The general gun control thread

[Rednekylvania]

Because the way my house is laid out any attempt at 'flight' will lead me directly into the person breaking in and even if I make it outside I wouldn't have anywhere to go and I'd probably just get shot in the back. If I have ways to defend myself more efficiently (in this one of the guns in the house) I'm going to use it. And yes, I do consider myself a safe and responsible gun owner. I've been around guns my entire life, I get range time in when I can, I know how to be safe with one and not hurt or accidentally kill anyone etc etc.

In short, you're a responsible citizen.
After all, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. 911, at it's best, is a cleanup service, and I'd rather not be the one bagged and tagged.
I'll neve understand the proletariat antipathy towards self-reliance, why they are so quick to surrender their own determination in exchange for a false sense of security.
Reasonable people do not seek confrontation, and I'm meek as a lamb. It's a woefully misunderstood condition. One can be inoffensive and non-beligerant, but still stand up and defend one's self. The idea that my owning a means of deadly force autmatically makes me dangerous is ridiculous in the extreme. Unlike that idiot who shot Trayvon Martin, I don't go looking for trouble, but that doesn't mean trouble can't look for me, and God didn't put me on this earth to be slaughtered out of hand by the first marauder who comes along.
Physics and history have taught me that the best defense is the ability to project at least as much force as the offender.

[Ashkera]

anyways back to gun control, even if guns were banned it could never be enforced to any significant degree due to the already millions of guns and millions of gun owners that have them, many of which would simply hide them. Criminals will still get them easily enough and militia groups won't give their's up. It's not like england where you just have an island to control, we have huge open borders, if people can get in so can guns.

I'm assuming this thread is about gun control generally, not just gun control in the U.S. Some of the European countries have had good success with the actual removal of guns part. The crime part varies.

[Friedensreich]

The fact that this topic is a controversial one is rather sad. There is no better argument against gun control than that it is in the Constitution.

[Zakuvia]

The fact that this topic is a controversial one is rather sad. There is no better argument against gun control than that it is in the Constitution.

That's just so incorrect I'm willing to call it a bald-faced lie. There are many good arguments against gun control, ranging from crime statistics in 'gun-free' locales, to the correlation between state removal of the right to self defense and later instances of human rights violations.

To say we've got no better argument than a 200 year old piece of paper says something is just a lie, with nothing to back it up.

[Rednekylvania]

The fact that this topic is a controversial one is rather sad. There is no better argument against gun control than that it is in the Constitution.

There are two fundamental elements that continuously bug me about those who just blow off the second amendment. One, that you can even try pretending to promote a free and fair society without guaranteeing the basic human right of self-preservation. Two, that restricting or banning items on a legal market will in any way diminishes availability of said items on a black market. The price will go up, but availability will still be there for determined bad actors whose primary prey of choice is an unarmed, and untrained civilian whose population just balooned thanks to short sighted political pandering.

[Sociobiology]

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

source, specifically one that controls for population density.

[North Calaveras]

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

source, specifically one that controls for population density.

Well considering rural areas usually have an obscene amount of firearms for the populations of their size it clearly indicates that guns don't cause crime, but people do.

guns are as harmless as a bottle of water until someone picks it up and decides to do bad with it.

[Sociobiology]

The fact that this topic is a controversial one is rather sad. There is no better argument against gun control than that it is in the Constitution.

There are two fundamental elements that continuously bug me about those who just blow off the second amendment. One, that you can even try pretending to promote a free and fair society without guaranteeing the basic human right of self-preservation. Two, that restricting or banning items on a legal market will in any way diminishes availability of said items on a black market. The price will go up, but availability will still be there for determined bad actors whose primary prey of choice is an unarmed, and untrained civilian whose population just balooned thanks to short sighted political pandering.

which is why you institute a permit system which just makes it harder fro criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms.
As for the constitution it also declared black people 3/5ths of a person and made alcohol illegal, its hardly infallible.

[North Calaveras]

There are two fundamental elements that continuously bug me about those who just blow off the second amendment. One, that you can even try pretending to promote a free and fair society without guaranteeing the basic human right of self-preservation. Two, that restricting or banning items on a legal market will in any way diminishes availability of said items on a black market. The price will go up, but availability will still be there for determined bad actors whose primary prey of choice is an unarmed, and untrained civilian whose population just balooned thanks to short sighted political pandering.

which is why you institute a permit system which just makes it harder fro criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms.
As for the constitution it also declared black people 3/5ths of a person and made alcohol illegal, its hardly infallible.

cause the right to defend yourself and your family is so similar to how black people were treated...

hell, i bet the KKK hate black people with guns, cause then they are not easy prey.

