Bye bye gun control - Page 3

There is no individual right to the device you mention, it cannot be used for personal protection.

I personally think they will deem the law unconstitutional.

As for my position, I think gun violence is totally and utterly out of control. If I saw enough evidence proving that banning all handguns would work to significantly reduce violence, I'd likely support it. The problem is I'm not sure that outcome can be proven. There is something to be said for it having the opposite effect..in that you're taking away guns from mostly law abiding folks.

On the other hand, a large number of guns used in crime come from LEGAL sources. Getting a good data point is difficult, but the numbers I have seen are as high as 50%. This is due to trafficking and secondary sales. There are also many accidents, in the tens of thousands per year.

So in the end, I don't know that I buy the argument that "an armed American populace is safer and less violent." It seems to me that reducing the number of handguns significantly would also lower violence. I'd think that this would need to be coupled with stiff penalties for possession and aggressive policing of the black market.

Thoughts?

And he has bad taste in television.

Apparently, you're not familiar with gang injunctions that are regularly used in California.

Damned activist judges!

Nope, you're right. If he's a Libertarian, then I'm Dick Cheney.

I think we need to decide whether it is permissible to be a gang member -- not only inside the prison system, or outside it, but at all.

If you are against gun ownership, Put a sign up in your yard that reads "No Guns In this House"

Or maybe wear a shirt to church that says "Be careful how you talk to me. I might shoot you."

Ooh! Oooh! Or maybe, put a sign in your yard that says "breaking into this house is not a crime"?

Ooh! Oooh! Oooohh! Or maybe wear a shirt to church that says "If Jesus had had a glock, he'd have shot Pontius in the face"!

Or maybe a shirt that says "Turn the other cheek, my ass!"

I vote for this one.

A friend of mine had a sign in his apartment that read:

"This house protected by an armed American home owner. Nothing in here is worth dying for."

My friend owned over 200 guns at one point. He graduated from a body guard school that the Mossad often attended, and sometimes failed out of. He was on track to be a member of special forces, but he blew out his knees. He also had C4 in his apartment, various illegal weapons including an AK47, sniper rifles, etc.

Oh, and he once got raided by the ATF and FBI and DEA simultaneously. True story.

Anyone care to tell me how MORE gun laws would have stopped this criminal? How many laws did he already show a disregard for? How someone willing to break THAT MANY LAWS would have been deterred by even more laws to break?

Such is the utter bullshit premise of gun banners and their agenda.

You have swerved into the truth.


It's time to shut down gun dealers (less than 1% of them) that consistently violate FFL and ATF rules. Put them the hell out of business if they cannot obey the law. No quarrel there.


OK, SDW... join the NRA... the LARGEST gun safety organization in the nation. We train more people in a year in gun safety than Brady has ever trained. Eddie Eagle programs for kids. First Steps programs for new gun owners. I, and many like me, teach hundreds of hours of FREE gun safety per year.


Here are some... not to you specifically...

Reducing the number of handguns disproportionally takes them out of the hands of people who obey the law... thus giving criminals the advantage. How many times do we have to go over victim disarmament? Take all the free time you guys seem to have and do the right thing... It is time for STIFF punishments for the misuse of firearms. I mean every time a gun is involved in a crime it should be a mandatory stiff sentence.

I just wonder... if all of those who are so gung-ho for disarming everyone would actually grow a pair, take a stand, and punish criminals who use guns, and not try to disarm law abiding people, what kind of society we would have. It's an intellectually vacuous quick-fix to use the Feinstein Line- "Take Em All Up." Have the courage to deal with the problem- criminals. You cannot take them all up... it will take decades of disarmed law abiding people before you guys even put a dent in criminal possession. In that time... watch the crime rate soar... just like the UK and Australia. Start sending felons in possession to prison, start sending NICS denied-felons to prison, start dealing with criminals who break the law... I know that is hard for many of you.

Me and my gun are not the problem. The asshole who misuses his gun is the problem. Fuck with him. Stop fucking with the rest of us, who are honest, law-abiding citizens, who want a decent chance to prevail against the criminal element. I make a living in a dangerous business... and many of you here think I should have to go join the National Guard to be able to protect my livelihood and family. Well... fuck that and anyone who thinks that.

Criminals do not give two shits about your pathetic attempt at "gun control" - all you are doing is disarming the good guys who follow and respect the law. Start sending people who commit ANY CRIME with a gun to jail for 15 years mandatory, and watch the problem be hugely reduced.

Their refusal to do this acknowledges, by default, that MY GUN helps keep THEM safe.

You're welcome, gun-haters... even as you do you best to remove from most of us the means of self-defense.

