many gun enthusiast would jump all over this deal. I mean modern full auto fire seems like it'd be worth the hassle of background checks. Maybe I'm wrong, but again let me ask is this kind of a deal something that you as a gun control proponent would consider?

[Paddy O Fernature]

People can't seem to "compromise" with you either.

Gun rights supporters in this thread (including Big Jim P) have offered up suggestions if gun control advocates want to have a REAL discussion on the subject, but we've been ignored multiple times.

^ Truth.

Fuck, I've offered several attempts at "compromise" discussion across as many threads, and each and every time I get ignored by the anti gun fanatics who then make further demands. To be honest, I think I can safely speak for a majority of the pro firearm people here when I say that we are fucking sick of it.

[Geilinor]

I'm expecting complaints about being treated like a criminal and people can already own automatic weapons.

Maybe some but I bet many gun enthusiast would jump all over this deal. I mean modern full auto fire seems like it'd be worth the hassle of background checks. Maybe I'm wrong, but again let me ask is this kind of a deal something that you as a gun control proponent would consider?

I'd consider it.

[Llamalandia]

Maybe some but I bet many gun enthusiast would jump all over this deal. I mean modern full auto fire seems like it'd be worth the hassle of background checks. Maybe I'm wrong, but again let me ask is this kind of a deal something that you as a gun control proponent would consider?

I'd consider it.

Well there we go making progress. How close to accepting it are you, and what modifications would you make to such a deal?

[Sociobiology]

that's what background checks are.

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

which aren't done for almost half of gun purchases, which is ludicrous, it is like having to get a permit to buy dynamite unless you don't feel like it, or building only the left half of a dam.It is a loophole so big you could can drive a mining truck through it. Close the loophole so it can actually work.

[Sociobiology]

I'd consider it.

Well there we go making progress. How close to accepting it are you, and what modifications would you make to such a deal?

how about

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

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

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgement, 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

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers licence.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a licence, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

with this you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport licence, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

But I would support a simple requirement for universal background checks instead.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well there we go making progress. How close to accepting it are you, and what modifications would you make to such a deal?

how about

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

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

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgement, 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

Through here I agree with you, minor difference maybe but I think this would be a workable solution.

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers licence.

needing more for a concealed carry license fine, but why separate up guns by type? That just makes it more difficult on the individual, and is pointless because they are so similar. It would be like saying I needed to pass a separate test or meet different requirements to drive a pickup truck versus a van. Sure there different but they operate almost the exact same.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a licence, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

Honestly buying a gun, or selling one to someone, and not being legally able to is already punishable by jail time and fines.

with this you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport licence, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

But I would support a simple requirement for universal background checks instead.

Here is where I really disagree, you fall into the ignorance trap. While I can understand treating fully automatic guns differently than semi-automatic guns, how does where the gun got made effect it, or its accessories (outside of like a grenade launcher), or its caliber?

Any gun brought into the United States legally already has to meet all laws here, so being made in another country makes no difference in how it actually functions. It just is "scarier" because it is a "Russian Assault Weapon".

Accessories for the most part are about user convince, i.e. pistol grip, flash suppressor second grip, make me more comfortable not make the gun more deadly in any shape or form. Suppressors and grenade launchers are about the only acceptation, and even then suppressors are nice because they reduce the ear damage from using guns.

Now I can understand to some degree limiting caliber, but honestly the market does that for you. .50 cal and larger is incredibly expensive per bullet, and only a small number of rather expensive firearms use those calibers. Just make it so explosives aren't used with them and you would be fine.

[Fireye]

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

which aren't done for almost half of gun purchases, which is ludicrous, it is like having to get a permit to buy dynamite unless you don't feel like it, or building only the left half of a dam.It is a loophole so big you could can drive a mining truck through it. Close the loophole so it can actually work.

Source on the "no BG checks on half of gun purchases?"

[Gun Manufacturers]

Which.. as already stated multiple times... we already have in place.

Care to try again?

which aren't done for almost half of gun purchases, which is ludicrous, it is like having to get a permit to buy dynamite unless you don't feel like it, or building only the left half of a dam.It is a loophole so big you could can drive a mining truck through it. Close the loophole so it can actually work.

I've made a suggestion that would require background checks even for private sales (in exchange for free access to the NICS system for civilians), but nobody on the gun control side has commented on it.