[EscoLehGo]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:59)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:51) To use the possibility of a criminal asking someone else to do it as a reason for not having a policy is just frankly stupid. You know what's even more stupid? Having a law so easy to avoid that it's completely worthless and a waste of resources. Anyone who isn't completely retarded could figure out how to get a gun while avoiding the background check.

That's right and we won't have to worry about all these damn victims in school shootings if the teachers and older students are already armed themselves.

[SagaciousKJB]

Damn, so many cool points from all of you to address...

I'm gonna try to take them by name rather than quote/bisect posts and all taht jazz

trip: Definitely know how you feel on that, but I'd imagine to a lesser extent. We often have people getting hit by stray bullets here as well. They do have a lot of safety devices in development like that, but the problem is so many people are still using milsurp and used models that are a hundred years old, generally because these are more affordable and still work very well as a functional firearm. Colt has a terrific one where there's an RFID sensor, and the gun will not fire if pointed back toward the officer wearing it on their badge, but at the current state the electronics are too delicate to really serve as a reliable side arm. I totally agree on the assault weapon feeling too... I mentioned being able to buy a shotgun in less than fifteen minutes, but the same is true for an AR-15 too.

Icaurs: Yeah there have been a number of shootings here recently as well, and a lot of accidental ones. My state is generally pretty polarized by partisan politics, so maybe that's why I'm hearing so much more of it. However the registry on long guns there is one thing about Washington that on the one hand seems like it should be done, but on the other as you've said it doesn't seem like it would really make much difference.

Robinsky: That's a pretty concise observation, I think you're on to something there as far as the psychological aspect of it I was asking about. I have broached this possibility in my head before but hadn't quite been able to word it quite as well.

sivis (and also Icarus): I think the idea of a "right to bear arms" is often times confused with the idea that a person should be able to own a firearm no matter what. I've seen a lot of people suggest that convicted felons and everything shouldn't be disallowed from owning weapons, and that it is "unconstitutional". On the other hand what I think the "right to bear arms" really means is that, so long as you're not a danger to society by owning/possessing/shooting them, you should be able to own them. In a lot of other countries it seems that the government demands some kind of justification, such as being a farmer or a hunter or some type. I do agree entirely that the restrictions and regulations need to be tighter, especially compared to the UK. You can't even buy a pellet gun with much over 12 foot pounds of muzzle energy, whereas in the U.S. you can buy some with 20-30 right off the shelf at WalMart, and even more shocking you can get ahold of big-bore air rifles that are every bit as lethal as handguns in the calibers available. I have a catalog sitting on my couch that I could order an air rifle that fires a .357 cal, 127 grn slug at 1000 fps. That's basically equivalent to a 9mm pistol, and I could get this delivered to my door with no restrictions whatsoever, and convicted felons can get them, because they're not technically firearms. It is quite crazy...

Irviding: It really varies widely from state to state... In a few states you can carry a concealed firearm with no permit at all, in other states they require you to take a safety course and get a license/permit just to own a handgun let alone carry. Then in some states like mine you can go and buy any kind of long gun with no registration or training, just a background check. However if you're going to hunt ( legally ), in order to get your tags/license you must take a hunter safety course. However, the problem of creating a wider federal regulatory standard over it is that not all states participate with the federal model. For example, many states will report someone who was involuntarily committed to a mental institution to the NICS, and that would show up on the background check, but there's some states that don't report it, so even with the federal background checking in place to buy a gun, some people slip through the cracks.

Really though the thing about gun control that makes it not really effect the criminals that much, kind of relates back to what trip was talking about with the guns always coming from somewhere. Not only is there millions of old military surplus guns around, but there's companies still manufacturing new models of these. I was once offered some kind of semi-auto Ak-47 at a party... Long story, but the guy was offering me the Ak and a 9mm pistol for $350. That's certainly not the cheapest I've heard of a gun being available for either, and I have to agree with Chunkyman that it's ridiculously easy to get one without a background check. Gunshows, craigslist, local newspaper classifieds, the background check is generally only enforced when buying from a store, pawn shop, or if ordering by mail or something. The whole "FFL" deal, but ultimately one can't really argue the fact that the laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

One thing I often wonder about though, and not to be inflammatory... Knife crime seems to be more common in the UK, and I think it's often assumed that it's because guns are harder to get in the UK. I wonder if it's really a case of that, or if it's just a kind of cultural difference in the "weapon of choice". America has its fair share of stabbing incidents, which I think lends itself to the idea that if we really did effectively control and limit access to guns, then we would just start killing each other with knives.

[Irviding]

I agree with the knife crime thing, but again, chunky to not make a law on the premise that some people might get around it is just plain ridiculous. That's like saying, you know what, people will still drive drunk even if we pass the law, so why should we waste resources educating people against it?

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 21:38)

I agree with the knife crime thing, but again, chunky to not make a law on the premise that some people might get around it is just plain ridiculous. That's like saying, you know what, people will still drive drunk even if we pass the law, so why should we waste resources educating people against it?

Educating people against drunk driving actually would be an effective means to stop drunk driving. Similarly, educating people about firearm safety would be a means to reduce gun-related deaths.

Imagine if we required background checks before you could buy alcohol. All that would happen is drunks would pay their friends to buy it for them. It would not solve the problem and be a waste of money. The same thing happens with guns (and I know this because I know a person that has a family member buy guns for them.)

Education and stopping the root of violent behavior is the key, not waiting periods, registration and background checks.

This post has been edited by Chunkyman on Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 21:51

[Irviding]

That's ridiculous though. Why should you have to have a background check to buy alcohol? Regardless of who you are, the same risk is still there. A seasoned criminal or an executive making a six figure salary have probably the same risk level, if not the executive more, for getting into a car drunk. With regards to firearms, background checks can cut down on criminals buying it. Even if it stops, let's say, 500/1500 criminals in a given month from buying firearms, then I don't see how you can complain. Waiting periods are just common sense. Why should you allow someone who might possibly be about to commit a crime of passion buy a weapon? Background checks and waiting periods are both simple common sense solutions that no one should have a problem with.

[MikeChase69]

I really don't mind people having guns my issue is the fact that people stockpile weapons like they are about to get attacked by an military unit. I blame the media for this obsession we have for guns in America.

[EscoLehGo]

QUOTE (MikeChase69 @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 21:56)

I really don't mind people having guns my issue is the fact that people stockpile weapons like they are about to get attacked by an military unit. I blame the media for this obsession we have for guns in America.

It's like this where I stay, it's not uncommon for people to brag about the weapons they have hidden around their home and/or property. What weirds me out the most about some super duper gun advocates is that they normally seem to live in areas where you wouldn't think having a heavy weapons arsenal would be a necessity for your safety. It's not like they live in dangerous or scary neighborhoods, it creeps me out that they want all these deadly weapons in their home like they're hoping someone attempts to break in so they can finally use them. What are these people waiting for? Some kind of civil war or extreme civil unrest? Zombie apocalypse maybe?

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE

With regards to firearms, background checks can cut down on criminals buying it.

It will stop them from buying guns, but it will do nothing to stop them from acquiring them in some other fashion (black market dealer, stealing a gun, having a friend buy the gun for him, etc.) Background checks are not a solution to the problem of gun-related violence. A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends. That's over 80% obtaining the weapon from the methods involving avoiding a background check!

Although background checks don't personally bother me (as long as they're fast), the notion they reduce crime is statistically unsubstantiated.

The waiting period can cause just as much damage as good. What if a woman had a stalker and needed to buy a gun ASAP in order to defend herself from his future rapes/murders/etc.? There are many circumstances in which people would need to get a gun on a short notice, and a waiting period might spell their death.

If you're going to advocate laws that are both a pain in the ass for people and could have unintended consequences that result in deaths (like the above example of a woman and a stalker), it would help to have statistical evidence proving they're going to have a net benefit.

[Irviding]

And I lose sleep at night knowing that you could've cut out 20% of that.


That woman scenario is once again straw grasping. I don't even know if you're kidding with that or not. She has the option of calling the police as the law is on her side. Someone who wants to shoot the guy who nailed his wife does not have the law on his side.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 04:00)

And I lose sleep at night knowing that you could've cut out 20% of that. That woman scenario is once again straw grasping. I don't even know if you're kidding with that or not. She has the option of calling the police as the law is on her side. Someone who wants to shoot the guy who nailed his wife does not have the law on his side.

That's with the background checks in place, they still managed to get them at stores. Again, there is no statistical evidence that background checks or waiting periods cause a net reduction in violent crime. I know useless, feel-good laws are really in vogue, but it would be nice if we could have less of them to piss money away on.

[MikeChase69]

I think everyone should have access to a gun keyword "A" gun. Not 10,20, or 30 guns you will never use and if you do you are shooting at nothing of any importance.

[sivispacem]

Chunkyman- if your assertion is correct that firearm restrictions are ineffective at preventing crime, then it stands to reason that nations where firearm proliferation amongst the population is similar to that of the US, firearm crime would be equally high even if restrictions were in place- and that simply isn't the case. Around 42% of US households own a firearm, compared with 29% in Canada, 10% in Germany and around 80% (!) in Switzerland (all of which have strict licensing restrictions but have legalised concealed or open carry to varying degrees). According to your logic, you would see firearm crime rates per capita of approximately 70% of that of the US in Canada, around 24% in Germany and 190% in Switzerland. But in reality-

Firearm death rate per 100,000 per annum.
United States- 10.27 (55% of which are suicides)
Switzerland- 6.4 (85% of which are suicides)
Canada- 4.78 (85% of which are suicides)
Germany- 1.57 (70% of which are suicides)

Another interesting example is Sweden. There are an estimated 2.8 million privately owned firearms in Sweden, of which only around 2.1 million are legally owned. Sweden has a population of 9.38 million. That means there are 30 firearms, either legal or illegal, for every 100 citizens. In 2010, there were 18 firearm-related murders, meaning that 0.000064% of firearms in Sweden were used to commit murders. A reasonable estimate for the US would be around 350 million privately owned firearms (that's the 200 million or so legally owned ones, and a conservative 150 million illegal ones). There were 9,369 firearm-related murders in 2010 in the US, meaning that 0.00268% of firearms were used to commit murders. That means that every firearm in the US is forty-two times more likely to be involved in a murder than one in Sweden.

So, what are the differences? I can think of only two- culture and legal restrictions, and they feed into each other. I understand that there are other differences which cannot be eradicated- poverty levels, levels of other violent criminal activity et cetera but I struggle to see how these could account for a difference of 4,200% in these figures.

[Pat]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 14:49)

I agree with most of what was said above, but the problem isn't just training. It's the fact that pretty much anybody can get a gun. In Alabama it's as simple as filling out a small form with the sheriff's office. There's not even an approval process. It's ridiculous.

This is why I'm trying to stress proper training, though, because I feel it is the most effective method of control as well as the most fair method of control. In the past, I hypothesized an optional high school course spanning one semester that would teach students general firearm safety as well as history. They would never fire a gun in this class, they would simply learn how to handle the situation if they were ever required to fire a gun. This class would be 100% optional and if a parent did not want their student to take it, they would be free to take them out of the class. Fast-forward and now two of those high school students are adults - one of them who took the class wishes to purchase a firearm. They go through the background check and waiting period that you have suggested (which I'm not as against as you might think - it mostly depends on the length of the waiting period, and I believe the waiting period should also vary on the firearm in question). Now the student who hasn't taken the high school course wishes to buy a firearm. They will be required to take a similar course as an adult before being legally able to purchase a firearm.

Like I said, this is merely a hypothesis. Switzerland obviously has an extremely effective method of training in place, and I would be very interested in our country adopting something similar to it, if not a complete copy. I just think that, in general, if you want to control firearm ownership properly, the only effective way to do so is to train the average citizen properly.

[goin-god]

QUOTE (EscoLehGo @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 18:10)

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:59) QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:51) To use the possibility of a criminal asking someone else to do it as a reason for not having a policy is just frankly stupid. You know what's even more stupid? Having a law so easy to avoid that it's completely worthless and a waste of resources. Anyone who isn't completely retarded could figure out how to get a gun while avoiding the background check. That's right and we won't have to worry about all these damn victims in school shootings if the teachers and older students are already armed themselves.

That sounds so wrong. In my opinion.

[EscoLehGo]

QUOTE (goin-god @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 11:05)

That sounds so wrong. In my opinion.

It was meant to sound wrong, it's "good ol boy" logic

[goin-god]

QUOTE (EscoLehGo @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 09:49)

QUOTE (goin-god @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 11:05) That sounds so wrong. In my opinion. It was meant to sound wrong, it's "good ol boy" logic

I thought you were serious because I heard many americans say that.

[ass reamer]

I've always thought the Second Amendment should be discarded altogether as the societal circumstances that existed at the time of its' writing simply do not apply to to today's world. State militias do not exist anymore (go try to organize your own militia and see how long it takes before the FBI is kicking in your door) and the threat of foreign invasion will be confronted by the US military, not by you and I going out back, grabbing the shotguns out of the shed and hunkering down. Owning a firearm should not be a right but a highly regulated privilege extended only to those need it, i.e. a farmer who needs one to defend his livestock from wild animals or a person who relies on hunting for sustenance. A suburbanite living a cushy life outside Dallas doesn't need to own a single firearm.

Someone is always going to make the "I'll get rid of my guns when the criminals get rid of theirs" argument, but if you heavily restrict the sale/transportation of consumer firearms within the country, you're in turn reducing the stockpile of guns to be stolen or otherwise obtained by criminals. A large part of the reason criminals can obtain guns so easily because millions upon millions of them are produced for commercial annually. If you lower the stock of legal guns in the country the ones that do find their way to the black market are going to be sold at highly inflated prices, hopefully to the point that many criminals simply won't be able to afford them.

[RomansMoobs]

Mandatory gun classes for first time gun buyers. Banning something isn't the same as good education. Just like Censorship isn't a good substitute for parenting.

@ass reamer

So if some yuppy f*ck comes storming into my cushy suburban house with a gun, and the new law prohibits guns, what the f*ck do I do? Give him what he wants? I believe there is such a thing as "self defense" and I fully believe in it. If someone threatens me with a gun/knife/weapon, I should be able to shoot the motherf*cker dead, and not have to worry about the consequences.

I'm one to believe that America does have a breaking point. People outnumber the government easily 10-1. I can believe America could fall into Anarchy, and when it does I wanted to be armed.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (RomansMoobs @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 15:39)

I'm one to believe that America does have a breaking point. People outnumber the government easily 10-1.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. The government is a unified, homogeneous entity? That all 30m+ (actually closer to 22m, but whatever) government employees are part of some armed, politically based militia? That all government employees are separate from "the people" and don't, in fact, make up a large percent of them?

The government is made up of the people, it's not us vs them.

[EscoLehGo]

QUOTE (RomansMoobs @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 15:39)

I'm one to believe that America does have a breaking point. People outnumber the government easily 10-1. I can believe America could fall into Anarchy, and when it does I wanted to be armed.

What's the breaking point exactly and are you currently preparing for it?