ANTI-GUN RESEARCHERS ADMIT TO INCLUDING INJURIES FROM NON-GUN OBJECTS IN “FIREARM INJURY” DATA

Soon, the left will push for the universal registration necessary to enforce these background checks.

 

Lets hope so

 

Yet canada continues to register handguns. Why?

 

if you were to give truth serum to a BM member who pushes for UBGC I can almost 100% guarantee that they will admit that registration is needed to enforce that The entire purpose for pushing that crap of UBGC is to placate slow witted voters who want SOMETHING DONE and more importantly, to create a "NEED" for registration

 

governments love having control over competing forms of power. its the authoritarian mind set. Owning a defensive weapon is a statement to the government that people don't put all their faith in the government to protect them. Those in love with government take offense

 

Mostly because of what Tdude said. Also, handguns/pistols make up the bulk of gun crime. The cost/success rate is likely lower being that concealable weapons are the criminals preference and theres less (but still a lot) resources wasted attempting to track weapons (and people) that are never involved in crime.

Ive always maintained that if gun controllers were informed or genuine in their desire to merely curb gun violence, they would focus on concealables (handguns/pistols) which account for the vast majority of weapons used in gun crime. This quixotic focus on 'assault rifles' (aside from the fact that there is no universal definition and the focus tends to be on 'scary looking' guns rather than any particular category of function) is yet more indication of, at best, pure ignorance and emotional response, and at worst, mass mental illness rampant in the gun controller community, given that semi-auto rifles (the most common weapon described as 'assault rifle') are used in the least amount of gun crime (except muzzleloaders I suspect). At least Canada is focussing on the right type of weapons (if still failing to grasp the inherent flaws of the overall process) in their application of registration.

 

Ok let's register handguns. That was easy

 

Honestly, I would be open to the prospect of handgun registration provided that 1- I dont have to pay into it. I still think its a boondoggle and the benefits are not worth the cost (financially, politically or socially), and 2- that some concessions or compromises are made 'on the other side' as well. For example, we could make it a 'trial' program to better determine its potential effectiveness and have a date when it dies, requiring new legislation to be passed for it to continue (provided it has enough success), or add a provision that certain other proposed gun control laws be dismissed so long as handgun registration is in effect. This would help curb the dynamic of 'just one more law' over and over until gun rights are effectively anulled.

 

That sounds very reasonable

But you better be careful. On here you have now crossed over to the dark side as far as many posters are concerned. You have become a gun banner (none of which is true by the way). I doubt we can find one pro gun person on this forum that will agree with you.

But I would love to be proven wrong

 

Lets find out. Ill make a post.

 

HE HITS!!! HE SCORES. Homerun baby!

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mpromise-in-gun-rights-vs-gun-control.504372/

 

Lets not and pretend that you all don't want to pass laws that only harass honest people.

wait a minute, all registration does is harass honest people and since it cannot even be used to punish criminals, it proves the real goal of the BM

 

Sure now... all sellers will have to wear body cams.

 

Definitely gotta cede you this one.

 

No one has made that accusation, yet....

 

How does registering guns prevent homicide? Last I checked, by far the majority of firearm homicides are committed by those that cannot register or possess firearms.

 

We can register violent criminals by branding their faces with the letters VC and a serial number, but it would be considered 'cruel and unusual' by liberals. Yep, the law abiding among us would not sell them guns and would know when they enter a room...on third strike, remove their trigger fingers. The punishment would fit the crime.

 

It would make it more difficult for those people to buy guns. If you have a registered gun and you sell it to a felon then you can be charged with a crime.

 

If it were my intention to sell to a felon, it would be as simple as removing the serial number to keep myself from prosecution.

 

Why wouldn't the felon rat you out if arrested as part of a plea deal?

 

Or a gun just goes missing

 

Someone relay the following message to the member Vegas Giants.

For a felon to actually do such, would require them to first admit that they did indeed purchase a firearm, which would incriminate them in the commission of a crime. Legally even felons have a constitutional right against self incrimination, meaning they are under no obligation to actually do such. Beyond that fact, it becomes a matter of credibility, between someone with a felony conviction, and someone with no criminal record, and there is no reason to believe the felon is being honest in their testimony. Even if they were, all the accused seller has to do is deny the sale ever took place, and claim that it must've been stolen when they weren't looking at it. Prosecutors are not going to waste finite resources trying to prove that the accused seller knowingly broke the law, when all the have is the testimony of a known and previously convicted criminal who is in possession of a firearm that is now being reported as being stolen.

 

He's not really ignoring you....he is a pot stirrer and likes agitating.

 

Here is a bit of Truth, a firearm is a liability to a felon, since a felon is prohibited from possesing firearms.

So if a felon illegaly carries a firearm, math predicts he will eventually be stopped by LE at some point.

Gun registration helps nothing !
Gun registration is not an effective crime prevention method.