just curious, can citizens where gun laws are stricter(as you said chicago or nyc) just go to another state where the law is less strict and buy guns there legally and bring them back?
Again, depends on the state. For California, any out of state purchases would need to be transferred to a licensed dealer in California. And any restrictions California has, such as a ban of assault rifles, is not legal to be purchased if youāre a resident of California no matter where you buy it.
I think all states require handguns to be either purchased at your state of residency or transfer to a dealer in your state to be picked up and background checked.
I think the blanket idea that guns are so easily purchased in the US is a lie. Some states are loose in gun laws some like California are really strict. Hunting long guns are usually more loose compared to handguns but again depends on the state, but many countries do allow them to be purchased as well. Hand guns depends on the state, but anything that purchased from a licensed dealer is background checked. Concealed licensed is really hard, my dad has one and had to go through a process with the FBI. The only kind of iffy law is sales between 2 private parties and transfer from family. You can look those laws up.
Iāve had many people say well Texas doesnāt require background checks for purchase of guns and thatās why you all have it. FALSE. Federal law requires background checks for gun sales. Texas State law just doesnāt require background checks when you transfer it from one private individual to another. California does. Every gun Iāve ever purchased had background checks in even loose states and many times a 24 hour waiting period.
thanks for the answer.
imho the situation in the us has gotten so out of control, i donāt think gun laws will solve the problem. there are so many assault weapons in private ownership already, i think everyone who plans or is prone to use them, already stocked up or has at least easy access to them. itās better to focus on the causes such as soldiers with ptds, students who get bullied and canāt see any future for themselves, and most importantly the whole gun-loving perverted culture. weapons are so glorified in the us whether itās in the entertainment business or in politics, seems like everything can be solved with weapons and thatās such a scary thought for anyone who didnāt grow up guns omnipresent in their everyday life.
Oh, they finally closed the gun show loophole? I didnāt notice.
āYou see, in this half of the room, smoking is strictly prohibited. So obviously the air here is clean.ā 
The gun show loophole is the transfer of two private parties as I mentionedā¦California does not allow it without a background check as I mentioned. Itās weird to call it a gun show loophole, it does not have to be at a gun show. Just sale of two private parties. And as I mentioned, states like California does not allow without a background check. And also the state of California has a law that allows guns to be taken away from the recent shooter with signs of mental illness.
If youāve ever been to a gun show, most sales are still done by federally licensed vendors that do background checks. The law just doesnāt prevent two private parties from making a deal. Nor familys from transferring guns. Most private vendors sell niche and rare guns. Some of them arenāt even for use like historic antique guns.
And yet, they keep calling it that. 
Yeah on a bill that never saw the light of day. The loophole as you call it, is thereās no laws in some states that requires background check between the transfer of two private parties. I did mention this unlike your insinuation that I missed it. There is no specific loop hole exclusive to a gun show. And Iām guessing most that do go through this does not even happen at a gun show.
Iām literally just giving the correct information. If you have something that says my information is incorrect, Iām happy to correct it. If youāre here to argue some people coin the term gun show loopholeā¦weāll sure. But as I pointed out itās actually not about gun shows.
If you really want to nitpickā¦
Federal āgun show loopholeā bills were introduced in seven consecutiveCongresses: two in 2001,[14][15] two in 2004,[16][17] one in 2005,[18] one in 2007,[19] two in 2009,[20][21] two in 2011,[22][23] and one in 2013.[24]Specifically, seven gun show āloopholeā bills were introduced in the U.S. House and four in the Senate between 2001 and 2013. None passed. In May 2015 Carolyn Maloneyintroduced H.R.2380, also referred to as the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015. As of June 26 it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.[25][26] In March 2017, representative Maloney also introduced H.R.1612, referred to as the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017.[27]
They use the term āgun show loopholeā almost every time. Just saying.
I disagree. Your emphatic statement and accusation of lying amount to more than just giving information.
Suppose I say itās āFALSEā that people are allowed to urinate in a swimming pool, because this end of the pool over here has a no-urination sign (never mind the do-your-own-thing sign at the other end). Depending on how I phrase it, the statement may be technically correct, but it may also be misleading. 
Your original insinuation is I failed to mention āgun show loopholesā. As I pointed out, I did not. Iāve never said there is no one that says the term, just that itās not really a good term.
I said its false that states like Texas do not require background checks, it is false because they follow federal laws on gun sales which requires background checksā¦this is correct, I didnāt neglect the fact that private sales between two parties and the transfer of guns between family is often not subject to background checks.
I said it is a ālieā or a over exaggerated myth that itās so easy to get a gun in the entire US as a blanket statement, because as I pointed out, it depends on the states.
Now youāre just arguing to argue.
You may rely on it
1 Like
Oh, well, just arguing to argue is a horrible thing to do. Itās, like, Roman-city-walls horrible. Iād better stop. 
If you can find what information I said is incorrect or incomplete, Iād be happy to change it. But as far as I know, i explained everything to the person asking the question in a truthful manner.
If you want to know my personal opinions, let the people decide on the state level as long as itās not infringing on constitutional right. Itās hard to pass any federal gun laws mostly because states like Texas who has a healthy distrust of the federal government and a history of valuing local militias and civilians defending the state and gaining independence. Texas was a independent republic and people in Texas are rather proud of that. If people in a state believe guns should be heavily restricted, they should push for it. Thatās perfectly within their rights.
I also think cities and counties should be given the right to make their own laws on it. It seems they are not with some push back from the states and federal government. But it seems reasonable for a city/county/town at a local level to have laws on it. I think that would be something worth pushing if people on a local level share that view.
If I remember correctly. California was also a republic, Vermont as well, there was also the kingdom of Hawaii.
1 Like
The NRA really needs to go away, whether guns do or not. Basically just an evil entity.
In this case I will disagree with the NRA
But the going away part, thatās unlikely to happen as they are a none profit organization that is basically funded by members dues and donations. They do what the members support. And thatās perfectly within the rights of the American people.
Yeah, itās wishful thinking. Such is the case with guns themselves, as well. They arenāt going anywhere. If the US wonāt ban guns after a guy shoots 20 first graders, they are never going to ban guns. Thatās the sad truth.
At the very least, the CDC shouldnāt be barred from receiving the funds they need to properly research gun violence. If itās going to be a permanent part of our lives like this we at least need to be able to understand it.
1 Like
Given all the gun violence that takes place in the U.S., an organization that promotes responsible gun use would seem to be a good thing.
That I could agree with. 
1 Like
I will however say, the parroting of the blame on the NRA is not really going to do anything. They are a relatively small lobbying group. And I think only like 10-20% of gun owners are even NRA members. The idea of the evil lobbyist from the NRA is the sole reason for lack of gun control is not really the reality. They are nothing compared to other lobbying groups. And itās really the different views on gun control in Americans thatās preventing it not so much the NRA. They donāt really have that much money and power like people imagine. And the NRA helped the federal government to draft many gun laws before. They donāt really do that anymore, but they do other things like help educate people about guns and gun legislation. It was founded because union officers realized how shitty the average recruit was at using guns in the civil war. They wanted to train people to use it.