not caring here posted:

Yeah, I'm in australia right now and I can get a gun within the hour.

And then there was a drive by shooting nearly every week in west Sydney last year I'm told.

Basically don't ever copy Australia's moves in regards to laws or politics because holy gently caress it's dumb here.

Mr. Nice! posted:

Australia's rates are less than 10% of the US. Something that could be helped with legislation that 95% of America believes should be in place but never will be due to NRA lobbying.

MrYenko posted:

95% of Americans can't agree on what color the loving sky is, let alone gun control. You're delusional if you really think gun control is that popular.

This is a loving dumb derail.

MrYenko posted:

95% of Americans can't agree on what color the loving sky is, let alone gun control. You're delusional if you really think gun control is that popular.

This is a loving dumb derail.

quote:

Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.

Stultus Maximus posted:

The fact that those proposals died with a whimper shows how much the Democrats are interested in pushing gun control as an issue. And again, I'm talking on a national level. The Democratic party at a national level is not going to push gun control any more because there are so many red state Democrats who would only be hurt by it and who would in fact rebel. I lived in non-Chicago Illinois and Missouri during this time period so I got to see firsthand a bunch of Democratic politicians falling over themselves to show how much they love hunting and defending their wives against marauding bands of Negroes.

Which is a shame because something like universal background checks shouldn't even count as "gun control" so much as "what any non bughouse country would do."

Zeroisanumber posted:

I'm supportive of background checks if all that they're checking for is a felony record or being declared MD by a judge. I know that it's been said a billion goddamn times on this forum, but I'd be happier if we shift away from the politically toxic idea of gun control to funding and improving the mental health system.

Stultus Maximus posted:

Because there's nothing politically toxic about funding health care.

Stultus Maximus posted:

Because there's nothing politically toxic about funding health care.

Mr. Nice! posted:

There were plenty of polls where 95% of americans favored certain types of background checks on used weapons that got blocked via an amendment to a spending bill.

I agree it's a dumb loving derail. It's dumb to keep killing people, too, though.

Cole posted:

Saying you don't support background checks is like admitting you're a racist. Its a dumb poll.

Mr. Nice! posted:

Take the compared to the US for 2012. Just shy of 9000 gun related homicides (almost 20k suicides) for a rate of 2.83 per 100k people. Australia's rates are less than 10% of the US. Something that could be helped with legislation that 95% of America believes should be in place but never will be due to NRA lobbying.

Don't get sucked into the idea that it isn't possible or that they did something wrong. We're still killing each other at a ridiculous rate which would be mitigated some by sane legislation.

Spicy Guacamole posted:

News flash: it is already a crime to transfer a firearm to someone who is ineligible to possess a firearm. loving lol if you really think that requiring background checks for private sales will stop people who knowingly sell guns to criminals (similar to so many other misguided attempts at violent crime reduction). True, in the vast majority of private sales the five seconds it takes to run a check is, at worst, a minor inconvenience, but there are also plenty of situations where it becomes a huge inconvenience (some already pointed out).

Lowering the speed limit and increasing fines doesn't stop "those idiot drivers" (you know the ones) from driving like idiots. Some people simply don't play by the rules, and imposing further rules only harms the rest of us. You can't just legislate away life's problems.

Spicy Guacamole posted:

News flash: it is already a crime to transfer a firearm to someone who is ineligible to possess a firearm. loving lol if you really think that requiring background checks for private sales will stop people who knowingly sell guns to criminals (similar to so many other misguided attempts at violent crime reduction). True, in the vast majority of private sales the five seconds it takes to run a check is, at worst, a minor inconvenience, but there are also plenty of situations where it becomes a huge inconvenience (some already pointed out).

Lowering the speed limit and increasing fines doesn't stop "those idiot drivers" (you know the ones) from driving like idiots. Some people simply don't play by the rules, and imposing further rules only harms the rest of us. You can't just legislate away life's problems.

MassivelyBuckNegro posted:

god drat


How exactly would it be mitigated by sane legislation? How many guns are transacted to people via the 'gunshow loophole' that are ineligible to posses them? Further, how many of these ineligible people go on to commit a crime with a gun?

psydude posted:

For starters, how about actually making the background checks worth a drat?

Spicy Guacamole posted:

Woosh. That's not at all what I said. My point is that piling on additional legislation as an attempt to stop a given behavior that is already unlawful does not work.

Casimir Radon posted:

My cousin was able to buy a gun while on probation for accidentally shooting himself. Nothing wrong with the system at all I tell you what.

EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:

I know I've asked you this before, but how did he get probation for NDing himself?

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

So what law is it that makes it already unlawful for you to sell a gun to some random schmuck on the street?

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

So what law is it that makes it already unlawful for you to sell a gun to some random schmuck on the street?

Dead Reckoning posted:

If the schmuck in question is a prohibited posessor who can't pass a NICS check, it is also illegal for you to sell or give them a gun. If they can legally buy a gun from a FFL, can sell them one too.

Tremblay posted:

18 USC § 922(d)

I believe.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

But there's no requirement for you to check, it's only if you know or have a reasonable suspicion that they're a prohibited possessor. So if someone comes up to you and says "Hey, this gun store won't let me buy from them, can you sell me a gun?", you're breaking the law if you sell them a gun.

If he keeps his mouth shut and you don't ask any questions, it's not illegal even if turns out the dude was a violent felon who just escaped from a mental institution. Or some random schmuck on the street.

Mr. Nice! posted:

So you're told. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean poo poo. Based on the numbers, the death rate from firearms in Oz is less than 10% of what the US rate is per 100k people. Additionally, over 4/5 of the gun related deaths in Australia are suicide.

In 2012, for example, a high water year for gun related homicides Australia had 40 (173 suicides) total for the entire country. That's a homicide rate of around 0.2 per 100k people. Virtually nonexistent.

Take the compared to the US for 2012. Just shy of 9000 gun related homicides (almost 20k suicides) for a rate of 2.83 per 100k people. Australia's rates are less than 10% of the US. Something that could be helped with legislation that 95% of America believes should be in place but never will be due to NRA lobbying.

Don't get sucked into the idea that it isn't possible or that they did something wrong. We're still killing each other at a ridiculous rate which would be mitigated some by sane legislation.

Stultus Maximus posted:

The fact that those proposals died with a whimper shows how much the Democrats are interested in pushing gun control as an issue. And again, I'm talking on a national level. The Democratic party at a national level is not going to push gun control any more because there are so many red state Democrats who would only be hurt by it and who would in fact rebel. I lived in non-Chicago Illinois and Missouri during this time period so I got to see firsthand a bunch of Democratic politicians falling over themselves to show how much they love hunting and defending their wives against marauding bands of Negroes.

Which is a shame because something like universal background checks shouldn't even count as "gun control" so much as "what any non bughouse country would do."

sky shark posted:

This was at the end of the last page but I don't want anyone to miss just how loving stupid you are.

Despite your dumb rear end beliefs, gun control is not anything remotely a dead issue for the Democratic party and they have shown they will bide their time to use the best possible excuse to bring it to the limelight, and until then mention it as often as loving possible. You must have been in a goddamn coma to miss the full court press to get assault weapons banned after the elections post-Newtown, or 'blue ribbon gun violence committee of antigun usual suspects' that Diamond Joe himself headed up, culminating in the President having a temper tantrum in the Rose Garden when his bitch rear end couldn't get anything passed - despite sloppy wet blowjobs from talking heads & the press.

That said, pretending that everything was A-OK and nobody should pay attention or remember what happened is almost as dumb as your post. poo poo didn't die with a whimper - what we saw was grass roots activism beating the poo poo out of the combined efforts of multibillionaire astroturfing, national media cheerleading and shady tactics at the administration level.

Just off the top of my head:
Fast & Furious was straight up used to try to manufacture a need for a renewed AWB at the Federal level. The *only* reason it didn't go further is because some of the F&F guns were used to murder a BP agent and they had to keep that poo poo quiet heading into the election

Manchin-Toomey was barely voted down and if you don't understand how that would have been a bad thing, you aren't equipped to discuss this topic

Operation Choke Point reclassified gun stores into the same category as payday loans, get rich quick schemes, and porno sites

Someone already mentioned the M855 ban, but what hasn't been said is that the ATF didn't try to ban it - they actually went ahead and banned it by removing the exemption from the freshly published regulations book, then asked for comments. When they got caught said it was a "publishing mistake"

...and this is all stuff that made major news. It doesn't include other horseshit like multiple long gun reporting under demand letter #3, imporation bans on "gang weapons" (the administration's term, not mine) like Korean war Garands, a shitload of executive orders to help grease the wheels of gun control (CDC gun violence research is one that comes to mind) and more.

Motherfucker, the Democratic party got their asses spanked after all this poo poo and rightly so. On top of that, because the President has made it abundantly clear that "gun control is a dead issue" isn't remotely true, the gun owners out there are justifiably wary. The attempted M855 reclassification garnered 310,000 comments to the ATF, which is not only unprecedented but there was so much noise generated that 53 senators and 250+ congressmen jumped on the bandwagon. A couple made noise about disbanding the ATF as well over it.

Despite NRA supported politicians winning in 91% of their races last election cycle, there's been significant progress for gun control at the state level - Bloomberg has been funding advertising & hiring canvassers to get ballot propositions put on for background checks and other measures in a variety of states. NY, CT, WA, CA, all saw increased gun control regulations passed, and more are on the way.

So in summary, gently caress you, suck my dick from the back, and shut the gently caress up with your ignorant nonsense.

UoI posted:

Tremblay posted:

I agree thats the language. For me personally I chalk it up to due diligence. AFAIK there is no good way as a private citizen to do a background check. Other than doing a transfer through an FFL and getting rear end raped on the fees (usually). We'll never know but it would be interesting to find out how many blind sales like you describe actually occur. I have a feeling most private party sales are between friends and family.

sky shark posted:

Stultus Maximus posted:

Hey I think I hear some black helicopters, better disconnect and get to your bunker.