Obama on Guns

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Dari
Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

You are so full of it. The DC Gun ban was aimed at ALL GUNS. It was unlawful to at any time have a loaded functional gun (of any kind) in your home, even if you were using it to defend yourself at that moment. Furthermore the possession of even disassembled and unloaded handguns was entirely banned!

Your statement was so dishonest it boiled my blood a little bit. Yeah, DC was targeting illegal guns... one catch, they made all guns illegal. :roll:

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Dari
Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

You are so full of it. The DC Gun ban was aimed at ALL GUNS. It was unlawful to at any time have a loaded functional gun (of any kind) in your home, even if you were using it to defend yourself at that moment. Furthermore the possession of even disassembled and unloaded handguns was entirely banned!

Your statement was so dishonest it boiled my blood a little bit. Yeah, DC was targeting illegal guns... one catch, they made all guns illegal. :roll:

The law banned handguns. It did not ban rifles and shotguns.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Dari
Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

You are so full of it. The DC Gun ban was aimed at ALL GUNS. It was unlawful to at any time have a loaded functional gun (of any kind) in your home, even if you were using it to defend yourself at that moment. Furthermore the possession of even disassembled and unloaded handguns was entirely banned!

Your statement was so dishonest it boiled my blood a little bit. Yeah, DC was targeting illegal guns... one catch, they made all guns illegal. :roll:

The law banned handguns. It did not ban rifles and shotguns.

Well, it didn't ban them. You just had to keep them dissembled at all times and keep the ammo separate.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Dari
Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

You are so full of it. The DC Gun ban was aimed at ALL GUNS. It was unlawful to at any time have a loaded functional gun (of any kind) in your home, even if you were using it to defend yourself at that moment. Furthermore the possession of even disassembled and unloaded handguns was entirely banned!

Your statement was so dishonest it boiled my blood a little bit. Yeah, DC was targeting illegal guns... one catch, they made all guns illegal. :roll:

lol. Do you honestly think the people in Washington D.C. were targeting legal gun owners? I know you're not that stupid. Seriously, do you think they give a fuck about people that are using guns to protect their families or go hunting? No. In case you didn't realize it, D.C. has a huge crime problem and these people were trying to address it. The aim was not nefarious. Like I said, the criminals are taking advantage of people like you to buy guns for criminal purposes.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Statistics aside, are you in any way asserting that Washington D.C. does NOT have a reputation for being crime ridden and one of the oft-mentioned "murder capitals" of the US? Look a few posts above for some recent evidence of the ineffectiveness of the gun ban. Arguably, the 32 year span between the two figures, above, IS relevant because 32 YEARS is plenty of time for the ban to take effect and make a difference. Evidently it did not, at least for criminals.

I will, of course, not argue that the ban was ineffective at removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and we all know what kind of menace those people are.

You are attempting to use that number in a vacuum though, that's the whole problem. You have to look at ALL the things that affect murder rates. How has the economy in DC been? Has poverty increased? Racial segregation on the rise? Increase in drug trafficking? Etc... etc.

It can go both ways too, say they banned guns and then the economy in DC went through the roof and everyone got rich. Would the decrease in crime be the product of the gun ban? Of course not. I don't have the statistics for DC so I have no idea. It would appear that the gun ban has not been particularly effective, but there are just way too many factors people are ignoring.

Yet gun control nuts use the availability of guns in a vacuum every time in the debate -- the mere availability of guns will increase crime. Period. THAT'S their fundamental assertion, and it's wrong. Furthermore, it is patently obvious that the ban was a failure --rampant gun violence in DC despite 32 years of prohibition on private handgun ownership. So, if the ban is ineffective (criminals are using guns, that's irrefutable), and private citizens are clamoring for the ability to protect themselves, perhaps the gun ban is counterproductive?

What does the public have to fear from law abiding citizens with handguns if criminals already have them?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Dari
Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

You are so full of it. The DC Gun ban was aimed at ALL GUNS. It was unlawful to at any time have a loaded functional gun (of any kind) in your home, even if you were using it to defend yourself at that moment. Furthermore the possession of even disassembled and unloaded handguns was entirely banned!

Your statement was so dishonest it boiled my blood a little bit. Yeah, DC was targeting illegal guns... one catch, they made all guns illegal. :roll:

lol. Do you honestly think the people in Washington D.C. were targeting legal gun owners? I know you're not that stupid. Seriously, do you think they give a fuck about people that are using guns to protect their families or go hunting? No. In case you didn't realize it, D.C. has a huge crime problem and these people were trying to address it. The aim was not nefarious. Like I said, the criminals are taking advantage of people like you to buy guns for criminal purposes.

You keep saying "legal gun owners." Under the DC ban, there were NO legal handgun owners. The law completely revoked an individual right to own a handgun in your own home. Agree or disagree with the law but don't misstate what its practical effect was. And a bad law is a bad law regardless of its enforcement, especially when it compromises what many see as a fundamental constitutional right. We don't leave those on the books just for the hell of it. You defend the law by pointing to what the gov't was trying to accomplish. That's irrelevent. Of course the govt wants to decrease crime, they still don't get to do it by unconstitutional means. This shouldn't be a liberal/conservative divide. Common sense restrictions are all well and good, complete bans are unreasonable.

And while I'm nobody's gun nut, over the past several years of looking at gun control laws and speaking with gun owners around the country, I've definitely come a little more right on the issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Dari
Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

You are so full of it. The DC Gun ban was aimed at ALL GUNS. It was unlawful to at any time have a loaded functional gun (of any kind) in your home, even if you were using it to defend yourself at that moment. Furthermore the possession of even disassembled and unloaded handguns was entirely banned!

Your statement was so dishonest it boiled my blood a little bit. Yeah, DC was targeting illegal guns... one catch, they made all guns illegal. :roll:

lol. Do you honestly think the people in Washington D.C. were targeting legal gun owners? I know you're not that stupid. Seriously, do you think they give a fuck about people that are using guns to protect their families or go hunting? No. In case you didn't realize it, D.C. has a huge crime problem and these people were trying to address it. The aim was not nefarious. Like I said, the criminals are taking advantage of people like you to buy guns for criminal purposes.

This law has been in effect 32 years. The ban only hurts those who abide by laws. How many criminals do you believe didn't buy a gun off the street because their conscience bothered them? Johnny didn't knock off a liquor store because he had his permit denied?

You better believe that the politicians who cry for these laws make sure they have their own weapons though. You?, hey you are nobody. Do what I say, not what I do.

 

[Dari]

I understand the practical effects. But this is the problem when you're in a union. One state can do something like D.C. did while an adjacent like Virginia can be a gun owner's paradise. The Mayor of NYC tried to pass harsh anti-gun laws but the assholes simply went to Virginia, bought them, and killed people in New York. Like I said in my other thread, there needs to be strict and unforgiving laws at the federal level to stymie all these states from being safe gun-havens. That, or the people of D.C. can provide better education so that crime isn't such an attractive career opportunity.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Dari
I understand the practical effects. But this is the problem when you're in a union. One state can do something like D.C. did while an adjacent like Virginia can be a gun owner's paradise. The Mayor of NYC tried to pass harsh anti-gun laws but the assholes simply went to Virginia, bought them, and killed people in New York. Like I said in my other thread, there needs to be strict and unforgiving laws at the federal level to stymie all these states from being safe gun-havens. That, or the people of D.C. can provide better education so that crime isn't such an attractive career opportunity.

Wow

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dari
I understand the practical effects. But this is the problem when you're in a union. One state can do something like D.C. did while an adjacent like Virginia can be a gun owner's paradise. The Mayor of NYC tried to pass harsh anti-gun laws but the assholes simply went to Virginia, bought them, and killed people in New York. Like I said in my other thread, there needs to be strict and unforgiving laws at the federal level to stymie all these states from being safe gun-havens. That, or the people of D.C. can provide better education so that crime isn't such an attractive career opportunity.

Your side played that game and you lost. Period. It's over. Good riddance. There was ZERO reason why all of America needed to be punished for your faults.

I suggest you go back to plan B and work on better education. That's what you should have been doing anyway. And while you're at it, maybe you should practice what you preach and take a look at the outrageous economic inequality in DC too.

