[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[British Accia]

Other than the 71x more gun related homicides in the US related to the UK.

Which can largely be attributed to poverty, and the failed War on Drugs which gave people lots of reasons to kill each other.

Former (technically still a member but meh) GD here, I know all that jazz firsthand. If we worked on lifting people out of poverty and had better mental health systems those numbers would drop drastically.

Excuse my lack of American shorthand, but what is a GD?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which can largely be attributed to poverty, and the failed War on Drugs which gave people lots of reasons to kill each other.

Former (technically still a member but meh) GD here, I know all that jazz firsthand. If we worked on lifting people out of poverty and had better mental health systems those numbers would drop drastically.

Excuse my lack of American shorthand, but what is a GD?

Gangster Disciple, a part of my life I'm not overly proud of but I'm not scared to admit it. I've talked about it a few times on the forums. Lots of those murders can be tied directly to the War on Drugs and people killing each other over territory or shit like that. Group A has a lot more incentive to go kill people from Group B when they're taking your money.

While the media likes to hype up how terrible mass shootings are statistically they're irrelevant and trying to legislate things based on them is just asinine. I don't have the exact numbers on me but IIRC since the 1980's some 400 or so people have died in mass shootings across the country. When you compare that to the amount of guns across the country you can see that it just isn't a massive enough issue to require a blanket ban.

Frankly I just think that better mental health systems, ending the War on Drugs and working on helping the poor will do more to help reduce gun crime than any bans will.

[British Accia]

Excuse my lack of American shorthand, but what is a GD?

Gangster Disciple, a part of my life I'm not overly proud of but I'm not scared to admit it. I've talked about it a few times on the forums. Lots of those murders can be tied directly to the War on Drugs and people killing each other over territory or shit like that. Group A has a lot more incentive to go kill people from Group B when they're taking your money.

While the media likes to hype up how terrible mass shootings are statistically they're irrelevant and trying to legislate things based on them is just asinine. I don't have the exact numbers on me but IIRC since the 1980's some 400 or so people have died in mass shootings across the country. When you compare that to the amount of guns across the country you can see that it just isn't a massive enough issue to require a blanket ban.

Frankly I just think that better mental health systems, ending the War on Drugs and working on helping the poor will do more to help reduce gun crime than any bans will.

While I agree with most that you said in your final sentence, I would like to point out that I do not want a blanket ban for guns, just much tighter regulation.

[Egoman]

What we will end up with is an Übermenschen, who will lead our species to victory. Or death. Probably both.

So your idea of the best human is a psychotic gun wielding killer?

Why would he be psychotic?

[Washington Resistance Army]

While I agree with most that you said in your final sentence, I would like to point out that I do not want a blanket ban for guns, just much tighter regulation.

What exactly, in your mind, would these tighter regulations encompass?

[British Accia]

So your idea of the best human is a psychotic gun wielding killer?

Why would he be psychotic?

My bad, confusing Psychosis with being a Psychopath.

[British Accia]

While I agree with most that you said in your final sentence, I would like to point out that I do not want a blanket ban for guns, just much tighter regulation.

What exactly, in your mind, would these tighter regulations encompass?

Extensive background checks, continued checks on people. Restrictions of 'big guns'. Like there is no way anyone needs a machine gun, or most kinds of automatic weapons for that matter. Also, not giving guns to regular police, it just encourages them to use them.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What exactly, in your mind, would these tighter regulations encompass?

Extensive background checks, continued checks on people. Restrictions of 'big guns'. Like there is no way anyone needs a machine gun, or most kinds of automatic weapons for that matter. Also, not giving guns to regular police, it just encourages them to use them.

I could agree with expanding background checks and making them more easily accessible for dealers. Continued checks isn't something I could get behind though, I just don't like the sound of that.

I also entirely disagree with more restrictions on "machine guns" (I'm guessing you mean automatics?) since only two murders have been committed with legally owned automatic weapons since 1934. You already have to jump through a lot of hoops to get one as is.

[Egoman]

Why would he be psychotic?

My bad, confusing Psychosis with being a Psychopath.

Then yes. He is. He is perfect. The only way for him to be better than that is to actually be God.

[Salandriagado]

While I agree with most that you said in your final sentence, I would like to point out that I do not want a blanket ban for guns, just much tighter regulation.

What exactly, in your mind, would these tighter regulations encompass?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answer it anyway, to give a somewhat different perspective on gun control to others in this thread (or at least, the parts of it that I've read), and I believe a somewhat unusual perspective in general (as someone who is both a qualified rifle instructor and an advocate of stronger gun control than most of the US currently has).

We'll start with the basics that we should be able to agree on: yes, I support your right (assuming you aren't excluded by criminal record etc.) to buy, own, and use guns for whatever (lawful) purpose you like. I think we can agree, though, that guns getting into the hands of criminals is bad. The task, therefore, is to figure out how to minimise the latter without compromising the former. Primarily, this means cutting down on criminals buying guns through private sales.
So, with that as our starting point, here's my proposal:
1) Make it much, much quicker and easier to do background checks. My suggestion would be to allow people to request from the government some form of code that will allow anybody who has it to access their criminal record on the fly. Maybe store that (in some suitable encrypted way, such as used in credit cards [minus the whole magnetic strip thing, which is silly insecure]) on something small and convenient to carry. I'm envisioning something along the line of the buyer just going into the gun store (or other store: the same system could be used for other things), handing over some other bit of plastic along with his card when he goes to pay for the gun, and the gun store owner just sticks that extra card into a reader, which checks (via some suitably secure channel) to a government computer which confirms that the person has no problematic criminal record, and the dealer goes ahead with the sale. This checking system should also be accessible to anybody, with no special technology - you should be able to do it with your phone, to facilitate its use in private sales - hell, you could just store the code on there as well. This is not something that's technologically particularly difficult. [Incidentally, if the government isn't already keeping national up-to-date records of (serious) criminal records, it should really start doing so, regardless of this proposal.]
2) Following up from the above, make supplying weapons to those barred from owning them a strict liability crime. This way, you can still happily carry on doing private sales, and still do them without doing any sort of checks if you know/trust the person you're selling to, but if you're selling to a stranger, you're going to want to do the check, since failing to do so puts you at risk of prosecution if they turn out to be barred. No paperwork forced on anybody, and if they do want to cover themselves, they can do it quickly and easily. Having done the check and having it come up clean should protect you from prosecution on this issue, even if the person you sold it to turns out to have been barred, so people aren't screwed over by any problems that might be in the system.
3) Since they don't do anything anyway, get rid of all of the silly assault weapons bans et al.


And there we have it. Legitimate owners/traders can carry owning and trading guns without impediment, suppliers for criminals can be prosecuted more easily (no "nah, I didn't know he was a criminal, honest gov" bullshit), and the primary supply of weapons into criminal hands gets shut down hard.

[Sociobiology]

so you think Switzerland's gun control is the same as Spain or the Netherlands which is the same as the UK?

There are particular things I want from gun legislation, which are self-defense permits and concealed carry in public places for handguns. AFAIK, Switzerland doesn't allow this, nor do the Nordic countries, nor the countries you listed nor most European countries, hence 'European levels' in my book. Only Czech Republic and a country in the Balkans I can't for the life of me recall allows both. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Individual differences do exist between countries, but whether or not they are meaningful differences varies.

they range from blanket bans to just requiring a permit to own a firearm

[Sociobiology]

there is one great reason, to make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to acquire firearms.
I really could care less if some rich guy wants a machine gun or even a vulcan for all I care, at market prices it is a toy like a monster truck or a personal submarine.
we need something that actually makes it difficult for criminals and the mentally to acquire a firearm, something every other developed country does in one way or another. It reduces crime escalation, with the current ease of acquisition nonviolent crimes become violent crimes because far to many criminals are armed.

treating all gun control the same is a dumb as treating all firearms the same.

Eh, at market prices they'd cost a few grand which would be pretty affordable.

As for keeping them out of the hands of those whose mental state or criminal history make them poor choices for firearm ownership, I have a simple proposal: an accessible database of those forbidden from purchasing firearms and a prison sentence for selling to anyone on the list.

which you enforce how? How do you demonstrate the person has sold the firearm to them, you would need a database of sales so you can track the sellers, and having a database of banned owners does you little good if people do not have to check it.

most of the people on this thread have read my proposal

My 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 (~$15 estimated),
a written test of firearm handling and law,
a one afternoon class on firearms safety,
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgement, 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 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 (longgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers licence.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a licence, 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 you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because 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 licence, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

Using a permit solves the privacy issues of expanding NICS access, without requiring all sales to go through a FFL. The seller needs only to check the validity of the buyers permit, which can be done over the phone or internet.

But in the end I would support a simple requirement for universal background checks instead.

[Yukonastan]

Here's how it works in Canada, and it's similar to what Salandriagano(?) proposes:

If you want to get a firearm, you have to have a licence. To get that licence, you need to:
Prove you can safely handle firearms - sweeping ANYONE with the muzzle during the test is an automatic fail, no matter what else you do right. You need to attach an official test form to your application.
Have a clean background for at least five years.
Have two references which see no issue with you owning, handling, and operating firearms.
Have the grace word from a current or former spouse/common law partner, who also sees no issue with your owning, handling, and operating firearms.
Have a photo guarantor confirm that the photo you send is really you.
Have $60 processing fee for a nonrestricted licence, or $80 for a restricted one. This is on top of the safety course.

Once you have the licence, you can walk into a gun store, pick out a gun, lay down the money and licence, and walk back out of the store with that gun within minutes. In the store, the clerk will take your licence and search a database, and if no flags come up, you're good to buy. You've already been BG checked to get the licence, so why have a one-week wait?

Now, the database still isn't accessible by the public, but that would definitely be a step in the right direction as far as private sales go. If I were to sell a 10/22 to Johnny Everyman, I'd still be responsible for checking that he is really him, and that he really has the proper licences. At best, what I can do now, is ask Johnny Everyman to send a picture of him and his licence to me, along with an address. I can then ask the local RCMP detachment or CFO to verify that information before making the sale.

[BK117B2]

Eh, at market prices they'd cost a few grand which would be pretty affordable.

As for keeping them out of the hands of those whose mental state or criminal history make them poor choices for firearm ownership, I have a simple proposal: an accessible database of those forbidden from purchasing firearms and a prison sentence for selling to anyone on the list.

which you enforce how? How do you demonstrate the person has sold the firearm to them, you would need a database of sales so you can track the sellers, and having a database of banned owners does you little good if people do not have to check it.

Enforced the same way most illegal sales are enforced: when you find out that an illegal sale has taken place, you investigate and file criminal charges against anyone breaking the law. A store near my hometown was coaching people to straw buy when they couldn't legally purchase. Law enforcement got word of it, set up a sting, and collected all the evidence they needed for a variety of charges.

Having a database would obviously do a lot of good. It would A) allow people to check the person to whom they are interested in selling (something I would use, but do not have the ability to check), B) incentivize using it, and C) allow for jailing and fines of anyone selling to a person forbidden from purchasing firearms.

[Egoman]

There are particular things I want from gun legislation, which are self-defense permits and concealed carry in public places for handguns. AFAIK, Switzerland doesn't allow this, nor do the Nordic countries, nor the countries you listed nor most European countries, hence 'European levels' in my book. Only Czech Republic and a country in the Balkans I can't for the life of me recall allows both. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Individual differences do exist between countries, but whether or not they are meaningful differences varies.

they range from blanket bans to just requiring a permit to own a firearm

I knew that.

[Big Jim P]

Eh, at market prices they'd cost a few grand which would be pretty affordable.

As for keeping them out of the hands of those whose mental state or criminal history make them poor choices for firearm ownership, I have a simple proposal: an accessible database of those forbidden from purchasing firearms and a prison sentence for selling to anyone on the list.

which you enforce how? How do you demonstrate the person has sold the firearm to them, you would need a database of sales so you can track the sellers, and having a database of banned owners does you little good if people do not have to check it.

most of the people on this thread have read my proposal

My 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 (~$15 estimated),
a written test of firearm handling and law,
a one afternoon class on firearms safety,
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgement, 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 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 (longgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers licence.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a licence, 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 you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because 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 licence, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

Using a permit solves the privacy issues of expanding NICS access, without requiring all sales to go through a FFL. The seller needs only to check the validity of the buyers permit, which can be done over the phone or internet.

But in the end I would support a simple requirement for universal background checks instead.

I made a similar proposal (not as detailed) years ago. The biggest difference is in mine, the license also served as a national CCW and open carry permit.

My original plan, with some enhancement by Dyakovo:

Make safety and marksmanship training available (in high school for the most part with separate training available for those who have already graduated). Upon passing the course you get issued a perpetual license that can only be revoked due to a diagnoses of mental illness, or a relevant criminal act on the part of the licensee. That license being the only thing you need to purchase, own, or carry (open or concealed) a firearm.

Dyas enhancement: Separate endorsements on the license for rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Original post.

[Salandriagado]

which you enforce how? How do you demonstrate the person has sold the firearm to them, you would need a database of sales so you can track the sellers, and having a database of banned owners does you little good if people do not have to check it.

most of the people on this thread have read my proposal

My 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 (~$15 estimated),
a written test of firearm handling and law,
a one afternoon class on firearms safety,
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgement, 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 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 (longgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers licence.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a licence, 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 you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because 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 licence, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

Using a permit solves the privacy issues of expanding NICS access, without requiring all sales to go through a FFL. The seller needs only to check the validity of the buyers permit, which can be done over the phone or internet.

But in the end I would support a simple requirement for universal background checks instead.

I made a similar proposal (not as detailed) years ago. The biggest difference is in mine, the license also served as a national CCW and open carry permit.

My original plan, with some enhancement by Dyakovo:

Make safety and marksmanship training available (in high school for the most part with separate training available for those who have already graduated). Upon passing the course you get issued a perpetual license that can only be revoked due to a diagnoses of mental illness, or a relevant criminal act on the part of the licensee. That license being the only thing you need to purchase, own, or carry (open or concealed) a firearm.

Dyas enhancement: Separate endorsements on the license for rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Original post.

Yeah, I'd go with that. Might work well with my proposal above: could attach my criminal record check thing to the permit, to edge off excuses like "he showed me a license, I didn't know it was forged, honest gov" and other such bullshit from those supplying weapons to criminals.

[Big Jim P]

I made a similar proposal (not as detailed) years ago. The biggest difference is in mine, the license also served as a national CCW and open carry permit.



Original post.

Yeah, I'd go with that. Might work well with my proposal above: could attach my criminal record check thing to the permit, to edge off excuses like "he showed me a license, I didn't know it was forged, honest gov" and other such bullshit from those supplying weapons to criminals.

My opinion has changed somewhat since then. There is no real need for any new gun control. We seem to be on the right track with the loosening of carry restrictions sate by state. I would like to see Constitutional Carry become the national standard or at least a national CCW made available.

[Colorful Bund]

The only people whose guns need to be controlled are white people. Have you ever heard of a mass shooter that wasn't a white man?

[Washington Resistance Army]

The only people whose guns need to be controlled are white people. Have you ever heard of a mass shooter that wasn't a white man?

Man, you might have Saiwania beat for most irrational racist on the forums.

[Cadonica]

The only people whose guns need to be controlled are white people. Have you ever heard of a mass shooter that wasn't a white man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garissa_U ... ege_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

Yes, I have.

[Sevvania]

At no point did I say anything about them being the only way to protect yourself.

Then why do we need them specifically, when there are other ways to protect yourself, that are far less likely to kill someone?

I feel like I pull this stat every half-dozen pages or so, but you're more likely to be murdered by someone using their bare hands than you are to be murdered by either rifles or shotguns.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... ta-table-8

[New Frenco Empire]

The only people whose guns need to be controlled are white people. Have you ever heard of a mass shooter that wasn't a white man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad

[The Krogan]

The only people whose guns need to be controlled are white people. Have you ever heard of a mass shooter that wasn't a white man?

Man, you might have Saiwania beat for most irrational racist on the forums.

You should have seen the thread he created a day or two ago, that thing was a doozy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Man, you might have Saiwania beat for most irrational racist on the forums.

You should have seen the thread he created a day or two ago, that thing was a doozy.

The Egypt one right? That was hilarious

Then why do we need them specifically, when there are other ways to protect yourself, that are far less likely to kill someone?

I feel like I pull this stat every half-dozen pages or so, but you're more likely to be killed by someone using their bare hands than you are to be killed by either rifles or shotguns.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... ta-table-8

With stats like that it really makes you wonder why everyone wants to ban the scary assault rifles.