What's With The Guns?

The BBQ Pit
461

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not arguing that there are criminals who don’t use guns, of course there are. I am not even arguing how many of them there are, it may be 95% of all criminals, it may be 20% of a criminals. Listen, please, to exactly what I am saying. I do not believe that there are any criminals who want a gun, that don’t have one. In England, Australia, America, Canada, Germany or anywhere else you’d care to name. Do you understand? Guns are freely available to criminals the world over. Do you dispute that?

If yes, then dispute it. If no, however, than what purpose does restricting legal gun ownership serve( in the cause of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals )? They already HAVE guns.

Ergo it follows: if restricting legal gun ownership does NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals, than “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals” can not be a legitimate reason to restrict legal gun ownership. You’ll have to find another reason. You may have many more reasons, that particular one doesn’t hold water, that’s all I’m saying.

462

Are you suggesting that criminals in England, Australia, Canada and Germany on average don’t want a gun as much as criminals in America do?

If so, why?

Is it your opinion that a lesser proportion of criminals in those non-US countries use guns than their counterpart in the USA?

Well, I suppose there are a couple of points that spring to mind right off the bat. First, not a lot, unless your posited “restriction” is limited to rifles and shotguns, and a ban is imposed on handguns. This is because your average criminal, as far as I’m aware, tends to use a pistol rather than a rifle. Though sawn-off shotguns have been in vogue, I believe, from time to time, they’re still a little bulky, unless you’re carrying a violin case. Second, the fewer guns in circulation, the more the chances of a criminal picking up a gun on a street corner. Third, the fewer householders own handguns, the less likely the criminal is to arm himself like Rambo before trespassing on your property. That’s presumably one of the reasons why your average British criminal doesn’t carry guns to the same extent as his American cousin - unless of course it’s because he’s a big girl’s blouse.

Sadly, yes, but this is a separate issue. And the fact that they have guns now doesn’t mean that they must (in both logical and deontic senses) have guns in the future. Ban handguns, impose swingeing penalties on those in whose possession they are found (and this is where US citizens can instantiate a true Jeffersonian militia by working together to turn these law-breakers in), and you’re halfway to solving your problem.

Who knows, within a generation, you might have schools without armed security guards and metal detectors, and 4 year-olds playing together, even arguing together (quite healthy that - learning a life-skill after all), without blowing their brains out.

463

Total tangent… but what the heck? Unless he’s a blouse? Is this some sort of brit slang or something?

464

Yes, nancy boy, fairy, mummy’s boy - that sort of thing. Not sure of the derivation. owlstretchingtime or gorillaman might know. Or your “G” friend, of course.

465

My “G” friend?

466

I don’t misunderstand you, I just think you’re wrong. Are you trying to tell me that no one will ever steal a gun or buy a stolen gun then use it in a crime because they already have one? Where’d they get it? From the illegal gun store? No, at some point it was a legally owned gun. Then it was stolen and became an illegally owned gun. That’s why I figure locking up a gun when its not in your hands is a fine idea: so the guy breaking into your house when you’re at church or whatever can’t get your gun. Banning new handguns from further sale would also serve this purpose as eventually there wouldn’t be anything to steal and firearms wouldn’t be replaced as they are abandoned by or confiscated from the criminals who currently have them, but that’s not the solution I propose. I think it would work, and I can certainly see why others propose it, but too many people would stamp their feet and cry. Perhaps even shout Molon Labe on the Internet or start embarrassing themselves by building up strawmen like “In your mind, Gun Ownership = Crime”. Securing firearms when not in use will do. It won’t prevent all gun thefts, but it’ll help keep them out of circulation. Pawn shops having access to the serial numbers of stolen firearms and being obliged to destroy weapons without serial numbers would also help.

Why you seem to think a larger general firearm population won’t result in a larger criminally owned firearm population still escapes me. They have enough and will leave yours alone in the case of a break-in or will hand them back and just make off with the money they find in stolen purses? Are you serious? What do you think happens to guns that are stolen and not returned to their legal owners? Where do you think currently illegally owned firearms came from?

467

Not much of a reason, if I may say.

