It's not a loophole in any use of the word because that is exactly as it is intended to be. There was never any intention in the laws put in place that we pay a fee to get federal government permission(with record keeping that becomes de-facto registration)for allprivateparty firearm transfers. That's why, you know, it's completely legal, just as intended. It's not a loophole to do precisely what the laws we passed intended

I love how you try to sound so knowledgable, yet have no actual retort. Do you think we should stop private sales at gun shows?

Actually gun ownership rates have been pretty steady. homicide in the US is down 50% since 1993.

I like how you fail to acknowledge everything I say is correct, particularly when it contradicts your rubbish

Of course we should not require federal government permission and record keeping forprivate partytransfers, wherever they might occur.

For everyone who thinks gun control is the answer, hypothetically lets say we removed guns from the equation. Who's to say this kid wouldn't have looked up how to build a pressure cooker bomb on the internet, and then bombed the school Boston style?

Just got home from work. Libs, female misc is >>>>>>>>>>> that way.

you cant track a gun but you can track internet activity.....simple


the availability of guns is too easy.

I think I'll take this as a joke and I'll abstain from explaining how moronic that answer it.

Why do people seeking to cause harm use the tools readily available to them? Because they're readily available to them.So, the law is currently enforced. If you flip a lot of guns, especially if they end up as crime guns, you'll end up getting arrested. The key here isn't "for profit" so much as "being engaged in the business of selling arms". You can make money on a firearms sale without being "in the business". If you buy guns with the obvious intent to flip them is where you get into trouble with the ATF.

The GCA was written with very specific intent to stop people from being able to buy guns from dealers in 1968 without answering a couple of questions on a form with no background check at all.

Background checks were not run until 1993 when the Brady bill passed.

The Brady Law, like the GCA was built around stopping sales of new guns to people who were criminals, mainly with the intent of slowing down trafficking.

The GCA was never intended to be the basis for a universal background check bill.

Moreover, the notion that you're going to stop gun violence in a country where virtually everyone can pass a background check, and guns are literally everywhere is absurd.

Awesome. I'd really like for kids to go to school without a fear of being shot, can we reduce that?

Location: Australia

GFY

Sure, put people with guns in the schools so that bad people don't have 3-10 minutes of unfettered access to hundreds or thousands of defenseless victims.

Actually you can't. Have you ever heard of TOR?

GFY?Has this been implemented and successful in preventing shootings? Genuinely curious. How many armed people would you need, one for each classroom? Would be hard to keep tabs on everyone at all times. Or is it just a deterrent?

fuk anyone who supports the idea of implementing more gun control laws

fuk you all

i will fuking neg you

srs

Luled hard at how dumb you are as ive already posted numerous times that when giving the choice teachers packed into ccw classes for months to get permitted and trained. Its their decision to carry or not, not yours.

The weapon is again, not the issue as has been reiterated several times in this thread with facts. But keep your head up your ass all you want

yes

doesnt change anything...one is more available than another.


firearms are "sexy" in America. We may every excuse to "bear arms"

Do yourself a favor, reach out to Betsey Devos and gather your militia brothers to walk the halls of every school in America. Show us first hand how this can be prevented

Thanks, appreciate that you actually answered the question.

I've spent a fair amount of time in the Alaskan wilderness and the wilderness across western USA. I've never had to use a gun, but there were times when it was good to have. People are getting scummy and I've seen methheads trying to steal stuff at trail heads where there is no cell service. I've seen a bear eating a fresh kill 10 years from a trail before. I'll be honest I doubt you can convince me that taking guns away from responsible owners is the right move.


EDIT: also, I'm not following the story because I feel it is the media's fault for giving the killers so much notoriety/ attention, but how tf did he get into the school? Most schools I went to are locked and you gotta go through the office and have a legitimate reason for being there. How did he get let into the school especially if he was kicked out??

You think getting a gun is easier than buying a pressure cooker and making some adjustments to it?

You've hardly said a single correct thing all thread. You get corrected constantly and then willfully ignore all evidence to the contrary of what you're saying.

You're entitled to your own opinion about whether stricter controls are worth the loss of "rights", but then you outright refuse to accept simple facts regarding the potential effectiveness of "solutions"

1) You made assumptions with this quote "
I know you will ignore these facts once more, but why don't you take a look at Australia's violent crime rate before and after their sweeping gun bans...and look at the US violent crime rate compared to gun ownership. "

Why do you assume I would ignore facts? Projecting much? I'm more than happy to read facts, please provide them, I want to know the truth rather than be validated in my optinion.

I just gave you the UK stats, I felt it was more relevant to me as Im based in the UK. But since you wont provide the facts, I'll find them for you with regards to Oz.

Gun crime > Guns per 100 residents
Oz - 15
US - 88.8

Murders per mil
Oz - 10.38
US - 42.01

You are significantly have a much higher chance of being murdered in the US than in Oz.

Violent crime rate is meaningless when compared to murder. Violent crime could mean mugging, punching someone, heck in some countries hurling abuse at someone could be considered "violence". Since this thread is about murder, and the argument is whether guns kill more people (guns dont kill people, people do), I bring up murder stats.

There's no way around it, school shootings and crazy **** like the vegas shooting will just have to be the norm. To put it into perspective, a single lonely vegas shooter killed more people than the most organised terrorist attack in britain in the last 20 years (7/7).

Out of curiousity, do you think we should arm every country in the world with nuclear weapons, using the threat of violence to deter violence? And if not, why not?


Oh and answer to your question about Aus crime rate before and after gun:

Last year a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed that in 1996, Australia had had 311 murders, of which 98 involved guns. In 2014, when the population had increased from about 18 million to 23 million, 238 people were murdered, 35 by guns.

In other words, the likelihood of being murdered by gunshot fell by 72 per cent in that period, from 0.54 to 0.15 per 100,000 people, Reuters said.

Referring to murders specifically cos "crime" is a very broad term and has gotten broader over the years. What is crime today may not have been a crime 20 years ago.

Nothing will ever stop any single crime 100% why would you even say that like anyone is arguing that.

You could make every single crime punishable by the death penalty and every single crime would still occur.

You're really comparing neutral swizz to murica? C'mon fam.

Can't comment on the Czech, maybe take something from them.

Everything being equal, population, culture, you can't really deny that guns increases murder rate. It's almost like saying having more cars on the road dont cause more traffic. Well of course a much better infrastructure can handle more cars, but the more cars thing definitely has a significant effect.

Not true, pretty sure there are countries where you can litter else you lose a hand. And they dont litter. lol.

Deterents work, not 100% but they work, else why make laws at all?

the weapon is the issue whether you believe it or not....

no one sets up shop in a hotel - breaks out a window - and shoots spit balls at people while theyre attending a concert.

A gun can have more much control over someone than youre willing to admit. So much so, you will defend guns to your death...right?

From an outsider's (non-American) perspective, this phenomenon of weekly school shootings does seem disturbing and strange. It's not a good sign that this has become a new "norm" in American society.

I can only assume that thus far there has been insufficient "social cost" to demand change, through tougher laws or stronger regulatory control. That is not to say that such laws would work very well, but it is telling that there has been no tangible attempt to reform anything, or do anything.

I suppose that "social cost" to American society has to be a lot greater than the current levels of deaths and killings, before there is any attempt to tackle the problem and take action. Social cost is not yet deemed high enough.

U.S. population 315m
UK 60m
Italy 60m
Canada 36m
Australia 20m
Denmark 5m

Do you see a trend here? The size problem seems simple but it isn't. Relatively small increases in a nations base rate exponentially increase the complexity of its subsystems. Add to that the fact that the U.S. is the most culturally heterogenous nation in the world.. The chances for fat tail risk is way higher in the U.S. than in other countries.

Why cant they do small scale tests to see if gun control curtails crime?

I mean, i know other countries do, but i think its an unfair comparison given the size and demographics of america.

Let the northeast be the first to disallow guns since im guessing theyre the highest % of gun control advocates. I understand its not the same as mass scale adoption but would still be interesting. I guess youd have the criminals fleeing to other states/ getting them from other states, etc.

Idk, would just really like to see the difference. I highly doubt it would do chit, though

America has too much pride in giving up any right that was deemed necessary 150 years ago. We have to protect our family from the indians that look to intrude on our teepees.

I also want you to know that I own a gun by the bumper sticker on my 96 GMC Sierra. and yes, theyre 37 inch tires not 35.