What if HR.8 Passes

[Chatsworth]

I'm not in the business of equivocating away my rights with lesser of two evils. Bye

"equivocating"? ..You seem to be doing just that.
But that's ok. as I stated previously, your response is what I expected.

e·quiv·o·cate
/əˈkwivəˌkāt/

verb
gerund or present participle: equivocating

1. use ambiguous language so as to avoid committing oneself.

 

[summer44]

@dakatl and all...

I'll be honest, there is convincing evidence that UBC, registration, etc actually does decrease gun crime, violent crime fatalities, and suicides. It's not conclusive by any means, but it's arguable at least. I think it's a disservice to our side of the debate to not admit that the other side has some acceptable basis for their points.

I just don't think those relatively small statistical improvements to safety outweigh the importance of the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Let me be clear on what I think that purpose is also... I don't think it means that we have the ability to overthrow the government. It just means that individuals have the ability to get the ability to overthrow the government. We don't get tanks and canons and whatnot. We do get the tools necessary to procure some tanks and whatnot if it came to that. Generally, we have the tools necessary for a SHTF type situation, whatever the cause may be. We are not 100% dependent and at the mercy of the government. (maybe 80-90% but definitely not 100%, lol)

It hasn't worked in California, New York or Chicago...

 

[summer44]

That just plays into gun control advocate talking points though. They're saying that state laws don't work, they need country wide legislation. Look at countries that have enacted strict gun control and there's different results. There are lots of other contributing factors for Vermont. Australia had a few school shooting and went full tilt gun control. Mass shooting are greatly reduced now. The fact is that less guns means less shootings. I agree that the cost is not worth more gun control though. Just saying that the gun control "facts" are not fact, but are not all totally false either.



I'll be honest, I don't know what corporations have, but WWII stuff isn't what I'm talking about. That's 80yr old tech. Modern stuff is tough to get as I understand it.

Does it really matter if shooting go down if another weapon instead is used? You sight Australia crime by firearm did reduce, murder, rape and armed robberies went up. Isn't the goal to reduce crime? What good is a gun ban when the end results are more crime?

 

[summer44]

.

If gun owners had to decide..

Would we rather have a change in regulation to HOW we buy a gun?
or
Would we rather have a change in regulation to What guns we are allowed to own?

How about neither

 

[Chatsworth]

In this thread we get to find out who can walk into a gun store and pass a backround check and who cant.

But I'm Done with this one.Moving on.

 

[zesty]

Does it really matter if shooting go down if another weapon instead is used? You sight Australia crime by firearm did reduce, murder, rape and armed robberies went up. Isn't the goal to reduce crime? What good is a gun ban when the end results are more crime?

Can you site a source for those increased crime stats? Murder went down actually and I stopped checking there

 

[spencer60]

Vermont gun laws just changed in Feb 2021.
Chip Chip Chip.

True, but irrelevant to my point that gun laws have zero correlation with crime.

That just plays into gun control advocate talking points though. They're saying that state laws don't work, they need country wide legislation. Look at countries that have enacted strict gun control and there's different results. There are lots of other contributing factors for Vermont. Australia had a few school shooting and went full tilt gun control. Mass shooting are greatly reduced now. The fact is that less guns means less shootings. I agree that the cost is not worth more gun control though. Just saying that the gun control "facts" are not fact, but are not all totally false either.

I'll be honest, I don't know what corporations have, but WWII stuff isn't what I'm talking about. That's 80yr old tech. Modern stuff is tough to get as I understand it.

Please read that site, or better yet, read his book since it's a little more digestible than hopping around a web site.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/1510760075/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

In Australia crime spiked after their mass confiscation of firearms. It has not caused a decrease in gun-related crimes, whether individual or en-masse. Even the government estimates that there are as many guns on Oz as there were before the confiscation. Just now they are mostly in the hands of the bad guys.

