Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Total ban

3 (5%)

Strict laws, harsh penalties, strict regulation and record-keeping with check-ups every so often

23 (38.3%)

Something in between

9 (15%)

As it stands now

6 (10%)

Total freedom

17 (28.3%)

Abstain

2 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 59

[Sheb]

So, I get the feeling we actually all agree on more than we think, but because the pro-gun people thinks the pro-control people wants total bans, and because the pro-control people thinks the pro-gun people wants everyone and their mom to pack AK-47 all the time.

So what if instead we post a number of policies, and everyone can put his name to tell people who stands for what. Then, we might argue policies that have support from both side.

Bans:
Ban all guns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb

Ban all handguns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb

Ban fully automatic weapons:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb

Ban High-cap mag:
Aye:Sheb
Nay:

Background checks and licence

Universal background check:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:

Require licence (including safety class) for buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:

Require psychological examination before buying a gun:
Aye:
Nay:

Require waiting period before buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:

Ban people on the no-fly list from buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:

Allow open-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye:
Nay: Sheb

Allow conceal-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye:
Nay: Sheb

Gun Safety and Storage

Require that gun be stored in locked steel cabinet:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:

Require than guns be stored at a shooting range:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb

Require that more destructive weapons (machinegun, rocket launchers) be stored at shooting range:
Aye:Sheb
Nay:

Require registry of all guns:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:

Other

Repeal the 2nd Amendment:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:

Just quote the last version of the whole thing, and add your name where it applies. Feel free to add policy (I've put in all the one I've seen people advocating here, but I probably forgot a couple).

[Insanegame27]

I'm in favour of gun control, however conversely I'm dismayed at how hard it is to get guns in Australia, go figure.
I'm just going to link this TED talk by the chief of the Norwegian defence force talking about his conflicting thoughts on the subject.
http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun
Not entirely related really, but the link im thinking of is based on the American idea that an armed militia is needed to balance the risk of corrupt government. The guns are there if needed, but shouldn't necessarily be used, as the general argues that an army is needed for defence but in no way does having an army justify using it unconscionably.

Just watched that talk, and it seemed less conflicted thoughts and more 'This is used by professionally trained men and women to reduce violence and war so that it may one day never be needed again. Please respect the sacrifices of my soldiers, [example],' compared to 'hehe lolz we want gunz'.


I have no qualms with people owning guns. I have qualms with people thinking that it's a macho thing and they're gunna get a boner from holding/using one. I use guns - daily depending on the season - rabbits are a pest on the farm. We need guns as farmers to protect our crop and stock from pests and foxes. .22 will kill a rabbit from a nick to the ear, I don't see the need for owning 7.62mm assault rifles. Foxes can be disposed of with a .303. Boltac. I'm not expecting for thirty foxes to charge me (foxes don't do that, BTW) and even if I did, I shoot from a quadbike or ute tray + dogs. I will admit that there's a rush to it, but I have a hard time thinking that it'll be a bigger or better rush with a bigger or better gun. I don't need a .50 cal HMG. My parents use a shotgun if a snake is rearing at one of our animals, my stepfather was professionally trained in the military to use guns. If worst comes to worst, I always have my longbow or compound or recurve bows. I don't need to keep those in a gunsafe (I keep my longbow on my wall with my quiver and my others in a cupboard) and if someone breaks in it's easily just as intimidating, if not moreso than a firearm.

[mainiac]

Also with the repeated line, you are sounding like

So what?  It's a bullshit debate.  If it's not a real debate there is very little to do but repeat how bullshit it is.  Everytime there is a massacre you people come in and start play acting like citizen philosophers.  But you are publicly interlectually masturbating yourselves over slain innocent lives.  You are putting RIDICULOUS fantasies about self defense on par with real world communities being torn apart by tragedy.

It's not a real fucking debate.  Dont act like we are under any obligation to treat your fantasies like actual intellectual intercourse.  Thanks to the Supreme court you get to keep your surrogate phalluses but the Supreme Court doesn't make you right, only legally protected.  The Supreme Court doesn't entitle people to pretend like the actual terms you have laid out are anything other then a fantasy.

Want a real debate?  Talk about guns the way we talk about cars and speeding limits.  Like an adult that recognizes reality.  With cars and speeding limits we dont put our heads in the sand and pretend that cars and driving fast dont kill people.  We dont cling to bullshit comparisons.  We dont support organizations that lobby congress to prevent the government from even studying the issue.  We recognize that the fact is that some people are going to die and ask how much danger we are willing to tolerate.

