You only need to look at poll after poll showing overwhelming support for background checks
We will also have state after state passing UBCs in ballot initiatives but I doubt that will change the narrative here.
Oregon gun laws improved last year by implementing universal background checks?
- Thread starter Warp
- Start date
- Status
You only need to look at poll after poll showing overwhelming support for background checks
We will also have state after state passing UBCs in ballot initiatives but I doubt that will change the narrative here.
Actually I have thought of something else that Oregon need to address. Current we do not accept concealed carry permits from any other state and only allow citizens from adjoining states to get Oregon permits. Oregon should accept concealed carry permits from all other states.
There are other gun laws that need to be addressed as well but they are Federal law:
- Removing suppressors from NFA requirements and selling them as regular accessories no different than a muzzle brake.
- Getting ride of ridiculous restrictions on barrel lengths and overall lengths
- Universal reciprocation of concealed carry permits.
I believe you can check past post to see that I do not support assault weapons bans or magazine size restrictions.
We have had this discussion before (within the last month or two if I remember correctly)
- I-594 does not prevent you from letting another person shoot your gun at the range
- If gun rights groups really believed that it does then they should attempt to amend the law to specifically allow temporary transfers. The language in the Oregon bill could provide an excellent example to cut and paste. However, they have not tried to do this, instead they have tried to repeal it wholesale (15 times now, 3 times in 2016)
Deanimator
Member
I believe you can check past public statements by former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, you know the ones where he opposed an "assault weapon" ban... before he started SUPPORTING one.
I have no more reason to believe you than him.
Red Wind
Member
The life of a Statist is very difficult on a gun forum. I have to give him credit. He's a very intelligent man , pushing an UBC argument that holds no water, but that does not stop him in the slightest.
Trying to convince Icarius that his wings will not hold up over the Aegean would be an easier go!
Trying to convince Icarius that his wings will not hold up over the Aegean would be an easier go!
Let's count the logical fallacies in this thread
"You can't see UBCs as a threat to RKBA unless you are against the concept that certain people should be prohibited from owning firearms"
Well I'd say that is false dichotomy, and a touch of non sequitor and straw man
"Just look at the polls to see how many support UBC"
that's straight up Bandwagon Fallacy
Not to mention a poll consisting of everyone, and voting consisting of the entire population does not represent solely gun owners...and since we've established that there are gun owners who are also not exactly RKBA friendly, it doesn't represent the NRA's key demographic.
I bet less than 5% of people who have ever belonged to the NRA or contributed to the NRA support UBC.
"You can't see UBCs as a threat to RKBA unless you are against the concept that certain people should be prohibited from owning firearms"
Well I'd say that is false dichotomy, and a touch of non sequitor and straw man
"Just look at the polls to see how many support UBC"
that's straight up Bandwagon Fallacy
Not to mention a poll consisting of everyone, and voting consisting of the entire population does not represent solely gun owners...and since we've established that there are gun owners who are also not exactly RKBA friendly, it doesn't represent the NRA's key demographic.
I bet less than 5% of people who have ever belonged to the NRA or contributed to the NRA support UBC.
Last edited:
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I believe that you believe lies or at best half truths, I personally do not know one individual that supports UBC's. Maybe one aunt, but I don't see her but every few years, but we don't talk about this stuff then.
I do wish you'd answer my question, which was, what benefit comes from UBC's. I honestly can't think of one realistic good thing that will come out it.
"UBCs don't limited anyone's right to own a gun"
Not yet, but that is the first step towards the end goal.
TimSr
Member
It's a great concept. That's why they call it a "common sense" measure. We simply check everyone out before they buy a gun, and bad people can't ever buy one.
It's like the concept of Marxism. "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need." How can you argue with that? Sounds like something Jesus would say.
Then we have the clash with reality and human nature. Bad people don't obey laws, some even steal, and nobody can predict who will lose their mind at some point in the future.
Good Marxists who don't get rewarded stop producing according to their ability, ands greedy Marxists start taking more than they need.
Reality is what separates a concept from a prototype.
...until they are wrongfully denied, or the information given is used against them. Government permission is what separates a right from a privilege.
Last edited:
OilyPablo
Member
Well said TimSr.
UBC's don't really work. And when they don't, gun grabbers just want more restrictions and when those don't work..........you get the idea.
Not one prosecution under I-594 in WA state. Oh, but they claim it's working.
No real change in crime rate. Hm.....
UBC's don't really work. And when they don't, gun grabbers just want more restrictions and when those don't work..........you get the idea.
Not one prosecution under I-594 in WA state. Oh, but they claim it's working.
No real change in crime rate. Hm.....
Your are being disingenuous. Polls of strictly gun owners?
How about we take this forum, and specifically this thread as a subset of gun owners. How many on this thread are arguing for UBCs? Seems to be only you. One a majority does not make.
OilyPablo
Member
Find out what the actual poll questions are. "Are you in favor of criminals owning guns?" NO. Check block: For UBC.
danez71
Member
I remember that discussion.
It does you no good to try to discredit him by using incomplete cherry picked info.
You can only loan at gun at a shooting range (or a show I believe).
The way the law reads is that just handing your gun to someone to look at is not an Exception and meets the criteria to be considered illegal.
And despite your efforts to defend it, you could not provided anything that says otherwise.
I to would like to know the benefits of UBC's.
And would especially like to see proof of those benefits working in the states that already have them.
