1. We should not legislate each and every item that can be used with fatal results.
OK, so why pick this particular potentially lethal weapon and exclude all others? What makes this a threat greater than any other? What is your basis for the need you have for these to be regulated?
2. No Chicken Little. No falling sky.
Again, I ask what basis you have for your predication that these will become favored weapons of the unlawful? You seem extremely upset by the lack of regulation, yet cannot show any factual basis as to why these would be a popular choice among criminals. Demanding a solution to a problem that has yet to be proven to exist is a bit chicken little like, don't you think? When you have a factual basis...rather than an opinion...as to why these types of airguns need to be regulated, we can talk. Laws shouldn't be based on theory, but rather a demonstrated need.
3. Never assumed anything, much less every 16 year old stealing Mom's credit card is going to go on a shooting spree.
http://www.thehighroad.org//showpost.php?p=7408287&postcount=18 It sure seems like here you are embracing the potential for that to happen (even while saying theres no cooraltion between those that would steal and those that would murder elsewhere....which is it? You can't have it both ways.
4. Your example of what i never said is indeed far-reaching, however not in fact presumptuous. Y
ou are making an assumption with no factual basis to build it on. How is that not presumptuous?
5. Regarding any (therefore every) 16 year old knowing where to obtain a firearm, i agrediously disagree, and would add that most that do not have certainly not taken any obviously critical firearms training courses.
You're right, most 16 year olds haven't taken a gun safety course.... but what does that have to do with the price of sand in egypt? I was simply stating that a teenager with criminal tendencies normally doesn't have difficulty in obtaining a gun. Knowing where to get one...and knowing how to use it...are two different things entirely. Good or bad, though, most teenagers don't have any trouble acquiring guns if they are in the market for one.
6. Theft and shooting sprees, from a criminologist's perspective, are in completely different catagories. Not to get too deep, but graduate level criminologists understand that there are some that would do the former and not the latter, and quite frankly vice versa, as well.
One doesn't need a PHD to realize that there are people out there that may commit some crimes without necessarily committing all crimes. Thats just common sense. However, it is also common sense to assume that someone who has shown no respect for the law previously is likely to break the law again..... our correctional system of FULL of repeat offenders, with most prisons having revolving doors
7. Your premise regarding my belief of the oncoming reiteration of the Wild West is completely erroneous, dear sir, in fact i have no idea whatsoever where you were able to come up with that one. E
asy enough...you are imaging a crime spree triggered by guns of the same type that have existed for decades with no rational basis to do so. Potentially lethal air rifles are not a new invention, but yet, they haven't become the weapon of choice for any sort of criminal. Why would the introduction of ONE MODEL change that instantly?
8. Regarding what legislation might accomplish, the saving of one net life, perhaps????
Completely unacceptable.... Why should we restrict the freedoms of all based on a hypothetical life that "may" be saved? Laws should address a demonstrated need, and at this time, no one has demonstrated a viable reason to regulate this sort of airgun
9. If such legislation existed, one such person would also be unable to obtain a firearm, so again, you would have to consult a graduate level criminologist with the details of particular case studies.
No, actually I don't need to see case studies to draw some very simple conclusions. Every single day, felons are arrested while in possession of a firearm. Simply being unable to obtain one at the retail level doesn't mean they are "unable to obtain" firearms.
10. Gun control laws caused me a ~2 minute hoop to jump through, and there is no credibly agreed upon evidence to support the fact that gun control laws have no impact on criminal behavior. That, sir, is a theory, your opinion, and one that most distiguished stasticians disagree with. You may be correct, only time will tell, and to say anything else prior to statistical proof is naive and ignorant. Oh yeah, and theorys can not be statistically disproved- You can check on that.
http://www.thehighroad.org//editpost.php?do=editpost&p=7408799
And yet, for others, gun control is a huge PITA. Obtaining FOID cards, waiting for approveals, etc, etc etc...your 2 minutes of inconvience is hardly universal by any stretch of the imagination.....try buying a gun in Illinois for example......As far as your idea that gun control works....I've yet to see any sort of proof regarding that. yet, it is easily observed that areas like Washington DC and Chicago, which have extremely strict gun laws also suffer the highest rates of gun violence. While it may not be strictly casue and effect, can you tell me how gun control is NOT failing in these cities? Why is the gun crime rate not zero if gun control laws worked as planned, and moreso, why would the areas where lawful access to firearms is banned or at the very least discouraged by overzelous laws, be the most ravaged by crime? If guns were the source of the problems, wouldn't the cities with the highest number of gun owners be the most dangerous areas to live? Gun control is a failure, as it victimizes the law-abiding while having no effect on criminals. Therrefore, I'm against the implementation of new laws, and believe we have enough laws on the books already to deal with the misuse of firearms with new laws serving no purpose beyond what other laws can already handle