But what you are doing isn't a debate.  It's a public display of edginess.

[Insanegame27]

So, I get the feeling we actually all agree on more than we think, but because the pro-gun people thinks the pro-control people wants total bans, and because the pro-control people thinks the pro-gun people wants everyone and their mom to pack AK-47 all the time.

So what if instead we post a number of policies, and everyone can put his name to tell people who stands for what. Then, we might argue policies that have support from both side.

Bans:
Ban all guns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb, Insane

Ban all handguns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb, Insane

Ban fully automatic weapons:
Aye: Insane
Nay:Sheb

Ban High-cap mag:
Aye:Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Background checks and licence

Universal background check:
Aye: Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Require licence (including safety class) for buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Require psychological examination before buying a gun:
Aye: Insane
Nay:

Require waiting period before buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Ban people on the no-fly list from buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Allow open-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye:
Nay: Sheb, Insane

Allow conceal-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye:
Nay: Sheb, Insane

Gun Safety and Storage

Require that gun be stored in locked steel cabinet:
Aye: Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Require than guns be stored at a shooting range:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb, Insane

Require that more destructive weapons (machinegun, rocket launchers) be stored at shooting range:
Aye:Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Require registry of all guns:
Aye: Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Other

Repeal the 2nd Amendment:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:
Not American: Insane

Just quote the last version of the whole thing, and add your name where it applies. Feel free to add policy (I've put in all the one I've seen people advocating here, but I probably forgot a couple).

[piratejoe]

Because Hillery Clinton has been cheating in the elections and i fear that the U.S.S.A might become a thing

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha wow

Im not kidding, she has been cheating, and whats worse is she can get away with all the crap she has done if obama says so, or if she says so should she become president before hand.

Bans:
Ban all guns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb Pirate Joe

Ban all handguns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb Pirate Joe

Ban fully automatic weapons:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb Pirate Joe

Ban High-cap mag:
Aye:Sheb Pirate Joe
Nay:

Background checks and licence

Universal background check:
Aye: Sheb Pirate Joe
Nay:

Require licence (including safety class) for buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb Pirate Joe
Nay:

Require psychological examination before buying a gun:
Aye:Pirate Joe
Nay:

Require waiting period before buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb
Nay: Pirate Joe

Ban people on the no-fly list from buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb Pirate Joe
Nay:

Allow open-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye: Pirate Joe
Nay: Sheb

Allow conceal-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye: Pirate Joe
Nay: Sheb

Gun Safety and Storage

Require that gun be stored in locked steel cabinet:
Aye: Sheb
Nay: Pirate Joe

Require than guns be stored at a shooting range:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb Pirate Joe

Require that more destructive weapons (machinegun, rocket launchers) be stored at shooting range:
Aye:Sheb Pirate Joe
Nay:

Require registry of all guns:
Aye: Sheb Pirate Joe
Nay:

Other

Repeal the 2nd Amendment:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:Pirate Joe

You say you don't want to ban all guns but you want to repeal the 2nd amendment which basically is the law that says "Guns are legal" Please make up your mind.

EDIT: Ninjaed

[Sheb]

Please quote the latest versions, so all the positions are in one post.

I'm not American, but for me owning guns is not a fundamental right on par with free speech for example. If a state or the US democratically decide to ban all guns, I find the policy misguided, but I think they should be allowed to.

[sluissa]

Also with the repeated line, you are sounding like

So what?  It's a bullshit debate.  If it's not a real debate there is very little to do but repeat how bullshit it is.  Everytime there is a massacre you people come in and start play acting like citizen philosophers.  But you are publicly interlectually masturbating yourselves over slain innocent lives.  You are putting RIDICULOUS fantasies about self defense on par with real world communities being torn apart by tragedy.

It's not a real fucking debate.  Dont act like we are under any obligation to treat your fantasies like actual intellectual intercourse.  Thanks to the Supreme court you get to keep your surrogate phalluses but the Supreme Court doesn't make you right, only legally protected.  The Supreme Court doesn't entitle people to pretend like the actual terms you have laid out are anything other then a fantasy.

Want a real debate?  Talk about guns the way we talk about cars and speeding limits.  Like an adult that recognizes reality.  With cars and speeding limits we dont put our heads in the sand and pretend that cars and driving fast dont kill people.  We dont cling to bullshit comparisons.  We dont support organizations that lobby congress to prevent the government from even studying the issue.  We recognize that the fact is that some people are going to die and ask how much danger we are willing to tolerate.

But what you are doing isn't a debate.  It's a public display of edginess.

How about you calm yourself.

[Erkki]

Spoiler:  loads a junk (click to show/hide)

The guy who shot the nightclub to shit legally bought his semi-auto rifle. Which I find bullshit. You don't need to kill someone to defend yourself. A taser does just as good of a job.

Semi autos are quite a bit more difficult to acquire in EU... Yeah, I too find it bullshit how he could just walk to a store and grab one. You cant get one for self defense purpose in EU... Well, possibly in Czech Republic, but they also require some kind of tests to be passed. I've never said I'd need such a weapon for self defence and will not. Those need to be in responsible hands only. The damage potential is IMHO too high.

But there is also the thing that using a gun does not need to mean firing it. A proper firearm, which could be a revolver too, is an existential threat to any baddie, its sheer presence may be enough. Tazers aren't all that reliable(or even legal) either. I won't use a firearm or carry one for personal defense, I dont need to and I dont feel unsafe out there or at home, but I can see why someone would choose to use one and not gas.

Mexico's guns still kill more than USA's, in a country where gun ownership is relatively speaking very restricted. You're free to use Mexico for both anti-gun and pro-gun examples.

How on earth is Mexico an argument for more lax gun control?

I suppose it could be argued that people die in Mexico because they cant defend themselves... Which quite possibly may not be all too far from the truth in Mexico. The whole place is a mess really. Bad example for anything, but they do have gun control, on paper. 

In EU. In EU. In EU, not US or Mexico. Please.

Firearm death rates are very low in the EU by all accounts, not really a gun problem there, looks like control is successful

Indeed! Which is why I dont understand why the gun control suddenly has to be strictened to UK/Aus levels of paranoia because of a terrorist strike. It doesn't, its just EU populism that further alienates people from the Union.

A police officer was shot and killed, the first one to die in 9 years, a few clicks from where I live just a few days ago.

Sounds like it's pretty rare for police officers to be shot and killed in EU. In EU. In EU, not US or Mexico. Please.

Exactly! And I was talking about EU. All the time, which you should have noticed. Thus the notice about the prior police death 9 years ago which is a long time. Obvious things such as illegal weapons indeed being illegal won't stop certain factions from wanting to, uhh, remove illegal all guns because anyone who wants to have a firearm must be nuts, right?

Taking away legal rifles doesnt help when theres likely millions black market of rifles and other full auto weapons in Schengen area of free movement which is most of Europe and more leak across the borders from East.

Gun control isn't just about legislation, it's about enforcement. Mexico, Brazil, Latin America in general has gun control laws but fuckall enforcement.

EU is strictening its firearm directive because of terrorism and crime. Or so they say.

How is this a bad thing? The current laws are pretty dumb, sure, but you said yourself it's unlikely to pass.

Unlikely yes, but the Commission has already broken several laws and directives they've set themselves, anything goes when the goal is noble enough I guess. The whole process has been highly suspicious and undemocratic. Nothing is guaranteed yet. Currently laws vary a bit too much from country to another which helps organized crime, so some change is needed.

(I dont own a firearm that would become illegal, but still.)

legally owned semi auto rifles arent used in either nor in crime.

Sources please

Because nobody puts 5,000 € into a hobby tool they could get illegally for tenth of the price if they're intending to just shoot themselves or go full allahu akhbar. With the recreational full auto mode to boot. If you dont know how, you're either from UK or possibly dont look around enough.  Unfortunately it still is that easy in Europe, but hey the Commission doesn't care. Border controls are worse than a French soccer stadium security and theres practically no interior border control whatsoever.

The most common types to fall in police hands are AK-47 and its variants and the PPs-43. Neither has been produced in Europe since the 70s.

Data on semi-automatics and automatics in crime are so inconclusive(which doesnt stop EU from wanting to ban them because hurr durr criminals) so I'll answer more broadly. Gun crime is not defined the same everywhere in EU as legislation changes from country to another as does tracking crime so I'll keep focus in homicides once more. Here, because somehow we have the best data available or my search engine-jitsu is bad.

