See, I’m not in the corner. I’m an activist and have been for decades.
While you’ve been wringing your hands and whining about the need to compromise, I (and people like me) have been spending time and money rolling the antis back.
The Clinton ban was their last victory on the national level.
Did you think that things worked out that way just by chance?
Funny thing is, that doesn’t actually say any criminal charges have been brought as a result of Handgun Registration… isn’t that weird? Or, if it does, I missed it.
It mentions, in passing, the Registrations unit working with some other people. But, tracking can be done with the current FFL system, which, once again, would void out any benefit from the Registration.
Show you negative proof?
You want me to pull up every court case ever done in the state of Maryland, seriously? :rolleyes:
I’m not the one making the claim, you are.
Wringing my hands? :rolleyes: Listen, there IS a gun problem in the US. There IS a need to vigorously enforce the laws on the books. There ARE things wrong with the way the system works that allows protections within it to be easily thwarted. If you don’t think we need to address that, you’re mad.
All that said, the 2nd amendment is critical to the safety and security of this country. We need to make sure not only that it stays in place and intact, but that we have the right to hand down to future generations. The 2nd though doesn’t define the type of arms we can have/use/buy/own and who exactly can have/use/buy/own them, that’s what regs and laws are for. We need to ensure that those regs are tight and people looking to do easy harm are stopped at the gates instead of getting into the city center.
Your use of capital letters and calling me mad does not persuade me to agree with you. You aren’t quite exactly a Fudd, but you are clearly from a closely related species.
Does the media have an anti-gun bias? Tune in 20/20 on ABC Friday April 10 at 10:00 pm Eastern 9:00 pm Central and we’ll see. Maybe someone with more bandwidth then me can link to a actual vid of their promo, but here’s what I saw Monday night:
[voiceover:] “When it comes to protecting yourself…”
[stock footage of police standoffs and SWAT team mobilizations]
[voiceover:] “You may think ‘If I only had a gun’…”
[voiceover:] “But would you be able to defend yourself in a crisis?”
[simulation of a gunman opening fire on a roomful of people]
[voiceover:] “And what about the pull of guns on kids?”
[footage of kids playing with guns: a toddler stares down the barrel of a revolver; one young child laughs and points a gun at another; a teen pretends to hold a gun to his head]
[voiceover:] “Diane Sawyer investigates with David Moore. ‘If I only had a gun’.”
How much do you care to bet this will be devoted to “debunking the myth” that being armed would allow you to defend yourself against a gun rampage?
There have been scientific studies.
There is absolutely no connection between having a gun and being able to defend yourself with it and not having a gun and being unable to defend yourself with a gun.
So far, your terminology is correct.
Well, it at least addresses a fair compensation. Question: who determines what the “full retail cost” is? When I turn go to turn in my semi-auto, what if some “sumbitch gub’mint Official” determines the “full retail cost” of my rifle is $0, since they are now illegal to possess and cannot be legally purchased?
Uhm…if you’re doing away with semi-autos, what’s the point of this law?
I’ll grant you it’s a possibility (not one I seriously believe in, though), but what makes you think that the sort of person predisposed to a “mass shooting” is also going to be the same type to lawfully turn over their semi-auto firearms under the ban you proposed above?
And several years after your 10-year deadline has passed, and there’s still an incredible homicide rate from organized criminal activity, are you going to vote to repeal these laws and let us have our firearms back?
Or are you going to join the line of people saying we now have to ban and confiscate all the single-shot rifles and shotguns, previously determined to be “suitable only for sporting purposes,” under the “New & Improved Assault Weapons Ban II?”
Well, the fact that you aren’t a ranting loon trotting out all the tired old tropes (such as “penis compensation devices” to refer to firearms) means that you’re probably a rational, sane person.
If we have to be lectured on the sublime differences between different types of guns, you have to listen to our dick jokes.
I am not kidding. Please explain to me–briefly–why I should care about firearms specifications. In crafting your case, it may help to you know the following:
(1) I understand that guns are tools, with no inherent moral worth
(2) I understand that some people just like having guns (maybe for penis compensation purposes?), this does not bother me either nor do I pretend that this gratification is not a genuine social benefit that must enter into the cost-benefit analysis of guns
(3) All guns can kill people. Not just scary guns. Not just automatic rifles. Not just intermediate caliber whatevers. Each and every gun. That’s why I just talk about guns.
(3a) Maybe some guns are much more difficult to be used for killing people. This would be important to know and would probably alter my stance on the regulation of these killability-impaired weapons. If these exist, please tell me in a way that won’t make my eyes glaze over.
The way you phrased all that indicates you’ve already made your mind up on this topic and don’t have any intention of trying to understand. If you bother to read any explanation at all, it will only be with the intention of dismissing or refuting it. You’re not interested in anything to do with guns except as possible material to further your own agenda.
We’re winning in the legal arena.
Fuck off.
Ignorance fought!
Becuase if you don’t know anything about the subject you are trying to debate about you end up looking like this dumbass.
You can know it, from statistics.
Homicides, Gun Deaths, Suicides, etc. remain at the same level (in fact, they’ve increased) since the ban was enacted.
But you’re asking me to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy, and which is a realistic improbability. I’d literally have to pull out **every single court case in Maryland, **since the enactment of the ban, in order to prove my point.
That, however, is unnecessary. If you dispute my statement, and I would encourage you to do so, find me a cite that says I’m incorrect. Where a criminal case has been resolved, where it otherwise wouldn’t have (I’ll even err on your side, on this one), without the registration. One, or maybe we should make it two – to be fair.
On the other hand, the economic & social cost of this law has likely been at least one death, due to the mandatory seven day wait that it has imposed (So the police can do their background check, but even if it’s done before, they still can’t release the firearm).
It’s a very real possibility that someone who was a victim of domestic abuse (or someone who gets a restraining order) attempted to purchase a firearm, and in the intervening seven days was murder, when they could’ve had their lives saved by said firearm.
That, before you say it, is speculation. Did I tug anyones heart strings?
One question: Do you acknowledge that a person has a right to use a firearm in self defense?
I acknowledge that a person has the right to use anything available for self-defense. I suppose we can debat what “self-defense” means, which in my mind is someone who is in your face RIGHT NOW physically attacking you.
In that case, you’re neutering their ability to use a firearm in self defense.
Semiautomatic weapons are carried by police officers for a reason – they’re more effective weapons at personal protection (and by extension, the protection of others) than single shot firearms.
If someone breaks into your home, you may shoot them once and they won’t go down. Unlike the movies, bullets do not hit people with the same type of force as a baseball bat/sledge hammer. People do not going flying across the room.
In fact, the majority of the time, a single bullet won’t do anything other than injure them, causing a non-lethal, non-stopping injury. Unless you hit the Brain or CNS, you’re unlikely to stop a person with a single shot. Even a major organ shot, including heart, won’t necessarily stop a person.
If you have a receipt, you are paid that amount. If you don’t have a receipt, they pay you the retail price of the weapon when it was last available to be purchased legally. I would assume that information would be realtively easy to come by, with catalogs and manufacturers’ records. There is simply no reasonable way that “full retail value at time of purchase” could be interpreted as $0.
The point is to slow down the rate of fire of a shooter. To give victims more time to escape, counter-attack, whatever.
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I think it’s possible some will at a time in their life before that point when they go bonkers. And others will try to acquire weapons WHEN they go bonkers, and may not have the criminal contacts to get an illegal weapon at short notice. So they will get what legal weapons they can.
No. Again, I’m not an expert on statistics, but I would guess most gun-involved killing is not related to organized crime. And what there is is more related to criminals shooting each other than the general public. I’m not all that concerned about that. In fact, if drug dealers shoot each other and cops find their bloody corpses clutching illegal weapons in the street, that would make a decent collection system, if a little slow.
Why would you say this? I’m trying to figure out some reasonable options for gun control. I can’t say that someone else might not try to do what you suggest. In fact, I’m sure someone would. I don’t see where that matters. You may as well say we can’t have a 10% income tax, because surely someone will come along and try to change it to 15%. That’s a different battle, virtually every single law that gets passed for every single thing has that same possibility. It is not unique to gun control laws.
Let me put the question back to you. Is there anything at all beyond current law that you would find acceptable as a restriction on either gun posession or manufacture? Anything at all? And please don’t resort to the slippery-slope argument that we can’t do this one thing now, because someone will make it worse later. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but for the sake of discussion, let’s pretend it won’t.
I’ve heard from many sources that a shotgun is far more effective a home defenst weapon than a pistol. I’l go you one better – you can have a double barrel shotgun with two triggers and two pulls. You can also have a revolver, which can fore multiple times but more slowly. Hey, and I’ll up the bullet number to 6, which should make most existing revolvers stay legal.
Cops can have whatever they want – on duty.
And I’ll throw the question back at you as well – is there anything, anything at all, that YOU would find acceptable as a restriction on the posession or manufacture of firearms?
No. In fact, it is my goal to remove a good many of the existing restrictions.