What good does it do? The last time, I called 911 while the guy was trying to break in. Seeing me standing there with a butcher knife in one hand and the phone in the other hand did nothing. It wasn’t until I retrieved my gun that he ran away.
Then the dutiful cops drove down my alley 45 MINUTES LATER…and kept right on going. :rolleyes:
Fat lot of good it did me to call them.
News Flash: It isn’t the job of the Police to protect you, despite what it may say on their cars. It’s their job to clean up afterwards, if they can.
It is the job of the police to protect us. It’s the job of janitors to clean up afterwards. You can, if you wish, hold the position that they’re not doing their job, but if that’s the case, then we need to change the police so that they are doing their job.
My “cause” is that gun control laws are pointless because laws only affect those who obey the laws. Criminals don’t give a rat’s ass about gun laws because they don’t obey laws in the first place. Gun control laws simply take away the capability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and the statistics prove this.
Gun control laws are supposed to make it difficult for criminals to obtain guns. If a particular law fails to accomplish this, it may mean that particular law is not well written, or too limited in scope, or not properly enforced. It doesn’t prove that all gun control laws are pointless.
Personally, I see little value in local gun control laws because it’s too easy to bring guns from other counties/cities/states. Any effective gun control law must be nationwide and cover a broad enough range of guns.
And please don’t say “criminals break the law, so laws are useless against criminals.” You know that’s circular logic. The point is that law (and enforcement) can decrease the number of people who are willing and able to become criminals.
Do you mean actually enforcing the statutes in the books? I agree that it would be a great start. The problem is, legislators don’t enforce laws, they only write them. As has been the case for gun control issues over the last 40 years or so, if a new gun control law doesn’t “work” they just write a new one without a thought as to the enforcement of the old one or why it did not work the first time around.
Take as an example, the type of national law that you thnk would be more effective than local control, the ill conceived 1994 Assault Ban. The powers that be thought it would be a great idea to ban guns based upon the way they look, not function, not their lethality, the power of their bullet, or anything else. If they look mean, they got banned. They then held their collective breaths for ten years to see the effects of their masterpiece legislation. Here comes 2004 and what happened? The number of crimes committed with banned weapons didn’t go down because it was a statistically insignificant number to start with. And now five years after that, the streets are not running red with the blood of innocents or law enforcement as a result of the ban’s expiration.
The anti’s response? Lets re-authorize the same legislation again, but this time we wont allow it to expire. We will also make sure to include common hunting rifles and shotguns, and if that isn’t good enough, we’ll give the Attorney General (a self avowed anti-gunner) the ability to ban any guns that he wants without as much as a hearing. Stoke of his pen, gun is gone. CITE This is a cite for last year’s version. I am unaware of the latest bill number.
OK, so when you say gun laws are pointless, you meant “…unless they are enforced”? I agree with that.
That’s what I had in mind when I said “…and cover a broad range of guns.” I agree a gun control law is pointless if it covers only a certain type of guns, when other guns with similar functionality are readily available. However, if we banned all handguns and other concealable weapons, for example, I think that would have some effect on crime. (Although I suppose that would require a constitutional amendment - but then again, why does nobody ever bring up the possibility of a new amendment to overrule or limit the 2nd amendment?)
I honestly don’t know if there’s a middle ground where a gun law can be effective enough to have a measurable impact on crime, yet still able ot accommodate “legitimate” use of guns. But it seems to me that dismissing this possibility entirely is not a very good place to start a debate.
Have you seen the video of an untrained 11 year-old boy taking 3 of the most common trigger locks on the market off a rifle with nothing more than an ice pick and 5 minutes of his time?
What proof do you have that trigger locks do any good at all?
Considering the gun is only the tool used in the commission of the crime. I think that the place to start is with the guy holding it. The gun factor should be used as a multiplier. Armed robbery = 10 years. Use a gun X2 etc.
People are always going to commit crimes. The biggest issue that I and many others have with gun control is that is typically renders the innocent defenseless and empowers those who have no problem breaking the law. Personally, I see very little middle ground to work with. Either you disarm society and leave it as prey for those who choose not to disarm or you target those who commit the violent crimes and ensure that they do not do so in the future.
Would anyone who was a honest citizen object to a law whereby the police have the right to search anyones house at the drop of a hat, to search for illegally owned weapons? Could this be a method of making criminals less comfortable with keeping guns within easy reach?
Why would you object to the police allowing a couple of ammo sniffing dogs in your house to check if you are in possesion of arms you have no right to own?
( Here in the UK, the tv licensing mob have the right to enter your home to see if you have a television!)
No I haven’t, and none at all. But if you’ll read my post, that was not the only method I suggested. Honestly, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen those locks used for anything other than transporting firearms (which is the law in Nova Scotia–bows have similar restrictions, although they’re much easier to acquire). There are better options for storage than that.
I was assuming a fully competent bunch of LEO’s would be doing the raiding.
It seems that if criminals have difficulty acquiring weapons without the help of a ‘honest’ license holding middleman, the police would only need to start on those registered owners, randomly searching their properties until all were crossed off from further enquiries, and then the net would just have to be widened until everyone had been in it at least once!.
Why do you think so? Do you have any evidence to support this theory? England did it, and it didn’t work. Guns are banned in several US cities, but the criminals are still able to get them.