 

[Xavier434]

What I do not understand is why those who support guns make such a big deal over handguns in particularly. Handguns are the primary problem. A lot of them make arguments regarding how handguns are very good for home defense and I would agree with them on that point. However, I really do not understand why those who wish to feel secure in their homes by protecting it with a firearm cannot do the exact same job with a gun that is not so easy to conceal such as a shotgun.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What I do not understand is why those who support guns make such a big deal over handguns in particularly. Handguns are the primary problem. A lot of them make arguments regarding how handguns are very good for home defense and I would agree with them on that point. However, I really do not understand why those who wish to feel secure in their homes by protecting it with a firearm cannot do the exact same job with a gun that is not so easy to conceal such as a shotgun.

Because some people are more competent with a hand gun. I prefer a handgun over a shotgun, is there any reason I should not be permitted to own a handgun just because you feel it is unnecessary?

How many unnecessary things do you have currently?

Handguns are not the problem, the problem are bad people getting ahold of handguns, or any gun for that matter. Remember, plenty of people hold up/rob people with knives and fake bombs, should we outlaw those too?

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Dari
Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

Um dood, criminals dont follow laws. Thus they are criminals. In effect all gun legislation is aimed at legal gun owners since the criminals dont care.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What I do not understand is why those who support guns make such a big deal over handguns in particularly. Handguns are the primary problem. A lot of them make arguments regarding how handguns are very good for home defense and I would agree with them on that point. However, I really do not understand why those who wish to feel secure in their homes by protecting it with a firearm cannot do the exact same job with a gun that is not so easy to conceal such as a shotgun.

Because some people are more competent with a hand gun. I prefer a handgun over a shotgun, is there any reason I should not be permitted to own a handgun just because you feel it is unnecessary?

How many unnecessary things do you have currently?

Handguns are not the problem, the problem are bad people getting ahold of handguns, or any gun for that matter. Remember, plenty of people hold up/rob people with knives and fake bombs, should we outlaw those too?

I do not believe that owning a firearm for protection is unnecessary. I am only arguing that there are alternatives to using a concealed firearm for quality protection which still involve a gun. I agree that the true problem is that the wrong people are getting a hold of weapons. If there was a way to allow the responsible people who wish to use a concealed firearm for protection without so many of them hitting the street then I would be all for it, but so far nothing has really worked very well. I am open ears for a solution.

In regards to the competent argument, I believe that if one can learn how to be competent with a concealed firearm then they can learn to be competent with a shotgun. There is no good reason why that is not the case.

So, unless we find a really effective way to keep concealed firearms off the streets then my opinion about them will remain unchanged which is that the juice just isn't worth the squeeze since they are actively used much more by people, excluding those in the military or police force, to commit crimes than they are for protection.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Dari
Why would you consider his answer "dancing"? There is obviously a serious problem with illegal handguns in the inner city. THe D.C. gun ban was aimed at that, not legal gun owners. There is no magic bullet if we want guns in this country. The criminals are riding on the coattails of the legal owners and that's bad.

Um dood, criminals dont follow laws. Thus they are criminals. In effect all gun legislation is aimed at legal gun owners since the criminals dont care.

A lot of legislation that people want to pass would still allow you to own certain kinds of firearms to fulfill your purpose for them whether it be protection, hunting, or whatever. While that same legislation will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on these guns completely, it would make it much more difficult to get them since the supply would be very scare and there would be much more limited distribution since it would be completely run by the police force and military. There are many weapons out there which are already 100% illegal to possess unless you are a cop or in the military. You very rarely see any criminals running around with these weapons. There is a very good reason for that.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dari
I understand the practical effects. But this is the problem when you're in a union. One state can do something like D.C. did while an adjacent like Virginia can be a gun owner's paradise. The Mayor of NYC tried to pass harsh anti-gun laws but the assholes simply went to Virginia, bought them, and killed people in New York. Like I said in my other thread, there needs to be strict and unforgiving laws at the federal level to stymie all these states from being safe gun-havens. That, or the people of D.C. can provide better education so that crime isn't such an attractive career opportunity.

Your side played that game and you lost. Period. It's over. Good riddance. There was ZERO reason why all of America needed to be punished for your faults.

I suggest you go back to plan B and work on better education. That's what you should have been doing anyway. And while you're at it, maybe you should practice what you preach and take a look at the outrageous economic inequality in DC too.

My side? WTF are you talking about? I've watched my friends killed or held hostage here in NYC and near Princeton in Jersey because these thugs are running around with guns from the South. I am not on any side. I may be against gun ownership but I'm certainly not naive or stupid. Like I said elsewhere, I tried to get a gun license in NYC but it's tougher than pulling teeth. Better education would work but the problem with people in government is that their jobs are too safe. They milk it for what it's worth. That's why the whole educational system is fucked up.

While you guys talk about the romanticism about gun ownership, REAL people are dying and getting hurt. People who are just going to school or living their lives. Again, I understand where some of the people in D.C. are coming from.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
While that same legislation will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on these guns completely, it would make it much more difficult to get them since the supply would be very scare and there would be much more limited distribution since it would be completely run by the police force and military.

wow...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dari
I understand the practical effects. But this is the problem when you're in a union. One state can do something like D.C. did while an adjacent like Virginia can be a gun owner's paradise. The Mayor of NYC tried to pass harsh anti-gun laws but the assholes simply went to Virginia, bought them, and killed people in New York. Like I said in my other thread, there needs to be strict and unforgiving laws at the federal level to stymie all these states from being safe gun-havens. That, or the people of D.C. can provide better education so that crime isn't such an attractive career opportunity.

Your side played that game and you lost. Period. It's over. Good riddance. There was ZERO reason why all of America needed to be punished for your faults.

I suggest you go back to plan B and work on better education. That's what you should have been doing anyway. And while you're at it, maybe you should practice what you preach and take a look at the outrageous economic inequality in DC too.

My side? WTF are you talking about? I've watched my friends killed or held hostage here in NYC and near Princeton in Jersey because these thugs are running around with guns from the South. I am not on any side. I may be against gun ownership but I'm certainly not naive or stupid. Like I said elsewhere, I tried to get a gun license in NYC but it's tougher than pulling teeth. Better education would work but the problem with people in government is that their jobs are too safe. They milk it for what it's worth. That's why the whole educational system is fucked up.

While you guys talk about the romanticism about gun ownership, REAL people are dying and getting hurt. People who are just going to school or living their lives. Again, I understand where some of the people in D.C. are coming from.

The legal status of gun ownership has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these crime issues you cite.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Xavier434
While that same legislation will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on these guns completely, it would make it much more difficult to get them since the supply would be very scare and there would be much more limited distribution since it would be completely run by the police force and military.

wow...

Your post is neither informative or persuasive. You fail.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Xavier434
While that same legislation will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on these guns completely, it would make it much more difficult to get them since the supply would be very scare and there would be much more limited distribution since it would be completely run by the police force and military.

wow...

OMG (facepalm)

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Xavier434
While that same legislation will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on these guns completely, it would make it much more difficult to get them since the supply would be very scare and there would be much more limited distribution since it would be completely run by the police force and military.

wow...

OMG (facepalm)

Again, provide a counter argument. This country has never even so much as tried to do what I suggest and the only reason is the 2nd amendment. How do you really know that what I propose will not work?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Xavier434
While that same legislation will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on these guns completely, it would make it much more difficult to get them since the supply would be very scare and there would be much more limited distribution since it would be completely run by the police force and military.

wow...

OMG (facepalm)

Again, provide a counter argument. This country has never even so much as tried to do what I suggest and the only reason is the 2nd amendment. How do you really know that what I propose will not work?

Because many illicit drugs are more difficult to supply than guns, and yet the drug prohibition hasn't dented their supply, now has it?

I have noticed in the past that this is the most difficult bit for gun grabbers to understand. Guns are NOT modern technology. They are not difficult to manufacture, not do they have to be manufactured on a large scale as they usually are now. Basically, any 'gasoline alley' engine repair/machine shop can manufacture guns and bullets. And the components are basic items like steel, charcoal, sulfur, fertilizer (for the 'saltpeter'), etc., so govt won't even be able to regulate that effectively.
Let's also not forget that guns are highly durable, so the millions and millions already existing in private ownership are not going away. I know that I will not be turning in my guns should the govt foolishly decide to ban their ownership, and I also know that I am far from alone in that sentiment.

