Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but it's what this country was founded on. The Declaration of Independence which was the most crazy forward thinking documented of its time.

That's two different things though - natural rights were a cutting edge idea, but they had been espoused by a number of philosophers at the time and many of them did not use a religious basis for them (Hobbes is the first that comes to mind).

Atheists still have rights in the US, in case you haven't noticed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As the gun massacres increase, the pressure for restrictions also will increase.

Eventually the minority right to own a dozen high power assault rifles will not prevail.

Nope. Jeebus will not allow that. Member, these shootin' irons are ordained by Gawd!

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:


But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?

This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.

Well I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but it's what this country was founded on. The Declaration of Independence which was the most crazy forward thinking documented of its time.

The Second Amendment wasn't around when your country was founded, and if it were really handed down by divine decree it'd be unconstitutional because the First Amendment would prevent the State from implementing it.

Plus, the Declaration of Independence decrees that everyone is entitled to the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", except these obviously aren't inalienable because the State can take away both your life and your liberty, making these two rights not inalienable by definition.

You're making the argument that I pointed out was completely crazy in the first place. I reiterate: the idea that the right to bear arms is divinely mandated and thus sacrosanct is irrelevant, because you've decided that other inalienable rights are, in fact, alienable. Either you'd have to change this precedence, making society fall apart in the process, or you'd have to accept that your argument is bollocks.

Finally, the Declaration of Independence was indeed very forward-thinking. In 1776. It's 2018 now though. Societal context has changed.

 Vaktathi wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.

We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:

"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment

and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).

I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?

Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.

Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.

Why not both/all of them? Joke aside, I think I misjudged the size of the US population. That being said, I would never pick up a lotto ball if winning it meant my kid gets to die, even if the odds were one in a billion.

Your comment gave me more food for thought though. Is there any study/survey on the effectiveness of owning firearms as a deterrent? ie is there a list of successful robbery/break+enter preventions by virtue of using your firearms to protect oneself? Is this a thing that actually happens?

I'm 100% not trolling by the way, simply trying to grasp the magnitude.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.

We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:

"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment

and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).

I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms? Rights are nice and great, but a school is not a place where it should ever invite the possibility of a shooting in my understanding (I would think of a range from a bank to the battlefield would be more appropriate). In my head it's the same old argument with the "drive slower" crowd: Other people make mistakes, so drive slow even if you don't. Similarly, other people might be irresponsible with their guns even if you are not. For those of you who have both a kid and your guns, would you lock the guns away/get rid of them completely if that meant that your kid gets to go to school safely every day?

The expectations are that schools should be safe. 100% agree. But you can't legislate safety. Did you know in the US we had 22 school bombings in 2016? 9 of those were classified as explosive IED. But that didn't make nation news because there is no anti bomb agenda in the US. .

How many people died in those bombings?

School+bombings.
.
.
.
School bombings?

Lost part of that response. The problem is that as long as Johnny wants to kill your kid, your child isn't safe. Little johnny has been taught that guns are the coolest way to kill your kid, and maybe they are. But take them out of the equation does not guarantee safety.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.

Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?

Part of the argument with the right to doctor assisted end of life is that people could be coerced into such a thing. If evidence is given unlawfully to the police the courts can, and do, throw it out. You can't lawfully sell yourself into slavery. You can't waive your right to a safe workplace. Your work boss can make you sign all sorts of crazy unlawful things, but the court will not honor those contracts.

You can perfectly waive your right to privacy for example when you apply for a government security clearance. All it takes is a carefully worded statement signed in good faith.

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard

That is all sorts of messed up.

In order for me to practice one constitutional right you are saying I should have to totally give up another.

Don't you see how pants on head stupid and dangerous this is?

You sure you aren't wearing a hat of +5 Hyperbole? You pretty consistently pick up a point and take off into the boonies with it.

Herzlos was stating who it works where they are located, and that seems pretty reasonable. It's not "pants on head stupid". It works for them.

What is "pants on head stupid" is posters claiming the right will go full on Waco to prevent a legal government authority from ensuring their precious One Ring, er, guns are safely stored according to the law.

No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.

Hard

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How many people died in those bombings?

Hard to find out, as all that info is not easily accessible. Maybe nobody because the statistics cover injuries, some fatal, some not.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Lost part of that response. The problem is that as long as Johnny wants to kill your kid, your child isn't safe. Little johnny has been taught that guns are the coolest way to kill your kid, and maybe they are. But take them out of the equation does not guarantee safety.

Would Johnny be taught that guns are cool if guns were not around to confirm said claim though?

My problem with firearms is that they don't serve any other purpose. Sure Johnny could bring the kitchen knife to school and go ballistic, but the kitchen knife was there to cut bread and steaks. But with firearms, what would the secondary/other use be? Hunting comes to mind, but you can do that with lead/spread cells and I don't think those are lethal to anything larger than a duck. Bullet firearms though? What would the purpose be?

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:


Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.

So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?

Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
School+bombings.
.
.
.
School bombings?

