Yeah, that’s how them folks think. “If we can ban one type of firearm, we can use that as precedent to ban more, then all firearms.” They let it slip out now and then, then they wonder why we don’t want to “compromise.”
And in the process of getting those guns out of criminal hands. How many years of increased gun crime did those countries endure? You don’t need to disarm the populace to disarm criminals. Licensing and registration does it much more effectively than banning guns. It might not be as effective as confiscating all the guns but then you don’t have to deal with the spike in crime rates either.
First of all, the horse is out of the barn, there are 300+ million guns in our society. Second of all, how many of the 12000 gun murders last year do you think occurred at the hands of legal gun owners versus criminals and domestic abusers?
If the first AWB didn’t work, what makes you think a second one would? Isn’t your question directed at the wrong side of this debate?
I think there is a difference between wouldn’t and couldn’t
It was a quip but the fact that they can’t succeed doesn’t mean they’re not out to get us. You don’t have to propose doomed legislation to meet the standard of trying.
Shouldn’t the objective be “more safe” rather than “less armed”. For example, Mexico is FAR less armed that USA and far less safe as well. I’m not saying that more guns means more safety but at least in the case of our neighbors to the south, fewer guns have not meant less violence. Oh but there are differences between Mexico and the US right? Well there are differences between Canada and the US too. How do you know that fewer guns will lead to Cadan type results and not Mexico style results?
90% of the public supports universal background checks not universal registration and licensing. It will take significantly more education for the public to understand how beneficial universal licensing and registration would be to public safety. Unfortunately the gun control crowd has spent all their political capital on meaningless retarded shit like an AWB which was ineffective and produced no discernible results the last time around and only account for a miniscule portion of gun deaths (less than 400 of the almost 100,000 gun murders or 240,000 gun deaths since the expiration of the AWB in 2004).
I never saw any cite or statement from you showing any sort of compromise. I saw what the democrats compromised within their own selves regarding what they thought they could pass, but no “handshake across the aisles” true compromise. That is of course unless you think that not putting out legislation to ban ALL guns is some sort of compromise.
I stated that if you want to register all guns, then all guns should be treated the same. Currently NFA weapons are registered. It seems to make logical sense that by adding the rest of the firearms out there to the registry, any differences between NFA and non NFA guns would cease.
Regarding background checks, I stated I would support it if I were allowed to skirt any BG check by submitting to increased scrutiny including bi annual testing. that is a nice trade off in my opinion.
I’m demanding compromise in order to win my support. Not sure if you have noticed, but we gun owners are winning right now. We are motivated. The 90% number you stated is a farce and you know it. The poll numbers are dwindling for support of anything new. No AW ban will be passed and if the Dems are lucky, they might get an increased background check law passed. Even that is doubtful.
Make the correct compromise, and you would be shocked as to how much support regular gun owners like myself would offer.
Its kind of like when Republicans “compromise” with Obama. Apparently compromise now means taking some of the more ridiculous stuff off your wish list.
I don’t see why everything would have to be registered a la NFA. Why can’t FFLs simply upload the information to a national database as they do their NICS check?
BIANNUAL? My driver’s license is good for 5 years, my current CCW is good for 5 years. In a lot of states a CCW exempts you from a background check.
We’re more than motivated, we are right.
The problem is that this is one area where many liberals are unable to think clearly (its like the way many conservatives are with science, human rights, taxes, economics, etc.). They can’t get around their fears and preconceived notions long enough to address things rationally.
I’ve already said twice that banning semi-autos makes sense to me, and why. Continually asking if I want other guns banned isn’t going to turn me into an anti-gun fanatic like you seem to want me to be.
I just saw that the proposed law wouldn’t ban guns already in existence, so it wouldn’t affect you if you had one. I guess there’s no need for false pretenses on one side or belligerence on the other.
Are you actually saying that the senseless murder of people in spree killings is for the greater good? That 12,000 murders every year is fine as long as you get to play with whatever gun you want?
Not sure what you’re point is about alcohol, but you’re asking the wrong guy anyway. I have about as much use for alcohol as I do for guns, so a complete ban on either wouldn’t bother me personally. But I don’t begrudge others for using them as long as my safety isn’t threatened.
The killing potential of a semi-automatic over a bolt action is a fact. You can’t argue that. And bags of fertilizer aren’t being used to kill people every day so why even bring it up? The debate is about guns, not bombs.
Just licensing and registering guns still means all those guns are out there, but I suppose it’s better than nothing.
Does it matter what the ratio is? There were 12,000 gun murders because the country is flooded with guns.
I have no idea if it would work. I just know that it’s supremely stupid letting everyone have such deadly firepower. If you can’t get those guns out of their hands, there’ll continue to be more senseless barbarity like Aurora and Sandy Hook and Columbine.
Banning semi-autos is enough to make you an anti-gun fanatic in my book. I just want to see how far you really want to go? Bolt action sniper type weapons like Charles Whitman and deer hunters use?
It affects future weapons I might buy. It also affects younger friends of mine who’s gun collection is less extensive. I’m not so selfish as to only think of myself.
No senseless murder sprees aren’t for the greater good, it’s what we tolerate in order to preserve a armed society. Which helps protect against home invasions and genocides of millions.
Your safety is threatened every time you get on the rode by other drivers who may be intoxicated. So do you think we should return to prohibition?
Bombs kill people all the time. Why do you think we left Iraq? Also have you ever read any of those books or seen movies about snipers with 93 or more confirmed kills? What kind of gun do you think they used? Bolt action or semi auto? Ah heck why ask you, you don’t know, you didn’t know revolvers shoot as fast as semi autos. Have you every fired a gun?
Setting aside the hypocritical, self-serving, and ultimately self-defeating attitude of only caring to defend those liberties which you yourself exercise at this moment, you might consider how your last sentence could be applied equally well to guns and alcohol. If you think the use of alcohol by others doesn’t threaten your safety, you might want to consider the ten thousand or so innocents killed every year by drunk drivers. Or to put the other spin on it, you might consider how the responsible use of firearms, like the responsible use of alcohol, does not threaten your safety at all.
Are you trying to confiscate guns? In which case I would say… good luck with that.
If you want to disarm the populace, I would say that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is not a significant danger to society, its the guns in the hands of criminals (and domestic abusers) that are the source of almost all the gun violence in America.
Of course it matters. If I told you that 95% of the 16,000 car fatalities was the result of drunk driving, would you advocate for getting rid of cars in society or would you advocate for one of breathalyzer gizmos installed in every car?
And I think thats a problem, you are effectively shooting in the dark and you are forming policy based on anecdote rather than data. If you can use anecdotal evidence like aurora and sandy hook, then others can use anecdotal evidence like the kid who saved himself and his little sister with an assault rifle.
I think your heart is in the right place but you are trying to reach a destination without a map. You’ve seen the cites proving that ten years of AWB had no discernable effect on gun violence and we have seen what happens when we implement universal licensing and registration requirements (see, NFA) and yet you still want to have an AWB and minimize the effect licensing and registration would have. It really doesn’t seem rational. It seems emotional.
How do you define semi-automatic weapon? And I missed the why? Can you point me to the post?
The utility of a semiautomatic in defense is a fact. You can’t argue that. You can’t simply ignore the good that guns can do.
Genocide of millions? Would you be willing to tolerate licensing and registration if it would significantly reduce the number of guns in criminal hands and consequently the amount of gun violence in society.
Cars are really useful for other reasons. I think a better example would be cigarettes and second and second hand smoke, Cigarettes serve almost no beneficial purpose and not only kills you, it can impact the health of those around you. Why don’t we ban cigarettes?
I support the right to bear arms but there is a pretty big difference between a detachable magazine and a revolver that requires bulky speedloaders. Besides I’ve never seena revolver that holds more than 11 rounds, I’ve seen 250 round drum clips.
Its more like 16 or 17 thousand drunk driving fatalities.
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/75-3/753-4.html
I might tolerate it, but I wouldn’t at all support it. Gun-grabbers continue to tip their hands that things like licensing and registration are not their goal, but just a good start, on their way towards their goal.
What I would support is firearms safety training in public schools, legalizing drugs to get pushers off the street, and putting welfare recipients on birth control, all of which I think would do a lot to lessen gun accidents & violence. I would also get rid of gun-free zones in schools and let school faculty carry concealed weapons.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi;16015164"]
I support the right to bear arms but there is a pretty big difference between a detachable magazine and a revolver that requires bulky speedloaders. Besides I’ve never seena revolver that holds more than 11 rounds, I’ve seen 250 round drum clips.
[/QUOTE]
You want to outlaw firearms with detachable magazines? Are you familiar with moon clips?
Of course it’s emotional. How else do you react to senseless slaughter on a regular basis? It’s a bit freaky when the brutal murder of six-year-old kids is treated as a mere anecdote by pro-gun people who then get all emotional when it comes to their guns, as if their guns are anything more than “anecdotes” themselves. It’s like they’re living in Afghanistan or Somalia, not a modern Western country where the right to life is held up as inalienable. I presume the founders wanted the U.S. to be better than that, but the right to life of gun victims isn’t so inalienable these day. Those kids might as well have been born in Somalia for all the good they got from American society.
All the spree killers I can think of were law-abiding until they started killing people, and that’s probably true of a fair amount of murderers. Being a law-abiding citizen today is no guarantee that you won’t kill someone tomorrow, especially when guns are at your disposal.
I presume he was forced to do it because an intruder/attacker had a gun, thanks largely to the ease with which guns can be had.
And I’d say leaving all those guns out there is not having a destination, but I’m not going to continue debating it. We’re just butting heads and mine is getting sore so I probably won’t post in this thread anymore.
I won’t argue with the blatantly obvious, and I don’t need to consider it for even a second. Now I invite you to consider the danger to the public from irresponsible gun use. You know, what the whole gun debate is all about.
Who’s debating in favor or irresponsible gun use?