That's pretty wrong. A criminal breaks one or more laws, not all laws. To say that someone wouldn't follow gun control laws because they have committed a different crime is not good reasoning.
Also, gun control legislation does not by definition violate the 2nd amendment. All amendments are subject to restriction, so it's not really deserving of your hyperbole.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
Your recollection of that thread is certainly seen through some rose colored glasses. It ended with 3-5 other gun enthusiasts laughing at your impossible claims, and you leaving the thread to save face. I'm not really sure how to find the thread, since it's mixed in with all the other 8 page gun control circle jerks this forum has twice a month.
I think you missed the point. Gun control laws certainly don't stop people determined to obtain a gun to commit a gun crime, but not all criminals who commit crimes with guns do so as part of a master plan as many crimes are crimes of opportunity.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Who said anything about some whacky "master plan"? The main point here is that additional gun-control laws will not stop real criminals from committing crimes; which begs the question of the real purpose for those laws. What purpose could they possibly serve if they make absolutely no impact on crime rates?
You still don't seem to understand. Many crimes are crimes of opportunity using the tools you have available to you. While you might not have had the intention of breaking the law 6 hours ago, you intend to do it now. Since you didn't want to break the law in the past, you didn't illegally obtain a gun because it would have served no purpose. If you had a gun with you now that you want to break the law, you would use it, but since you don't have the gun, you don't use one.
Many people decide on criminal action in an instant or a very short period of time, the fact that they couldn't get a gun legally to begin with could most certainly affect what tools they use in this criminal action.
Would gun owners object to the private selling of guns made illegal unless it is put in an intermediary (gun shops)? I'm sure gun shops wouldn't mind as they'll probably make a commission. So you'd have to do the transaction in a gun shop where the background check would occur.
I don't think any of us cares what a Brit thinks about US laws. You can't vote in our elections, and we don't care for your opinion.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Would you mind if they passed a law saying you can't sell your house unless you go through a real estate broker, or your car without going through a dealership?
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,598
- 998
- 126
That's how we do it in my state. Seems to work just fine and I've never heard any gun stores complaining.
Crack heads don't go home, google for the nearest gun show, drive to it, buy a gun, drive back, then drive to your house to steal your TV.
They grab a rock and smash a window.
Instead of creating more and more laws, how about you enforce the ones you have on the books already? The ATF's job is to check on the gun dealers and such, but in the last 10 years the number of agents assigned to this task has not changed, even though there are more dealers than ever.
Passing more legistlation is a feel good measure that doesn't accomplish anything but punish the law abiding if you don't enforce the laws.
The ultimate issue is not with guns, but with the people that use them for illicit reasons. Fix the underlaying problem that causes crime.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
The ATF stepped on their own dicks, which is why they haven't gotten more funding. They've thumbed their noses to Congress continually, so they slashed their budget. Started around 1991 when they started buying scanners and it came to light they were scanning all 4473s during inspections.
Congress told them to stop, they didn't, so cut their budget in future years by the amount of equipment they had purchased.
Throwing more money at a problem isn't always the solution. Not to mention they've lost more firearms and laptops than other agencies like the FBI and DEA. To the tune of 200% more, and they are significantly smaller.
bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
w/ all due respect, your state (CA) has some of the most f*cked up gun laws in the country though....at least if what you show in your profile is correct. may want to take a look @ this list for those in your state that stand against you having a weapon but have ccw themselves.....
not trying to sound arrogant, but a lot of you people don't really know what true gun ownership is, just what you have been allowed through your state. spend time in a free state. i think about the only area AZ is lacking is non-permit concealed carry - allow it already.
and just like JeffreyLebowski stated, enforce the laws on the books. there are more than enough of them already, and enforce them across the board, not letting celebrities get away w/ sh!t.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...onal/main4454380.shtml
They don't even follow their own rules. Guns getting stolen or lost, and they don't report it. You think you'd get a pass if you did the same thing as a lowly citizen?
Not that I don't think the ATF serves a legitimate purpose. They do. But there is room for major improvement in how they handle things.
Lots of incompetence. It is not nearly as up to par as the FBI or other law enforcement agencies, and they should be.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I think the most pathetic part of this entire argument is the irrational risk assessment. Too many people hear "gun" and stop thinking. Recently, there was a thread about someone babysitting for someone else, and the others refused to send their kids over because the babysitter had a locked gun in the house. What anyone with a reasonable amount of risk assessment should be saying is "I'm not letting Johnny play at your house any more, because you have a swimming pool", not "I"m not letting Johnny play at your house because you have a locked gun." The sensationalism about gun crimes has really clouded people's judgments about relative risks.
And, your crap about "highly regulated and lethal item" - FAR more cars kill people in the United States each year than guns. The bullshit type of language you're using " highly regulated and lethal item" - that's just an emotional response that shows you have an agenda. Should people do a background check before selling their used cars? Which is more likely - selling a gun at nearly retail value to someone who later uses it in a crime? Or selling a car to someone with a drinking problem who later is involved in a DWI accident? There are several hundred million guns in the U.S. right now. What percent of all guns are used in crimes?
These are the same points used over and over again. Except let's look at this. What is the purpose of a car? Of all the things that a CAR is used to do, and what we use it for, where does "running people over" stand? Somewhere near the bottom of the list because there are probably 10,000 other things we use and choose to use our car for. Now what is a GUN used for? Self defense? Self defense by what? Having the ability to kill. We have plenty of regulation on cars, and we track transfers of vehicles, so why can't we track guns and have background checks? This once again has NOTHING to do with taking your firearm away.
I own property. If I want to sell my property to you, it's none of anyone else's business. Private sales are completely legal. To me it's no different than if I wanted to sell you land, an air compressor, a vehicle, a horse, or anything else I want to sell to you. It's my property and it's going to become your property.
Do I need to document that in any way? Nope. Should I need to get approval from someone else to make sure you are 'good'? Silly. Would I want to document it in some way? Perhaps, but that is between me and you, and nobody else.
Do I need to document that in any way? Nope. Should I need to get approval from someone else to make sure you are 'good'? Silly. Would I want to document it in some way? Perhaps, but that is between me and you, and nobody else.
- Jul 13, 2005
- 5,623
- 3
- 81
You're right. Selling someone a gun is no different than selling them a pen or school bus. You shouldn't even bother checking their background. In fact, may I suggest that you start selling more guns to people sans background checks? Like - all the time? Maybe in some sort of mobile capacity - like a van or the trunk of a car?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter