"The Hunt"

[KEW]

No problem sir! As I'm thinking this through, I'm wondering if there is some sort of liability disincentive that could be put in place for the area of sales currently not covered by background checks. Something like "no you don't HAVE TO see that a background check is completed, but if you don't you can be charged with X if the firearm you sold is used illegally." I know that will make some folks squirm and there are lots of gotchas lurking in the details, but if it could be pulled off it would result in federal background checks being of maximal benefit (whatever that might actually mean).

That is an interesting idea and certainly would reduce the sales to sketchy individuals.
As an alternative, we might consider that before anyone can buy a gun, they need to be licensed. The licensing process should consist of gun safety training/testing and background check.
Yesterday, I heard a PSA type ad about the importance of keeping your drugs out of the reach of children and disposing of them properly. Not sure who sponsored it - maybe a local hospital system.
I keep thinking that if the NRA was really about providing a service, they would run ads talking about responsible gun ownership and perhaps even help promoting quick access gun safes or lock-out devices to prevent a child from using it while still allowing quick access for those so unfortunate as to feel they need a gun "at the ready".

 

[bigkrazy155]

That is an interesting idea and certainly would reduce the sales to sketchy individuals.
As an alternative, we might consider that before anyone can buy a gun, they need to be licensed. The licensing process should consist of gun safety training/testing and background check.
Yesterday, I heard a PSA type ad about the importance of keeping your drugs out of the reach of children and disposing of them properly. Not sure who sponsored it - maybe a local hospital system.
I keep thinking that if the NRA was really about providing a service, they would run ads talking about responsible gun ownership and perhaps even help promoting quick access gun safes or lock-out devices to prevent a child from using it while still allowing quick access for those so unfortunate as to feel they need a gun "at the ready".

I like those ideas from an owner safety perspective. I think you run into problems trying to mandate training before firearm purchases though. This may be seen constitutionally as infringement. It's very hard, legally speaking, to put road blocks on items that are specifically and explicitly guaranteed by the constitution. It would probably require changes to 2A.

Also remember that the NRA is a citizen formed organization. I'm not saying they are always (or ever) right or wrong, but their direction is dictated by the members that make it up. With the political climate being what it is, fighting for 2A has understandably risen to the top of their agenda.

 

[snakeeyes]

That is an interesting idea and certainly would reduce the sales to sketchy individuals.
As an alternative, we might consider that before anyone can buy a gun, they need to be licensed. The licensing process should consist of gun safety training/testing and background check.
Yesterday, I heard a PSA type ad about the importance of keeping your drugs out of the reach of children and disposing of them properly. Not sure who sponsored it - maybe a local hospital system.
I keep thinking that if the NRA was really about providing a service, they would run ads talking about responsible gun ownership and perhaps even help promoting quick access gun safes or lock-out devices to prevent a child from using it while still allowing quick access for those so unfortunate as to feel they need a gun "at the ready".

If you live in the wilderness and need a shotgun for dealing with bears, you need to have that tool to survive. A similar scenario when riots and looting happens. Also there is the home invasion robbery or physical assault such as mugging or rape. I think citizens need guns unfortunately for these reasons. Limiting people will just mean illegally sourced weapons. Most people think limits are needed on the rapid fire weapons, however, if you live in an active war zone like the Gaza Strip, it would be necessary to have military grade weapons just to survive. Some people rightly or wrongly believe that type of scenario is also possible in the USA, but let’s hope that won’t be the case in our lifetime.

 

[panteragstk]

I like those ideas from an owner safety perspective. I think you run into problems trying to mandate training before firearm purchases though. This may be seen constitutionally as infringement. It's very hard, legally speaking, to put road blocks on items that are specifically and explicitly guaranteed by the constitution. It would probably require changes to 2A.

Also remember that the NRA is a citizen formed organization. I'm not saying they are always (or ever) right or wrong, but their direction is dictated by the members that make it up. With the political climate being what it is, fighting for 2A has understandably risen to the top of their agenda.

Apparently the NRA is up to their eyeballs in internal scandals so now may be a good time to get something done while their distracted.

One thing I keep thinking about is the fact that you have to have a license to drive a car, and plenty of idiots should have them revoked, but we allow people to purchase a weapon with no purpose other than to kill without any such license. Sure, cars kill way more people than guns, but cars aren't intended for that purpose.

Too many idiots have guns they aren't responsible enough to own. I'm sure almost none of them have any intention of ever doing anyone personal harm, but the sheer fact that they are idiots should bar them from owning a gun. Those are they types that accidental deaths happen to since they keep a loaded weapon with the safety turned off in their nightstand for "protection". I'm sure if personal responsibility went up that alone would prevent a high number of gun deaths.

But, they're also allowed to have children...

 

[panteragstk]

If you live in the wilderness and need a shotgun for dealing with bears, you need to have that tool to survive. A similar scenario when riots and looting happens. Also there is the home invasion robbery or physical assault such as mugging or rape. I think citizens need guns unfortunately for these reasons. Limiting people will just mean illegally sourced weapons. Most people think limits are needed on the rapid fire weapons, however, if you live in an active war zone like the Gaza Strip, it would be necessary to have military grade weapons just to survive. Some people rightly or wrongly believe that type of scenario is also possible in the USA, but let’s hope that won’t be the case in our lifetime.

Large dogs are a hell of a lot more effective against home invasion.

Having a gun if you get mugged is only going to increase your chances of getting shot by the other person. If they're already pointing a gun at you, the last thing you want to do is do anything that makes them think you're going for a gun. On the flip side if they only have a knife and you simply show you're packing, then yeah. Major deterrent, but maybe don't go to places where people get mugged?

The "good guy with a gun is the only defense against a bad guy with a gun" is complete and utter rubbish.

I do agree that EVERYONE should have the right to own a gun, and specifically for hunting. That's the only reason we should have them. Saying we need them for personal protection just makes me wonder where the hell people are going that threats of violence against them using gun is common place. If that's the case, why are you going there?

 

[bigkrazy155]

Apparently the NRA is up to their eyeballs in internal scandals so now may be a good time to get something done while their distracted.

One thing I keep thinking about is the fact that you have to have a license to drive a car, and plenty of idiots should have them revoked, but we allow people to purchase a weapon with no purpose other than to kill without any such license. Sure, cars kill way more people than guns, but cars aren't intended for that purpose.

Too many idiots have guns they aren't responsible enough to own. I'm sure almost none of them have any intention of ever doing anyone personal harm, but the sheer fact that they are idiots should bar them from owning a gun. Those are they types that accidental deaths happen to since they keep a loaded weapon with the safety turned off in their nightstand for "protection". I'm sure if personal responsibility went up that alone would prevent a high number of gun deaths.

But, they're also allowed to have children...

I appreciate the common sense you are attempting to insert here, even if it's unnecessarily derisive. But remember that driving a car is not a guaranteed right in our constitution.

 

[panteragstk]

I appreciate the common sense you are attempting to insert here, even if it's unnecessarily derisive. But remember that driving a car is not a guaranteed right in our constitution.

Correct, but it's understood by the states that they are allowing a person to operate something that is potentially dangerous in inexperienced hands so I thought it fit the logic the best.

Just because it's guaranteed by the constitution doesn't mean we can't limit it. If we can stop former felons from getting them, then we can damn sure make it difficult to get a gun.

As for being derisive, It's just that this topic just should be something we have to talk about anymore. Something needs to be done or at least attempted. I should have to worry about my 5 year old starting school hoping that hers isn't one that is targeted for a shooting. This just isn't something people should have to worry about.

Just like people in inner cities should have to worry about their kids getting hit by a stray bullet walking how from a friends house. This just isn't a problem we should have.

 

[bigkrazy155]

Large dogs are a hell of a lot more effective against home invasion.

Having a gun if you get mugged is only going to increase your chances of getting shot by the other person. If they're already pointing a gun at you, the last thing you want to do is do anything that makes them think you're going for a gun. On the flip side if they only have a knife and you simply show you're packing, then yeah. Major deterrent, but maybe don't go to places where people get mugged?

The "good guy with a gun is the only defense against a bad guy with a gun" is complete and utter rubbish.

I do agree that EVERYONE should have the right to own a gun, and specifically for hunting. That's the only reason we should have them. Saying we need them for personal protection just makes me wonder where the hell people are going that threats of violence against them using gun is common place. If that's the case, why are you going there?

Would it surprise you that a 2013 study by the CDC estimated that there were between 500,000 and 3 million defensive uses of firearms in the year 2008 alone? Compare that to around 12,000 homicides using firearms in the same year. Exact figures for defensive uses will always be hard to determine, but on the low end people are defending themselves at around 42 times the rate than they are committing homicide.

I was unable to find statistics on defensive uses of large dogs

 

[snakeeyes]

Large dogs are a hell of a lot more effective against home invasion.

Having a gun if you get mugged is only going to increase your chances of getting shot by the other person. If they're already pointing a gun at you, the last thing you want to do is do anything that makes them think you're going for a gun. On the flip side if they only have a knife and you simply show you're packing, then yeah. Major deterrent, but maybe don't go to places where people get mugged?

The "good guy with a gun is the only defense against a bad guy with a gun" is complete and utter rubbish.

I do agree that EVERYONE should have the right to own a gun, and specifically for hunting. That's the only reason we should have them. Saying we need them for personal protection just makes me wonder where the hell people are going that threats of violence against them using gun is common place. If that's the case, why are you going there?

Ok but the constitution is giving the right because it’s meant for times of peace and times of war. Poor and rich have equal access. A war in the USA may not be likely today but in 200 years from now we can’t predict what a “normal day” is like.

 

[bigkrazy155]

Just because it's guaranteed by the constitution doesn't mean we can't limit it. If we can stop former felons from getting them, then we can damn sure make it difficult to get a gun.

With the presupposition that you are talking about the mentally unstable, I couldn't agree more!

 

[KEW]

It's very hard, legally speaking, to put road blocks on items that are specifically and explicitly guaranteed by the constitution. It would probably require changes to 2A.

But we do have age limits imposed (I am not sure that is per the constitution) and the background check is also a road block in place. So their seems to be some opportunity to place some common sense restrictions on gun ownership and I don't believe either of those required changes to 2A (although I believe changing 2A is not a bad way to go, but it seems like that would rile up a lot of resistance even among people who think it is reasonable to go through some gun safety training (I imagine this safety training as more about keeping the gun where it cannot be easily stolen or used by those that the owner would not want to have it). I used to have a teacher who described suicide as a long-term solution to a short-term problem, and I have to wonder how many suicides would be avoided if the person did not have immediate access to a firearm in his moment of anguish. And then their is the young kid who finds this really cool gun in their parents room and goes to ambush/shoot his brother or dad (which is what any boy is likely to do with a toy gun).
Somehow, the right to bear arms does not include machine guns, so it seems there are already restrictions not specifically addressed in the amendment.
The license could be renamed "background check card" and fall under the current background check rules with the "training being a brochure on safe handling and storage that you have to acknowledge and agree to as part of the sanity check!

