Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who are these "Gun Grabbers" ? Almost no one supports banning guns yet there is a clear correlation between numbers of weapons on the street and violent crime - any police department will tell you as much.
Sure law abiding citizens should be able to own guns and criminals should not - so why not through gun regulation and control with registration of all weapons in a central database ? Why is it all or nothing with you NRA guys.
Should we all have RPGs and Grenades ? How about AK47s ? It used to be legal to buy Tommy Guns - all now regulated. Oh, and Australia has not had another mass shooting since their ban and as far it goes they seem fine with their new regime. BTW no one is proposing that here.
How do you propose to "register" a weapon with no serial number?
Who are these "Gun Grabbers" ? Almost no one supports banning guns yet there is a clear correlation between numbers of weapons on the street and violent crime - any police department will tell you as much.
you obviously missed this post of mine;
Quote:
start with diane feinstein and work through the most progressive democrats in congress. then go through many of the state legislatures start with california, chicago, and new york, especially new york city.
Quote:
Sure law abiding citizens should be able to own guns and criminals should not - so why not through gun regulation and control with registration of all weapons in a central database ? Why is it all or nothing with you NRA guys.
you do realize that a central database is the very first step towards gun confiscation, which is why according to federal law no database can be established.
Quote:
Should we all have RPGs and Grenades ? How about AK47s ? It used to be legal to buy Tommy Guns - all now regulated. Oh, and Australia has not had another mass shooting since their ban and as far it goes they seem fine with their new regime. BTW no one is proposing that here.
tommy guns? really? call it what it is the thompson sub machine gun, and it is still legal to purchase as long as you have an FFL. as for the AK47, that is also a legal firearm these days, though teh full auto version does require the aforementioned FFL.
as to the rest, RPGs, etc, stop with the stupidity. technically those are NOT firearms, they are explosives and as such are regulated heavily.
Most of the Liberal states Ca, NY, NJ, Ct, Ma. do want gun control because that is what the majority if citizens want. It's only the paranoid that says registration is the path to confiscation.
I have a few guns all legally purchased and if the govt. pulls the gun shop records and my guns become registered I don't care. I have nothing to hide. I keep them locked and have my carry permit with me all the time.
Anybody who has accumulated guns under less that legal means probably should be afraid of registration but law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about unless you are just naturally paranoid.
Oh, and Australia has not had another mass shooting since their ban and as far it goes they seem fine with their new regime. BTW no one is proposing that here.
Australia has had four events since Port Arthur that would be considered Active Shooter events by the FBI in the US.
Monash University 2 dead 5 injured, Hectorville Siege 3 dead 3 injured, Hunt murders 5 dead (including the perpetrator), Sydney hostage crisis 3 dead (including the perpetrator) 6 injured.
Over that same period with far more relaxed gun laws New Zealand has experienced zero.
However there are also another five events of mass murder, Childers Palace fire 15 dead, Churchill fire 10 dead, Lin family murders 5 dead by hammer (brother killed his sister and her entire family), Quakers Hill Nursing home fire 10 confirmed killed but up to 21 suspected deaths, and Cairns stabbings 8 dead.
So neither is Australia free of random shootings, but it's also not free of mass homicides. I'm sure you can do the math as to what a country with roughly 14 times the population would have by way of events and casualties if it had similar rates of shootings and mass homicides as Australia. It wouldn't look much different to how the US looks today.
Who are these "Gun Grabbers" ? Almost no one supports banning guns yet there is a clear correlation between numbers of weapons on the street and violent crime - any police department will tell you as much.
Sure law abiding citizens should be able to own guns and criminals should not - so why not through gun regulation and control with registration of all weapons in a central database ? Why is it all or nothing with you NRA guys.
Yes, middle class neighborhoods (that have many guns) sure have a problem with gun violence. Oh wait, no they don't.
Where there is a clear correlation, is between the high levels of concentrated poverty, and crime/violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD
Most of the Liberal states Ca, NY, NJ, Ct, Ma. do want gun control because that is what the majority if citizens want. It's only the paranoid that says registration is the path to confiscation.
History is replete with registrations leading to confiscations. In fact, you can't have total gun bans with out registrations.
Being that registrations do not prevent, or lower crime, then there is no need for a registration unless you support gun bans.
Liberal newspaper the Washington Post for one. Though not recently that I can recall. I think the last time they called for a complete ban on civilian ownership of handguns their circulation took a hit. Now they just prattle on about "common sense gun control". But it's obvious what their intent is.
Jeeze, there you go introducing common sense. A few Liberals want to ban guns but the majority of Liberals and I am assuming some Conservatives want gun control.
It's only the fringes of both parties that want complete banning or mandatory guns for everyone.
Where would gun control stop? What specific laws do you support and how would those laws reduce crime? What empirical evidence do you have to back up your claims?
The problem is that I hear, "We need tougher laws regarding guns". Okay, but what laws? The answer is always tougher. There is no specific law that is likely to have a specific effect. The use of statistics is always focused on gun murders, but never murders in general (because gun control looks pretty s--t when that metric is used).
So the only reasonable conclusion is that people who support gun control just want to restrict and ban guns. If a gun is big, "Nobody needs a gun that powerful!" If it is small, "It is easy to conceal and built for murder!" Large magazine, "Only Rambo needs 30 rounds!" Small magazine, "It clearly has not self-defense or military utility and thus is built for assassination!"
I've heard it all before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro
Who are these "Gun Grabbers" ? Almost no one supports banning guns yet there is a clear correlation between numbers of weapons on the street and violent crime - any police department will tell you as much.
Sure law abiding citizens should be able to own guns and criminals should not - so why not through gun regulation and control with registration of all weapons in a central database ? Why is it all or nothing with you NRA guys.
Should we all have RPGs and Grenades ? How about AK47s ? It used to be legal to buy Tommy Guns - all now regulated. Oh, and Australia has not had another mass shooting since their ban and as far it goes they seem fine with their new regime. BTW no one is proposing that here.
So it gives a history from the year of the Port Arthur Massacre (which killed 35 people) and the subsequent gun control laws. Now keep in mind that almost 10% of the murders in 1996 in Australia were committed by one man, so when you consider the fact that Martin Bryant was a statistical anomaly, the effects are even less dramatic (since there wasn't even a significant drop in the amount of murders until 2003, which was 7 years after the gun control measures).
Here is the history of the US murder rate from 1950-2013:
If you look at the fact that US murder rate has declined by almost 40% from 1996 to 2012 (to make the comparisons with Australia as close as possible) despite the fact that the ownership of firearms has been increasing, the Assault Weapon Ban has expired, and a number of states have introduced various laws that allow concealed carry.
The fact that a firearms prohibition , on civilian ownership, wouldn't do a THING to even slow violent crime, doesn't matter to the hoplophobes. It about making everyone conform to their thinking, not about stopping any crimes with guns. In their minds, they are RIGHT. If we who own guns can't see that, well, we must be MADE to see it. Its for the public, and our own good, and we'll come to see that. Even if we have to be forced to see it. Once we just see how RIGHT they are, we'll wonder how we ever could have disagreed.
Meanwhile, the real criminals dance in joy, and people get victimized, who, before, would have stopped the bipreds in their tracks.
If the cops start shooting bad guys with guns then guns on the street will be less of a problem. If bad guys all die then guns will be less of a problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A few Liberals want to ban guns but the majority of Liberals and I am assuming some Conservatives want gun control.
