[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[Sociobiology]

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

actually they can, this is firmly established law for firearms.
Its actually a really interesting branch of constitutional law, because the courts have decided some rights can require permits and others cannot.

but either way its not like the constitution hasn't been changed 27 times.

[Spirit of Hope]

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. "

Which means the range has a captive audience. Fun, I'm sure they won't price ammo extremely high (oh wait they already do that.)

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.

So lending guns is ok? Sweet that is how criminals get 30% of their guns, from friends and families. So sure now you can hold them responsible, but we can generally already do that.

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.

Sounds like a straw purchase to me, friend buys for you to use.

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?

Simple. To get a permit you have to practice with a gun. The suggestion was made that I can borrow a friends gun, but how is my friend going to have that gun? He will have to have practiced, which mans he will have had to borrow a friends gun. I'm sure you can see where this is going. The ability to use range guns and ammo lessens this somewhat but still has multiple problems. Notably that range ammo is expensive, as is renting a gun. So this all becomes a racket that discourages the poor from owning guns.

With no definition for reasonable target or range, which makes me nervous.

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.

So why include it? It serves no purpose but to increase the cost and time of the test, both directly and indirectly.

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.

But requiring it is stupid. Guns are extremely accident safe. Adding this will be unlikely to reduce accidents by a large margin, especially given how absurdly rare they are, and only increases the cost of the license, in both time and money.

~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?

Are you trying to imply that gun accidents kill those who don't own/use guns? I don't imagine it is a large number, but I don't have it.

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.

So we should trust the government to hold that information, and only look at it when they have a warrant? Sure, the government would never do that.

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



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.

And most of the proposal does nothing about the major concerns about firearms, besides make firearms harder to get by the arbitrary process of adding more requirements.

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.

And those have resulted in how many accidents? Yes those people are being stupid, doesn't mean you should be taking away their right to own guns. Again most of this proposal does nothing about the main concern of firearms, besides just make them harder to get.

And if you want to treat black powder differently then you should have said so. Instead you spoke of treating rifles, shotguns, handguns, large calibers, and accessories as different. Which are all stupid categories, at least black powder would make some more sense.

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.

Except 90% of the proposal isn't aimed at the mentally ill or the criminals. The only things that are aimed at them are the background check, mental health check and registration. Everything else is aimed at the "complete idiots."

And here is the thing, we already know that 99.999% of gun owners aren't "complete idiots." So why should we punish the 79,900,000 guys and girls who use their guns responsibly by making them pay a bunch of extra money and waste a bunch of extra time?

[Sociobiology]

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.

I'm just going with what works well in other countries with high firearms ownership rates and strong gun cultures.
I was trying to think of something easy, cheap, and that would actually solve the problem. We already have permits for owning certain things. I myself had an explosives permit for many years.

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.[/quote]

checking to make sure you've never been commited for or diagnosed with anything that would make you ineligible, actually the new healthcare law is our friend here, it has done a lot to make such things easier to find.

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

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

I used hunting permits for the number, That is what Alaska charges and I figured they had pretty high overhead.

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.

sure it is the basic thing is the major point making it very difficult for violent criminals and the mentally ill to acquire firearms. That's why the two main points are the only parts I'm not flexible about. The test is mostly for liability purposes, you have proven you know what you can and cannot do with the firearm, no excuses.

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.

sure it is, the major problem is how people use firearms to interact with other people. I don't care if you blow your own foot off.

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?

Actually I would love to see a source for this, accidents not fatalities.
We don't have good numbers for intentional shooting rates (why I supported Pres. Obama's funding to find out) even the information we have on accidental is pretty soft, but the CDC has ~16-17,000 reported cases a year and again that's only the reported cases with 84,258 injuries in 2013. Then you have 142,568 aggrivated assaults with a firearm in 2012. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/15tabledatadecpdf hard to say saftey is not an issue, esspecialy since assualts with a firearm are the most likely to be fatal.

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 problem is people being shot by other people, so yes very comparable.

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.

so you never drove a car before you got your licence?

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?

likely the ATF, but I could see arguments for other agencies.

How are they being kept?

I just said, accessible only with a warrant.
As for format, I'm not a bureaucrat, I assume a similar database they use for explosives transactions.

What will be in those records?

I said this too, two permit numbers a serial number and a date.

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 a huge loophole because private sellers don't have to check and its almost impossible to prove they know.

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?

by large caliper I mean 50 cal, 8 gauge, and cannons, I used to live in a state that had a weight limit on firearms because people were hunting from one mountain to another and causing a huge hazard.

A "foreign" gun works the exact same way a "local" gun does,

but may have trade embargo issues, things that a collector might be exempt from.

What accessories?

things that might turn a shot gun into a handgun, paired firearms, ect, look if you want a fully realized piece of legislation, find me a couple of lawyers that will work for free, or you could try helping instead of just jumping to conclusions.

Again you make a invalid comparison to flying licenses and driving licenses, especially with the above.

CDL, comercial drivers licence

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

. But expanding it would require a pretty severe overhaul including a change to force states to report. A permit is just easier than a background check every time. Plus you would still have to create a record of sale, that without a permit would have to include your identifying information in that data, which many people have a problem with.

[Sevvania]

In regards to restrictions on foreign firearms in the US, there's a thing called 922(r) that basically says (at least to the best of my understanding) that a foreign-manufactured firearm has to have a certain number of components replaced with American-made ones. I have no idea why it's a thing, but it's a thing.

[Sociobiology]

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. "

Which means the range has a captive audience.

no it doesn't see previous post

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

So lending guns is ok? Sweet that is how criminals get 30% of their guns, from friends and families. So sure now you can hold them responsible, but we can generally already do that.

no actually we have a problem with that because its hard to prove they knew the other person was in illegible. This requires them to be with the person while loaning it, so if their friend is arrested, either they traded the firearm illegally or they were there when the crime was committed and are an accessory to the crime.

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.

Sounds like a straw purchase to me, friend buys for you to use.

read it again. it desribes paying for ammunition after it is expended in their presence.

I don't understand this one?

Simple. To get a permit you have to practice with a gun. The suggestion was made that I can borrow a friends gun, but how is my friend going to have that gun? He will have to have practiced, which mans he will have had to borrow a friends gun. I'm sure you can see where this is going.

no, because literally millions of people currently know how to use a gun, and we train millions of people to drive cars they cannot legally drive on their own.

The ability to use range guns and ammo lessens this somewhat but still has multiple problems. Notably that range ammo is expensive, as is renting a gun. So this all becomes a racket that discourages the poor from owning guns.

why its only $5-15 cheaper to buy your own firearm, if you mean people who don't know anyone who owns a firearm, well their probably going to need more help anyway and in the US they would be rarer than blonde Jewish native american Nazi's. Plus I know several states that have state owned public ranges. And my permit is cheaper than many current state permits.

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.

So why include it? It serves no purpose but to increase the cost and time of the test, both directly and indirectly.

because I think it is a good idea, mostly its an excuse to check for firearm safety. If you really can't do it, maybe something that requires hand eye coordination is not for you.

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.

But requiring it is stupid. Guns are extremely accident safe.

no they are not, I dealt with this in a different post.

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

Are you trying to imply that gun accidents kill those who don't own/use guns? I don't imagine it is a large number, but I don't have it.

Maybe you should before you try to make claims.

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.

So we should trust the government to hold that information, and only look at it when they have a warrant? Sure, the government would never do that.

more than I would a private agency, governments have oversight and a constitutional right to sue them, the only guarantee we have over a private agency is... government oversight and enforcement which you have a problem with. Its a catch 22 you are reliant on the government to be competent in both cases, but mine has fewer places for abuse to enter the sytem.

And most of the proposal does nothing about the major concerns about firearms, besides make firearms harder to get by the arbitrary process of adding more requirements.

actually in most states it makes them easier to get.

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

And those have resulted in how many accidents?

good question, somewhere between 1 and 17,000

Yes those people are being stupid, doesn't mean you should be taking away their right to own guns.

I'm not, I making them become competent so they are less likely to kill someone.

[Sociobiology]

In regards to restrictions on foreign firearms in the US, there's a thing called 922(r) that basically says (at least to the best of my understanding) that a foreign-manufactured firearm has to have a certain number of components replaced with American-made ones. I have no idea why it's a thing, but it's a thing.

which is basically how much you have to change before foreign made becomes domestically made.
Which is something I could see needing a definition even if it seems strange.

[Big Jim P]

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.

Blatant and quite pitiful ad hominem?

Hoooooooo... The cursed "liberals" those damn commies who after each mass murders have the guts to ask to ban weapons when the only logical response to this is to arm even more people so they could have defended themselve!
Anyway, I hope you're just being hypocrite here because not understanding that if you give to everyone the possibility to own tool of death, every little incident become more likely to have a lethal outcome, then you're genuinely stupid.

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.

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.

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.

Pot meet kettle.

I may disagree with Socio, but at least he is not a hypocrite.

[Big Jim P]

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.

No you haven't, and I am not angry. Care try try for a third strike?

[Big Jim P]

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

actually they can, this is firmly established law for firearms.
Its actually a really interesting branch of constitutional law, because the courts have decided some rights can require permits and others cannot.

but either way its not like the constitution hasn't been changed 27 times.

I have said it before (it's even in my sig), if you don't like citizens having the Constitutional right to bear arms, amend the Constitution. Good luck getting enough support for repealing the Second Amendment.

Knowing that there is insufficient support for doing so is why the Gun-control lobby/disarmament industry keeps going after the right piecemeal.

[Geilinor]

actually they can, this is firmly established law for firearms.
Its actually a really interesting branch of constitutional law, because the courts have decided some rights can require permits and others cannot.

but either way its not like the constitution hasn't been changed 27 times.

I have said it before (it's even in my sig), if you don't like citizens having the Constitutional right to bear arms, amend the Constitution. Good luck getting enough support for repealing the Second Amendment.

Knowing that there is insufficient support for doing so is why the Gun-control lobby/disarmament industry keeps going after the right piecemeal.

There's no need to amend it for permits. Show me the relevant court case.

[Big Jim P]

I have said it before (it's even in my sig), if you don't like citizens having the Constitutional right to bear arms, amend the Constitution. Good luck getting enough support for repealing the Second Amendment.

Knowing that there is insufficient support for doing so is why the Gun-control lobby/disarmament industry keeps going after the right piecemeal.

There's no need to amend it for permits. Show me the relevant court case.

That falls under "piecemeal" infringements and not the point I was addressing:

but either way its not like the constitution hasn't been changed 27 times.

There is the one I was.

[Geilinor]

There's no need to amend it for permits. Show me the relevant court case.

That falls under "piecemeal" infringements and not the point I was addressing: I emphasized the one I was.

Prove that it's an infringement at all.

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

I'm just going with what works well in other countries with high firearms ownership rates and strong gun cultures.
I was trying to think of something easy, cheap, and that would actually solve the problem. We already have permits for owning certain things. I myself had an explosives permit for many years.

Except your option is neither easy or cheap. And explosives are very different from firearms.

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

checking to make sure you've never been commited for or diagnosed with anything that would make you ineligible, actually the new healthcare law is our friend here, it has done a lot to make such things easier to find.

So not an actual mental health check but a background check for past mental health issues. Almost exactly like what I have proposed to be added to NICS.

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

I used hunting permits for the number, That is what Alaska charges and I figured they had pretty high overhead.

And Californian charges $47 for a hunting license, so you can see why I think that is probably going to be a low estimate.

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.

sure it is the basic thing is the major point making it very difficult for violent criminals and the mentally ill to acquire firearms. That's why the two main points are the only parts I'm not flexible about. The test is mostly for liability purposes, you have proven you know what you can and cannot do with the firearm, no excuses.