I translated this in the other topic: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/154148/Katsauksia_1_2015_Henkirikoskatsaus_2015.pdf?sequence=4

Also this: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/39879/Pro%20gradu%20tutkielma.pdf?sequence=2

Police civilian firearm database: 421,344 rifles, 371 assault rifles(meaning, full auto, the real thing), https://www.poliisi.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/intermin/embeds/poliisiwwwstructure/38570_Asetilastot_2010-2015_versio2.pdf?5bcff40c616ed388

Out of 74 legal firearms used in homicides, 7 were rifles, in 8 years(includes all rifles, also rimfires. I can recall at least 2 of those cases being .22 LRs), so homicide rate of 0,2 per 100,000 rifles. Not one homicide with a semi auto rifle. Since 2001 or even prior that, I dont know, there have been 2 semi auto homicides(both out of the time line here), one with legal, the other 3 days ago with illegal weapon. Or what the heck you cant make statistics with such tiny numbers.

Interior ministry, weapon safety developement note, 2011: http://www.intermin.fi/julkaisu/272011?docID=24655 "it is doubtful if lack of a firearm had been able to prevent even a single homicide"(referring to 2001-2009).

For reference, what you get almost without gun control AKA US statistics, rifles are again minority(though not nearly as small a minority) across the pond too, handguns are overpresented: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

I will ask more about semi-automatics in crime this week from an acquaintance of mine who is more knowledgeable, and a police.

So, I get the feeling we actually all agree on more than we think, but because the pro-gun people thinks the pro-control people wants total bans, and because the pro-control people thinks the pro-gun people wants everyone and their mom to pack AK-47 all the time.

So what if instead we post a number of policies, and everyone can put his name to tell people who stands for what. Then, we might argue policies that have support from both side.

I'm fearing I'm getting labeled as pro-gun pro-carry whatnot when I'm infact not. Mine below!

Bans:
Ban all guns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb Pirate Joe Erkki

Ban all handguns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb Pirate Joe Erkki

Ban fully automatic weapons:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb Pirate Joe Erkki

Ban High-cap mag:
Aye:Sheb Pirate Joe
Nay: Erkki

Background checks and licence

Universal background check:
Aye: Sheb Pirate Joe Erkki
Nay:

Require licence (including safety class) for buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb Pirate Joe Erkki
Nay:

Require psychological examination before buying a gun:
Aye:Pirate Joe Erkki
Nay:

Require waiting period before buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb Erkki
Nay: Pirate Joe

Ban people on the no-fly list from buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb Pirate Joe Erkki
Nay:

Allow open-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye: Pirate Joe
Nay: Sheb Erkki

Allow conceal-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye: Pirate Joe
Nay: Sheb Erkki

Gun Safety and Storage

Require that gun be stored in locked steel cabinet:
Aye: Sheb Erkki
Nay: Pirate Joe

Require than guns be stored at a shooting range:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb Pirate Joe Erkki

Require that more destructive weapons (machinegun, rocket launchers) be stored at shooting range:
Aye:Sheb Pirate Joe
Nay: Erkki

Require registry of all guns:
Aye: Sheb Pirate Joe Erkki
Nay:

Other

Repeal the 2nd Amendment:
Aye: Sheb Erkki
Nay:Pirate Joe

I'd add: require a special course, checks and license for handguns. Our local legislation requires 2 years of hobby with someone elses weapon etc. but I think the period should be shorter as now it is in practice impossible to get a personal weapon before the age of 20. Which is awful for young talents practicing any firearm sports that dont also hunt.

The lisence should be more difficult to get for both concealable and high damage potential weapons such as semi-auto rifles. Fully automatics, cannons and such should be even more so, maybe for clubs or communities only.

About the storage of machine guns etc.: I believe that high security dispersed storaging is better than concentrated storaging at ranges. They'd become obvious targets for organized crime, there already have been cases in Europe where military storages have been targeted.

[Dorsidwarf]

So, I get the feeling we actually all agree on more than we think, but because the pro-gun people thinks the pro-control people wants total bans, and because the pro-control people thinks the pro-gun people wants everyone and their mom to pack AK-47 all the time.

So what if instead we post a number of policies, and everyone can put his name to tell people who stands for what. Then, we might argue policies that have support from both side.

Bans:
Ban all guns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb, Insane

Ban all handguns:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb, Insane

Ban fully automatic weapons:
Aye: Insane, Dorsi
Nay:Sheb

Ban High-cap mag:
Aye:Sheb, Insane, Dorsi
Nay:

Background checks and licence

Universal background check:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, dorsi
Nay:

Require licence (including safety class) for buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Dorsi
Nay:

Require psychological examination before buying a gun:
Aye: Insane, Dorsi
Nay:

Require waiting period before buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Dorsi
Nay:

Ban people on the no-fly list from buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane,Dorsi
Nay:

Allow open-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye: Dorsi
Nay: Sheb, Insane

Allow conceal-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye:
Nay: Sheb, Insane, Dorsi

Gun Safety and Storage

Require that gun be stored in locked steel cabinet:
Aye: Sheb, Insane
Nay:

Require than guns be stored at a shooting range:
Aye:
Nay:Sheb, Insane

Require that more destructive weapons (machinegun, rocket launchers) be stored at shooting range:
Aye:Sheb, Insane, Dorsi
Nay:

Require registry of all guns:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Dori
Nay:

Other

Repeal the 2nd Amendment:
Aye: Sheb
Nay:
Not American: Insane, Dorsi

Just quote the last version of the whole thing, and add your name where it applies. Feel free to add policy (I've put in all the one I've seen people advocating here, but I probably forgot a couple).

[piratejoe]

But what you are doing isn't a debate.  It's a public display of edginess.

THE IRONY!!!!

[mainiac]

How about you calm yourself.

Oh I'm very calm.  But me being calm isn't the same as me pretending that your silly play acting fantasies are real adult issues.  I will very calmly tell you that what you are doing isn't a real policy debate.

[Sheb]

Guys, we already have two versions of the policy list. Can't you merge them or something? Also, Erkki, feel free to just add more policy to the list.

[piratejoe]

Also with the repeated line, you are sounding like

So what?  It's a bullshit debate.  If it's not a real debate there is very little to do but repeat how bullshit it is.  Everytime there is a massacre you people come in and start play acting like citizen philosophers.  But you are publicly interlectually masturbating yourselves over slain innocent lives.  You are putting RIDICULOUS fantasies about self defense on par with real world communities being torn apart by tragedy.

It's not a real fucking debate.  Dont act like we are under any obligation to treat your fantasies like actual intellectual intercourse.  Thanks to the Supreme court you get to keep your surrogate phalluses but the Supreme Court doesn't make you right, only legally protected.  The Supreme Court doesn't entitle people to pretend like the actual terms you have laid out are anything other then a fantasy.

Want a real debate?  Talk about guns the way we talk about cars and speeding limits.  Like an adult that recognizes reality.  With cars and speeding limits we dont put our heads in the sand and pretend that cars and driving fast dont kill people.  We dont cling to bullshit comparisons.  We dont support organizations that lobby congress to prevent the government from even studying the issue.  We recognize that the fact is that some people are going to die and ask how much danger we are willing to tolerate.

But what you are doing isn't a debate.  It's a public display of edginess.

How about you calm yourself.

Oh I'm very calm.  But me being calm isn't the same as me pretending that your silly play acting fantasies are real adult issues.  I will very calmly tell you that what you are doing isn't a real policy debate.

If this is your version of calm i cant fathom to know what you not being "Calm" is.

[Frumple]

Yeah, one I've got in the spoilers at the bottom is merged, though I didn't try to incorporate Erkki's outside-list stuff.

The thing is, though, I haven't heard of a massacre which was foiled because of people owning a gun.

Because generally people who go around massacreing people do so in places law abiding people aren't allowed to take their guns.

What? No, most mass shootings in the definition you usually see used (4+ killed) generally happen where concealed carry at the very least is okay. A fair number of the ones that are more spectacular occurred outside of schools/government compounds/hospitals/etc., too. We probably hear about the ones in schools and whatnot more than the rest, but there's plenty of the things at workplaces, shopping centers, churches, so on, so forth. Places where any no-gun policies would be strictly ad-hoc and not particularly legally binding.

It is fairly untrue that no mass shooting has been stopped by folks that are armed and not law enforcement (there was something like five between '00 and '13 in the US, ferex, according to the FBI. To give reference, that's five out of about 33, going by this data -- which is fairly conservative in tracking to boot -- around 25 of which would have been in areas concealed carry was legal to one extent or another). It's also fairly untrue that it's particularly common, even in areas where it is legal for civilians to carry. And beyond that, it's... fairly arguable it would actually be desired, if it were an option. Your average civilian CCP holder isn't exactly trained for situations like a gunner in a crowded room, and there are a lot of ways that can cause problems. There's a (number of) reason(s) cops tend to be really gorram leery about armed civilians being near a crime scene, active or otherwise.

Might be less troubled, m'self, by that last bit vis a vis the state of things in the US if we made any attempts that aren't complete shit at helping ensure civilian weapon holders are even remotely competent, but... y'know. I've been through firearms safety training, most of the way through the concealed carry certification process (never actually sent in the paperwork, mostly due to not having 200 bucks on hand for it, but that was the last step involved and everything else was in order). We kinda' don't. It's better or worse based on state, but... yeah. And that's not getting into whether we actually want our population to be acting like it's under siege from itself 24/7.

... y'also kinda' have to remember that most of the folks that do that kinda' thing don't exactly choose their venues based on expected resistance. It may be some degree of influence, but they've usually got bigger reasons for doing that shit.

They aren't even that hard to make.

... mate, have you ever actually made a gun? Been around someone that did? 'Cause I've actually helped out a gunsmith before, a bit. It's a pretty extreme deception to call a gun easy to make. A shitty gun is easy to make -- a modern firearm, that's accurate and not substantially more likely to jam or explode on you, is not even remotely easy to build. It's actually pretty bloody hard! Fairly precision machining involved, and a good amount of skill. Factory setting can stamp 'em out due to being specifically tooled for it, but outside of that, not so much.

Shoddy pipe guns or whatever aren't too difficult, sure, but those are also generally less dangerous than a ruddy knife. If folks were limited to home-made firearms, you could pretty much guarantee there'd be a lot less dead people involved when they start getting fired off.

Spoiler:  Oh hey, policy list. Sure. (click to show/hide)

Quote from: Policy List
Bans:
Ban all guns:
Aye:
Nay: Sheb, Insane, Pirate Joe, Erkki, Frumple

Ban all handguns:
Aye:
Nay: Sheb, Insane, Pirate Joe, Erkki, Frumple

Ban fully automatic weapons:
Aye: Insane, Dorsi
Nay: Sheb, Pirate Joe, Erkki, Frumple

Ban High-cap mag:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Pirate Joe, Dorsi
Nay: Erkki, Frumple

Limit where fully automatic weapons can be stored and used:
Aye: Erkki, Frumple
Nay:

Limit where high cap-mag weapons can be stored and used:
Aye: Frumple
Nay: Erkki

Background checks and licence

Universal background check:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Pirate Joe, Erkki, Dorsi, Frumple
Nay:

Require licence (including safety class) for buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Pirate Joe, Erkki, Dorsi, Frumple
Nay:

Require psychological examination before buying a gun:
Aye: Insane, Pirate Joe, Erkki, Dorsi, Frumple
Nay:

Require waiting period before buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Erkki, Dorsi, Frumple
Nay: Pirate Joe

Ban people on the no-fly list from buying a gun:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Erkki, Dorsi, Pirate Joe
Nay: Frumple

Add a second layer of checks for people on the no-fly or terrorist watch lists:
Aye: Frumple
Nay:

Allow open-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye: Pirate Joe, Dorsi
Nay: Sheb, Insane, Erkki, Frumple

Allow conceal-carry (outside of shooting range, hunting wood etc):
Aye: Pirate Joe, Frumple
Nay: Sheb, Insane, Erkki, Dorsi

Vastly increase (and standardize cross country) the training requirements for acquiring and keeping a concealed-carry license:
Aye: Frumple
Nay:

Gun Safety and Storage

Require that gun be stored in locked steel cabinet:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Erkki, Frumple
Nay: Pirate Joe

Require than guns be stored at a shooting range:
Aye:
Nay: Sheb, Insane, Pirate Joe, Erkki, Frumple

Require safety training and annual/bi-annual check-ups to store guns away from shooting range/police station/etc.:
Aye: Frumple
Nay:

Require that more destructive weapons (machinegun, rocket launchers) be stored at shooting range:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Pirate Joe, Dorsi, Frumple
Nay: Erkki

Require registry of all guns:
Aye: Sheb, Insane, Pirate Joe, Erkki, Dorsi, Frumple
Nay:

Other

Repeal the 2nd Amendment:
Aye: Sheb
Nay: Pirate Joe, Frumple
Not American: Insane, Dorsi, Erkki

Return the 2nd Amendment to its pre-1960s interpretation:
Aye: Frumple
Nay:

[Erkki]

Ahhhh yes. I'm not American either, can you edit the list Frumple? So:

limit where fully autos and such used and stored: aye
limit where high cap weapons used/stored: nay
2nd amendment: not american