OilyPablo
Member
Rifle. Exactly as I feel. And still the real crime rate is unchanged
That's as ludicrous as saying, "You don't need ammunition to kill somebody with a gun." No, but it makes it a LOT easier.Good for them. What does that have to do with the fact that a registration isn't needed for a ban?
Originally poster by JSH1
Australia did not have a gun registry before the ban and buyback.
Australia did not have a gun registry before the ban and buyback. Australians did not turn in their guns because those guns were on a registry they did so because they were useless to law abiding people after the ban. A gun that you cannot use without fear of arrest is useless.
1) Australia didn't have a national registry, but individual states had registries. This is equivalent to Oregon having a registry.
2) It is widely reported that a huge percentage of the banned firearms "taken off the street" were not in fact bought back. They were buried by the owners. I've seen claims that compliance rates in sates without registration were as low as 10%. Of course a buried weapon is still available for criminal enterprises.
"Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." -- Attributed to A. Einstein
The problem with the idea of "law abiding" comes down to this: Nothing in US history has been more destructive of public order and the rule of law than prohibition. The prohibition of alcohol and drugs created and sustain entire sub cultures where obedience to law is simply a non-factor. Formerly law abiding individuals and families became routine criminals and are today. What will prohibition of guns do? It will continue that damage. It will actively pull people away from the law. And once you are a little away...once you are in the woods with an illegal gun, you might as well have an illegal silencer, and you might as well shoot an illegal deer, and the more you do that the less you will think other laws really matter.
The result? In an effort to pander to the fears of people who don't own weapons, you have made the world less safe for everyone.
I'd say you must be terribly uninformed because you wouldnt purposely try to deceive... would you?
No law abiding citizen will suddenly be made a criminal by requiring a background check.
Really, never tried to ban AR's ?We aren't talking about a ban on types of firearms for the general public.
Sorry, I totally missed your post (A cell phone is not the best tool for discussion but my work blocks access to THR)JSH1, do you want to address my points in post #174?
About what? The requirement for a background check doesn't make anyone a criminal. If someone decides to break the law they make themselves a criminal.Stop lying
No law abiding citizen will suddenly be made a criminal by requiring a background check.
We are talking in this thread about background checks.Really, never tried to ban AR's ?
I don't know. What does the NICS background checks system cost? How can we make it cost less and work more efficiently? Does it make sense to pay to keep all that data but only use it for a portion of gun sales instead of all sales?At what point does the attempt to make it less easy become counter productive: cost more than it benefits?
Take the 2011 FBI number of handgun homicides, divide into the Obama Admin estimate of private handguns, you get 1 handgun homicide out of 18,000 handguns. Policy focused at violence targeting violent behavior by violent people (malum in se) would in my not so humble opinion have more impact than a policy aimed at an unfocussed diffusion spread across all handgun owners.
Compare the failed and repealed Maryland and New York "ballistic fingerprint" databases -- ballistic data on all handguns sold -- to the ATF NIBIN system of crime scene ballistic data. The former were so unfocussed as to be useless. NIBIN actually does work.
No, I don't agree with your basic premise that the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to rise up against an oppressive federal government.
We are talking in this thread about background checks.
Some seek to take the thread off topic and talk about registries and bans which are a completely different topic.
Yes laws change and some people might now bother to research what the law says. On the other hand, today we have a hodgepodge of laws that are different by location and type of firearms. It would be far easier if the answer to "do I need a background check for this gun?" was simply yes. Sell a gun do a check.That's somewhere between disingenuous and false.
People following long customary practices go from law abiding citizens to criminals if they don't realize the laws have changed. The same act,
Beyond that, I'm sure the law created unanticipated corner cases. E.g. I can purchase the contents of a storage locker, or a house and everything in it. What if it turns out there are guns inside? Here in Texas, no problem! I just bought myself some guns. In Oregon?
You said earlier in this thread that the point of the law is to remove the element of intent. Well, if intent isn't a factor, then buying a storage bin, house, car, or whatever that contains a gun is a violation if though you didn't know the gun was there.
Hey, you are the one that said it, but I guess if you can lie about one thing the rest must come easy.We are talking in this thread about background checks.
Some seek to take the thread off topic and talk about registries and bans which are a completely different topic.
Background checks could eventually become a registry if the documentation was kept forever. The law in Oregon discards the data after 5 years.No. They are not a completely different topic. Not at all. You are either lying (to yourself and/or to us) or incredibly ignorant to the topic if you are going to continually claim UBC's are a completely different topic from registries.
Your opinion and you are welcome to it.That makes you wrong
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Yes laws change and some people might now bother to research what the law says. On the other hand, today we have a hodgepodge of laws that are different by location and type of firearms. It would be far easier if the answer to "do I need a background check for this gun?" was simply yes. Sell a gun do a check.
It could also open up the opportunity to get rid of all the different regulations on buying guns across state lines. It could be as simple as Yes, anyone from any state can buy a gun anywhere as long as they pass the background check.