Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Lava Bucket]

[snip]
This is how it works in paradise, aka Australia: you send in paperwork, if you have no criminal record or restraining orders, you get license in 30 days. If you were treated for mental illness within the last 5 years, you get a note from the doctor who says "this guy is not a danger to himself or to the community". Then you buy first gun, wait 30 days, and get it. 2nd gun, you get it as soon as the paper work goes through, so usually next day.

That all sounds very reasonable, but it only works because Australia also did some significant gun buy-back programs as well. At least, that's the way it seems from my cursory research into Australia's success with gun control.

The US certainly has the resources to do something similar, but first we need to fix out democracy so that gun manufactures aren't running the show.

[TwoNineMarine]

I'm from Brazil and it has been more than 10 years since the Gun Ban Law started, and I can say by experience that it doesn't work.
Ppl from drug traffic never had any problem to get the guns they wanted, traffic gives a lot of money, with the money they buy most of their guns from corrupts.
Here on Brazil the only ones that don't have a gun are the civilians, and of course not having a gun won't keep some mad ppl to kill each other, it does help if you have, but you can still kill someone by many other ways.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I'm sorry you have to deal with that. That has to suck.

- - - Updated - - -

It is total bullshit government overstepping their bounds.

I agree.

/10char

[Mayhem]

What exactly is so bad about 30 day waiting period for your first gun purchase? I mean, the australian policy is pretty reasonable, without going into too much private detail.

[Daelak]

Going by word of mouth rather than actual legal action that has happened against the individual creates an unsettling precedent.

Sworn affadavits of family members and friends, including employers would not be enough? This is getting, if it wasn't already, ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree.

/10char

Yes, but let's keep bitching about mental health and not doing anything about it, because tyranny, or something.

[vetinari]

http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast34.mp3

15 minutes in.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/kenya

Unless there is something wrong with my interwebs, its only 13 minutes long, and I can't find anything that says they send investigators over to family/friends (indeed, they don't require a character reference) on the website. Can you point it out? I just see that they check criminal, mental and DV records.

[TwoNineMarine]

Sworn affadavits of family members and friends, including employers would not be enough? This is getting, if it wasn't already, ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, but let's keep bitching about mental health and not doing anything about it, because tyranny, or something.

I'd say it wouldn't be enough frankly. Obviously this will be decided regardless of what I think. Or what you think.

But perhaps it would. I just think basing this stuff off of no actual criminal activity just doesn't sit well with me.

And I'm not bitching about mental health. I want to fix it just as much as anyone else. But the broad suggestions given about what is and isn't mental health doesn't lend itself to a solid argument.

And while you may not realize that governments do go the tyrannical route because of ignorance or straight up choosing not to believe it, isn't on me. Study history and you'll see that it happens a lot more often then you'd think.

Also I don't think that background checks/etc are the first step towards tyranny. You just made the comment and I responded.

Just wanted to clarify before people start shouting lol

[Daelak]

Unless there is something wrong with my interwebs, its only 13 minutes long, and I can't find anything that says they send investigators over to family/friends (indeed, they don't require a character reference) on the website. Can you point it out? I just see that they check criminal, mental and DV records.

All the information is in the gunpolicy website.

[vetinari]

All the information is in the gunpolicy website.

I can't find it, so I'm going to have to assume you are full of shit until you prove otherwise.

I don't see anything about investigators speaking to friends and family, I just see the usual police/court/medical records check.

[petej0]

Ok, let's assume that deep down in my black liberal heart I want to throw every gun into the pit of Mt. Doom. And deep in your heart you want to hand out free guns on every street corner. Does that prevent us from meeting somewhere in the middle and having a sensible reform of gun laws?

I can definitely meet in the middle on common sense gun laws. I am more liberal then most gun rights people I know. I have a good understanding of firearms, people and the gun culture. When events like Sandyhook happen and people call for more gun control I shake my head because the gun control laws they are trying to pass would not have prevented this event. Same with most other shootings. After Sandyhook it was all about banning "automatic weapons", "semi-automatic" and "assault rifles". Anyone who agreed or used these words are either deliberately being misleading or are massively uninformed on what they are talking about. That is why you have gun rights people pushing back so hard. There are people out there trying to legislate something they know nothing about.

Because right now, there doesn't seem to be any significant gun control.

Are you serious in saying that there is no significant gun control? What would your definition of "significant gun control" be?

Are you ok with just any loon being able to get his hands on a gun?

Anyone who is law abiding should be able to purchase a firearm. Should we expand this to include some mental health screenings? I think we can discuss that.

[Stormdash]

Sworn affadavits of family members and friends, including employers would not be enough? This is getting, if it wasn't already, ridiculous.

It should be enough -- at absolute best -- to prompt a summons or hearing of some kind. It is not nearly enough to justify preemptive seizure of property. You may have heard of the 5th Amendment, which has no militia language to demagogue, and specifies that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, which general means notice/hearing. One's firearms are both a property interest and a liberty interest, so their 3rd cousin filling out an affidavit that Gunowner yelled at them for hogging the potato salad at the family reunion shouldn't be enough for the government to seize first, ask questions later.

Especially since there is a curious track record of guns wrongfully seized by the government just disappearing. Like the case of Alan Minato in California, whose $75k gun collection was seized after a shooting accident that didn't result in any arrests or charges being filed, and rather than being returned as per the supposed policy of LAPD, was "destroyed" (most likely meaning some were destroyed, others were divvied up and taken), for which he is now suing.

When one is aware that Bloomberg's drone army is out there basically encouraging SWATting gun owners just for being gun owners, the real aim here is not very hard to decipher -- get antis to trump out nonsense against gunowners they know or are related to, to prompt their guns being taken, and never returned after the allegations turn out to be nonsense, just sucked down a bureaucratic blackhole.

[Daelak]

It should be enough -- at absolute best -- to prompt a summons or hearing of some kind. It is not nearly enough to justify preemptive seizure of property. You may have heard of the 5th Amendment, which has no militia language to demagogue, and specifies that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, which general means notice/hearing. One's firearms are both a property interest and a liberty interest, so their 3rd cousin filling out an affidavit that Gunowner yelled at them for hogging the potato salad at the family reunion shouldn't be enough for the government to seize first, ask questions later.

Especially since there is a curious track record of guns wrongfully seized by the government just disappearing. Like the case of Alan Minato in California, whose $75k gun collection was seized after a shooting accident that didn't result in any arrests or charges being filed, and rather than being returned as per the supposed policy of LAPD, was "destroyed" (most likely meaning some were destroyed, others were divvied up and taken), for which he is now suing.

When one is aware that Bloomberg's drone army is out there basically encouraging SWATting gun owners just for being gun owners, the real aim here is not very hard to decipher -- get antis to trump out nonsense against gunowners they know or are related to, to prompt their guns being taken, and never returned after the allegations turn out to be nonsense, just sucked down a bureaucratic blackhole.

And if you think government agents would consider such a ludicrous story as actual evidence of aggressive behavior, then you are making a mockery of your own defense of not regulating the sale of firearms to mentally ill people. I get it, the government is always shitty and bad and can't do anything right.

Oh is that a track record of federal government malfeasance? One story? I guess that is all the evidence one needs to make sweeping generalizations of government policy, regardless if it has anything to do with background checks for firearm sales.

No one is doing such a thing. You just cannot accept the fact that the government has a compelling interest to regulate firearm sales because of innocent Americans dying from firearm violence, just as the government works to solve other national issues.

[Mayhem]

It should be enough -- at absolute best -- to prompt a summons or hearing of some kind. It is not nearly enough to justify preemptive seizure of property. You may have heard of the 5th Amendment, which has no militia language to demagogue, and specifies that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, which general means notice/hearing. One's firearms are both a property interest and a liberty interest, so their 3rd cousin filling out an affidavit that Gunowner yelled at them for hogging the potato salad at the family reunion shouldn't be enough for the government to seize first, ask questions later.

Especially since there is a curious track record of guns wrongfully seized by the government just disappearing. Like the case of Alan Minato in California, whose $75k gun collection was seized after a shooting accident that didn't result in any arrests or charges being filed, and rather than being returned as per the supposed policy of LAPD, was "destroyed" (most likely meaning some were destroyed, others were divvied up and taken), for which he is now suing.

When one is aware that Bloomberg's drone army is out there basically encouraging SWATting gun owners just for being gun owners, the real aim here is not very hard to decipher -- get antis to trump out nonsense against gunowners they know or are related to, to prompt their guns being taken, and never returned after the allegations turn out to be nonsense, just sucked down a bureaucratic blackhole.

Civil forfeiture screams at your 5th amendment.

[Lava Bucket]

I can definitely meet in the middle on common sense gun laws. I am more liberal then most gun rights people I know. I have a good understanding of firearms, people and the gun culture. When events like Sandyhook happen and people call for more gun control I shake my head because the gun control laws they are trying to pass would not have prevented this event. Same with most other shootings. After Sandyhook it was all about banning "automatic weapons", "semi-automatic" and "assault rifles". Anyone who agreed or used these words are either deliberately being misleading or are massively uninformed on what they are talking about. That is why you have gun rights people pushing back so hard. There are people out there trying to legislate something they know nothing about.

Are you serious in saying that there is no significant gun control? What would your definition of "significant gun control" be?

Anyone who is law abiding should be able to purchase a firearm. Should we expand this to include some mental health screenings? I think we can discuss that.

Significant gun control like what vetinari described Australia is like. Reasonable background checks. 30-day waiting period for your first gun purchase (only takes a few days after the first one). Serious gun buy-back program to reduce all the loose guns. Combine this with universal healthcare to help out people with mental issues.

We probably need to make these laws federal as well, because it won't do any good to have strict laws in one state only to have lax or nonexistent laws in a neighboring state. Same with how handgun bans in large cities fail because they are surrounded by places you can easily drive to and purchase a gun with no questions asked.

[Mistame]

Reasonable background checks.

We have reasonable background checks.

30-day waiting period for your first gun purchase (only takes a few days after the first one).

If someone passes a background check, there is literally no logical reason to make them wait 30 days.

Same with how handgun bans in large cities fail because they are surrounded by places you can easily drive to and purchase a gun with no questions asked.

Bans don't work because they're bans.

[petej0]

Significant gun control like what vetinari described Australia is like. Reasonable background checks. 30-day waiting period for your first gun purchase (only takes a few days after the first one). Serious gun buy-back program to reduce all the loose guns. Combine this with universal healthcare to help out people with mental issues.

We have reasonable background checks. Problem is, all the agencies dont share the same data. That is a problem of the agencies, not the background checks. So enforce or establish a universal system for background checks. A 30 Day waiting period sounds reasonable, so does a buy back program. Name a politician or gun control advocate who has proposed something like this. They all seem to want to target magazine size, and types of weapons, weapon styles or attachments etc.. It is low hanging fruit that does nothing but appeal to peoples emotion on the topic.

I would go one step further and require people have separate licenses and training for each "class" of weapon. So if you have a handgun license you couldnt buy a rifle or shotgun until you pass the required training and acquire the proper license.

People have this notion, and maybe its because of Bowling for Columbine where Micheal Moore "appears" to walk into a bank open an account and get a gun. That was not and is not how it works. It was fabricated for the movie. While the bank did have a promotion where you got a shotgun when you opened an account. The person still had to pass a background check and the firearm was shipped to the local gun store where the necesary paper work was filed and firearm handed over.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone passes a background check, there is literally no logical reason to make them wait 30 days.

I think there should be a waiting period of some sort, just so a newly fired disgruntled employee cant go to a gun store pass an instant background check because his employer notification didnt make it into the nation background check system in time.

[vetinari]

We have reasonable background checks.



