America's """Gun""" Problem...

[Spirit of Hope]

I am actually aware of what the term means. My response goes back to what started this discussion, California's recent legislation.

You see I can completely understand,and support, restrictions and rules for buying and owning guns. They do after all present a possible danger to society. My problem is that none of California's recent legislation actually targets the problem of guns as it exists in the United States. Instead of taking measures to combat the actual issue of handguns in the hands of criminals, illegal transfers of guns, questionable transfer of guns, and other issues California placed further restrictions on rifles and magazines. Neither of which are an actual issue. California stepped up it's assault weapons ban, even though "military style semi autos" represent less than 10% of crime. It is demanding the handing in of all magazines over ten rounds, even though the average number of rounds fired is under 4. It is requiring all ammo sales have a background check, even though most guns are already acquired in questionable or strait illegal means that can also transfer the ammo, in addition to the fact that crime does not need much ammo to happen (less than 4 rounds).

Right, fair enough. I am personally also concerned with the issue of gun burglaries, in which legally-owned guns are stolen to be sold to criminals, but that's another story.

I'd be interested to hear what specific ways you would support to limit those externalities and the transfer of guns.

1) Make NICS (the existing background check system) free and open to the public.
2) Require that NICS be used with any and all permanent transfers of a firearm.
3) Either increase the size and numbers of the ATF (not my favorite), or fold the ATF and the FBI together.
4) Larger ATF/FBI and ATF hybrid then actually get serious about following up on NICS hits of a person illegally trying to buy a gun.
5) Larger ATF/FBI and ATF hybrid get serious about taking on gun traffickers, and no not by doing something stupid like Operation Fast and Furious again.

I would also argue for criminal justice reform and income inequality reform (through tax reform largely) targeted to the overall homicide rate.

Uhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a good thing if gun regulation reduces homocides by 30%?

No regulation I know of has reduced homicides by 30%, what do you mean by this?

[Neu Leonstein]

1) Make NICS (the existing background check system) free and open to the public.
2) Require that NICS be used with any and all permanent transfers of a firearm.
3) Either increase the size and numbers of the ATF (not my favorite), or fold the ATF and the FBI together.
4) Larger ATF/FBI and ATF hybrid then actually get serious about following up on NICS hits of a person illegally trying to buy a gun.
5) Larger ATF/FBI and ATF hybrid get serious about taking on gun traffickers, and no not by doing something stupid like Operation Fast and Furious again.

I would also argue for criminal justice reform and income inequality reform (through tax reform largely) targeted to the overall homicide rate.

I could, unsurprisingly, get on board with all of those. Why do you think they're not being implemented right now?

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

You just want another Orlando don't you?

Which i already have a solution.

Arm the gays.

As Omar Mateen was a gay man himself albeit a self-loathing one...

[Spirit of Hope]

1) Make NICS (the existing background check system) free and open to the public.
2) Require that NICS be used with any and all permanent transfers of a firearm.
3) Either increase the size and numbers of the ATF (not my favorite), or fold the ATF and the FBI together.
4) Larger ATF/FBI and ATF hybrid then actually get serious about following up on NICS hits of a person illegally trying to buy a gun.
5) Larger ATF/FBI and ATF hybrid get serious about taking on gun traffickers, and no not by doing something stupid like Operation Fast and Furious again.

I would also argue for criminal justice reform and income inequality reform (through tax reform largely) targeted to the overall homicide rate.

I could, unsurprisingly, get on board with all of those. Why do you think they're not being implemented right now?

Because politics. In the US the Democrats have two major bills they have talked about an assault weapons ban and a ban on terror suspects buying guns. Because they have talked about them, they are a signal to Democratic supporters. If the Dems can get these measures passed Dems win, if the Dems can't get them passed the Republicans win. So other measures get ignored while effort is focused on the issues that have become politically important.

The Republicans and the NRA also have a somewhat irrational hatred/fear of the ATF and have capped the number of agents. This is largely because of past ATF screw ups, but doesn't justify the efforts the NRA has taken against the ATF.

None of this is helped by US gun laws are already complex, and split between the ATF and FBI. My proposals are also not the most simplistic either, and require some understanding of the issues, which the average person doesn't have. When running for reelection it is far easier to say "I banned assault weapons" or "I stopped a ban on assault weapons" rather than "I supported a number of laws that enhanced the ability of the ATF to function, and made the NICS open to the public." Especially since most people have no clue what NICS is, and how the ATF works.

In the same vein the NRA and republican get more money and support when they fight against more regulations, so they fight even when it might be better to compromise or support legislation. Again because of reelection and the needs of your message.

[Neu Leonstein]

Because politics. [...]

Again, quite reasonable... I do wonder though whether the GOP and especially the NRA wouldn't be more responsive to more people "on their side" coming out and making it clear that they do not represent their interests when it fights every new rule tooth and nail to the bitter end. Instead hyperbolic language ("gun grabbers") is used and diffuse ideas of American freedom invoked every step of the way and you can see the outcome of that in the statistics. It's fucked up to be sure, but I think gun owners and gun enthusiasts as a group have a larger than usual amount of leverage to try and weigh in on the debate in a politically relevant way.

[Spirit of Hope]

Because politics. [...]

Again, quite reasonable... I do wonder though whether the GOP and especially the NRA wouldn't be more responsive to more people "on their side" coming out and making it clear that they do not represent their interests when it fights every new rule tooth and nail to the bitter end. Instead hyperbolic language ("gun grabbers") is used and diffuse ideas of American freedom invoked every step of the way and you can see the outcome of that in the statistics. It's fucked up to be sure, but I think gun owners and gun enthusiasts as a group have a larger than usual amount of leverage to try and weigh in on the debate in a politically relevant way.

The thing is I support the NRA and Republicans most of the time, because the Democrats aren't that good at putting forward legislation that is good/would work.

The major legislative debate on guns right now is to keep those on the terror watch list from buying guns.

Democrats are supporting a bill that would give the Justice department the ability to create a list and disallow anyone on that list from buying guns.

Republicans are/were supporting a bill that would give the Justice department three days after any attempted purchase by a person on the no fly list to prove, to a judge, that the person was a danger, and block the sale.

What often isn't mentioned in the debate is that any time a person on the watch list tries to buy a gun through an FFL the FBI is automatically informed of it.

I don't really like either of the bills, the Dems one has no due process, a person on the list has to prove their innocence, and the Rep one has weird limits and restrictions.

What I would support is the Justice department being able to take evidence to a Judge and allowing the Judge to place that person on the NICS restricted list, so long as there is an appeals process. However for both parties that would partially look like giving in and so they probably won't go for it.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Good suggestion. One I make in fact. See my sig. Good luck getting enough support.

Based on recent events I'd say we'd have a lot of support.

If they can't pass a normal law, there's nowhere near enough support to pass an amendment. Even then, 3/4 of the states (75%, or 38) would have to ratify it. Seeing as 44 states (88%) have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions, I doubt very much it could get ratified, either.

[Kernen]

Based on recent events I'd say we'd have a lot of support.

If they can't pass a normal law, there's nowhere near enough support to pass an amendment. Even then, 3/4 of the states (75%, or 38) would have to ratify it. Seeing as 44 states (88%) have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions, I doubt very much it could get ratified, either.

Boom. So much for all that support. Guns aren't going anywhere.

[Genivaria]

Again, quite reasonable... I do wonder though whether the GOP and especially the NRA wouldn't be more responsive to more people "on their side" coming out and making it clear that they do not represent their interests when it fights every new rule tooth and nail to the bitter end. Instead hyperbolic language ("gun grabbers") is used and diffuse ideas of American freedom invoked every step of the way and you can see the outcome of that in the statistics. It's fucked up to be sure, but I think gun owners and gun enthusiasts as a group have a larger than usual amount of leverage to try and weigh in on the debate in a politically relevant way.

The thing is I support the NRA and Republicans most of the time, because the Democrats aren't that good at putting forward legislation that is good/would work.

The major legislative debate on guns right now is to keep those on the terror watch list from buying guns.

Democrats are supporting a bill that would give the Justice department the ability to create a list and disallow anyone on that list from buying guns.

Republicans are/were supporting a bill that would give the Justice department three days after any attempted purchase by a person on the no fly list to prove, to a judge, that the person was a danger, and block the sale.

What often isn't mentioned in the debate is that any time a person on the watch list tries to buy a gun through an FFL the FBI is automatically informed of it.

I don't really like either of the bills, the Dems one has no due process, a person on the list has to prove their innocence, and the Rep one has weird limits and restrictions.

What I would support is the Justice department being able to take evidence to a Judge and allowing the Judge to place that person on the NICS restricted list, so long as there is an appeals process. However for both parties that would partially look like giving in and so they probably won't go for it.

I actually like that suggestion and I honestly don't feel comfortable with the tactic that we (dems and liberals) are taking in regards to the terror watch list.
The argument basically goes "We're already saying that some people are too dangerous to be allowed on a plane, so how are they not to dangerous to block a gun purchase?" Which does make sense as far as consistency goes but is that really the stance we want to take?
We're going to justify one action by using another infringement on rights to do it?

[The balkens]

Which i already have a solution.

Arm the gays.

As Omar Mateen was a gay man himself albeit a self-loathing one...

Arm the sane gays.

[Washington Resistance Army]

As Omar Mateen was a gay man himself albeit a self-loathing one...

Arm the sane gays.

Better yet, Mateen was a Democrat so we should disarm them

[The balkens]

Arm the sane gays.

Better yet, Mateen was a Democrat so we should disarm them

Arm the sane Gay Libertarians.

[Free Missouri]

Nah, the American public is about as well armed as the Chinese Army was when it fought UN forces in Korea, which unlike the Chinese had tanks and artillery in plenty.

What the American public lacks is the unit cohesion and discipline necessary to fight the US government.

Not sure how small arms, rifles and shotguns are going to help against an Apache attack helicopter with a gatling gun and a full array of rockets. Or, for that matter, any real heavy weapon's force. I would assert that military tech has moved on far enough that the gap between the civilian and the military arms industry has grown to a point that the military can and would outperform civilian weaponry at any time. Would there be casualties for the military, should such a thing occur? Probably, but not many. It'd still end up looking like a rout, at least, from my perspective.

I would also argue that the public is too apathetic to what's going on to sufficiently care. It's like boiling a frog- you slowly raise the temperature, and it doesn't realize what's happening until it's far, far too late.

I'd like to quote something from this very website (granted it's guide on roleplaying, but it still holds true to a real-life insurrection considering the whole guide is aimed at realism)

Ever heard of Hue? Perhaps Fallujah? What about Grozny? No? How about Berlin? Leningrad? Stalingrad. Surely you have heard of Stalingrad.

Urban battles are unimaginably bloody, horrific, and savage and WILL result in mass casualties against any remotely competent opponent even if you hold significant advantages in about every area. Urban battles should be avoided at all costs, and enough troops left behind to contain the city. If one chooses to invade a city, your opponent will merely grin and prepare himself to grind your troops up in the cheese grater. There is no IWIN to taking a city. You can level it, gas it, bomb it, starve it, firebomb it, or any other thing or combination but your enemy can still resist and will do so in the rubble.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Welp, it's happened.

Went to the store yesterday to pick up some 7.62 for one of my rifles, and I couldn't find any due to the increased demand caused by a combination of Hillary's comments and the Orlando shooting. Had to settle instead for components and looks like i'll just have to make my own for my annual 4th of July shoot tomorrow.

America officially has a problem involving firearms.

[Big Jim P]

Welp, it's happened.

Went to the store yesterday to pick up some 7.62 for one of my rifles, and I couldn't find any due to the increased demand caused by a combination of Hillary's comments and the Orlando shooting. Had to settle instead for components and looks like i'll just have to make my own for my annual 4th of July shoot tomorrow.

America officially has a problem involving firearms.

Glad I a sitting on close to 5k rounds of a variety of ammo.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Welp, it's happened.

Went to the store yesterday to pick up some 7.62 for one of my rifles, and I couldn't find any due to the increased demand caused by a combination of Hillary's comments and the Orlando shooting. Had to settle instead for components and looks like i'll just have to make my own for my annual 4th of July shoot tomorrow.

America officially has a problem involving firearms.

Glad I a sitting on close to 5k rounds of a variety of ammo.

Last count (excluding silly new state classifications) puts me at nearly 15-16k Rounds across...... 8 calibers. I hope to have close to 20 by years end tucked away.

[Big Jim P]

Glad I a sitting on close to 5k rounds of a variety of ammo.

Last count (excluding silly new state classifications) puts me at nearly 15-16k Rounds across...... 8 calibers. I hope to have close to 20 by years end tucked away.

Mine is over four calibers. Mostly 22 LR, but a large amount of 9mm, .45 ACP and .223. Not so much .357 SIG.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Last count (excluding silly new state classifications) puts me at nearly 15-16k Rounds across...... 8 calibers. I hope to have close to 20 by years end tucked away.

Mine is over four calibers. Mostly 22 LR, but a large amount of 9mm, .45 ACP and .223. Not so much .357 SIG.

.22, 38, 45 for pistols....

223/556, 7.62x39, 7.62x51/308, 303, 30-06 for Rifle.

I also have stuff for 455 Webley, 45 LC, 7.63 Mauser, and several other off the wall calibers for odds and ends that I own. Not counting them however as I reload less then 100 rounds a year through these ones.

[Big Jim P]

Mine is over four calibers. Mostly 22 LR, but a large amount of 9mm, .45 ACP and .223. Not so much .357 SIG.

.22, 38, 45 for pistols....

223/556, 7.62x39, 7.62x51/308, 303, 30-06 for Rifle.

I also have stuff for 455 Webley, 45 LC, 7.63 Mauser, and several other off the wall calibers for odds and ends that I own. Not counting them however as I reload less then 100 rounds a year through these ones.

My goal is 100-5,000 rounds per gun (depending on caliber), on a rotating basis (first-in, first-out) as I expend the ammo at the range.

[Paddy O Fernature]

.22, 38, 45 for pistols....

223/556, 7.62x39, 7.62x51/308, 303, 30-06 for Rifle.

I also have stuff for 455 Webley, 45 LC, 7.63 Mauser, and several other off the wall calibers for odds and ends that I own. Not counting them however as I reload less then 100 rounds a year through these ones.

My goal is 100-5,000 rounds per gun (depending on caliber), on a rotating basis (first-in, first-out) as I expend the ammo at the range.

Not a bad goal.

For me, my method is a rather simpler one. I go out and buy factory ammunition for as cheap as I can. I then shoot it up and collect the brass. I then reload the once fired brass and tuck the reloads away for a rainy day.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Welp, it's happened.

Went to the store yesterday to pick up some 7.62 for one of my rifles, and I couldn't find any due to the increased demand caused by a combination of Hillary's comments and the Orlando shooting. Had to settle instead for components and looks like i'll just have to make my own for my annual 4th of July shoot tomorrow.

America officially has a problem involving firearms.

Glad I a sitting on close to 5k rounds of a variety of ammo.

I just picked up another 300 rounds of 40 grain CCI Minimags today. I would have picked up more, but Wal-Mart still limits the amount of ammo we can buy at one time.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Glad I a sitting on close to 5k rounds of a variety of ammo.

I just picked up another 300 rounds of 40 grain CCI Minimags today. I would have picked up more, but Wal-Mart still limits the amount of ammo we can buy at one time.

Yeah, I still find stores around here as well that have restrictions in place. Makes me wonder how much they have stockpiled in a warehouse somewhere.

[The Anglosphere Empire]

...isn't real.
There are ~320 million people in the US currently.
Here's the source for what I'll highlight: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf (page 84).
There are 33,636 deaths per year due to firearms - let's approximate it to 34,000.
21,175 of those are suicides.
That leaves us at 12,825 deaths per year due to guns.
In other words, even assuming absurdly that all those deaths are due to random shootings and can happen to anyone, there's a 0.000040078125% of death.
This should end the gun debate once and for all.
Discuss your reactions.

according to the CDC and FBI this can be broken down further

960 are accidental, 1,280 are out of self defence and are justified

therefore there are only 10, 560 that are homicides and 8,448 are from gang crime.

So that comes to around 1,700 in a society of over 300 million

this means you have a 0.0008564% chance of being shot if you aren't in a gang, don't plan on committing suicide and if you don't plan on committing a crime, so this applies to a majority of the population.

the issue that needs solving here is gang crime not gun ownership.

[Tule]

...isn't real.
There are ~320 million people in the US currently.
Here's the source for what I'll highlight: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf (page 84).
There are 33,636 deaths per year due to firearms - let's approximate it to 34,000.
21,175 of those are suicides.
That leaves us at 12,825 deaths per year due to guns.
In other words, even assuming absurdly that all those deaths are due to random shootings and can happen to anyone, there's a 0.000040078125% of death.
This should end the gun debate once and for all.
Discuss your reactions.

according to the CDC and FBI this can be broken down further

960 are accidental, 1,280 are out of self defence and are justified

therefore there are only 10, 560 that are homicides and 8,448 are from gang crime.

So that comes to around 1,700 in a society of over 300 million

this means you have a 0.0008564% chance of being shot if you aren't in a gang, don't plan on committing suicide and if you don't plan on committing a crime, so this applies to a majority of the population.

the issue that needs solving here is gang crime not gun ownership.

This is false.

The single most common known cause of homicides in the US is arguments. Crimes of passion.

In the vast majority of those cases the perpetrator and the victim were not rival gang members but friends, acquaintances and family members.
Furthermore, gang membership is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Italy is notorious for its gang culture and gang membership is about equally common in the Netherlands as it is in the US.

Both the Netherlands and Italy have drastically lower level of gun homicide than the US.

Europe has gangs and organized crime. Europe has mental illness. Europe has minorities. Europe has poverty and unemployment.

What Europe lacks is the ability to buy handguns from a private seller without as much as a background check and no means of holding the seller responsible because "Honest officer, I didn't know he was a criminal!"

[Spirit of Hope]

What Europe lacks is the ability to buy handguns from a private seller without as much as a background check and no means of holding the seller responsible because "Honest officer, I didn't know he was a criminal!"

Except that isn't how those who are restricted from getting guns get them. Option 1 (42%) is illegal, as in black market or stolen, and option 2 (39%) is friends and family. "Honestly officer, I didn't know my friend was a felon," doesn't hold up as well.