Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On April 18 2013 12:15 FallDownMarigold wrote: I won't defend her trigger safety, that's for sure. But at the same time, I won't berate her for it either. It's like that in politics in every issue. What about the ultra-right wingers who -- without knowing ANYTHING about developmental biology -- argue strongly against abortion rights? It's all over politics. We really can't single it out, because it's like that in every issue....which is an issue by itself, of course
I find those ultraconservative legislators just as dumb, but that's for a different thread. This isn't the "Should Abortion be allowed?" thread.
My point is that many of the gun control laws being proposed are being decided upon by people who have no idea about any of it, which should be reason enough to not pass them. You wouldn't take a prescription from a doctor who knew this little about medicine; you wouldn't have a mechanic who knew nothing about cars work on your car; and we shouldn't let legislators who know nothing about guns make any legislation about them.
On April 18 2013 12:20 Sermokala wrote: I love how you decide to ride this intellectual high horse when you are the one who has no fucking clue about guns at all. I use real life examples and solid reasoning, your the one whos so far into theory-crafting that he has no idea why most gun violence is done with pistols.
But sure now that your losing we should move on. We really don't know what anyone means when they use made up terms like "assault weapon" in order to make their arguments better. Better point to "background checks" being an actual thing too to make the other side look bad. Lets also completely ignore actual facts about gun violence in america what cause's it and whos getting killed.
It'll probably be a few more years before anyone even talks about gun control again. Which is really sad because everyone agrees something should be done even if no one agrees on what that is.
Hmm. It's interesting to me that you ascertained I know nothing about guns while I was correcting your false statements about guns. Ah well, I guess we're just not on the same page. It could be due to your "solid reasoning" that floats above my comprehension, maybe. I also like how you eeked in that bit on how most gun violence is done with pistols, a fact I would have never denied had it ever come up between us. I was talking about assault rifles with another poster, at which point you butted in with a bunch of naive ideas about larger rounds, the nature of real combat, and so on. Admittedly, I should have just ignored those, but they were so incorrect I felt compelled to explain them to you, off topic. My mistake, let's move on
Automatic fire has little to do with a rifle being an assault rifle, contrary to what Sermokala says. Soldiers with assault rifles capable of select-fire do not engage enemy combatants with full automatic in the first place, in the majority of situations. The way the select-fire M4 is used is effectively no different from the way the AR-15 is used. Sermokala claims a larger round necessarily kills better than a smaller round -- false. A 5.56 is just as deadly as a 7.62 -- they create different wound profiles and vastly different tumbling/yaw cavitation effects, both of which are equally deadly. He claims soldiers don't use full automatic except when they're "storming a building" which is totally false, just ask any combat veteran. An AR15 is just as deadly as an M4 war fighter's rifle, and thus I do not think they should be available to the public. That the former is not capable of select-fire should mean nothing.
The vast majority of military rifles do not have full auto. They have 3-round burst and semiauto.
Talk to a friend in the military, if you have one -- newer guns are full auto capable. I don't mean this offensively, but you are absolutely wrong if you say most rifles now are still 3burst, in combat operations. M4A1 weapon system is select-fire, single or full auto capable, and this is the current platform the military is acquiring (modernize M4 program). Some generations of the M16 are 3 rd burst, as well as original M4. Anyway, this is all beside the point
before my edit my wording was very bad, leaving out very crucial details, so hopefully you read this after :D
Good job by obama today calling out the liars at the nra and their cronies. They have their members brainwashed good. Will never understand the pro gun people ever.
On April 18 2013 12:39 Canucklehead wrote: Good job by obama today calling out the liars at the nra and their cronies. They have their members brainwashed good. Will never understand the pro gun people ever.
Obama lost this one, don't really see how that's a good job.
Automatic fire has little to do with a rifle being an assault rifle, contrary to what Sermokala says. Soldiers with assault rifles capable of select-fire do not engage enemy combatants with full automatic in the first place, in the majority of situations. The way the select-fire M4 is used is effectively no different from the way the AR-15 is used. Sermokala claims a larger round necessarily kills better than a smaller round -- false. A 5.56 is just as deadly as a 7.62 -- they create different wound profiles and vastly different tumbling/yaw cavitation effects, both of which are equally deadly. He claims soldiers don't use full automatic except when they're "storming a building" which is totally false, just ask any combat veteran. An AR15 is just as deadly as an M4 war fighter's rifle, and thus I do not think they should be available to the public. That the former is not capable of select-fire should mean nothing.
The vast majority of military rifles do not have full auto. They have 3-round burst and semiauto.
Talk to a friend in the military, if you have one -- newer guns are full auto capable. I don't mean this offensively, but you are absolutely wrong if you say most rifles now are still 3burst, in combat operations. M4A1 weapon system is select-fire, single or full auto capable, and this is the current platform the military is acquiring (modernize M4 program). Some generations of the M16 are 3 rd burst, as well as original M4. Anyway, this is all beside the point
before my edit my wording was very bad, leaving out very crucial details, so hopefully you read this after :D
What I've read says that that M4A1 full auto capable version will start to be phased in next year - has it started early?
What I've also read is that the standard rifle for the marines is still the M16A4 with only burst and semiauto. Is that changing? As well as the Army, with the full auto M16A3 only used for special operations. Has that changed as well? And I will say that I read this on Wikipedia, I tried Google searching for several minutes but was having some bad luck finding the specific information I was looking for. So if you can point to any link you already know about, don't go out of your way, backing up what you're saying, please give it. I don't want to be operating on old information.
On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote: Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!"
More like, "Why won't my mommy buy me guns! Waaaaaah!"
Who know's right? If it was illegal for her to share guns with her son, maybe she wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It was my understanding the only reason she collected guns was so she could share a hobby with her weird, distant son.
Again, doesn't keep a crazy person from trying to do something crazy, but why make it easy?
Requiring someone to have a license to shoot a gun they don't own is a terrible idea lol...
Unless the only option for people to shoot is at a range how could they ever hope to enforce the law... Have a cop sitting in every bush across the US keeping an eye out?
Even if a cop did find some people shooting guns if one person doesn't have a license is he going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlicensed person was shooting?
Again, an all-or-nothing argument. All laws are breakable. Should we make abandon rape laws because you can't follow every kid home from school? Or make drunk driving legal because you can't have road checks at every corner?
Come on. Just because theirs no law that can be enforceable 100% of the time, or just because you can't prevent crime 100%, doesn't we should give up on improving the law.
Having laws and having stiff penalties for breaking DOES deter crime. Stop being such a cynical hipster.
Comparing someone shooting a gun without a license which isn't a bad thing any ways to rape is just an appeal to emotion.
What exactly would that law prevent? Everyone who shoots a gun unlicensed is going to go on a shooting spree?
I shot a gun without a license when I was a kid because you can't get a real gun license here until your 19. Holy shit I'm a criminal
I shot a gun in a America, when I was under 19, without a licence or any experience whatsoever. Awwwwwwweeesome?
You right though. In ideal world, a gun license in America would actually mean something — it would be like a driver's license or a welding ticket and represent some level of vetting and standard of training. But making it illegal for unlicensed or unpermitted people from operating a gun would do almost nothing, because the standards are so low. Any yahoo that can tick boxes on a form can get a license.
Congratulations, you've convinced me your right, while somehow getting me to have LESS respect for gun owners and gun culture in general.
This is the reason why negative stereotypes of pro-gun rights advocates persist. As long as they insist on having such low standards for all current and potential gun owners — such as insisting even some random Canadian deserves to shoot a round now and then! — every argument they make rings hollow and disingenuous. People can cite all the statistics they want but you can't argue that gun owners or sellers are responsible because there's barely any due process to getting a gun in America.
There has to be a way for responsible gun owners to protect their rights without constantly providing cover for every idiot or jag-offs that wants a gun.
I don't know much about firearms, but I assume you need a license to buy some firearms. Why not then make it so that when getting a gun license, you have to get a background check and a psychological check? Then every 5 years or so, to get it renewed, you have to go through those checks again? Criminals who want guns are gonna get them regardless, but we have to weed out people with mental disorders who could possibly go postal at any moment. That way, the responsible gunowners will all have guns legally, we make it harder for the mentally ill to get it, and we make it illegal for criminals with backgrounds to have them. Criminals will manage to get the guns anyways, but then we can get them in trouble for having firearms without a license. the ones who have a spotless record but commit crimes with guns later and have no mental illness... those we can't avoid but we won't avoid it anyways because either they will get the guns illegally or they will just go out and buy it.
On April 18 2013 12:39 Canucklehead wrote: Good job by obama today calling out the liars at the nra and their cronies. They have their members brainwashed good. Will never understand the pro gun people ever.
Well this will certainly make pro gun people think that your side wants to act on good faith and doesn't want to just batter us into submission until we give in to whatever you want.
On April 18 2013 12:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: I don't know much about firearms, but I assume you need a license to buy some firearms. Why not then make it so that when getting a gun license, you have to get a background check and a psychological check? Then every 5 years or so, to get it renewed, you have to go through those checks again? Criminals who want guns are gonna get them regardless, but we have to weed out people with mental disorders who could possibly go postal at any moment. That way, the responsible gunowners will all have guns legally, we make it harder for the mentally ill to get it, and we make it illegal for criminals with backgrounds to have them. Criminals will manage to get the guns anyways, but then we can get them in trouble for having firearms without a license. the ones who have a spotless record but commit crimes with guns later and have no mental illness... those we can't avoid but we won't avoid it anyways because either they will get the guns illegally or they will just go out and buy it.
Because that's registration, and that's basically exactly what they did in the UK. They said they only wanted background checks, and wouldn't use the registry to confiscate guns, but then they totally did just start confiscating guns.
Then there's also the problem that any background checks for mental illness would violate the 4th amendment. It might even be counterproductive. Mental illness is already pretty heavily stigmatized, meaning people are often too ashamed to get the help they need. This would scare off even more people, because they don't want their name in some database in DC.
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period.
On April 18 2013 12:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: I don't know much about firearms, but I assume you need a license to buy some firearms. Why not then make it so that when getting a gun license, you have to get a background check and a psychological check? Then every 5 years or so, to get it renewed, you have to go through those checks again? Criminals who want guns are gonna get them regardless, but we have to weed out people with mental disorders who could possibly go postal at any moment. That way, the responsible gunowners will all have guns legally, we make it harder for the mentally ill to get it, and we make it illegal for criminals with backgrounds to have them. Criminals will manage to get the guns anyways, but then we can get them in trouble for having firearms without a license. the ones who have a spotless record but commit crimes with guns later and have no mental illness... those we can't avoid but we won't avoid it anyways because either they will get the guns illegally or they will just go out and buy it.
Because that's registration, and that's basically exactly what they did in the UK. They said they only wanted background checks, and wouldn't use the registry to confiscate guns, but then they totally did just start confiscating guns.
Then there's also the problem that any background checks for mental illness would violate the 4th amendment. It might even be counterproductive. Mental illness is already pretty heavily stigmatized, meaning people are often too ashamed to get the help they need. This would scare off even more people, because they don't want their name in some database in DC.
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period.
There's also the problem that taking guns away from Britons is one thing but doing it to Americans is another. I don't think people realize how impossible that's going to be, and even if gun production is significantly curtailed there are already over 300 million guns out there.
On April 18 2013 12:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: I don't know much about firearms, but I assume you need a license to buy some firearms. Why not then make it so that when getting a gun license, you have to get a background check and a psychological check? Then every 5 years or so, to get it renewed, you have to go through those checks again? Criminals who want guns are gonna get them regardless, but we have to weed out people with mental disorders who could possibly go postal at any moment. That way, the responsible gunowners will all have guns legally, we make it harder for the mentally ill to get it, and we make it illegal for criminals with backgrounds to have them. Criminals will manage to get the guns anyways, but then we can get them in trouble for having firearms without a license. the ones who have a spotless record but commit crimes with guns later and have no mental illness... those we can't avoid but we won't avoid it anyways because either they will get the guns illegally or they will just go out and buy it.
Because that's registration, and that's basically exactly what they did in the UK. They said they only wanted background checks, and wouldn't use the registry to confiscate guns, but then they totally did just start confiscating guns.
Then there's also the problem that any background checks for mental illness would violate the 4th amendment. It might even be counterproductive. Mental illness is already pretty heavily stigmatized, meaning people are often too ashamed to get the help they need. This would scare off even more people, because they don't want their name in some database in DC.
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period.
There's also the problem that taking guns away from Britons is one thing but doing it to Americans is another. I don't think people realize how impossible that's going to be, and even if gun production is significantly curtailed there are already over 300 million guns out there.
I 100% agree with you here. You could try a buyback program, but it probably wouldn't impact gun violence or lower crime.
On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote: Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!"
More like, "Why won't my mommy buy me guns! Waaaaaah!"
Who know's right? If it was illegal for her to share guns with her son, maybe she wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It was my understanding the only reason she collected guns was so she could share a hobby with her weird, distant son.
Again, doesn't keep a crazy person from trying to do something crazy, but why make it easy?
Requiring someone to have a license to shoot a gun they don't own is a terrible idea lol...
Unless the only option for people to shoot is at a range how could they ever hope to enforce the law... Have a cop sitting in every bush across the US keeping an eye out?
Even if a cop did find some people shooting guns if one person doesn't have a license is he going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlicensed person was shooting?
Again, an all-or-nothing argument. All laws are breakable. Should we make abandon rape laws because you can't follow every kid home from school? Or make drunk driving legal because you can't have road checks at every corner?
Come on. Just because theirs no law that can be enforceable 100% of the time, or just because you can't prevent crime 100%, doesn't we should give up on improving the law.
Having laws and having stiff penalties for breaking DOES deter crime. Stop being such a cynical hipster.
Comparing someone shooting a gun without a license which isn't a bad thing any ways to rape is just an appeal to emotion.
What exactly would that law prevent? Everyone who shoots a gun unlicensed is going to go on a shooting spree?
I shot a gun without a license when I was a kid because you can't get a real gun license here until your 19. Holy shit I'm a criminal
I shot a gun in a America, when I was under 19, without a licence or any experience whatsoever. Awwwwwwweeesome?
You right though. In ideal world, a gun license in America would actually mean something — it would be like a driver's license or a welding ticket and represent some level of vetting and standard of training. But making it illegal for unlicensed or unpermitted people from operating a gun would do almost nothing, because the standards are so low. Any yahoo that can tick boxes on a form can get a license.
Congratulations, you've convinced me your right, while somehow getting me to have LESS respect for gun owners and gun culture in general.
This is the reason why negative stereotypes of pro-gun rights advocates persist. As long as they insist on having such low standards for all current and potential gun owners — such as insisting even some random Canadian deserves to shoot a round now and then! — every argument they make rings hollow and disingenuous. People can cite all the statistics they want but you can't argue that gun owners or sellers are responsible because there's barely any due process to getting a gun in America.
There has to be a way for responsible gun owners to protect their rights without constantly providing cover for every idiot or jag-offs that wants a gun.
You really love the name calling eh. First calling any one who questioned Amanda Todds a pimple faced geek in the Amanda Todd thread and now calling all gun owners essentially irresponsible. Get off your fucking high horse dude. You constantly shoot off ad hominims in every thread and it gets really fucking old. Man up and bring up a real argument to the table.
First of all I'm Canadian. Even Canada with it's tight as fuck gun laws doesn't ban you from shooting a gun without a license because it's fucking retarded. It would accomplish literally nothing. First of all it couldn't be enforced in any way shape or form except for the extremely small fringe of people who shoot at a range without a license. (Places like DVC in Vancouver). I'm sure the range owners would love you for ruining there businesses though.
Second passing laws that do nothing is retarded. I'm sorry but it just is. Someone who is going to shoot people isn't going to stop and say "Oh noes I might get a misdemeanour tacked onto my mass killing, better not do it" Even assuming it would make a differenc ein that scenario what is bad about shooting a gun without a license if it's done safely. Obviously someone has to have a license to have that gun so they are responsible for the safe use of the gun. You still haven't said why law is needed. Your just saying how scared you are of people ticking boxes and running around the woods shooting all over the place. Well I hate to break it to you but the #1 cause of death by firearm is suicide. Accidents is a distant second. The law does nothing and is a really stupid idea sorry to burst your bubble.
"People can cite all the statistics they want but you can't argue that gun owners or sellers are responsible because there's barely any due process to getting a gun in America." So an actual reasonable discussion is impossible because your basing your entire argument being scared. Like every thread your in.
Most gun owners want responsible ownership Idk where your pulling all these things out of your ass from...
Universal background checks are much much worse than an assault weapons ban. They are equivalent to gun registration.
For example, have a weapon? Well, if you don't have a background check on file for it, then it means you illegally obtained it.
It is gun registration plain and simple. Why else would they want to give you 5 years in prison if you don't report a lost or stolen weapon within 24 hrs?
Under Senator Harry Reid’s (D-NV) gun control bill (S. 649), if somebody steals your firearm or you lose it, you can go to prison for up to five years if you have not reported the theft or loss to local police and to Attorney General Eric Holder within 24 hours.
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period.
Are you trolling?
You can buy a rifle at a gun show in every state except Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois without any kind of background check! That means in 45 out of 50 states, you can walk into a gun show and purchase an AR-15 without any kind of check. You would have to produce more documentation to buy cigarettes or alcohol in those same states!
As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
And this is why guns shows are a major source of weapons for criminals, gangs and cartels, according to the ATF.
"In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
On April 18 2013 12:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: I don't know much about firearms, but I assume you need a license to buy some firearms. Why not then make it so that when getting a gun license, you have to get a background check and a psychological check? Then every 5 years or so, to get it renewed, you have to go through those checks again? Criminals who want guns are gonna get them regardless, but we have to weed out people with mental disorders who could possibly go postal at any moment. That way, the responsible gunowners will all have guns legally, we make it harder for the mentally ill to get it, and we make it illegal for criminals with backgrounds to have them. Criminals will manage to get the guns anyways, but then we can get them in trouble for having firearms without a license. the ones who have a spotless record but commit crimes with guns later and have no mental illness... those we can't avoid but we won't avoid it anyways because either they will get the guns illegally or they will just go out and buy it.
Because that's registration, and that's basically exactly what they did in the UK. They said they only wanted background checks, and wouldn't use the registry to confiscate guns, but then they totally did just start confiscating guns.
Then there's also the problem that any background checks for mental illness would violate the 4th amendment. It might even be counterproductive. Mental illness is already pretty heavily stigmatized, meaning people are often too ashamed to get the help they need. This would scare off even more people, because they don't want their name in some database in DC.
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period.
I feel as though there is a major difference between registering every gun, and allowing a license to handle and buy as many guns as you want. Its one thing to say you have to register every car for instance, but it would be different if we said you have a license to drive but don't have to drive a car. We register all our cars, but imagine if we didn't and for some reason the government wanted to possess all cars. Many people would claim they had the license just in case and never bought a car and hide them. If we did have gun licenses and the government wanted to possess all guns, it would be incredibly difficult as many would simply claim they never bought guns and just had the license to handle a friends gun or have it just in case they needed to buy a gun.
In addition, as a psych major, I can agree with your idea that mental disorders are stigmatizing (to a certain degree). But I fail to see why this is a problem. Even if we didn't have a mandatory psychological check, they would not get help anyways due to being 'stigmatized'. Then we would have people with mental disorder having guns. At least if we have mental checks, the people who don't care about what others think about them (antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy) are weeded out. Mental checks should not be a problem at all and in my opinion is one of the most underappreciated issues in the United States. Did you know that we spend over 55 billion dollars paying for mental health which is the same amount as cancer? These costs come from losses from the mental disorder in the workplace. Productivity and potential are ruined. If only depression increases at the rate it is, by 2020, it will be the second leading cause of disability behind heart disease. Mental illness should not be underestimated at all, the United States should be actively working to acknowledge, screen, and treat all of this. Leaving mental conditions out of gun control will not help that at all.
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period.
Are you trolling?
You can buy a rifle at a gun show in every state except Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois without a background check!
A pistol, you'll need a check pr permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida.
"In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
Sales at gun shows are private sales. I thought we were discussing going to a store and buying a gun.
You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways.
On April 18 2013 12:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: I don't know much about firearms, but I assume you need a license to buy some firearms. Why not then make it so that when getting a gun license, you have to get a background check and a psychological check? Then every 5 years or so, to get it renewed, you have to go through those checks again? Criminals who want guns are gonna get them regardless, but we have to weed out people with mental disorders who could possibly go postal at any moment. That way, the responsible gunowners will all have guns legally, we make it harder for the mentally ill to get it, and we make it illegal for criminals with backgrounds to have them. Criminals will manage to get the guns anyways, but then we can get them in trouble for having firearms without a license. the ones who have a spotless record but commit crimes with guns later and have no mental illness... those we can't avoid but we won't avoid it anyways because either they will get the guns illegally or they will just go out and buy it.
Because that's registration, and that's basically exactly what they did in the UK. They said they only wanted background checks, and wouldn't use the registry to confiscate guns, but then they totally did just start confiscating guns.
Then there's also the problem that any background checks for mental illness would violate the 4th amendment. It might even be counterproductive. Mental illness is already pretty heavily stigmatized, meaning people are often too ashamed to get the help they need. This would scare off even more people, because they don't want their name in some database in DC.
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period.
I feel as though there is a major difference between registering every gun, and allowing a license to handle and buy as many guns as you want. Its one thing to say you have to register every car for instance, but it would be different if we said you have a license to drive but don't have to drive a car. We register all our cars, but imagine if we didn't and for some reason the government wanted to possess all cars. Many people would claim they had the license just in case and never bought a car and hide them. If we did have gun licenses and the government wanted to possess all guns, it would be incredibly difficult as many would simply claim they never bought guns and just had the license to handle a friends gun or have it just in case they needed to buy a gun.
In addition, as a psych major, I can agree with your idea that mental disorders are stigmatizing (to a certain degree). But I fail to see why this is a problem. Even if we didn't have a mandatory psychological check, they would not get help anyways due to being 'stigmatized'. Then we would have people with mental disorder having guns. At least if we have mental checks, the people who don't care about what others think about them (antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy) are weeded out. Mental checks should not be a problem at all and in my opinion is one of the most underappreciated issues in the United States. Did you know that we spend over 55 billion dollars paying for mental health which is the same amount as cancer? These costs come from losses from the mental disorder in the workplace. Productivity and potential are ruined. If only depression increases at the rate it is, by 2020, it will be the second leading cause of disability behind heart disease. Mental illness should not be underestimated at all, the United States should be actively working to acknowledge, screen, and treat all of this. Leaving mental conditions out of gun control will not help that at all.
There isn't a difference between registering all guns, and needing a license to handle guns. The government still knows who's door to knock on when they want to confiscate them. Simply having that license would be enough to get a search warrant, so hiding it isn't really an option.
I'm not a psych major, so take what I say here with a grain of salt, but there are disorders with which the victim still does care about what others think. So while you might weed out the two disorders you mentioned, you hinder the treatment of others.
I agree that mental illness is a big deal in general, but I don't think its a big deal when it comes to guns. Adam Lanza stole the guns he used, meaning no amount of background checks could've stopped him. And the other mass murderers could easily have chosen other, just as lethal weapons. Timothy McVeigh chose a truck and some fertilizer for instance. Most gun violence isn't because the perpetrator is mentally ill, its because they're a common criminal.
On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote: As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated.
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period.
Are you trolling?
You can buy a rifle at a gun show in every state except Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois without a background check!
A pistol, you'll need a check pr permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida.
"In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
Sales at gun shows are private sales. I thought we were discussing going to a store and buying a gun.
You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways.
I want to require background checks for sales at gun shows, because they are the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation.
It isn't hard to enforce at gun shows.
It would be much harder for cartels, gangs and criminals to get many weapons through private sales by contacting private owners who would to sell. Could they still get weapons? Yes, but not as easily or in the quantities that a single gun show provides.
On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote: As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated.
I think you're taking what I said out of context. First I'm talking about getting a handgun at a gun show, not a licensed dealer. Second, New York has some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation, but your local county regulate handguns at gun shows (which was the point of the conversation. And even if your country regulates gun shows, could you not just drive to another county?
The point is getting guns is really easy in America and criminals, cartels and gangs take advantage of it. We shouldn't allow them to legally get a gun!
On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote: NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens.
Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something).
So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything?
No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection.
The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime.
The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about.
You do realize that none of those facts prove that increasing gun control could eventually result in gun violence reduction, as is true for many countries in Europe. That more people die of other causes is an unrelated fact. That gun violence is lower now than previously does not mean that attempting to lower it further is not worthwhile. That there are many more guns in the US than there are gun crimes does not mean much of anything (there are more cars than there are car accidents).
On to "assault weapons". Firstly, there is no clear-cut definition of what an assault weapon is. There have been multiple political definition, for starters. From a hardcore military perspective, armchair enthusiasts will likely argue that for a rifle to be classified as a true "assault rifle", it must have capacity for automatic fire, thus eliminating many popular AR-15 and AK-47 civilian variants from being classified as "assault rifles". Think about it like this, however: In real combat scenarios, in which war fighters outside the wire on combat ops come into contact with enemy combatants, the fact that select-fire is there is meaningless in most cases. A soldier does not spray full automatic fire in these situations as his first choice of action. The way the M4 is used is effectively no different from the way semi-automatic AR-15 rifles are used. Single, accurate shots.
An AR-15 absolutely is an assault weapon for all practical purposes in my opinion. It is a weapon capable of accurately engaging targets easily out to 200M, and much more provided the one pulling the trigger is well trained. It is suited for tactical grip and mobility (unlike long rifles). It accepts detachable 30+ rd magazines. Barring barrel length configurations and select-fire capacity, it is indistinguishable from a military variant AR-15, the M4.
Deaths being caused more frequently by other causes absolutely is relevant, because it shows that gun violence is not some crazy plague. Same with gun violence rates being down. And if the goal is to save lives as gun control advocates claim, why not start trying to fix the most lethal problems first? Why start with the relatively minor causes of death?
The fact that there are so many guns yet so few gun crimes (relatively) shows that guns are not to blame. If guns were actually to blame, there'd be far many more gun crimes.
It doesn't matter how you define an assault weapon; I know it varies state to state. The point is, your average citizen doesn't know the definition, and so their opinion is meaningless.
I never said the AR-15 wasn't an assault weapon. But it doesn't really matter whether it is or isn't. It should be legal either way.
This is a really terrible statement, on so many levels that I don't know where to start.
The number of guns is really not important with regards to the discussion and it doesn't "prove" anything. Using that logic I could point to a place with no guns and no gun crimes and say that it proves that guns are to blame, but it doesn't. Obviously people commit crimes for reasons other than the fact that they have guns, but they can't commit "gun crimes" if they don't have access to guns. So the proposed solution is to attempt to limit the access of guns to these people who are likely to commit said crimes. Of course this is not easy to do, due to black market weapons etc, but you can at least make it harder by not allowing people with a criminal or mental health history to buy guns legally.
If you were just talking about whether we should ban assault rifles though, for the general citizen it's (in my opinion) more of a case of, do they feel safe knowing that any regular citizen such as themselves could legally have access to them and are there reasonable justifications for owning such a weapon? In which case, again, its not about numbers but about power, and how much you think the average citizen should legally be allowed to possess. These are things that I think the general population should be able to weigh up. I really don't think its a matter of raw statistics, as many people have shown that assault rifles are used in a very small amount of crimes, but this does not discount the fact that when someone does commit crimes with an assault rifle that it is a very scary thing.
*Note: I'm not suggesting that the general population should get to make decisions based on their opinions of gun control, but suggesting that they know nothing about the issue, based on some arbitrary statistic on the number of guns relative to the number of gun crimes is completely ignorant.
EPT
