How do you reply to this comment by anti-gun

[Shawn Michael]

That most of the guns that end up in the hands of crooks are stolen from homes in which they are not properly locked up. So by taking guns out of homes you also take them off the street.

Certainly the if there is a demand, they will get their guns but wonder if this is true that most of the guns found in crooks hands were obtained by stealing from guys like us?

I live in Calif so I get this sort of argument.

And of course that you are more likely to kill yourself or a loved one with your gun than fend off a bad guy.

Thanks

[ugaarguy]

Tell them to show you evidence. Tell them you want to know where you can find the independent study that backs it up.

[jeepmor]

No guns in the hands of the people equals higher crime rates.

Use Chicago and DC as examples and compare their crime rates and gun murder rates to other cities with liberal (pardon the pun) CCW laws.

Or, like the previous poster. Show me the data, from a non-partisan group.

[Shawn Michael]

Thanks. Sorry I just noticed that maybe I should have posted this in the other forum. Delete if appropriate

[markmc753]

Consider: Oxycoton and several other drugs offer wonderful benefits to their legitimate users. However, since people are apt to steal them and sell them on the street for profit and to the public harm -- lets just ban them altogether.

Same logic, just as silly conclusion

[SunRunner]

Unfortunately I’ve found that no matter what ones response to a negative gun comment would be you cannot convince a fool of anything against his or her own will. Typically with most of these types any escalation of this conversation is futile.

I just say “Really?” and walk away. Send $10.00 to the NRA to say Thank You.

On the other hand if you’re maybe talking with an “On The Fencer” and you know and feel comfortable with them, invite them for an outing at the range. Convert them and have them send $10.00 to the NRA to say Thank You.

[5Wire]

Tell them they are misinformed: the Firearms Use By Offenders (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/fuopr.htm) report packages are available free to anyone who wants to know the facts which include:

Purchased from a retail store: 8.3%;
Purchased at a pawn shop: 3.8%;
Purchased at a flea market: 1.0%;
Purchased in a gun show: 0.7%;
Obtained from friends or family: 39.6%;
Got on the street/illegal source : 39.2%.

I have seen no research about stealing from 'peoplle like us.'

[El Tejon]

What about the guns stolen from police departments or sold to criminals by the police? Do we then disarm the police?

[deadin]

This is typical blissninny logic. Same as "If I had a magic wand and could wave it and all the guns in the world disappeared, there wouldn't be any more gun deaths." Well, Duh!!
How about waving that magic wand and getting a cure for cancer, world peace, doing away with world hunger, bad hair days and ridding us of jerks that don't have a realistic view of anything.

[El Tejon]

dead, of course, everyone knows there were no deaths before firearms were invented.:rolleyes: :D

If only Cain did not have that AK-47.:uhoh:

[Alan Fud]

If someone steals your car and gets into an accident with it and kills someone, should you be bared from owning a car? If not, why should a gun owner be barred from owning a gun because someone else might BREAK THE LAW and steal it?

[sterling180]

That most of the guns that end up in the hands of crooks are stolen from homes in which they are not properly locked up. So by taking guns out of homes you also take them off the street.

It depends on what country the person is refering to.In the USA,it is much easier to acquire guns,than in other western countries,in terms of stealing them,because from what I have heard,it is not compulsary,to keep them in a safe.In the UK,it has been an essential requirement for all legal-arms to be kept in a gun safe and to have modifications,on home security,to prevent them from being stolen,by crooks.After each gun ban,the storage requirements have tightened,but have done nothing really,because this isn't psycho proof either and you can't really stop lunatics,pretending to be Rambo,now can you?

However,a few gun stores have been robbed,by armed robbers-in the past,but the police had recovered the weapons,stolen from criminals.In 1990,John Fosey guns,(which was called Gentrys gun shop,back then)was robbed by armed robbers and a number of handguns and hollow-point ammo,was looted,from the store.However,the cops manged to arrest the crooks and recover the stolen guns and ammo.

In the UK,they are mainly illegal guns,with the exeption of possibly sawed-off shotguns.Even before our various bans,stolen guns were rarely heard of,in the media and in society in general.

The anti groups around the world use Americas statistics,in stolen guns,as a blueprint,to convince people that they have no use in modern society.This is how the GCN manged to influence certain persons,to ban certain firearms and ammo,in the UK.It is always about America and their efforts,of trying to get people to believe the fact of that,if guns are allowed,then the country will be like America.Either an armed hoodie,will kill you or a psycho next door neighbour,with a grudge and a loaded gun-after a heated argument.:rolleyes:

And of course that you are more likely to kill yourself or a loved one with your gun than fend off a bad guy.

Unless the owner isn't properly trained in gun handling methods,by shooting themselves,with it.I should imagine that many people are trained to a good standard,in gun-handling,either self-taught,by a manual,by family and friends or by an NRA instructor.

I live in Calif so I get this sort of argument.

Unfortunately,you aren't the only ones to suffer,this third-rate trash,the antis over here base our gun-owning society,on that of the USA.Still given a choice,I would rather be over there right now,than here in this misrable,stupid,liberaly-minded,anti-gun island.

You have it better at least in sunny California,than I do in London and in Kent.Although in my area,Kent County Constabulary,doesn't make a stink about gun ownership or gun crime,as much as some of the others do.

I suppose using the indoor small arms ranges,to fire an MOD 9mm Browning BDA,will have to do for now.That is one of the perks,of the Royal Navy Shooting team.

[ZeSpectre]

That most of the guns that end up in the hands of crooks are stolen from homes in which they are not properly locked up. So by taking guns out of homes you also take them off the street.

I see a few things wrong with that reasoning right off the bat.

Flaw #1) The tail does not wag the dog. In this argument the anti admits that the criminals have guns but wants to focus on disarming the law-abiding in hopes that some sort of "trickle down" effect will eventually take place. Even if this worked (and economics have shown that it does not work) guns are extremely durable and the supply already in the hands of bad men would probably be used by them to wreak untold havoc for a LONG time if the check of law-abiding gun owners were removed.

Flaw #2) There is no justification in punishing the innocent for something done by the criminal. The criminal broke in, the criminal stole, go after the criminal. We have to get rid of this "Properly locked up" because it's a red herring.

Anyone grounded in reality is well aware that you can NOT stop a determined thief, just slow them down so to walk up to the victim of a theft and then say "oh that gun wasn't properly locked up" is just insane, as though you somehow lured that poor innocent thief to break in and steal your property.

It's important to remember who is the criminal and who is the victim in arguments like this. The overall concept is called "problem ownership".

[MCgunner]

I reckon 99 percent of the time, guns are stolen so they can be pawned for money so the thief can feed his crack addiction. Get people off crack, and you cure the problem of gun theft. And, oh, BTW, crack is illegal, too. :rolleyes: And, hey, maybe if we outlaw stereos and big screen TVs, he won't be able to get the money to feed his crack habit and we'll cure the drug problem. Same logic, just outlaw stereos and big screen TVs while you're at it, too!

Besides, you're going to blame ME, a law abiding citizen, for what a crook does? GTFOH That'd be my answer and you can figure out the initials.:D Is breaking and entering and felony theft not already illegal? Enforce the law! Heck, if I'm in the house when he shows up, I'll cure part of society's problem and it won't cost the tax payer much, whatever it costs to bury the worthless $@(%#$#.

[SunRunner]

GTFOH = "Really"

[Zero_DgZ]

What part of "import" do these people not understand?

Possession of, as an example, crack cocaine has been illegal for all civilians for decades. No legitimate use, no "registered" users, no prescriptions, no stores, labs, or factories to steal the stuff from. I mean, surely these measures must have prevented all criminals in this country from ever coming across the stuff.

I don't think I even have to illustrate how wrong that logic is. Same thing with guns. Great, go ahead, strip away our second amendment rights and proclaim that no civilians can have firearms and thusly they aren't there to steal.

Except from the police. And military. And foreign police and militarizes. Or third world foreign countries where they can be freely bought, sold, and traded underground and imported by whatever means.

You disarm some petty criminals, maybe. You disarm all law abiding folk and place them at the mercy of criminals. And you give the real, dangerous criminals even more free run to do whatever they like unfettered.

(Hint: No civilian ownership of guns means no ATF records to track stolen guns. Fine South American imported AK's don't have recorded serial numbers, or serial numbers all all.)

[SnWnMe]

Drugs are banned. Yet people still acquire them.

Therefore (in keeping with the spirit of summarizing complex issues with one silly argument), bans do not work.

[ARTiger]

GUN=TOOL - period. Use it for what you will, but it's no different than a screwdriver.

I am personally horrified at the uses cordless power drills have been used for in Iraq by sectarian tortuers. Anyone relish being tied down and having various body parts "drilled". The same tool works as well with drywall screws.

We are an intelligent species that uses tools well - remove the tool and we'll just find another. Change the reasons why we are hell bent to hurt or kill each other is a more useful energy investment for folks who want to ban guns and knives . . . is my Black & Decker drill next on their agenda?

People do bad things to other people. It's part of our nature it seems as it has happened since we starting recording history and still does - no more, no less that it ever has. Now it's just we use guns rather than swords or clubs or pikes or maces, etc.

% of folks getting killed by other folks is probably a constant however. It's part of who we are and if blame is going to be assessed don't look to a simple tool made of steel, just look in the mirror.

[nwilliams]

Lets cut down all the trees to prevent forest fires! How about we take away everyones vehicles to prevent drunk driving, or better yet just ban alcohol (again).

I love the argument that if you stop selling guns criminals won't get their hands on any.

Just another retarded anti-gun argument with no logical thought process behind it.:fire:

[Black Knight]

I had a similar clown years ago that felt that if only the police and military had weapons there would be no crime. I asked him if he knew how I could get a gun anynight I wanted one. He said "no". I told him all I needed was a small peice of 2x4 and a 10 penney nail. Sneak back in a dark alley on our open air mall and when the cop does his patrol, bean with the 2x4 with nail. I could take the gun, belt and all, including radio. He thought I was crazy. The cop standing next to us said the he was glad I was on his side. Good guys behind the badge sometimes have to think like bad guys in order to stay alive. The point here is that badguys will get a gun even if they have to use make shift weapons to kill cops to get theirs. Jack Webb said it best when investigating a cop shot, "if they would shoot an armed police officer do you think they would hesitate to shoot an unarmed citizen?".

[fattsgalore]

The statment is true about stolen weapons, but taking them out the home isn't the answer. Thats ludacris.
Gun stores and customs shipments get robbed. Law enforcment evidence lockers get broken into and weapons are distributed half a dozen ways so to say take them out the home and you take them off the street is kind of nieve.

How about we give all homeless people money and a home. Hence: no more homeless. It sounds good down on paper, but it's simply nieve.

[Art Eatman]

Probably a very small amount of handgun theft from stores with dealer licenses.

Note that UPS quit ground shipment of handguns and went to air-only because of employee theft. That's probably reduced the problem, but no system is perfect. I'd venture that there is some amount of loss from FedEx, as well, although I've no idea how much.

As far as the majority of thefts, I'd guess that homes and cars are the primary sources.

Bedside tables and beneath pillows and mattresses are among the first targets inside a home if guns are of primary interest--and they commonly are, for the hit-and-run burglars.

Too many people leave a handgun under the seat of their car or in the console or glovebox. Most of the time in daylight, locking the car is adequate protection. I read on an almost monthly basis, though, of some nighttime break-in of a car and one of the items taken--besides a tape deck or CD player--is a handgun. That's just in one small city in Georgia.

Regrettably, there are people who won't buy a safe or who won't create some secure system (chain, lock, ring-eye threaded into a wall stud, e.g.) and will say, "Oh, well, it's insured."

Art

[Standing Wolf]

That most of the guns that end up in the hands of crooks are stolen from homes in which they are not properly locked up. So by taking guns out of homes you also take them off the street.

Throwing away the rights of the law-abiding because predators sometimes violate those rights makes government not only one of the predators, but the worst of all: it's the one with the most power and authority.

[jame]

I don't believe anyone has taken the time to answer the original poster's question:

"Certainly the if there is a demand, they will get their guns but wonder if this is true that most of the guns found in crooks hands were obtained by stealing from guys like us?"

In other words, what is the source of the guns used in violent crime? Like it or not, we need to address the question, here and now, or there and later.....

IMHO, the source of some is some sort of illegal appropiation, (theft, black market, etc), and the source of some gun crime is simply the illegal use legally owned guns by irresponsible owners. Statistically, cars, swimming pools, and perscription drugs are subject to the same abuse by a legal owner. Rare, but it happens.

[ZeSpectre]

In other words, what is the source of the guns used in violent crime? Like it or not, we need to address the question, here and now, or there and later.....

Jame, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. It really doesn't matter where the guns are coming from because if you want to impact crime you MUST focus on the criminals and not the tools they use.

Take away a criminals tools... and he'll make more or switch to something different and be back.

Take away the criminal... problem solved.

[jame]

I don't disagree with you, ZeSpectre.

I was only refering to the source of the gun. Not the source of the crime or the criminal.

If you apply simple rules of economics, which I personally view as nearly absolute, we need to address the demand, not the supply. I just don't know what the source of supply is. I don't deny that "demand" is there and must be dealt with in some manner....

In other words, the term "Money is the root of all evil" is patently false. Greed is the source of evil. Not money.

[Geronimo45]

"How do you reply to this comment by anti-gunner"
With a laugh.

[Troutman]

<<That most of the guns that end up in the hands of crooks are stolen from homes in which they are not properly locked up. So by taking guns out of homes you also take them off the street.>>

This simple answer from an anti-gun owner (or anyone for that matter) should run a lot deeper than the above statement. Seems like a cop-out, to me. Is that the most important reason? That’s a cop out. Have, they, found a home!!!! (Slang)
Ask whoever (or anyone) is making the above statement, if they themselves ever got their home/apt. robbed. This is when the occupant(s) of the resident were not at home, we’re talking about, of course. See how they respond. While stolen firearms are not to be taken lightly, so are other things, which belong to the resident(s).
Adding to what’s already posted.
(Note: People have the right, to defend ones’ self. No matter what they choose to use, considering the responsibility that goes along with it).

Locking anything up, is not a foolproof method of security.
Anyone should know this. If they think; it’s a foolproof method, their chasing rainbows and setting traps for unicorns! This includes alarm systems, safes, ect.ect. Anyone (with the knowledge) can/could penetrate these security measures…….
Side-note: This is why firearms are useful and important, compared to those “other” security/defensive measures….i.e. home alarm systems.
It’s just a deterrent.
If one is so against owning/using a firearm and worried about homes getting robbed with firearms in them, they should also be concerned about “those other things” that can be stolen (peoples property) as well People work hard (most do anyway) for their passions (passions is no typo). Yes, there is insurance for these things. If one has insurance, that is. Their are those things that can’t be replaced (heirlooms, meaning, items of more value than money). Insurance is not the magic bullet, to just blow off lightly about getting robbed. There are consequences that come with that thinking.
Their are things, an anti-gun person, as with anyone who wants to be involved, in the concern about crime. Start a block watchers’ association. Yes, easier said than done. And it’s not foolproof (smile). This depends on community involvement, as well as those who will/want, become involved. It does make it a deterrent and than some. Some cities have what’s called an aux. police, which works just as well. There are jokes made about this, but the block watch and aux. police are good (cell phones being touted along), for not only the eyes and ears for the police, more important, crime prevention (people up to no good, that your eye-ballin’ em’). One who takes on that way of life, home burglary, that is, they love people that mind their own business, one who looks the other way when a crime is being committed, and ones’ that don’t care what happens in their own neighborhood. Luckily (hopefully), they will call 9-1-1, when something does, go down.
Just having a police force is no magic bullet, either. A city (any city), can not have a cop on every block. We don’t live in the past, where cops walk, “the beat” anymore. Cities just can’t afford it (where I live, anyway).
So it’s more “community involvement” than trying to act/be like a “cop”. Just like in the 60’s era, where, just about everyone knew each other and knew what was happening, in their own neighborhood. Power is in numbers, just as much, as money.
There are other ways as well, to do the “community involvement”, with little time/effort. Just watch out for your neighbors’ house/apt. And just dial 9-11, when something is suspicious. Not only will one help prevent homes from getting robbed with guns in them. One will also help prevent homes from getting robbed without guns in them.
If one is anti-gun/or just don’t want anything to do with firearms, their are devices that make a good alternative, as well. One has to look to their city laws.

[Lurper]

The simple answer is that that is incorrect. There is no evidence in any study that shows that the majority (or even a large portion) of the firearms used by criminals are stolen from gun owners.

[Stan_TheGunNut]

Too many people leave a handgun under the seat of their car or in the console or glovebox. Most of the time in daylight, locking the car is adequate protection. I read on an almost monthly basis, though, of some nighttime break-in of a car and one of the items taken--besides a tape deck or CD player--is a handgun. That's just in one small city in Georgia.

Perhaps they shouldn't issue me a permit to carry, then tell me I can't carry in any decent restraunt (so it has to be locked in the car), just because they serve alcohol (and I don't drink). To me, it should be the same standard as being too drunk to drive...but that's not the subject of this post.

To me, locking a gun inside my home or car should be considered adequate security. It keeps the honest, honest. It will not stop a determined theif, as will no vault, safe, or anything else. I also agree with pretty much all of what the other posters here have said. Based on my experience in the Army, you could go to about any military base, find out which unit was in the field, and wait till they were sleeping at night, and take every weapon they had. When I worked in Norfolk, two Navy guards actually had their weapons taken from them by armed theives (the Navy guards had no ammo). When I was on guard duty in Germany, we typically had no ammo.

Also, cocaine is illegal, but they smuggle in tons of that crap every year. I'm just preaching to the chior. People have posted some good answers here. Use them.

[ReadyontheRight]

If all guns are locked up, then homeowners will be tortured until they open the safe.

AND properly trained, but law-abiding homeowners will have no means to defend themselves.

AND if locking uo your guns is THE LAW, what new entity will enforce this law?

[Kindrox]

The argument that security/safes *can* be penetrated therefore there is no point to having any beyond locking the front door is so ludicrous that all I can do is laugh. I don’t have to keep out a navy seal team, I just have to keep the average burglar(s) from opening the safe for 5-30 minutes.

People with this altitude are really saying it won’t happen to me, and if it does I was powerless to act anyway. Guns are not like cars. People use cars for transportation. People use guns to project power. Our responsibility is greater than car owners.

How are our responsibilities completely different than people who store explosives? Can you see someone saying “No point to locking up this dynamite, they’ed just take me hostage to get it or break in anyway”.

Come on, time to get real. Yes better security will reduce gun theft. Will it keep criminals from getting guns? No. But that fact does not absolve us of our responsibility.

Arguing against having to secure our guns (in general) is arguing to not be responsible. And in my opinion the irresponsible should not have guns.

[5Wire]

This thread is full of posts actually accepting the premise of the false assertion Shawn Michael referred to that guns stolen from people "like us" comprise the main source of firearms used by criminals.

Not So!

Lurper's simple statement says it all:

The Bureau of Justice actual data show the largest gun source (39.6%) for criminals is from friends or family. Is that "people like us?" I don't think so.

The second largest source (39.2%) is "street/illegal," Is that "people like us?" I doubt it. Nowhere does the DOJ say that the guns are stolen from anybody. That doesn't mean that some aren't stolen but why are we ducking when no one is swinging?

When the numbers are added up, more than half the sources are friends, family, and legal sources. "Street/illegal" is not specific, it is a mix that may include theft.

Furthermore, the assertion that a gun owner's gun is more likely to be used against the owner or the owner's family is a myth based on biased data published by Arthur Kellerman in 1986.

Even the most conservative of studies (the government's) indicates that guns are used more than twice as often to prevent crimes than to commit them.

Most anti gun arguments have nothing to do with facts. They are meant to incite contrary emotions. If we react emotionally, we lose. Let them eat facts...

[Kindrox]

Well as someone pointed out, criminals already have a lot of guns in their possession. But where did they get these guns, and new ones? Where could criminal in general easily get guns?

1. Acquire them from another criminal (aka ‘the street’)
2. Buy them because they don’t yet have a record
3. Use a GF/buddy to straw purchase
4. Outright steal them
4. Acquire them from friends/family

I bet a lot of #5 is really theft. A relative of yours knows you have unlocked guns and helps himself. Technically theft, but probably not reported. And this could easily happen to “people like us” who have sticky fingered relatives and who don’t secure their guns.

[5Wire]

I bet a lot of #5 is really theft. A relative of yours knows you have unlocked guns and helps himself. Technically theft, but probably not reported. And this could easily happen to “people like us” who have sticky fingered relatives and who don’t secure their guns.
I agree with your post, Kindrox, and it contributes to making my point. "a lot of # 5 is really theft" and "could easily happen to 'people like us'" is a long way from the anti's claim of "most", which in fact is beaten on the board before the hole cards are turned.

Thanks for your post!

[motorheadjohn]

To add to what 5Wire responded, the second largest source "street/illegal" at 39.2% sounds quite large but does not put the figure in the context of total gun ownership. There are millions of gun owners, but only a small number of them ever have a gun stolen. Certainly NOT 39.2% of all guns.

Would you infringe the rights of millions of people just to prevent a small number of guns from getting on the street? Maybe we should infringe the rights of millions and start doing house-to-house searches for drugs while we're at it.

Freedom is most important in our system of values. Our legal system puts the burdon of proof on the state, making it possible for a criminal to go free, so that it is more difficult to convict an innocent person. Freedom is why the police need a warrant to search. Freedom allows you to speak without fear. And those same values give you the freedom own a firearm.

[MikePGS]

Does the claim that a lot of guns that are in the hands of criminals are stolen from lawful gun owners have any evidence to support it or is it just wishful thinking?

