I don't "fear" the former, but at least I realize the latter is going to occur whether he gets his guns & ammo from a dealer, or from a friend, or from the street.
What concerns me is the steady erosion of our rights as free people. I am concerned with the failed policies of gun control infringing on the right of EVERYONE to keep and bear arms.
Is your solution to criminals, the mentally ill, and others acquiring firearms to make is easier for them to do so?
Although, from your comment that
the right of EVERYONE to keep and bear arms.
Means that you support easy access to firearms for even criminals, the insane, terrorists (after all, one man's terrorist is just another's freedom fighter) etcetera.
Anyway, I hate to break it to you, but the US has NEVER had any significant form of gun control. What experiments at gun control that did appear were fairly insignificant.
I am very happy that my right is "to have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law" not some insane right to be killed by a maniac.
"terrorists (after all, one man's terrorist is just another's freedom fighter) etcetera."
If this administration thinks it is OK to arm foreign Al-Qaeda linked "revolutionaries" in Africa and the Middle East, then why should those same groups be unable to buy guns here?
This administration has already acknowledged that terrorists should have guns, now they're just getting bogged down in the details of how broadly that applies.
That being said, the issue of guns for disabled people, ex-cons, and other such groups is very similar to the arguments around free speech: To allow the government to deprive them of a right will cause a fundamental erosion of that right.
Orygunner, Anonymous (can't you come up with a clever identity to express yourself?) you have it wrong.
The assumption that we cannot keep dangerously crazy people, criminals, drug users, stalkers, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens,or children from acquiring guns illegally, so we shouldn't even try is stupid on the faceof it. Nationwide, we haven't seriously tried to do so.
Effectively, your argument is simply this ......we can't stop them entirely, so lets not do anything at all. It sure as hell is not "hey! lets FUND the NCIS, and maintain the data base accurately" or 'what else can wedoto stop criminals fromhaving guns?" approach.
Moaning that we're threatening your LEGAL ownership of guns is ludicrous. Be part of the solution for a change, insteadof partof the problem.
"The assumption that we cannot keep...stalkers, perpetrators of domestic violence...from acquiring guns illegally, so we shouldn't even try is stupid on the faceof it. Nationwide, we haven't seriously tried to do so."
Being subject to a restraining order, or a PFA are both factors that make an individual a "prohibited person" (read: someone who can't legally purchase/possess firearms). The last I had heard on the subject was that such court orders were fairly easy for a victim to get.
That said, you did specify "illegal" methods of acquisition; How do you propose to stop people from acquiring guns in contravention of the law? There are plenty of ways to get guns illegally, from theft to illegal sales, and the last time I checked it was absolutely impossible to stop them. Furthermore, guns are not particularly complex tools, and as such are not particularly difficult to manufacture: Open-bolt pistol-caliber machineguns are extremely simple mechanically, and therefore extremely easy and cheap to build--So simple and cheap that just about anyone could build one with 50-100 dollars worth of parts and tools that can be found in just about any hardware or plumbing supply store.
TLDR: There's absolutely no way to prevent undesirable groups from acquiring firearms that wouldn't lead to an utterly oppressive and unfeasible amount of government intervention in our lives.
The arguments about "criminals will always get guns" are bogus. Here's why. ALL guns used by criminals were originally the lawful property of lawful gun owners. Through just a few different and preventable ways those guns keep flowing into the criminal world. Proper gun control would vastly minimize that flow, but the problem is, self-centered gun owners don't want to be inconvenienced even if to be so would mean saving lives.
1. Making it harder for dangerous people to get guns with LAWS doesn't really make it harder for them to get guns. What is the difference if a dangerous person can get a gun in 10 minutes at a gun store, or 10 minutes on the street?
2. PLENTY of other countries HAVE had significant, VERY strong gun control, even tightly enforced. I have yet to see one country in the world where their gun control laws have had any significant effect on keeping determined people from getting guns or lowering the violent crime rate involving firearms.
The only way to really keep dangerous people from hurting innocent people (with firearms or not) is to a) rehabilitate them, or b) keep them locked up. The reason we have so much violent crime is that our current system does neither.
You keep on blaming the guns and chasing failed gun control that make you FEEL like you're doing something, but HAVE BEEN PROVEN to do nothing to make us any safer. I'll look for REAL solutions
1: I don't know about you, but I work for an FFL. To that end, I make use of a state-run "instant" criminal background check system. Of the ~4 checks I've run in the last week, at least three involved waiting on the order of an hour for a response from that "instant" check system. One actually did go through almost instantly. Of the sales I have seen, I'd say that at least half of the background checks during the last week have been taking an hour or more. In at least one instance, the shiny new web-interface for the state-run background check system sat on pending for in excess of an hour before changing to a null status (i.e., something other than "approved" "denied" or "research"). After calling in and speaking to an operator (which took 20-45 minutes on hold) and going back and forth a bit (which took another 10-20 minutes) it apparently turned out that the system got confused by the fact that the purchaser has multiple middle names. That may not seem like a common problem, but at least THREE employees at that store have multiple middle names.
TLDR: I haven't seen very many gun store transactions that were anywhere near as fast as 10 minutes in quite a while.
@Dog Gone, No, it's not "we can't stop them entirely," it's more like, "It has NO significant effect at all."
If gun control was PROVEN to have ANY significant or consistent effect on violent crime rates, I would welcome any such evidence.
Instead of claiming WE are part of the problem, how about if you suggest some real, working solutions, instead of gun control that doesn't actually DO anything to make us safer?
Considering that Laci has a violent temper AND has had numerous negligent discharges which he won't take responsibility for and blames on the gun I'm not at all surprised by his positions.
I mean if I were that violent and irresponsible I probably wouldn't trust folks with guns either.
I think I'm going to have to redo the Famous 10% post. At that time I wasn't nearly as aware as I am now of the paranoid nuts among gun owners nor was I quite up to date on the unstable element.
It's rough out there. I don't know how guys like Orygunner can continue ignoring the down side when waving the flag of Rights for Everyone.
If you want a society free of "guns" go to Cuba. See how it worked out.
60 years ago all cubans had to turn in anything that shot a projectile using powder. Today, there is a death or multiple deaths every week by stab wounds in nearly every town of the country. You won't find it on news or newspapers. But I urge you to go and ask any citizen if they know of anyone killed last week on their town. The answer will be YES! - I am from Cuba, and I treasure the gun rights this country is slowly losing. I really wish you knew what you ask for and the consequences it will have before you opened your mouth.
@Mikeb, because the "downside" is the price we pay to have our freedom.
I would rather live in the animating contest of freedom with all its chaos and dangerous possibilities, than a limited and sanitized society where free, responsible exercise of my rights is prohibited in an attempt to create an environment of "public safety."
The route to a safer society isn't through infringing on individual rights, it is by identifying the actual CAUSES of violent crime, and everyone working together to resolve those issues as best as we can.
."" Secondly, do you think there would be less violence in Cuba if there were guns available? Less Violence? If Cubans were to be furnished Rifles & Pistols, I think initialy there would be a spike in violence due to Payback & the people regaining their freedom back. After the trial & Executions of the Dictators there would be relative peace & security as an Armed society is a Polite society. The theory of Gun Control is plain as day in Chicago & Other Highly controlled states. They are Top of the Gun Violence categories EVERY TIME! Crooks hate robbing people that might SHOOT THEM. They go to Malls where you have to be disarmed, to rob, Nuts Got to Gun Free Zones to Kill as they know that they will be unopposed for 5-15 minutes & can kill at will till stopped. Usually by a citizen with a CCW. ( read that responsible Citizen that has been trained & Permitted to carry after a Background check has been doneIts not about Gun Control, Its about Control over YOU, Don't be a sheep. I'll be keeping my rights intact thank you very much.
I don't "fear" the former, but at least I realize the latter is going to occur whether he gets his guns & ammo from a dealer, or from a friend, or from the street.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me is the steady erosion of our rights as free people. I am concerned with the failed policies of gun control infringing on the right of EVERYONE to keep and bear arms.
...Orygunner...
Those who fear the U.N. won't do anything to harm other people.
ReplyDeleteThose who fear the incredibly rare lone psycho killer will do a great deal to harm other people.
Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death. I must not fear.
"the failed policies of gun control", Orygunner?
ReplyDeleteIs your solution to criminals, the mentally ill, and others acquiring firearms to make is easier for them to do so?
Although, from your comment that
the right of EVERYONE to keep and bear arms.
Means that you support easy access to firearms for even criminals, the insane, terrorists (after all, one man's terrorist is just another's freedom fighter) etcetera.
Anyway, I hate to break it to you, but the US has NEVER had any significant form of gun control. What experiments at gun control that did appear were fairly insignificant.
I am very happy that my right is "to have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law" not some insane right to be killed by a maniac.
"terrorists (after all, one man's terrorist is just another's freedom fighter) etcetera."
DeleteIf this administration thinks it is OK to arm foreign Al-Qaeda linked "revolutionaries" in Africa and the Middle East, then why should those same groups be unable to buy guns here?
This administration has already acknowledged that terrorists should have guns, now they're just getting bogged down in the details of how broadly that applies.
That being said, the issue of guns for disabled people, ex-cons, and other such groups is very similar to the arguments around free speech: To allow the government to deprive them of a right will cause a fundamental erosion of that right.
Orygunner, Anonymous (can't you come up with a clever identity to express yourself?) you have it wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe assumption that we cannot keep dangerously crazy people, criminals, drug users, stalkers, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens,or children from acquiring guns illegally, so we shouldn't even try is stupid on the faceof it. Nationwide, we haven't seriously tried to do so.
Effectively, your argument is simply this ......we can't stop them entirely, so lets not do anything at all. It sure as hell is not "hey! lets FUND the NCIS, and maintain the data base accurately" or 'what else can wedoto stop criminals fromhaving guns?" approach.
Moaning that we're threatening your LEGAL ownership of guns is ludicrous. Be part of the solution for a change, insteadof partof the problem.
"The assumption that we cannot keep...stalkers, perpetrators of domestic violence...from acquiring guns illegally, so we shouldn't even try is stupid on the faceof it. Nationwide, we haven't seriously tried to do so."
DeleteBeing subject to a restraining order, or a PFA are both factors that make an individual a "prohibited person" (read: someone who can't legally purchase/possess firearms). The last I had heard on the subject was that such court orders were fairly easy for a victim to get.
That said, you did specify "illegal" methods of acquisition; How do you propose to stop people from acquiring guns in contravention of the law? There are plenty of ways to get guns illegally, from theft to illegal sales, and the last time I checked it was absolutely impossible to stop them. Furthermore, guns are not particularly complex tools, and as such are not particularly difficult to manufacture: Open-bolt pistol-caliber machineguns are extremely simple mechanically, and therefore extremely easy and cheap to build--So simple and cheap that just about anyone could build one with 50-100 dollars worth of parts and tools that can be found in just about any hardware or plumbing supply store.
TLDR: There's absolutely no way to prevent undesirable groups from acquiring firearms that wouldn't lead to an utterly oppressive and unfeasible amount of government intervention in our lives.
-HSR47
The arguments about "criminals will always get guns" are bogus. Here's why. ALL guns used by criminals were originally the lawful property of lawful gun owners. Through just a few different and preventable ways those guns keep flowing into the criminal world. Proper gun control would vastly minimize that flow, but the problem is, self-centered gun owners don't want to be inconvenienced even if to be so would mean saving lives.
Delete@Laci,
ReplyDeleteTwo simple points:
1. Making it harder for dangerous people to get guns with LAWS doesn't really make it harder for them to get guns. What is the difference if a dangerous person can get a gun in 10 minutes at a gun store, or 10 minutes on the street?
2. PLENTY of other countries HAVE had significant, VERY strong gun control, even tightly enforced. I have yet to see one country in the world where their gun control laws have had any significant effect on keeping determined people from getting guns or lowering the violent crime rate involving firearms.
The only way to really keep dangerous people from hurting innocent people (with firearms or not) is to a) rehabilitate them, or b) keep them locked up. The reason we have so much violent crime is that our current system does neither.
You keep on blaming the guns and chasing failed gun control that make you FEEL like you're doing something, but HAVE BEEN PROVEN to do nothing to make us any safer. I'll look for REAL solutions
...Orygunner...
