The general gun control thread

[Sociobiology]

actually it does their gun control law are reasonable enough to prevent high homicide rates but accessible enough to allow anyone who is not a child, mentally ill, or a convicted criminal to buy a firearm.
Switzerland is the perfect model, a gun culture with minimal but sensible restrictions.

Switzerland's gun restrictions are not the reason they have lower homicide rates than America.
Correlation does not equal causation.

firearm homicide rates
Switerland---0.00023%
US------------0.00283%
that's an order of magnitude difference and completely accounts for the difference in homicide rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[Patridam]

Switzerland's gun restrictions are not the reason they have lower homicide rates than America.
Correlation does not equal causation.

firearm homicide rates
Switerland---0.00023%
US------------0.00283%
that's an order of magnitude difference and completely accounts for the difference in homicide rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Nope. You have demonstrated correlation, not causation.

[Sociobiology]

to repeat.

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 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, 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

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card.

I'm not so sure about different firearms types being endorsements on the card- shotguns, handguns, and rifles have the same basic safety rules. Maybe separate endorsements for a handful of things(like silencers or automatics), but most firearms should be purchasable with the same license. I also think that concealed carry should be a separate license, perhaps requiring the federal permit as a prereq.
Otherwise, it looks good so long as it's shall-issue.

why have a separate licence, and enforcement requires a separate test, just like a separate endorsement on your drivers licence. All of these would be federal permits as it says.

I was lumping longarms together for the permit.
I would make longarms shall-issue and handguns and concealed carry may-issue. following Switzerland's model.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'll underline the important part.

its sad when I can deal with your post in the post you quote.

Your proposal doesn't cover lumps of metal, which is what ATF considers 80% receivers. Since you didn't list any other parts in your proposal, nothing about your proposal would cover building your own firearms.

[Diopolis]

I'm not so sure about different firearms types being endorsements on the card- shotguns, handguns, and rifles have the same basic safety rules. Maybe separate endorsements for a handful of things(like silencers or automatics), but most firearms should be purchasable with the same license. I also think that concealed carry should be a separate license, perhaps requiring the federal permit as a prereq.
Otherwise, it looks good so long as it's shall-issue.

why have a separate licence, and enforcement requires a separate test, just like a separate endorsement on your drivers licence. All of these would be federal permits as it says.

I was lumping longarms together for the permit.
I would make longarms shall-issue and handguns and concealed carry may-issue. following Switzerland's model.

Concealed carry as may issue I get, even if I'm a bit uncomfortable with it. Handgun permits- like all possession permits- should be shall issue.
Perhaps the states should be allowed to decide if their law enforcement departments adopt a shall-issue or may-issue policy on carry permits.

[Sociobiology]

firearm homicide rates
Switerland---0.00023%
US------------0.00283%
that's an order of magnitude difference and completely accounts for the difference in homicide rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Nope. You have demonstrated correlation, not causation.

and?
If it reduces homicide rate by some secondary middle factor, how is that bad?

Using Switzerland controls for as many variables it is possible to control for and I have shown a reasonable causation chain, even if you institute the policy in the US and homicide rate drops, that still would not demonstrate causation. You ask for something you can't have. Human behavior is not simple enough to demonstrate causation without the kinds of studies it is not possible to do on a societal level, you should learn a little science before you start throwing around its terms.

[Sociobiology]

why have a separate licence, and enforcement requires a separate test, just like a separate endorsement on your drivers licence. All of these would be federal permits as it says.

I was lumping longarms together for the permit.
I would make longarms shall-issue and handguns and concealed carry may-issue. following Switzerland's model.

Concealed carry as may issue I get, even if I'm a bit uncomfortable with it. Handgun permits- like all possession permits- should be shall issue.
Perhaps the states should be allowed to decide if their law enforcement departments adopt a shall-issue or may-issue policy on carry permits.

I have no problem with that. it provides flexibility in the law, and even a good potential to compare the different methods.

[Patridam]

Nope. You have demonstrated correlation, not causation.

and?
If it reduces homicide rate by some secondary middle factor, how is that bad?

Using Switzerland controls for as many variables it is possible to control for and I have shown a reasonable causation chain, even if you institute the policy in the US and homicide rate drops, that still would not demonstrate causation. You ask for something you can't have. Human behavior is not simple enough to demonstrate causation without the kinds of studies it is not possible to do on a societal level, you should learn a little science before you start throwing around its terms.

You can't claim solvency for lower homicide/other gun crime rates, since you have no real causation chain. Nearly all firearm crimes committed in the USA are done either with weapons that are already illegal in the US, that your proposal would have no effect upon, or with fully legal, registered weapons that would be just as legal under your proposed system.

Switzerland has many, many, MANY social and economic differences - compulsory military service/firearms training, less poverty, less gangs, less inequality between majority and minority populations, less access to black market weapons, and a culture that respects the rule of law, rather than refutes it as the US has had since prohibition. Those differences are the reasons behind the vast difference in homicide and gun crime rates, not their mystically effective gun restriction system that isn't even all that restrictive.

[The Lone Alliance]

And it might also get me killed, I'd much rather take my chances with defending myself.

Which also might get you killed. Why is 'fight' preferable to 'flight'?

Because fight has a better chance of surviving than flight. At least with fight the person you're opposing might actually make their own fight or flight, criminals don't go after someone who out guns them, if they realize that the odds are against them they'll be the ones to flee.

[
And you would consider yourself to be a safe and responsible gun owner? Because I'm not sure that people who would seek out an armed confrontation and write off any possibility of avoiding it could necessarily be so considered.

And let it be known that Ifreann believes that people who wish to defend themselves don't deserve to have the means to and should instead allow themselves to be killed.

[Sociobiology]

My proposal (updated)
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 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, 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.

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (longarm, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card (like drivers licence endorsements).

the long arm permit would be shall-issue, the concealed would be may-issue, and the handgun permit would be shall- or may- at the discretion of the state.

[Patridam]

And let it be known that Ifreann believes that people who wish to defend themselves don't deserve to have the means to and should instead allow themselves to be killed.

Didn't know you endorsed Murder like that.

Indeed, Iffy would rather let himself and his children/family die with him than use a firearm against an attacker.

[Sociobiology]

and?
If it reduces homicide rate by some secondary middle factor, how is that bad?

Using Switzerland controls for as many variables it is possible to control for and I have shown a reasonable causation chain, even if you institute the policy in the US and homicide rate drops, that still would not demonstrate causation. You ask for something you can't have. Human behavior is not simple enough to demonstrate causation without the kinds of studies it is not possible to do on a societal level, you should learn a little science before you start throwing around its terms.

You can't claim solvency for lower homicide/other gun crime rates, since you have no real causation chain.

the gun homicide difference between the two countries exceed the homicide difference, meaning the entire homicide difference could easily be the number of gun homicides. Which is in turn affected by how easily criminals and the mentally ill can acquire firearms.

Nearly all firearm crimes committed in the USA are done either with weapons that are already illegal in the US,

not true.
see page 8

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

that would be part of the problem, private sales being unregulated, provide more guns used in crimes than retail or black market sales.

Switzerland has many, many, MANY social and economic differences - compulsory military service/firearms training, less poverty, less gangs, less inequality between majority and minority populations, less access to black market weapons, and a culture that respects the rule of law, rather than refutes it as the US has had since prohibition.

but it does control for as many variables as it is possible to have a comparison for. why is why I follow their model, it is bet fit for the US. If you want to demonstrate the problem with the US system that is even easier, we have the highest homicide and gun homicide rate in the developed world. Also your own ignorance of crime in the US makes me question you knowledge about crime in Switzerland.

Those differences are the reasons behind the vast difference in homicide and gun crime rates, not their mystically effective gun restriction system that isn't even all that restrictive.

[/quote]
It does however restrict the most important thing, how easily criminals and the mentally ill can get firearms.
I am curios to know why you think their system would not work in the US?

[Imperializt Russia]

He didn't harm anyone on previous occasions. He did the same thing again and now a squadronmate has to wear a colostomy bag.

What was that about "perceived potential harm"? There's blind fucking idiocy. That occurred in this incident - it occurs with drunk driving.

And it should be punished accordingly. Just as drunk driving that results in actual harm should. Idk, need to recheck stats on how often drunk drivers safely reach destinations though to be honest.
The gun trick thing is a bit more oddly specific though, I mean how many people actually try and perform the trick? I mean, if it works 999/1000 out of a thousand times then I'm cool with continuing to allow it.

Did I fucking stutter?

[Llamalandia]

And it should be punished accordingly. Just as drunk driving that results in actual harm should. Idk, need to recheck stats on how often drunk drivers safely reach destinations though to be honest.
The gun trick thing is a bit more oddly specific though, I mean how many people actually try and perform the trick? I mean, if it works 999/1000 out of a thousand times then I'm cool with continuing to allow it.

Did I fucking stutter?

No, I'm just offering something of a counter point, but really, I'd rather just drop it at the moment. Afterall this is meant to be more about gun control than drunk driving.

[Imperializt Russia]

999 times out of a thousand (not literal statistics), cars don't crash.
Shall we do away with seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, strengthened passenger cabins, vehicles licences?

[Llamalandia]

999 times out of a thousand (not literal statistics), cars don't crash.
Shall we do away with seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, strengthened passenger cabins, vehicles licences?

Sure optionally. If you don't wanna a wear a seat belt ok. Don't like airbags meh who needs em. That said, given how expected and standard these things are I doubt many people will give them up.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

999 times out of a thousand (not literal statistics), cars don't crash.
Shall we do away with seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, strengthened passenger cabins, vehicles licences?

Sure optionally. If you don't wanna a wear a seat belt ok. Don't like airbags meh who needs em.

When you need them, you'll know.

[Imperializt Russia]

999 times out of a thousand (not literal statistics), cars don't crash.
Shall we do away with seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, strengthened passenger cabins, vehicles licences?

Sure optionally. If you don't wanna a wear a seat belt ok. Don't like airbags meh who needs em. That said, given how expected and standard these things are I doubt many people will give them up.

Maybe you're aware of these things called insurance premiums...

[Llamalandia]

Sure optionally. If you don't wanna a wear a seat belt ok. Don't like airbags meh who needs em.

When you need them, you'll know.

Hey, I use them, I just don't condone forcing others to do so against their own will that is pretty much it. I personally wear a seatbelt and would urge but not coerce others to do likewise.

[Imperializt Russia]

When you need them, you'll know.

Hey, I use them, I just don't condone forcing others to do so against their own will that is pretty much it. I personally wear a seatbelt and would urge but not coerce others to do likewise.

People who don't are colossal twats with complete disregard for their lives and others.

[Tenmenia]

I'm sure there's a reason here.
Perhaps you could enlighten us?

A simple opportunity cost equation. A small part of the population loses out on some hobbies in exchange for some lives being saved.

Actually it's the other way around. Violent crimes are less common in areas with less gun control and more legal firearm ownership

[Diopolis]

A simple opportunity cost equation. A small part of the population loses out on some hobbies in exchange for some lives being saved.

Actually it's the other way around. Violent crimes are less common in areas with less gun control and more legal firearm ownership

Violent crimes are less common in areas of shall-issue concealed carry permit. Don't confuse it with less gun laws in general or more firearms ownerships. It's also just a correlation, not causation.

[Patridam]

I'm sure there's a reason here.
Perhaps you could enlighten us?

A simple opportunity cost equation. A small part of the population loses out on some hobbies in exchange for some lives being saved.

Yes, a (bigger than you'd think, around 37% of American households own one or more firearms) portion of Americans would definitely be kept from their nonharmful, and often beneficial, hobby. Your trade-off there, that is correct.

But your positive of some lives being saved, now that's not correct.

Not only are guns used in self defense more than they are in homicide by a very large margin, but private gun ownership is a crime deterrent, and as gun ownership has gone up recently, violent crime has gone down (not used here to imply causation, but to deny positive correlation between the number of guns and the number of violent crimes. So, if anything, many more lives would be lost.

There's also the peripheral negatives, in that US based industries (Remington, Smith & Wesson, Colt, Ithaca, Mossberg & Sons, Springfield Armory...) would lose massive amounts of sales and cut many well paying office and manufacturing jobs, hurting the economy as a whole.

[Tule]

I'm sure there's a reason here.
Perhaps you could enlighten us?

A simple opportunity cost equation. A small part of the population loses out on some hobbies in exchange for some lives being saved.

Where I live, pests are a huge problem in agriculture. People who hunt as a hobby pay to keep those pests under control.
In many corners of the world, hunting is a vital method of obtaining food which would otherwise be unavailable for cost reasons.

As for collection: guns form a part of history, and functioning examples of firearms are vital to the preservation of history.

Shooting sports are also prevalent in the Olympics.

Some level of civilian gun ownership is beneficial and even necessary. Even countries like China and the Soviet Union never banned guns completely.

[Ashkera]

There are definitely areas where the wildlife is so dangerous that civilians need firearms for their safety.

I deliberately made my NS nation one of those places so that the issue of a blanket weapons ban is rendered irrelevant.