And again this does nothing. 99.99% of gun owners have no accidents. You are adding costs and taking away time for something that is extremely rare, and this probably won't stop all that many accidents. It has no purpose but to keep people from getting guns.

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.

sure it is, the major problem is how people use firearms to interact with other people. I don't care if you blow your own foot off.

Wait I thought all of this pain in the ass stuff was to stop idiots? A law test for guns does nothing to keep it away from criminals or those with mental illnesses. It just makes me the law abiding citizen waste time taking a test, and studying for that test, on pieces of law that have nothing to do with me interacting with others with my gun. I'm fairly sure everyone knows murder and assault with a deadly weapon are illegal.

Firearms are incredibly accident safe, why add extra inconvenience when they cause so few accidents?

Actually I would love to see a source for this, accidents not fatalities.
We don't have good numbers for intentional shooting rates (why I supported Pres. Obama's funding to find out) even the information we have on accidental is pretty soft, but the CDC has ~16-17,000 reported cases a year and again that's only the reported cases with 84,258 injuries in 2013. Then you have 142,568 aggrivated assaults with a firearm in 2012. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/15tabledatadecpdf hard to say saftey is not an issue, esspecialy since assualts with a firearm are the most likely to be fatal.

How is a safety class going to do anything about assault? A safety class teaches you how to handle a gun safely. Assault is me purposely using a gun to case injury. By your own number there are only 16-17,000 accidental injuries a year because of guns.

High School athletes suffer 30,000 hospitalizations each year. So guns, across the entire US population, cause less injuries due to accidents, than high school athletics. That seams amazingly safe. Heck by this source every two days there are as many emergency room treatments for sports related activities as their are gun accident injuries a year.

Lets look at another perspective. There are about 100,000,000 people in the US with access to a gun, there are 17,000 injuries because of accidents with guns. That is 17 accidents per 100,000 or 99.983% of those with guns use them responsibly.

Both of those views tell me that gun owners are incredibly safe. That accidents are rare, and well within what society accepts for other activities. So again, this appears to be a way of making the license harder to get, without actually doing anything.

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 problem is people being shot by other people, so yes very comparable.

Accept that is people deliberately doing it, not an accident because they didn't understand the rules. Again, I am fairly sure everyone knows using a gun to kill another person, or injure them or threaten them is illegal (outside of self defense).

This is not me needing to know which side of the road to drive on.

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.

so you never drove a car before you got your licence?

I never drove a car before I got my learners permit, which required I take a written test on road laws. I see no system like that present here. Only you saying possession of a gun without a permit will get you thrown in jail, or heavily fined, or both. Now you have in other places said you would allow gun rentals on the range, and sail of ammunition there, or supervision under another person with a permit.

Option one sounds expensive, and time consuming.

Option two only works if you have a friend with a permit.

Who is keeping the records?

likely the ATF, but I could see arguments for other agencies.

So give them the records so they can search them without needing a search warrant.

How are they being kept?

I just said, accessible only with a warrant.
As for format, I'm not a bureaucrat, I assume a similar database they use for explosives transactions.

Except you are giving them the records. Here ATF is a system you can use to keep track of gun sales. Remember no peeking without a warrant!

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

with a huge loophole because private sellers don't have to check and its almost impossible to prove they know.

Except police actually doing their job would probably prove it most of the time, they just don't bother. And there are other ways, like opening up and requiring NICS to close that loophole that don't create huge costs and inconveniences.

Except most of those things are silly to keep separate. I can understand making fully automatics more restricted, but foreign makes and large calibers?

by large caliper I mean 50 cal, 8 gauge, and cannons, I used to live in a state that had a weight limit on firearms because people were hunting from one mountain to another and causing a huge hazard.

Again, none of those are substantially more dangerous. If you do have issues with the above problem it can be solved state by state.

A "foreign" gun works the exact same way a "local" gun does,

but may have trade embargo issues, things that a collector might be exempt from.

Again sounds like an issue for the dealer not the collector. And trade embargoes are in place for a reason usually, you don't just open them up because Joe average wants a rare gun.

What accessories?

things that might turn a shot gun into a handgun, paired firearms, ect, look if you want a fully realized piece of legislation, find me a couple of lawyers that will work for free, or you could try helping instead of just jumping to conclusions.

Making a shotgun into a handgun isn't an accessory, it is cutting the gun down. And that doesn't sound like a huge issue. And if you don't want me jumping to conclusions you should be more specific. You don't need lawyers to give the examples you just did in your original proposal.

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

. But expanding it would require a pretty severe overhaul including a change to force states to report. A permit is just easier than a background check every time. Plus you would still have to create a record of sale, that without a permit would have to include your identifying information in that data, which many people have a problem with.

Expanding it would require forcing the states to share with the system. So would your proposal.

A permit isn't easier than a background check every time. Your permit will eat up a couple of hours. A back ground check usually takes a couple of minutes, including the waiting for the response. So it would take a lot of gun buying to actually make the permit save time. To bad we don't already have a collectors permit that helps save time for those buying lots of guns, to help avoid the paperwork of those purchases. Oh wait.

[Big Jim P]

That falls under "piecemeal" infringements and not the point I was addressing: I emphasized the one I was.

Prove that it's an infringement at all.

It places undo restriction on the exercise of an enumerated right. Under strictest reading, ANY law (reasonable or otherwise) that restricts or inhibits the exercise of that right is an infringement. Seeing as I am not a member of SCOTUS, my opinion on the matter means little though.

[Geilinor]

Prove that it's an infringement at all.

It places undo restriction on the exercise of an enumerated right. Under strictest reading, ANY law (reasonable or otherwise) that restricts or inhibits the exercise of that right is an infringement. Seeing as I am not a member of SCOTUS, my opinion on the matter means little though.

A permit is not undue, it's reasonable and doesn't need to be difficult.

[Big Jim P]

It places undo restriction on the exercise of an enumerated right. Under strictest reading, ANY law (reasonable or otherwise) that restricts or inhibits the exercise of that right is an infringement. Seeing as I am not a member of SCOTUS, my opinion on the matter means little though.

A permit is not undue, it's reasonable and doesn't need to be difficult.

But it IS a restriction, which IS an infringement.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A permit is not undue, it's reasonable and doesn't need to be difficult.

But it IS a restriction, which IS an infringement.

It isn't a restriction, necessarily, if you can prove that it excludes reasonable behavior.

Most limits to be valid at least have to pass the "yelling fire in a theatre" test. Does this limit actually helps to keep a cohesive society without restricting freedom?

[Big Jim P]

But it IS a restriction, which IS an infringement.

It isn't a restriction, necessarily, if you can prove that it excludes reasonable behavior.

Most limits to be valid at least have to pass the "yelling fire in a theatre" test. Does this limit actually helps to keep a cohesive society without restricting freedom?

Considering the actual rarity of unlawful or harmful misuse of guns, I would say we are well beyond passing the "yelling fire in a theater" test. Especially when juxtaposed to the lawful and beneficial use of said guns. A permitting system (indeed any additional gun control) is unnecessary, thus represent undue restrictions.

[Geilinor]

It isn't a restriction, necessarily, if you can prove that it excludes reasonable behavior.

Most limits to be valid at least have to pass the "yelling fire in a theatre" test. Does this limit actually helps to keep a cohesive society without restricting freedom?

Considering the actual rarity of unlawful or harmful misuse of guns, I would say we are well beyond passing the "yelling fire in a theater" test. Especially when juxtaposed to the lawful and beneficial use of said guns. A permitting system (indeed any additional gun control) is unnecessary, thus represent undue restrictions.

34 people are murdered for every self-defense killing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

[Spirit of Hope]

Considering the actual rarity of unlawful or harmful misuse of guns, I would say we are well beyond passing the "yelling fire in a theater" test. Especially when juxtaposed to the lawful and beneficial use of said guns. A permitting system (indeed any additional gun control) is unnecessary, thus represent undue restrictions.

