Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody.

[Curls]

[QUOTE=Piciul;53133247]Literally the only place in the world with a mass shooting epidemic, over a hundred countries in the world where schools don't get shot up and apparently there's nothing the greatest nation on earth can do about it

:terrists:

[highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitpost" - OvB))[/highlight][/QUOTE]

Other nations have their own issues, America isn't somehow unique.

Both sides have counter-examples to use against eachother. Both sides want the same thing at opposing levels. It's a complicated problem with too much nuance in every argument.

It's not that we think there's literally nothing that can be done about it. It's that no one actually knows what one thing can be done about it, and yes, clearly, our awful fucking politicians don't.

To me, an actual fix needs a societal attitude change more than a legal one. Teachers and schools talking to students like human beings would certainly help.

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53133163]This means that countries like Switzerland can get away with high percentages of gun ownership, but I think that it's unrealistic to apply those same standards to the US where the culture and situation are entirely different.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Switzerland is a good comparison at all, and not just from a culture perspective

AFAIK, to actually buy a guy in switzerland (for most firearms) you have to apply for one in a local firearms bureau, proving that you have a clean criminal record, you're a permanent resident, have no existing psychological issues and with a direct register of the firearm

i believe you have to do this every time you buy ammo as well - even for the firearms that are exempted from the above (hunting rifles, muzzle loaders I believe?)

To actually carry the firearm outside you need a separate license, where your aptitude is tested, and you have to justify your reason for doing so (once again, even when the above requirement isn't the case)

i think switzerland is brought up in these arguments because people see the high gun ownership but low gun crime rate and point to it as an example of liberal gun laws working, but the full sentence there should be liberal gun laws [I]in comparison to the rest of Europe[/I], but they're still extremely regulated

[editline]15th February 2018[/editline]

i'd like to stop seeing the switzerland comparison from either side just because switzerland is such an odd country

there's loads of policies that switzerland has, which don't work anywhere else, but work in switzerland because it's a country with a tiny population but enormous wealth

[.Ducky]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53133477]I don't think Switzerland is a good comparison at all, and not just from a culture perspective

AFAIK, to actually buy a guy in switzerland (for most firearms) you have to apply for one in a local firearms bureau, proving that you have a clean criminal record, you're a permanent resident, have no existing psychological issues and with a direct register of the firearm

i believe you have to do this every time you buy ammo as well - even for the firearms that are exempted from the above (hunting rifles, muzzle loaders I believe?)

To actually carry the firearm outside you need a separate license, where your aptitude is tested, and you have to justify your reason for doing so (once again, even when the above requirement isn't the case)

i think switzerland is brought up in these arguments because people see the high gun ownership but low gun crime rate and point to it as an example of liberal gun laws working, but the full sentence there should be liberal gun laws [I]in comparison to the rest of Europe[/I], but they're still extremely regulated

[editline]15th February 2018[/editline]

i'd like to stop seeing the switzerland comparison from either side just because switzerland is such an odd country

there's loads of policies that switzerland has, which don't work anywhere else, but work in switzerland because it's a country with a tiny population but enormous wealth[/QUOTE]

This is all news to me, actually. If you could source all of this I'd appreciate it a ton! To be honest, these all go against the narrative that's pushed on here that Switzerland is a very lax gun law space, so I'm interested in seeing them either refuted by someone more knowledgeable on the matter than me or supported by any sources you can scrounge up for me. I think it was touched on last page but you seem to brought up some unique stuff as well.

I would like to bring this up, though.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132929]Switzerland is kind of a good example of the fact that guns can not be directly linked to the prevalence of violent crime.
Anyway, that's pretty much why I point at Switzerland when people say gun crime in the US is caused by the availability of guns.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure the point was in if it was a matter of the gun laws being more liberal/lax, but rather in that you can't correlate gun ownership with gun violence. There's a whole discussion regarding Swiss gun ownership stemming from this post that I'm not sure if you've read/addressed yet. I was mostly operating on the conclusions drawn from that.

