Obama on Guns

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 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.

Do you know in VT there are NO restrictions on carrying handguns? I had half a dozen under my coat when I went plinking on a frozen lake. Sat down at a diner and had lunch with them. So with virtually unlimited access, VT should have a higher crime rate than those places where strict laws are in effect. Well, no.

You see in VT, it's considered wrong to shoot someone. Not limited access to weapons, it's just recognized as something you aren't supposed to do.

Conversely, in a culture where life is cheap, lack of firearms (and you are going to have to work hard to convince me that criminals are going to surrender their weapons of choice) is no problem. It's nothing to make a bomb, or use a knife. Well you could register knives or seize them as well, and that's not going to do squat about the acceptability of murder or crime in general.

Rather than taking guns away from responsible citizens, perhaps it would be more effective to stand on a soap box in DC and tell people what is right and what is wrong. You might get bludgeoned by a baseball bat for all your efforts though.

 

[Vic]

Reducing the total number of handguns (assuming that would be successful) would not address the issue of keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

The issue here is that guns are NOT the problem here. Liberals do themselves a grave disservice when they take up this issue of banning gun ownership and thus provide ammo (no pun intended) for the conservatives to attack them with. And the great irony there is that banning gun ownership isn't even a cause that liberals should support.

Good post, Hayabusa Rider :thumbsup: I have got to visit VT someday. It sounds like my kind of place.

 

[Xavier434]

Well, you guys might very well be correct. Still, I would like to see an example of a country that really did try. It seems like everyone has some good justifiable arguments on both sides, but no one really has much to back it up with in terms of historical experience. Perhaps such knowledge could really set the record straight. I mean, I like educated theories as much as the next guy and I realize that there are times where we are left with no choice but to rely on them, but in this case is there truly nothing else to go on?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Perhaps I am missing something here. What I am reading into this whole thing is that Obama has always been a supporter of stricter gun control due to their illegal usage on the streets, but he never stated himself that he believed that the DC handgun ban was constitutional back in Febuary. Today, he still supports stricter gun control and has stated himself this time that he has not taken sides regarding the DC ban. To me, that sounds like nothing has changed.

I want to know how "stricter laws" will prevent people from breaking said laws. A criminal by definition is someone who BREAKS laws.
Regulating firearms is only a feel good measure and an attempt at controlling law ABIDING citizens.

Any other way the anti-gun crowd puts it, that's what it is. Gun crime rates are higher in DC now than they were before the ban. Gun crime in Chicago is higher now than it was before their ban. It doesn't work. Spending money, time, and resources on law abiding citizens doesn't tackle the problem. CRIMINALS.

Gun rights people understand this. They understand that guns aren't the problem. The problem is the asshole who breaks into a house to steal my TV and is willing to kill me to get my TV.

If I hear the bullshit it's for the children, you better start banning vehicles because more kids are killed in auto accidents every year than by guns. And on a magnitude much much higher. And by kids, I mean real, innocent children. Not the padded stats the Brady group uses that includes "kids" under 18 that were killed in gang related events and were not innocent little babies. In reality, fewer than 100 real children are killed by firearms in this country every year in accidents. A much, much higher number are killed in gang related activities, and if they weren't killed by a gun, they'd be killed by a knife.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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.

But it did nothing to stop the crime, it only elevated it because the criminals knew they weren't going to get shot at by people in their own home.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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.

So the home is the ONLY place a person is allowed to defend themselves? Or are you ok with me slinging my shotgun over my shoulder and taking it with me everywhere I go? If you're ok with it, then so am I. If not, you have your answer as to why handguns are important.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are 100% wrong. They are used at least as often for lawful defense as for criminal action. Then there's all the other uses (target shooting, etc). When you add it all up guns do more neutral and good than bad.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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 what you propose would victimize as many people again as are currently victimized by illegal gun crimes. Right now those people act in their own defense, but stripped of that ability they would become victims.

Furthermore you overlook how absolutely dedicated gun owners are to their own defense. If you attempt to implement a national ban there will be armed revolution. It would be the bloodiest chaos this nation has ever known.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 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.

The uk banned guns, and their crime (including gun crime) has risen. Australia is suffering much the same now. They are islands, one small, one large, so one has to assume it would be much easier to secure their borders. While the overall numbers are lower, the fact that it's rising is troubling.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

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.

But it did nothing to stop the crime, it only elevated it because the criminals knew they weren't going to get shot at by people in their own home.

That has already been discussed. I'm guessing it was a frustrating move.

 

[Xavier434]

Sheesh, a lot of you really need to read whole threads before quoting and replying. Most of your concerns about my previous posts have already been well covered by those who are much less biased and far more informative.

In regards to this post:

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The uk banned guns, and their crime (including gun crime) has risen. Australia is suffering much the same now. They are islands, one small, one large, so one has to assume it would be much easier to secure their borders. While the overall numbers are lower, the fact that it's rising is troubling.

Did they ban all guns or just concealed weapons? I am looking for examples of those who only banned concealed weapons here.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Sheesh, a lot of you really need to read whole threads before quoting and replying. Most of your concerns about my previous posts have already been well covered by those who are much less biased and far more informative.

In regards to this post:

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The uk banned guns, and their crime (including gun crime) has risen. Australia is suffering much the same now. They are islands, one small, one large, so one has to assume it would be much easier to secure their borders. While the overall numbers are lower, the fact that it's rising is troubling.

Did they ban all guns or just concealed weapons? I am only talking concealed weapons here.