 

[bigkrazy155]

But we do have age limits imposed (I am not sure that is per the constitution) and the background check is also a road block in place. So their seems to be some opportunity to place some common sense restrictions on gun ownership and I don't believe either of those required changes to 2A (although I believe changing 2A is not a bad way to go, but it seems like that would rile up a lot of resistance even among people who think it is reasonable to go through some gun safety training (I imagine this safety training as more about keeping the gun where it cannot be easily stolen or used by those that the owner would not want to have it). I used to have a teacher who described suicide as a long-term solution to a short-term problem, and I have to wonder how many suicides would be avoided if the person did not have immediate access to a firearm in his moment of anguish. And then their is the young kid who finds this really cool gun in their parents room and goes to ambush/shoot his brother or dad (which is what any boy is likely to do with a toy gun).
Somehow, the right to bear arms does not include machine guns, so it seems there are already restrictions not specifically addressed in the amendment.
The license could be renamed "background check card" and fall under the current background check rules with the "training being a brochure on safe handling and storage that you have to acknowledge and agree to as part of the sanity check!

Good points! It seems time for me to get edumacated on the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Now that my work day is over, it's time for me to get to work.

 

[panteragstk]

Would it surprise you that a 2013 study by the CDC estimated that there were between 500,000 and 3 million defensive uses of firearms in the year 2008 alone? Compare that to around 12,000 homicides using firearms in the same year. Exact figures for defensive uses will always be hard to determine, but on the low end people are defending themselves at around 42 times the rate than they are committing homicide.

I was unable to find statistics on defensive uses of large dogs

As a matter of fact it would surprise me. Granted, that estimate sure has a large range. Why would the CDC be the ones estimating this? Not the ATF?

I'm very curious now as to what the reported statistics on this are. I'm also curious how these defensive claims relate to people that shouldn't have guns having them and using them for bad purposes.

Very interesting.

 

[panteragstk]

Ok but the constitution is giving the right because it’s meant for times of peace and times of war. Poor and rich have equal access. A war in the USA may not be likely today but in 200 years from now we can’t predict what a “normal day” is like.

In no way do I disagree with you, but I think some take that amendment from "I'm allowed to own a gun" to "I'm allowed to buy anything gun related no matter how clearly I defiantly shouldn't be able to buy it, but for some reason can because nobody wants to limit our "rights"".

I've got the perfect solution for gun control. Yes, everyone is allowed to own a gun, but that gun can either be a .22 revolver with 6 rounds or a .22 rifle single shot (if something smaller can be found, I'm open to suggestions). Anything other than those two and you have to get a deep background/medical history check and take 6 months worth of classes (can be spread out as long as it's complete in 4 years). THEN you can get something more powerful, but you have to have a written justification that doesn't include "I think guns are cool". If you say that, you are banned from ever owning anything but the two bare minimum guns to satisfy the 2nd amendment.

If you currently own anything other than the bare minimum, you must register them and pass the classes/background checks or you will have them removed. Penalties for non-compliance yet to be determined.

We don't want to take anyone's guns away, but we damn sure want to make sure you should be allowed to own them. I feel this process won't affect most responsible gun owners. I would have no issue going through this to keep what I have.

The fun part would be how the hell we get the illegal guns off the street without starting wars in our cities. Granted, some of them are already war zones anyway.

 

[snakeeyes]

In no way do I disagree with you, but I think some take that amendment from "I'm allowed to own a gun" to "I'm allowed to buy anything gun related no matter how clearly I defiantly shouldn't be able to buy it, but for some reason can because nobody wants to limit our "rights"".

I've got the perfect solution for gun control. Yes, everyone is allowed to own a gun, but that gun can either be a .22 revolver with 6 rounds or a .22 rifle single shot (if something smaller can be found, I'm open to suggestions). Anything other than those two and you have to get a deep background/medical history check and take 6 months worth of classes (can be spread out as long as it's complete in 4 years). THEN you can get something more powerful, but you have to have a written justification that doesn't include "I think guns are cool". If you say that, you are banned from ever owning anything but the two bare minimum guns to satisfy the 2nd amendment.

If you currently own anything other than the bare minimum, you must register them and pass the classes/background checks or you will have them removed. Penalties for non-compliance yet to be determined.

We don't want to take anyone's guns away, but we damn sure want to make sure you should be allowed to own them. I feel this process won't affect most responsible gun owners. I would have no issue going through this to keep what I have.

The fun part would be how the hell we get the illegal guns off the street without starting wars in our cities. Granted, some of them are already war zones anyway.

Not sure a 22 will be enough to stop a grizzly in Alaska.

Think there was a Chris Rock special where he just suggested limiting the number of bullets to just one. LOL

 

[panteragstk]

Not sure a 22 will be enough to stop a grizzly in Alaska.

Think there was a Chris Rock special where he just suggested limiting the number of bullets to just one. LOL

I agree, the person in Alaska would take the class, and probably have no issue with the back ground check. Then, shoot all the bears you want.

The Chris Rock thing was awesome. Start at 3:15 for "bullet control". The whole thing is awesome and sadly relevant a decade later.

 

[Trell]

Not everyone thinks that implementing efficient gun controls are doomed too fail, so here is a youthful and optimistic message:

 

[highfigh]

That is exactly the problem!
There needs to be more to prevent idiots, insane, etc. from getting guns!
We don't need to solve the problem of machinists making guns before implementing some simple restrictions that the US population overwhelmingly agrees with:
Let's just start with a baby step, the very lowest hanging fruit - Universal background checks for retail gun sales - why can't this get approved! It is not the population that is against this, it is the NRA buying off politicians (I suspect even the majority of NRA members agree that this is reasonable - polls have shown over 90% of the general population support it)!
I know it is not much of a solution, but it is very revealing of the level of corruption (between the NRA and Congress) that this one simple and very popular rule change is unlikely to happen within the next year!

PS - for anyone who doesn't follow gun politics at all - Currently Gun Shows and Internet Sales do not require background checks (except for a few states with their own laws against it - and you might imagine how ineffective a state law against Internet Sales might be).

I have written that there's one whole question on the application about mental Illness and that it would be possible for someone to lie about it, which would likely result in them being approved unless they're known for their mental illness.

Background checks won't happen until politicians stop basing every comment and bill on what will get them re-elected. Screw the NRA. We need a way to stop mentally ill and those on the edge from getting guns. I have also posted that I don't think AR and AK type weapons are needed, that 'need' and 'want' have been interchanged and that in reality, almost nobody actually needs a gun.

I wrote a fairly long response to your comments about online and gun show sales but it was addressed by bigkrazy155. However, there are other ways for guns to be sold- straw buyers (people who buy guns legally, for the purpose of selling them privately to someone who can't buy legally), thieves who steal guns and sell them privately and this is a big problem because gangs have a network for selling items around US regions and states and the parts market. People can buy the parts to assemble a gun in person or online, but the receiver is the one part that needs a license or application.

As I posted, a lot of people have lost respect for life, laws and for other people. Until this changes for the better, we won't see an improvement.

 

[highfigh]

The US is definitely a stand out as the only "advanced wealthy democracy".
It is sad that is the state of affairs in our country which has so much more potential!
No, we are not the worst, but it is pathetic that we are solidly placed among these other countries!

OK, but we do need to look at who's committing the gun crimes if we're going to address this.

 

[highfigh]

Not everyone thinks that implementing efficient gun controls are doomed too fail, so here is a youthful and optimistic message:

View attachment 30563

AKA naiive.

In case you didn't hear about it, a gunman fired on Police officers during a narcotics raid in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania yesterday. He was using a rifle of some kind and six officers were wounded. Oddly, I have seen nothing on Yahoo's front page or the local news website, but I did see some coverage on YouTube and TV news last night.

"Johnson (Hill's lawyer) convinced Hill, who was afraid he would be shot, to come out with him present for the arrest.". Isn't that interesting- the guy who was shooting at people who carry guns was afraid of being shot.

Do you think he would comply with any kind of gun control?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/suspect-firing-officers-ongoing-shooting-incident-philadelphia-police-210000221--abc-news-topstories.html