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53133492]This is all news to me, actually. If you could source all of this I'd appreciate it a ton! To be honest, these all go against the narrative that's pushed on here that Switzerland is a very lax gun law space, so I'm interested in seeing them either refuted by someone more knowledgeable on the matter than me or supported by any sources you can scrounge up for me. I think it was touched on last page but you seem to brought up some unique stuff as well.

I would like to bring this up, though.

I'm not sure the point was in if it was a matter of the gun laws being more liberal/lax, but rather in that you can't correlate gun ownership with gun violence. There's a whole discussion regarding Swiss gun ownership stemming from this post that I'm not sure if you've read/addressed yet. I was mostly operating on the conclusions drawn from that.[/QUOTE]

Well, I've got a German source (the actual law) here: [URL]https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19983208/index.html[/URL]

but here's an English article about the laws: [URL]https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/bearing-arms_how-gun-loving-switzerland-regulates-its-firearms/43573832[/URL]

A good summary is on the wiki article, which is citing the law: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland#Acquisition[/URL]

As far the argument about prevalence of violent crime, as I mentioned, Switzerland isn't a good example. The country is enormously wealthy, has a tiny population, and has very few social issues. It has an absolutely tiny crime rate (it does have an abnormally high firearms-related death rate, but that's sort of common sense).

so you've got the golden combination of firearms being under tight control, with a country that has a very low crime rate anyway due to factors that we [I]know[/I] have good impacts on your crime rate (economic strength, quality of education, quality of life in general)

so basically, you can't say that switzerland is an example of gun ownership having no impact on crime - it could be the case that it's low because guns have no impact, or it's low [I]despite[/I]​ guns having an impact - but also that the gun regulation in place there is far more stringent than most people think

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53133492]This is all news to me, actually. If you could source all of this I'd appreciate it a ton! To be honest, these all go against the narrative that's pushed on here that Switzerland is a very lax gun law space, so I'm interested in seeing them either refuted by someone more knowledgeable on the matter than me or supported by any sources you can scrounge up for me. I think it was touched on last page but you seem to brought up some unique stuff as well.

I would like to bring this up, though.

I'm not sure the point was in if it was a matter of the gun laws being more liberal/lax, but rather in that you can't correlate gun ownership with gun violence. There's a whole discussion regarding Swiss gun ownership stemming from this post that I'm not sure if you've read/addressed yet. I was mostly operating on the conclusions drawn from that.[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland"]This brings you up to speed pretty quickly.[/URL]

Though there are two key notes about it.

First, that Swiss gun ownership is not as strict as that post makes it out to be. Although the supposed barriers and limitations on gun ownership seem lengthy on paper, in effect they boil down to the same, "No rap sheet, no madness, background check" that is applied in the U.S., with the added step of filing a form whenever you buy more guns or bullets. Gun shops in the U.S. often keep extensive and exhaustive records of their sales, either by local law or in compliance with Firearm sales regulation, meaning that again, the Swiss barriers aren't that high.

Pile on top the fact that all Swiss men undergo compulsory military service and may opt to keep there firearm thereafter, that again ends up dramatically lowers the bar for firearm ownership [I]even compared to the United States.[/I]

The second note is that by U.S. Standards, Swiss gun regulations are actually constitutionally illegal since they ban ownership for [I]certain nationalities of permanent resident,[/I]

[quote=Wikipedia]
In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (art. 8 WG/LArm). Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit. Foreigners with the following citizenship are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania.
[/quote]

in the U.S. this would violate your Constitutional rights, on the grounds of being flatly racist.

Which sort of brings me to what I wanted to add to this conversation.

The issue is a Constitutional one at the end of the day. There have been a lot of attempts to pass weapons bans that have ultimately been [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller"]over turned for a wide variety of reasons.[/URL]

One important reason that is often taken to be a defining feature of the issue is racism and classism.

A lot of defunct gun bans have been, in their initial stages, aimed at low income, majority-ethnic areas. Time and again, as a matter of civil rights, these bans have been turned back because of how disproportionately they affect people along racial and financial lines.

Which is why, when gun bans like the Assault Weapons Ban are passed, they are painful omnibuses that manage to simultaneously do nothing to combat gun violence while tackling gun ownership in paradoxical ways. It minimizes legal challenges while broadly satisfying people who aren't effected by the ban in any general way.

At the end of the day, D.C. v. Heller ruled that handgun ownership is [B]a constitutionally guaranteed right.[/B]

Unsurprisingly, [URL="http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/fbi-homicide-data-by-weapon.html"]hand guns[/URL] make up a vast and overwhelming majority of murder weapons in the United States.

However, no one proposes banning hand guns because there is no reasonable way to implement a hand gun ban without not only violating the Constitution but adversely affecting about 40% of the U.S. population.

In numbers, about 1,500,000 people would have to give up their property, to save about 5,500 lives. (potentially, naively assuming all five and a half thousand murders with a handgun were committed by lawful, gun owning citizens who did not illegal posses a gun.)

For fun, [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm"]drinking[/URL] causes about 88,000 deaths a year, but we almost universally agree that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States"]a blanket ban on it[/URL] was dumb, ineffective, and ultimately hurt more people than it helped.

But I've been talking about constitutionality. So let me get back to that.

We cannot just flip the table over and say, "fuck that piece of paper." That piece of paper is an essential document for binding together a nation, that is one united nation, with a population not much smaller than the European Union itself (323 million, U.S., 508 million, E.U.) That document is responsible for legally enshrining the rights of all men and women, and is presently only edited consciously and carefully, with an eye toward ramifications that may occur centuries later. In fact, many times the part of that document supporting guns has been used to argue that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process"]people deserve the completely unwritten, technically unsupported right to privacy and self-determination.[/URL]

So the only way around that is to stop and rewrite it from the ground up.

So if you'd really like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress"]these guys[/URL] to hold a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)"]constitutional convention,[/URL] then I guess that's one way to go about it. The last time we did that we only made [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)#Slavery"]minor compromises.[/URL]

This is not to say that I think reducing gun violence in the U.S. is hopeless, or that nothing should be done about the situation in general. But I do think there is no legitimate or genuine way to argue that increasing gun restrictions (namely, banning them) is practical, sensible, or even legally digestible within the U.S. without literally waving a magic wand and saying, "you're all Switzerland now."

I think there are much more important, much easier to address concerns and issues at play.

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53133524][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland"]This brings you up to speed pretty quickly.[/URL]

Though there are two key notes about it.

First, that Swiss gun ownership is not as strict as that post makes it out to be. Although the supposed barriers and limitations on gun ownership seem lengthy on paper, in effect they boil down to the same, "No rap sheet, no madness, background check" that is applied in the U.S., with the added step of filing a form whenever you buy more guns or bullets. Gun shops in the U.S. often keep extensive and exhaustive records of their sales, either by local law or in compliance with Firearm sales regulation, meaning that again, the Swiss barriers aren't that high.

Pile on top the fact that all Swiss men undergo compulsory military service and may opt to keep there firearm thereafter, that again ends up dramatically lowers the bar for firearm ownership [I]even compared to the United States.[/I]
[/QUOTE]

I would rather believe the interpretation of the law from the Swiss, and the actual letter of the law over your interpretation of it to be blunt - i think you're pushing forward an oversimplification of the swiss system to keep the comparison relevant. I don't know enough about the american system to comment on your comparison specifically(considering it also varies state-to-state) but i don't think the picture you're painting of the swiss system is accurate given what I have read and seen (considering texas doesn't even involve a state permit system, or firearms registration system, your comparison is inaccurate for texas at the very least - if every state was similar to california, then I think the comparison would be accurate)

the "keeping a firearm after service" point is a deceptive one, because they don't actually get to keep the ammo - the ammo is stored in bases iirc (and acquiring ammo goes through the same process as the firearm) - also I believe the army advises that these stored weapons are stored in a way that they don't actually function: these weapons have to be permitted once the militia person's service has ended. I don't believe it's even legal for militia members to use the service weapon they're given in defence of anything other than the nation

i'm not going to touch on the constitutional comparison - firearms ownership is a constitutional right in switzerland (iirc), and that doesn't really change the surrounding justifications for me: i'm not interested in making a comment on the US's constitutional issues around firearms ownership, but I think the swiss comparison is a lot more flawed than people realise