(and again, even if there actually were benefits, they will wouldn't be right or justified, but at least the control freaks would have something legitimate with which to argue, vs not having squat, as they do now)
danez71
Member
JSH1,
I'm still waiting for the info.
There is over 100 years of culmlative UBC data with the chain of custody for 10s of thousands of guns.
Where are the # purporting that the chain of custody provided by UBCs have solve crimes.
With UBC laws on the books in several state for decades, it should not be a problem for someone of your intelligence and resources to be able defend your position with empirical data.
The lack of results from those states over the few decades indicates that it does not work.
Your lack of data shows that your position is as empty as the bag of solved crimes from UBC chain of custody.
There are 3 polls linked in this article. All of them ask a straightforward question of background checks for all gun sales.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ra-members-back-background-checks-all-gun-pu/
Alabama is not representative of the country as a whole. I know, I lived in Birmingham and Selma and worked in Gadsden. (I've also lived in 4 other states)
We have already had that conversation, within the past month I do believe. Maybe we should just cut and paste from the last time we had it, or the month before that, or the month before that.
Bottom line, for a criminal to buy a gun where background checks are required for all sales, the people on both sides of the sale have to be criminals.
What are the advantages of UBC's?
What can you show us from the states that have had them that prove those advantages are real and not fiction? 5
danez71
Member
From your linked article
And..
I suspect that youre only reading the parts you want to read.
In addition, what you're reading is admittedly unscientific and reports #s that it doesn't even have access to.
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise....
Jlr2267
Member
I too would like to see some real data showing a societal benefit to UBC.
OilyPablo
Member
Really? Sketchy Politfraud article. 1st poll online and about waitperiod and still the actual real question not quoted. Broken links, links that back nothing really. And one with 169 "NRA" Members NO ACTUAL QUESTION. Man if this is how you form your opinions, I think we found the problem.
"I-594 does not prevent you from letting another person shoot your gun at the range"
Correct. But that's not what I'm talking about. We have a new shooter (a police officer, FWIW). Pre 594: old competitor can loan a spare gun to new shooter by handing it to him, and getting it back six weeks later when the league is over. In the interim, new shooter can sight it in, clean it, practice with it, and compete at the weekly matches even if old shooter is out of town that week.
Saying 'no sweat, old shooter can just show up whenever new shooter wants to practice, and take the gun home for cleaning later' isn't quite the same. Now, it's fine to say 'screw the target shooters, if it will save one life...'. I just don't think that stopping bullseye shooters from sharing fussy target pistols is likely to save any lives.
Similarly, Everytown like to say 'but you can still loan guns for hunting'. And that's true; you can take your buddy duck hunting and loan him a gun as long as you go along. But when your buddy says 'Hey, I got invited on a duck hunt. Wanna come? And can I borrow a duck gun?', if you can't go that weekend, you can't loan him the gun. Hunting loans are only permissible if you are at the wildlife management area for the entire duration of the loan.
"If gun rights groups really believed that it does then they should attempt to amend the law..."
Ummm...initiatives in WA can't be changed by the legislature for 2 years; that clock is still running.
On the subject of the popularity of UBC - I've asked several non gun owner friends who voted for 594 whether they realized it outlawed the kinds of loans I'm talking about here. In general, they didn't realize that; they thought it only applied to permanent transfers (gift or sale). The initiative text was 18 pages, which was about 17 pages longer than it needed to be. My advice for people fighting these in other states is to get the actual provisions out there.
Correct. But that's not what I'm talking about. We have a new shooter (a police officer, FWIW). Pre 594: old competitor can loan a spare gun to new shooter by handing it to him, and getting it back six weeks later when the league is over. In the interim, new shooter can sight it in, clean it, practice with it, and compete at the weekly matches even if old shooter is out of town that week.
Saying 'no sweat, old shooter can just show up whenever new shooter wants to practice, and take the gun home for cleaning later' isn't quite the same. Now, it's fine to say 'screw the target shooters, if it will save one life...'. I just don't think that stopping bullseye shooters from sharing fussy target pistols is likely to save any lives.
Similarly, Everytown like to say 'but you can still loan guns for hunting'. And that's true; you can take your buddy duck hunting and loan him a gun as long as you go along. But when your buddy says 'Hey, I got invited on a duck hunt. Wanna come? And can I borrow a duck gun?', if you can't go that weekend, you can't loan him the gun. Hunting loans are only permissible if you are at the wildlife management area for the entire duration of the loan.
"If gun rights groups really believed that it does then they should attempt to amend the law..."
Ummm...initiatives in WA can't be changed by the legislature for 2 years; that clock is still running.
On the subject of the popularity of UBC - I've asked several non gun owner friends who voted for 594 whether they realized it outlawed the kinds of loans I'm talking about here. In general, they didn't realize that; they thought it only applied to permanent transfers (gift or sale). The initiative text was 18 pages, which was about 17 pages longer than it needed to be. My advice for people fighting these in other states is to get the actual provisions out there.
papaairbear
Member
Folks, JSH1 cans say what he wants as long as he stays within the rules of this forum, but as an Oregonian, let me tell you he does not speak for the majority of gun owners in this State. The election this November is going to be decisive in this State as well as the nation. Until then all of this talk about "most Oregonians polled..., etc" is merely rhetoric and slanted stats. I, nor any of the gun owners I know personally, have ever been polled about UBC's or any other piece of gun legislation. And we are not voting for proponents of stricter gun legislation. We'll see how all of this stands with the next administration.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