On top of that, this supposed limited distribution 'completely run by the police force and military' would essentially scuttle what's left of our democracy.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Vic

Because many illicit drugs are more difficult to supply than guns, and yet the drug prohibition hasn't dented their supply, now has it?

I have noticed in the past that this is the most difficult bit for gun grabbers to understand. Guns are NOT modern technology. They are not difficult to manufacture, not do they have to be manufactured on a large scale as they usually are now. Basically, any 'gasoline alley' engine repair/machine shop can manufacture guns and bullets. And the components are basic items like steel, charcoal, sulfur, fertilizer (for the 'saltpeter'), etc., so govt won't even be able to regulate that effectively.
Let's also not forget that guns are highly durable, so the millions and millions already existing in private ownership are not going away. I know that I will not be turning in my guns should the govt foolishly decide to ban their ownership, and I also know that I am far from alone in that sentiment.

On top of that, this supposed limited distribution 'completely run by the police force and military' would essentially scuttle what's left of our democracy.

If the guns would just end up being produced by people undetected on our own soil then you would be correct in the sense that it wouldn't make as big of a difference as I suggested leaving us with little choice but to spend much more of our tax payer's money to heavily increase gun control enforcement.

However, there is still one thing that remains. Even if what you said would happen exactly as you described, wouldn't the legislation which I suggested still reduce the number of guns out there as long as that legislation was coupled with stricter enforcement of finding these metal works shops that produce guns and ammo? I would think that they would be just as hard to hide as drugs are. Considering most illegal synthetic drugs are already produced outside of our borders since they are too easily detected if produced inside, I imagine concealed firearms would be in the same boat

Also, considering that concealed firearms really do not give criminals any more of an advantage over those with shotguns that wish to protect their home, I really do not see why this is an issue. It sounds more to me like people are just hiding behind the 2nd amendment because they happen to be partial to concealed weapons more so than they actually desire to protect themselves. To me, that juice isn't worth the squeeze. Again, I am all for protecting one's self and their family with guns. I just don't like this concealed weapons crap.


***EDIT***

On a side note, are there any other countries that have both tried something like this and do a good job securing their borders? If so then what was the outcome and why? That's a topic I rarely see presented during these arguments even though it is the closest thing to reality that we would have to go on assuming it exists.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Xavier434
While that same legislation will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on these guns completely, it would make it much more difficult to get them since the supply would be very scare and there would be much more limited distribution since it would be completely run by the police force and military.

wow...

OMG (facepalm)

Again, provide a counter argument. This country has never even so much as tried to do what I suggest and the only reason is the 2nd amendment. How do you really know that what I propose will not work?

Because many illicit drugs are more difficult to supply than guns, and yet the drug prohibition hasn't dented their supply, now has it?

I have noticed in the past that this is the most difficult bit for gun grabbers to understand. Guns are NOT modern technology. They are not difficult to manufacture, not do they have to be manufactured on a large scale as they usually are now. Basically, any 'gasoline alley' engine repair/machine shop can manufacture guns and bullets. And the components are basic items like steel, charcoal, sulfur, fertilizer (for the 'saltpeter'), etc., so govt won't even be able to regulate that effectively.
Let's also not forget that guns are highly durable, so the millions and millions already existing in private ownership are not going away. I know that I will not be turning in my guns should the govt foolishly decide to ban their ownership, and I also know that I am far from alone in that sentiment.

On top of that, this supposed limited distribution 'completely run by the police force and military' would essentially scuttle what's left of our democracy.

Thank you Vic, I really was speechless...

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Thank you Vic, I really was speechless...

If Vic truly is correct and I am wrong then we both can walk away from this thread learning something. I can learn that the producing these weapons is much easier than I originally anticipated which changes my position on the matter, and you can learn that the way to convince others to take your side is to be informative rather than insulting or condescending.