Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What if Massachusetts is right??

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by depicts, Mar 5, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. depicts

    depicts Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    this might get me banned from this forum, but I have to ask the question, what if Massachusetts is right about unregistered and unlicensed sales of firearms?

    I know some of you are shutting me off already, but let me say that I have been a shooter in Mass for 50 years. I have a license to carry concealed, and I have a pretty good selection of guns.

    Sometimes I have to wait a day or two to get what I buy. Sometimes certian models aren't sold here. It iritates all of us. I'd love to own some of the smaller concealed pistols that they won't sell in Mass.

    But try to look at it another way, and remember, I'm no anti-gunner by a long shot. If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??

    I know some people who I wouldn't want shooting with me, who moved out of state and purchased handguns, plenty of them. If they move back here, what's to stop them from bringing the guns with them.

    Admittedly they are criminals, so they won't mind breaking one more law. What if now their unregistered guns become very valueble for sale or trade for drugs or whatever. Now an even less trustworthy person owns the gun.

    At least in Mass, when I see someone in a gun shop buying ammo or guns, I can pretty well tell he or she isn't a dangerous felon or a wanted criminal.

    I know some of you think that the 2d ammendment gives the right to ALL people to carry and buy, even felons. Well thank you for your opinion, but I can't really buy that. If a person on drugs has taken a gun once, and robbed or shot another person, I'd say the chances of them doing it again are pretty good. I think it only makes sense to have some sort of "drivers license" for gun ownership just like we do for cars. A MUST ISSUE if you pass the test sort of thing, but really...I'd like to know that the guy buying all the AK rounds is legal.

    I was hunting one day in a bird management area, and some clown came in with a Tech 9 blasting away. I'd guess he wasn't a really experienced bird hunter. It sorta ruined my day as I didn't want to be in the woods with him and his friends.

    I know I can't be the only one who thinks some record of transactions and transfers could help stop some gun violence, without limiting our rights too much; but I may be the only one dumb enough to say so here.

    I know I'm going to get flamed real bad for saying this. I know I shouldn't even post it because so many of you will vehamently dissagree with me, I can't help myself.

    Some S&W .38 sold at a gas station in the South or South West without registration turning up in a robbery at a Stop and Rob in New England isn't my idea of the best laid plan. If all you folks who holler about the freedom to buy and posess guns for whatever reason, can give the world a few good ideas how we could stop the A##Holes, not the M???????s, from getting guns, I'd be right behind you.

    OK gang, let me have it!!!! :confused: (Heading for cover)
     
  2. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Explain why the "problems" are in MA (and other highly restrictive states) and not in those other states.
     
  3. KriegHund

    KriegHund Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Colorado, Broomfield
    If you could get rid of all unregistered guns in the US and never let any unregistered ones come in, ever, then it might work.

    But its too unrealistic right now, and will probably never be a viable option.
     
  4. depicts

    depicts Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Henry, good question

    Henry, are you telling me there is no gun crime in states that have no gun laws? No robberies, home invasions, carjackings? Where is that state?
     
  5. MikeJackmin

    MikeJackmin Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,516
    I hope you don't get flamed for this - it's a fair question, and I think you are entitled to a thoughtful answer.

    Personally, I see gun rights as being similar to the right to free speech - some reasonable restrictions (libel, copyrights, state secrets, and so on) are fair, so long as there is both a compelling need, and a minimum of harm done.

    However, I have a big problem with the incremental erosion of these rights, especially when the courts have been so reluctant to draw a firm line for us. Too many of these reasonable-sounding restrictions are just incremental steps towards a total ban.

    My bottom line is that some states - Vermont, I think, is one, and Utah another - have essentially no gun laws at all, and enjoy low crime rates, while strict gun laws seem to have little actual social benifit. This makes it easy for me to be something of an absolutist. I have lots to lose, and little to gain, even when something that sounds reasonable is proposed.

    In a perfect world, I'd be happy to trade a day's inconvienience for a safer society. However, I certainly won't trade it for an increased risk of future gun bans and no improvement in the crime rate.
     
  6. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    Even if banning guns would reduce crime to zero, I refuse to let them be banned.


    It is my right to own them, carry them, etc.



    Interesting topic, though.
     
  7. depicts

    depicts Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    MikeJackman

    Mike, Vermont makes me scratch my head! Why does the lack of any gun laws work so well there? Is it becausse of the thin statewide population...lots of space and not many people? Is it the long winters with people stuck in their huses burning wood and waiting for summer? Is it the lack of many big cities? Could it be the lack of various large ethnic groups? I wonder what the demographics/economics/geography of the state teaches us that would apply everywhere else?
     
