Challenge Accepted. We need common sense and compromise on gun violence.

[okietom]

You seem to be confusing me shooting his gun with purchasing his gun. You are quite mistaken about the "felony". UBCs are about PURCHASING a firearm, not shooting someone else's gun WITH their permission and under their supervision. Comparisions to Lanza fall flat as he clearly didn't have permission to shoot his mothers guns.

TimB, the proposed UBC covers the TRANSFER of a gun. What your friend did was against the proposed law.

If it was only about buying a gun you could get around it by giving or loaning a gun to some one. The law prevents that. What your friend did would be illegal.

 

[farmerbyron]

I seriously tried my hardest not to post in this thread, but couldn't resist.

I haven't read through every page of this thread, but this age-old debate once again boils down to misunderstanding and presumptions based on "everybody knows" instead of actual evidence - once you look at real facts, statistics, and actual details of recent media-hyped events, you find that none of these presumptions are true - and are in-fact giving the anti-gunner (or pro gun-controller in this case) a skewed understanding of what needs to be done to stop crime or deaths of human beings in general.

Also, what is the intent of these "common sense gun laws"? Is it to stop/prevent school shootings? Mass shootings? Deaths by murder with a gun? Deaths (including accidental and negligence) by guns? Deaths overall (including intentional-crimes and negligence)?

What The OP first posted will do the least amount of good to all of the above - so why are so many people proposing these laws? It's not facts or logic, and it's not "common sense"... It's mis-information and emotional reaction.



I'll break this down by section:





First off, you're not stating facts - you're assuming things and those that I've underlined are flat-out false. UBC will not work without Mandatory Registration (that fact came from the Justice Department from both this and Clinton's administration).
http://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/18l9j1/leaked_justice_department_memo_acknowledges_that/

"The gunshow loophole" was dis-proven by Senator Cruz (guns sold at gunshows account for only 1.9% of guns found at the scenes of crimes - and more than half of those were sold via NICS/4473).
http://heelsandhandguns.com/2013/01/senator-ted-cruz-perfect-presentation/

Keep in mind that once again, you're trying to pass a law to prevent someone who is already looking to break an existing law (criminal) from committing another crime after doing so.

If you want to prevent guns from getting into the hands of future criminals, then good luck - it is impossible to tell the future without violating the rights of law-abiding citizens - think about the NDAA and what it's done to our rights. How did that start? With the best of intentions, but mis-information and presumptions.





How are multiple threats different than multiple victims in a mass shooting? You've just given every argument against what you're claiming - if higher cap mags won't make you safer, then how are they more dangerous in the hands of a mass-shooter? Mass shootings are extremely rare - but more importantly, they're not "on the rise" or "more common" and their frequency has little to do with the advent of high-capacity magazines:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cs-are-mass-shootings-really-on-the-rise.html
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/making-sense-of-mass-shooting-statistics

Violent crime and shootings are actually going down (there's an actual obvious logical conclusion to draw here - links in the description to the FBI's crime database):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

As to the low-capacity magazine doing anything to prevent this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0

The Nuke/Fighter-Jet/Tank argument is completely illogical and is just an attempt at a Strawman argument (and even despite that, there are private citizens who own real fighter jets and machine guns) and is quite frankly, silly.




There are several bills being proposed this time around and all are quite different from the 94 AWB (which facts/statistics as well as Janet Reno's justice department will tell you were completely ineffective: http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-...sault-weapons-ban-was-useless/article/2520058 ), but the Feinstein bill doesn't allow for transfer of previously owned "Assault weapons", so there will be no "Pre-ban" this time around.

Also, what is an assault weapon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

Have you read the bill and actually looked at what makes up a "Military-style assault weapon"? If looks and aesthetics (not function) are what make up assault weapons, then why describe them with the function of "assault"? Why are we banning these guns if they aren't used in the majority of crimes? Because those who are passing laws misunderstand these guns and/or how they are used (both legally and illegally). Basically, if you only know about gun-crime from action movies (and not actual crime statistics or knowledge), then you can easily be fooled into believing in your cause to rid the world of these "killing machines" despite the fact that as killers, guns aren't even that effective when you throw in non-murder stats like negligence (cars are much better killers of human beings).

Guns labeled as "assault weapons" in the 1994 assault weapon ban are used less in crime than blunt-objects to murder people - so again, common sense when based on misinformation is the opposite of common sense - it's ignorance. There are more real assault rifles in Mexico as a result of the Fast and Furious campaign than "assault weapons" as owned by Americans - the myth that any Mexican drug lord wants to use American-Citizen owned semi-automatic guns when fighting against the military or enemies with fully automatic guns is absurd.