And Australia didn't have school shooting, it was a mass shooting in public (Port Arthur) that triggered their gun control. If you look at the list below, you will see that Australia has never had a lot of mass shootings. In fact (as Green points out in his books) Australian's tend to kill each other without guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

And you will notice lots of 'mass' shootings that happened AFTER the Port Arthur attack and general confiscation in the late 1990s. Taking all the 'dangerous' guns did nothing to stop either spree killing or 'gun crime'.


In the UK violent crime is an order of magnitude higher than in the US. English citizens are completely disarmed and suffer grave legal penalties for being involved in a self-defense incident.

Because such drastic penalties are placed on using guns (which are still available to criminals) knives are more common, which does nothing to help injurer rates, since knives and handguns are equally lethal (~20% fatal).


Heck, even in gun-crazy US more people are killed 'hands-on' each year than with any kind of long gun. And since 'assault weapons' are only a subset of all long guns, that shows how useless any kind of ban on them would be.


And then you have countries like Mexico. I doubt anyone would hold them up as a poster child for low crime rates, yet they probably have the strictest gun control laws on the planet.

There is exactly ONE gun store in the entire country where the few citizens blessed with the right paperwork can buy a legal firearm. They are limited to a small amount of ammunition on 'non-military' calibers, so no 9mm, no 5.56, no 308. Trying to actually carry your gun for self defense requires an entirely separate crop of paperwork.


In short, gun laws ONLY have an effect on law-abiding people, who are not the problem to begin with. they will never have any real effect on criminals, since criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.

 

[spencer60]

BTW, with small arms 'modern stuff' isn't hard to get if you spend the right amount of money. The proper FFL and SOT status can let anyone have just about any small arms.

For big stuff, that may be true since there's all kinds of arms control treaties out there, and obviously DoD isn't going to let just anyone (person or country) buy the latest and greatest stuff. However if Bill Gates wanted a modern MIG I'll bet he could get one. Not as a company, just as himself.

 

[Gaffer1968]

True, but irrelevant to my point that gun laws have zero correlation with crime.




Please read that site, or better yet, read his book since it's a little more digestible than hopping around a web site.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/1510760075/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

In Australia crime spiked after their mass confiscation of firearms. It has not caused a decrease in gun-related crimes, whether individual or en-masse. Even the government estimates that there are as many guns on Oz as there were before the confiscation. Just now they are mostly in the hands of the bad guys.

And Australia didn't have school shooting, it was a mass shooting in public (Port Arthur) that triggered their gun control. If you look at the list below, you will see that Australia has never had a lot of mass shootings. In fact (as Green points out in his books) Australian's tend to kill each other without guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

And you will notice lots of 'mass' shootings that happened AFTER the Port Arthur attack and general confiscation in the late 1990s. Taking all the 'dangerous' guns did nothing to stop either spree killing or 'gun crime'.


In the UK violent crime is an order of magnitude higher than in the US. English citizens are completely disarmed and suffer grave legal penalties for being involved in a self-defense incident.

Because such drastic penalties are placed on using guns (which are still available to criminals) knives are more common, which does nothing to help injurer rates, since knives and handguns are equally lethal (~20% fatal).


Heck, even in gun-crazy US more people are killed 'hands-on' each year than with any kind of long gun. And since 'assault weapons' are only a subset of all long guns, that shows how useless any kind of ban on them would be.


And then you have countries like Mexico. I doubt anyone would hold them up as a poster child for low crime rates, yet they probably have the strictest gun control laws on the planet.

There is exactly ONE gun store in the entire country where the few citizens blessed with the right paperwork can buy a legal firearm. They are limited to a small amount of ammunition on 'non-military' calibers, so no 9mm, no 5.56, no 308. Trying to actually carry your gun for self defense requires an entirely separate crop of paperwork.


In short, gun laws ONLY have an effect on law-abiding people, who are not the problem to begin with. they will never have any real effect on criminals, since criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.

His Australia example is laughable. They've virtually banned all guns. He can't show you DC, Detroit, Chicago or NYC gun deaths where they virtually ban guns too because they're skyrocketing....'stopped looking?' yeah...I can see why...

 

[streetroc]

and I think i just peed on my fingers ...

sorry wrong thread.

What was the right thread??