1: I don't know about you, but I work for an FFL. To that end, I make use of a state-run "instant" criminal background check system. Of the ~4 checks I've run in the last week, at least three involved waiting on the order of an hour for a response from that "instant" check system. One actually did go through almost instantly. Of the sales I have seen, I'd say that at least half of the background checks during the last week have been taking an hour or more. In at least one instance, the shiny new web-interface for the state-run background check system sat on pending for in excess of an hour before changing to a null status (i.e., something other than "approved" "denied" or "research"). After calling in and speaking to an operator (which took 20-45 minutes on hold) and going back and forth a bit (which took another 10-20 minutes) it apparently turned out that the system got confused by the fact that the purchaser has multiple middle names. That may not seem like a common problem, but at least THREE employees at that store have multiple middle names.
DeleteTLDR: I haven't seen very many gun store transactions that were anywhere near as fast as 10 minutes in quite a while.
-HSR47
@Dog Gone, No, it's not "we can't stop them entirely," it's more like, "It has NO significant effect at all."
ReplyDeleteIf gun control was PROVEN to have ANY significant or consistent effect on violent crime rates, I would welcome any such evidence.
Instead of claiming WE are part of the problem, how about if you suggest some real, working solutions, instead of gun control that doesn't actually DO anything to make us safer?
...Orygunner...
Considering that Laci has a violent temper AND has had numerous negligent discharges which he won't take responsibility for and blames on the gun I'm not at all surprised by his positions.
ReplyDeleteI mean if I were that violent and irresponsible I probably wouldn't trust folks with guns either.
@Anon: Hunh?
ReplyDeleteI think I'm going to have to redo the Famous 10% post. At that time I wasn't nearly as aware as I am now of the paranoid nuts among gun owners nor was I quite up to date on the unstable element.
ReplyDeleteIt's rough out there. I don't know how guys like Orygunner can continue ignoring the down side when waving the flag of Rights for Everyone.
If you want a society free of "guns" go to Cuba. See how it worked out.
Delete60 years ago all cubans had to turn in anything that shot a projectile using powder. Today, there is a death or multiple deaths every week by stab wounds in nearly every town of the country. You won't find it on news or newspapers. But I urge you to go and ask any citizen if they know of anyone killed last week on their town. The answer will be YES! - I am from Cuba, and I treasure the gun rights this country is slowly losing. I really wish you knew what you ask for and the consequences it will have before you opened your mouth.
First of all, I'm not asking for "a society free of "guns."" Secondly, do you think there would be less violence in Cuba if there were guns available?
DeleteSecondly, do you think there would be less violence in Cuba if there were guns available?
DeleteI don't know, but I suspect there would be less communism, and that's good enough for me.
@Mikeb, because the "downside" is the price we pay to have our freedom.
ReplyDeleteI would rather live in the animating contest of freedom with all its chaos and dangerous possibilities, than a limited and sanitized society where free, responsible exercise of my rights is prohibited in an attempt to create an environment of "public safety."
The route to a safer society isn't through infringing on individual rights, it is by identifying the actual CAUSES of violent crime, and everyone working together to resolve those issues as best as we can.
...Orygunner...
."" Secondly, do you think there would be less violence in Cuba if there were guns available? Less Violence? If Cubans were to be furnished Rifles & Pistols, I think initialy there would be a spike in violence due to Payback & the people regaining their freedom back. After the trial & Executions of the Dictators there would be relative peace & security as an Armed society is a Polite society. The theory of Gun Control is plain as day in Chicago & Other Highly controlled states. They are Top of the Gun Violence categories EVERY TIME! Crooks hate robbing people that might SHOOT THEM. They go to Malls where you have to be disarmed, to rob, Nuts Got to Gun Free Zones to Kill as they know that they will be unopposed for 5-15 minutes & can kill at will till stopped. Usually by a citizen with a CCW. ( read that responsible Citizen that has been trained & Permitted to carry after a Background check has been doneIts not about Gun Control, Its about Control over YOU, Don't be a sheep. I'll be keeping my rights intact thank you very much.
ReplyDelete