In depends on your state really.
For example... In Arizona, I can walk right into a gunshop choose a nice revolver, do a 4473 and it'll be in a nice container at my house within 30 minutes.
In my present place of residence[North Dakota], all though not required by law, some gun dealers will give you the abrupt 'fuck off' if you don't have a CCL(concealed carry license) or will try to push you towards purchasing a shotgun instead. Granted, it's the same process as Arizona.
Every state in the Union for the most part has their own set of rules/guidelines on how gun laws should work. In certain cases some states are joining the ever increasing movement in support of the Firearms Freedom Act, which has an emphasis on pretty much removing themselves from 'over-regulation' with most examples being anything like the AWB.
Disagree with licensing, but I would like to see universal background checks. The reason I disagree with licensing is because it can be easily hijacked by partisan interests in order to reduce gun ownership. This has happened in my state of MA.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39437642]Disagree with licensing, but I would like to see universal background checks. The reason I disagree with licensing is because it can be easily hijacked by partisan interests in order to reduce gun ownership. This has happened in my state of MA.[/QUOTE]
Except we still have stores which sell alcohol and cars on the road. Licensing doesn't automatically cause gun ownership rates to plummet.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39437678]Except we still have stores which sell alcohol and cars on the road. Licensing doesn't automatically cause gun ownership rates to plummet.[/QUOTE]
Cars are a necessity and alcohol isn't hard for people to acquire, it just takes 21 years of waiting (in the U.S. anyway.)
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39437743]Cars are a necessity and alcohol isn't hard for people to acquire, it just takes 21 years of waiting (in the U.S. anyway.)[/QUOTE]
Are guns not a necessity as well for many people (self-defense for example) and also being easy to acquire?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39437793]Are guns not a necessity as well for many people (self-defense for example) and also being easy to acquire?[/QUOTE]
Nowhere near on the level of cars and alcohol.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39436600]Quite a couple of states don't have licenses for firearms (which strikes me as rather bizarre, considering you need a license to drive a car or own a place that sells alcohol).[/QUOTE]
With regards to that selling alcohol point, you need a license to sell guns as a dealer.
I think that the AWB wants to ban what may happen, and that if the lawmakers were serious about guns due to the number of people killed,they would either go for a repeal of the second amendment or would curtail handguns. However, to say as much would be political suicide and be too quick a maneuver, so I believe they will chip away at it with arbitrary bans on how a gun looks rather than how it shoots.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39437793]Are guns not a necessity as well for many people (self-defense for example) and also being easy to acquire?[/QUOTE]
It's not comparable to cars; privately owned firearms aren't a necessity. A law enforcement equipped with firearms, yes, but private citizens, no, it isn't a necessity. If you take away everyone's cars, you have a third-world country with no economy. If you take away everyone's firearms, you've removed the go-to weapon for killing. (I know it's also a form of self-defense, but you wouldn't need firearms for self-defense if the threat of criminals with firearms wasn't there.) As I wrote in my last big post, I still think it's possible to preserve the use of firearms for hunting and shooting ranges, which besides self-defense are the only legitimate reasons for private citizens to operate firearms.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39438660]If you take away everyone's cars, you have a third-world country with no economy. If you take away everyone's firearms, all you've removed is a go-to weapon for killing. (I know it's also a form of self-defense, but you wouldn't need firearms for self-defense if the threat of criminals with firearms wasn't there.) As I wrote in my last big post, I still think it's possible to preserve the use of weapons for hunting and shooting ranges.[/QUOTE]
Mhm, although I was mainly arguing against the reasons not to have firearms licensing (which I am strongly in support of).
I'm personally fine with liscensing but I have a few qualms about the highly likely event that anti-gun politicians and lobbies are going to hijack and abuse the system
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39438660]you wouldn't need firearms for self-defense if the threat of criminals with firearms wasn't there[/QUOTE]
Oh, you gotta be kidding me. As if criminals could never have an advantage in terms of strength or numbers. Or both.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39438812]Oh, you gotta be kidding me. As if criminals could never have an advantage in terms of strength or numbers. Or both.[/QUOTE]
^^^This
not to mention that if there's a restriction, there's a blackmarket. Criminals will smuggle their own guns, or build their own.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39438812]Oh, you gotta be kidding me. As if criminals could never have an advantage in terms of strength or numbers. Or both.[/QUOTE]
The advantage of numbers works too when people have guns tho.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39438850]^^^This
not to mention that if there's a restriction, there's a blackmarket. Criminals will smuggle their own guns, or build their own.[/QUOTE]
Black market production will never reach the scale of industrial production however.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39438812]Oh, you gotta be kidding me. As if criminals could never have an advantage in terms of strength or numbers. Or both.[/QUOTE]
As Sobotnik said, that advantage still applies when criminals have firearms. But at the very least, with both sides disarmed then the overall lethality of those fights would go down, which can only be a good thing.
