Forums » Off-Topic
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. (in the US)
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
This book says 82% of gun crimes involved handguns. (But I don't know how well you can trust that number)
http://tinyurl.com/5efb8m (Thanks toshiro)
My take is:
Rifles (including Assault Rifles) are large, loud, and a lot more expensive. Shotguns are large and loud at least. That is why fewer crimes are committed with them. Outlawing them is almost pointless.
But! I was also in the Army for 4.5 years, 28 months in Iraq. Many more soldiers would of came home alive or whole if guns were completely outlawed in Iraq.
But! The US won it's independents because civilians had rifles. Texas won it's independents because civilians had rifles. The US's westward expansion worked because civilians had rifles. Mexico did not ally with Russia and attack the US because civilians had rifles.
But! The US civil war happened because civilians had rifles.
Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. (in the US)
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
This book says 82% of gun crimes involved handguns. (But I don't know how well you can trust that number)
http://tinyurl.com/5efb8m (Thanks toshiro)
My take is:
Rifles (including Assault Rifles) are large, loud, and a lot more expensive. Shotguns are large and loud at least. That is why fewer crimes are committed with them. Outlawing them is almost pointless.
But! I was also in the Army for 4.5 years, 28 months in Iraq. Many more soldiers would of came home alive or whole if guns were completely outlawed in Iraq.
But! The US won it's independents because civilians had rifles. Texas won it's independents because civilians had rifles. The US's westward expansion worked because civilians had rifles. Mexico did not ally with Russia and attack the US because civilians had rifles.
But! The US civil war happened because civilians had rifles.
And on people in the US not being able to have nukes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
A few others have done it, but I think he was the first "kid" to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
A few others have done it, but I think he was the first "kid" to do it.
Sorry it’s taken me so long to join this discussion; it’s actually difficult for me to stay out of these but school is kicking my butt right now. Damn you, smittens, for giving me another distraction! ;)
This is mostly a rehash of the debate thus far; I wrote a response to smittens’ post then read the thread and modified it. If you think it’s boring then scroll to the bottom and read my ideal gun laws and make comments.
My first thought with any statistical data is to question it. It is easy to skew statistical results without technically falsifying anything, as IRS pointed out very well. Nearly identical surveys carried out by pro-gun and anti-gun groups can easily show opposite results. For example, it’s very easy to legally carry a concealed weapon in Switzerland, and gun crime rates there are very low. Another example: statistics citing numbers of children killed with guns are usually inflated by including people as old as 18 or 20 years old as “children,” so that gang-related crimes can be counted. Naturally, banning guns would have zero impact on gang violence, since gangs live outside the law anyway. I highly recommend to anyone, if you have an opportunity to take a statistics class in college, take it! No matter what your major, it will be a very valuable course.
My biggest argument about gun control has to do with where to place the blame. This has already been hashed to death, I believe, but the cliché “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is very true. Did violent crime begin with the invention of the gun? No. How far should weapon laws go? Should we get licenses for paring knives? I say punish crimes and enforce existing laws. When any crime is committed, the problem isn’t that there weren’t enough laws in place, the problem is that a person decided to break an existing law. For example, most of the guns used in the Columbine incident were bought legally, and some were illegal; those laws didn’t stop the crime.
The other argument I have is a no-brainer: Criminals don’t obey laws anyway, so gun control disarms only law-abiding citizens. If I belonged to a violent gang, I would be very supportive of gun control laws. I’d support any law that disarmed other people, since my guns would come from shady sources anyway. However, if I were a criminal and I thought there was a decent chance that a person I might rob had a gun and knew how to use it, I’d think twice. Ideally, there would be no guns; but ideally, there would be no crime. We don’t live in an ideal world, so we have to deal with criminals with guns. My opinion is that anyone who draws any weapon unprovoked immediately forfeits his life, and anyone nearby who takes it from him did the right thing.
Accountability is the key. This is a universal problem here, not just a gun control issue. Personal accountability. Browning (or whatever, they’re the first gun company that came to mind) is responsible for no crimes, even if their guns are used in violent crimes. Individuals and groups of individuals are responsible for crimes. Let’s stop finding scapegoats and hold individuals personally responsible for their actions.
All of this is moot, however, when we consider that the intent of the Second Amendment is to preserve individual liberty. Lecter pointed this out: even if banning guns would have the desired effect, it would be the wrong thing to do as it would infringe constitutional rights. The main idea of the Second Amendment is to protect the people from the government. I saw w bumper sticker once that I really liked that said “All for gun control raise your hands” and showed Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin with hands in the air. There would be no United States without personal gun ownership, and contrary to what our President-Elect believes I think that’s a good thing. Lecter also makes a great point about the difference between gun death and gun crime.
A few more responses to points in this thread:
Should citizens be allowed to own nukular weaponry? Don’t use a straw-man argument. This is common sense here. They of course should not, and neither should any nation not a strong ally of the United States. Guns ≠ nukes. Duh.
As far as limiting liberty, I forget who said it first but my favorite quote is “your right to swing your fist ends where the other guy’s nose begins.” Traffic laws, anti-robbery laws, etc. are designed to protect the rights of moral citizens. Criminals forfeit their rights as soon as they infringe on the rights of others. My right to steal your stuff is superceded by your right to keep your stuff.
Toimu makes an excellent point on why it is that banning big guns would be pointless. Personally, I think it’s great sport to own automatic guns and shoot them at targets for fun regardless of their personal defense value. Of course, anything automatic should be illegal for any live target other than self defense (i.e. no hunting with a minigun!). If you commit a crime with a gun the issue shouldn’t be “what kind of gun was used,” but “was a crime committed.” For personal defense I would not ban any gun at all, but I would say explosives should be illegal. Grenades don’t make sense for personal defense at all. I’d love to collect historic guns (I really want a functioning MG42), but I don’t want a live grenade in my house.
I disagree with you, Toimu, when you say more soldiers would have come home if Iraqi civilians didn’t have guns. Forgive me if I overstep since I have not served in the military and you have (thank you for that, by the way). I believe that in a war like Iraq, as soon as a civilian fires a shot at a U.S. soldier, he is no longer a civilian but an enemy combatant. Would an Iraqi ban on guns really end that violence? I doubt it. And if the Civil War started because civilians had guns, well, so did the Revolutionary War.
Additionally, I’d like to repeat what Lecter said: “controls have invariably been deliberately drafted to be vague, and administered so as to obstruct and deny gun ownership and use. Regulations are arbitrary, oversight and accountability for the burecrats involved is zero, and published--much less reasonable--standards for evaluation are nonexistent.” I can’t put it better.
On the other hand, this is a rare case where I disagree with Lecter and say it is a federal issue, not a state one. The Second Amendment is not a state issue. Here’s what I think should be the federal rule on guns; I think it’s similar to some suggestions made already:
Guns should be regulated the way cars are regulated. There should be no law whatsoever regarding what kind of gun you’re allowed to own or carry, but a license to carry/use a gun should be required as it is to drive a car. At a very young age, such as 10, assuming at least one parent has a gun license, a person should be eligible for a “learner’s permit” or something similar, and a couple years later should be able to take a safety and proficiency test. If the test is passed, a license to own a gun is issued, and as soon as the person carrying the license is no longer a minor (turns 18) it is implicit that the license also allows the bearer to carry a concealed weapon. Naturally, committing any violent crime means revoking the license at least until sentence on the crime is carried out. Also, if an accident occurs involving a gun and it is found that the accident was due to someone being stupid, like leaving a loaded gun where a kid can get to it, the license is taken away. To buy a gun all you have to do is show your gun license, just like you show a driver’s license when buying alcohol. These laws would be standardized across the nation and the license valid in all states.
This is a rough draft of my ideal gun law, pleas comment and I may amend it.
Whew! 1400 words, that’s a full-blown essay! Back to my homework.
This is mostly a rehash of the debate thus far; I wrote a response to smittens’ post then read the thread and modified it. If you think it’s boring then scroll to the bottom and read my ideal gun laws and make comments.
My first thought with any statistical data is to question it. It is easy to skew statistical results without technically falsifying anything, as IRS pointed out very well. Nearly identical surveys carried out by pro-gun and anti-gun groups can easily show opposite results. For example, it’s very easy to legally carry a concealed weapon in Switzerland, and gun crime rates there are very low. Another example: statistics citing numbers of children killed with guns are usually inflated by including people as old as 18 or 20 years old as “children,” so that gang-related crimes can be counted. Naturally, banning guns would have zero impact on gang violence, since gangs live outside the law anyway. I highly recommend to anyone, if you have an opportunity to take a statistics class in college, take it! No matter what your major, it will be a very valuable course.
My biggest argument about gun control has to do with where to place the blame. This has already been hashed to death, I believe, but the cliché “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is very true. Did violent crime begin with the invention of the gun? No. How far should weapon laws go? Should we get licenses for paring knives? I say punish crimes and enforce existing laws. When any crime is committed, the problem isn’t that there weren’t enough laws in place, the problem is that a person decided to break an existing law. For example, most of the guns used in the Columbine incident were bought legally, and some were illegal; those laws didn’t stop the crime.
The other argument I have is a no-brainer: Criminals don’t obey laws anyway, so gun control disarms only law-abiding citizens. If I belonged to a violent gang, I would be very supportive of gun control laws. I’d support any law that disarmed other people, since my guns would come from shady sources anyway. However, if I were a criminal and I thought there was a decent chance that a person I might rob had a gun and knew how to use it, I’d think twice. Ideally, there would be no guns; but ideally, there would be no crime. We don’t live in an ideal world, so we have to deal with criminals with guns. My opinion is that anyone who draws any weapon unprovoked immediately forfeits his life, and anyone nearby who takes it from him did the right thing.
Accountability is the key. This is a universal problem here, not just a gun control issue. Personal accountability. Browning (or whatever, they’re the first gun company that came to mind) is responsible for no crimes, even if their guns are used in violent crimes. Individuals and groups of individuals are responsible for crimes. Let’s stop finding scapegoats and hold individuals personally responsible for their actions.
All of this is moot, however, when we consider that the intent of the Second Amendment is to preserve individual liberty. Lecter pointed this out: even if banning guns would have the desired effect, it would be the wrong thing to do as it would infringe constitutional rights. The main idea of the Second Amendment is to protect the people from the government. I saw w bumper sticker once that I really liked that said “All for gun control raise your hands” and showed Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin with hands in the air. There would be no United States without personal gun ownership, and contrary to what our President-Elect believes I think that’s a good thing. Lecter also makes a great point about the difference between gun death and gun crime.
A few more responses to points in this thread:
Should citizens be allowed to own nukular weaponry? Don’t use a straw-man argument. This is common sense here. They of course should not, and neither should any nation not a strong ally of the United States. Guns ≠ nukes. Duh.
As far as limiting liberty, I forget who said it first but my favorite quote is “your right to swing your fist ends where the other guy’s nose begins.” Traffic laws, anti-robbery laws, etc. are designed to protect the rights of moral citizens. Criminals forfeit their rights as soon as they infringe on the rights of others. My right to steal your stuff is superceded by your right to keep your stuff.
Toimu makes an excellent point on why it is that banning big guns would be pointless. Personally, I think it’s great sport to own automatic guns and shoot them at targets for fun regardless of their personal defense value. Of course, anything automatic should be illegal for any live target other than self defense (i.e. no hunting with a minigun!). If you commit a crime with a gun the issue shouldn’t be “what kind of gun was used,” but “was a crime committed.” For personal defense I would not ban any gun at all, but I would say explosives should be illegal. Grenades don’t make sense for personal defense at all. I’d love to collect historic guns (I really want a functioning MG42), but I don’t want a live grenade in my house.
I disagree with you, Toimu, when you say more soldiers would have come home if Iraqi civilians didn’t have guns. Forgive me if I overstep since I have not served in the military and you have (thank you for that, by the way). I believe that in a war like Iraq, as soon as a civilian fires a shot at a U.S. soldier, he is no longer a civilian but an enemy combatant. Would an Iraqi ban on guns really end that violence? I doubt it. And if the Civil War started because civilians had guns, well, so did the Revolutionary War.
Additionally, I’d like to repeat what Lecter said: “controls have invariably been deliberately drafted to be vague, and administered so as to obstruct and deny gun ownership and use. Regulations are arbitrary, oversight and accountability for the burecrats involved is zero, and published--much less reasonable--standards for evaluation are nonexistent.” I can’t put it better.
On the other hand, this is a rare case where I disagree with Lecter and say it is a federal issue, not a state one. The Second Amendment is not a state issue. Here’s what I think should be the federal rule on guns; I think it’s similar to some suggestions made already:
Guns should be regulated the way cars are regulated. There should be no law whatsoever regarding what kind of gun you’re allowed to own or carry, but a license to carry/use a gun should be required as it is to drive a car. At a very young age, such as 10, assuming at least one parent has a gun license, a person should be eligible for a “learner’s permit” or something similar, and a couple years later should be able to take a safety and proficiency test. If the test is passed, a license to own a gun is issued, and as soon as the person carrying the license is no longer a minor (turns 18) it is implicit that the license also allows the bearer to carry a concealed weapon. Naturally, committing any violent crime means revoking the license at least until sentence on the crime is carried out. Also, if an accident occurs involving a gun and it is found that the accident was due to someone being stupid, like leaving a loaded gun where a kid can get to it, the license is taken away. To buy a gun all you have to do is show your gun license, just like you show a driver’s license when buying alcohol. These laws would be standardized across the nation and the license valid in all states.
This is a rough draft of my ideal gun law, pleas comment and I may amend it.
Whew! 1400 words, that’s a full-blown essay! Back to my homework.
Toimu, http://tinyurl.com/ is your friend. There is no excuse for not making friends with tinyurl.
Also, I disagree with you, Chaos. Gun ownership should not be dependent upon a one-time test. As with cars, I think that periodically recurring evaluations of the gun owners and their aptitude are a must to ensure responsible firearm use across the board. And an implicit CC permit is preposterous, in my opinion.
Also, I disagree with you, Chaos. Gun ownership should not be dependent upon a one-time test. As with cars, I think that periodically recurring evaluations of the gun owners and their aptitude are a must to ensure responsible firearm use across the board. And an implicit CC permit is preposterous, in my opinion.
Sorry, toshiro, your comment makes me realize how much I implied when I said guns should be regulated like cars, even though you drew the proper conclusion when you said "as with cars, I think that periodically recurring evaluations... are a must." Of course.
And I should reword the CC permit bit. I'd really just like to see that if you're allowed to carry a weapon it shouldn't be required to be in plain sight.
Also implied is that penalties for violating such broad, open laws would be harsh as a deterrent to abuse. These laws are not intrusive and don't infringe on anyone's Second Amendment rights. We'd just have to make sure the government doesn't grow these laws like they do everything else.
And I should reword the CC permit bit. I'd really just like to see that if you're allowed to carry a weapon it shouldn't be required to be in plain sight.
Also implied is that penalties for violating such broad, open laws would be harsh as a deterrent to abuse. These laws are not intrusive and don't infringe on anyone's Second Amendment rights. We'd just have to make sure the government doesn't grow these laws like they do everything else.
Ah. Yes, I agree with that, mostly.
I think firearms need to be handled more strictly than cars, which are not intended as weapons per se, unlike guns. The problem as I see it is that cars, or rather, driver's licenses, aren't being handled strictly enough in my opinion already.
I think firearms need to be handled more strictly than cars, which are not intended as weapons per se, unlike guns. The problem as I see it is that cars, or rather, driver's licenses, aren't being handled strictly enough in my opinion already.
Lecter pointed this out: even if banning guns would have the desired effect, it would be the wrong thing to do as it would infringe constitutional rights.
Actually, my point about getting rid of all guns being an inherently immoral act had nothing to do with the Constitution (which is a legal, not a moral, document).
I'll give you a hint: "God made men; Sam Colt made them equal."
Actually, my point about getting rid of all guns being an inherently immoral act had nothing to do with the Constitution (which is a legal, not a moral, document).
I'll give you a hint: "God made men; Sam Colt made them equal."
Amen.
And an implicit CC permit is preposterous, in my opinion.
Wouldn't that depend upon the training required for the basic license, Tosh? I can envision a system that requires full bore safety, skills, and law of justification training for any handgun purchase. Probably on the basis that it's a defensive weapon and as such the owner needs to be trained in that elements of its potential use.
Assuming such a purchase license addressed the safety, skills, and laws relevant to public carrying and use of the weapon, there's no reason additional requirements should be imposed.
Wouldn't that depend upon the training required for the basic license, Tosh? I can envision a system that requires full bore safety, skills, and law of justification training for any handgun purchase. Probably on the basis that it's a defensive weapon and as such the owner needs to be trained in that elements of its potential use.
Assuming such a purchase license addressed the safety, skills, and laws relevant to public carrying and use of the weapon, there's no reason additional requirements should be imposed.
Professor Chaos has a good point on banning weapons in Iraq. The outlaws would still brake the law and get guns. But some people are just trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their families heads. These people legally own rifles and turn to crime because there is little honest money to be made. But some warlords are trying to start a civil war or just take a bigger piece of the pie, and offer a lot of money to attack their enemies (shooting at a US convoy with an AK-47 can equal a weeks pay of unskilled labor).
Didn't mean to go off topic. I tried to keep both of my post neutral by showing the pros and cons of both sides. Gun control and war (they are related IMO) don't have an easy answer.
Please don't let my posts take this thread off topic. War was only used as one of my points of view on Gun Control.
Didn't mean to go off topic. I tried to keep both of my post neutral by showing the pros and cons of both sides. Gun control and war (they are related IMO) don't have an easy answer.
Please don't let my posts take this thread off topic. War was only used as one of my points of view on Gun Control.
This is not a tangent, Toimu, you are broadening the topic with a valid point.
The answer to this problem is what we have done, and that is to topple the corrupt government responsible for the bad economy. Let's not make this an Iraq War debate, but use this as a hypothetical, just take for the sake of argument that Saddam was corrupt and responsible for the condition in which some people feel they need to turn to crime. Once the corrupt government is toppled, what next?
Part of rebuilding would be to start enforcing laws that are in place while deciding how those laws should change. Don't ban the guns, but start harshly punishing any and all crime; even in a bad economy I bet this would be surprisingly effective. At the same time, empower individuals to rebuild the economy. However you believe an economy should be rebuilt, if the economy is allowed to recover from a corrupt government at the same time as laws are rigorously enforced, the situation will stabilize.
That's what is happening right now, but it's not an overnight process of course.
To swing this back to gun control, the enforcement of laws against crime, not guns, is the key.
The answer to this problem is what we have done, and that is to topple the corrupt government responsible for the bad economy. Let's not make this an Iraq War debate, but use this as a hypothetical, just take for the sake of argument that Saddam was corrupt and responsible for the condition in which some people feel they need to turn to crime. Once the corrupt government is toppled, what next?
Part of rebuilding would be to start enforcing laws that are in place while deciding how those laws should change. Don't ban the guns, but start harshly punishing any and all crime; even in a bad economy I bet this would be surprisingly effective. At the same time, empower individuals to rebuild the economy. However you believe an economy should be rebuilt, if the economy is allowed to recover from a corrupt government at the same time as laws are rigorously enforced, the situation will stabilize.
That's what is happening right now, but it's not an overnight process of course.
To swing this back to gun control, the enforcement of laws against crime, not guns, is the key.
The permit should also require applicants to go through a psychological analysis...
Anyways...I'm all out against strict gun control. I used to be neutral, but my views were completely changed from yesterday to today, why?
Today, at around 4 am, 2 men broke into my house. One of my sisters found out in time and alarmed the whole family. We were unprepared and unarmed, so the only thing we could do was lock ourselves(My mom, my 2 sisters, and me) inside a room.
We called the police and our neighbor who went outside and fired a few rounds to the air to try to scare them off.
Fortunately, since we found out early, the bastards only had time to take a laptop which was nearby the window from which they entered. They were in such a hurry to run away that they didnt even took the laptop's adapter thingy.
We were lucky nothing else happened and that the 2 men got scared away easily. But what if they hadn't gotten scared off so easily and decided instead to go to where we were hiding? I don't even want to think about what could've happened.
I live in Nicaragua, a third world shit hole, were the police are very unreliable (We called them at around 5 am and they showed up at 4 pm) and private gun ownership is not allowed. Still, people can get them through illegal means. Unfortunately, my mother is an anti-gun freak and still wont get a gun.
It's funny how someone's point of view can be changed so easily when something terrible like this happens to them. I guess my point of view could also be changed again easily if someone I loved got killed by somebody using a gun.
I'm not sure what to think about gun control, but I guess its better to have a gun and not needing it, than needing it and not having it. Today I didnt have one and I needed it. The only thing I'm sure about right now is this:
Today, I would've wanted a gun to shoot the crap out of those bastards.
Anyways...I'm all out against strict gun control. I used to be neutral, but my views were completely changed from yesterday to today, why?
Today, at around 4 am, 2 men broke into my house. One of my sisters found out in time and alarmed the whole family. We were unprepared and unarmed, so the only thing we could do was lock ourselves(My mom, my 2 sisters, and me) inside a room.
We called the police and our neighbor who went outside and fired a few rounds to the air to try to scare them off.
Fortunately, since we found out early, the bastards only had time to take a laptop which was nearby the window from which they entered. They were in such a hurry to run away that they didnt even took the laptop's adapter thingy.
We were lucky nothing else happened and that the 2 men got scared away easily. But what if they hadn't gotten scared off so easily and decided instead to go to where we were hiding? I don't even want to think about what could've happened.
I live in Nicaragua, a third world shit hole, were the police are very unreliable (We called them at around 5 am and they showed up at 4 pm) and private gun ownership is not allowed. Still, people can get them through illegal means. Unfortunately, my mother is an anti-gun freak and still wont get a gun.
It's funny how someone's point of view can be changed so easily when something terrible like this happens to them. I guess my point of view could also be changed again easily if someone I loved got killed by somebody using a gun.
I'm not sure what to think about gun control, but I guess its better to have a gun and not needing it, than needing it and not having it. Today I didnt have one and I needed it. The only thing I'm sure about right now is this:
Today, I would've wanted a gun to shoot the crap out of those bastards.
BTW, I have to write an argument essay for English and one of the 12 topics is Gun Control! So I'm finished! Thanks everyone for giving me ideas and motivation!
You might want more primary sources, though.
So your saying I should not put things like:
Professor Chaos wrote "Guns ≠ nukes. Duh." on the Vendetta-online forum in the off topic section.
is bad for an English Comp formal essay?
Professor Chaos wrote "Guns ≠ nukes. Duh." on the Vendetta-online forum in the off topic section.
is bad for an English Comp formal essay?
No, that's possibly the most credible source. You should just find more sources. ;)
The Harvard study I posted is pretty good, actually; there's a summary of it here.
The Harvard study I posted is pretty good, actually; there's a summary of it here.
Lecter, I was being unclear, my bad. I meant to say that an implicit CC permit depending only on age would be a Bad Thing™; however if a sensible adaptation were to be put in place (in the way you imagine it), I'd have nothing against it (only, CC permits are only available to people who can prove that they have a professional reason for doing so over here in CH).
My profession, as a human being, is being--and remaining--alive. There's my "professional reason" for carrying an effective weapon :)
toshiro, I think you're still not quite catching what I'm trying to say. Age is the only prerequisite for applying for a license. You only get your license if you pass a proficiency and safety test, and there's no law on whether your gun needs to be in plain sight or not. Think of it like this: Where I live you can drive a car without adult supervision when you turn 16 only if you pass the driver's test.
Also, I'd like to add that I don't want guns registered at all. All you need is to show your license, and you get to buy your gun and carry it home at the time of purchase. I don't want the government knowing where the guns are, in case Obama tries to take them away. Everything should revolve around the license.
Also, I'd like to add that I don't want guns registered at all. All you need is to show your license, and you get to buy your gun and carry it home at the time of purchase. I don't want the government knowing where the guns are, in case Obama tries to take them away. Everything should revolve around the license.