34 people are murdered for every self-defense killing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

Not every self defense needs a killing. From 2007 to 2011 there were 235,700 uses of a gun defensively. Or 47,000 DGU's a year. Compare to the 10-12,000 homicides a year.

[Sociobiology]

I'm just going with what works well in other countries with high firearms ownership rates and strong gun cultures.
I was trying to think of something easy, cheap, and that would actually solve the problem. We already have permits for owning certain things. I myself had an explosives permit for many years.

Except your option is neither easy or cheap.

I beg to differ.

And explosives are very different from firearms.

but it is an example of a permit for owning something because it could be used to harm someone else through your own ineptitude.

checking to make sure you've never been commited for or diagnosed with anything that would make you ineligible, actually the new healthcare law is our friend here, it has done a lot to make such things easier to find.

So not an actual mental health check but a background check for past mental health issues.

your right, I can see how that might get confused, I'll change it.

I used hunting permits for the number, That is what Alaska charges and I figured they had pretty high overhead.

And Californian charges $47 for a hunting license, so you can see why I think that is probably going to be a low estimate.

California charges that to pay for other activities, I used Alaska because they are only trying to recoup cost and again have huge overhead.

sure it is the basic thing is the major point making it very difficult for violent criminals and the mentally ill to acquire firearms. That's why the two main points are the only parts I'm not flexible about. The test is mostly for liability purposes, you have proven you know what you can and cannot do with the firearm, no excuses.

And again this does nothing. 99.99% of gun owners have no accidents.

source, remember mine was hospitalizations due to accidents. Explosives permittees have even fewer accidents, that does not change the nature of it, if you screw up it is often someone else who pays for it.

You are adding costs

again in most places I am reducing it.

and taking away time for something that is extremely rare, and this probably won't stop all that many accidents.

1-17,000 at minimum, likely higher.

It has no purpose but to keep people from getting guns.

I have yet to see a demonstration that it will prevent anyone from owning a gun, unless we both agree they shouldn't have one. AKA they cant handle it safely or are ineligible.

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.

sure it is, the major problem is how people use firearms to interact with other people. I don't care if you blow your own foot off.

Wait I thought all of this pain in the ass stuff was to stop idiots?

no the practical tests are to weed out idiots, not just general aggravation.

A law test for guns does nothing to keep it away from criminals or those with mental illnesses.

no it makes sure the person KNOWS the law so they are less likely to commit a crime by accident and have a weaker leg to stand on in court if they do commit a crime. I'm pretty sure I explained this.

It just makes me the law abiding citizen waste time taking a test, and studying for that test, on pieces of law that have nothing to do with me interacting with others with my gun.

it has everything to do with how you interact with others with a gun, that's is literally what it is about.

I'm fairly sure everyone knows murder and assault with a deadly weapon are illegal.

and you think those would be on the test?
lets try a few examples.
can you take a firearm into a public park?
Can you buy ammunition without a permit?
If you lose your permit what should you do?
If my firearm has been damaged or destroyed what do I do?
Can I lend someone my firearm?
Can I supervise someone else using my firearm?
ect.
or a few of the ATF most fequent questions.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download

I'm amazed you couldn't think of a few questions like this.

Actually I would love to see a source for this, accidents not fatalities.
We don't have good numbers for intentional shooting rates (why I supported Pres. Obama's funding to find out) even the information we have on accidental is pretty soft, but the CDC has ~16-17,000 reported cases a year and again that's only the reported cases with 84,258 injuries in 2013. Then you have 142,568 aggrivated assaults with a firearm in 2012. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/15tabledatadecpdf hard to say saftey is not an issue, esspecialy since assualts with a firearm are the most likely to be fatal.

How is a safety class going to do anything about assault?

