• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Proof Gun control is a fallacy argument

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We now have more proof that gun control does not stop criminals from obtaining guns.

The University of Chicago of all places attempted to do the opposite but find out what
we all (or at least most of us) already knew.

https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/...tally-proved-that-gun-control-laws-dont-work/

Not surprisingly, administers of the study quickly learned these criminals do not acquire their guns from licensed dealers, private sellers, or even the Internet.
The study looked at inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who face gun charges or who have a history of firearm related convictions.

They learned zero criminals have used gun shows or the Internet to purchase their weapons.
The reason why? The method is too easily traceable by law enforcement.
Instead, the preferred method for criminals was to purchase firearms available on the streets, where they are harder for law enforcement to track.

The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.

As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”

yet another nail in the whole gun control is for criminals nonsense.
 
We now have more proof that gun control does not stop criminals from obtaining guns.

The University of Chicago of all places attempted to do the opposite but find out what
we all (or at least most of us) already knew.

https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/...tally-proved-that-gun-control-laws-dont-work/

Not surprisingly, administers of the study quickly learned these criminals do not acquire their guns from licensed dealers, private sellers, or even the Internet.
The study looked at inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who face gun charges or who have a history of firearm related convictions.

They learned zero criminals have used gun shows or the Internet to purchase their weapons.
The reason why? The method is too easily traceable by law enforcement.
Instead, the preferred method for criminals was to purchase firearms available on the streets, where they are harder for law enforcement to track.

The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.

As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”

yet another nail in the whole gun control is for criminals nonsense.

That (bolded above) is the real goal of UBGC proponents - mandatory universal gun registration.
 
If guns are forbidden, it will be easier to tell the good guys from the bad.

And the ugly can't hide in any case.
 
If guns are forbidden, it will be easier to tell the good guys from the bad.

And the ugly can't hide in any case.

not really. Lots of good guys won't give their guns up. Nor will the police. If police have them-other honest civilians should to.
 
not really. Lots of good guys won't give their guns up. Nor will the police. If police have them-other honest civilians should to.

If they don't give the guns up, they will be criminals after the new law and not honest citizens anymore.
 
If guns are forbidden, it will be easier to tell the good guys from the bad.

And the ugly can't hide in any case.

How? Why is that always left out?
 
If they don't give the guns up, they will be criminals after the new law and not honest citizens anymore.

What if they were criminals before?

Who are the only people who will give up their guns? Explain how this will help whatever this idiotic law is claimed to do.
 
Political correctness?

Rubbish that implies it is known in order to make a decision of leaving it out. It does not answer the question unless you post the what it will do and how.
 
What if they were criminals before?

Who are the only people who will give up their guns? Explain how this will help whatever this idiotic law is claimed to do.

If they were criminally and keep their guns, the law will not change anything. If they were criminals and give up their guns, it will be more difficult to tell, but they will be unarmed criminals. Isn't that fine?
 
If they were criminally and keep their guns, the law will not change anything. If they were criminals and give up their guns, it will be more difficult to tell, but they will be unarmed criminals. Isn't that fine?

I am going to ask how many criminals have ever given up their guns that you know of. There are any number of gun buy backs "to get them off the streets", instructions and laws, California, Louisiana.....

The concept that criminals will give up their guns if asked or a law is produced is a figment of gun controls insane imagination. And I do mean insane. Nobody in their right mind thinks criminals are going to dispense with their work tools or personal protection.

The "how" is simply it cannot work. It is fundamentally flawed like all gun control's claims.
 
If they don't give the guns up, they will be criminals after the new law and not honest citizens anymore.

that's really statist nonsense. Unjust laws that penalize behavior that has been legal for centuries should be ignored when the motivations for the law are dishonest. Rosa Parks was a "criminal"
 
that's really statist nonsense. Unjust laws that penalize behavior that has been legal for centuries should be ignored when the motivations for the law are dishonest. Rosa Parks was a "criminal"

My original post to the matter was meant to be Dadaist. I continued along that line.
 
If they were criminally and keep their guns, the law will not change anything. If they were criminals and give up their guns, it will be more difficult to tell, but they will be unarmed criminals. Isn't that fine?

What is this law supposed to do? So far you have mentioned absolutely nothing. Why will it do what is claimed.

Citizens without arms and criminals with arms does not seem to be a logical answer to anything unless it is a criminal Christmas gift.
 
If only criminals can get guns then gun control works. Brilliant!
 
If only criminals can get guns then gun control works. Brilliant!

i believe that is the goal of the some of the leaders of the Bannerrhoid movement. They want honest people disarmed so that honest people will be more inclined to cede more rights away to the government in order to gain the illusion of safety.
 
i believe that is the goal of the some of the leaders of the Bannerrhoid movement. They want honest people disarmed so that honest people will be more inclined to cede more rights away to the government in order to gain the illusion of safety.

The funders which seem to come from a single source appear to be more interested in a compliant citizenry so they only have to deal with an all powerful government that is unafraid to make unpopular decisions. It is easer to buy a government than a country.
 
I find it interesting that this whole gun control thing is the attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but as we already knew criminals don't go to the places
that require these types of gun control to use. they go to the black market to get their guns.

in fact the number one place they get guns is from friends or family members.

They don't go to a gun show.
they don't go to a legal dealer.

they might go to a sketchy pawn shop that they already know about, but then again that is how they obtain guns anyway.
so we can only conclude that gun control is specifically aimed at disarming the law abiding citizens of a right.
 
I find it interesting that this whole gun control thing is the attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but as we already knew criminals don't go to the places
that require these types of gun control to use. they go to the black market to get their guns.

in fact the number one place they get guns is from friends or family members.

They don't go to a gun show.
they don't go to a legal dealer.

they might go to a sketchy pawn shop that they already know about, but then again that is how they obtain guns anyway.
so we can only conclude that gun control is specifically aimed at disarming the law abiding citizens of a right.

Absolutely correct as according to all felon surveys they do not use traceable sources. Family and friends are not traceable easily nor are stolen firearms which are plentiful on the black market.

At every turn and leap of faith of gun control one has to believe in the false relationship crime can be controlled by application of laws that impact the ownership of an object.

Yet those self same people would laugh at the belief arson could be reduced by controlling matches and the assault rifle equivalent, lighters. That the gas tank size on a lighter will reduce arson as will age limits and wind shields. The mind really boggles that people who have this belief are totally impervious to any persuasion that they cannot prove the validity of their false belief. In religious terms we would call them zealots.
 
I find it interesting that this whole gun control thing is the attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but as we already knew criminals don't go to the places
that require these types of gun control to use. they go to the black market to get their guns.

in fact the number one place they get guns is from friends or family members.

They don't go to a gun show.
they don't go to a legal dealer.

they might go to a sketchy pawn shop that they already know about, but then again that is how they obtain guns anyway.
so we can only conclude that gun control is specifically aimed at disarming the law abiding citizens of a right.

obviously

lets look at gun control efforts of the Bannerrhoid movement and the Democrat party in the last 30 years

1) the Hughes Amendment-bans all private citizens from possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. Rationale for the ban "No one can be against banning machine guns" (Bill Hughes-D NJ) real reason-to derail a pro gun bipartisan bill that the Dems knew had the votes to pass and which RWR was going to sign.

Crime control? in the 50 years prior to this ban, not one privately owned legally possessed machine gun had been used in any murders save for one case where a DAYTON OHIO police officer killed an informant by shooting him with a sub machine gun


2) Clinton Gun ban. it has been illegal-for decades, for criminals to own, possess, touch, any firearm. So a "semi auto assault weapon ban, only decreases the rights of law abiding people

same with magazine limits

same with how many firearms you can purchase in a month

same with registration-the USSC has ruled that criminals are exempt from any prosecution for disobeying registration requirements due to the fifth amendment
 
obviously

lets look at gun control efforts of the Bannerrhoid movement and the Democrat party in the last 30 years

1) the Hughes Amendment-bans all private citizens from possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. Rationale for the ban "No one can be against banning machine guns" (Bill Hughes-D NJ) real reason-to derail a pro gun bipartisan bill that the Dems knew had the votes to pass and which RWR was going to sign.

Crime control? in the 50 years prior to this ban, not one privately owned legally possessed machine gun had been used in any murders save for one case where a DAYTON OHIO police officer killed an informant by shooting him with a sub machine gun


2) Clinton Gun ban. it has been illegal-for decades, for criminals to own, possess, touch, any firearm. So a "semi auto assault weapon ban, only decreases the rights of law abiding people

same with magazine limits

same with how many firearms you can purchase in a month

same with registration-the USSC has ruled that criminals are exempt from any prosecution for disobeying registration requirements due to the fifth amendment

That is the beautiful simplicity of gun control. It is going to fail and crime is going to remain the driving force. It becomes obvious that a law that was promised to work only failed because it did not go far enough or disadvantage enough criminals hiding amongst (citizens). There are loopholes in the law in which criminals can still get arms. There will always be loopholes through which criminals get arms. Even with a complete ban criminals will still get arms.

It seems citizens are not educated enough to be able to follow the incremental steps of gun control that will exist even after gun control has achieved its goal.
 
Back
Top Bottom