The Great (Gun Ban) Hoax Liberals are pushing. Lets do the math

Effective gun laws will only keep them out of hands of law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Disarming victims is a very bad idea.

 

If it was unfounded, you could dispute it. Yet all you have is unfounded claims.
And there is no ambiguity on who the left is. Sounds more like you don't even like the left. lol
The numbers speak for themselves.

 

Those are his exact words... sorry you can't change them... not assault guns, not assault rifles.... words have meanings "assault weapons" .. I have watched this game many times and they are pulling yet again.

 

You seem to miss a lot.

 

The pundits are saying 85% of Americans are pro sensible gun laws and I would hazard 95% are for stopping a repeat of Uvalde. The other 5% appear to want to justify mass shooting as the “price of freedom”

And yet even I have heard of the call for banning handguns. It needs a federal approach to really address the problem

sorry but do you REALLY and I mean REALLY want me to post the “emotional buzz words” that the NRA deliberately implanted via their advertising arm? It is simple to find them - google NRA myths

You And I will never agree on firearms and a lot of that is down to the fact I am Australian and have to been exposed to the gun culture in America. I have not been convinced that if I am not armed I will die. You know we caught out an NRA operative encouraging one of our right wing political parties to “buy” a “sympathetic journalist” to write stories about how people defended themselves with guns.

 

How bout requiring some evidence that it can be effective?

If requiring almost everyone in the state to submit for a BGC had zero demonstrable effect, then there's no reason that expanding it to everyone would have any effect either. Even outside of the 'right to bear arms' argument, there is a preponderance of evidence that UBCs are a waste of money when compared to the total lack of evidence to the contrary after 6 (or I guess its actually 8 ) years now of it failing and wasting money. Canada found this problem out even before we did with its long gun registry some decades ago, which it ended after spending millions of dollars and similarly failing to have any effect. Lets try something else (after we reverse this boondoggle and free up the wasted funds, of course).

 

I did dispute it.
The define "the left".
Yes the numbers speak for themselves, your attempting to trivialize gun massacres.

 

Your side is the side that likes to quote the annual number of gun deaths as though the majority of them are not suicides and gang violence.

 

This is jus not true.

 

Care to link that or is this just more of your opinion?

 

Do you want me to provide a link that water is wet as well while we're at it?

 

Which part?

I can provide citation for all of it, but that would be a lot of work and some of it I have already cited, so tell me what specifically you're unaware of.

 

No that's common knowledge, you previous post is opinion.

 

How are you going to "cite" this opinion?

"If requiring almost everyone in the state to submit for a BGC had zero demonstrable effect, then there's no reason that expanding it to everyone would have any effect either."

With another opinion?

 

No. Because aside from the prima-facie logic of it, there is also historical evidence.

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up (forbes.com)

"Canada tried it and gave up, discovering like several other nations that attempting to identify every gun in the country is an expensive and ultimately unproductive exercise."

 

We were talking about BGC's.

 

What do you suppose is the difference? They both require collecting and tracking precisely the same information. Its the same thing just with a different name. They both require the establishment of a registry- who has what guns, and the maintenance of that registry- who they get transferred to. Both the state of WA and the nation of Canada have wasted lots of taxpayer money (that could be used for other things) to do this, and neither experienced any decrease in crime as a result. Canada wisely stopped... And apparently 'several other nations' according to the article I cited for Canada (I have no looked up what those other nations are...)

 

Not necessarily, in fact I've posted a plan otherwise.

 

It's my ,"opinion" that liberals lump all gun deaths together as though they are one statistic?

....lol. really? Ok then.

 

How is it done with autos, boats, trailers, motorcycles, etc?

 

The real hoax is those that believe guns will be confiscated. Banned.
That's not a real outcome. Period.

 

Ah, I presume you mean this:

"So to help get "gun guys" on board demand the ALL records on firearm ownership held by the government (Fed - State - Other) be destroyed and no further ownership records be generated.
ALL gun sales are contingent on passing the enhanced Background Check.
Failed Checks can be appealed.
No criminal penalties involved
Heavy fines if the law is circumvented
Private sales MUST be run through a FFL agent that will run a BGC on the purchaser.
Once the BGC is final and the transfer is approved or denied associated records are destroyed.
Inherited guns require the heir to pass "ONE" BGC by an FFL agent. If inheritance involves multiple heirs, each heir must pass a BGC.
Failure to comply with the "Enhanced BGC" law would be penalized by a stiff fine, no criminal penalty would be part of the law."

If the govt agreed to destroy all gun records, I would assume they already have a backup...

But that doesn't really matter. What matters is there's no means of enforcement in this proposal ...because there's no records that can be used to prove in a court of law whether or not someone circumvented the law. For any gun manufactured prior to the establishment of the law, they could just claim they got it before then, and for new guns that didn't exist prior to the law, they could just claim they did submit to the BGC and it passed. There's no records to indicate otherwise...

To put another way, there's nothing here that prevents the criminal element from being incentivized by profit to bypass the BGCs.

 

Speak the truth? Like saying that it’s not the gun that chooses to kill but the killer who pulls the trigger? That truth?

 

Making claims without evidence isn't disputing anything. Its just arguing or regurgitating propaganda.
Which is about all you really do.

Thats easy
In politics, left refers to people and groups that have liberal views. That generally means they support progressive reforms, especially those seeking woke social and economic equality.

The left wing of political ideology represents a belief in an all powerful government, which uses its power to create economic and social equality. People on the left-wing generally believe in taking income from the wealthiest and redistributing it among the poorer part of the population. They also generally believe in enforcing social equality through governmental regulation. Socialism and modern liberalism are both examples of left-wing politics.

Yet nothing in the OP says anything about gun massacres.
When the OP actually trivializes left wing gun claims for left wing gun agendas.
Maybe if you actually read the OP you would know that instead of inserting more propaganda.