Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 26, 2012, 11:58 AM   #276
skottichan
macrumors 6502a
 
skottichan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Send a message via AIM to skottichan Send a message via MSN to skottichan
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
This isn't the United States of the Socialist Republic. We don't lock the doors like North Korea. No one is forcing you to stay...
So back to the rhetoric of "if you don't like Murica you can leave" then? Why is it okay for the conservatives among us to complain about what they don't like about our country? When people complain about Obamacare, social welfare, etc they're called "patriotic" but when people complain about corporate welfare, or the lack of meaningful gun control, we're told we can leave.
skottichan is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 12:00 PM   #277
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post
So back to the rhetoric of "if you don't like Murica you can leave" then? Why is it okay for the conservatives among us to complain about what they don't like about our country? When people complain about Obamacare, social welfare, etc they're called "patriotic" but when people complain about corporate welfare, or the lack of meaningful gun control, we're told we can leave.

Sadly, I think it boils down to IOIYAR.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 12:42 PM   #278
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post
So back to the rhetoric of "if you don't like Murica you can leave" then? Why is it okay for the conservatives among us to complain about what they don't like about our country? When people complain about Obamacare, social welfare, etc they're called "patriotic" but when people complain about corporate welfare, or the lack of meaningful gun control, we're told we can leave.
Because obviously those of us who disagree with them are commie socialist scum. Didn't you get the memo? Only their version of government is right.
leekohler is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 03:39 PM   #279
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
Obviously you've never ... come home in the middle of the night (or woke up in the middle of the night) to find someone who doesn't belong there rummaging through your home.
Which totally justifies building up an arsenal that you mostly keep at home. No irony, here, nope, none at all.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 04:18 PM   #280
Iscariot
macrumors 68030
 
Iscariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronteazy
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBradMac View Post
Ps: You aren't going to demonize me, or make me feel guilty because I own guns.
I'm not trying to demonize you or make you feel guilty. I own a gun and I enjoy shooting guns. But the self-defense narrative is dangerously niave, uninformed and counterproductive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
oh wow, that makes PERFECT sense...I'll make sure to tell all the convicted felons I know to stay away from me...better yet I will post a sign at my door telling convicted felons to stay away...
Convicted felons do not magically spawn on protected property with a plan to commit more felonies because they gain bonus experience points. Life isn't a video game or a TV show where "bad guys" exist solely to perpetrate evil actions on the unsuspecting but nonetheless prepared — and handsome! — hero. FBI crime statistics demonstrate how few acts of violence are random and how the vast majority are committed by individuals with known criminal histories against other known criminals. The dubious protective benefits of firearms do not even remotely compare to avoiding the criminal element.
__________________
Don't feed the you-know-what.
Iscariot is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 05:49 PM   #281
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscariot View Post
Convicted felons do not magically spawn on protected property with a plan to commit more felonies because they gain bonus experience points. Life isn't a video game or a TV show where "bad guys" exist solely to perpetrate evil actions on the unsuspecting but nonetheless prepared — and handsome! — hero. FBI crime statistics demonstrate how few acts of violence are random and how the vast majority are committed by individuals with known criminal histories against other known criminals. The dubious protective benefits of firearms do not even remotely compare to avoiding the criminal element.
Yes, but you live in Canada, where people in general are much nicer. It is the Canadian way. Criminals in the US are much more thuggish. I mean, look at those Bain Capital locusts.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 05:59 PM   #282
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
I certainly wasn't trying to paint all gun owners as one group, or that they are all paranoid. That is clearly not the case. There have been some very rational comments made here (you) and some very irrational ones (I won't name names). I do think that most gun owners simply want to have a firearm available for home protection, and that that is a perfectly reasonable argument, and a right that I do NOT think will be going anywhere under any sort of regulation. Carrying around is a further discussion.

But, there is a very vocal bunch out there who is against any sort of regulation at all of firearms. That is irrational, and they are the ones I am writing to.

And I certainly am not going to pretend like I think that most of those with a large number of firearms are solely recreational shooters.
I was not referring to you at all. You seem to be very level headed. And at some point, the level headed people have to tell the extremes on both sides to shove it, find some common ground, and strike a mutual understanding (which is something American government has failed to do on virtually every issue it seems). The only other option is moving backwards and I don't like to move backwards. We came from chimpanzees. Chimps throw feces at each other. I would prefer not to face that dilemma.
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 06:07 PM   #283
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Which totally justifies building up an arsenal that you mostly keep at home. No irony, here, nope, none at all.
And mostly kept not locked away, making it easy to steal .
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 06:15 PM   #284
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dscuber9000 View Post
This whole gun debate seriously has me wanting to move out of the country when I graduate. The gun culture is just insane and clearly isn't going away. It's pretty terrifying that I have to own a murder weapon to feel "safe" nowadays.
1. I may have misread this but you yourself said you WANT to leave?
2. You yourself said gun culture is “insane”
3. And you yourself identify a need to own a “murder weapon”…that really concerns me... If you think the majority of guns are used for shooting people, I would advise seeking an academic (or gun safety) course that takes a more comprehensive view, or expanding the worldview a little bit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
This isn't the United States of the Socialist Republic. We don't lock the doors like North Korea. No one is forcing you to stay...
I remind you that you are welcome to leave. In case you forgot, you were the one who said you wanted to leave. (see first quote)


Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post
So back to the rhetoric of "if you don't like Murica you can leave" then? Why is it okay for the conservatives among us to complain about what they don't like about our country? When people complain about Obamacare, social welfare, etc they're called "patriotic" but when people complain about corporate welfare, or the lack of meaningful gun control, we're told we can leave.
The conservatives who say they want to leave are welcome to leave as well. Those who aren't liberal or conservative and say they want to leave the country can also leave. The gates are open for all of those who want to leave the country. But the only person in this thread who said they WANT to leave is you.

And I'm not sure how you connect complaining about Obamacare as getting cultural praise of being "patriotic"...I, and numerous other gun owners, have noted the importance of comprehensive healthcare including mental health services. But perhaps we are too “insane” for you?

If you want to talk sense about how we can reduce gun violence in the US, I am glad to talk openly with you as are numerous others from both sides of the spectrum. However, if you want to do the ‘guns scare me and gun people are insane’ and the whole “murder weapon” thing, I am not giving you any more respect than the people who tell me Obama wasn't born in the US or the conspiracy theorists. This attitude only makes the problem worse.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 06:26 PM   #285
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Because obviously those of us who disagree with them are commie socialist scum. Didn't you get the memo? Only their version of government is right.
Perhaps you did not read the post where he said he WANTS to leave...?
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 10:41 PM   #286
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Perhaps you did not read the post where he said he WANTS to leave...?
Perhaps you should be more interested in keeping people here.
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 11:54 PM   #287
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Perhaps you should be more interested in keeping people here.
It isn't my job to convince people saying they want to leave the country that they should stay.

Look how many extremists we have in government who can't look at an issue from more than one side...do you think I should be interested in keeping them in office? Sorry to say but I'm not about to assume that role.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 04:59 AM   #288
k995
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
The issue is not the number of guns (although more legal guns usualy means more and cheaper guns on the black market as they are easily stolen, lost or sold illegaly)

The issue is why are people buying these weapons.

Switzerland for example also has a substantial portion of its population with guns at home, yet it doesnt face the same issues the USA had.

Yet in switzerland and as a whole europe guns are seen as a necessary evil, not a solution . People now hamstering guns out of fear of a ban is the perfect example for this. Irrational fear, a "gun is the solution" attitude, mistrust of anything authority related, low social mobility / high income/wealth gap,bad social safety net, bad education, ...


Add all that to the easy avaibility of guns (both legal and illegal) and you get the gun crimes and homocide rates the USA has now.
k995 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 05:34 AM   #289
92jlee
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cardiff, Wales, UK
Send a message via MSN to 92jlee
Coming from the UK I don't know much about US gun laws and you can't always belive the internet.
When you went to pick up the guns, I assume you had to register them in your name, but did you have to have any tests or licences or anything?
92jlee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 06:55 AM   #290
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92jlee View Post
Coming from the UK I don't know much about US gun laws and you can't always belive the internet.
When you went to pick up the guns, I assume you had to register them in your name, but did you have to have any tests or licences or anything?

Part of the problem is that we have hundreds, maybe thousands of localized (state, county, city) gun laws. For example, in New York state, you are required to obtain a license and register handguns but not rifles. Drive to another state and the laws are different.
rdowns is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:35 AM   #291
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92jlee View Post
Coming from the UK I don't know much about US gun laws and you can't always belive the internet.
When you went to pick up the guns, I assume you had to register them in your name, but did you have to have any tests or licences or anything?
US gun laws are very complicated...so complicated that lawmakers don't understand them. I worked in the industry for a few years and I understand about three states out of fifty...and even then, I was constantly searching through Annotated Code and contacting those with more knowledge than I due to complex wording, intentional ambiguity, and lack of some precedents.

As others have noted, there is huge variance by state. For example, in Maryland, US, carrying a loaded magazine can be a deadly weapon...even if you don't have a gun. Just a loaded magazine can constitute a 'deadly weapon'. In the state that borders us to the south, Virginia, US, that isn't the case. To the north, NJ has slightly different laws in which carrying a loaded magazine can be called a deadly weapon but is subject to other storage and transportation stipulations.

Now, what I just said above is and is not true. In Maryland, a dildo can be a 'deadly weapon'. Maryland transportation laws are ambiguous enough that this is actually debated by shooters and law enforcement alike. Annotated code is ambiguous enough that most whom instruct advocate carrying unloaded mags by default. It is PC for search, seizure, and even arrest. Shooters contacting attorneys and senior LE officials on this have gotten all sorts of responses across the board.

Also in Maryland, some law enforcement can legally carry at all times where others cannot when not on routine business, meaning they would have to get a CCW to carry in the fashion that other LE can with just the Maryland Police Training ID Card.

Primary and secondary sales vary as well. For primary sales, that is, through an FFL, the feds (AKA the BATF) have the 4473 in which you fill out your information, the gun shop calls the information in, your identify is verified, and you (the Federal Firearms Licensee or FFL) are either told you cannot deliver, you can delivery, or to hold/discretionary actions subject to further review. The gun type and serial number is recorded. The last one is complicated but let's, for simplicity sake, not bother as there is a lot more to it. As far as prerequisites, some states require minimal education where others have no requirements except an ID and a clean record. Some states have mandatory waiting periods and only so many guns can be sold in one 'go-round' without 'collector status'. Some have mental health requirements where others do not...in some states, buying a gun means you have to sign away certain doctor-patient privileges. In Maryland, the wait on a firearm is 7 days (and includes forfeit of some mental health information otherwise deemed confidential to discretionary use by Maryland State Police). Some states have this and others don't...the advantages of it are still being debated. Usually this supersedes the 4473 even though it is still filled out by the buyer. The idea is a 'cooling period' in the event someone decides to buy a gun to go on a rampage, and to act as a deterrent to someone after a 'quick fix'. This applies to pistols and select long guns only, specially, long guns usually (but not always) called "assault rifles".

Secondary sales vary wildly. I don't have enough life left to discuss variance. Some do not have anything beyond the person-to-person sale, and a bill-of-sale is one the seller creates (MS Word, MS Paint, Crayola, ...that's up to you). There is no 4473 in most cases unless the firearm type is mandated to go through a FFL or a State Police's licensing and transfer division. This can and has resulted in problems. If you trade in a firearm or sell it back to a FFL, then the gun will have a 4473 performed on it before redelivery. This is often the safest way for the seller because your name is no longer directly attached to the gun!!! If that gun is identified in a crime and you were the last person to be traced to it, the BATF's 'gun squad' may show up (and no, I am not making that up, and no, these aren't boyscouts selling wrapping paper...think guys armed equally to your SAS division...).

Gun types vary as well by state. An AR-15 in Maryland is not an AR-15 to another state in some sense. Certain ARs, such as those with fluted barrels (for grenade launchers, which you can't get without a T2/C3 tax stamp) constitute 'pistol paperwork' in Maryland. That is, you go through the 7 day wait. A HBar, or heavy barrel (literally same gun, non-fluted barrel) is cash-and-carry. That is, they call in the 4473 and if given the okay by the BATF, you take the gun with you that day. What all surrounding states do is completely different.

Then you have Class 3 items, such as suppressors, machine guns, submachine guns, machine pistols, grenade launchers (you can't get the grenades though), short barrel rifles, short tube shot guns, automatic shotguns, etc. This goes through a much lengthier process in which you get fingerprinted, pay a $250 tax stamp, can only own them for recreational shooting and not defense, some (autos) have to be made before an established 1984 ban, have to abide by select laws and give up certain rights such as those relating to search/seizure, blah blah blah etc. It's a whole different thing. Usually, the media doesn't do an accurate job of explaining this. They usually grossly under-exaggerate the process and over-exaggerate the items. For example, suppressors do not 'silence' the noise a bullet makes. It's a physical impossibility to do so. They decrease noise, not eliminate it. These items have almost never been used in crime. There just aren't that many out there and high costs, long waits, heavier storage, etc. keep them scarce. Most people who own them are collectors and they have actual gun safes. They aren't the Sentry Safes you see at Walmart, and some weigh as much as a car and are built out of tool steel. Even skilled thieves struggle with breaking them.

