Would you at least accept background checks and licensing for people seeking to own guns in America a-la the laws here...

And further more, the background checks done are only for criminal offenses. A mental issue, if its even been diagnosed, probably wouldn't pop up unless they've committed a related crime before

If it came with the stipulation that the were never be a single law further restricting access

Attached: 1372549005475 - Copy.png (1306x892, 210K)

Agreed, we can get guns here in the UK really easily.

But Glocks are hard to get, I want a trust 9mm sidearm for the Civil War, 9mm bullets are easy to get, are used by law enforcement and a Glock is what I used in the armed forces.

>Would you at least accept
no

Because they're liars and idiots.

Ummm NICS checks are mando already except for a private sale where some states require an FFL xfer...youre supposed to do your due diligence and draft a BoS anyway

>Why do your liberals keep saying that you don't have background checks then?
because liberals are fucking cracy people

Attached: lib-democrat.png (328x314, 58K)

Are you seriously asking or are you trying to point out how ignorant liberals are?

>background checks
We already have 'em.

>licensing
That's retarded. Guns are a right, not a privilege. License implies privilege.

>a-la the laws here in Canada
In Canada, you need to provide a reason for owning a gun, and that reason cannot be self-defense. Such a system should never be allowed in the US. Guns are a right. Owning a gun to defend yourself is a right. Owning a gun to fight against the government if it becomes necessary is a right. We will not be told what we can and can't own and what reasons are and aren't acceptable.

Guys... some of them probably are genuinely retarded, but I postulate that most of them are fucking liars and know damn well.
Because they HATE guns, it prevents them from subjugating the population.
It has nothing to do with safety or >muh children

Yes. Also, a mandatory waiting period.

>some of them probably are genuinely retarded
You mean all of them.

youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0
liberal retards on gun control

You don't seem like the average rabid gun control fag so I guess you can't answer this. The thing is that I always hear anti gun people say they're not antigun but just pro gun control. I'm constantly being asked as a pro gun person what more I'm willing to forfeit for their cause. I want to know, what is a pro gun control person willing to forfeit for me? I don't want a promise of "we just wanna ban this, we won't wanna ban that later" because this has been the repeating case for far too long. What is a piece of pro gun legislation that gun control advocates in the states are willing to forfeit.

Wouldn't do anything, we don't have waiting periods and all they would do is make it a bigger pain in the ass for no benefit

They reduce crimes of passion. HBS did a study showing crime did drop when they were implemented.

I'd prefer to get rid of dumb restrictions on largely extraneous components like pistol grips or large mags, etc. The trend of banning things based on how scary they look is silly too, you can own a vz (for now) but not an ak

In short any gun control measure that doesn't actually do anything to reduce misuse of firearms needs to go

I'm concerned about reducing American mass shootings because our liberals are using their problems to restrict our rights in turn, so anything that gets rid of reasons for people to get hysterical is good for us both

I would accept universal background checks if it were a compromise that gave something back - complete repeal of the NFA and all state-level gun-type and magazine-capacity restrictions.

As it stands, when the anti-gun left says "you have to compromise" they really mean "you have to surrender"

Well the way most of those people get their guns to shoot up schools and what not seem like kids who steal their parents guns.

>I'm concerned about reducing American mass shootings

Stop doping up young boys on powerful, barely-tested pharmaceuticals. This would solve the problem with a delay of 14-18 years from implementation. Prior to 1968 any high school boy could walk into a hardware store and buy a plethora of weaponry (yes, including semi automatics with detachable magazines) and walk out with no questions asked, no answers given. How many spree killings happened in high schools in the sixties? Followup question: how many 8 year olds were on SSRI's in the sixties?

Can't be that because then we would have a similar rate of mass shootings, and canada has not had such a massacre since 1989

Because liberals are gun grabbing faggots that want to trick middle road people that are just uninformed.

Shit I forgot about the van of peace nevermind

Because they never purchase a gun before, so they actually don't even know how the process of purchasing goes.

I don't mind background checks, but I believe in the conceal carry law.

This is the background check for every licensed gun store in America you uneducated fuck

Attached: atf form 4473.png (835x1078, 241K)

>I'm concerned that young males feel the need to shoot up their schools and often kill themself
>that's why I want to regulate guns
why not fix the schools, which are the real issue?

No, now go suck off a dog you faggot.

Don't forget about Maple Snake.

>Believing liberals ever...

No, this is about copy cat attacks. Once the Columbine happened other people started shooting up schools to gain fame and a sense of power.

Didn't really count

I do understand what OP is saying.

You need to ensure that guns are sold to law abiding mentally stable citizens.
Psychological checking should be added as a extra layer of security in order to minimize potential threats. Now preventing those threats is another story...

>Having to pay a (((state approved))) happy pill pusher to exercise a constitutional right.

