The general gun control thread

[Patridam]

you're two times more likely to be killed by an animal crashing through your damn windscreen.

1. <citation needed>
2. Guns also help with that problem via hunting.

[North Calaveras]

Im in hawaii and i need to pay 100 dollars to get a handgun class pay for the gun then pay for the transfer fee then wait 14 days for a background check after all that bullshit is done you have to go to hpd like 3 fucking times and register your weapon and pay 19.25 in exact change so fuck these laws idk how there making it safer

[Shilya]

Im in hawaii and i need to pay 100 dollars to get a handgun class pay for the gun then pay for the transfer fee then wait 14 days for a background check after all that bullshit is done you have to go to hpd like 3 fucking times and register your weapon and pay 19.25 in exact change so fuck these laws idk how there making it safer

They prevent impulse buyers (i.e. people who want a gun because they need it NOW), people who aren't dedicated and hence wouldn't properly take care of it, and enable you to trace confiscated guns to careless owners.

[North Calaveras]

Then why dont they do that with cars that people inpulse buy especially fast ass cars

[Patridam]

Im in hawaii and i need to pay 100 dollars to get a handgun class pay for the gun then pay for the transfer fee then wait 14 days for a background check after all that bullshit is done you have to go to hpd like 3 fucking times and register your weapon and pay 19.25 in exact change so fuck these laws idk how there making it safer

They prevent impulse buyers (i.e. people who want a gun because they need it NOW), people who aren't dedicated and hence wouldn't properly take care of it, and enable you to trace confiscated guns to careless owners.

So since they're not actually allowed to ban anything, they just make it so damn complicated, expensive, and tedious to try to get the proper government red tape done that nobody does it. All the antigun politicans, none of whom know anything about guns much less have any need for self-defense measures as they're surrounded by armed guards, sat down as said "lets make it as close to banning it as we're allowed to without technically violating the second amendment."

[Shilya]

Then why dont they do that with cars that people inpulse buy especially fast ass cars

Because it's very rare for someone to buy a car to kill the guy who banged his wife.

---

So since they're not actually allowed to ban anything, they just make it so damn complicated, expensive, and tedious to try to get the proper government red tape done that nobody does it. All the antigun politicans, none of whom know anything about guns much less have any need for self-defense measures as they're surrounded by armed guards, sat down as said "lets make it as close to banning it as we're allowed to without technically violating the second amendment."

Pretty much. Thing is, those people are the same people that the general population voted for. If the population disagrees with them, then they should vote in someone else.

The blame always lies on the cause, not the effect.

[North Calaveras]

Then why dont they do that with cars that people inpulse buy especially fast ass cars

Because it's very rare for someone to buy a car to kill the guy who banged his wife.

---

So since they're not actually allowed to ban anything, they just make it so damn complicated, expensive, and tedious to try to get the proper government red tape done that nobody does it. All the antigun politicans, none of whom know anything about guns much less have any need for self-defense measures as they're surrounded by armed guards, sat down as said "lets make it as close to banning it as we're allowed to without technically violating the second amendment."

Pretty much. Thing is, those people are the same people that the general population voted for. If the population disagrees with them, then they should vote in someone else.

The blame always lies on the cause, not the effect.

Those are crimes of passion which have been carried out with many many different weapons so that logic doesnt stick

[Sociobiology]

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.

most of them become moot or pointless once the permit is instituted.
a state pistol permit becomes moot once a federal one exists for instance.

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

welcome to the real world some thing are inconvenient if you choose to live in low population areas.

So will all FFL's be required to teach this class?

I would want it to be part of being a FFL yes.

Additionally many FFL's don't have a range attached so any shooting portion can't be done there.

no but they all know where to find one.

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

and?
some things you want take a little effort.

So sucks to be in that situation. Got it.

and my proposal does not create that problem.

Those costs are already attached to buying a firearm. Your costs are completely separate additional costs,

no their not if driving to a FFL to buy a firearm is an attached cost without a permit, it is just as easily considered an attached cost with one.

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.

the your problem is with how the world does not bend over backwards to make your life easy and you just using my proposal to vent, so now I get to ask if you have any problems with it it you don't have with everything else.

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 might want to learn something about other states.

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

depends on what else they have, some already require permits, ones that are quite difficult to get, so again you might want to learn something about gun laws in the US. According to your logic if its not a firearm vending machine its a huge problem.

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.

mostly otherwise known as private sales, which would be the point of the permit to address, what do you think you are arguing against?

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.

yes but since there is no oversight or paper trail for private sales they can easily do.
the current laws are like making selling dynamite to felons illegal then letting people sell it on the street without checking.

its a grey market.

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

and you think that is different why?
in this case you'd be paying to prevent homicide and accidents.

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.

1) There are hidden costs, travel, work lost, books to study, etc.

which exist in buying anything, and getting any permit.

2) Yes but I still hold your numbers are way to low.

then find some of your own.

So because there are less deaths and injuries related to guns than other things requiring licensing this to should be licensed?

so since you can't read I will repeat
35,369 automobile accident deaths in 2013
11,208 firearm assault deaths
~3,900 drownings
we have permits and regulation for the former and latter, we regulate explosives which statistically are even safer. and in each case safety training reduces injury and death.
so why exactly are you against it?

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.

then why bring it up?

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

and we require permits, testing, and training and keep ownership records.
so whats your argument?

again other countries manage much lower rates and we should follow the systems they use to achieve them.

Switzerland does not have the same rate of gun ownership as the United States (29% vs. 43% in 2005)

you might note that does not include government issued firearms, but whats your point?

[url]
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.

OK if you want to play that game a firearm is 37 times more likely to be used in a murder.
11,200 for firearms compared to 300 for cars.
so maybe it would be a good idea to make it hard for those most likely to commit murder to get them.

But you are allowing more criminals access to firearms, criminals with say a drug history, or theft, or racketeering.

none of which have an increased risk of homocide, hence only violent criminals being excluded.

And As I have already noted your system would likely make it more inconvenient to the general public.

please learn what the word, "minimal" means.

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



All you say is:

fair enough I though it was fairly obvious it was a database not each person keeping paper receipts.

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?

that fee is for the paper title, states that use electronic records often have no fee.

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.

so you agree.

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

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

good, now do you see the problem with your underlined statement.

That appears to be low for the hunting class, and you are going to have to pay for more than just the class.[/quote] you may want them too, but I have that nowhere in the proposal.

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.

first you don't need 50 rounds to prove you can hit a target in fact if you need 50 rounds to hit the target I would call that failing, second 50 rounds cost the government about 7 bucks.

[Sociobiology]

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.
neither
I see your concern over setting up barriers to the poor was merely window-dressing. I'm a bit disappointed.

no i'm not really concerned about having to drive to a place to get a permit considering,
1. you already had to do that to get the drivers licence you use to get there.
2. if a single afternoon will make or break you, you don't have the money to buy a firearm in the first place.
3. you already were likely going to travel to buy the firearm if you were not intending to use it illegally.
4. you only have to do it once
5. it will save tens of thousands of lives.

I would be for a voter ID card if voter fraud actually happened.

making people get drivers licences also inconvenienced them, and a car is far more vital to your daily life, but it was well worth to save lives. Something has to be done, we need to figure out what is the best thing we can do, so what solution to the problem do you propose?

[Jamzmania]

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.
neither
I see your concern over setting up barriers to the poor was merely window-dressing. I'm a bit disappointed.

no i'm not really concerned about having to drive to a place to get a permit considering,
1. you already had to do that to get the drivers licence you use to get there.
2. if a single afternoon will make or break you, you don't have the money to buy a firearm in the first place.
3. you already were likely going to travel to buy the firearm if you were not intending to use it illegally.
4. you only have to do it once
5. it will save tens of thousands of lives.

I would be for a voter ID card if voter fraud actually happened.

making people get drivers licences also inconvenienced them, and a car is far more vital to your daily life, but it was well worth to save lives. Something has to be done, we need to figure out what is the best thing we can do, so what solution to the problem do you propose?

You're just piling on restrictions, inconveniences, disincentives, and red tape; and when someone complains about having to go through all of this unnecessary bullshit, you say, "Well, you must not want a gun, then."

[Llamalandia]

no i'm not really concerned about having to drive to a place to get a permit considering,
1. you already had to do that to get the drivers licence you use to get there.
2. if a single afternoon will make or break you, you don't have the money to buy a firearm in the first place.
3. you already were likely going to travel to buy the firearm if you were not intending to use it illegally.
4. you only have to do it once
5. it will save tens of thousands of lives.

I would be for a voter ID card if voter fraud actually happened.

making people get drivers licences also inconvenienced them, and a car is far more vital to your daily life, but it was well worth to save lives. Something has to be done, we need to figure out what is the best thing we can do, so what solution to the problem do you propose?

You're just piling on restrictions, inconveniences, disincentives, and red tape; and when someone complains about having to go through all of this unnecessary bullshit, you say, "Well, you must not want a gun, then."

Actually, I think the idea is to streamline the process somewhat. You get this federal license once and you are good to go for life, as long as you don't get convicted of a felony or domestic violence, the license or permit or whatever is good forever. makes the background check process easier, no forms to fill out, just swipe a card, hand it to the deal to look at for like 5 seconds to confirm your identity, badda boom badda bing.

I mean, sure I disagree on some minor points with sociobio here, namely on who should store the database of sales, but meh, beyond that there really isn't much to seriously complain about here. Unless he has significantly altered it of late. Hell, I imagine, this help cut down on all paper work for other stuff too like silencers and what not. Plus, it is a fed permit valid across state lines that to me sounds like a system becoming more convent. Aside from private sales theoretically being disallowed, though even that might be acceptable provided buyer and seller are willing and able to take on the burden of maintaining records.

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

most of them become moot or pointless once the permit is instituted.
a state pistol permit becomes moot once a federal one exists for instance.

No they aren't, states will have different laws from federal laws. Additionally the federal government would have legal troubles creating such a license, it falls outside the powers given to congress by the constitution.

welcome to the real world some thing are inconvenient if you choose to live in low population areas.

So the government should just ignore the issues it is creating for a portion of there population, because they live in a rural area.

So will all FFL's be required to teach this class?

I would want it to be part of being a FFL yes.

So FFL's, who are private third parties, would be required to teach these classes? I only see that increasing the cost of the class as the FFL has far more profitable things they will want to be doing with their time, namely running a gun store. Plus you will have a hard time just ordering them to teach the classes.

Additionally many FFL's don't have a range attached so any shooting portion can't be done there.

no but they all know where to find one.

This means the FFL's have to travel away from their business to teach the class. Makes the charge FFL's may charge higher. Additionally it means that the stop to get a gun and get a license are two separate steps.

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

and?
some things you want take a little effort.

But your proposal is making the situation inconvenient, and you are showing no regard for the inconvenience it is causing. If you want regular people to be able to get access to firearms you should not be making the application process inconvenient and difficult.

So sucks to be in that situation. Got it.

and my proposal does not create that problem.

Your proposal creates very real conflicts for an individual, do I work or do I get my permit? As I have noted your process is multi step, with potentially multiple long and inconvenient drives.

Those costs are already attached to buying a firearm. Your costs are completely separate additional costs,

no their not if driving to a FFL to buy a firearm is an attached cost without a permit, it is just as easily considered an attached cost with one.

But an FFL may not, and in most cases will not, be able to go through the process for getting your proposed permit every time someone walks in the door. Thus the person has to take the tests to get the permit and then go to an FFL to buy a gun.

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.

mostly otherwise known as private sales, which would be the point of the permit to address, what do you think you are arguing against?

What I am arguing is that the friends and family don't fit the neat picture of a private sale as you want to pain it. They are providing weapons to people that they probably know are not legally allowed to own weapons. They may not be aware they are breaking the law, but they are probably aware they are providing firearms to people who have served time in prisons, which would generally make them ineligible to own firearms.

This is not Joe accidentally selling a gun to Jack, when it turns out Jack is a murder. It is Joe providing a gun to his friend Jack who has served time for manslaughter.

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.

yes but since there is no oversight or paper trail for private sales they can easily do.
the current laws are like making selling dynamite to felons illegal then letting people sell it on the street without checking.

its a grey market.

And you think your proposal will drive it all into the open market? I have serious doubts that it would.

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

and you think that is different why?
in this case you'd be paying to prevent homicide and accidents.

