Shooting discussion devolves

[Aaron MkII]

Wait Ando, in Australia you have to apply for each firearm you want to buy?

[Formless]

Showing "genuine need" would be complicated in the States, though, because 1) most gun owners view their guns as property in addition to a weapon. Sometimes people buy a gun just as an investment, for instance. 2) Because guns are seen as property, and because of the sheer number of guns around, there are issues of gun inheritance from family members. And there are probably other issues besides that just aren't on the top of my head. Not saying that these are intractable, but there are other terms you can frame it in that would be far more productive.

[Aaron MkII]

Showing "genuine need" would be complicated in the States, though, because 1) most gun owners view their guns as property in addition to a weapon. Sometimes people buy a gun just as an investment, for instance. 2) Because guns are seen as property, and because of the sheer number of guns around, there are issues of gun inheritance from family members. And there are probably other issues besides that just aren't on the top of my head. Not saying that these are intractable, but there are other terms you can frame it in that would be far more productive.

It may not be necessary, and probably should be omitted from an American perspective. Simply supplying the reason why you want them is sufficient for a vetting/licensing system. That's essentially what Ando is describing anyways. I put target shooting on mine, but they won't come for my guns if I hunt with them.

Edit: And none one will put mass murder on there anyways. And if they do, easy catch.

[Formless]

Probably it could be avoided simply by distinguishing between ownership and carry laws. Actually, IIRC some of the states already do it that way, come to think...

Edit: And none one will put mass murder on there anyways. And if they do, easy catch.

Ahahahaha! That would be hilarious. Imagine if someone went to get licensed for explosives handling and said "yes, I do intend to blow people up." Instant visit by an ATF agent.

[Losonti Tokash]

I really hope that they don't ask those questions just so they can also charge with lying, there HAS to be some people that when asked "do you intend to commit acts of terrorism or espionage" answer in the affirmative.

[Aaron MkII]

I'm not sure I understand.

[Stark]

In AU many forms had a question added in 2005-2009 that basically reads ARE YOU A TERRORIST Y/N. I'm not sure many people ever tick yes.

[madd0ct0r]

Same in the UK. I think it was to give the home office grounds to deport you (for a foreigner) if you later got caught doing naughty but not illegal things related to the question.

[weemadando]

Wait Ando, in Australia you have to apply for each firearm you want to buy?

Yeah, as far as I know it's a thing like:
"I have my licence to use a gun on the farm for pest control/euthanasia, I want to a purchase a bolt action .30-06. The gunstore takes your details, passes it on to confirm you are actually licenced for a firearm of that category and then once the waiting period is up and you're approved you get it released to you."

[SCRawl]

If you want to continue discussing the merits (or not) of gun control, do so here. Keep it civil.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'll go on the record as saying I support a ban on detachable magazines of more than 5 rounds capacity for pistols and large-calibre rifles and 10 rounds for .22 rimfire/.22 rimfire magnum (the weakest cartridge and standard target shooting round) and that a purchaser of firearms should have a letter from a state-licensed mental health professional, counselor or social worker dated from the past 5 - 7 years authorizing them to purchase, with the cost of such an evaluation fixed by the state, and all licensed professionals in those fields required to provide them. People with a past violent mental health history should only be able to petition for firearms rights 15 years after the last outbreak of violence, and only if their problem is controlled without medication (people whose violent problems like schizophrenia which are only controlled by medication should never be allowed to possess firearms lest they lose access to the meds), as certified by a psychiatrist with standard diagnostic tests like the MMPI; maybe ten years if the incident occurred as a minor.

There, I'll support that as a standardized federal law policy, but not anything more.

[ray245]

There, I'll support that as a standardized federal law policy, but not anything more.

Would that be enough to stop people from easily purchasing guns illegally? Someone mention a while back that most of the people who committed crimes with guns usually do not have a license, meaning they either stole or bought a gun illegally.

[Channel72]

Really, the problem with these debates is they're so ideological and rarely focus on practical solutions. The pro-gun people are more or less arguing that restricting access to guns won't do much to curb violence, because you don't need a gun to be violent and the vast majority of gun owners are responsible anyway. Fine - so the question is, what exactly is the solution to reducing gun violence? I guess we need to address all of those nebulous "social problems" - mental health issues, a culture of violence, etc. Realistically, there's little any society can do to prevent a lone nutcase like the Aurora shooter or this current asshole in Connecticut from just fucking going crazy one day. Neither of these shooters had any prior record. And what the fuck kind of crazy large-scale social engineering is really needed to address these nebulous "social problems" that are the root cause of it all? It would be easier to disarm Texas than to even answer that question realistically.

On the other hand, the anti-gun people usually don't want to advocate a total ban on guns (because I guess that's too extreme), but instead call for stricter gun laws. Well, Connecticut has pretty strict gun laws. Again, this recent shooter had no criminal record, and was able to acquire guns regardless. The problem has less to do with gun laws per se and more to do with accessibility of guns. There's something like 250,000,000 guns in circulation in the US. Even with draconian laws and strict background checking, it's not so difficult to get a gun illegally. And people prone to criminal behavior are more likely to circumvent background checks anyway.

This is a complicated fucking problem. My position is that, at the very least, I don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment. In a rational society, owning a deadly weapon shouldn't be a privilege - you should have to prove to the state that you need a firearm for some important reason. Secondly, I agree with Mayor Bloomberg: preventive measures should focus more on reducing the number of guns in circulation than in restricting legal sales of guns. (This is obviously easier said than done.) But there's a correlation between the number of gun-related deaths and the number of guns in circulation, so a large-scale attempt to reduce the number of guns in circulation seems like the most practical way to start.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There, I'll support that as a standardized federal law policy, but not anything more.

Would that be enough to stop people from easily purchasing guns illegally? Someone mention a while back that most of the people who committed crimes with guns usually do not have a license, meaning they either stole or bought a gun illegally.

Since when did I say my objective was to prevent 100% of illegal gun purchases? That's impossible and a retarded aim. It's just to provide a very targeted screening mechanism against mental illness and then make them have to reload faster if they get ahold of guns anyway--since when they don't kill themselves, they're usually stopped by being tackled by someone unarmed while reloading.

[Channel72]

Er... I wanted to say, in a rational society owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

[Flagg]

There, I'll support that as a standardized federal law policy, but not anything more.

Would that be enough to stop people from easily purchasing guns illegally? Someone mention a while back that most of the people who committed crimes with guns usually do not have a license, meaning they either stole or bought a gun illegally.

You don't need a license to own a gun in the US, though.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That graph is retarded, Channel. Percentage of the population owning guns is a much more relevant statistic, because a lot of Americans who do own guns own large numbers of them--and are not the people letting guns get lost, because they have a vested interest in maintaining and collecting them. It's an issue of causation, and a simplistic division of guns and murders makes a cute line on the graph but doesn't speak anything about availability. The guy in rural Montana with 100 rifles locked in his basement has about as much firearms availability for crimes to be committed in general terms as a government arms depot. And if he decides to commit a crime, 99 of those guns are probably not going to be used in it.

[ray245]

Since when did I say my objective was to prevent 100% of illegal gun purchases? That's impossible and a retarded aim. It's just to provide a very targeted screening mechanism against mental illness and then make them have to reload faster if they get ahold of guns anyway--since when they don't kill themselves, they're usually stopped by being tackled by someone unarmed while reloading.

I never said that any kind of legislation can prevent 100% illegal gun purchase. I am asking whether this would be enough to reduce the chances or amount of people purchasing guns illegally.

That graph is retarded, Channel. Percentage of the population owning guns is a much more relevant statistic, because a lot of Americans who do own guns own large numbers of them--and are not the people letting guns get lost, because they have a vested interest in maintaining and collecting them. It's an issue of causation, and a simplistic division of guns and murders makes a cute line on the graph but doesn't speak anything about availability. The guy in rural Montana with 100 rifles locked in his basement has about as much firearms availability for crimes to be committed in general terms as a government arms depot. And if he decides to commit a crime, 99 of those guns are probably not going to be used in it.

Can you give us any statics regarding people not losing their guns or selling them illegally?

[Crown]

Crossfire is unlikely to harm anybody.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp
^ A guy robbed a gunstore, three people shot him, only the robber is dead.

I'm quoting this just to preserve in my timeline one of the most stupid, inane, retarded non-sensicle things I have ever read in my life.

Congrats.

[Simon_Jester]

This is a complicated fucking problem. My position is that, at the very least, I don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment. In a rational society, owning a deadly weapon shouldn't be a privilege - you should have to prove to the state that you need a firearm for some important reason.

That raises an interesting question about the definition of citizenship.

For most of history, being a free citizen meant, among other things, that you had the right to some means of self-defense. Serfs and slaves had no right to defend themselves against their betters, and were forbidden from owning weapons, for fear that they might use the weapons to commit crimes (like rebelling). But a free man was entitled to defend himself against aggression, and to own weapons suitable for doing that.

I think that on this forum, many of us don't attach much value to the idea of having a right to self-defense. Because on this forum, we are mostly middle-class individuals who live in very safe places where violence is rare, and we're not likely to be singled out for violence because of minority status or the like.

But just because this right isn't valuable to you doesn't mean it's irrelevant, or that all citizens should be expected to not care about it.

Secondly, I agree with Mayor Bloomberg: preventive measures should focus more on reducing the number of guns in circulation than in restricting legal sales of guns. (This is obviously easier said than done.) But there's a correlation between the number of gun-related deaths and the number of guns in circulation, so a large-scale attempt to reduce the number of guns in circulation seems like the most practical way to start.

Problem with the graph: it only tracks gun deaths. Obviously, in a place where there are zero guns, there will be zero gun deaths. That doesn't stop there from being murders committed with knives, clubs, or other tools.

What would be more interesting would be a graph of murder rates for all categories, versus gun ownership. And I'd love to see methodology showing how they're controlling for other variables.

After all, there's no shortage of ways in which people say America is fucked up. It'd have to be a great feat of statistical analysis to show that only one of those ways is the one responsible...

[Darwin]

CHARTY CHART CHART

Hey if that chart tracked only criminal violence (instead of also including lawful self-defense and suicide) it might actually be useful. Lumping all gun-related death together does not give an accurate and useful picture of anything. That chart would look the same with cellphones or rollerskates.

For most of history, being a free citizen meant, among other things, that you had the right to some means of self-defense. Serfs and slaves had no right to defend themselves against their betters, and were forbidden from owning weapons, for fear that they might use the weapons to commit crimes (like rebelling). But a free man was entitled to defend himself against aggression, and to own weapons suitable for doing that.

Especially in a society where there is caselaw precedent that the police have no obligation to protect you or your family, well I'll just say that a forceably disarmed citizen is not a free citizen.

[Darwin]

Er... I wanted to say, in a rational society owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

Wait, wait, hold on, what just fell out of your keyboard?

So in a rational society, only those deemed worthy (by whom?) are granted the privilege of being able to protect themselves from the worst of that same society, who likely don't follow the same rules?

[weemadando]

Or you know, you could have police?

Or not be terrified of your own shadows and realise that you aren't at imminent risk every day and the dangers to yourself,your family and society of a paranoid like you owning a gun are far higher than the dangers you face from criminals.

[hongi]

So in a rational society, only those deemed worthy (by whom?) are granted the privilege of being able to protect themselves from the worst of that same society, who likely don't follow the same rules?

Pretty sure you have the right (given by authorities, God whoever) to defend yourself. I don't see why you should have the right to defend yourself with a gun.

Americans, how do you think Australia manages to function without sinking into a pit of criminal violence even though the majority of us have no access to firearms?

[Darwin]

Or you know, you could have police?

Or not be terrified of your own shadows and realise that you aren't at imminent risk every day and the dangers to yourself,your family and society of a paranoid like you owning a gun are far higher than the dangers you face from criminals.

police have no obligation to protect you. [D.C. App., 444 A. 2nd 1, 1981]. They're there to catch the guy who did horrible things to you and your family.

I carry a flashlight all the time. Am I terrified of the dark? No. I'm prepared.
I carry a multitool all the time. again, prepared.
I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen. I'm not terrified and paranoid that dinner will suddenly burst into flame and eat my family, but I'd rather have it handy.
Being prepared is better than pretending you'll never be a victim. But go ahead and continue going through life in condition white if you like, never looking out past that personal bubble. I hear it's very comforting in an ovine way.