If someone passes a background check, there is literally no logical reason to make them wait 30 days.



Bans don't work because they're bans.

The idea for the waiting period is so that people who don't have a recorded history of DV have some time to cool off before they shoot their wife for adultery.

[Roxinius]

The idea for the waiting period is so that people who don't have a recorded history of DV have some time to cool off before they shoot their wife for adultery.

yet in the latest shooting the guy bought the gun 2 months in advance of killing those 2 people so what would a waiting period have accomplished?

[TZucchini]

yet in the latest shooting the guy bought the gun 2 months in advance of killing those 2 people so what would a waiting period have accomplished?

Oh my god! A waiting period wouldn't have worked in that one specific incident??? They must be useless! What a terrible idea!

[Gestopft]

yet in the latest shooting the guy bought the gun 2 months in advance of killing those 2 people so what would a waiting period have accomplished?

It's not going to save everybody, but giving members of an emotional, impulsive species some time to chill before acquiring a deadly weapon is still a good idea.

[PhaelixWW]

Thanks for agreeing with me, you worded it oddly though.

There's a huge difference between what you said and what I said. That's why the wording was different.

Because right now, there doesn't seem to be any significant gun control.

Ironic, because attempting to find a middle ground with someone who ignores the fact that place you're starting from is already somewhere close to the middle is doomed to fail.

Care to explain how the myriad gun regulations in this country leave us anywhere close to your hypothetical extreme of "hand[ing] out free guns on every street corner"?

Are you ok with just any loon being able to get his hands on a gun?

If this is how you view the current state of firearm regulation, then you obviously have no idea what the process entails.

And when you say that, you are being willfully ignorant of the additional laws and policies European nations and Australia use to do just that.

On the contrary.

You just assume that those laws are the reason that the rates are different in those countries, and you assume that the same laws would be effective in the US.

And then you act like your assumptions are facts.

I simply disagree with your assumptions.

Because something is difficult to do, we shouldn't attempt it?

The difference is that most proposed gun control legislation doesn't affect only criminals. They generally make things more difficult for the law-abiding firearm purchasers far more than they do for the illegal street buyers.

If you come up with gun control legislation that literally only affects criminals, I don't think most of us would complain at all.

I'm glad you clarified. Many pro-gun people on this site use that as an argument to do nothing about guns in America.

I don't think you're reading most of our positions all that clearly.

I'm for a comprehensive approach that involves sensible background checks (a lot of middle ground here) and universal healthcare to address mental illness (this is critical as well because of so many loose guns).

I'm for both of those things, too.

We already have background checks on retail purchases, though they could probably find a way to enhance those a bit without unduly burdening the buyer. I'm not strictly opposed to a law requiring background checks on private purchases, but such a law would be next to worthless, especially with the current lack of prosecution for existing laws.

And I think free, universal healthcare is just about the holy grail of civilization (along with free, universal education).

What exactly is so bad about 30 day waiting period for your first gun purchase? I mean, the australian policy is pretty reasonable, without going into too much private detail.

If you're buying the firearm for defense, you can understand the sense of urgency some people might have. And what benefit does waiting 30 days give? How many of the highly publicized shootings were done within 30 days of their firearm purchase?

Serious gun buy-back program to reduce all the loose guns.

"Loose guns", lol. You drastically, drastically overestimate the effectiveness of gun "buy-back" programs in the US.

We probably need to make these laws federal as well, because it won't do any good to have strict laws in one state only to have lax or nonexistent laws in a neighboring state.

This has been addressed before and is not necessarily accurate.

Same with how handgun bans in large cities fail because they are surrounded by places you can easily drive to and purchase a gun with no questions asked.

You have more of a case for this argument. City specific laws are not very effective. State-wide laws can be much, much more effective.

It's not going to save everybody, but giving members of an emotional, impulsive species some time to chill before acquiring a deadly weapon is still a good idea.

The point, I think, is that if you don't "chill" in, say, 3 days, you're unlikely to "chill" in 30.