tsst_fballfan;718140 wrote:Yes and we have perfect societal examples on how the legality of something drys up sources and supplies. DRUGS and alcohol prohibition. One would have to be absolutely self-deceiving to believe anything would dry up. It would serve only to create a massive underground for illegal criminal activity. Look no further than drugs and alcohol prohibition for real world examples. :shrugs:

So far, no one can answer you on your main question of how creating law #21,001 will stop criminals from obtaining and using weapons. They don't much give a shit about laws #1 through 21,000 now do they?

I suppose if we outlaw them in the US, then every country will follow our lead and make them illegal as well. No one could possibly smuggle any weapons into our country through our Southern border, now could they?

BGFalcons82;718148 wrote:So far, no one can answer you on your main question of how creating law #21,001 will stop criminals from obtaining and using weapons. They don't much give a shit about laws #1 through 21,000 now do they?

I suppose if we outlaw them in the US, then every country will follow our lead and make them illegal as well. No one could possibly smuggle any weapons into our country through our Southern border, now could they?

BOOM!

BGFalcons82;718148 wrote:So far, no one can answer you on your main question of how creating law #21,001 will stop criminals from obtaining and using weapons. They don't much give a shit about laws #1 through 21,000 now do they?

I suppose if we outlaw them in the US, then every country will follow our lead and make them illegal as well. No one could possibly smuggle any weapons into our country through our Southern border, now could they?

Aw shit, BG. There you go again. Your common sense and use of logic is an unfair advantage.

BGFalcons82;718148 wrote:So far, no one can answer you on your main question of how creating law #21,001 will stop criminals from obtaining and using weapons. They don't much give a shit about laws #1 through 21,000 now do they?

In 20 years of debating gun control with those afraid of guns and/or gun rights not one single person has had a legitimate rebuttal. Mostly logical fallacy in that it will somehow reduce or eliminate crime. When guns are banned not only did it not reduce crime but most of the time increased it. Take DC for a prime example. DC actually did have a handgun ban in effect for years. In that time they led the nation in handgun crime. I could never understand the logic that if someone is going to use a gun to commit a crime that they would be worried about breaking the law to get the gun? And the belief that it will somehow "dry up the source or supply" to me is even more wildly unbelievable. I sighted two excellent examples of how that would not be so, in drugs and alcohol prohibition. :shrugs:

BGFalcons82;718148 wrote:I suppose if we outlaw them in the US, then every country will follow our lead and make them illegal as well. No one could possibly smuggle any weapons into our country through our Southern border, now could they?

roflmao yea we can't even stop 15 million people from streaming across that border!

tsst_fballfan;718545 wrote:In 20 years of debating gun control with those afraid of guns and/or gun rights not one single person has had a legitimate rebuttal. Mostly logical fallacy in that it will somehow reduce or eliminate crime. When guns are banned not only did it not reduce crime but most of the time increased it. Take DC for a prime example. DC actually did have a handgun ban in effect for years. In that time they led the nation in handgun crime. I could never understand the logic that if someone is going to use a gun to commit a crime that they would be worried about breaking the law to get the gun? And the belief that it will somehow "dry up the source or supply" to me is even more wildly unbelievable. I sighted two excellent examples of how that would not be so, in drugs and alcohol prohibition. :shrugs:

roflmao yea we can't even stop 15 million people from streaming across that border!

the reason you haven’t heard a legitimate rebuttal is because you refuse to listen and like I pointed out, you miss the point. I’ve explained to you specifically what gun registration could help stop. Plus you cant compare the ban of drugs and alcohol because those were full bans, we aren’t completely banning guns.

And no one claims any one law will stop crimes completely, it seems pro gun people seem to think that is all gun control people say(missing the point as usual). But like I believe, doing something is better than just saying “fuck it” and not doing anything. By filling out a few lines on a piece of paper, law biding gun owners can make it just a little bit harder for criminals to own guns.

G.D.,

What lines would those be, exactly, and how would they make it harder for criminals to obtain guns?

