[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[Big Jim P]

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.

Most of Socios ideas fall firmly into infringement. You don't need a permit to exercise a Constitutional right.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Plenty of ranges wil rent guns. Or you can go shooting with friends/family and use their guns to get proficient.
And not to speak too much for socio bio, but I think his proposed permits will be fairly easy to get as he conceives. For the practical part, it's not like you have to an expert mark,and or have the presidents hundred tab or anything. Basically anything above storm trooper accuracy would likely suffice. As to the rest of it aside from a govt held registry of sales (I'd be ok if it were modified to allow a private entity to hold the records) I don't see too much objectionable here. Likewise, in terms of his system of "endorsements on the permit" for shotguns handguns etc, I'm pretty sure again that is basically just proving you can safely load fire and store the weapon and hit the broad side of a barn. Really pretty de minimis, and I'm guessing most people would just get it all taken care of at one go even if they are only planning on buying wine type of weapon.

[Llamalandia]

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.



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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."



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



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.



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



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.

Most of Socios ideas fall firmly into infringement. You don't need a permit to exercise a Constitutional right.

Sure you. If you hold a protest say in the middle of the street without a proper permit you can be arrested. You basically have a right to assemble and petition anywhere in public, but obviously some places are necessarily going to require a permit.
That said, I suppose in a strict sense I do have to agree with you there. I mean by the same logic using the NICS at all is an infringement as well, but do we really want to get rid of it?

[Spirit of Hope]

Plenty of ranges wil rent guns. Or you can go shooting with friends/family and use their guns to get proficient.

While I may be able to rent the gun, if there is a range near me that will do that and the law allows that, I will not be able to buy the ammo to shoot with the gun. Because to buy ammo I need a permit.

As for shooting with friends, that is a possibility. If I have friends to shoot with, and the law is structured to allow that. Plus my friend is going to have to eat ammo costs, because I can't pay him back for ammo. Plus how will they have gotten their permit? Friend of theirs? What if you have no friends who already have a permit?

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if under this proposal lending/renting guns required a permit.

And not to speak too much for socio bio, but I think his proposed permits will be fairly easy to get as he conceives. For the practical part, it's not like you have to an expert mark,and or have the presidents hundred tab or anything. Basically anything above storm trooper accuracy would likely suffice.

He says specifically:

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

With no definition for reasonable target or range, which makes me nervous. Plus, again, guns are absurdly safe from an accident stand point. ~500 deaths from around 80,000,000-100,000,000 people who own or have access to guns, a rate of .6 per 100,000. Want to know what is deadlier? High school and college football, 1 in 100,000.

As to the rest of it aside from a govt held registry of sales (I'd be ok if it were modified to allow a private entity to hold the records) I don't see too much objectionable here.

I obviously see plenty of things that are objectionable, and laid them out point by point.

Likewise, in terms of his system of "endorsements on the permit" for shotguns handguns etc, I'm pretty sure again that is basically just proving you can safely load fire and store the weapon and hit the broad side of a barn.

Yes the are low standards. but they are standards that don't need to be there and make no sense being there. From a safety stand point their is essentially no difference in how you handle different guns. As for loading that varies widely from gun manufacturer to gun manufacturer, and model, plus why should I demonstrate how to load a gun? A better example would be the safety but those vary even more. So am I going to need a different permit/endorsement for each model of gun I want to own? That makes no sense.

Really pretty de minimis, and I'm guessing most people would just get it all taken care of at one go even if they are only planning on buying wine type of weapon.

Most people generally don't plan to buy one type of model, and this is a multi hour process across several different facilities. hard to get it done all in one go. It is mostly just bureaucratic nonsense that would do little to none to actually make guns less dangerous, besides making guns harder to get and inconveniencing law abiding citizens in a huge way.

[Aelex]

1)I am not the one blind to reality.

2)We have the highest number of DGUs in the States. Check.
3)We don't "give" guns to anyone, let alone everyone. Damn, the stupidity of that one actually hurt.
4)Not really. Guns are used legitimately to defend against criminals unarmed, armed with knives, blunt objects etc. as well as those armed with guns.
5)The shootings you mention are rare. Try again.
6)Accidental deaths due to gunfire (all ages. stats are for 2011 or 2012): 500. Not only countable, but infinitesimal.
7)I am firmly in the 21st century and see the reality around me.
Logic? "Disarming the law-abiding makes them safer" shows a sever lack of both a grasp of and perception of reality, and has no basis in logic.
9)Real progress would be punishing the criminals and leaving the law-abiding alone.

10)The job of the police is not to defend anyone, just to enforce the law, and unless they are with you 24/7 they CANNOT defend you in any case. They can merely respond to the crime you are a victim of, and that response will be ten or more minutes in arriving (45 minutes where I live). Meanwhile, you are dead and the criminal long gone.

1)Yes you are.

2)And that's supposed to be a good thing?
3)Actually, I think that it's not really hard to understand that letting everyone except the people who've already been convicted for a crime or suffer from mental disorders acquire gun is plain stupid as the two late would have no problems to procure themselves easily some from a flourishing black market constantly fueled by the official one.
4)Defending yourself is a thing, killing someone purposely another.
5)So because nuclear accident are rare we just shouldn't care about them? I knew that, being a stereotypical redneck, I shouldn't expect too much from you but you still managed to disappoint me on this one.
6)Once again, them happening at all is a proof that weapons shouldn't be allowed. If kids suffocate themselves because of a toy, why should we ban it? It's completly stupid to forbid it just because some kids died while the majority just played with the toys without harming themselves nor others kids! After all, the number of their death is infinitesimal, so yeah, we should just get on our merry way and do as if it never happened!
7)Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah... But no. If you were really in the 21th century, you would have saw that the rest of the western world had understood since at least one century that letting their citizen have weapons is plain stupid since it increase both the numbers of crime but also the risks of lethality of the said crimes.

8 and 9)And I will take the time to give you a good explication that even you can understand, and that, just to honorate your efforts since you seemed to have really tired yourself with all the intellectual gymnastic just so your argument could make a little sense.
"Disarming everyone" have for simple consequence to stop anyone from buying weapons anymore (with the exception of some low caliber rifles for hunting of course). Thus, the numbers of people owning weapons will stagnate and start to lower with the time. Without legal weapons to fuel itself anymore, the black market for weapons will, just after a incredible rise following the ban, start to drop too.
But this is a policy which need time to be useful, asking for immediate results is basically as intelligent than expecting to be cured of your cancer after a single seance of chemotherapy.

10)For the policemen, I don't know for your country but their primary role in mine is that they have to assure the Paix Publique and thus to, indeed, protect citizen. Also, if weapons were banned; the odds of the criminal being able to find a gun would have been near to 0% and thus neither you nor him would die since nobody would have had a firearm at all.

[Washington Resistance Army]

1)Yes you are.

How is Jim blind to reality? A number of us have been around guns our whole lives, we know a bit more about them than you do.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm somewhere torn between 2, and 3.

Mostly because while I agree with the ownership and carry of a gun, I don't think just anyone should get it.

[Paddy O Fernature]

1)Yes you are.

How is Jim blind to reality? A number of us have been around guns our whole lives, we know a bit more about them than you do.

I really wish people overall would educate themselves to even a basic level about something, before attempting to force a viewpoint unto others who know a hell of alot more about said subject then themselves.

[Rangila]

1)Yes you are.

How is Jim blind to reality? A number of us have been around guns our whole lives, we know a bit more about them than you do.

He makes up nonsensical things when he's mad. I've seen him do it elsewhere.

[Omega America II]

How is Jim blind to reality? A number of us have been around guns our whole lives, we know a bit more about them than you do.

He makes up nonsensical things when he's mad. I've seen him do it elsewhere.

Well here he has spoken the truth.

[Washington Resistance Army]

How is Jim blind to reality? A number of us have been around guns our whole lives, we know a bit more about them than you do.

He makes up nonsensical things when he's mad. I've seen him do it elsewhere.

Maybe, but he's spoken nothing but the truth here.

Edit: Jim, that is.

[Aelex]

How is Jim blind to reality? A number of us have been around guns our whole lives, we know a bit more about them than you do.

He makes up nonsensical things when he's mad. I've seen him do it elsewhere.

Apart from this blabant and quite pitiful ad hominem, you have nothing more to contribute?
Also, may I ask you exactly where I made shit up? Or even when I ever interracted with you?
I don't say I remember every people I debate with but I don't remember even seeing you nor talking to you before.

[Aelex]

Maybe, but he's spoken nothing but the truth here.

If you spell truth : B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T, then yes indeed I'm spoken with nothing but truth here.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Maybe, but he's spoken nothing but the truth here.

If you spell truth : B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T, then yes indeed I'm spoken with nothing but truth here.

Everything you've said has been bullshit yes. I'm sorry but you just have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to this.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
2)And that's supposed to be a good thing? (on the topic of defensive gun uses)

Yes. Yes it is.

3)Actually, I think that it's not really hard to understand that letting everyone except the people who've already been convicted for a crime or suffer from mental disorders acquire gun is plain stupid as the two late would have no problems to procure themselves easily some from a flourishing black market constantly fueled by the official one.

Uh...This statement is really hard to understand.
I mean, I think I know what you're trying to say, but I'm not certain. Lets just move on.

4)Defending yourself is a thing, killing someone purposely another.

Sometimes defending oneself includes killing someone purposely.

5)So because nuclear accident are rare we just shouldn't care about them? I knew that, being a stereotypical redneck, I shouldn't expect too much from you but you still managed to disappoint me on this one.

What he's saying is more akin to 'because nuclear accidents are rare, fearmongering over those that have occurred (usually due to operator error or extreme failures of some kind) isn't a good practice'.
Which is true both on its own and when translated to its firearm corollary. Mass shootings are a retarded basis for policy, as Chernobyl or Fukushima would be, and as banning commercial airliners because of MH370 would be.

6)Once again, them happening at all is a proof that weapons shouldn't be allowed.

This is not a logical or rational argument. Airliner crashes happening at all is not proof that they should be banned. Nuclear reactors failing in some manner is not proof they shouldn't be allowed. This is ridiculous.

If kids suffocate themselves because of a toy, why should we ban it? It's completly stupid to forbid it just because some kids died while the majority just played with the toys without harming themselves nor others kids! After all, the number of their death is infinitesimal, so yeah, we should just get on our merry way and do as if it never happened!

I am impressed at your ability to make a rational approach to the issue somehow sound as if it's objectionable.

...
8 and 9)And I will take the time to give you a good explication that even you can understand, and that, just to honorate your efforts since you seemed to have really tired yourself with all the intellectual gymnastic just so your argument could make a little sense.

HA!

"Disarming everyone" have for simple consequence to stop anyone from buying weapons anymore (with the exception of some low caliber rifles for hunting of course). Thus, the numbers of people owning weapons will stagnate and start to lower with the time. Without legal weapons to fuel itself anymore, the black market for weapons will, just after a incredible rise following the ban, start to drop too.

With magically no impact on crime, and somehow not affecting the thousands/millions of defensive firearm uses every year?
Ha!

But this is a policy which need time to be useful, asking for immediate results is basically as intelligent than expecting to be cured of your cancer after a single seance of chemotherapy.

Translation: Shit will get worse before it will get better. Trust us.

Your idea is impractical even by this logic though. There are more than 300,000,000 firearms in the US. The available 'pool' for the black market isn't going to be affected for DECADES by even a complete ban on further production.

10)For the policemen, I don't know for your country but their primary role in mine is that they have to assure the Paix Publique and thus to, indeed, protect citizen.

Numerous court cases in the US have absolved officers of the law from any responsibility towards 'protecting people'. They are responsible for upholding laws, not protecting people.

Also, if weapons were banned; the odds of the criminal being able to find a gun would have been near to 0% and thus neither you nor him would die since nobody would have had a firearm at all.

Even if this is true, it would take decades, if not a century or more to become the case in the US. Decades (or more) during which the thousands/millions of defensive firearm uses and every other benefit of firearms is eliminated or rendered so expensively practiced as to not be common enough to present the benefits it does (it's still pretty cost-effective to hunt for meat in many parts of the US. If your rifle costs a shit-ton more that's going to stop being the case, and then state's/federal government will have to expend more on wildlife management programs, and so on).

[Omega America II]

Maybe, but he's spoken nothing but the truth here.

If you spell truth : B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T, then yes indeed I'm spoken with nothing but truth here.

Yeah, B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. is what you have said here.

[Gun Manufacturers]

How is Jim blind to reality? A number of us have been around guns our whole lives, we know a bit more about them than you do.

I really wish people overall would educate themselves to even a basic level about something, before attempting to force a viewpoint unto others who know a hell of alot more about said subject then themselves.

ZOMG, IT'S A GHOST GUN!!!! AND IT'S GOT THE SHOULDER THING THAT GOES UP!!!!

[Rundashia]

I really don't like any of these responses, I don't need guns to feel safe for one, and I do feel like anyone with problems with mental stability should be kept away. I like them for recreation and that's it, but I suppose that is the problem with polls.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I really wish people overall would educate themselves to even a basic level about something, before attempting to force a viewpoint unto others who know a hell of alot more about said subject then themselves.

ZOMG, IT'S A GHOST GUN!!!! AND IT'S GOT THE SHOULDER THING THAT GOES UP!!!!

Bah, I'll bet that if you pull the barrel shroud off it's really just Old Man Jenkins posing as a ghost-gun so he can buy the property it's 'haunting' for a bargain.
Jinkies.

[Paddy O Fernature]

ZOMG, IT'S A GHOST GUN!!!! AND IT'S GOT THE SHOULDER THING THAT GOES UP!!!!

Bah, I'll bet that if you pull the barrel shroud off it's really just Old Man Jenkins posing as a ghost-gun so he can buy the property it's 'haunting' for a bargain.
Jinkies.

So.. much... win.

[Gun Manufacturers]

ZOMG, IT'S A GHOST GUN!!!! AND IT'S GOT THE SHOULDER THING THAT GOES UP!!!!

Bah, I'll bet that if you pull the barrel shroud off it's really just Old Man Jenkins posing as a ghost-gun so he can buy the property it's 'haunting' for a bargain.
Jinkies.

And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for us meddling kids.

[Zoscua]

I don't really support anything beyond background checks, and the prohibition of fully-automatic weapons. Most other restrictions seem really arbitrary.

[Sevvania]

5)So because nuclear accident are rare we just shouldn't care about them?
6)Once again, them happening at all is a proof that weapons shouldn't be allowed. If kids suffocate themselves because of a toy, why should we ban it? It's completly stupid to forbid it just because some kids died while the majority just played with the toys without harming themselves nor others kids! After all, the number of their death is infinitesimal, so yeah, we should just get on our merry way and do as if it never happened!

5) It invariably comes back to "guns = nukes!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc
tl;dw: That argument is silly and nonsensical and you insult the intelligence of everyone involved by using it.
6) Plastic bags are a suffocation hazard. We haven't banned plastic bags.

blabant and quite pitiful ad hominem

I knew that, being a stereotypical redneck, I shouldn't expect too much from you

[Gun Manufacturers]

I don't really support anything beyond background checks, and the prohibition of fully-automatic weapons. Most other restrictions seem really arbitrary.

Why prohibit full auto weapons? Since 1934, there have only been 2 murders with legally owned full auto weapons.

[Sociobiology]

While I may be able to rent the gun, if there is a range near me that will do that and the law allows that, I will not be able to buy the ammo to shoot with the gun. Because to buy ammo I need a permit.

Thats a good point, and I'm kinda surprised no one else ever noticed it. I will include something about ranges, basically as long as said ammo is used on site or in front of the permit owners. perhaps something like
"A special situation would be made for ranges who rent and recover firearms and ammunition on site. Ranges already have their own permitting systems so it would not be a huge change. The range would still have to have a permit (possibly a specific endorsement) but they could rent firearms and ammunition as long as they were kept on site. "

As for shooting with friends, that is a possibility. If I have friends to shoot with, and the law is structured to allow that.

Of course, you own the firearm, anything he does with it you are liable for.

Plus my friend is going to have to eat ammo costs, because I can't pay him back for ammo.

why not? You aren't buying ammunition, your reimbursing for spent ammunition after the fact, that's the way it works in places that have such permits.

Plus how will they have gotten their permit? Friend of theirs? What if you have no friends who already have a permit?

I don't understand this one?

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if under this proposal lending/renting guns required a permit.

loaning would be illegal yes, its different if you are supervising a firearms use, just like with most permits you can do things like that, you are just liable for anything that happens.

With no definition for reasonable target or range, which makes me nervous.[/quote]
because I'm not an expert in marksmanship, I would assume it was something like a man sized target in one of those roadside range trailer ranges, but I'm very flexible here, I could even see making this a state by state decision.

Plus, again, guns are absurdly safe from an accident stand point.

basic safety, aka point the firearm at a person, you fail, hand a loaded firearm to anyone, you fail, ect. And of course this would be after the class instructing you in safety. If you can't follow basic instructions like that, you can't be trusted with a firearm.

~500 deaths from around 80,000,000-100,000,000 people who own or have access to guns, a rate of .6 per 100,000. Want to know what is deadlier? High school and college football, 1 in 100,000.

and how many of those are people who did not actually play either sport?

As to the rest of it aside from a govt held registry of sales (I'd be ok if it were modified to allow a private entity to hold the records) I don't see too much objectionable here.

I wouldn't trust a private entity, they have a tendency to sell such information.

I obviously see plenty of things that are objectionable, and laid them out point by point.

Likewise, in terms of his system of "endorsements on the permit" for shotguns handguns etc, I'm pretty sure again that is basically just proving you can safely load fire and store the weapon and hit the broad side of a barn.

Yes the are low standards. but they are standards that don't need to be there and make no sense being there. From a safety stand point their is essentially no difference in how you handle different guns.

depends on what you consider a firearm, I would assume this includes destructive device categories as well, not to mention things like black powder.
and notice that whole part is stated as a possibility, I purposely built a bit of give and take in the proposal.

As for loading that varies widely from gun manufacturer to gun manufacturer, and model, plus why should I demonstrate how to load a gun?

because I have seen people load firearms while pointing them at other people. plus you have things like black powder.

A better example would be the safety but those vary even more. So am I going to need a different permit/endorsement for each model of gun I want to own? That makes no sense.

your right it doesn't, which is why I proposed no such thing.

Really pretty de minimis, and I'm guessing most people would just get it all taken care of at one go even if they are only planning on buying wine type of weapon.

Most people generally don't plan to buy one type of model, and this is a multi hour process across several different facilities. hard to get it done all in one go. It is mostly just bureaucratic nonsense that would do little to none to actually make guns less dangerous, besides making guns harder to get and inconveniencing law abiding citizens in a huge way.

actually the single thing it does is make it much harder for violent criminals and the mentally ill to acquire firearms, with some padding built in to select out complete idiots.