429 bombings in the US in 2016, out something like 1600 explosive events, usually accidental. Bombings are not accidental and those 429 were not hoaxs or scares. The bombs may not have gone off in that statistic I believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Lost part of that response. The problem is that as long as Johnny wants to kill your kid, your child isn't safe. Little johnny has been taught that guns are the coolest way to kill your kid, and maybe they are. But take them out of the equation does not guarantee safety.

Would Johnny be taught that guns are cool if guns were not around to confirm said claim though?

My problem with firearms is that they don't serve any other purpose. Sure Johnny could bring the kitchen knife to school and go ballistic, but the kitchen knife was there to cut bread and steaks. But with firearms, what would the secondary/other use be? Hunting comes to mind, but you can do that with lead/spread cells and I don't think those are lethal to anything larger than a duck. Bullet firearms though? What would the purpose be?

Does the government need guns?

jouso wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:


Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.

So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?

Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.

Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?

 Xenomancers wrote:

No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.

It's not perfectly normal, it's actually extremely rare unless there's a very good reason for it. Social contract again, I won't go there if I don't have a reason to, but if I have a reason to, I'm going to do it.

And, seriously, if the government has a good reason to go there your rights aren't worth feth.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.

We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:

"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment

and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).

I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?

Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.

Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.

Why not both/all of them? Joke aside, I think I misjudged the size of the US population. That being said, I would never pick up a lotto ball if winning it meant my kid gets to die, even if the odds were one in a billion.

Your comment gave me more food for thought though. Is there any study/survey on the effectiveness of owning firearms as a deterrent? ie is there a list of successful robbery/break+enter preventions by virtue of using your firearms to protect oneself? Is this a thing that actually happens?

I'm 100% not trolling by the way, simply trying to grasp the magnitude.

I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Lost part of that response. The problem is that as long as Johnny wants to kill your kid, your child isn't safe. Little johnny has been taught that guns are the coolest way to kill your kid, and maybe they are. But take them out of the equation does not guarantee safety.

Would Johnny be taught that guns are cool if guns were not around to confirm said claim though?

My problem with firearms is that they don't serve any other purpose. Sure Johnny could bring the kitchen knife to school and go ballistic, but the kitchen knife was there to cut bread and steaks. But with firearms, what would the secondary/other use be? Hunting comes to mind, but you can do that with lead/spread cells and I don't think those are lethal to anything larger than a duck. Bullet firearms though? What would the purpose be?

Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.

In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).

I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.

The gun store keeps the file from the purchase (buyers name, general info, and the guns serial #) on hand. If the gun turns up anywhere, the ATF can pull the serial number to find out where it was manufacored, what store it was sold to, who they sold it to, and so on and so on. We don't have a registry, but as long as all transfers care done over the table, the feds can follow the paper trail to find out who is supposed to own that particular gun.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:


Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.

So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?

Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.

Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?

If you have a permit you had to go through all of that process to get the permit. If you don't have a permit they have to do a background check and a 3 day waiting period and you have to be 21 i believe in the state of Florida for a handgun. Rifles and shotguns have no restrictions though I don't think - you can just walk out with those with no waiting period.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:


Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.

So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?

Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.

Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?

There is no national registration or licensing except for specific NFA items like short barreled rifles, suppressors and fully automatic weapons. Most states have no firearm registry at all and some states have very limited and specific registries that account for a small percentage of the guns owned in that state. In my state I don't need any license to own firearms just a license to carry one concealed, which I have and do. No state requires psychological profiling, some states require training classes prior to issuing a concealed carry permit and some only require that you pass the background check. The concealed carry permit has to be renewed every 5 years in my state but that time period can vary state to state.

Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.

In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).

I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.

Then why not keep your gun at the shooting range and go whenever you want and enjoy? Also, I'm pretty sure if animals need to be put down with guns, strict protocols are applied and a gun that is taken out of a registered, sealed vault is used, and the user is known and the reason is explained, and the gun returns to its place after shooting. This is what gun control is about, not taking away your favorite stuff, but making its use sensible and expected. Same way you lock the drawer with the acids and the bleach, lest your toddler swallows a bottle for fun.

I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.

But what about the other guy's guns? Who happens to be irresponsible and have his guns laying around, not teaching his children the appropriate discipline etc? and then those kids go to the same school as yours?

Also, it's not about guaranteeing. No measure will yield 100% perfect results. But when children safety is on the table, shouldn't you use any and all measure to make it as safe as possible?

*snip*

jouso wrote:

You can perfectly waive your right to privacy for example when you apply for a government security clearance. All it takes is a carefully worded statement signed in good faith.

 Xenomancers wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:


Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.

So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?

Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.

Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?

If you have a permit you had to go through all of that process to get the permit. If you don't have a permit they have to do a background check and a 3 day waiting period and you have to be 21 i believe in the state of Florida for a handgun. Rifles and shotguns have no restrictions though I don't think - you can just walk out with those with no waiting period.

Florida is a shall issue state. If you want a concealed carry permit you turn in your application and if you pass your background check you get your concealed carry permit. You are not psychologically profiled and you are not required to undergo any training or instruction. You have to be 21, fill out the application, pay the $102 fee, pass the background check and you get your concealed carry license in about 90 days.

