[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[Dooom35796821595]

Which has been noted on a number of occasions to be a failure of the system we already have in place. Either because police didn't confiscate the gun when he was involuntarily committed, or because his records were not added to NICS. Either way a failure in the current system, not because he slipped through a loop hole but because the system isn't being used correctly.

But of course the only true way to be safe is to give up on trying to make the system work and instead arm every human being possible with firearms just like in Needful Things.

Or an all seeing crime prevention system that uses a combination of big data, genetic and biometric data, personal histories, neural activity and historical statistics to predict the likelihood of an individual committing a crime.

[Big Jim P]

Back in the 80s I saw a demonstration of a normally dressed man carrying 43 handguns.

Eugh, the 80s. An improvement on the 70s, but still terrible.
Now why would one need so many bad clothes handguns?

And that response time...terrible. If only there was a way to have different firearm laws in a city opposed to isolated areas.

It wasn't a need. just a demonstration of what was possible.

We quite often do have different laws for cities as opposed to isolated areas.

Oh, and the 80s were a damn sight better than anything that came after.

[Spirit of Hope]

Which has been noted on a number of occasions to be a failure of the system we already have in place. Either because police didn't confiscate the gun when he was involuntarily committed, or because his records were not added to NICS. Either way a failure in the current system, not because he slipped through a loop hole but because the system isn't being used correctly.

But of course the only true way to be safe is to give up on trying to make the system work and instead arm every human being possible with firearms just like in Needful Things.

We know they are ineffective, even when performed by FFLs. What makes you think requiring them for private transactions will work any better?

Where have I ever said we should give up? I have in fact strongly supported giving NICS access to the common man and requiring back ground checks. Big Jim and I have argued about it in the past.

I am in favor of strengthening the system, making sure records get shared and making sure action gets taken with regards to guns. I am in favor of in fact broadening some things that will deny you the ability to buy a gun, like giving mental healthcare professionals the ability to mark someone as a danger to themselves, or others, and having that become an NICS flag. I am ok with upping the age requirements on handguns, and potentially other guns. I am in support of finding better ways to track illegal gun sales and transfers.

I would also point out that Big Jim isn't saying we should give up, but rather poking fun at the fact that if NICS failed for an FFL it can fail for an individual and thus opening NICS up to the public may not have the desired effect.

[Llamalandia]

Yes the definition of concealable could be pretty broad actually. Reminds me of this video about baggy pants being used to hide fifteen guns it's freaking hilarious especially when u see what he pulls out at the end!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epeo8Pfm1xM

Back in the 80s I saw a demonstration of a normally dressed man carrying 43 handguns.

Wow even I think 43 might be a tad much. I mean unless your like a Hindu goddess or something most people can't really handle more two at time.

[Big Jim P]

But of course the only true way to be safe is to give up on trying to make the system work and instead arm every human being possible with firearms just like in Needful Things.

Where have I ever said we should give up? I have in fact strongly supported giving NICS access to the common man and requiring back ground checks. Big Jim and I have argued about it in the past.

I am in favor of strengthening the system, making sure records get shared and making sure action gets taken with regards to guns. I am in favor of in fact broadening some things that will deny you the ability to buy a gun, like giving mental healthcare professionals the ability to mark someone as a danger to themselves, or others, and having that become an NICS flag. I am ok with upping the age requirements on handguns, and potentially other guns. I am in support of finding better ways to track illegal gun sales and transfers.

I would also point out that Big Jim isn't saying we should give up, but rather poking fun at the fact that if NICS failed for an FFL it can fail for an individual and thus opening NICS up to the public may not have the desired effect.

I think our main area of disagreement is in making the NCIS check mandatory.

I agree with you about broadening what disqualifies someone to own a gun so long as it specifically targets dangerous mental states while leaving those with non-dangerous conditions alone.

I disagree about upping the age. If someone is old enough to vote and volunteer for military service, then they are old enough to own guns (and drink as well, but that is another debate).

Tracking guns: I have seen no proposal that doesn't fall well withing infringement. When I see one that doesn't I may (or may not) support it.

I full support increasing the penalties fro crimes involving guns, including knowingly transferring a gun to a prohibited person. This latter idea would encourage people to use a voluntary NCIS check without having to make it mandatory.

I never said give up on the system, but Gauthier has a real problem with reading what he wants to into posts instead of addressing what has been posted. Strawmanning seems to be a hobby of his. You get used to it.

[Big Jim P]

Back in the 80s I saw a demonstration of a normally dressed man carrying 43 handguns.

Wow even I think 43 might be a tad much. I mean unless your like a Hindu goddess or something most people can't really handle more two at time.

Well, you would need to reload for a LONG time. Just draw another gun.

[Big Jim P]

But of course the only true way to be safe is to give up on trying to make the system work and instead arm every human being possible with firearms just like in Needful Things.

Or an all seeing crime prevention system that uses a combination of big data, genetic and biometric data, personal histories, neural activity and historical statistics to predict the likelihood of an individual committing a crime.

Well, stats say that the likelihood of a gun owner committing a crime with a gun is extremely low. Less than a 1% chance, and CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime than the police themselves.

[Dooom35796821595]

Wow even I think 43 might be a tad much. I mean unless your like a Hindu goddess or something most people can't really handle more two at time.

Well, you would need to reload for a LONG time. Just draw another gun.

You watch too much Matrix.

Or an all seeing crime prevention system that uses a combination of big data, genetic and biometric data, personal histories, neural activity and historical statistics to predict the likelihood of an individual committing a crime.

Well, stats say that the likelihood of a gun owner committing a crime with a gun is extremely low. Less than a 1% chance, and CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime than the police themselves.

Sybil System.

[Big Jim P]

Well, you would need to reload for a LONG time. Just draw another gun.

You watch too much Matrix.

Well, stats say that the likelihood of a gun owner committing a crime with a gun is extremely low. Less than a 1% chance, and CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime than the police themselves.

Sybil System.

I watch NO Matrix.

Sybil System?

[Dooom35796821595]

http://psychopass.wikia.com/wiki/Sibyl_System

Obviously that for is deliberately flawed for dramatic purposes, but it has the foundations of a flawless system.

Oh, and it contains spoilers for a series called psycho-pass, so no readey of youare watching it/want to watch it without ruining a major reveal.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You watch too much Matrix.



Sybil System.

I watch NO Matrix.

Sybil System?

Sybil is the supercomputer responsible for monitoring people's psychological health in the anime Psycho-Pass. Based on your mental state rather than your committing aa crime, it can have you imprisoned.

This system backfires several times, with disastrous effects.

[Big Jim P]

I watch NO Matrix.

Sybil System?

Sybil is the supercomputer responsible for monitoring people's psychological health in the anime Psycho-Pass. Based on your mental state rather than your committing aa crime, it can have you imprisoned.

This system backfires several times, with disastrous effects.

Ah. I don't watch anime either.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Please define "concealable." Plus handguns are also extremely popular with law abiding citizens and have a number of uses, they also represent a much higher percentage of homicides. Out right banning them I am against but treating them more strictly, as many states do, is perfectly acceptable.

you see the big problem Big Jim P has generally isn't new smarter gun laws, such as opening up NICS, better information for NICS, etc. It is they come without promises to repeal older stupider laws. Really if you want Big Jim P to agree with you, give him something in return.

I have no problem with gun laws that specifically target the criminal use of guns, so long as it does not affect the rights of the law-abiding. Unfortunately, every gun control proposal I have seen has the exact opposite effect. Teh only thing I see as doing that would be doubling or tripling (or whatever it takes) sentences with no plea bargaining or chance of parole for crimes involving guns. That puts the burden exactly where it belongs: on the criminal, WITHOUT affecting the lawful uses of guns.

Opening the NCIS to everyone and encouraging it's use is a good idea. Making such use mandatory is not. Personally, I would not sell (in a private transaction) if I had any doubts without one, but I should not be forced to.

Repealing old, stupid and ineffective gun control laws is a good idea, independent of whether or not new laws are enacted.

I think I am beyond agreeing with the GCAs on "compromise" gun laws, even if they were not the one-way street the GCAs insist on. The law-abiding gun owners have been burned too may times and the GCAs have directly lied about the numbers and actual scope of the "gun problem" for me to ever trust them. many gun owners feel the same way.

Personally, I think we should keep the NCIS only for the Navy and Marines. But I wouldn't be upset if NICS were made freely available to non-FFLs.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Sybil is the supercomputer responsible for monitoring people's psychological health in the anime Psycho-Pass. Based on your mental state rather than your committing aa crime, it can have you imprisoned.

This system backfires several times, with disastrous effects.

Ah. I don't watch anime either.

All you need to know is Sybil punishes thoughtcrimes, and that's not the worst of it.

People worrying about their mental condition often end up degrading mentally and committing a crime that they would've otherwise.
Several honest detectives, including three major characters, are condemned by Sybil even though they did nothing wrong.
Young children aren't safe, even though they can't commit crimes.
One way to keep your condition stable is, ironically, murder, which is exploited by several villains.
There is an entire group of people whose mental conditions, due to a quirk in their brains, do not deteriorate for any reason, and so can commit crimesin front of cameras, without Sybil noticing.
Sybil incorporates the brains of these "criminally asymptomatic". The system for preventing crime incorporates criminals.

In short, it was probably a joke. Right?

[Dooom35796821595]

Ah. I don't watch anime either.

All you need to know is Sybil punishes thoughtcrimes, and that's not the worst of it.

People worrying about their mental condition often end up degrading mentally and committing a crime that they would've otherwise.
Several honest detectives, including three major characters, are condemned by Sybil even though they did nothing wrong.
Young children aren't safe, even though they can't commit crimes.
One way to keep your condition stable is, ironically, murder, which is exploited by several villains.
There is an entire group of people whose mental conditions, due to a quirk in their brains, do not deteriorate for any reason, and so can commit crimesin front of cameras, without Sybil noticing.
Sybil incorporates the brains of these "criminally asymptomatic". The system for preventing crime incorporates criminals.

In short, it was probably a joke. Right?

Sort of?

As I said it was deliberately flawed for dramatic purposes and seemed more effective then most current systems.
But the same principle (without the using human brains bit) could be used to determine who is allowed a firearms licence, after all owning a firearm is something where it's better to error on the safe side, unlike the minefield of precrime.

[Sociobiology]

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.

because they actually make it hard for criminals to get firearms, that country requires a permit to purchase a firearm or ammunition, a permit that requires a background check to get.

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.

which is not uniquely American

Clearly we are more accepting of violence than other countries are and even seem to glorify it at times.

which might be an explanation if the difference in homicide rates was not smaller than the difference in gun homicide rates.

[Sociobiology]

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

You do realize blanket bans are really ineffective, they generate a huge black market because even law abiding citizens can't get the thing, so you end up with a whole societal undercurrent of normally law abiding citizens protecting the black market, that's what happened with alcohol and drugs. Its great you want to solve the problem but try to find a solution that will actually work.

[Sociobiology]

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

where have you ever seen me propose or support a blanket ban?

If your interested, this is what I want.

My gun control proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires; a background check with a mental health screening,
a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15 estimated),
a written test, ( basic gun law)
a one afternoon class on firearms safety, (so there are no excuses)
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgment, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

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

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers license.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a license, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

With this plan you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because supposedly more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport license, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.
The permit makes legal transfers easier (just call in your two permit numbers and the serial number), while also making it easy and fast to check if the person can legally own a firearm.

Of course I accept flexibility in individual pieces as long as the tractability and mandatory background check in some form is present. This is just my best attempt at a working plan.

[Warpspace]

Self defence yes, but you dont need a machinegun for that

Why not? I see no problem in having a machine gun.

If you're talking about automatic rifles, yes there is for self defense. Not only do you go through ammunition in half a second typically, spray bullets everywhere in your home (that may overpenetrate a wall or two and kill a family member of friend accidentally) but the kick will also throw off your aim. There's a reason why even the military rarely ever touches the auto option on their rifles and carbines, it's pointless.

Automatic has no use in a rifle, especially not civilians. Outside of shooting on full auto for the fun of it, there's no point for it to be available to non-military personell.

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

where have you ever seen me propose or support a blanket ban?

If your interested, this is what I want.

My gun control proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires; a background check with a mental health screening,
a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15 estimated),
a written test, ( basic gun law)
a one afternoon class on firearms safety, (so there are no excuses)
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgment, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

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

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers license.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a license, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

With this plan you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because supposedly more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport license, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.
The permit makes legal transfers easier (just call in your two permit numbers and the serial number), while also making it easy and fast to check if the person can legally own a firearm.

Of course I accept flexibility in individual pieces as long as the tractability and mandatory background check in some form is present. This is just my best attempt at a working plan.

I'd be down for this. What you describe is basically a car lisence.

[Farnhamia]

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

where have you ever seen me propose or support a blanket ban?

If your interested, this is what I want.

My gun control proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires; a background check with a mental health screening,
a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15 estimated),
a written test, ( basic gun law)
a one afternoon class on firearms safety, (so there are no excuses)
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgment, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

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

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers license.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a license, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

With this plan you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because supposedly more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport license, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.
The permit makes legal transfers easier (just call in your two permit numbers and the serial number), while also making it easy and fast to check if the person can legally own a firearm.

Of course I accept flexibility in individual pieces as long as the tractability and mandatory background check in some form is present. This is just my best attempt at a working plan.

Yes, a decent plan. I think some sort of renewal process is needed, including passing the safety demonstration again. Someone who develops Parkinson's ought perhaps give up their gun.

[Dooom35796821595]

where have you ever seen me propose or support a blanket ban?

If your interested, this is what I want.

My gun control proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires; a background check with a mental health screening,
a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15 estimated),
a written test, ( basic gun law)
a one afternoon class on firearms safety, (so there are no excuses)
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgment, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

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

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers license.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a license, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

With this plan you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because supposedly more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport license, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.
The permit makes legal transfers easier (just call in your two permit numbers and the serial number), while also making it easy and fast to check if the person can legally own a firearm.

Of course I accept flexibility in individual pieces as long as the tractability and mandatory background check in some form is present. This is just my best attempt at a working plan.

Yes, a decent plan. I think some sort of renewal process is needed, including passing the safety demonstration again. Someone who develops Parkinson's ought perhaps give up their gun.

Something that should be adapted for a driving licence too.

[Big Jim P]

I have no problem with gun laws that specifically target the criminal use of guns, so long as it does not affect the rights of the law-abiding. Unfortunately, every gun control proposal I have seen has the exact opposite effect. Teh only thing I see as doing that would be doubling or tripling (or whatever it takes) sentences with no plea bargaining or chance of parole for crimes involving guns. That puts the burden exactly where it belongs: on the criminal, WITHOUT affecting the lawful uses of guns.

Opening the NCIS to everyone and encouraging it's use is a good idea. Making such use mandatory is not. Personally, I would not sell (in a private transaction) if I had any doubts without one, but I should not be forced to.

Repealing old, stupid and ineffective gun control laws is a good idea, independent of whether or not new laws are enacted.

I think I am beyond agreeing with the GCAs on "compromise" gun laws, even if they were not the one-way street the GCAs insist on. The law-abiding gun owners have been burned too may times and the GCAs have directly lied about the numbers and actual scope of the "gun problem" for me to ever trust them. many gun owners feel the same way.

Personally, I think we should keep the NCIS only for the Navy and Marines. But I wouldn't be upset if NICS were made freely available to non-FFLs.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, a decent plan. I think some sort of renewal process is needed, including passing the safety demonstration again. Someone who develops Parkinson's ought perhaps give up their gun.

Something that should be adapted for a driving licence too.

In most places it is, though the crucial retest for driving is the eye exam.

[Spirit of Hope]

My gun control proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

Call it a personal hang up, but I don't like requiring a permit to own something. I'm fine with requiring permits to carry/use something on public lands, but not for just owning something to use in privacy. Which is how most guns are used.

getting said permit requires; a background check with a mental health screening,

What type of mental health screening, because those tend to be expensive and take a bit of time.

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

If it actually costs that much, but I think the fee would be higher.

a written test, ( basic gun law)

Why? If you are going into the business of guns being required to pass a test about all of the associated laws makes sense. but for your average person it really doesn't, it just adds difficulty to getting a gun with no great result for public safety.

The comparison has been made to drivers license but that doesn't work here. For driving you need to know the rules of the road, because that is how you interact with other drivers. The same is not true for guns.

a one afternoon class on firearms safety, (so there are no excuses)

Firearms are incredibly accident safe, why add extra inconvenience when they cause so few accidents? Again the comparison can be made to a drivers license, but again it is a false comparison. For driving you are again interacting with others on a public road system, the government has a vested interest in making sure you can interact correctly. No such interactions with guns.

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

This sounds like a catch 22. To own a gun you need to show proficiency with a gun. To show proficiency with a gun you have to practice with a gun. To practice with a gun you probably need to won a gun.

Again the comparison can be made to a drivers license, but again it is a false comparison. For driving you are again interacting with others on a public road system, the government has a vested interest in making sure you can interact correctly. No such interactions with guns.

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgment, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

Don't really have a problem with this, besides the whole permit thing, and process.

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Not seeing the need for a permit to buy ammo. That really makes it a catch 22, cause you definitely need ammo to practice with a gun.

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

Who is keeping the records? How are they being kept? What will be in those records?

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers license.

I'm not seeing why I should need different permitting for rifles, handguns and shotguns. The only difference is the practical part, which is a stupid requirement, and only serves to make the whole process more complicated and time intensive. Sounds like an easy way to discourage people from getting guns for safe recreational uses.

What you are describing to me sounds like a great process for a carry permit, but a silly one for an "owners permit."

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a license, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

Illegally buying a gun/owning a gun is already a rather large offense.

With this plan you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because supposedly more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport license, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

Except most of those things are silly to keep separate. I can understand making fully automatics more restricted, but foreign makes and large calibers? A "foreign" gun works the exact same way a "local" gun does, it is just a difference of who/where it was made, why should the end user have to worry about that? Large calibers is another stupid one, sure a "large caliber" (how are we defining this btw?) weapon may be slightly more "dangerous," but they are far less common in crime and with out extremely good skills, what you are probably selecting for with your permit, lose most of that extra "danger". What accessories? Those scary suppressors that protect my hearing? Or those scary flash suppressors that protect my vision? Or those scary bayonet lugs, because when I go on a homicidal spree I'm going to bayonet people with my rifle instead of shooting with my rifle.

Again you make a invalid comparison to flying licenses and driving licenses, especially with the above. Why is getting a commercial flying license harder? Because you are getting certified to act as a business for flying people. None of the listed items require any more real gun experience or interaction with others than a basic rifle. A better comparison would be the required licensing for flying a twin engine over a single engine, but that actually includes needing new skills and training. Not really so for just about everything you listed.

The permit makes legal transfers easier (just call in your two permit numbers and the serial number), while also making it easy and fast to check if the person can legally own a firearm.

NICS is already pretty easy and fast. We just need to actually use it, and give it the data it needs.

Of course I accept flexibility in individual pieces as long as the tractability and mandatory background check in some form is present. This is just my best attempt at a working plan.

In conclusion I think large parts of this make sense from the perspective of a permit to carry a firearm, but make little to no sense for ownership requirements.

[Paddy O Fernature]

My gun control proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

Call it a personal hang up, but I don't like requiring a permit to own something. I'm fine with requiring permits to carry/use something on public lands, but not for just owning something to use in privacy. Which is how most guns are used.

getting said permit requires; a background check with a mental health screening,

What type of mental health screening, because those tend to be expensive and take a bit of time.

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

If it actually costs that much, but I think the fee would be higher.

a written test, ( basic gun law)

Why? If you are going into the business of guns being required to pass a test about all of the associated laws makes sense. but for your average person it really doesn't, it just adds difficulty to getting a gun with no great result for public safety.

The comparison has been made to drivers license but that doesn't work here. For driving you need to know the rules of the road, because that is how you interact with other drivers. The same is not true for guns.

a one afternoon class on firearms safety, (so there are no excuses)

Firearms are incredibly accident safe, why add extra inconvenience when they cause so few accidents? Again the comparison can be made to a drivers license, but again it is a false comparison. For driving you are again interacting with others on a public road system, the government has a vested interest in making sure you can interact correctly. No such interactions with guns.

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

This sounds like a catch 22. To own a gun you need to show proficiency with a gun. To show proficiency with a gun you have to practice with a gun. To practice with a gun you probably need to won a gun.

Again the comparison can be made to a drivers license, but again it is a false comparison. For driving you are again interacting with others on a public road system, the government has a vested interest in making sure you can interact correctly. No such interactions with guns.

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgment, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

Don't really have a problem with this, besides the whole permit thing, and process.

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Not seeing the need for a permit to buy ammo. That really makes it a catch 22, cause you definitely need ammo to practice with a gun.

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

Who is keeping the records? How are they being kept? What will be in those records?

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers license.

I'm not seeing why I should need different permitting for rifles, handguns and shotguns. The only difference is the practical part, which is a stupid requirement, and only serves to make the whole process more complicated and time intensive. Sounds like an easy way to discourage people from getting guns for safe recreational uses.

What you are describing to me sounds like a great process for a carry permit, but a silly one for an "owners permit."

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a license, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

Illegally buying a gun/owning a gun is already a rather large offense.

With this plan you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because supposedly more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport license, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

Except most of those things are silly to keep separate. I can understand making fully automatics more restricted, but foreign makes and large calibers? A "foreign" gun works the exact same way a "local" gun does, it is just a difference of who/where it was made, why should the end user have to worry about that? Large calibers is another stupid one, sure a "large caliber" (how are we defining this btw?) weapon may be slightly more "dangerous," but they are far less common in crime and with out extremely good skills, what you are probably selecting for with your permit, lose most of that extra "danger". What accessories? Those scary suppressors that protect my hearing? Or those scary flash suppressors that protect my vision? Or those scary bayonet lugs, because when I go on a homicidal spree I'm going to bayonet people with my rifle instead of shooting with my rifle.

Again you make a invalid comparison to flying licenses and driving licenses, especially with the above. Why is getting a commercial flying license harder? Because you are getting certified to act as a business for flying people. None of the listed items require any more real gun experience or interaction with others than a basic rifle. A better comparison would be the required licensing for flying a twin engine over a single engine, but that actually includes needing new skills and training. Not really so for just about everything you listed.

The permit makes legal transfers easier (just call in your two permit numbers and the serial number), while also making it easy and fast to check if the person can legally own a firearm.

NICS is already pretty easy and fast. We just need to actually use it, and give it the data it needs.

Of course I accept flexibility in individual pieces as long as the tractability and mandatory background check in some form is present. This is just my best attempt at a working plan.

In conclusion I think large parts of this make sense from the perspective of a permit to carry a firearm, but make little to no sense for ownership requirements.

Was about to submit my own break down of this, read the above, and pretty much agreed with the vast majority of it.

No sense in beating a dead horse, so I'll just say that I agree with the above breakdown assessment.