Because you are creating unneeded barriers for the general public to obtain firearms. I doubt your process would be preventing that many homicides or accidents.

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.

1) There are hidden costs, travel, work lost, books to study, etc.

which exist in buying anything, and getting any permit.

Yes, but your permit is just full of very inconvenient travel, work loss, and study for a permit that will do very little.

2) Yes but I still hold your numbers are way to low.

then find some of your own.

I have been continuously providing them by referencing ammo costs, DMV permitting costs, hunter education costs, hunting license costs, etc. My guess is that the fee for the processing would be around $40, with an additional $15-$30 for lessons at a minimum.

So because there are less deaths and injuries related to guns than other things requiring licensing this to should be licensed?

so since you can't read I will repeat
35,369 automobile accident deaths in 2013
11,208 firearm assault deaths
~3,900 drownings
we have permits and regulation for the former and latter, we regulate explosives which statistically are even safer. and in each case safety training reduces injury and death.
so why exactly are you against it?

I did not know we had permits to go swimming. In fact I am absolutely astonished I have been breaking the law my entire life by swimming without a permit. Where do I get this swimming permit, since I'm a lifeguard I think I will need one to continue at my current job.

Also again you compare automobile accidents with firearm homicides. One is an accident, the other is a deliberate action. See the ~600 deaths due to firearm accidents makes requiring a permit rather silly.

Explosives have a much higher potential destruction from misuse, nicely exemplified by the fact that the largest school killing in the United States was carried out using explosives. Explosives are also far more dangerous to handle, require precise training to assemble and are in many ways very different from guns.

Comparing guns to explosives is like comparing a Cessna Piper Cub to a Boeing 747. The are entirely different beasts, which is why pilots licenses for them is are different.

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

and we require permits, testing, and training and keep ownership records.
so whats your argument?

again other countries manage much lower rates and we should follow the systems they use to achieve them.

My argument is that since guns cause far less damage than cars, are not generally used in public space, without other permits, and when guns are used it is generally a controlled environments guns don't need to have permits attached.

First there are cultural issues, so laws may not directly compare. Second no other developed nation has the same level of gun ownership, this is in part one of those cultural issues. Third what other nations have done has not necessarily been connected with changes in gun homicide, or general homicide changes.

Switzerland does not have the same rate of gun ownership as the United States (29% vs. 43% in 2005)

you might note that does not include government issued firearms, but whats your point?

That maybe because there are different ownership rates there would be different accident rates?

[url]
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.

OK if you want to play that game a firearm is 37 times more likely to be used in a murder.
11,200 for firearms compared to 300 for cars.
so maybe it would be a good idea to make it hard for those most likely to commit murder to get them.

I thought we already did that, by having back ground checks for buying guns from FFL's and making it a crime to sell guns to a person ineligible from owning them.

If you really wanted an easy way to further fight criminals getting guns you would require private sale background checks and make the current NICS system available to the public. Quick and easy without inconveniencing the average citizen unduly, not adding any costs to getting a gun, and not creating more bureaucracy.

But you are allowing more criminals access to firearms, criminals with say a drug history, or theft, or racketeering.

none of which have an increased risk of homocide, hence only violent criminals being excluded.

Well it is nice to know the person found guilty of smuggling guns can still buy guns, to sell to his other drug smuggling buddies. Or that the mob boss they only got on tax evasion can still buy his guns, that the bank robber can still get guns to rob a bank with.

And As I have already noted your system would likely make it more inconvenient to the general public.

please learn what the word, "minimal" means.

Minimal: of a minimum amount, quantity, or degree; negligible.
Your system isn't minimal, it requires a (likely) multi hour class, a written test, a practical demonstration, inconvenient drives, and increased costs. Doesn't sound negligible.

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?

that fee is for the paper title, states that use electronic records often have no fee.

Really, can you name an example? I've just gone through 18 DMV websites and I haven't seen any that will let you not pay by doing it online, most don't even allow online transfer of titles. As far as I can tell they are still charging you, what with the fact that they still need to maintain those records. Servers, electricity, and tech support still cost and the state has to pay those costs.

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.

so you agree.

you may want them too, but I have that nowhere in the proposal.

In reality you are basing an entire permitting system around the cost for a hunting class, which is what I was pointing out as flawed. A hunting class does not have a back ground check, ammo costs, and permitting costs in it. So unless the state is going to eat the cost of all of that the fee is going to have to go up. As I said earlier my best guess is your system would have a fee of at least $55 all told. Likely it would be higher and that is not including the cost of travel, time taken by the class, et.c

first you don't need 50 rounds to prove you can hit a target in fact if you need 50 rounds to hit the target I would call that failing, second 50 rounds cost the government about 7 bucks.

Not just for the test, for the class you are requiring them to take, and 50 rounds is the bare minimum for that.

Source for the cost of ammo is so low to the government? I found that the army gets ammo at that price, but these classes aren't the army. Police may be a better comparison and they are paying prices similar to the average citizen. Otherwise they wouldn't be complaining about the increase in ammo prices and be forced to close some training because of ammo costs.

[North Calaveras]

I love how people make an argument that i need to work harder for something thats a right

[The Conez Imperium]

Im in hawaii and i need to pay 100 dollars to get a handgun class pay for the gun then pay for the transfer fee then wait 14 days for a background check after all that bullshit is done you have to go to hpd like 3 fucking times and register your weapon and pay 19.25 in exact change so fuck these laws idk how there making it safer

Are you implying background checks and firearm education are bullshit? Or are you implying that it shouldn't cost you money for background checks or firearm education?

[North Calaveras]

Im in hawaii and i need to pay 100 dollars to get a handgun class pay for the gun then pay for the transfer fee then wait 14 days for a background check after all that bullshit is done you have to go to hpd like 3 fucking times and register your weapon and pay 19.25 in exact change so fuck these laws idk how there making it safer

Are you implying background checks and firearm education are bullshit? Or are you implying that it shouldn't cost you money for background checks or firearm education?

I dont care about background checks and firearm education is fine but 100 dollars is bs i shouldnt have to jump through hoops and pay so much money for my right. Yes its absolute bullshit

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.
neither
I see your concern over setting up barriers to the poor was merely window-dressing. I'm a bit disappointed.

no i'm not really concerned about having to drive to a place to get a permit considering,
1. you already had to do that to get the drivers licence you use to get there.
2. if a single afternoon will make or break you, you don't have the money to buy a firearm in the first place.
3. you already were likely going to travel to buy the firearm if you were not intending to use it illegally.
4. you only have to do it once
5. it will save tens of thousands of lives.

