Guns, guns, guns

[MANN]

Congratulations, you are an idiot.

I now grant you 6/17ths of a useful post.


So after 3 pages of bickering we decided that guns are not the problem. The people using them are.

You should have just asked me. I could have answered that long ago.

[michbich]

I now grant you 6/17ths of a useful post.


So after 3 pages of bickering we decided that guns are not the problem. The people using them are.

You should have just asked me. I could have answered that long ago.

We're just jealous that we can't have your guns.

On a relative note, let's say i decide to move to the US tomorrow, how long would it take me to be eligible to buy firearms? What kind of license is needed? Do you need a different licence for a different category of firearm?

[CoolHand]

We're just jealous that we can't have your guns.

On a relative note, let's say i decide to move to the US tomorrow, how long would it take me to be eligible to buy firearms? What kind of license is needed? Do you need a different licence for a different category of firearm?

To establish residency you would have to become a naturalized citizen (To really become a US citizen that is, there are many other ways to live here and not be a citizen, but it sounds like you meant move down here permanent like, and the non-citizen alien stuff is complicated beyond my understanding.). You would then need to continuously live and hold a job in Missouri for a period of 1.5-2 yrs. At that point, you would be considered a US Citizen and a resident of the state of Missouri. You could then buy firearms under the laws of this state.

Speaking for my state (Missouri), you don't need a license of any sort to purchase a long gun or hand gun. For me to sell you one, you must come in person and fill out an ATF form 4473, and undergo the NICS background check (which is usually instant). You must be at least 18 yrs old to purchase long guns, or 21 yrs old to purchase hand guns. If the NICS comes back clean, you leave with your prize and I get to make a sale. If it comes back "delayed", I have to give the FBI three (3) days to figure out what's going on. If three days pass and they have not yet returned a "denied" result, I can still legally sell you a firearm. If it comes back as "denied", I cannot sell you a firearm, but I can give you the paperwork to dispute your denied status with the FBI, if you think you've been denied improperly.

Unless you've been convicted of a felony, misdemeanor domestic violence, or been declared mentally defective, you shouldn't have any reason to be denied. People with very common names or people who choose not to provide their social security number (which is entirely optional, and not necessary unless your name is pretty common) may get "delayed" results because their name matches someone who's not able to own a firearm, and there was no SSN# provided to differentiate them from the non-approved person.

That's pretty much it, when buying from an FFL. Person to person transactions require no background check at all, and no records are required to be kept either, but it's probably a good idea to request a bill of sale and have both parties sign it, just for proof of ownership should a question ever arise. Same as you would do with a person to person deal concerning a used car or a piece of equipment. When I sell a firearm, I must log that deal into a record book that I must keep, but it is not reported to the ATF or anyone else, unless a trace request comes through on a weapon recovered from a crime scene (but that's very rare, since most of the time, the serial numbers on stolen weapons are defaced, and weapons obtained illegally are not logged anywhere anyway).

Hope that explained it well enough.

[LegumeOfTerror]

We're just jealous that we can't have your guns.

On a relative note, let's say i decide to move to the US tomorrow, how long would it take me to be eligible to buy firearms? What kind of license is needed? Do you need a different licence for a different category of firearm?

in florida you need your visa/green card and proof you have lived in the state 3 months.

[CoolHand]

in florida you need your visa/green card and proof you have lived in the state 3 months.

It may be the same here too. I'd have to do some research through my mountain of manuals and such, 'cause I've never sold anything to a non-Citizen/non-Missouri resident before. I'm sure there's a way to do it, I just don't know what it is.

[maxama10]

just found this, dunno if it's true or not...


Canada Targets Nevada Residents
If you plan on visiting any part of Canada, be sure to be aware of their new gun laws. You cannot bring any firearm into Canada without declaring it and paying a C$50.00 fee for a permit. If you have Nevada plates on your vehicle you get treated to a special search of your vehicle that takes quite a while because the custom agents have been told that residents from Nevada are all to be suspected of carrying concealed guns. This also applies to a few other states, but not to California because the Canadian government knows they are more civilized (read - more Socialistic). This on top of filling out, in triplicate, a long form. We recommend that all members and their friends avoid Canada until further notice.

Heh.



In NV I believe if you came here legally, you could purchase any sort of gun without being a citizen. As long as you were her legally and lawfully.

[DevilMan]

Sorry guys.. its too late and the screen is too fuzzy for me to wade back through the drivel and find out who it was that posted up that "No Guns = No Gun Crime"

But I have to say I agree with him 100% and I'm asking everyone to read this to agree as well because there is NO denying that that is TRUE. You see it can't be argued. Take it to another context.... NO AUTOMOBILES = NO DRUNK DRIVERS See that's true as well. And NO WATER = NO FLOODING.... So PLEASE!!! Everyone who has not agreed with the OP on that statement please lets all change our POV and agree with him because he is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.

In finishing I'd like to say....

















NO HUMANS = NO HUMAN CRIMES!!!!

DM

[Lohman446]

Actually though his original wading into this thread did not state NO guns = No gun crime as he tries to go back and restate. Noone would argue with that argument. His argument was that availability (and he stated specifically getting rid of most, not all) was a key factor.

Many of us spent pages pointing out the counter-examples to that arugment.

Now he tried to come back and state his argument was really NO guns = NO gun crimes and it was simple all along. Either he stated it wrong, or he's trying to cover his tracks.

Either way I'm going to hold to the idiot observation.

There are 2 aspects to the gun control debate that most discussions fail to reconcile, availability and culture. Fact is, availability DOES indeed have a huge impact on gun violence and crime. You get rid of most of the guns in a given area, there won't be much gun crime. Japan is a good example of this.

HOWEVER such a situation cannot arise without a culture that accepts it, one that places cooperation and societal unity in high regard. Places where conflict and competition are part of the culture will have trouble with such a proposition.

Independence is ingrained into American culture by the very fact of its founding. The 2nd amendment enshrines guns themselves into law such that it will be next to impossible to remove the individual right to own them.

This means that America will always 1) have plenty of guns and 2) have a widespread mindset that encourages their use. Politicians should probably accept that and look for ways to work WITH it rather than against it.

[custar]

Because of the last statement in DRG's quote immediately above, I recall there was a town in Georgia that was plagued with crime. In relative desperation, the city enacted ordinances that REQUIRED all citizens to carry firearms. Crime dropped after that. In fact, crime dropped A LOT after everyone was required to carry a firearm, and this includes violent crimes and gun crimes.

custar

[bryceeden]

Wow, this thread got pretty hateful pretty fast. First off I have a concealed carry permit and occasionally do carry on my person and usually have a firearm in my car. I also do ALOT of target shooting as a hobby. I like the US gun laws as they stand now for the most part, I did like the brady bill, but am not fond of most of the suggested or discussed replacements since it expired. I like guns and own several, I think people should be allowed to have reasonable firearms for there protection or whatever. Now some weapons there is no real reason for average people to have and I like the red tape required to get them.
Example 1-someone tries to rob me with a knife I pull my gun and they run off or end up getting arrested. Good ending and not all that uncommon at all.
Example 2-I get dispatched to assist the Naples City Swat team in TEMS capacity, guy inside comes out with an AR-15 or even worse a full auto of some sort, and starts shooting. Bullet proof vests don't exist and the level 3 vests worn by most SWAT teams won't last against a 223. Best case scenario the bad guy gets shot worst case cops die. Very bad ending.

I can see both sides, but if I had to pick no legal guns or everything legal I'd have to go with everything legal because bad guys will always have guns and people should be allowed to defend themselves if they so desire.

The 2nd amendment was written for individual people and is there for a reason.

[CoolHand]

Wow, this thread got pretty hateful pretty fast. First off I have a concealed carry permit and occasionally do carry on my person and usually have a firearm in my car. I also do ALOT of target shooting as a hobby. I like the US gun laws as they stand now for the most part, I did like the brady bill, but am not fond of most of the suggested or discussed replacements since it expired. I like guns and own several, I think people should be allowed to have reasonable firearms for there protection or whatever. Now some weapons there is no real reason for average people to have and I like the red tape required to get them.
Example 1-someone tries to rob me with a knife I pull my gun and they run off or end up getting arrested. Good ending and not all that uncommon at all.
Example 2-I get dispatched to assist the Naples City Swat team in TEMS capacity, guy inside comes out with an AR-15 or even worse a full auto of some sort, and starts shooting. Bullet proof vests don't exist and the level 3 vests worn by most SWAT teams won't last against a 223. Best case scenario the bad guy gets shot worst case cops die. Very bad ending.

