These myspace pics got this guy arrested!

[PepperElf]

I promised to take my controversial comments on this thread over here so... here you go!



Looking at the photos of the guy... He's a convicted felon - meaning ILLEGAL for him to posses firearms... And what does he do? He posts pictures of himself holding firearms!

And from what I can gather they're pictures taken AFTER he got out of jail/prison, so yes very illegal.



So... why did I bring this to Fratching?

Cos I wanted to point out that... He's a perfect example of Gun Control Laws being useless.


Because he's a man who's not legally allowed to possess or handle any firearm... who would fail all of those checks and waiting periods etc.

yet he still has a new gun.


So to me that's proof....
Gun control laws affect law-abiding citizens only.

The citizens who know they're not going to get a gun via legal methods... well they just use other methods to get theirs.



It would be nice if I was wrong about that but....
The proof is in the man's own photos of him with his nice pretty firearm.


At least he got arrested for it.

(and mods, wasn't sure if this was politics or something else like culture... so please move it if it's in the wrong section)

[AFPheonix]

That makes about as much sense as bitching about speed limits and other traffic control laws being useless because people occasionally speed.
Hey, it's just punishing law-abiding citizens, isn't it?

I will agree that gun control laws need to be far more cohesive than they are, and that suppliers of guns need to be better controlled (including our own military), but to say that gun control laws are useless is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This coming from someone who has a hunting rifle next to her husbands guns, safely locked away in a gun cabinet in the closet.

[PepperElf]

except that there's documented proof about traffic laws saving lives

i haven't found proof yet that piling up more gun laws will save lives tho.

It's also ironic you mentioned Car laws...

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/injuriesinamerica08.aspx
The NSC's own report from 2008 on how people died lists Motor Vehicles as the #1 cause of death still!

For 2006, "Deaths per 100,000 population"
Motor-vehicle - 44,700
Firearms - 680

(in fact, under the listing of "By type of event" firearm death comes in at the bottom of the list!)

perhaps we should be pursuing a 15-day waiting period and background (and psychological) check on Car purchase on top of of just a driver's test.

[the_std]

For 2006, "Deaths per 100,000 population"
Motor-vehicle - 44,700
Firearms - 680

(in fact, under the listing of "By type of event" firearm death comes in at the bottom of the list!)

Uhm... You just completely contradicted yourself. Obviously gun laws are working if firearm death is at the bottom of the list.

[AFPheonix]

Not to mention far more people own cars than guns. Of course we're going to die more often from something we're exposed to more.

[Greenday]

Not to mention far more people own cars than guns. Of course we're going to die more often from something we're exposed to more.

I think a better way to compare would be car deaths/car vs. gun deaths/gun.

[crazylegs]

[color=pink]Cos I wanted to point out that... He's a perfect example of Gun Control Laws being useless.

Really?

How about you bring your arguments to this thread so we can chat about it in a little more depth...?

[guywithashovel]

I'm no fan of most gun control laws, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say that laws aren't effective simply because someone broke them.

Also, I'm actually quite fond of convicted felons being forbidden from owning firearms. You can rant and rave all you want about how that takes away their second amendment rights, but you know what? We often do take away people's rights when they prove to us that they are not mature enough or stable enough to have those rights.

For example, in our society, driving is a right and a privilege. However, when people show us that they are not mature or stable enough to have this right---be it by excessive traffic law violations or by driving while intoxicated---we take the right away. I don't see why gun ownership should be any different just because there are a few vitriolic rednecks out there who think they should be able to stockpile ten dozen automatics just for the sheer heck of it.

With that having been said though, let me emphasize that I do support the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy and keep guns. However, that right comes with responsibilities, as do all other rights (refer back to my driving analogy), and it should be taken away if people show that they cannot handle the right.

[PepperElf]

Uhm... You just completely contradicted yourself. Obviously gun laws are working if firearm death is at the bottom of the list.

nope. what i'm saying was that it wasn't a big issue to *begin* with. except to the groups who are anti guns.

my main point is... if these laws were sooooo outstanding that man wouldn't own a gun post-federal term.

mostly it just makes it harder for people to legally own guns.
and to quote Gunny... they're trying to make it so hard to own guns that law abiding citizens give up and don't bother.

(tho like gunny, i agree... obey the law... just fight it legally)

basically.... if these lobbies have their way, the second amendment will be removed.



and to refer to your comment again.... that's a bit like the high school i went to.
they weren't on the list for being a nuclear dump but they went and wrote up local declarations that they would not be a waste dump.

therefore they too can claim their legislation was effective because they're not a nuclear waste dump... and just ignore the fact that they weren't on the list anyway, so their law was a moot point.

[Rapscallion]

Gun control laws affect law-abiding citizens only.

Thinking about it, that statement really applies to every law going. Property laws regarding theft are only effective when applied to those who don't go out and steal etc.

(and mods, wasn't sure if this was politics or something else like culture... so please move it if it's in the wrong section)

It's fine here, thanks

i haven't found proof yet that piling up more gun laws will save lives tho.

The effect of this is to say that if a law cannot be enforced, then it shouldn't be a law? People still get murdered on a distressingly regular basis - should we relax the laws on murder as it obviously cannot be policed and offences brought to nil per year? Theft and shoplifting still happen, despite there being laws against it.

I'm not in favour of gun laws being relaxed in the UK, as most of you will be aware, but that's because I can look around at my fellow citizens and understand just what some of them are capable of. If guns were actually easier to obtain, I'd be scared enough to buy a weapon (legally) to increase my chances of survival in such an encounter. It's a cultural thing.

perhaps we should be pursuing a 15-day waiting period and background (and psychological) check on Car purchase on top of of just a driver's test.

Hrm - yes. Having witnessed traffic in the US and Canada very recently, not to mention in Britain upon my return, then I'd say a mental health check for all drivers would be appropriate.

What exactly are we talking about in gun laws (I assume US laws), though? Restrictions from having unsuitable people owning firearms? One of the main tenets of the pro-gun arguments is that responsible, law-abiding people shouldn't be denied the potentially useful tool that is a gun. Are there any gun advocates who see the benefit in having a law that would prevent (or make it difficult) for a mentally unstable person to have a gun? Doesn't the gun ownership by such a person degrade the cause of those who advocate gun ownership?

Rapscallion

[PepperElf]

sorry ... more along the line that the laws keep getting more restrictive and more restrictive.

(a good gunny example is that in california, even if you own a gun legally... every time you get a new one you have to re-submit the request and wait 15 days... as many times as you've passed before)

and that many guns that are outlawed are... in fact... less effective than weapons you can get at hunting stores.


it's the knee-jerk reactions of "o no someone was killed by a gun, we need to tighten up gun laws again!" that annoys me.


i'd rather see people actually learn how to use their weapons properly and legally instead of just lopping on more restrictions to law-abiding citizens.


had a discussion about guns with a co-worker once....
he had a neighbor who was anti-guns because she knew someone who died from one. his opinion was... "well what if he'd died in the bath... would you be against bath-tubs then?" ... perhaps a bit harshly put but... not a bad point.


and ... that i think it's ironic... all these regulations ... and they still can't stop people from owning guns illegally.

[Rapscallion]

and that many guns that are outlawed are... in fact... less effective than weapons you can get at hunting stores.

Again, without having read any of the rules you have over there, over here we started with the smaller guns on the grounds that they were easier to conceal. People wanting illegal guns would usually go for those rather than a hunting rifle - easier to use in close quarters and your enemies won't see you coming at them with it.

Makes a sort of sense. Besides, owners of hunting rifles are - in my limited experience - the ones who are more responsible.

it's the knee-jerk reactions of "o no someone was killed by a gun, we need to tighten up gun laws again!" that annoys me.

As I said before, a law is proposed or passed to limit gun use to make it harder for idiots to get weapons, and the knee-jerk response from people who are generally responsible is that they are being persecuted and that the law will be ineffective anyway because there will be someone breaking it.

i'd rather see people actually learn how to use their weapons properly and legally instead of just lopping on more restrictions to law-abiding citizens.

Interestingly enough, if that happened and everyone with a gun was a responsible gun owner, then that would remove one of the main arguments for laxer gun laws - self-defence, especially in the house in the occasion of a break-in.

had a discussion about guns with a co-worker once....

he had a neighbor who was anti-guns because she knew someone who died from one. his opinion was... "well what if he'd died in the bath... would you be against bath-tubs then?" ... perhaps a bit harshly put but... not a bad point.

That's pretty much the same sort of argument as the one above - "This law can't be enforced, so why should we have it?" It's the same logical step.

and ... that i think it's ironic... all these regulations ... and they still can't stop people from owning guns illegally.

The NRA and similar groups keep saying that there should be more responsible gun ownership, yet that apparently does nothing to stop gun crime. Never heard that part mentioned by them. This is just treading the same ground. The alternative is to not do anything, not to at least try to curb illegal gun ownership. What happens then? The logical outcome if that occurs is even more illegal arms.

It's pretty much a given that there will be some people breaking the law no matter what laws you enact and try to enforce. More burglars leads to more people with house alarms and better locks, yet burglars will still get in. Are you therefore saying we shouldn't do anything to tighten up laws on burglary? Increased penalties for shoplifting get brought in every so often, along with mirrors and CCTV in store, yet stuff still gets stolen. Nothing done by law enforcement bodies will completely cancel out the illegal activities, but it can make it harder for thieves etc, and that can reduce crime.

Sociologically, we're up against generation whYne. Many of that group think they're owed everything and will go for it - 'gangsta' behaviour being one such factor. I don't trust the generation as a whole. There are good apples in the barrel, but they're far rarer than they were during my upbringing. I don't see that laxer gun laws are going to help anyone other than criminals.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

That's pretty much the same sort of argument as the one above - "This law can't be enforced, so why should we have it?" It's the same logical step.

Sometimes we have laws that we morally agree with, but given the difficulty in enforcing them, the cure become worse than the disease. Let's use marijuana laws as a an example. There are many who feel that in an ideal world, no one would use this drug, but because they do, we're should regulate it instead of making it illegal. The costs of fighting a drug war against pot, when measured in loss of time, money, and lives, is pointless when one considers the actual dangers posed by use of this relatively harmless drug. In my opinion, legalizing marijuana makes sense. The costs of the law are greater than the costs of the offense.

To swing this back around to gun control: Similar arguments could and have been made to justify the relaxation of gun laws. Personally, I don't think the data supports treating handguns the way I would pot. The odds are far better that a handgun will be used to commit a crime than to prevent one.

[Rapscallion]

The odds are far better that a handgun will be used to commit a crime than to prevent one.

I'd qualify that by saying that it would be more likely to be used in a serious crime. Smoking pot (and its possession etc) is against the law, but it's generally a low risk problem.

Rapscallion

[Evandril]

Personally, I tend to see most of the gun control laws stateside as almost as bad as the prohabition ones making alcohol illegal. When the laws mainly seem to encourage people to break them, rather than deal with the hassle of working inside them, it weakens *all* laws, IMO. Personally, I'd prefer tighter control on *ammo* sales than weapon sales.

Any laws that are easily bypassed with little chance of getting caught tend to get people 'used' to breaking the laws. A study I read quite a while back suggested that lowering the speed limits nationwide for the first gas crisis lead to more people breaking the speed limits, and lessening how much attention they would pay to other rules as well. Far too long ago to still have a link, but it is something to think about