I could support tiered training requirements for different types of firearms in lieu of a ban.
Example: you want an AR-15? Then you have to pass a legitimate training course designed to teach proper care and use. Use includes marksmanship. If all you do is "spray and pray" you don't get to own that sort of firearm.
Marksmanship should be required because having a gun will not help you if you can't hit your target.
I don't have locks on my guns cause I don't have little kids running around my house. That's all they would stop anyway, so I see no point.
If you have locks on your house then the guns are technically in a locked container. XD
A gun safe doesn't have to be purpose built. A well designed Gun closet (ie: Locked interior room) or even just a heavy toolbox secured with a Padlock can do the trick. It really depends on just what you expect to be securing your firearm from.
My home for example: If someone can break into the house, get past the dogs, and then find the damn guns, then I doubt a cable lock or even a fair sized safe is going to do much to stop them (I keep cable locks on them anyways).
I would suggest a choice; Either provide a receipt for the purchase of approved equipment, or consent to a one time inspection by local law enforcement. As long as you don't give police Carte blanche to enter any firearm owners home, I don't think it would cause too many issues.
OK so I don't think anyone here would be apposed to making gun dealers do inventories as I hear that allot of illegal weapons are bought using the lack of federal mandates for this.
But what are our thoughts on limiting how many guns you can buy in a given month? I personally would be OK with it as long as it's done with the understanding that some people buy a pistol and then see a deal they don't want to pass up.
A monthly limit? I didn't know guns were so scarce that they required rationing
LOL I thought you were serious for just a little longer than I should have. Last time I talked about this on a forum there was NO room for movement on a one gun per month deal.
Virginia had such a limit, one handgun a month. The idea is limit the number of handguns that can pass from the primary legal market in the secondary black market. I'm all for such a restriction.
The secondary markets are something ells I agree need some tweaking. I've been to some gun shows and seen a lack of paperwork with some of the sales made. Hell my used gun didn't require allot of form filling.
So how do we close the loop holes seen in such legal secondary markets? I personally think it should be like when I sold my last car accept a little more stringent. We all had to sign who was buying what from whom and for how much.
I can't say I've thought about it, to be honest, so I can't really say much about it either way. Doesn't sound too bad, really.
How to close loopholes in the Legal Secondary markets? Easy - Require full paperwork and recordkeeping, require it to be submitted to the government, and require such a thing as a Gun seller's licence seperate to an FFL - you can sell guns at a gunshow, and shit like that, but you're not a gunsmith. Make it reasonably priced and the requirements easy enough to fill, so that you're not effectively soft-banning it. Part of that - you can be audited, and if your record of "guns bought" doesn't line up with your numbers for "personal collection" and "guns sold", then you're well fucked.
Also, firearm registration. Nothing about the second amendment says that your guns need to be a personal secret from the government. Every gun should be registered and tracked by owner, much like vehicle registration. The database should be kept out of public view - basically, the people who know how many guns you have are you, and the relevant parts of the government - but I think it should still exist.
I mean, some people might kick up a fuss about "oh, but what if we need to revolt against the evil gubmint, they'll know where we are and who has guns!" But those people are pretty delusional anyway.
So I was reading Fark on Saturday - like every day that ends with "Y" - and this discussion thread arose.
Some people are upset about NY's mandatory gun registration law. Personally, I don't see the big deal about registering a firearm - we need to be able to track things to figure out the best way to deal with it.
What, I wondered, could be the reason that anyone would oppose gun registration?
And the thread gave me the answer:
violentsalvation 2013-01-26 01:34:57 PM Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.
Fark It 2013-01-26 01:14:18 PM Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.
Sure. What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.
And more things along these lines. The reasoning seems to be adherence to a slippery slope fallacy - "FIRST REGISTRATION AND THEN CONFISCATION" - fueled by some kind of paranoia.
My question is: why do people think that registration --> confiscation? Has our government actually ever made overtures in a direction of confiscating all the guns? Where is this scenario rooted? Is there a rational basis for it?
So, these morons don't realise that their fucking gun licence already A)tells the Authorities where they are and B)is a pretty fucking good indicator as to who has guns? You know, that thing they issued you that has your picture on it, and you had to write your name and adress down on a little form, and you have to keep updated with your current adress, you fucking idiots?
Jesus fucking christ. The government SHOULD take these assholes guns, simply because they're clearly too stupid to be trusted with anything more deadly than a junket sandwich.
Where is this scenario rooted
Delusion, Paranoia, and blaze-of-glory fantasies where they're mowing down all the government troops that come to take their guns, before dying a martyr to the "REAL 'MURRICA!"
My question is: why do people think that registration --> confiscation? Has our government actually ever made overtures in a direction of confiscating all the guns? Where is this scenario rooted? Is there a rational basis for it?
I believe Hitler's Germany did something very similar.
So, these morons don't realise that their fucking gun licence already A)tells the Authorities where they are and B)is a pretty fucking good indicator as to who has guns? You know, that thing they issued you that has your picture on it, and you had to write your name and adress down on a little form, and you have to keep updated with your current adress, you fucking idiots?
The question I've always had about laws around securing one's guns is how are they enforced? Police won't raid houses for unlocked guns. How do you make these regulations practical?
I'm of the mind that as long as the pro gun side is willing to submit to reasonable laws, and the other side can hear us out, we can have our cake and eat it to.
I don't think the slippery slope thing is a real concern but having worked for them the government can over do it a bit, or just write laws that don't have the effect they hope. Like with the Teflon coated rounds incident.
The question I've always had about laws around securing one's guns is how are they enforced? Police won't raid houses for unlocked guns. How do you make these regulations practical?
I think a limited scope random inspection from a fully staffed ATF supported by local law enforcement would work.
I mean theres a legit huge history of governmental oppression of citizen rights all across the globe/time continuum, so it's never really delusional/parnoia-y to think your govt might do some wild shit. It's cautious. I mean hell, our govt literally passed an act last year to reinforce their ability to detain US citizens indefinitely based on suspicion of terrorist activity.
My question is: why do people think that registration --> confiscation? Has our government actually ever made overtures in a direction of confiscating all the guns? Where is this scenario rooted? Is there a rational basis for it?
Historically, registration does come before confiscation. It's a necessary step. This doesn't mean that registration will lead to confiscation. A doesn't always lead to B, but if not B, then why A?
Americans don't like doing things that cost them time and money without a good reason. Most proponents of gun registration haven't been able to come up with a reason so the crazy folk fill in their own: "So we know what you have for when we come and take them".
Most reasonable people are far more worried about the other two reasons: "so we can charge you money for owning them" or "so we can arrest you/bankrupt you if you make a mistake on the paperwork".
Lets face it, if the government has a chance to charge you for something, they will.
If they got rid of guns, the whole gun registration process would be much easier for your average American Citizen. It would take more or less no time or money at all
I'm of the mind that as long as the pro gun side is willing to submit to reasonable laws, and the other side can hear us out, we can have our cake and eat it to.
I don't think the slippery slope thing is a real concern but having worked for them the government can over do it a bit, or just write laws that don't have the effect they hope. Like with the Teflon coated rounds incident.
Pretty much. We could have our cake and eat it too, but both sides tend to be too wrapped up in NRA Vs Brady ideological lunacy to concede so much as an inch to what they see as the "other side".
As for the teflon coated rounds incident - yeah, that's a problem. Lawmakers are not going for effective gun control, they're going for votes and column inches. I mean, look at Diane Fienstien - hardcore anti-gun campaigner, thinks that people shouldn't have guns, shouldn't be able to concealed carry, all of that carry on - and then not only has a concealed carry licence, but carries a gun, and is notorious for her lack of respect for firearm safety, including one incident I've mentioned a few times now, where she's breaking practically every firearm safety rule in the book, in front of a live audience, while holding a rifle and giving a speech about how we need better gun control(or rather, ban guns, essentially) to make us all safer.
What license? I don't have a fucking license. :P
Serious or not serious? It might be some quirky state level thing I don't know about.
If even basic licencing isn't required universally, that's fucking mental and needs to be fixed immediately. It would also go a bit of a way towards fixing some of the problems with the system.
Having a list of people with firearms permits is not the same as a list of actual guns owned.
Recently a New York paper printed a list of the people registered/licensed to own guns (or was it concealed permits?) Lots of people were pissed. Think how much worse that could have been if the list contained not just the names but also listed all guns owned?
Having a list of people with firearms permits is not the same as a list of actual guns owned.
Recently a New York paper printed a list of the people registered/licensed to own guns (or was it concealed permits?) Lots of people were pissed. Think how much worse that could have been if the list contained not just the names but also listed all guns owned?
Pissed? So they should be. Having a private list between you and the government is one thing, publishing such a list to the public is entirely another.
Why would that be worse? If they listed the guns they owned I mean
likely in an attempt to steal said firearms.
Is there any evidence at all to support this claim? Because it sounds like this is what you've decided. Is it maybe possible that these people are in areas with appreciable rates of break-ins? Or, y'know, maybe a coincidence?
So if owning a gun doesnt actually protect you from robberies then what's the point of em? ehhh heh heh hehe
... The gun is supposed to protect you. They don't protect your home when you're not there. Guns do not walk and fire themselves contrary to whatever the Brady campaign may tell you.
Why would that be worse? If they listed the guns they owned I mean
likely in an attempt to steal said firearms.
Is there any evidence at all to support this claim? Because it sounds like this is what you've decided. Is it maybe possible that these people are in areas with appreciable rates of break-ins? Or, y'know, maybe a coincidence?
A possibility that I lack the resources to look into currently, so take grain of salt with that one. I stand by the fact that advertising that you keep portable valuables in your home is a bad idea.
Comments
Example: you want an AR-15? Then you have to pass a legitimate training course designed to teach proper care and use. Use includes marksmanship. If all you do is "spray and pray" you don't get to own that sort of firearm.
Marksmanship should be required because having a gun will not help you if you can't hit your target.
A gun safe doesn't have to be purpose built. A well designed Gun closet (ie: Locked interior room) or even just a heavy toolbox secured with a Padlock can do the trick. It really depends on just what you expect to be securing your firearm from.
My home for example: If someone can break into the house, get past the dogs, and then find the damn guns, then I doubt a cable lock or even a fair sized safe is going to do much to stop them (I keep cable locks on them anyways).
I would suggest a choice; Either provide a receipt for the purchase of approved equipment, or consent to a one time inspection by local law enforcement. As long as you don't give police Carte blanche to enter any firearm owners home, I don't think it would cause too many issues.
But what are our thoughts on limiting how many guns you can buy in a given month? I personally would be OK with it as long as it's done with the understanding that some people buy a pistol and then see a deal they don't want to pass up.
So how do we close the loop holes seen in such legal secondary markets? I personally think it should be like when I sold my last car accept a little more stringent. We all had to sign who was buying what from whom and for how much.
How to close loopholes in the Legal Secondary markets? Easy - Require full paperwork and recordkeeping, require it to be submitted to the government, and require such a thing as a Gun seller's licence seperate to an FFL - you can sell guns at a gunshow, and shit like that, but you're not a gunsmith. Make it reasonably priced and the requirements easy enough to fill, so that you're not effectively soft-banning it. Part of that - you can be audited, and if your record of "guns bought" doesn't line up with your numbers for "personal collection" and "guns sold", then you're well fucked.
Also, firearm registration. Nothing about the second amendment says that your guns need to be a personal secret from the government. Every gun should be registered and tracked by owner, much like vehicle registration. The database should be kept out of public view - basically, the people who know how many guns you have are you, and the relevant parts of the government - but I think it should still exist.
I mean, some people might kick up a fuss about "oh, but what if we need to revolt against the evil gubmint, they'll know where we are and who has guns!" But those people are pretty delusional anyway.
Some people are upset about NY's mandatory gun registration law. Personally, I don't see the big deal about registering a firearm - we need to be able to track things to figure out the best way to deal with it.
What, I wondered, could be the reason that anyone would oppose gun registration?
And the thread gave me the answer: And more things along these lines. The reasoning seems to be adherence to a slippery slope fallacy - "FIRST REGISTRATION AND THEN CONFISCATION" - fueled by some kind of paranoia.
My question is: why do people think that registration --> confiscation? Has our government actually ever made overtures in a direction of confiscating all the guns? Where is this scenario rooted? Is there a rational basis for it?
Jesus fucking christ. The government SHOULD take these assholes guns, simply because they're clearly too stupid to be trusted with anything more deadly than a junket sandwich. Delusion, Paranoia, and blaze-of-glory fantasies where they're mowing down all the government troops that come to take their guns, before dying a martyr to the "REAL 'MURRICA!"
I don't think the slippery slope thing is a real concern but having worked for them the government can over do it a bit, or just write laws that don't have the effect they hope. Like with the Teflon coated rounds incident. I think a limited scope random inspection from a fully staffed ATF supported by local law enforcement would work.
But still, just get rid of guns
Americans don't like doing things that cost them time and money without a good reason. Most proponents of gun registration haven't been able to come up with a reason so the crazy folk fill in their own: "So we know what you have for when we come and take them".
Most reasonable people are far more worried about the other two reasons: "so we can charge you money for owning them" or "so we can arrest you/bankrupt you if you make a mistake on the paperwork".
Lets face it, if the government has a chance to charge you for something, they will.
As for the teflon coated rounds incident - yeah, that's a problem. Lawmakers are not going for effective gun control, they're going for votes and column inches. I mean, look at Diane Fienstien - hardcore anti-gun campaigner, thinks that people shouldn't have guns, shouldn't be able to concealed carry, all of that carry on - and then not only has a concealed carry licence, but carries a gun, and is notorious for her lack of respect for firearm safety, including one incident I've mentioned a few times now, where she's breaking practically every firearm safety rule in the book, in front of a live audience, while holding a rifle and giving a speech about how we need better gun control(or rather, ban guns, essentially) to make us all safer. Serious or not serious? It might be some quirky state level thing I don't know about.
But otherwise, owning a gun does not require any kind of special paperwork. Well, OK, there's a background check.
Recently a New York paper printed a list of the people registered/licensed to own guns (or was it concealed permits?) Lots of people were pissed. Think how much worse that could have been if the list contained not just the names but also listed all guns owned?
Two of the homes listed have since been robbed, likely in an attempt to steal said firearms.
A possibility that I lack the resources to look into currently, so take grain of salt with that one. I stand by the fact that advertising that you keep portable valuables in your home is a bad idea.