I can see both sides, but if I had to pick no legal guns or everything legal I'd have to go with everything legal because bad guys will always have guns and people should be allowed to defend themselves if they so desire.

The 2nd amendment was written for individual people and is there for a reason.

Now, I'm going to ask a hostile question, but don't freak out, as it's not directed at you personally, it's just something I want to point out.

When was the last time your SWAT team was shot at by a legally created and registered FA NFA weapon?

I'm gonna guess never.

It's already illegal to create a new FA and transfer it to a civilian buyer. That's already against the law, and has been since 1986.

What FA weapons that are in civilian hands were manufactured and transferred before the '86 ban was enacted, and as such are the only FA weapons that can be legally owned and transferred between non-military/LE folks. As such, the price these weapons fetch has gotten to be unbelievable. We're talking in the neighborhood of $12k-$25k for a FA M-16 or M-4 type weapon. All these weapons are registered, and the transfers have to take place through a class three dealer, so it's not like they ever change hands without the transaction being recorded and scrutinized. Hell, you have to apply to the ATF for a tax stamp before you can buy one anyway, so even a crooked dealer wouldn't be able to swing a bad transfer on his own.

My point here is that the law is very cumbersome already when dealing with FA weapons, there is a very limited number of such weapons in civilian hands to begin with, and now they are extremely expensive. No thug in the world is going to spend the time and money to legally obtain a registered FA NFA weapon. They'll just convert any number of weapons to operate FA, if they feel so inclined, which as I already pointed out, is currently (and has been for quite some time) illegal.

This is one of those areas that folks really need to be educated about, because I feel that if most people knew exactly how much red tape there already was when dealing with the guns that everyone seems to think are all over the place and easy to buy, there wouldn't be so much traction when someone suggests that some "loophole" or the other is closed. The fact is that with NFA weapons, there is no such thing as a loophole. You either jump through the hoops and do it the correct and legal way, or you don't (which is already illegal, no need for another law to make it more illegal ).

See where I'm going with this?

Also, please don't feel like I just jumped on you, 'cause that was not my intention at all. It just seemed like as good a time as any to lay some of that info out there for people to read and think about.

[michbich]

Thanks for the reply on how to go about to obtain firearms in US, it is very different from our crappy system. I'm actualy learning a lot from this thread.

Since we are on the personal safety issue, what are your thoughts on personal safety at school. Let's say university, since most students are of age, are they allowed to carry firearms? Should they? In high school, they are not of age, but they are not provided with a personal safety from the adults in charge. Where is the line?

[bryceeden]

When was the last time your SWAT team was shot at by a legally created and registered FA NFA weapon?

I'm gonna guess never.

That would be a good guess. It's a hypothetical situation(heck I won't ven be working TEMS until fall at the earliest by the time we get thru all the red tape). If you look at the end of my last post I stated that bad guys will always have guns for that reason. But if there were no registration or background check or recording or anything total freedom with firearms like walk into walmart and buy an M4 with cash and no id type of thing it would be very very bad. As I stated I like things the way they are now.

[Pneumagger]

I like guns and own several, I think people should be allowed to have reasonable firearms for there protection or whatever. Now some weapons there is no real reason for average people to have and I like the red tape required to get them.


I can see both sides, but if I had to pick no legal guns or everything legal I'd have to go with everything legal because bad guys will always have guns and people should be allowed to defend themselves if they so desire.

I think short of massively destructive things (bombs/morters/missles/chemical/bio) people should be allowed to shoot whatever they please.

The usefulness of full auto is debateble... but it's pretty fun!

[bryceeden]

I think short of massively destructive things (bombs/morters/missles/chemical/bio) people should be allowed to shoot whatever they please.

The usefulness of full auto is debateble... but it's pretty fun!

I'll give you that FA is fun to shoot, but look at the major times like the North Hollywood bank robbery when criminals(who statistically very very seldom use FA as well) use full auto weapons. It gets bad fast. The risks just outway the rewards big time.