NRA member and pro-gun guy willing to compromise

So what your saying is you have nothing to refute my easily variable proof and that you admit defeat. It would have been far easier to just say that next time. Your argument sucks because if Chicago murder problem is because access to guns from other states then other states should be awash in gun violence as they have higher percentage of ownership and lax gun laws. Clearly as mathematically proven that is not the case ergo access to firearms is clearly not the reason Chicago has a murder problem despite the best efforts of Gun control proponents to paint it as such.

 

Ayuh,.... Progressives can never blame the Criminals, just their tools,....

Chitown could easily fix their violence problem, by prosecuting the Criminals to the fullest extent of the current laws,......
But,... That'll never happen,....

 

Reality check:
- Short of legislation that physically REMOVES guns from circulation (i.e. confiscation), there is no legislation that will have any measurable positive effect on the criminally violent to use them for their violence.
- Short of legislation that physically REMOVES the criminally violent from our society (i.e. permanent incarceration), there is no legislation that will reduce the violence that they perpetrate on The People.

We are a people who values liberty over every other thing. This means that we cannot incarcerate those who we merely suspect might be violent at some time in the future, and for no other crime. It follows, therefore, that we must wait for their crimes to actually occur before we can do anything about it. Occasionally, those crimes will be very, very violent. This is the unfortunate price of our liberty.

The way to best mitigate this problem is to segregate, in perpetuity, those who have demonstrated their propensity to violence from our peaceable society.

 

Why would I refute meaningless numbers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Access to guns is indeed part of the issue. Notice I said part. Look at the chart there. The number 2 and 3 states in gun murders are Texas and Florida. Both states have caveman-ish gun laws where everyone is armed yet still suffer from a lot of gun violence. Is there an explanation for that?

What we have now clearly is not working. It's not working because too many places still act as if this is the wild west.

Also, shove it with your absolutism. A person can be a responsible gun owner and can be for things like mandatory federal background checks.

 

Must have something other than access to guns - VT has NO state-level gun control; 6 firearm related murders in 2014.

 

This does nothing to address my previous concern.

Saying I am wrong while providing no evidence to refute my claim tells me that you cannot back up the above statement. There is no uniform standard for obtaining a CCW permit as per the following link. The requirements vary from State to State. If you disagree then provide evidence to the contrary.
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Indeed, and your point is?

What is full reciprocity and how does it correlate with mandatory training certification? A google of full reciprocity pulled up info about the DMV.

The above response is nonsensical as you were the one in your own OP that suggested a "2: "Assault weapon" ban".

 

The FBI, the chief law enforcement organization for the entire united states, has reported that the overall level of violence and homicide is the lowest it has been in over sixty years, despite the number of firearms owned being at an all time high. Is there an explanation for that? Are you going to attempt to claim that the FBI does not know what it is talking about?

And yet there are states with very few restrictions on firearms ownership, and very low numbers of firearm-related homicides. Apparently the two are not mutually exclusive to one another.

The most recent mass murderers all managed to pass the mandatory federal background checks required for purchasing the firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Therefore what ultimate difference would have been made if private sales are held to the same standard?

 

I seriously doubt your membership in the NRA and you are obviously not pro gun. You are just another liberal liar who is spewing propaganda in a desperate attempt to further your idiotic agenda.

The government cannot and will not protect you. The only way you can be safe is to protect yourself and that requires being armed and being armed with the best weapons you can obtain.

Why are police armed to the teeth? The answer is for their own protection. So are government employees entitled to protect themselves, and citizens not afforded that same right?
If guns protect police, then they also protect citizens. You cannot have one without the other .

The government wants to disarm the population because it is afraid of them. That is good. The government should always fear the people because when the government fears the people, you have freedom. When the people are disarmed and fear the government, then you have tyranny... There is no difference between tyranny and slavery. Americans have always been willing to die for liberty.... real Americans still are.

 

Then you are apparently not interested in compromise; that being the case, there's no compelling reason why gun owners should compromise.

Requirement do vary from state to state.
You said:

The issue I have with CCW permits is that just about anyone can get one and I assume there is no standard for training in the use of the firearm or certifications

Since you are apparently familiar with the requirements from the various states, you know that people in several states -- CA NJ CT De MD HI, among others, suffer under a "may issue" permit system where permits are handed out on a subjective basis. In these states, hardly anyone can get a a permit.

As far as no "standard of training".... as CW permits are a state issue there is, of course, no federal standard for training; this does not negate the fact that all of the states that issue permits require training before issuance,.

That, in light of that fact that there are 300,000,000 firearms in the US, you statement that "Way too many get injured or killed accidentally by an idiot who does not know how to safely secure their firearm" has no rational basis.

Where every state recognizes a CW permit issued from any other state; just like a DL.
"Full" reciprocity applies this to DC and US external possessions as well.

Read more carefully.
This was included because a ban on 'assault weapons' is very popular among those that see more gun control.

 

Spoken from a position of ignorance. Compromise for the sake of compromise, no. Meaningful compromise that mitigates gun crime yes. What compromise will facilitate the preceding? I have no idea as a multifaceted problem will require a multifaceted solution.

What I would see as irrational is the acceptance of the status quo when we can do better.

No need to read more carfully as supporting a ban just because it is popular is illogical by my measure of logic. For me to support a ban I would need to see evidence that said ban will reduce gun crime.

 

You are aware that criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register firearms...right?

 

Uh, of course they can.

 

You may not understand the point of the topic.
Gun owners are under continuous pressure from those to who seek to impose additional restriction on the right to arms to compromise. Compromise, by definition, means for one side to give something to the other side, and then receive something in return.
If gun owners are expected to compromise, then those who seen this compromise must offer something to the gun owners.

 

just wanted to point out that the proposal I offered, and you have since run away from the discussion, did not put a single restriction on your right to arms.

 

Not according to the Supreme Court.

 

we don't have a registry in this country. if we ever enact one, yes they will be prosecuted. so I have no idea what you think the supreme court has said on the matter

 

This is true, Violates the 5th amendment.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 ( 1968 )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (196

In simple terms, no criminal can ever be prosecuted for failure to register a firearm they are legally prohibited from possessing, as it violates their constitutional rights against self-incrimination.

 

they are prosecuted for being in possession of an unregistered firearm.

 

Someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm cannot be prosecuted for possession of an unregistered firearm, as requiring them to register it is an unconstitutional violation of the right against self incrimination.

If someone is prohibited from possessing a firearm, why would they be charged with possession of an unregistered firearm, as opposed to felony possession of a firearm?

 

Nope.

because two crimes were committed

 

Then present evidence of proof.

 

That makes you a NRAINO.

 

Interesting, since the end result of any policy you advocate is the "government's way or the highway", Except that by "highway" you mean prison.

 

It's a hypothetical law. If you are found in possession of an unregistered firearm, you are in violation of the law and will be prosecuted.

If a registry is enacted.