Gotcha. As far as I know very few countries (if any) have a concealed weapon system like ours. That would make a comparison impossible.

It's important to remember: crime and injury/deaths was rising steadily without a concealed weapon program in America. The concealed carry rules began about 40 years ago. You'll notice crimes and injury/death have been steadily declining since them.

States like VT, with absolutely no restrictions on firearms (in fact they allow 16yr olds to carry concealed with no licensing requirement) have the lowest crime and injury/death levels.

More people carry concealed now than ever before, yet crime and injury/death are still declining. Multiple studies have shown that concealed carry holders are statistically safer than even police officers.

My point is that your attempt to focus on concealed carry has no actual support. I can appreciate you trying to think out of the box, but you have to address the actual problems and be able to make a supportable argument. Crimes and injury/death are a cultural and SES issue. That's been more or less proven true. That means we should focus on making cultural changes and mitigating SES impacts, not focusing on weapons.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: 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.

nice ownage.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Gotcha. As far as I know very few countries (if any) have a concealed weapon system like ours. That would make a comparison impossible.

It's important to remember: crime and injury/deaths was rising steadily without a concealed weapon program in America. The concealed carry rules began about 40 years ago. You'll notice crimes and injury/death have been steadily declining since them.

States like VT, with absolutely no restrictions on firearms (in fact they allow 16yr olds to carry concealed with no licensing requirement) have the lowest crime and injury/death levels.

More people carry concealed now than ever before, yet crime and injury/death are still declining. Multiple studies have shown that concealed carry holders are statistically safer than even police officers.

My point is that your attempt to focus on concealed carry has no actual support. I can appreciate you trying to think out of the box, but you have to address the actual problems and be able to make a supportable argument. Crimes and injury/death are a cultural and SES issue. That's been more or less proven true. That means we should focus on making cultural changes and mitigating SES impacts, not focusing on weapons.

I agree and I think that is why I chose to stick my neck out with this one. I knew I would get a lot of negative feedback but my goal was to try and further pin point the actual problem. It's easy to point fingers at the people. It's easy to point fingers at the guns. It's easy to point fingers at gun control quality. It's easy to point fingers at a combination of those three. It is HARD to come up with some real concrete examples of why a particular solution will or will not work. At least, I wasn't able to do it on my own and was hoping to narrow something down here. It appears that no one has ever been where the US is right now with this issue which means no one has ever tried some of the solutions that I proposed. Of course, that doesn't mean that they will work and the more I read about the issue the more it seems like it would fail on its own. Perhaps it isn't a failed solution though. Maybe it is just incomplete. I'm not certain.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: 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.

Just as an FYI, what you are looking for in the way of homemade guns are called "zip guns." I first heard of them a few days ago on History channel's Gangland.

Small wikipedia link on zip guns.
Link from the Journal of criminal law.'

You will notice that the journal of criminal law link provides basic instructions on how to manufacture a zip gun.

You may wonder why we don't see many zip guns in America.

This type of gun is very obviously inferior. However, the important thing to be aware of is that if you disarm everyone of pistols and make them illegal. Than you have a situation where any criminal who makes this gun has brought a gun to a knife fight.

In other words, if everyone is disarmed, than the advantages of making this type of gun become much more beneficial to the criminal because it gives him a huge advantage over his victim who has no gun. In our current society, where victims could be carrying a well manufactured gun, this zip gun is much less desirable because they often are single shot, and malfunction very often, while his victim will have many shots, and a tiny chance of malfunction, leaving the owner of the zip gun in the less powerful position.

Information on malfunctions is from the Jstor article, all logic on the behavior no matter how stupid is my own.

 

[Vic]

Zip guns are made by ghetto gang bangers. Any true machine shop can make the real deal. The govt doesn't arm itself. We the People arm it.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Vic
Zip guns are made by ghetto gang bangers. Any true machine shop can make the real deal. The govt doesn't arm itself. We the People arm it.

He was asking about easy to make, that is what I was addressing.

 

[Thump553]

I keep coming back to 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US and strongly question whether the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling was the best policy decision. I certainly think it is a strained intrepretation of the plain language of the Constitution, but I guess it is only "liberal" judges that are the so-called activist judges.

The court made two very tough decisions this week, the death penalty for non-murder crimes (child rape) and this one. Both 5-4 decisions, and both will be controversial for years.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I keep coming back to 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US and strongly question whether the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling was the best policy decision. I certainly think it is a strained intrepretation of the plain language of the Constitution, but I guess it is only "liberal" judges that are the so-called activist judges.

The court made two very tough decisions this week, the death penalty for non-murder crimes (child rape) and this one. Both 5-4 decisions, and both will be controversial for years.

Courts don't make policy, or shouldn't. That's the job of the people, put in action by Congress following the rules of the Constitution.

"The right to bear arms" is written in plain language. The only question is what was the intent of the writers of the Constitution. People have been armed since the first settlers, and until fairly recently in American history, this has been a non-issue.

Activism would be- "You must carry a firearm" or "You may not have one", when the judges know full well that the Constitution says neither.


You speak of 30,000 gun deaths. Ok, the vast majority of citizens aren't using weapons for criminal purposes. There are crimes of passion, but as I say a good baseball bat will do just as well.

Most deaths would be from career criminals. Now you take away the weapons of those who wish to protect themselves from thugs, because criminals aren't going to surrender them.

Tell me, how does this work in the real world? How did DCs law keep the guns out of the hands of gangs?