No, but you're in Australia where the laws aren't as ridiculous. Read what he said was required in the UK.Spark wrote:
It's not that hard to get a gun here.JohnG@lt wrote:
The difference between that, and an outright ban, is infintesimal. It's designed to piss you off so much and give you so many headaches that you wouldn't want to own a gun in the first place. But, if you really really really wanted one you could get one so in that regard it stops people bitching about loss of freedoms.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends.
In the UK you need a good reason, doctor's reference, character reference, gun safe inspected beforehand, spot checks whenever they feel like it - repeat every three years (at least it was three years last I heard.)
The police approve in advance each gun before you buy it, the dealer notifies the police once you have done so.
Every box of ammunition you buy is recorded on your license.
In Aus you also need a good reason, references, approved training, six month wait for your first handgun, another six months for your second.
Rifles and shotguns a little bit easier, you need a good reason and attend usually a one day course.
Police approve each and every gun including the serial number before you take possession, when you have bought it you take it to the police to be checked over.
In all cases you need a clean record before you start.
If you're accused of a moderately serious crime - eg drink-driving - you lose your license.
If you have a gun stolen you can expect to lose your license permanently also.
Very different from buying or using a car.
Why would a criminal use a registered firearm with a serial number in a national registry when he could easily have a shipment of weapons clear customs in a Conex labeled 'Childrens Toys'. Keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, it also makes it that much harder for criminals to get them - at least from initially legitimate sources.
Still, about 10% of Australian households have a firearm of some sort.
Its not really a headache, just takes a bit of time.
Ridiculous arguement. The only way you are possibly correct is if all illegal guns are home made. They ARENT, the vast majority of illegal guns come from originally legal sources, such as stealing a legal gun. So wrong, increasing legal guns definately does increase the availability of acquiring them illegally.FEOS wrote:
That argument is what is known as a non sequitur.Dilbert_X wrote:
By increasing the easy availability of legally held firearms the illegal pool naturally increases too.FEOS wrote:
What, pray tell, does the NRA have to do with solving a law enforcement problem?
All we hear from the NRA is reasons to increase the legal pool, without acknowledgment of the above or suggestions on how to deal with it.
Increasing the legal availability of something legal does not increase the availability of something illegal that is of a similar nature. If anything, the opposite is the case.
John, people have used your arguement so many times. The simple fact is in countries where handguns etc are banned have hardly any gun related crime. In America any thug or thief can get access to a gun. In the UK it is very hard to get access to a gun and ammunition so your regular thug or thief is very unlikely to own one.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why would a criminal use a registered firearm with a serial number in a national registry when he could easily have a shipment of weapons clear customs in a Conex labeled 'Childrens Toys'. Keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, it also makes it that much harder for criminals to get them - at least from initially legitimate sources.
Still, about 10% of Australian households have a firearm of some sort.
Its not really a headache, just takes a bit of time.
Ok, so instead of using a gun they use pipes, knives, bricks, fists, and chains. Instead of fearing for their safety when entering a persons home they can enter freely, knock the person over, tie them up and rob them blind. Guns level the playing field between the old and young, the sick and healthy, and the tall and short. What would you do if my 6'3, 250 lb military trained self walked into your home and demanded all of your valuables?Vilham wrote:
John, people have used your arguement so many times. The simple fact is in countries where handguns etc are banned have hardly any gun related crime. In America any thug or thief can get access to a gun. In the UK it is very hard to get access to a gun and ammunition so your regular thug or thief is very unlikely to own one.
That isnt the argument you making against Dilbert.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok, so instead of using a gun they use pipes, knives, bricks, fists, and chains. Instead of fearing for their safety when entering a persons home they can enter freely, knock the person over, tie them up and rob them blind. Guns level the playing field between the old and young, the sick and healthy, and the tall and short. What would you do if my 6'3, 250 lb military trained self walked into your home and demanded all of your valuables?Vilham wrote:
John, people have used your arguement so many times. The simple fact is in countries where handguns etc are banned have hardly any gun related crime. In America any thug or thief can get access to a gun. In the UK it is very hard to get access to a gun and ammunition so your regular thug or thief is very unlikely to own one.