  8. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,389
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Nope. We're telling you that there is not no gun crime in states that have "strict" gun laws. We are telling you there is not no robberies, home invasions, carjackings in those states.

    And we are telling you that there is less "gun crime" in states that have liberalized concealed carry laws and less restrictive gun laws.

    We are also challenging the presumption that when they say, "We're from the government and we're here to help you" that they're telling the truth. Gun laws are not meant to increase public safety -- they're meant to penalize and punish people for being politically incorrect, and to extend the power of government.
     
  9. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,389
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have ruled out everything else, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth."

    Or to put it simply, gun control doesn't make the streets safer. It doesn't reduce crime. No matter how much gun control you have, the bad guys are armed. Only the solid citizens are restricted from bearing arms. States with less gun control have less crime because the honest citizens are able to defend themselves.
     
  10. asknight

    asknight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,298
    The cold hard fact is that you'll never, ever be able to keep criminals from obtaining weapons. No matter how many laws you pass trying to keep that from happening, you'll fail. The cure is to punish the act of the crime, not because someone is "equipped to do the crime." There are numerous people, towns, cities, states, and even foreign countries who can't grasp the concept that firearms is just something we're going to have to live with. You sound like one of those. One of those who thinks that by limiting law-abiding citizens in some way will limit crime. You couldn't be more wrong.

    "I know some of you think that the 2d ammendment gives the right to ALL people to carry and buy, even felons. Well thank you for your opinion, but I can't really buy that."

    If you can't buy that, then can you buy the fact that if they're enough of a criminal then perhaps they shouldn't be on the street in the first place? If they haven't repaid their debt to society, why are they on the street procuring weapons, making law-abiding gun owners look like savage criminals?
     
  11. depicts

    depicts Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Vern,the simple answer

    Vern, it can't be that simple. I wish it was. At one time I believed it was myself. I am thankful I have a CCW and the tools to protect my family, but That just means I can take care of myself, which I think we all need to do. It doesn't keep the little shop down the street from getting robbed. I agree too, that if you took away all the guns, the scum would rob with knives or sticks or as we had happen here recently, kill a women with a frying pan to the head. She should have had a gun. But that being said, can't wwe find a better way to do it?
     
  12. depicts

    depicts Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Asknight

    Not only do I accept the fact that there will be guns, I relish the fact! I'm a gun lover, have been since the first day I walked into Sears with my Dad when I was 5 and saw all the beautiful blue handguns at eye level in the display case. I encourage ownership, and encourage people around me to get licensed and train themselves.

    On the other hand, I have known people personally who did jail time for some pretty serious stuff. As soon as they got out, they got right back into it. Their debt to society was paid. They didn't have to pick up guns and drugs and start robbing again. It was their choice, and that's the only reason that I say SOME felons can't be trusted with legal weapons.

    Heck I'm not perfect, I've made a mistake or two in my life that I wouldn't want held against me forever, but some people never seem to learn...it's them I'm worried about!
     
  13. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,389
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Why not? There IS a positive correlation between crime and gun control -- the more gun control, the more crime.

    States which have enacted "shall issue" laws have seen crime drop -- and that's more than 2/3s of the states.

    Alaska has adopted "Vermont carry" and Wyoming is seriously debating it.


    How about we follow the Constitution? Everyone who can vote can carry. People who commit felonies get locked up for a long time, lose the right to vote and carry. And if we catch them carrying again, lock them up even longer.

    Everyone else is free to do as they like.
     
  14. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,040
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    The question isn't "what if {gun bigoted jurisdiction of choice} is right?" but "HOW can {gun bigoted jurisdiction of choice} be right?"

    What would they have to do to fully realize their utopian premise, and would I want to live in that society?
     
  15. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,389
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Imagine if this question was, "What if Hitler was right?":rolleyes:
     
  16. The Goose

    The Goose Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    Burlington. MA
    Depicts, as a fellow MA resident I would like to respectfully respond to your question. You sound like a good man and I have no intention of flaming you. However, choosing MA as an example for any sort of "reasonable" firearms regulation is absurd.

    You live in one of the most restrictive states in the US and yet you mention the use of a Tech 9 in a bird management area. I guess the AG's restrictions did not help much there?

    Do states with more "lenient" gun laws have less firearms related crimes? The answer is no.

    The answer to firearms related crimes is never imposing more laws on law abiding citizens, but lies in punishing the criminals who commit crimes with firearms.

    I remember the early 60's when JFK was assasinated and the big push on gun contol began. It was all posed as reasonable and fair. The stated goal was not to hurt the responsible and legal shooter and hunter, but to restrict the criminal element. Every attempt at any form of gun control since that time has been a complete and utter failure. "Reasonable" gun control went out the window a long, long time ago. That bird has flown!

    Overall, MA laws are a travesty and have only led to increasingly higher violent crime rates. I certainly agree that I do not want gangbangers having legal access to firearms, but there is no evidence to support that restricting law abiding citizens will have any impact on that problem.

    I understand your concerns, but feel that you are a bit off track. Again, I say that respectfully and in the spirit of debate.
     
  17. denfoote

    denfoote Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,622
    Location:
    Near the border of occupied Azlan and Mexico.
    Another fact.

    Is that gun control has very little to do with crime control or prevention.
    It might even be said that there is little or no correlation between the two.
    It DOES have EVERYTHING to do with people control.
    Mao Tse Dong once said "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun and that gun must never be allowed to fall from the grasp of the Communist Party."

    Liberals believe that. They (The Liberal/Socialist ruling class) fear an armed populace because their guns might be turned against the masters.
     
  18. Husker1911

    Husker1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    993
    Location:
    La Vista, NE. Alright, Lincoln on Game day Saturda
    Depicts, "If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??"

    Are you referring to private party sales? Otherwise, ALL licensed firearms dealers are required to keep "records" of all sales. If you're referring to states that don't allow private party sales, except through licensed dealers, then aren't you (by inferrence) still regulating law abiding citizens?

    If some form of gun control works, why don't we first require that it be proven by controlling the guns the criminals obtain? I hope this isn't considered flaming you. Regards from the Cornhusker state, which, BTW, STILL doesn't allow law abiding citizens the right to concealed carry!
     
  19. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    Depicts, the problem is very simple - you, and the Mass government, are focusing on the instrument rather than the user of that instrument. It matters not whether you ban handguns, long guns, knives, spears, bows & arrows, clubs, etc. - the bad guys will ALWAYS find either a banned item, or an alternative, with which to carry out their crimes. Even in a maximum-security prison (such as the one I've worked in for some years), incarcerated inmates will manufacture weapons out of toothbrushes, air-conditioning plastic vents, old lengths of sheet twisted into strangulation cords, etc. - and these are guys who have only one another to fear!

    The instrument is not to blame. You or I, as certified "good guys", can buy guns to our hearts' content, use them responsibly, care for them, and never do any wrong with them - but that's not the guns' responsibility, it's ours, as responsible gun owners. Exactly the same gun, in the hands of a hardened criminal, can wreak irreparable harm - but it's still not the gun's fault, it's the responsibility of the guy using it.

    To make guns (or any other weapon) more difficult (or impossible) to obtain disarms only those who are responsible citizens and will obey the law. Those restrictions won't slow down the bad guys for a moment. They'll obtain either the banned or restricted items, or an alternative, and carry right on doing what they're doing. That's why states with the strictest weapons restrictions also have the highest crime rates - they disarm those who need to defend themselves, thereby emboldening the predators in their midst.
     
  20. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Laws don't prevent crime. Never have. Never will.

    Laws empower law enforcement officers to arrest people and courts to try them and send them to prison if found guilty.

    Laws do nothing to alter the behavior of law-breakers. They impinge only upon the law-abiding.

    Massachusetts is a classic example of a monstrously intrusive, powerful state that has sacrificed the civil rights of the law-abiding in the name of controlling law-breakers. It has done little or nothing to control the law-breakers; indeed, it's clear the state has a vested interest in sustaining the level of violent crime to keep the law-abiding frightened and willing to surrender additional civil rights.

    You couldn't pay me to live in such a socialist hell hole.
     
  21. LooseGrouper

    LooseGrouper Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    225
    It all boils down to personnal responsibility. The criminal and only the criminal is responsible for the crime.

    Suppose we did take this course of action. All us good ole boys decided to register our guns. Some still get up to MA or NY or DC or wherever due to theft or other nefarious methods. Well, the next logical step is to make certain types of guns illegal. Then when that doesn't work because criminals are improvising and using the legal weapons or stolen "grandfathered" weapons it becomes obvious that the only thing to do is start confiscating and banning all weapons to include glass bottles and pointy kitchen knives. Hey, it's worked in Europe.

    I don't mean to flame you, but I refuse to toss my liberty onto that slippery slope so someone somewhere can try another experiement with what has continually proved to be a flawed hypothesis.

    The answer is to give everybody equal footing. We shouldn't be thinking of ways to keep guns out of the hands of everybody that might wanted to go and rob a Mom & Pop. We should be finding ways to get guns into the hands of Mom and Pop.

    LG

    BTW, Vern, I might agree you on "People who commit felonies get locked up for a long time, lose the right to vote and carry" if it can be ammended to VIOLENT felony. There seems to be a trend of making everything a felony these days.
     
  22. p230

    p230 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    depicts,

    The main reason I would oppose it is I don't think such a program would ever be cover what it was intented to do. I know it would probably not stop the vast majority of illegal sales anyway. If you already have a felony and want to get rid of a gun/buy one you can find one. It would only encourage a black market. If we lived in Iceland or a similarly isolated country this might be possible. USA is too big, too many firearms allready and too many people who feel so strongly about this that they would just ignore it.
    Another problem is that anytime government gets into something like this there is always "fees" for the service and the fees can be used to keep people from getting them, eg no new full auto registration. I guess we as responsible gun owners will just have to keep working to keep guns out of criminal hands, I buy as many as I can afford.
     
  23. gezzer

    gezzer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,052
    Location:
    NH
    You sound like the typical Elit, I'm ok to have firearms but I am not sure of every one else.

    Do us a favor stay in MA.
     
  24. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    Clueless or selfish?

    We have someone who purports to be a gun-owner for half a century, yet who cannot fathom the futility of anti-gun laws. Are we to take these queries seriously? Some glaring examples:

    " If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??"

    First, ALL sales through an FFL are registered on 4473s and many (if not most) states, including Massachusetts, require filing forms for even private sales. So, your assertion of "no record of the transfer is largely false. Second, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, in what way are the restrictions you accept, if not actively seek, protecting anyone from anything?

    "I know some people who I wouldn't want shooting with me, who moved out of state and purchased handguns, plenty of them. If they move back here, what's to stop them from bringing the guns with them [?]."

    Nothing. While this will obviously be hard for you to grasp, the mere fact that someone "moved out of state" is not a criminal act. Further, buying a gun in the new state of residence is NOT illegal and neither is bringing one's own property with one when moving to another state. Whatever guns a person owned prior to moving to Mass. they can bring with them when they (are stupid enough to) come - EXCEPT "post-ban, large capacity" magazines.

    "Admittedly they are criminals, so they won't mind breaking one more law."

    Thus admitting the utter failure of your exalted gun laws........:uhoh:

    "What if now their unregistered guns become very valueble [sic] for sale or trade for drugs or whatever. Now an even less trustworthy person owns the gun."

    So the mere fact that someone moves to Mass. with a previously acquired gun automatically makes it a criminal's gun? Can you say non sequitur? Suuuuuuuuure, you can!

    You fail to grasp the fact that the gun laws proposed by Mumbles Menino which you now proffer as some sort of cure for crime are documented FAILURES.
    They failed in D.C., they failed in New York, they will fail in 'Frisco just as they failed even in England and Japan, which are ISLAND NATIONS. That means customs checks for everyone coming in. Perhaps you want strip-searches....

    Your arguments are as specious as your claims to have had your bird hunting disrupted by someone with a Tech-9. You are, at best, yet another hunter willing to whore out everyone's firearms rights in the delusion that your over-under will be spared; at worst, you are completely clueless. Which is it?:scrutiny:
     
  25. Igloodude

    Igloodude Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    733
    Location:
    southern NH
    Depicts,
    What if Massachusetts isn't right? :uhoh:

    Anyway, you ask:

    Do you think the unavailability of the smaller concealed pistols has reduced crime in Mass?

    What keeps the guns out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers in Boston, or NYC, or Chicago, or DC?

    Are those people felons? Because if they aren't, they won't be stopped from owning handguns in Mass, either.

    What if they break "one more law" and file off the serial numbers on the guns, then sell them?

    It seems to me that even Massachusetts' more restrictive gun laws are simply an inconvenience to Boston criminals, and I assume you're aware of the fact that despite Mayor Menino's statements, more than half of illegally-possessed guns in Massachusetts originated in Massachusetts. That being the case, I fail to see why law-abiding citizens should be inconvenienced purely so criminals can be inconvenienced as well.

    Interesting question, though - thanks for provoking some discussion about it. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page