The situation in CT.

[JeffTD]

I don't have time to fully respond just yet but how in the hell are you completely missing my point that less guns period = less illegal guns? You're willfully choosing to ignore that point as a basis for your argument; it's a pretty common thing with these gun debates.

Prohibition and weed being illegal have exactly nothing to do with gun control.

*edit*

Serious question: what are people hunting with handguns and AR15s? I'm not at all a hunter but that sounds like a weak, shitty, kinda cowardly way to hunt.

 

[Mutant]

1. Anyone who thinks he is safe because police will appear instantly after a call to 911 and arrest the criminal(s) trying to harm him, is an idiot - especially if he lives in some rural area. Google "average police response time" and tell me how many times a criminal can kill you and your family before the police arrives (you hear the door or window getting broken and someone entering your house, you reach for the phone and explain your situation and location to the dispatcher, only then you set an alarm clock to see how long 5 or 15 minutes can feel).

2. Anyone who thinks that a strict antigun law will disarm criminals, is an idiot. Even if it could, then it would still be a criminal armed with a knife vs you armed with... nothing.

3. Anyone who thinks that a properly stored gun in his house is an evil object that will whisper to him telepathically to make him murder someone and not just a tool for self defense and/or for sport and hunting, is an idiot.

You can't argue with idiots, so i will stop here.
I am 100% sure the above 3 arguments will NOT break through to the closed minds of people on the other side of this "war against guns".

 

[egan.]

What I think is interesting is that what you've taken from the thread is that anyone here --or even in the state of CT government-- is in favor of disarming everyone or thinks it's realistic. What I would ask is, what is the issue with asking gun purchasers to pass background checks, register new weapons and pass basic safety courses? These parameters are both effective and generally accepted with CCP's. Jeff is right, that this is about curbing the number of new guns entering the market and ultimately reducing the total number of weapons on the black market. Real life isn't Sons of Anarchy. The vast majority of illegally obtained firearms start their life as legally purchased weapons. I have zero issue with responsible adults of sound mind owning guns but in some states it's literally easier to buy a shotgun than a beer. It varies wildly state to state and in some cases city to city which completely undermines any statistics about the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of laws b/c you can just drive a couple of hours and "legally" sidestep the laws.

 

[Line666]

People hunt with handguns guy. They hunt with AR15s as well. Most of the people carrying them around legally in America aren't doing so in hopes they get to shoot someone.

I love the wholly inappropriate use of the term 'guy' to showcase your own sense of superiority on the subject, did you have to be a prat about it? I asked a question, and it was a fairly legitimate one - I live in the UK but in a sparsely populated area where a lot of landowners are registered to use and own rifles for hunting/sports and I don't see any of them complaining that they lack a close proximity weapon for blowing chunks out of game - usually because the animals not hanging around to wait for you to fire off a handgun. So what are people needing to carry them around for? Because if its protection from other people with handguns then that's a bit of an awkward catch 22.

Logic on this topic is so backwards I don't know where you would even begin - even your second amendment is flaky in the scope of it's jurisdiction - 'as part of a well regulated militia' - I'm imagining 35% of the populous doesn't constitute a well regulated militia in any sense of the term and the actual amendment wasn't made at a time when everyone could get their hands on an assault rifle or a handgun. The problem is really that it takes a long time to retroactively instigate regulations on an existing commodity to the extent where the impact of the issue is lessened. This, however, doesn't mitigate the fact that you have at least a third of the population carrying around implements which are mainly designed to kill people and without most having extensive background check that is slightly worrying - you don't get to drive a car without passing a test based on your ability to operate one safely - why should a potentially lethal weapon not operate on the same premise?

I'm not even anti-guns - I support the ownership of a firearm where there's actual practical use but it doesn't seem like a lot of folks in America even have one.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Serious question: what are people hunting with handguns and AR15s? I'm not at all a hunter but that sounds like a weak, shitty, kinda cowardly way to hunt.

AR15 chambered in it's normal .223 round is going to be mostly small game wild bore size and smaller because most hunters don't consider it to be a large enough round to ethically take down a deer/bear/moose. They are very popular for farmers to control bore populations in the south and are good for ground hogs as well. Both animals are considered pests and cause crop damage and harm livestock by leaving burros in the ground where large animals have fucked themselves up on. For whatever reason it isn't illegal to use on deer. I don't personally think it's a good round to take deer with, I think the min size round to use is 308, and 30-06 is even better. No need to make any animal suffer.

Handguns as hunting tools are mostly for the crowd that wants to make hunting more challenging, it's certainly not more me personally. In the case of handguns though I've met people who have gone deer hunting with a 44 magnum (the dirty harry gun) which is more than big enough of a round to take a deer. I imagine you would have to stay under 50 yards or your being a moron. Probably similar to bow and arrow in method.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I love the wholly inappropriate use of the term 'guy' to showcase your own sense of superiority on the subject, did you have to be a prat about it? I asked a question, and it was a fairly legitimate one

My apologies. I tend to get touchy on such things I suppose. I thought it was quite brash to take a group and lump/assume they are murderers which is how I took your question.

 

[Line666]

My apologies. I tend to get touchy on such things I suppose. I thought it was quite brash to take a group and lump/assume they are murderers which is how I took your question.

Sorry, my intention was to question the purpose of handguns in general - not the internal motives of their owners. It's possible to own one without the intent of actually harming someone but my point is that on a physical level that does seem to be the overriding purpose of a handguns existence.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

What I think is interesting is that what you've taken from the thread is that anyone here --or even in the state of CT government-- is in favor of disarming everyone or thinks it's realistic. What I would ask is, what is the issue with asking gun purchasers to pass background checks, register new weapons and pass basic safety courses? These parameters are both effective and generally accepted with CCP's. Jeff is right, that this is about curbing the number of new guns entering the market and ultimately reducing the total number of weapons on the black market. Real life isn't Sons of Anarchy. The vast majority of illegally obtained firearms start their life as legally purchased weapons. I have zero issue with responsible adults of sound mind owning guns but in some states it's literally easier to buy a shotgun than a beer. It varies wildly state to state and in some cases city to city which completely undermines any statistics about the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of laws b/c you can just drive a couple of hours and "legally" sidestep the laws.

Believe it or not I have no problem with UBRC's, I just don't agree with the fee they have imposed thus far on them and I didn't agree with the language of the bill they were trying to pass. I read the bill because it was so short but the biggest thing I didn't agree with was the loaning of firearms to friends and family. It basically said you were committing a crime if you borrowed a gun for more than a week. It also had no teeth without a registry no matter how many times the president said there would be no registry.

 

[JeffTD]

Why don't you agree with the fee? BRCs cost money to perform and it makes zero sense to charge the tax paying public for it. If you want a gun, that's your prerogative, but you're the one who should have to fit the bill for the safety checks on them.

 

[SocialNumb]

I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Why don't you agree with the fee? BRCs cost money to perform and it makes zero sense to charge the tax paying public for it. If you want a gun, that's your prerogative, but you're the one who should have to fit the bill for the safety checks on them.

Because they are excessive. It would be one thing if it was 10% but it's not. I was going to transfer a firearm to my brother but decided a $50 fee wasn't worth it for a $100 22 rifle that runs $160 new. I've heard of some transfers being as high as $80.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

For those who say we should institute a registry I would ask how we are going to pay for it?

Canada did away with their long gun registry in 2011 and from what I have read it cost them 22 million a year and over a billion in 1995 to set up. They were only tracking roughly 8 million long guns. The FBI only has an estimate that we have over 200 million guns (this is thier estimate for all guns) privately owned in the USA.

 

[egan.]

For those who say we should institute a registry I would ask how we are going to pay for it?

Canada did away with their long gun registry in 2011 and from what I have read it cost them 22 million a year and over a billion in 1995 to set up. They were only tracking roughly 8 million long guns. The FBI only has an estimate that we have over 200 million guns (this is their estimate for all guns) privately owned in the USA.

There are 250 million registered cars in the US. How do we pay for that system? Fees and taxes imposed on registering party. The DMV systems offer an existing infrastructure.
I believe that requiring registration of all guns is unrealistic but rather this is a system which could roll out with new gun purchases, ownership transfer and voluntary registration.
While we're at it, store purchases and gun show purchases should have the same requirements.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

There are 250 million registered cars in the US. How do we pay for that system? Fees and taxes imposed on registering party. The DMV systems offer an existing infrastructure.
I believe that requiring registration of all guns is unrealistic but rather this is a system which could roll out with new gun purchases, ownership transfer and voluntary registration.
While we're at it, store purchases and gun show purchases should have the same requirements.

This isn't bad as an idea but if we are talking about percentages, guns don't cost as much as cars.

So I took a hypothetical 2014 car costing $26,000.00 purchased in CA (Santa Monica). Total registration fees for that car in that area is 10% or $2611.00 (this isn't made up, it's easy to look that info up).

If we take the same system for a firearm, and lets take what I would consider the average cost of $700 for a firearm and get the 10% fees for this registration system and we have an average of $70. $700 is probably even on the high side though to be honest.

There are considerably more cars than guns in America so I don't see how this system would fund a database. I could most definitely be off in this thinking but I'm not seeing it.

 

[egan.]

This isn't bad as an idea but if we are talking about percentages, guns don't cost as much as cars.

So I took a hypothetical 2014 car costing $26,000.00 purchased in CA (Santa Monica). Total registration fees for that car in that area is 10% or $2611.00 (this isn't made up, it's easy to look that info up).

I think you are combining sales/property/highway use tax with registration fees. It literally costs $69 to register a car in CA. I just did it last month FWIW.
Also, it's important to understand that any gun registration system wouldn't be a ground up build but simply the adding of a few columns to an existing database. Some states already have these parameters integrated for handgun registration and/or CCPs.

 

[JeffTD]

Similarly, I paid $89 last month to register my car. Because I was a month late on paying it.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I think you are combining sales/property/highway use tax with registration fees. It literally costs $69 to register a car in CA. I just did it last month FWIW.
Also, it's important to understand that any gun registration system wouldn't be a ground up build but simply the adding of a few columns to an existing database. Some states already have these parameters integrated for handgun registration and/or CCPs.

While nobody in NYS seems to want to state what the new database is costing (for registration of guns that fit the laws criteria of assault rifle). Initially it was reported to cost over $34 million. Later they said it could be done for a little less than 30 million.

I have no idea what it is costing the state to set up a BRC system for ammunition.

I personally would have rather they reduced cuts to OPWDD (over 90 million in the 2013 state budget) than institute the registry.

We did away with a database in NYS a while ago because it basically didn't do anything to solve crime and was considered a money pit (it was intended to link bullets to handguns). We used to have a bullet tracking database for handguns in NYS. It was done away with in 2011.

It was a $44 million dollar collection of useless information that didn't do anything to solve crimes.