Tyranny is not just government. If you're being attacked by a criminal, that criminal is committing an act of tyranny. Also, as impossible as it would be to fend off a real Tyrannical government with semi-auto rifles... is that so much harder to believe than fending off British soldiers with only muskets and inferior numbers?




I'm pleading with you to take your own advice here - not with emotions and mis-information, but with facts and logic.

 

[BikerHT]

I was hoping you would mention the oppression of blacks in regard to gun rights. It underlines the insidious nature of gun control. Gun control is a tool to suppress people from their natural rights.

Also during the civil war, many of the wealthier soldiers bought Henry rifles and were better armed than the arms issued by the army. The notion that the military should be the only ones with certain weapons is certainly a 20th century creation.

That book sounds right up my alley.

That book, Farmer, is probably not worth your time...
John R. Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, now in it’s 3rd edition, reviewed "Gunfight:” saying:
“The most disturbing thing about this book is how Winkler distorts what others have written. From the first hand knowledge that I have about the Heller and McDonald cases, it is very clear that Adam also got much of that recent history wrong.

Another reviewer stated: You absolutely will learn things in this book that you never knew before on the subject of our gun laws. But his writing is deceptive and follows the typical 'Divide and Conquer" tactic that strives to curry favor of one type of gun owner over another.

 

[JB Books]

OT: but lots of wealthy officers, particularly in the South, armed their units with non-standard weapons. Interesting.

 

[Phildo64]

TROLLY POLY Who you be breh??

 

[Shadowrider]

I will have to check this out since the snippet here seems to imply that if you go to a "private range" like private property and loan a gun out or loan to a friend to go to a private (i.e. non-"licensed target facility or established range") you could run afoul of this bill's provisions.

By golly I think you're on to something!

Edit: The sarcasm isn't directed at you Mugsy, I'm just using your post.

 

[Belthos]

I have seen the light.

I'm looking to downgrade my AR-15 with a custom Hello Kitty finish and pink highlights.

Clearly that will make it less threatening.

 

[operator742]

Background checks well never stop a felon from getting a gun just like drinking and drive laws don't stop people from being killed by drunk drivers.Gun control has never and well never be about public safety it is about controlling people.If they can take the Second amendment then whats next the first or fourth maybe the seventh how about that we don't really need it now do we. Outlawing things has never and will never stop or control anything if it did we wouldn't a drug problem in this country and probation would have worked.Has far as compromising that the biggest problem with this country today we have compromised our beliefs far to much all ready,when students are told they are not allowed to wear a American flag on there shirt or something supporting our military and soldiers,because it might offender someone a line has been crossed that should never been crossed.If you want to live in a country that then move to Iran or someplace else and see how that fits.But I bet it wouldn't be very long for you or any of the other liberal bleeding hearts and ya'll would be missing the red ,white and blue.Although you could just move to Chicago or New York City that's about the samething

It wont prevent criminals from getting guns. I'm not an idiot, I understand those hell bent on evil will find the ways and means to be evil. Doesn't it make sense to make it harder for a criminal to get a gun? It's too easy to lie and buy (assuming you dont "look" like a crimanal). As someone who takes part in the classifieds here wouldn't you feel better knowing for certain you were not selling to someone who was mentally unstable? This protects the seller as much as it protects society and buyer. The other issue you fail to address is the mentally unstable person.

The bottom line is that if you oppose felons, and those already judged by a court to be mentally incapable/dangerous being allowed to buy firearms you already support UBCs. This isn't about making new gun laws JUST ENFORCING THE ONES ALREADY THERE. A lot of you compain that we dont do enough to enforce existing gun laws... Well... It's already illigal for these people to buy guns, all UBCs do is enforce that law. *stop* now re-read that and think about it.

 

[HMFIC]

I haven't taken the time yet to read all of the replies and the additional comments by the OP, but I will just say this in response:

The Constitution of these United States of America, with it's 2nd Amendment, guarantees our right to keep and bear arms and declares that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That really should be the end of the story right there, but I'll humor you...

My personal rights are not subject to debate, nor infringement just because other people decide to break the law. It is not my duty, nor my wish to compromise in order to allow government to take away my rights, especially for what amounts to a false premise.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

I have seen the light.

I'm looking to downgrade my AR-15 with a custom Hello Kitty finish and pink highlights.

Clearly that will make it less threatening.

Like this: