Senator: I strongly oppose any notion of "Universal Background Checks" for private sales of firearms. I will not comply. And I will be watching your vote on this issue. I am much more afraid of government, and Washington DC in particular, than I am of any criminals that might get guns via private party purchases. The government has already failed in so many ways in its various over-reachings. You people in DC are so out of touch. Sandy Hook has nothing to do with gunshow loopholes or private party transfers. Any action on the part of the Senate or House on this matter is a shameful attack on gun owners by a mechanism to implement a registry. Be ashamed of yourself for attempting this legislation. Be doubly ashamed if it passes. You dishonor the office.
My local turd gargler McCain is one of the ringleaders of this mess.
I'm just wondering what the opposition to background checks is. I will first freely confess that I do not yet own a firearm, but when I go to buy one I (personally) would not be opposed to having a background check run on me.
Why so much opposition? If I understand them correctly, you will still be able to purchase whatever you can already legally purchase, but you would have to wait for some period of time first. What am I missing?
I'm just wondering what the opposition to background checks is. I will first freely confess that I do not yet own a firearm, but when I go to buy one I (personally) would not be opposed to having a background check run on me.
Why so much opposition? If I understand them correctly, you will still be able to purchase whatever you can already legally purchase, but you would have to wait for some period of time first. What am I missing?
I guess I don't see confiscation as a real threat. I don't think it will happen, certainly not in my lifetime but probably not my children's either. I don't think the registry is that big of a deal.
In terms of property rights, the difference between a gun and a dirt bike or a table saw is that only one of those things can take away the lives of 10 people from 100 yards in a matter of seconds. I don't think it is unreasonable to track and regulate dangerous items, just like we do with deadly chemicals and explosives.
I still don't know if I would oppose some way to track private sales although I'm not sure how you would do it.
Man you guys are fast, thank you.
I know the long distance thing is BS, and that it almost never happens outside of the movies where every shot (from a good guy) is a head shot.
But they do have the potential of doing a LOT of damage in a short period of time,
I guess I don't see confiscation as a real threat. I don't think it will happen, certainly not in my lifetime but probably not my children's either. I don't think the registry is that big of a deal.
In terms of property rights, the difference between a gun and a dirt bike or a table saw is that only one of those things can take away the lives of 10 people from 100 yards in a matter of seconds. I don't think it is unreasonable to track and regulate dangerous items, just like we do with deadly chemicals and explosives.
Gun licensing here in Sweden was only supposed to be registration to begin with - you bought (or had) a gun, you took the serial number (if the gun had one) and went to the local police station to register it. This in turn led to requiring licenses for each individual firearm, requiring you to demonstrate a need for each firearm, restricting the number and type of guns you can own for hunting or target shooting, and the list of approved "needs" shrinking over time, until it's virtually impossible to get a firearm simply for self defense, as an example.
The same have happened all over the world. The whole idea of someone else determining whether I need a firearm is a con to begin with - There is exactly one person on this planet who is capable of determining if I need a firearm or not, and that person is me. If I require a firearm, anything between a .22 Flobert revolver to a Mk19 grenade launcher and everything in between, I should be able to get one with as little fuss as possible, either from a gun store, private sale, being gifted one, making one entirely from scratch, etc, being restricted only by the money in my wallet or how much I can charge on my credit card. Gun prohibitionists, statists, hoplophobes and similar types are either deluded or evil, and I don't want either personality type responsible for making laws, rules and regulations, thankyouverymuch.
The two largest mass murders in US history were done with:
1. Box Cutters
2. Diesel fuel and Fertilizer
I can buy all three without a background check or waiting period.
Have you tried buying ammonium nitrate lately?
nd most firearms that do change hands privately doing so through family in inheritance and sales to friends or trusted people
I'm just wondering what the opposition to background checks is. I will first freely confess that I do not yet own a firearm, but when I go to buy one I (personally) would not be opposed to having a background check run on me.
Why so much opposition? If I understand them correctly, you will still be able to purchase whatever you can already legally purchase, but you would have to wait for some period of time first. What am I missing?
So, Arfin, I can assume that was merely a mini-rant? =D
California confiscation of SKS rifles:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/xcibviewitem.asp?id=195
New York City did something similar, and conducted raids.
Curious, Are by any chance from Canada, eh? ("aboot") :laugh: No offense intended.
What about software? A whole heck of a lot of people can be killed by hacking the right software systems. Hydroelectric dams, nuclear power stations, irrigation or flood control canals, traffic lights. Maybe we should have background checks on Visual Studio, or the gcc open source compiler binaries.
The obvious retort is "criminals won't subject themselves to the checks, they will steal the guns or buy them illegally" Of course this might be true, might be only because these are the brightest and most stable people we are talking about here, but is the difficulty of stealing or purchasing a firearm illegally easier or harder than going through legal channels? I would think it's much harder. Again, background checks won't eliminate ALL crazies from obtaining firearms but it will almost certainly make it more difficult.
Whatever we did starting in 1968 didn't work, and isn't working.So we should do it again. Harder.
| [ar15] | So we should do it again. Harder. |
Arfin hit the nail on the head.
Prohibition.
The War on Alcohol. The War on Drugs. The War on Guns. The War on Poverty. The War on Terrorism.
The only thing that happens when government declares war on something is:
1. That thing becomes very profitable
2. The rest of the population that doesn't really give a damn one way or another gets shafted by an ever increasing series of hoops to jump through in order to go about their lives.
Prohibition never works, unless by "working" we mean that it increases vested authority in a government body purely for the sake of bloating that authority.
Shortened rant:
Prior to 1968 we didn't have a problem.
In 1968 we passed the GCA, created the federal licensing of firearms dealers.
Over the intervening years we added lots and lots of gun laws. Thousands of them.
Today we have problems involving firearms -- problems which simply didn't exist prior to 1968.
Whatever we did starting in 1968 didn't work, and isn't working.
Are you suggesting that the GCA is the CAUSE of the increase in gun violence? Seems to me to be a correlation at best but not a cause by any stretch. A lot of things have changed since then, a lot of things have stayed the same. Did gun violence spike in 1968? I think you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing case that the GCA is THE cause. It may or may not have contributed.
Here are a couple of timelines showing violent crime (not gun violence) as a function of time. This one shows the increase beginning around 1963, prior to the GCA.
http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dcrime.htm
So, am I understanding your position correctly or have I misread it?
I still can't find anything about New York doing this. Either way, it is wrongheaded at least. Confiscating one type of gun because of its looks is very misguided. In terms of the California confiscation, they seem to have only done so to individuals who were convicted criminals.
I still can't find anything about New York doing this. Either way, it is wrongheaded at least. Confiscating one type of gun because of its looks is very misguided. In terms of the California confiscation, they seem to have only done so to individuals who were convicted criminals.
Is it the general position that NO ONE, not even convicted violent criminals, the criminally insane and so forth should be restricted?
Not Canadian but that is the joke, nice job picking it out.
I shortened your post because this is getting long. I was not asking aboot what should or shouldn't be banned, I originally asked aboot registration. In terms of the things you listed, they ARE regulated. We DO take extra precautions to limit and monitor access to the control of dams, power grids and so forth. We don't do it because it will eliminate 100% of the potential disasters, we do it to reduce the risk, ie the number of likely disasters, that's all we CAN do.
That feeds back to my original question about background checks. If someone with a history of violent crime or mental illness couldn't LEGALLY buy a firearm because they couldn't pass the mandatory background check, wouldn't that be a good thing? You would still pass yours, and it may limit the #of dangerous people, not law abiding citizens, from having weapons?
The obvious retort is "criminals won't subject themselves to the checks, they will steal the guns or buy them illegally" Of course this might be true, might be only because these are the brightest and most stable people we are talking about here, but is the difficulty of stealing or purchasing a firearm illegally easier or harder than going through legal channels? I would think it's much harder. Again, background checks won't eliminate ALL crazies from obtaining firearms but it will almost certainly make it more difficult.
Sorry that's so long. I do want to stick to background checks. (and for those who haven't read the whole thread, I DO NOT support confiscation, or idiotic legislation that bans/restricts guns bases on their looks or capacity)
This is business troubleshooting 101.
Things are running fine. Yay. You keep things the way they are.
Things are no longer running fine. Boo. You look for what changed. You roll back the changes.
There will always be someone willing to tell you that "the changes were necessary" or that "reverting things won't make any difference" or possibly that "things are so different now, we dare not take them back where they were."
Fail.
You revert the changes. You return things to the way they were when things were running fine.
See, that's what I'm talking about.
Bring up a bunch of irrelevant points and use them to justify the "can't be undone" mantra.
BS.
The useless legislative house of cards that is gun law can be rolled back. Would there be a certain amount of chaotic adjustment? Sure.
But you know what? We lived through the repeal of Prohibition 1.0, and we would survive the repeal of Prohibition 2.0 as well.
Quit stacking stoopid like cord wood and return the liberty that's been stolen.
There is no argument that you can make that will persuade me that there's a downside to ceasing the charade of artificially and capriciously creating criminals over victim-less crimes.
See, that's what I'm talking about.
Bring up a bunch of irrelevant points and use them to justify the "can't be undone" mantra.
BS.
The useless legislative house of cards that is gun law can be rolled back. Would there be a certain amount of chaotic adjustment? Sure.
But you know what? We lived through the repeal of Prohibition 1.0, and we would survive the repeal of Prohibition 2.0 as well.
Quit stacking stoopid like cord wood and return the liberty that's been stolen.
There is no argument that you can make that will persuade me that there's a downside to ceasing the charade of artificially and capriciously creating criminals over victim-less crimes.
The useless legislative house of cards that is gun law can be rolled back. Would there be a certain amount of chaotic adjustment? Sure.
Just to get your personal view, do you think anyone (including convicted violent criminals and the criminally insane) should be allowed to purchase firearms?How did we get from repealing GCA'68 (and the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1967 or 68, I don't remember which it was) to nukes in one step? But since you asked a ridiculous question, I'll give you an appropriate answer: "Yes." I would be OK with my neighbor having an ICBM if she could afford it. You'll have to also repeal at least NFA'34 first, and I don't see that happening any time soon. (though I wish they'd take silencers off the NFA list)
Do you think we should have ZERO restrictions on weapons purchases? In other words, if I had the means, would you be ok with me having ICBMs in my backyard and a metric ton of c4 in my garage?
Would your answer change if I were your neighbor? What if I were your neighbor and you knew that I heard voices in my head that told me to do things?
How did we get from repealing GCA'68 (and the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1967 or 68, I don't remember which it was) to nukes in one step? But since you asked a ridiculous question, I'll give you an appropriate answer: "yes" I would be OK with my neighbor having an ICBM if she could afford it.
As far as the violent felons and criminally insane, what are they doing walking around instead of being locked-up?
I think we'd have a lot lower recidivism rate if we allowed ex-cons to defend themselves, vote, and to earn an honest living, rather than branding them as 4th class citizens, well-to-the-rear of illegal aliens. Have they paid their debt to society or not?
I was just being a jerk.:rofl: You'll fit right in here.
:rofl: You'll fit right in here.
Yeah, the nukes were out of left field, I was just being a jerk.
In terms of people walking around who are insane or felons or whatever is an interesting question...and it hinges on your second point that is have they or have they not paid their debt? If we give punishments and set people free when they have paid their debts, it would seem to imply they should have all the same rights as you or I. Not an easy question. I am coming from the point of view that there they are walking around, like it or not that's what we have at the moment, and how do you deal with that?
The better question and perhaps the best way to tackle that isn't restricting their freedom once they are out but instead having a conversation about whether they should be out in the first place? Different topic I think, but an important one.
I think I didn't respond to this very well. It COULD be rolled back, of course it could. What I mean to say is that once you have returned all of the laws to the way they began, you would not have exactly the same dynamic as you started with.
Lawful gun owners are not committing the preponderance of violent crimes.
As a matter of fact if lawful gun owners were committing more than a small percentage (low single digits) I would be surprised.
Creating more laws that inconvenience and hinder the 90+ percent and fail to address the actual violent crime problem makes no sense. Unless there is a different motive for the restrictions than what is bandied about (saving the children!)
But if you really want a metric buttload of C4, more power to ya. Just don't blow up your neighbors... If you want a Mk19 grenade launcher? Great! Have fun with it... Just don't blow up your neighbors.... Want a howitzer, or a gatling gun? Heck, an AC-130 if you can afford it? Sweet! Can I come hang out??? I promise not to blow up the neighbors....
To your last point, I actually think that many if not most of the gun control advocates are very sincere in there intentions. They really believe that additional control will make a difference.
Can you imagine the stack of form-4's and form-1's you'd have to submit for an AC-130 (with all its ammo)?
You'd be financing your own wing at martinsburg!
You do know that Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have concealed weapons permits, right? She is from San Francisco (carries a .357 Magnum revolver) and he's from New York, neither of which gives permits to ordinary people. They don't want to get rid of guns, they want to get rid of YOUR guns and my guns. In their minds only the elites and ruling class should have arm -- and the police and the career criminals, of course. it'll be a freakin' utopia... just like Mexico or Somalia.Like I said. Sociopathic control freaks.
You do know that Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have concealed weapons permits, right? She is from San Francisco (carries a .357 Magnum revolver) and he's from New York, neither of which gives permits to ordinary people. They don't want to get rid of guns, they want to get rid of YOUR guns and my guns. In their minds only the elites and ruling class should have arm -- and the police and the career criminals, of course. it'll be a freakin' utopia... just like Mexico or Somalia.
I applaud what you did, but its still just urinating into the wind.
I also believe that the absolute majority of those in power who fight for gun control are outright evil and sociopathic. Evil, because ultimately, it isn't about guns, it's about control, and they sure love to control things.
Here's an interesting question I'd like to pose:
I think history has shown that against civilian targets, explosives are one of the most devastating kind of attack.
Yet, anyone can enroll in the local community college's chemistry courses. Trinitrotoluene [TNT] can be manufactured from reagents available cash and carry at any Home Depot in the country. TATP can be made from reagents freely available at CVS and Walgreens. The reactions and laboratory procedures are available to anyone who cares to look them up.
Does this need to change? Why or why not?
The public policy debate right now is asking if the tools that one could use to commit crimes should be made illegal.
How about my F250 pickup? It weighs 4300lbs. If it were driven through a crowded parade at speed, many innocent people would be hurt or killed.
I bought a new chef's knife from walmart last month. Man, that thing is sharp. Under 30 bucks, cash and carry. Problem?
Should I have to pass a background check to purchase a Ford pickup? What about concrete cleaner and specialty paint thinner? What about firearms? Where do you draw the line? Why?
Just to get your personal view, do you think anyone (including convicted violent criminals and the criminally insane) should be allowed to purchase firearms?
Do you think we should have ZERO restrictions on weapons purchases? In other words, if I had the means, would you be ok with me having ICBMs in my backyard and a metric ton of c4 in my garage?
Would your answer change if I were your neighbor? What if I were your neighbor and you knew that I heard voices in my head that told me to do things?
Buying large amounts of chemicals used in explosives IS regulated...does it stop all acts of terror, of course not, and the deadliest chemicals are heavily restricted.
You do have to demonstrate some basic competence to drive your pickup, you had to get a license. You probably didn't complain much about that did you? But if we said you had to pass a mandatory test in ALL states to purchase a firearm you probably would.
Knives...anything can be used as a weapon, but the idea that regulation can't stop every act of violence is not a reason not to try to reduce them. That's why we restrict access to vehicles, the sale of power tools, potentially explosive reagents, none of these restrictions stop all crimes but they can make it more difficult to carry them out.
Trinitrotoluene [TNT] can be manufactured from reagents available cash and carry at any Home Depot in the country.
You do have to demonstrate some basic competence to drive your pickup, you had to get a license. You probably didn't complain much about that did you? But if we said you had to pass a mandatory test in ALL states to purchase a firearm you probably would.Fail. No license (or permit or insurance) is required to purchase a pickup, nor to drive it on private property. The license and insurance are only needed if you want to take it on the public roadways.
Buying large amounts of chemicals used in explosives IS regulated...does it stop all acts of terror, of course not, and the deadliest chemicals are heavily restricted.
You do have to demonstrate some basic competence to drive your pickup, you had to get a license. You probably didn't complain much about that did you? But if we said you had to pass a mandatory test in ALL states to purchase a firearm you probably would.
Knives...anything can be used as a weapon, but the idea that regulation can't stop every act of violence is not a reason not to try to reduce them. That's why we restrict access to vehicles, the sale of power tools, potentially explosive reagents, none of these restrictions stop all crimes but they can make it more difficult to carry them out.
As for c4 and ICBMs, the only thing stopping them from owning them is money. Period. Full stop.
Plenty of people want control but certainly that doesn't make them evil. We want our kids to be safe from perverts so we try to control which adults interact with them. That is controlling OUR kids, what aboot controlling other peoples behavior? Is it evil to limit the behavior of sex offenders by preventing them from being around schools or children's activities? No. It's sensible. I'm not saying all control is sensible, but am just making a point that we should be careful throwing a word like evil around.
No it can't. ;/ You can probably get the toluene and sulfuric acid there, but you'll need to further concentrate the acid. AFAIK, they don't sell nitric acid nor anything that can be readily converted to nitric acid.
You do have to demonstrate some basic competence to drive your pickup, you had to get a license. You probably didn't complain much about that did you? But if we said you had to pass a mandatory test in ALL states to purchase a firearm you probably would.
I believe you would find that, provided it isn't a precursor for illegal drugs, many very dangerous chemicals are widely available.
I do not have to have a license to buy a pickup from a private party. I give them cash, they give me the title and keys. I have to have a license to operate in on public roads, just like I have to have a license to carry a firearm in public.
We restrict sales of power tools? I own many powertools I've purchased cash and carry. Including machine tools. I've rented heavy equipment before; there were no checks. I had to provide a major credit card to make sure I wouldn't run off with their tooling...
Potentially explosive reagents, as already noted, are uncontrolled.
Yes, you can.
Sikagard Heavy Duty Concrete Clean & Etch contains about 20% by volume nitric acid. It's available at depot.
Vacuum distillation is a simple procedure learned in organic chemistry I. It does require some [uncontrolled] glassware, though.
I choose to look at the fruits of their labors. Do people like Feinstein and Schumer produce good fruit? or bad?
I work in a research lab and we use a number of deadly and explosive reagents, and I can assure you you can't get them easily.
Of course you don't need to have a license to hop in and drive a car, but requiring one to LEGALLY do so no doubt reduces the number of people who do just to avoid the consequences. Laws deter people from doing certain actions. Does it stop all people from doing those actions? Of course not and I never said it did, in fact I have explicitly stated that it doesn't on multiple posts.
No it can't. You can probably get the toluene and sulfuric acid there, but you'll need to further concentrate the acid. AFAIK, they don't sell nitric acid nor anything that can be readily converted to nitric acid.
They have no doubt produced both, just as most human beings do. I am sure that they have provided positive influences on their childrens' lives and other people around them. The world isn't black and white.
Plenty of people want control but certainly that doesn't make them evil. We want our kids to be safe from perverts so we try to control which adults interact with them. That is controlling OUR kids, what aboot controlling other peoples behavior? Is it evil to limit the behavior of sex offenders by preventing them from being around schools or children's activities?
1. The only reason I don't complain about vehicle licensing is because I'm not sure how to abolish it. Don't make assumptions.
2. Second, vehicle licensing exists to assure that you will not get into accidents with your vehicle (as avoiding accidents with a vehicle requires skill). Gun licensing is not intended to avoid gun accidents (because gun accidents are not a major issue - everyone realizes that you are not really likely to accidentally shoot yourself dead with a gun - you're more likely to get hit by lightning. Gun accidents occur not due to a lack of marksmanship skill, but through total stupidity on someone's behalf). The problem that some people have with gun ownership revolves around the problem of people being deliberately shot with guns.
Firearm licensing will have exactly one effect:
Impose costs on gun ownership, by creating more arbitrary hassle for you to go through when you buy a gun.
Passing a marksmanship test will not make you less likely to shoot another human being or to commit suicide.
It will only make it more difficult for you to own a gun.
So, if you believe that less people owning guns is, in and of itself, going to lead to less murders being committed... then surely you'd think that gun licensing is good.
But in that case you are not actually curiousaboutguns, you're actually full-on anti-gun.
Because that's what being anti-gun actually is, believing that more people lawfully owning more guns leads to more murders.
Yes, you can.
Sikagard Heavy Duty Concrete Clean & Etch contains about 20% by volume nitric acid. It's available at depot.
Vacuum distillation is a simple procedure learned in organic chemistry I. It does require some [uncontrolled] glassware, though.
Obviously you and I do not hang out with the same demographic.
The answer would be, "not really".
Yeah, the nukes were out of left field, I was just being a jerk.
I've yet to see a compelling case on why we need any new infringement on our rights.
How about we lock up murderers and not let them out? How about you use a gun in the commission of a crime you get locked up and we don't let you out?
Just a tip from the moderator staff here - don't make a habit of that. ;)
How about we lock up murderers and not let them out? How about you use a gun in the commission of a crime you get locked up and we don't let you out?
I'm just wondering what the opposition to background checks is. I will first freely confess that I do not yet own a firearm, but when I go to buy one I (personally) would not be opposed to having a background check run on me.I reject out of hand the assumptions you are making.
Why so much opposition? If I understand them correctly, you will still be able to purchase whatever you can already legally purchase, but you would have to wait for some period of time first. What am I missing?
You're falling for their trap. Why is a gun-crime any worse than a hammer-crime? Or a Buick-crime? Those can be just as deadly.
What if the "use a gun in the commission of a crime" is just possession of that gun incidental to, say, misdemeanor drug possession? The gun had nothing to do with the drugs, the cops just found it when they ransacked your house or car looking for weed. What if the possession of an unregistered gun is the ONLY crime?
You say gun licensing is not aboot reducing accidents. Does that mean you would support it if it were for that purpose? Instead of saying a magazine can't be larger than XX (which I don't support btw), we instead said: pass a skill and safety test first. Would you support that? Gun accidents may be a small percentage but wouldn't are polite and armed society be safer and more effective at stopping crime if individuals who were carrying were trained to a standard?
Fine, use (as in brandishing) of any weapon in the commission of a crime whether it be knife, gun, 2X4 etc. gets you extra luv from the judge at sentencing.
Fine, use (as in brandishing) of any weapon in the commission of a crime whether it be knife, gun, 2X4 etc. gets you extra luv from the judge at sentencing.
Well, try hanging out with law abiding citizens from time to time.
