• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

One benefit of restrictive gun laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
This whole argument is absurd and rivals:

"One benefit of forcing Jews to wear the Star of David on their backs is you can find a Rabbi quicker when you need one."
"One benefit of not letting women vote is shorter lines at polling places."

Go take your gun grabbing back to the DUngheap.
 
glock? We are diametrically opposed on this issue. I do not expect to change your mind, but I would like for you to use it on these questions for me. I do not need an answer. I just offer ideas.

How much money should we charge for a ccw permit? should the poor be provided it free with a "paupers oath" or some such, as a lawyer is?

Columbine. What do you think would have happened to the body count if the teachers had been armed?

What makes you think I should approve your ownership of an AR15? I have no interest in them.

Criminals, break laws with major punishments like life in prison, or ten years locked up. How can you expect them to obey a lesser law, with minimal punishments?

Last, but not least IF TWO PERCENT of the people in this country were legally armed, how many mass shootings, and "drive bys" would we have.

We are being disarmed, one inch at a time. If I do not stand up for your right to own an AR15, I can not expect you to stand up for me and my plastic keltec, in my jacket pocket. (FWIW, I do stand up for you, and the guys that want a .50, or a full auto. In spite of the fact they are not of importance to me.)

I think we have one very wonderful gun control law. I have it as my signature line. I think it should be enforced vigorously and as it was written.
 
In other words, as long as you're not prohibited from owning firearms, then you're not prohibited from owning NFA firearms.
Click to expand...

In point of fact, this is the case today. Perhaps you mean you wish the process for buying NFA weapons was the same as that for buying any other type of weapon, in which case I agree.
 
In point of fact, this is the case today. Perhaps you mean you wish the process for buying NFA weapons was the same as that for buying any other type of weapon, in which case I agree.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I'm not down with the safe storage laws either, get out of my bedroom big brother.
 
Yup, that's pretty much what I meant. I do however, think that gun dealers would have to be extra vigilant and on the lookout for straw buyers. I think, if NFA weapons could be bought as easily as regular firearms, we'd see a jump in straw purchase attempts. Mostly, I'd like to see the fee go away. These weapons are expensive enough without adding $200.00 or whatever the fee is today.
 
Meh... Even if you could go down to the local gun shop and pick up a MP5 for $1000 bucks, I doubt bad guys and crooks with opt for such weapons. They usually prefer cheap, small concealable guns that are gonna be easy to dispose of. Even in Cali, you can purchase some pretty powerful stuff at the gun shop, yet you never here about M1A's or 1187's being used in crime..

Only a complete moron would go through legal channels to purchase an expensive gun, and then use it to mug people and rob 7-11's. For those purposes, a $90 Hi-Point would work just fine.
 
I am opposed to any permission slip, from government at any level, for anyone, or any weapon, or any method of carry. They are redundant at best, and ridiculous on occasion. We already have laws against criminal acts.

Big al?
I think we are almost on the same page,,, except, Where in THIS law does it prohibit straw man purchases?
 
That's just it, if all gun sales were based on the 2nd amendment only, there would be no such thing as strawman purchases. There wouldn't be any need for it.

Thing is, as much as many of us may like to, there's just no way we're going back to the 2nd amendment as the "ONLY" gun control law in this country. At least, it's not likely to happen in my life time. After all, it took us 200+ years to get were we are today. It's most likely going to take at least that long to turn back the clock.

That's just the way it is...unfortunately.
 
Error . . . Error . . . Tilt!

Ahhh . . . no. Unless I read this wrong, it equates possession (ownership) of an object with commission of an act.

Originally Posted by Glockfan.45
perhaps we should repeal any laws on the books regarding, murder or rape
Click to expand...

Owning a knife is not murdering with a knife. Murder is illegal. And wrong. Rape is illegal. And wrong. Possessing the means to commit rape would immediately criminalize all men of the male persuasion.

