Americans buy enough guns in 3 months to outfit Chinese, Indian armies

[Slack3r78]

This headline caught my eye:

EveryTown, USA - -(AmmoLand.com)- In just 3 months Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian army’s combined.

You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a “B”.


This is an evaluation of overall firearms and ammunition purchases based on low end numbers per Federal NIC instacheck data base Statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm). The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold. The actual numbers are much higher.

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa-buys-enough-guns-in-3-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/

[biosc1]

To be fair, a lot of those guns get smuggled across the border into Canada ;)

[Generation ABXY]

Perhaps I read the article wrong, but it seems their source for that is background checks. If that's true, it isn't nearly the same thing, as not everyone would be approved and, even then, everyone who is still might not follow through.

EDIT: Mind you, I'm not saying it isn't true. I'd just like to see some source.

[Chris_D]

So it doesn't include the guns that are obtained without background checks then?

[Slack3r78]

So it doesn't include the guns that are obtained without background checks then?
Those would be through private sales, which means that the gun is already in circulation and has been through a background check at least once. I.E., they're all used. These are new gun sales.

[Johan]

Well...we're safe then, yes? No? :D

[J Arcane]

God bless America and all, but I do kind of wish people would slow the feck down so maybe the rest of us can have a chance to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.

I like that they threw Yamamoto's quote in there though.

[diablopath]

I like that they threw Yamamoto's quote in there though.

Really? I'm so fucking sick of that quote.

[Narradisall]

This is all due to the fear Obama is gunna take ma guns away.

I find it rather amusing that in a recession people are making gun sales profitable. Though if they end up without a job or money I'm willing to bet some of them will use those guns to make some cash (in one way or the other). Priorities though!

[Voodoo]

Those would be through private sales, which means that the gun is already in circulation and has been through a background check at least once. I.E., they're all used. These are new gun sales.

Only guns sold through private sales do not require background checks. Used and new guns sold through a dealer require a background check. At least that is how it is here in Florida. In regards to the background check (Florida), it's requirement covers all firearms types: pistols, shotguns and rifles. If you don't have a concealed weapon permit, there is a waiting period for pistols while there isn't one for rifles nor shotguns.

My three pistols have all gone up in value between $200 and $300 due to these events while the M44 rifle has gone up by ~$50.

[Cactaur]

When the Zombie Flu Pigapolypse comes you'll be glad to have 1.5 billion rounds of ammo in circulation.

[Johan]

I find it rather amusing that in a recession people are making gun sales profitable.

Actually, there's nothing at all surprising about certain sectors of the economy performing well in a recession. Some examples:

* Wal-Mart (budget conscious consumers drive sales up).
* Guns/ammo (concerns about crime in a recession).
* McDonald's (budget conscious fatties! ;)).
* and lots of others! (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-12-03-recession-proof-companies_N.htm)

[roboninja]

Man, it is going to take Obama forever to take away everyone's guns now.

[National Kato]

Man, it is going to take Obama forever to take away everyone's guns now.

That's hilarious. :p

[miah]

I remember reading a few times while living in TX that ammo was getting scarce since the election. I don't know if other states were affected, but TX definitely was and still is.

[Ink Asylum]

Gun manufacturers and the NRA must be laughing all the way to the bank. How fun it must be for them to have a business model that benefits from paranoia and fear.

[Narradisall]

Actually, there's nothing at all surprising about certain sectors of the economy performing well in a recession. Some examples:

* Wal-Mart (budget conscious consumers drive sales up).
* Guns/ammo (concerns about crime in a recession).
* McDonald's (budget conscious fatties! ;)).
* and lots of others! (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-12-03-recession-proof-companies_N.htm)

Hmmm, I can understand people buying cheaper food, but guns? Come on, hardly a similar comparison.

People have to eat, they don't have to own firearms.

Yes, I can understand people buying weapons due to crime (either to protect against, or commit), but a great deal of this was also due to fear of weapon bans, even though they are highly unlikely.

I find the whole armed citizen thing a tad silly from an outsider perspective. You buys weapons to defend your loved ones, cause, the bad guys can all buy guns easy too.

Its like a national arms race, and arms races never end well.

[J Arcane]

Hmmm, I can understand people buying cheaper food, but guns? Come on, hardly a similar comparison.

People have to eat, they don't have to own firearms.

Yes, I can understand people buying weapons due to crime (either to protect against, or commit), but a great deal of this was also due to fear of weapon bans, even though they are highly unlikely.

I find the whole armed citizen thing a tad silly from an outsider perspective. You buys weapons to defend your loved ones, cause, the bad guys can all buy guns easy too.

Its like a national arms race, and arms races never end well.
So we should do what, start banning chef's knives instead then?

Redefine the violent crime category to justify ever escalating "weapons" bans?

Raid people's homes for the crime of owning plastic swords and airsoft guns?

[Johan]

People have to eat, they don't have to own firearms.

Many of the products/services that actually do well during a recession involve home entertainment, not necessities.

Also, you're British (I assume) and therefore probably a bit removed from the reasonably widespread American mentality that gun ownership is a fundamental, and widespread though not limitless, right.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Gun manufacturers and the NRA must be laughing all the way to the bank. How fun it must be for them to have a business model that benefits from paranoia and fear.

That really isn't their business model, it's a product. Your wording implies they orchestrated this in some fashion.

[J Arcane]

Actually, in a lot of cases, the gun manufacturers aren't the one's making the most profit off the paranoia. It's the gun shops marking the shit up like crazy. A lot of the distributors and manufacturers are still selling the guns to dealers at the same prices they always were.

I'm sure the NRA's membership is through the roof though.

[ShivaX]

That really isn't their business model, it's a product. Your wording implies they orchestrated this in some fashion.

Well I think the NRA did orchestrate things a bit by helping fuel the Obamania thing.

But then again they always do that. They did it with Clinton too and this didn't happen. I think the conjunction of a black man as President, a Democratic president and a economic shitstorm combined to create the scenario. The funny this is he really seems to have no plans to do much of anything. I think hes just letting it happen since it likely helps out the economy by getting people to spend money they might not have.

[Ox]

I think the conjunction of a black man as President, a Democratic president and a economic shitstorm combined to create the scenario. The funny this is he really seems to have no plans to do much of anything.
Really (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)? It may not be his first priority, and it looks like there are a fair number of Democratic Congresscritters who will block any attempt. But in an ideal world, Obama would institute a fair amount of gun control.

[torrefaction]

See, I think this should be encouraged. The idea of invading America must be terrifying, military superpower or not.

[TheFlyingOrc]

See, I think this should be encouraged. The idea of invading America must be terrifying, military superpower or not.

I would honestly hate to attack a country full of rednecks with guns.

[Ink Asylum]

Why would anyone, even in their wildest dreams, think about invading America? With or without legions of armed rednecks. That's not how you take down a superpower, and no one, not Al Qaeda, not Russia, not China, not Zombie Hitler, would ever try it that way. You let them overextend and weaken themselves in various ways until they collapse on their own, nudging them along whenever you can.

Anyone who is stockpiling guns to repel any sort of future invasion has watched Red Dawn one too many times.

WOLVERINES!

[ShivaX]

Really (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)? It may not be his first priority, and it looks like there are a fair number of Democratic Congresscritters who will block any attempt. But in an ideal world, Obama would institute a fair amount of gun control.

Which is why I think hes not going to bother. Theres a lot of Pro-gun Dems out there and it would fail. Think of how many shootings we've had already this year, literally every other day someone is going crazy and killing their whole family and then themselves or shooting up some cops, yet noones talking about a gun control bill. I think hes got bigger fish to fry and he doesn't really give a crap about it. Gun control bills tended to be pandering to the base of the Democratic party, but the base has changed and it only appeals to people like Pelosi anymore.

He might have voted for them in the past, but hes not going to bring up anything about it. If House Dems want to try to pass something I doubt it would reach his desk. They'd face all the GOP and a large number of their own party against it.

[Slack3r78]

But in an ideal world, Obama would institute a fair amount of gun control.
In an ideal world, I'd get a blowjob from Scarlett Johansson after I finished eating a steak at every meal.

I really have nothing else to add here.

[ClannerDelta]

I find the whole armed citizen thing a tad silly from an outsider perspective. You buys weapons to defend your loved ones, cause, the bad guys can all buy guns easy too.

Its like a national arms race, and arms races never end well.

Well, to be fair, it's your fault.

[Ink Asylum]

In an ideal world, I'd get a blowjob from Scarlett Johansson after I finished eating a steak at every meal.

I really have nothing else to add here.

After? Don't you mean during?

[OUX]

As someone that works 3rd shift in a gas station, this puts me a little on edge.

[JayK47]

These guys are driving up the cost of guns. Perhaps a good thing. But I was in the mood to do some gun shopping and forking over 50% more because of the right wing survivalists will suck if I find something I like. It also takes longer to get a permit to buy because they are backed up.

[ShivaX]

As someone that works 3rd shift in a gas station, this puts me a little on edge.

Don't worry too much, most of those guns likely weren't purchased legally anyway. :)

[OUX]

Don't worry too much, most of those guns likely weren't purchased legally anyway. :)

Whew, thank goodness. For a second there I- ... godammit

[J Arcane]

As someone that works 3rd shift in a gas station, this puts me a little on edge.
The solution to a power imbalance is to empower oneself.

Does your employer not allow you a concealed weapon?

[OUX]

The solution to a power imbalance is to empower oneself.

Does your employer not allow you a concealed weapon?

LOL! My employer assumes that if we were to be robbed I would have something to do with it.

EDIT: And that is not a personal "check me out I am teh bad-boi," nonsense. That is the store policy, they always assume it was an inside job first.

[J Arcane]

LOL! My employer assumes that if we were to be robbed I would have something to do with it.

EDIT: And that is not a personal "check me out I am teh bad-boi," nonsense. That is the store policy, they always assume it was an inside job first.
Sounds like a real dick.

EDIT: Or rather dicks, in this case. I take it it's a corporate/chain type facility?

[OUX]

Sounds like a real dick.

EDIT: Or rather dicks, in this case. I take it it's a corporate/chain type facility?

Indeed it is, and indeed they are. Though on a high note if someone was to rob the store and shoot me you would be able to see it in 5 lovely angles while the one camera that would be pointed at the assailant might get a profile shot.

[Telefrog]

The solution to a power imbalance is to empower oneself.

Does your employer not allow you a concealed weapon?

I don't know of too many civilian employers that would allow their employees to carry a concealed weapon unless they owned a private security firm.

[J Arcane]

I don't know of too many civilian employers that would allow their employees to carry a concealed weapon unless they owned a private security firm.
Actually, it's pretty common for gas stations and convenience stores to have a gun behind the counter or allow a licensed employee their CCW. Such places are usually privately owned however.

[Telefrog]

Actually, it's pretty common for gas stations and convenience stores to have a gun behind the counter or allow a licensed employee their CCW. Such places are usually privately owned however.

Wow. Not here in Washington as far as I know. The insurance would be outrageous!

[J Arcane]

Wow. Not here in Washington as far as I know. The insurance would be outrageous!
I've never encountered it myself mind, I've only ever worked one convenience store, and while not technically a chain, was pretty corporate-style management regardless, but I've heard a fair number of stories about gun owners and such working in shops like that.

[Slack3r78]

I don't know of too many civilian employers that would allow their employees to carry a concealed weapon unless they owned a private security firm.
3AA_dgRdDhk

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Police said a desk clerk shot a man who was attempting to rob an east side motel on Saturday night.

Officers said that shortly before 9:30 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk#) p.m., a man walked into the Super 8 Motel, located at 2055 Brice Rd., showed a gun and demanded money.

Police said the desk clerk on duty then shot the alleged robber, Antoine Stephens.

Stephens, 20, was transported to Grant Medical Center and was in serious condition on Sunday morning, NBC 4 reported.

Police said he would be charged with aggravated robbery.

[ClannerDelta]

I've seen that video before and it still bothers me how stupid the fucking mother is.
Let's just scoot the kid over a tiny bit and keep the kid between me and the criminal.

[J Arcane]

I've seen that video before and it still bothers me how stupid the fucking mother is.
Let's just scoot the kid over a tiny bit and keep the kid between me and the criminal.
Wow. I didn't notice that the first time. She's practically using the kid as a shield the whole time.

[Slack3r78]

From what else I've read about it, all three shots on the bad guy connected, and the bad guy fired off a couple of rounds that fortunately hit no one. Good shooting on the clerk's part.

[Chris_D]

Lucky for the mother and the baby of course. I'm not sure I can agree with putting them in danger for the sake of the contents of the register. It's the American way I guess.

[Narradisall]

So we should do what, start banning chef's knives instead then?

Redefine the violent crime category to justify ever escalating "weapons" bans?

Raid people's homes for the crime of owning plastic swords and airsoft guns?

Yes because that's exactly what I was suggesting and not an overblown knee jerk reaction on your part.

There's not enough eye rolling or facepalming in the world for your reaction.

[Narradisall]

Well, to be fair, it's your fault.

Well that I can't argue with.

Come along way from colonial war time though.

[J Arcane]

Yes because that's exactly what I was suggesting and not an overblown knee jerk reaction on your part.

There's not enough eye rolling or facepalming in the world for your reaction.
Hey, if you want to play the smug "I'm from over here and you all look silly" game, then you shouldn't be surprised when the tables are turned.

I have a great respect for Britain, and have had over the years a great number of friends in that country, but the way you guys have systematically made a mockery of a right that your country invented is utterly deplorable, as is the way your government has generally done it's level best to erode as many of the remaining rights as possible.

Next time you want to start jumping on the "Hurr, Yanks are stupid" bandwagon, you might want to consider whether your walls are in fact, made of glass.

[Narradisall]

FYI I wasn't being smug. I just find the scenario and the general populas reaction to it amusing. Your in a recession and even though there have been no clear signs of gun control your buying the things en masse for what?

Because they may try to tale you guns away? As you have proven frequently the initial reaction of some gun enthusiasts is to start screaming loudly that it's your right to bare arms and it's all some part of a evil scheme to control you. Comes across as rather tin hat like and not very plausible. I'd honestly be interested in hearing some solid good reasons as to why esculations in gun usage would be a good thing. Personal or national insults make your position look weak.

The other scenario of 'if they get a pistol, I get a rifle' is hardly the greatest of platforms to debate from. I remember the thread about automatic weapons and most the arguemebt for assault rifles for home defense was due to people not being good enough shots to take down 3-4 people attacking your home. Honestly you believe this to be a likely scenario? How does a modicum of gun control hurt Americans? If you still had access to pistols, rifles and semi autos you really think that as criminals could get autos your going to be against them at some point?

Then there's the whole glass house scenario. Way to counter a 'smug' post by climbing on a higher pilalar with which to preach down from. Since I can only assume your un friends must support the last few years of erosion (and I admit there's been some) of civil liberties you assume we all do. We don't, and I assure you there's plenty of people that resist the more stupid laws our government try to pass. Is this a mirror of your stance from a polar opposite, persoanllu I think not. We'll see how our elections go in deciding how we want our future and laws to be. If we end up in interment camps controlled by the police (who are armed and obviously have no emotions or ties to the people and are on fact just robots doing the budding of the government) then you feel free to lament our terrible lives.

Facts stand we have a reduced amount of knife crime due to recent mesaures, because oddly enough most people don't have a legit reason to carry a 6 inch kitchen blade on a night out. Whereas last I looked you have hugh amounts of gun crime on a daily basis and due to the stance on your amendment rights your solution is to increase the numbers of weapons in cilrdulation. I would imagine most criminals commit crimme using guns bought illegally and this untraceable or steal then from people who bought there's legally. But to parody you initial overreaction, why should you stop there? Why not allow any weapons to be bought by the general populas, or just remove those pesky waiting times or registered firearms rules from your right?

Maybe their wouldn't be talk of removing your guns if they were being used responsibly, or you were even open to discussion on alternatives solutions rather than arm up and bunker down.

[ClannerDelta]

Automatic weapons are effectively banned. Pretty much fucks your entire argument.

The AWB ban thread had nothing to do with automatic weapons. As the AWB doesn't touch them.

[Narradisall]

Automatic weapons are effectively banned. Pretty much fucks your entire argument.

The AWB ban thread had nothing to do with automatic weapons. As the AWB doesn't touch them.

Not the entire thing. I thought assault was auto? As I state outsiders perspective. I was under the impression that the point was to limit autos.

Then what really is the point of owning assault weapons?

I can undestand pistols for protection, rifles for hunting, could you give me a good example if the point of an assault weapons use for public purposes?

[ClannerDelta]

Why would I? I just said, we don't have them for home defense. The licenses to own a legal automatic weapon are difficult to obtain, and to my knowledge, specifically require you to go through the Federal government.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

The earlier term assault rifle, refers to rifles that are selective fire, firing intermediate-power rounds (such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, or 7.62 x 39 mm), which along with fully automatic pistols, provided the pre-cursor for the term "assault weapon." In contrast, the term assault weapon as used in civilian and U.S. legal usage refers to a semi-automatic firearm with certain features, as listed above. The ban did not cover "assault rifles" but merely the new category of "assault weapons" which did not include automatic firearms of any type.

They banned scary bits. Like a KNIFE on my GUN. It was stupid legislation from the beginning.

[Narradisall]

Fair enough the legislation seems stupid. How are autos effectively banned? Just as they are incredibly difficult to obtain?

Though now I'm wondering why you'd ned telescopic lenses! :)

[Slack3r78]

Lucky for the mother and the baby of course. I'm not sure I can agree with putting them in danger for the sake of the contents of the register. It's the American way I guess.
The presence of an armed robber meant they were already in danger. Complying with the robber's demands would not have guaranteed their safety.

[Slack3r78]

Fair enough the legislation seems stupid. How are autos effectively banned? Just as they are incredibly difficult to obtain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_gun_ban_.28T he_Hughes_Amendment.29

tl;dr: there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through and automatic weapons produced since 1986 cannot be sold to civilians.

