Firearms rule in U.S


Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!

d'observer

-Procrastination Expert
Sempai
Umm...well...I've been meaning to give this topic a go here in FTV...eversince the Virginia Tech's incident.Though I've always give some thought on it even before the tragic incident,but I guess it might be pretty good to give a thoughtful moments on this one.

Seriously,as probably have been known,I'm having trouble with my PC so I can't give much points here as the start,so please pardon me Bold-sama.Instead I'm asking anyone to start this one for me,can I?And the thing is,I'm not American,so I've got really little knowledge on the laws and its details there.Though I've something in mind for the topic,it's better to have better understandings on the matter before I spout any irresponsible things that I know little about.

So,for now I'm asking for someone that knows a lot about the detail in the firearm's possession and related laws in U.S,to post a bit on it,so I and maybe others could share our opinions on the thing.

If this thread doesn't get closed for being nonsensical or other various reasons..
tongue.gif
 
My experience in debating guns and legislation in high school has led me to this.

The Federal Government has the ability to ban and enforce bans of assault weapons. Also, the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) is the head agency that does background checks on each sale of firearms in co-operation with the FBI if any one applying has a criminal record. If a person is flagged, the transaction is halted, and if that person has any warrants or broken any parole violations, is arrested.

The states have the further ability to limit the types of guns that can be held by the citizenry of that state. Also, state governments can issue concealed weapons permits to citizens who pass certain qualifications set forth under the state penal and civil code. States that issue concealed weapons permits allows the citizen to carry a concealed firearm anywhere but all government buildings and where private property owners disclose that firearms aren't allowed on premises. If a citizen who has a concealed weapon with them can give them to the officer, bailiff, or reception desk where it can be picked up on there way out. States with concealed weapons permits have agreements with other states where a visitors concealed weapons permit is recognized.

Where I'm from, Nevada, and certain other states, the ownership of automatic weapons is legal. In order for this to occur, first, the citizen has no criminal background. Then citizen first has to have a normal weapons permit and several guns. After the citizen applies for an automatic weapons permit, which goes through a rigorous background check by the ATF, FBI, DEA, etc., taking anywhere from 4-8 weeks depending on the person, caseload, etc. In Nevada, and I don't know if this occurs in other states, even if the Federal Agencies approve, the County Sheriff can still reject the application in the interest of public safety.

In relating to intruders and tresspassers. 26 states within the Union have a set of laws called castle-domain laws. This set of laws stipulates that the resident of an apartment, condo, house, etc. shoots and injures or kills an intruder, and is to be found in self-defense, the resident is exempt from all criminal and civil prosecution. This applies to any government agency or private party.

Cities and counties of each state within there jurisdiction can ban the ownership of all guns. But this isn't very popular and only occur in the most liberal areas in the country.


If anyone would like to add to this, please do so.
 
If you don't like things that are lame, don't click this spoiler.
83_12.png

2nd amendment says we've got the right to 'bear' arms

on a slightly unrelated note, a lot of schools and stuff are treating asian kids different after the VT thing. (I live in VA, and not too far away from VT) China had to assure us that all asian students are, in fact, NOT all terrorists.

How did america link this to terrorism anyway? He was strictly suicidal from what i saw on TV. (not the most truthful or reliable source but whatever)

edit: then again why would the goy not want us to think it was terrorism?
 
This might be related to this topic,or maybe not.....but I once read that(don't know if the source is reliable but I think it is
cool.gif
) 80,000 deaths occured in a year in U.S due to misusage of firearms.Honestly,if that's true,shouldn't the U.S' gov try to look up into this matter a bit more?80,000 is a ridiculuos number,Sept 11 only got 3,000 people and Mr. Bush has 'burnt'
tongue.gif
billions of dollars which of course has led to thousands more deaths,perhaps they ought to do something with this domestic case of theirs...?

Honestly,the reason for most of tragic case involving misusage of guns and such in U.S are WA~~Y more nonsensical even when you compared it to the 'terrorists'.Things like "He mess with my girl",or "That guy step on my lawn" or simply a fight among the drug dealers group are indeed being the reason to such cases(I read this somewhere though...pardon me if it's dead wrong.).I don't know if my logic and rational thought,common sense and bla bla bla are the same or totally different from the others,but those are just as much of terrorist's act in my point of view.And the most important thing,people are dying due to it.I just hope they(the U.S.' gov) can make some ruckus on this thing,at least half on what they did during the Sept 11....but from what I see,even after VT,things are pretty much the same,wonder why?

p/s:going to add some more...but I'm running out of time at the cyber cafe right now.
tongue.gif
 
Being from Canada, we already have Acquisition and Possession Laws. But we still have had the some school shootings and other incidents. I guess what i am really saying is that if someone really wanted to do something like that, they will find a way. But i do agree with the laws, they act as a deterrent.
 
After the Port Arthur massacre in Australia in 1996 our govenment instigated a gun buyback scheme (the National Firearms Agreement). More than 600,000 semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns were handed in. The death of 35 men, women and children in a killing spree changed attitudes towards firearm control. Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds were effectively banned. Further, gun laws were generally tightened with mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms. Fully-automatic arms have been banned in most Australian states since the 1930s. About 5.2% of Australians own guns.
 
The american constitution is of course amendable, but it's very difficult to do. The right to bear arms, in my opinion and likely that of the constitutional authors, has more to do with the right to defend yourself against both foreign and domestic oppression than it does to being able to drive around w/ a shotgun in the back of your truck. In the right to defend yourselves and your country from both powers foreign and domestic, the right to bear arms is essential to the USA from a historical perspective. What really needs to happen, however, is that the Supreme Court needs to reinterpret what this amendment really means. Since, after all, that is their job.

As it stands, guns are incredibly easy to obtain. In fact someone that I work with was on parole after being arrested for drugs and was arrested for a violation in which they hauled many automatic weapons out of his apartment. I'm fairly certain that I could have easily purchased one. The ones used, to my knowledge, in the v-tech incident were all purchased legally. However, I read today in the newspaper that a father was sentenced to only 18 months in prison after his son used his automatic rifle (purchased illegally) at his school. I'm sure that part of the problem is that this punishment lacks any severity.

I'm not sure if this is the kind of post that people are looking for here, but there you have it.
 
But you also have some people in the government who think that stricter gun control won't do anything. I remember watching the news not long after the VT incident and one politician (he was probably far right mind you) who was against gun control saying that if someone else on campus had a gun they could have shot and taken down the shooter. Personally I don't believe in that logic, but there are people out there who do. And with Bush further gun control probably won't change much. He didn't even decide to renew the ban on assault weapons when it came up.

I know that they have background checks for buying guns and the such, but at gun conventions and similar events I'm pretty sure you can buy a gun without any kind of background check and that is something I feel really needs to change. With things like that any nut can go to a gun show and buy a gun with relative ease.
 
You should all keep in mind that in the US, armed citizens stop about 2.5 million crimes per year. Most of the time all they need to do is show a firearm to scare away a criminal.
 
QUOTE (test127 @ May 07 2007, 09:23 PM) You should all keep in mind that in the US, armed citizens stop about 2.5 million crimes per year. Most of the time all they need to do is show a firearm to scare away a criminal.
Hmm... From what I've researched, out of those "2.5 million", 2 million of those crimes are usually involved from the usage of firearms just to scare criminals away by the citizens. So basically, it's like two guns vs one already (imagery: >> < ). States that do allow to bear firearms in public may probably be regarded in the matter. Even so, firearms = aggression, and if anymore, little promise of scaring criminals, including the factor of them baring one as well.

In the case of the Virginia Tech incident, and other school-related incidents, it's been tried over and over that the school can prevent students from using firearms at all. During middle school, the school suffered from drive-by shooting because of our ethic mix of people. Nobody died, but it still provoked hatred, and usually that's what happens when firearms arose.

Basically, the U.S. tries practicing as much protection as possible. However, it's curiosity that tends to grab hold of things like this, and not all people get along, even though they hate so much. I think this because it's been diverse for school-attending students.
 
Barbobot, you are incorrect. No matter where you buy guns; you MUST have a permit (unless the transaction is illegal). That means that to buy guns at a fair, you have to show your permit. Also, yes; there are background checks before you can get a permit, and there are also sometimes psychological tests. Furthermore, if there is any reason to suspect that the buyer is psychologically unsound, the seller is obligated to refuse the sale. Many states tightly restrict what guns are available to buy.

There are also laws that state it is illegal to mail firearms or other such forms of transportation without specific qualifications. The gun must be mailed in a certain type of case, it must be unloaded, and there can be no ammunition included. The firearm must be mailed to a gun shop. The person who picks the gun up must have a license. Etc...

Honestly, the rules for buying guns are already pretty strict - and it's tough to make it stricter without removing all rights to bear arms. Also, if a person really wants a gun, there isn't much you can do to stop them - black market sales in ANY country occur, and there's only so much you can do to stop it.



EDIT: Should also be noted that it is illegal, in all circumstances unless you are a federal officer to carry a gun on a school campus regardless of level (from pre-K all the way through University and Grad school). The exception being in one state that - after the VT incident, is allowing students to bring guns on campus for personal safety. <--- Personally thinks this was a stupid idea.
 
QUOTE (dchaosblade @ May 08 2007, 02:06 AM) Barbobot, you are incorrect. No matter where you buy guns; you MUST have a permit (unless the transaction is illegal). That means that to buy guns at a fair, you have to show your permit. Also, yes; there are background checks before you can get a permit, and there are also sometimes psychological tests. Furthermore, if there is any reason to suspect that the buyer is psychologically unsound, the seller is obligated to refuse the sale. Many states tightly restrict what guns are available to buy.
All be it I'm getting this information at the moment from wiki since I don't know where else to get it, but I specifically remember them talking about this on the news about buying guns at gun shows after the VT incident.

"The "Gun show loophole" is a nelogism coined to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows. United States federal law requires persons engaged in the business of firearm sales to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform certain checks prior to transferring a firearm, but these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms, with both buyer and seller being residents of the same state. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a "loophole" in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)."

But I do agree with you that gun control laws are already pretty strict and it would be hard to strengthen them anymore without impeding on people's constitutional right.
 
Even if you were to instate severe gun laws in the US I really dont think it wouldn't really matter anymore. Gun circulation is so vast now that it isn't really hard for someone to get a gun without a gun permit, if they really wanted to. I mean honestly how many of these gang shootings or shootings in general are guns purchased with background checks. Although the background check system proved faulty considering the VT shooter was deemed mentally unstable at some point in time. Yet these things don't show up on background checks. Alot of things need to change to alleviate the deaths caused by shootings. Even so I doubt any gun laws will change with a president who is so Pro-gun even after all these shootings still take place.
 
QUOTE (hektic @ May 08 2007, 02:09 AM) Even if you were to instate severe gun laws in the US I really dont think it wouldn't really matter anymore. Gun circulation is so vast now that it isn't really hard for someone to get a gun without a gun permit, if they really wanted to. I mean honestly how many of these gang shootings or shootings in general are guns purchased with background checks. Although the background check system proved faulty considering the VT shooter was deemed mentally unstable at some point in time. Yet these things don't show up on background checks. Alot of things need to change to alleviate the deaths caused by shootings. Even so I doubt any gun laws will change with a president who is so Pro-gun even after all these shootings still take place.
Bah you beat me to it. The point about gun laws I was going to make is, gun laws only take guns away from the law abiding citizens forcing them to rely on the government or some security agency for protection. The criminals are still going to have access to guns and will still use guns, of all types, regardless of what you do legally. After all, they are not doing what they are doing because it's legal.

Case in point, England banned all guns in their country, to the point of even taking them from the police. Only the military was allowed to have them. What they found was that they mortality and criminal rate of gun related instances went up. Why? Well the criminals don't care that it's criminal to own/use a gun.

Case in point, California took away all automatic rifles, including the ones that the police had. Two armed gun men, with heavy assault weapons, proceeded to rob a bank and walk away, due to their overwhelming firepower advantage over the police and full body armor, until one cop went into a pawn shop and grabbed a high caliber rifle that could penetrate the body armor.

America was born with a gun in it's hand because it was necessary to have them to put the leash of English tyranny off the necks of the American citizens. Hence the reason for the second amendment.

BTW, I am a card carrying national rifleman's association member and own several different weapons. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, even a bow. People were killing people before guns were around, either through maliciousness or stupidity, and people will be killing people when they come up with things that are better than guns. End of story.

P.S. My favorite two bumper stickers are:

1) Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

2) You can have my colt 45 when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

P.S.S.
Ever wonder why no invades America? If the enemies of America got together, they could easily overwhelm the military in a stand up fight. However, actually taking control of America would be a nightmare due to the fact that the citizens are armed. Think about the hell an army would have to go through trying to take control of the Western or South Eastern parts of the country.
 
QUOTE (Mowerman @ May 08 2007, 06:03 AM)Think about the hell an army would have to go through trying to take control of the Western or South Eastern parts of the country.
Kind of like the hell the US army is going through in Iraq...
 
QUOTE (test127 @ May 08 2007, 12:06 PM) Kind of like the hell the US army is going through in Iraq...
Not quite. Despite the media's claims and such; the casualty rate hasn't been all that incredibly high. It's just that whenever something *does* happen, the media brodcasts it to death as if a nuclear bomb was the cause ~_~ Overall, there hasn't been as much problems as there seems to be in Iraq (concerning the U.S. Military); there's just been too much media involvement. But all that is off topic~
 
QUOTE (test127 @ May 08 2007, 10:06 AM) Kind of like the hell the US army is going through in Iraq...
For the most part, the resistance in Iraq is terror group based. 90% or better of the population is glad that they are out from under the sadistic rule of Sadam. That number would invert in the USA. Groups that would want to invade us would definately not be groups that are considered as good for the community by the majority of US citizens. i.e. Communist, Socialists, Dictatorships, etc.

And I have to totally agree with dchaosblade-san. There is a big push behind the media to make big news out of anything negative that goes on in Iraq. In an industry that does not survive if it does not have contributors, when someone with a little cash starts throwing it at them, they do what that person wants. Accurate news today, consists of the weather report and only the weather report. The rest of the broadcast is heavily political based opinion.
 
I apologize for leading the thread somewhat off-topic, but to see justification of my earlier statement about Iraq you can read this article about a secret British Ministry of Defence poll of Iraqis that shows that, on every level, the majority of Iraqis believe the invasion has hurt them more than it has helped them. The most interesting numbers are toward the middle and end of the article.
 
When you get right down to it, we didn't "invade" them to help them out. We invaded them to make sure that they didn't have weapons that could potentially **** us up. First priority was the safety of American citizens.

Moderator's Note: watch your language.
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Back
Top