Gun Control - A Political Thread

[The United Brony Armies]

An actual quote from someone I was having this discussion with yesterday

If we were more like England and France and nobody could get guns no body could hurt each other and the government would just protect us. That's the best way.

And that's honestly the most common argument in my town. Which I have a few problems with. 1. The last time I checked England and France were in the top 10 of gun crime rate world wide but that was about a year ago so it could've changed. 2. I don't really think its the best idea to allow our government to protect us in the way France does (the military is constantly in the cities and towns patrolling because even police don't have guns), mainly because in a way I feel like we would be more vulnerable to an attack since our military would be so spread out. But that could also be wrong, I've never been in the military I don't know how it works. 3. Another point on government protection, that worked very well for the Native Americans. Just sayin.

Please correct me on the gun crime rate ranking for England and France if you know what it is. I can't look it up cause of the school-computer-blocking-system.

[Viinborg]

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 [...].

Interesting, in which cases would you not allow the sale of a gun?

[Tel]

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.

Paddy, I'm going to not quote the former post because... It's a giant wall of text and I don't want to add to it.

Alright, here I go.

Indiana is where it happened. Indiana has some pretty absurd laws, but what astounded me is that the guy selling couldn't be held responsible for his role in the murder, despite him shirking his duties to enact a background check. If gun laws are lax in one place, you can bet they're flimsy in another.

I live in Indiana and know the guy that told me this personally. He doesn't BS, he's a good guy.

As for what I quoted, I'd be happy to compromise.

I understand that the constitution allows the right to own firearms, for better or worse, and that's not going to change. I'd love to find a suitable ground that both parties find favorable-- the problem is that both sides are so damn caught up in their passion and how 'right' they surely are(Looking at you, NRA) that they're not willing to work with one another and accept something they don't care for in exchange for an agreement that can get somewhere and move from that point on.

It isn't just the anti-gun movement or the pro-gun movement, it's both.

If we could just cease talking in circles about how the other faction is bad and how they're evil and how we should get what we want to see for twelve minutes and focused on what we'd be willing to give up-- on both sides-- to make something work, we might actually get somewhere.

Do I know that? No, because we've never gotten that far.

Can we start in ensuring that the regulations we have are universal? That we have a standard everyone can and should follow, lest they be held accountable legally? This guy at [REDACTED]'s Guns got off scot-free for selling a pistol to a ticking time bomb because he wasn't required to background check her.

I think we can all agree that this situation needs to be impossible.

[Big Jim P]

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.

I made a suggestion not to dissimilar to Sociobiologys, licensing scheme. Of course, what I wanted in return was the license to cover concealed and open carry (nationally). Needless to say that was not taken very well.

[Big Jim P]

^ 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.

Paddy, I'm going to not quote the former post because... It's a giant wall of text and I don't want to add to it.

Alright, here I go.

Indiana is where it happened. Indiana has some pretty absurd laws, but what astounded me is that the guy selling couldn't be held responsible for his role in the murder, despite him shirking his duties to enact a background check. If gun laws are lax in one place, you can bet they're flimsy in another.

I live in Indiana and know the guy that told me this personally. He doesn't BS, he's a good guy.

As for what I quoted, I'd be happy to compromise.

I understand that the constitution allows the right to own firearms, for better or worse, and that's not going to change. I'd love to find a suitable ground that both parties find favorable-- the problem is that both sides are so damn caught up in their passion and how 'right' they surely are(Looking at you, NRA) that they're not willing to work with one another and accept something they don't care for in exchange for an agreement that can get somewhere and move from that point on.

It isn't just the anti-gun movement or the pro-gun movement, it's both.

If we could just cease talking in circles about how the other faction is bad and how they're evil and how we should get what we want to see for twelve minutes and focused on what we'd be willing to give up-- on both sides-- to make something work, we might actually get somewhere.

Do I know that? No, because we've never gotten that far.

Can we start in ensuring that the regulations we have are universal? That we have a standard everyone can and should follow, lest they be held accountable legally? This guy at [REDACTED]'s Guns got off scot-free for selling a pistol to a ticking time bomb because he wasn't required to background check her.

I think we can all agree that this situation needs to be impossible.

The problem with finding common ground is that the gun-control faction offer up nothing in return for the pro-gun faction giving up their rights other than not enacting total ban in one fell swoop. Knowing that they cannot achieve that, they give nothing in return (thus making their calling it a "compromise" laughable at best) and attack the right to bear arms piecemeal.

As for your anecdote, I did not notice if you sourced it earlier (if so I apologize), so could you do so now?

[Tel]

Given that it's word of mouth, it'll take time. Might not work.

I only see the guy at church on Sundays, usually.

I'll ask him where I can find the information for it, it's probably logged somewhere online.

I get the feeling by the time sunday rolls around, assuming he can really help, my posting of it would be irrelevant as the topic would probably have changed by then. That said, if I get anything, I'll still do it.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Paddy, I'm going to not quote the former post because... It's a giant wall of text and I don't want to add to it.

Alright, here I go.

Indiana is where it happened. Indiana has some pretty absurd laws, but what astounded me is that the guy selling couldn't be held responsible for his role in the murder, despite him shirking his duties to enact a background check. If gun laws are lax in one place, you can bet they're flimsy in another.

I live in Indiana and know the guy that told me this personally. He doesn't BS, he's a good guy.

As for what I quoted, I'd be happy to compromise.

I understand that the constitution allows the right to own firearms, for better or worse, and that's not going to change. I'd love to find a suitable ground that both parties find favorable-- the problem is that both sides are so damn caught up in their passion and how 'right' they surely are(Looking at you, NRA) that they're not willing to work with one another and accept something they don't care for in exchange for an agreement that can get somewhere and move from that point on.

It isn't just the anti-gun movement or the pro-gun movement, it's both.

If we could just cease talking in circles about how the other faction is bad and how they're evil and how we should get what we want to see for twelve minutes and focused on what we'd be willing to give up-- on both sides-- to make something work, we might actually get somewhere.

Do I know that? No, because we've never gotten that far.

Can we start in ensuring that the regulations we have are universal? That we have a standard everyone can and should follow, lest they be held accountable legally? This guy at [REDACTED]'s Guns got off scot-free for selling a pistol to a ticking time bomb because he wasn't required to background check her.

I think we can all agree that this situation needs to be impossible.

Tel, the big problem I'm having with your story, is that it has some absolutely major holes in it, that from the get go discredit it without a source to back it up. Mainly, you claim that this purchase happened through a dealer, with no background check performed. However, FEDERAL LAW absolutely no questions asked requires all licensed firearm dealers to perform a background check prior to selling any firearm through their business. So if this part of your story, which is pretty much the key point behind it, is false or misleading at best, then your entire point here is heavily compromised and carries no real weight for any sort of basis on "fact".

As to discussion points...

* Why should the dealer be held responsible as an accessory to murder? If he did everything right according to the law, and no flag popped up due to yet another failure in the healthcare system, there is no logical reason for him to be held responsible for a customers improper use of his merchandise. He isn't a mind reader who can see into the future, ya know?

* You can't blame us for digging our heels in on this issue, after constantly being burned by the anti gun fanatics at every turn. Imagine that, people don't like getting repeatedly screwed over by a bunch of uneducated and corrupt politicians who couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground while at the same time claiming to be subject level experts on firearms.

* Federal Firearm Regulations are pretty universal by design. The problem is that the system is understaffed, underfunded, and thus not properly enforced as good as it should be. Not to mention the recent influx of firearm sales has stressed an already unstable system since 2008 with the election of America's greatest Gun Salesmen in recorded history.

You people want even more background checks? Make NICS openly available to the public, free of charge and we will talk....
You people want mental screening before the purchase of every firearm and bullet? Not going to happen without yet another tax increase. However, if say a Federal Permit was issued, make it a requirement for a mental test prior to getting it at little to no cost to the user, and we will talk. However, now since everyone is deemed mentally stable for safe firearm use, lets remove two lines from the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as fair compromise, that make it illegal for the transfer of new automatic weapons after 1986.
You people want all the cosmetic features banned for no logical reason. Sorry, nothing to compromise with here, as it's utterly a ridiculous notion that banning a Ergo grip and a birdcage is going to make you safer.
You people want more training for CCW holders... make one single Federal standard recognized in every state, based on say the Utah model, so I don't have to carry 4 CCW permits to travel in 4 states and we will talk...

Just a few points off the top of my head.

[Sociobiology]

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.

I made a suggestion not to dissimilar to Sociobiologys, licensing scheme. Of course, what I wanted in return was the license to cover concealed and open carry (nationally). Needless to say that was not taken very well.

actually All I said was that, open and concealed carry could be handled on a more local level, I have no problem with a national concealed carry permit as long as getting it is also controlled nationally.

[Sociobiology]

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.

because I am nobody now.
oh and the big problem you will have with this is the same that oppose making things like individual income taxes public, right to privacy advocates .

[Sociobiology]

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?"

first read underlined
second quotes range from 35% to 45% of all firearm transactions being private.
since these are not tracked it is rather difficult to find a solid number, the 40% average is dispoted but no alternative number is ever given.

On top of that private transactions are the leading source for firearms for criminals. The reason is obvious, no records, no checks.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[Sociobiology]

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.

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.

I am very flexible on what is used to create categories (note the location of the word perhaps ) but the need for categories is obvious.
especially for concealed carry, or collectors permits (which with the right one can let you buy almost anything)

I know of three other reasons this may be good
one, some states have certain firearm restrictions for a reason, NJ has a restriction on rifles because as the most densely populated state, and a flat state to boot, many rifles make dangerous hunting weapons, only short range weapons are allowed. Wyoming has a weight restriction on firearms (15 lbs I believe but don't quote me) for a similar reasons, people engaging in ridge to ridge or across canyon hunting pose a significant risk to other hunters, and I wanted to continue to allow those states to have these regulations.

two, handguns are by far the leading firearms used in crimes and many would support making them harder to acquire than hunting weapons.

three, this would allow for full auto firearms being more difficult to get a permit for if the country is in favor of it.

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

I know but I am changing eligibility so I found it necessary to restate penalties, I already had people ask about it the first time I proposed it.

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?

what makes you think, I think it matters?
they are restricted now, I am proposing either lifting that as part of the newer regulations, or subsuming them into the endorsements if they are still desired.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Paddy, I'm going to not quote the former post because... It's a giant wall of text and I don't want to add to it.

Alright, here I go.

Indiana is where it happened. Indiana has some pretty absurd laws, but what astounded me is that the guy selling couldn't be held responsible for his role in the murder, despite him shirking his duties to enact a background check. If gun laws are lax in one place, you can bet they're flimsy in another.

I live in Indiana and know the guy that told me this personally. He doesn't BS, he's a good guy.

As for what I quoted, I'd be happy to compromise.

I understand that the constitution allows the right to own firearms, for better or worse, and that's not going to change. I'd love to find a suitable ground that both parties find favorable-- the problem is that both sides are so damn caught up in their passion and how 'right' they surely are(Looking at you, NRA) that they're not willing to work with one another and accept something they don't care for in exchange for an agreement that can get somewhere and move from that point on.

It isn't just the anti-gun movement or the pro-gun movement, it's both.

If we could just cease talking in circles about how the other faction is bad and how they're evil and how we should get what we want to see for twelve minutes and focused on what we'd be willing to give up-- on both sides-- to make something work, we might actually get somewhere.

Do I know that? No, because we've never gotten that far.

Can we start in ensuring that the regulations we have are universal? That we have a standard everyone can and should follow, lest they be held accountable legally? This guy at [REDACTED]'s Guns got off scot-free for selling a pistol to a ticking time bomb because he wasn't required to background check her.