Gun shows have historically had a loop hole in which some FFLs could deliver a gun without completing the 4473 on-spot. You will be hard pressed to find a dealer who does this today. That's because 1) the liability is huge...if you do this, your insurance is higher and sooner or later someone will sue you for a ton of money, 2) FFLs legitimately do not want to sell firearms to criminals for ethical reasons (most gun shop owners are good people, despite what the media makes them out to be), and 3) it's easy to take a cell phone to a gun show. People claimed that President Bush supported delivering guns without spot-checks, which was not true. He supported on-spot 4473's at all gun shows. The conflict arose because he did not clearly specify how that would affect states with supplemental waiting periods. In at least most states, this is irrelevant. In Maryland, a gun with a wait is a gun with a wait. You buy a gun at a gun show, you pick it up at the gun store 7 days later without exception. The states I know of with waits all function in this fashion.

Unification of ownership and carry laws wouldn't be a bad thing if everyone can reach an agreement on what these laws should be. Many good people have lost their livelihoods due to this ambiguity and resulting criminal charges when traveling with firearms. I know a few personally, two which were law enforcement. The above is just a small tid bit, but as you can see, it isn't quite how the media depicts it and it is partially why I get annoyed when people overlook it. I appreciate when people examine it from a level-headed perspective such as yourself. We have some real issues with gun crime, but the issue has to be examined from all perspectives and not the 'oh gun culture scares me I'm leaving!' one. Otherwise, we are bound to continue on a path that will be defined by both unacceptable death rates and unacceptable violations to our Second Amendment which protects our rich shooting heritage.
NickZac is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 09:27 AM   #292
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
US gun laws are very complicated...

As others have noted, there is huge variance by state.
This points to another reason why I'm not a fan of "state's rights" in all situations. Since you can travel to and from anywhere in the country without any sort of checks (good), you can just travel to another area to acquire something that may be illegal to buy in your own area and then just carry it back in (bad). And before someone tries to bring up traveling to New Jersey to buy a 32oz. Big Gulp, just stop. It's not the same thing.

This is another case where I think a blanket law covering the country should be in order.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 10:03 AM   #293
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
This points to another reason why I'm not a fan of "state's rights" in all situations. Since you can travel to and from anywhere in the country without any sort of checks (good), you can just travel to another area to acquire something that may be illegal to buy in your own area and then just carry it back in (bad). And before someone tries to bring up traveling to New Jersey to buy a 32oz. Big Gulp, just stop. It's not the same thing.

This is another case where I think a blanket law covering the country should be in order.
I agree. Sometimes individual state rulings lead to ambiguity. I shoot in four different states, and all have their own set of rules. There needs to be country-wide specifications on certain laws, especially those designed to prevent firearm diversion (which protects legal owners) and those designed to allow lawful transportation. But from theory to practice on this will be difficult. I know a guy who was law enforcement in VA and arrested when he got pulled over for speeding in NJ because he was carrying in the fashion as per his own state. IMO it was appalling that NJ police followed through but it shows the potential harm in this ambiguity.

The problem is that some states are very favorable to gun rights where as others are very favorable to gun control. This makes interstate unification difficult. How do you balance states that favor concealed carry and reciprocity with states that do not favor concealed carry or reciprocity?

Then there are single-state quirks also...for example, NJ has outlawed hollow point ammunition completely (well, there are a few exceptions but that isn't important for the purpose of the example)...even for LEOs (which shows a misunderstanding of the ammunition's purpose and value, but the other 49 states do not do this)...so what do we do for these things?

