A sensible discussion on American gun ownership and law

[Tank]

Thank you for your insightful and measured commentary.

Are guns sold as a loss leader and the profit comes with the ammunition? Or is the ammunition such a commodity that gun makers have to price realistically at point of sale? What is the second hand gun market like?

the second hand market is huge and impossible to regulate. there are millions of weapons in circulation and no ban will ever make people volunteer to give them up mozt gun purches i know about are between individuals.

This fact alone probably precludes any improvement in the current situation for the foreseeable future. 

[billy rubin]

but there is the example of machine guns. these were unregulated until 1934, and since then can only be owned by permit, with an annual fee. americans are barred completely from owning full auto guns made after 1986.

so regulations have been made.

[Tank]

but there is the example of machine guns. these were unregulated until 1934, and since then can only be owned by permit, with an annual fee. americans are barred completely from owning full auto guns made after 1986.

so regulations have been made.

What is the position with semi-auto rifles and 'bump stocks'?

[Davin]

I have a question. Do any of our American members think there is any possibility whatsoever of American gun law becoming strict enough to actually make a difference to the current situation?

Universal background checks on all gun sales (including private) would make some difference. At the least, it will make black market guns more expensive, which would reduce the amount of illegal gun sales. I don't think there is anything that will reduce it to zero, but there is a lot that can be done to reduce it.

Personally, I would like a gun license a lot like a driver's license. Have to pass a written test, a gun care test, and a shooting test before a person is allowed to carry a gun.

And if that doesn't sound reasonable because of the "right to bear arms," then I want to be able to have a nuclear bomb.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I have a question. Do any of our American members think there is any possibility whatsoever of American gun law becoming strict enough to actually make a difference to the current situation?

Universal background checks on all gun sales (including private) would make some difference. At the least, it will make black market guns more expensive, which would reduce the amount of illegal gun sales. I don't think there is anything that will reduce it to zero, but there is a lot that can be done to reduce it.

Personally, I would like a gun license a lot like a driver's license. Have to pass a written test, a gun care test, and a shooting test before a person is allowed to carry a gun.

And if that doesn't sound reasonable because of the "right to bear arms," then I want to be able to have a nuclear bomb.

Agree.  The Second Amendment is not going to be revoked any time soon.  So, restrictions like the above are the best way to go. 

[Dark Lightning]

I have a question. Do any of our American members think there is any possibility whatsoever of American gun law becoming strict enough to actually make a difference to the current situation?

Universal background checks on all gun sales (including private) would make some difference. At the least, it will make black market guns more expensive, which would reduce the amount of illegal gun sales. I don't think there is anything that will reduce it to zero, but there is a lot that can be done to reduce it.

Personally, I would like a gun license a lot like a driver's license. Have to pass a written test, a gun care test, and a shooting test before a person is allowed to carry a gun.

And if that doesn't sound reasonable because of the "right to bear arms," then I want to be able to have a nuclear bomb.

This has been the case in California since '14. To buy a firearm one fills out the paperwork, and waits 10 days for the background check. There is also a written test required, called a Firearms Safety Certification. Then, safe operation of the firearm is demonstrated by the selling party and the buyer signs off that they have been so instructed. Turns out only 6 states in the US have similar requirements. I think that they all should.

[Buddy]

I also live in the middle of nowhere where guns are very popular. Both of my parents have their CCP but I refuse to get one even though my stepdad keeps bugging me to do it. I feel conflicted on the gun ownership issue because I don't feel that they have a place in modern society. However, I have used a small handgun to dispatch any sick or dangerous vermin that may have wondered on to our property.

The secondhand gun market in this area is terrifying. I hate the fact that any nutjob can go to a garage sale or find Craigslist ad and buy a weapon with absolutely no regulations

The thing that pisses me off the most is how much this country caters to the right wing gun owners yet they are constantly whining about how oppressed they are. At my job, which is at a bank, employees are not allowed to ask a person who comes in carrying a weapon to leave because the higher ups dont want to offend any customers. I think that it is ridiculous that a company prioritizes customers' feelings over the safety of their staff.
I think the regulations for gun ownership need to be far stricter than they are now. There is no reason why the every day person should have access to a semiautomatic or automatic rifle. But I agree with everyone here saying good luck with getting a blanket ban on guns in the States. It will never happen at least in my lifetime.

[billy rubin]

but there is the example of machine guns. these were unregulated until 1934, and since then can only be owned by permit, with an annual fee. americans are barred completely from owning full auto guns made after 1986.

so regulations have been made.

What is the position with semi-auto rifles and 'bump stocks'?

bump stocks are just range toys to let people shoot a semi-auto like an auto. they're inaccurate by their very nature, but since they're available for large caliber rifles and have been used in mass murders, i think it was appropriate to regulate them. i wouldn't have banned them, i would just have re-classified the american definition of machine gun to include them and regulated them the same way we do sten guns and mac 10s.

on semi-autos, it gets sticky. the standard deer and waterfowl hunting gun where i live are semi-auto shotguns, like these:



the magazine capaity is only four rounds, but's a semi-auto, for sure, and you can buy tactical shotguns that hold 20 rounds. my son's old .22 is a semi-auto. fires as fast as you can pull the trigger, until it jams, usually after three or four shots. it holds around 13 rounds.

and in texas, one of the most popular guns for pig control is the AR-15:



introduced feral pigs do incredible damage to agriculture, and the large capacity magazine let you kill more than one while the whole pack scatters. and people use them for deer, pronghorns, antelope, and coyotes. they're an all-around excellent hunting gun, and for that reason are also an all-around mass-murder gun.

there's no easy answer, and the one i would propose is not popular. i would regulate all semi-automatic long guns the same way we do full-auto machine guns. grandfather the ones out there, but license them strictly and ban production and sale of new ones. it cut the machine guns out of circulation, and would do the same for the traditional semi-auto hunting gun. i would also regulate the sale of extended magazines for long guns. semi-auto pistols i would leave alone, as they qualify as personal defense guns in a way that long guns don't and would simply be impossible to regulate.

it would be horribly unpopular, because semi-auto long guns are a fundamental part of american culture. but it would cut down on the highly-accurate, large capacity, rapid fire weapons in circulation. and it would require a sea change in public opinion on the US constitution, which has the last word in the matter.

i've never been able to think up another answer, and i think we need an answer of some kind, right now.

[Davin]

I have a question. Do any of our American members think there is any possibility whatsoever of American gun law becoming strict enough to actually make a difference to the current situation?

Universal background checks on all gun sales (including private) would make some difference. At the least, it will make black market guns more expensive, which would reduce the amount of illegal gun sales. I don't think there is anything that will reduce it to zero, but there is a lot that can be done to reduce it.

Personally, I would like a gun license a lot like a driver's license. Have to pass a written test, a gun care test, and a shooting test before a person is allowed to carry a gun.

And if that doesn't sound reasonable because of the "right to bear arms," then I want to be able to have a nuclear bomb.

This has been the case in California since '14. To buy a firearm one fills out the paperwork, and waits 10 days for the background check. There is also a written test required, called a Firearms Safety Certification. Then, safe operation of the firearm is demonstrated by the selling party and the buyer signs off that they have been so instructed. Turns out only 6 states in the US have similar requirements. I think that they all should.

I agree. When it's only a six hour drive from LA to a Phoenix gun show where they can purchase guns without any kind of check, it's not much of a deterrent. I think it helps, but it would be far more effective if it was a federal thing instead of a state thing.

[jumbojak]

If you really want to stop shootings in the US the only realistic option is to ban or severely restrict the sale of ammunition. With million upon millions of firearms in circulation anything else would fail in the end. Good luck accomplishing that though.

[billy rubin]

well, i like legal access to firearms, and if we're going to change that, we in america cannot get around the constitution.

that has to be addressed as a fundamental part of any change in the status quo. there are ways to change it that are written into it, and i think that has to be the way forward.

but i also don't like seeing people killed by nutcases who are abusing that freedom, and i don't like feeling a need to carry a weapon myself.

[Buddy]

The problem that I have with the constitution is that it was written 200 years ago when guns weren't as advanced as they are now and by dudes who thought owning slaves was ok. I think it's time for new rules

[Guardian85]

The problem that I have with the constitution is that it was written 200 years ago when guns weren't as advanced as they are now and by dudes who thought owning slaves was ok. I think it's time for new rules

By that logic the first Amendment shouldn't cover communication over telephone or internet. Or recorded broadcast, for that matter.

Here in Norway, we have a lot of guns. Despite gun control having gotten a lot stricter in the past decades, we have an estimated 1.6 million firearms in private ownership. But we have a lot less gun crime then the US.
I think a large part of that is to do with Norwegian gun culture. We don't have the same attitude about guns. They are just tools or sporting equipment.
The other part is that we have good social programs and health care to take care of people who are at risk of flipping their shit.

[billy rubin]

The problem that I have with the constitution is that it was written 200 years ago when guns weren't as advanced as they are now and by dudes who thought owning slaves was ok. I think it's time for new rules

i think that's a worthwhile argument, and the constitution allows for amending itself, in this and everything else. but nobody is pursuing that obviously constitutional process right now, though. everybody is trying to sidestep around the wainscoting while not approaching the elephant in the middle of the room.

i think it's a moment now to actually address amending the constitution. rather than argue about whether we are or are not violating the second amendment as if it were holy writ, we should have a conversation about whether or not that amendment adequately addresses the needs of the american people, right now, in ways that its authors didn't expect.

i'm pretty sure that our revolutionary founders would have been just fine with their new constitution protecting AR-15s, had they had any, but like you say, that was a different world.

if the constitution no longer fits our society, it has built-in mechanisms for changing it.

[Buddy]

The problem that I have with the constitution is that it was written 200 years ago when guns weren't as advanced as they are now and by dudes who thought owning slaves was ok. I think it's time for new rules

By that logic the first Amendment shouldn't cover communication over telephone or internet. Or recorded broadcast, for that matter.

That is a good point, but that could also be a good argument for why the constitution needs to be updated. If the laws are affecting the whole country, they need to be specific.

.
The other part is that we have good social programs and health care to take care of people who are at risk of flipping their shit.

You damn socialists and your ability to actually take care of the population. Next you'll be telling me that you guys have a livable wage.