There you go again (to paraphrase a famous actor), making his point for him.

Glory Days;718849 wrote:By filling out a few lines on a piece of paper, law biding gun owners can make it just a little bit harder for criminals to own guns.

Just how many more laws that infringe on our constitutional rights and how many more "lines on a piece of paper" are needed before we decide there's enough gun control rules, regulations, and laws on the books to keep criminals from obtaining guns?

Bottom-line is there are already PLENTY of gun-control laws on the books and NONE of them prevent criminals from obtaining and using guns. Even if we were to ban all gun ownership - the insidious desire of those who advocate the Great Nanny State - you can be absolutely certain that criminals will still find a way to get guns.

The un-constitutionalists are slowly but surely stripping away the very foundation of what has made this the greatest nation to have ever existed. Guns in the wrong hands are indeed a scary thing, but stripping our rights (even if it is a simple addition of a "few more lines" to the plethora of already existing gun-control laws) can be much more frightening.

stlouiedipalma;719238 wrote:There you go again (to paraphrase a famous actor), making his point for him.

I may be doing exactly that, but...

What I'm really trying to do is understand that point of view. I do not understand it right now and hopefully can understand better by the time this thread dies out.

You see, I'm looking at the history of gun control (in generalities, of course because I'm not scholar on the subject) and I can see that after every "idea" there's some sort of legislation involved thereafter. But I never see a good reason to pursue more of those ideas when illegal gun crimes never stop. Predicted outcomes of the idea never seem to follow the legislation.
See what I mean?

So, again, I'd like to know what else that law abiding citizens can do, exactly, that would limit or stop current or potential criminals from obtaining guns. Because as of RIGHT NOW, I do not see any innovating ideas and/or legislation that will provide the intended goal.

Glory Days;718849 wrote:the reason you haven’t heard a legitimate rebuttal is because you refuse to listen and like I pointed out, you miss the point. I’ve explained to you specifically what gun registration could help stop. Plus you cant compare the ban of drugs and alcohol because those were full bans, we aren’t completely banning guns.

I didn't miss the point it was simply invalid. How is my registering my gun stopping any criminal from illegally obtaining a gun and using it to commit a crime? Also your point about drying up resources is absolutely farcical. Not only will it not dry up resources it will create an underground business that will expand criminal activity. The drug example is not just limited to crack and the like. Look at how legal prescription(controlled) drugs have created a market for obtaining them illegally. Much in the same way legal registered(controlled) guns will create a market for obtaining them illegally.

Glory Days;718849 wrote:And no one claims any one law will stop crimes completely, it seems pro gun people seem to think that is all gun control people say(missing the point as usual). But like I believe, doing something is better than just saying “fuck it” and not doing anything. By filling out a few lines on a piece of paper, law biding gun owners can make it just a little bit harder for criminals to own guns.

You are the one missing the point. There are 20,000 + laws at the city, county, state and federal level that govern in some way guns. If criminals, by definition, do not obey laws what would make anyone with any common sense whatsoever believe another law would change that? And with regard to your strawman. Nobody is saying '"fuck it" and not do anything'. Most of what I have read gun right advocates are simply saying ENFORCE the existing laws. And your last sentence is another logical fallacy. My filling out a few more lines does NOTHING to stop a criminal. I was an awful American and exercised my right in buying a new RRA AR15 just recently. I filled out two pages of info and went through an instant background check. Guess what I can walk out of this building and buy an illegal gun within 30 mins. My background check and two pages of paperwork did nothing to even slow that fact down.


In the end success behind the logic of adding another law to reduce criminal activity is dependent on one of two things happening.

1 - that the new law will be obeyed by anyone other than the folks that are not breaking the first 20,000+ laws already on the books. One would have to be delusional to believe an armed robber, murderer, etc would somehow abide by the new registration law when planning his/her robbery or murder. And in doing so decides he can no longer commit the crime because he/she is bound by the restraints of this new super registration law. Simply not a logical line of thought.

2 - that by making law abiding citizens register their guns will somehow equate to illegal gun sources drying up. There are hundreds of millions of guns world wide. World history has shown time and again when there is a demand for something a market for that item is created whether legal or illegal. Drugs, guns, alcohol, prostitution, etc, etc, etc. Instituting a registration law will have no bearing on an illegal market. If the demand exists the market will also.

I generally feel that most new gun legislations aren't that good because they don't work. However the "enforce existing laws" argument is shit as well because if it was that easy they would have done it already. Hard problem to find a good solution (or more realistically good enough solution) to.

However, I still don't understand how I keep hearing from people that Obama is gonna take all our guns away. It's been two years and he hasn't done anything at all really about guns so what makes people think he's all of the sudden gonna steal them all away or go all U.K. on us is beyond me.

I Wear Pants;721457 wrote:I generally feel that most new gun legislations aren't that good because they don't work. However the "enforce existing laws" argument is shit as well because if it was that easy they would have done it already.

I do not believe for one second that government will "leave things be". Not if there was something/anything to legislate and possibly get more taxes out of something in order to try and cover their spend-happy asses.

Let's see, Americans are apparently OK with Constitution free zones, TSA abuses, being radiated to fly, being sexually assaulted to fly, government overspending, government starting wars, etc. etc. etc. Why wouldn't anyone think that the government would want even more control over its stupid citizens? If they can find a way to outlaw guns and survive reelection, you better damn well believe they'll try. I consider the U.S. government the biggest terrorist organization in the world now, pretty sad how far we've come in 10 years.

I Wear Pants;721457 wrote:I generally feel that most new gun legislations aren't that good because they don't work. However the "enforce existing laws" argument is shit as well because if it was that easy they would have done it already. Hard problem to find a good solution (or more realistically good enough solution) to.

Enforcing the laws on the books could have possibly stopped the VT shooting and the Arizona shooting just to name 2 high profile cases

LJ;721539 wrote:Enforcing the laws on the books could have possibly stopped the VT shooting and the Arizona shooting just to name 2 high profile cases

I'm not familiar with the gun violations in those cases, care to inform me?

If the Arizona thing you mean is the extended clip then as far as I know he bought it legally during the period where the law was expired.

I Wear Pants;721545 wrote:I'm not familiar with the gun violations in those cases, care to inform me?

If the Arizona thing you mean is the extended clip then as far as I know he bought it legally during the period where the law was expired.

Their mental status was not reported to the database like it should have been. They would have been denied when going through the NICS check.

Oh, ok.

Though again I'd argue they'd have likely sought weapons elsewhere.

I Wear Pants;721549 wrote:Oh, ok.

Though again I'd argue they'd have likely sought weapons elsewhere.

Which is the catch 22. The problem is, the system failed, not the laws. People want more stringant gun laws, yet they don't even properly enforce the ones we have. The burden should be placed on the system, not on the citizens.

LJ;721550 wrote:Which is the catch 22. The problem is, the system failed, not the laws. People want more stringant gun laws, yet they don't even properly enforce the ones we have. The burden should be placed on the system, not on the citizens.

I think if they do anything they need to rewrite the laws so tha they're easier to enforce (if possible). If not that then I believe most gun laws will likely continue to be ineffectual and as such should not be a priority. Of course groups like MADD will always look for a scapegoat to blame the latest child death on so that won't work.

I Wear Pants;721575 wrote:I think if they do anything they need to rewrite the laws so tha they're easier to enforce (if possible). If not that then I believe most gun laws will likely continue to be ineffectual and as such should not be a priority. Of course groups like MADD will always look for a scapegoat to blame the latest child death on so that won't work.

They are easily enforceable, they just don't enforce them. That is the problem

I think what he means is the prevention of obtaining a gun outside the proper channels. The fact that this can easily be done is what I'm understanding IWP's statement to be referring to when he says "ineffectual."

But as you've said, that's a breakdown of the system, and not the laws. And no amount of legislation is going to prevent the ability to do that. There's too much money to be made in the selling of firearms off the books.

Yeah that's what I meant.