But Criminals Don't Follow Laws!

[KitterCat]

I will try not to use one of the arguments that guns are a right in this country that our founding fathers put in place so that the citizenry could overthrow a tyrannical government if it was needed. Instead I will try to go by your bases of laws being in place that in order for a society to work. Since I am not as eloquent as I would like I will use others words to make my point.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."Thomas Paine

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"Patrick Henry

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence John Adams

I think your hearts in the right place CrashHelmet, but you are having a knee jerk reaction to the newest flurry of gun debates. Most of the laws on the books regarding gun control are duplicates of other gun laws. Many of which are not needed. New laws regarding former bans back to the Assault rifle Ban of the 90s aren’t needed either. My husband and his father still play games sending pictures of rifles and spouting off to each other how to change the cosmetics to make it an assault rifle or vise versa.

Personally I don’t think there is a law that can be enacted for a quick fix - which lets face it that’s what we all want. A way to stop crazy/lawless people from shooting up other people. It dose seem to be a systematic problem in our society and I don’t know why. Part of it I cant help think is partially due to most peoples fear in reacent generations of guns, so they never even contemplate learning how to handle one. Part is how our mental medical health system is not run well and due to differing states privacy laws even the same from state to state. What you seem to be asking for though is a blanket law that will simply stop all crazy/lawless people from owning guns while letting law abiding people go about their business. There simply isn’t now or ever will be such an easy fix.

[Greenday]

So...did we ever come up with reasoning as to why criminals are law abiding citizens who would NEVER break the law in attaining guns in a complete gun ban?

[Duelist925]

So...did we ever come up with reasoning as to why criminals are law abiding citizens who would NEVER break the law in attaining guns in a complete gun ban?

The entire point of the OP was that no matter what laws are made, they are broken by some people.

This is not a reason to not have a particular law. If it were, there would be NO laws, because, hey, every law is broken.

Murder's illegal. Still happens.

Rapes illegal. Still happens.

The vast majority of drugs are illegal. Still used and made.

It was never about reasoning why criminals wouldn't break a gun control law. It was simply pointing out how utterly stupid that argument is.

[TheHuckster]

Murder's illegal. Still happens.

And if only the criminal had the gun, it would be easier to accomplish.

Rapes illegal. Still happens.

And if only the rapist had the gun, it would be easier to accomplish.

The vast majority of drugs are illegal. Still used and made.

If my neighbor broke the law and consumed drugs, it does not put me, a law abiding citizen, at a disadvantage. Assuming there is a strict "no-gun" policy, if my neighbor broke the law and obtained a gun for the purposes of killing me, then it does put me, a law abiding citizen, at a disadvantage.

I understand this kind of argument only works when discussing a complete no-tolerance ban on guns, and ironically I feel as though better gun control laws could effectively increase the ratio of "good" gun owners to "bad' gun owners, but the argument is not completely analogous when you're discussing a complete gun-ban to other bans on items that aren't designed to both kill [i]and[i] defend.

[siead_lietrathua]

... Assuming there is a strict "no-gun" policy, if my neighbor broke the law and obtained a gun for the purposes of killing me, then it does put me, a law abiding citizen, at a disadvantage.

ok, cuz this is starting to make me a little bonkers, pardont he mini-rant, and this is not directed at you, Huckster, but at the concept. but...
NOBODY. IS. SAYING. TOTAL. GUN. BAN. IN. THE. STATES!!!

jeebus, people have said regulate, licence, limit, sure, but ban, NO. and throwing in the "banning will just make the bad guys be the ony ones armed" are NOT LISTENING to what people are actually saying, as far as i'm concerned at this point.

regulating weaponry in a sensible manner would make it harder for criminals to get them while keeping it still reasonable for a law abiding citizen. but nope, the total ban boogyman is always thrown in despite it's nonexistance in 90% of the conversation.

so, explain to me HOW requiring a criminal background check and a special license to buy varying types of guns would make it harder for a law abiding citizen when it would be designed for law abiding citizens to be able to pass. because it would be. because that's what a sensible regulation system is.

as far as i'm concerned, an individual has no right to claim guns are for safety unless they also agree they need to be treated safely and sensibly.

/rant

[Zod]

Like the US would turn into Somalia inside of a week after any new gun control law because suddenly there would be no "good guys" with guns around to turn back the tides of darkness.

They *wish* it would turn into Somalia : no gun control at all : it must be a utopian paradise where nohing bad ever happens and everyone lives to be 120.

if my neighbor broke the law and obtained a gun for the purposes of killing me, then it does put me, a law abiding citizen, at a disadvantage.

Neighbor knocks on your door. You open it. He shoots you.

How does having a gun locked away in your safe change this?

[KitterCat]

regulating weaponry in a sensible manner would make it harder for criminals to get them while keeping it still reasonable for a law abiding citizen. but nope, the total ban boogyman is always thrown in despite it's nonexistance in 90% of the conversation.

so, explain to me HOW requiring a criminal background check and a special license to buy varying types of guns would make it harder for a law abiding citizen when it would be designed for law abiding citizens to be able to pass. because it would be. because that's what a sensible regulation system is.

as far as i'm concerned, an individual has no right to claim guns are for safety unless they also agree they need to be treated safely and sensibly.

/rant

What the bigger problem is that most people don’t realize what regulations are already in place under federal law, what’s in place by state law and where the loopholes are between the two. Under federal law a buyer must go under a background check due to The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

“Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives”

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Now different states have different rules on holds for gun purchases. These holds have been legislated for various reasons. Some of which include making sure a person does not go on a shooting spree and kill others or themselves. Some are to have the state do a background check to check on possible updates that haven’t been sent to NICS or for medical records for mental stability. The mental issue is the biggest factor I can personally see for change. There are some states that have tougher privacy laws on medical problems that go unreported to NICS. So depending on what your mental issue is NICS may or may not ever receive information on it.

There are already also special licenses one can buy (again varies by state) in order to buy special types of guns/rifles. There are limits as to how many guns a person can buy per month, but a registered gun collector can buy a licensees to buy more. There are ways to buy fully automatic guns, grenades, tank ammunition. No I’m not kidding you can purchase tank ammunition depending on type and each round has to be registered. Each has its own category background check, cost to buyer for background check, tax stamp, tax on item and item price its self. It is prohibit expensive and time consuming for most people.

Gun ownership is one of the most regulated things in this country. It gets even more difficult when your talking about different states regulations and hobbies such as hunting.

A good amount of people I think take the statement “we need more gun regulation” to mean “we need to take all guns away from people” because there already is a ton of gun regulation. In some states far to much. For example I live in Maryland where getting a concealed carry license was virtually impossible. You had to have multiple police reports showing that someone was threatening to kill you or deal with huge amounts of money. Currently this law is slowly moving its way through the court system of appeals to be revoked as being unconstitutional. Eventually it will make its way to the Supreme Court but its going to take a while.

And while getting CC permits in Maryland is close to impossible, getting them in states surrounding it isn’t. Which Maryland does not honor. So you live in WV, get a CC and then carry a gun around with you in Maryland. You will be arrested if your found. Until recently you couldn’t even go into D.C. with a gun of any type with out being arrested. If you were going to a shooting range and had to travel better make sure you travel around the city.

So please I’m not trying to be facetious when I say this, but what regulations would you enact that haven’t already been done? Or what rules would you do away with?

[fireheart17]

It wont do a lot of good to increase education until we can figure out how to get people to care enough to make sure the kids are doing homework. I am however a huge supporter of education. Just pointing out another underlying problem.

My mentor teacher had a very clever idea that she used to prevent multiple kids leaving the classroom during lesson times, as well as ensuring that they got their homework done (which was to do 15-30 minutes of reading every night, these kids were in a Year 3/4 class. On top of that, they also had an online thing they had to do called LearnLog).

Classroom: unless it was for drinks or your parents had spoken to the teacher, if you had to go to the toilet during lesson times, you owed the teacher 5 minutes at recess or lunch time. For the less frequent students who went to the toilet, they earned their time back by helping me. (one of the kids who needed to go drink and pee frequently was diabetic, so I waived the drink requirements for him under the provision that he remember to bring in a drink bottle -.-)

Homework: every Friday afternoon, my teacher had reward time. You could only go however, if your spelling for the week was done and marked (by your peers) and you had done at least 1-2 hours reading for the week. There were no rules on what you could read, as long as it was a book or magazine. If you didn't do your reading for the week, you made up that time while everyone else was having reward time.

We'd probably have less resistance to education in general if the fucktards in one ring of our political circus would stop pushing anti-intellectualism as an ideal. >_<

^-.-^

This. Oh holy this. And it's just as bad in Australia.

The media constantly bleats about NAPLAN (federal standardized test, which kids in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 sit, which covers Reading, Writing and Maths. You can either be exempted from it on philosophical grounds or medical grounds, however those kids who are exempted on disability grounds affect your school's overall score). Which of course, leads to teachers "teaching the test".

Then you have the media publishing the opinions of experts. Every time the expert opinion comes on board, people knock the expert's beliefs and chide him/her for daring to think in that way, arguing they've lost touch with the rest of society and so on and so forth. (example: an expert reveals that eating red meat increases your cancer risk. typical comment: "Well I eat red meat every day and my doctor says I'm fine!") In other words, if you bother to go on to further education and continue to stay in the field of tertiary study, then you're an incompetent imbecile who lost grip with the rest of the world.

Pfft, you think there's vast tracts of nothing over there? Try driving around Australia.

You know, because all Aussie women have huge.......................................
























tracts of land.

[TheHuckster]

Neighbor knocks on your door. You open it. He shoots you.

How does having a gun locked away in your safe change this?

It doesn't change that, but what's your point? There are many scenarios where no matter how prepared one is they will face an unescapable problem that will trump that preparedness. However, that doesn't automatically make that preparedness moot. There are just as many scenarios where a weapon used for defense does save the victim's life.

[Racket_Man]

About a week or so ago there was a situation where a guy deliberately set fire to his OWN house. when police and fire arrived he started shooting at them. He killed 3 or 4 fire/police while 7 other houses burned down. He then killed himself BUT he did say this (paraphrasing) "I am doing what I LOVE to do and that is KILLING people."

Now the gun he used was the SAME kind of gun used at Sandy Hook, a Bushmaster semi-auto. BUT how did this guy obtain this weapon???? HMMMM he was a convicted felon, so in theory he should have NOT been in possession of this weapon.

WELL his girlfirend was arrested a couple of days later for making a STRAW purchase and GIVING him the weapon so he could rampage to his little hearts content.

[Nyoibo]

You know, because all Aussie women have huge.......................................



tracts of land.

I don't believe I have a single female friend below a C-cup.

I want someone to try and justify why anyone needs to have a semi-automatic or automatic rilfe with a large capacity magazine in any circumstance outside of military or possibly law enforcement.

[Aethian]

I want someone to try and justify why anyone needs to have a semi-automatic or automatic rilfe with a large capacity magazine in any circumstance outside of military or possibly law enforcement.

When I was casing mail this morning I had to stop a second because on a hunting magazine they were talking about semi automatics. I instantly became scared at what those guns would be used for hunting cause last I knew...the fallout games are still games.

[KitterCat]

Aethian:
When I was casing mail this morning I had to stop a second because on a hunting magazine they were talking about semi automatics. I instantly became scared at what those guns would be used for hunting cause last I knew...the fallout games are still games.

Per federal code 18 USCS § 921(28)- The term "semiautomatic rifle" means any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.


I have a very common marlin model 60 rifle .22caliber rifle. It is a semiautomatic or commonly know as a self-loading rifle or auto-loading rifle. Most modern rifles and handguns are semiautomatic. Unless your looking at going back to black power and having to reload every shoot, your probably going to want semiautomatics to stay around. For hunters they are a boon. One can shoot at an animal and if it is only wounded you can get closer and shoot it far faster and make a cleaner kill than if you had to reload like a black power.

I think your getting the term semiautomatic and semiautomatic assault weapons mixed up. Personally I don’t have any problems with either one. An SAW can for the most part be changed into a SA with a few technical parts changed out. Heck a lot of SA’s can do more damage. Take a Mosin Nagant with steal core ammo and it will go trough a manhole cover. They still make wonderful hunting rifles so long as you use the proper ammo.

Nyoibo: I want someone to try and justify why anyone needs to have a semi-automatic or automatic rilfe with a large capacity magazine in any circumstance outside of military or possibly law enforcement.

I would love for someone to tell me why only the military or law enforcement should receive these weapons. So long as I haven’t broken any laws why shouldn’t I be allowed to purchase weapons? It should not be up to someone who doesn’t like firearms to decide that another person cant have them just because their uncomfortable around them.

Automatic weapons are not legal for one to just walk in to a store and purchase. You are looking at a very extensive background check and multiple fees even before you can think about buying the firearm. I’ll give you a three round burst system are a military only weapon because a burst system gives you more control than an automatic. Semi-autos are much easier to use both for home defense and hunting. The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Which manufactures got around back in 94-04 by only selling ones that had already been made prior to the ban, look at my Marlin it holds 14 and would be on the current attempted ban list. All a ban is, is feel good legislation that will do nothing to stop criminals.

[crashhelmet]

I would love for someone to tell me why only the military or law enforcement should receive these weapons. So long as I haven’t broken any laws why shouldn’t I be allowed to purchase weapons? It should not be up to someone who doesn’t like firearms to decide that another person cant have them just because their uncomfortable around them.

Simply put, Military Grade weapon is deemed Military grade because it is manufactured for the distinct purpose of being used for military reasons, aka combat.

Your average cop doesn't carry a rifle. They carry a handgun and some carry a shotgun in their squad car. The only civilian police forces that use military grade weaponry are the advanced forces, like SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams. They're specifically trained on the weapon and many are former military themselves.

This isn't about liking or not liking firearms. It's about the gun culture of our society that has existed for hundreds of years. Americans have always settled disputes with guns. Arguments went from being settled by individual men with single shot pistols (Hamilton vs Burr), to groups of men with multi-shot pistols and rifles (Goingsnake Massacre), to gangland drive by shootings.

Our society is not mature, stable, or trained enough to allow anyone and everyone to have firearms. Let alone military grade weaponry.

[KitterCat]

crashhelmet

Simply put, Military Grade weapon is deemed Military grade because it is manufactured for the distinct purpose of being used for military reasons, aka combat.

Any weapon manufactured is made for combat of some kind. Wither it be to shoot a deer, or defend your home or in the military kill an enemy. All a military grade weapon designates is that its used by the military. While there are plenty of weapons that only military personal can have, these weapons are already have laws about them. I have no problem with that. The military should have the newest most advanced weaponry available to them. Some of this weaponry becomes demilitarized and then made available to the public.

crashhelmet

Your average cop doesn't carry a rifle. They carry a handgun and some carry a shotgun in their squad car. The only civilian police forces that use military grade weaponry are the advanced forces, like SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams. They're specifically trained on the weapon and many are former military themselves.

In more recent years more and more officers are being issued M-16s or M-15s. Depending on how there used it could be a good thing or bad thing. Rifles are far more accurate than a shotgun and have as a general rule a smaller recoil/kickback.

crashhelmet

This isn't about liking or not liking firearms. It's about the gun culture of our society that has existed for hundreds of years. Americans have always settled disputes with guns. Arguments went from being settled by individual men with single shot pistols (Hamilton vs Burr), to groups of men with multi-shot pistols and rifles (Goingsnake Massacre), to gangland drive by shootings

I think your overstating it a bit about Americans always settling disputes with guns. I do agree with you that there are problems with our society in regards to guns. I don’t think regulating what is currently available in terms of assault weapons or semi automatics would work. It was tried for 10 years and all it did was cause prices to the pre-banned guns to go up or for manufactures to find loopholes for the production of new guns.

crashhelmet

Our society is not mature, stable, or trained enough to allow anyone and everyone to have firearms. Let alone military grade weaponry.

We don’t let just anyone go in a buy a firearm. There are background checks. There are wait periods. All of this is already legislated. We already have laws on all of this. I’ll give you I don’t think that every person who owns a gun should have them. Some of them aren’t mature, but our legal system also goes based on age what you've done. If you’re an adult you can make dumb ass decisions that will land your backside in jail. Some of them also aren’t stable, and I’m for fixing the state to state definition of mentally instable so that its reported to the NICS. I’m also for education more people on firearms and weaponry in general. I think too few people in my generation understand the complexities to using a gun. Most thankfully dont, but they should still have to learn the basics. From learning to shoot, types of ammo to use depending on where you are, to understanding that it is now a moral responsibility as to when or if you even decide when to use it.

Please understand I’m not saying that there aren’t problems, but removal of various types of guns simply isn’t possible in this country or the problem. Our crime rate has actully been going down the past 20 years. As it is there are simply to many and it is too ingrained in the culture.

We also seem to run into the problem that when ever an atrocity happens our culture as a whole has a knee jerk reaction to remove the item that was used and not the person. Not to sound trite, but it was the guy who snapped and pulled the trigger not the gun. Maybe if the people in the schools that have had this happen to them actually had a weapon to use back on these asses we wouldn’t keep seeing death tolls going into double digits.





I do apologize that it takes me this long to respond back. I’m usually watching my kids so internet time for me is pretty curtailed.