[Sociobiology]

source, specifically one that controls for population density.

Well considering rural areas usually have an obscene amount of firearms for the populations of their size it clearly indicates that guns don't cause crime, but people do.

correct guns just make it easier and deadlier.

guns are as harmless as a bottle of water until someone picks it up and decides to do bad with it.

which people do quite often.
which is why keeping them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill is paramount.

[North Calaveras]

Well considering rural areas usually have an obscene amount of firearms for the populations of their size it clearly indicates that guns don't cause crime, but people do.

correct guns just make it easier and deadlier.

guns are as harmless as a bottle of water until someone picks it up and decides to do bad with it.

which people do quite often.
which is why keeping them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill is paramount.

and how would you go about that? we already have a plethora of laws ALREADY IN PLACE.

[Sociobiology]

which is why you institute a permit system which just makes it harder fro criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms.
As for the constitution it also declared black people 3/5ths of a person and made alcohol illegal, its hardly infallible.

cause the right to defend yourself and your family is so similar to how black people were treated...

hell, i bet the KKK hate black people with guns, cause then they are not easy prey.

and you think a permit prevents you from defending your family? so are you an x-con or mentally ill?

[Sociobiology]

which is why you institute a permit system which just makes it harder fro criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms.
As for the constitution it also declared black people 3/5ths of a person and made alcohol illegal, its hardly infallible.

cause the right to defend yourself and your family is so similar to how black people were treated...

hell, i bet the KKK hate black people with guns, cause then they are not easy prey.

and you think a permit prevents you from defending your family? so are you an x-con or mentally ill?

[Sociobiology]

which is why you institute a permit system which just makes it harder fro criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms.
As for the constitution it also declared black people 3/5ths of a person and made alcohol illegal, its hardly infallible.

cause the right to defend yourself and your family is so similar to how black people were treated...

hell, i bet the KKK hate black people with guns, cause then they are not easy prey.

and you think a permit prevents you from defending your family? so are you an x-con or mentally ill?

[Sociobiology]

which is why you institute a permit system which just makes it harder fro criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms.
As for the constitution it also declared black people 3/5ths of a person and made alcohol illegal, its hardly infallible.

cause the right to defend yourself and your family is so similar to how black people were treated...

hell, i bet the KKK hate black people with guns, cause then they are not easy prey.

and you think a permit prevents you from defending your family? so are you an x-con or mentally ill?

[North Calaveras]

cause the right to defend yourself and your family is so similar to how black people were treated...

hell, i bet the KKK hate black people with guns, cause then they are not easy prey.

and you think a permit prevents you from defending your family? so are you an x-con or mentally ill?

there should be no more calls for new gun laws, that's the problem, there are already to many of them and the restrictions and regulations in place often have no basis in reality.

[Sociobiology]

and you think a permit prevents you from defending your family? so are you an x-con or mentally ill?

there should be no more calls for new gun laws, that's the problem, there are already to many of them and the restrictions and regulations in place often have no basis in reality.

so they should prevent you from changing most of them and making a simpler more effective law, what kind of logic is that?

[North Calaveras]

there should be no more calls for new gun laws, that's the problem, there are already to many of them and the restrictions and regulations in place often have no basis in reality.

so they should prevent you from changing most of them and making a simpler more effective law, what kind of logic is that?

I'm not even sure I know your stance on this issue...

[Sociobiology]

so they should prevent you from changing most of them and making a simpler more effective law, what kind of logic is that?

I'm not even sure I know your stance on this issue...

you could scroll back a few pages, you know what they say about assumptions.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=24816026#p24816026

Edit: if you are confused by my stance it is likely becasue you are making a lot of unfounded assumptions and possibly projecting.

[Grinning Dragon]

so they should prevent you from changing most of them and making a simpler more effective law, what kind of logic is that?

I'm not even sure I know your stance on this issue...

From what I can discern. His stance is to bastardize a 2nd Amendment Right, into what is nothing more than a privilege at the whim of the State. While I do give him props for a well thought out idea/solution, I don't think he has taken into consideration the cost to taxpayers to implement and to maintain such a thing let alone the thousands of court challenges. Giving up a Right for a fantastical perceived sense of security and safety, in the end is going to leave you with neither.

