What system would you set up if you were in control?

1/27/2011 3:08:07 AM

I will not rest until the government subsidizes the costs of buying a personal stealth fighter jet.

1/27/2011 4:05:27 AM

criminal background check
mental health background check
done

#2 A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1/27/2011 6:57:22 AM

I think that Wake County does it right, the existing controls are good.

1/27/2011 7:27:43 AM

I think the current system works pretty well considering the scope and availability of records used, so the number of folks who illegitimately "slip through the cracks" is pretty low as a percentage of total transactions. I'd say convicted criminals and people with clinically diagnosed mental instability covers the highest risk groups for sure. More aggressive prosecution of straw-purchasers is an opportunity to curb illegal ownership, but there's really nothing else that can reasonably be done short of doing detailed individual background checks on every purchaser.

The only additional measure I could see providing benefit would be implementing a national version of the shall-issue CCW permit - something that requires an extensive initial background check, then for the duration of the permit serves as a background check "waiver". The problem there becomes the cost and bureaucracy involved, and state-to-state legal differences stomping on one another, as they do now.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2011 10:51:42 AM

Just to screw everything up and noob on myself, I'll add this:

It seem to me that anything short of encouraging responsible people to obtain firearms will skew the distribution of people getting guns to the crazies. I understand the desire for a mental health check, but really, let's visit the law of unintended consequences and also evaluate the realism of this. How good do you think said check would be? Who would administer it?

Furthermore, it places an effort burden on getting a gun. Why do I want people willing to invest an effort burden to get guns? That correlates, in no way, with responsibility. I want responsible people to have guns and I don't want criminals and crazy people to have guns. I hope this was self obvious to you, but the effort burden shifts gun ownership composition to the criminals and crazy people. If the crazy exam actually weeded out crazy people, then great, but I am adamant that it will both not weed out crazy people and add an effort burden to getting a gun.

Now, adding an effort burden to getting a gun still reduces the # of crazies and criminals getting guns, it just reduces the # more for productive and responsible people even more. So maybe you flat don't care how many responsible people have guns, which I find to be a totally valid argument. Of course, the Texas argument (or you could call it the NRA argument) is that the more responsible people who have guns, the safer we are.

I'm putting this out there, because none of you have addressed these issues.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2011 11:01:33 AM

Constitutional ammendment banning semi-automatic weapons.

1/27/2011 11:04:07 AM

Quote :

"It seem to me that anything short of encouraging responsible people to obtain firearms will skew the distribution of people getting guns to the crazies. I understand the desire for a mental health check, but really, let's visit the law of unintended consequences and also evaluate the realism of this. How good do you think said check would be? Who would administer it?"

I do worry about the idea of government determining who is "sane" enough to use a firearm. I'm certain that if any bureaucrat interviewed me, and discovered my political beliefs, they'd deem me unfit to own a gun. Never mind the fact that I am fundamentally and philosophically opposed to any and all aggressive acts.

I do think, though, that regular people should own guns, and ownership should be encouraged. The criminals already have them, and they don't care about automatic weapons bans or anything else. Yes, we've heard the horror stories - kid finds gun and kills himself, guy finds wife cheating on him in his own bad and proceeds with murder/suicide, etc. They're tragedies, but they will happen. An armed populace is the best thing for our overall security against enemies - both foreign and domestic.

Quote :

"Furthermore, it places an effort burden on getting a gun. Why do I want people willing to invest an effort burden to get guns? That correlates, in no way, with responsibility. I want responsible people to have guns and I don't want criminals and crazy people to have guns. I hope this was self obvious to you, but the effort burden shifts gun ownership composition to the criminals and crazy people. If the crazy exam actually weeded out crazy people, then great, but I am adamant that it will both not weed out crazy people and add an effort burden to getting a gun."

Good point.

1/27/2011 11:25:30 AM

the existing controls are good.