I think in the least (certain) purchase laws can be unified as can interstate transportation to prevent diversion and prevent good people with lawful intentions from running into transportation issues...and things like that would probably be easier than those listed above. Someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm should not be able to go to another state and purchase one due to different protocol that would fail to flag this person as ineligible for sale/ownership. Also, someone traveling cross-country to go shooting with their buddies shouldn't have to spend hours on the internet trying to figure out how to legally transport the firearm in every state they cross. If I'm going to an IPSC meeting in Georgia, I'd prefer to know how to secure my firearm in my car and be able to drive to Georgia without worrying about accidentally breaking laws or having to relocate my gun every time I cross into a new state.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 10:32 AM   #294
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
@NickZac

Given that I think the irony is that the current laws do more to prevent legitimate gun owner from going about their business without fear of arrest more than even UK style laws do (aside from our handgun ban).
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 01:38 PM   #295
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
@NickZac

Given that I think the irony is that the current laws do more to prevent legitimate gun owner from going about their business without fear of arrest more than even UK style laws do (aside from our handgun ban).
It actually is very restrictive in many ways in that it is a deterrent...I think a combination of confusing laws and fear of breaking them and the consequences have discouraged some people from taking up recreational shooting. And it is unfortunate because it is a very enjoyable hobby and if you think about it, doing so promotes the dissemination of safe handling and operating practices. Some laws have almost made firearms taboo topics and if you are familiar with the abstinence-only sex-ed in the US and it's utter and complete failure, that is why I advocate firearms should not be made into a taboo (and on a side note, it seems the US is moving away from making sensitive subjects taboo...a little slowly perhaps, but surely). Part of that would be clearer policy that (hopefully) will keep firearms out of the hands of unauthorized users.

Clearly defined laws IMO would benefit a lot of areas. To me, I like simple wording. When I write research papers for publishing, I go out of my way to try to keep it simple because other people will have to be able to understand it and work with it. Some of my colleagues do exactly the opposite. I see the same need for clarity in regards to law...overly complex wording has little value except confusing the persons needing to understand the laws the most. Even law enforcement often struggles with this. As is the case with loaded magazines constituting a deadly weapon in the eyes of some, but not all, law enforcement, a genuine individual hell bent to shoot nothing more than some paper may ask one person and be told it is fine to transport loaded mags, but later wind up in seriously (and undeserved) legal trouble when he came across someone believing the opposite. Such ambiguity has almost surely aided criminals in obtaining firearms they are not legally entitled to own/buy/borrow/steal/etc.

Do gun laws in the UK vary by town/province/etc.?
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 08:41 PM   #296
92jlee
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cardiff, Wales, UK
Send a message via MSN to 92jlee
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
US gun laws are very complicated...so complicated that lawmakers don't understand them. I worked in the industry for a few years and I understand about three states out of fifty...and even then, I was constantly searching through Annotated Code and contacting those with more knowledge than I due to complex wording, intentional ambiguity, and lack of some precedents.

As others have noted, there is huge variance by state. For example, in Maryland, US, carrying a loaded magazine can be a deadly weapon...even if you don't have a gun. Just a loaded magazine can constitute a 'deadly weapon'. In the state that borders us to the south, Virginia, US, that isn't the case. To the north, NJ has slightly different laws in which carrying a loaded magazine can be called a deadly weapon but is subject to other storage and transportation stipulations.

Now, what I just said above is and is not true. In Maryland, a dildo can be a 'deadly weapon'. Maryland transportation laws are ambiguous enough that this is actually debated by shooters and law enforcement alike. Annotated code is ambiguous enough that most whom instruct advocate carrying unloaded mags by default. It is PC for search, seizure, and even arrest. Shooters contacting attorneys and senior LE officials on this have gotten all sorts of responses across the board.

Also in Maryland, some law enforcement can legally carry at all times where others cannot when not on routine business, meaning they would have to get a CCW to carry in the fashion that other LE can with just the Maryland Police Training ID Card.

Primary and secondary sales vary as well. For primary sales, that is, through an FFL, the feds (AKA the BATF) have the 4473 in which you fill out your information, the gun shop calls the information in, your identify is verified, and you (the Federal Firearms Licensee or FFL) are either told you cannot deliver, you can delivery, or to hold/discretionary actions subject to further review. The gun type and serial number is recorded. The last one is complicated but let's, for simplicity sake, not bother as there is a lot more to it. As far as prerequisites, some states require minimal education where others have no requirements except an ID and a clean record. Some states have mandatory waiting periods and only so many guns can be sold in one 'go-round' without 'collector status'. Some have mental health requirements where others do not...in some states, buying a gun means you have to sign away certain doctor-patient privileges. In Maryland, the wait on a firearm is 7 days (and includes forfeit of some mental health information otherwise deemed confidential to discretionary use by Maryland State Police). Some states have this and others don't...the advantages of it are still being debated. Usually this supersedes the 4473 even though it is still filled out by the buyer. The idea is a 'cooling period' in the event someone decides to buy a gun to go on a rampage, and to act as a deterrent to someone after a 'quick fix'. This applies to pistols and select long guns only, specially, long guns usually (but not always) called "assault rifles".