Its not nor did I claim it would. The permit would with a little help from the written (some assaults are because people don't realize what is and is not legal to do with a firearm)

By your own number there are only 16-17,000 accidental injuries a year because of guns.

no by my numbers the lowest possible estimate is 16-17,000 with the real number being much higher.

High School athletes suffer 30,000 hospitalizations each year. So guns, across the entire US population, cause less injuries due to accidents, than high school athletics.

you realize highschool athletics have to be supervised by permitted personnel right? so your proving my point.
and again how many of these people injure people NOT playing the sport. If guns could only harm people holding them I would not have an issue.

Lets look at another perspective. There are about 100,000,000 people in the US with access to a gun, there are 17,000 injuries because of accidents with guns. That is 17 accidents per 100,000 or 99.983% of those with guns use them responsibly.

Both of those views tell me that gun owners are incredibly safe.

then you are wrong, what do you want from me? Its not my fault you don't understand statistics.

That accidents are rare, and well within what society accepts for other activities.

such as?
the only other one you listed does not harm others and requires supervising personnel.

the problem is people being shot by other people, so yes very comparable.

Accept Except that is people deliberately doing it, not an accident because they didn't understand the rules.

number show both reasons.
Are you against the mental health background checks because that would apply equally well to your weird argument.

so you never drove a car before you got your licence?

I never drove a car before I got my learners permit, which required I take a written test on road laws.

which would actually be harder than what I am proposing
but if you are claiming you did not need to take a practical before being aloud to drive without supervision I would like to know where you live because I don't believe you.

I see no system like that present here.

sure there is, can you use a firearm under someone else's supervision, yes
something that you can't do with a car unless you have ample private property.

Only you saying possession of a gun without a permit will get you thrown in jail, or heavily fined, or both. Now you have in other places said you would allow gun rentals on the range, and sail of ammunition there, or supervision under another person with a permit.

now I get it, your not trying to read it, your just fucking with me, goodbye.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Considering the actual rarity of unlawful or harmful misuse of guns, I would say we are well beyond passing the "yelling fire in a theater" test. Especially when juxtaposed to the lawful and beneficial use of said guns. A permitting system (indeed any additional gun control) is unnecessary, thus represent undue restrictions.

34 people are murdered for every self-defense killing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

As has been pointed out many times, you don't need to kill someone to use a gun in self defense.

[Sociobiology]

34 people are murdered for every self-defense killing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

Not every self defense needs a killing. From 2007 to 2011 there were 235,700 uses of a gun defensively. Or 47,000 DGU's a year. Compare to the 10-12,000 homicides a year.

and 122,300 robberies with a firearm in 2011 alone.
and136,371 aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011 alone.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_15_crime_trends_additional_information_about_selected_offenses_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

[Paddy O Fernature]

Not every self defense needs a killing. From 2007 to 2011 there were 235,700 uses of a gun defensively. Or 47,000 DGU's a year. Compare to the 10-12,000 homicides a year.

and 122,300 robberies with a firearm in 2011 alone.
and136,371 aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011 alone.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_15_crime_trends_additional_information_about_selected_offenses_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

None of which, in my opinion, justify further restricting law abiding citizens rights as the current trend for gun crime according to the same site is on a downward climb currently. We don't need more pointless laws that do absolutely nothing in the end.

[Big Jim P]

Considering the actual rarity of unlawful or harmful misuse of guns, I would say we are well beyond passing the "yelling fire in a theater" test. Especially when juxtaposed to the lawful and beneficial use of said guns. A permitting system (indeed any additional gun control) is unnecessary, thus represent undue restrictions.

34 people are murdered for every self-defense killing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

The article is comparing criminal homicides, suicides and accidents to justifiable homicides, not DGUs. It fails to account for those DGUs that do not result in deaths or even shootings. Nor do all (or likely many) DGUs that result in death result in a justifiable homicide. May result in no charges at all for the defensive shooter. Nor does it account for the various other lawful and beneficial uses firearms are put to.

Finally: your source is well known for an anti-gun/anti-self defense bias.

Nice try though.