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53133545]I would rather believe the interpretation of the law from the Swiss, and the actual letter of the law over your interpretation of it to be blunt - i think you're pushing forward an oversimplification of the swiss system to keep the comparison relevant. I don't know enough about the american system to comment on your comparison specifically(considering it also varies state-to-state) but i don't think the picture you're painting of the swiss system is accurate given what I have read and seen (considering texas doesn't even involve a state permit system, or firearms registration system, your comparison is inaccurate for texas at the very least)

the "keeping a firearm after service" point is a deceptive one, because they don't actually get to keep the ammo - the ammo is stored in bases iirc (and acquiring ammo goes through the same process as the firearm) - also I believe the army advises that these stored weapons are stored in a way that they don't actually function: these weapons have to be permitted once the militia person's service has ended

i'm not going to touch on the constitutional comparison - firearms ownership is a constitutional right in switzerland (iirc), and that doesn't really change the surrounding justifications for me[/QUOTE]

So, in my state, you need to fill out a 4473 Form. This is a federal form from the ATF, that I believe applies to every state. To be clear, I live in a state where it is relatively easy to purchase a gun. [B]It only gets harder[/B]​ elsewhere.

[URL="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download"]That can be found here.[/URL]

Outside of the additional Swiss requirement to furbish documentation for buying ammo, I cannot see anything myself that suggests there is any difference between what is asked for on this form and the Swiss requirements. (In fact, this form seems even more intrusive!)

If you are, by chance, talking about the revised gun purchasing and ownership laws Switzerland may have to adopt in order to comply with the E.U., that is still pending a referendum and may even lead to the Swiss leaving Schengen if it's rejected.

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53133562]So, in my state, you need to fill out a 4473 Form. This is a federal form from the ATF, that I believe applies to every state.

[URL="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download"]That can be found here.[/URL]

Outside of the additional Swiss requirement to furbish documentation for buying ammo, I cannot see anything myself that suggests there is any difference between what is asked for on this form and the Swiss requirements. (In fact, this form seems even more intrusive!)

If you are, by chance, talking about the revised gun purchasing and ownership laws Switzerland may have to adopt in order to comply with the E.U., that is still pending a referendum and may even lead to the Swiss leaving Schengen if it's reject.[/QUOTE]

from what I can see about that form and the ATF law around it, that form is kept by the dealer, whereas in the swiss system that is handled at a state level.

You also only need to fill in that form if you're buying from a licensed gun store - private individuals don't have to (except in certain states), whereas in switzerland, all transfers have to be recorded with the canton that you're transferring ino [B]turns out I'm wrong here, I've just had another look into the law and private individuals don't need to do this, but i'll keep it here as i fucked up[/B]

It's not clear if this form is returned to the ATF at any point other than when the FFL retires or if there's a criminal investigation into one of the signers?

furthermore in the swiss system, your firearms license requires renewal every 6 months - what I'd also say is that swiss law requires you to get a specific permit around how you're using the weapon: if you're intending to use it for defensive purposes, you need a specific license for that which involves training and an exam

[Download]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53133570]from what I can see about that form and the ATF law around it, that form is kept by the dealer, whereas in the swiss system that is handled at a state level.

You also only need to fill in that form if you're buying from a licensed gun store - private individuals don't have to (except in certain states), whereas in switzerland, all transfers have to be recorded with the canton that you're transferring in.

It's not clear if this form is returned to the ATF at any point other than when the FFL retires or if there's a criminal investigation into one of the signers?[/QUOTE]

And why does it matter who has the form exactly?

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53133570]from what I can see about that form and the ATF law around it, that form is kept by the dealer, whereas in the swiss system that is handled at a state level.

You also only need to fill in that form if you're buying from a licensed gun store - private individuals don't have to (except in certain states), whereas in switzerland, all transfers have to be recorded with the canton that you're transferring in.

It's not clear if this form is returned to the ATF at any point other than when the FFL retires or if there's a criminal investigation into one of the signers?[/QUOTE]

That is the form for your federally required background check. Yes. It reaches the ATF. And the FBI. And anyone who really wants it, I guess. The dealer keeps a [I]copy[/I] of that form.

It's also legally required that you fill out the "Transfer" section and keep the record yourself if you privately sell a gun, and is a serious offense (a felony) if you are found to have been party to an illegal gun sale. Even if you are a private citizen with no commercial interest.

These things [B]do not[/B] vary by state.

What exactly are you looking for?

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53133583]That is the form for your federally required background check. Yes. It reaches the ATF. And the FBI. And anyone who really wants it, I guess. The dealer keeps a [I]copy[/I] of that form.

It's also legally required that you fill out the "Transfer" section and keep the record yourself if you privately sell a gun, and is a serious offense (a felony) if you are found to have been party to an illegal gun sale. Even if you are a private citizen with no commercial interest.

These things [B]do not[/B] vary by state.

What exactly are you looking for?[/QUOTE]

I'm looking for any sort of duration clause - the swiss system requires renewal on licenses (for specific classes of firearm), but I'm not seeing one here?

also, any sort of license concerning use of firearms in the US? Is there a license for using a firearm defensively for instance? as mentioned in my previous post, defensive use of a firearm in switzerland requires another license, which involves an exam and training

For instance, if you're using your firearm in a shooting club, evidence of that has to be provided to cantonal authorities to maintain the license

[Comfy]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53133592]I'm looking for any sort of duration clause - the swiss system requires renewal on licenses (for specific classes of firearm), but I'm not seeing one here?

also, any sort of license concerning use of firearms in the US? Is there a license for using a firearm defensively for instance? as mentioned in my previous post, defensive use of a firearm in switzerland requires another license, which involves an exam and training

For instance, if you're using your firearm in a shooting club, evidence of that has to be provided to cantonal authorities to maintain the license[/QUOTE]

Swiss person here.

[quote]
I'm looking for any sort of duration clause - the swiss system requires renewal on licenses (for specific classes of firearm), but I'm not seeing one here?
[/quote]

Gun purchase licenses (Waffenerwerbsschein) are indeed only valid for short durations (not sure about the exact timespan).
You are obligated to register any and all firearms that you purchased with such license.

When your license expires, an officer gets in contact with you to verify the items you have bought with said license.

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53133592]I'm looking for any sort of duration clause - the swiss system requires renewal on licenses (for specific classes of firearm), but I'm not seeing one here?

also, any sort of license concerning use of firearms in the US? Is there a license for using a firearm defensively for instance? For instance, if you're using your firearm in a shooting club, evidence of that has to be provided to cantonal authorities to maintain the license[/QUOTE]

In my state there is no licensing requirement.

There is no duration-based licensing requirement in any state that I know of or can find at a glance.

However, complying with form 4473 meets all of the criteria in effect that would be needed for a license of acquisition in Switzerland.

There is also [I]no duration[/I] for [B]ownership[/B] of a firearm in Switzerland either.

The duration of a permit in Switzerland entirely pertains to it's use in "public spaces." Any licensed owner may "transport" a gun freely. Y'know, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns"]just read that again.[/URL]

As far as permits and licenses in the States, well, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#California"]California[/URL] has a comprehensive, and mindbogglingly large number of those, if that catches your fancy.

Apart from minutia, I really don't see a difference. Unless you want to tell me that while it's entirely fine for someone to own a gun for infinite time in the privacy of their own home, it will bring about widespread criminality and panic if we don't make sure that once the weapon crosses an invisible threshold from "private" to "public" space it has been properly documented. (Which, frankly, seems as silly as insisting that "No Gun Zones" stop gun crime.)

[Comfy]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53133612]
There is also no duration for ownership of a firearm in Switzerland either.

The duration of a permit in Switzerland entirely pertains to it's use in "public spaces." Any licensed owner may "transport" a gun freely. Y'know, just read that again.
[/QUOTE]

We only have a license for purchasing guns, ownership of such is permanent and requires no license (With the exception of "Prohibited Weapons", which are "Verbotene Waffen" in german, which are anything that is fully automatic and other criterias).

Here's the general information about the different weapon classifications (in german)
[url]https://www.ejpd.admin.ch/dam/data/fedpol/sicherheit/waffen/Brosch%C3%BCre/waffenbroschuere-d.pdf[/url]

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53133612]In my state there is no licensing requirement.

There is no duration-based licensing requirement in any state that I know of or can find at a glance.

However, complying with form 4473 meets all of the criteria in effect that would be needed for a license of acquisition in Switzerland.

There is also [I]no duration[/I] for [B]ownership[/B] of a firearm in Switzerland either.

The duration of a permit in Switzerland entirely pertains to it's use in "public spaces." Any licensed owner may "transport" a gun freely. Y'know, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns"]just read that again.[/URL]

As far as permits and licenses in the States, well, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#California"]California[/URL] has a comprehensive, and mindbogglingly large number of those, if that catches your fancy.

Apart from minutia, I really don't see a difference. Unless you want to tell me that while it's entirely fine for someone to own a gun for infinite time in the privacy of their own home, it will bring about widespread criminality and panic if we don't make sure that once the weapon crosses an invisible threshold from "private" to "public" space it has been properly documented. (Which, frankly, seems as silly as insisting that "No Gun Zones" stop gun crime.)[/QUOTE]

I would say that the difference is fairly significant? The Swiss system has legislation and additional licensing around how you're using the firearms you've purchased.

Maybe kaukassus can clear this up, but from the law it's not just enough to own a purchasing license for usage cases such as self-defence - there are additional tests and a license for that

so not only is the swiss system regulating the purchase of firearms (in a way similar to the US in a lot of ways, as you've mentioned), but there's an additional license surrounding usage (at a federal level)

so in a self defence situation, going by the law, it would be an offense to use a firearm to defend yourself unless you had an appropriate license

Perhaps california has some legislation to this effect, but is there federal-level legislation on firearms use such as having a license that allows for self-defence?

[Comfy]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53133633]I would say that the difference is fairly significant? The Swiss system has legislation and additional licensing around how you're using the firearms you've purchased.

Maybe kaukassus can clear this up, but from the law it's not just enough to own a purchasing license for usage cases such as self-defence - there are additional tests and a license for that[/QUOTE]

Self-defense is not a valid reason for gun-ownership here. When you are applying for your Gun Purchasing Permit and you state Self-defense as your reason for purchasing a firearm, they'll deny you the permit.

There's 2 main reasons here for purchasing and owning a gun.
1. Hunting
2. Sports

Any other reason will most likely not get you past the check.

There's a lot of paperwork and background checks involved with getting one.
1. You have to state what you'll be purchasing
2. You have to state why you want to purchase it (Hunting / Sports)
3. You need a valid ID or Passport
4. You must request a "Strafregisterauszug" (Criminal Record) from your Canton, which must not be older than 3 months. (Getting that also costs money)
5. Depending on Canton, you must also provide a "wohnsitzbestätigung" which is a form you get from your municipality (Getting that also costs money), which proofs that you actually live at the address and town you stated on the request.

I'm also pretty sure that the Permit also costs money, so you spent quite a few bucks and havent even gotten close to purchasing a gun yet.

Additionally, the guns here are quite expensive, with legal export versions of the AR-15 costing ~4500 USD

[Riller]

[QUOTE=download;53133574]And why does it matter who has the form exactly?[/QUOTE]

Because it's obviously easier for police-work if they had a centralized archive and database of gun-sales instead of having to go to individual gun-shops and hoping to God that their paperwork is in order (which it most likely is, but you can't be 100% sure). It would make everything so much easier for everyone involved if all gun-sale-registration papers were sent to the ATF immediately.

[Grenadiac]

[QUOTE=Riller;53133652]Because it's obviously easier for police-work if they had a centralized archive and database of gun-sales instead of having to go to individual gun-shops and hoping to God that their paperwork is in order (which it most likely is, but you can't be 100% sure). It would make everything so much easier for everyone involved if all gun-sale-registration papers were sent to the ATF immediately.[/QUOTE]

They are

[Morbo!!!]

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133132]Way to misrepresent my point. My point was that if were pointing the finger at “Mental Health” when a vast majority of people don’t commit mass shootings, then mental health can’t be the main contributor to this issue.[/QUOTE]

You are trying to stuff the square peg of your disdain for freedom of access to firearms through the round hole of what motivates people to leverage that freedom for ill. Take away any shooter's anger, bitterness and desperation and the gun is just an inanimate object. Take away the gun, the mindset still remains.

[Riller]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53133667]They are[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, then I completely misunderstood the forms involved.

[Grenadiac]

[QUOTE=Riller;53133697]Fair enough, then I completely misunderstood the forms involved.[/QUOTE]

The problem with FFLs is the FBI can just... decide not to respond to background checks. If they take longer than 3 days, the sale is approved automatically (by law). Several major shooters in recent times bought their guns from FFLs - but would have failed the background check if the FBI had responded.

I don't really know why the FBI has that option, but it shouldn't. It takes about 5 minutes to run a background check via NICS, so I can't actually think of a valid reason.

If the FBI was required by law to respond in a timely manner & local police would arrest people who are barred from owning firearms and who attempt to buy them, several recent high profile shootings would have been prevented.

[Nahash]

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/TZe9ZOV.jpg[/IMG]

seriously dont get why news services have to act like vultures and use the shooting to push their agendas

[Grenadiac]

[img]https://i.gyazo.com/0a2f4692bd42646fbec5804a6d1e984f.png[/img]

Second one may not be legit

[editline]15th February 2018[/editline]

[img]https://i.gyazo.com/50b7a432a90af15b338fcd8a46cf358c.png[/img]

It's not

[Grenadiac]

:worried:

[media]https://twitter.com/harrisalexc/status/963902245170503680[/media]

Totally still a media vulture but let's not buy into the alt right propaganda edits

[WJS]

Saw this on the news in a few minutes ago, interview with some local county sheriff or something and the guy just said "we've concluded that this was just pure evil"

lol fuck off

Maybe it's to do with the United State's disgusting "out of sight out of mind" approach to mental health that turns people into shooters instead of some bullshit like the [I]forces of evil[/I]

[Nahash]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53133752]:worried:

[media]https://twitter.com/harrisalexc/status/963902245170503680[/media]

Totally still a media vulture but let's not buy into the alt right propaganda edits[/QUOTE]

yeah i fell for it, removed the image

[.Ducky]

Idk I don't have much of a problem with news orgs respectfully getting into contact with involved parties. I feel like social media is a good thing in this regard, asking for permission and follow backs to dm in a private space seems like a good way to talk to sources.

I guess the question is whether or not getting those sources is necessary in the first place.

[Steel]

[url=https://www.apnews.com/a6fd450470d4464ab423b8b3a911b42d/Florida-teen-charged-with-17-murder-counts-in-school-attack]Via the AP[/url]
[quote]An orphaned 19-year-old with a troubled past and his own AR-15 rifle was charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder Thursday morning after being questioned for hours by state and federal authorities following the deadliest school shooting in the U.S. in five years.

Nikolas Cruz, still wearing a hospital gown after being treated for labored breathing, and weighing in at 5-foot-7 and 131 pounds, was ordered held without bond and booked into jail.

Authorities offered no immediate details about a possible motive, except to say that Cruz had been kicked out of the high school, which has about 3,000 students. Students who knew him described a volatile teenager whose strange behavior had caused others to end friendships with him.

Cruz’s mother Lynda Cruz died of pneumonia on Nov. 1 neighbors, friends and family members said, according to the Sun Sentinel . Cruz and her husband, who died of a heart attack several years ago, adopted Nikolas and his biological brother, Zachary, after the couple moved from Long Island in New York to Broward County.[/quote]

[Jaguar]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53133746][img]https://i.gyazo.com/0a2f4692bd42646fbec5804a6d1e984f.png[/img]

Second one may not be legit

[editline]15th February 2018[/editline]

[img]https://i.gyazo.com/50b7a432a90af15b338fcd8a46cf358c.png[/img]

It's not[/QUOTE]

It shouldn't surprise me, but it does, that the alt-right would doctor tweets to make the media seem worse than they are.

[.Ducky]

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;53133767]It shouldn't surprise me, but it does, that the alt-right would doctor tweets to make the media seem worse than they are.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't surprise me at all. Misinformation warfare has been such a prominent thing in the past few years that I feel that I need to fact check stuff like that every time I come across it.