Secondary sales vary wildly. I don't have enough life left to discuss variance. Some do not have anything beyond the person-to-person sale, and a bill-of-sale is one the seller creates (MS Word, MS Paint, Crayola, ...that's up to you). There is no 4473 in most cases unless the firearm type is mandated to go through a FFL or a State Police's licensing and transfer division. This can and has resulted in problems. If you trade in a firearm or sell it back to a FFL, then the gun will have a 4473 performed on it before redelivery. This is often the safest way for the seller because your name is no longer directly attached to the gun!!! If that gun is identified in a crime and you were the last person to be traced to it, the BATF's 'gun squad' may show up (and no, I am not making that up, and no, these aren't boyscouts selling wrapping paper...think guys armed equally to your SAS division...).

Gun types vary as well by state. An AR-15 in Maryland is not an AR-15 to another state in some sense. Certain ARs, such as those with fluted barrels (for grenade launchers, which you can't get without a T2/C3 tax stamp) constitute 'pistol paperwork' in Maryland. That is, you go through the 7 day wait. A HBar, or heavy barrel (literally same gun, non-fluted barrel) is cash-and-carry. That is, they call in the 4473 and if given the okay by the BATF, you take the gun with you that day. What all surrounding states do is completely different.

Then you have Class 3 items, such as suppressors, machine guns, submachine guns, machine pistols, grenade launchers (you can't get the grenades though), short barrel rifles, short tube shot guns, automatic shotguns, etc. This goes through a much lengthier process in which you get fingerprinted, pay a $250 tax stamp, can only own them for recreational shooting and not defense, some (autos) have to be made before an established 1984 ban, have to abide by select laws and give up certain rights such as those relating to search/seizure, blah blah blah etc. It's a whole different thing. Usually, the media doesn't do an accurate job of explaining this. They usually grossly under-exaggerate the process and over-exaggerate the items. For example, suppressors do not 'silence' the noise a bullet makes. It's a physical impossibility to do so. They decrease noise, not eliminate it. These items have almost never been used in crime. There just aren't that many out there and high costs, long waits, heavier storage, etc. keep them scarce. Most people who own them are collectors and they have actual gun safes. They aren't the Sentry Safes you see at Walmart, and some weigh as much as a car and are built out of tool steel. Even skilled thieves struggle with breaking them.

Gun shows have historically had a loop hole in which some FFLs could deliver a gun without completing the 4473 on-spot. You will be hard pressed to find a dealer who does this today. That's because 1) the liability is huge...if you do this, your insurance is higher and sooner or later someone will sue you for a ton of money, 2) FFLs legitimately do not want to sell firearms to criminals for ethical reasons (most gun shop owners are good people, despite what the media makes them out to be), and 3) it's easy to take a cell phone to a gun show. People claimed that President Bush supported delivering guns without spot-checks, which was not true. He supported on-spot 4473's at all gun shows. The conflict arose because he did not clearly specify how that would affect states with supplemental waiting periods. In at least most states, this is irrelevant. In Maryland, a gun with a wait is a gun with a wait. You buy a gun at a gun show, you pick it up at the gun store 7 days later without exception. The states I know of with waits all function in this fashion.

Unification of ownership and carry laws wouldn't be a bad thing if everyone can reach an agreement on what these laws should be. Many good people have lost their livelihoods due to this ambiguity and resulting criminal charges when traveling with firearms. I know a few personally, two which were law enforcement. The above is just a small tid bit, but as you can see, it isn't quite how the media depicts it and it is partially why I get annoyed when people overlook it. I appreciate when people examine it from a level-headed perspective such as yourself. We have some real issues with gun crime, but the issue has to be examined from all perspectives and not the 'oh gun culture scares me I'm leaving!' one. Otherwise, we are bound to continue on a path that will be defined by both unacceptable death rates and unacceptable violations to our Second Amendment which protects our rich shooting heritage.
wow, thanks for the in depth info. I think I'm starting to understand how complicated it is.

I can see from both point of views about gun laws, I read once about the constitution saying you have the right to bare arms against the govt if you have to, so I can see why people are unhappy about the idea of banning firearms.

thanks again.
92jlee is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 09:55 PM   #297
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
It's funny. I was talking to some Mexican friends today and all are uniformly horrified at the easy availability of guns in the US. One said that he thought the newspaper did a great service posting a list of all the handgun owners. That parents have the right to know which of their neighbors have guns.

They were also horrified that US school campuses are generally unfenced and seemed to think that a simple fence and perhaps a metal detector at the front door would do an enormous amount to secure schools. Yet, Arpaio, wants volunteer lynch mobs to patrol the perimeter of schools.

What happened to common sense?
Ugg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 10:18 PM   #298
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92jlee View Post
wow, thanks for the in depth info. I think I'm starting to understand how complicated it is.

I can see from both point of views about gun laws, I read once about the constitution saying you have the right to bare arms against the govt if you have to, so I can see why people are unhappy about the idea of banning firearms.

thanks again.
Anytime. Originally it was more about having arms to rebel against the government as a militia if it were to be corrupt, fail to serve the people, yadda yadda, etc. Most gun owners don't buy a gun today with the intention to take out the government, although sometimes media depicts it as such... Recreational shooting is huge most places, where hunting is more geographically constrained. And it really is a crazily complicated issue. What makes it even more complicated is that public opinion is split almost 50/50, and therefore reaching any sort of a consensus becomes more difficult.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 02:19 AM   #299
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Anytime. Originally it was more about having arms to rebel against the government as a militia if it were to be corrupt, fail to serve the people, yadda yadda, etc.
While a corrupt government may have been of some concern to the Founders, the militia according to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the new nation against foreign and internal enemies and not a means of ousting the country's leaders should they became tyrannical.

Quote:
U.S. Constitution

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 02:01 AM   #300
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
While a corrupt government may have been of some concern to the Founders, the militia according to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the new nation against foreign and internal enemies and not a means of ousting the country's leaders should they became tyrannical.
This is an interesting topic (although off topic). When these documents were made, the US technically did not have a distinct military like other older countries at the time (ex, England or France) and so they relied on 'volunteers' in terms of staffing. Law enforcement was at a different level of development as well. Also, there was some serious inter-state variation. Obviously, for something such as the military, we quickly realized that federal control made more sense than heavy fragmentation.

Interestingly, self-reliance has always been a major part of American ideals and going back to the beginning of the country, it has been praised (whether one thinks it is a good or bad thing is a different story as some people feel strongly about one way over the other), although praised by by republicans than federalists. Remember that police do not have to protect private citizens...and this may be partly why that came to be (I have no idea how that works elsewhere or if LE requirements vary). In recent time, the mottos of police have changed. Notice "to serve and protect" has largely been removed and things like "fairness", "integrity", "service" etc. have replaced it.

In terms of enabling government overthrow, the most common reference comes from here:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

I'd argue the Second Amendment is related to this, although how directly I can't say. Furthermore, violent overthrow of a government has a lot of downfalls and so when the country was made, every effort was made to avoid ever having this need given democracy is a 'people-enabled' government. In today's world, our government is suffering from having only two political parties with all power between them, as it has hurt representativeness. ...the huge divide between the two parties make this worse). I don't think the Founders envisioned this and our system of checks and balances are challenged because one party can control most of the entire process (which shows how parliamentary systems sometimes work better for including smaller parties in the decision-making process). Of course, storming the capital isn't going to fix this and that's why we are discussing it here rather than planning our assault.

But my original point is that the amount of gun owners preparing for government overthrow are very, very few. The media loves to focus on them too and they make the group out to be far larger than it is, in a similar fashion they depict welfare abuse.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does Time Machine keep Safari history if Safari set to automatically delete history? Siderz Mac Basics and Help 1 Feb 2, 2014 03:48 PM
Safari knows history even after deleting history spacemnspiff iOS 7 2 Oct 12, 2013 02:05 AM
What didn't they teach you in history? Or, what Japanese history lessons leave out. jnpy!$4g3cwk Politics, Religion, Social Issues 50 Mar 26, 2013 11:44 AM
60 Years of American Economic History Told in 1 Graph jnpy!$4g3cwk Politics, Religion, Social Issues 38 Aug 28, 2012 10:30 PM
Brothers in arms glewis Mac and PC Games 1 Jul 8, 2012 04:39 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC