A question for the gun owners in the states.

As someone from the uk, i'm fascinated by the whole gun culture in the states, since we just don't have that here... I can totally understand why there's such a strong attachment to the right to have a gun. Right to protect your family etc, fair enough... But anyways, here's the question...

There's always lots of press about resistance to any kind of legislation that restricts gun ownership but...

If every gun that was sold had its rifling on file (you know the mark it makes on a bullet) and when anyone sold the gun they had to let the authorities know who it was sold too, would that really be such a bad thing? Surely that would go a long long way towards stopping illegal sales, make solving murders easier, etc. Why would anyone resist this?

This isn't a loaded question, (although I do think that would be a very good idea) just want to get some opinions from people in the states who do come from that culture and would probably know more about the whole subject.

If you are trying to buy guns, please send me a pm. Thanks.

nyc long gun registration requires a permit application, fingerprint and spent casing. pistol permits require a sit down interview at the local precinct as well.

fair nuff. As I said, I know sod all about this subject. Just started thinking about it cause i always see cop shows from the states where people are goin on about some suspect who owns a similar calibre gun. Always think, if they had the rifling on file they could just go nick the fucker.

also, is spent casing as good as rifling? If not, then what the fuck? How did someone argue that?

an once again, why is rifling not on file... Any clever killer can just pick up a spent cartridge, but it's a lot harder to go dig a bullet out of someone...

I really don't know anything about ballistic forensics

thankfully for us brits we don't need to worry about this while we all stab each other in anonymity

No right to bear arms = freedom hating country

gawd bless murca

mr aize said:

an once again, why is rifling not on file... Any clever killer can just pick up a spent cartridge, but it's a lot harder to go dig a bullet out of someone...

Click to expand...

From what I've read, the Ballistics database is useless.

I don't think the rifling woud a whole lot of good. Mind you I'm not an expert on the subject or such so I could be well wrong. It just seems from what experience I've had is that the projectile gets so distorted with impact or even destroyed that it would not help much. Now I'm sure with super expensive equipment they could look at it and put it all right but most places don't have access to stuff like that.

You can rebore a rifle easily.. and the rifling very gradually changes over time as the gun is fired (friction between projectile and barrel)

The world is lead to believe that it's "easy" to get a gun stateside and it really isn't. There are a few cracks in the system but the fact remains that all the proposedgun legislation does is turn legal, gun owning citizens into criminals.

The system is also setup to discourage or impede your right to gun ownership. As a very close friend, who happens to be an officer, told me: "They'd take our guns away if they could." That really shocked me as he's not a gun nut or even conservative. Scary stuff if you think about it.

There isn't a gun problem in america as much as there is a mental health problem and an insurance problem. Guns are an easy target instead of tackling the fact that mental health issues are stigmatized and for those seeking treatment... insurance doesn't want to pay and they wash out.

Spree shootings, homelessness, many addictions, etc... almost always have a root in undiagnosed or mistreated mental health conditions.

I'll attempt to give an honest answer without any bullshit prejudiced by the fact that you are in the UK and I think this is a very large cultural divide on the issue.

As a note, I do not actually own any firearms. I am extremely supportive of a very strict reading of the second amendment (to the point that I even disagree with the need to enumerate the right to own firearms, but that's a separate thread).

To start with, the presumption that the right to bear arms is important to "protect my family" is incorrect. The idea behind an armed population is to act as a check on government power. The men (no girls allowed) that were the major federalist players in the drafting of the Constitution had just been a part of a lengthy, costly war to achieve independence from what they deemed to be a tyrannical government. Without an armed population, what good does the Declaration of Independence do?

So, protecting oneself, or one's family, or even providing food via hunting was (in my opinion) not at the forefront of the reasons that the second amendment exists. It exists to protect the people from its government.

To go further, this is the reason I oppose any so called 'reasonable' restrictions on gun owners. A gun to me is no different than a fork. It is a piece of property and a tool which, as long as I don't commit crimes with it, should not subject me just by mere ownership to government intrusion such as regulations, registrations, and permanent logs of my ownership.

I would admit that my perception of the second amendment may not make my country safer, but it would make it more free (free-er?). Ultimately, that is the only metric by which I measure our laws. The government does not exist to protect me.

[insert Shroom 'murca post here with a picture of a crying bald eagle]

mr aize said:

an once again, why is rifling not on file... Any clever killer can just pick up a spent cartridge, but it's a lot harder to go dig a bullet out of someone...

Click to expand...

Because this isn't CSI. They aren't going to be able to match a bullet to a particular gun in most cases. Especially with hollow points or frangible ammunition.

It's also easy to change the barrel on many firearms and in the USA barrels are not the controlled/regulated part of the firearm.

And what of smoothbore long guns and shotguns?

Any politician who attempted to create a national firearm registry of any time would simply find themselves unelected.

Also; throwaway guns. Buy cheap gun illegally, use hollowpoints, commit some murders, throw gun in the trash or just leave it there. You already defaced the serial number beyond recognition and didn't leave fingerprints, so what now? Let's say the figure out who originally bought the gun - it's changed hands so many times that it's impossible to find out who the last person was to use it.

Criminals will always find a way.

The 3-part piece about Australia The Daily Show did a month or so ago pretty much says it all. "Criminals will always find a way" is an excuse. It treats America like another planet. Maybe it is impossible to restrict guns to the extent they are restricted in most first world nations right now, but we have to start somewhere. The second Ammendment was about forming a "militia" and has been grossly misapplied.

Most people who have lived overseas have had a hard time justifying America's stance on this subject. Healthcare is the other big one.

God, Guns, an Merica - the real holy trinity

Neo Alec said:

The second Ammendment was about forming a "militia" and has been grossly misapplied.

Click to expand...

There are educated arguments for some certain types of checks on gun ownership, this is not one of them. I suggest you go and read the text of the amendment.

On a side note, I was kind of sad at how easy it was to find lots and lots of pictures of Jesus with a gun.

Neo Alec said:

The second Ammendment was about forming a "militia" and has been grossly misapplied.

Click to expand...

False. Militia is merely the example used in the preamble for the clause, but not the limitation for applying the amendment. The line of thinking in your argument has only held water for a brief moment in California, before the Supreme Court overturned it as horse shit.

I wish the Supreme Court could overturn the state of California.

Edit: I have always like how the ruling for US v. Kruikshank reads from Wikipedia:

Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

The Constitution does not grant any rights.

mr aize said:

an once again, why is rifling not on file... Any clever killer can just pick up a spent cartridge, but it's a lot harder to go dig a bullet out of someone...

Click to expand...

that's simply not an exact science. It would make more sense to make bullets that actually carry DNA. For example, if we only had guns that shot out bees, then you could at least get a dna sample from the bees and trace that back to the purchaser.

mr aize said:

As someone from the uk, i'm fascinated by the whole gun culture in the states...

Click to expand...

some of us in the US are just as fascinated by the gun people...

lithy said:

I wish the Supreme Court could overturn the state of California.

Click to expand...

We have cases on the 2A waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting to get up the judicial chain to eventually get to SCOTUS where only the most intellectually dishonest justice would vote in favor of California's absurd interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.

But it's only been five years since SCOTUS laid the smack down on the absurd "collective rights" interpretation of the second amendment that some sought to push for in their not-so-veiled attempts to ban firearms.

The idea that any right is one held by the collective, rather than the individual, is absurd.

Neo Alec said:

The 3-part piece about Australia The Daily Show did a month or so ago pretty much says it all. "Criminals will always find a way" is an excuse. It treats America like another planet. Maybe it is impossible to restrict guns to the extent they are restricted in most first world nations right now, but we have to start somewhere. The second Ammendment was about forming a "militia" and has been grossly misapplied.

Most people who have lived overseas have had a hard time justifying America's stance on this subject. Healthcare is the other big one.

Click to expand...

This is the part that the gun people ignore. 2nd amendment was written in a different time and for a different purpose. It's gets distorted like christians do with the bible.


but this is leading into a debate, which i really dont know how to address.

so you would address the "gun people" how exactly?