Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"

[fohat.digs]

Plus whoever programs the Diebold voting machines.

And, frankly, this is one of the most frightening things of all.

US elections do not even remotely meet accepted international standards of transparency.

[kurplop]

Nobody likes to lose but we shouldn't blame the ump when we strike out.

[fohat.digs]

Nobody likes to lose but we shouldn't blame the ump when we strike out.

Nothing would have pleased me more than for there to have been an umpire in existence.

PS - by definition an umpire is an impartial 3rd party

[Melvang]

maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol?

Have you been skyping with the Australian government for social engineering ideas or something ?

Please explain.

Do I think that they should just bite the bullet and ban tobacco, yes.

There has not been one single outright ban in the world that has worked.  When the czar of China banned opium, its use increased roughly 800%.

[smknjoe]

I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.

Better to have private companies do it?

Absolutely, regarding privatization in general. Competition breeds excellence...complacency breeds failure.

[baldgye]

I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.

Better to have private companies do it?

Absolutely, regarding privatization in general. Competition breeds excellence...complacency breeds failure.

lmao

its **** like this, where I can't tell if everyone is being sarcastic or not haha

[smknjoe]

Capitalism and the free market are the 'murican way.

[baldgye]

Capitalism and the free market are the 'murican way.

Yeah and it's working out great lmao



>to expand
This kind of **** boils down to insane patriotism, worshiping a flag and loving the constitution. Which is all insane.

[Melvang]

So Melvang: any response to the Honduras/Switzerland thing? Or are you going to concede that I completely destroyed your argument and made you look silly?

Sorry, I have a personal life outside of geekhack and can't normally check at work since I have used a computer at work twice since fall of 07.  This happens tends to happen if you want a decent paying job and were a high school drop out. 

Hondorus has some of the strictest gun control in the world and has the highest per capita murder rate.

Honduras is in the middle of a huge drug traffic route, was basically a slave society of indigenous peasants ruled by a small minority of Spaniards starting in ~1500, and then by American banana companies in the 20th century, was governed by various military juntas and fought in bloody wars with its neighbors (wars supported by the US) as well as in various guerrilla civil wars up through the early 1980s, during which time American arms companies flooded the place with handguns, is on its 12th constitution dating from 1982 which was amended a further 26 times in the 25 years after that, and most recently was taken over again by a military coup. The country was completely wrecked by a hurricane in 1998 and then again by massive flooding in 2008, and has a basically broken economy. Something like half the population is below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate is 30%.

As for gun control, according to Wikipedia, “Until June 2007, openly carrying a firearm in public as well carrying a concealed weapon was permitted but increased attention to deaths by firearm in the country led to further restrictions on the possession of firearms. Current law still makes the purchase, ownership, and possession of firearms legal and it describes the type of firearms permitted for civilian ownership.”

I’m really not sure why you think this is at all relevant to a conversation about the US, unless you’re trying to argue about how terrible US foreign policy toward Latin America was for the past 200 years, especially during the 1950s–1980s.

By contrast Switzerland essentially requires every household to own a gun.  They have the lowest per capita murder rate.

By contrast, if you exclude little city-states, Switzerland is the third richest country by per capita income in the world, after Norway and UAE, which are both oil states, and the wealthiest in per capita assets. The unemployment rate and poverty rate are both extremely low. It has been basically independent and politically stable and relatively untouched by violence in the post-Napoleonic era.

It hands out guns to people during its compulsory military service, which includes something like a half year of strict training. Members of the military keep their guns at home, but don’t keep ammunition there. Acquiring ammunition in Switzerland requires ID, current gun license, address, and criminal history, and ammunition purchases are registered with the government. Swiss are only allowed to carry weapons in public if they have a permit, which generally requires working in a security-related job. Transporting a gun from place to place without such a permit requires that it be unloaded and carried without ammunition, and requires a valid purpose.

Again, nothing at all like the US. Overall, I’d feel much more comfortable if we had something similar to Swiss gun culture in the US. It seems dramatically saner.

If anyone tried to convert the US to Swiss gun laws, the NRA would throw a fit.

You actually made my point.  Gun control laws don't mean **** to criminals.  If they want to murder, rape, and steal, with guns, the are going to do so.  Passing more gun control laws means **** to them, if they want a gun to do these things with they will find a way.  Crime has MUCH more to do with many other aspects of the area than what gun control laws are in place.  Not to mention, that there is zero correlation between gun control and crime.  http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals.  The simple answer, you won't.

[smknjoe]

Capitalism and the free market are the 'murican way.

Yeah and it's working out great lmao

You're a funny dude. Seriously.

A great example of privatization would be the Space program(s) here in the US. Most Americans thought that NASA was a waste of money and Federal funding was cut down quite a bit. Now look at how private US companies are advancing space travel at a rate NASA could only dream of and for less money. Better products, accelerated innovation, less money from the US tax payers.

[baldgye]

With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals.  The simple answer, you won't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

yeah bans don't work

Capitalism and the free market are the 'murican way.

Yeah and it's working out great lmao

You're a funny dude. Seriously.

A great example of privatization would be the Space program(s) here in the US. Most Americans thought that NASA was a waste of money and Federal funding was cut down quite a bit. Now look at how private US companies are advancing space travel at a rate NASA could only dream of and for less money. Better products, accelerated innovation, less money from the US tax payers.

(I'm not familiar with the budget or funding of NASA, surprisingly) Like what? When NASA was state funded they went to the moon, in the what 40 years since all 'we' have been able to do is have a small space center orbiting the Earth and put some robots on Mars.
I'm not against privatization in anyway, it can be great and do well, I'm not some insane socialist or communist, but to try and argue that one extreme is better than another is retarded.


If the US put even .1% of its defense budget into firearms training and restrictions, you'd be a lot safer and the rest of the world might get some restbite

[smknjoe]

With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals.  The simple answer, you won't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

yeah bans don't work

At face value those numbers seem to support your argument. What those numbers don't show is that those countries with lower numbers "always" had lower numbers of guns and gun deaths even before any bans. A by product of (some may consider an advantage of) living in a less than free society. Another thing that's not factored in are social constructs and standards. What I mean by that is that, unfortunately, Americans seem to be more violent in general when compared to other similar societies. A lot of it has to do with the proliferation of the "gang culture" here and how "cool" violence is portrayed.

That's what I was talking about when I said the real problem is violence and why people feel the need for violence. It's definitely not because they have a gun that they are violent. It's that they choose to use the gun in an act of violence. It's the person, not the gun.

[smknjoe]

Do we need some Federal control? Sure. We don't need Federal control of almost every aspect of our lives. I know that's probably hard to imagine for many Europeans.

[baldgye]

With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals.  The simple answer, you won't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

yeah bans don't work

At face value those numbers seem to support your argument. What those numbers don't show is that those countries with lower numbers "always" had lower numbers of guns and gun deaths even before any bans. A by product of (some may consider an advantage of) living in a less than free society. Another thing that's not factored in are social constructs and standards. What I mean by that is that, unfortunately, Americans seem to be more violent in general when compared to other similar societies. A lot of it has to do with the proliferation of the "gang culture" here and how "cool" violence is portrayed.

That's what I was talking about when I said the real problem is violence and why people feel the need for violence. It's definitely not because they have a gun that they are violent. It's that they choose to use the gun in an act of violence. It's the person, not the gun.

I mean I can't make any reasonable argument because your statements are insane. How is an American any freer than a European?
Your government spies on you more than pretty much every other nation (bar maybe the UK, not sure) and this is well documented, you have horrible consumer rights, your presidential election is controlled by who has the most money and is at best a two party system where no other party can even afford a look in, you have more controls over air flights than any other country I've heard off, you have insanely expensive health care and a laughable social care system, America has a massive level of poverty considering its GDP...

Like what crack are you on? Europe isn't perfect and has huge problems, but to try and suggest that America is, as a fact, more free than another other democratic developed nation is nonsense.


Then you go on about how America is naturally more violent than other nations, which is garbage again, that's simply a symptom of paranoia that is bread from your insane laws and perpetuated by the 'free market' news outlets desperate for views rather than facts.

Do we need some Federal control? Sure. We don't need Federal control of almost every aspect of our lives. I know that's probably hard to imagine for many Europeans.

Again what the **** are you smoking? You know 1984 wasn't a documentary, right?

[Melvang]

With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals.  The simple answer, you won't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

yeah bans don't work

At face value those numbers seem to support your argument. What those numbers don't show is that those countries with lower numbers "always" had lower numbers of guns and gun deaths even before any bans. A by product of (some may consider an advantage of) living in a less than free society. Another thing that's not factored in are social constructs and standards. What I mean by that is that, unfortunately, Americans seem to be more violent in general when compared to other similar societies. A lot of it has to do with the proliferation of the "gang culture" here and how "cool" violence is portrayed.

That's what I was talking about when I said the real problem is violence and why people feel the need for violence. It's definitely not because they have a gun that they are violent. It's that they choose to use the gun in an act of violence. It's the person, not the gun.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

[smknjoe]

Also, in your wiki list, Mexico has a total ban on guns. Their death rate by guns is one of the highest if not the highest in the world.

Baldgye, you are resorting to name calling and hyperbole. Not a sign of rational thinking. Your posts still make me laugh though.

[baldgye]

Mint Press News > Wikipeida

TIL

Also, in your wiki list, Mexico has a total ban on guns. Their death rate by guns is one of the highest if not the highest in the world.

Baldgye, you are resorting to name calling and hyperbole. Not a sign of rational thinking. Your posts still make me laugh though.

Oh your actually insane, well in that case ggwp m9

[fohat.digs]

Amazing that people are failing to include the visual media, whether it be Hollywood glamorizing extraordinary violence and destruction fictionally, or the (faux) news outlets continuing to beat any sensational crime after it has died, rotted away, and turned to dust, while ignoring the real (hidden, silent) problems of American society.

[smknjoe]

With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals.  The simple answer, you won't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

yeah bans don't work

At face value those numbers seem to support your argument. What those numbers don't show is that those countries with lower numbers "always" had lower numbers of guns and gun deaths even before any bans. A by product of (some may consider an advantage of) living in a less than free society. Another thing that's not factored in are social constructs and standards. What I mean by that is that, unfortunately, Americans seem to be more violent in general when compared to other similar societies. A lot of it has to do with the proliferation of the "gang culture" here and how "cool" violence is portrayed.

That's what I was talking about when I said the real problem is violence and why people feel the need for violence. It's definitely not because they have a gun that they are violent. It's that they choose to use the gun in an act of violence. It's the person, not the gun.

I mean I can't make any reasonable argument because your statements are insane. How is an American any freer than a European?
Your government spies on you more than pretty much every other nation (bar maybe the UK, not sure) and this is well documented, you have horrible consumer rights, your presidential election is controlled by who has the most money and is at best a two party system where no other party can even afford a look in, you have more controls over air flights than any other country I've heard off, you have insanely expensive health care and a laughable social care system, America has a massive level of poverty considering its GDP...

Like what crack are you on? Europe isn't perfect and has huge problems, but to try and suggest that America is, as a fact, more free than another other democratic developed nation is nonsense.


Then you go on about how America is naturally more violent than other nations, which is garbage again, that's simply a symptom of paranoia that is bread from your insane laws and perpetuated by the 'free market' news outlets desperate for views rather than facts.

Do we need some Federal control? Sure. We don't need Federal control of almost every aspect of our lives. I know that's probably hard to imagine for many Europeans.

Again what the **** are you smoking? You know 1984 wasn't a documentary, right?

1. The US spies on the entire world which includes the US. It does not spy on US citizens to control and monitor them like the UK does.
2. Consumer "rights" are "governmental controls". 
3. The "expensive" health care has been a free market system, and still is to a degree, until the Affordable Healthcare Act. 

You just made my argument for me. Those are all examples of LESS governmental control.

The highest number of people shot in the US (besides suicide maybe) are those who are violent criminals (gang bangers). We are talking "gun violence" in this thread right? That's the term that people like to use.

[smknjoe]

Amazing that people are failing to include the visual media, whether it be Hollywood glamorizing extraordinary violence and destruction fictionally, or the (faux) news outlets continuing to beat any sensational crime after it has died, rotted away, and turned to dust, while ignoring the real (hidden, silent) problems of American society.

I tend to agree with you, but some basic studies have failed to make any correlation between media and violence.

[fohat.digs]

3. The "expensive" health care has been a free market system, and still is to a degree, until the Affordable Healthcare Act. 

The Affordable Healthcare Act has been spectacularly successful in providing care for millions of Americans and lowering costs, but is also a monumental giveaway to the medical industry, insurance and drug companies in particular.

It is a perfect example of when and where the Federal government should intervene when an industry has run amok.

[Lord of Narwhals]

I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.

Better to have private companies do it?

Absolutely, regarding privatization in general. Competition breeds excellence...complacency breeds failure.

The goal of an unregulated capitalistic/"competitive" system is to make more money, not to make society better.
See the California electricity crisis for example.

[smknjoe]

I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.

Better to have private companies do it?

Absolutely, regarding privatization in general. Competition breeds excellence...complacency breeds failure.

The goal of an unregulated capitalistic/"competitive" system is to make more money, not to make society better.
See the California electricity crisis for example.

Absolutely, and if you provide a bad service customers move to someone who offers a better service. That's what breeds innovation. Energy is highly privatized in the US. You are pointing to an article about the effects of the Enron Crisis on one area. It was a terrible thing that ruined many lives and it was also highly illegal.

[Melvang]

Guys, can we get back on topic. 

I watched the video that was posted in the OP.  From what I could gather, all it said was the main purpose was to require more people to obtain a FFL due to the nature of their business.  Essentially, if you sell guns for profit, you need an FFL, which then requires you to preform a background check.  This I really don't have a problem with.

Just some food for thought here.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun-background-checks-nics-failure/

[smknjoe]

I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.

[Waateva]

I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.

Would you have a problem with required training?  What about records of transfers done between individuals?  Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.

Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.

[Melvang]

I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.

Would you have a problem with required training?  What about records of transfers done between individuals?  Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.

Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.

Required training, I see really only necessary for concealed carry.  As far as records for transfers, I am torn on that.  It isn't much of a step from that to a national registry which has been deemed unconstitutional if i remember correct.  Now, one thing I could see is having an endorsement on your drivers license that stated you passed a background check for purposes of purchasing a gun.  The DOT could preform the background check in seconds via electronic database.  Nothing to change aside from a spot on the back with mention of it similar to organ donor, eye glasses restrictions, CDL, and motorcycle endorsements. 

[smknjoe]

I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.

Would you have a problem with required training?  What about records of transfers done between individuals?  Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.

Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.

I'm not sure about the training. I haven't given it much thought. I grew up around guns like most of my childhood friends and everyone understood basic firearms safety and usage. Now, living in one of the largest cities in the country I know that's not the norm here.

We already have mandatory background checks except for private sales which this executive order covers. I don't think my Dad should have had to fill out ATF paperwork to give me my first shotgun as a kid. That's a little extreme. As for transfers to criminals, that's already covered under current Gun Laws and is considered a Straw Purchase which is illegal.

[smknjoe]

I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.

Would you have a problem with required training?  What about records of transfers done between individuals?  Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.

Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.

Required training, I see really only necessary for concealed carry.  As far as records for transfers, I am torn on that.  It isn't much of a step from that to a national registry which has been deemed unconstitutional if i remember correct.  Now, one thing I could see is having an endorsement on your drivers license that stated you passed a background check for purposes of purchasing a gun.  The DOT could preform the background check in seconds via electronic database.  Nothing to change aside from a spot on the back with mention of it similar to organ donor, eye glasses restrictions, CDL, and motorcycle endorsements. 

Right, any concealed carrier already goes through training and the lawful use of said weapon (only if you are in mortal danger, basically.) Also, many states require some basic gun safety training to get a hunting licence. And I agree that "registering" every transfer even gifts is not far off from a National registry.

[ANightOnCloudNine]

I feel like applying gun laws in america in this day and age will do nothing, as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.

[Melvang]

I feel like applying gun laws in america in this day and age will do nothing, as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.

Gun laws don't do anything for crime in any country.  There is zero correlation between gun ownership (by proxy here also gun laws as in most cases the number of guns owned by citizens can be directly linked to the gun laws of that area). 

http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Guns-in-other-countries-firearm-owenership-and-homicides.jpg

[ANightOnCloudNine]

I feel like applying gun laws in america in this day and age will do nothing, as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.

Gun laws don't do anything for crime in any country.  There is zero correlation between gun ownership (by proxy here also gun laws as in most cases the number of guns owned by citizens can be directly linked to the gun laws of that area). 

http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Guns-in-other-countries-firearm-owenership-and-homicides.jpg

Exactly, the very little it does to prevent crime doesn't matter. Only thing it prevents would be suicides.

[fohat.digs]

as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.

It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the percentage of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.

The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.

http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

[smknjoe]

as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.

It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the number of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.

The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.

http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

Right, and it's nearly impossible for a criminal to get a gun from a legitimate dealer with the background checks we have in place. They have to resort to illegally obtaining firearms.

[ANightOnCloudNine]

as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.

It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the number of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.

The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.

http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

I do think in america a gun law should be applied not for crime but to make sure owners are responsible, a thorough background check + a license that requires no course to get, basically there just to validate you got a background to prove to gun shops.

[smknjoe]

as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.

It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the number of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.

The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.

http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

I do think in america a gun law should be applied not for crime but to make sure owners are responsible, a thorough background check + a license that requires no course to get, basically there just to validate you got a background to prove to gun shops.

I don't understand why people think you can just go buy a gun from Walmart without a background check. Every state requires a background check as far as I know. The ones I've lived in certainly do.

[smknjoe]

I just double checked and yes, the FBI background check is required Nationally and has been since 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

[fanpeople]

maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol?

Have you been skyping with the Australian government for social engineering ideas or something ?

Please explain.

Do I think that they should just bite the bullet and ban tobacco, yes.

There has not been one single outright ban in the world that has worked.  When the czar of China banned opium, its use increased roughly 800%.

Sorry i should have been more specific, i mean ban its sale. Obvioulsy dont criminilise its use or possession up to a pretty large amount as we dont need more ****ing dumb convictions and punishments. If people really want to go to all that effort to sell, buy tobacco via drug means so be it. But i mean i cant see that many new people rushing out to pick up tobbacco for the weekend party. You can understand weed, booze, opium etc as it has a noticable effect first time. Tobbacco takes a bit before it becomes habbit. There is also the status/social driver responsible for cigetettes initial spread that in australia at least have been countered in various campaigns and thses factors as well as the price hike has lead to a decrease in the number of smokers. Well in Australia at least. Funny thing is i personally dont smoke weed but do think at a minimum it should be decriminilised. I would also rather people go out and get high than sink booze. But then again this is just my opinion and i am sure weed does the same if not more damage then tobacco.

Also Its a bit of a one liner to apply an example from the 1800s especially when there was a pretty large disconnect between the port authorities and the law makers. I believe many would look the other way with bribes etc. I mean i am pretty sure that the ban was not really enforced. Also the brits were pushing its sale pretty hard and inventing methods of illegally importating opium. When you have a powerful nation behind the import that was willing to use force to ensure its continued sale i mean what do you expect. And that is what they did, in the end the government tried to crack down and the Brits used force to ensure they could continue the trade. The supply was maintained and increased the whole time and when it was interupted force was used to ensure the imports could continue.

Also what time period are you talking abould for an 800% increase in use. Can you provide a source i am legitimatly interested in this topic and would like to have a look.

[FreeCopy]

I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.

Would you have a problem with required training?  What about records of transfers done between individuals?  Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.

Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.

Required training, I see really only necessary for concealed carry.  As far as records for transfers, I am torn on that.  It isn't much of a step from that to a national registry which has been deemed unconstitutional if i remember correct.  Now, one thing I could see is having an endorsement on your drivers license that stated you passed a background check for purposes of purchasing a gun.  The DOT could preform the background check in seconds via electronic database.  Nothing to change aside from a spot on the back with mention of it similar to organ donor, eye glasses restrictions, CDL, and motorcycle endorsements. 

Right, any concealed carrier already goes through training and the lawful use of said weapon (only if you are in mortal danger, basically.) Also, many states require some basic gun safety training to get a hunting licence. And I agree that "registering" every transfer even gifts is not far off from a National registry.

There are no restrictions on concealed carry in AZ other than legality of the person owning the firearm and locations specifying gun free zone.

Also nothing on hunting license training either. Just go buy one and go shoot ****.

Our gun laws are amazingly lax.

And I just learned it's legal for me to fire off blanks with the biggest trouble being disturbing the peace. A "safe" way to be an ******* on NYE. Nice.

[smknjoe]

I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.

Would you have a problem with required training?  What about records of transfers done between individuals?  Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.

Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.

Required training, I see really only necessary for concealed carry.  As far as records for transfers, I am torn on that.  It isn't much of a step from that to a national registry which has been deemed unconstitutional if i remember correct.  Now, one thing I could see is having an endorsement on your drivers license that stated you passed a background check for purposes of purchasing a gun.  The DOT could preform the background check in seconds via electronic database.  Nothing to change aside from a spot on the back with mention of it similar to organ donor, eye glasses restrictions, CDL, and motorcycle endorsements. 

Right, any concealed carrier already goes through training and the lawful use of said weapon (only if you are in mortal danger, basically.) Also, many states require some basic gun safety training to get a hunting licence. And I agree that "registering" every transfer even gifts is not far off from a National registry.

There are no restrictions on concealed carry in AZ other than legality of the person owning the firearm and locations specifying gun free zone.

Also nothing on hunting license training either. Just go buy one and go shoot ****.

Our gun laws are amazingly lax.

And I just learned it's legal for me to fire off blanks with the biggest trouble being disturbing the peace. A "safe" way to be an ******* on NYE. Nice.

Arizona is certainly the exception. I'm in Texas and the Gun laws are much more stringent (as they are in the majority of States) despite popular belief.

[fohat.digs]

If people really want to go to all that effort to sell, buy tobacco via drug means so be it. But i mean i cant see that many new people rushing out to pick up tobbacco for the weekend party. You can understand weed, booze, opium etc as it has a noticable effect first time.

These things are all different and can't really be compared.

The question is always where to draw the line. Smoking 20 cigarettes in a day may not significantly impair you while smoking 20 joints would, yet nicotine is highly addictive and THC is not. WTF?

The intractable question is that while there is no harm in sitting home and drinking yourself into oblivion and it is socially acceptable (because nobody knows), getting behind the wheel of your car is not. Likewise, an aresnal of guns and ammunition behind locked doors is harmless but a single gun and a single bullet in public can be a significant menace.

There is no reasonable way to unequivocally determine, from external appearances, where a situation will lead when guns are involved, and who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

[ANightOnCloudNine]

as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.

It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the number of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.

The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.

http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

I do think in america a gun law should be applied not for crime but to make sure owners are responsible, a thorough background check + a license that requires no course to get, basically there just to validate you got a background to prove to gun shops.

I don't understand why people think you can just go buy a gun from Walmart without a background check. Every state requires a background check as far as I know. The ones I've lived in certainly do.

Notice how I said "thorough background check" the background checks that happen aren't thorough enough tbh.

[smknjoe]

There is no reasonable way to unequivocally determine, from external appearances, where a situation will lead when guns are involved, and who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

Which goes back to the real issue with "gun violence" ; the violence. Examining and trying to prevent violence is the real problem that needs to be solved. Yet, nobody wants to even admit it exists regardless of how its perpetrated. It's the evil guns that cause violence.

[smknjoe]

Notice how I said "thorough background check" the background checks that happen aren't thorough enough tbh.

So, it should be more thorough than what's already listed under Prohibited Persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

Everyone who buys a gun legally is checked with this system in the US.

[Melvang]

Notice how I said "thorough background check" the background checks that happen aren't thorough enough tbh.

So, it should be more thorough than what's already listed under Prohibited Persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

Everyone who buys a gun legally is checked with this system in the US.

This nationally only applies to persons buying from a store with an FFL.  Buying from a private person, not required in most states, unless the buyer is making the purchase outside of their own state. 

[jdcarpe]

Those pesky guns, always going around killing people. The people behind the trigger had no idea what that evil gun was about to do that day...

[smknjoe]

Notice how I said "thorough background check" the background checks that happen aren't thorough enough tbh.

So, it should be more thorough than what's already listed under Prohibited Persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

Everyone who buys a gun legally is checked with this system in the US.

This nationally only applies to persons buying from a store with an FFL.  Buying from a private person, not required in most states, unless the buyer is making the purchase outside of their own state. 

Right, I've pointed that out some of my previous posts and didn't want to sound like a broken record...Most people buy from FFLs (stores) usually.

[Hispes]

Guns don't even make the top ten, though they do play a large part in #10.
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

I believe guns are a small part of #4 Accidents, in addition to #10.

#1, #4, #6, and possibly #5 are mainly caused by poor diet, stress, lack of exercise
#2, #3 are heavily related to smoking, air pollution, industrial jobs, and then a myriad of tiny factors, and mostly lead to death among the elderly
#8 mainly kills people with compromised immune systems, again mostly elderly
#9 is related to a pretty wide variety of underlying issues (various viral infections, cancer, diabetes, certain drugs, ...)

In any case, most of these things are either completely random and unavoidable “acts of god” which we have no way to work on as a society beyond improvements to medical treatment and continuing research, or else are personally avoidable via good lifestyle choices (sleep, diet, exercise, etc.). Gun and car deaths, however, are both largely avoidable at a societal level, and are inflicted on innocent people who have limited choice in eliminating the risk. To be safe, it’s possible to move to areas with walkable neighborhoods, good transit, and no rednecks packing heat, but that’s still no guarantee that a drunk driver won’t hit you or a cop won’t randomly shoot you in the back (though this is more of a problem for non-whites).

* * *

If we really wanted to organize our society around reducing all-cause death rates, the #1 priority would be to reduce poverty, unemployment, and income inequality. The ideal approach would be to tax the **** out of inheritances, wealth of all kinds (especially property), and have very high marginal income tax rates at the top end (e.g. anything past $1M income could be taxed at 80%), with capital gains treated as income. This money could then be distributed widely as an unconditional basic income to all citizens (or even all residents). This is not politically feasible in the post-Reagan greed-is-god era, but would have a great effect on many causes of death including in particular heart disease, strokes, respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, and self harm, and would also greatly reduce crime and violence in general. Other policy goals in this general area include de-financialization of the economy, increased infrastructure spending, reform of the criminal justice system, and dramatic education policy reform, in particular spreading a lot more money to schools in poor neighborhoods.

Priority #2 would be to get everyone into a single-payer healthcare system. The current US healthcare system is the most inefficient in the world, combining incredibly high prices with awful outcomes. We could pick pretty much any other developed country in the world as a model for something better. There are lots of choices in the details.

Priority #3 would be to change cost/incentives related to poor diets, by dramatically changing agriculture policy to reduce subsidies for corn, wheat, and soybeans, institute high taxes on sweeteners of all kinds, make heavily processed foods and restaurant fast food more expensive, and improve access to fresh vegetables nationwide. I’m sure there are industrial-scale ways of efficiently getting basic nutrients to people if we put our brightest minds on the task.

After that, the changes are going to be much harder. Changing nationwide zoning laws to restructure all of our urban areas into more walkable mixed-use neighborhoods with better access to jobs, stores, and public transit is a nearly impossible challenge at this point. Unfortunately, whether we do anything grand as a nation or not, many suburbs are going to become bankrupt ghost towns in the coming decades, with infrastructure maintenance costs outstripping available tax revenue.

Changing work culture so that professionals don’t spend 10 years in awful hazing rituals like medical residencies and junior positions in law firms, and stick to <40 hours/workweek or less is going to be pretty difficult. For whatever reason, Americans love to work and firms love to force more work hours, even when it can be clearly demonstrated that working more hours leads to quickly diminishing returns and at some point negative returns. Providing better childcare benefits, proper enforcement of sick days, sufficient vacation, etc. is going to be a political non-starter in a country where labor is now entirely defanged.

Etc.

What you wrote suggests what I think; that we should focus our money and efforts in places that will make a greater difference than restricting guns will.  A firearm enthusiast does not a redneck with a firearm make.  Three percent of the population already has concealed carry permits, and people aren't being randomly shot by those people. Limiting guns does not reduce violence, period, though creating self-driving cars will greatly reduce accidents and fatalities. So, that is yet another place to focus attention and money.

[berserkfan]

HOW DARE HE!
Any lunatic should be legally allowed to buy guns!

And yes, Texas just passed a law saying that mental hospitals CANNOT prohibit guns.

I was reading this, and I was like, WTF, is the Texas legislature itself a mental hospital full of nuts?

[Input Nirvana]

I just did an interesting thing:
I purchased an AR-15 pistol.
An AR-15 pistol is an AR-15 rifle with 2 difference...no butt stock and a barrel that is shorter than 16". When you fire it, there is less firepower and more noise/flash. If you put a buttstock on an AR pistol it is considered an SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) and possesion of this in California you'll go to jail and come out a felon. You can swap the short barrel (8", 10", etc) with a rifle-lenth barrel (16", 18", 20", etc) on the pistol and it becomes a rifle. It's that easy. I'll buy a 16" barrel an basically have 2 gun options, an AR pistol 10" and an AR rifle 16".

In California before Jan 1, 2015 you could purchase AR-15 pistols like most other firearms. After that date they can no longer be sold new from a store. They can not be bought from another person in another state. They can only be purchased from another California resident and be transferred through a gun shop. After Dec 31, 2016 California residents will not be able to purchase these at all. I will be stuck with it unless I choose sell it out of state. These types of pistols start at about $650+ anywhere in the US, but in California they (currently) start at about $1200+ because of supply/demand/changing laws/accessibility, etc. Since I paid $1300, it's doubtful I'll sell it out of state next year or later for half that price. There is a slight chance I'll resell it towards the end of this year if people continue to panic I can get $300+ profit. As a side note, an AR-15 rifle is still legal and can be bought new starting at about $750. Same exact firearm, longer barrel, half the price.

Why did I buy a firearm that a gun range won't let me fire at targets? Why did I buy a firearm that is ridiculously over priced? Why did I buy a firearm that isn't at the more practical end of the usability spectrum? I don't know. Because I can? I don't own any other firearms. It's never been shot. Has that new gun smell. Will look wicked if I could display it, which I can't. Now that I bought it I can worry about it rusting in the ocean air. Face it, I could have bought an AR rifle for half the price or 2 AR rifles for the same price. I paid a $600 premium for a barrel that is 8" shorter. Maybe I'm a representation of a typical California gun owner. Maybe I'm not. Maybe everyone should be afraid. Maybe not.

I can't wait to see what I'm going to do next.