No faggot, we don't have a gun problem we have a nigger problem. You also have the most cucked gun laws I've ever heard of and there is no point in even owning one there as it just gets you on a watch list and an intruder can sue if they get hurt breaking into your house

Attached: gh.jpg (480x360, 12K)

You also literally need a check in even the most red state; 90% of gun crimes are committed by felons already banned from owning guns because street guns are cheaper and easier than legal guns
>lets just make murder illegal

Attached: ttt.jpg (1000x600, 115K)

>You also have the most cucked gun laws I've ever heard of

So you've never heard of the UK?

It's already illegal to own guns if you have a criminal record or have been committed to a mental institution.

Attached: 8oiunsadf4.jpg (265x491, 21K)

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Licensing is an infringement. Licensing is a defacto registry. Registries lead to confiscations.

>a-la the laws here in Canada
>Implying we would want to emulate Canada in any way

The guy shot 5 cops and killed 3. How does that not count?

The guy shot five cops and killed three. How does that not count?

Our laws are fucking god awful. Why would you ever suggest they happen elsewhere? Also you have to pass background checks in the US to buy guns. What is the NICS system you colossal retard.

>No, this is about copy cat attacks
I hate you sort of people so much. What convinced you so much that you're right and he's wrong? Did You're favorite NPR host whisper that into your ear as he pounded your ass last night?

>Guns are a right
that is a mentally retarded thing to think

Self defense is a right
Therefor guns are a right

>leaf
This is a retarded flag to have

Attached: 1528646930827.gif (1280x640, 155K)

>believing the angry shit spouting CNN jews
Fuck off leaf.

>Self defense is a right
>Therefor guns are a right
that's a bit of a stretch.

what about the rights of the two innocent little girls that just got shot while playing at a park in my city? guns shouldn't be glorified. if you feel you need guns to live safely in a society, you should probably reconsider the path your society is taking.

never once in my life have i felt that i needed a gun for safety.

>Would you at least accept...
No. I am not going to compromise my rights for anyone.

>"slippery slope"
I know of no leftist pushed agenda that does not have an element of "slippery slope". As soon as they fool the hordes of morons to accept "common sense" elements of their agenda they push for the rest and you are busy fighting to get back what they have fooled the idiots into giving up.

What is this? Misery loves company or something? Why is it that all you cuckolds want to give your fucking cancer to us?

Appealing to emotion isn't an argument and has nothing to do with the point.

Guns have every place in a modern civilized society

Attached: Civilized Act.png (519x1245, 136K)

>you should probably reconsider the path your society is taking.
Have you seen this country and where its heading?

No, because the ability to be armed is a basic human right and not subject to licensure or approval. If you cannot be trusted with a weapon you cannot be trusted with your life. If you shouldn't be armed you shouldn't be a free man.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Yeah that is why we have the 2nd amendment, and say, fuck gun stores.

Exactly. As long as people build bombs, people trying to take away defensive weapons are traitors to the Constitution.

That doesn't ensure you don't have mental health issues. For example the youtube shooter wasn't commited to a mental institution nor had a criminal record as far as I'm concerned. Not being in a mental institution doesn't necessarily mean that you are psychologically healthy. The idea of a psychological qualification is to remove ticking time bombs (generally mass shooters) out of the equation, or at least to make it difficult to mass shooters to acquire guns.
Obviously gun regulation like this won't stop them, but it certainly mitigate the damage dealt.

Alas in America we are considered innocent until proven guilty.

That is why we shouldn't need to prove our worthiness to exercise a protected right.
You're asking for some Minority Report type shit.

You can't legislate away criminality and insanity and stupidity.
With a free society comes risks, but the petty crimes committed by a free people pale in comparison to a totalitarian government which the second amendment serves to prevent.

>a crazy fucker will get a firearm
It's a citizens duty to maintain and bear arms. A citizen without the physical and mental capacity to do so, is not a citizen, so they should not be able to vote or hold public office.

>Would you at least accept background checks
Already have them. If you'd like to open NICS to the general public I'd be willing to entertain the idea of a horse trade. Perhaps we can do away with retention of, or make/model/serial number data on, the 4473. Or we can talk about rewriting the NFA or GCA. We could come to a compromise here if you want to make sure everyone gets a check.

If you mean to ban private sales and require a 4473 on every transaction the answer is a hard no.

>and licensing for people seeking to own guns in America

Licensing is essentially creating additional expense in order to increase the cost of gun ownership. It does nothing that a background check doesn't do except give the State the opportunity to remove legally owned firearms when someone becomes ineligible for a license. That sounds like a good idea all the way up until you realize that the same process which lets the Sheriff come take Eddie's gun after a DV conviction lets the Sheriff collect everyone's guns because a law changed. No licensing and registration means that consent is necessary for us to be governed.

>Why do your liberals keep saying that you don't have background checks then?

We don't have "universal" background checks. Meaning that private sales do not require background checks. They want this because you inevitably have to then create a registry and licencing system. In which case they can fuck off.

Attached: shooting.jpg (1225x784, 235K)

Do you have a better solution? Tell me, how would you prevent mentally derranged people from buying firearms from your stores? I'm interested

What would prevent a mentally deranged person from lying or forging their way through whatever test the government comes up with?

Its clear even from here in spiderland that america's problem is social, rather than the access to the guns. People had more access to guns than now for the last century and considerably less crimes happened.

The cause should be checked instead of the system. America is failing its people and its medical and mental health systems are piles of shit.

Involuntary admission to a mental institution which is already a part of federal background checks.

I'd support the reverse.

ALL CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT & RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, however, if you fuck up, by being a criminal, subversive etc, you can have them taken away. THAT IS ALL THAT CAN BE ACCEPTED!

>doesn’t have a shoulder thing that goes up
I’m ashamed

Guns have been a part of American culture for a long time. The school shootings are new. It's not the guns that are the problem.

Mind your own bidness you moose blowing faggot.

I know. The UK are going to be wishing they had guns soon enough.

I'm a psychologist and I do a fair amount of assessment. Heres the problem with your logic: assessment is an excellent tool for differential diagnosis. You know something is wrong, you just need to figure out what. Its terrible at prediction and screening. With the right battery I can tell you if an observed deficit is brain damage, ADHD, or high functioning autism. Even with a comprehensive battery I can't tell you if someone with no psych history is likely to offend.

More to the point, there simply aren't instruments which are going to do this job well. The best you could hope for would be a comprehensive battery, but at that point you're talking $1500-$2000 for a guess.

We already have a good means of predicting who is likely to be too mentally ill to own a firearm: we ban people who have had an involuntary commitment. The downside is that we don't catch people who deceive (like Lanza's family), who are having a first episode (like Holmes), or who are not so much mentally ill as morally deficient (like that incel in California, whatever his name was). Outside of first episodes who obtain their weapons during or after a decline, currently available measures aren't going to catch them with any degree of certainty.

You're suggesting subjecting every gun owner to thousands of dollars and multiple hours of testing to catch perhaps one in ten mass shooters, a population which already makes up less than 1% of homicide offenders.

I'm asking that whoever buys any firearm is not a danger to any law abiding citizen.
While it is true that this situation is better than a tyrannical government, it is also an avoidable loss of life. I'm only advocating for the safety of the regular citizen, nothing more.

A man who would trade his liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.

No

Attached: A17E4B8F-66C6-4A42-849F-BA4A3049EB1A.jpg (4032x3024, 2.53M)

>You're suggesting subjecting every gun owner to thousands of dollars and multiple hours of testing
That is exactly what they want. Price (legal) gun ownership out of the reach of people without middle six figure+ incomes.
Taxing $5 a bullet, $1000+ for a firearm, requiring safety and marksmanship classes, as if the issue is that gang bangers are too inaccurate and need to be trained. Annual licenses starting at $250. all of it meant to discourage and obstruct the process of buying a gun as much as possible.

>I'm asking that whoever buys any firearm is not a danger to any law abiding citizen.
Impossible

Evil is out there and more government red tape isn't the answer.
Can we have better reporting for mental illness and better treatment? Yes

But we can't eradicate evil and insanity.
I believe that society as a whole is losing the valuation of life, and the uncaring apathy for their fellow man. Society needs to change. How that will happen I don't know.
But making it harder for innocent people to arm themselves won't stop evil.

>I'm only advocating for the safety of the regular citizen, nothing more.

A lot of people would argue that ready access to firearms is how you ensure the safety of the regular citizen.

I think a lot of people outside of the US don't really understand how permissive our self defense laws are. I live in Chicago, a liberal bastion with a reputation for tough gun laws. I can use deadly force as a first resort to protect myself or others from death or great bodily harm or to prevent any forcible felony. I have no duty to retreat. I have no duty to render aid following a shooting. I have civil immunity from any legal shooting. It doesn't matter if I'm in my home, on my property, or out on the street. Even if I used the gun in a place where guns were banned or I wasn't allowed to carry in the first place I have an affirmative defense in the case of a self defense shooting.

Realistically, that means that if someone demands my wallet and threatens to assault me I can shoot them point blank with hollow points until they fall down. They don't need to have a weapon, they don't need to seem like a realistic threat. The mere fact that they attempted a forcible felony, robbery, is legal justification for an immediate escalation without warning.

We do things differently, our vision of safety is different.

Of course thats what they want. I've been in this fight in the deepest blue part of a deep blue state for decades. I've seen it up close.

People who aren't part of the community, though, don't see it. They don't understand what the big deal about an evaluation or some training is. Its our job to educate them rather than screech.

No.

America has background checks already fagleaf. Get fucked.

Again the idea of the psychological qualification was to mitigate, not fix. As you've said, society needs to change, as I consider it the most important factor in this mass shooting issue

>You're suggesting subjecting every gun owner to thousands of dollars and multiple hours of testing to catch perhaps one in ten mass shooters, a population which already makes up less than 1% of homicide offenders.
I'm suggesting a measure to avoid selling firearms to mass shooters. Dealing and catching mass shooters is another topic that involves more variables to take into account.

>Realistically, that means that if someone demands my wallet and threatens to assault me I can shoot them point blank with hollow points until they fall down.
I wish that could be true here.

Anyways thank you Anons for having such a good debate

why are canadians trying to influence American Gun Laws? What business is it of yours exactly?