The general gun control thread

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

There is no hassle with the current NICS system. Your name and data is entered into the system, within minutes you have a result. The clerk/seller can be going over other details while you wait for the result, such as payment, refund, other policies, helping with other purchases, etc. I bet the average gun owner would loose more time to your system than to the current system.

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.

And do I have to schedule the class? Will there be one everyday? Will there always be one at a convenient time and at a convenient distance? Goodness what if I am working a low paying job on non standard business hours, say weekends and nights. That would mean almost all of the times the class would be offered would take away from me earning money, money I may need. Additionally there is the cost of travel to the class, which given most ranges are not in cites makes the cost in both money and time lost only increase.

And why do you hold this training up so much, accidents aren't that common, and general gun safety is almost entirely common sense.

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.

Insignificant only in what you are charging them, there are large hidden costs. If the whole process takes three hours that is easily costing a person 50-100 dollars.

And as I have already pointed out your process is more of an over all hassle. If your whole process is 3 hours, and the current process is fifteen minutes then a person would have to buy 12 guns from an FFL before they were breaking even.

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.

Actually ~40% are illegal sales, and ~40% are friends and family. So while both of those can meet the technicalities of private sale they aren't what most people picture when talking about private sales.

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

and?

Why should this right be any different from the others?

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.

Missing again the hidden costs, and 15% mark up is a nice increase, any increase in cost is a disincentive.

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?

Because you haven't told me what it is going to be on? There is no way it would end up as just a safety quiz, which would just make it harder to pass the test which drives costs up further for the person. Either spend time studying useless trivia or potentially have to take the test multiple times. Additionally I have been handling guns for most of my life, so I have the answers down pat, someone who does not have my background may not.

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.

Source? Because last time I checked there were less than 1,000 deaths attributed to gun accidents for the last several years in the United States. That appears to be a huge problem when we are talking 100 million gun owners, and 300 million guns.

3 times as many people drown each year, 30 times as many die in a car accident.

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

I say two inches away, and the size of the state of Rhode Island.

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?

I'm pointing out your system allows more people access to firearms, which I thought was the opposite of the intended goal.

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.

So who is keeping the records? Now if I want to carry out a private sale will I need to go to an FFL to have the sale take place (new cost!) or to the government to have the sale take place (new cost!), or am I keeping the records (no new cost!) and issues with enforcement and legalities. Or there are no records kept and your whole point about tracing goes out the window.

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

You say that like it is some argument winning point. It isn't. The vast majority of guns are no danger to the public, and handguns have better self defense arguments, and a bunch of nice sporting arguments for regular people being allowed to own them. By making them shall issue you are saying regular people don't get to own them, you have to be a special snowflake.

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

Not much of a we'll see. You should look at Heller v D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago.

EDIT: As an additional note how did you arrive at the cost of $15? If the required class has any range time $15 is just about enough to buy 50 rounds of 9mm ammo, which is barely enough to actually teach anything about shooting. Then their is the cost of renting range space, and the instructor. And all of that is just for the class, there would be the additional costs of the back ground check, administering the test (both written and practical) that would be added on top. Lets take a look at Drivers Licenses, California the fee for a license is $30 and that is one of the lower fees I have found.

[Sociobiology]

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

There is no hassle with the current NICS system.

which is not the only thing you have to do, each state has different firearm requirements.

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.

And do I have to schedule the class? Will there be one everyday?

depends on demand.

Will there always be one at a convenient time and at a convenient distance?

as convenient as the distant to a local FFL.

Goodness what if I am working a low paying job on non standard business hours, say weekends and nights.
That would mean almost all of the times the class would be offered would take away from me earning money, money I may need.

then you will have to make a cost benefit decisions just like someone getting their drivers licence who works normal hours.

Additionally there is the cost of travel to the class, which given most ranges are not in cites makes the cost in both money and time lost only increase.

which you were most likely already loosing to buy a firearm.


And why do you hold this training up so much, accidents aren't that common, and general gun safety is almost entirely common sense.

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.

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

Insignificant only in what you are charging them, there are large hidden costs. If the whole process takes three hours that is easily costing a person 50-100 dollars.

if a person is working all day every day, in which case you could say the same thing about getting their drivers license renewed.

And as I have already pointed out your process is more of an over all hassle.

no you actually haven't

If your whole process is 3 hours, and the current process is fifteen minutes then a person would have to buy 12 guns from an FFL

no it actually varies quite a lot by state. Many states have mandatory waiting periods (which cost the person thousands of dollars according to your logic), Many states already require permits or registration, some even require a separate permit per firearm.

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

Actually ~40% are illegal sales, and ~40% are friends and family.

nope
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
you can also notice legal private sales are becoming more common sources of firearms for people who should not be able to buy firearms legally.

So while both of those can meet the technicalities of private sale they aren't what most people picture when talking about private sales.
in what way?

and even with your numbers, legal private sales are as big a problem as black market sales, so what are you arguing?

and?

Why should this right be any different from the others?

exactly all rights have some regulation. and you still have to pay for the firearm and pay sales tax so you are already "paying for a right"

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

Missing again the hidden costs, and 15% mark up is a nice increase, any increase in cost is a disincentive.

1. its not hidden
2. it would only be on the first purchase assuming you are buying the cheapest gun possible. As opposed to many states where you are paying the same per purchase.

then why are you worried about taking it?

Because you haven't told me what it is going to be on?

well you could have asked?
its about insuring actionabilty on the part of the firearm owner, it makes sure you have been taight basic gun saftey so if you don't follow it and someone gits hurt you are responsible. It also makes sure every owner understnadins basic safety which would reduce accidents, (there are ~600 fatal firearm accidents and ~28,000 firearm accidental hospitalizations a years which is much less than many other things we require safety classes for, boating, explosives, hunting, ect.

There is no way it would end up as just a safety quiz,

why?

Additionally I have been handling guns for most of my life, so I have the answers down pat, someone who does not have my background may not.

I was driving cars for 6 years before I got a drivers licence, still had to take the test just like everyone else.

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

Source? Because last time I checked there were less than 1,000 deaths attributed to gun accidents for the last several years in the United States.

and ~28,000 hospitalizations.
we had ~350 boating fatalities and we still have permits and classes for boating. in fact that is part of the reason the reason we have such low fatality numbers.
also the US's accidental firearm fatality rate is 3 times switzerlands, and the highest in the developed world.

3 times as many people drown each year, 30 times as many die in a car accident.

not even close

35,369 automobile accident deaths in 2013
11,208 firearm assault deaths
~3,900 drownings

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

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

I'm pointing out your system allows more people access to firearms, which I thought was the opposite of the intended goal.

no, the intention is to make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms with minimal inconvenience to the general population.
Firearms ownership is not a problem, firearms ownership by criminals and the mentally ill is.

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

So who is keeping the records?

read the proposal, federal database, which is the only way you can do it if the you want all private sales recorded.

Now if I want to carry out a private sale will I need to go to an FFL to have the sale take place (new cost!)

ok since it is clear you did noy read the proposal I will link it here, please read it before you continue to embarrass yourself.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=24816026#p24816026
the whole point of the permit is eliminating the need for a background check at every purchase, while still insuring every purchaser has had a background check.
it could be as simple as submitting a title update for an automobile.

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

because handguns are overwhelmingly used in crimes.

see above

You say that like it is some argument winning point. It isn't. The vast majority of guns are no danger to the public, and handguns have better self defense arguments, and a bunch of nice sporting arguments for regular people being allowed to own them.

and nothing I have proposed stops that.

By making them shall issue you are saying regular people don't get to own them,

No, learn the diffrence between shall issue and may issue.

we'll see

Not much of a we'll see. You should look at Heller v D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago.

see current NJ (and a dozen others) law.
may issue permit to buy a handgun.

EDIT: As an additional note how did you arrive at the cost of $15?

$5-15
the average cost range of hunter licence classes in the US, which are generally based on at cost fees, and in most states require safety instruction and a shooting test. (remember the government gets ammunition cheap because it buys in bulk)
Its also within the range of the cost of the Swiss permit.

[Patridam]

Will there always be one at a convenient time and at a convenient distance?

as convenient as the distant to a local FFL.

Not every FFL has a shooting range; in fact most don't.

Additionally there is the cost of travel to the class, which given most ranges are not in cites makes the cost in both money and time lost only increase.

which you were most likely already loosing to buy a firearm.

How? Buying a firearm is not the same thing as taking a firearms training class - there are gun stores in cities, but there are almost no gun ranges (in fact, some cities ban firing a weapon within their limits altogether.)

If your whole process is 3 hours, and the current process is fifteen minutes then a person would have to buy 12 guns from an FFL

no it actually varies quite a lot by state. Many states have mandatory waiting periods (which cost the person thousands of dollars according to your logic), Many states already require permits or registration, some even require a separate permit per firearm.

You can work during the waiting period, obviously. You cannot work during a mandatory trip to the license center and/or during your mandatory training class. And under your proposal, what prevents states from piling on additional bans and requirements and restrictions atop the federal laws? I know California, New York, and Illinois would think immidiately that your requirements are too lax and would ladle on annoying and arbitrary restrictions that place them right back where they are now.

[Spirit of Hope]

There is no hassle with the current NICS system.

which is not the only thing you have to do, each state has different firearm requirements.

Which aren't going to disappear, each state is going to still have different laws regarding firearms how they are purchased and transferred. Unless you are completely removing the state from the equation most of those things will likely still remain.

And do I have to schedule the class? Will there be one everyday?

depends on demand.

Which has a hug range, and can easily make this class inconvenient for rural areas where demand will be low.

Will there always be one at a convenient time and at a convenient distance?

as convenient as the distant to a local FFL.

So will all FFL's be required to teach this class? Or are you simply going to use their space (which generally aren't set up as class rooms) to teach in? Additionally many FFL's don't have a range attached so any shooting portion can't be done there.

Further FFL's can be quite spaced apart so the drive could be quite inconvenient.

Goodness what if I am working a low paying job on non standard business hours, say weekends and nights.
That would mean almost all of the times the class would be offered would take away from me earning money, money I may need.

then you will have to make a cost benefit decisions just like someone getting their drivers licence who works normal hours.

So sucks to be in that situation. Got it.

Additionally there is the cost of travel to the class, which given most ranges are not in cites makes the cost in both money and time lost only increase.

which you were most likely already loosing to buy a firearm.

Those costs are already attached to buying a firearm. Your costs are completely separate additional costs, they will have to travel to take the test, and then travel to buy there firearm.

Insignificant only in what you are charging them, there are large hidden costs. If the whole process takes three hours that is easily costing a person 50-100 dollars.

if a person is working all day every day, in which case you could say the same thing about getting their drivers license renewed.

Actually only if a person is working at the times when the classes are being given. And I do have problems with how drivers licenses are handled.

And as I have already pointed out your process is more of an over all hassle.

no you actually haven't

And you haven't shown that it is a hassle, you just say it is. But no one I have talked to has been overly hassled by the process of buying a gun. Depending on the state you fill out a form, they process it you guy the gun, a couple of minutes. You process is multiple hours.

If your whole process is 3 hours, and the current process is fifteen minutes then a person would have to buy 12 guns from an FFL

no it actually varies quite a lot by state. Many states have mandatory waiting periods (which cost the person thousands of dollars according to your logic), Many states already require permits or registration, some even require a separate permit per firearm.

Yes it varies by state, but how long do you think the average time is for those states that don't have waiting periods?

Waiting periods don't cost thousands of dollars by my logic because most of the waiting period isn't lost time, i.e. you are still able to work. They do have some lost time due to multiple drives or extra waiting.

10 States and D.C. have waiting periods, and I am against waiting periods.

Actually ~40% are illegal sales, and ~40% are friends and family.

nope
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
you can also notice legal private sales are becoming more common sources of firearms for people who should not be able to buy firearms legally.

What I notice is this:
Retail: 8.3-14.7
Pawnshop: 3.8-4.2
Flea Market: 1.0-1.3
Gun Show: .6-.7
Friends or Family: 39.6-33.8
Illegal: 39.2-40.8

So my point stands the vast majority come from either illegal/street sales or from friends and family.

So while both of those can meet the technicalities of private sale they aren't what most people picture when talking about private sales.
in what way?

and even with your numbers, legal private sales are as big a problem as black market sales, so what are you arguing?

I'm arguing that they meet the technical definition of a private sale, but are largely illegal sales where a person transfers a gun to another person who is not legally allowed to have it.

Why should this right be any different from the others?

exactly all rights have some regulation. and you still have to pay for the firearm and pay sales tax so you are already "paying for a right"

Big difference I am paying the company for the product (a gun) and taxes are to support government infrastructure, like roads.

In a similar comparison I still have to pay an attorney (if I don't want a state appointed one) to represent me. I don't have to pay the state a fee to be allowed to have an attorney represent me though.

Missing again the hidden costs, and 15% mark up is a nice increase, any increase in cost is a disincentive.

1. its not hidden
2. it would only be on the first purchase assuming you are buying the cheapest gun possible. As opposed to many states where you are paying the same per purchase.

1) There are hidden costs, travel, work lost, books to study, etc.
2) Yes but I still hold your numbers are way to low.

Because you haven't told me what it is going to be on?

well you could have asked?
its about insuring actionabilty on the part of the firearm owner, it makes sure you have been taight basic gun saftey so if you don't follow it and someone gits hurt you are responsible. It also makes sure every owner understnadins basic safety which would reduce accidents, (there are ~600 fatal firearm accidents and ~28,000 firearm accidental hospitalizations a years which is much less than many other things we require safety classes for, boating, explosives, hunting, ect.

So because there are less deaths and injuries related to guns than other things requiring licensing this to should be licensed? That makes no sense. If they caused more injuries then you would have an argument. Additionally you will note that boating and hunting happen on, or with regard to, public property. Which is why the state regulates them.

[url]

There is no way it would end up as just a safety quiz,

why?[/url]
So it is going to be a three question fill in the blank quiz? It isn't going to at all resemble a drivers test?

Additionally I have been handling guns for most of my life, so I have the answers down pat, someone who does not have my background may not.

I was driving cars for 6 years before I got a drivers licence, still had to take the test just like everyone else.

Where did I say I shouldn't have to take the test, or that you shouldn't have to? All I said is I have a leg up in knowledge over others.

Source? Because last time I checked there were less than 1,000 deaths attributed to gun accidents for the last several years in the United States.

and ~28,000 hospitalizations.
we had ~350 boating fatalities and we still have permits and classes for boating. in fact that is part of the reason the reason we have such low fatality numbers.
also the US's accidental firearm fatality rate is 3 times switzerlands, and the highest in the developed world.

28,000 sounds like a rather low number to me. Cars cause 2,000,000 that is a major issue.

Switzerland does not have the same rate of gun ownership as the United States (29% vs. 43% in 2005), and were not supposed to use there army issued weapons and ammo for personal use.
[url]

3 times as many people drown each year, 30 times as many die in a car accident.

not even close

35,369 automobile accident deaths in 2013
11,208 firearm assault deaths
~3,900 drownings

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
[/url]
Yes when I was comparing accidents, so ~600 to 35,369 and ~3,900. That sure looks like the 3 times as many people drown and 30 times as many people die in a car accidents as compared to gun accidents.

I'm pointing out your system allows more people access to firearms, which I thought was the opposite of the intended goal.

no, the intention is to make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get firearms with minimal inconvenience to the general population.
Firearms ownership is not a problem, firearms ownership by criminals and the mentally ill is.

But you are allowing more criminals access to firearms, criminals with say a drug history, or theft, or racketeering. And As I have already noted your system would likely make it more inconvenient to the general public.

So who is keeping the records?

read the proposal, federal database, which is the only way you can do it if the you want all private sales recorded.

Now if I want to carry out a private sale will I need to go to an FFL to have the sale take place (new cost!)

ok since it is clear you did noy read the proposal I will link it here, please read it before you continue to embarrass yourself.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=24816026#p24816026
the whole point of the permit is eliminating the need for a background check at every purchase, while still insuring every purchaser has had a background check.
it could be as simple as submitting a title update for an automobile.

All you say is:

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

So I am sorry I could not say how those records would be kept by that statement. So it will be a record submitted to the authorities. Automobile title transfers have a cost, lowest I could find was $15 though I will admit I didn't look the hardest. So will that fee not be there for gun transfers (and the state will have to pay for keeping the records some other way) or will there be an additional cost?

because handguns are overwhelmingly used in crimes.


You say that like it is some argument winning point. It isn't. The vast majority of guns are no danger to the public, and handguns have better self defense arguments, and a bunch of nice sporting arguments for regular people being allowed to own them.

and nothing I have proposed stops that.

May issue means that the state gets to decide if I am worthy of receiving it, which means that I have to have a reason. Luckily the supreme court has said just wanting to defend yourself without a specific threat is enough.

By making them shall issue you are saying regular people don't get to own them,

No, learn the diffrence between shall issue and may issue.

Shall Issue:States with "shall issue" systems require a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, and applicants must meet meet certain well defined objective criteria. However, unlike "may issue" systems, a "shall issue" state removes all arbitrary bias and discretion, compelling the issuing authority to award the permit.
May Issue: the issuing authority "may" issue a permit if the citizen meets certain criteria, and the likelihood of issuance within a may-issue state can range

EDIT: As an additional note how did you arrive at the cost of $15?

$5-15
the average cost range of hunter licence classes in the US, which are generally based on at cost fees, and in most states require safety instruction and a shooting test. (remember the government gets ammunition cheap because it buys in bulk)
Its also within the range of the cost of the Swiss permit.

[/quote]
That appears to be low for the hunting class, and you are going to have to pay for more than just the class. Hunting license costs vary, but tend to be above $15, drivers license fees vary but tend to be above $30.

Additionally I remember my hunting class being bring your own ammo, something that can't be done here because under your system I can't buy ammo until I have the permit.

Governments buy ammo in bulk and get discounts but the companies still have to at least make cost. So the price isn't going to drop that much.

[Occupied Deutschland]

then you will have to make a cost benefit decisions just like someone getting their drivers licence who works normal hours.
...

Or like someone who has to get an ID in order to be allowed to vote. They just have to make a 'cost-benefit' decision between voting and feeding their family.

Which is a more sensible comparison since driving isn't a right.
I see your concern over setting up barriers to the poor was merely window-dressing. I'm a bit disappointed.

[Etruria and Alpa]

My personal opinion for America's example would be not to attempt the near impossible task to take away people's guns, but new guns should only be legally purchased and used by those who have been tested and licensed to make sure they are capable of using a gun responsibly.

Purchasing a gun in future would require a valid reason too. If you live in rural Alaska or Montana, of course a gun may be needed for hunting or defence from bears, but if you live in New Jersey unless you are a licensed member of a club that shoots as a hobby, you really don't need a gun.
Self defence from other people isn't a valid reason to acquire a gun, but if you are under attack and your life is threatened then self defence is a valid use of a gun.

If you try to completely ban guns in a country which already has high levels of gun ownership or high crime rates, then you will either fail completely or be left with a nation where only criminals own guns. This situation in high crime countries seems to have reached a point where it is unsolvable.
In other nations which have very low crime rates there isn't any issue with allowing people who have been tested and licensed to own certain firearms. Especially since it in many societies hunting, and using weapons to protect from wild animals is a necessity.

[Patridam]

Purchasing a gun in future would require a valid reason too. If you live in rural Alaska or Montana, of course a gun may be needed for hunting or defence from bears, but if you live in New Jersey unless you are a licensed member of a club that shoots as a hobby, you really don't need a gun.

I'm curious as to why you think you are the person to decide what reasons are and are not valid when it comes to purchasing a gun. With any other purchase - an automobile, an appliance, an article of clothing - the consumer weighs pros and cons and decides whether they have valid reason to spend their hard earned money on said item. Why are guns so different?

Besides, under your "validity" judgments, couldn't any person who desired a gun simply join a shooting range/gun club? In my personal experience they are far from selective in their acceptance of applicants, do not usually issue licenses, and often let people outside of the club use its facilities, whether as guests of a member or simply for a fee. You are in effect subsidizing gun clubs and adding another layer of fees to the track of obtaining a weapon.

Self defence from other people isn't a valid reason to acquire a gun, but if you are under attack and your life is threatened then self defence is a valid use of a gun..

How are these to statements ameliorable with one another? If self defense is a valid use of a firearm - which it most definitely is - why is not a valid reason to have a firearm? You can't use a gun for self defense if you don't have one in the first place.

[Etruria and Alpa]

Purchasing a gun in future would require a valid reason too. If you live in rural Alaska or Montana, of course a gun may be needed for hunting or defence from bears, but if you live in New Jersey unless you are a licensed member of a club that shoots as a hobby, you really don't need a gun.

I'm curious as to why you think you are the person to decide what reasons are and are not valid when it comes to purchasing a gun. With any other purchase - an automobile, an appliance, an article of clothing - the consumer weighs pros and cons and decides whether they have valid reason to spend their hard earned money on said item. Why are guns so different?

I was only suggesting potential reasons. I never once stated I have any actual legal authority on gun ownership matters. I was only stating my views.

And there is a major difference between buying clothes and buying a potentially lethal weapon, I would have hoped it was common sense as to why access to lethal weapons should have some kind of restrictions.

Besides, under your "validity" judgments, couldn't any person who desired a gun simply join a shooting range/gun club? In my personal experience they are far from selective in their acceptance of applicants, do not usually issue licenses, and often let people outside of the club use its facilities, whether as guests of a member or simply for a fee. You are in effect subsidizing gun clubs and adding another layer of fees to the track of obtaining a weapon.

Ignoring the anecdotal fallacy of this statement, I will reply by reminding you my post was merely my opinion on a hypothetical method of reasonable restriction to gun ownership. Of course it was bound to have flaws and my proposed validity judgements were only examples. I don't know the specific laws you have in the USA for gun licensing, but I would suggest that all people be tested and licensed before they can own a firearm. This is for safety reasons and any costs would be irrelevant.

Self defence from other people isn't a valid reason to acquire a gun, but if you are under attack and your life is threatened then self defence is a valid use of a gun..

How are these to statements ameliorable with one another? If self defense is a valid use of a firearm - which it most definitely is - why is not a valid reason to have a firearm? You can't use a gun for self defense if you don't have one in the first place.

Let me try to rephrase what I said to clarify my point.
Wanting to own lethal weapons for the sole purpose of wanting a weapon to use if you are ever attacked should not be, in my opinion, a valid reason to be allowed a weapon.
However if you so happen to own a weapon for other purposes, it is valid to use it if it is necessary in self defence.

[Yeldarid]

I agree with Etruria and Alpa. Self-defence should not be a valid reason to buy a gun. Interestingly, I have just been reading another discussion online on the use of medieval weapons in self-defence, in similar circumstances to which many suggest using a gun. (That discussion is UK-centric, which is why firearms are not much mentioned.) What seems to be becoming the consensus is that actually it is better to not have a weapon at all as "once violence starts, it only ends when both parties want it to end."

[North Calaveras]

I agree with Etruria and Alpa. Self-defence should not be a valid reason to buy a gun. Interestingly, I have just been reading another discussion online on the use of medieval weapons in self-defence, in similar circumstances to which many suggest using a gun. (That discussion is UK-centric, which is why firearms are not much mentioned.) What seems to be becoming the consensus is that actually it is better to not have a weapon at all as "once violence starts, it only ends when both parties want it to end."

Yeah protecting your own life and your familys from harm is totally not a valid reason to buy a gun...

[Jamzmania]

I agree with Etruria and Alpa. Self-defence should not be a valid reason to buy a gun. Interestingly, I have just been reading another discussion online on the use of medieval weapons in self-defence, in similar circumstances to which many suggest using a gun. (That discussion is UK-centric, which is why firearms are not much mentioned.) What seems to be becoming the consensus is that actually it is better to not have a weapon at all as "once violence starts, it only ends when both parties want it to end."

So you don't think that you have the right to defend yourself?

[Patridam]

I'm curious as to why you think you are the person to decide what reasons are and are not valid when it comes to purchasing a gun. With any other purchase - an automobile, an appliance, an article of clothing - the consumer weighs pros and cons and decides whether they have valid reason to spend their hard earned money on said item. Why are guns so different?

I was only suggesting potential reasons. I never once stated I have any actual legal authority on gun ownership matters. I was only stating my views.

Besides, under your "validity" judgments, couldn't any person who desired a gun simply join a shooting range/gun club? In my personal experience they are far from selective in their acceptance of applicants, do not usually issue licenses, and often let people outside of the club use its facilities, whether as guests of a member or simply for a fee. You are in effect subsidizing gun clubs and adding another layer of fees to the track of obtaining a weapon.

Ignoring the anecdotal fallacy of this statement, I will reply by reminding you my post was merely my opinion on a hypothetical method of reasonable restriction to gun ownership. Of course it was bound to have flaws and my proposed validity judgements were only examples. I don't know the specific laws you have in the USA for gun licensing, but I would suggest that all people be tested and licensed before they can own a firearm. This is for safety reasons and any costs would be irrelevant.

If you are going to bother to state your views, at least be prepared to defend them. Views that cannot be defended are ones not worth holding.

How are these to statements ameliorable with one another? If self defense is a valid use of a firearm - which it most definitely is - why is not a valid reason to have a firearm? You can't use a gun for self defense if you don't have one in the first place.

Let me try to rephrase what I said to clarify my point.
Wanting to own lethal weapons for the sole purpose of wanting a weapon to use if you are ever attacked should not be, in my opinion, a valid reason to be allowed a weapon.
However if you so happen to own a weapon for other purposes, it is valid to use it if it is necessary in self defence.

No, no, I understand your point. I just find it both hypocritical and immensely stupid. You recognize that there are indeed any number of possible instances where a weapon is valid for use in self defense. Therefore you recognize that self defense is one of the many legitimate purposes of a firearm. Yet you for whatever reason deny purchasing a firearm to be present for the possibility of fulfilling said purpose! If a person lives in a dangerous neighborhood, or has received threats, or is just interested in protecting their family from harm, why is such a self-defense contingency not a valid reason for obtaining a firearm?

Never mind the fact that such a stipulation is in flagrant disregard for the second amendment.

I agree with Etruria and Alpa. Self-defence should not be a valid reason to buy a gun. Interestingly, I have just been reading another discussion online on the use of medieval weapons in self-defence, in similar circumstances to which many suggest using a gun. (That discussion is UK-centric, which is why firearms are not much mentioned.) What seems to be becoming the consensus is that actually it is better to not have a weapon at all as "once violence starts, it only ends when both parties want it to end."

"what's seeming to become the consensus" = what the people opposed to weapons altogether are arguing.

One of the parties being injured/incapacitated or dead makes that consensus rather null and void. Violence is never the ideal solution, but it is often the only one.

[Yeldarid]

Violence is never the ideal solution, but it is often the only one.

Is it? That was the point being made, that actually simply talking to them can work.

[Tule]

I agree with Etruria and Alpa. Self-defence should not be a valid reason to buy a gun. Interestingly, I have just been reading another discussion online on the use of medieval weapons in self-defence, in similar circumstances to which many suggest using a gun. (That discussion is UK-centric, which is why firearms are not much mentioned.) What seems to be becoming the consensus is that actually it is better to not have a weapon at all as "once violence starts, it only ends when both parties want it to end."

Yeah protecting your own life and your familys from harm is totally not a valid reason to buy a gun...

If you are concerned about the safety of your family, DON'T buy a gun.

Across US regions:

Handgun ownership rates are associated with suicide rates.

Handgun ownership rates are not associated with rates of lifetime major depression.

Handgun ownership rates are not associated with rates of lifetime serious suicidal thoughts.

Rates of depression and suicidal thoughts cannot account for the handgun-suicide connection.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/313.full

OBJECTIVE:
Firearms are the most common method of suicide among young men in Switzerland. From March 2003 through February 2004, the number of Swiss soldiers was halved as a result of an army reform (Army XXI), leading to a decrease in the availability of guns nationwide. The authors investigated the patterns of the overall suicide rate and the firearm suicide rate before and after the reform.

...
RESULTS:
The authors found a reduction in both the overall suicide rate and the firearm suicide rate after the Army XXI reform. No significant increases were found for other suicide methods overall. An increase in railway suicides was observed. It was estimated that 22% of the reduction in firearm suicides was substituted by other suicide methods. The attenuation of the suicide rate was not compensated for during the follow-up years. Neither of the comparison groups showed statistically significant changes in firearm suicide rate and overall suicide rate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23897090

AIMS:
To evaluate the impact of firearm legislation reform on firearm suicides and homicides as well as on the availability of firearms in Austria.

...

RESULTS:
The rate of firearm suicides among some age groups, percentage of firearm suicides, as well as the rate of firearm homicides and the rate of firearm licences, significantly decreased after a more stringent firearm law had been implemented.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17766767

Where the relationship between murderer and murder victim could be established, 79% of all murder victims in the US in 2013 were family members, intimate partners, friends or acquaintances of the killer.

By bringing a gun into your home, you are arming the people most likely to kill you.

[Shilya]

Yeah protecting your own life and your familys from harm is totally not a valid reason to buy a gun...

If you are concerned about the safety of your family, DON'T buy a gun.

[...]

Isn't that more that if he's concerned about his own safety, he shouldn't buy one? Because suicide isn't exactly putting his family in active danger.

That aside, suicide is pretty rare to begin with. The availability of simple methods does increase the rate, but only that far, i.e. to a still very small amount. What would matter is the rate of accidents against dangerous home invasions repelled.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yeah protecting your own life and your familys from harm is totally not a valid reason to buy a gun...

If you are concerned about the safety of your family, DON'T buy a gun.

Across US regions:

Handgun ownership rates are associated with suicide rates.

Handgun ownership rates are not associated with rates of lifetime major depression.

Handgun ownership rates are not associated with rates of lifetime serious suicidal thoughts.

Rates of depression and suicidal thoughts cannot account for the handgun-suicide connection.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/313.full

OBJECTIVE:
Firearms are the most common method of suicide among young men in Switzerland. From March 2003 through February 2004, the number of Swiss soldiers was halved as a result of an army reform (Army XXI), leading to a decrease in the availability of guns nationwide. The authors investigated the patterns of the overall suicide rate and the firearm suicide rate before and after the reform.

...
RESULTS:
The authors found a reduction in both the overall suicide rate and the firearm suicide rate after the Army XXI reform. No significant increases were found for other suicide methods overall. An increase in railway suicides was observed. It was estimated that 22% of the reduction in firearm suicides was substituted by other suicide methods. The attenuation of the suicide rate was not compensated for during the follow-up years. Neither of the comparison groups showed statistically significant changes in firearm suicide rate and overall suicide rate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23897090

AIMS:
To evaluate the impact of firearm legislation reform on firearm suicides and homicides as well as on the availability of firearms in Austria.

...

RESULTS:
The rate of firearm suicides among some age groups, percentage of firearm suicides, as well as the rate of firearm homicides and the rate of firearm licences, significantly decreased after a more stringent firearm law had been implemented.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17766767

Where the relationship between murderer and murder victim could be established, 79% of all murder victims in the US in 2013 were family members, intimate partners, friends or acquaintances of the killer.

By bringing a gun into your home, you are arming the people most likely to kill you.

20,000 or so suicides versus 100 million+ gun owners. Statistically. Negligible.

[Tule]

If you are concerned about the safety of your family, DON'T buy a gun.

[...]

Isn't that more that if he's concerned about his own safety, he shouldn't buy one? Because suicide isn't exactly putting his family in active danger.

That aside, suicide is pretty rare to begin with. The availability of simple methods does increase the rate, but only that far, i.e. to a still very small amount. What would matter is the rate of accidents against dangerous home invasions repelled.

More than the owner of the gun could reach it in the household. Be realistic, how many gun owners keep their guns locked up from everyone but themselves in their household?

94 Americans were killed in the process of burglaries in 2013.

41,149 committed suicide.
21,175 were gun suicides.

48% of gun owners cite self defence as the reason for owning a gun.

Since 78% of gun suicides are not substituted with another method when guns are made unavailable, we can assume that if those 48% of gun owners got rid of their guns 7928 lives could be saved each year from suicide alone.

[Xtoshtia]

A topic that prods into where I live often is the debate over the ownership of firearms and such.

I live in the State of New York, where my neighbors scream how we're being oppressed by the SAFE act, and where people in the cities writhe in fear over the thought of a gun. Me, myself, is the owner of 3 different firearms, all of them non-assault rifle and hunting oriented. To me, the SAFE act is really legislating for the cities, and I'd prefer a more decentralized argument to gun ownership (As people in urban areas want firearms for protection, my firearms help feed myself and the family).

Thoughts, anyone?

---

Sorry if this has been done before. Not going to look back 2002 pages of threads to see.

I believe gun control should be chosen by referendum for individual cities, unless there is a higher up law dictation gun control (like, if your city wants to allow yellow guns, but the state doesn't, you can't make a referendum for it, unless you change the state law). I also think that the mentally ill, and those with criminal records shouldn't be allowed guns. But I also say that people have the right to bear arms to protect from the people and the government, as well as foreign governments a like.

[Tule]

20,000 or so suicides versus 100 million+ gun owners. Statistically. Negligible.

The point--------------->


Your head.


I'm not saying that bringing a gun into your house is a huge risk to your family. I'm not opposed to all forms of gun ownership.

I am opposed to the idea of people owning guns for safety because the risks MASSIVELY outweigh the potential benefits.

I also don't like the Rambo attitude so many American gun owners have. So many American gun owners almost fantasize about someone breaking in to their house.

This is a uniquely American phenomenon. Many other countries have high rates of gun ownership (mine does), but gun owners in those countries would all be appalled by the Idea of owning a gun for killing fellow members of their society. Nobody's going to invade your home and kill your family, you're two times more likely to be killed by an animal crashing through your damn windscreen.

[Shilya]

More than the owner of the gun could reach it in the household. Be realistic, how many gun owners keep their guns locked up from everyone but themselves in their household?

Gun storage is probably something that's a lot easier to fix than gun ownership. Would be a decent start either way.

94 Americans were killed in the process of burglaries in 2013.

The problem with that is that it doesn't list how many it would have been if there wasn't 100 million armed people in the country. Which it doesn't, of course, because that's completely impossible to estimate.

Since 78% of gun suicides are not substituted with another method when guns are made unavailable, we can assume that if those 48% of gun owners got rid of their guns 7928 lives could be saved each year from suicide alone.

That's 8000 lifes saved by getting 100 million people to do what you want. They won't. Hell, we can't get people to stop smoking, or drinking.

Any right has its price. Those 8000 are part of the price of gun rights. Elsewhere, 30,000 die in accidents. That's for the right to drive.

Interestingly, german wiki tells me that the suicide rate for Australia remained the same.

[Spirit of Hope]

[
Since 78% of gun suicides are not substituted with another method when guns are made unavailable, we can assume that if those 48% of gun owners got rid of their guns 7928 lives could be saved each year from suicide alone.

Where did you get that statistic, everything I have seen indicates there is no real consensus on weather or not people substitute other methods of suicide.

[Diopolis]

If you are concerned about the safety of your family, DON'T buy a gun.

[...]

Isn't that more that if he's concerned about his own safety, he shouldn't buy one? Because suicide isn't exactly putting his family in active danger.

That aside, suicide is pretty rare to begin with. The availability of simple methods does increase the rate, but only that far, i.e. to a still very small amount. What would matter is the rate of accidents against dangerous home invasions repelled.

Which is exceedingly difficult to gather data on, and has estimates that vary wildly. So people will work with the set of data they find that meets their own biases- because everyone on every side of this issue has an emotional reaction to guns. It's probable that the figure is much higher than the lower end ones, though.
That being said, I wonder how many people who purchase a gun for self defense have a fire extinguisher in their kitchen.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

20,000 or so suicides versus 100 million+ gun owners. Statistically. Negligible.

The point--------------->


Your head.

Statistically negligible. 21,000 guns used in suicide versus 200 million guns not used in suicide.

I'm not saying that bringing a gun into your house is a huge risk to your family. I'm not opposed to all forms of gun ownership.

I am opposed to the idea of people owning guns for safety because the risks MASSIVELY outweigh the potential benefits.

Do they really? How about you actually compare self-defense statistics to the suicide/homicide statistics?

Also, most Americans don't fantasize about shooting people.

[Doperland]

Wow. So much text. Anyway, I personally believe that gun regulations are required so lunatic killers or anyone who'll use it to kill couldn' get guns, but sane, law-abiding citizens should be able to get them. How else am I supposed to hunt? A spear? That's just my opinion though.

[Patridam]

Violence is never the ideal solution, but it is often the only one.

Is it? That was the point being made, that actually simply talking to them can work.

So instead of defending yourself, we all must instead talk to burglars, muggers to get them to realize the life of crime is a bad choice? I was not aware it was possible for anyone to be so naive?