Either way, automatic weapons are relatively uncommon. And as is the case with firearms in general, the ones that get used in crimes usually weren't legally procured in the first place.

[Chris_D]

The presence of an armed robber meant they were already in danger. Complying with the robber's demands would not have guaranteed their safety.

Neither did the exchanging of rounds right in front of the babies face.

[BigJonno]

Personally, I reckon a store clerk (or similar) who does anything other than exactly what the guy says when confronted with gun is fucking idiot. If my family was in danger I would do anything to protect them, legal reprecussions be damned, but risking taking a bullet for someone else's money? Fuck that shit, especially if there were other people around.

[Chris_D]

Personally, I reckon a store clerk (or similar) who does anything other than exactly what the guy says when confronted with gun is fucking idiot. If my family was in danger I would do anything to protect them, legal reprecussions be damned, but risking taking a bullet for someone else's money? Fuck that shit, especially if there were other people around.

I obviously agree, and having the coworker and the mother and the baby just compounds his idiocy / selfishness (the later assuming he's trying to be a hero or show off his gun-peen).

[Slack3r78]

Personally, I reckon a store clerk (or similar) who does anything other than exactly what the guy says when confronted with gun is fucking idiot.
Because robbers never shoot people that otherwise comply with their orders.

[Chris_D]

Because robbers never shoot people that otherwise comply with their orders.

And the odds of that are? Between botched attempts to use a gun to save the day?

[ShivaX]

Because robbers never shoot people that otherwise comply with their orders.

Yeah that never happens. Criminals are honest and stable individuals.

And the odds of that are? Between botched attempts to use a gun to save the day?

Actually quite fucking good.

[Chris_D]

Actually quite fucking good.

Go on then. Pull out your stats. If only for the sake of your e-peen.

[ShivaX]

Go on then. Pull out your stats. If only for the sake of your e-peen.

Go on youtube and search for "clerk shot". I don't have any stats, I'm sure I could write the NRA for them or something, but thats not exactly a stat the government keeps track of.

BKMhqfWbNMg
This guy obviously pulled a gun, oh wait he did everything they told him to and they fucking shot him several times after they got the money.

CCTV picture quality is fairly shitty. People's eyes aren't. Dead guys tend to not give a good description to the cops.

[Chris_D]

One video /= stats. And if you think that exchanging rounds barely a foot from a babies face is heroic, sensible, or god help me, cool, well, I couldn't disagree more. That's all I have to say on this particular sub discussion.

[ShivaX]

One video /= stats. And if you think that exchanging rounds barely a foot from a babies face is heroic, sensible, or god help me, cool, well, I couldn't disagree more. That's all I have to say on this particular sub discussion.

Well your stats are as solid as mine, so lets see you prove something.

As far as the kid and the whole shebang, I'm leaning more towards the mother who is just leaving her kid close to an armed robber and using it as a shield rather than backing away and protecting her kid with her body. The camera angle makes it hard to tell how close he was to the kid, but he probably shouldn't have fired his follow-up shots so quickly. Then again I wasn't there so its hard to say.

I don't think he did the right thing after the first shot. He should have cleared the counter and been standing beside it in my opinion. I guess its hard to say without seeing the other guy, if he was down and pointing a gun in their direction, that changes the scenario quite a bit.

[Johan]

Supreme Court: Individuals have a right to bear arms in America. Case closed. End of story.

And on a final note, let me introduce several of you to stare decisis. It's what will keep the horribly-reasoned Roe v. Wade decision in force, and what will keep Americans armed.

:D

[Narradisall]

Supreme Court: Individuals have a right to bear arms in America. Case closed. End of story.

And on a final note, let me introduce several of you to stare decisis. It's what will keep the horribly-reasoned Roe v. Wade decision in force, and what will keep Americans armed.

:D

I don't feel like trawling through the American law system, shouldnt, the Supreme Court be able to overturn one of their own decisions though? Or was it horizontal and thus binding of the supreme court?

Even then, couldn't legislation overrule it, or an amendment etc.

Not that its ever going to happen, too many weapons in circulation in the US now, but in theory you could ban them outright still, yea?

[Narradisall]

Also why was Roe v Wade bad? The law can't dictate your choice to have weapons, but should be able to dictate your choice to abort a child pre 28 weeks?

[BigJonno]

While I'll readily admit that I have no statistics whatsoever to back this up, I'd say that you're much more likely to be shot if you pull a gun yourself than if you just comply with an armed robber's demands. Generally speaking, they're there for money, not to kill people. Even a totally unstable crackhead is going be made worse if you pull a gun on him.

Let me be clear, though, this only applies in a "protecting some other guy's money" context. When it comes to protecting my home and family, all bets are off. I'd like to think I'm sufficiently prepared for the event that someone breaks into my house and if I lived somewhere that armed burglars were even a remote possibility, I would be investing in a firearm. (Plus it would give me a good excuse to start shooting again, which I enjoy.)

[ShivaX]

While I'll readily admit that I have no statistics whatsoever to back this up, I'd say that you're much more likely to be shot if you pull a gun yourself than if you just comply with an armed robber's demands. Generally speaking, they're there for money, not to kill people. Even a totally unstable crackhead is going be made worse if you pull a gun on him.


Most of them seem to run like bitches the second a gun comes out and they aren't holding it for likely the same reason. They want money, they don't want to get shot. As far as it "being worse" most scenarios they just shoot people for no fucking reason. Theres a ton of them on youtube where people are complying 100% and not resisting and get shot for it.

Maybe its a conspiracy by the NRA or something, but I haven't run into any where someone pulls a gun and suddenly the gun man becomes braver. They run every time, maybe firing a shot or two as they make for the door at best. Then again, I didn't look too hard cause I can only stomach a very small amount of these things.

[Johan]

I didn't say Roe v. Wade was a "bad" decision, I said it was a "horribly-reasoned" decision, which it is nearly universally recognized as being in terms of legal rationale. There's a difference between pronouncing a result as good or bad, and pronouncing the rationale to arrive at that result as well-reasoned or horribly-reasoned; a big difference.

