Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another good point, my comarade in clear thinking!
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyappy
As usual, you get to this gist of the matter and your points are valid and well stated. However, my point is that gun control is not going to save lives. There will not be LESS guns available, there will simply be more expensive guns available until the cottage industry builds as any market will with more competition bringing prices down. The only way it can be stopped is with a police state. Again, I’m not going to lay out how it's done, but it’s not a difficult process and anybody can do it. Stopping such a cottage industry will be a war far larger than the “war on drugs” and much more expensive. It simply can’t be done.
The people who expect to save lives by gun control have their hearts in the right place but their minds in never-never land.
First of all, I think "home-made" firearms would cause a huge reduction in crime, as idiot after idiot blew themselves up with poorly calibrated and/or weak chamber strength pistols. Sure, most would be fine, but I think the occasional "accident" would deter quite a few. The good ones would need facilities large enough to make capture at least a reasonable possibility.
I agree though... any law that makes people "safer" by restricting freedoms works like Chemo-therapy. You poison everyone for the *chance* to get the bad guys. Frequently it doesn't even work.
Gun control laws to not have to focus exclusively on the purchase of a gun. Making possessing a gun a (on your person or in your vehicle) while committing a crime a stiff crime in and of itself might help. Making parole officers do their "parole visits" at the parolee's house (so they can "accidentally" see more parole violations like drugs and weapons) could get the bad apples thrown back in jail sooner.
All strict gun laws do is take the guns out of law abiding citizens.
Exactly!!! Laws do not prevent crime, they are there to punish the scoflaw after the fact. Most criminals do not purchase and/or "own" firearms legally to start with. The answer, if there is one, is to enforce, strictly, the laws already on the books.
Thank you for encouraging a right proper discussion. Your heart is in the right place.
IMHO strict gun laws do not equate to lower crime. I believe in this country that you must trust your citizens or change your form of government to something less democratic. Part of this is the right to keep and bear arms.
As a retired cop, I can tell you that TIME after TIME after TIME we saw people victimized who would not have been had they owned a firearm AND been willing/able and trained to use it.
First of all, I think "home-made" firearms would cause a huge reduction in crime, as idiot after idiot blew themselves up with poorly calibrated and/or weak chamber strength pistols. Sure, most would be fine, but I think the occasional "accident" would deter quite a few. The good ones would need facilities large enough to make capture at least a reasonable possibility.
I agree though... any law that makes people "safer" by restricting freedoms works like Chemo-therapy. You poison everyone for the *chance* to get the bad guys. Frequently it doesn't even work.
Gun control laws to not have to focus exclusively on the purchase of a gun. Making possessing a gun a (on your person or in your vehicle) while committing a crime a stiff crime in and of itself might help. Making parole officers do their "parole visits" at the parolee's house (so they can "accidentally" see more parole violations like drugs and weapons) could get the bad apples thrown back in jail sooner.
I’m not suggesting this cottage industry will produce guns such as the “home-made” variety to which you allude. I’m referring to exact duplications of existing firearms, many of them made better than current manufacturers’ methods because price won’t be an object in a market created by banning certain firearms, say hand guns for example.
Secondly, a large facility is NOT required to make guns. In fact, NO facility is required. I can’t bring myself to be specific about how this is done, I just don’t feel right about it, even though I know it’s not rocket science and that there may be many reading this thread who understand what I’m suggesting. The only difference in the guns might be the shape of the frame in handguns, and what criminal (or person who wanted a gun for protection but will be an outlaw for having one if it’s banned) cares about the shape or weight.
Your last points are those with which I agree. Much better enforcement of common-sense laws that now exist will be the best deterrent to crimes with guns, but SECOND in effectiveness to people being armed and TRAINED in the use of said arms. In my humble opinion, of course.
Last edited by happyappy; 06-02-2007 at 06:18 AM..
Reason: add wording
......People are killed and injured by guns in one of two ways: Criminal violence or accidents........
Third way, the law abiding defending themselves, their families or their property . Every month the National Rifleman has multiple news articles (with references) of these occurrences. I've been reading that mag for over 30 years. That's a whole lot of self defense stories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another good point, my comarade in clear thinking!
Wrong guy!
