Not Arming Yourself So Bad Guys Wont Arm Themselves

[Rucker61]

Indeed. Not only have I never met anyone who wants "no guns at all", it's not even an achievable goal. There are literally millions of guns across the country that authorities don't even know about, and even if you could account for them, you could never get law enforcement to take them away. The government coming to take people's firearms away is nothing but ridiculous paranoia on the part of gun owners.

But interestingly, it's exactly what the "common sense" gun regulations in the UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand required.

 

[MamboDervish]

But interestingly, it's exactly what the "common sense" gun regulations in the UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand required.

Maybe - but required or not, only a fool would believe they actually took everyone's guns.

Here in the states it would be totally unenforceable. Firstly, you'd never get law enforcement to knock on everyone's door to ask for their guns. NEVER! They would balk at the idea from coast to coast, and with good reason. Their lives would be in danger from people who had not even committed any crime. And, even in the rare instances where some of them might choose to, you'd never get literally millions of search warrants needed to find them and confiscate them. You'd have to issue a warrant for every single family, every residence, every vehicle, and every workplace in the country! It's ridiculous! Even if you could get that - and you couldn't - then you'd need enough police and sheriffs willing to spend all day, every day, searching every household ... and there's certainly no money for that. You couldn't do it in 100 years ... or more. It's completely impossible.

But the terrified gun owners are still shitting their pants, scared that the big bad gub'mint wants to take all their guns away. The idea is ludicrous.

 

[Rucker61]

Maybe - but required or not, only a fool would believe they actually took everyone's guns.

Japan did; the UK has likely come very close. Registration certainly helped with that, as New Zealand has recently complained about their lack of registration impeding their confiscation efforts.

They certainly made everyone a criminal who didn't comply.

Here in the states it would be totally unenforceable. Firstly, you'd never get law enforcement to knock on everyone's door to ask for their guns. NEVER! They would balk at the idea from coast to coast, and with good reason. Their lives would be in danger from people who had not even committed any crime. And, even in the rare instances where some of them might choose to, you'd never get literally millions of search warrants needed to find them and confiscate them. You'd have to issue a warrant for every single family, every residence, every vehicle, and every workplace in the country! It's ridiculous! Even if you could get that - and you couldn't - then you'd need enough police and sheriffs willing to spend all day, every day, searching every household ... and there's certainly no money for that. You couldn't do it in 100 years ... or more. It's completely impossible.

"Dear resident. We've check our records, and have determined that you own a firearm now classified as a banned weapon, serial number 8410012. Please turn it in to the nearest police station and send a photocopy of the police receipt to this address: nobuyback@atf.gov. Failure to do so within 15 days of this notice will result in the following penalties:
All federal and state tax refunds to be withheld.
All federal and state pension payments to be withheld.
Your employer, Dell Corp, will be notified that you retain an illegal weapon.
A fine of $750 USD will be assessed weekly until the notice of the return of your illegal weapon is received by this office.
Visa, Mastercard and American Express have agreed to decline of any further uses of your credit cards until notified that you're in compliance.
Have a nice day"

But the terrified gun owners are still shitting their pants, scared that the big bad gub'mint wants to take all their guns away. The idea is ludicrous.

They want to take our gun rights away.

 

[MamboDervish]

Japan did; the UK has likely come very close.

Compared to the US, they didn't have any guns to begin with.

Registration certainly helped with that, as New Zealand has recently complained about their lack of registration impeding their confiscation efforts.

They certainly made everyone a criminal who didn't comply.

Have you a link for that?

"Dear resident. We've check our records, and have determined that you own a firearm now classified as a banned weapon, serial number 8410012. Please turn it in to the nearest police station and send a photocopy of the police receipt to this address: nobuyback@atf.gov. Failure to do so within 15 days of this notice will result in the following penalties:
All federal and state tax refunds to be withheld.
All federal and state pension payments to be withheld.
Your employer, Dell Corp, will be notified that you retain an illegal weapon.
A fine of $750 USD will be assessed weekly until the notice of the return of your illegal weapon is received by this office.
Visa, Mastercard and American Express have agreed to decline of any further uses of your credit cards until notified that you're in compliance.
Have a nice day"

"My gun was stolen."
All gone. Nobody will come looking for it. No prosecution. No jail time. No penalty whatsoever. End of story.

They want to take our gun rights away.

OY VEY!

A tiny minority might - but there is no significant "they" who want to take anyone's gun rights away. Frankly, without a constitutional amendment, it could never happen, and at this point, you're more likely to get a constitutional amendment forcing people wear bozo noses than you are to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.


It's a completely paranoid bullshit argument, perpetrated by the gun lobby to make people run out and buy more guns, and more ammo. And history shows us that it works *every* single* time*

2008 "Obama is going to take your guns away!"
Gun sales skyrocket - supplies are low - prices and profits go up

2012 "Obama is going to take your guns away!"
Gun sales skyrocket - supplies are low - prices and profits go up.

Some people never learn. The gun nuts are the most easily manipulated demographic in the entire country, hands down. So much so, in fact, that the cynical Republican Party members include pictures of themselves and their family holding guns in their campaign ads. That's how complete ****ing idiots like Perjury Taylor Green get elected. Your strings are being jerked. Get wise.

 

[Rucker61]

Compared to the US, they didn't have any guns to begin with.

Japan started a long time ago.

Have you a link for that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/new-zealand-is-trying-to-buy-back-the-assault-style-weapons-it-banned-in-april-its-not-so-easy/2019/06/30/c3e49844-9365-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html?noredirect=on

"My gun was stolen."
All gone. Nobody will come looking for it. No prosecution. No jail time. No penalty whatsoever. End of story.

You don't think that a Congress that can ban guns can pass a law making a gun owner liable for theft of their guns?

OY VEY!

A tiny minority might - but there is no significant "they" who want to take anyone's gun rights away.

So the various state AWBs didn't take anyone's rights away? The current list of gun control bills in Congress don't want to infringe on the rights of citizens?

Frankly, without a constitutional amendment, it could never happen, and at this point, you're more likely to get a constitutional amendment forcing people wear bozo noses than you are to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

They've no intent of getting rid of the Second - why bother when you can just ignore it? Do you think it impossible that given a sufficiently large Democratic majority in DC that they won't just add enough justices to SCOTUS to get their way on anything that they want, including gutting the Second?

It's a completely paranoid bullshit argument, perpetrated by the gun lobby to make people run out and buy more guns, and more ammo. And history shows us that it works *every* single* time*

2008 "Obama is going to take your guns away!"
Gun sales skyrocket - supplies are low - prices and profits go up

2012 "Obama is going to take your guns away!"
Gun sales skyrocket - supplies are low - prices and profits go up.

Some people never learn. The gun nuts are the most easily manipulated demographic in the entire country, hands down. So much so, in fact, that the cynical Republican Party members include pictures of themselves and their family holding guns in their campaign ads. That's how complete ****ing idiots like Perjury Taylor Green get elected. Your strings are being jerked. Get wise.

Do you know how many city level AWBs are in process right now in Colorado? Given that their state goal is to have the same violence rates as Japan and the UK using "common sense" gun laws, will they ever stop, or will we see continuous efforts to erode the right to keep and bear arms away?

 

[tshade]

What are "common sense" regulations on "assault weapons"?

What are "assault weapons"?

What does it take for a class of firearms to be an "assault weapon"?

Gee...I wonder ???

Next topic.........

 

[zsu2357]

Extremely few if any like that. Most of them just want common sense regulations on assault weapons, etc...... I know of no one who wants "no guns" at all......................

You mean most anti gun people. You guys/gals seem to have "common sense regulations" coming out of your asses. NOW for the biggie, what is in your opinion an "assault weapon"? Also it's these "etc....." that is also worrying kinda like a "loophole" set up for more "common sense"gun laws on other firearms. Maybe you're content with an old Mosin Nagant.

 

[Rucker61]

Gee...I wonder ???

Next topic.........

So no real answer?

 

[zsu2357]

Compared to the US, they didn't have any guns to begin with.

Have you a link for that?

"My gun was stolen."
All gone. Nobody will come looking for it. No prosecution. No jail time. No penalty whatsoever. End of story.

OY VEY!

A tiny minority might - but there is no significant "they" who want to take anyone's gun rights away. Frankly, without a constitutional amendment, it could never happen, and at this point, you're more likely to get a constitutional amendment forcing people wear bozo noses than you are to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.


It's a completely paranoid bullshit argument, perpetrated by the gun lobby to make people run out and buy more guns, and more ammo. And history shows us that it works *every* single* time*

2008 "Obama is going to take your guns away!"
Gun sales skyrocket - supplies are low - prices and profits go up

2012 "Obama is going to take your guns away!"
Gun sales skyrocket - supplies are low - prices and profits go up.

Some people never learn. The gun nuts are the most easily manipulated demographic in the entire country, hands down. So much so, in fact, that the cynical Republican Party members include pictures of themselves and their family holding guns in their campaign ads. That's how complete ****ing idiots like Perjury Taylor Green get elected. Your strings are being jerked. Get wise.

Exactly what you would expect an anti gunner to say.

 

[zsu2357]

So no real answer?

Something black and with a kinda long bullet clip thingy and ideally a thingy that flips up from somewhere. OH and it has to look scary.

 

[Manc Skipper]

But interestingly, it's exactly what the "common sense" gun regulations in the UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand required.

Untrue. Gun licences are available in all those countries. You just have to be sane and have a reason to need one. Self defence is not a valid reason. What kind of enemies do you have exactly?

 

[zsu2357]

Untrue. Gun licences are available in all those countries.

I'm sure they are if you like playing that game. The Game Of Permission.

You just have to be sane and have a reason to need one.

In other words the deck is stacked against you.

Self defence is not a valid reason.

It's always better to die then put up a fight in your view. 80 year old vs. 25 year old/s or 100 pound woman vs. 250 pound ogre, that's always fair.

What kind of enemies do you have exactly?

Me personally? None as of now. But tommorrow who can say?

 

[Rucker61]

Untrue. Gun licences are available in all those countries. You just have to be sane and have a reason to need one.

Didn't all of these countries confiscate guns, guns that are in common use for lawful purposes on the US?

Self defence is not a valid reason. What kind of enemies do you have exactly?

I thought we were in the middle of an epidemic of gun violence in the US. Shouldn't 500 mass shootings a year and 20,000+ homicides per year answer your question?

 

[tshade]

You mean most anti gun people. You guys/gals seem to have "common sense regulations" coming out of your asses. NOW for the biggie, what is in your opinion an "assault weapon"? Also it's these "etc....." that is also worrying kinda like a "loophole" set up for more "common sense"gun laws on other firearms. Maybe you're content with an old Mosin Nagant.

Assault weapons are military-style firearms intended to fire multiple rounds in quick succession – killing people quickly with little effort. They can be used with detachable magazines that can fire more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Assault weapons were primarily designed for use in war and battlefields. But because there’s no federal restriction on the sale of these weapons, civilians have been able to purchase assault weapons to carry out some of our nation’s deadliest mass shootings. COMMON SENSE.

 

[Rucker61]

Assault weapons are military-style firearms intended to fire multiple rounds in quick succession – killing people quickly with little effort.

Not really. "assault weapon" is a capricious, arbitrary and inconsistent definition that includes "some semiautomatic rifles but not other semiautomatic rifles, some semiautomatic handguns but not other semiautomatic handguns, and some semiautomatic shotguns but not other semiautomatic shotguns".

All guns are capable of killing someone with little effort.

The 1994 law banned AR-15s even though they had never been used in a mass shooting (and wouldn't be until 2012). The law didn't ban (and all future bills exempted) the Ruger Mini-14, functionally equivalent to the AR-15 and which actually had been used in a mass shooting prior to 1994. The 1994 defined semiautomatic shotguns with a pistol grip as "assault weapons", even though this configuration is commonly used for turkey hunting, and no semiautomatic shotgun had been used in a mass shooting prior to 1994. Pump action, shotguns, had been used in at least five random mass shootings prior to 1994, but they weren't defined as "assault weapons".

The definition has nothing to do with the performance of the firearm, but just the features that appear "scary" to the original authors. The Colt HBAR AR-15 is not considered to be an "assault weapon" under Maryland law, as it has a "legitimate sporting use" according to the Maryland legislature. The rifle used at Sandy Hook wasn't an "assault weapon" under the 1994, as it failed to meet the criteria established by Congress. In 2019, Ohio Democrats introduced a bill in the state Senate (SB 260) that would redefine "assault weapon" as any semiautomatic weapon capable of accepting a "large capacity magazine", regardless of the size of the factory capacity. This would have established the normally 6 shot Glock 43 9mm pistol as an "assault weapon", as there is an aftermarket 11 round capacity magazine for it. Likewise in 2019, Oregon state legislators introduced a bill that would define any magazine capable of hold more than 5 rounds as a "large capacity magazine", which combined at the federal level with the definition of Ohio SB260 would consider every firearm from the .25 Raven on up to be "assault weapons".

In short, the practical definition of "assault weapon" is "anything on the paper when the bill is signed".

They can be used with detachable magazines that can fire more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Assault weapons were primarily designed for use in war and battlefields

The AR-15 was developed for the civilian market and first sold as such in 1964. 30 years later, after zero mass shootings with an AR-15. The AR series of rifles is available in over 100 calibers, nearly all of which aren't in use by the military for war and battlefields.

. But because there’s no federal restriction on the sale of these weapons, civilians have been able to purchase assault weapons to carry out some of our nation’s deadliest mass shootings. COMMON SENSE.

We've had mass murders committed with "assault weapons", semiautomatic rifles not classified as "assault weapons", bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, pump action shotguns, double barrel shotguns, pistols, revolvers, and rimfire firearms.

SCOTUS has affirmed that classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Bruen has already been cited in overturning Bianchi v Frosh in Maryland.

Have you actualy read H.R.1808 and understand what the impact would be if it were to pass and be upheld by SCOTUS?

 

[Ug make hammer]

"My gun was stolen."
All gone. Nobody will come looking for it. No prosecution. No jail time. No penalty whatsoever. End of story.

Actually, with universal background checks nobody would buy your gun without a signed bill of sale. Why would they pay cash under the counter, and expose themselves to a possession of stolen property charge?

As you say, there are millions of guns (hundreds of millions even.) In any one year, a fraction of a percent would change hands. But the principle is important, and when it's law I have no doubt that the vast majority of legal gun owners will comply: they don't knowingly sell guns to prohibited persons. Universal background checks simply remove the excuse that they didn't know.

 

[Rucker61]

Actually, with universal background checks nobody would buy your gun without a signed bill of sale. Why would they pay cash under the counter, and expose themselves to a possession of stolen property charge?

Criminals who purchase guns from other criminals won't give a rat's arse about this law. Private sales from good guys to bad guys aren't even a measurable source of guns to criminals, and could be addressed by allowed private seller access to NICS.

As you say, there are millions of guns (hundreds of millions even.) In any one year, a fraction of a percent would change hands. But the principle is important, and when it's law I have no doubt that the vast majority of legal gun owners will comply: they don't knowingly sell guns to prohibited persons. Universal background checks simply remove the excuse that they didn't know.

If every law abiding private seller followed this law, it would have a near zero impact on the crime rate. UBCs simply aren't effective.

In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.

In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 0.8% come from gun shows. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?

 

[MamboDervish]

Exactly what you would expect an anti gunner to say.

I'm not anti gun. I'm pro reality.

An anti gunner would be calling for taking away guns. I've never done that.

 

[Rich2018]

One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.

Why is that "pathetic" ?

It's absolutely correct.

 

[The Old Soul]

I've never heard anyone ever suggest that as a good reason to not be armed. Not even once. Sounds like a straw man from cap to crocs.

Well, there is this - the mere presence of a gun increases the likelihood of a shooting incident:

people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens

 

[Rich2018]

Well, there is this - the mere presence of a gun increases the likelihood of a shooting incident:

people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens

Good stat

Out of interest, where did you get it ?

 

[zsu2357]

Assault weapons are military-style firearms intended to fire multiple rounds in quick succession – killing people quickly with little effort. They can be used with detachable magazines that can fire more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Assault weapons were primarily designed for use in war and battlefields. But because there’s no federal restriction on the sale of these weapons, civilians have been able to purchase assault weapons to carry out some of our nation’s deadliest mass shootings. COMMON SENSE.

In other words you still hold that AR-15s are "assault weapons" because of appearance and shoot more or rather hold more than 10 rounds in a standard magazine. "Assault weapons" are a myth designed to confuse the people that don't know the difference between those and actual assault rifles.

 

[Rich2018]

In other words you still hold that AR-15s are "assault weapons" because of appearance and shoot more or rather hold more than 10 rounds in a standard magazine. "Assault weapons" are a myth designed to confuse the people that don't know the difference between those and actual assault rifles.

AR-15's ***ARE*** assault weapons.

 

[Rucker61]

Well, there is this - the mere presence of a gun increases the likelihood of a shooting incident:

people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens

Talk about cherry picking. 90% of the case group were young Black males outside in the most drug infested neighborhoods in Philly. Even noted gun control advocate Garen Wintemute thought this study was crap.

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Rich2018]

Talk about cherry picking. 90% of the case group were young Black males outside in the most drug infested neighborhoods in Philly. Even noted gun control advocate Garen Wintemute thought this study was crap.

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So what, they carried guns and got shot

How do the people who shot them differ from the people who rob other demographics ?