Attention, gun control supporters:

[daveman]

No one expects criminals to obey the law. If one were to follow your logic, we would have no laws making child molesting a crime. I hope that helps and is not too abstract for you to comprehend.

By your logic it is Ok to pass laws that punish the law-abiding and aid the criminal.

how are you being "punished" if you can't have a military weapon? or a clip that holds 30 rounds of ammo?

Again: The AR-15 is not a military weapon. Period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

It's against the law to operate a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 but people do it anyway, some even kill people. Should we ban the sale of alcohol because of those who drink and drive?

 

[MDiver]

Squinch,
The death penalty has never deterred crime. In the middle ages, the penalty for pickpocketing in England, was hanging. When the crowds gathered to watch the hangings, pickpockets would work the crowds.
It's estimated that there are about 400 serial killers working various locations throughout the nation. They know that the penalty for what they are doing is death and they don't care.
As for the tragedy in Connecticut, had he been a little less mental, he could have caused more deaths with making an FAE with a portable propane tank and taken out half the school (not that difficult) or, made several bottles of napalm (a two part recipe), blocked exits and burned up a lot of students.
If you want to kill lots of people, guns are an inefficient way to go about it.
Back to the main topic....the death penalty won't work. What would help is educating the public at an early age as to what things to look for in peoples mental state of mind and report it to an independent, non-biased adult.

 

[daveman]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

You will never get a rational answer from the left, they are stupid.

On this issue, certainly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one expects criminals to obey the law. If one were to follow your logic, we would have no laws making child molesting a crime. I hope that helps and is not too abstract for you to comprehend.

By your logic it is Ok to pass laws that punish the law-abiding and aid the criminal.

how are you being "punished" if you can't have a military weapon? or a clip that holds 30 rounds of ammo?

There are no clips that hold 30 rounds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American people won't settle for nothing being done.

If you gun rights absolutists have no alternative viable plan to respond to the problem, you are asking the American people to do nothing.

They won't. They will restrict gun ownership, even if it's mostly symbolic.

Doing nothing is the only plan that is DOA.

Like I said: "Because it makes liberals feel better".

You're governed by your emotions.

IOW, I'm right, you have no viable alternatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've been asking this question in all these gun control threads but I can't seem to get a straight answer.

What is the operational difference between your 'assault weapon' and my semi-auto deer rifle?

You go deer hunting? And need a weapon with 30 round magazines? Maybe two magazines taped together. So you need 60 shots to bring down a deer?

Daamnn. Must be real dangerous with you in the woods. Most true hunters I know do it with one shot. What's the matter with you?

Usually its only people assaulting other people that need that many (30) rounds. Probably why they are called assault weapons. Assault rifles you might need to go deer hunting. If you can't shoot.

But that's the difference. Hunters need 1 maybe 2 shots. Assaulting people works better with weapons that can fire 40, 50 60 rounds very quickly. Like assault rifles can.

Thanks in advance...

You're welcome.

So the difference is the size of the magazine?

I don't think that's an 'operational' difference, though.

My semi-auto 30-06 can fire those rounds JUST as quickly as an AK-47 or AR-15.

Well, then what if there were to be a ban on ALL semi-automatic rifles? The entire category,

similar to the restrictions on full auto?

 

[daveman]

Criminals do not obey the law. That's why they are called criminals. Gun Control is not an overnight solution. It would take years and the cooperation of all to eliminate the vast amount of guns available out there. Will it completely eliminate gun related crimes? Of course not. No one has even pretended to have that answer. Look at every other country with gun Control and check out their stats surrounding gun related deaths against the US's. If you believe it is not because of the easy availibilty of firearms then I would like to hear another rational idea. And don't go down the Lack of Morality or No God issue because the US has more Christians per capita so those reasons actually disprove that assertion..




But I find it odd that the overwhelming majority that support the NRA are Christians.

You're operating under some mistaken assumptions.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: Countries with strict gun control have less crime
Fact: In America, we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime, but from country to country there is no correlation between gun availability and the violent crime rate. Consider this:
Or, to use detailed data, we can contrast the per capita homicide rate with the per capita gun ownership rate between different industrialized countries (see graph below). Contrasting the data shows zero correlation between the availability of guns and the overall homicide rate.

Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.1
Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America.2
Fact: “... the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”3
Fact: Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe4, and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales.5
Fact: Indeed, the Swiss basically have a military rifle in nearly every closest. “Everybody who has served in the army is allowed to keep their personal weapon, even after the end of their military service.”6
Contact Crime Victimization Rates
Fact: “We don’t have as many guns [in Brazil] as the United States, but we use them more.”7 Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S.8
Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 9 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).10
Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.11
Fact: The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border.12
Fact: Strict controls over existing arms failed in Finland. Despite needs-based licensing, storage laws and transportation restrictions,13 Finland experienced a multiple killing school shooting in 2007.14​

Myth: The availability of guns causes crime
Fact: Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen.169 As the chart shows, there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America.
Fact: Internationally speaking “There’s no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence.”170
Fact: “... a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”171
Handguns, Homicides and Suicides
Fact: Handgun ownership among groups normally associated with higher violent crime (young males, blacks, low income, inner city, etc.) is at or below national averages.172
Fact: The most significant correlation between the use of guns in the commission of crimes occur when parents (27.5% of inmates) abuse drugs or have friends engaged in illegal activities (32.5% with robberies and 24.3% for drug trafficking).173
Fact: Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market andby theft, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”174
Fact: The majority of handguns in the possession of criminals are stolen, and not necessarily by the criminals in question.175 In fact, over 100,000 firearms are stolen in burglaries every year, and most of them likely enter the criminal market (i.e., sold or traded to criminals).176
Fact: In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. U.K. homicide rates have steadily risen since then.177 Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns.178
Fact: Most violent crime is caused by a small minority of repeat offenders. One California study found that 3.8% of a group of males born in 1956 were responsible for 55.5% of all serious felonies.179 75-80% of murder arrestees have prior arrests for a violent (including non-fatal) felony or burglary. On average they have about four felony arrests and one felony conviction.
Fact: Half of all murders are committed by people on “conditional release” (i.e., parole or probation).180 81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record; 67% had a felony arrest record; 70% had a conviction record; and 54% had a felony conviction.181
Fact: Per capita firearm ownership rates have risen steadily since 1959 while crime rates have gone up and down depending on economics, drug trafficking innovations, and “get tough” legislation.182
Thoughts: Criminals are not motivated by guns. They are motivated by opportunity. Attempts to reduce public access to firearms provide criminals more points of opportunity. It is little wonder that high-crime cities also tend to be those with the most restrictive gun control laws – which criminals tend to ignore.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is it wrong to restrict ownership of fully automatic weapons to the extent that we do?

 

[daveman]

[So, you have no plan, right? You acknowledge that gun laws impact only law-abiding citizens? Their purpose is a failure?

?

If it's illegal to possess a handgun in NY without a permit, and possessing one can get you a prison term,

how is that a law that only impacts law-abiding citizens?

Sullivan Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York City license holders

Outside of New York City, the practices for the issuance of concealed carry licenses vary from county to county within New York State. In New York City, the licensing authority is the police department, which rarely issues carry licenses to anyone except retired police officers. Critics of the law have alleged that New Yorkers with political influence, wealth, or celebrity appear to be issued licenses more liberally.[2] In recent years, the New York Post, the New York Sun, and other newspapers have periodically obtained the list of licensees through Freedom of Information Law requests and have published the names of individuals they consider to be wealthy, famous, or politically connected that have been issued carry licenses by the city police department.[3][4]​

If you're not a retired cop, famous, wealthy, or politically connected, you have no means of defending yourself against an armed criminal who didn't bother getting a license.

 

[daveman]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

Criminals, as in legal criminals? Gun control is very simple at this point and I fully support measures to do this with gun control.

: Stop all private sales via gun swap meets et al

: Stop all firearm sales of ammo and firearms via internet

: Make it mandatory once a firearm purchase is made the owner must supply proof of keeping it in a safe place, via gun safes

: No one needs an ak or the like, this one is controversy I know.

None of the above effects the second amendment -so who and why would argue? Those with common sense anyways.

Again...how will those laws affect criminals?

Hint: They won't.

 

[daveman]

You can't, that's the point. That is why making laws stricter makes sense. Clearly you can't understand that.

You're right. I can't understand it, because it's insane.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[So, you have no plan, right? You acknowledge that gun laws impact only law-abiding citizens? Their purpose is a failure?

?

If it's illegal to possess a handgun in NY without a permit, and possessing one can get you a prison term,

how is that a law that only impacts law-abiding citizens?

Sullivan Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York City license holders

Outside of New York City, the practices for the issuance of concealed carry licenses vary from county to county within New York State. In New York City, the licensing authority is the police department, which rarely issues carry licenses to anyone except retired police officers. Critics of the law have alleged that New Yorkers with political influence, wealth, or celebrity appear to be issued licenses more liberally.[2] In recent years, the New York Post, the New York Sun, and other newspapers have periodically obtained the list of licensees through Freedom of Information Law requests and have published the names of individuals they consider to be wealthy, famous, or politically connected that have been issued carry licenses by the city police department.[3][4]​

If you're not a retired cop, famous, wealthy, or politically connected, you have no means of defending yourself against an armed criminal who didn't bother getting a license.

You said gun laws only impact law abiding citizens. You were wrong.

 

[daveman]

All laws are meant to deter crime, not eliminate it. If that were the case, laws wouldn't have associated penalties. Your question makes no sense.

I said nothing about eliminating crime.

You said that gun laws don't work because criminals have guns. I say that gun laws do work, and the ban on automatic weapons shows how rare it is for a criminal to have a fully automatic..

Yet we're not really discussing fully-automatic weapons, are we? The left wants to reinstate and expand the ludicrously-named assault weapon ban.

That will have no affect. As I've shown, the last ban had no affect.

So, you have no plan, right? You acknowledge that gun laws impact only law-abiding citizens? Their purpose is a failure?

Or are you going to bitterly cling to the ridiculous notion that we need more gun laws?

We do need more gun laws. The fact that 40% of the guns are sold without a background check shows a glaring loophole in the current laws. The fact that you can buy weapons that will carry as many as 200 rounds in a single magazine is another piece of monstrous stupidity.

That "fact" is not a fact at all.

Skinned Knuckles Asks About The “40 Percent Of Gun Sales Involve No Background Check” Lie | Extrano's Alley, a gun blog

“Skinned Knuckles” asks:

The statistic “40 percent of gun sales do not include a background check” is currently flying around the media. I believe you have addressed this in the past but I couldn’t find a relevant post. Could you provide the probable background for this statistic and what the real statistic might be. I’d like to be able to refute it if possible.​

To begin with let’s see if that number is even credible. The latest FBI NICS check numbers suggest at least 16 million new and used guns will be sold with a background check. If 40 percent of guns sold were sold without a background check, that would indicate a total of more than 22.5 million gun sales for 2012; of which 6.5 million sales would be without a NICS check.

Is that number credible? Briefly – NO.

That said, let us look at the ways a gun may be transferred to someone else without a background check. Starting with the definition of “sold.”

--

So when someone says “40% of guns sold were sold without a background check” they are talking about a transfer for money. Which is an important point, because the two most common ways of transferring a gun without a NICS check cannot be called “sales.”

The primary reasons a person will obtain a gun without a background check is as a gift or an inheritance. Roughly a half million guns a year change hands by gift, usually to a spouse or dependent child. The purchaser undergoes the background check, the gun remains under the purchasers roof, in theory under the purchasers control; and the claim that a gift gun is “sold without a background check” is entirely without foundation. a damnable lie.

The second most common transfer without a background check is inheritance, a form of gift. Inheritance transfers some 450,000 guns a year from a decedent to a trusted heir; and the decedent is presumed to know their heirs well enough to trust them with a gun. Or two or three. Either way, gift or inheritance, those guns are not in any sense “sold” and are rarely used to facilitate any crime.

--

But with all that said, it appears that at most about 13% of all guns “transferred,” about 1.2 million guns a year, are transferred without an FBI “instant background check.” 250,000 of those or about 0.015 (fifteen in 1,000) are actual sales with money changing hands. The majority of actual sales are for current market price or above.​

 

[daveman]

2 million is a made up number up you fucking fool, so I made one up too, clearly you can't keep up.

FACT: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes per year, or 6,849 per day! Often, the gun is never fired and no blood is shed, even by the criminal.

Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University

Advantage Firearms Education & Training - Home Page

Kleck's study is not fact. Several others have shown the flaws in it. If Kleck were correct, the states with the highest legal handgun ownership rates would have the lowest crime rates. To the contrary, they have the highest gun crime rates including armed robbery and homicide.

Wrong.

Crime vs Gun Ownership | DataMasher

 

[daveman]

The American people won't settle for nothing being done.

If you gun rights absolutists have no alternative viable plan to respond to the problem, you are asking the American people to do nothing.

They won't. They will restrict gun ownership, even if it's mostly symbolic.

Doing nothing is the only plan that is DOA.

Like I said: "Because it makes liberals feel better".

You're governed by your emotions.

IOW, I'm right, you have no viable alternatives.

Let's look at the CN case:

Theft is illegal. The shooter stole the weapons anyway.

Murder is illegal. The shooter killed people anyway.

The guns he used were legally purchased by the person from whom he stole them. When he attempted to purchase a rifle, he was refused.

What more could be done? CN has among the strictest gun laws in the nation.

What more could be done?

 

[daveman]

If it's illegal to possess a handgun in NY without a permit, and possessing one can get you a prison term,

how is that a law that only impacts law-abiding citizens?

Sullivan Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York City license holders

Outside of New York City, the practices for the issuance of concealed carry licenses vary from county to county within New York State. In New York City, the licensing authority is the police department, which rarely issues carry licenses to anyone except retired police officers. Critics of the law have alleged that New Yorkers with political influence, wealth, or celebrity appear to be issued licenses more liberally.[2] In recent years, the New York Post, the New York Sun, and other newspapers have periodically obtained the list of licensees through Freedom of Information Law requests and have published the names of individuals they consider to be wealthy, famous, or politically connected that have been issued carry licenses by the city police department.[3][4]​

If you're not a retired cop, famous, wealthy, or politically connected, you have no means of defending yourself against an armed criminal who didn't bother getting a license.

You said gun laws only impact law abiding citizens. You were wrong.

Really? Let's say Joey Bagadonuts, regular guy from Queens, wants to purchase a gun because he's been mugged three times, with the last incident putting him in the hospital for a week. He applies for a permit and is denied.

Are you claiming the law has no impact on him?

Really?

 

[gkjpalmer]

If we had more effective education and treatment for drug addiction .... Crime would go down immensly. 1.5 million people arrested and incarcerated each year just with alcohol involved.

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmVSDOLwXgo]Anonymous Responds To Sandy Hook School Shooting - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mad Scientist]

How do you propose to get criminals to obey the law?

What are you, Stupid? There'd be a f*ckin; Law!