State-by-State Gun Laws

[Oldgator73]

Haven't had a problem in my neck of the woods, for the last 30 years. Me and most of my neighbors are legal gun owners most of which own dogs as well. Haven't had a break in, robbery or shooting in the whole time.

We’ve only lived here ten years. Got a dog that doesn’t bark and no guns. No break ins either.

 

[Skookum]

And that is the problem. Make all guns illegal and as many people who want guns will find a way to get them. Just as with street drugs.

Guns and ammo have even been made in prisons:
View attachment 172254

You did use the word "can". Did you mean "may"? Ever purchase a new gun to see the type of BS you need to go through there in WA state?

While anybody can own a gun, not everybody may own or carry a gun. Far from it.

1. Who in this thread proposed all guns should be illegal?

2. The purchase process in WA state is not onerous or what I’d call “BS”.

3. You may want to do your own research on gun violence where ownership is strongly and uniformly regulated. Just like opponents of socialized medicine would have you believe Canadians are dying in the streets by the millions, which isn’t true, 2A purists would have you believe without access to AR-style rifles people wouldn’t be able to stop violence in the streets.

IMAO, the NRA is a Fudd Club. Hopefully they go away so the GOA can get more powerful.

NRA: Negotiate Rights Away.

-Don- Reno, NV

Yes, we do agree on something. Hopefully the NRA falls apart.

 

[DonTom]

Who in this thread proposed all guns should be illegal?

I never made such a claim. Only that more gun control is not the answer no matter how strict you make it.

The purchase process in WA state is not onerous or what I’d call “BS”.

Have you done such? I have even put up with the CA BS. Takes most of the day (in many, if not most cases) and then need to come back ten days later.

BTW, I am one of the very few people who may legally buy guns in two states--and have. NV & CA.

2A purists would have you believe without access to AR-style rifles people wouldn’t be able to stop violence in the streets.

That's the first time I heard that one.

You may want to do your own research on gun violence where ownership is strongly and uniformly regulated.

I have. CA is the MOST regulated of all 50 states. Still has its share of gun related murders and such, even though in CA only 14% own guns. 66% own guns in Montana. 9.1% in Hawaii.

46% in the USA own guns. More guns than people, but only because people many people, such as myself, own many guns. But less than 50% of the USA population own even one gun.

So what did you want me to research? Of course, they have the most gun laws where they have the smallest percentage who own guns, such as in CA and Hawaii. Easier to pass such laws where they are not needed much.

There is no evidence of any gun control law saving even one life. But there is a lot of evidence that gun control laws have gotten innocent people killed.

Example.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

I never made such a claim. Only that more gun control is not the answer no matter how strict you make it.

We can both agree that is your opinion, which isn’t supported by the existence of countries with much stricter gun legislation.

Have you done such? I have even put up with the CA BS. Takes most of the day (in many, if not most cases) and then need to come back ten days later.

Yes, I have, multiple occasions. It did not take most of the day on any occasion. WA recently instituted a 10-day waiting period, which I happen to support. As well as requiring proof of completion of an approved firearms safety course within the last 5 years; law enforcement and military are exempt.

BTW, I am one of the very few people who may legally buy guns in two states--and have. NV & CA.


That's the first time I heard that one.


I have. CA is the MOST regulated of all 50 states. Still has its share of gun related murders and such, even though in CA only 14% own guns. 66% own guns in Montana. 9.1% in Hawaii.

46% in the USA own guns. More guns than people, but only because people many people, such as myself, own many guns. But less than 50% of the USA population own even one gun.

So what did you want me to research? Of course, they have the most gun laws where they have the smallest percentage who own guns, such as in CA and Hawaii. Easier to pass such laws where they are not needed much.

There is no evidence of any gun control law saving even one life. But there is a lot of evidence that gun control laws have gotten innocent people killed.

Example.

-Don- Reno, NV

Don, I enjoy your perspective on a lot of things but strongly disagree with you here. The nihilist approach to gun legislation is ultimately the mindset which gives berth to the far left to be the ones forcing gun legislation and largely the only ones at the table writing the laws. No gun owner wants that.

 

[Babe2201]

Well, Babe, you know I'm data-driven. I'd say a lot of places outside the US where you can't buy a semi-automatic weapon at a grocery store provide the data on increased safety from gun violence, don't you?

Seeing how you are so "data-driven" you must know just how many semi automatic weapons are legally bought in grocery stores across the U.S.. Also using your logic the data on gun ownership would make our country the most dangerous country to live in. Do you think that is true?

 

[Babe2201]

That is an oxymoronic statement. No such thing in the USA, not anywhere AFAIK. A "crazed maniac" cannot legally buy or use guns.

-Don- Reno, NV

As much as I wish this was true sometimes they don't find out someone is a nut case until it is too late. What some forget though is that there are measures already in place to ensure that once it is known they can't legally purchase a firearm. Another problem is that sometimes acts that would make it illegal for someone to purchase a firearm are not reported. One of the more recent school shootings was committed by someone that his prior actions would have shown up on a background check and made it so he could not have purchased the firearm legally but because the school felt it would have been a black eye on the school they did not report it. I wonder if the shooting was more of a black eye for the school.

If laws restricting firearms worked there would never be a shooting in a gun free zone which we know is not the truth.

 

[Skookum]

Seeing how you are so "data-driven" you must know just how many semi automatic weapons are legally bought in grocery stores across the U.S.. Also using your logic the data on gun ownership would make our country the most dangerous country to live in. Do you think that is true?

Walmart is a grocery store and Walmart long sold semi-automatic weapons and pistols in its stores and still does in some locations. However, the corporation started changing its practices in recent years, IMO, for the better. But many locations still sell rifles and ammunition.

And yes, by so many measures of comparison to other wealthy industrialized nations, the US tops gun violence. You are welcome to do your own research.

 

[Babe2201]

Walmart is a grocery store and Walmart long sold semi-automatic weapons and pistols in its stores and still does in some locations. However, the corporation started changing its practices in recent years, IMO, for the better. But many locations still sell rifles and ammunition.

And yes, by so many measures of comparison to other wealthy industrialized nations, the US tops gun violence. You are welcome to do your own research.

They still have FFL and have to do background checks like gun stores do.

I guess violence is only committed with guns right? Are violent crimes ever stopped by citizens with a firearm?

 

[DonTom]

As much as I wish this was true sometimes they don't find out someone is a nut case until it is too late. What some forget though is that there are measures already in place to ensure that once it is known they can't legally purchase a firearm. Another problem is that sometimes acts that would make it illegal for someone to purchase a firearm are not reported. One of the more recent school shootings was committed by someone that his prior actions would have shown up on a background check and made it so he could not have purchased the firearm legally but because the school felt it would have been a black eye on the school they did not report it. I wonder if the shooting was more of a black eye for the school.

If laws restricting firearms worked there would never be a shooting in a gun free zone which we know is not the truth.

I was only saying it's illegal for a nutcase to be around guns. I didn't say they would get caught or be known to be a nutcase.

There are no laws that work perfectly, but some do not work at all. IMO, anybody can get a gun, legal or not. Just as with illegal street drugs.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

the US tops gun violence.

Gun are harmless until people are involved. So it's really people violence. People who are dangerous with a gun can be very dangerous even without a gun.

There was no gun used here and it's the largest mass murder in the USA.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

I enjoy your perspective on a lot of things but strongly disagree with you here.

You have a right to be as wrong as you wish.

IYO, what more should be done to prevent the misuse of firearms in a country which has more guns than people?

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

IMO, for the better.

What good did that do?

Are there any Wal*Marts in locations where somebody cannot buy their AR-15s within 20 miles or so?

The AR-15 is the most sold rifle in the USA and has been for many years. It should be expected to be the most used rifle, for just about everywhere for anything.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

They still have FFL and have to do background checks like gun stores do.

I guess violence is only committed with guns right? Are violent crimes ever stopped by citizens with a firearm?

Yes, FFL's for sellers and background checks for buyers, like how many of the shooters involved in the following list of mass shootings did. Although not all - some guns were purchased through private sale which requires neither FFL or a background check. Another failure of patchwork-style, state-by-state gun laws and lax regulation.

22 mass shootings. 374 dead. Here's where the guns came from

The suspects in the shootings at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school and a Buffalo, New York, supermarket were both just 18 when authorities say they bought the weapons used in the attacks.

apnews.com

Violence of all types is committed in the US and gun violence stands out measurably. Nobody in this discussion is saying there isn't a derivative right to safety by being able to defend oneself from a firearm. I, however, assert there is a problem with lax regulation. And the patchwork legislation state-by-state doesn't serve legal, law-abiding (and non-crazy) gun owners. Common-sense regulation is too often derailed by populism and politics.

You have a right to be as wrong as you wish.

IYO, what more should be done to prevent the misuse of firearms in a country which has more guns than people?

-Don- Reno, NV

You'd better fire up that grill, Don, the facts about gun violence and gun safety are not on your side. If you want to know what I support to prevent misuse and shore up regulation, look at so many of the measures that have taken so much effort to pass, which I consider are completely reasonable. Waiting periods. Safety course completion. Liability insurance - which is even pushed by pro-gun advocates. Background checks for all sales. Red flag/extreme risk laws for vulnerable and mentally-unstable people.

And, in recent headlines, holding parents accountable for their minor demon-spawn who commit crimes with guns. It's about time.

 

[DonTom]

The nihilist approach to gun legislation is ultimately the mindset which gives berth to the far left to be the ones forcing gun legislation and largely the only ones at the table writing the laws.

That is what sells the most guns. Check to see who the "best gun salesman" in America have been.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

That is what sells the most guns. Check to see who the "best gun salesman" in America have been.

-Don- Reno, NV

Fear, by no other name.

 

[DonTom]

Background checks for all sales.

UBCs are the main cause of this. See your own state. UBCs by design are to harass the legal gun owners only. Do you think a gangbanger who sells his own guns to a drug dealer will bother with the UBC?

 

[Skookum]

UBCs are the main cause of this. See your own state. UBCs by designt are to harass the legal gun owners only. Do you think a gangbanger who sells his own guns to a drug dealer will bother with the UBC?

View attachment 172257

Nope, and a reasonable gun owner has no problem passing a background check and realizes it creates additional legal jeopardy for those who don't. It does screen out a lot of people who really shouldn't own a gun who aren't drug dealers. Of course someone operating outside of the law isn't going to obtain a background check.

 

[DonTom]

Nope, and a reasonable gun owner has no problem passing a background check and realizes it creates additional legal jeopardy for those who don't. It does screen out a lot of people who really shouldn't own a gun who aren't drug dealers. Of course someone operating outside of the law isn't going to obtain a background check.

Do you even know the difference between a UBC and a normal BGC?

I have no issue at all with the normal BGC, but I am NOT convinced they do any good. Besides the fact that with most who do NOT pass it, it has nothing at all to do with violence of any type.

One case I recall is a young stupid woman who showed a cop a phony insurance ID card at a traffic stop. That is a felony. 30 years later, she discovered she could not buy a gun for life because of that.

Those who really want a gun will find a way to get one if they pass a BGC or not.

But the UBCs only go after the good guys as the bad guys laugh at such. No wonder we now have so many 2A sanctuary areas in the USA.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

Do you even know the difference between a UBC and a normal BGC?

I have no issue at all with the normal BGC, but I am NOT convinced they do any good. Besides the fact that with most who do NOT pass it, it has nothing at all to do with violence of any type.

One case I recall is a young stupid woman who showed a cop a phony insurance ID card at a traffic stop. That is a felony. 30 years later, she discovered she could not buy a gun for life because of that.

Those who really want a gun will find a way to get one if they pass a BGC or not.

But the UBCs only go after the good guys as the bad guys laugh at such. No wonder we now have so many 2A sanctuary areas in the USA.

-Don- Reno, NV

And you are welcome to your opinions, wrong as you may be.

Evidence-based policies for preventing gun violence are moving forward whether you or anyone else likes it or not, this will become the law of the land. I'd suggest pulling up a chair to the table where policy is made if you're that concerned. I've shared my opinion, which you are free to discard, and I will freely discard yours, as I do not agree. But I am certain the responsible gun owners have this both from a philosophical and legal perspective, while upholding the intent of the 2A as it applies to our modern nation.

 

[Babe2201]

Nope, and a reasonable gun owner has no problem passing a background check and realizes it creates additional legal jeopardy for those who don't. It does screen out a lot of people who really shouldn't own a gun who aren't drug dealers. Of course someone operating outside of the law isn't going to obtain a background check.

That last sentence negates a lot of your arguments. Background checks do not help when people lie on them.