Who is making assumptions now?! I do not believe that more people lawfully owning more guns leads to more murders. I am not full-on anti-gun. Believing that there may be minimally intrusive restrictions and requirements on citizens that could reduce gun violence is not being anti-gun. I think that sort of attitude is the negative stereotype of gun advocates that I was hoping to erase by getting a better idea of pro gun rights positions. The attitude that if someone says "maybe convicted violent offenders with mental disorders owning firearms might be something we should reconsider" is equivalent to "take everyones guns away!" is ridiculous.
You say gun licensing is not aboot reducing accidents. Does that mean you would support it if it were for that purpose? Instead of saying a magazine can't be larger than XX (which I don't support btw), we instead said: pass a skill and safety test first. Would you support that? Gun accidents may be a small percentage but wouldn't are polite and armed society be safer and more effective at stopping crime if individuals who were carrying were trained to a standard?
And one thing I just don't understand about the the laws only target criminals so don't enact them..isn't that what ALL laws do? I mean, it's illegal to drive drunk, but why have that law? It leads to sober drivers being stopped at checkpoints or asked additional questions during a traffic stop so it in fact leads to an inconvenience for law abiding citizens. Besides, people still drive drunk, does that mean drunk driving laws are a complete failure?
Violent criminals, generally repeat offenders are the cause of gun crimes.
Address the who is committing the crime and where the vast majority of the crime is taking place and leave flyover country alone.
And yes I know that criminals won't submit to background checks or add themselves to a registry, but isn't that the point? It limits the avenues through which they can obtain firearms.
First point: agreed. The idea behind a background check is that it can act as a screen for those individuals, NOT the weapons, the INDIVIDUALS. And if you are serious about targeting repeat offenders, would a registry aid that cause? If you get arrested, once or multiple times, and you are known to possess firearms, could we take them from the offenders (and ONLY them)?
And yes I know that criminals won't submit to background checks or add themselves to a registry, but isn't that the point? It limits the avenues through which they can obtain firearms.
1. The point I am seeking to make is this: gun accidents are not a result of people having insufficient skills with guns. There is no need to be skilled with a gun at all to avoid shooting accidents. In this way, gun licensing is different from vehicle licensing. With vehicle licensing, at least we know that knowing how to drive better avoids accidents. There is a specific mechanism by which this works.
Being a very good shot with your gun will not actually make you less likely to have an accident with it. This is why actually requiring a skill test will not reduce gun accidents at all.
Which is why the only thing that gun licensing is useful for anything it is reducing the number of guns.
I think that sort of attitude is the negative stereotype of gun advocates that I was hoping to erase by getting a better idea of pro gun rights positions. The attitude that if someone says "maybe convicted violent offenders with mental disorders owning firearms might be something we should reconsider" is equivalent to "take everyones guns away!" is ridiculous.
I told myself I would log off hours ago and get to work...so I'm picking the first point only, I'll try and remember the others later.
The skill portion of the test is to increase the likelihood that in a "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" situation, that it will be done as effectively as possible and minimize collateral damage. The accidents bit was supposed to be addressed by my addition of the "safety" training.
I'm not sure I'm convinced that adding the licensing requirement would reduce the number of guns. If I understand you correctly, and I may not, law abiding citizens would be deterred from purchasing firearms because of the hassle.
If that is your position, let me ask you and the others on the forum a question:
Premise: If starting today you were required to get a license for purchase, and hell let's add safety/skill training and background checks (no registry).
Questions: Would you refuse to ever buy another gun? Would you buy fewer guns?
Probably.
Luckly, I have a pretty good stash of firearms already, so I wouldn't be unarmed.
But I am not the person to be asking.
Ask people who don't already own guns, ask people who've never shot a gun, ask people who arn't already invested in RKBA, self defence, hunting and shooting sports, but would be intrested if given the oppertunity.
As it stands, I can take someone of limited finachial means, teach them to shoot, take them to a gun store, help them find a firearm they want/afford and they can buy it. Bing, bang, boom. They might never buy another, and they might end up as hard core as the people around here. You never know, but they can at least go try it.
But with your process? I can just tell them "hey, you have to go to x government agency, fill out y form, take d class and get u permit, AND then you can get a gun from f dealer."
Are they going to go through that process to buy one firearm because they were mildly intrested? Probably not.
And what happens when it's an issue of SD? I can train someone in a few hours the raw basics. If they are dedicated to their personal safety, they can and will improve on that training. But it does them less then no good if they don't have a firearm.
Are they supposed to hang a sign on their door "Dear Threat, please return in two months after my paperwork to purchase a firearm goes through. Thanks, your victum."
Incorrect. While CA is currently in the news regarding using their firearms registration database to confiscate from convicted criminals, the confiscation most of us are referring to dates back to Roberti-Roos, which was not aimed at convicted criminals. In fact it was specifically aimed at those Californians who followed the law and registered their weapons. They used the registration database to send out confiscation letters after deeming that weapons they originally said were legal were changed to illegal status. See here:
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer2.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer3.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer4.gif
Further, regarding confiscation from "only criminals", what is a criminal? This is where confiscation heads towards shaky ground. The photocopied letters above indicate that those who registered their "assault weapons" would not be criminals, but then the specific type of rifle was made illegal and they became criminals. For all I know, tomorrow California could pass a law making it illegal to own a lever action rifle. If I don't turn mine in, I become a criminal. There have also been numerous cases of people being wrongly accused of domestic violence in nasty divorces, etc. that have lead to confiscation.
:rofl: You'll fit right in here.
I work in a research lab and we use a number of deadly and explosive reagents, and I can assure you you can't get them easily.
Of course you don't need to have a license to hop in and drive a car, but requiring one to LEGALLY do so no doubt reduces the number of people who do just to avoid the consequences. Laws deter people from doing certain actions. Does it stop all people from doing those actions? Of course not and I never said it did, in fact I have explicitly stated that it doesn't on multiple posts.
I'm not sure I'm convinced that adding the licensing requirement would reduce the number of guns. If I understand you correctly, and I may not, law abiding citizens would be deterred from purchasing firearms because of the hassle.