I don't have a problem with a process that makes it rough for already-identified bad people to own arms. Of any kind. If you are on parole for voluntary manslaughter, you shouldn't have access to guns, bow & arrow, large knives, broken bottles, rope, poison, your bare hands, or anything else that's ever been used in the commission of a violent crime. I guess I left out boots. And piano wire. And acid. And baseball bats.

Okay, that's a little over the top, but it's this: make life hard on the guys who commit the crimes. No slack. Do it again and you're gone. Make available a path back to full citizenship, with all rights, for those who can get through the rehabilitation process. Repeat offenders go away for good.

Give the first time offender something to live for and something to lose.

Lay off the decent citizen. Presumption of innocence. Want a gun? Go ahead! Want a machine gun? Special training required, but go ahead! Pistols? Revolvers? Rifles? Shotguns? Go ahead. You are the backbone of this country, and we depend on you to keep it safe.

Commit a crime with any of those guns? No problem. You get the SAME TREATMENT as any other criminal. Murder with a knife? You're now a felon. Murder with a beer stein? Felon. Murder with a gun? Felon.

Law abiding citizens and fully restored citizens? Own whatever you like.

By the way: buy a weapon for a known felon? You lose. So much for your untarnished citizenship.

Good guys = no restrictions. Bad guys = ball and chain.
 
Last edited:
Glockfan.45 said:
The majority are theft and straw purchases. If I am correct I believe safes are required by owners of NFA weapons (please correct me if I am wrong here) safes wont prevent 100% of theft but it would make a large impact. As for straw purchases do you think Uncle Mike would be willing to buy a gun for his nephew Joe (who is a convicted felon) if he had to go through the process of obtaining a class III weapon? Once again not all straw purchases would be blocked by this but I think its safe to say a fair majority would be.
Click to expand...

The flaw in this argument lies not in the immediate but rather the future. It lacks foresight. You are assuming that because straw-purchases are CURRENTLY the way criminals obtain guns, that it will continue to be true after time passes.

That's an assumption I'd be wary to make.

Let's take alcohol for instance. Most kids currently get alcohol by having a "straw purchaser" get some for them. So let's regulate the sales further and make it truly onerous to get a hold of a bottle of Jack "for the children's sake". Are you trying to tell me that no criminal enterprise would spring up to fill the void? I've got a great wikipedia article that may shed some light on that...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

However, to directly address gun control, we may look to Britain. They live among the toughest gun laws in the world. And though their murder rate is (and for the most part always has been) lower than ours...gun crimes have risen since the ban from the very mouth of the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/3761782.stm (this one laughably chalks it up to "replicas" though...even though other articles such as these ones demonstrate that these replica's shoot bullets...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/bh/1367048.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Now let's continue on to your argument about NFA. It's your contention that NFA weapons haven't been used in crimes because of the severe restrictions. However, you fail to address adequately the fact that crimes with fully automatic weapons occur in gang related shootings quite frequently. You attempted to argue that most of these were illegally converted? Then explain this...
http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/23/china.arms/
those all came from china...are you going to tell me that it's "reasonable" to assume that this was the only shipment of AK-47s made? and they gave up when these were seized?
 
Glockfan.45 said:
Lets be honest and face facts, If anyone could walk into a gun shop today and buy a $300 Mac-10 without the intensive process we have today for full auto ownership you would see alot more gangbangers pulling drive bys with them.
Click to expand...
The fact is that criminals tend to be less dangerous with full-auto than with semi-auto. Even burst fire is a compromise that trades accuracy for somewhat faster firing of the burst (thus a slightly higher probability of hitting the intended target per unit time, but lower probability per bullet). Accuracy is what I worry about in an armed psychotic. Armed psychotics tend to have limited ammo and attack in gun-free zones, so they are not pressed for time, and are most dangerous if they make every bullet count.

From a criminal's perspective, burst fire might make sense against armed individuals like police and ccwers, but that's it. And anyone who has enough training to fire bursts (much less full-auto) accurately probably has better things to do than go on a shooting spree or take part in a drive-by.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top