SkyDekker

OK offers a 5 year and 10 year. I think you have to start with the 5, the you can renew with the 10 year. No clue how often, or if they run a check to see if there is a reason to revoke them. I'm trying to conjur up an idea of a gun permit, just not has difficult to get as a CCW (so people don't fight it and it passes in congress), where you can take a Saturday and pick up a free application at your favorite gun shop. Fill in all your info, stop by Walmart and get a $10 passport photo, then take that to the Sherrifs office and give them $15 to finger print you. Leave them you app, photo, prints, and something like a hunter safety course certificate (but just a gun safety class) and a nominal processing fee. They send it in to your state investigative branch (OSBI, or TBI or whatever) and a couple weeks later you get your card. Either a separate card or an authorization on your drivers license. The idea is to do this at a state level, but all held to the same federal standard. Some states will have to give a little (NY) and some will have to take a little (TX). When you buy a gun, rather than a paper application and phone in NICS check, scan your card. Just like your drivers license, any disqualifier will automatically put an electronic hold or revocation on your card. Also at random, Fish and Game officer can see you out hunting and spot check you by calling in your card and seeing if it comes back clear, or if you just spent the weekend in the loony bin and they didn't realize you had a legally obtain gun when you were released. this is excellent - lots of people putting forth a "permit to purchase" type of idea. I like the idea of a gun safety course requirement as part of the vetting. the only bother for me is it could be leveraged into a defacto registration. I prefer it to be a blind system - it gives the authorization status (yes or no), but doesn't reverse the info to tell the gov what I purchased. Once I'm cleared to buy, at that point, then my property is not anyone's business. If the idea behind concealed carry is that it is supposed to be for defence and maybe to help deter crime, then that right should come with responsibility. With that I mean, mandatory training and annual recertification. If you cannot pass that, you do not get to carry your guns around in public. Obviously none of that will curb the easy availability of guns, which is a major issue with regards to gun crime, but maybe it will help in the response to the crime.

This!

He was protecting his freedom fries.

Dan, not in reply to you directly, but for all: I have been wondering, what do those, whom think there should be absolutely no gun-free zones, think of the following scenario: Take the latest school shooting, but now put this in a scholl which is not a gun free zone. A shooting takes place in a class room and somebody responds, draws his weapon and standing in the door takes aim at the shooter inside the classroom. At that point, somebody turns the corner, hears the shots and sees somebody standing in the doorway shooting into a classroom. He draws his weapon and kills, what he thinks is the "bad guy" in the doorway shooting into the classroom. Should that second person now be charged with murder or manslaughter, or should he/she be cleared of any wrongdoing?

Sorry Wendy I do not agree with you I have no problem him coming on air to express sympathy to the families and offer any help he can But this President has a full and documented history of going knee jerk and political. First one I can remember? "That officer acted stupidly" Remember that one? He cant help himself Meh. He didn't fail to act on intelligence to stop the biggest terrorist attack on US soil, killing thousands. Then he also didn't use faulty intelligence to invade the wrong country, creating one of the worst organizations we have seen in a while. All in all I'll take Obama's mistakes over Bush's. I am sure you will disagree.

People keep saying that, but the murder rate was higher in the late sixties and all throughout the seventies in the US...not by much, but still.

Except nobody is suggesting that. But then it is hard to argue with somebody who enjoys a mass shooting or two per month. (of course, you didn't say that, but then that doesn't appear to be an issue for you)

Yes, it is very similar to the US. You would not at all be surprised when you actually went to visit the country and spent some time there.

a serious reply... The economic bailout of the 2008 financial crisis was not a bailout of big banks and Wall Street. It was an action to bailout and save the financial system in general. Yes, the remedy included saving many large financial institutions (who may have deserved to feel some pain), but there was no way around that. Saving the system had global implications, not just for the US. Yes, you can be too big to fail. The media have never really addressed and been open with the public as to just how close we came to some really bad outcomes and what those outcomes may have been. This would just be scaremongering of the general public, who don’t really have a grasp of how global financial markets function. The whole debacle was somewhat of a “perfect storm” financially. There were groups explicitly responsible across the board; not just big banks or Mom & Pops lying to get mortgages. Some of the worst offenders were actually in the middle; decision makers and board members of the largest pensions and insurance companies globally. Oddly, biggest fuel to the debacle wasn’t really greed. It was ignorance and laziness. Ignorance in the form of decision makers buying instruments they didn’t understand; Laziness in the form of wholly relying on credit ratings instead of real risk assessment and due diligence. PS: If you think you may not fully understand multi-tranche securitised asset-backed CLOs that include documentation exceeding 500 pages and would take a desk of quant analysts a week to price ... don’t feel bad, this crisis showed that many of the world’s financial professionals didn’t either. ' And yet many Republicans think that not regulating any of these very investment vehicles, or the market that trades them, is the best solution.

I know, changing an opinion is a major sign of weakness and should be avoided at all costs! Why is it that first world countries with strict gun laws have far less homocides with guns? Demographics. Can you explain?

The gun lobby's stance on smart gun technology makes it pretty clear that they have absolutely zero interest in reducing gun crime.

Always amazes me how many people listen to this guy and believe what he says. Hard to fathom there are THAT many stupid people.

Just go away....you add absolutely nothing to this forum and this place would be significantly better without you.

Merica, where guns are a right and health care a privilege.Gun ownership is a right. Healthcare is not. The best part is that you don't even see that as fucked up. You are proud of it. You think that is what makes the country great. smh

Merica, where guns are a right and health care a privilege.

And is still orders of magnitude higher than other 1st world countries. True, I agree. A bit hyperbolic, as that would mean at least 100x.

You remind me of that Iraq information minister during the first Iraq war. You post an article that clearly indicates that there is modest growth.....and a couple of hours later categorically state there is no recovery.

So the guns were legally purchased...

Shut up mpohl....

A symptom of what?

Very much agreed. Unfortunately cooperation and compromise are signs of weakness these days. Everything seems to get framed in an us vs. them type of argument.

Like in the 60s and 70s? Murder rate was higher then, than it is now, at least from the mid-sixties on.

That is not a counter, that is what I am saying. There is no significant difference in culture between Americans and Canadians. Gangs, drug trade and Mexican Cartels are certainly big factors in gun crime, but much smaller factors in innocent people dying. That leaves geographic location as the only reason why so many more innocent people get shot in the US? I find that hard to believe. So Washington D.C., the U.S. city with the highest rate of gun violence in the country, is a 100% gun free city. Absolutely no firearms of any type are permitted by civilians. There are no exceptions to this. You can be fully legal and in full compliance of VA state law with your pistol, but I'd you enter the district, you are committing a felony. This place, mind you, has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation. Now, Bumfuck, OK, is a place where open carry is allowed. You can go to the mall, get lunch, a new outfit, new watch, a pistol, ammo, and holster, and walk out the door with it loaded on your hip. Bumfuck, OK hasn't had a gun crime in 50 years, not since Ciecel caught Jethrow courting his wife one night. So if you make it illegal for Jo Bob in Bumfuck to own a gun, this will fix the violence problem in D.C. where guns have always been illegal? Nothing will fix the problem, there are options that over a long period of time will help reduce the violence problem.

That is not a counter, that is what I am saying. There is no significant difference in culture between Americans and Canadians. Gangs, drug trade and Mexican Cartels are certainly big factors in gun crime, but much smaller factors in innocent people dying. That leaves geographic location as the only reason why so many more innocent people get shot in the US? I find that hard to believe.

It is also important to note that 1st world countries with strict gun control have far less innocent people getting killed by guns. It is a lot easier to get a gun into a city than to get it into a country. The main reason gun crime in the US is so much higher than other 1st world countries is because of the easy availability of guns. There is nothing else that makes Americans significantly different from Canadian or Australians etc.