I told myself I would log off hours ago and get to work...so I'm picking the first point only, I'll try and remember the others later.
The skill portion of the test is to increase the likelihood that in a "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" situation, that it will be done as effectively as possible and minimize collateral damage. The accidents bit was supposed to be addressed by my addition of the "safety" training.
I'm not sure I'm convinced that adding the licensing requirement would reduce the number of guns. If I understand you correctly, and I may not, law abiding citizens would be deterred from purchasing firearms because of the hassle.
If that is your position, let me ask you and the others on the forum a question:
Premise: If starting today you were required to get a license for purchase, and hell let's add safety/skill training and background checks (no registry).
Questions: Would you refuse to ever buy another gun? Would you buy fewer guns?
First point: agreed. The idea behind a background check is that it can act as a screen for those individuals, NOT the weapons, the INDIVIDUALS. And if you are serious about targeting repeat offenders, would a registry aid that cause? If you get arrested, once or multiple times, and you are known to possess firearms, could we take them from the offenders (and ONLY them)?Once again, 100% of firearm owners are inconvenienced, charged more fees, government grows in size and in ability to disarm the citizenry all for a scheme you readily admit the criminals will ignore. Currently the government pretty much ignores the folks that attempt to buy a gun and get rejected in the background check. Apparently those restricted by law from owning guns attempting to get guns aren't really what the Fed is concerned about, otherwise they would be prosecuting them. They just want the list, they want to know who has guns.
And yes I know that criminals won't submit to background checks or add themselves to a registry, but isn't that the point? It limits the avenues through which they can obtain firearms.
@Curious
A random question, If you are curious about guns, why are you only participating in this (very specific topic focused) thread, and veering it to addressing your questions and narrative? It smacks of a single-issue user, or even, not to put you on the defensive (as you have already done to others' points of view), a troll. This is a community of folks who participate in many different areas, and so far, the entirety of your participation has been to debate a single issue, where the only "curiosity" that appears to be being satisfied is "what do APS members think of universal background checks and various other gun'control' proposals.
You have YET to ask a single question about firearms that doesn't relate to what WE think or believe, haven't attempted to obtain any information about shooting sports, licensing, defensive use, firearm types, operation, or even safety.
Given the above, your screen name would be better phrased as "curiousabootothersopinionsonsenateproposals" rather than "curiousabootguns", as you haven't shown ANY curiosity about guns.
In other words, to be completely frank, this thread is devolving to a (while well reasoned and civil) debate about specific proposals, and you seem to have joined our open community to in effect debate a single issue, press us as to our opinions, and offer little to no information about yourself (a/s/l or otherwise). I'm sorry, but the more this interaction goes on, the more it seems like you are researching an article, rather than addressing a personal curiosity.
All of the debate points we have made are widely available in public sources, with even the simplest of google searches, and yet that level of curiosity was not apparent, and rather it seems focused on -our- specific responses to your questions.
Rarely do people join a forum they actually want to be a part of to simply ask current members to justify THEIR positions on a debate topic that seems to be your only interest.
In summary, to paraphrase a meme...not sure if troll.
Apologies to the mods, and to you, CAG, if I am incorrect, but I am simply expressing my personal opinion and concern.
@Curious
A random question, If you are curious about guns, why are you only participating in this (very specific topic focused) thread, and veering it to addressing your questions and narrative? It smacks of a single-issue user, or even, not to put you on the defensive (as you have already done to others' points of view), a troll. This is a community of folks who participate in many different areas, and so far, the entirety of your participation has been to debate a single issue, where the only "curiosity" that appears to be being satisfied is "what do APS members think of universal background checks and various other gun'control' proposals.
You have YET to ask a single question about firearms that doesn't relate to what WE think or believe, haven't attempted to obtain any information about shooting sports, licensing, defensive use, firearm types, operation, or even safety.
Given the above, your screen name would be better phrased as "curiousabootothersopinionsonsenateproposals" rather than "curiousabootguns", as you haven't shown ANY curiosity about guns.
In other words, to be completely frank, this thread is devolving to a (while well reasoned and civil) debate about specific proposals, and you seem to have joined our open community to in effect debate a single issue, press us as to our opinions, and offer little to no information about yourself (a/s/l or otherwise). I'm sorry, but the more this interaction goes on, the more it seems like you are researching an article, rather than addressing a personal curiosity.
All of the debate points we have made are widely available in public sources, with even the simplest of google searches, and yet that level of curiosity was not apparent, and rather it seems focused on -our- specific responses to your questions.
Rarely do people join a forum they actually want to be a part of to simply ask current members to justify THEIR positions on a debate topic that seems to be your only interest.
In summary, to paraphrase a meme...not sure if troll.
Apologies to the mods, and to you, CAG, if I am incorrect, but I am simply expressing my personal opinion and concern.
What bake sale? Did I miss something again?
Creating more laws that inconvenience and hinder the 90+ percent and fail to address the actual violent crime problem makes no sense. Unless there is a different motive for the restrictions than what is bandied about (saving the children!)
@CAB.
While I recognize that to best argue one side of an argument, you need to adequately understand both sides, usually in this type of debate, or will usually make ABSULTELY clear that one is arguing a devils advocate position so as to avoid confusion, ESPECIALLY when one is new in a discussion or forum.
We all have made introduction posts to this board, to better let others see our points of view, (reveal as much or as little as one wants), but one tries to at least put enough information out there so as to let others see a background to put their points in context. Yes, you didn't see us do that in this thread, but the VAST majority of regular posters on this forum or in this thread have conversed extensively in the past, and in many cases, know each other IRL.
All we know about you is at you jumped into a thread, and started debating. You state that an old friend was active here...okay, who? When I joined here, I was very clear how I was introduced (via fitz), its common courtesy.
In any case, I think we have run to ground most of the things we have been debating in this thread, and your points as well.
I strongly suggest that you also (if your desire is to see some detailed arguments on this topic) read a few well written blogs on the topic area including: (just google)
Larry correia's blog--specifically his BIG essay on gun control
The lawdog files--specifically his "pie" essay
Michael williamson's blog (sacred cow slaughterhouse)
View from the porch
And definitely start following "the truth about guns"
And start participating in threads that aren't debates. We have had people troll this site before, just to start arguments, and when you jump in as you have, it really puts people on a defensive. We are all very nice, and polite, but remember, as firearm enthusiasts we get attacked DAILY with flawed logic, passionate (but incorrect) arguments, and get DEMONIZED by those with alternate opinions...so in a new group, its best to not take a devils advocate position until YOUR position is well known.
In any case, my fundamental position on universal background checks is HELL NO, and my position n firearm laws as a whole is while I follow the ones we have, I believe the ones we have are unconstitutional and infringing on my basic rights. If those laws are pushed further, my response is quite simple. MOLON LABE.
Without seeing a persons face or body language it is difficult to discern a persons intentions or authenticity, if you will.
Honest debate and the pursuit of truth can only help refine and strengthen the cause of liberty.
You've also mentioned a skill test for gun ownership. Really? Look at how the LAPD shot up that truck with the two ladies in it, while they were looking for Christopher Dorner. I'm pretty sure those cops had to qualify at a range before graduating from the academy. So much for that skill test!
Yeah, I was definitely not aware of making introduction posts or that there was such structured etiquette here. I would be happy to give some information. I'll ask my friend if he minds me name dropping...maybe he doesn't want to associate with me :) What type of info would help? Or rather what would you have expected me to post as an introduction?
I totally understand not wanting to be demonized and am well aware of the nasty mis-characterizations of the pro-gun voices as nut jobs or paranoids, or people with no regard for the safety of others as much as I'm aware of gun control advocates being labelled anti-american/freedom haters who want ALL guns confiscated and destroyed.
It was not my intention to put people on the defensive but I see how that was taken. I also, didn't really intend to start a big debate. I can't remember how I phrased my original question but I did intend it to be innocuous.
Also, thanks for the links to those blogs, and thanks to others for providing links as well. I'll check them out.
The point isn't that a skill test would eliminate anything. No action, precaution, training, education, or regulation will ever eliminate 100% of any problem. The idea is to reduce problems, and increase and encourage competence and safety.
Just re-introduce gun familiarity back into the culture.
We have sex education and driver's education in school, it's a simple enough thing to add firearms safety and familiarity into the school curriculum.
When I was a kid, school rifle teams were common enough.
By the time a kid is old enough to own a gun, the familiarity would already be there and gun safety would have been a recurring theme.
You don't need to mandate a skill requirement for firearms ownership -- and to do so abridges an enshrined right -- all you have to do is make it easily available, along with the cultural layer of familiarity.
Pretty much any kid I knew who wanted to had taken hunter's safety by the time they were 13.
Guns were commonplace. Guns were unremarkable. A gun was just a piece of gear, and it was treated with appropriate respect.
Educate, don't legislate.
You are assuming a problem exists. And that this test would fix that problem. I disagree. Using a gun safely is a very simple process and guns are simple mechanical devices that aren't hard to master.
Just re-introduce gun familiarity back into the culture.
We have sex education and driver's education in school, it's a simple enough thing to add firearms safety and familiarity into the school curriculum.
When I was a kid, school rifle teams were common enough.
By the time a kid is old enough to own a gun, the familiarity would already be there and gun safety would have been a recurring theme.
You don't need to mandate a skill requirement for firearms ownership -- and to do so abridges an enshrined right -- all you have to do is make it easily available, along with the cultural layer of familiarity.
Pretty much any kid I knew who wanted to had taken hunter's safety by the time they were 13.
Guns were commonplace. Guns were unremarkable. A gun was just a piece of gear, and it was treated with appropriate respect.
Educate, don't legislate.
Maybe not for you, but you are not everybody. For some people it IS hard to master, they may lack physical strength/ability, they may have a fear of guns that prevents them from behaving reasonably with a firearm but for personal protection they NEED one anyway, they may be very young and inexperienced. I think high powered lasers or working with high voltage circuits aren't hard tasks to master, but for many they are.
Stipulating there is a problem with violence by some using guns I ask these questions first.
Who is committing the overwhelming majority of crimes using guns?
Where are the overwhelming majority of crimes involving guns taking place.
Once you answer those two questions then solutions to the problem of violence involving guns can be discussed.
Lists, training, wait periods, mag restrictions, model/style restrictions etc do not get to the heart of the who and where.
Who is committing the preponderance of firearm crimes and where do we find these guys?
Maybe not for you, but you are not everybody. For some people it IS hard to master, they may lack physical strength/ability, they may have a fear of guns that prevents them from behaving reasonably with a firearm but for personal protection they NEED one anyway, they may be very young and inexperienced. I think high powered lasers or working with high voltage circuits aren't hard tasks to master, but for many they are.
Maybe not for you, but you are not everybody. For some people it IS hard to master, they may lack physical strength/ability, they may have a fear of guns that prevents them from behaving reasonably with a firearm but for personal protection they NEED one anyway, they may be very young and inexperienced. I think high powered lasers or working with high voltage circuits aren't hard tasks to master, but for many they are.
How high of power lasers? :)
Time averaged or instantaneous?
Enough to burn holes in things and blind you with a fraction of a stray reflection.
Who: Generally by poor, uneducated people, often repeat offenders. Where: Generally in poor communities, often densely populated.
These point to much larger issues than those that would be addressed with the actions you listed (mag restrictions and so on) and need to be addressed as a society. I'm not exactly sure how to get at the heart of the issue. I think some major changes are needed and I'm frankly unsure how to do that..whatever we do it would likely take a long time to change. But it will likely involve many incremental changes.
Both. I've worked on kJ to MJ single pulse systems up to 100kW to much greater continuous.
Oddly enough, one system was 20kJ and oddly eye safe (using the OSHA definition)...of course, it wasn't FACE safe.
It's all in your head. Physical strength is rarely a limitation. Cordination can be a hinderance, but not usually to a degree that causes unsafe practices.
The rest, like I said, it's all in your head.
Who: Generally by poor, uneducated people, often repeat offenders. Where: Generally in poor communities, often densely populated.
These point to much larger issues than those that would be addressed with the actions you listed (mag restrictions and so on) and need to be addressed as a society. I'm not exactly sure how to get at the heart of the issue. I think some major changes are needed and I'm frankly unsure how to do that..whatever we do it would likely take a long time to change. But it will likely involve many incremental changes.
Some critics assert that the official U.S. poverty definition is inconsistent with how it is defined by its own citizens and the rest of the world, because the U.S. government considers many citizens statistically impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs. According to a 2011 paper by poverty expert Robert Rector, of the 43.6 million Americans deemed to be below the poverty level by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2009, the majority had adequate shelter, food, clothing and medical care. In addition, the paper stated that those assessed to be below the poverty line in 2011 have a much higher quality of living than those who were identified by the census 40 years ago as being in poverty.[71]
The federal poverty line also excludes income other than cash income, especially welfare benefits. Thus, if food stamps and public housing were successfully raising the standard of living for poverty stricken individuals, then the poverty line figures would not shift since they do not consider the income equivalents of such entitlements.[72]
A 1993 study of low income single mothers titled Making Ends Meet, by Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that the mothers spent more than their reported incomes because they could not "make ends meet" without such expenditures. According to Edin, they made up the difference through contributions from family members, absent boyfriends, off-the-book jobs, and church charity.
According to Edin: "No one avoided the unnecessary expenditures, such as the occasional trip to the Dairy Queen, or a pair of stylish new sneakers for the son who might otherwise sell drugs to get them, or the Cable TV subscription for the kids home alone and you are afraid they will be out on the street if they are not watching TV." However many mothers skipped meals or did odd jobs to cover those expenses. According to Edin, for "most welfare-reliant mothers food and shelter alone cost almost as much as these mothers received from the government. For more than one-third, food and housing costs exceeded their cash benefits, leaving no extra money for uncovered medical care, clothing, and other household expenses." [73]
Moreover, Swedish libertarian think tank Timbro points out that lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans.
The point isn't that a skill test would eliminate anything. No action, precaution, training, education, or regulation will ever eliminate 100% of any problem. The idea is to reduce problems, and increase and encourage competence and safety.
Who is committing the overwhelming majority of crimes using guns?
Where are the overwhelming majority of crimes involving guns taking place.
Maybe not for you, but you are not everybody. For some people it IS hard to master, they may lack physical strength/ability, they may have a fear of guns that prevents them from behaving reasonably with a firearm but for personal protection they NEED one anyway, they may be very young and inexperienced. I think high powered lasers or working with high voltage circuits aren't hard tasks to master, but for many they are.
How high of power lasers? :)
The point isn't that a skill test would eliminate anything. No action, precaution, training, education, or regulation will ever eliminate 100% of any problem. The idea is to reduce problems, and increase and encourage competence and safety.
Both. I've worked on kJ to MJ single pulse systems up to 100kW to much greater continuous.
Oddly enough, one system was 20kJ and oddly eye safe (using the OSHA definition)...of course, it wasn't FACE safe.
Oooh oooh oooh I want a face melting laser!!!! Please please can I have one?
haha, nice. I just sent you a message. For everyone else, I am orders of magnitude lower than that, still plenty dangerous, but not as dangerous as Birdman here.
Oooh oooh oooh I want a face melting laser!!!! Please please can I have one?
I don't think there's anyone more dangerous than Birdman, here. =D
You say you want to autoclave a whole planet with relativistic impactors ONCE and you never live it down....sheesh
Their overall violent crime rate is significantly higher (I believe it was double ours)...
It's all in your head. Physical strength is rarely a limitation. Cordination can be a hinderance, but not usually to a degree that causes unsafe practices.
The rest, like I said, it's all in your head.
Oleg's got a poster on his blog somewhere (http://olegvolk.net/blog/), of a guy he knows. Instructor, wheelchair bound with some evident physical limitations, running a J-frame snub.
I'll see if I can find it.
Obligatory Universal Background Checks are not about preventing any one particularly dangerous individual from obtaining a gun, they are about creating general conditions that will make it more costly, time consuming for the general population to arm itself... with the aim of reducing, over time, the prevalence of gun ownership amongst those that are inclined to follow the law, i.e. taxpayers. More alarmingly such laws will slowly but surely condition people to accept the false premise that they must get "permission" from the State to own a weapon.
You do not need "permission" to exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms any more than you would need it to breathe.
UBCs= Priming the stage for registration, creating the mindset for confiscation.
Feinstein's Bill was a smoke screen, and we just got flanked by their main attack.
NRA-ILA Letter to Senators re: Background Checks (http://cms.nraila.org/media/10900841/nra_letter_to_congress_2-13-13_backgroundchecks.pdf)
What's that feeling? Air above my shoulders... It's like I haven't been thrown under the bus by the NRA, after all.
Color me surprised.
Have we kicked enough of the Fudds off the NRA board by this point that they get it?
I've been an NRA member about 8 or 10 years and never received a ballot. Do you have to be a Lifer to vote?
What's that feeling? Air above my shoulders... It's like I haven't been thrown under the bus by the NRA, after all.
Color me surprised.
Have we kicked enough of the Fudds off the NRA board by this point that they get it?
Did you not read the last paragraph? Or did I miss something substantial in the preceding paragraphs?