Current Events > Idea for gun control that doesn't actually infringe upon rights of good citizens

(+) Yeah! (+)

Youngster_Joey_ posted...

booboy posted...

This isn't about ownership primarily, this is about safety, first and foremost.

the problem is that nobody gets a drivers license unless they plan on driving

your system sounds like everyone has to get firearms training? what if nobody wants anything to do with firearms?

also, fun fact, they used to teach firearms safety in school back in like the 50's. maybe we should bring that back.

Yeah, I think it should be mandatory that everyone knows firearm safety. They are completely free to choose to own or not own a firearm after that, but blind fear absolutely should not paralyze someone who may come into contact with a firearm. Blind fear while handling one is almost as dangerous as someone maliciously handling one.

For teaching firearm safety, I absolutely would not trust any public school system to practice security. You can use practice rounds and blanks to constitute safety, but too many of them will get stolen and sold on the black market or used by an idiot.

On the issue of training, I was actually thinking that could be hosted by the National Guard of each state, on a base dedicated to training.
---

kayoticdreamz posted...

That_Happened posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

not sure what more else people want?

booboy posted...

Keep in mind, I'm saying all of this as a firearm owner that plans to acquire more firearms in the future. What I want this theoretical system to achieve is fourfold:

1) Instill an entire generation or more with passing knowledge of firearms
2) Use 1 to get as much safety knowledge possible spread among everyone in the USA as possible
3) Remove as much stigma as possible across all demographics of firearm ownership
4) De-facto standardize firearm laws across the states through the first three items

Item 4 is pretty much wishful thinking on my part, but the first three items need to happen.

Blind fear of a firearm is just as dangerous as carelessness. Let's work on eliminating both, shall we?

kayoticdreams posted...

just more proof the communist liberal left wants to destroy all freedom and all rights.

We got a Infowars subscriber here.

points 1-3 can be accomplished with 0 federal laws needed. and in fact you'll find gun safety and training is generally taught to any novice who takes a gun to a range. gun ranges basically have the first 3 points down packed, but i guess a well informed liberal such as yourself knew this already?

as for point 4....we again already have that. its called the second amendment.

so in short, your wish can be easily granted without the need for any more laws and anymore infringement on the second amendment,

Pretty sure you're trolling, but I already addressed this in a previous post, namely exposure. Driving safety is thrown as the age 16-18 demographic left, right, and center. Firearm safety isn't.

Secondly, this could actually be handled entirely on a state level, if you even wanted to add on a notation for the driver's license to conceal carry.

Thirdly, gun ranges don't necessarily have it down pat. If I show up with my AR-15 to a range and follow half of the necessary common sense rules, they absolutely will not check to see if I actually know what the hell I'm doing to at least be safe. This has been the case in multiple shooting ranges, both in Oklahoma and Texas, two of the most firearm friendly states.

Fourthly, I have zero desire to restrict responsible firearm ownership. IMO, the background checks in place are good enough as-is, once again assuming no Air Force level derps happen, to purchase any firearm that already is available.
---

Further self disclosure. I own a 9mm pistol that I absolutely refuse to carry, on the account that I can't hit shit with it. Part of being a responsible owner is knowing your overall effectiveness in a dangerous situation, and I know if I tried to use it for self defense, I would do possibly even more harm than the actual bad guy on the account of not being able to hit shit.

My personal benchmark to carry any pistol is a 3" grouping on 10 rounds at 25 yards. Once I can hit that benchmark reliably, that is when I'll feel comfortable carrying a pistol.
---

The best way is to start educating them while they're young by teaching gun safety in schools at the ages when children are most curious about them (elementary school), and attendence should be compulsory regardless of the family's personal stance on guns as there is absolutely nothing wrong in teaching children how to handle and unload guns in a safe manner in case they ever come across one by chance.
---

DK9292 posted...

I like how I say make guns illegal, and everyone jumps down my throat. Then I say guns are already illegal where I am, and no one has a comeback.

Stay classy, 'murica.

There's already too many guns in the US. It would be impossible to enforce a ban and it would create a lot of other issues and huge backlash. Banning them just isn't realistic in my opinion.

