DFIB Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I think we've deviated from the original discussion a little, although this is all very interesting. I'm not from the US, but I'd like to echo the point made earlier ( by chbare, I think), that this shouldn't become a "criticise the US", bitch session. I think that there are a few reasonable steps that could be taken after this. I don't think that a ban on "assault weapons" will, by itself, prevent a similar tragedy occurring again - butt sure seems like a good idea. As discussed, the term "assault weapon" is very vague. Perhaps a better approach is to simply ban automatic weapons, defined as anything that fires more than one round each time the trigger is depressed. It seems like there's little sporting or recreational use of these weapons. The future King of England seems unlikely to invade if automatic weapons are removed. The other, is that it seems ridiculous that someone should be able to avoid a background check by purchasing at a gun show. Couldn't this loophole be closed too? From the outside, looking in, I wonder if this is a primary healthcare problem? Could something as unpopular as universal healthcare enable more potential killers better access to mental health professionals? Automatic rifles are not banned but are a very minimal portion of the amount of weapons available. It is possible to purchase them legally but it is very difficult. I entails a sea of paperwork and background checks. It is regulated by the National Firearms Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
systemet Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Automatic rifles are not banned but are a very minimal portion of the amount of weapons available. It is possible to purchase them legally but it is very difficult. I entails a sea of paperwork and background checks. It is regulated by the National Firearms Act. Interesting. I didn't know that there was a separate process for automatic weapons in the US. So, when you guys had the assault weapons ban, how did they choose to define assault weapons in legislation? Question: Do you guys think that there should be more background checks in place to purchase firearms in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 An ban was in place from 1994-2004. You can look up the details on how assault rifle was defined, but more or less a gun with a certain set of cosmetic features that could accept a certain set of attachments. Around 20 or so weapons met the criteria. In addition, magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds were generally not allowed. Of course little could be done about pre-existing weapons and magazines. My opinion on background checks is yes. I cannot see these gun shows where anybody can buy a gun continuining to function. Everybody should go through a vetting process prior to purchasing a gun IMHO. My suspicion is that this provision is something many people can agree on and it will probably be part of any new legislation. Of course, I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Interesting. I didn't know that there was a separate process for automatic weapons in the US. So, when you guys had the assault weapons ban, how did they choose to define assault weapons in legislation? Question: Do you guys think that there should be more background checks in place to purchase firearms in the US? For every gun that is purchased from a licensed dealer in Texas there is a background check for every purchase. This includes all firearms. If you are buying a rifle, you need an in State ID. Some dealers will not sell to people from out of state. You can not be a felon or have a police record for drugs, wifebeating, or mental illness ( I don't know how they would verify the mental illness) You will fill out a Firearms Transaction Form Part 1 . The dealer will in your presence pick up the phone and call the FBI seeking approval for the purchase. After the FBI approves they will sell you the rifle. Firearms can only be purchased in person. It is a federal crime to make a "straw purchase" for any other person. If you are purchasing a handgun there is an additional five day waiting period. After which you can take possession of your new handgun. This five day waiting period is waived for persons who posses a CCL because they already have a gun stuck in their belt and have already been authorized by the state to posses a firearm. I always find it amusing that the store, for safety reasons, will escort me to the door with a newly purchased weapon and only let me hold it after we are outside. It is amusing because I have a loaded firearm tucked safely away in my belt. I am not looking at the law as I write this but basing the post on my personal purchase experience. I have purchased in many different stores ranging from Wal-Mart to Pawn Shops and the process is always the same. I have no experience with purchasing at gun shows and have never purchased a gun at such an event. So what do you think? Do you think that there should be more background checks in place to purchase firearms in the US? Edited December 22, 2012 by DFIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 DEFIB, people can easily get around the process by purchasing through a less than scrupulous seller at a gun show. The loop hole will likely need to be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenac Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 DEFIB, people can easily get around the process by purchasing through a less than scrupulous seller at a gun show. The loop hole will likely need to be closed. I agree that all gun transactions should require the back ground check(store purchase, gun show purchase, private purchase). It is simple, much like the 30 seconds it takes to determine if you can have a credit card or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Additionally, I can see expanding the vetting process to include an assessment of the prospective buyer's living situation to include identifying people who live at the residence and potentially have access to firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) DEFIB, people can easily get around the process by purchasing through a less than scrupulous seller at a gun show. The loop hole will likely need to be closed. As a lawful gun owner I agree there should be a more ernest effort to close loopholes although the criminal element will always find a way to break the law. This brings us to the question regarding wither or not we need more laws considering that criminals are not known as such for their strict adherence to the rules. Even this last this last guy from Newtown, I will not right his name but will refer to him as "goober smooch" from now on, committed a crime to take possession of the weapons used in the school shooting. Additionally, I can see expanding the vetting process to include an assessment of the prospective buyer's living situation to include identifying people who live at the residence and potentially have access to firearms. This is an interesting concept that I am not sure can ever happen. How could the government make a person responsible for the uncommitted actions of a person they live with, considering that they are not their legal guardians? Even with guardianship it would seem to be a legal nightmare to propose and even more so to get it passed. EDIT: Makes me think of Edited December 22, 2012 by DFIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chbare Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Regarding the first point, when looking at mass shootings specifically, legally obtained weapons often play a role. Regarding your second point, I'm not sure it's too much to ask about people who have mental problems and such living in the same area where weapons will exist. Could such a process have prevented the recent tragedy? I'm not sure, but it could be parted of a larger process aimed at dealing with mental illness in the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Regarding the first point, when looking at mass shootings specifically, legally obtained weapons often play a role. Regarding your second point, I'm not sure it's too much to ask about people who have mental problems and such living in the same area where weapons will exist. Could such a process have prevented the recent tragedy? I'm not sure, but it could be parted of a larger process aimed at dealing with mental illness in the United States. The problem with criminals is that they are only proven to be such after the commission of a crime. The process is going to be interesting to watch for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts