Gun ownership in this day and age

[GKMotley]

Mostly, ammo stored in armories, with a significant exception for what I guess would be quick response individuals. This is a change from what we heard, over the years, when there was a minimum of military ammo, sealed, in the house of each military member, along with the personal weapon. Or so I hear these days.

Machine guns?

Bazooka, etc; I doubt it. But perhaps a hyperbolic statement. I don’t think I want a crew served weapon, anyway. More of an individualist.

 

[vz71]

If you care, what do you suggest we should do about it?

Do about what exactly?

You should define a problem before attempting to come up with a solution.

 

[tafan2]

Yeah, I could get with that. I’m surprised that you can.

Ok, I did not think this thread would lead to any real agreement on increased gun laws, but I see I was wrong. Lets see where we stand:

• Before purchasing any weapon, a purchaser must obtain a weapons aquisition license from the government and present it to the seller.
• For any private gun sell, a contract must be signed by both parties with all pertinent info and sent to the government within 30 days so the gun ownership registry can be updated.
• When purchasing ammo a purchaser must present, in addition to government ID a police obtained background check not older than 3 months
• Does not apply to single shot and multi-barrel hunting rifles and designated bolt action sporting rifles
• cannot carry a weapon without a permit which is only issued typically to people who in security occupations
• You can carry a weapon if you have a hunting permit and are carrying for hunting or if you are participating in a shooting event
• You can transport an unloaded gun with ammo separated gun and unloaded magazine and have a
  valid reason for transport and are travelling the shortest reasonable route to destination

Oh, and as to that idea of buying low-grade military artillery: all ammunition is strictly prohibited.

Its is really good to know we have reached a compromise.

 

[vz71]

Guilty of WHAT?

I do not know.
It is your proposal to punish people until they pass a test. What exactly are you punishing people for?

 

[vz71]

You could go back to the post submitted. But I will copy it here:

You don’t care about the gun related violence, and how to prevent it .

You wish to prevent violence committed with a firearm?

 

[vz71]

A punishment would be to confiscate the weapons totally. A short waiting period is only a minor inconvenience.

I do not believe you understand fully your proposal.

You propose to take (I assume by force if necessary) weapons away from people that have broken no laws and obtained the weapon properly.
And somehow you do not believe this is punitive in nature.
You then propose that these people, that have broken no laws and have legally obtained their weapon, must pass a test to get their property back.
And somehow you do not see this as an assumption of guilt until this test proves innocence.

 

[vz71]

You wish to prevent violence committed with a firearm?

You cannot prevent it.

You should review what exactly the problem to be solved is.

 

[Brendan]

Mostly, ammo stored in armories, with a significant exception for what I guess would be quick response individuals. This is a change from what we heard, over the years, when there was a minimum of military ammo, sealed, in the house of each military member, along with the personal weapon. Or so I hear these days.

Machine guns?

In regards to Swiss gun laws, you are correct. the person is given sealed ammunition along with their assault rifle ( technically not a machine gun, as an assault rifle is selective fire, while a machine gun is full auto only). That set of ammo is to be considered government property, and is not to be used for personal practice.

But the person can purchase any amount of ammo for their assigned assault rifle that they want, and are encouraged to do so.

 

[Brendan]

what about the black market? I can go downtown and pickup a cheap Saturday night special for about a $100. It is old and worn but it will do the job in close range. If I want the top of the line I can custom order a semi auto pistol with red-dot and flashlight for $3-4k built from scratch in a local garage. Look on line for uppers and lowers and see what’s available

Not only that, but an open bolt submachine gun is so easy to build, it is trivial. Anyone who took basic metal shop in high school and has access to a good junkyard for steel and a Lowes or Home Depot for tools can built one in their garage!

I have build several flintlocks from scratch, all of which were more difficult to build than a submachine gun would have been.

The British developed the Sten submachine gun to be built in garage shops across the UK. It was so easy to build that the Zionists in Post WW-II Palestine had a shop set up to build them in the basement of a laundry. A laundry that served the British officers who were responsible for ensuring that the various parties did not get arms

Here are some plans for the Sten, if anyone is interested, adjusted for parts ( such as springs) that are commonly available at Lowes. The steel you can get as old auto parts from your local junk yard.

https://thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/Stengunplans.pdf

Given the prevalence of meth labs ( which requires heavily regulated materials and some good chemical knowledge ), how hard would it be for a criminal who is somewhat handy to set up a shop making these?

 

[tafan2]

This is no longer correct. The army no longer leaves the person with 50 rounds of ammo. If a person leaving military service wishes to retain his weapon, he must obtain a weapons permit just as if he was purchasing the gun from a dealer. All previous issued ammo has been required to be returned to the military.

 

[GKMotley]

My understanding is that the current practice is for selected military to continue to have the issued sealed ammo (50 rounds?) in the home. Selected meaning in the low thousands. The rest have their ammo at the armories. If this is incorrect, I will adjust my assertions.

Yes, that is the distinction of between AR and MG. I had guessed that the ability to buy additional ammo for issued weapon was in effect. But didn’t know it.

 

[GKMotley]

I state my understanding of the situation above. Definitive corrections will be absorbed.

 

[tafan2]

Fair enough, I should have posted the wiki link before for both you and @neophyte

Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apologies to all concerned.

 

[vz71]

It is you don’t understand the proposition. REAL law-abiding citizens would gladly obey the law, and would have no problem with submitting their guns to have their serial numbers to be entered into a national database, and have the test-firing results recorded, to help the effort of police to track the gun and its use. That is what REAL law-abiding citizens would do.

The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is the first problem here.

Second, you assume serial number and purchaser has not already been recorded during the sale (they are).

Third, test fire results do not provide accurate data for law enforcement.

Fourth, where is the test from your original proposal? Did you finally agree that it is an infringement upon a person’s rights?

Based upon your responses, I do not believe you have ever purchased a weapon or are familiar with how firearms work.
Would this be an accurate assessment?

 

[vz71]

How do you know that everyone has legally obtained that weapon.

Because criminals do not obey laws.
It is unreasonable to expect a criminal to voluntarily turn over their illegally obtained weapon.

Unless you propose further tactics to make sure to get these weapons…perhaps a house by house search and seizure operation?

 

[Ender]

It is not unconstitutional. The constitution says nothing about “temporarily” suspending the rights to have firearms.

There is nothing constitutional about suspending a constitutional right, however “temporarily”. One can only imagine what would happen if the government tried to confiscate all guns “temporarily”. I doubt even leftists trust the feds enough to believe they would ever get them back.

 

[upant]

Before purchasing any weapon, a purchaser must obtain a weapons aquisition license from the government and present it to the seller.

isn’t this the same as a background check? why do you need more?

For any private gun sell, a contract must be signed by both parties with all pertinent info and sent to the government within 30 days so the gun ownership registry can be updated.

how do you enforce it if the parties don’t want to? no one knows about it, hence the term private, hence the term feel-good.

When purchasing ammo a purchaser must present, in addition to government ID a police obtained background check not older than 3 months

why a police-check? why not NICS? you just really don’t want guns at all with these restrictions.

a nice black market item here, just like loosies (single cigarettes in high tax states).

cannot carry a weapon without a permit which is only issued typically to people who in security occupations

so the rest of us have no right to self-defense.

Oh, and as to that idea of buying low-grade military artillery: all ammunition is strictly prohibited.

what is this in your opinion?

Guilty of WHAT?

then why turn in the gun if they aren’t guilty of anything

rights are NOT absolute

rights are God-given and absolute.

REAL law-abiding citizens would gladly obey the law,

no, many would not. from new york’s safe act,

That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent.

they would not even register them. just 4%, this was after sandy hook when you would think there would be many who would at least register them.

 

[vz71]

Maybe I am a drooling idiot…

Not at all.
I just so not think you have thought through the proposal completely.
For instance, law abiding citizens will follow the law. But that is not the target.
You are after criminals. And how exactly do you propose to get criminals to turn I their weapons?
Criminals still skate through unimpeded unless the government goes out to get the weapons. So you now have a problem of determining where illegal weapons are.
And a problem securing proper search warrants. Etc.

 

[GKMotley]

No apology needed.

As to my point on ammo in the home, it saith…

“Prior to 2007, members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly.
In December 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers would stop and that previously issued ammo would be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.”[2][20][21]

Hurrah for me.

 

[tafan2]

@upant , I was describing the key parts of gun control laws in Switzerland, which @neophyte said he would agree to. Others have also pointed to Switzerland when arguing against various gun control proposals for the USA. So it seemed like a good idea to list them.

isn’t this the same as a background check? why do you need more?

Obtaining it is a background check, although the record of the sale is them kept in a gun registry by the government.

how do you enforce it if the parties don’t want to? no one knows about it, hence the term private, hence the term feel-good.

All laws present enforcement problems for those who done want to follow them. But there would be penalties involved if one was violate the law. And I would point out, the seller would rarely have any interest in not reporting the sale, as that gun would for ever be linked to him.

why a police-check? why not NICS? you just really don’t want guns at all with these restrictions.

a nice black market item here, just like loosies (single cigarettes in high tax states).

Again, Switzerland relies on their police, we could choose a different law enforcement branch. It would seem more effective if it was the local police, IMO. They should have access to all of the information and it would be less bureaucratic. As to a black market? Again, that will always be an issue, but black marketers do need suppliers, which helps to some extent to enforce the laws. I had not thought of such restrictions on all ammo sales, but since we were starting from the Swiss model, I figured we should be complete on the description.

so the rest of us have no right to self-defense.

Not in Switzerland you would not. I am rather undecided on this issue, in general I support a person’s ability to carry a weapon for self-defense.