Also, Supreme Courts are hesitant to boldly overturn prior Court decisions (it does happen, as Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Ed. reveals); stare decisis, which I mentioned, explains this. You can read up on it if you're interested, or PM Ox!!

SCOTUS says we have the individual right to bear arms, on a constitutional basis. That's not going away. End of story.

[Narradisall]

I didn't say Roe v. Wade was a "bad" decision, I said it was a "horribly-reasoned" decision, which it is nearly universally recognized as being in terms of legal rationale. There's a difference between pronouncing a result as good or bad, and pronouncing the rationale to arrive at that result as well-reasoned or horribly-reasoned; a big difference.

Also, Supreme Courts are hesitant to boldly overturn prior Court decisions (it does happen, as Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Ed. reveals); stare decisis, which I mentioned, explains this. You can read up on it if you're interested, or PM Ox!!

SCOTUS says we have the individual right to bear arms, on a constitutional basis. That's not going away. End of story.

Ah ok, my bad reading comphrension. I'll have to look at to why it was poorly reasoned.

If it follows from UK law, then I know how stare decisis works, but as their are different applications and depending on the times not all courts bind themselves (House of Lords had a habit of jumping about on that one). So in theory it could be overruled.

I don't know much about how the constitution works in America, but I would have reasoned it being amended before, that those amendments etc could be undone. Likely? No, but still possible. It would be poor rational to have a legally binding rule that could never be reversed. You'd have to have an amazingly good reason though.

[ShivaX]

Ah ok, my bad reading comphrension. I'll have to look at to why it was poorly reasoned.

If it follows from UK law, then I know how stare decisis works, but as their are different applications and depending on the times not all courts bind themselves (House of Lords had a habit of jumping about on that one). So in theory it could be overruled.

I don't know much about how the constitution works in America, but I would have reasoned it being amended before, that those amendments etc could be undone. Likely? No, but still possible. It would be poor rational to have a legally binding rule that could never be reversed. You'd have to have an amazingly good reason though.

To write a new amendment it has to be ratified by 3/4s of the states.
That just plain will never happen, ever.

[Telefrog]

Theres a ton of them on youtube where people are complying 100% and not resisting and get shot for it.

People upload videos to YouTube of other people getting shot because it's shocking or compelling. I find it hard to fathom why anyone would upload a video on YouTube of someone NOT getting shot since that wouldn't seem to attract many hits. It's the same reason you find so many videos of people crashing cars, falling off skateboards, or getting hit in the balls with various objects rather than going about their business in uneventful ways.

If I only used YouTube as a source, I could easily believe that the most common outcome of getting into a vehicle would be a horrific accident.

[ShivaX]

People upload videos to YouTube of other people getting shot because it's shocking or compelling. I find it hard to fathom why anyone would upload a video on YouTube of someone NOT getting shot since that wouldn't seem to attract many hits. It's the same reason you find so many videos of people crashing cars, falling off skateboards, or getting hit in the balls with various objects rather than going about their business in uneventful ways.

If I only used YouTube as a source, I could easily believe that the most common outcome of getting into a vehicle would be a horrific accident.

Well sure. Most people go in and buy gas and a Mountain Dew and thats it. I'm not saying youtube is a going to be a viable basis, but saying that people don't get shot for not doing anything is bullcrap because it happens fairly often. Finding actual statistics seems hopeless since noone seems to be tracking it and making it readily available.

I thought maybe the NRA would have something, but all they have is the worst website ever. I'd rather have a government study anyways since going to a pro- or anti-gun place for stats is just begging for misinformation and manipulation.

[Slack3r78]

One video /= stats. And if you think that exchanging rounds barely a foot from a babies face is heroic, sensible, or god help me, cool, well, I couldn't disagree more. That's all I have to say on this particular sub discussion.
I was hoping that I could find some numbers directly examining fatalities occurring during the commission of armed robberies, but had no luck. About the best I was able to come up with (http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1770/Guns-Injuries-Fatalities-GUNS-SELF-DEFENSE-STUDIES.html) seems to indicate that the available data shows firearms being used in self-defense scenarios at a far higher rate than the number of total annual firearms-related deaths in this country (including accidents and suicides). Unfortunately, that is vaguer than I'd really like.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Why would anyone, even in their wildest dreams, think about invading America? With or without legions of armed rednecks. That's not how you take down a superpower, and no one, not Al Qaeda, not Russia, not China, not Zombie Hitler, would ever try it that way. You let them overextend and weaken themselves in various ways until they collapse on their own, nudging them along whenever you can.

Well, obviously. However, our insane legion of rednecks means that, even if you were to follow those steps to take out America, good luck with any sort of occupation. It would be dumber than attacking Russia in the winter.

[Ink Asylum]

Well, obviously. However, our insane legion of rednecks means that, even if you were to follow those steps to take out America, good luck with any sort of occupation. It would be dumber than attacking Russia in the winter.

So they're justifying their actions with a scenario that would never happen. Hence, paranoia.

[Johan]

So they're justifying their actions with a scenario that would never happen. Hence, paranoia.

I checked in the DSM-IV to be sure; buying a gun is not a symptom of paranoia. Also, if I decide to buy a legal product, I don't have to justify it to anyone, anywhere, at all.

Well...my wife. I have to justify it to her. :D

[National Kato]

However, our insane legion of rednecks means that, even if you were to follow those steps to take out America, good luck with any sort of occupation. It would be dumber than attacking Russia in the winter.

How are they going to repel a foreign armed invasion if they can't even get that 1955 GMC shortbed off the blocks in their front yard?

[Ink Asylum]

But if you do justify it by claiming you're stockpiling weapons and ammo to defend against invasion then you are paranoid.

[Johan]

But if you do justify it by claiming you're stockpiling weapons and ammo to defend against invasion then you are paranoid.

Agreed.

Are there really people 'out there' who think we're going to be invaded? If anything, a biological or radiological dirty bomb would be much more likely than a full-scale invasion.

[ShivaX]

But if you do justify it by claiming you're stockpiling weapons and ammo to defend against invasion then you are paranoid.

