I think the laws ought to be made more strict.
Right, the 24 hours is up now so feel free to express your true feelings about this thread and the opinions expressed within 
. I’d like thank everybody who stuck to the posting guidelines and resisited debating until now. If you haven’t yet posted your opinion on the topic then please feel free to do so.
I’d like to start the ball rolling with some querys about firearm licensing in the US
-
what sort of background checks are required to obtain a gun ?
-
how long is the waiting period ?
-
how much does it cost ?
-
are there any restriction on how many guns/ how much ammo a single individual can own ?
-
what sort of records are made about who owns what gun, are such records kept locally or is their a central registry ?
-
are any follow up checks made on gun owners ?
-
is it harder for non US citizens/ minority groups to obtain firearms ?
-
if somone loses their firearms licence or loses their eligibilty for it (criminal conviction?) then will their weapons be actively confiscated ?
-
or does all of the above vary from state to state ?
- The background check is a federal law which requires the holder of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to run a potential purchaser’s name (and other identifying information) through the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) computers. They’re looking for: a) convicted felons, b) those legally determined to be mentally unstable, c) anyone convicted of domestic violence, d) anyone discharged dishonorably from the military, or e) persons convicted of treason. A postive indication on any of these halts the sale with no recourse. In addition, illegal immagrants and foreign nationals are supposed to be weeded out at this stage. Some states may have additional requirements.
I’ll add here that it is legal to purchase firearms from private individuals, too. Although no background check is required for purchases of this nature, it is a violation of federal law for a private individual to knowingly sell, or otherwise furnish, a firearm of any one who would fail the background check above.
-
This can vary from state to state. In Ohio (my state of residence), there is no waiting period.
-
I think the background check costs less than $10 to run. It’s difficult to say, since these costs are simply added to the price of the gun, in my experience. Some states levy additional fees.
-
Quantity? No. Not in Ohio, or any other state of which I’m aware. Again, this is something that individual states may determine for themselves. However, there are always proposed laws floating around with limits on the number of guns one may purchase in a given period. But I’ve seen or heard of nothing attempting to limit the total number of firearms one may legally possess. Ammo? Again, nothing that I’m aware of. Except some of the more radical proposals include provisions for outlawing ammunition - completely or partially.
-
The federal government is prohibited by current law from maintaining a registry of guns and their owners. Some states, however, maintain a registry of certain models/types of firearms - notably, California’s registration of so-called assault weapons.
-
None that I’m aware of. States which do maintain the registry I noted in #5, may however.
-
Resident aliens and illegal immigrants are prohibited from legally owning firearms in the U.S. Minorities, assuming they are U.S. citizens, have the same access to firearms as anyone else.
-
No. And I don’t think it would be possible, simply because there is no universal national registry.
-
Yes. See above. For a brief synopsis of the myriad state laws go here: http://www.nraila.com/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=state and click the state you are interested in. Generally speaking, the states of California, New York, some other New England states, and the District of Columbia are considered to have the most restrictive gun ownership provisions. States such as Texas, Wyoming, Florida and Tennessee are considered to have more liberal provisions.
Also confusing the issue, are the municipalities that have enacted provisions more generally restrictive than those of their state. For instance, Chicago, Ill has in place what is effectively a ban on all handguns (handguns had to be registered as of some date many years ago, but you can no longer register new handguns). Also there is Kenner, GA which actually requires (although it’s not enforced) all households to contain a firearm.
Good questions. Off the top of my head, I think I’ve answered everything correctly. Others will certainly correct me if I’m wrong.
-
-
- Yea, let’s make drugs illegal too, so nobody will have them either.
~
- Yea, let’s make drugs illegal too, so nobody will have them either.
-
Sigh. Maybe I’ll bite. I dunno about the US, but here’s the Canuckian version. I’m really not a right-wing gun nut, but have maybe heard too many of them recently for my own good, so this may not be entirely un-biased. First I’ll try answer your questions, then give my ever-so humble opinion… (note that this all concerns long guns; handguns are more tightly regulated here)
0/ 3) In canada, there’s two steps. First, to get a ``possession and acquisition license’’, you have to take the canadian firearms safety course, which’ll set you back $150 or so, and takes a week or so to run (20 hours iirc, over three evenings when I did mine). Then you have to send $80 to get the license itself (valid 5 years). Then, once you have the license, and want to buy a gun, you have to register it and pay $25 for the transfer paperwork.
-
Who knows? In theory, there’s a full criminal background check. I certainly had to fill in enough info for one, and give names of two references. However, the references did not have to be ``people in positions of authority’’ (i.e. any of my buddies were OK), and I don’t think mine ever actually got called. In the furour over the over-budget gun registry here it came out that many (most?) of the references were actually never called…
-
Again, who knows? If there’s a formal and official waiting period to get the license, it’s on the order of 4 weeks, but bureacratic inefficiency is liable to double or quadruple that before you actually get your card in the mail. Once you have the card, though, registration transfer takes maybe half an hour on the phone.
-
Not per se, although if you own more than 10 guns, the government reserves the right to search your dwelling at any time without a warrant. No restrictions on quantities of ammo, although you do need to show a PAL to buy any. In some places, they log all your ammo purchases in a big book and claim they are required to. Other places just check the expiration date. Go figure.
-
The latest boondoggle here is the attempt to keep a central registry of all long guns (handguns have been registered and tracked for decades already). The initial estimate was that this would cost $10million, or something in that ballpark (I’m running on poor memory here) though the auditor-general recently threw hands up in disgust saying the record-keeping was so shoddy that she had no clue how much had been spent. Most current estimates are around $2billion. Further complaints against this are wonderful anecdotes about things like a rifle stolen 10 years ago, then registered, transferred three times without a hitch, and then being denied the 4th transfer as they finally noticed it was stolen…
-
Nothing systematic.
-
I have no idea.
-
Yes, in theory. But there’s a group of protestors marching across the country informing the police in every province that they have and intend to keep their un-registered guns, and they have had no luck at all in getting themselves arrested. (I guess here you can’t challenge the legitimacy of a law in court unless you are defending yourself against a breach of it…)
-
It’s all federal here. Except most of the provinces have declared that they (and therefore provincially-paid police forces, prosecutors, etc.) will not be enforcing most of the paper-work-related provisions. Careless use/ storage/ endangerment/ use in crime provisions will be enforced pretty consistently, though.
So there we go. I personally think this would be a better world if we knew where our dinner came from, and killing some of it yourself is as good a way to get there as I can think of, so I intend to hunt come next month’s seasons. In order to do this as painlessly and humanely as possible, I’ll use a gun. So I definitely think there are legitimate uses for guns and can’t agree that they should be taken out of the hands of private citizens altogether.
I think the licensing part of gun control is a great idea, with some safety training and a bit of delay in getting guns. Fair enough. Heck, on a completely different topic, I’d even be happy if hunting licenses required a marksmanship test, as I believe they do in Sweden. Of course, you’d have to be able to get a gun even if (especially if) you suck at aiming, so you can practice to the standard required to go hunting in good conscience, so that’s a hunter-licensing rather than gun-control issue. And I can see a definite benefit to the safety-training part of getting a license. Yes, it all seems pretty obvious, but there are a lot of really dumb accidents out there, and I recall seeing stats that these dropped when the safety training was introduced.
I think the registration of all guns is pointless and expensive. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that it reduces crime, and it’s going to be virtually impossible to do right. A major part of the problem is that there are a heck of a lot of old military surplus guns out there that are virtually impossible for your average Joe to identify correctly. I believe one estimate was that the gun registry here had a 170% error rate; that’s more than 3 errors per 2 registration certificates. This could account for the monumental cost overruns.
Further, I do not think that failure to register (or my favourite: ``knowingly make a statement that is false or misleading’’ – do you have to know that the statement was false, or merely know you made it for that to apply?) should be a criminal offence, as it is in the law as written. If the penalty for not registering your guns were, say, a $100 fine, waived on the first offence if you register them (this was the penalty for not wearing a bike helmet, for instance), then I think the whole deal would be far more palatable. But getting a criminal record, with all the implications that has for jobs, travel, etc. for basically a regulatory offence seems way over the top.
I’ll do what I can, enigmatic. I may be wrong on some points.
1.To buy a gun through a licensed dealer, he sends your name into a central computer system to see if you have a criminal record or, harder to obtain, a record as a mentally disturbed person. No flags, you can buy.
2.I believe the waiting period is gone, now that the check is instant.
3.If you mean the cost of the checking, no charge.
-
As far as I know, there are no limits on the number of guns or ammo one can have. I know one collector who owns roughly $30,000 (US) worth of guns, not counting his ammo.
-
Every gun sold through a licensed firearms dealer is recorded with the US govt. Many, however, are sold from owner to owner, or were bought before registration began. These guns are off the books, as are stolen guns.
-
There are no follow-up checks on owners after the purchase, except: Those convicted of felonies lose their rights, but, in some cases may apply to regain them. Those convicted of violent crimes, even misdemeanors, lose the right to carry, and perhaps own, guns.
-
I don’t know about non-citizens, but the law makes no distinctions for race, religion, sex, or national origin among citizens. In actual practice, I am not aware of any minorities having any difficulty getting guns.
-
I don’t know this one.
-
Some parts of this vary dramatically from state to state, and among cities in a state. For example, here in Indiana, I hold a permit to carry a gun anywhere in the state (for which I pay $25 every 4 years.) In most of Illinois, to my west, a citizen has more or less the same rights (I’m not sure) but in Chicago, it is illegal to possess a handgun.
Further Quirks: Antique firearms are generally unregulated. All black powder guns are in this category, even new ones. Even a violent felon may legally walk around with a big black powder six-shooter on his hip.
At gun shows (gatherings in big public buildings where guns are bought and sold,) the criminal record check is waived.
AskNott wrote:
Whoa, whoa, there Asknott. Are you saying that the laws in Indiana say that no NICS is required or that at gun shows unlicensed owners may sell firearms without background checks as long as they only sell one or two firearms?
Here are my thoughts:
- I don’t like the idea that anyone should be given the power or right to kill someone. Wherever we can practically limit this, I think we should, hence I am for gun control.
-Waiting periods, licensing and background checks all sound to me like totally resonable compromises, although I must admit I’d be pretty happy to see guns completely outlawed from the private citizen.
- Most arguments against gun control miss one of the larger objectives of gun control, I think: actually reducing the number of guns in existance. If the total number guns in a country was drastically reduced, I think it stands to reason that there would be a corresponding decrease in the number of gun-related crimes, the same way a decrease in population would probably do that.
Regarding “original intent”
- The Bill of Rights was submitted to and approved by the first congress, not at the constitutional convention. Although the founding fathers certainly were involved in this, since many of them were members of that congress, it was not their supposed infinite wisdom (which at the same time protected the slave trade) that approved the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, to say that the founders, or congress had an intent other than one they state in the first part of that amendment (the militias part) is both bullshit, and irrelevant. Once a law is passed, its drafters aren’t the ones given the power to interpret it. Its even worse to try and have them do this 200+ years after their deaths. And in any case, the founders had very few things on which they all agreed, so claiming or promoting a perception that they all said in chorus, “Everyone should get a gun for any reason at all” is wrong for so many reasons.
Great post, I’m really impressed that your 24 hour ban on debate worked!
I’m fine with people owning guns, I’m fine with people getting licenses to carry. I kinda start to get nervous when people want to get their hands on, say, M16s or AK-47s, though.
As for laws, all I want is for us to be reasonably sure that the person buying the gun isn’t a felon or a certified mental case. Taking all guns away (or trying to) won’t work because prohibition is stupid (see alcohol and drugs for an example). But on the other hand, arming everyone is wrong too because that’s just asking from trouble.
hrumph.
I own an AK-47, actually it’s an SLR-95 pretty much the same thing. You have nothing to fear from me.
According to statistics (no cite), you should be far more fearful of a 16yr old behind the wheel.
Cisco on guns: I don’t like them. Haven’t shot one since I was a kid and it wouldn’t bother me if I went the rest of my life without shooting one.
Cisco on gun control: It makes me sick to come into threads like this and see people jumping up and down, waving their arms, screaming “Take my rights away! Oh mister politician, over here! PLEASE take my rights away!!!”
There are enough guns in circulation now, both legally and illegally, that the sentiment of gun control only punishing honest citizens will hold true long after any tougher legislation.
Those weapons they call cars kill far more people here(U.S.) than all gun violence combined (U.S.).
A classmate’s daughter just turned 16, her parents bought her a car. The way she drives I wonder to myself if she’ll see 17.
Fear of an intruder with an AK-47, IMHO is not a rational one compared to Junior riding your ass on the hwy.
JMO
Quote Qwertyasdfg
I don’t like the idea that anyone should be given the power or right to kill someone. Wherever we can practically limit this, I think we should, hence I am for gun control.
You surely couldn’t have thought very long before making a statement like that.
Do you think that anyone who owns a gun feels that he has been given the right to kill someone?
If I were you I’d ask the mods to edit that ridiculous statement out of this discussion.
Guns are dangerous. They are meant to be so.
Thats because of what they were meant to be used for.
Sometimes it is necessary to apply a force, or threaten to, greater than the force being used against you.
Thats what guns do, or rather allow the person in posession of the weapon to do.
I don’t want anyone telling me I cannot defend me or mine.
When I was 20 I might have used my fists or more than likely threatened to to defend myself. Today,37 years later, I cannot. Why do you want to take my protection away from me?
Why don’t you want me to be able to stop intruders with a force greater than his?
My opinion on gun control.
Its gone too far when a man cannot have a gun in his home to protect himself.
If that man needs a gun on his person to protect himself while on the street he ought to be able to have that also.
I dunno the specifics of Indiana, but this is most certainly not the case in Ohio. In Ohio, every firearm transaction, whether made through a licensed dealer, or a private individual, at a gun show is run through the instant check system. They set up a table near the door with a couple state officers and a couple telephones, and before you can complete the purchase the usual check is made. At least this is the case at every gun show I’ve been to in Ohio in the past 10 years, or so.
We don’t miss that “objective.” We call it the slippery slope. It’s well understood by us gun rights folks that some percentage of the gun control advocates would be happy with laws that permit the ownership of ever fewer guns - all the way down to zero, or as you say, “completely outlawed from the private citizen.”
It’s also “bullshit,” as you so pleasantly put it, to assume the meaning of “the people,” in the 2nd amemdment is different from the referred to in the remainder of the Bill of Rights.
The “right to kill” is already about as limited as it can get. It’s limited to the military in sanctioned actions and to civil law enforcement officers in situations of grave personal danger. You may wish to correct, or retract, your incredibly foolish remark.
It did until you made your ill-advised and demonstrably wrong statements of “fact,” regarding the 2nd amendment and the “right to kill.”
Viking, thanks for the look at Canada. Very informative. Regarding gun registration you may be interested in reading this old Great Debates thread we had:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54764
I think that the general rules we have in the US are pretty good. Long guns are OK and widely available, with the exception of automatic weapons. Handguns must be registered and licensed. Felons are not allowed to own handguns. The purchase of guns requires a background check and reasonable (~ 1 week) waiting period.
The problem that I’m seeing is that far too many handguns wind up outside of the process, and in the black market. I think more responsibility must be placed on handgun owners to ensure the proper, legal dispensation of that gun when it leaves their ownership. That applies throughout the supply chain, whoever is the owner at that moment must make sure that the gun is legally transferred.
The fact that guns wind up in criminal’s hands means that a legal owner, at some point, gave it to the criminal. That legal owner must be taken to task for that.
Cheesesteak, how can you possibly mean this:
GAVE IT TO THE CRIMINAL? It was most likely stolen! Do you really think that there are gun owners who choose to dispose of their weapons by looking for criminals to “give” them to? I can’t possibly believe you really think this.
Frankly, for all of those folks who think increasing gun control laws/restrictions are going to somehow keep the criminals from obtaining guns, you’re way off base. When Johnny Gangbanger wants to buy a weapon, he’s going to buy a stolen one out of the trunk of Jimmy Gangbanger’s hot rod and then go shoot up a block or two. He’s not going to say “Why Thank You, Jimmy, for this important piece of consumer information - I was not aware that it was not legal for me to purchase this weapon in this manner. I will take myself over to my local constabulary immediately to obtain an FOI card! See you, of course after my background check and the mandatory waiting period!”
Don’t blame the legitimate, rule following and law abiding public who just wants to shoot for sport, or keep a gun for self defense, because of the unlawful actions of criminals.
As I’ve said, this isn’t a federal statute; it’s either a state law, or a municipal one. The same goes for your waiting period. (And by the way, I think waiting periods are stupid for people who already own a gun. What can they possibly accomplish if I’ve already got one?) Felons are also prohibited from owning long guns.
Because no guns are ever stolen. Right? I’m pretty sure you meant to include that, but let’s be precise here. After all, we’re talking about the law. And precision is required to craft good and useful laws. Anything left open to interpretation will be interpreted in any number of fashions.
Gun control means using both hands.
Missy, UB, you are right that guns do get stolen, but do they really get stolen in quantities sufficient to arm the entire populace of criminals? You (obviously) can’t stop people if they’re willing to steal a gun and ammo. I wan’t that to be the ONLY way criminals get guns, no private sales, no ‘loans’, no crooked dealers.
Keeping tighter control on the chain of ownership will at least make guns harder to get for the average criminal.
Like I said I am perfectly happy with the tight regulations on guns here in the UK (an opinion shared by most of the people over here that I have discussed the issue with). But I want to be carefull about jumping to an conclusion regarding the situation in the US which is as I said a whole different country.
Most of the coverage of the gun culture in America presented over here is biased heavily to the anti-gun side of the discussion, and it does not take a genius to work out that the likes of “Bowling for Columbine” are not paticularly interested in giving both sides a fair chance to get their points across (although some of it was freaking scary if true). with this in mind I was wondering if anyone could see their way to answering a few more questions (sorry)
-
Given the apparent lack of any central record of gun ownership is their any way for law enforcment agencies to track firearms used in a crime, is this impossible or can weapons be traced to the point of purchase and matched with registered owners that way ?
-
What is the main objection to such a central database of gun owners. I must admit that I find the lack of such a provision suprising. Is it the problems associated with implementing such a large record system “on the fly” or is there an element of paranoia about what the goverment would use the information for ?
-
How do gun owning dopers store there weapons within their homes, are laws in place requiring mandatory secure cabinets or gun safes ?
-
How would those individuals keeping a gun for self defence respond to the accusations made by many pro gun control advocates that the dangers associated with violent crime is exaggerated by media organisations to sensationalise stories (I must admit that being unlucky enough to receive FOX news on satelite tv I find my self ready to believe this). I am often suprised by the number of people who I have seen posting about gun control who seem genuinely convinced that they might well find themselve in a kill or be killed situation at some point in their immeadiate future ?
-
What would be the likely response to legislation increasing the controls on firearms in the US or even heaven forbid the banning of handguns Would the majority of gun owners hand in their weapons peacfuly or would there be “serious trouble”?
-
I find the points made about the provisions made in the constitution about the rights to keep firearms and form militias very interesting. Do people still genuinely believe that these things are an important component in the defence of the nation from foreign invasion (and that such a thing is actually possible). Or is it more a case of “it’s in the constitution so we must do this as a matter of honour/tradition” ?
If any one has any questions for me by the way don’t hesitate to fire away.