Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Any device specifically marketed as a firearm accessory which will cause the gun to mimic automatic fire.

It’s not talking about rubber bands or ferocious fingers. It’s obviously about bump stocks and such.

Why fight such legislation unless you are involved in this business of selling bumpstocks? Shouod we just do nothing legally speaking, after the LV massacre?

I find it baffling the people who are fighting bumpstock bans.
 
Last edited:
The language in that bill does not say “Any device specifically marketed as a firearm accessory which will cause the gun to mimic automatic fire.” it says "any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle " a match grade trigger that has a lighter pull and short reset also falls into a device that will "increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle " It is not nearly as straight forward as you think.
 
To all our many law enforcemwnt friends here on Catholic Answers Forums.

PLEASE take note of what the gun-grabbers want to do to YOU TOO! (With the exception of if you guard high-level politicians). . . .

.

CathoholIc . . .

.
To some of the liberals/progressives, this (“Common Sense Gun Control”) ALSO is politispeak for disarming retired police (who are under retaliatory risks for years of putting “bad guys” away) and for other “progressives” or “liberals” it means to disarm even many of the active police.
Click to expand...
.

FiveLinden:
Police in NZ are not routinely armed . . .
Click to expand...
.

CathoholIc . . .

.
To some of the liberals/progressives, this (“Common Sense Gun Control”) ALSO is politispeak for disarming . . , even many of the active police.
Click to expand...
.

FiveLinden:

.
Police in NZ are not routinely armed . . .
Click to expand...
.
To our law enforcement friends. Thank you for your service and stay safe. Please do not trust the gun-grabbers with your and your families protection.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon:
Legislators would have to define everything in precise terms.
Click to expand...
Spyridon. Considering the vagueness of past gun laws, and the constant court bickering over the terminology already in place, along with the liberals propensity to “re-define” terms, along with creative progressive judges, . . . what makes you think politicians are up to the task of finally getting a bill that’s “watertight”?

By the way Spyridon. Do YOU want to disarm politicians armed guards?

(I don’t want to disarm them. As often hapless as politicians are, they too deserve protection. But I want to know what YOU think.)
 
Let’s see if I can get an honest, straight answer here from the gun control proponents.

Let’s say on a national level that the US implemented the following gun control measures which are so badly craved by the anti-gun folks:
  • Universal background checks on ALL firearms sales – private or public.
  • Making bump-stocks, binary triggers, etc. illegal to own.
  • Limiting ammunition magazine capacity to 10 rounds or less.
  • Confiscating legally-owned firearms from those on the “no fly list” without due process.
  • Confiscating legally-owned firearms from US Veterans after accessing VA medical treatment without due process.
  • Outlawing gun shows.
  • Expanding “gun free zones.”
  • Limit ammunition purchases.
After all this is implemented what do we do when the next “mass shooting” takes place? What do we do then? What rights do we limit the next time?

And the next time? And the time after that? Do we continue to ban, ban, ban, until it comes down to gun confiscation (except for the military, law enforcement and the privileged of course.)

Where does it end?
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Which I appreciate is like a bad weekend in Chicago for you guys but is still a lot down here.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, you actually believe more gun control laws (Chicago is already choke-full of them) will solve or at least make a dent in the problems that are facing the South Side of Chicago? Really?
Click to expand...
I could care less about your problems in the South Side and whatever it might take to solve them. When I’m in the States next year it’s one of the places I can guarantee that I won’t be visiting.

As I’ve said before, it’s the mentality of gun owners such as yourself which is the problem. No-one is likely to deny that America has a shocking record when it comes to gun deaths and it is going to be extraordinary difficult to solve. But as this thread exhibits, you and others are not the slightest bit interested in any practical suggestions for reducing the carnage.

In fact, you are quite happy to put up with it to maintain what you perceive as your rights. Whatever the death toll.

As I said, I really could care less. I live in a society where literally no-one I know has a gun. Actually, correction to that - an old friend I haven’t seen for some time has a property up the coast and he sometimes goes hunting. But apart from him…nobody.

That’s not say that no-one can own a gun. There are gun shops in Sydney and if you play by the rules then you can go and buy one. But very few people are interested. If anyone suggested that they were thinking of buying a gun for protection, then most people would be seriously concerned about what the hell they were getting up to on the weekend.

The Vegas shooting was shocking enough. But here’s an even more shocking stat. Since those people were killed in Las Vegas, there have been almost an additional 900 people killed by guns in the US.

Tell me you care about that, D. Tell me that you think it’s an appalling figure. Tell me that you think that there must be something that someone could do to change it. Don’t, as you did in the very first post, ask everyone else for their ‘common sense’ answers so that you can sneer at them for what you consider to be nonsensical solutions. Tell us all what you would do.

Assuming, that is, that you feel that something does in fact need to be done.

Otherwise, put your cards on the table and announce to all that the deaths are the price you have to pay for your ‘freedom’.
 
Bradskii said:
As I’ve said before, it’s the mentality of gun owners such as yourself which is the problem.
Click to expand...
Absolute malarkey. It’s the mentality of the gun banners like yourself that keep the real issues (mental health, poverty, lack of gun safety education, etc.) from being addressed.
 
Bradski:

.
I could care less about your problems in the South Side . . .
Click to expand...
.
That’s what I would expect.

.

Bradski:
No-one is likely to deny that America has a shocking record when it comes to gun deaths . . .
Click to expand...
.

Actually Bradski it’s YOU who are denying deaths. I gave you the link to Rummel’s book (he has articles online too) but you continue to IGNORE these Government democide stats, which are staggering.

(“It can’t happen here” [wherever you are]. Right?)

.

Bradski:

.
As I’ve said before, it’s the mentality of gun owners such as yourself which is the problem.
Click to expand...
Remember Bradski. Your police and military are in a sense, “gun owners” too. Are you talking about their “mentality”?

Or is your problem only with good law abiding citizens?

.
Actually it was the “mentality” of Government utopianists that has been a much LARGER historical problem.

.

Bradski:

.
In fact, you are quite happy to put up with it to maintain what you perceive as your rights. Whatever the death toll.
Click to expand...
Actually Bradsski, I was just going to say the same thing to you.

.

Bradski:
As I said, I really could care less.
Click to expand...
.

And here we differ Bradski.

I DO CARE about deaths—all of them. Gun deaths from bad guys. AND gun deaths from out-of-control Governments. Abortion deaths. All deaths.
 
Last edited:
So no suggestions. I didn’t expect any to be honest.

These types of threads aren’t discussions. They are soap boxes for you and others like you to deny any possibility of any changes.

I’ll check in again after the next mass shooting.
 
Duesenberg said:
Let’s see if I can get an honest, straight answer here from the gun control proponents.

Let’s say on a national level that the US implemented the following gun control measures which are so badly craved by the anti-gun folks:

Universal background checks on ALL firearms sales – private or public.
Making bump-stocks, binary triggers, etc. illegal to own.
Limiting ammunition magazine capacity to 10 rounds or less.
Confiscating legally-owned firearms from those on the “no fly list” without due process.
Confiscating legally-owned firearms from US Veterans after accessing VA medical treatment without due process.
Outlawing gun shows.
Expanding “gun free zones.”
Limit ammunition purchases.

After all this is implemented what do we do when the next “mass shooting” takes place? What do we do then? What rights do we limit the next time?

And the next time? And the time after that? Do we continue to ban, ban, ban, until it comes down to gun confiscation (except for the military, law enforcement and the privileged of course.)

Where does it end?
Click to expand...
I notice none of the gun-banners opined. That was expected.
 
Canada has common sense gun control - more so than the US. They also have 1/8 the rate of murder by gun and 1/2 the rate of murder overall. Seems to be working there.
 
Mexico has common sense gun control - more so than the US. Seems to be failing there.

The U.S. is NOT Canada or Mexico. The U.S. is unique.
 
Cathoholic said:
Mexico has common sense gun control - more so than the US. Seems to be failing there.
The U.S. is NOT Canada or Mexico. The U.S. is unique.
Click to expand...
That is very true. This observation shows the fallacy in claiming “Gun control does not work. Look at Chicago. Strict laws, high gun crime.” It is a fallacy because the factors that create Chicago’s high gun crime are unique to Chicago. Similarly, the factors that make Montana’s crime rate low are unique to Montana. They are not the fact that there is less gun control. Chicago and Montana are both unique in their own ways and cannot be used to draw the conclusion that gun control does not work. The fact is we don’t know for sure whether strict gun control would work in the US. We’ve never tried it because the 2nd amendment makes it impossible to try it to the extent that might actually make a difference.

But the OP asked for a few examples, so relevant or not, I provided one.
 
LeafbyNiggle:
factors that create Chicago’s high gun crime are unique to Chicago.
Click to expand...
.
LeafbyNiggle gives a strawman fallacy of thinking because all cities are unique, that it’s OK to IGNORE the Bill of Rights for the whole U.S.A.

People like this never call for laws against politicians surrendering their overwhelming firepower.

People like this never call for laws that focus on “the bad guys” (we already have them and the bad guys ignore those laws).

People like this ALWAYS seem to call for laws to proverbially “beat up the good guys”. Laws “aimed” at the good honest law-abiding citizens.

It’s consistent with a low ball view of humanity that so many “rights infringers” and other elitists have.

Please don’t fall for it.
 
Last edited:
I do! I do! It’s an absurd presentation of another’s position that is easy to attack because no one actual is defending it. Here is an example.
Cathoholic said:
that it’s OK to IGNORE the Bill of Rights for the whole U.S.A.
Click to expand...
It is a straw man because Leaf, and no one else, believes anything like this.
 
Last edited:
“Common sense gun control” is a nebulous phrase that frequently is RE-DEFINED that has much to do with the 2nd amendment.
 
pnewton (pretending to know the thoughts of someone else) . . . .

.
Leaf, and no one else, believes anything like this.
Click to expand...
.

I think “Leaf” can speak for himself (herself?).

pnewton went on.

So instead of YOU thinking YOU know what LeafbyNiggle is thinking,. . .

. . . and instead of YOU telling OTHER people what to do concerning their rights (transgressing the Bill of Rights in the process), . . .

. . . .I’d suggest just speaking for yourself (or put up the salient quotes).
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Canada has common sense gun control - more so than the US. They also have 1/8 the rate of murder by gun and 1/2 the rate of murder overall. Seems to be working there.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You cannot attribute Canada’s lower murder rate to gun control. That’s merely nonsense. Canada is a much smaller nation (population-wise) with a far more homogeneous population (for now.) That’s what makes it safer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top