While it's a shame that gun-ban advocates lack the apparently beachball-sized testicles of the gun-rights crowd (some of us need to be able to zip our jeans), all is not lost. We tend to think with our brains, not our balls. All joking aside, Jubelum makes some assumptions he seems to take as articles of faith. I'll make some of my own: (1) Reducing gun availability reduces both gun crime and deaths and injuries from gun-related accidents. A gun-ban society would obviously have to monitor and investigate the emerging black market for guns, but with good enforcement the black market couldn't possibly provide criminals with guns on the current wide-open scale. Serious, well-organized criminals might always have access to guns, but the casual criminal would not. (2) A gun-ban would clearly eliminate the deterrent effect on criminals of their not knowing whether a store or home owner possesses a firearm, but I have to wonder how much of a deterrent effect that actually is. While I don't want to get into armchair psychology, I'd have to say that the "deterrent effect" is most likely either wishful thinking or a projection from gun owners of their *own* sense of safety in their gun ownership rather than something that has a determinative influence on criminals' crime-choices.

Whether people want guns, or want them banned, the truth is that the guns are out there, 10s of millions of them in all shapes and sizes, and have been for more than a couple hundred years. The "toothpaste is out of the tube" so to speak. Banning them (apart from violating the 2nd amendment) would create millions of criminals out of currently law-abiding people in an instant (the cops have enough on their plate without having to suddenly deal with that)... not to mention the godawful relations that would result from the BATF etc etc raiding peoples' homes etc. etc. Obviously, the banning of guns would have much greater negative impact on legal gun owners than on criminals.

If there is ever to be legislation passed regarding gun control, one that I would welcome is strict quality controls on firearms, targeting the cheap inferior quality guns, which are often utterly useless items of junk, where the shooter is more likely to hurt or kill a random passerby than strike the intended target (the gun equivalent of the Ford Pinto)

But I guess thats never going to happen.... most of this (and other) garbage comes from China, a country we treat with kid gloves, by default.

Just what is the situation where a random passerby getting hit could be excused with a "inferior quality gun"? It's the shooter's fault, period.

Even cheap handguns tend to be a good deal more accurate than most people can shoot in a pinch.

It isn't the gun that kills. It is the NRA behind the man, behind the gun.

My goodness, sammi jo, you never cease to amaze me with the perfect talking points you regurgitate. What the hell do you know about firearms, besides what you have obviously read from Sen. Feinstein's website about "junk guns?" Your terminology gives you away. And reveals your ignorance of the realities of the gun industry. Show me links to some firearm "garbage from China" in your opinion. (Then go look up how much a Chinese semi-auto rifle costs... upwards of $1500, and are considered among the finest in the world.) Show me where you got the "utterly useless items of junk" line. Where do you get the idea that there are NOT strict quality controls? Huh?

First... let me blow something up for you regarding "junk guns"... guns cost hundreds of dollars. Even what you are calling "cheap junk guns" cost a couple of hundred each.

Second, a gun that is inherently inaccurate, for whatever reason, will not survive in the marketplace. The 99% of people who are law-abiding citizens and consumers want value... and "junk" does not survive in the free market.

Third... and follow me here... is it your contention that only people who can afford a $500 handgun should be allowed a means of defense? (That is of course, assuming that ANYONE is allowed the right in your view). We need to eliminate less expensive guns, so that you need at least half a grand of disposable income to have a means of protection? Incredible. The guns that low-income people can afford for self-defense are now the target of your sentiment... shall I demagogue the "X hates the poor" issue... is it finally MY turn?
\\

Finally... the "junk gun" movement is just one panicked response to the CCW legislation that has swept the nation. The idea being that if you cannot defeat the concealed carry legislation, then just go after the guns that CHL/CCW holders most commonly choose... small handguns that are convenient to conceal. Rather than just accept the "democratic" people's will, we have DAs, mayors, and legislators running to and fro trying to circumvent it. According to the Census Bureau, over 65% of Americans live within the 29 states that allow concealed carry. Outside of the Blue Utopias of Restricted Freedoms, CHL/CCW has been a rather popular idea in the past 15 years.

If it is in justified self-defense, you bet your boots that NRA will support law abiding people defending themselves against the criminal element. And if a gun is used criminally, no one has fought harder to lock the perp up than the NRA. See your problem here?

Your statement is a cute, if vain, attempt. How much gun safety and education did YOU do last year? I'm interested...

We can handle the logistics of gun-forfeiture. Frankly, your argument sounds similar to the Republicans who characterize any Iraq withdrawal plan as instantaneous withdrawal. The gun-ban obviously wouldn't be instantaneous. It would kick in over a period of years, allowing for an incentivized grace period for gun-forfeiture. At the end of that period, gun possession becomes criminal but anyone who still voluntarily turns in a gun would not face punishment. I don't think that apart from a few "the revolution is coming" NRA types, this will be a problem. And if we have to throw them in jail, add that to the cost of a reduced gun-crime society.

It takes courage to stand up and say that criminals belong in jail. I'm sorry, but that is where we are since the 1990s. It takes courage to go after the problem... and not the law abiding people who are simply trying to live their lives safely and peaceably. I carry a gun every day for one reason... my business is a dangerous one. I do not carry a gun out of some inflated sense of bravado (as so many of you 'enlightened' snobs around here seem to think about ALL gun owners). In the "perfect world" of Schumer and McCarthy, we'd all be the castrati... only criminals would have access to guns.

The reason we have the problems we have is due in large part to the excuse-making for criminals who misuse guns. Punish these people before you come after inanimate objects owned by law abiding people. That's simple, but many around here lack the courage to call for that first.

It's a sign of no courage whatsoever to opt for the "take em all up" sentiment. Feels good... but does not do a damn thing in the real world. Except put the lives of people like me in danger. I have been background checked, fingerprinted, trained and everything to get a CHL... and still that is not enough for many of you... "take em all up" at any cost.

Have you learned anything from the lessons in the UK and Australia? At all?

A single shaft of light breaks through... hope remains.

I couldn't agree more. What Jub is doing is parroting the standard pro-gun argument. I don't think it's a given that violence goes up if one "takes guns out of law abiding citizens' hands." It sounds good, but I don't think there is any real proof of that concept. I also don't know about the deterrent effect, either. It's certainly not working now.

What do you mean?

I'm asking because "excuse-making for criminals" is a rather vague charge for something that's supposed to explain the existence of gun crime. I'll counter with something specific: in both federal and state sentencing guidelines, using a gun during the commission of a crime already is serious business. The deterrent effect of laws in this area, whatever their strength, are already at work. At some point, increasing the length of the sentence becomes more about retribution than deterrence, a line you seem more than willing to cross without attacking the underlying reason for gun crime: gun availability.


Apparently not...

Explain?

Oh, Shawn! Come on! The lesson of the UK is that if a crime is committed with a gun, it's national news!

New gun controls in Belgium:
http://www.expatica.com/actual/artic...story_id=16553

The results:
http://www.expatica.com/actual/artic...story_id=39589

And more importantly:
http://antwerp.wordpress.com/2007/06...nment-parties/

That's how much people like giving up their arms.

Ooh ooh! International Action Network on Small Arms links to the first news (the 2005 gun laws) but not the second news though it's from the same source... how can this be?

Also, check out Small Arms and Light Weapons Disarmament Programs: Challenges, Utility, and Lessons Learned for at least some understanding of the obstacles facing someone who wants to disarm a whole people.

Here it is in a nutshell. If buyback rewards are good, people turn in the crappiest weapons they have and keep the rest. They can use the money e.g. to buy better weapons to replace the ones they lost. Cheap weapons get smuggled in by the shipload just to be turned over at profit. Deactivated and otherwise broken and nonfunctional ones also get disguised as functional for turning over. Huge corruption is associated with these programs, and organized crime is an active turn-in participant. It's not even unheard of weapons to be turned in, stolen, and turned in again. Needless to say, a lot of locals in Bosnia, Afganistan etc. consider the buyback folks to be gullible, lucrative morons. I have heard this second hand, from people who worked in said locations.

The UK... guns restricted... crime up.

... and a little more here...

That's simply... wrong. Every house in Switzerland has a machine gun it it. Criminals cause crime... not inanimate objects. My guns must be defective because they are not causing crime, either.

Ever seen a mass killing at a gun show? How about a gun-free school zone? You're safer in a room full of guns than you are in a gun-free zone.

Dude, that argument is so obtuse it's not even worth mentioning.

Gun nuts LOVE gun zones. They love the people there. They love what it stands for. Of course they don't shoot up what they're fighting for!

O rly!?

Considering that mass killings are pretty rare, that's sort of like saying "Ever seen a mass killing at the bottom of the ocean? On the space shuttle? ON THE MOON?!"

But anyway.

13-year-old fatally shot at gun show. Guess he was just too safe, huh?

Man shot in hand at gun show. If only there'd been someone there with a gun to stop him from shooting himself with a gun!

Howsabout this:

Both Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady were shot while surrounded by the Secret Service.

Once again... lemme walk you through this...

# of shootings at gun shows ________

# of shootings in "gun free zones" ________

You do the math.

Middy... doing a google search for "shooting at gun show" does not make a real argument... I mean, I guess it is some kind of argument... but anecdotal vs statistical is hardly an argument of your usual stature. It's OK... we all know that rooms full of guns are safer than gun free zones. You can punt on this aspect of the discussion.

And PS... the gun show vs. gun free discussion is completely valid.. because someone here just made the case that the simple presence of guns is the problem.
One would think that if guns are the problem... a place with 10000 guns it would be a bloodbath. Never happened. Not. Even. Once.

Yeah. You know that's not how you figure that, right? It's not like you can just say "Well, hell! There have only been 2 shootings at gun shows and 10 shootings at schools! Clearly, gun shows are safer than schools!"

Right? You know that's not how that works, right? Right?

That's fine by me. I didn't make that argument and am not making that argument.