- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 16,763
- Reaction score
- 4,344
- Location
- Melbourne Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
If you are not for it, then why bring it up.Like I said "it's possible" I didn't say "we should do it" I didn't say it was "practical." But there's no denying that gun control can work to reduce gun crime, if done a certain way, but again I'm not saying it should be done that way. We have that freedom and I don't support giving it up, but of course like all of you know freedoms have consequences responsibilities. And one of those consequences of our loose(when compared to other nations) gun laws is that criminals have easy access to those weapons. For example we all know that a common way weapons enter criminal hands is that they are stolen, however other nations have avoided that problem by allowing so few people to have weapons which means that break-ins don't typically result in stolen weapons because there are no weapons to steal in the first place.
That's a consequence of having the kind of gun laws that we do. But again I'm not saying that consequence is worth giving up our right to own firearms, but I cannot deny that consequence exists.
If you are not for it, then why bring it up.
You want to know what I am for?
You pull a piece to do a crime, you get to hang. Period.
Criminal access to firearms has precisely zero to do with our 'gun laws'. We have draconian illegal drug laws...they manage just fine. Hell, we have on paper some pretty solid illegal immigration laws. But...20-30 million illegal immigrants testifies to the useless nature of 'law' without actual 'enforcement'.Like I said "it's possible" I didn't say "we should do it" I didn't say it was "practical." But there's no denying that gun control can work to reduce gun crime, if done a certain way, but again I'm not saying it should be done that way. We have that freedom and I don't support giving it up, but of course like all of you know freedoms have consequences responsibilities. And one of those consequences of our loose(when compared to other nations) gun laws is that criminals have easy access to those weapons. For example we all know that a common way weapons enter criminal hands is that they are stolen, however other nations have avoided that problem by allowing so few people to have weapons which means that break-ins don't typically result in stolen weapons because there are no weapons to steal in the first place.
That's a consequence of having the kind of gun laws that we do. But again I'm not saying that consequence is worth giving up our right to own firearms, but I cannot deny that consequence exists.
Criminal access to firearms has precisely zero to do with our 'gun laws'. We have draconian illegal drug laws...they manage just fine. Hell, we have on paper some pretty solid illegal immigration laws. But...20-30 million illegal immigrants testifies to the useless nature of 'law' without actual 'enforcement'.
Not a single connection, no. I see a criminal element in this society that has CLEARLY demonstrated an ability and will to get any and all manner of illegal and even banned substance. I see that same element demonstrating the means and will even to smuggle in and possess those substances into PRISONS for Gods sake. They have demonstrated you could remove every legal firearm within this country's border and the criminals would STILL get them. And the reason is simple...people in this country lack the will to go after gangs and the VAST majority of people that commit those crimes. They close their eyes and minds to the actual problems, then faced with the consequences, moronically turn to target law abiding citizens and Constitutionally protected freedoms.So you see no connection with citizens being able to purchase weapons and criminals stealing them? Look its a simple, if you allow people to buy, own, carry, a valuable and fairly small product if we're talking about a pistol than you have to accept that sometimes that product will get stolen, whether its a gun, a wallet, an ipod, whatever. I'm saying you could end gun theft but not allowing anyone to own a gun, and thus eliminate a major source of criminal's firearms in this country the same way you could end the illegal sale of stolen ipods by banning ipods. I'm not saying that we should ban ipods, or guns, but I'm saying that we have to accept that theft of these things is a part of owning them and having them so commonplace in our society.
In other words, if you want guns to be free and open for anyone to acquire you'll have to accept that criminals will have those weapons as well.
Also I did say compared to the rest of the world, compared to them we have extremely loose gun laws, that's all I was saying there.
Not a single connection, no. I see a criminal element in this society that has CLEARLY demonstrated an ability and will to get any and all manner of illegal and even banned substance. I see that same element demonstrating the means and will even to smuggle in and possess those substances into PRISONS for Gods sake. They have demonstrated you could remove every legal firearm within this country's border and the criminals would STILL get them. And the reason is simple...people in this country lack the will to go after gangs and the VAST majority of people that commit those crimes. They close their eyes and minds to the actual problems, then faced with the consequences, moronically turn to target law abiding citizens and Constitutionally protected freedoms.
Do those countries have the same gang problems we have? And Im sorry...you are simply wrong. In Japan post ban, the Japanese gangs WERE in fact smuggling in weapons regularly on the black market exchanges from India, the Phillipines, etc. That finally changed when the Japanese government addressed the actual PROBLEM...criminal use of firearms with maximum sentencing. They did what you seem unwilling to do.If that were the case why do countries that have banned firearms not have the same problem the US has with them, because after all criminals would still get them right? But they clearly haven't.
Do those countries have the same gang problems we have? And Im sorry...you are simply wrong. In Japan post ban, the Japanese gangs WERE in fact smuggling in weapons regularly on the black market exchanges from India, the Phillipines, etc. That finally changed when the Japanese government addressed the actual PROBLEM...criminal use of firearms with maximum sentencing. They did what you seem unwilling to do.
Comparatively, we dont have a 'firearm problem'. (thats YOUR problem...like every other position you take, you target the wrong thing. Something about that whole personal responsibility gig). We have around 100 million law abiding citizen firearm owners in possession of approximately 300 million firearms. by a ridiculous margin, you will NEVER have to worry about those law abiding citizens. You damn sure dont have to worry about the guns. No...you DO have to worry about the scumbag types that would USE them, but then...that would require you actually TARGETING them. And see...thats where you go very very limp. Its 'the guns'. Because you have no problem targeting the inanimate. You have no problem targeting the law abiding citizen. but when it comes to those responsible...well..its not REALLY their fault, is it. Its their environment. its the economy. Its society. Its the eeeeeevil gun industry. Its EVERYONE but those that commit the crimes in the first place. Which takes us right back to similar discussions and you loving them right to death.Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.
Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.
If that were the case why do countries that have banned firearms not have the same problem the US has with them, because after all criminals would still get them right? But they clearly haven't.
Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.
Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.
Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.
Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.
The problem is very simple for those making the "if we just banned them" argument, it wouldn't do one damn thing to solve crime. We have thousands of miles of coast, many of the beaches that make up said coast are hidden away and not regularly patrolled because...............there isn't enough manpower to do so, it's not possible, being from La. I know of many small beaches where a person could get whatever they wanted in. Add to the multiple thousands of miles of coast, a porous border to the south, then add the limited manpower of the ports, and you have a situation where the only way to stop the black market is to deregulate the open market and take the profit away from the criminal element driving it.Japan is island. We aren't. Guns that are legal are already smuggled here, as well as guns that are banned. It's pretty silly to think if the 2nd. A didn't exist that wouldn't still have criminals with weapons. What makes you think the same people bringing in Coke, Heroine, ect wouldn't start trafficking more guns if they were banned?
Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.
Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.
In my opinion, this is a big problem for folks who wish to ban guns of any type, or any accesory.
The Illicit Arms Trade
This link shows black markets have already been established to meet the demand by people who either can't get firearms, or people who want guns, magazines, suppressors, ect. which have already been banned. If you banned Semi-auto rifles, and/or high-cap mags what makes you think the black markets wouldn't simply step up to meet the additional demand? If you acknowledge that they would how would you solve this problem?
I'll play devils advocate here.
I don't think the democrats are saying that a gun ban... or gun restrictions, will solve the "gun problem" in america. I think what they are saying is that it's a step.
You know, like the reason we have all the regulations regarding driving.
-you need to be X years old at least
-you need to do X courses
-you need to do X hours of driving
-you need to pass X exams
Now even with all these regulations, you still have accidents that happen. But I am willing to be that if you were to have no such regulations... just let people who want to drive, drive as long as they have a car... you'd have a lot more accidents. People would learn half-assed driving, half-assed legislation, barely learn the road signs. etc. And of course there would be people who would voluntarily and willingly learn all the right things... but those that won't because they're lazy stupid or overconfident will get into accidents... and kill not just other stupid ,reckless idiots, but also the good people who tried to do the right thing.
Can I throw one more wrinkle in here.
I believe others are saying let me have open access to any car I want. If it has a turbo engine and I can afford it, why not. If it can go faster than any police car, why not.
Sure. So it's the whole concept of regulation vs no regulation.
no speed limit anywhere vs speed limits according to road signs / no magazine ammo limits vs magazine limits (the whole thing about 20rounds magazines or w/e)
no drivers license needed to drive vs drivers license at all times when ur at the wheel / no gun permits vs gun permits
no lessons for driving needed vs mandatory lessons for driving / no background checks vs background checks
and so on and so forth.
Now some people can argue the extremes of both.
personally I think that no regulation is bad regulation. I also think that too much regulation is bad regulation... and too much regulation is also predisposed to being full of holes.
In the case of driving and cars. do I think that regulation has made the road safer? yes. I think that mandatory lessons, examinations and all that good stuff has reduced the chance for driving accidents to happen. I'm sure that without such regulation, things would be very, very bad and the roads would be death traps. it doesn't fix the problem completely, but it does help in reducing it.
The only issue is, driving is not a right.
How is that a defense? Nobody is arguing to ban all guns. Or to ban guns at a federal level. They're talking about putting in place legislation that will hopefully lead to less gun murders. Just like there are incremental regulations that were put over the course of years and decades to protect people who drive cars... from car safety regulations to regulations regarding who can drive said cars and when.
I am just saying that anytime we do an argument like this, we are not framing it correctly. At the end of a day, we are talking about the Bill of Rights.
I find it very easy for the government to change laws regarding cars and how they are used. Which ones are allowed. Who is allowed to use that vehicle and where.
Our forefathers had transportation in their day and they didn't see the need to include it in the bill of rights. They had guns as well and felt those necessary to include.
I feel if we make the comparison between driving and firearm ownership we are doing the argument a disservice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?