[Spirit of Hope]

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

Why do I need a permit to own a firearm? I can see the argument behind permitting use in public areas but this appears to go further than that and is designed to disincentive getting the permit in the first place. See no longer can a person who feels they are in danger go and get a gun for protection, now they have to take time out of there life to schedule and take a test, maybe not pass, pay money, and otherwise be hassled.

See requiring permits means that getting a gun is harder even if the permit is just signing a document, because it adds a step to the process. A step that will take time and money away from the person.

getting said permit requires a background check,

So like is already required for every FFL for all purchases?

a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15),

Disincentive number 1, requiring you to pay for a right guaranteed in the constitution. Also adds a nice disincentive to getting a gun, increased cost.

a written test

On what? Firearms law? Is deeply dependent on state and the local area. Firearms mechanisms? A hue subject, and having very little meaning to owning a gun. Firearms safety? Only really three rules, point only at what you are willing to destroy, keep you finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, always keep the gun unloaded untill ready to use (attached is always assume the gun is loaded.) Not much of a test.

a one afternoon class on firearms safety

Takes away time from the person, adds little to the persons knowledge, and will do little to reduce gun violence as far as I have seen.

and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

And what is a reasonable target, and a reasonable distance? Where would this range be set up?

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.).

So actually lessor than current laws, which revoke the right to own guns after a conviction for any crime with a jail time of over 1 year?

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.

Instead why not just make it law to carry out a background check, and make the system available to the public?
I'm also confused on how requiring a permit to buy ammo qill effect the ability of people to sell ammo online.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales.

Again this is less than the current standing laws that require FFL's to keep records for 20 years, and allow BATF to check on them as they desire. If you want private sales to keep records things are going to get a lot more complicated, and those records probably wont get kept as much as you would want.

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.

Multiple problems here, why are long arms and handguns being broken up into separate permits? Only to add more hassle to getting them as far as I can tell. Why should the handgun permit not be shall issue? Making it may issue would probably get struck down by the Supreme Court which has ruled in the past that attempting to ban or control handguns to that degree is unconstitutional.

[Rednekylvania]

There are two fundamental elements that continuously bug me about those who just blow off the second amendment. One, that you can even try pretending to promote a free and fair society without guaranteeing the basic human right of self-preservation. Two, that restricting or banning items on a legal market will in any way diminishes availability of said items on a black market. The price will go up, but availability will still be there for determined bad actors whose primary prey of choice is an unarmed, and untrained civilian whose population just balooned thanks to short sighted political pandering.

which is why you institute a permit system which just makes it harder fro criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms.
As for the constitution it also declared black people 3/5ths of a person and made alcohol illegal, its hardly infallible.

But it is amendable.
The story of the United States founding isn't quite as simple as Genesis, where everything was done in seven days and considered right and good.
Our forefathers set out with a boat load of good intentions that unfortunately, but necessarily required time to evolve into a fuller flower of legal egalitarianism for us to realize and appreciate. And we are still working on it, because just like systems in nature, a healthy society never stops evolving.
And I'm glad you brought up prohibition, because I find it funny that people use it as an example of the increased crime and misery brought on by trying to restrict illicit substances for which there is a high demand for, yet the argument doesn't get translated for gun purchase and use.
By the way, I didn't catch your justification for not guaranteeing a basic right to self-preservation. I'd like to clarify whether you are arguing as a libertine or authoritarian.
Oh, and a permit system in no way hinders the illegal procurement of arms, since it has no effect upon a black market.

[Sociobiology]

which is why you institute a permit system which just makes it harder fro criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms.
As for the constitution it also declared black people 3/5ths of a person and made alcohol illegal, its hardly infallible.

But it is amendable.
The story of the United States founding isn't quite as simple as Genesis, where everything was done in seven days and considered right and good.
Our forefathers set out with a boat load of good intentions that unfortunately, but necessarily required time to evolve into a fuller flower of legal egalitarianism for us to realize and appreciate. And we are still working on it, because just like systems in nature, a healthy society never stops evolving.
And I'm glad you brought up prohibition, because I find it funny that people use it as an example of the increased crime and misery brought on by trying to restrict illicit substances for which there is a high demand for, yet the argument doesn't get translated for gun purchase and use.
By the way, I didn't catch your justification for not guaranteeing a basic right to self-preservation. I'd like to clarify whether you are arguing as a libertine or authoritarian.

yes its a great example, too bad I'm not advocating a ban but regulation, about who can purchase it, like we still do with alcohol.

Oh, and a permit system in no way hinders the illegal procurement of arms, since it has no effect upon a black market.

actually it has a huge impact on the black market, by cutting off gray market purchases, and making untraceable firearms much harder to come by and making it quick and easy to identify the legality of a firearm.
also of course you have the fact that so called black market purchases only account for 20% of firearms used in crimes.

[Sociobiology]

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

Why do I need a permit to own a firearm?

because it simpler, less hassle, and more efficient than having you do a background check every time you purchase.

I can see the argument behind permitting use in public areas but this appears to go further than that and is designed to disincentive getting the permit in the first place. See no longer can a person who feels they are in danger go and get a gun for protection, now they have to take time out of there life to schedule and take a test, maybe not pass, pay money, and otherwise be hassled.

if $15 and an afternoon is too much hassle to protect your self and your family then you don't actually care that much so that's not why your buying the firearm.
And we need the safety training because unlike Switzerland we don't require every male to serve in the military, so many never receive it even basic gun safety training.

See requiring permits means that getting a gun is harder even if the permit is just signing a document, because it adds a step to the process.

but only once as opposed to every purchase. I'm making it less of a hassle.

A step that will take time and money away from the person.

insignificant amounts of money (compared to the cost of the gun) and less time than it takes to get your drivers permit.

getting said permit requires a background check,

So like is already required for every FFL for all purchases?

but not private sales, which are the most common source of firearms used in crimes.

a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15),

Disincentive number 1, requiring you to pay for a right guaranteed in the constitution.
and?

Also adds a nice disincentive to getting a gun, increased cost.

$5-15 once, a cheap gun runs $100. so 15% of your first purchase and free after that.

a written test

On what? Firearms law? Is deeply dependent on state and the local area. Firearms mechanisms? A hue subject, and having very little meaning to owning a gun. Firearms safety? Only really three rules, point only at what you are willing to destroy, keep you finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, always keep the gun unloaded untill ready to use (attached is always assume the gun is loaded.) Not much of a test.

then why are you worried about taking it?

a one afternoon class on firearms safety

Takes away time from the person, adds little to the persons knowledge, and will do little to reduce gun violence as far as I have seen.

so proving you don't know much about firearms.
firearm accident rates are also really high in the US.

and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

And what is a reasonable target, and a reasonable distance? Where would this range be set up?

up for negotiation, hence the reason I did not list it

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.).

So actually lessor than current laws, which revoke the right to own guns after a conviction for any crime with a jail time of over 1 year?

and?
are you bitching because you think it should be stricter?

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.

Instead why not just make it law to carry out a background check, and make the system available to the public?
I'm also confused on how requiring a permit to buy ammo qill effect the ability of people to sell ammo online.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales.

Again this is less than the current standing laws that require FFL's to keep records for 20 years, and allow BATF to check on them as they desire. If you want private sales to keep records things are going to get a lot more complicated, and those records probably wont get kept as much as you would want.

which would be why they are not the ones keeping the records, seriously think for a few minutes before you reply.

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.

Multiple problems here, why are long arms and handguns being broken up into separate permits?

because handguns are overwhelmingly used in crimes.

Why should the handgun permit not be shall issue?

see above

Making it may issue would probably get struck down by the Supreme Court which has ruled in the past that attempting to ban or control handguns to that degree is unconstitutional.

we'll see

[Sociobiology]

I'm not even sure I know your stance on this issue...

From what I can discern. His stance is to bastardize a 2nd Amendment Right, into what is nothing more than a privilege at the whim of the State. While I do give him props for a well thought out idea/solution, I don't think he has taken into consideration the cost to taxpayers to implement and to maintain such a thing let alone the thousands of court challenges. Giving up a Right for a fantastical perceived sense of security and safety, in the end is going to leave you with neither.

sure I did, I even used Switzerland as a model, hence the $5-15 charge for the permit. The cost goes down be centralizing and streamlining the process. One or two background checks per person instead of per purchase.
And the only people loosing the right are the people who already don't have the right to own firearms.

They only real opposition to this I ever hear to this is knee jerk reactions by people who don't bother to read it. And if we worried about those people, we would never have passed any decent laws, wait ... I may have just explained congress...