US Government Releases Proposed Guidelines For Smart Guns

[Darunion]

Being required to prove you own your guns or that they were transferred legally? When nearly 40% of criminals got their guns from friends or family? If you can't prove you own your firearms or they were transferred legally, then you pay hefty penalties. Obviously it would have to be worked on. There would have to be an entire bureaucracy created to manage it. That would have to be paid for (perhaps with fees for transfers of gun titles and taxes on gun sales). People would have to register each and every fire arm they own which presents logistical problems but it could be done on a time line. Give people X amount of time to complete registration and do it in blocks of people somehow. Etc etc. It could be done.

Will it prevent all of the problems? Nope. Would it probably have a significant impact? Maybe. Would it make people realize how serious guns and gun ownership are? Hopefully.

It would never happen though. If everyone is such a responsible owner, then there shouldn't be a problem. There would be no fees to maintain ownership of guns. You would just need to prove that you own them by presenting them once a year or something like that.

I made that up in one day. I'm some random guy on the internet. If people truly had a conversation about gun ownership, then something that worked very well could be created that didn't infringe upon the right to bear arms but also helped to ensure all gun owners are responsible.

The whole "criminals don't follow the law" is a cop out. I've already demonstrated that the majority of inmates are not obtaining their firearms illegally (see BOJ statistics) and that a large number (nearly 40% get guns from friends and family; again see BOJ statistics). Deterring that with further measures would be a good idea. If only illegal guns were the problem, then things would be much better. That's not the case though. Illegal guns were about one third I believe (check BOJ for exact numbers). That's still a lot, but stopping people from getting guns illegally seems like it would be more difficult than making sure legal guns don't end up committing crimes.

I have nothing left to say. No one here agrees and some even mock using actual evidence and citing sources. I'm not interested in discussion with these types of people.

I feel there could be measures added to create awareness but that should come from education not paperwork. I see a huge potential for people to just move more toward private sales just so they don't have to deal with registration of their firearms. Also it would be near impossible to do. To prove I have the guns I would have to show them, now you are transporting mass amounts of firearms to a government building? Also if this is something that has to be done yearly or more likely ever 3years, what is the potential gain here?

The best thing is education and conversation. If no one agrees with you , that doesn't make everyone wrong and closing your eyes and pouting until someone says what you want to hear, is not even close to the solution. The best thing is to hear all ideas, not tell people they are wrong but understand why they feel the way they do. It really is hard for people to place faith in government regulation of things because in most examples, it doesn't appear to help. We have made drugs illegal, and the 'war' on that is costly and is still a far greater problem than firearm abuse in this country. Though that doesn't get media attention at the moment, maybe next year it will be spotlight again. Back to gov' regulation, is really having more paperwork and fines going to change anything or just put more in the shadows? I am an owner myself, have all of them safely stored and don't even have kids at the house. I have thus far followed all laws (that I know of) in regards to my collection. Honestly if it became a thing that I had to fill out paperwork for all of mine and register, then these would slowly 'accidentally fell into a lake while out fishing/hunting'.

 

[wizzi01]

Being required to prove you own your guns or that they were transferred legally? When nearly 40% of criminals got their guns from friends or family? If you can't prove you own your firearms or they were transferred legally, then you pay hefty penalties. Obviously it would have to be worked on. There would have to be an entire bureaucracy created to manage it. That would have to be paid for (perhaps with fees for transfers of gun titles and taxes on gun sales). People would have to register each and every fire arm they own which presents logistical problems but it could be done on a time line. Give people X amount of time to complete registration and do it in blocks of people somehow. Etc etc. It could be done.

Will it prevent all of the problems? Nope. Would it probably have a significant impact? Maybe. Would it make people realize how serious guns and gun ownership are? Hopefully.

It would never happen though. If everyone is such a responsible owner, then there shouldn't be a problem. There would be no fees to maintain ownership of guns. You would just need to prove that you own them by presenting them once a year or something like that.

I made that up in one day. I'm some random guy on the internet. If people truly had a conversation about gun ownership, then something that worked very well could be created that didn't infringe upon the right to bear arms but also helped to ensure all gun owners are responsible.

The whole "criminals don't follow the law" is a cop out. I've already demonstrated that the majority of inmates are not obtaining their firearms illegally (see BOJ statistics) and that a large number (nearly 40% get guns from friends and family; again see BOJ statistics). Deterring that with further measures would be a good idea. If only illegal guns were the problem, then things would be much better. That's not the case though. Illegal guns were about one third I believe (check BOJ for exact numbers). That's still a lot, but stopping people from getting guns illegally seems like it would be more difficult than making sure legal guns don't end up committing crimes.

I have nothing left to say. No one here agrees and some even mock using actual evidence and citing sources. I'm not interested in discussion with these types of people. For the record, we own guns. I've seen people close to me buy/sell/trade guns like they're trading cards. They aren't the only ones.

Registration leads to confiscation. Just look at what New York and California has done. Also, saying criminals don't abide by the law isn't a cop out it's the truth. If they did they wouldn't be criminals. You are alsob using make believe stats, the onus of proof is on you. You want to use criminals get their guns from from 40% of friends and family you better have real stats to prove it. Actual government stats that show that number. Not some post regurgitating a false narrative from huffpo.

 

[big_aug]

Registration leads to confiscation. Just look at what New York and California has done. Also, saying criminals don't abide by the law isn't a cop out it's the truth. If they did they wouldn't be criminals. You are alsob using make believe stats, the onus of proof is on you. You want to use criminals get their guns from from 40% of friends and family you better have real stats to prove it. Actual government stats that show that number. Not some post regurgitating a false narrative from huffpo.

You mean citing my source multiple times over and over? The Bureau of Justice statistics.

I feel there could be measures added to create awareness but that should come from education not paperwork. I see a huge potential for people to just move more toward private sales just so they don't have to deal with registration of their firearms. Also it would be near impossible to do. To prove I have the guns I would have to show them, now you are transporting mass amounts of firearms to a government building? Also if this is something that has to be done yearly or more likely ever 3years, what is the potential gain here?

The best thing is education and conversation. If no one agrees with you , that doesn't make everyone wrong and closing your eyes and pouting until someone says what you want to hear, is not even close to the solution. The best thing is to hear all ideas, not tell people they are wrong but understand why they feel the way they do. It really is hard for people to place faith in government regulation of things because in most examples, it doesn't appear to help. We have made drugs illegal, and the 'war' on that is costly and is still a far greater problem than firearm abuse in this country. Though that doesn't get media attention at the moment, maybe next year it will be spotlight again. Back to gov' regulation, is really having more paperwork and fines going to change anything or just put more in the shadows? I am an owner myself, have all of them safely stored and don't even have kids at the house. I have thus far followed all laws (that I know of) in regards to my collection. Honestly if it became a thing that I had to fill out paperwork for all of mine and register, then these would slowly 'accidentally fell into a lake while out fishing/hunting'.

I understand your concerns. Many people agree further measures are needed, they just don't post on this website clearly. I don't expect my proposal to truly become something in the future. It's just discussion and suggestion.

The potential gain is that my friend won't receive a Taurus .357 as compensation for some debt owed with no record that ever took place. That type of thing is probably happening a lot. Trading guns between friends and so on.

 

[wizzi01]

You mean citing my source multiple times over and over?


I understand your concerns. Many people agree further measures are needed, they just don't post on this website clearly. I don't expect my proposal to truly become something in the future. It's just discussion and suggestion.

The potential gain is that my friend won't receive a Taurus .357 as compensation for some debt owed with no record that ever took place. That type of thing is probably happening a lot. Trading guns between friends and so on.

What source? I haven't seen any real numbers or source from you. The only source I have found is some numbers from 1997. It's like using the same information that 40% of guns are bought through the gun show "loophole" . They used data from the 80s and early 90s before the Brady Act.

 

[big_aug]

What source? I haven't seen any real numbers or source from you.

Ignored. Should have done so before. I cited it numerous times in multiple posts.

 

[DejaWiz]

Being required to prove you own your guns or that they were transferred legally? When nearly 40% of criminals got their guns from friends or family? If you can't prove you own your firearms or they were transferred legally, then you pay hefty penalties. Obviously it would have to be worked on. There would have to be an entire bureaucracy created to manage it. That would have to be paid for (perhaps with fees for transfers of gun titles and taxes on gun sales). People would have to register each and every fire arm they own which presents logistical problems but it could be done on a time line. Give people X amount of time to complete registration and do it in blocks of people somehow. Etc etc. It could be done.

Will it prevent all of the problems? Nope. Would it probably have a significant impact? Maybe. Would it make people realize how serious guns and gun ownership are? Hopefully.

It would never happen though. If everyone is such a responsible owner, then there shouldn't be a problem. There would be no fees to maintain ownership of guns. You would just need to prove that you own them by presenting them once a year or something like that.

I made that up in one day. I'm some random guy on the internet. If people truly had a conversation about gun ownership, then something that worked very well could be created that didn't infringe upon the right to bear arms but also helped to ensure all gun owners are responsible.

The whole "criminals don't follow the law" is a cop out. I've already demonstrated that the majority of inmates are not obtaining their firearms illegally (see BOJ statistics) and that a large number (nearly 40% get guns from friends and family; again see BOJ statistics). Deterring that with further measures would be a good idea. If only illegal guns were the problem, then things would be much better. That's not the case though. Illegal guns were about one third I believe (check BOJ for exact numbers). That's still a lot, but stopping people from getting guns illegally seems like it would be more difficult than making sure legal guns don't end up committing crimes.

I have nothing left to say. No one here agrees and some even mock using actual evidence and citing sources. I'm not interested in discussion with these types of people. For the record, we own guns. I've seen people close to me buy/sell/trade guns like they're trading cards. They aren't the only ones.

If a firearm was purchased legally, then their is already a federal BATFE record (and for many, a state/county/city record) of who bought it, where it was bought, where the buyer resides, how much is was bought for, etc etc blah blah. It's not a problem for any registered firearm to be traced in a matter of minutes, so if someone used one in a heinous manner and turns out it belongs to a family member or friend, then the owner is almost always incorporated into the investigation in some fashion. Usually in those circumstances, it becomes a finger-pointing shitfest between the perpetrator and said family member or friend.

If guns should have to be presented for confirmation every "X" interval by federal mandate, then there should be some kind of special ID card showing who the registree is and what they registered in order to exercise a Constitutional Right. Just like there should be for voting, right?

...that being said, there are already numerous counties within numerous states that already require this level of registration and periodic renewal. Ironically enough, most of those areas currently have the highest rates of violent gun crime. So no, "criminals don't follow laws" is not a cop-out. It's purely fact. After all, that is exactly what defines the word criminal.

 

[big_aug]

If a firearm was purchased legally, then their is already a federal BATFE record (and for many, a state/county/city record) of who bought it, where it was bought, where the buyer resides, how much is was bought for, etc etc blah blah. It's not a problem for any registered firearm to be traced in a matter of minutes, so if someone used one in a heinous manner and turns out it belongs to a family member or friend, then the owner is almost always incorporated into the investigation in some fashion. Usually in those circumstances, it becomes a finger-pointing shitfest between the perpetrator and said family member or friend.

If guns should have to be presented for confirmation every "X" interval by federal mandate, then there should be some kind of special ID card showing who the registree is and what they registered in order to exercise a Constitutional Right. Just like there should be for voting, right?

...that being said, there are already numerous counties within numerous states that already require this level of registration and periodic renewal. Ironically enough, most of those areas currently have the highest rates of violent gun crime. So no, "criminals don't follow laws" is not a cop-out. It's purely fact. After all, that is exactly what defines the word criminal.

Source?

 

[DejaWiz]

Source?

On what?

 

[big_aug]

On what?

Your facts.

Edit: You don't have to do it. I was being spiteful.

 

[DejaWiz]

Your facts.

Edit: You don't have to do it. I was being spiteful.

I'll indulge you anyway.

How to Register a Gun in Chicago | Chicago Gun Owners

 

[big_aug]

I'll indulge you anyway.

How to Register a Gun in Chicago | Chicago Gun Owners

And I would just take that a step further. Instead of just getting the FOID from the buyer in a private sale, you must report the sale to the regulating agency with that FOID and that person takes ownership. They continue to document their ownership or report/register the next transfer. Then we always know where the guns are until they're stolen (requiring a police report). The system is mostly in place already. Prove where the guns are or pay a penalty.

That helps enforce the laws which are already in place. I know they aren't abided by because I've seen many people do it. If there were actual penalties and monitoring, perhaps they'd be more inclined to follow the rules.

I think we're in agreement actually. The requirements are there. We just need a system to have some immediate impact rather than only penalizing someone if an individual commits a crime with a gun they sold illegally. Selling the gun without getting the proper information is a crime but it would never even be known unless the person who bought it commits another crime with the gun. If transfers aren't reported, laws can't be enforced. There is nothing stopping someone from NOT registering a gun they got privately in the current system.


Good information.

 

[Eickst]

And I would just take that a step further. Instead of just getting the FOID from the buyer in a private sale, you must report the sale to the regulating agency with that FOID and that person takes ownership. They continue to document their ownership or report/register the next transfer. Then we always know where the guns are until they're stolen. The system is mostly in place already. Prove where the guns are or pay a penalty.

That helps enforce the laws which are already in place. I know they aren't abided by because I've seen many people do it. If there were actual penalties and monitoring, perhaps they'd be more inclined to follow the rules.

I think we're in agreement actually. The requirements are there. We just need a system to have some immediate impact rather than only penalizing someone if an individual commits a crime with a gun they sold illegally. Selling the gun without getting the proper information is a crime but it would never even be known unless the person who bought it commits another crime with the gun. If transfers aren't reported, laws can't be enforced. There is nothing stopping someone from NOT registering a gun they got privately. Again, rec


Good information.

Lots of states have no requirement to register a firearm or report private sales.

I personally think that voting and purchasing a firearm should have the same ID requirements. How's that for a compromise?

 

[big_aug]

Lots of states have no requirement to register a firearm or report private sales.

I personally think that voting and purchasing a firearm should have the same ID requirements. How's that for a compromise?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the voting rights thing? Some type of identification should certainly be required for voting. I don't even know what the current standards are across the country which I suppose is embarrassing. I have to present my ID when I vote. I only know my state. I think a background check to vote would be a bit excessive and a waiting period doesn't really make sense for voting as it isn't a deadly weapon.

You have no problem with unregulated transfer of firearms privately? That seems crazy to me.

Perhaps federal standards for federal rights would make more sense than variation across states. That would be a good start.

 

[Rustynuts]

You make a good point about holsters. A system like this could eliminate the need for secure retention among law enforcement agencies if the system is bulletproof.

No, it wouldn't. Whether or not the gun functions for a third party, you still don't want to be surprise disarmed easily.

 

[Rustynuts]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the voting rights thing? Some type of identification should certainly be required for voting. I don't even know what the current standards are across the country which I suppose is embarrassing. I have to present my ID when I vote. I only know my state. I think a background check to vote would be a bit excessive and a waiting period doesn't really make sense for voting as it isn't a deadly weapon.

You have no problem with unregulated transfer of firearms privately? That seems crazy to me.

Perhaps federal standards for federal rights would make more sense than variation across states. That would be a good start.

Please, tell me AGAIN, for the first time, how any of your BS gun registration will prevent ANY criminal from obtaining a gun? The friends and family thing is BS. The criminal is still not approved to handle any gun. Or are you now talking removing guns from family members of felons? Also many guns used in crimes are stolen.

Maybe you will now come up with all guns need locked up. Also BS. Sure there are some quick access safes, but those are mainly to keep kids out. Someone intent, can open these easily. A super locked up gun is as useless as an unloaded one.

Registration gets you nothing.

 

[wizzi01]

Ignored. Should have done so before. I cited it numerous times in multiple posts.

I haven't seen no real source from you.
The only source I found that substantiated your claim is using numbers from 1997. It's like people saying 40% of people buy a firearm using the gun show "loophole". They are using data from the 80s and early 90s before the Brady Act. I guess use whatevery numbers that will back your claim no matter how old the data is. Too bad you ignored me you could learn something instead of living with your head in the sand.

 

[Darunion]

Please, tell me AGAIN, for the first time, how any of your BS gun registration will prevent ANY criminal from obtaining a gun? The friends and family thing is BS. The criminal is still not approved to handle any gun. Or are you now talking removing guns from family members of felons? Also many guns used in crimes are stolen.

Maybe you will now come up with all guns need locked up. Also BS. Sure there are some quick access safes, but those are mainly to keep kids out. Someone intent, can open these easily. A super locked up gun is as useless as an unloaded one.

Registration gets you nothing.

When I bought my shotgun last year at (wont mention names but think of penis' sporting goods) and I spent way too much time there because someone who had the same last name as me (no relation what so ever) was rejected for buying a firearm, so this caused me to get flagged as a do not allow. Had to go through background check via phone to get officially cleared to purchase. I am so glad even current systems in place make it so much more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy (rolleyes). Would have been easier to buy one off craigslist.

 

[jardows]

Getting back on topic of the technology, I remembered a few years ago Remington put out some rifles and ammunition that were electronically fired. The potential for improvement over the traditional firing pin was enormous, but the product failed. Remington put out information on all their tests showing how reliable and good the technology was, and how many years the batteries would last. Sure, the ammunition and the firearms were more expensive, but new, improved technology always is when it is first introduced.

Hardly anyone purchased the rifles, and even fewer kept them. Mixing electronic technology with the basic function of a firearm just doesn't mix. I can imagine this technology being forced upon police officers by the department heads, and in a few months the officers go into wholesale revolt demanding their old pistols back.

 

[big_aug]

Please, tell me AGAIN, for the first time, how any of your BS gun registration will prevent ANY criminal from obtaining a gun? The friends and family thing is BS. The criminal is still not approved to handle any gun. Or are you now talking removing guns from family members of felons? Also many guns used in crimes are stolen.

Maybe you will now come up with all guns need locked up. Also BS. Sure there are some quick access safes, but those are mainly to keep kids out. Someone intent, can open these easily. A super locked up gun is as useless as an unloaded one.

Registration gets you nothing.

It's a fact. Calling it BS doesn't make it not true.

Per the BOJ:

"In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun
at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm
at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from
a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or
friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source
(table 14). This was similar to the percentage distribution
in 1997."

That's state only though which I missed initially. About 25% got guns off the street and 7.5% stole them.

 

[wizzi01]

When I bought my shotgun last year at (wont mention names but think of penis' sporting goods) and I spent way too much time there because someone who had the same last name as me (no relation what so ever) was rejected for buying a firearm, so this caused me to get flagged as a do not allow. Had to go through background check via phone to get officially cleared to purchase. I am so glad even current systems in place make it so much more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy (rolleyes). Would have been easier to buy one off craigslist.

Not sure where your are, but we have a sporting goods store named Dunhams around here. I guess they deny everyone and make them wait three days. Even if you have a MI cpl which they can use in lieu of a nics check. They will never get my business for a firearm. Plus my buddy is an ffl so I get all my firearms at his cost. He'll sometimes he just buys me a firearm. The last one he got me was a Cetme C308.

 

[wizzi01]

It's a fact. Calling it BS doesn't make it not true.

Per the BOJ:

"In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun
at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm
at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from
a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or
friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source
(table 14). This was similar to the percentage distribution
in 1997."

That's state only though which I missed initially. About 25% got guns off the street and 7.5% stole them.

Where is the link at, and once again that data is 12 years old. Also, if that is true why weren't the friends and family arrested and charged since it's against the law to give a felon a firearm or make a straw purchase. So what you are saying with the information you posted is the current laws are not working. So why would you want more laws that don't work?

 

[LazN]

Being required to prove you own your guns or that they were transferred legally? When nearly 40% of criminals got their guns from friends or family? If you can't prove you own your firearms or they were transferred legally, then you pay hefty penalties. Obviously it would have to be worked on. There would have to be an entire bureaucracy created to manage it. That would have to be paid for (perhaps with fees for transfers of gun titles and taxes on gun sales). People would have to register each and every fire arm they own which presents logistical problems but it could be done on a time line. Give people X amount of time to complete registration and do it in blocks of people somehow. Etc etc. It could be done.

You wouldn't believe how many guns "fell out of the canoe" when Canada did something similar..

Mandatory showing that I still own it? Really?

The National Archives lost the Wright Brother's patent on a flyable airplane, and they only have 290 million records all in one place. (they found it again this year)

As I said before, over 310 million firearms spread across almost 150 million homes.. Simply not feasible and EXPENSIVE, plus intrusive, unconstitutional, ineffective, and other adjectives that get less civilized.

You are trying to get nearly half the population of the US to put themselves on a government list that would identify them as owning something that a vocal minority has stated is their goal to steal from them. That vocal minority has been working their way into the very Government. So why not a Government list of everyone that owns a diamond over 1 carat that gets published to a database accessible to known thieves.. Sounds about as fair to me as your suggestion.

Not to mention the "cold dead hands" contingent who are not the problem, but will simply not register no matter how much you try to get them to.

People smarter than us have been having the conversation for years, centuries even.

Sorry, registering is the first step in confiscating, and I will fight that to the end. Why is it anyone's business much less Big Brother's what lumps of metal I own? Part of the answer must be: "No registration ever" If you don't start with that, I will not support ANYTHING else you say.

Registration is a flat out non starter.

 

[Darunion]

Not sure where your are, but we have a sporting goods store named Dunhams around here. I guess they deny everyone and make them wait three days. Even if you have a MI cpl which they can use in lieu of a nics check. They will never get my business for a firearm. Plus my buddy is an ffl so I get all my firearms at his cost. He'll sometimes he just buys me a firearm. The last one he got me was a Cetme C308.

Nice. Yea I haven't been back after that. Found a nice local place that is very friendly and easy to deal with. Nice gun, hows she shoot? Few months ago my friend and I built our first AR-15's. Great experience if you haven't and super easy to do. Was very educational and has become my baby now.

 

[wizzi01]

Nice. Yea I haven't been back after that. Found a nice local place that is very friendly and easy to deal with. Nice gun, hows she shoot? Few months ago my friend and I built our first AR-15's. Great experience if you haven't and super easy to do. Was very educational and has become my baby now.

I only put a few mags through it, but it shot pretty damn good. The good thing is I bought 60 mags for just under $200 shipped from cheaper than dirt. They are surplus, but 85% of them looked brand new.

 

[Darunion]

I only put a few mags through it, but it shot pretty damn good. The good thing is I bought 60 mags for just under $200 shipped from cheaper than dirt. They are surplus, but 8p% of them looked brand new.

Damn nice deal. Love that site

 

[raz-0]

"must default to a state to allow the pistol to fire."


I don't get that requirement at all.

The whole point of "security" (as i'd imagine it) is that the weapon is a dumb object unless the handler's person is authenticated and even once authenticated, that the handler's person has authorization to trigger the firing of the actual weapon.

