How can we regulate guns ... ?

In Illinois, we have the FOID card: The requirements are not having been convicted of a felony, and not having been incarcerated in a mental institution. Its maintained by the State Police.But despite it, Chicago still has really high gun crime.

And gun crime rates in those states have remained relatively low...

I think the FOID card was in response to high gun crime rates in the Chicago area. That's because most people don't live in Chicago and aren't criminals. But Chicago still remains high in gun crime despite the law that was a response to it. The law failed to do its job.And I think it sucks that the whole rest of the state has to put up with this stupid card because of all the criminals in one city. I don't think that's right. I got mine in 2009 and it expires this year, i.e. it is valid for 5 years. I guess. I was just providing an example of a ""Background has been checked" document." If our country's guarded borders can't keep drugs out, then why should I expect they'd keep guns out? How would this being national make it too difficult for people to by-pass? Keep in mind we're already knee-deep in guns here.

Have you abandoned the idea that a background check document like the FOID card would be too difficult to by-pass if its done at the national level? Heh, the biggest reason people I know are buying guns is in response to a perceived increase in gun control legislation; 'Get 'em while you can'.The gun I'm saving up to buy is going to be for recreational use. Why do you ask?

That's not gun regulation...Gun regulation simply does not provide a solution to the problem.But we can discuss it anyways:

quote:

---

Regulation Proposal #1 owner licenses

​

Pass a federal regulation that all gun owners must be licensed by each state, with photo ID, fingerprints and a DNA sample, and documentation that they have been trained in proper gun use, with separate training document for every gun owned.
Records to be kept by the FBI and would searchable with their other data bases to track criminals.

​

Fees for the licenses to be sufficient to cover the costs of issuing and recording the licenses.

---

I don't think we should entrust the federal govenment with all that personal infomation. With the kind of shit they pull on us, like the Patriot Act, we just can't trust them with it.

quote:

---

Regulation Proposal #2 -- gun registration

​

Pass a federal regulation that all guns must be registered in every state, referenced to the owners gun license.

---

What about all the guns that people lie about having, or simply do not disclose the existence of?

quote:

---

Regulation proposal #4 -- gun transfers

​

Pass a federal regulation that a guns cannot change hands until the gun registration and new owner gun licenses are updated.

---

I don't see how you can police that. I bought my dad a gun for his birthday. I just handed to him. The serial number still points to me because we never bothered to write the transfer paperwork up.

quote:

---

Regulation proposal #5 -- 1 gun at a time

​

Pass a federal regulation that no more than 1 operational gun may be carried at any time and that no more than 5 bullets for that gun may be carried at any time.

---

I don't really have a problem with that in principle but I do think 5 bullets is a little low.But then, the guy who wants to go murder a bunch of people isn't being persuaded by the law in the first place, so I don't see how this will accomplish much of anything.Insurance and ammo tracking don't seem like bad ideas in principle.Honestly though, I think the best option is to increase the punishment for gun crimes. Eventually the criminal behavior could be weeded out.And if you're looking for increasing legislation, I have an idea:Make it a crime if your gun is used in a crime even if it wasn't you using it (even if its stolen).That should make the law-abiding people keep better tabs on their guns. It could also make them want to reduce the number of them they have, keep them locked up better, stuff like that.

There's 9 firearm events in the Summer Olympics. Its a legitamate recreation. And its incrediby fun.There's no good reason to label it childish, and even if it was, that's not good reason to ridicule someone for liking it.I still like playing video games, skateboarding, and building with Lego's. Are you gonna make fun of me for liking those things too?

Let's not. Just make your point and support it with evidence or link to where this has already been done.

I responded with a question and you've refused to answer it. Its not that hard to follow. Your response to my point that your "Background has been checked" document failed to reduce gun crime in Chicago included this:

quote:

---

And if you don't have state border guards, then there's nothing stopping people bringing in guns from out of state.
Gun legislation needs to be national else it is too easy for people to by-pass.

---

To which I replied asking how this document being national would prevent it from being by-passed.You avoided the question and focused on your failure to understand that guns-being-brought-in is a non-issue when there's already too many guns there to begin with. The fact that you're more interested in scoring points than reaching an understanding implies that your misunderstanding is intentional, but I'm not going to presume that it is.That people are still buying or selling them is irrelevant. Just answer the question.

Apparently your vision is faulty. We're not explaining my statement, you are avoiding my question. I know exactly what I meant and I've actually explained it multiple times now. You're maintaining your avoidance of answering the following question:How would a background-check-document like the FOID card be too difficult to by-pass if its done at the national level? Answered:

quote:

---

...guns-being-brought-in is a non-issue when there's already too many guns there to begin with.

---

. Its been explained. What are you having trouble with?Here's the question you're avoiding yet again:How would a background-check-document like the FOID card be too difficult to by-pass if its done at the national level?

I simply do not understand which statement I have not explained.

Duh. And in that case, fuck gun regulation. Social issues are a way better challenge to focus on. All this gun-focus is misguided. Fingerprints and DNA? Those I doubt. Couldn't that make the results negligible? Assuming the police know which gun was used in the crime... How long do you think it'd take? 100 years? But you can't bust people for "using drugs" like you can for "using guns", given that the goal of the gun-reduction necessitates somebody dying.

I agree. Would you try explaining to Panda why that matters? According to this UNICEF report (1.7 MB pdf) on child poverty, the United States is 2nd amoung developed countries. See the chart on page 5. The US has 23.1% of children "living in households with equivalent income lower than 50% of national median". Yup. I think your upbringing is really important to how you'll behave as an adult, so the child poverty thing is important, imho.

No, I've known which statement you've been talking about, I just don't see where I've failed to explain it.You replied to the message I explained it in and totally avoided the explanation to instead focus on continuing to try to score points.

We're talking about something like a national FOID card, or as Panda phrased it: "Background has been checked" documentPanda replied to my Message 341, where I said that the FOID card didn't work in Chicago, by him saying that guns could just have been brought in and it had to be on a national level to work. I replied asking how it being on a national level would make it work (he's never answered) and later explained that the fact that there are already lots of guns means that them being brought in didn't really matter anymore. He has since avoided anything but chopping up my posts to make it look like he's scoring debate points.I've alrady explained this all in Message 361. He replied to that message by repeating his charge as if I explained nothing.

Like how drugs being illegal prevents them from coming in across our boarder? His tone exposes his intentions. I explicitly stated that guns-being-brought-in is a non-issue when there's already too many guns there to begin with.He said it wasn't an explanation. I don't see how its hard to understand. But that's not what was proposed. He was offering a "Background has been checked" document to be requiredd for gun sales, not eliminating guns. That's essentially what a FOID card is, and it doesn't really work for the reasons you've explianed.It has never been explained how it could work. My question remains unanswered: How would it being national make it too difficult for people to by-pass?