Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy

Once you include it's lobbying arm the NRA gets the majority of its funding from gun manufacturers. That is all it is, the gun makers lobbying group, and it's main goal is to sell as many guns as possible including making sure criminals get guns.

 

Add just one word..........put "anti" in front of gun nuts and I agree 100 percent with your sentiments.

 

He's right! Matter-of-fact they are so committed to criminals getting guns that they quite often put them in horse drawn carts and parade through
inner city neighborhoods, ringing a bell and gathering a crowd so they can hand out free guns. I can't believe nobody has noticed this before.
You other wordforge members need to get out more.

 

You can try to make light of that fact but every method imaginable which allows criminals to get guns the NRA brought about. Every attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals the NRA opposes. 80% of NRA members support universal background checks but the members don't matter, the money all comes from gun makers so they call the shots not the members.

Gun makers know that around 1/4th to 1/3rd of their gun sales are to criminals but gun makers want those sales plus the more criminals with guns are running around the more they can tell noncriminals "you need to buy a gun from one of our manufacturers".

 

Find one example of the gun control groups trying to block scientific and fact based research or prevent researchers from getting access to data. Until then you are full of shit.

 

"I like it" or "I like them" is the rationale for people in western nations owning about 90% of the things they own.

 

I said developed by the NRA. Administered by the FFL that handles the transaction. None of Demi's post negates the fact that the NRA is an authority on gun safety.

If you want people who are concerned about gun rights to negotiate, you have to accept the legitimacy of their views.

 

The NRA an extremist, sociopathic organisation. Allowing the NRA to define public policy around gun ownership is akin to letting the KKK define public policy around equality legislation.

 

Regardless of where you stand on the NRA's politics, they are an authority on gun safety.

The state can't be trusted to come up with a test that's solely about safety for reasons I've mentioned above.

 

"Define a machine gun."

I don't have to as it is defined in the National Firearms Act of 1934 which is one of those many gun control laws which are on the books and have withstood all legal challenges despite your ridiculous claim that all gun control laws get over turned.

Go ahead and try to buy an automatic weapon produced after 1934.

 

You're misinformed.

See the Orwellian named Firearm Owners Protection Act. Civilians can own fully automatic firearms produced before 1986.

 

Here's a sample firearm safety quiz. It's not by the NRA, but by some an international hunting association. Any objections?

 

I got 10/10 and I know nothing about guns. Too easy.

 

If you got 10/10, you know all you need to know to be safe.

 

shouldn't the test ascertain whether the taker is an idiot? I think it should also include actual gun handling on the range. And it should be expensive (which will go along way to weeding out the idiots).

I scored 10/10 too. You really don't want me around loaded guns.

 

I don't see how asking what type of ammunition is needed for a particular weapon when it is written on the side of the weapon is:
1. Not pathetically easy.
2. In any way relevant to safety.

There are no questions about what one should or should not use the weapon for, in terms of self-defense. Surely those would be more appropriate?

 

If by "idiot" you mean stupid, the test shows that the person is smart enough to understand the rules. If by "idiot" you mean reckless or irresponsible, no written test can prove that.

Unnecessary.

You can't put up barriers of expense to keep someone from exercising their rights. You may keep out a few "idiots," but you also keep out people who don't have a lot of money.

 

Bullshit. Any sentient being with a modicum of test taking ability gets 10 out of 10 on that quiz every time. It requires no knowledge at all, just an understanding of test taking.

 

I wouldn't go so far as saying sentient.

 

If it were any more difficult it would make gun owners uncomfortable. I can understand why they're uncomfortable with that.

 

Those of you who claim the test is inadequate are invited to provide prospective questions.

 

Using the wrong ammunition in a gun can be very, very dangerous. Recognizing that the proper ammunition is almost always inscribed on a gun *is* important safety knowledge.

Sure. Like what?

 

I think the test should require specific knowledge of various types of firearms. Not being knowledgeable I really couldn't say what this would include. I suspect safe handling of a revolver is very different than an automatic though.

Gun handling on the range should also be examined. You know an actual driving test.

 

Operation of them is very different.

Rules for safe handling are exactly the same.

Unnecessary, impractical (most gun stores don't have a range on the premesis), and expensive.

Safe gun handling can be demonstrated without live firing.

 

Really? how do you carry a shotgun safely? (specify type).

People can imagine safe handling and then go totally stupid when they've got a gun in their hands. Somewhat like driving. Absolutely when handling a machine whose sole purpose is to perforate meat, an expensive actual test should be required. Gun stores would love it.

 

People shouldn't have to pay to take the test, but the test also should be quite a bit more rigorous. Rick's point regarding situational usage is key. This test may help to determine whether somebody is prone to an accident, but it won't help figure out whether they understand self defense, and what their obligations are if armed.

 

yes, they should pay. $300. This will include instruction and retest of course.

 

As Paladin said, you're misinformed.

If you have the money and can pass the background check, you can have your pick of any number of full-auto firearms. Nearly every one on this page was manufactured after 1934.

 

Keep unloaded, keep muzzle pointed in safe direction, keep finger off trigger. The safety aspects are independent of the type. In fact, those rules are universal for every gun.

And, although there is a lot of similarity in functioning, all guns of a particular type do not work identically. The slide release and the safety on pump action shotguns, for example, can be in very different places. A Colt Python revolver is loaded and unloaded very differently than a Colt Peacemaker revolver, even though they are nominally the same "type" of gun. It is simply not possible (or fair) to test for every conceivable configuration. That's why guns come with instruction manuals.

They might, but an expensive test is not going to pass Constitutional muster, and a range test is impractical.

I'm going from what @gul said above, and there was no discussion of a range test, so unless he's now demanding that be included, it's off the table.

 

hey, this should be codified for all firearms:

The result of FDR's campaign was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which to this day requires that before a private citizen may take possession of a fully-automatic firearm he must pay a $200 tax to the Internal Revenue Service and be approved by the Treasury Department to own the firearm, which is registered to the owner with the federal government.​

Or didn't this pass constitutional muster?

How many rounds should be loaded in a revolver? How does one know?