SERIOUS Compromise between Pro gun and gun control!

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Thank you for confirming that you cannot demonstrate these limitations on the right to keep and bear arms are necessary to, and effective in, achieve these effects.

 

If we take out gang violence then we see that the legislation works because it accomplishes the goal of preventing all other types of shootings. Criminals shootings criminals while bad is the least problematic of the types.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat your post-hoc fallacy, it remains a post-hoc fallacy.

That aside, the point remains:
If firearm-related restrictions truly worked in a consistent, universal manner, there would be no reason to exclude AMY sort of gun-related crime.
.

 

The last school shooting in MD in which a handgun was used ended with only self inflicted wound because he was able to be quickly stopped by the authorities in the school since he did not have a semi auto weapon. It has been 2 years since the last school shooting in MD. Coincidence? I think not.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat your post-hoc fallacy, it remains a post-hoc fallacy.
Thank you for re-confirming that you cannot demonstrate these limitations on the right to keep and bear arms are necessary to, and effective in, achieve these effects.

 

The reason Illinois has an issue is because neighboring states make no effort to stop the illegal flow of guns.

How is it a fallacy. How else do you see if something works than to see how long places go without incident? Is it a fallacy that the last major shooting in the UK was in 1996? Same with Norway going 2 decades without issue?

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

Allow me to further educate you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

You argue that the laws you mention caused the effects your claim for no reason other than the effects followed the advent of the law; you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between those laws and the claimed effects.

 

Funny how no one acknowledged the video.

 

Funny how you continue to confirm you cannot demonstrate the limitations you seek to place on the right to keep and bear arms are necessary to, and effective in, achieve the effects you claim.

 

In other words if you don't get you way by have people voluntary tossing their rights down the drain, you will throw a temper tantrum and push for even more useless gun regulations.

However that is why we fight back against people like you, who only wish to toss your imagined but non existing power around, we will not accept one sided deals, shadowed as compromises, without your side actually giving something up.

How about this, I'll give you an assault weapons control act, if you can properly define an assault weapon, in return you must accept the elimination of the 1968 Gun control Act, eliminate the NICS requirement, allow nationwide concealed carry for anyone licensed by their state and tort reform prohibiting law abiding gun owners from being sued for acts of self defense.

Now that's a real compromise.

Deal or not?

 

That is a law enforcement problem, transferring a handgun to a non-resident is prohibited by law.

False, the UK had almost 10K gun crimes a 27% increase in 2019.

 

That's because you have not posted any videos in this thread.

 

I posted this video https://streamable.com/ikzvz

 

Well then Illinois should be allowed to search peoples cars coming into the state.

Gun homicides are all the matter. The US has 40 times more gun crimes than the UK and well the UK has almost no shootings.

This is a state race and policy but the one concession I would make is tort. I would never allow residents from another state to carry without a MI license. NICS needs to be done online not over paper which is a joke. The paper compromise shows that inhibiting stopping bad people from being caught by the system is all that the pro gun crowd wanted with that compromise.

 

Which has nothing to do with gun control, a situation like that this requires people control to solve.

Blaming the symptom for the disease is totally backwards, and will never solve the problem of the misuse of guns.

 

Which is a violation of the Constitution.

Bullcrap the UK by population has a gun problem more serious then the U.S.

Not enough.

Sorry, carry licenses should be like drivers licenses, accepted nation wide.

It's clear you know nothing about NICS, there is no paper way to run a NICS check, it's either by phone or on-line.

Again, you have demonstrated you have no clue of what you are talking about.

Mayne study the issue, before posting any more good ideas.

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

why compromise on an INDIVIDUAL constitutional right,,

wanna compromise on your first amendment right? far more people are killed by the first amendment than the second. especially suicides, they are often caused by the free speech f others.

 

If a particular state cannot make its own firearm-related restrictions work, due to surrounding territories not having the exact same firearm-related restrictions in place, then the state in question has no business attempting to implement and/or maintain such firearm-related restrictions to begin with, as they are apparently so easy to subvert and outright ignore.

It is not the fault of any other state, that firearm smugglers are able to bring firearms into the state of Illinois. Rather it is the fault of Illinois for not doing enough to curtail its own criminal element, and eliminating the demand for easily acquired firearms. No demand means no supply.

The united states is not any other nation. Therefore it cannot be compared to any other nation as if they were substitution goods.

 

Clearly had someone just made it illegal for Nikolas Cruz to own a gun he would never have shot anyone at the school. "Oh geeze, I really wanted to shoot a bunch of people at school but there's that damn law saying I can't own a gun. Guess I'll just go play some more XBox."

If the ATF had only banned bump stocks sooner, Stephen Paddock might have said to himself, "Oh geeze, I wanted to shoot a bunch of people but they banned the bump stock... Now it's hardly worth the effort. Guess I'll just go on down to casino."

When Seth Ator was driving down the highway in West Texas, had they only had a law that required guns to be unloaded in the car, he might have said to himself, "Oh geeze, I sure would like to go on a shooting spree today but I can't have my gun loaded in the car. Guess I'll just get some milk and head back home."

No, you have examples that are crap. Perfectly crap.

 

Actually, that's pretty much nonsense. I don't know the story to which you're referring but it is nonsense. A semi-automatic might be, for some shooters, quicker on the second shot but not on the first. This guy, according to the tidbit you provided, got stopped on the first shot.

 

This was my second post on this site which proves, with zero question, that you're wrong:

 

So you compromise with yourself and offer us nothing? The DNC already cornered that market...

 

It's what the liberal gun owners were okay with, but then I realized I need to stay true to myself and go as anti as possible. Pass the AWB whether my state wants it or not.

No ARs or AKs and the only guns allowed are single load hunting rifles, hand guns/pistols and revolvers with a 30 mag cap.

 

Let us know when you find one of those 30 round revolvers.

As for passing your ban, never going to happen, it's DOA the USSC will shoot it down so fast you will never knew what hit it.