Last edited by Vilham (2009-10-02 08:07:00)
Valid point but my point still remains that people aren't using legal, registered weapons to commit crimes in the first place. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to purchase weapons does not make it harder for a criminal to walk down to the corner and purchase a weapon on the black market.Vilham wrote:
In no way am i suggesting they be banned, its far too late for that. However making getting a license harder, ie making sure the owner has a gun safe and then enforcing that is very important to lower gun crime.
Difference is one is a range weapon the other isn't. I can easily run if you have a knife. If you have a gun I can't.JohnG@lt wrote:
The point is this: Guns aren't what cause violent crime. People are what cause violent crime. If I have a gun and you have a knife I have power over you. If I have a knife and you have nothing I have power over you. There's not a whole lot of difference except one goes 'bang'. They're both lethal. In fact, using a knife is quieter and more easily concealed (except for the whole getting blood all over your clothes bit). But for some reason guns scare people and so they don't mind banning them. I think it's silly.
I don't personally own a weapon. Never had a need for one outside of my time in the Army. But it's nice to know that I can walk down to the local gun shop, pass a background check, wait three days, and walk out with almost any weapon I desire if I want. I like that freedom of choice.
As I said to someone else above. Unless people are making homemade guns, then they HAVE to come from a legal source at some point. Someone posted a document some while back that showed the number of guns stolen in the US per year, it was incredibly high, those guns are what are supplied in the black market.JohnG@lt wrote:
Valid point but my point still remains that people aren't using legal, registered weapons to commit crimes in the first place. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to purchase weapons does not make it harder for a criminal to walk down to the corner and purchase a weapon on the black market.Vilham wrote:
In no way am i suggesting they be banned, its far too late for that. However making getting a license harder, ie making sure the owner has a gun safe and then enforcing that is very important to lower gun crime.
Last edited by Vilham (2009-10-02 08:18:07)
Whatever. Replace knife with crossbow thenVilham wrote:
Difference is one is a range weapon the other isn't. I can easily run if you have a knife. If you have a gun I can't.JohnG@lt wrote:
The point is this: Guns aren't what cause violent crime. People are what cause violent crime. If I have a gun and you have a knife I have power over you. If I have a knife and you have nothing I have power over you. There's not a whole lot of difference except one goes 'bang'. They're both lethal. In fact, using a knife is quieter and more easily concealed (except for the whole getting blood all over your clothes bit). But for some reason guns scare people and so they don't mind banning them. I think it's silly.
I don't personally own a weapon. Never had a need for one outside of my time in the Army. But it's nice to know that I can walk down to the local gun shop, pass a background check, wait three days, and walk out with almost any weapon I desire if I want. I like that freedom of choice.
Lol, in that case I would be in just as much trouble. But handguns are just as easily concealed as a knife, a crossbow not so muchJohnG@lt wrote:
Whatever. Replace knife with crossbow thenVilham wrote:
Difference is one is a range weapon the other isn't. I can easily run if you have a knife. If you have a gun I can't.JohnG@lt wrote:
The point is this: Guns aren't what cause violent crime. People are what cause violent crime. If I have a gun and you have a knife I have power over you. If I have a knife and you have nothing I have power over you. There's not a whole lot of difference except one goes 'bang'. They're both lethal. In fact, using a knife is quieter and more easily concealed (except for the whole getting blood all over your clothes bit). But for some reason guns scare people and so they don't mind banning them. I think it's silly.
I don't personally own a weapon. Never had a need for one outside of my time in the Army. But it's nice to know that I can walk down to the local gun shop, pass a background check, wait three days, and walk out with almost any weapon I desire if I want. I like that freedom of choice.
Last edited by Vilham (2009-10-02 08:21:29)
But where do you suppose that black market weapon comes from in the first place?JohnG@lt wrote:
Valid point but my point still remains that people aren't using legal, registered weapons to commit crimes in the first place. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to purchase weapons does not make it harder for a criminal to walk down to the corner and purchase a weapon on the black market.
There's always the home made ones, which make up a large proportion of the guns on the streets in the UK. Converted replicas and suchlike.Dilbert_X wrote:
But where do you suppose that black market weapon comes from in the first place?JohnG@lt wrote:
Valid point but my point still remains that people aren't using legal, registered weapons to commit crimes in the first place. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to purchase weapons does not make it harder for a criminal to walk down to the corner and purchase a weapon on the black market.
Its not as if Smith and Wesson ship half their products to registered dealers and half to the black market.
There are currently more firearms on the planet than people. Pandora has already been let out of her box.Dilbert_X wrote:
But where do you suppose that black market weapon comes from in the first place?JohnG@lt wrote:
Valid point but my point still remains that people aren't using legal, registered weapons to commit crimes in the first place. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to purchase weapons does not make it harder for a criminal to walk down to the corner and purchase a weapon on the black market.
Its not as if Smith and Wesson ship half their products to registered dealers and half to the black market.
North Carolina has gun laws that make sense imo. That application and the criteria that limits ownership is entirely reasonable (except for needing a sheriff to vouch for your moral character, that's a bit over the top).Kmarion wrote:
Random State App (NC: http://www.brunswicksheriff.com/Home/Gu … fault.aspx)
http://i37.tinypic.com/10o1x5d.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/2z8ue78.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/au8pi9.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2emzbfa.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/309sot5.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/34zf43b.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/23wnr0n.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2sb4goh.jpg
Oh right, my bad. He talked about aus laws after UK laws hence the confusion.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, but you're in Australia where the laws aren't as ridiculous. Read what he said was required in the UK.Spark wrote:
It's not that hard to get a gun here.JohnG@lt wrote:
The difference between that, and an outright ban, is infintesimal. It's designed to piss you off so much and give you so many headaches that you wouldn't want to own a gun in the first place. But, if you really really really wanted one you could get one so in that regard it stops people bitching about loss of freedoms.
Well, they're elected down there so they can't get TOO high and mightyKmarion wrote:
Yea, that could make the Sheriff a very powerful man. I wonder if there is an appeals process if he denies you.
Still, there is something a little uneasing about a man saying you get a gun and you don't get a gun based on his own personal character judgement.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, they're elected down there so they can't get TOO high and mightyKmarion wrote:
Yea, that could make the Sheriff a very powerful man. I wonder if there is an appeals process if he denies you.
They aren't subjected to the federal laws?RAIMIUS wrote:
Colorado: Walk into gun store, fill out a form stating you are not a criminal and are not making a straw purchase, have a background check run to confirm you aren't a criminal, hand over money/credit card, leave with gun.
(Sometimes there is a 3-4 hour wait on the background check)
That goes for any non-NFA firearm (NFA firearm = full-autos, rifles with barrels under 16in, shotguns with barrels under 18in, suppressors, destructive devices, stuff over .50cal [except shotguns])
True, but it makes perfect sense for a police officer to refuse to grant a license to a man he thinks might take a shot at himKmarion wrote:
Still, there is something a little uneasing about a man saying you get a gun and you don't get a gun based on his own personal character judgement.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, they're elected down there so they can't get TOO high and mightyKmarion wrote:
Yea, that could make the Sheriff a very powerful man. I wonder if there is an appeals process if he denies you.
.. yes it does ideally. I guess I'm having images of corrupt western Sherrifs .. OK corral style.JohnG@lt wrote:
True, but it makes perfect sense for a police officer to refuse to grant a license to a man he thinks might take a shot at himKmarion wrote:
Still, there is something a little uneasing about a man saying you get a gun and you don't get a gun based on his own personal character judgement.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, they're elected down there so they can't get TOO high and mighty
