Gun control

[G'day Mate]

I've seen a lot more than usual in the media about guns in the United States recently - do you guys think something is changing or is it still just the same ongoing argument?

[MR2 Fan]

nothing changing

[novicius]

Not until gun sales in America drop significantly enough to weaken the NRA's war chest

[overpowered]

The NRA is too strong and has too much support from both politicians and right wing psychos. There is no way that we can have any change right now, no matter how mild or sensible. It could be a while.

[G'day Mate]

So how is it that they're so powerful with only 5 million members? Or is it kind of like a union, where not everyone needs to be involved to cause a lot of chaos

[overpowered]

It's possible because they own politicians and even a lot of non-members vote their way for those politicians.

The thing is we have the even bigger problem of right wing extremist idiocy in general. Doing anything that makes sense is almost impossible in that environment.

[thesameguy]

I'm not sure gun control at this point would really do any good. Firearms have been very good for a very long time, and low prices means that anyone who wants a gun has one. Probably many. If tomorrow guns were outlawed the only people who would be giving up their guns are the people that probably weren't a concern in the first place. The criminals and the nutjobs (same thing?) would still have lots and lots and lots of guns. Such a law might prevent a newborn wacko from taking out a shopping mail in 2035 or something, but there are such huge inventories in the underworld I seriously question whether that person would really have a hard time getting one. I mean, look at drugs. There more and better drugs available every day despite being illegal. If someone wants drugs, they get drugs. Guns would be no different, and arguably more difficult to control. People with serious drug problems ultimately take themselves out of the equation anyway. People with serious gun problems likely won't until it's too late.

It may sound defeatist and maybe it is. Don't try because you'll never win. Well, I'd like folks to take a strong look at the fallout from a potential war on guns and look at what every other war on [blank] has yielded. NOTHING. The problem isn't the thing. It isn't drugs, it isn't poverty, it isn't guns. It's people. People are the problem. Teach people how to be responsible, help people take care of themselves and others, and get people the assistance they need when they break down. Taking the remote control away from your kid doesn't teach him not to sit in front of the TV. Why would taking guns (or drugs, or prostitutes, or anything else) be any more effective?

People tend to act destructively and self destructively when the environment around them is so inhospitable there is no better alternative. Yeah, plenty of them are just flat out crazy and any rational definition of hospitable is meaningless and that's certainly a difficulty. But nobody in a loving family (biological or otherwise), with a job they adore, and opportunities galore in front of them acts out in crazy ways. Identifying people who at risk of unsurmountable depression and getting them help is how you solve a society's problems, not taking toys away. If folks have good things to live for, they're going to do the best they can to protect those possible futures.

[novicius]

So how is it that they're so powerful with only 5 million members? Or is it kind of like a union, where not everyone needs to be involved to cause a lot of chaos
Sounds like you're thinking about this backwards.

The NRA's lobbying might (influencing politicians to vote against gun control, writing legislation that protects the ease of gun purchasing, etc.) begins with legitimate gun sales & services (ammunition makers, accessory makers, etc.) to U.S. gov't agencies, international government agencies, businesses of all sizes and citizens to gun manufacturers.

A portion of that considerable cash flow powers the NRA far more than their dues-paying members.

[thesameguy]

Just to be clear, for the record: I don't like guns, I don't own guns, and don't see any rational reason why someone would. But you gotta look at the surgery and see if the result is worth the procedure.

[MR2 Fan]

I believe there's something like 350 million guns in the U.S., yet only about 25% of people own them? something like that

[thesameguy]

I know very few people that have "a handgun." Some - my dad (and it was his dad's before him) - but very few. Most people I know who own guns have a LOT. A dozen or two dozen. Easy to see how 100m people own 350m guns.

[TheBenior]

I pretty much agree with TSG, except I do like me some guns.

In spite of that, I'll go out and say that our murder rate wouldn't be so high if there weren't so many guns in this country. Guns are the most effective, portable, readily accessible devices you can use for killing. The UK has a much higher reported violent crime rate than the US, but the murder rate is much, much lower. It's a lot more difficult to stab or beat somebody to death.

If we were going to do something about the availability/types of guns in this country, that time was probably a century ago. Right now, there are way too many to confiscate, and as TSG said, the people who would turn them in aren't the people you have to worry about.

I'll also add that for all the press that mass shootings get, they're fairly insignificant in terms of total numbers of firearms-related homicides. The black market created by drug prohibition is responsible for many, many more homicides. Ending drug prohibition would probably be the most effective crime reduction policy change ever.

[KillerB]

To solve the problem you'd have to round them all up and destroy them. Not going to happen here like it did in OZ, because:

A) We have some measure of protection of the ownership rights codified in a legal document that is so difficult to change, it's only happened twenty-odd times in over 200 years, and...
B) We have other countries on our continent, most of which have greater written restrictions on gun ownership, but frequently poor institutional control in general. So it gets back to the problem tsg mentioned - they'll get in through other means, just like drugs do.

[KillerB]

I'm also going to state something logically true but somewhat cold-hearted - unless you live in certain disadvantaged communities, your likelihood of being a victim of random gun violence is still pretty tiny. It's just not a factor of daily life for a large swath of the American public. Additionally, those disadvantaged groups (such as black Americans) feel - quite justifiably - that the police with their guns pose a greater threat to their well being than other citizens with guns.

Even if you are 100 times more likely to be a victim of mass murder by gun in the U.S., 100 times "basically never" is still fucking unlikely.

They say "no other advanced nation has events like this," but no other advanced nation has this many people spread over this kind of area.

[novicius]

Ending drug prohibition would probably be the most effective crime reduction policy change ever.
Yep absolutely. :up: :up:

But replacing drug prohibition with gun prohibition would just change one addiction for another.

[TheBenior]

Additionally, those disadvantaged groups (such as black Americans) feel - quite justifiably - that the police with their guns pose a greater threat to their well being than other citizens with guns.
Justifiably? Not really, even in Chicago, police shoot around 40-60 people per year, 10-15 of them fatally. They're around 30 times more likely to be killed by another black person, and if they don't get locked up on a regular basis, the odds of getting killed by the police here are negligible.

[thesameguy]

I don't think the suggestion was necessarily being shot by the police, but more the fear of being shot by police. When daily life includes getting hassled by the man you start to develop distrust. If you distrust the people who are there to protect you, you'll take protection into your own hands. And then you have a bunch of fearful people running around with guns acting irresponsibly. That's a whole socio-economic-racial thing, though, not really gun control.

Summary: Good luck collecting 350m guns and then preventing more from being made/imported/sold. Good. Luck.

[Godson]

I'm not sure gun control at this point would really do any good. Firearms have been very good for a very long time, and low prices means that anyone who wants a gun has one. Probably many. If tomorrow guns were outlawed the only people who would be giving up their guns are the people that probably weren't a concern in the first place. The criminals and the nutjobs (same thing?) would still have lots and lots and lots of guns. Such a law might prevent a newborn wacko from taking out a shopping mail in 2035 or something, but there are such huge inventories in the underworld I seriously question whether that person would really have a hard time getting one. I mean, look at drugs. There more and better drugs available every day despite being illegal. If someone wants drugs, they get drugs. Guns would be no different, and arguably more difficult to control. People with serious drug problems ultimately take themselves out of the equation anyway. People with serious gun problems likely won't until it's too late.

It may sound defeatist and maybe it is. Don't try because you'll never win. Well, I'd like folks to take a strong look at the fallout from a potential war on guns and look at what every other war on [blank] has yielded. NOTHING. The problem isn't the thing. It isn't drugs, it isn't poverty, it isn't guns. It's people. People are the problem. Teach people how to be responsible, help people take care of themselves and others, and get people the assistance they need when they break down. Taking the remote control away from your kid doesn't teach him not to sit in front of the TV. Why would taking guns (or drugs, or prostitutes, or anything else) be any more effective?

People tend to act destructively and self destructively when the environment around them is so inhospitable there is no better alternative. Yeah, plenty of them are just flat out crazy and any rational definition of hospitable is meaningless and that's certainly a difficulty. But nobody in a loving family (biological or otherwise), with a job they adore, and opportunities galore in front of them acts out in crazy ways. Identifying people who at risk of unsurmountable depression and getting them help is how you solve a society's problems, not taking toys away. If folks have good things to live for, they're going to do the best they can to protect those possible futures.

http://media.giphy.com/media/13py6c5BSnBkic/giphy.gif

[KillerB]

I don't think the suggestion was necessarily being shot by the police, but more the fear of being shot by police. When daily life includes getting hassled by the man you start to develop distrust. If you distrust the people who are there to protect you, you'll take protection into your own hands. And then you have a bunch of fearful people running around with guns acting irresponsibly. That's a whole socio-economic-racial thing, though, not really gun control.

Summary: Good luck collecting 350m guns and then preventing more from being made/imported/sold. Good. Luck.

Exactly on both. "Driving While Black" is totally a thing.

[overpowered]

So how is it that they're so powerful with only 5 million members? Or is it kind of like a union, where not everyone needs to be involved to cause a lot of chaos

"Power is a curious thing... Three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other two. Who lives, who dies? ... Power resides where men believe it resides; it's a trick, a shadow on the wall, and a very small man can cast a very large shadow." -- Varys

[G'day Mate]

:lol: Nice

[Rare White Ape]

I'm sure we've all seen the Jim Jeffries stand-up rant on guns and Americans by now. That's probably the best essay on gun control I've ever heard.

Not gunna lie to ya.

I love guns. I love them the same way I love motorcycles. They're fun and dangerous.

Never used one, though. But I'd love to go shooting on a property somewhere where feral pigs, dogs, and cats are a nuisance, with the biggest, meanest, lead-throwing hardware available.

So with that preface, I would love to see gun violence cease and kinda-sorta-almost support banning guns, but if you do that, as TSG said, people who really seriously want to kill someone with a gun will still get a gun and kill someone.

I don't support the notion of one person ruining it for the rest of us. Just as murder is illegal, so is killing someone with a gun, but it still happens. Jail and other fun sorts of punishment are a good deterrent for crime among 99.9999% of the population, but shit still happens. Something like 0.00001% of the gun owning population in America have gone on killing sprees that kill a bunch of people, so why ruin it for the rest of us that will use guns for sport and work and recreation?

Make it harder for psychos to get guns, by all means. But there's got to be a better way of preventing mass murder. Maybe paying attention to the weirdos and their manifestos, for once, and helping them?

[Godson]

The sad thing about the idea of helping those in mental distress, is so many people still paint mental instability as a lesser person and they want to shun them out. Not try and help them, I'm looking at you social Darwinism.

Because of how little we as a society know about mental disorders, people get ignored until the pot boils over. It really is a sad position that neither political party wants to fix.

[tigeraid]

Back on the ol' temporary GTXF board Rob and I spent pages and pages arguing with 'murricans about this. I feel like I don't want to retread it all over, but I suppose I'll re-post this and we can re-discuss it:


First, let's get the Second Amendment out of the way. "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."

It was not written as some sort of neo-con creedo declaring that everyone is allowed to own a gun for personal safety. It was written so militias could be gathered amongst the citizenry should the British decide to attack. America has a militia now. It's called the military. If ever an Amendment needed to be re-written, it's that one.

But that's irrelevant to the argument of gun control now anyway, because every gun-toting American has memorized the second part of that sentence, and considers it a creed to live by as an excuse to stroke their penis extensions.

...

It's very, very hard, as a non-American, who has grown up literally without access, interest, education, knowledge, and only a rare SIGHTING of a gun, to argue about this with Americans. It always is.

On the one hand, you have the argument that "if we ban gun ownership, criminals will still have guns, but now citizens won't." I hear that and think "dammit, it sounds logical."

But then on the other hand, every single statistic shows that countries without gun ownership have little or no violent gun crime. The United States is responsible for over 80 percent of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries in the world combined. Anywhere from 9000 to 12,000 people a year are killed by guns in homicides (so, not counting suicides or accidents.) And that doesn't count tens of thousands of non-lethal shots.

Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Almost no one owns guns. There is almost no gun crime, averaging less than 20 a year. In fact in 2006, the total was TWO murders.

In the UK, almost no one owns guns. Homicides are typically 40 or less a year.

Germany, which has gun ownership but the requirements are MASSIVELY more strict than the US, has around 200 murders a year.

And here in Canada, our number hovers around 200 deaths a year as well.

......

Now that last part is where it gets weird--on the one hand, hand guns are virtually impossible to own here. But on the other hand, we are a nation of hunters, perhaps even more so than the US, so our long gun ownership numbers are about the same as America's. We have guns all over the place, they're just rifles. And yet we have (comparatively) no murders.

So is it as simple an answer as having adults grow up, stop waving their giant dick-extensions around in the air, and get tougher on what it MEANS to own a firearm, get more strict on WHO owns them?

I agree wholeheartedly and completely that civilians should not own automatic weapons. Ever. Period. Or grenades. Or fucking RPGs, or whatever else. There is no reason to own any weapon beyond a simple rifle for hunting or, in theory, a simple handgun for personal defense, if you must. Anything else is dick-waving bullshit.

And even owning the handgun is a dubious argument. Like I said, we have virtually none in Canada, and the crime reflects that. People have a shotgun or rifle around the farm for hunting and, if someone ever comes on the property threatening them, well, they've got a rifle I suppose.

.....

My attitude toward the whole thing is ambivalent because guns simply aren't a "thing" here. For anyone. And I suspect that much is true everywhere else in the first world that isn't America.

Americans always ask me "what if someone breaks into your home, don't you just want to shoot them?" :roll:

Well no, no I don't. I don't want to shoot anyone. First off, someone breaking into my home is an INCREDIBLY rare possibility, because crime in general is rare. Second off, the odds are INCREDIBLY in favour of that burgler not carrying a gun. Likely no weapon at all. I have a steel pipe by my bed, and another by the door, because I happen to live in one of the few cities in Canada that has ANY sort of home invasions happening, and I still suspect I'm being overly paranoid.

Canada's laws generally dictate equal force for defense. If I shoot a burgler who is unarmed, I go to prison for Manslaughter. If I beat the shit out of him with my hands or a pipe but leave him alive, chances are I'll be just fine, and he'll go to jail for BnE. And in most cases historically, the jury has sided with the homeowner in these cases, UNLESS they murder the kid.

The thought of beating a home invader with my bare hands fills me with a sort of odd mixture of pride and, at the same time, sadness, because I'm using a physical self-defense tool I learned on another human being. The thought of shooting one fills me with nothing but anger and sickness.

.....

It's hard NOT to blame the "culture of the gun." And I don't mean violence in video games or violence in movies. The rest of the world has that too, and we're getting along fine. It's the culture ingrained in your society since the revolution. Americans shoot first and ask questions later. Literally, they do. In the above example, in many States, you are permitted to shoot a fucker dead if he's on your property, REGARDLESS of the situation. Most Americans think that's just fine and dandy. It's their solution to everything, from the genocide of the Natives all the way to current foreign policy (invade and "free" Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) Most gun-owning Americans will never agree to stricter gun laws because they literally believe they have a right to determine life and death, a right to take another's life easily and quickly, if they see fit. x(

I think it's abhorrent, and a very scary way to live life. I fear for the human race if this is somehow the example of how to live that the world is supposed to "look up to." :uhm:

In Canada we have no need for guns. It just doesn't enter into the public consciousness. When we had OUR mass school shooting at École Polytechnique, there was no massive outcry to allow us to carry guns. It was a rare tragedy, and most (MOST) Canadians were thankful this sort of thing is very rare because NO ONE OWNS GUNS. So it's very, very hard for the rest of us in the world to take anything Americans say seriously about gun ownership when the numbers ARE RIGHT THERE. If guns are banned, there's less guns, which means criminals have less/no guns. Americans I talk to argue VEHEMENTLY against that, but the NUMBERS ARE RIGHT THERE. :|

Is it a fear thing? Are all American inherently paranoid? And maybe they should be, with crime as rampant as it supposedly is.... In America, easy gun ownership allows for more gun crime, and more gun ownership is required to defend against gun crime. Which is an argument to keep hand guns. The only question is how such a vicious circle can ever be stopped.

EDIT: And to answer the original post, things like background checks, thorough psychiatric evaluations, and other such things, likely will never happen either, because they impact on gun retailers' "freedom" to sell guns to nut jobs. Which means it hurts the bottom dollar. So it won't happen.

[tigeraid]

And to elaborate on that last point, America will never, ever, ever take guns away from people. It would be civil suicide, the country would erupt in war. Gun control is 100% necessary to drag your country kicking and screaming into the 21st (hell, 20th) century. But banning altogether will never happen. Obama's excellent suggestions that were all shot down would be a start. Better background checks, more crucial vetting of owners, restrictions on ammunition counts and clip sizes, UNDERSTANDING AND AIDING MENTAL ILLNESS... ANYTHING to reduce gun ownership to "reasonable."

But no matter how many statistical factual information you show a Republican, now matter how much proof there is that countries with strict gun laws have very little violent gun crime (and despite that hilarious straw-man argument that "knife violence increases"), I highly doubt it will ever happen.


EDIT: oh, and I was corrected/educated on "automatic weapons" by several gun-guys later in the thread, mea culpa. I mean assault weapons in general. To hunt, you need a rifle. To protect yourself against other gun nuts (understandable in America) you need a hand-gun. Maybe even a hand-gun that holds a nice big clip. And that's it. There is never, ever a reason to own a semi-automatic rifle that can hold a bazillion bullets and laser-targeting and night-vision and a scope and all that other bullshit, except for one reason: because you like guns and you enjoy owning and using that implement of death. You are not hunting any animals with it (that you need to) and it's completely unnecessary to protect yourself. Which was my over-arching point when I mentioned "automatic" weapons.

[Godson]

A gun is only a weapon when used as such.

Aiming an assault rifle is easier than aiming a pistol.

And there are some animals that are hunted mainly in the late night and super early morning when visibility is zero which almost requires night vision or night time aids (I do NOT condone spotlighting.)

[thesameguy]

TR, there is so much flawed in what wrote I am not going to start, but this downright offensive:


Is it a fear thing? Are all American inherently paranoid? And maybe they should be, with crime as rampant as it supposedly is...

"Gun owners" are not the whole of Americans, they are a small subset. "Gun enthusiasts" are a smaller subset still. "Gun owning wackos" are a tiny, tiny, very vocal minority. You are painting an entire people with an offensive brush. Blacks are criminals, Christians are homophobes. Bullshit. I am an anti-gun non gun owning American who has never once in his life feared for gun violence. I am MOST Americans. Get off your high horse.

[overpowered]

I wouldn't call it a small subset. About 1/3 of americans have guns in their homes. It's a minority, but it's a non-trival minority. Otherwise, I agree about the enthusiasts and wackos.

We also have almost as many guns as people.

[tigeraid]

A gun is only a weapon when used as such.



I do not agree with this statement. The same nonsense argument that "you might as well ban cars and knives because cars and knives kill people too!"

Cars exist as a mode of transport, that happens to kill some people. Knives exist as a tool for carving, cutting, eating, prying and digging, and they happen to kill some people. Banning cars would grind civilization to a halt. Banning knives would be virtually impossible anyway, and likely do the same.

Guns exist to take life. Whether it's animal or human, they are implements of killing, period. If you go to a gun range and practice with your toys, you are still practicing to kill SOMETHING. And again I'm not at all against hunting, this isn't an anti-hunting argument.

But no, they are not a "tool that can also kill." They are a tool that specifically exists to kill.

[tigeraid]

tsg: and maybe it should be offensive? Maybe it's okay to hear non-Americans' opinions on why the entire rest of the world thinks you're all fucking looney?

EDIT: and it's not intended as an insult, it's intended as an open-ended question from an incredulous observer.

As Jim Jeffries rightly says, if you wanna say "fuck it, I love guns, you can't have my guns" and that's your only reason for owning guns, well, good on ya. We'll keep calling you looney, but who gives a fuck.

But don't shadow your true reason for owning the fucking things with absurdest arguments like "protecting my freedom" and "defending against an oppressive regime" or some other bullshit. I have a friend who's into gun-range shit, shooting and such, and owns various rifles. He's invited me to participate, and I refuse simply because, being a car guy, being a tech guy, I KNOW that if I get into guns, I too will enjoy them for their technology, their power and the skill required. I need another expensive hobby like I need a hole in the head, so I don't do it. I understand the DRAW to being a gun enthusiast.

[Godson]

I do not agree with this statement. The same nonsense argument that "you might as well ban cars and knives because cars and knives kill people too!"

Cars exist as a mode of transport, that happens to kill some people. Knives exist as a tool for carving, cutting, eating, prying and digging, and they happen to kill some people. Banning cars would grind civilization to a halt. Banning knives would be virtually impossible anyway, and likely do the same.

Guns exist to take life. Whether it's animal or human, they are implements of killing, period. If you go to a gun range and practice with your toys, you are still practicing to kill SOMETHING. And again I'm not at all against hunting, this isn't an anti-hunting argument.

But no, they are not a "tool that can also kill." They are a tool that specifically exists to kill.


Do you want to ban Bows and arrows? They were designed to kill.


As Jim Jeffries rightly says, if you wanna say "fuck it, I love guns, you can't have my guns" and that's your only reason for owning guns, well, good on ya. We'll keep calling you looney, but who gives a fuck.

But don't shadow your true reason for owning the fucking things with absurdest arguments like "protecting my freedom" and "defending against an oppressive regime" or some other bullshit. I have a friend who's into gun-range shit, shooting and such, and owns various rifles. He's invited me to participate, and I refuse simply because, being a car guy, being a tech guy, I KNOW that if I get into guns, I too will enjoy them for their technology, their power and the skill required. I need another expensive hobby like I need a hole in the head, so I don't do it. I understand the DRAW to being a gun enthusiast.


So you call us names for liking them, then you say that you can see why we enjoy them? Get off your high horse.

[thesameguy]

tsg: and maybe it should be offensive? Maybe it's okay to hear non-Americans' opinions on why the entire rest of the world thinks you're all fucking looney?

Like Whites think Blacks are looney? Or like Christians think Muslims are looney? Look, man, not everybody lives in the same way. Not everyone does the same thing. The American version of liberty and self-sovereignty is possibly a little different that what goes in Japan or Germany. For example, fifty years ago we did not put a guy in power bent on genocide. Maybe the same thing that lets Germans have a low gun homicide rate or Japan have a low gun homicide rate isn't the lack of guns but a cultural predisposition. The same kind that builds gas chambers for Jews or continually and materially oppresses women. Every culture has its pros on cons. Some Muslims fly planes into buildings and some Americans like to shoot up a playground now and then. It doesn't mean Muslims are flawed or evil or should be mocked, and frankly I don't think you do either. I am baffled at why you think it's okay to turn that cannon on America, the place that keeps you safe from dirty, job-stealing Mexicans. Of course I don't really mean Mexicans are dirty, but I think by invoking such a stereotype we can have a larger conversation about why they steal our jobs. Did I do that right?


I wouldn't call it a small subset. About 1/3 of americans have guns in their homes. It's a minority, but it's a non-trival minority. Otherwise, I agree about the enthusiasts and wackos.

We also have almost as many guns as people.

I guess I don't know what constitutes a small subset, but 1 out 4 or 1 out of 3 is certainly not sufficient ratios to generate a reasonable stereotype. "Americans love guns" is not a statistically valid statement no matter how you cut it. Americans are, if anything, statistically ambivalent about guns.

Edit: What America has is concentrations of wealth in relatively small groups which allows those small groups a disproportionate vote in how this ship gets steered. If you want to say anything damning about America, it's that we have wackos with a lot of money who have undue influence on our laws. The problem as it applies to guns is that the NRA puts "gun ownership" at the top of its to do list, and is not going to stand by and allow any encroachment on that right for fear of exploiting a chink in the armor. Requiring education or better certification would be that chink, and it's a pathetic position - but their position nonetheless.

And that said, anyone who thinks you can take 350,000,000 whatevers out of the hands of 100,000,000 people by ANY means is fucking nuts. So, regardless of the merit of banning guns, it's a pointless discussion. There is no methodology that exists to force that to happen. The only way it happens is when people want to give up their whatevers. In terms of guns, clearly we don't think the risk of guns is any more real than the risk of coke or meth. Because we do those things, the incentives for not doing them are not sufficient.

[tigeraid]

Do you want to ban Bows and arrows? They were designed to kill.

I never said I wanted guns banned. Hunting is perfectly acceptable, and a valuable practice. Reasonable rifle ownership, properly licensed, vetted, and background-checked. And bows and arrows are equally as useful for similar purpose. Should those bows and arrows shoot 15 arrows per second, I might consider that a little ridiculous.



So you call us names for liking them, then you say that you can see why we enjoy them? Get off your high horse.

I may not have been clear enough in my rant, and after all I just pasted it from like 3 years ago. My argument is two-fold:

A) societies with severe gun laws have virtually no gun crime, and people in those societies generally don't think about them one way or another, and it does not affect their lives. And these facts never seem to make a difference to pro-gun folks. BUT, having said that, I fully acknowledge that banning guns is not only virtually impossible in your country, but that it would lead to civil war.

B) the "culture of the gun" is chiefly the reason gun violence exists the way it does in the USA. And the culture is duplicitous: most (but not all) gun owners rail on and on about the second amendment, about protecting themselves and their family, and about needing to fight an oppressive regime. Other gun owners simply come right out and say "I like guns, I think they're cool. I will continue to play with them." And I would rather hear THAT than the first bullshit. There's an understanding, however flawed, to be had there.

[tigeraid]

Like Whites think Blacks are looney? Or like Christians think Muslims are looney? Look, man, not everybody lives in the same way. Not everyone does the same thing. The American version of liberty and self-sovereignty is possibly a little different that what goes in Japan or Germany. For example, fifty years ago we did not put a guy in power bent on genocide. Maybe the same thing that lets Germans have a low gun homicide rate or Japan have a low gun homicide rate isn't the lack of guns but a cultural predisposition.


Race is not culture. Race is not religion.

Yes, I can look at a different CULTURE and think they're looney. Yes I abso-fuckin-LUTELY can look at Muslims AND Christians and think they're looney. I do it all the time. And when that looney-ness spills into either violence or affects others lives negatively (via political policy or bullshit moral policing), I feel I have a RIGHT to do so.

But you're absolutely right, the American way of life vs a German or Japanese way of life has just as much to do with as the physical weapons. Which is why I speak of the Culture of the Gun and all its sordid problems. It's ALSO why I said that America can and never will ban guns, because it simply will not be allowed to happen.

Your line of thinking is perfectly acceptable: that maybe if we flooded Germany with guns right now, nothing would change and the murder rate would stay roughly the same. It would be interesting to see, though I don't see a plausible way of testing it. So I'm not sure there's a point, and is that not really just condemning your country as gun-violent, exactly what Godson is so insulted by?

There's two sides to this discussion: a) what to do about the problem and b) how the rest of the world sees, and deals with the problem. And a lot of folks, such as Godson, do not like hearing what other countries and cultures think about it. Is the assumption, then, that there's nothing to learn about the issue outside the country?

I assume you're proposing to attack the problem at its source, programs to assist with mental illness, look for early warning signs, try to teach kids to avoid the culture of the gun, as well as crime in general. All noble goals, and necessary, absolutely. But in the meantime, why not some useful, logical restrictions to gun ownership to help? If it saves even a hundred lives a year, and the only result is a minor inconvenience for a "responsible" gun owner of waiting a week for his background check?

[thesameguy]

Race is not culture. Race is not religion.

Yes, I can look at a different CULTURE and think they're looney. Yes I abso-fuckin-LUTELY can look at Muslims AND Christians and think they're looney. I do it all the time. And when that looney-ness spills into either violence or affects others lives negatively (via political policy or bullshit moral policing), I feel I have a RIGHT to do so.

Don't even try and defend your stereotyping. People don't choose where they're born any more than they choose their skin color, it's not okay to stereotype based on skin color and it's not okay to stereotype based on birthplace. Or anything else.


There's two sides to this discussion: a) what to do about the problem and b) how the rest of the world sees, and deals with the problem. And a lot of folks, such as Godson, do not like hearing what other countries and cultures think about it. Is the assumption, then, that there's nothing to learn about the issue outside the country?

a) The thing to do is focus on the problem, which very well might be that Death of Intellectualism OP posted elsewhere. The issue is not guns, gays, or global warming. Those are boondoggles. Those are people in power latching onto ultimately trivial subjects and obfuscating the real issue with idiotic arguments. The issue in this country (and maybe others) is a bizarre fascination with reveling in ignorance. The same thing that causes a man to stockpile military hardware causes a man to waste a moment opposing gay marriage or argue about greenhouse emissions. Ignorance and a total inability to focus on items of real import because they're mired in total bullshit.

b) Who the fuck cares what the rest of the sees or thinks? Germany doesn't have a 3.8m square mile land mass and Japan doesn't have 350 million people. Nobody asks Germany for food or Japan for earthquake relief. Nobody asked the UK to save them from Germany. I'm not saying this from some patriotic or jingoistic place in my heart, I'm using examples from history to illustrate the point that the challenges America faces are not the same challenges other countries in the world faces, and that maybe some of the things that make us appear to be a bunch of gun waving crazies also results in us responding pretty promptly when needed. Trying to extrapolate things that work on an island nation into things that might work on an enormous continent is like trying to extrapolate how Walmart might be successful based on what Bob's General Store does. The scale is wrong, the pieces are different. I don't think Godson has any aversion to hearing what others say, but I do think he, like me gets irritated when people suggest "It works over here, you try it" has any merit. Because it doesn't. It is, I'm sorry, dumb.


I assume you're proposing to attack the problem at its source, programs to assist with mental illness, look for early warning signs, try to teach kids to avoid the culture of the gun, as well as crime in general. All noble goals, and necessary, absolutely. But in the meantime, why not some useful, logical restrictions to gun ownership to help? If it saves even a hundred lives a year, and the only result is a minor inconvenience for a "responsible" gun owner of waiting a week for his background check?

As I have said repeatedly, I am in 100% support of anything that makes guns more difficult to get, up to and including banning them outright. What I have also said, repeatedly, is that organizations wield unbalanced power and getting such legislation to go anywhere is probably not going to work out. We had a deuce of a time passing legislation to help people stay healthy, do you really think there is going to be much progress on keeping a couple hundred extra people alive? Puhleeze. Like I said at the beginning, this is a pointless discussion. People are not going to give up what they don't want to give up. The solution to any problem is create a scenario where the problem solves itself. I don't have nearly the brain power nor the expertise to work on constructing those scenarios, but I assure you that taking the remote control away doesn't solve shit, ever.

[tigeraid]

Don't even try and defend your stereotyping. People don't choose where they're born any more than they choose their skin color, it's not okay to stereotype based on skin color and it's not okay to stereotype based on birthplace. Or anything else.



I don't believe I was stereotyping (though again, I did not re-read my pasted rant from 3 years ago)... I don't believe all gun owners are insane. I said many are, and the Culture of the Gun in general is. Are you honestly saying that, because someone is raised in a nation where the gun is worshiped, and that person ends up turning into a "gun nut" (in the worst sense) that I'm not permitted to say "wow, that guys fucking crazy" just because some OTHER guys who own guns are NOT crazy?

If it makes this minor bitchfest between us go away, I would replace "Americans" in my pasted rant with "some of those American who are ignorant gun nuts." If that helps.

[thesameguy]

I don't believe I was stereotyping (though again, I did not re-read my pasted rant from 3 years ago)... I don't believe all gun owners are insane. I said many are, and the Culture of the Gun in general is. Are you honestly saying that, because someone is raised in a nation where the gun is worshiped, and that person ends up turning into a "gun nut" (in the worst sense) that I'm not permitted to say "wow, that guys fucking crazy" just because some OTHER guys who own guns are NOT crazy?

If it makes this minor bitchfest between us go away, I would replace "Americans" in my pasted rant with "some of those American who are ignorant gun nuts." If that helps.

The fact that you keep returning to "where the gun is worshipped" is symptomatic of your greater bias. People in America worship the gun. People in Canada worship the gun. People everywhere worship the gun. That does not make America a gun-worshipping nation any more than it makes Iraq a suicide bomb worshipping nation. There are crazy people everywhere, and generalizing an entire group based on the idiosyncrasies of one of their components is just flat-out wrong. It is the same faulty logic. And, perhaps wrongly, I interpret those type of simplifications to be part of the issue in solving problems. Treating a skilled rifle hunter as a "gun toting wacko" puts that person on the defensive, and now he has to choose whether to side with the people who want to ban guns or the actual gun toting wackos who think everyone should have one. It's not only in error, it's bad politics, a roadblock to getting anything productive done. Referring to an entire nation as gun-worshipped is no different. Stereotypes are obstacles to problem-solving. Don't do it.

[tigeraid]

So you don't agree that America has a greater number of people of this kind than elsewhere in the world? Or are you saying that, while you have the greatest number, the culture that they are raised in ALSO raises responsible gun owners, and therefore should be ignored?

[Drachen596]

The side of town i live in is where probably 90 to 95% of all of them in this place happen.

I have never worried about it happening to me. Ever. The only guns i see besides those owned by family are those carries by police.

Btw basically every shooting death here is an illegally owned gun.

[thesameguy]

So you don't agree that America has a greater number of people of this kind than elsewhere in the world? Or are you saying that, while you have the greatest number, the culture that they are raised in ALSO raises responsible gun owners, and therefore should be ignored?

I am saying that until every man, woman, and child is issued a firearm on their 16th birthday and shooting is taught in primary school that characterizing the American people as a whole as gun-worshipping is sensationalism and nothing more. Employing sensationalism in any conversation is as unproductive as stereotyping in problem solving. Don't do it.

I am not and have not commented on the number of gun owning wackos is in the US versus other countries, nor have I commented on what the effect of American culture is on the ratio of responsible vs. irresponsible gun owners. That would be an inane conversation as I have no evidence to support either side of that discussion. What I have suggested is that a) attempting to draw parallels between what happens here and what happens elsewhere has no purpose, no possible useful outcome, as there are about zero common factors, and b) discussing the legal status of guns is somewhere between moot and counterproductive.

[Dicknose]

Nobody asked the UK to save them from Germany. I'm not saying this from some patriotic or jingoistic place in my heart, I'm using examples from history to illustrate the point that the challenges America faces are not the same challenges other countries in the world faces, and that maybe some of the things that make us appear to be a bunch of gun waving crazies also results in us responding pretty promptly when needed.
Sorry - An aside

Desperate re-write of history!
The UK declared war on Germany to protect other countries, not itself.
And the USA was not "prompt" in helping, it only joined after it was attacked.

I think your logic is apply flipped, UK helped others before they were attacked.
USA joined only when attacked.

But carry on...

You own guns so you can win world wars and save the free world...

[thesameguy]

Sorry about the shitty rewrite of history, but you have completely overlooked my entire point splendidly.

Hint: Correlation does not equal causation.

[Drachen596]

Good thing the US didnt do anything silly like supply war materials even before declaring war in 1941 right? Glad we didnt supply the Allies loads and loads of guns and such.

[thesameguy]

Or food. The UK would have starved without boatload after boatload of it.

Maybe worth noting at this time that war-mongering Euros still broke from WW1 couldn't pay for the supplies that legally neutral gun toting wackos in America provided? I don't know.

It's beside the point. The point is that all groups of people have pros and cons, and maybe our pro is routinely providing aid for foreigners and our con is we kill ourselves. I don't know. But the suggestion that the legality of guns CAUSES gun deaths is not provable, and sufficient evidence exists on both sides of the argument to render the argument pointless, notwithstanding the simple fact that changing the legal status of guns is s preposterous notion from an implementation standpoint much less a legislative one.

[Dicknose]

Yes the US helped prior to 1941.

But the attitude that you, and only you, came to fight when asked is not only untrue, its almost exactly the opposite of the truth.
Other countries came when asked for help. The US only entered the war when attacked. The example you gave was terrible as you should have swapped UK and USA to make it accurate.

So please continue with trying to justify your fallacy.
And to be more specific - I mean the fallacy about ww2, not the fallacy about guns.

And I do actually wonder if the propaganda that is burnt into Americans (like "we won ww2 and saved everyone") is part of the national psyche that has enabled this gun culture.
John Wayne, Rambo and the US military kicking butt - hoo rah!
The nations identity does seem very tightly tied to the gun.

[overpowered]

How would WWII have gone had the Japanese not attacked the U.S. and the U.S. had stayed out of it? Do you think that the allies would have prevailed?

[thesameguy]

Yes the US helped prior to 1941.
And I do actually wonder if the propaganda that is burnt into Americans (like "we won ww2 and saved everyone") is part of the national psyche that has enabled this gun culture.
John Wayne, Rambo and the US military kicking butt - hoo rah!
The nations identity does seem very tightly tied to the gun.

Curious how long you lived here, and how long you were enrolled in schools here...

[KillerB]

I dunno about you tsg and op, but I value my time too much to go down the rabbit hole with the same yapping mouths on this subject once again.

[Dicknose]

Curious how long you lived here, and how long you were enrolled in schools here...

I lived in the USA in 1989
Didn't do school there.
Have been to 38 states.

My schooling was in Australia (and while at school my dad served in Vietnam war and no, it wasn't for America)

So which school taught you about ww2 and how the USA decided to save the world?
Do you think this wide spread ignorance is a fault of the school system, maybe it's cultural self denial mixed with ego. Or is it a result of propaganda?
Why do Americans have such a different attitude to guns than most other countries?

Maybe these issues are related.
I think the "we are the best" attitude explains why people resist comparisons to other countries, especially if it doesn't match your strongly held view. Also easy to ignore how much of an issue it is when you haven't experienced life in places where gun grime is much lower. Even ignoring the crime, the number of accidental gun deaths is huge.
Stats say having in a gun in the house is higher risk than not having a gun, but I doubt there would be many gun owners who thinks that applies to them. Their guns protect them.

Is the amount of climate deniers, creationists, anti-vax and other "don't believe the science" types also a reflection of this?
Is the "it's my god damn right" attitude too strong. It's my right to deny, my right to a gun.
Has people's right to do stupid things become so strong, so "the American way" that's it's more important than lives?

[Dicknose]

How would WWII have gone had the Japanese not attacked the U.S. and the U.S. had stayed out of it? Do you think that the allies would have prevailed?
Interesting question.
I strongly suspect yes they would. The Battle of Britain and the German troubles on the eastern fronts with Russia probably stopped Germany from winning. They may have held on for a stalemate and a better compromise to end the war.
But I also guess that it could easily have ended with Russia simply winning and dominating most of Europe.

Asia and the pacific would have been a lot different. Especially Australia. Japan may have even invaded.

I wasn't saying the USA didn't play a major role.
Just a little disappointed to see such a blatantly wrong view of it.
Especially the "nobody asked the UK", yet they stepped up. Effectively they (and France) started it as a world war by declaring war against Germany. It is strongly suspected that Hitler thought Britain would remain neutral.
The U.S. was asked many times and said no. They stayed neutral until attacked.
Which would be considered the more noble act?
Why do many Americans have the view that it the other way around?

[Rare White Ape]

How would WWII have gone had the Japanese not attacked the U.S. and the U.S. had stayed out of it? Do you think that the allies would have prevailed?

In Europe, the Russians smashed Germany. Pretty much fucked them up. They took heavy losses while doing so; Europe would have been won had the Yanks entered or not.

And the Pacific theater could possibly have remained a war between China and Japan if the Japs didn't go after America. But that assumes non-escalation of relations between Japan and a number of European powers who stopped supplying them with resources to feed their Chinese campaign.

[Conman]

in my best roofer voice: gun control is hitting what you aim at.

owning guns is an inherent RIGHT in the U.S. I know that is hard for some of you from other countries to understand. It was an important part in the establishment of this country in both hunting and war. And yes DN, it is that deep seated here.

We are so pro gun in this country that it is only second to the freedom to express our opinions and our freedom of (not from) religion (and of free press and not being harrassed by the gov't for having an opinion).

It is what makes the U.S of A what it is today. Without guns we would be a few loosely related (probably independent) state/countries in the east, a chunk of mexico in the middle and out west, canuckistan wilderness in the northwest, with some weird spanish/french conglomeration mixed in the southeast. And those pesky native americans running amuck everywhere. Who the hell would save the damn world from tyranny and oppression (and get rich doing it) then? By God, you'd all be speaking German and goose-stepping across Europe.

Seriously, we will never eradicate guns. We can implement some measures (that are mostly already in place) to limit nutjobs and known felons from purchasing them legally. But, those that wish to obtain guns, will get them. Just as those that wish to obtain any illegal item, can get that item if they so desire and are willing to pay the price for it. Drugs, child porn, guns, uranium, bull semen, breast milk. People want it, they get it.

One thing I think most non-Americans can't understand is the relative tranquility in the average American's life. The media would love for y'all to believe it is the Wild Wild West and you can't leave your home for fear of being shot down in the street. In average America, your chance of being involved in a gun related crime is miniscule. And I live in an area where there are more guns than people. I own several myself. I have handguns, shotguns, rifles of various caliber. I hunt and target shoot. I also conceal carry, not everyday, but I have that RIGHT and choose to exercise it at certain times.

As for Tigeraid - dude get a grip. What is an "assault rifle" and why is it different than my hunting rifle? What makes it any more capable of killing someone than any other gun? And what exactly is the threshold for a high capacity magazine?

[Rare White Ape]

By God, you'd all be speaking German and goose-stepping across Europe.

At least the trains would run on time.

[21Kid]

At least the trains would run on time.what trains? :smh:


owning guns is an inherent RIGHT in the U.S. I know that is hard for some of you from other countries to understand. It was an important part in the establishment of this country in both hunting and war. And yes DN, it is that deep seated here. I never understood how people think this still applies? This was deemed a necessary right when it was written over 200 years ago, when muskets had to be loaded by hand by both sides. In the modern age it is completely irrelevant. How will your personal weapons possibly help stop an invasion today? Or be of any help to the massive supply of tanks/jets/bombers/drones that our army already has?

Hunting? Sure, why not... Bolt action rifles or single barrel shotguns are fine
To protect yourself? Sure, handguns are okay if you really feel threatened. Anything more than that, you are kidding yourself.


Seriously, we will never eradicate guns. We can implement some measures (that are mostly already in place) to limit nutjobs and known felons from purchasing them legally. But, those that wish to obtain guns, will get them.
The problem as I see it, is that rules are not universally applied and too easy to circumvent. All you have to do is go to a gun show and ANYONE can buy a gun immediately.

[Crazed_Insanity]

And I do actually wonder if the propaganda that is burnt into Americans (like "we won ww2 and saved everyone") is part of the national psyche that has enabled this gun culture.
John Wayne, Rambo and the US military kicking butt - hoo rah!
The nations identity does seem very tightly tied to the gun.

As you can see from Rambo, in order to fight the US authorities, you need firepower!

Rambo can only kick ass as an American! :p

Anyway, back to serious, I really don't see how winning WWII contribute to our gun culture. Americans have owned firearms since the beginning... and their purpose of owning firearms is for hunting and self defense. Do not fire until fired upon. I have no issues with such attitude. Kinda like Federation's prime directive. We just shouldn't interfere..., but of course US govt always interferes behind the scene behind American people's backs! Supplying and getting involved with the allies unofficially is fine in a moral sense, but supplying and training terrorists who are enemies of our enemies probably wasn't so wise...

Anyway, back to gun control, I think gun owners need to have their health and mental health checked annually. When you fail, either find ways to pass it again... or surrender all your weapons to somebody you trust and still fit to own firearms... or just surrender them to police. Also, just like neighbors are notified of pedophiles in the neighborhood, all gun owners ought to be on some kind of public list so that I can look up whether if some of my colleagues/acquaintances are gun owners or not... and be on the look out when they divorce or when they got fired or going thru whatever traumatic event. Also, if you don't know how to lock up your weapons safely and some crazy got a hold of your gun and use it to commit a crime, you will also lose your right to bear arms for the rest of your life. That's all I can think of for now...

[thesameguy]

I lived in the USA in 1989
Didn't do school there.
Have been to 38 states.

You sound like an expert with timely, relevant information about the state of this union. My apologies, sir.

[Jason]

I greatly dislike guns. BUT, it's going to take a miracle for any sort of serious gun control legislation to happen.

What can happen though, is making a serious investment in the lower classes, to lower crime in general.

Regarding criminals and prisons:

End the war on drugs, legalize minor stuff, rehabilitate users and addicts, imprison serious dealers
Related to the above, get rid of privatized prisons. A for profit system with minimum prisoner quota requirements is just wrong, for obvious reasons. Puts pressure on communities to imprison when unnecessary
Focus on rehabilitation, and education, instead of punishment in said prisons. Try to get these people back into communities as productive members of society. Most former criminals exit prison with absolute no hope of turning it around
Work to remove systemic racism and corruption among law enforcement agencies with methods of better transparency


Social programs and economic status needs:

Increased minimum wages
Public infrastructure programs
Fewer exported jobs (hello TPP)
Better education investment in low income areas
Universal healthcare INCLUDING mental healthcare


Guns

Start limiting the manufacture of private firearms, if possible
Start an OPTIONAL gun trade in program. Trade guns in for tax breaks, or something.
Work on changing the culture of gun obsession



So basically, none of this is going to happen any time soon... but we have problems with gun availability, legal or otherwise, we have problems with gun worship in our relatively violent culture, and then we have problems with lower classes being marginalized, and suffering, and generally crime happens more often among desperate people. You bring the quality of life up for people currently suffering, you give them a path, you change a society.

[thesameguy]

You fucking socialist.

Well put. Agree 100%.

[Dicknose]

You sound like an expert with timely, relevant information about the state of this union. My apologies, sir.

Apology accepted.
I must admit I haven't been to the U.S. since April and won't be there again till August. So I am a little out of date.

But thanks for showing me how much a typical Americans world view has improved since 1989, I was shocked by how insular they were, but good to see that 25 years later they are so much better informed.

And when were you last in Australia, Asia or Europe or maybe even Africa?

[thesameguy]

A long time, but I don't purport to know how people from those places act or think. I assume different from here and different from each other, but it's immaterial because I don't live there and I don't have the same problems or same advantages that they might. I assume to a reasonable degree they know what they're doing and are better suited than I to understanding and managing whatever their concerns might be. In short, I do not form much less reserve judgment on people in other places, which in addition to obsession with firearms might be differentiating factor between American me and Australian you.

[overpowered]

http://i0.wp.com/www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/rick-perry-shooting.jpg

[novicius]

You bring the quality of life up for people currently suffering, you give them a path, you change a society.
Very well said, J. :up: :up:

Put me down as another vote to re-write the 2nd amendment.

[mk]

If memory serves there's a study showing that general education lowers agressive reactions towards name callings.

Is there a study of mental age changes between combatting marines and regular army men?

A survey,
how you feel in scale of +/- 5 about AR15 bump fire stock?

For alternative WWII,
true red army was in Siberia prior Pearl Harbour waiting possible attack from Japan.

[Rare White Ape]

what trains? :smh:

I'm referring to the morbidly stereotypical German efficiency, of course.

What atrocities did your imagination dredge up?

[tigeraid]

I greatly dislike guns. BUT, it's going to take a miracle for any sort of serious gun control legislation to happen.

What can happen though, is making a serious investment in the lower classes, to lower crime in general.

etc etc etc


I cannot disagree with any of this.

[Jason]

I'm referring to the morbidly stereotypical German efficiency, of course.

What atrocities did your imagination dredge up?
He's basically saying we lack a robust rail system here.

[Rikadyn]

I never understood how people think this still applies? This was deemed a necessary right when it was written over 200 years ago, when muskets had to be loaded by hand by both sides. In the modern age it is completely irrelevant. How will your personal weapons possibly help stop an invasion today? Or be of any help to the massive supply of tanks/jets/bombers/drones that our army already has?


Actually, that's a simple scenario. A properly planned decapitation strike would render the the chain of command useless and possibly give an invading force long enough to gain a foothold. I mean it would require a seriously well planned strategy and we're unlikely to face a threat but it's not entirely impossible, BUT it's like when someone says 'what could private firearms ever do against a state backed military' and precisely ignores Iraq,Afghanistan and Vietnam, places where partisan armies have pretty much rendered standard military useless.

[LHutton]

With proper licensing I don't see the problem. I don't agree that anyone should be allowed to go buy a gun and leave it to the police to tell if it was legal. Licensing should check criminal and medical background on an annual basis and keep a record of who owns what. Unfitness to carry a license should be communicated via doctors where need be without going into medical confidentiality.

[speedpimp]

That might be hard to do with HIPA compliance laws.

[Godson]

Actually it would be in direct conflict with HIPAA

[overpowered]

http://steadfastlutherans.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Jesus-Gun.jpg

[thesameguy]

In a literal sense, sure, but in a practical sense of course that works - in the same way that a medical condition can prevent you from getting a driver's license. You are diagnosed, doc phones the DMV, you lose your license. Happens all the time, temporarily (say, drugs) and permanently (say, epilepsy).

[Jason]

With proper licensing I don't see the problem. I don't agree that anyone should be allowed to go buy a gun and leave it to the police to tell if it was legal. Licensing should check criminal and medical background on an annual basis and keep a record of who owns what. Unfitness to carry a license should be communicated via doctors where need be without going into medical confidentiality.


That might be hard to do with HIPA compliance laws.


Actually it would be in direct conflict with HIPAA

It is something to be considered though, some sort of way to know mental health status before handing over a firearm to someone.

[21Kid]

Actually, that's a simple scenario. A properly planned decapitation strike would render the the chain of command useless and possibly give an invading force long enough to gain a foothold. I mean it would require a seriously well planned strategy and we're unlikely to face a threat but it's not entirely impossible, BUT it's like when someone says 'what could private firearms ever do against a state backed military' and precisely ignores Iraq,Afghanistan and Vietnam, places where partisan armies have pretty much rendered standard military useless.

Across all levels of defense? The many branches of military and each subset, national guard, county and local police? There's no way to dismantle our current defense fast enough for no one to notice. And even then, you think the people that are trained to handle these situations would just sit around and let our citizens fight to secure us?

So basically Red Dawn? :lol:

[21Kid]

I'm referring to the morbidly stereotypical German efficiency, of course.

What atrocities did your imagination dredge up?
He's basically saying we lack a robust rail system here.Technically, we have a rail system. It's just a hundred years old and obsolete.

Come'on Hyperloop!!!

[Godson]

Across all levels of defense? The many branches of military and each subset, national guard, county and local police? There's no way to dismantle our current defense fast enough for no one to notice. And even then, you think the people that are trained to handle these situations would just sit around and let our citizens fight to secure us?

So basically Red Dawn? :lol:

Essentially it could happen in a less populated area. As spread out as Montana or the Dakotas are, if it was done fast enough and spread out, it is plausible. This is based on the difficulty we have had in dealing with the mid east. Russia included with those difficultues

[Rikadyn]

Essentially it could happen in a less populated area. As spread out as Montana or the Dakotas are, if it was done fast enough and spread out, it is plausible. This is based on the difficulty we have had in dealing with the mid east. Russia included with those difficultues

Actually now that I've thought about it a bit more, I don't think it'd be tactically winnable at all regardless of the source.

I think the real problem would be a concentrate effort on a mid-size major city. While being spread out makes it tactically difficult, as the shape of the battle is amorphous, in an urban environment, you'd be hamstrung with the idea of collateral damage being entirely unacceptable. Also as much as they like to think it, I wouldn't rely on the cops for anything in a situation like that accept for them to suddenly start shooting everyone and anyone (more than usual). A civillian rebellion would be able to at best slow the capture or provide a resistance (ala french resistance) to occupation. Partisan battles are never great things to deal with...

[Godson]

Yeah. I was meaning from the point of initial insurgence. I should have stated that.

Tsg has pretty much hit all points of why I am frustrated, leaving me with nothing to add.

[LHutton]

Actually it would be in direct conflict with HIPAA

HIPAA?

[thesameguy]

HIPAA is a Federal ruleset which defines standards for storing and transmitting "PHI" (personal healthcare information). It's a fairly complex ruleset, but at the end of the day serves a couple simple purposes - namely ensuring that stored medical data is well protected, and ensuring that medical data is securely transmitted.

In this example, a gun store couldn't just ring a hospital and say "Tell me about my applicant" as HIPAA would prevent that interaction. However, someone wishing to buy a gun could fill out a release that allows a gun store to obtain those records as the owner of the medical records (the applicant) is at liberty to disclose his or her own records to whomever they wish. Where things might become complicated is what happens to that data, because typically (but not necessarily) the gun store would then be responsible for keeping those records safe. Of course, the easy solution is that the gun store would simply dispose of the records immediately following the transaction.

There are obviously issues with a scenario this simple, but that's how HIPAA figures into it.

[LHutton]

I was thinking more in terms of the doctor simply informing a proposed gun licensing agency (like the DMV but for guns) that the person is no longer fit to own a gun, and they then revoke the person's license and I ask them to hand in the licensed weapons (which would be recorded on their license with every purchase) within 7 days, giving them a full refund. No confidential details need be involved, just a gun fit - yes/no - type affair.

[thesameguy]

Yeah, that'd be my vision as well. That's how driver's license revocations/suspensions work, no reason a gun license needs to be any different.

There are certainly significant logistics in what happens next - do you turn in your gun? Is it held for you? Who holds it? If you don't turn it in, do the cops come after you? No idea. Any sort of regulation here is going to be complicated from an enforcement perspective.

I ultimately just don't have enough information to come to what I'd consider a useful opinion on this matter. I believe gun control is boondoggle from a variety of standpoints. People that want to do harm are going to do harm, whether it's driving a semi through a playground or burning down churches. I think attempts to legislate away tools of violence wastes resources that are better allocated towards managing causes of violence. I would much rather have more, better-educated police than a task force sent to collect firearms. I would rather have better [mental] healthcare than a bureaucracy that manages medical exceptions to gun licenses. I would rather have a ditch-digging public works program than bigger jails to house people who break gun possession laws.

In modern society where things are cheap and transport is easy I don't see a lot of value in bans on anything. I see huge value in giving people reasons and opportunities to get along. Our government has become so obsessed with validating itself with the creation of legislation that I believe it's lost sight of the actual goal. It'll all part of a broader myopia that affects us all.

[LHutton]

Yeah, that'd be my vision as well. That's how driver's license revocations/suspensions work, no reason a gun license needs to be any different.

There are certainly significant logistics in what happens next - do you turn in your gun? Is it held for you? Who holds it? If you don't turn it in, do the cops come after you? No idea. Any sort of regulation here is going to be complicated from an enforcement perspective.

I ultimately just don't have enough information to come to what I'd consider a useful opinion on this matter. I believe gun control is boondoggle from a variety of standpoints. People that want to do harm are going to do harm, whether it's driving a semi through a playground or burning down churches. I think attempts to legislate away tools of violence wastes resources that are better allocated towards managing causes of violence. I would much rather have more, better-educated police than a task force sent to collect firearms. I would rather have better [mental] healthcare than a bureaucracy that manages medical exceptions to gun licenses. I would rather have a ditch-digging public works program than bigger jails to house people who break gun possession laws.

In modern society where things are cheap and transport is easy I don't see a lot of value in bans on anything. I see huge value in giving people reasons and opportunities to get along. Our government has become so obsessed with validating itself with the creation of legislation that I believe it's lost sight of the actual goal. It'll all part of a broader myopia that affects us all.
I would basically implement a fine on top of admin costs for late handover and then give the GLA (Gun Licensing Authority) police powers to come and seize the unlicensed guns.

I broadly agree with the rest of it but you can't have crazy people with guns anymore than you can let blind people drive cars. The risk is at a level where government intervention is necessary. I don't believe in bans on certain types of weapon (they tried that twice in the UK and a third massacre still happened, they didn't repeat the mistake a third time) but I do believe in stricter licensing. Sure there are other ways of causing harm but not as conveniently and they don't lend themselves so well to a get-out-of-jail by shooting yourself in the head afterwards plan.

It would be nice if everyone could just get along, but unfortunately this is reality. Unemployment is a cause of violence but not having 100% employment is government policy and there are no plans to end it.

[Dicknose]

Need to be careful of having doctors get involved, mostly because it would discourage people for seeking professional help.
You could further alienate people who actually need help.

[thesameguy]

I broadly agree with the rest of it but you can't have crazy people with guns anymore than you can let blind people drive cars. The risk is at a level where government intervention is necessary.

Oh, for sure. I'm just not adequately versed in what is necessary to get a gun license in the first place, nevermind the fact that it does vary by state. A lot of people assert that gun control laws in most places are already quite strict and certainly adequate. The ratio of firearm crime vs. licensed weapons seems to support the idea that most people shooting other people aren't doing it with weapons carried legally. You see the same thing with drugs and even prostitution - the people being irresponsible are doing so totally outside the law. Making stricter laws doesn't stop the scary people, they weren't law-abiding to start with.


Need to be careful of having doctors get involved, mostly because it would discourage people for seeking professional help. You could further alienate people who actually need help.

It's very true, and personally I don't trust bureaucracies enough to suggest some centralized psyche eval prior getting a license. There is just no way that works out.

[Godson]

Oh, for sure. I'm just not adequately versed in what is necessary to get a gun license in the first place, nevermind the fact that it does vary by state. A lot of people assert that gun control laws in most places are already quite strict and certainly adequate. The ratio of firearm crime vs. licensed weapons seems to support the idea that most people shooting other people aren't doing it with weapons carried legally. You see the same thing with drugs and even prostitution - the people being irresponsible are doing so totally outside the law. Making stricter laws doesn't stop the scary people, they weren't law-abiding to start with.



It's very true, and personally I don't trust bureaucracies enough to suggest some centralized psyche eval prior getting a license. There is just no way that works out.


No license is required for purchase of a gun outside of a drivers license.

[thesameguy]

Not in California... gotta have an FSC to get any type of gun.

[Godson]

Well, California is kinda another country. ;)

[LHutton]

Oh, for sure. I'm just not adequately versed in what is necessary to get a gun license in the first place, nevermind the fact that it does vary by state. A lot of people assert that gun control laws in most places are already quite strict and certainly adequate. The ratio of firearm crime vs. licensed weapons seems to support the idea that most people shooting other people aren't doing it with weapons carried legally. You see the same thing with drugs and even prostitution - the people being irresponsible are doing so totally outside the law. Making stricter laws doesn't stop the scary people, they weren't law-abiding to start with.
Well that's another part of the problem, guns enter the system legally and then find their way to illegals via unrecorded weapon sales.



Need to be careful of having doctors get involved, mostly because it would discourage people for seeking professional help. You could further alienate people who actually need help.
Surely you could say the same about epilepsy and driving?

[Conman]

So, not having a drivers license kept my brother from driving for almost two years. Damn, I wonder who that guy was driving his car. Dumbasses.

Rules are not for rule-breakers. Locks are for honest people.

Any license to own or operate anything is for the law-abiding citizen. The nut jobs and law-breakers are going to do as they please. But please carry on in your utopian version of gun-control.

[thesameguy]

Well, three things are true:

1. Licensing requirements also potentially include education. Getting a gun license that requires accompanying education makes law-abiding citizens better gun owners. That's a good thing no matter how you slice it. If you, as a law-abiding citizen, hopped in a car to drive around without knowing the rules of the road you'd be a massive liability.
2. Just because law breakers will be law breakers doesn't eliminate the need to have a law, especially when there are clearly defined repercussions for breaking the law. Even law breakers do the math to be sure the crime is worth the risk of punishment. Some people do math poorly but a significant number of law-ambivalent types might just err on the side of right rather than incur punishment knowing where the line is.
3. Related to both, some people are just stupid. Some people don't know that driving a car after taking Sudafed is a bad idea, that's why we have a warning. Some people don't know they have a personality disorder (I am not joking *at all*) and that's why a doctor's opinion on someone undertaking a potentially dangerous course of action is useful.

[LHutton]

Showing a firearms certificate when buying a gun should at least be a minimum requirement in all states.

[Godson]

Says the guy from the UK.

[thesameguy]

Showing a firearms certificate when buying a gun should at least be a minimum requirement in all states.

Ten years ago I'd probably disagree, but in line with warnings on Sudafed and my general opinion of humanity right now, it seems reasonable.

[Freude am Fahren]

Someone posted a picture online of a bad car accident with the whole you wouldn't blame the car, you'd blame the driver who drove drunk, so don't blame guns, type caption.

And aside from the whole cars aren't around for the sole purpose of killing, My first thought was, "and that's why we don't have tests, licenses, registrations, taxes, pages and pages of safety regulations and laws, etc. on them either... oh wait..."

I'm totally not for getting rid of guns. I think personal protection, collectability, and sport are all valid reasons for gun ownership. I don't however think it should be the wild fucking west everywhere, and I can't understand the rationale behind people who do.

[LHutton]

Says the guy from the UK.
In the UK every firearm has to be registered on a license. I had to register both mine separately and have them approved pre-purchase.

[21Kid]

I'm totally not for getting rid of guns. I think personal protection, collectability, and sport are all valid reasons for gun ownership. I don't however think it should be the wild fucking west everywhere, and I can't understand the rationale behind people who do. Agreed. But, I'm not even sure who does believe that. I think most gun owners even support universal background checks.

[Freude am Fahren]

Yeah, most do, because most people are somewhat reasonable. It's the loud minority, and 'decision makers'. Any talk about regulations or reform turns into a "they're going to take our guns and repeal the 2nd amendment" from the likes of the NRA, Fox News, or the clown car of GOP presidential candidates. Even the conservative public mostly wants universal background checks.

[Godson]

In the UK every firearm has to be registered on a license. I had to register both mine separately and have them approved pre-purchase.

I understand this. However, as pointed out. The people that have the power won't because all hell will break loose. You seem to not understand this.


It doesn't bother me one iota, as I will still own the guns I want, I will still go through the paperwork and troubles so I can have some fun things to shoot every so often.

[LHutton]

Would the NRA really kick-off simply for requiring a gun license to be shown on purchase? Seems to me that would work in their favour ultimately. Slight reduction in gun crime, less hassle from the media, completely doesn't affect law-abiding gun owners.

[Godson]

It isn't the NRA that is the problem.

[LHutton]

Who then?

[21Kid]

Yeah, most do, because most people are somewhat reasonable. It's the loud minority, and 'decision makers'. Any talk about regulations or reform turns into a "they're going to take our guns and repeal the 2nd amendment" from the likes of the NRA, Fox News, or the clown car of GOP presidential candidates. Even the conservative public mostly wants universal background checks.
I think that is what annoys me the most. Lawmakers are basing our laws, against a vast popular opinion, because a very small minority will get upset about it. :erm: They're being the loudest, so they get what they want. :smh:

[novicius]

I'm totally not for getting rid of guns. I think personal protection, collectability, and sport are all valid reasons for gun ownership. I don't however think it should be the wild fucking west everywhere, and I can't understand the rationale behind people who do.
This, all of this -- you need a license to drive, you should damn well need a test and license to legally own a gun. It won't stop the criminal element from acquiring guns but it would be an arrestable offense in that case (as it should be).

Release the pot smokers and let the (eventual) illegal gun carriers break rocks instead.

[Freude am Fahren]

Also, aren't the majority of gun deaths (or injuries?) accidents? Tests/licensing would certainly help that, as would better laws/penalties for improper gun ownership. Apparently the thought of losing a child isn't enough for some parents to store their guns properly, maybe a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison would?

[MR2 Fan]

Would the NRA really kick-off simply for requiring a gun license to be shown on purchase? Seems to me that would work in their favour ultimately. Slight reduction in gun crime, less hassle from the media, completely doesn't affect law-abiding gun owners.

No, apparently they're against ANY new regulations as they think it's all some slippery slope to taking people's guns away....or that's what they tell their members.

[LHutton]

No, apparently they're against ANY new regulations as they think it's all some slippery slope to taking people's guns away....or that's what they tell their members.
I can actually believe that. Probably why they involved themselves in the Zimmerman trial even though that had fuck all to do with gun rights.

[Godson]

Who then?


Did the previous responses give you your answer?

[MR2 Fan]

I think that is what annoys me the most. Lawmakers are basing our laws, against a vast popular opinion, because a very small minority will get upset about it. :erm: They're being the loudest, so they get what they want. :smh:

If only we heard the true story about the healthcare and insurance industries actual power in Washington...if we think the NRA is bad.

[sandydandy]

Showing a firearms certificate when buying a gun should at least be a minimum requirement in all states. Is that not already standard procedure?

Seems pretty common sense to me.

[thesameguy]

Nope, not in all states, not for all types of guns.

[LHutton]

Is that not already standard procedure?

Seems pretty common sense to me.
I know, it's a complete no-brainer.

[Rikadyn]

It isn't the NRA that is the problem.

Actually they are a problem (we should really disuse the idea of the problem as a singularity, unless we want to look at it as a structural issue) on the grounds that they're an Industry Lobbyist organisation somehow made to seem like they speak for the people when all they are concerned with is their industry being able to continue making profits.

[Godson]

If they played their cards right, they would profit from this even more so.

[thesameguy]

Big organizations don't change their playbook, which is why Apple now owns the record business and Kodak is out of business.

[tigeraid]

Interesting read.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/how-americas-lax-gun-laws-help-mass-murderers-and-cripple-minority-communities-706



The numbers may help explain why an overwhelming majority of black Americans—75 percent according to a 2013 Washington Post/ABC News poll—support stronger gun control laws. Yet even in areas where local governments have enacted gun control measures, lax regulations elsewhere have sustained a robust network of unregulated private transactions that allow gun dealers to look the other way while supplying gangs and other criminals with a vast assortment of weapons.

This network leaves a place like Chicago, which remains crippled by violence despite relatively strict gun laws, hard-pressed to keep weapons off the street—as this New York Times map illustrates, anybody in the city who wants a gun need only take a short drive outside Cook County to get to a jurisdiction with much weaker regulations.

A similar situation has arisen in Maryland, which despite having some of the country's most stringent gun laws, has been plagued by violent crime in urban areas. Amid finger-pointing over the rioting that ravaged Baltimore earlier this year, it's worth pointing out that the majority of crime guns are trafficked in from outside the state. So while the gun policies Maryland has implemented—including a policy requiring individuals to pass a background check and obtain a permit prior to buying a firearm—have been shown to reliably reduce gun violence, neighboring states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia have much looser requirements, making it easy for weapons to flow across the border.

RELATED: Gun Control Will Not Save America from Racism

This haphazard patchworks of state and local gun laws has enabled many private gun dealers to effectively exploit gang violence and crime to boost sales. Chuck's Gun Shop, for example, which operates just outside Chicago, is responsible for selling at least 1,300 crime guns since 2008, and one study found that 20 percent of all guns used in Chicago crimes recovered within a year of purchase came from the store, because existing gun laws allow the store to sell firearms to criminals who would undoubtedly fail a background check if it were required.


Across the country, the evidence suggests that weak gun laws not only play into the hands of mass murderers looking for the easiest way to commit atrocity, but also exacerbate the tragic, everyday violence that disproportionately cripples minority communities. The solution is not to pretend, as has become fashionable among gun advocates, that gun violence is simply the unavoidable cost our of constitutional freedoms, but to instead support commonsense policies of the sort implemented in nearly every other industrialized nation.

[21Kid]

exactly. :(

[thesameguy]

... and exactly why the idea of "commonsense policies" are so bloody difficult to create much less enforce.

The problem is obvious. The solution is not.

[21Kid]

Why not? Why can't we have universal gun laws for the whole country?

[thesameguy]

Because getting 50 states with 50 different opinions to agree on anything is incredibly difficult, and none of the states are particularly enthused when the Federal government steps in and starts barking orders. Not unexpectedly, the states that will be most resistant to new control (of any type) laws will be even more resistant when it's the Feds creating them.

[21Kid]

I think when it's a law regarding a tool designed to kill, it should be important enough for a nationwide law. IMO, of course.

[speedpimp]

Our elected officials are too worried about not getting re-elected if they voted for such legislation.

[Jason]

Because getting 50 states with 50 different opinions to agree on anything is incredibly difficult, and none of the states are particularly enthused when the Federal government steps in and starts barking orders. Not unexpectedly, the states that will be most resistant to new control (of any type) laws will be even more resistant when it's the Feds creating them.

"State Rights" is one of our country's biggest roadblocks in joining the developed world in multiple areas.

[Godson]

... and exactly why the idea of "commonsense policies" are so bloody difficult to create much less enforce.

The problem is obvious. The solution is not.

Are you reading my mind or something?

[Alan P]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Make all the guns pink with flowers on them and they won't be half as popular.

[Alan P]

Our elected officials are too worried about not getting re-elected if they voted for such legislation.

And therein lies part of the problem. Politicians more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what's right.

[thesameguy]

"State Rights" is one of our country's biggest roadblocks in joining the developed world in multiple areas.

It is, but there really isn't a good solution. It's a lot of land and a lot of very different people. Comparing America against *most* of the developed world is pretty rough - we have a lot more going on. Throwing everything we have under one roof might be just as ineffective as 50 little ones. Reading car forums like I do I am blown away by the sheer outrage folks in Michigan have over the wacko stuff we Californians do, etc. I think it's entirely possible one of the reasons we've all been able to stick together is the solace afforded to "locals" being able to band together under the roof of statehood and feel that they aren't being affected by nutjobs 1000 miles away. I don't think applying the template of Europe, Japan, or Australia is really all that useful. In composition, we're more like the EU than any discrete European nation. And we don't get along internally any better than they do, for the same reasons.

[Dicknose]

And therein lies part of the problem. Politicians more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what's right.

That is true in most democracies.

I think TGS and Jason are closer to why this is a harder problem to solve in the USA than other countries. States rights is a nice idea, but most other countries deal with "big issues" at a federal level.

[21Kid]

Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html)


WASHINGTON — The man accused of killing nine people in a historically black church in South Carolina last month should not have been able to buy the gun he used in the attack, the F.B.I. said Friday, in what was the latest acknowledgment of flaws in the national background check system.

A loophole in the system and an error by the F.B.I. allowed the man, Dylann Roof, to buy the .45-caliber handgun despite having previously admitted to drug possession, officials said.

[Godson]

And there you have it. More laws don't make it better. We need better screening.

[speedpimp]

The process to purchase a gun should be at least as involved as the amount of background checks that they do when you apply for a carry permit.

[Godson]

It should be completely and entirely enforced also. However, as this past shooting has shown, the system is broken.

[sandydandy]

Implementation of a few simple controls, and rigorous enforcement of them, would curb America's gun problem and prevent a lot of tragedies. Not sure where the complication lies. It's truly mind boggling for us, not living in your country, to understand why it would be such a problem.

Gang violence on the other hand is an entirely different issue, and gun control there would probably be ineffective.

[TheBenior]

Gang violence on the other hand is an entirely different issue, and gun control there would probably be ineffective.

Thing about that, is that gang violence is the vast majority of our gun violence. Mass shootings generate a lot of headlines, but are statistically insignificant compared to everyday gang violence fueled by the drug trade.

[21Kid]

Implementation of a few simple controls, and rigorous enforcement of them, would curb America's gun problem and prevent a lot of tragedies. Not sure where the complication lies. It's truly mind boggling for us, not living in your country, to understand why it would be such a problem. Some of us that live here wonder that as well. :|



Gang violence on the other hand is an entirely different issue, and gun control there would probably be ineffective.Thing about that, is that gang violence is the vast majority of our gun violence. Mass shootings generate a lot of headlines, but are statistically insignificant compared to everyday gang violence fueled by the drug trade. Gun shootings are on the news almost every night. I think people have become immune to it, or see it as normal. :( I stopped watching the nightly news a long time ago because it is very sad.

[thesameguy]

Implementation of a few simple controls, and rigorous enforcement of them, would curb America's gun problem and prevent a lot of tragedies.

I like this answer, but of course it begs the question: How do you rigorously enforce these controls? With what money, with what people? You don't just get to add laws without the money to make them go. Whathisface got a gun because there wasn't enough money to properly enforce the laws we already have. You think more laws would just magically fix this?

[Crazed_Insanity]

Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html)

More laws won't fix the problem, but we can at least modify existing laws to prevent future mishaps.

3 day waiting period is ridiculous. Government agencies usually don't work that fast... and by forcing them to work that fast, you are asking for mistakes! 30 days is probably more reasonable.

If one really needs a gun within 3 days, then the gun dealer can make his own call. If you still haven't heard back from FBI within 3 days and you really need to make a sale, go for it..., just that you will now be personally responsible if this particular weapon you just sold end up at a crime scene. Make a gun dealer partner in crime for the next 30days. Whatever sentencing the criminal end up getting, the dealer gets it too. Plus, you lose your license selling guns. If you don't want that responsibility, then don't sell so quickly. Wait for a full investigation to be completed!

Everyone in the process need to be held responsible.

[sandydandy]

I like this answer, but of course it begs the question: How do you rigorously enforce these controls? With what money, with what people? You don't just get to add laws without the money to make them go. Whathisface got a gun because there wasn't enough money to properly enforce the laws we already have. You think more laws would just magically fix this? Not magically, but over time. You gotta start at some point.

[Crazed_Insanity]

It has started. It's just not implemented very well. If US had absolutely no gun control laws at all, surely we'd have even more problems.

[thesameguy]

Yeah, see, that's not reasonable. That's how you get exactly where we are. Passing laws with absolutely no way to enforce them creates laws that people don't respect and work around. That actually creates procedures to bypass systems, so when you finally give the systems teeth it's too late. The only way you get laws to work is when you back them with the budget to make them work. We didn't do that with the NBCS and it let nutjob get a gun.

[Crazed_Insanity]

The easy and cheaper thing to do is just to make sure gun dealers don't make the sale unless they get approval, however long it takes. What's with this 3 days thing?

Every persons' background vary, some are straight forward and some are complex. 3 day period for everyone is stupid. Dealers who proceed to sell without clear approval should share some sort of responsibility should an incident occurs. If certain buyer believes government is taking their sweet time delaying approval, then they can sue the FBI or something. 3 days just seemed too unreasonably short to do a thorough check.

[speedpimp]

Billi/y, two gun dealers who sold weapons to a man at a gun show in 2007, without doing a background check, ended up in prison when the man shot and killed a South Bend, Indiana police officer named Nick Polizzotto. One of those dealers was an elderly man in poor health, the other was a younger man who was killed during a fight at a Chicago detention center.

[MR2 Fan]

It took longer than I expected but yep, people are now arming their quadcopters with guns

http://gizmodo.com/heres-the-home-made-gun-toting-quadcopter-nightmare-are-1718138527

This is very bad

[G'day Mate]

It took longer than I expected ...

I never thought about it, but I agree, especially considering how quickly that 3D-printed gun was produced.

[overpowered]

A man practicing his open carry right was robbed of the gun he was openly carrying.

http://koin.com/2014/10/07/man-practicing-open-carry-law-robbed-of-gun/

[21Kid]

It took longer than I expected but yep, people are now arming their quadcopters with guns

http://gizmodo.com/heres-the-home-made-gun-toting-quadcopter-nightmare-are-1718138527

This is very badJust wait until it is autonomous...

[G'day Mate]

... with solar power and facial recognition ...

[21Kid]

We can take the enemy out before they're even a threat! :devil:

[Crazed_Insanity]

A man practicing his open carry right was robbed of the gun he was openly carrying.

http://koin.com/2014/10/07/man-practicing-open-carry-law-robbed-of-gun/

He forgot to practice how to open fire at threats, huh? :lol:

[Godson]

A man practicing his open carry right was robbed of the gun he was openly carrying.

http://koin.com/2014/10/07/man-practicing-open-carry-law-robbed-of-gun/

Further support of why open carry is dumb.

[LHutton]

A man practicing his open carry right was robbed of the gun he was openly carrying.

http://koin.com/2014/10/07/man-practicing-open-carry-law-robbed-of-gun/
That's why open carry always struck me as stupid. I think it even poses problems in policing. Having a gun on your person as a cop brings all sorts of dangers even with innocuous crap like wrestling with drunks on a weekend and it arguably encourages it to be used in situations that don't require it.

[LHutton]

It took longer than I expected but yep, people are now arming their quadcopters with guns

http://gizmodo.com/heres-the-home-made-gun-toting-quadcopter-nightmare-are-1718138527

This is very bad
That should be outlawed straightaway. Whatever need there is for humans to carry guns, civilian drones have no business carrying then.


We can take the enemy out before they're even a threat! :devil:
Skynet Zimmerman edition.

[MR2 Fan]

but seriously, I'm starting to wonder if drones should have a registry...just a list of people who purchased them, since they can be used for so many illegal things without much in the way of tracking the owners (from what I can tell)

[LHutton]

I agree. I'd be half tempted to impose an altitude restriction too. Not to mention they're a potential terrorist threat.

[Godson]

I need to buy another shotgun for the drone situation.

Lord knows if pissed off my share of people.

[Drachen596]

Drones and such with weapons are already federally illegal.

[Freude am Fahren]

I think there are already altitude limits on Drones, though it may only be within a certain distance of Airports.

I love the idea of drones for photography/videography, but they can be just so dangerous. I wouldn't be opposed to licensing to operate, registering them, and even having to file flight plans, or coordinate with ATC/air traffic, maybe similar to like when operating at an uncontrolled airport.

I don't know if any of you saw that drones caused a 30 minute delay in fighting a wildfire in CA last this week, which jumped an interstate standing dozens of cars, destroying a bunch. This apparently has become a serious problem for fire fighting planes and helicopters.

sorry to stray of topic...

[Alan P]

I've been 'debating' with people on the NRA Facebook page on an article about how the VA is sending details of people who have had a fiduciary person assigned to them because they can't control their finances. I'm trying oh so hard not to troll, and I don't think anyone has twigged yet that I'm not even from the US.

[21Kid]

Is that the Obama's taking our guns!!! (2015 edition)?
You're wasting your time... They will never change their mind. No matter how wrong they are, or how many facts are against them.

[MR2 Fan]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/armed-civilian-guarding-ohio-army-recruitment-center-accidentally-fires-weapon/

and the best FB reply to this story by far is:

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11703175_993697830663828_809143970915300754_n.jpg? oh=b39780b2e43c493752a90fb58dafbf84&oe=5651311B

[Godson]

Ugh.


Best part is he thinks he is superman.

[TheBenior]

From another article (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/23/recruiting-center-shot-fired.html):


Reed was convicted of the same offense in 2013, and was fined $50, court records show.

[MR2 Fan]

....aaaand another shooting

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/us/louisiana-theater-shooting/index.html

[MR2 Fan]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

[LHutton]

Stand your ground in action:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCSFXFHTj7I

[21Kid]

From another article (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/23/recruiting-center-shot-fired.html):
ugh... :smh:

“I’m nobody special,” Reed said in a telephone interview on Thursday. “I’m just a guy doing my job because my own government wouldn’t do it.”
Reed said he is not a military veteran. He described himself as an active gun enthusiast who makes a living working side jobs.
He downplayed what happened. “It is what it is,” he said. “Nobody got hurt.” :( This time...

[LHutton]

Sounds like Reed is about the last person who should be operating a firearm.

Didn't the gun have a safety switch and if so, why was it off?

[Godson]

Because he's a fuckwit.

[21Kid]

Because Florida


Officials in a Florida city have approved the request of a businessman to serve alcohol in a restaurant he plans to open in a building with an indoor shooting range.

[Godson]

FFS, is he going to have body bags in the back too?

[thesameguy]

The upsell is a snap, but repeat business may prove a challenge.

[Godson]

Somebody could start a post homicide cleaning business next door.

[Dicknose]

As long as it's shoot first, drink later, I don't see a problem.
But I bet that's not going to be a condition.

[Drachen596]

Ids scanned. You drink and no range access.

[21Kid]

Yeah, there's a 24 hr wait to use the range, if you use the bar first. But still... the potential is not good. Most/all of them will have a gun out in their car. And it's in Florida. :p

[21Kid]

Maybe kids shouldn't be able to use automatic firearms??? :?


One year ago today, Charles Vacca's children received the horrific news: Their father, a shooting instructor, was accidentally killed by a 9-year-old girl with an Uzi submachine gun.
A video on the petition's website features Vacca's four children, starting with his 12-year-old son, Christopher.
"It's legal for kids my age and younger to shoot Uzis," he said. "That hasn't changed."
Vacca's 16-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, offered a startling comparison: "Laws say that children can't drink, can't drive, can't vote. But they can shoot fully automatic assault weapons. That hasn't changed." http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/us/children-and-automatic-weapons-petition/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[Alan P]

I'm still not entirely sure why fully automatic weapons are even necessary.

[thesameguy]

For the same reason 1000hp Bugattis or $8 cups of coffee are necessary. Because people want more, always.

[G'day Mate]

https://papertreiger.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/john-oliver-australia-gun-control.jpg?w=640&h=372&crop=1

[thesameguy]

That's how they justify it, because "I want more" isn't a really defensible position. There is no even remotely defensible reason for anyone to own a McLaren, no defensible reason for spending the resources necessary to build or maintain one. It's utterly pointless. Doesn't stop people from wanting them and justifying them with all sorts a mumbo jumbo. Just so happens when it comes to automatic weapons we have some sort of heritage-y reason to support ownership.

[Alan P]

Two journalists shot and killed live on air earlier today. Clearly the reporters should have been armed with guns instead of microphones and cameras.

[LHutton]

As long as it's shoot first, drink later, I don't see a problem.
But I bet that's not going to be a condition.
Having their gun on them or nearby whilst drinking is still a problem as I see it.

[drew]

For what it's worth, Indiana (and hopefully most states) have an almost zero tolerance policy. If you have your permit on you, and your gun, you can be in a bar/drinking establishment. but, if you choose to drink, and subsequently get arrested for any reason, you're in for a world of pain. If you can legally carry, you can't drink. If you're not carrying, you can drink.

Anyone that does drink with their gun on them is a fucking idiot. It's just a shame that it's usually other people that pay for their stupidity.


Not that I'm in anyway trying to drag myself into this debate, but no amount of new laws/etc is going to change shit. There 100s of millions of guns out there already. Anybody can get a gun anywhere at any time. Restricting how someone gets one legally is like shooting a BB gun at a freight train. It's all a moot point at this stage. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they'll get one. Either buying one legally, illegally (when option A doesn't pan out), or just fucking steal it. There were a number of break ins here (cop cars, no less) where they stole the officers' guns, armor/etc.

but that's not anyone's fault except the fucktard cops.

As for the journalists, it's a real shame, and scary as shit. They had no chance. Whether they were armed or not (not ignoring Alan's sarcasm), someone walking up, shooting, and running away, nobody will prevent that. The only thing that may have been a different situation, is if that same person stuck around to spray the crowd, where someone else may have put them down to prevent more people getting hurt (caveat: as long as they knew what they were doing and didn't hit bystanders themselves (another matter altogether).

Point being, it was an ambush, and sadly, nothing anyone could have done, or been "prepared" for could have prevented it.

The guy was clearly unhinged and I'm sure if/when it comes out that he was legally permitted to have a gun, the shit storm will start about blah blah blah.

Sure, you can make a psych eval part of the buying/background process, but that won't change anything either.

[Crazed_Insanity]

All great points. However, I just would rather not hear these psychos legally got their guns! It's obvious not everyone should have the right to bear arms. Legal channels shouldn't be this easy! Further, if you're irresponsible enough to allow psychos to get your guns, then you also need to lose your right.

As for bad guys getting guns illegally, yeah, there's really not much we can do other than to hope not to be at the wrong place at the wrong time...

[Godson]

Drew hits the home run.


CI. Just stop.

[Sad, little man]

I am really disappointed to see that the actual video(s) of the shooting are seeming to become heavily redacted and censored.

I hear people say that we should respect the victims' dignity by not viewing the videos. You know what would really respect their dignity? To have the videos viewed widely so that we as a society are actually forced to confront the awful effect of our country's deficient mental healthcare system and easy access to firearms. It's not doing anything to respect their lives and dignity when we white wash the terrible horror that they had to endure and that ended their lives.

It seems like the American public is given such a free pass by the media and our society as a whole to just push this stuff out of our collective consciousness and focus more on what we want to watch on Netflix tonight. This is why nothing ever happens to resolve this problem in our country. We reduce horrors like this down to a convenient soundbite and a tidy body count so as to not upset people.

I had a conversation about this with a co-worker from Australia recently. The Port Arthur Massacre was not swept under the rug like this. The grisly photos of the aftermath were widely seen. Sure enough, I was just easily able to google it and find some extremely graphic photos from it. And this was an event from 19 years ago, before the internet was even in full swing. And you know what? They put real gun restrictions in place because of it.

I can't help but feel that if actual photos of what happened in Sandy Hook were published that we would have gotten a lot closer to having meaningful reform as a result of it. But when something horrible like this in this country happens, we just go silent, literally, we have moments of silence, light some candles, and try to forget about it. And it's just bullshit. Our country is hard-wired to just soothe the pain away when something terrible happens. And sure this may help us to heal emotionally, but I think it's also preventing us to really coming to terms with this stuff and doing what needs to be done to try to prevent it in the future.

Just as an individual confronting his or her own personal issues and resolving them is not an easy or pleasant process, an entire country collectively doing the same is not easy either, and we never seem willing to really do it in the aftermath of stuff like this. We just try like hell to forget and move on, and it's not healthy for us as a country in the long term, because the issues never really get confronted.

[Sad, little man]

And Drew, I simply don't buy into the argument that we just can't do anything about guns at this point. If we as a nation were really ready to step up and admit that our obsession with guns is costing a lot of innocent lives, we could reduce the death toll. Ok, fine, we wouldn't be able to take away every last gun. But with sufficiently tight restrictions on gun ownership, we could make it pretty damn hard (and expensive!) to get guns. But no one is willing to enact restrictions tight enough to make a difference.

Saying there are already too many guns out there to really do anything is akin to saying that any issue is just too big to deal with so we should just not bother trying. That's a crap argument.

[George]

I am really disappointed to see that the actual video(s) of the shooting are seeming to become heavily redacted and censored.

As a father of young kids, and in particular a boy who likes to point his finger like a gun and make shooting noises, I don't like to see videos or even still photos of these kinds of crimes. This stuff has been going on forever, and it will continue, sadly. Remember when every couple weeks we'd read in the paper about a car bomb or suicide bomber in the middle east? Shootings seem to be the equivalent of that here in the States these days, and I blame the media for obsessing over it into making borderline crazies decide to go out in a blaze of glory also.

We don't need to have these crimes playing on video screens 24/7. And, to those who control media content, I say stop talking about these evil-doers. We don't need to see their high school yearbook pictures and FaceBook selfies on TV for days, weeks, months, and years after these people have done these things. As Paul Harvey used to say when mentioning a crime and the criminal, "he would like me to mention his name." We need more of that and less Nancy Grace or whoever has taken her place in the muckraking department. I don't watch much TV, but I know it's there, all the time, on several channels.

Walter Cronkite had thirty minutes per night, and that was enough.


Drew hits the home run.

It was a Grand Slam. :up:

[overpowered]

It should probably be noted that the journalists shooting was not random. The shooter had worked for that news team and had been fired.

[Sad, little man]

This stuff has been going on forever, and it will continue, sadly.
You're proving exactly my point by saying things like this.

You know where things like this don't continue happening? Australia. They came to terms with reality and realized that it's not in everyone's best interest to give most people free access to firearms.

And for the record, I'm not singling out highly publicized shootings like this. Far, far more people are dying in much less widely reported gun violence every day. It's just that big events like this should give us a chance to confront our issues as a country, but we never do. Instead...


This stuff has been going on forever, and it will continue, sadly.

[Sad, little man]

And again, if you don't like the gun bashing, then may I interest you in some healthcare reform that makes mental health assistance easily available to all?

[G'day Mate]

You guys can buy a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine for a few hundred bucks without too much trouble, right? If I wanted one I'd need to be connected with organised crime and have tens of thousands of dollars.

Cost of illegal firearms in Australia has skyrocketed, criminals now do gun-sharing (http://www.ibtimes.com.au/cost-illegal-firearms-australia-has-skyrocketed-criminals-now-do-gun-sharing-1378871)

[Sad, little man]

It's pretty easy provided you haven't committed a serious crime in the past. You can find a complete semi-auto rifle for a few hundred. $1000 will get you something pretty good. (Admittedly, full auto is pretty much off limits here.)

This is what people don't grasp. Ok, sure, we can't ever take all the guns away, but if we get most of them, the ones that are left will become prohibitively expensive and difficult to obtain over time. But, frankly, the people that love having guns love it too much to give up enough gun ownership rights to make guns that difficult to obtain. I personally feel like it's extremely selfish to accept the kind of societal instability and loss of innocent life that we have by having so many guns in our country just so that you can have the right to own one.

[Godson]

And again, if you don't like the gun bashing, then may I interest you in some healthcare reform that makes mental health assistance easily available to all?

This is what I have been going on about for a while. But most consider our health system adequate. Which is a bigger bullshit lie. I'll leave it at that.

[drew]

You can have fully automatic rifles/pistols, legally, if you apply for and get issued a Class III License. But it's going to cost you about 6-8 months of background and a few $1000, on top of the extremely expensive guns.

but that's not the issue here.

[Sad, little man]

Yeah, I know technically there's a way to own a full auto, but the hoops are too high to reasonably jump through.

Hey, while we're talking about that, why not make it that hard to own any easily concealed firearm?

I don't understand why we feel in this country that we should have a right to own something like a handgun. Hey, you want firearms for hunting or protection, fine, have a rifle.

But what constructive purpose does it serve to let people own something you can easily conceal and is still capable of so easily taking someone out? I think people would feel a lot safer walking around the streets of a city with crime problems knowing the the only gun someone may have is multiple feet long and not easily hidden.

Sometimes I feel like we have this superiority complex in this country where we think of ourselves as being so great and responsible that we can just freely do whatever we want without things getting ugly, but with guns, we keep proving time and time again that we aren't quite as responsible as we think we are.

[Jason]

Society wants to do nothing about changing the culture here, so no new gun laws are ever going to make a difference. Maybe some day if we decide we want to stop actively killing each other, and that universal healthcare/social programs are good things, we'll see a change.

[Godson]

Society wants to do nothing about changing the culture here, so no new gun laws are ever going to make a difference. Maybe some day if we decide we want to stop actively killing each other, and that universal healthcare/social programs are good things, we'll see a change.

This. We need a culture change related to the sanctity of life. And by that I am not talking about pro-choice/pro-life. I am talking about people understanding that your actions affect thousands of people daily.

[LHutton]

The UK has a policy of minimum lengths for shotguns and rifles to prevent concealment even with a full firearms certificate. Semi-automatic rifles have been banned since Hungerford 1987 and handguns have been banned since Dunblane 1996. Today only shotguns of a minimum length and bolt action rifles (of a minimum length) and .22 rimfire semi-autos are allowed. We still had one psycho in Cumbria though, even with those rules. But then psychosis is fairly common around ex-BNFL sites. So all-in-all the rules are working quite well.

[Godson]

We have laws regarding SBR and SBS purchase, sales, and transportation of them. They aren't easy to get.

[overpowered]

We’re now averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/

We're #1

[Sad, little man]

As I said though, "mass shootings" are only part of the overall gun problem. Right now we're averaging more than 35 people per day dying in this country due to guns this year.

Makes you wonder, what if we just had mass shootings every day where 35 or 36 people died? I bet the laws might actually change at some point.

[21Kid]

I doubt it. :smh:

[overpowered]

I'd like to see total shot included in the stats too. I'm sure that it's a lot higher than the number killed.

[Crazed_Insanity]

35 death/day all because of accidents/murders?

You're not counting police use of force?

[Sad, little man]

This is my source.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

[overpowered]

According to that, for 2015, we're averaging about 108 people per day getting shot and 35.7 of those dying.

If the rate holds, we'll have 39553 people getting shot and of those 13029 dying.

They also count "incidents" which I don't see defined but I assume means that a gun was used but nobody actually got hurt. 7419 of those so far.

[Sad, little man]

Let's think of it like this... In total, people in this country are dying of gun injuries at a rate of a little more than 1.3 sandy hooks per day (1.3sh/day).

[overpowered]

Only in America

http://wiat.com/2015/08/12/church-opens-gun-range-ministry-in-the-name-of-jesus-christ/

[Sad, little man]

Well hey, just try to ambush that congregation during a bible study like in Charleston... NOT GONNA HAPPEN SON! :mad:

[Alan P]

Thank you Lord for the .45 FMJ and for automatic weapons.

[21Kid]

:|

[Godson]

Another place to look is the justice bureau. But that isn't as current. It is however the gold standard of information.

[SportWagon]

Only in America

http://wiat.com/2015/08/12/church-opens-gun-range-ministry-in-the-name-of-jesus-christ/

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18%3A10&version=ASV is relatively well-known, I think.

But in context of

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18&version=ASV

a pacifist tone seems to prevail.

Although the almost non-chalantly mentioned point that Jesus' disciples apparently carried weapons is interesting.

There is some possibility the text in question may not actually date from the first century, a few well-known first testament stories were added in later transcribing of manuscripts; I'm not sure if any of this chapter has such an acknowledged history or not.

[overpowered]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw512ujDHjI

[Alan P]

OK, I was wondering what the big deal was about the Smart Gun, thinking it was a good idea. It took until the last 10 seconds for me to realise why everyone was so upset about it.

[Jason]

That makes one of us. I'm entirely confused.

[Freude am Fahren]

As far as I can tell, they hate that gun because if it goes on sale, you will basically no longer be able to legally buy a gun in a New Jersey gun store within three years. And the reason Chris (or anyone not for guns at least) would want that law repealed is because smart guns will NEVER happen as long as it exists.

[overpowered]

It's due to this law as well as concerns that other jurisdictions may implement similar laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Childproof_Handgun_Law
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/06/24/325178305/a-new-jersey-law-thats-kept-smart-guns-off-shelves-nationwide

[Freude am Fahren]

It's kinda interesting that someone with no stake in gun sales hasn't tried selling it. Like the owner of a book store that just wants the screw over gun sales.

[G'day Mate]

OK, I was wondering what the big deal was about the Smart Gun, thinking it was a good idea. It took until the last 10 seconds for me to realise why everyone was so upset about it.

May I trouble you for a two-line summary on what it is, what it's supposed to solve and why people don't like it?

[Freude am Fahren]

Smart gun only works to owner (think Dredd without the explosions).

Law introduced years ago says, once a smart gun is available for retail (anywhere in the US?), New Jersey gun stores will only be able to sell smart guns within three years.

Pro-Gun crowd obviously doesn't want that, so of course, no gun store will sell smart guns (and thus outlaw normal gun sales in the NJ), which is bad for anti-gun people that like smart guns. Both sides don't like the law now.

That man was basically saying how good smart guns would be if it weren't for the law, and everyone jumped on his ass, because dumb.

Sorry, that's 4 lines, but I think that's the whole story.

[G'day Mate]

Gotchya, thanks

[overpowered]

It's kinda interesting that someone with no stake in gun sales hasn't tried selling it. Like the owner of a book store that just wants the screw over gun sales.Depending upon which state you're in, becoming a gun dealer tends to involve jumping through a lot of hoops and it'll tend to cost as well. You kind of have to really want it.

[overpowered]

Man Shoots Himself In The Head While Bragging About Gun Safety Feature On His Gun

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-man-shoots-himself-in-the-head-while-trying-to-demonstrate-gun-safety-feature-7624980

[MR2 Fan]

Man Shoots Himself In The Head While Bragging About Gun Safety Feature On His Gun

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-man-shoots-himself-in-the-head-while-trying-to-demonstrate-gun-safety-feature-7624980

:smh:

[Godson]

Man Shoots Himself In The Head While Bragging About Gun Safety Feature On His Gun

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-man-shoots-himself-in-the-head-while-trying-to-demonstrate-gun-safety-feature-7624980

Classic example of improper gun control...

[Alan P]

Is it too soon to say if he had another gun he could have shot himself first to prevent him shooting himself?

[G'day Mate]

He probably would've been safer with a non-safety gun

[speedpimp]

Introducing Magna Trigger (http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html). It's the original "Smart Gun" and has been on the market for over thirty years.

[LHutton]

Three simple rules.

1. Always put the safety on after use.

2. Always unload it after that.

3. Never point it at anyone regardless of whether steps 1 and 2 have been done.

[Godson]

Safeties. Always use them never trust them.

[overpowered]

Arizona police confirm 11th vehicle attack on Phoenix freeways, seek tips

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/authorities-681980-shootings-phoenix.html

[overpowered]

Freedom

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/news/3721438-bemidji-man-convicted-attempted-murder

[overpowered]

Idaho professor shoots himself in foot

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/05/idaho-professor-shoots-himself-in-foot-two-months-after-state-legalizes-guns-on-campuses/

[Sad, little man]

It would be funny if he did something else really stupid that resulted in some other detriment to himself at the same time he shot himself in the foot. That way he could have shot himself in the foot while he shot himself in the foot.

http://gtxforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1453&d=1442665528

1453

[LHutton]

Why oh why do you need a license to drive but not to operate a firearm?

[Jason]

Constitution.

[overpowered]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Tb9buapqI

[overpowered]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o57hOxXHFc

[G'day Mate]

The bit about passing guns out on an aircraft is interesting. I know it varies from state to state, but it looks like Arizona have fairly relaxed gun laws and you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon just about everywhere including church, school, shopping malls, restaurants and bars ... maybe even sports arenas? I wonder how they would feel if they actually did hand out guns to everyone on entry.

[overpowered]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11866436_1140964365931127_4416323279807232967_n.jp g?oh=a7b477e6d9350914effafdbcb8ad0792&oe=5694FF6D

I checked:

http://m.snopes.com/shawn-fuller/

[overpowered]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/20/royce-barondes-university-of-missouri-professor-su/

University of Missouri professor sues over gun prohibition on campus

[overpowered]

http://www.wtae.com/news/christina-george-harvan-found-guilty-for-death-of-her-neice-after-wedding-party/32053678

[21Kid]

WTF?!?
The mother of the victim is unhappy with the 16- to 32-month sentence imposed Wednesday on the former Beaver County bride convicted of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment in a fatal wedding-night shooting.
The parents of Christina George-Harvan are grateful their daughter may be eligible for work release from jail in a matter of weeks, and could apply for release in about a year. Even if it was an accident, that seems like an awfully short sentence. :?

[overpowered]

I don't know about Pennsylvania but in California a loaded gun in the glove compartment is a big no-no.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/travel

[LHutton]

Licenses and endorsements for dipshits.

[21Kid]

:? That's old...

[MR2 Fan]

Gold!

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/white-man-trying-to-buy-gun-shoots-self-in-penis-blames-it-on-a-black-guy/

[overpowered]

http://deadstate.org/good-guy-with-a-gun-tries-to-stop-carjacking-shoots-victim-in-the-head-instead-and-bails/