Well sure, but to be fair I haven't heard that excuse since the Soviet Union collapsed.

[Ink Asylum]

As China grows more powerful on the world stage I wouldn't be surprised to see those who feared a Soviet invasion start fearing a Chinese one.

[ShivaX]

As China grows more powerful on the world stage I wouldn't be surprised to see those who feared a Soviet invasion start fearing a Chinese one.

Maybe. They'd need a navy first.

I think they're going to stick with the whole "need to defend myself from the liberals/fascists at home" thing for a while though.

[Ox]

Maybe. They'd need a navy first.
You could have made the same objection about the Soviets. The Soviet Navy was never remotely capable -- or even intended -- to sealift a significant quantity of troops across an ocean even unopposed.

[ShivaX]

You could have made the same objection about the Soviets. The Soviet Navy was never remotely capable -- or even intended -- to sealift a significant quantity of troops across an ocean even unopposed.

True, but they didn't have all that far to go and they did have the second most powerful navy on the planet. I think I heard China is getting a carrier or something, so thats a start I guess.

Plus we know the Soviets could just paradrop from Vladivostok anyway. Haven't you ever seen Red Dawn?

[TheFlyingOrc]

But if you do justify it by claiming you're stockpiling weapons and ammo to defend against invasion then you are paranoid.

Certainly. However, its a comforting thought for me in the long term that they're there. They're like military 2.

[Ox]

True, but they didn't have all that far to go and they did have the second most powerful navy on the planet.
They had a powerful navy, but is was all directed at two things:
1. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, against which an M-16 is not much defense.

2. Killing our carriers.

It wasn't an invasion fleet.

Plus we know the Soviets could just paradrop from Vladivostok anyway. Haven't you ever seen Red Dawn?
The only movie I've ever seen where Patrick Swayze being a tough hombre wasn't the most unbelieveable thing about it. The distance from Vladivostok to Denver is 9244 (http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/index.php?city1=Denver&city2=Vladivostok) kilometers. The longest-range Soviet strategic airlift craft had less than half that range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76). It would need to refuel twice just to perform a suicide mission.

[ShivaX]

They had a powerful navy, but is was all directed at two things:
1. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, against which an M-16 is not much defense.

2. Killing our carriers.

It wasn't an invasion fleet.

No it definately wasn't, but at the these people didn't think that way. They knew the Russians had a navy, so that was enough.

The only movie I've ever seen where Patrick Swayze being a tough hombre wasn't the most unbelieveable thing about it. The distance from Vladivostok to Denver is 9244 (http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/index.php?city1=Denver&city2=Vladivostok) kilometers. The longest-range Soviet strategic airlift craft had less than half that range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76). It would need to refuel twice just to perform a suicide mission.

I'm not sure anything in that movie was believable at any point. Thats what makes it so... awesome?

[Ink Asylum]

Maybe. They'd need a navy first.

I think they're going to stick with the whole "need to defend myself from the liberals/fascists at home" thing for a while though.

As Ox pointed out, the actual capabilities (or lack thereof) of a nation invading one as large as ours doesn't deter the paranoid.

For now the paranoia will be Obama rounding up righties in FEMA concentration camps, but what will there be to fear once the next Republican wins back the White House, whenever that will be, yet the Obama Youth hasn't infiltrated American families yet?

[headhunter228]

Okay, back to the original point. This may have been mentioned before, but from what I heard, everyone here in America (namely the South, where we rednecks are) is afraid President Obama is going to take our guns. That's bullshit, of course, but people, as a whole, are stupid and will believe almost anything. Obama can't take our guns away, that would piss too many people off. He can certainly make them harder to get, and that's what I think everyone's afraid of. Everyone's buying their guns and ammo now, before Obama and Congress have a chance to enact stricter gun-control laws. But enough guns to outfit two of the biggest armies of the world? That's intense.

[Ox]

yet the Obama Youth hasn't infiltrated American families yet?
I dunno. Given the extraordinary support and loyalty our current President enjoys from our youngest citizens, I think being a little nervous about "Obama Youth" actually isn't quite totally insane. I'm fairly certain my sister would try to turn me in to the cops for treason if I decided not to sort my recycling.

[headhunter228]

I dunno. Given the extraordinary support and loyalty our current President enjoys from our youngest citizens, I think being a little nervous about "Obama Youth" actually isn't quite totally insane. I'm fairly certain my sister would try to turn me in to the cops for treason if I decided not to sort my recycling.

Where do you live? Most of the kids down here in Arkansas hate Obama. Some of them hate him because they're racist bastards, others because he wants to take our guns away. I don't particularly like Obama, but I don't know why. I just have this feeling. But, he is our President, (for some of us) so I hope he does well.

[Ox]

I live deep in the heart of Commie America. My county went for Obama by 67 points.

[Slack3r78]

Okay, back to the original point. This may have been mentioned before, but from what I heard, everyone here in America (namely the South, where we rednecks are) is afraid President Obama is going to take our guns. That's bullshit, of course
Well, it's also somewhat of a strawman. I more often hear people concerned that he wants to reenact the AWB, which Obama has said he'd like to see (though I don't see as being plausible at this time) or that Obama will try to implement steep taxes on ammunition making it difficult to be able to afford to shoot.

The irony being that I can't afford to shoot right now because of all the idiots hoarding ammunition. Thanks, guys.

[headhunter228]

The irony being that I can't afford to shoot right now because of all the idiots hoarding ammunition. Thanks, guys.

Our school actually started a high school trap shooting team. Ammo is provided by the Arkansas Game and Fish Comission, and the school board actually bought us some extra ammo, if we need it. The AGFC even provides guns for kids to use if they don't have one of their own, they just can't be kept on the school campus. I never really stopped to think about this, but this is a bad time to start something like this. I wonder how much longer this is going to last before trap shooting in school becomes outlawed or ammo becomes too expensive for the state to simply give it to the schools.

See, we do have guns in school! Just not in the way most people think.

[Slack3r78]

Our school actually started a high school trap shooting team. Ammo is provided by the Arkansas Game and Fish Comission, and the school board actually bought us some extra ammo, if we need it. The AGFC even provides guns for kids to use if they don't have one of their own, they just can't be kept on the school campus. I never really stopped to think about this, but this is a bad time to start something like this. I wonder how much longer this is going to last before trap shooting in school becomes outlawed or ammo becomes too expensive for the state to simply give it to the schools.

See, we do have guns in school! Just not in the way most people think.
Shotgun ammo hasn't been hit nearly as hard as handgun and rifle munitions. I can still walk into any gun store or Wal-Mart and buy all the 12 gauge shells I'd like.

Something like 9mm is difficult to find and is usually marked up quite a bit higher than it was 6 months ago if you do find it.

[Narradisall]

I got to ask. How much is handgun ammo, and how much has it been marked up by?

Im just more idlely curious at the costs than anything else.

[Slack3r78]

I got to ask. How much is handgun ammo, and how much has it been marked up by?

Im just more idlely curious at the costs than anything else.
Varies by caliber and type of ammunition. Last fall 9mm target ammo could be had for around $9-12 for a box of 50 rounds depending on brand. The cheapest I've been able to find recently has been closer to $13-15 a box.

JHPs are even worse. 9mm Federal HSTs were around $21-24 a box. Now they're usually out of stock every where and the few times I've seen them available, it's been around $35 a box.

[Sl1pstream]

Next time you want to start jumping on the "Hurr, Yanks are stupid" bandwagon, you might want to consider whether your walls are in fact, made of glass.

Didn't you just compare a gun to a plastic toy sword?

[Narradisall]

Varies by caliber and type of ammunition. Last fall 9mm target ammo could be had for around $9-12 for a box of 50 rounds depending on brand. The cheapest I've been able to find recently has been closer to $13-15 a box.

JHPs are even worse. 9mm Federal HSTs were around $21-24 a box. Now they're usually out of stock every where and the few times I've seen them available, it's been around $35 a box.

I was just thinking standard 9mm bullets.

So say the bog standard brand you used to buy cost $12 a box of 50. How much are the exact same brand now?

[Slack3r78]

I was just thinking standard 9mm bullets.

So say the bog standard brand you used to buy cost $12 a box of 50. How much are the exact same brand now?
Winchester was around $12 a box before. I think the last time I bought those at the range it cost me closer to $16.

[Jboy001]

Winchester was around $12 a box before. I think the last time I bought those at the range it cost me closer to $16.


Sounds about the same as here, I was at a gun show last weekend and dealers had the 100 count boxes of Winchester range ammo that you can get at Walmart for $20 and they were selling them for $40 or $45, the sad thing is people are paying it.

Luckily I only go to the range about once a month so the 700 rounds I do have here will last me awhile.

It's really sad when you cant find reasonably priced ammo to go target practice with...

[J Arcane]

The only movie I've ever seen where Patrick Swayze being a tough hombre wasn't the most unbelieveable thing about it. The distance from Vladivostok to Denver is 9244 (http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/index.php?city1=Denver&city2=Vladivostok) kilometers. The longest-range Soviet strategic airlift craft had less than half that range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76). It would need to refuel twice just to perform a suicide mission.

Honestly, I think people really misinterpret that movie. It starts out smacking of Cold War era propaganda, it's true, but once the movie gets going it actually seems to be quite down on the whole war thing. It even develops something of a sympathetic eye towards the Communist forces.

Also, they weren't Russian forces in the initial invasion in the film. The paratroopers and the early occupation forces were mostly Cuban/South American.

Well, obviously. However, our insane legion of rednecks means that, even if you were to follow those steps to take out America, good luck with any sort of occupation. It would be dumber than attacking Russia in the winter.

History is chock-full of instances in which an invasion of a superior force is hampered or even ultimately demoralized and repelled, by a seemingly unprofessional, untrained, but armed civilian populace.
FYI I wasn't being smug. I just find the scenario and the general populas reaction to it amusing.

*snip*

Because they may try to tale you guns away? As you have proven frequently the initial reaction of some gun enthusiasts is to start screaming loudly that it's your right to bare arms and it's all some part of a evil scheme to control you. Comes across as rather tin hat like and not very plausible.

*snip*

I remember the thread about automatic weapons and most the arguemebt for assault rifles for home defense was due to people not being good enough shots to take down 3-4 people attacking your home. Honestly you believe this to be a likely scenario?


Yeah, you're not being smug at all. *rolls eyes so hard he can see his eye sockets from the inside*

[Ox]

Honestly, I think people really misinterpret that movie. It starts out smacking of Cold War era propaganda, it's true, but once the movie gets going it actually seems to be quite down on the whole war thing. It even develops something of a sympathetic eye towards the Communist forces.
I see why you say that, but I still think it was closer to anti-Communist than pro-Communist. The Longest Day has some very sympathetic portrayals of certain Germans, but it's clearly not anti-war.

Also, they weren't Russian forces in the initial invasion in the film. The paratroopers and the early occupation forces were mostly Cuban/South American.
You're right, I can't believe I forgot that.

[TheFlyingOrc]

History is chock-full of instances in which an invasion of a superior force is hampered or even ultimately demoralized and repelled, by a seemingly unprofessional, untrained, but armed civilian populace.


Like Red Dawn.

[J Arcane]

I see why you say that, but I still think it was closer to anti-Communist than pro-Communist. The Longest Day has some very sympathetic portrayals of certain Germans, but it's clearly not anti-war.

Oh I think on the balance yes, in terms of America vs. Commies, it's definitely on the side of the Americans. Even the South American General they spin into a sympathetic character is sort of made out to be a semi-unwilling conscript of sorts.

I think though, that at the very least, it is unafraid to show the war as being an incredibly unpleasant thing, and it can't be ignored that most all of the main characters except two die, and they only live because they basically flee from the front.

[Ink Asylum]

like red dawn.

Wolverines!!!

[National Kato]

Like Red Dawn.

Tell the truth: do you have a Swayze/Howell poster on your wall?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Tell the truth: do you have a Swayze/Howell poster on your wall?

This may be the most shameful thing I've had to admit:

I have not actually seen Red Dawn, I'm just familiar with its premise.

[National Kato]

Why do you want to make Lea Thompson cry?

[J Arcane]

This may be the most shameful thing I've had to admit:

I have not actually seen Red Dawn, I'm just familiar with its premise.
You should see it. It's actually much better than most people give it credit for. I only saw it very, very recently (as in like, a couple weeks ago), and was pleasantly surprised by it in the end.

[Vandabo]

You should see it. It's actually much better than most people give it credit for. I only saw it very, very recently (as in like, a couple weeks ago), and was pleasantly surprised by it in the end.

I actually first saw it in a senior level history class on the Cold War. We had a pretty interesting discussion about it afterwards, if I remember correctly.

That was a great class. We watched The Day the Earth Stood Still and Dr. Strangelove as well.

Probably one of the few times those three movies have ever been mentioned in the same post.

[Narradisall]

Yeah, you're not being smug at all. *rolls eyes so hard he can see his eye sockets from the inside*

#Edit to end this thread of the conversation.

I was not intending to come across as smug or self satisfied at all. I honestly wanted to know the reasoning behind the American belief that these things are required, as not being American and living in a society where guns are not required I was curious. Since you declined to answer this question there's little point in continuing our chat.

[OUX]

History is chock-full of instances in which an invasion of a superior force is hampered or even ultimately demoralized and repelled, by a seemingly unprofessional, untrained, but armed civilian populace.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/M1942_liberator.jpg
Yo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator)

[CES]

So that's where MGS3 got that design from. Neat.

[headhunter228]

I don't recall the exact numbers, but I do know that a few million Liberators were built in the space of a few months, and that one of these pistols were built every five seconds, which was less time than it took to load and fire the gun. In addition to the Liberator pistols, the British also built Sten guns and dropped those to resistance forces. Some resistance forces even manufactured their own Stens.

[Telefrog]

Wait. Is the mention of the Liberator in this thread being used as a point for or against the idea that firearms help an armed civilian populace fight against invaders?

In reality, the OSS never saw the practicality in mass dropping the Liberator over occupied Europe, and only a handful were ever distributed. Only the Chinese and resistance forces in the Philippines received the Liberator in any significant quantity. The Liberator was never issued to American or Allied troops and there is no documented instance of the weapon being used for their intended purpose.

Historically, it sounds like a point against in that we wasted a shitload of effort and resources to do nothing. The follow-up model, the Deer Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_gun) was a complete failure as well.

[OUX]

I think this is a wiki failure because I know I have read about civilian use of this gun against oppressors.

[Inspector Fowler]

Finding ammo seems to be the worst part of this panic. .40 is usually no cheaper than $0.30 a round now, and .223 is about the same! What the hell?!

I have plans, though. Evil plans. MWA HA HA HA H- oh, wait, I'm just going to get .22LR conversions for my Glock and when it's finished, my AR15. You can get 1,000 rounds of that stuff for $60 or less. For the kind of shooting and practice I need to do, it's pretty much perfect.

[J Arcane]

As I understand it, the conversion kits for the AR are rather unreliable and hideously inaccurate. You're better off spending a bit of extra cash and getting a .22LR upper to swap in for the target shooting.

[Inspector Fowler]

As I understand it, the conversion kits for the AR are rather unreliable and hideously inaccurate. You're better off spending a bit of extra cash and getting a .22LR upper to swap in for the target shooting.

A conversion kit is $180, a new upper would be hideously expensive. I would consider a new upper sometime in the future when I have cash, but as it is I get pretty strapped. Between 2007 and 2008 I took a $20,000 paycut to come to this job at the university, and we have almost no overtime here, so I am essentially working on my $100/month "allowance".

I am also considering buying some reloading equipment, but from what I understand it's very, very hard to find brass right now anyway. Grrrrr.

[Spockrocket]

I don't know much about how the constitution works in America, but I would have reasoned it being amended before, that those amendments etc could be undone. Likely? No, but still possible. It would be poor rational to have a legally binding rule that could never be reversed. You'd have to have an amazingly good reason though.

Stopped reading when I saw this so forgive me if it's been addressed.

You are absolutely correct that amendments can be undone. See amendments 18 and 21: 18 was Prohibition, and 21 canceled 18.

Although, getting amendments passed is a bitch. Getting enough states to ratify one is usually more trouble than it's worth, so many issues are left for the states to decide for themselves; homosexual marriage for example.

/end thread derailment.

[txshurricane]

Those would be through private sales, which means that the gun is already in circulation and has been through a background check at least once. I.E., they're all used. These are new gun sales.

Only guns sold through private sales do not require background checks. Used and new guns sold through a dealer require a background check. At least that is how it is here in Florida. In regards to the background check (Florida), it's requirement covers all firearms types: pistols, shotguns and rifles. If you don't have a concealed weapon permit, there is a waiting period for pistols while there isn't one for rifles nor shotguns.

My three pistols have all gone up in value between $200 and $300 due to these events while the M44 rifle has gone up by ~$50.

Sorry for digging up this old thread (actually, ABXY did it)...but in Texas, you don't have to submit to a background check to purchase a firearm if you have a Concealed Handgun License. Once you've gone through the checks required for the permit, you can show your CHL instead of having a background check done.

There are a surprising number of CHLs used to buy firearms at gun shows. I would bet that the numbers presented in the original post are lower than the actual sales.

[Slack3r78]

Sorry for digging up this old thread (actually, ABXY did it)...but in Texas, you don't have to submit to a background check to purchase a firearm if you have a Concealed Handgun License. Once you've gone through the checks required for the permit, you can show your CHL instead of having a background check done.

There are a surprising number of CHLs used to buy firearms at gun shows. I would bet that the numbers presented in the original post are lower than the actual sales.

This is actually a provision of federal law, and it's the reason why many states require carry permits to be renewed every 5 years; you can only waive the NICS check if the permit is only valid for 5 years or less. There's actually a bill in the GA state house right now that would create a lifetime GFL, but you'd forgo being able to skip NICS by doing so.

Even if you waive the NICS check by way of state carry permit, a BATF Form 4473 must still be filed for every transaction by a FFL.