1. Which is irrelevant, as driving is a rather separate matter from voting or firearms ownership. Whether something is onerous with regards to vehicles does not mean it is or isn't for firearms. As has been demonstrated countless times in threads like this, the comparison is silly.
2. Actually, yes you do. It is perfectly possible for one to have the funds to purchase a $140 pistol, but not posses the funds to pay for your fees, classes, and permitting schemes alongside of it.
It's also rather directly ignoring the obvious disincentive it places to poorer individuals owning firearms, which is the more relevant matter here on the broad level than those specifically denied due to the costs associated with the process you describe. Because people have other uses for money and time, your plan deliberately erects barriers both financial and temporal when it shouldn't.
3. Traveling to one location for fifteen minutes or so is quite different from traveling to two or more (FFLs don't always have ranges, and virtually none are going to have a setup for CLASSROOM activity teaching people or administering written tests. I mean, unless this proposal consists of a take-home test that'll be available on the internet, which would rather eliminate its usefulness in your plan) and spending a subsequent afternoon undergoing aforementioned teaching and test-taking, alongside of a live-fire test in which participants have to purchase ammunition for use.

This is only compounded when one considers areas of the US where FFLs are less common. In which case the purchase of a firearm becomes a multi-day, multi-trip, affair.
4. This is, literally,about the only upside from the perspective of its impact on people's purchase of firearms. If one can even call it an 'upside' in such instance when paired with the above problems.
5. Conjectural, but also problematic in and of itself. Stop and frisk can be pointed out to have 'saved lives' as well, such doesn't make the policy one that should have been undertaken, nor does it eliminate the ingrained problems it had in targeting certain segments of society. Such as would be occurring here because the scurry poor people can't be trusted with firearms.

I would be for a voter ID card if voter fraud actually happened.

Voter fraud DOES actually happen, nobody denies that. The rub, so to speak, comes in with how uncommon it is. Which is generally agreed to be quite insignificant in comparison to vote totals.
Much like firearm homicides in comparison to legal uses.

making people get drivers licences also inconvenienced them, and a car is far more vital to your daily life, but it was well worth to save lives. Something has to be done, we need to figure out what is the best thing we can do, so what solution to the problem do you propose?

Open the NICS system to public use for interpersonal firearm transfers/sales. I envision a simple 'go-nogo' app/website of some kind, with perhaps a third 'await further contact/clarification' for those cases such as currently exist wherein the system itself requests a waiting delay due to someone's information overlapping with others and whatnot. At that point one could go one of two ways that'd both be nonobjectionable to me for the most part. Either mandate the usage of said system during firearm transfers, or simply attach immunity to any form of prosecution to its usage. If one doesn't use the system, they can be punished according to existing law for selling knowingly/without due diligence (as two separate possibilities) to any unauthorized individual, if one does use the system it exempts them from scrutiny since they were decidedly NOT selling knowingly to a criminal when the system told them it was OK.

I'd include some rejiggering of ammunition classification and its authority, 922(r) requirements, and new manufactured full-auto bans in the same overhaul (along with, of course, the needed funding for the NICS system) but those are somewhat more ancillary...

[The Lone Alliance]

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.

As someone who had a very close and dear friend commit suicide using a shotgun.

I still disagree that the cons outweigh the pros.

[Patridam]

So since they're not actually allowed to ban anything, they just make it so damn complicated, expensive, and tedious to try to get the proper government red tape done that nobody does it. All the antigun politicans, none of whom know anything about guns much less have any need for self-defense measures as they're surrounded by armed guards, sat down as said "lets make it as close to banning it as we're allowed to without technically violating the second amendment."

Pretty much. Thing is, those people are the same people that the general population voted for. If the population disagrees with them, then they should vote in someone else.

The blame always lies on the cause, not the effect.

1.) The two party system makes it rather difficult to uniformly state that the positions people in government accurately represent the positions of voters, because of compromises on positions one must always make when choosing a representative (for example, I support Rand Paul despite not agreeing with him on gay marriage, etc.) and that we rely upon a first-past-the-post electoral system. So it comes out that people who are pro-gun may still vote for anti-gun politicians because they find the rest of their positions in line with their own. But I digress.

2.) The population in most of the country, except for the extremely (at least by US standards) left areas like California, Illinois, and New York etc. (well technically L.A./S.F, Chicago, and NYC; they force the rest of their states to go with them even though upstate NY and inland California are much more conservative) is in fact rather pro-gun, and it reflects in fairly loose regulations. Steeper federal regulations have had fairly poor footing, even with the alarmist tactics employed by the likes of Nancy Pelosi. So if you're going to have me defer to the government status quo as the fairest and most representative reflection of the population in terms of gun control; you ought to defer as well, and cease with calls to further gun control.

[Sociobiology]

no i'm not really concerned about having to drive to a place to get a permit considering,
1. you already had to do that to get the drivers licence you use to get there.
2. if a single afternoon will make or break you, you don't have the money to buy a firearm in the first place.
3. you already were likely going to travel to buy the firearm if you were not intending to use it illegally.
4. you only have to do it once
5. it will save tens of thousands of lives.

1. Which is irrelevant, as driving is a rather separate matter from voting or firearms ownership.

your right being able to drive is for more vital skill in the US.

2. Actually, yes you do. It is perfectly possible for one to have the funds to purchase a $140 pistol, but not posses the funds to pay for your fees, classes, and permitting schemes alongside of it.

how? they are less than $140 even by his numbers.
if you afford one you can afford the other.

It's also rather directly ignoring the obvious disincentive it places to poorer individuals owning firearms,

so you believe the poor are disincentive from owning cars?
everything you do has a cost/benefit aspect, that's just how the world works.

which is the more relevant matter here on the broad level than those specifically denied due to the costs associated with the process you describe. Because people have other uses for money and time, your plan deliberately erects barriers both financial and temporal when it shouldn't.

minor almost non-existant barrier, in fact lower barriers than currently exist in many places.

3. Traveling to one location for fifteen minutes or so is quite different from traveling to two or more (FFLs don't always have ranges, and virtually none are going to have a setup for CLASSROOM activity teaching people or administering written tests.

actually if they have a shooting range they already can do both, and of course FFL would not be the only places offering them, the same places that offer hunting permits would also be a good place.

This is only compounded when one considers areas of the US where FFLs are less common. In which case the purchase of a firearm becomes a multi-day, multi-trip, affair.

which they were already dealing with. I used to like in a place where it was a 2 hour trip to buy groceries, and that was the price I paid to live there, less convenience.

4. This is, literally,about the only upside from the perspective of its impact on people's purchase of firearms. If one can even call it an 'upside' in such instance when paired with the above problems.

so keeping criminals and the mentally ill from buying firearms not an upside?

5. Conjectural, but also problematic in and of itself.

not really the diffrence in homicide rate betwwen the US and switzerland is less than the diffrence in firearms death rate, meaning is entirely possible the higher homicide rate in the US is entirely due to the higher gun homicide rate, which a universal background check system will reduce.

Stop and frisk can be pointed out to have 'saved lives' as well,

no it actually can't

such doesn't make the policy one that should have been undertaken, nor does it eliminate the ingrained problems it had in targeting certain segments of society.

yes criminals and the mentally ill.

Such as would be occurring here because the scurry poor people can't be trusted with firearms.

have you actually read my proposal?

I would be for a voter ID card if voter fraud actually happened.

Voter fraud DOES actually happen, nobody denies that.

4 times in eight years.

The rub, so to speak, comes in with how uncommon it is. Which is generally agreed to be quite insignificant in comparison to vote totals.
Much like firearm homicides in comparison to legal uses.

but not insignificant compared to homicides

making people get drivers licences also inconvenienced them, and a car is far more vital to your daily life, but it was well worth to save lives. Something has to be done, we need to figure out what is the best thing we can do, so what solution to the problem do you propose?

Open the NICS system to public use for interpersonal firearm transfers/sales.

who pays the cost of vastly expanding usage of this system?
if the buyer how does it also not disincentivize the poor, if not where is the money coming from.

I envision a simple 'go-nogo' app/website of some kind,

they already have a website for the NICS, it is faster, provided the place has internet serviced.

with perhaps a third 'await further contact/clarification' for those cases such as currently exist wherein the system itself requests a waiting delay due to someone's information overlapping with others and whatnot. At that point one could go one of two ways that'd both be nonobjectionable to me for the most part. Either mandate the usage of said system during firearm transfers, or simply attach immunity to any form of prosecution to its usage.

which would be similar to what is being done in mine just less streamlined, i'd be fine if you wanted to swap that portion of the proposal, but your going to find more resistance.

If one doesn't use the system, they can be punished according to existing law for selling knowingly/without due diligence (as two separate possibilities) to any unauthorized individual, if one does use the system it exempts them from scrutiny since they were decidedly NOT selling knowingly to a criminal when the system told them it was OK.

how do you demonstrate this, is the NICS also keeping available records of each check now as well?

I'd include some rejiggering of ammunition classification and its authority, 922(r) requirements, and new manufactured full-auto bans in the same overhaul (along with, of course, the needed funding for the NICS system) but those are somewhat more ancillary...

good your thinking, unfortunately it does little to curb the flow of firearms into the black market, which is why I included a record keeping portion.and not knowing how to pay for it is pretty big hole. who are you planning to disincentivize?

[Patridam]

2. Actually, yes you do. It is perfectly possible for one to have the funds to purchase a $140 pistol, but not posses the funds to pay for your fees, classes, and permitting schemes alongside of it.

how? they are less than $140 even by his numbers.
if you afford one you can afford the other.

That makes no sense. By that logic, if you can afford a $20,000 car you can also inherently afford $19,000 in government fees and other financial hardships on top of the $20,000. Not everyone who has saved up $20,000 is somehow immediately capable of paying $40,000 because the government says so.

[Sociobiology]

most of them become moot or pointless once the permit is instituted.
a state pistol permit becomes moot once a federal one exists for instance.

No they aren't, states will have different laws from federal laws.

try reading the post this time.

Additionally the federal government would have legal troubles creating such a license, it falls outside the powers given to congress by the constitution.

no it actually doesn't, there are plenty of federal permits

welcome to the real world some thing are inconvenient if you choose to live in low population areas.

So the government should just ignore the issues it is creating for a portion of there population, because they live in a rural area.

more or less, its the same problems they have with getting any other kind of permit or licence.

I would want it to be part of being a FFL yes.

So FFL's, who are private third parties, would be required to teach these classes? I only see that increasing the cost of the class as the FFL has far more profitable things they will want to be doing with their time, namely running a gun store.

who said they had a say in how much they can charge? If anything they will be overjoyed to do this because it mean more customers and having those costumers in their stores. kinda like how many stores handle hunting and fishing licences.

Plus you will have a hard time just ordering them to teach the classes.

not really you make it part of FFL certification. But even if you made it optional the overwhelming majority will want to do it.

and?
some things you want take a little effort.

But your proposal is making the situation inconvenient, and you are showing no regard for the inconvenience it is causing.

but it less inconvenient than any other working proposal I have heard.
I show no regard because I have lived in super rural areas, and I did not bitch and moan about the government not providing everything to a town of a few thousand people in the middle of nowhere. I took personable responsibility for my decision to live there. It sounds more like you are looking for an excuse not looking for actual problems.

and my proposal does not create that problem.

Your proposal creates very real conflicts for an individual, do I work or do I get my permit? As I have noted your process is multi step, with potentially multiple long and inconvenient drives.

do I work or get a new title for my car, do I work or change my oil, life is full of decisions.

no their not if driving to a FFL to buy a firearm is an attached cost without a permit, it is just as easily considered an attached cost with one.

But an FFL may not, and in most cases will not, be able to go through the process for getting your proposed permit every time someone walks in the door.

which would be why they don't have to do it every time someone walks through the door.

mostly otherwise known as private sales, which would be the point of the permit to address, what do you think you are arguing against?

What I am arguing is that the friends and family don't fit the neat picture of a private sale as you want to pain it. They are providing weapons to people that they probably know are not legally allowed to own weapons.

which is why forcing a paper trail is a good idea, so you can arrest them for it.
seriously did you read my proposal?

yes but since there is no oversight or paper trail for private sales they can easily do.
the current laws are like making selling dynamite to felons illegal then letting people sell it on the street without checking.

its a grey market.

And you think your proposal will drive it all into the open market?

it would divide a grey market into a white market to encourage and a black market to prosecute, while also making it easier to prosecute black market sources.
"hey bob this firearms belongs to you and was used in a homicide, guess who's getting prosecuted for accessory.
" i sold that gun'
"not legally you didn't, so are you pleading accessory to murder or illegal sale of firearm?"

and you think that is different why?
in this case you'd be paying to prevent homicide and accidents.

Because you are creating unneeded barriers for the general public to obtain firearms. I doubt your process would be preventing that many homicides or accidents.

other countries homicide rates would disagree.

actually you do, as taxes, and a lot of people are going to be against increasing taxes to pay for this so I went wit the simpler and easier to justify buyer burden.


which exist in buying anything, and getting any permit.

Yes, but your permit is just full of very inconvenient travel, work loss, and study for a permit that will do very little.

again no it should more than half the homicide rate, based on the results of other countries.

then find some of your own.

I have been continuously providing them by referencing ammo costs, DMV permitting costs, hunter education costs, hunting license costs, etc. My guess is that the fee for the processing would be around $40, with an additional $15-$30 for lessons at a minimum.

which you admitted you did no legwork to come up with you just pulled the numbers out of the air.

so since you can't read I will repeat
35,369 automobile accident deaths in 2013
11,208 firearm assault deaths
~3,900 drownings
we have permits and regulation for the former and latter, we regulate explosives which statistically are even safer. and in each case safety training reduces injury and death.
so why exactly are you against it?

I did not know we had permits to go swimming.

we have regulations on allowing people to go swimming.

Explosives have a much higher potential destruction from misuse,

so just like guns, kinda makes the gun homicide number more relevant.

Comparing guns to explosives is like comparing a Cessna Piper Cub to a Boeing 747. The are entirely different beasts, which is why pilots licenses for them is are different.

but both still require a licence.

and we require permits, testing, and training and keep ownership records.
so whats your argument?

again other countries manage much lower rates and we should follow the systems they use to achieve them.

My argument is that since guns cause far less damage than cars, are not generally used in public space, without other permits, and when guns are used it is generally a controlled environments guns don't need to have permits attached.

then why do we have permits for boating, and explosives, both safer than forearms statistically.
so again what are you arguing?

First there are cultural issues, so laws may not directly compare.

nope, cultural issue is covered by comparing many countries, which covers a huge range of cultures.
and the Swiss are decent proxy having both a gun culture and high ownership.

Second no other developed nation has the same level of gun ownership,

Switzerland is close, 30% vs 40%
and that does not include the government issue firearm in many households.

Third what other nations have done has not necessarily been connected with changes in gun homicide, or general homicide changes.

how can you show a change for countries that did it right in the first place?

you might note that does not include government issued firearms, but whats your point?

That maybe because there are different ownership rates there would be different accident rates?

again you are the one concerned with accident rates, I am concerned with homicide rates.

OK if you want to play that game a firearm is 37 times more likely to be used in a murder.
11,200 for firearms compared to 300 for cars.
so maybe it would be a good idea to make it hard for those most likely to commit murder to get them.

I thought we already did that, by having back ground checks for buying guns from FFL's and making it a crime to sell guns to a person ineligible from owning them.

but not requiring people to check to see, its a huge loophole.
gov "its illegal to sell explosives to convicted felons"
seller " do I have to check"
gov "no"
seller " haha ok, so its only illegal in theory."

If you really wanted an easy way to further fight criminals getting guns you would require private sale background checks

I am requiring this, I'm just making it easy, pleas sit down and read my proposal an think about it for five minutes before you post again.

none of which have an increased risk of homocide, hence only violent criminals being excluded.

Well it is nice to know the person found guilty of smuggling guns can still buy guns,

nope that's a firearm violation, please actually read my proposal.

Or that the mob boss they only got on tax evasion can still buy his guns,

if he's a mob boss his only crime is not tax evasion.

that the bank robber can still get guns to rob a bank with.

armed robbery is a violent crime try another red herring.

please learn what the word, "minimal" means.

Minimal: of a minimum amount, quantity, or degree; negligible.
Your system isn't minimal, it requires a (likely) multi hour class, a written test, a practical demonstration, inconvenient drives, and increased costs. Doesn't sound negligible.

does to me.

Really, can you name an example? I've just gone through 18 DMV websites and I haven't seen any that will let you not pay by doing it online, most don't even allow online transfer of titles.

Alaska, most rural of rural
$15 dollar fee, waived in no new physical title is issued.

In reality you are basing an entire permitting system around the cost for a hunting class,

and car titles

A hunting class does not have a back ground check,

how much do you pay for a background check at a FFL right now?

ammo costs,

excuse me, it most certainly does in many states

Not just for the test, for the class you are requiring them to take, and 50 rounds is the bare minimum for that.[/quote]
what kind of class are you envisioning?
the class would not take a single round. The class is to review safety procedures and firearms laws.

Source for the cost of ammo is so low to the government?

http://www.ammunitiondepot.com/category-s/2083.htm

In addition people are not going to be taking the general test class with a handgun, so it should be even less.

[Sociobiology]

how? they are less than $140 even by his numbers.
if you afford one you can afford the other.

That makes no sense. By that logic, if you can afford a $20,000 car you can also inherently afford $19,000 in government fees and other financial hardships on top of the $20,000. Not everyone who has saved up $20,000 is somehow immediately capable of paying $40,000 because the government says so.

no but they could pay $3000 in fee, which is 15% or the larges the fee could be for a firearm, assuming you only ever buy one firearm and it is the cheapest one available.

also if they they are making minimum wage to cost them $100 they must live 7 hour from the nearest place they can take the test.
if it is an hour away their total cost would be ~$30, so you can stop exaggerating.

[Jamzmania]

That makes no sense. By that logic, if you can afford a $20,000 car you can also inherently afford $19,000 in government fees and other financial hardships on top of the $20,000. Not everyone who has saved up $20,000 is somehow immediately capable of paying $40,000 because the government says so.

no but they could pay $3000 in fee, which is 15% or the larges the fee could be for a firearm, assuming you only ever buy one firearm and it is the cheapest one available.

also if they they are making minimum wage to cost them $100 they must live 7 hour from the nearest place they can take the test.
if it is an hour away their total cost would be ~$30, so you can stop exaggerating.

So your plan is to squeeze as much money as is reasonably possible out of a prospective gun owner, mainly targeting the poor, who in many cases need the gun more than a wealthy person does.

[Patridam]

no but they could pay $3000 in fee, which is 15% or the larges the fee could be for a firearm, assuming you only ever buy one firearm and it is the cheapest one available.

also if they they are making minimum wage to cost them $100 they must live 7 hour from the nearest place they can take the test.
if it is an hour away their total cost would be ~$30, so you can stop exaggerating.

So your plan is to squeeze as much money as is reasonably possible out of a prospective gun owner, mainly targeting the poor, who in many cases need the gun more than a wealthy person does.

Have to keep the 'riff-raff' out of the elite club of firearm ownership.

[Spirit of Hope]

No they aren't, states will have different laws from federal laws.

try reading the post this time.

For most of the states laws to no longer hassle the gun buyer would require there elimination, many of those laws I don't think would be eliminated by your proposal.

Additionally the federal government would have legal troubles creating such a license, it falls outside the powers given to congress by the constitution.

no it actually doesn't, there are plenty of federal permits

Most of those permits deal with trans state trade, something your proposal does not.

So the government should just ignore the issues it is creating for a portion of there population, because they live in a rural area.

more or less, its the same problems they have with getting any other kind of permit or licence.

So you are admitting that your proposal will make life much more inconvenient for a section of the population, going against one of the main reasons you have been arguing for it: a reduction in hassle.

So FFL's, who are private third parties, would be required to teach these classes? I only see that increasing the cost of the class as the FFL has far more profitable things they will want to be doing with their time, namely running a gun store.

who said they had a say in how much they can charge? If anything they will be overjoyed to do this because it mean more customers and having those costumers in their stores. kinda like how many stores handle hunting and fishing licences.

So the federal government will set how much a person can charge to teach a class that will take time away from their primary job or their personal life? Sounds just peachy.

The thing is most FFL's won't be seeing an increased number of consumers in there stores, because they can not teach the classes or carry out the tests at there store but at potentially multiple different locations. What they will see is having to spend time away from there store to tech the class, or take time out of there personnel lives to teach the class. There time is probably worth about $20 an hour, so for a three hour class they are going to need to make at least $60 for there time to be worth it, not including travel time and expenses. On top of that is costs for room rental, ammo, range fees, etc.

But your proposal is making the situation inconvenient, and you are showing no regard for the inconvenience it is causing.

but it less inconvenient than any other working proposal I have heard.

It is less inconvenient than making NICS public and simply requiring background checks on private sales? A proposal you have seen likely dozens of times on this thread alone?

You proposal adds cost and time to getting a gun, plus additional cost and time for every privet transfer.

Public NICS proposal, no extra time, no extra cost at any point.

I show no regard because I have lived in super rural areas, and I did not bitch and moan about the government not providing everything to a town of a few thousand people in the middle of nowhere. I took personable responsibility for my decision to live there.

No I am bringing up the fact that your proposal does not actually reduce the hassle for the average gun buyer by pointing to a large group of people who buy guns and would be inconvenienced potentially by multiple days and hundreds of dollars by your proposal.

It sounds more like you are looking for an excuse not looking for actual problems.

I would prefer it if you stopped making comments like this. I find it insulting, and it does not add to the debate in any way.

Your proposal creates very real conflicts for an individual, do I work or do I get my permit? As I have noted your process is multi step, with potentially multiple long and inconvenient drives.

do I work or get a new title for my car, do I work or change my oil, life is full of decisions.

But one of your big argument is that it is less hassle than the current system, which is simply not true.

But an FFL may not, and in most cases will not, be able to go through the process for getting your proposed permit every time someone walks in the door.

which would be why they don't have to do it every time someone walks through the door.

Which means the whole thing is more complication and hassle for the average gun consumer.

What I am arguing is that the friends and family don't fit the neat picture of a private sale as you want to pain it. They are providing weapons to people that they probably know are not legally allowed to own weapons.

which is why forcing a paper trail is a good idea, so you can arrest them for it.

Accept we can already arrest them for it, though it is a hard sell in court. Additionally the public NICS proposal also creates a paper trail and allows for a stronger court case.

yes but since there is no oversight or paper trail for private sales they can easily do.
the current laws are like making selling dynamite to felons illegal then letting people sell it on the street without checking.


And you think your proposal will drive it all into the open market?

it would divide a grey market into a white market to encourage and a black market to prosecute, while also making it easier to prosecute black market sources.
"hey bob this firearms belongs to you and was used in a homicide, guess who's getting prosecuted for accessory.
" i sold that gun'
"not legally you didn't, so are you pleading accessory to murder or illegal sale of firearm?"

Congratulations, you can already do that! And the public NICS proposal makes the whole process stronger without inconveniencing the public unduly.

Additionally they can just say they lent the gun to the person with no knowledge what that friend was going to do with it. To prosecute them with accessory to murder you would have to prove that they willfully supported the crime.

Because you are creating unneeded barriers for the general public to obtain firearms. I doubt your process would be preventing that many homicides or accidents.

other countries homicide rates would disagree.

No study has ever reliably found a decrease in firearms to be connected to a decrees in homicide rate, the most studies have found is a decrease in firearm homicides.

Yes, but your permit is just full of very inconvenient travel, work loss, and study for a permit that will do very little.

again no it should more than half the homicide rate, based on the results of other countries.

Again it may lead to a decrease in the gun homicide rate, but there is no evidence that it will decrease the overall homicide rate. Additionally as I have already noted cross culture comparisons are difficult and imperfect.

I have been continuously providing them by referencing ammo costs, DMV permitting costs, hunter education costs, hunting license costs, etc. My guess is that the fee for the processing would be around $40, with an additional $15-$30 for lessons at a minimum.

which you admitted you did no legwork to come up with you just pulled the numbers out of the air.