Of course, when i hear security, i think security from the perspective of a software developer i.e. 'integrity', where integrity is defined as "verification/validation" or "authentication/authorization".

Whatever the government is cooking up, as usual it appears to be half-assed.

No you just don't get it.

Priority 1 = the gun works, especially in a role like military and police, you don't wnat ot grab it and have it not work.
Priority 2 = the safety device functions to lock others out.

So if the batteries die, the gun should still go bang.

Smart guns are bullshit in general. About the ONLY thing they can help with if they work is as a supplement to weapons retention efforts in a physical struggle or holster grab situation. They can really only work, when you get down to it by having an electromechanical connector, disconnector, or interrupt, OR an electronic ignition system. The former can simply be physically bypassed just like you can with any mechanical safety. The latter, well... in the end it's jsut a voltage across an ignition element. Sell me something like that in a semi-auto, and I can just yank out everything south of that location and replace it with my own circuit. Thinking you can control that is like thinking DRM actually works to prevent piracy. Cheap oodles of machine guns readily available.

So...

It's bullshit. All smartguns do is allow you to create laws about tampering with smart guns at best, and to create additional physical risk to those who aren't trying to undermine society. It does nothing to the criminal class.

 

[DejaWiz]

And I would just take that a step further. Instead of just getting the FOID from the buyer in a private sale, you must report the sale to the regulating agency with that FOID and that person takes ownership. They continue to document their ownership or report/register the next transfer. Then we always know where the guns are until they're stolen (requiring a police report). The system is mostly in place already. Prove where the guns are or pay a penalty.

That helps enforce the laws which are already in place. I know they aren't abided by because I've seen many people do it. If there were actual penalties and monitoring, perhaps they'd be more inclined to follow the rules.

I think we're in agreement actually. The requirements are there. We just need a system to have some immediate impact rather than only penalizing someone if an individual commits a crime with a gun they sold illegally. Selling the gun without getting the proper information is a crime but it would never even be known unless the person who bought it commits another crime with the gun. If transfers aren't reported, laws can't be enforced. There is nothing stopping someone from NOT registering a gun they got privately in the current system.


Good information.

Just the opposite...I'm not in agreement whatsoever. More gun laws that only inhibit responsible citizens always translates to higher criminal firearm occurrences. That is proven by the FBI and DHS. Hell, it's even proven by entities of foreign nations that have comparison data of before and after gun ownership diminishment or outright bans in their own countries.

 

[Rustynuts]

It's a fact. Calling it BS doesn't make it not true.

Per the BOJ:

"In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun
at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm
at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from
a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or
friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source
(table 14). This was similar to the percentage distribution
in 1997."

That's state only though which I missed initially. About 25% got guns off the street and 7.5% stole them.

AAAAANNNNNND, again, assuming they were previous felons, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of those are ALREADY ILLEGAL.

What else can we say?

If they were NOT felons at the time. WHO CARES? They were LEGAL. Are you going to invent a Minority Report system?

Again you proved NOTHING.

 

[Biodune]

And here I thought they already had a great gun that prevented accidental discharge and helped in the case of an assailant trying to reach for the weapon. HK P7

 

[cyberguyz]

Heaven forbid you get robbed & killed because you were wearing gloves and your smart gun didn't have a clue who you are.

 

[Rustynuts]

Heaven forbid you get robbed & killed because you were wearing gloves and your smart gun didn't have a clue who you are.

Would probably be some sort of radio/wireless system. Really, no one EVER gets a glitch in their Bluetooth crap, right?

 

[buhbuhfet]

I understand your concerns. Many people agree further measures are needed, they just don't post on this website clearly.

those must be the people who haven't graduated high-school or just immigrated here from a communist country and maybe don't even speak english yet,
because they clearly don't understand the few simple words; "shall not be infringed".

 

[Eickst]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the voting rights thing? Some type of identification should certainly be required for voting. I don't even know what the current standards are across the country which I suppose is embarrassing. I have to present my ID when I vote. I only know my state. I think a background check to vote would be a bit excessive and a waiting period doesn't really make sense for voting as it isn't a deadly weapon.

You have no problem with unregulated transfer of firearms privately? That seems crazy to me.

Perhaps federal standards for federal rights would make more sense than variation across states. That would be a good start.

What I'm getting at is-
1) The right wants no checks for buying guns and that everyone should have one, but they want 2 photo ID's, original birth certificates, grandmothers affadavit, and 10 personal US citizen references to vote.
2) The left wants everyone to be able to vote if they just make it to the polling booth, regardless of citizenship. As far as gun purchases go, they don't even care what ID you have or background check, they don't want anyone to own a gun at all.

Seems like a compromise is in order to me.

I lost all of my firearms in a boating accident and I don't vote anymore so it doesn't affect me.

 

[wizzi01]

What I'm getting at is-
1) The right wants no checks for buying guns and that everyone should have one, but they want 2 photo ID's, original birth certificates, grandmothers affadavit, and 10 personal US citizen references to vote.
2) The left wants everyone to be able to vote if they just make it to the polling booth, regardless of citizenship. As far as gun purchases go, they don't even care what ID you have or background check, they don't want anyone to own a gun at all.

Seems like a compromise is in order to me.

I lost all of my firearms in a boating accident and I don't vote anymore so it doesn't affect me.

No, people want the laws already on the books to be enforced. Instead of enforcing existing laws they keep adding more. Us law abiding citizens are tired of compromises and getting the shafts because of criminals.

 

[Eickst]

No, people want the laws already on the books to be enforced. Instead of enforcing existing laws they keep adding more. Us law abiding citizens are tired of compromises and getting the shafts because of criminals.

We should all be used to it by now, that's where most laws come from. "We've got to do SOMETHING! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

 

[Disposed]

There's been a LOT of shooting deaths in the news so you'll just have to be more specific. I notice that George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, Edward Nero and Michael Brelo are all free men so you're not talking about them.

Oh, do you mean Marissa Alexander? I thought that was outrageous too.

So basically you are using high profile cases to ignore the greater picture? In reality you cannot simply use a gun to defend yourself or others without consequence, period.

You have laws varying from state to state, equal force laws to consider, etc.

"Full protection" is something we definitely DO NOT have in any way shape or form. The fact that those cases you used as examples even went to court should tell you that.

 

[evilsofa]

So basically you are using high profile cases to ignore the greater picture? In reality you cannot simply use a gun to defend yourself or others without consequence, period.

You have laws varying from state to state, equal force laws to consider, etc.

"Full protection" is something we definitely DO NOT have in any way shape or form. The fact that those cases you used as examples even went to court should tell you that.

So, all I have to do is say "I was defending myself or others" and I can do anything I want with a gun, no questions asked?

 

[Disposed]

So, all I have to do is say "I was defending myself or others" and I can do anything I want with a gun, no questions asked?

You are clearly not reading anything said here and just interpreting it however you want.

 

[Darunion]

So, all I have to do is say "I was defending myself or others" and I can do anything I want with a gun, no questions asked?

After going through my CHL class, I learned you will have to sit in a cell. Until you are cleared for defense with appropriate reaction the scene is this: A person is dead and you were the one that shot him. Your cooperation with the investigation is very important and helpful to both them and yourself. I am getting my chl this month and hope to the almighty spaghetti monster I never face a situation where I have to use it. In the end you have to look at it this way, in that moment your choice could be, go to jail or be dead. Hopefully if that situation does comes up for anyone that the choice is still in their hands and not taken from them.

 

[Jagger100]

It's a fact. Calling it BS doesn't make it not true.

Per the BOJ:

"... 37% obtained it from family or friends,..."

which means probably fellow gang members and/or people covering up an illegal sale.