And yes, criminals will still try to smuggle firearms in, but it can be made very difficult for them to, and they will never be able to on a large scale.
I'm ignoring that it would be extraordinarily hard to first get weapons out of Americans' hands, because in order to do so would require taking them away little bits at a time. I'm just arguing hypothetically here, and I think a country would be better off without allowing privately owned firearms for the reasons I've been stating. I don't want anyone to assume I'm advocating an immediate confiscation of all the firearms in America, because I know that's unrealistic.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39438906]
Black market production will never reach the scale of industrial production however.[/QUOTE]
And that would also ignore the guns being manufactured via blackmarket. In most countries where strict gun-control has been enacted the criminals changed tactics and actually are using firearms which have greater chances to cause damage over the standard semi-automatic rifle. Most of these being effective and affordable blowback machine pistols or stealing shotguns, and sawing off most of the barrel.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39439234]And that would also ignore the guns being manufactured via blackmarket. In most countries where strict gun-control has been enacted the criminals changed tactics and actually are using firearms which have greater chances to cause damage over the standard semi-automatic rifle. Most of these being effective and affordable blowback machine pistols or stealing shotguns, and sawing off most of the barrel.[/QUOTE]
That's implying that we shouldn't outlaw firearms because then at least the criminals will use the slightly less lethal guns to do the exact same thing anyway: kill someone.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39439314]That's implying that we shouldn't outlaw firearms because then at least the criminals will use the slightly less lethal guns to do the exact same thing anyway: kill someone.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying.
You can't suddenly get rid of 100's of years of knowledge with just saying "It's illegal". Now my personal belief is the entire gun-debate can be solved by answering the age old question of, 'Where does it start?' and that can be linked to failing healthcare, inability to live comfortably[be it employment or otherwise], failed attempts at controlling substances/knowledge[which creates blackmarkets], and otherwise.
It's really something which can only be solved by putting on some boots, and getting to work. We can't solve it over night.
With that said... Do I agree with some gun regulation. Yes.
Do I agree with firearms being slowly outlawed or heavily restricted because of people trying to get somewhere in life? No.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39439234]And that would also ignore the guns being manufactured via blackmarket. In most countries where strict gun-control has been enacted the criminals changed tactics and actually are using firearms which have greater chances to cause damage over the standard semi-automatic rifle. Most of these being effective and affordable blowback machine pistols or stealing shotguns, and sawing off most of the barrel.[/QUOTE]
So allowing guns would do nothing in this case, because the criminals can manufacture more effective firearms by themselves?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39439565]So allowing guns would do nothing in this case, because the criminals can manufacture more effective firearms by themselves?[/QUOTE]
Firearm numbers will be less, but for the most part what reduces in quantity will come back in quality.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39439607]Firearm numbers will be less, but for the most part what makes up in quantity will come back in quality.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make any sense.
If criminals can already manufacture such powerful weapons, whats the point of loosening gun controls if it won't help?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39439617]That doesn't make any sense.
If criminals can already manufacture such powerful weapons, whats the point of loosening gun controls if it won't help?[/QUOTE]
I agree with restructuring the present gun laws in the book into a new legislation, while at the same time looking into overall crime and figuring out where/why is starts.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39439680]I agree with restructuring the present gun laws in the book into a new legislation, while at the same time looking into overall crime and figuring out where/why is starts.[/QUOTE]
I am fully in favor of reducing crime by helping out in areas where a lot of it comes from, with poor families and situations like that, as well as enforcing the gun laws I've been talking about.
However, you keep saying you'd be fine with "restructuring the present gun laws" but what exactly does that mean? What would you suggest?
Edit: I still disagree with what you said about criminals replacing quantity with quality, but I'm on my phone right now at work. I'll try to write a proper response to that later.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39440056]I am fully in favor of reducing crime by helping out in areas where a lot of it comes from, with poor families and situations like that, as well as enforcing the gun laws I've been talking about.
However, you keep saying you'd be fine with "restructuring the present gun laws" but what exactly does that mean? What would you suggest?
Edit: I still disagree with what you said about criminals replacing quantity with quality, but I'm on my phone right now at work. I'll try to write a proper response to that later.[/QUOTE]
My belief is a majority of the issues with gun regulations is that they are never properly implemented. For example with the 4473's, people who've had issues in the past or are purchasing firearms with a criminal history on them are never pulled aside after flunking the 4473. That's an issue in my eyes.
Most of the time it's your gundealer keeping his or her eyes out, and telling someone that they won't sell them a firearm based on what they can see with that person. Mind you this has also lead to your standard Walmart clerks acting like asshats at points because, 'you ask to many questions >:(' and refusing to sell you a firearm on that ground alone.
With that in mind it's mainly because they don't have anything to go on. Criminal records? Only tell you what they've been caught for. Mental Background checks? Easy to bullshit your way through.
But my ideal circumstances with firearm laws:
- Continue on with 4473's
- Make automatics legal and able to be registered, and in order to purchase one you must go through firearm classes and own a firearm vault. ATF visits as per normal.
- Remove the ridiculous regulations on sound mufflers[silencers] and modifications to firearms.
- Get rid of import laws/regulations and allow licensed gun dealers to import firearms from other countries.
- Legally approve the practice of 'Rounding Off' and have it so any funds from rounding off are transferred to the towns funds or charity of the purchasers choice.
- Make leaps into public education to teach firearm safety classes.
- Fix the gunshow loopholes by creating government mandated areas of trade which are monitored by law enforcement, and within gunshows you must complete ID checks before entering.
That's at least how I would start off.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39440398]My belief is a majority of the issues with gun regulations is that they are never properly implemented. For example with the 4473's, people who've had issues in the past or are purchasing firearms with a criminal history on them are never pulled aside after flunking the 4473. That's an issue in my eyes.
Most of the time it's your gundealer keeping his or her eyes out, and telling someone that they won't sell them a firearm based on what they can see with that person. Mind you this has also lead to your standard Walmart clerks acting like asshats at points because, 'you ask to many questions >:(' and refusing to sell you a firearm on that ground alone.
With that in mind it's mainly because they don't have anything to go on. Criminal records? Only tell you what they've been caught for. Mental Background checks? Easy to bullshit your way through.
But my ideal circumstances with firearm laws:
- Continue on with 4473's
- Make automatics legal and able to be registered, and in order to purchase one you must go through firearm classes and own a firearm vault. ATF visits as per normal.
- Remove the ridiculous regulations on sound mufflers[silencers] and modifications to firearms.
- Get rid of import laws/regulations and allow licensed gun dealers to import firearms from other countries.
- Legally approve the practice of 'Rounding Off' and have it so any funds from rounding off are transferred to the towns funds or charity of the purchasers choice.
- Make leaps into public education to teach firearm safety classes.
- Fix the gunshow loopholes by creating government mandated areas of trade which are monitored by law enforcement, and within gunshows you must complete ID checks before entering.
That's at least how I would start off.[/QUOTE]
With the exception of public education on firearm safety and requiring ID checks at gunshows, all you've proposed only expands gun rights. The public education is a step in the right direction, but it's a very small step, because you're only introducing kids to firearms and not too much more. Unfortunately, for as long as depression, poverty, and poor education is a major problem in urban areas, crime involving firearms and illicit drugs are always going to be prevalent. You can do two things to attempt to curb it:
1. Increase quality of education and provide vocational skills
2. Restrict access to firearms
I am absolutely in favor of the first option, and everyone should be. But is it a bad idea to work with the second option as well? I think pushing both options will reduce criminal culture that is prominent in those areas where gun crime is most prevalent. Will murders and gang killings still occur? Yes, but it can be made much more difficult to execute and much more difficult to get away with. Meanwhile, better education and training will make residents more valuable laborers, and they won't feel forced to resort to joining gangs and theft.
Edit: As with armor-piercing rounds, I don't see the reason that private gun owners would ever need a silencer. It doesn't fit with hunting, shooting ranges, nor especially self-defense, which are the only reasons for private gun ownership.
But doesn't most criminal culture exist as of the moment thanks to most narcotics being illegal? I'm for widespread legalization and regulation of almost every drug on the book, and then getting into these crime areas and actually figuring out how to improve to job climate. Hell, I'm for you with the education programs, and while were at it lets add some trade programs which garner experience in the field with repairing and fixing buildings/infrastructure.
The second issue is mainly placed with handgun ownership, and nothing less really. The only thing I could see possibly working for handguns is requiring CCL or OCL for ownership of handguns.
Also in regards to the edit... Several hunters in Europe use silencers for pest-elimination mainly to ensure less noise disturbance in the areas they are hunting[livestock freaking out or having heart attacks isn't good at all], and as for the armor piercing rounds, you can always limit them to sale at ranges.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39440056]I am fully in favor of reducing crime by helping out in areas where a lot of it comes from, with poor families and situations like that, as well as enforcing the gun laws I've been talking about.
However, you keep saying you'd be fine with "restructuring the present gun laws" but what exactly does that mean? What would you suggest?
Edit: I still disagree with what you said about criminals replacing quantity with quality, but I'm on my phone right now at work. I'll try to write a proper response to that later.[/QUOTE]
In my mind, restructuring would start with
STOPPING THE BAN OF GUNS BY THEIR COSMETIC FEATURES
"But wait BFG, this hasn't happened yet, we don't even know if it will happen"
I disagree, its already happened once in the past (AWB) And its happening in California as we speak. Also, banning standard capacity magazines because of a hypothetical situation where they run out of ammo and allow people to escape is stupid. I can just supply my own hypothetical situation where a band of 4 guys invades a man's home in New York, but the man takes 3 shots to incapacitate each person because he's unaware how many people are in the house, and subsequently after he has discharged all 7 shots in his 1911 there is one guy left who overpowers him.
Point being, I think gun control should stop focusing on the gun and start focusing on the people who want the guns and the ways guns are distributed.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39441398]
Edit: As with armor-piercing rounds, I don't see the reason that private gun owners would ever need a silencer. It doesn't fit with hunting, shooting ranges, nor especially [B][I][U]self-defense[/U][/I][/B], which are the only reasons for private gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
You just answered your own question there
if I'm going to be alone in my house with some home invaders I'm going to want to be able to hear again after I fire my gun, because after i fire my ears will be ringing
My secret agenda for wanting suppressors to be legal, however, is because I want to be able to go to the shooting range without using earplugs. >:3
There are plenty of reason to own a suppressor
-Hunting/pest control: Firstly, because you don't need to wear hearing protection, you can hear things better and are thus more aware of your environment and less likely to accidental shoot someone. Secondly, and thus probably doesn't apply in the US as hunting is about sport more than pest control, you can shoot more animals before they're all scared off by the sound of gunfire
-Self defence: Shooting indoors fucks your hearing, one shot and you ears will be ringing and you'll be unable to hear your surroundings
-Target shooting: Same reason as hunting, you don't need hearing protection.
There are many countries where suppressors are totally legal, but guns are heavily restricted. Take the UK for example; at the moment they police there won't even approve a rifle licence unless you get a suppressor too. In New Zealand you can mailorder suppressors online.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39441856]But doesn't most criminal culture exist as of the moment thanks to most narcotics being illegal? I'm for widespread legalization and regulation of almost every drug on the book, and then getting into these crime areas and actually figuring out how to improve to job climate. Hell, I'm for you with the education programs, and while were at it lets add some trade programs which garner experience in the field with repairing and fixing buildings/infrastructure.
The second issue is mainly placed with handgun ownership, and nothing less really. The only thing I could see possibly working for handguns is requiring CCL or OCL for ownership of handguns.
Also in regards to the edit... Several hunters in Europe use silencers for pest-elimination mainly to ensure less noise disturbance in the areas they are hunting[livestock freaking out or having heart attacks isn't good at all], and as for the armor piercing rounds, you can always limit them to sale at ranges.[/QUOTE]
Criminal culture exists because of poverty, not because of drugs. People in poverty often turn to drugs as a means of coping, and that is where the crime comes in. Legalizing drugs just so people have to start fighting the law/each other doesn't solve the issue of poverty though. If we want people to stop fighting over illegal drugs, we have to help them back on their feet.
As for the part about hunters, in that case, as I was saying about shooting/hunting ranges that rent out firearms, silencers could possibly be one of those attachments available to hunters then, as well as the armor piercing rounds bit, that fits in perfectly too.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39442853]In my mind, restructuring would start with
STOPPING THE BAN OF GUNS BY THEIR COSMETIC FEATURES
"But wait BFG, this hasn't happened yet, we don't even know if it will happen"
I disagree, its already happened once in the past (AWB) And its happening in California as we speak. Also, banning standard capacity magazines because of a hypothetical situation where they run out of ammo and allow people to escape is stupid. I can just supply my own hypothetical situation where a band of 4 guys invades a man's home in New York, but the man takes 3 shots to incapacitate each person because he's unaware how many people are in the house, and subsequently after he has discharged all 7 shots in his 1911 there is one guy left who overpowers him.
Point being, I think gun control should stop focusing on the gun and start focusing on the people who want the guns and the ways guns are distributed.[/quote]
I think it's completely viable to focus on both. We can reduce gun crime more by both restricting access to firearms [I]and[/I] attempting to solve the poverty issue. It would also prevent a normal gun owner unknowingly giving access to an undiagnosed mentally unstable person in their home.
Just so you don't think I skipped over the part about cosmetic features, I read it, but I'm not advocating the ban of firearms just because they look scary. I think that's the motive of a lot of gun control advocates, and I think it's a stupid argument and the wrong one they should be making. A glock is just as scary as an AK-47, they're both designed to do the exact same thing, and that's send a small piece of metal down range at exceedingly high velocity to tear through flesh. Both are equally deadly to humans.
[quote]You just answered your own question there
if I'm going to be alone in my house with some home invaders I'm going to want to be able to hear again after I fire my gun, because after i fire my ears will be ringing
My secret agenda for wanting suppressors to be legal, however, is because I want to be able to go to the shooting range without using earplugs. >:3[/QUOTE]
No, I didn't answer my own question. Usually when someone's home is broken into, they want help; a silenced pistol isn't going to wake up the neighbors, and the cops won't be on their way. There's also the good chance that a gunshot scares off the home invaders. Silencers aren't useful for self-defense.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;39444431]There are plenty of reason to own a suppressor
-Hunting/pest control: Firstly, because you don't need to wear hearing protection, you can hear things better and are thus more aware of your environment and less likely to accidental shoot someone. Secondly, and thus probably doesn't apply in the US as hunting is about sport more than pest control, you can shoot more animals before they're all scared off by the sound of gunfire
-Self defence: Shooting indoors fucks your hearing, one shot and you ears will be ringing and you'll be unable to hear your surroundings
-Target shooting: Same reason as hunting, you don't need hearing protection.
There are many countries where suppressors are totally legal, but guns are heavily restricted. Take the UK for example; at the moment they police there won't even approve a rifle licence unless you get a suppressor too. In New Zealand you can mailorder suppressors online.[/QUOTE]
As I said, it's possible silencers could be rented out for hunting. For pest control, that's one sacrifice that would have to be made, private citizens wouldn't be able to perform that with firearms. That's not to say there would be no pest control, but people probably wouldn't be able to do it on their own unless you can think of a way it would still go along with a gun ban. I'm trying, but I'll get back to you.
Like I said for self-defense, it may deafen you for a while, but there are benefits to it as well that I stated. Would the burglars' hearing be worsened too? I mean I know they're a lot further from the gunshot than you are. Either way, I still think a loud gunshot is better in any situation. If you're killed using the silencer, no one is even aware your house has been broken into.
Target shooting goes again with rental firearms, but that is one situation where you absolutely don't need silencers, because it's at a range. Earmuffs don't interfere with anything you would/should be doing at a shooting range.
I'm not sure what to make of other countries offering silencers though, I'm not entirely understanding the relevance. Can you explain it more?
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
Not to mention [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw]silencers really don't make gunshots all that much quieter.[/url] I'd put money on your ears still ringing even with one attached.
Yes, they don't make them quiet like in the movie, negating any point in banning them. And no, you're wrong, they do make it queit enough to stop your ears ringing.
Yes they do, you need to be able to hear safety commands like "Stop shooting"
I'm using other countries as examples of places where suppressors are easy to get yet criminals aren't running around shooting people with them
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