1/27/2011 11:48:08 AM

Quote :

"I do worry about the idea of government determining who is "sane" enough to use a firearm. I'm certain that if any bureaucrat interviewed me, and discovered my political beliefs, they'd deem me unfit to own a gun. Never mind the fact that I am fundamentally and philosophically opposed to any and all aggressive acts."

Wow, this makes a really good point about subjectivity. I agree, I don't see how we can exclude value judgments from any process that seeks to identify "mental health". I understand philosophical arguments for owning guns, but because this is a liberty / rights issue, value judgments shouldn't matter. In other words, you shouldn't have to justify your reason to own a gun. You should NEVER have to justify your reasons exercising any rights whatsoever.

1/27/2011 12:46:23 PM

^ For the current NICs check, IIRC, the only mental health things that get put on the record are involuntary commitments, which is probably a good line to work from. Obviously there is a danger in allowing the government to arbitrarily decide someone is mentally unbalanced and prevent them from exercising their rights. That's why gun ownership in general, like any right, should only be restricted if the government can make a case in court, before a jury, that you personally should not be allowed to own a gun.

Ideally, even ex-criminals should be allowed to own a gun by being able to go through some sort of process of rights restoration. Most states have a concept of rights restoration (in NC for example, it's automatic when you complete your sentence and are released unconditionally, but due to federal and state quirks of law, you still can't own a gun or now run for sheriff, but you can vote), but still prevent ex-felons from a number of activities.

Ultimately, I think that is the only consistent way to handle it. You are a citizen, you have all the rights of a citizen, to have any of them denied, the government needs to take you to court. If they are denied, once your sentence is served, you should have your rights restored. Repeat ad infinitum.

1/27/2011 1:47:00 PM

Quote :

"^ For the current NICs check, IIRC, the only mental health things that get put on the record are involuntary commitments, which is probably a good line to work from. Obviously there is a danger in allowing the government to arbitrarily decide someone is mentally unbalanced and prevent them from exercising their rights. That's why gun ownership in general, like any right, should only be restricted if the government can make a case in court, before a jury, that you personally should not be allowed to own a gun."

I have heard that the requirements for involuntary commitment has been strengthened significantly in the last 40 years or so. I agree that such a requirement is reasonable... but provided that involuntary commitment is exercised only with a great deal of restraint. One should be provably be presenting a danger to themselves/others to begin with. Provided this requirement is satisfied, OBVIOUSLY we don't want those people to have guns. Plus, as long as the fraction of the population that is committed involuntarily is minuscule, it won't really be a problem or defeat the intent of gun ownership rights.

It doesn't take long to put on an Orwellian hat and think of how involuntary commitment could gateway into the worst form of oppression.

1/27/2011 2:09:20 PM

Quote :

"Constitutional ammendment banning semi-automatic weapons."

forgot about #2 yo. and why ban them? they're used in something like <1% of violent crimes.

Banning guns, like banning drugs, only creates an underground market where prices skyrocket, leading to more crime, more violence, and more death.

1/27/2011 7:04:54 PM

Quote :

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

1/27/2011 8:49:07 PM

#1 no minorities
#2 no lefties
#3 definitely no lefty minorities

1/27/2011 10:15:04 PM

we should be encouraging the sale of automatic weapons, as the increase in ammo consumption should be enough to right the economy.

Seriously though, I feel like there shouldn't be so many loopholes to jump through in order to purchase a suppressed weapon. I'd personally love to have a couple of weapons that I could shoot without ear protection on. Suppressors are almost never used in the commitment of a crime, so treating them the same as a submachine gun is ludicrous.

1/27/2011 10:23:46 PM

If I could do anything, no pistols. If I had to pay the political capital to make it happen, nothing, maybe loosen them, there are better things to go after.

1/27/2011 10:50:44 PM

no pistols eh? so you want me to carry my shotgun around, in the open, instead of my concealed pistol?

you anti's can't grasp the idea that any gun control only hurts law abiding citizens. do you really think criminals will just give up because a new handgun/magazine/fully-auto/supression/etc law was passd?

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 6:51 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2011 6:49:55 AM

Quote :

"Banning guns, like banning drugs, only creates an underground market where prices skyrocket, leading to more crime, more violence, and more death."

Is that a serious argument?

First off, there's already an undergound market for guns.
Second, I'm OK with the price of semi-automatic weapons "skyrocketing".
Third, banning certain guns is not going to create MORE violence. Even if well-connected criminals could acquire banned weapons, they're not likely the kind of criminal who breaks into houses or robs gas-stations.

1/28/2011 9:05:16 AM

^mostly of really, really crappy guns.

loosen regulations on acquiring suppressors, SBS, SBR, and full auto. That is for NC at least. At the federal level, I can live with the registration as it keeps anits happy. But in NC it is nearly impossible to obtain. These weapons are rarely used in the commission of a crime and do not pose any additional danger to mothers and babies and puppies.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 9:11 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2011 9:10:51 AM

Quote :

"Constitutional ammendment banning semi-automatic weapons"

Btw, I need to revise my statement, because I did not mean to include semi-automatic pistols. I'm ok with those.

1/28/2011 9:25:51 AM

i think you are confusing semi-automatic and fully-automatic. why would you be ok with a semi-automatic pistol and not a semi-automatic rifle. my .22 is semi-automatic and i've had it since it was 13. many hunting rifles are semi-automatic as are shotguns. i could see why people would be against fully-automatic assault rifles though.

1/28/2011 9:41:03 AM

Quote :

"Second, I'm OK with the price of semi-automatic weapons "skyrocketing"."

This would be how democracies fail.

There are plenty of injustices that I'm just perfectly fine with. Hey, sucks for you guy affected, lolz!

1/28/2011 9:48:52 AM

Frankly, I don't know much about guns. I'm probably not the best person to consult regarding weapons restrictions. Was just giving my two cents. I figured semi-automatic weapons with larger clips and more dangerous ammo would be worse than semiautomatic pistols.

1/28/2011 10:44:16 AM

That is the problem that everyone who is pro-2A is fighting. The liberals and uninformed spout off false information, that then gets taken as fact by those who don't know or are indifferent.
Then there are giant groups that just out right lie about gun information to scare people and sway opinion in their direction.
Clips aren't used in pistols. Magazines are. Common mistake.
What is more dangerous ammo? Anything flying at a person at 1000fps is dangerous.


A prime example is the shooting in arizona that just took place. The .gov failed in their attempt to keep a mentally unstable person from obtaining a firearm. It happens. Not that often in comparison to all the other ways that .gov fails. The fact that the person got of 33 rounds just means that there weren't enough people carrying guns around in the first place. (my opinion)

1/28/2011 12:10:31 PM

Quote :

"so you want me to carry my shotgun around, in the open, instead of my concealed pistol?"

I would make it much more difficult to rob someone, wouldn't it.

Quote :

" do you really think criminals will just give up because a new handgun/magazine/fully-auto/supression/etc law was passd?"

I don't hear of many criminals using hand grenades, so obviously our laws against hand grenades are working.

Quote :

"mostly of really, really crappy guns."

I think they are generally stolen guns.

Quote :

"Clips aren't used in pistols. Magazines are. Common mistake."

Clips are used in pistols, specifically revolvers.

Quote :

"The fact that the person got of 33 rounds just means that there weren't enough people carrying guns around in the first place."

That's retarded.

1/28/2011 12:44:14 PM

Loughner was never diagnosed with any mental instability.

1/28/2011 12:49:52 PM

^^



I mean, that whole post was supposed to be tongue in cheek, right?

1/28/2011 12:57:29 PM

revolvers don't use magazines or clips. A 'moon clip' in a revolver would be the only exception, and that is more of a reloading device.

1/28/2011 1:26:19 PM

I think there is one factor that is completely ignored by most gun control advocates.

The horse has already left the barn. There are 250-300 million privately owned firearms in the United States, including 60-80 million handguns, last I saw. Exact numbers are hard to come by (thank goodness) because of our laws.

Enacting serious changes here, like banning all semi-autos or all handguns, is much different than, say, the bans in Japan. Such bans are more likely to be effective (or less detrimental) when you don't already have enough for every man, woman, and child in the country.

In England, with a decent history of firearms ownership, crimes involving handguns increased 40% in the two years after they were banned in '97. Japan, however, has been able to keep private firearms possession (and crime using guns) at nearly zero. The place you start before you had the ban makes a big difference.

With such a ban here, America would have England's experience multiplied many times over.

I can't think of a federal gun law I think is acceptable, and that is based on principle. But there are 300 million reasons you just can't (not shouldn't, but can't) make things stricter without a lot of harm.

1/28/2011 2:33:02 PM

Quote :

"revolvers don't use magazines or clips"

Revolvers can use clips.

Quote :

"and that is more of a reloading device"

A reloading device? It's a piece of metal that binds several bullets together into one managable unit. It's the very definition of a clip.

Quote :

"I mean, that whole post was supposed to be tongue in cheek, right?"

Oh, is this the post where you call me a troll and pretend like I wasn't serious so you don't have to address what I said?

1/28/2011 2:47:27 PM

Quote :

"Second, I'm OK with the price of semi-automatic weapons "skyrocketing"."

Which would mean you would be happy to have more criminal organizations similar to drug rings, right? Because that's what happens when you have a black market.

Quote :

"I don't hear of many criminals using hand grenades, so obviously our laws against hand grenades are working."

Or maybe hand grenades just aren't a very useful weapon for most types of crime. durrr

1/28/2011 3:28:03 PM

well there is this, which someone mentioned

but i've never actually seen one used with a revolver so i don't think they are very common.

he might be referring to the cylinder assembly as a clip because "it's a piece of metal that binds several bullets together" but that's just a silly semantics argument that should be ignored because cylinders aren't clips

and its a stupid point to argue about really, because someone was making a statement of fact that "clip" was being used incorrectly (which is pretty common thanks to tv and movies

1/28/2011 3:56:53 PM

Revolver reloading can also use a stripper clip:
The device holds the rounds together, so that they can be more easily loaded into the cylinders of the revolver. The point is the same as a moon clip, in that it makes the individual rounds easier to load into the revolver, as they can be handled as one unit.

1/28/2011 4:06:50 PM

Quote :

"Or maybe hand grenades just aren't a very useful weapon for most types of crime. durrr"

But there are some crimes they are useful for, and yet they are not used, take for example, Tucson.

Quote :

"he might be referring to the cylinder assembly as a clip"

I am refering to a revolver clip, let me google it for you:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=revolver+clip&aq=f&aqi=g4g-v6&aql=&oq=

I was merely trying to point out the comedy of someone generalizing all gun control supporters as stupid about guns while at the same time stating something that is outright wrong for many types of pistols.

1/28/2011 4:22:27 PM

a moon clip, which someone mentioned and i posted a picture of

and i've never seen one actually used, and its more of a reloading device

and its a silly semantics argument that totally misses the point that anyone has mode

1/28/2011 4:25:18 PM

Kris- you are ignoring the point, and we all know that I am correct and you are trying desperately to find a flaw.

eleusis-

Quote :

"Seriously though, I feel like there shouldn't be so many loopholes to jump through in order to purchase a suppressed weapon. I'd personally love to have a couple of weapons that I could shoot without ear protection on. Suppressors are almost never used in the commitment of a crime, so treating them the same as a submachine gun is ludicrous."

Yep

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 4:30 PM. Reason : spell]

1/28/2011 4:30:03 PM

I've used a moon clip to shoot 45ACP out of a revolver chambered for 45 Colt. It's some combination gun my dad bought. The clip stays in the cylinder while the gun is fired IIRC, so it's not just a reloading device.

Quote :

"Third, banning certain guns is not going to create MORE violence. Even if well-connected criminals could acquire banned weapons, they're not likely the kind of criminal who breaks into houses or robs gas-stations. "

banning guns did just that in England and Australia, and I believe you'd find the same to be true for cities that banned gun ownership here like Chicago and DC.

1/28/2011 5:14:01 PM

Quote :

"a moon clip, which someone mentioned and i posted a picture of"

Yes, it is a clip that is used for pistols.

Quote :

"and i've never seen one actually used"

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote :

"its more of a reloading device"

It is a clip, I suppose every clip could be defined as a "reloading device", but that is irrelevant, it is a clip.

Quote :

"and its a silly semantics argument"

You could say the same about the original statement calling someone out for confusing a clip and a magazine.

Quote :

"I am correct"

How is this statement correct:
Clips aren't used in pistols. Magazines are. Common mistake.
Considering that there are clips that are used in pistols?

1/28/2011 5:17:57 PM

stop trolling and reply to the point

Quote :

"banning guns did just that in England and Australia"

only in the short-term. in the long run gun crimes have been reduced.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2011 5:32:51 PM

How do you figure that?



Maybe you're right if "in the long run gun crimes have been reduced" means "over ten years they've gone up."

When will your mythical 'long run' appear?

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM. Reason : a]

1/28/2011 5:39:30 PM

that doesn't seem to be a per-capita graph, but its so small i can't tell

1/28/2011 5:49:48 PM

the graph should definitely be per capita, total number is quite unfair, and it would probably need to be compared with per capita crime to make the kind of assertion you are trying to make.

1/28/2011 5:51:51 PM

So you are suggesting that the UK population doubled between '98 and '02?

Because that's what would have to happen for per capita gun crime to have remained constant. Gun crime more than doubled in that time period, and has stayed at that level since then.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 5:57 PM. Reason : a]

1/28/2011 5:56:00 PM

perhaps per capita crime rose at the same rate

1/28/2011 6:00:57 PM

That would not be surprising, nor would it be a coincidence.

And if it's true, that gun crime rose at the same rate as other crime, then you're still in trouble. Because the gun-folk are saying that gun control will usually lead to increases in all crime.

If all types of crime, including gun crime, go up....what exactly are you crowing about?

1/28/2011 6:03:18 PM

i could be wrong, but not too long ago a BBC article told me that gun crimes dropped after an initial rise. perhaps someone knows where some per-capita graphs can be found.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM. Reason : i'm not crowing about anything, i'm an avid gun person. i just want facts]

1/28/2011 6:03:33 PM

Well, that graph plainly says that in '07 and '08, gun crime dropped in total, and then of course would also on a per-capita basis. That dropped level is still more than double the pre-ban rates, even per-capita.

I was talking more to Kris on that one

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 6:07 PM. Reason : a]

1/28/2011 6:06:41 PM

the BBC could have easily made that statement. The crime rate rose threefold, and then dropped 10% from the highest levels over the last two years. While it's true that the crime rate involving guns dropped, it didn't drop enough to be comparable to before the ban. While highly deceptive, that claim wouldn't have been a lie.

1/28/2011 6:09:05 PM

Quote :

"But there are some crimes they are useful for, and yet they are not used, take for example, Tucson."

Only, not really. For a targeted killing, a grenade is not the most useful item. It can do the job, but a gun is much better, especially if you want to survive.

Quote :

"I was merely trying to point out the comedy of someone generalizing all gun control supporters as stupid about guns while at the same time stating something that is outright wrong for many types of pistols."

No, it's really only good for one type of pistol: the revolver. dipshit.

Quote :

"You could say the same about the original statement calling someone out for confusing a clip and a magazine."

No, there is an actual fucking difference.

1/28/2011 6:38:23 PM