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.

It's not perfectly normal, it's actually extremely rare unless there's a very good reason for it. Social contract again, I won't go there if I don't have a reason to, but if I have a reason to, I'm going to do it.

And, seriously, if the government has a good reason to go there your rights aren't worth feth.

My government can do that already. If they want into your house for a good reason. They have that power. Your government can just come in whenever it wants. It's just a needless violation of privacy. Not to mention probably totally ineffective. Can't you just pretend to not be home? They can't break your door down can they? Or look out the window and see a cop car - then properly store your guns then answer the door.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:


Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.

So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?

Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.

Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?

Correct.

Without inserting any commentary, here is the process for buying a firearm from in the US.

Assuming the weapon is not an NFA item (stuff like pen-guns, machineguns, rocket launchers, etc, though they are legal they have more paperwork and process), there are two options.

If you're buying a gun from a private person in the same state, you give them cash and they give you the gun. That's all there is to it.


If you want a new gun (or anything from an outfit or individual that sells guns for profit and not just personal use/collection) you walk into a gun store licensed as an FFL (federal firearms licensee).

Then, you choose a gun to purchase and fill out a form 4473.

On this form, you provide your residence and name and answer a series of questions that confirm you are not a prohibited person (e.g. you are not a felon, or fugitive from justice, etc if you intentionally lie on this form, this is what gets you sent to prison, its perjury to lie on it).

You then give the completed 4473 to store, and then they send off a background check request (which they also charge you for). This varies a bit, but usually within 10-30 mins it comes back.

If approved, the store completes the sale and you walk out with a gun and thats that.

The store keeps the 4473 record for X number of years for the ATF to review if they need.

If you want to buy a gun from another state (say you found something cool on craigslist or gunbroker.com or want that super rare luger that is only available from one place 2000 miles away) regardless of the source, it must be transferred from an FFL in the originating state to an FFL in the receiving state, and from there it goes throgh the whole above 4473/background check process.

Individual states have more regulations and restrictions, but federally, and for the bulk of the population, the above is how this all works.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.

In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).

I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.

Then why not keep your gun at the shooting range and go whenever you want and enjoy? Also, I'm pretty sure if animals need to be put down with guns, strict protocols are applied and a gun that is taken out of a registered, sealed vault is used, and the user is known and the reason is explained, and the gun returns to its place after shooting. This is what gun control is about, not taking away your favorite stuff, but making its use sensible and expected. Same way you lock the drawer with the acids and the bleach, lest your toddler swallows a bottle for fun.

I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.

But what about the other guy's guns? Who happens to be irresponsible and have his guns laying around, not teaching his children the appropriate discipline etc? and then those kids go to the same school as yours?

Also, it's not about guaranteeing. No measure will yield 100% perfect results. But when children safety is on the table, shouldn't you use any and all measure to make it as safe as possible?

I keep my guns at my residence because they're my property so I keep them with me. I've had to put down animals in our yard, rabid raccoons, snakes in the chicken coop, possums under the deck etc. the process is me selecting which gun is appropriate to use, killing the animal and burying it in my yard. No authorities ever get involved. Some of my neighbors have enough land to target shoot or hunt on their property so gun shots are not an uncommon sound throughout the week.

I want everybody else to enjoy the same freedoms that I do. We all get the presumption of innocence, if somebody else wants to own firearms I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they will do so responsibly until their actions prove otherwise. I have a lot of friends, family, coworkers and neighbors that own guns, they're all nice people them owning firearms doesn't bother me at all. I'm not going to assume the worst about somebody just for the sake of doing so.

On the subject of why we keep firearms at home. Our revolutionary war started when the British came to snag some trouble makers and seize the militias arms, or maybe at least powder and ammo from a town cache.

topaxygouroun i wrote:


Your comment gave me more food for thought though. Is there any study/survey on the effectiveness of owning firearms as a deterrent? ie is there a list of successful robbery/break+enter preventions by virtue of using your firearms to protect oneself? Is this a thing that actually happens?

Yes it does happen, yes there are studies on it, but there are no firm conclusions on any of it, as is tradition

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.

In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).

I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.

Then why not keep your gun at the shooting range and go whenever you want and enjoy? Also, I'm pretty sure if animals need to be put down with guns, strict protocols are applied and a gun that is taken out of a registered, sealed vault is used, and the user is known and the reason is explained, and the gun returns to its place after shooting. This is what gun control is about, not taking away your favorite stuff, but making its use sensible and expected. Same way you lock the drawer with the acids and the bleach, lest your toddler swallows a bottle for fun.

I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.

But what about the other guy's guns? Who happens to be irresponsible and have his guns laying around, not teaching his children the appropriate discipline etc? and then those kids go to the same school as yours?

Also, it's not about guaranteeing. No measure will yield 100% perfect results. But when children safety is on the table, shouldn't you use any and all measure to make it as safe as possible?

If you ask most gun owners what their main use for their guns is. I think most will say home defense almost all the rest will say hunting. Gun can't protect your home if it's at the gun range.