You don't need to choke current and future prospective gun owners to achieve real reform and improve quality of life both for firearm owners and folks who don't want to own firearms. I promise you that even the most rabid NRA member (I have zero ties to the NRA) wants to reduce negligent and criminal deaths, if for no other reason that their platform gains more public appeal.
---

booboy posted...

You don't need to choke current and future prospective gun owners to achieve real reform and improve quality of life both for firearm owners and folks who don't want to own firearms. I promise you that even the most rabid NRA member (I have zero ties to the NRA) wants to reduce negligent and criminal deaths, if for no other reason that their platform gains more public appeal.

Here's the problem literally no gun control supporter will ever bother to tackle - the number of people killed by guns maliciously every year, by someone who legally purchased a firearm, is INSANELY small. To have the largest impact on gun deaths, you need to either:

- enforce the laws already on the books, which liberals won't ever push to do for political reasons
- ban firearms, which is expressly unconstitutional

I made the point earlier in the topic, and nobody mentioned anything about it, so I will ask you directly - what problem is your thing supposed to solve? What are you trying to fix by making it mandatory to take a firearms safety class to get a driver's license?

Literally no gun control measure ever presented has actually fixed a single firearm-related problem, and a few were created to solve problems we didn't have, so I'm curious.
---

darkjedilink posted...

booboy posted...

You don't need to choke current and future prospective gun owners to achieve real reform and improve quality of life both for firearm owners and folks who don't want to own firearms. I promise you that even the most rabid NRA member (I have zero ties to the NRA) wants to reduce negligent and criminal deaths, if for no other reason that their platform gains more public appeal.

Here's the problem literally no gun control supporter will ever bother to tackle - the number of people killed by guns maliciously every year, by someone who legally purchased a firearm, is INSANELY small. To have the largest impact on gun deaths, you need to either:

- enforce the laws already on the books, which liberals won't ever push to do for political reasons
- ban firearms, which is expressly unconstitutional

I made the point earlier in the topic, and nobody mentioned anything about it, so I will ask you directly - what problem is your thing supposed to solve? What are you trying to fix by making it mandatory to take a firearms safety class to get a driver's license?

Literally no gun control measure ever presented has actually fixed a single firearm-related problem, and a few were created to solve problems we didn't have, so I'm curious.

Knowledge. That is the driving force behind my solution. We're looking at 33,000 gun deaths per year, added up from every source that causes death, suicide included. My driving goal is to lower that number, and like you, I refuse to ban firearms for constitutional reasons. The regulations we have on the books now? Aside from the bump stock being legal (it shouldn't), I more or less agree with what the ATF says now on firearm ownership.

As highlighted earlier by Paragon, kids have a fascination with things. That's the earliest way to implant safety as a first and foremost category. I'm 31 and some change now, and I got a huge fucking wake-up call at the destructive potential of 9mm when one of my shots at the range went through the wood supporting the targets rather than the target I was aiming at. It put a clean hole through 4 inches of solid wood. Safety for that should be handed down left, right, and center.

Suicides are 66% of the above 33,000 deaths per year, from men by an overwhelming margin. I think we can drive those numbers way down with some "scare" respect training from a young age, and by adding a $5 license notation to fund mental health available treatment.

I can see the argument about additional taxes coming, but consider this - a healthy population is a working population, and a spending population. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to front $5 every few years to get a lot more people working and spending, allowing for lower overall taxes, and refreshing my knowledge of firearm safety, to boot.

I want a better reputation for firearm owners, I want less stigma on a bi-partisan level for firearm ownership, I want less criminal activity, fewer deaths, and fewer hospital beds and jail cells taken up by preventable negligent discharges.
---

I really don't give a shit about politics, I don't drink the kool-aid anyone offers me without analyzing it first, and I want my own freedom to go untouched. Fair enough?
---

booboy posted...

I really don't give a shit about politics, I don't drink the kool-aid anyone offers me without analyzing it first, and I want my own freedom to go untouched. Fair enough?

You didn't answer a single question I asked...
---

darkjedilink posted...

booboy posted...

I really don't give a shit about politics, I don't drink the kool-aid anyone offers me without analyzing it first, and I want my own freedom to go untouched. Fair enough?

You didn't answer a single question I asked...

You asked what I was trying to solve. I said gun deaths, lack of firearm safety knowledge, and bi-partisan ownership stigma. I also gave my whys and hows to go with those things. I can't help you beyond that.
---

booboy posted...

darkjedilink posted...

booboy posted...

I really don't give a shit about politics, I don't drink the kool-aid anyone offers me without analyzing it first, and I want my own freedom to go untouched. Fair enough?

You didn't answer a single question I asked...

You asked what I was trying to solve. I said gun deaths, lack of firearm safety knowledge, and bi-partisan ownership stigma. I also gave my whys and hows to go with those things. I can't help you beyond that.

It wouldn't solve any of those problems, though, considering the fact that most states already require it to legally purchase a firearm anyway.

So, again, it's just a meaningless notion that solves absolutely nothing, yet looks good on paper - like an "assault weapon" ban.
---

darkjedilink posted...

booboy posted...

darkjedilink posted...

booboy posted...

I really don't give a shit about politics, I don't drink the kool-aid anyone offers me without analyzing it first, and I want my own freedom to go untouched. Fair enough?

You didn't answer a single question I asked...

You asked what I was trying to solve. I said gun deaths, lack of firearm safety knowledge, and bi-partisan ownership stigma. I also gave my whys and hows to go with those things. I can't help you beyond that.

It wouldn't solve any of those problems, though, considering the fact that most states already require it to legally purchase a firearm anyway.

So, again, it's just a meaningless notion that solves absolutely nothing, yet looks good on paper - like an "assault weapon" ban.

Think long term. This isn't meant to be a quick fix, nor can it be. You aren't going to get people that are your political opposite to warm up to firearms overnight. Just look at the people in this topic, you will see those across the entire political spectrum. Everyone wants less needed death. Most don't want to rip firearms out of our hands.

This isn't a single-faceted problem, despite what people may want to believe. It needs a multi-faceted solution, especially since 66% of those 33k deaths are suicides. That means mental health absolutely needs to be addressed, and I'll confess in having a personal stake in improving mental health.

You're right that most states require a DL, and in Texas, you have to have a Texas-specific ID to buy one. Since every state also has their own CCL policy, they can dovetail that into the DL as well.
---

booboy, I'd suggest you not bother with darkjedi. He's one of our angrier, slower users. No matter what compromise or sensible statement you come up with, he's just gonna bitch.
---

Mandatory instruction to own a firearm, based on a course that covers the basic safety rules, the dangers of mishandling, how to control the weapon under duress, and how to safely and responsibly carry.

I grew up in a gun-owning family; we hunt, we shoot for fun and sport, and guns are a consistent topic in our daily interactions. I was brought up to respect the damage a weapon can do, and to understand mishandling that weapon or not adhering to safety rules could lead to terrible things. I've never had an issue with safety, and I don't expect to.

I'm also an LEO, and though I appreciate the 2nd amendment, I don't think mandatory training or barring those with violent criminal records or mental illness from purchasing weapons is a bad thing. To the contrary, in order to maintain the 2nd amendment, we need to better sort who among us can handle the responsibilities of weapon ownership.

It's a complicated issue, but doing nothing isn't a solution.
---

Patchwork posted...

Mandatory instruction to own a firearm, based on a course that covers the basic safety rules, the dangers of mishandling, how to control the weapon under duress, and how to safely and responsibly carry.

I grew up in a gun-owning family; we hunt, we shoot for fun and sport, and guns are a consistent topic in our daily interactions. I was brought up to respect the damage a weapon can do, and to understand mishandling that weapon or not adhering to safety rules could lead to terrible things. I've never had an issue with safety, and I don't expect to.

I'm also an LEO, and though I appreciate the 2nd amendment, I don't think mandatory training or barring those with violent criminal records or mental illness from purchasing weapons is a bad thing. To the contrary, in order to maintain the 2nd amendment, we need to better sort who among us can handle the responsibilities of weapon ownership.

It's a complicated issue, but doing nothing isn't a solution.

I'd like to ask, if you're allowed to say, what make/model is your duty pistol, and what 9mm would you recommend personally? I have a Sig P320 that is giving me absolute bullshit, so I'd like to know if there's something better.
---

Glock 22, .40 cal., though that wouldn't have been my choice.

What issues are you having with the 320? I've only put one through its paces once, but it seemed like a damn fine weapon.

Are you looking for a solid all-around gun, or specifically something for concealment?

I personally love the Springfield XD and XDm lines; I've put thousands of rounds through my XD and I've never had a jam. I've shot in the snow, rain, had mud splatter on the ejector port. I can't speak highly enough about that gun.
---

Patchwork posted...

Glock 22, .40 cal., though that wouldn't have been my choice.

What issues are you having with the 320? I've only put one through its paces once, but it seemed like a damn fine weapon.

Are you looking for a solid all-around gun, or specifically something for concealment?

I personally love the Springfield XD and XDm lines; I've put thousands of rounds through my XD and I've never had a jam. I've shot in the snow, rain, had mud splatter on the ejector port. I can't speak highly enough about that gun.

Well, I've had multiple FTFeed, FTFire, and FTE problems, used Winchester White Box and Orr Tactical custom loads. In addition, I can't get more than 15 rounds in either of my mags, despite the stated 17 round capacity, and that's with using a loader to assist.

When it does work as intended, the sight picture is absolute garbage, with none of my rounds going anywhere intended. I'm lucky if I hit within 12" of my intended placement, with how bad it is. That's with using a stand to hold the gun.

It is my first pistol, in all fairness, but I have never had anywhere near that much problem with my AR. I follow equivalent cleaning procedures, and use the same cleaning/lubricating chemicals on both. This pistol is the single reason why I refuse to even attempt to get my CCW.

EDIT - I've put a little over 3000 rounds through my AR-15, narrowed my grouping down to 3" at 150 yards standing. I've put maybe 600-700 rounds through my P320, and pretty close to giving up on it.
---

Patchwork posted...

Mandatory instruction to own a firearm, based on a course that covers the basic safety rules, the dangers of mishandling, how to control the weapon under duress, and how to safely and responsibly carry.

I grew up in a gun-owning family; we hunt, we shoot for fun and sport, and guns are a consistent topic in our daily interactions. I was brought up to respect the damage a weapon can do, and to understand mishandling that weapon or not adhering to safety rules could lead to terrible things. I've never had an issue with safety, and I don't expect to.

I'm also an LEO, and though I appreciate the 2nd amendment, I don't think mandatory training or barring those with violent criminal records or mental illness from purchasing weapons is a bad thing. To the contrary, in order to maintain the 2nd amendment, we need to better sort who among us can handle the responsibilities of weapon ownership.

It's a complicated issue, but doing nothing isn't a solution.

Again - do you also feel we should "better sort who among us can handle the responsibilities" of every other right?
---

That_Happened posted...

Anything that isn't "Let me have whatever guns I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, without doing a background check or checking my mental health, and without having me report the purchase anywhere" is considered "infringing on the rights of good citizens."

Then those same people talk about how easy it is for criminals to get guns.

no those same people talk about how easy it is for criminals to get guns where private citizens can't get guns to protect themselves from said criminals
---

Just leaving this here. This is a pretty accurate representation of the people who want to restrict gun rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Just leaving this here. This is a pretty accurate representation of the people who want to restrict gun rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc

fucking fudds.

#triggered
---

Yeah, that's a great idea, now if I lose my wallet, whoever finds it knows I have guns and they have the address on where to find them.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Just leaving this here. This is a pretty accurate representation of the people who want to restrict gun rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc

Wasn't this only, like, a week before the Navy Yard shooting, which was committed with a 50-year-old shotgun?
---

545x39 posted...

Yeah, that's a great idea, now if I lose my wallet, whoever finds it knows I have guns and they have the address on where to find them.

???
How many enemies do you have to think that people would break into your house just to steal your guns? If anything that would be a deterrent--they know you can protect yourself if they break in.

People in red counties, I swear. Constantly worried that SOMEONE is bound and determined to take your guns from you.
---

DK9292 posted...

Is it's only purpose to kill someone?

Then it's illegal.

Yeah oversimplifying things always works! Why don't they just hire someone as smart as you to sort this out??
---

That_Happened posted...

545x39 posted...

Yeah, that's a great idea, now if I lose my wallet, whoever finds it knows I have guns and they have the address on where to find them.

???
How many enemies do you have to think that people would break into your house just to steal your guns? If anything that would be a deterrent--they know you can protect yourself if they break in.

People in red counties, I swear. Constantly worried that SOMEONE is bound and determined to take your guns from you.

Or like.... wait till he leaves. Gun theft is actually a thing that happens a lot. How do you think guns get on the "black market".
---

as long as there is some sort of possibility of legally purchasing the gun, then it doesn't infringe on anything.

Make it hard as hell and expensive to get. As long as you CAN somehow get it, I don't see the problem.
People need to work their ass off and pay for all sorts of licenses, why not for a killing tool?

Prove you are the responsible gun owner you claim to be.
---

ALIEN_WORK2HOP posted...

as long as there is some sort of possibility of legally purchasing the gun, then it doesn't infringe on anything.

Make it hard as hell and expensive to get. As long as you CAN somehow get it, I don't see the problem.
People need to work their ass off and pay for all sorts of licenses, why not for a killing tool?

Prove you are the responsible gun owner you claim to be.

Apply this line of thought to literally any other right to see how mind-numbingly moronic it is.
---

That_Happened posted...

they know you can protect yourself if they break in.

most robberies are actually in the day time after you leave. theres also experts that say not to put up any warning signs that say you could have a gun in the house like "Trespassers will be shot" since theres a large chance those guns could be one of the more expensive things you have in your home and it would just motivate certain criminals. guns are one of the top 10 items a burglar will go after thanks to their higher than normal resale value compared to other items.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Patchwork posted...

Mandatory instruction to own a firearm, based on a course that covers the basic safety rules, the dangers of mishandling, how to control the weapon under duress, and how to safely and responsibly carry.

I grew up in a gun-owning family; we hunt, we shoot for fun and sport, and guns are a consistent topic in our daily interactions. I was brought up to respect the damage a weapon can do, and to understand mishandling that weapon or not adhering to safety rules could lead to terrible things. I've never had an issue with safety, and I don't expect to.

I'm also an LEO, and though I appreciate the 2nd amendment, I don't think mandatory training or barring those with violent criminal records or mental illness from purchasing weapons is a bad thing. To the contrary, in order to maintain the 2nd amendment, we need to better sort who among us can handle the responsibilities of weapon ownership.

It's a complicated issue, but doing nothing isn't a solution.

Again - do you also feel we should "better sort who among us can handle the responsibilities" of every other right?

Which other rights are you referring to that may lead to the death of multiple people if the wrong person (i.e. Domestic abusers, mentally ill) is allowed to partake in it?

The second amendment is a wholly different animal than your other rights, and it needs to be treated as such.

Booboy, that's strange. I've never seen those issues with the 320. My buddy loves his. Avoid Winchester white box, in the future; I've had issues with that stuff before. Shoot American Eagle.

I couldn't say why those issues would be happening without using the weapon, unfortunately. Like I said, though, if it's not working out for you, look into Springfield. Or Glock. If you're looking for reliability, they're top notch.

I have a Sig SP2022, and it's also an extremely solid, decently priced gun. Not internal striker, though, if that's what you're looking for.
---

ALIEN_WORK2HOP posted...

as long as there is some sort of possibility of legally purchasing the gun, then it doesn't infringe on anything.

Make it hard as hell and expensive to get. As long as you CAN somehow get it, I don't see the problem.
People need to work their ass off and pay for all sorts of licenses, why not for a killing tool?

Prove you are the responsible gun owner you claim to be.

Undue burden standard says absolutely not. Any rights of the people that have been explicitly recognized or interpreted by the courts as a right cannot require hardships in order to exercise that right as it is no different than suppressing that right.

Otherwise, it would be possible to force a woman to drive 200 miles to get an abortion or make a minority spend hundreds of dollars and wait many months in order to get an ID in order to vote even though theoretically it's still "possible" for that person to exercise the right they wish to partake in.
---

Making people undergo safety training and universal background checks isn't an undue burden, though.
---

ALIEN_WORK2HOP posted...

as long as there is some sort of possibility of legally purchasing the gun, then it doesn't infringe on anything.

Make it hard as hell and expensive to get. As long as you CAN somehow get it, I don't see the problem.
People need to work their ass off and pay for all sorts of licenses, why not for a killing tool?

Prove you are the responsible gun owner you claim to be.

So, if I'm reading this right, just greatly jacking up the price of entry makes me a responsible gun owner? The only actual price I've even suggested tacking on amounts to barely a documentation fee, to be funneled towards increased mental health.

Last I checked, responsibility means keeping my firearms properly maintained, stored safely, and only used in practice, hunting game for food, or to be explicitly used in self defense. I need you to explain to me how adding a "fuck you" fee is connected to responsibility.
---

ALIEN_WORK2HOP posted...

as long as there is some sort of possibility of legally purchasing the gun, then it doesn't infringe on anything.

Make it hard as hell and expensive to get. As long as you CAN somehow get it, I don't see the problem.
People need to work their ass off and pay for all sorts of licenses, why not for a killing tool?

Prove you are the responsible gun owner you claim to be.

Let's create a new poll tax. Maybe even make it cost thousands of dollars. There's still some sort of possibility for people to vote, so it doesn't infringe on anything, right?
---

you guys know a sig p320 will fire when dropped right? they did a voluntary recall on them.

anyway I'm a glock/cz guy, I like sigs but only hammer fired sigs
---

yemmy posted...

you guys know a sig p320 will fire when dropped right? they did a voluntary recall on them.

anyway I'm a glock/cz guy, I like sigs but only hammer fired sigs

I don't have one, like I said, but Sig is a pretty reliable company. I'm sure they're handling it well.

CZ makes great guns, too. My buddy has a CZ 75 and that thing shoots like a dream.

I don't mind Glock; they're reliable. Unless you custom them out, though, they're an eyesore.
---

It should be just as difficult to be allowed to own a gun as it is to drive, for the same reason.
---

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

It should be just as difficult to be allowed to own a gun as it is to drive, for the same reason.

Testing and licensing? I'm alright with that. The only thing that gives me pause when people use this argument is the idea of insurance. And I'd even be okay with paying insurance, if it's set up correctly and doesn't make gun ownership too financially taxing.
---

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

It should be just as difficult to be allowed to own a gun as it is to drive, for the same reason.

So should voting, getting married, having an abortion, and protesting.
---

darkjedilink posted...

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

It should be just as difficult to be allowed to own a gun as it is to drive, for the same reason.

So should voting, getting married, having an abortion, and protesting.

To be honest, I'd make this concession on guns if they're willing to make that concession on other adult things.

Patchwork posted...

Making people undergo safety training and universal background checks isn't an undue burden, though.

Define a 'universal background check.' Tell me what's so much more different about it than the NICS background check we already have to take. Now explain how making it more stringent doesn't violate someone's fundamental rights.

Oh, you can't do any of that? Because you're just parrotting gun control buzzphrases that are designed to get idiots to voluntarily give away their fundamental rights?
---

Guns are a USA right not a privilege, driving is not a right, it is a privilege so it is not the same thing.

I do agree that people should have to take courses to be tested in gun safety and proper use of firearms but many honest law abiding gun owners do take a course before they own a gun or a family member teaches responsible safety and usage.

When I started out I took a safety course, got education, and training before I got my first gun so I would not harm myself or others, knew how to take care of it, and how to use a firearm the correct way. Everyone I know that has guns also did this as they wanted to know what they were doing before owning a firearm, only one idiot I know did none of those things almost shot himself, and later sold his gun cause it kept jamming on him(he never ever cleaned it) saying it was not worth the hassle.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Patchwork posted...

Making people undergo safety training and universal background checks isn't an undue burden, though.

Define a 'universal background check.' Tell me what's so much more different about it than the NICS background check we already have to take. Now explain how making it more stringent doesn't violate someone's fundamental rights.

Oh, you can't do any of that? Because you're just parrotting gun control buzzphrases that are designed to get idiots to voluntarily give away their fundamental rights?

Universal, as in every gun transaction has a background check. Every gun, not just handguns.

How would that violate your rights? You forfeit your right to own a firearm when you commit certain crimes.
---

The best course of action is to just stop with these ideas that are designed to inch closer and closer to European rules.
---

Patchwork posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Patchwork posted...

Making people undergo safety training and universal background checks isn't an undue burden, though.

Define a 'universal background check.' Tell me what's so much more different about it than the NICS background check we already have to take. Now explain how making it more stringent doesn't violate someone's fundamental rights.

Oh, you can't do any of that? Because you're just parrotting gun control buzzphrases that are designed to get idiots to voluntarily give away their fundamental rights?

Universal, as in every gun transaction has a background check. Every gun, not just handguns.

How would that violate your rights? You forfeit your right to own a firearm when you commit certain crimes.

So, you don't know what you're talking about, as I thought.

You don't JUST get an NICS background check for handguns, dude. The only firearms exempt from an NICS background check is an in-state private sale (that still requires you to register it in your name through a registered firearms dealer). An interstate private sale REQUIRES an FFL to do a background check on the purchaser, and they can't release the weapon to the purchaser until the firearm is complete.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Patchwork posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Patchwork posted...

Making people undergo safety training and universal background checks isn't an undue burden, though.

Define a 'universal background check.' Tell me what's so much more different about it than the NICS background check we already have to take. Now explain how making it more stringent doesn't violate someone's fundamental rights.

Oh, you can't do any of that? Because you're just parrotting gun control buzzphrases that are designed to get idiots to voluntarily give away their fundamental rights?

Universal, as in every gun transaction has a background check. Every gun, not just handguns.

How would that violate your rights? You forfeit your right to own a firearm when you commit certain crimes.

So, you don't know what you're talking about, as I thought.

You don't JUST get an NICS background check for handguns, dude. The only firearms exempt from an NICS background check is an in-state private sale (that still requires you to register it in your name through a registered firearms dealer). An interstate private sale REQUIRES an FFL to do a background check on the purchaser, and they can't release the weapon to the purchaser until the firearm is complete.

This isn't accurate to PA. You can inherit rifles without a background check, as well as complete private sales without a check or registering the weapon in your name (handguns excluded). And my entire point was around private sales, because that's where the issue is. For the most part, gun shops do their due diligence.

So, like I said, EVERY TRANSACTION, which you took to mean only purchases from FFL dealers. Which is part of the problem. You shouldn't be able to complete the sale of a firearm without a check, even for private sales.
---

Patchwork posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Patchwork posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Patchwork posted...

Making people undergo safety training and universal background checks isn't an undue burden, though.

Define a 'universal background check.' Tell me what's so much more different about it than the NICS background check we already have to take. Now explain how making it more stringent doesn't violate someone's fundamental rights.

Oh, you can't do any of that? Because you're just parrotting gun control buzzphrases that are designed to get idiots to voluntarily give away their fundamental rights?

Universal, as in every gun transaction has a background check. Every gun, not just handguns.

How would that violate your rights? You forfeit your right to own a firearm when you commit certain crimes.

So, you don't know what you're talking about, as I thought.

You don't JUST get an NICS background check for handguns, dude. The only firearms exempt from an NICS background check is an in-state private sale (that still requires you to register it in your name through a registered firearms dealer). An interstate private sale REQUIRES an FFL to do a background check on the purchaser, and they can't release the weapon to the purchaser until the firearm is complete.

This isn't accurate to PA. You can inherit rifles without a background check, as well as complete private sales without a check or registering the weapon in your name (handguns excluded). And my entire point was around private sales, because that's where the issue is. For the most part, gun shops do their due diligence.

So, like I said, EVERY TRANSACTION, which you took to mean only purchases from FFL dealers. Which is part of the problem. You shouldn't be able to complete the sale of a firearm without a check, even for private sales.

Actually, the problem isn't 'private sales' at all. Name ONE mass shooting where the shooter used a firearm he legally purchased from a private sale that would have been prevented with a background check.

And you clearly can't read - interstate PRIVATE SALES must be completed through an FFL dealer in the purchaser's home state TO COMPLETE A BACKGROUND CHECK, regardless of what kind of firearm it is. ONLY IN-STATE PRIVATE SALES OF RIFLES are exempt.

Show me that people who shouldn't be owning firearms are buying firearms like this and using them in crimes, and you may have something there. However, you don't have any data to actually back up such a claim.

Because you don't know shit about firearms.
---

Regressives are so anal about keeping their guns but have no problem infringing the rights of professional athletes who protest. All because it hurts their feelings and childish patriotism.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

darkjedilink posted...

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

It should be just as difficult to be allowed to own a gun as it is to drive, for the same reason.

So should voting, getting married, having an abortion, and protesting.

To be honest, I'd make this concession on guns if they're willing to make that concession on other adult things.

Please stfu guys. Driving and guns are much more lethal than the others.
---