[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Where I live, things are largely fine as they are. Granted, I think the authorities are being a bit too tight on the types of guns allowed for civilian ownership (everything above 9 mm being restricted, and certain types of smaller-bore guns, such as Tokarev pistols and .22 caliber pistols being restricted as well).

Getting to legally own and carry a piece here is just too much paperwork for my taste. Besides, I've figured that owning a firearm for protection is absolutely pointless unless you intend to carry it with you 24/7 and are properly trained in it's use, and I don't mean plinking stationary targets in the range by that. With our ludicrously-tight self-defense laws, you are effectively more likely to go to prison for defending yourself than your assailant for attacking you, so any such incident involving a firearm will most likely be the last time you will legally discharge a gun. Ever. Not to mention that you can effectively forget about drinking, certainly if you tend to get in trouble while drunk - simply being drunk when arrested for any reason is sufficient grounds to revoke your gun license. And there are frequent surprise visits from the authorities, who will inspect if you keep your piece by the book in a certified safe. They will also talk to your neighbors and ask if you are into any bad habits, i.e., drinking and becoming belligerent, etc.

In short, legally owning a piece in Latvia is far more trouble than it's worth, and there ain't that much incidents involving illegal firearms to need making legal ownership easier. Things were very different in the early 90's, when it was basically the Wild West out here, streets in some places effectively turning into warzones after dusk. Corrupt officers in the disorganized Russian Army garrisons here saw to you being able to buy just about anything if you had the means - a crate of Riga Black could get you an AK with a set of mags and enough ammo to slaughter a village, while a hundred or so dollars could buy you an RPG launcher with a few RPGs thrown in as a bonus. Hell, you could even buy an APC if you had enough dough. There was just such an abundance in military-grade arms left over from Soviet military stockpiles that pretty much anyone who wanted a piece could get one, no questions asked. Things are indeed very different now.

Sounds like Orwell's nightmare.

Welcome to Europe. My home isn't even the most restrictive in terms of gun control. By far not the most, actually, compared to some other places like the UK.

[Big Jim P]

It's telling when even "Let's make sure we have thorough and working background checks to guarantee we don't let unhinged Joker-wannabes get their hands on firearms easily" get shouted down as the first step in Gun Confiscation.

Make NICS free and publically available so as not to put increased strain and burden on the law abiding citizens, an maybe we can agree to this "compromise".

We shouldn't be calling any of this "compromise" as that implies a two way street. The only thing the GCAs give up is their dream of total bans, while we give up our rights for nothing in return.

[Big Jim P]

Plain and simple, gun owners have "compromised" enough. time for the GCAs to compromise.

Luckily, support for gun rights is at it's highest in decades, and more and more states are easing restrictions on carry.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'm fine with most firearm rights, but don't understand why assault rifles are legal (or at least as simple to get your hands on).

Assault rifles (full auto/select fire weapons) AREN'T easy to get ahold of. There's a finite amount of them available, which means their value is inflated by an order of magnitude over semi-only versions. There's also the extensive paperwork, intensive background check, and months (or more) of waiting involved in acquiring an ATF tax stamp before you can take possession of one.

Legally owned full auto/select fire weapons are also not used in crimes (twice in the 81 years since the National Firearms Act of 1934 has been around).

[Gun Manufacturers]

It's telling when even "Let's make sure we have thorough and working background checks to guarantee we don't let unhinged Joker-wannabes get their hands on firearms easily" get shouted down as the first step in Gun Confiscation.

I've said before that we should be constantly improving the accuracy and completeness of the NICS background check.

[Momerthian]

Semi-automatic to manual weapons are allowed. One per household. Then, the family will have their rights to 'bare arms'. I understand that people in America rely on guns for their own protections, but be rid of the automatic rifles that are actually designed for aggression, rather than defense.

[Spirit of Hope]

Semi-automatic to manual weapons are allowed. One per household. Then, the family will have their rights to 'bare arms'. I understand that people in America rely on guns for their own protections, but be rid of the automatic rifles that are actually designed for aggression, rather than defense.

You mean the guns that are already illegal to make or import into the United States? While you can buy the automatic guns in the United States they are expensive collectors items, requiring a background check and police authorization, and legally owned ones have represented two crimes since 1934.

Illegally owned automatic weapons represent less than 2% of all gun crimes.

[Llamalandia]

Semi-automatic to manual weapons are allowed. One per household. Then, the family will have their rights to 'bare arms'. I understand that people in America rely on guns for their own protections, but be rid of the automatic rifles that are actually designed for aggression, rather than defense.

Umm there are very few legally owned fully automatic weapons in the U.S. and not a whole lot more illegal ones. Admittedly plenty of people own more than semi auto per household. But other than that the U.S. is currently roughly as you would like it to be.

[Gauthier]

Make NICS free and publically available so as not to put increased strain and burden on the law abiding citizens, an maybe we can agree to this "compromise".

We shouldn't be calling any of this "compromise" as that implies a two way street. The only thing the GCAs give up is their dream of total bans, while we give up our rights for nothing in return.

Prosecution rests its case.

[Dooom35796821595]

We shouldn't be calling any of this "compromise" as that implies a two way street. The only thing the GCAs give up is their dream of total bans, while we give up our rights for nothing in return.

Prosecution rests its case.

Why so serious, Harvey?

[Big Jim P]

We shouldn't be calling any of this "compromise" as that implies a two way street. The only thing the GCAs give up is their dream of total bans, while we give up our rights for nothing in return.

Prosecution rests its case.

You think you have a case to rest.

[Republic of Canador]

I understand, although I have to defintly agree with option 2, citizens should be able to own firearms as well.

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

If we didn't have machine guns, the king of England would be pushing us around. Do you want that? Huh?
*cookie if you get the reference

[Dooom35796821595]

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

If we didn't have machine guns, the king of England would be pushing us around. Do you want that? Huh?

Uh, we currently have a queen. And yes, yes I would like that very much.

[Sociobiology]

it also means that it is possible 10,082 of those murdered people could have been saved with proper gun control.

which would change our homicide rate to some thing if not good, at least normal for a first world country.

It is definitely not certain that they would have not been murdered. It seems more likely that they would have been killed in some other way. Also, the US is not a "normal" first world country.

the evidence points to a drop in homicide if criminals have a harder time getting firearms.
The us is "special" because we have absurdly lose gun laws that make it painfully easy for criminals to get firearms.
That and absurdly high incarcerations rates.
The US is not that special.

[Sociobiology]

I'm fine with most firearm rights, but don't understand why assault rifles are legal (or at least as simple to get your hands on).

because they are not a problem, the overwhelming number of firearm crimes are committed with handguns, The major desirable factors by criminals are by far concealability and portability, two things "assault" weapons don't have.

and in all cases the problem is people with criminal records getting firearms not the general public.

[Sociobiology]

It's telling when even "Let's make sure we have thorough and working background checks to guarantee we don't let unhinged Joker-wannabes get their hands on firearms easily" get shouted down as the first step in Gun Confiscation.

Make NICS free and publically available so as not to put increased strain and burden on the law abiding citizens, an maybe we can agree to this "compromise".

which won't solve much, don't get me wrong its a great idea, but the major problem with NICS right now is access records they have to be given to them, and a lot of states barely give them anything at all. Checking doesn't matter if the crime is not in the system.
The other problem is without mandatory sales records straw purchases will continue to be a major issue.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Make NICS free and publically available so as not to put increased strain and burden on the law abiding citizens, an maybe we can agree to this "compromise".

which won't solve much, don't get me wrong its a great idea, but the major problem with NICS right now is access records they have to be given to them, and a lot of states barely give them anything at all. Checking doesn't matter if the crime is not in the system.
The other problem is without mandatory sales records straw purchases will continue to be a major issue.

Sounds to me like that's an issue that needs to be worked out on a state issue. Possibly by injectig fresh legislation voted upon by the people, naturally.

All FFL dealers are required by [27 CFR 478.125] to record all transfers and sales of firearms. If you are talking about private sales, thats a entirely different matter as I believe that unless compromise is made that they have no ground to stand on requiring individuals to record every stupid transfer from father to son ect ect.

[Sociobiology]

which won't solve much, don't get me wrong its a great idea, but the major problem with NICS right now is access records they have to be given to them, and a lot of states barely give them anything at all. Checking doesn't matter if the crime is not in the system.
The other problem is without mandatory sales records straw purchases will continue to be a major issue.

Sounds to me like that's an issue that needs to be worked out on a state issue. Possibly by injectig fresh legislation voted upon by the people, naturally.

the problem is the federal government can't force them and the state governments are the ones not doing it. The state solution has been to make the system useless by not actually reporting violent criminals.

All FFL dealers are required by [27 CFR 478.125] to record all transfers and sales of firearms. If you are talking about private sales, thats a entirely different matter as I believe that unless compromise is made that they have no ground to stand on requiring individuals to record every stupid transfer from father to son ect ect.

yes underlined is the issue, and I don't think individuals should be recording it, individuals don't record car sales.

[Sevvania]

the evidence points to a drop in homicide if criminals have a harder time getting firearms.

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence.
....
"The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide."
....
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
....
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ ... f_the_laws

[Llamalandia]

It is definitely not certain that they would have not been murdered. It seems more likely that they would have been killed in some other way. Also, the US is not a "normal" first world country.

the evidence points to a drop in homicide if criminals have a harder time getting firearms.
The us is "special" because we have absurdly lose gun laws that make it painfully easy for criminals to get firearms.
That and absurdly high incarcerations rates.
The US is not that special.

Eh, I would argue that culturally we are "special" as well relative to guns and violence. After all there are countries with similiar gun ownership rates but significantly lower gun violence, disproportionately lower gun violence. Likewise in America unlike many other countries we have this weird dichotomy of being comfortable with depictions of violence in media but freak out about sex. Clearly we are more accepting of violence than other countries are and even seem to glorify it at times.

[Gauthier]

Prosecution rests its case.

You think you have a case to rest.

The case being you specifically shouting down enforced background checks as the first step towards gun confiscation.

Prosecution rests.

[Paddy O Fernature]

You think you have a case to rest.

The case being you specifically shouting down enforced background checks as the first step towards gun confiscation.

Prosecution rests.

That claim is a really far stretch of what he is actually saying... Even coming from you.

[Gauthier]

The case being you specifically shouting down enforced background checks as the first step towards gun confiscation.

Prosecution rests.

That claim is a really far stretch of what he is actually saying... Even coming from you.

How does background checks violate gun rights, unless it ties into some spook story about increased gun restrictions and eventual confiscation? And the only people who would lose any gun rights are criminals and the severely mentally ill. Maybe Jim is arguing for the rights of criminals and the severely mentally ill to legally obtain firearms then?

[Washington Resistance Army]

That claim is a really far stretch of what he is actually saying... Even coming from you.

How does background checks violate gun rights, unless it ties into some spook story about increased gun restrictions and eventual confiscation? And the only people who would lose any gun rights are criminals and the severely mentally ill. Maybe Jim is arguing for the rights of criminals and the severely mentally ill to legally obtain firearms then?

Strawmanning as usual I see.

[Sevvania]

How does background checks violate gun rights, unless it ties into some spook story about increased gun restrictions and eventual confiscation?

Strawmanning as usual I see.

This doesn't answer his question.