I think we can all agree that this situation needs to be impossible.

The problem with finding common ground is that the gun-control faction offer up nothing in return for the pro-gun faction giving up their rights other than not enacting total ban in one fell swoop. Knowing that they cannot achieve that, they give nothing in return (thus making their calling it a "compromise" laughable at best) and attack the right to bear arms piecemeal.

As for your anecdote, I did not notice if you sourced it earlier (if so I apologize), so could you do so now?

What do you want in exchange for common sense reforms and a safer America, a fucking lollipop? It's not a trade, it's a series of laws meant to make America safer.

[Sociobiology]

An actual quote from someone I was having this discussion with yesterday

If we were more like England and France and nobody could get guns no body could hurt each other and the government would just protect us. That's the best way.

And that's honestly the most common argument in my town. Which I have a few problems with. 1. The last time I checked England and France were in the top 10 of gun crime rate world wide but that was about a year ago so it could've changed.

you should recheck that, because France and England have gun homicide rates of 0.22 and 0.04 respectively while the US has a rate of 3.60 more than TEN times the rate.

gun crime is not a great metric because it could include things like possession or illegal discharge, which will vary wildly by level of restriction.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I've made a suggestion that would require background checks even for private sales [...].

Interesting, in which cases would you not allow the sale of a gun?

The current excluded groups (convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally defective), since my suggestion would utilize the same NICS background check system that FFLs are required by law to use.

[Big Jim P]

The problem with finding common ground is that the gun-control faction offer up nothing in return for the pro-gun faction giving up their rights other than not enacting total ban in one fell swoop. Knowing that they cannot achieve that, they give nothing in return (thus making their calling it a "compromise" laughable at best) and attack the right to bear arms piecemeal.

As for your anecdote, I did not notice if you sourced it earlier (if so I apologize), so could you do so now?

What do you want in exchange for common sense reforms and a safer America, a fucking lollipop? It's not a trade, it's a series of laws meant to make America safer.

Too bad that is not what it does, and I have mentioned what I would trade: National licensing for the gun-control freaks, that is also a national CCW/open carry license for the pro-gun crowd.

Edited because I should not type when first awake.

[Gun Manufacturers]

What do you want in exchange for common sense reforms and a safer America, a fucking lollipop? It's not a trade, it's a series of laws meant to make America safer.

Too bad that is not what it does, and I have mentioned what I would trade: National licensing for the gun-control freaks, that is also a national CCW/open carry license for the pro-gun crowd.

Edited because I should not type when first awake.

I think Frisivisia is used to the old system of "compromise", where gun rights advocates give up something, and get nothing in return.

[Armadrone]

I went to Beijing China and there guns were illegal. But also another factor was that Chinese did not want guns, so in this case the law worked. Beijing china is a pretty safe place, even in the most sketchy places. The united states has the highest shooting rate in the world, violence thrives in our culture. And while I would like to just stop guns from existing that wouldn't happen in the usa. Because Americans are too obsessed and too irresponsible with their guns. While we could put laws into place restricting guns, people could just buy the illegally in black market. What we need to do is make violence a bad stigma. Some would say it already is, but yet again why do we still have the highest shooting rate? Its really two things. Making the laws restrictive of guns, AND putting in a mindset that guns are not necessary for the people, or the law for that matter.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The united states has the highest shooting rate in the world

That's Honduras actually, the US isn't even in the top ten.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Too bad that is not what it does, and I have mentioned what I would trade: National licensing for the gun-control freaks, that is also a national CCW/open carry license for the pro-gun crowd.

Edited because I should not type when first awake.

I think Frisivisia is used to the old system of "compromise", where gun rights advocates give up something, and get nothing in return.

You keep the right to play with your toys and feel like big men. Only not as many of them, and with some more restrictions so that the rest of us are in infinitesimally less fear of some madman walking into our schools, workplaces, and other public areas and killing us where we stand.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I think Frisivisia is used to the old system of "compromise", where gun rights advocates give up something, and get nothing in return.

You keep the right to play with your toys and feel like big men. Only not as many of them, and with some more restrictions so that the rest of us are in infinitesimally less fear of some madman walking into our schools, workplaces, and other public areas and killing us where we stand.

Ah, so we get more restrictions, and a societal stigma built off of yours and others ignorance.

Fuck that.

[Armadrone]

The united states has the highest shooting rate in the world

That's Honduras actually, the US isn't even in the top ten.

I heard it was united states.
Even then violence is a huge problem in the USA and needs to be addressed. I respect gun owners, I understand that guns are sometimes just a hobby for people. But unfortunately when we have both people and police abusing the use of guns on massive scale; some sort of action must be taken.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You keep the right to play with your toys and feel like big men. Only not as many of them, and with some more restrictions so that the rest of us are in infinitesimally less fear of some madman walking into our schools, workplaces, and other public areas and killing us where we stand.

Ah, so we get more restrictions, and a societal stigma built off of yours and others ignorance.

Fuck that.

Oh no, you might have to deal with further restrictions so that we can cut down on our horrific gun-related crime rate.

I'm sure that you'll find some way to survive.

[Spirit of Hope]

Ah, so we get more restrictions, and a societal stigma built off of yours and others ignorance.

Fuck that.

Oh no, you might have to deal with further restrictions so that we can cut down on our horrific gun-related crime rate.

I'm sure that you'll find some way to survive.

Or you could carry out smart legislation that actually targets the problem instead of blanketing out guns. What pray tell do you suggest we do to stop gun violence?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh no, you might have to deal with further restrictions so that we can cut down on our horrific gun-related crime rate.

I'm sure that you'll find some way to survive.

Or you could carry out smart legislation that actually targets the problem instead of blanketing out guns. What pray tell do you suggest we do to stop gun violence?

Oh, no, you're the one who suggested "smart legislation". Go for it. I'm dying to hear a piece of legislation that simultaneously addresses gun violence, doesn't actually restrict gun rights, and stands a chance of getting enough of an okay from the NRA so that their congressional toadies won't quake in fear at the thought of it passing.

Me, I've given up. I fully accept the fact that we, as a society, have decided that it's vital that we have the ability to own as many guns as we want with as few restrictions as possible, and that we're willing to accept thousands and thousands of horrifically violent deaths every year as a necessary blood sacrifice in order to maintain this right.

[Llamalandia]

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.

That doesn't sound terrible by any means I would be concerned about the beauracratic expansion that would likely entail. I think it depends in part on the details, for instance would people already in possession of weapons be exempted or "grandfathered" after all I don't think little old ladies who want to sell guns or who happen to be widowed and their husbands guns in the attic should be required to have a permit to be in possession of or to sell or give away said guns.

Also Im not sure i can agree with the endorsement part of the system. I mean arguably full auto is less useful than semi auto in terms of control and shooting for mass casualties (yes there exists arguments In Terms of bull pup weapons but still). Even the army realized this that's why they use three round burst as that is the most effective in terms of actually killing people. Full auto is more used for supressive fire. It doesn't work like the movies where shooting from the hip spray and pray style takes out a few dozen bad guys.

I think perhaps the licensure system if maintain by a third party NGO might be acceptable provided it doesn't require that owners register what weapons they have.

Edit: oh yeah the sales records thing is pretty much a deal breaker for me. I mean some people inherit guns which they may want to sell or give away to friends, forcing 80 and 90 year old women to keep records or submit records of sales would be too onerous in my opinion. It's also effectively a gun registry for all intents and purposes which is something I don't think too many gun enthusiasts could accept. I would think that having a list of permit holders should be sufficient for law enforcement purposes and I could see criminalizing selling intentionally to unlicensed persons.

Tl;dr

Bottom line yeah with some further negotiation I might be able agree to this system of permits.