• 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!

Virginia's proposed gun laws have predictable results

Rich2018 said:
The 2nd amendment still applies to states.
Maryland's gun laws have survived a legal challenge.

The US Constitution doesn't prevent the federal government setting up a national, mandatory gun registry.





Of course a national gun registry would provide useful information to law enforcement.

Gun owners continually harp on about "no evidence" - do you have any evidence that a gun registry hasn't help solve a crime
In short, do you have any evidence at all about Hawaiin gun related crimes ?


I found this though:

"Firearm registration laws can lead to the identification and prosecution of violent criminals by helping law enforcement quickly and reliably “trace” (identify the source of) firearms recovered from crime scenes. Firearm registration laws create comprehensive records of firearm ownership, which include a full description of each firearm and identify the owner. Comprehensive registration laws also require a firearm to be re-registered whenever title to the firearm is transferred, and law enforcement to be notified whenever the weapon is lost or stolen. As a result, registration laws help law enforcement quickly and reliably identify the owner of any firearm used in a crime..."


Registration | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence


Would you accept this as "evidence" ?
Click to expand...

citing propaganda from a gun banning advocacy group is idiotic.can you find evidence that the Hawaii registration has led to any significant crimes being solved?
 
TurtleDude said:
citing propaganda from a gun banning advocacy group is idiotic.can you find evidence that the Hawaii registration has led to any significant crimes being solved?
Click to expand...

Go ahead then and provide your own source - proving that solving gun crime isn't helped by a gun registry.
 
Rich2018 said:
Go ahead then and provide your own source - proving that solving gun crime isn't helped by a gun registry.
Click to expand...

The Giffords scum are stating why theoretically a gun registry would help-they cannot cite any that actually exist that have been useful. Their stupid argument also is based on the assumption that criminals will register guns even though the US supreme court has ruled that you cannot punish a criminal for failing to register a gun
 
TurtleDude said:
The Giffords scum are stating why theoretically a gun registry would help-they cannot cite any that actually exist that have been useful. Their stupid argument also is based on the assumption that criminals will register guns even though the US supreme court has ruled that you cannot punish a criminal for failing to register a gun
Click to expand...

So you want a Hawaiian policeman to actually say the gun registry has help in solving a crime ?

In the meantime, can you find any support for the opposite view tat the firearms registry provides no help to resolve crime ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So you want a Hawaiian policeman to actually say the gun registry has help in solving a crime ?

In the meantime, can you find any support for the opposite view tat the firearms registry provides no help to resolve crime ?
Click to expand...

I do not believe in trampling on rights merely because it might help the government. And we know the following

GUN BANNERS WANT A REGISTRY
 
Rich2018 said:
And yet you seem unwilling to accept the fact that others may distrust you with a gun.
Click to expand...
I think the same thing every time I see a "peace officer" armed like an infantryman.
 
Samwise said:
I think the same thing every time I see a "peace officer" armed like an infantryman.
Click to expand...

gun banners never have an intelligent response when you ask them this:


if you claim semi auto rifles need to be banned, because they have no place in civilian society, then why should civilian police officers commonly use them?
 
turtledude said:
Muh gunz!
Muh freedumb!
Muh gunz!
Muh freedumb!
Muh gunz!
Muh freedumb!
Mug gunz!
Muh freedom!
Muh gunz!
Muh freedumb!
Muh gunz!
Muh freedumb!
Muh gunz!
Muh freedumb!
Muh gunz!
Muh freedumb!
Click to expand...

fify.
 
Rich2018 said:
The 2nd amendment still applies to states.
Maryland's gun laws have survived a legal challenge.

The US Constitution doesn't prevent the federal government setting up a national, mandatory gun registry.





Of course a national gun registry would provide useful information to law enforcement.

Gun owners continually harp on about "no evidence" - do you have any evidence that a gun registry hasn't help solve a crime
In short, do you have any evidence at all about Hawaiin gun related crimes ?


I found this though:

[i]"Firearm registration laws can lead to the identification and prosecution of violent criminals by helping law enforcement quickly and reliably “trace” (identify the source of) firearms recovered from crime scenes. Firearm registration laws create comprehensive records of firearm ownership, which include a full description of each firearm and identify the owner. Comprehensive registration laws also require a firearm to be re-registered whenever title to the firearm is transferred, and law enforcement to be notified whenever the weapon is lost or stolen. As a result, registration laws help law enforcement quickly and reliably identify the owner of any firearm used in a crime...[/i]"


Registration | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence


Would you accept this as "evidence" ?
Click to expand...

From what I notice, criminals generally take their firearms with them when they leave crime scenes.
 
Rich2018 said:
No they're not akin to a wet floor sign.
A shop owner is not responsible if an active shooter comes in and starts killing people
A no gun sign is to keep guns out, so no armed customer or visitor can pull a gun out in a hot temper. As you say, fewer guns = less gun use



Probably would reduce premeditated crimes.

It would reduce spontaneous gun use in a rage - also reduce the chances of a group from baiting a gun carrier.
Click to expand...

No gun sign won’t keep me from carrying.
 
Casper said:
I would be careful doing that, it could result in legal problems for you.
Click to expand...
Only if he were asked to leave the premises and refused.

It would be different if you were talking about state or federal property.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Only if he were asked to leave the premises and refused.

It would be different if you were talking about state or federal property.
Click to expand...

Depends on the Local and State laws covering the issue.

True, and I agree with the ban for Court and State houses, not so much when it comes to government property.
 
Casper said:
I would be careful doing that, it could result in legal problems for you.
Click to expand...

We addressed that earlier. The only people who aren't going to bring a gun into an area because of a "no guns" sign are law abiding people who didn't plan to use a gun anyway. If a person intends to use a gun in some area, a sign is going to be as effective at stopping him as a slice of bread.
 
Casper said:
Depends on the Local and State laws covering the issue.

True, and I agree with the ban for Court and State houses, not so much when it comes to government property.
Click to expand...
Post evidence that a private business can press any charges against someone who doesn’t see or ignores a “no firearms allowed” sign. Like I said, unless the person refuses to leave when asked, they are in no danger of arrest/prosecution.

Define “government property”.

My point regarding state/federal properties is that if “no firearms allowed” signs are posted, you can bet there’s a law behind it.
 
Diesel said:
We addressed that earlier. The only people who aren't going to bring a gun into an area because of a "no guns" sign are law abiding people who didn't plan to use a gun anyway. If a person intends to use a gun in some area, a sign is going to be as effective at stopping him as a slice of bread.
Click to expand...
Yep, and I’m one of them. If Dave & Buster’s employees ask me to leave, I will. Otherwise I’ll ignore their stupid sign.
 
Diesel said:
We addressed that earlier. The only people who aren't going to bring a gun into an area because of a "no guns" sign are law abiding people who didn't plan to use a gun anyway. If a person intends to use a gun in some area, a sign is going to be as effective at stopping him as a slice of bread.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with those facts.
 
Casper said:
I would be careful doing that, it could result in legal problems for you.
Click to expand...

my son carries all the time. we went into a restaurant that had a no carry sign. He asked my advice. Under Ohio law, you are a trespasser if you are told to leave if you are carrying and you do not. why? because the signs are not all that obvious, and there is no way they can prove you knew of them until you are instructed. And I noted, if he had to actually use the weapon, that was going to be a non-issue: if he has to use the weapon and his use was justified, the harm in not carrying would have been far worse. If he was not justified, he will be sued or prosecuted for something more serious than trespassing
 
TurtleDude said:
my son carries all the time. we went into a restaurant that had a no carry sign. He asked my advice. Under Ohio law, you are a trespasser if you are told to leave if you are carrying and you do not. why? because the signs are not all that obvious, and there is no way they can prove you knew of them until you are instructed. And I noted, if he had to actually use the weapon, that was going to be a non-issue: if he has to use the weapon and his use was justified, the harm in not carrying would have been far worse. If he was not justified, he will be sued or prosecuted for something more serious than trespassing
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand all that and have accidentally carried in more than one place that I later discovered was posted and never had any issue. My point was every area has different laws on the matter it is best to be informed and use common sense when making decisions. Meaning I was just stating that they should be careful ignoring the posted no firearms signs, besides who wants to be banned from their favorite store or restaurant.
 
TurtleDude said:
I do not believe in trampling on rights merely because it might help the government. And we know the following

GUN BANNERS WANT A REGISTRY
Click to expand...

Law enforcement is not necessarily the government.

As a lawyer with 30 years experience in prosecution, weren't you and the police agencies you worked for happy to receive help?

Why then would you deny help to law enforcement ?


GUN OWNERS DON'T WANT A REGISTRY


Do you fear a gun ban that you say cannot ever happen ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom