Quote :

"How about the Japanese model for purchasing firearms?"

I'm not totally up to speed on Japan but I was under the impression that you have to provide a damned good reason to get one at all. I think for hunting and sport the guns are stored on-site or at a State building of some kind, and for personal defense you have to demonstrate a specific reason you feel your life is in danger (Living in a dangerous neighborhood, restraining order against someone, etc).

That's just from memory of an article I read awhile ago, what I remember clearly is that I personally thought it was too restrictive by a huge margin.

1/3/2013 2:34:50 PM

Quote :

"Somehow I think sarin is on a whole other level, but considering you or one of your cohorts asked if private nuclear weapon ownership was okay then I guess this is the wrong "serious discussion" for me."

The point of bringing up nuclear weapons and sarin gas (or, say, a 500-round-per-minute chaingun) is to make it obvious that there's a point, for most people's opinion, where destructive power outweighs the priority of self-defense.

How do you decide where to draw that line? Just as there are very few 2nd amendment advocates who want nukes, there's also very few gun control advocates who want to ban every kind of firearm ever. So let's stop focusing on the fantasies and figure out where people draw the line on destructive power vs self defense.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 2:37:22 PM

Quote :

"To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups..."

Well we can begin the process of narrowing that down for sure. For example I dont think NRR is going to varmint hunt with a chaingun or nuclear weapon anytime soon, so lets go from there minus personal attacks.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 2:41 PM. Reason : -]

1/3/2013 2:40:27 PM

Quote :

"NeuseRvrRat MOLON LABE 27802 Posts user info edit post yes, i didn't make it clear in that post, but what i meant was a national system for firearms ownership similar to the NC system for obtaining a CHP Quote : "...i am issued a firearm permit which allows me to purchase firearms." banning hollowpoints is just more of the "oh no, scary stuff. ban it." approach. all-lead cast bullets (the kind made by thousands upon thousands of shooters in their garage or bought from a number of retailers) expand just as good. [Edited on January 3, 2013 at 2:39 PM. Reason : adfs] "

from the last page

1/3/2013 2:40:39 PM

So basically, to purchase any firearm (including a long gun), one would need to:

1 - take a firearms safety course (including live fire evaluation)
2 - Subject themselves to a background check & a drug test/screen
3 - Have fingerprints on file at local sheriff's office
4 - Pay an $80 application fee

NC's Requirements

Quote :

"A permit may not be issued to the following: a. An applicant who is under an indictment, or information for, or has been convicted in any state, or in any court of the United States, of a felony (other than an offense pertaining to anti-trust violations. unfair trade practices, or restraints of trade). However, a person who has been convicted of a felony and is later pardoned may obtain a permit, if the purchase or receipt of the pistol does not violate the conditions of the pardon; b. The applicant is a fugitive from justice; c. The applicant is an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana. any depressant, stimulant. or narcotic drug; d. The applicant has been adjudicated incompetent or has been committed to any mental institution; e. The applicant is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States; f. The applicant has been discharged from the U.S. armed forces under dishonorable conditions; g. The applicant, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced their citizenship; h. The applicant is subject to a court order that: (1) was issued after a hearing of which the applicant received actual notice. and at which the applicant had an opportunity to participate; (2) restrains the person from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner of the person or child of the intimate partner of the person. or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (3) includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child; or by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury."

I would also be in favor or banning clips >30 rounds and fully automatic or select fire weapons. I also am of the opinion that the federal permitting requirements above should be required for purchasing ammunition or the materials to make ammunition.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 2:51 PM. Reason : formatting]

1/3/2013 2:40:42 PM

if a magazine capacity limit really makes you feel warm and fuzzy, it's settle for 30 rds in a rifle, 20 rds in a handgun.

1/3/2013 2:44:00 PM

Sure, sounds good to me. Send it to Washington.

Seriously though, I think firearms are well regulated for the most part, if you really want to do some good just start dropping the fucking hammer on people for actual crimes. Things like armed robbery should carry a long sentence.

1/3/2013 2:44:10 PM

Sure lets have some legal system trade-offs.

We will let you guys nerf drug crime penalties and legalize whatever, and send gun crimes along with rape and other under-punished, etc. on up the totem pole.

Someone wants to be a fucknut with guns fine-

Go away for life.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 2:47 PM. Reason : -]

1/3/2013 2:46:47 PM

i was under the impression that the the possibility of jail time does not deter criminals. does anyone have data on that?

1/3/2013 2:47:02 PM

It doesn't. Penalties do very little to deter crime, however longer penalties do have the desirable effect of removing offenders from society for an extended period of time. Jail is bad at deterrence, bad at rehabilitation, but good at isolating danger from society.

1/3/2013 2:49:14 PM

Why is it pointless to bring up common items that kill more people than guns again?

Such as bare hands, hammers, baseball bats, etc?

If someone can truly explain to me why thats okay and why its a bigger deal that rifles kill less people I wont bring it up again.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM. Reason : FBI crime statistics]

1/3/2013 3:00:54 PM

Quote :

"How about the Japanese model for purchasing firearms?"

I'd love the japanese model, they have less firearm deaths in a whole year than we do in a few hours. I'm not sure if you know what restrictions they have though, it is very difficult to own a firearm, and even then the only firearms you can own are a shotgun or air rifle.

Quote :

"Why is it pointless to bring up common items that kill more people than guns again? Such as bare hands, hammers, baseball bats, etc?"

Hammers and baseball bats kill more people than guns? I don't think that's true.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 3:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/3/2013 3:01:38 PM

No, you can, but you must pass many tests (mostly proficiency and mental health related).

The latter being the reason we wont ever have the Japanese model-

While they arent afraid to "offend" anyone to protect their populace we certainly are.




Per FBI crime statistics, I assume a "club" probably refers to a baseball bat, and not this:



[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM. Reason : -_-]

1/3/2013 3:04:14 PM

Do you have any proof that hammers kill more people than guns do? I would be extremely surprised if that were true.

1/3/2013 3:05:32 PM

Note:

I said rifles, not guns. Semi-auto rifles have been the drooling overfocus since the beginning of this debate (nationwide) and this thread in general.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

1/3/2013 3:07:01 PM

Rifles: 323
Blunt objects: 496

Well, you must be right...

Other guns or type not stated: 1684

uh-oh. Too much variance to say one way or another.

1/3/2013 3:26:29 PM

Soooo many blunderbuss murders.

1/3/2013 3:34:22 PM

Quote :

"Why is it pointless to bring up common items that kill more people than guns again?"

because guns are primarily designed to kill. you must admit, if you wanted to kill somebody, a gun would be one of the easiest and quickest ways to do it. if you wanted to kill lots of people, a gun is by far the easiest way to do it (except for explosives and poison)

1/3/2013 3:37:23 PM

I'd say guns are way easier to kill lots of people than explosives or poison. Guns are way more available, trusted, etc. I could go to buy a couple guns and kill a bunch of people right now. To use explosives or a lot of poison would take months of planning and clandestine procurement.

1/3/2013 3:40:09 PM

Quote :

"I could go to buy a couple guns and kill a bunch of people right now"

do you have any suggestions on how to make it so it isn't so easy without infringing on a law-abiding citizen's right to self defense, which was recently affirmed by SCOTUS?

i think it's very possible

1/3/2013 3:49:00 PM

diablo II itt

1/3/2013 4:13:33 PM

Quote :

"Rifles: 323 Blunt objects: 496 "

plus more kids die from TV's falling on them than from school shootings.

Quote :

"Between 2000 and 2010, the Consumer Product Safety Commission received reports of 169 children age 18 or younger being killed as a result of falling TVs, according to a CPSC report released in September."

1/3/2013 4:49:44 PM

BAN CARS, BAN CHICKEN BONES, BAN TVs can we have an adult conversation about gun control? survey says: no.

1/3/2013 4:57:51 PM

^The pro-gunners in this thread seem to be trying to have a conversation about gun control, were not as closed minded as we are being made out to be.

It seems to be mostly you anti-gun users that are posting childish, overreactions in response to anything we say.

1/3/2013 5:05:23 PM

Quote :

"We're also the people who came up with hollow-point bans"

I know I'm not following protocol here, but this statement got a lulz from me.

1/3/2013 5:13:51 PM

Wanting a real conversation is why your objection to a voluntary buy-back is the historical value of guns that are otherwise doing nothing to contribute to history except live in the closet of someone who wants them less than the incentive?

1/3/2013 5:14:13 PM

I already mentioned the conversations on sarin gas and nuclear weapons.

Those were then defended as serious discussions, so as long as thats the case then chicken bones it is.

I can sum it up quite simply as users with little or no firearms experience becoming exasperated about a subject they cant speak intelligently about. Thats bound to frustrate anyone-

There are many moderate firearms users on this board that would love to help people like you craft legislation that impairs our common enemy... irresponsible gun owners.

Instead you choose to group us all together and vilify us, so when we push back you lose the knowledge that we could contribute to our common cause. In essence this is why you will never win this debate at a national level short of Obama becoming a dictator.

Quote :

"Wanting a real conversation is why your objection to a voluntary buy-back is the historical value of guns that are otherwise doing nothing to contribute to history except live in the closet of someone who wants them less than the incentive?"

...and again, dtownral with a barely decipherable sentence that he thinks is contributing to the discussion, and when someone alludes to this he will inevitably declare he is on a level of understanding we cant possibly comprehend.

So goes the leftist playbook ITT.

1/3/2013 5:18:12 PM

I'm an "anti gun user", now? News to me.

1/3/2013 5:25:47 PM

Uh, there's nothing wrong or unclear with that sentence

1/3/2013 5:27:54 PM

Its awkward and its shit; it basically makes you look like a nincompoop.

If you cant tell its run-on then I dont know what to tell you. You can keep talking like that of course; I understood what you were saying.

Its bad enough to detract from your argument however. Do as you please-

1/3/2013 5:34:10 PM

I would support a voluntary buy-back program if the government would hold surplus auctions of the guns prior to destroying them. Maybe they could ration how many they would buy to spread the costs out. It could be paid for in part by the auction and in part by legalizing certain drugs and taxing them. This would allow collectors, hobbyists, hunters, etc. (responsible gun owners) a chance to buy them back. Of course, to be a buyer, credentials to own would need to be provided.

If grandma wanted to sell her deceased husband's shotgun for a $50 prepaid visa or the ex-wife wanted some cash for her deadbeat ex-husband's collection she won in the divorce, so be it.

Do you think thugs and criminals would give up their piece? I doubt it.

1/3/2013 5:34:57 PM

I just diagrammed the sentence, it's clear and correct

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 5:36 PM. Reason : This is the "real discussion" gun nuts want: distractions ]

1/3/2013 5:35:42 PM

Quote :

"Uh, there's nothing wrong or unclear with that sentence"

1/3/2013 5:36:38 PM

^^why on earth would they sell guns when the point is to reduce guns? That makes no sense and is contrary to the point of a buy back.

1/3/2013 5:37:33 PM

I hate to break it to you, but the government cares more about money than your moral crusade.

If anything legislative comes of this discussion it wont come in the form of a ban; it will be a tax, fine, or registration fee.

...one that does nothing to reduce the numbers of anything; it will simply monetarily punish hobbyists for doing something politically unpopular.

Criminals will ignore, and you will continue to bitch.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 5:43 PM. Reason : -]

1/3/2013 5:42:32 PM

The point is to eliminate/reduce illegal guns, not eradicate all guns.

You are only in favor of mandatory buybacks?

1/3/2013 5:43:17 PM

Quote :

"...inevitably declare he is on a level of understanding we cant possibly comprehend. So goes the leftist playbook ITT."

Is dtownral an alias for "Genius"xboy?

Anyway...I have noticed this trend, except it has mostly been coming from the other side of this debate. There are a lot of posts in this thread that talk about how the pro-gun control people don't know guns and don't know what they're talking about.

1/3/2013 5:46:56 PM

No, the point is to lower the total number of guns

What you are talking about is a cheap new government surplus market that lowers used gun prices


When the government bought old gas guzzling cars to encourage people to buy new cars and to improve gas mileage, what you are proposing is that they then sell those cars at auction

1/3/2013 5:47:35 PM

"I can sum it up quite simply as users with little or no firearms experience becoming exasperated about a subject they cant speak intelligently about. Thats bound to frustrate anyone-

There are many moderate firearms users on this board that would love to help people like you craft legislation that impairs our common enemy... irresponsible gun owners.

Instead you choose to group us all together and vilify us, so when we push back you lose the knowledge that we could contribute to our common cause."

This...

1/3/2013 5:53:57 PM

Quote :

"I would support a voluntary buy-back program if the government would hold surplus auctions of the guns prior to destroying them."

I think the real question is why do you expect a part of the government's gun buy back program to be searching for guns for you for free? It's silly. If you want to buy the guns, offer more money, don't expect the government to go find them for you because you're to lazy to do it yourself.

Quote :

"There are many moderate firearms users on this board that would love to help people like you craft legislation that impairs our common enemy... irresponsible gun owners. Instead you choose to group us all together and vilify us, so when we push back you lose the knowledge that we could contribute to our common cause. In essence this is why you will never win this debate at a national level short of Obama becoming a dictator."

FYI I am a gun owner.

1/3/2013 6:08:14 PM

I'm carrying concealed right now

1/3/2013 6:09:52 PM

^^ do you not understand what an auction is? He's opposed to the destruction of historical guns, not saying it's not fair for him to not to be able to buy them for $50. An auction would provide the opportunity for those guns to be saved by people probably paying a lot more than $50. In effect, it could fund itself retroactively and still get rid of a ton of unwanted or junk guns.

You also fit exactly what he's talking about. Being a gun owner doesn't mean you're moderate, pro2a, or even care about other gun owner's rights. To the contrary, you've basically called AR15 owners people with Rambo fantasies.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 6:27:45 PM

did anyone notice the sniper attack line in there.. and that the sniper attack homicide was done.... with a pistol?

1/3/2013 6:58:52 PM

So he can buy them or have his own private gun drive if he wants and buy them on the free market, but having th government sell guns it buys entirely defeats the point.

1/3/2013 7:04:41 PM

who is gonna pay for the buybacks?

1/3/2013 7:07:47 PM

more importantly who's going to pay for all the people to regulate the sales of guns in feinstein's bill?

1/3/2013 7:12:03 PM

Quote :

"An auction would provide the opportunity for those guns to be saved by people probably paying a lot more than $50."

Your feet provide the opportunity. There's nothing stopping you from asking for more. Hell stand right outside and offer people more as they come in the door, whatever. The government doesn't need to spend money finding those guns for you. You want them, you spend the money to get them, don't spend the government's.

1/3/2013 7:22:50 PM

it supposedly includes funding for enforcement of the proposed NFA status of the millions of EBRs. i'm sure the 9 paper shufflers at the NFA office appreciate that.

1/3/2013 7:23:30 PM

so our taxes go up to pay our own fuggin oppressors.

1/3/2013 7:26:18 PM

Taxes from gun sales could pay for it, also lawsuits against the gun industry

1/3/2013 7:26:28 PM