[Kindrox]

Its probably true but at the same time a bunch of bull. Lets say a gun was stolen in 1950 and has change hands between criminals 100 times since then. Well my guess is these statistic takers say that was 100 stolen guns that hit the street. But the truth was it was one gun that keeps changing hands.

Pretty much any gun that is stolen is going to join this pool, so over time this high statistic materializes. One possible answer anyway.

I think is probably is fair to say that many guns in the hands of criminals started out in life belonging to a non-criminal.

[jeffkirchner]

How do you reply to this comment by anti-gun
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That most of the guns that end up in the hands of crooks are stolen from homes in which they are not properly locked up. So by taking guns out of homes you also take them off the street.
By putting criminals in prison, you also take them off the street.
Certainly the if there is a demand, they will get their guns but wonder if this is true that most of the guns found in crooks hands were obtained by stealing from guys like us?
They'll get guns any way they can; stealing, buying from other criminals, trading for drugs.
And of course that you are more likely to kill yourself or a loved one with your gun than fend off a bad guy.
Not if you and your loved ones are properly trained to safely handle and store firearms.

[5Wire]

MikePGS : Does the claim that a lot of guns that are in the hands of criminals are stolen from lawful gun owners have any evidence to support it or is it just wishful thinking?
Here's something to partially answer your question form the Bureau of Justice Firearms Theft (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hvfsdaft.htm) Report.

Pertinent paragraph:

BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts or burglaries from stores or other businesses.

So, you could infer that a minimum of 340,000 firearms are stolen. What data is missing, is how many are recovered and how many are subsequently used to commit gun crimes, and how many remain unaccounted for. Too many variables for me.

However, the same article states that during the 1992 record level an estimated 917,500 non-fatal crimes, almost 50 percent more than the average for the previous five years. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported an additional 13,200 handgun homicides during the same year, a 24 percent increase over the five-year average. and that puts stolen guns in the 36% range in that record year but less than or equal to 39.2% in the other report cited.

Although the number of crime guns sourced from theft may be high and should be reduced, it falls short of "most" from "people like us."

[obxned]

Making all guns illegal will work about as well as it works for drugs, immigrants, and, during prohibition, booze. To even make the sugestion of this shows that you are not from around here - and by that I mean planet Earth!

[Shawn Michael]

Great thread, I appreciate all the responses!

Now anyone know where I can get a factory load for s&w .500 with a punch bullet?

LOL

Thanks guys!

[Bellevance]

For reasonable, detailed information on a wide range of issues involving crime and gun ownership, here's a link to a sound set of conclusions and broad, well-supported analysis by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/

From Myth #8, Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns:

Because less than 1 percent of firearms are ever involved in a crime and because felons acquire only a small fraction of their guns through licensed channels, all gun control measures suffer from a "needle in the haystack" problem. New restrictions could reduce the small number of guns that criminals obtain through regulated dealers but probably would have little effect on the total number of guns in criminal hands. Where do criminals get their guns? The previously cited survey of prisoners in 10 states found that:

• Just over half of the felons (compared to one-quarter of the general population) said that they owned handguns.

• Fewer than one in six had purchased their guns from a retail dealer.

• Three-quarters of the felons agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble"obtaining a gun when they were released, despite the legal barriers to such purchases.

• Half had stolen at least one gun in their criminal careers; between 40 percent and 70 percent of the handguns these men possessed most recently were stolen.62 These were incarcerated felons, likely to be among the most active and strongly motivated criminals. Advocates of gun control measures may believe that weakly motivated, infrequent criminals can be disarmed or prevented from acquiring guns through regulation. However, even among members of the general, noncriminal population, about 36 percent of guns are acquired through private parties, often as a gift.63 This implies that of an estimated 8.6 million firearms transactions each year, some 3.1 million are outside licensed retail sources. While some jurisdictions try to regulate the informal markets in gun trades, such transactions are invisible to authorities. And virtually all social scientists who have investigated the question have concluded that gun control laws are ineffective in denying guns to criminals because guns are so available on the underground market.

[russtang]

Would it matter if 100% of the hanguns "on the street" were stolen from homes where they were not "properly locked up"??

Am I responsible for the actions of others?
Did I make the badguy break-in my home/car??
Did the gun make the badguy break-in my home/car??

What if all the jewelry "on the street" was stolen from homes where it was not "properly locked up"

What if all the boomboxes "on the street" were stolen from homes where they were not properly locked up??

Should we outlaw, ban, restrict owership of these or other items that are stolen because they are stolen??

It is amazing to me how the actions of badguys is assumed to be caused by some fault of the goodguy.
Even PRO-GUN people feel obligated to assume resposibilities for the badguy.

Am I in the wrong because my firearm is loaded/unlocked in MY home? HELL NO!
Am I in the wrong because my door was unlocked and my 50 firearms were stolen from my unlocked closet and used to shoot someone? HELL NO!!

Now granted, I may be nieve and/or foolish, but the BADGUY is responsible for his crimes. Not me, not the unlocked door, not the gun.

[Confederate]

Well, a good many are stolen from the police as well, so if we are to be deprived of firearms, then so should the police. We do, after all, use them for the same reason.

In short, criminals can always get firearms. Even the most strident of anti-gunners admit it. Drugs are illegal, but criminals still sell them and use them. Many firearms are manufactured in South America and can be...umm...imported...the same way drugs can. In countries where firearms are completely banned, criminals still have guns (big surprise). In fact, Canada and Australia just banned guns and both countries have seen their violent crimes with guns soar.

No, the only way to reduce crime is to reduce gun control laws. Works every time, no exceptions. Ditto with the reverse.

[Geno]

You encourage them to have Congress mandate (nation-wide) life sentences for any and all firearms thefts; death sentences for any and all crimes in which a firearms were used. That's called deterrant. Our current liberal county, state and federal revolving door Motel-jail do little to deter crime. You could also consider severing the hand of any thief. I hear most criminals could only repeat their crime once.

Punish the criminals, and leave the non-criminals alone.

[mljdeckard]

+1 for incorrect.

I have been honing the art of being tough without being confrontational. I would tell them that that notion cannot be backed up by fact, neither can the notion that guns in homes are more likely to kill innocent people than criminals, or that disarming law-abiding citizens, has EVER, in the history of mankind, made them safer.

[carpettbaggerr]

How hard do you think it is to make a gun? They made them in the 1800's without much trouble. Anyone with a halfway decent shop can make a Sten gun from scratch.

[Tom Fury]

use them to do bad things has no meaningful correlation to the right and privilege of the law abiding to own, keep and bear them. They do bad stuff because they're...bad. Good guys have a right not to become dead guys at the hands of bad guys with any gun; shall we penalize them (and make them more likely to become crime victims) by removing their first line of defense; the left still has no clue about the deterrent factor of an armed citizenry and its' effect on violent crime. I believe every state and community that has enacted a CCW law has experienced a corresponding decrease in crime rate.

IMHO: Nothing prevents or deters violent crime effectively except an armed (and ready) citizenry; the naysayers may cry about "Dodge city" but for a real strategy that guarantees public safety, they're whistling past the graveyard. TF

"If I ever try to kill you, you'll be standing up, looking me in the face, and you'll be armed."
Malcom Reynolds...

[razorburn]

They're probably right. Gun owners say they don't buy them through legal channels, they get them off the black market. But where does the black market get them from? Probably a lot of them are stolen from legal gun owners. Unless you believe they're illegally imported in or that they're making them, there's just no other source. There's a lot of evidence against the importation idea. They're not like drugs, guns are much larger and you can't smuggle an ak through by putting it in a condom and sticking it up your butt. It's rare to hear about an international gun smuggling ring and very common to hear about gun crime. It'd take a major international arms smuggling permeating throughout all of america to account for all those gun crimes. If such a number of major international smuggling rings existed, it should be a lot more common to hear about the use of full autos in crimes as well. My reply would be that I just don't really care. Our murder rate is very high, but overall crime still relatively low, and that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the freedom to own guns.

[Carl N. Brown]

The gun used by the Silent Brotherhood to murder
talk show host Alan Berg was made by CSAL, a
white supremacist group that made illegal weapons
for the underground in the 1980s. Berg knew he was
under a death threat and had applied for a carry permit,
but Colorado was discretionary, and the authorities in
Denver jjust flat refused to approve his permit. The men
who murdered him were guaranteed an unarmed victim,
and did not hesitate to use a black market machinegun
to kill him.

The easiest repeating firearm to copy in underground
workshop is the Sten. As legal guns get dried up by
gun control, the financial incentive to go into illegal
traffic--from manufacture to sales--gets higher.
The demand will creat the supply.

Given the usual figure quoted from federal sources of
430,000 felonies committed with guns per year, make the
drastic assumption of each felony represents one gun.
Say that 10 or 20 % of those felon guns goes out of
circulation per year. To maintain the same rate of
felony crimes with guns would require the smuggling,
theft, or illegal manufacture of about 43,000 to
86,000 guns per year for the black market.

(Since NIBIN traces show that one felon with one gun
can be responsible for several felonies in a year, the
number of guns entering the black market would
actual be less than 43,000 to 86,000 per year to
supply the crime market.)

[Carl N. Brown]

Chinese freighter Empress Phoenix was caught in
Oakland harbor with a shipping container of 2,000
full auto AKs intended for the underground market
in the 1990s. About the same time, a shipping
container in San Diego was found full of automatic
weapons and grenade launchers: it was marked
"sewing machine parts." Corrupt government
officials worldwide would facilitate black market
traffic if the price was right.

[razorburn]

Those are just 2 anecdotes and completely meaningless to the discussion. While it does occur, it's very rare, and the guy is talking about where criminals usually get their guns from. Main sources. The overwhelming majority of criminal gun use doesn't involve criminals manufacturing their own gun or full auto guns and grenades. It's very likely they're just guns off the black market, which were stolen from legal gun owners.

[GLOCK19XDSC]

Note: I've highlighted some of the below text, in bold, that I think is applicable to the first post.

The following wisdom is courtesy of John Ross, from here: http://john-ross.net/mistakes.htm


ROSS IN RANGE
Mistakes We Make in the Gun Culture, or
How to Be a More Effective Advocate for Freedom
By John Ross

Copyright 2003-2005 by John Ross. Electronic reproduction of this article freely permitted provided it is reproduced in its entirety with attribution given

This is a piece I wrote a couple years ago, and I still get regular requests for it. Might as well put it on Ross In Range.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.

Let me give some common examples I’ve often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:

THEY SAY: “We’d be better off if no one had guns.”

WE SAY: “You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns.” (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that’s unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun.”

THEY SAY: “Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they’re only for killing people.”

WE SAY: “I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they’re good practice.”

THEY SAY: “If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.”

WE SAY: “Studies have shown blah blah blah” (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don’t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We’d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?”

THEY SAY: “I don’t see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period.”

WE SAY: “It doesn’t do any good, criminals don’t wait five days, it’s a waste of resources blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn’t that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it’s not about crime prevention, it’s about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a ‘safe’ one with the government as chief nanny.”

THEY SAY: “In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs.”

WE SAY: “Uh, well, uh...”

WE SHOULD SAY: “Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it’s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet.”

THEY SAY: “We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons.”

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. It’s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don’t need to do anything if you don’t use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me.”

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: “You know, I’m amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.”

THEY SAY: “Hunh?”

YOU SAY: “Well, passing this proposal won’t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn’t it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?

Let me know if any of these points make you more effective the next time a "gun control" advocate starts in on his favorite subject.

John Ross 9/14/05

[S&Wfan]

The best way to win over an anti-gun person is to take them shooting and/or hunting and let him totally enjoy it.

Focus on the fun, positive ways we all love our firearms and let him/her see other fine people out having fun shooting their guns too.

Most of these anti-gun nuts have never been on a shooting range or enjoyed watching the sun rise from a duck pond or deer stand.

We can debate 'em until the cows come in, but THEY are focused on the fear of bad guys getting more guns and committing crimes.

We, on the other hand, don't cower in fear . . . and our guns are used for pure enjoyment. They need to see the POSITIVE and wonderful reasons that guns were made.

Yep . . . our guns CAN be used in defense, if needed . . . but most of us will never fire our guns except for fun.

Guns are POSITIVE . . . if we start portraying them that way!

Food for thought . . .

[P5 Guy]

All things that could cause a person to break and enter a private residence would have to be illegel to own to truely prevent crimes of all types.
A computer or camera could be used for child porn is one of many examples.

[Northslope Nimrod]

A high percentage of prescription drugs that are abused are stolen from Homes. Many of our cases in Utah deal with burglaries where the only item taken is prescription drugs.

THUS, to minimize the risk of death (burglaries are inherently dangerous) and to protect the community from the negative effects of millions who abuse prescription drugs.....we need to confiscate all prescription drugs!!!! You can only take prescription drugs if you wait in a Government hand-out line and we can watch you swallow them and check under your tongue. ;)

You could also suggest that since juveniles obtain their alcohol from gas stations, grocery stores, etc in over 99% of the cases.....alchohol, therefore, should only be sold at State Liquour Stores.

The list could continue.....