Difficult to do this when folks have concealed carry permits, or keep guns handy (ie not under lock and key) so that they can respond instantly and effectively to intruders/attackers at home, in the car, out running, or whatever. Keeping it unloaded with the safety on in a locked drawer would seem to defy the purpose of the exercise. Might as well call 911.

468

It’s already against the law for a pawn shop to sell a gun without a serial number. It’s also illegal, in Maryland at least, to store a gun without it being locked up. It’s illegal to sell a gun without a trigger lock mechanism included in the sale here. You keep saying “All I want is this simple law or that simple law” without realizing that most of these things are already the law. Since the world is obviously not the place you want it to be WRT guns, what is your reaction to that fact? Is it to consider that maybe your logic in this particular instance is bad? Is it to demand more vigilant enforcement of existing gun laws? Is it to then call for more and more laws, because these obviously aren’t working? Even if it’s not the later for you, for how many people is the later the answer they seize on, instead of the former which is much more likely to be the cause of the problem? Also, recognizing that, do you understand why so any gun owners are worried about slippery slopes?

You say this over and over, but I’ve never seen any evidence that this is the case. It seems logical enough, but a lot of things that seem logical enough turn out to be untrue. For example, you can’t cure poverty by giving poor people money. It’s gobsmacking, I know, but it’s true. Do you have any proof for your theory?

No, a criminal may acquire more guns, or better guns, or more varied guns this way, but he’s not dependent on this as the sole source of weapons. Cut up every privately owned handgun in the world, and criminals will steal guns from the local cops and the army and the federal police and the manufacturers themselves. Guns are a tool that is brilliantly effective at assisting criminals in their jobs. They will have those tools no matter what laws exist, and you’re quaintly naive if you think differently.

469

Maybe it has fuck all to do with stopping crime or criminals. Maybe it has more to do with controlling and dumbing down the “general population”. “I hate guns because they are hard metal noisy scary things and I hate them even though I don’t know a fucking thing about them except what I saw in a Rambo movie so you better rearrange your lives to cater to my ignorant fucking stupidity and prejudices, you baby eating Bambi killers”. “I don’t want 4 year olds starting gun battles”. A power trip. There are plenty of “experiments” already. There should be plenty of “data” already. Some of it may even be accurate (not tweaked for political gain). Some places have very stringent gun laws, other places have practically none. I believe more laws will not make any difference. Honest people will obey whatever law there is, criminals will not - laws against other things didn’t stop them (robbery, murder, peeing on the sidewalk, what ever). Why on earth does anyone think more laws will fix “the gun question”?

Registration did not stop crime. Federal law and rules did not stop crime. Mandatory waiting periods did not stop crime. Outright forbidding guns (or making them almost impossible to own legally) did not stop crime. "We do not need more “feel good but do nothing” laws that infringe on the private business of noncriminals. What we need is better ways of dealing with the criminals. But, that is hard. It is easier to repeatedly shit on people who are not the criminals.

470

Actually, I do realize that storage laws differ between states. I also realize that gun theft is higher in states with less stringent storage laws.
[/Quote]

Since the world is obviously not the place you want it to be WRT guns, what is your reaction to that fact? Is it to consider that maybe your logic in this particular instance is bad?
[/quote]

It’s to chuckle a bit and wonder what the hell you’re talking about.

Applying the laws federally instead of state-to-state and dealing out harsher penalties for violating them will do.

Your worries about slippery slopes have nothing to do with me, and arguments based on slippery slopes have no merit. You’re trying to defeat arguments I’m not making.

Yeah, I’ve bet you’ve looked, too.

http://www.agsfoundation.com/press_121702.htm

Are you trying to claim the opposite, that a larger population of things means there are not more available to be stolen? How stupid is that? Whether they are stolen or not depends on crime rate as well, but why make it easier for the few criminals there are to get your private property and use it to commit a crime or sell to someone who will.

I never said it was the sole source.

Well, no. States with harsher storage laws experience less firearm theft.You aren’t responsible for the firearms in gun shops or police armories; you are responsible for your own firearms. Why are you talking about gun shops or armories or manufacturers’ warehouses? What’s your position here? “They’ll get a gun no matter what, so there’s no reason to make it difficult for them by keeping mine in a safe when I’m not using it?”

Your excuses for not thinking there’s a need to be responsible for your own property are getting silly.

471

Yeah, well some people are funny about their guns and the law tends to see their side of things. Especially when votes are at stake.

I’d say having it on your person qualifies as being in use. Steps should be taken to ensure guns are really difficult to steal when one’s not around to prevent theft in person, that’s all. Especially when concealed carry laws makes finding a gun to steal so much easier.

472

Yes

No.

I never said this. I said, for the zillionth time, that gun control laws do fuck all to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Period. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that any law on the books makes it “harder” for criminals to get guns.

473

What would you propose re: difficulty? A locked cabinet? Locked room? TXTL-60 safe? I take measures to secure firearms when not on my person, but that’s my business.

Would you care to offer a citation regarding CCP and crime? In my case, PA makes CCP relatively easy, MD difficult, and NJ impossible for citizens (not LEO or other allied professionals).

Please do your research and report back, I’m interested in the findings.

474

I thought I showed you that places with more stringent storage laws do in fact have lower incidents of firearm theft. Firearms that aren’t stolen are indeed kept out of the hands of criminals. That’s what “not stolen” means. I’m sorry your feelings keep you from understanding that fewer guns stolen means fewer guns available to criminals. As for police armory thefts increasing as personal thefts decrease, well, for a guy who claims to fear slippery-slope arguments you sure seem fond of using them.

475

It’s also anecdotal, and therefore meaningless. Something on the order of a Browning H3220F would suffice. More and larger weapons would require a larger safe, of course. I’m sure the manufacturers of such things aren’t lying about the security they provide.

Well, no. I wouldn’t care to. Because I wasn’t discussing CCP and crime. I was discussing how increased gun ownership increases the potential for criminals getting their hands on them. More guns means more to be stolen. If you advocate more gun ownership, you should also advocate firearms be secured when not in use. If you don’t, you’re just making more available to the criminal element. How your post regarding CCP and crime relates to this eludes me. The relevance of all your posts eludes me, for that matter.

476

What I don’t understand is why people are expecting Roger and Tooth to understand what is being said. They do not live here, are not affected by what we have or don’t have, neither has been raped, mugged, or had their family members killed because they live in very safe places where that doesn’t seem to happen much and they obviously are willing to let their family members get killed before they would risk letting a criminal get a gun… * The horror… * Apparently their police will comer protect them before a crime takes place.

The whole mind set and experience of the US of A is alien to them and they apparently fear it and want us here to live the way they do there.

Why do you care? Those two don’t vote here. And if they lived here, they better be quite because folks who brag about how defenseless they are usually end reaping those benefits.

The population as a whole is more violent in America than say England or Canada. The Australians started out as a hard bunch but that has changed. They changed their whole way of live in a knee jerk response to a tragedy. They seem to feel that saving any one life is worth the loss of many more if they don’t have to hear about them.

The US of A grew up totally different and most people from other places can not grasp this.

As was said earlier in the thread, I would rather be able to have my guns in this place now than to not have them in their places because I don’t care what the odds are, I have been struck by lightning twice, and I have been the victim. When the process of being the victim, is going on, who cares about the odds? You have already lost and I do not want to be defenseless when it happens. They are not silly enough to say it won’t happen. So, as long as it does not happen to them, they are just making noise. Now, after a family member is raped, killed or whatever, and they will stand and tell their family members and mothers and sons that they feel that it is just too damn bad but just get over it because being defenseless is the correct way to go, when they have done that, then I will listen to their ideas about what is right for me.

We still live in violent times here in the US of A and I for one, who have had a daughter murdered, a sister raped and been robbed, had an attempted car jacking tried on me, had an abduction on one of my kids tried and had to run gangs of teens off and defend myself from a pack of feral dogs, well, I don’t think I’ll be voting to lock my guns up at the police station.

We have the laws already. Every objection they have, there is a law about it. Laws are not the problem. The problem is the DA’s that won’t prosecute, that make deals, the juries that turn repeat offenders lose, the juries that say you can’t defend yourself or your property, the folks that say the police can’t chase the criminals in a car chase, the whole attitude that the criminal has all the rights and the victim has none. This is the problem.

Years ago, the English Bobby did not carry a gun. No one would hurt them because the wrath of God would be on their heads if they did. They were punished strongly. Then the English jumped on the ‘poor criminal’ wagon and started letting up on the criminals that hurt the Bobbies and now they ( the police ) wear firearms much more often. And England has always had tough gun laws. And a much more intrinsic respect for the law. It is not the laws, it is the enforcement of them. Not the US of A nor any other place is doing enough to deal with the bad guys.

Heck, why do you think all the biker gangs are moving to Canada? They have it made up there with all the ‘civilized’ folks who wont / can’t defend themselves.

YMMV

477

I’ve already said that I’d carry a weapon if I lived in a place where I could. I have no problem with carrying a gun.

All this stuff about what I have and have not experienced and how I’d rather let family members be killed and whatnot are silly things you’re making up, and have no bearing on reality. You aren’t to be taken seriously.

But since you pretend to know what I’m thinking and what I’ve experienced, I’ll let you pretend to know what further posts of mine in this thread would contain as well. When it comes to this topic, you folks are letting your emotions and prejudices get the better of you. They aren’t going to get the better of me as well. So you pretend you know what I think, and I’ll pretend that your doing so has merit. That way we can both be wrong!

Personally, I think the Angels show up here for the drug trade. They’re into organized crime, not randomly assaulting citizens (except with noise: I’m not fond of Harleys). Violence is aimed at other gangs. But believe what you like.

478

I’m very sorry to hear about this. My heart goes out to you.

479

Well, this kind of depends how you define your terms, but gun availability greatly varies from country to country. While it is true that a determined and resourceful person can obtain an illicit weapon, it may take months, smarts and large amounts of cash. In western Europe for example, teen gangs definitely don’t have easy access to firearms (especially handguns), and this is clearly reflected in firearm / homicide statistics.

OTOH there are obviously other factors influencing homicide frequency. A quick and dirty illustration using Nationmaster stats (all the usual caveats apply) : Belarus has 0.09 homicides per 100K of which only 0.03 are gun homicides; US has 0.04 of which 0.02 are gun homicides.

So I would say that while it is definitely possible to control the gun supply over time via strict legislation, it’s hard to say what impact that might have on crime from one culture to another. GusNSpot seems to be saying that more effective law enforcement is the issue - in purely numerical terms that doesn’t seem to be the case - as has often been pointed out, the US has a staggeringly high per capita incarceration rate, and a relatively high per capita number of law enforcement personnel. Others have pointed to overcrowding as a homicide driver - Holland has one of the higher density populations, and yet has a modest homicide rate.

Some cultures at some times seem to get caught up in self destructive patterns, and it’s very difficult to untangle cause and effect.

My personal position on guns - I want me to have them and you to not have them - but I’ll adapt to local customs.

480

Sorry if I have been addressing anything that has been addressed before. I read through the thread and didn’t see it, but the thread has gone on for a while, and I might have forgotten about it.

I used to be anti-gun. I thought it was okay for people who lived out in the country and for those in the inner city, but I didn’t see why people in general would love guns so much and why they would be so popular. Then I met a boy from my class who is training to be a cop, who I call Mr Black. Mr Black grew up in the inner cities of LA and plans to return there to work and hopefully get rid of gangs. He is hardly the stereotype cop or gun owner, but is instead a very nice and caring person. When I said I had never shot a gun, he wanted to take me shooting and I decided to go and see what the fuss was all about.

I admit I was pretty scared when we went. The noises were so loud and guns are so dangerous. What was to prevent one of the other people in the shooting place from suddenly turning and shooting me?

Shooting a gun is nothing like what they make it seem in the movies. It’s hard. I apparently was a much better shot than most people and even some cops, but it took me a while to aim and my target was standing still. There is no way I could just pick up a gun and shoot a moving target. If I wanted to kill someone, they would either have to be very still, or I would have to be very, very close unless I trained myself how to shoot.

Compare this to knives - I don’t need any training to know how to use and properly kill with a knife. Yes, I have to be closer to my target than I would when using a gun, once I am there, I can do more damage easily. Knives are also easier to get than guns, they don’t require a background check.

I asked Mr Black if he would rather go up against a knife or a gun. He said that guns didn’t scare him but knives did. He said having a concealed knife is a felony (unless the blade is under 2 &1/2 inches long) while carrying a gun is not. That’s how much more dangerous they are.