Where did I say I got that out of thin air? I got it by referencing hunter permit costs, driver license costs, hunting lesson costs, range fees, average income of FFL's, costs estimates for small businesses and a variety of other factors.

I did not know we had permits to go swimming.

we have regulations on allowing people to go swimming.

We regulate where people can go swimming, and we regulate the establishments (such as pools and beaches) where people swim. We do not regulate who can and cannot swim.

For guns we already regulate where you can and can not shoot, we regulate the establishments where they do shoot, and we regulate who can own a gun to shoot.

Explosives have a much higher potential destruction from misuse,

so just like guns, kinda makes the gun homicide number more relevant.

I guess I should have said "Explosives have a much higher potential destruction from misuse than guns." And you did not adress any of the other points: Explosives are also far more dangerous to handle, require precise training to assemble and are in many ways very different from guns.

Comparing guns to explosives is like comparing a Cessna Piper Cub to a Boeing 747. The are entirely different beasts, which is why pilots licenses for them is are different.

but both still require a licence.

Yes, because to fly a plane you must understand a number of laws and regulations, some of which are tied to international treaties, to be able to fly a plane. Same goes for cars, they require an understanding of the rules of the road. To operate a gun does not require a similar understanding because guns are not used in the same way. And when they are (hunting) they have already existing regulations and permits.

My argument is that since guns cause far less damage than cars, are not generally used in public space, without other permits, and when guns are used it is generally a controlled environments guns don't need to have permits attached.

then why do we have permits for boating, and explosives, both safer than firearms statistically.
so again what are you arguing?

That boats require understanding the rather complicated rules that regulate movement on the open water. Boating permits primarily deal with those rather than safety on the boat.

Explosives as I have already mentioned may be statistically safer but have a far higher potential for misuse, require precision training to use correctly, and are in many ways very different from guns.

First there are cultural issues, so laws may not directly compare.

nope, cultural issue is covered by comparing many countries, which covers a huge range of cultures.
and the Swiss are decent proxy having both a gun culture and high ownership.

No, because very few countries have a gun culture like the United States. If you keep bundling in countries that don't you aren't making a good comparison.

Swiss gun culture is different from US gun culture, and while they have high gun ownership for Europe there numbers are still much lower than the United States.

Second no other developed nation has the same level of gun ownership,

Switzerland is close, 30% vs 40%
and that does not include the government issue firearm in many households.

29% vs. 43%, you chopped off a difference of 4% which is rather significant. And they have a general militia made out of every male between the ages of 20-30 who has a gun at home. If the United States was to give every man military training, and Switzerland was the size of the United States, and had the same other cultural artifacts as the United States then maybe it would be a better comparison.

Third what other nations have done has not necessarily been connected with changes in gun homicide, or general homicide changes.

how can you show a change for countries that did it right in the first place?

I am unsure what you mean by this. But what I can tell you is that both Great Britain and Australia, who made major efforts to reduce the number of guns, have had little effect on there general homicide rates because of these actions.

That maybe because there are different ownership rates there would be different accident rates?

again you are the one concerned with accident rates, I am concerned with homicide rates.

You were the one who said Switzerland had a third less accidents than the United States, I was countering that this is not a fair comparison.

Additionally as I have repeatedly said reducing the number of guns is not connected to a reduction in the homicide rate.

I thought we already did that, by having back ground checks for buying guns from FFL's and making it a crime to sell guns to a person ineligible from owning them.

but not requiring people to check to see, its a huge loophole.
gov "its illegal to sell explosives to convicted felons"
seller " do I have to check"
gov "no"
seller " haha ok, so its only illegal in theory."

But 40% of criminals get there guns from friends and family, who likely know the person is a convicted felon. If you know your Cousin was in jail for three years you know they aren't eligible to won a gun.

Plus the public NICS option, combined with requiring a check, closes this loophole. Without requiring multiple hours, and a bunch of money to get your license, and even more time and money to actually carry out the transfer.

If you really wanted an easy way to further fight criminals getting guns you would require private sale background checks

I am requiring this,

You are also adding on all kinds of unnecessary hassle. Just make NICS public and require back ground checks. Simpiler, cheaper, less time lost.

Well it is nice to know the person found guilty of smuggling guns can still buy guns,

nope that's a firearm violation, please actually read my proposal.

But the guy guilty of smuggling drugs can still buy guns.

Or that the mob boss they only got on tax evasion can still buy his guns,

if he's a mob boss his only crime is not tax evasion.

Maybe that is the only crime they can convict him on? Like some rather famous real world gang bosses?

that the bank robber can still get guns to rob a bank with.

armed robbery is a violent crime try another red herring.

Not all bank robberies are armed robberies.

Minimal: of a minimum amount, quantity, or degree; negligible.
Your system isn't minimal, it requires a (likely) multi hour class, a written test, a practical demonstration, inconvenient drives, and increased costs. Doesn't sound negligible.

does to me.

Nice to know you think all of that is "so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant." I wish I had enough leisure time and money to do that.

Really, can you name an example? I've just gone through 18 DMV websites and I haven't seen any that will let you not pay by doing it online, most don't even allow online transfer of titles.

Alaska, most rural of rural
$15 dollar fee, waived in no new physical title is issued.

Source? Because the Alaska DMV web sight says you have to pay the fee and go to the DMV (unless you are more than 50 miles away then you can mail it in)

In reality you are basing an entire permitting system around the cost for a hunting class,

and car titles

Which have ranging costs to obtain from $5-$50, and most require you to go to the DMV to obtain or transfer.

A hunting class does not have a back ground check,

how much do you pay for a background check at a FFL right now?
Most FFL's will charge around $50 for an NCIS background check without a purchase. When I had a background check for a job the fee was $15.

ammo costs,

excuse me, it most certainly does in many states

Which ones? Most have online classes or physical classes with no shooting portion. Others have bring your own ammunition. So

Not just for the test, for the class you are requiring them to take, and 50 rounds is the bare minimum for that.

what kind of class are you envisioning?
the class would not take a single round. The class is to review safety procedures and firearms laws. [/quote]
OK then.

Source for the cost of ammo is so low to the government?

http://www.ammunitiondepot.com/category-s/2083.htm

In addition people are not going to be taking the general test class with a handgun, so it should be even less.

Lowest I found for ammo was $10 for 50 rounds. And rifle ammo is more expensive.