• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22:654]***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
Well that's just simply not a fact. I would say that it's a fact that you could enforce it much better with registration. But you could still enforce it without.
Click to expand...

Yeah I suppose you could set up some stings to bust people for violating a stupid law but its still almost impossible.

the UBGC was pushed for two reasons

1) so politicians can pander to the shriekers who want something done even the UBGCs wouldn't have stopped most, if any, of the widely publicized massacres that the gun banners use to push their agenda

We know for a fact it would not have stopped SandyHook, or Loughner, or the San Bernardino shootings, nor racist who gunned down the Black Christians, nor Virginia Tech or Fort Hood etc. IN fact, can you name one of the biggest ten mass shootings where a UBGC would have stopped the shootings?

2) the second reason is that when it fails, its advocates can scream for registration or banning private sales
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
Well that's just simply not a fact. I would say that it's a fact that you could enforce it much better with registration. But you could still enforce it without.
Click to expand...

Please explain how. 55 Colorado sheriffs and the Department of Justice would be interested in your findings.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
US Police Chiefs Want Gun Background Checks | Al Jazeera America

And I can find many that think UBGC would work. Again, for the third time, if they simply disagree, then it's not dishonesty. You can keep twisting all you want. It doesn't change the very obvious and simple answer.
Click to expand...
I know you favor Universal background checks. Do you also favor a gun registry? Do you have any concern that currently, background checks are tracked? Do you trust the government to NOT keep records and databases they arent supposed to keep?

See...I'm OK if you both want Universal Background Checks AND want a gun registry. Then we just disagree. But the reality is, our government has very clearly demonstrated...laws really dont pertain to them when it comes to keeping information on its citizens. Im not sure how any reasoned person can or should trust the government at this point.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

TurtleDude said:
Yeah I suppose you could set up some stings to bust people for violating a stupid law but its still almost impossible.
Click to expand...

Great, we agree it's not impossible. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
Great, we agree it's not impossible. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
Click to expand...

uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

VanceMack said:
I know you favor Universal background checks. Do you also favor a gun registry? Do you have any concern that currently, background checks are tracked? Do you trust the government to NOT keep records and databases they arent supposed to keep?

See...I'm OK if you both want Universal Background Checks AND want a gun registry. Then we just disagree. But the reality is, our government has very clearly demonstrated...laws really dont pertain to them when it comes to keeping information on its citizens. Im not sure how any reasoned person can or should trust the government at this point.
Click to expand...

I very clearly stated my position earlier in the thread. I'm against all gun, magazine bans, I support a constitutional amendment accommodating a thorough gun registration and mandatory back ground checks on all transfers of firearms. That amendment could also include that any kind of gun confiscation or gun bans are strictly unconstitutional with the few exceptions such as a person guilty of violent fun crime or serious mental instability.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
I very clearly stated my position earlier in the thread. I'm against all gun, magazine bans, I support a constitutional amendment accommodating a thorough gun registration and mandatory back ground checks on all transfers of firearms. That amendment could also include that any kind of gun confiscation or gun bans are strictly unconstitutional with the few exceptions such as a person guilty of violent fun crime or serious mental instability.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with this opinion. And anyone who calls us gan banners is simply lying
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

TurtleDude said:
uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
Click to expand...

Source for this? Seems absurdly low.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
Source for this? Seems absurdly low.
Click to expand...

its been posted on this gun forum dozens of times and in the last week by Rucker and others
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
Great, we agree it's not impossible. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
Click to expand...

How does arresting a couple of people each year make a law effective or even worth doing?

The police don't even try to enforce it. Since 2013, there's not been a single arrest in Colorado where the sole charge was acquiring a firearm in a private sale with a BGC.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/30/colorado-gun-laws-enforcement/5055523/
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

TurtleDude said:
its been posted on this gun forum dozens of times and in the last week by Rucker and others
Click to expand...

Well that must make it a fact then. Sorry for questioning some random thing you heard online. :lamo
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
I very clearly stated my position earlier in the thread. I'm against all gun, magazine bans, I support a constitutional amendment accommodating a thorough gun registration and mandatory back ground checks on all transfers of firearms. That amendment could also include that any kind of gun confiscation or gun bans are strictly unconstitutional with the few exceptions such as a person guilty of violent fun crime or serious mental instability.
Click to expand...

given that compliance with gun registration by those owning guns legally is less than 20% seems you want to try to turn millions into criminals. and since criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register guns, I am skeptical as to why you think registration will do anything good. I suspect you really haven't studied the issue about why registration is so worthless in preventing criminals from getting guns
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
Well that must make it a fact then. Sorry for questioning some random thing you heard online. :lamo
Click to expand...

I cannot help it if you don't do your homework and keep up on the facts. again you are proving you have very little understanding of these issues. criminals who buy or trade for firearms do so with people who know they are criminals.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
Well that must make it a fact then. Sorry for questioning some random thing you heard online. :lamo
Click to expand...

Sorry you lack patience.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Rucker61 said:
How does arresting a couple of people each year make a law effective or even worth doing?

The police don't even try to enforce it. Since 2013, there's not been a single arrest in Colorado where the sole charge was acquiring a firearm in a private sale with a BGC.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/30/colorado-gun-laws-enforcement/5055523/
Click to expand...

1. I merely said it wasn't impossible.

2. If there haven't been any arrests (I can't find in your source where it makes that claim) their have been denials of transfer of ownership. Arrests aren't the only way to judge these things. But regardless, I don't think only doing back ground checks on a statewide level like this is really a great idea. It's too easy for someone to go to the next state over and buy a gun or whatever. I don't think they would be very effective without a full on registration, tough laws to force registration on all guns nationwide etc.

Can you provide the link that TD referenced saying that only 3% of criminals get their guns from a private transfer?
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

VanceMack said:
Wouldnt you say any law imposed on gun owners that has demonstrated history of being ineffective to the point of being worthless JUST for the sake of imposing a new law is harassment? At best...it is worthless. at its worst, registration can be used for confscation, or worse, considering the state and security of databases, make gun owners subject to targeting by thieves.

perhaps when the question is strictly about registration, we can learn from our New Zealand mates. the 1983 Arms Act abandoned the NZ gun registyr because it was cost prohibitive and ineffective. It didnt PREVENT anything...thus the whole motivation for promoting registration is ridiculous. "An internal police report in 1982 criticised the proposals, saying there was no evidence that registration helped to solve crimes, and that registration would use time and money better spent on other police work. This policy was adopted by the government in the 1983 Act." makes you wonder why anti gun types still advocate for it...especially those from Down Under.

Our Constitution IS pretty easy to understand. I'll grant you that. The Bill of Rights as a component of the Constitution guaranteed that i can keep and possess guns just because I want to. Now...I would say that its main purpose is to serve as a last line of defense. But literally...a law abiding citizen can and should be able to own pretty much anything they like. And...those that find it objectionable...well...the founding father built in an option for them to change the Constitution. Winner all around.
Click to expand...

No, becaue such laws exist in other countries and are followed.
And once again it needs to be pointed out that laws are not created to stop criminal activities. Unless you can name one law ever creted where criminals have stopped doing something because it has been made illegal.

While correct about what happened in 1983 that does not mean nz abandoned any laws concerning gun ownership.
Gun laws in New Zealand are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific and focus mainly on vetting firearm owners, rather than registering firearms or banning certain types of firearms.[4]
Click to expand...
An argument i am proposing despite the pro gun group sticking their fingers in their ears an insisting a really stupid way of dealing with guns is the only way being offered.

And while your constitution is interpreted as you have said it can be stated that america also suffers from stupidity with guns because that is the attitude of its people.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
I very clearly stated my position earlier in the thread. I'm against all gun, magazine bans, I support a constitutional amendment accommodating a thorough gun registration and mandatory back ground checks on all transfers of firearms. That amendment could also include that any kind of gun confiscation or gun bans are strictly unconstitutional with the few exceptions such as a person guilty of violent fun crime or serious mental instability.
Click to expand...
OK then. Well stated! I especially like the aprt were you advocate for the amendment process. Thats how its supposed to work.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

VanceMack said:
OK then. Well stated! I especially like the aprt were you advocate for the amendment process. Thats how its supposed to work.
Click to expand...

That is a point in his favor. but here is the issue. Lets say that this amendment was passed, guns are registered and the prohibition on confiscation is included Millions of Americans are now "outlaws" because they didn't comply with the law that makes registration mandatory. that alone is a pernicious cost of this suggestion. Then lets suppose the amendment is overturned by future amendment. That list still exists and now it can be used to confiscate firearms. That is why I find his idea not one I'd support
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

roughdraft274 said:
View attachment 67222899

Where does it say that "less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales" as TurtleDude claimed? I must be reading it wrong or have opened up the wrong PDF?
Click to expand...

The only sales that UBCs hope to stop are those from good guy strangers to unknown bad guys. In that list, only gun shows and flea markets 1) don't require FFLs for transfer 2) are criminals or apathetic sellers who would make a potential criminal take a background check.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

TurtleDude said:
That is a point in his favor. but here is the issue. Lets say that this amendment was passed, guns are registered and the prohibition on confiscation is included Millions of Americans are now "outlaws" because they didn't comply with the law that makes registration mandatory. that alone is a pernicious cost of this suggestion. Then lets suppose the amendment is overturned by future amendment. That list still exists and now it can be used to confiscate firearms. That is why I find his idea not one I'd support
Click to expand...

There are more guns in the country that people if memory serves. And I think something like half of all households have guns in the house. Even with a registry, gun confiscation would be so ridiculously difficult it would be laughable. And even if you give someone a list of gun owners, you'd still be visiting something like half of all the houses in the county to try to get them all as opposed to just not having a list and simply going door to door in every neighborhood. If 5% of houses had guns, I'd agree that a registry would be extremely helpful. But in our country it would still be a herculean task. The benefit to fighting crime would far, far outweigh any insignificant benefit that one might get if somehow, someway you got 80% of the country to all agree that we need to confiscate all the guns.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

soylentgreen said:
No, becaue such laws exist in other countries and are followed.
And once again it needs to be pointed out that laws are not created to stop criminal activities. Unless you can name one law ever creted where criminals have stopped doing something because it has been made illegal.

While correct about what happened in 1983 that does not mean nz abandoned any laws concerning gun ownership.

An argument i am proposing despite the pro gun group sticking their fingers in their ears an insisting a really stupid way of dealing with guns is the only way being offered.

And while your constitution is interpreted as you have said it can be stated that america also suffers from stupidity with guns because that is the attitude of its people.
Click to expand...
Nah...Im with you on the whole "Laws not being made to stop crime" thing. Laws are made to serve as PUNISHMENT for crimes. And while the FACTS have shown that private gun ownership and changes in concealed carry laws HAS shown a dramatic reduction in crime in many parts of the US, that still doesnt mean the change in carry laws were implemented to 'stop crime'...merely to give citizens the right to defend themselves in the instance of crime. Its a happy coincidence then that armed citizens are both less likely to engage in criminal activity AND less likely to be the victims of crime.

Sure...I get that New Zealand is still committed to certain aspects of its gun laws, but we both acknowledge...registration is worthless. As for vetting its citizens...well...thats an area we differ I reckon. If you think its a good thing that nations citizens must pass some sort of test to demonstrate their ability to exercise Constitutional protections..well...ok then. We just disagree. Our country was formed on the reverse construct...the people are the country and the government is the machine. Government needs to be controlled, not people.

I suspect your last line merely reflects your own persoanl anger and bias. The simple fact remains that we have some 350 million or so firearms in the hands of some 120 million law abiding citizens and the VAST (like so vast its not statistically measurable) majority of US armed citizens are the salt of the earth...the safest people you will ever encounter. Our problem is NOT one of armed citizens exercising Constitutionally protected rights. No...our problem is far more societal and there are things that should be engaged that could reduce crime. Unfortunately..we get twisted and hung up on new gun law initiatives instead of "how to come together to make the world a better place".
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

TurtleDude said:
That is a point in his favor. but here is the issue. Lets say that this amendment was passed, guns are registered and the prohibition on confiscation is included Millions of Americans are now "outlaws" because they didn't comply with the law that makes registration mandatory. that alone is a pernicious cost of this suggestion. Then lets suppose the amendment is overturned by future amendment. That list still exists and now it can be used to confiscate firearms. That is why I find his idea not one I'd support
Click to expand...
Oh...I didnt say I would support it. At all. It doesnt stand a snowballs chance of passing. But at least it is honest and well thought out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom