Why can't we all just understand this one, basic principle about gun laws?!

[jtb33]

What it comes down to:

Lawmakers pass gun-laws with the intent to "reduce crime" but they don't seem to understand that criminals do not obey laws! It doesn't matter how many gun laws or gun restrictions Congress, D.C., or anyone else passes: criminals don't obey them!

Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens!

Sorry - but it's very frustrating for me when people fail to grasp this basic premise.

[margotb822]

1. Hahaha, very true

I say we need more bullet taxes. After, guns don't kill people, bullets do!

[billyoc]

2. Hey, I understood it when I was a little kid. Criminals don't obey laws.

[carp]

3. You are 100% correct. We are a nation of gun laws that have infringed on Americans.

You are 100% correct. We are a nation of gun laws that have infringed on Americans and mean nothing to criminals. This is one of my biggest beefs. It is so plainly obvious that no matter how many laws you pass regarding guns, the criminals could care less. Yet we still have people who insist they way to a safer America is with more gun laws.

[Oregone]

4. Gun laws can effect the market supply of a particular group of weapons

And criminals are subject to the market supply (which forces them to go black market). Black market weapons have limited supply, which can hinder the killing efficiency of criminals.

For instance, if automatic military-grade assault rifles and grenades were legal to buy over the counter at a sporting store, then it is likely the local gang-banger wouldn't purchase the crappy Uzi out of the back of a trunk in an alleyway. Which do you think would be more efficient for his crime?

To advocate the abolishment of gun laws, is to advocate the flooding of the legal market with incredibly deadly arms. Crimes could be much more deadly, and also more plentiful for people who do not have to locate black market sources and be limited by their supply.

[tburnsten]

22. Those "crappy Uzis" ARE military grade

and were military issue for the Israelis since the 1950s, while it was a design heavily copied the world over.

And even a POS Lorcin or Davis


is as lethal as any double rifle


provided the scumbag on the giving end of it places his shot properly.

[SteveM]

26. Some problems with your observations:

The most popular weapon used in homicides is the .38/.357 class of handgun; revolver designs which have been around since the late 1800's. I don't know which "class" of weapon you wish to ban, but a ban on this arm (as well as the tens of millions of semi-auto pistols) would affect several tens of millions of Americans (and be illegal). If you have in mind a ban on semi-auto carbines (the so-called moderate-powered "assault weapons"), this class is owned by 12-14 million law-abiding Americans, and in any case used in homicides less than three (3) percent of the time.

True "assault rifles," capable of auto-fire or controlled burst fire, are already legal to own under significant restriction by the feds (letters of recommendation by the head of your local law enforcement, finger-printing, federal registration, agreement to have your place searched whenever feds want to, tax, and the cost of even the flimsiest old model pushing $10,000). There is NOT much of a market for full-auto weapons by anyone (crims prefer easily-hidden handguns); hence the market supply doesn't need to be bigger.

There are already gun laws on the books, and very few folks (here or elsewhere) advocate abolishing all of them. But you need to show how these laws cause "crimes to be much *LESS* deadly, and also *LESS* plentiful..."

[Indy Lurker]

49. while good in theory, the supply is nearly unlimited

There are an estimated 200,000,000 firearms in the US, and about 15,000 homicides a year, If there are 7 injuries for every homicide (IIRC), that adds 105,000 for a total of 120,000 injuries and homicides. Assuming each crime is commited with a separate firearm, only 0.06% of weapons are used in a crime

Obviously, there is no way to impact supply and demand when less than 1/10 of 15 is involved in bad behavior.


I'm going to find some more solid number and post this again.

[tburnsten]

53. And I can't help but believe

that many guns used in crimes, especially gang-related and drug-related crime, end up being used far more often than once, since the perpetrators will often sell or give their guns away after "using" it. I have no idea how to verify this suspicion.

[benEzra]

58. Neither. They'd use something concealable, i.e. an ordinary handgun.

Long guns of any type are exceedingly rare in violent crimes, because they are not very portable and are very difficult to conceal on the person.

[Boomer 50]

70. Gun laws have had no effect on market supply except to induce

a huge illegal manufacturing market that is outside of the control of legal authorities. BATFE estimated that for every single legally owned full auto there are between 20 and 50! illegal ones. The machine gun ban sure limited the market on those... NOT.

I guess that the Congress in 86 didn't think things through all the way.
`

[depakid]

5. It's not a basic principle- just something stupid Americans think.

Other countries without gun obsessions have shown this to be false- which is why they don't have mass shootings every couple of weeks.

[JuniperLea]

12. You know, calling people stupid

Isn't helping your cause any. You should also try linking to articles about those claims, which appear to be pulled out of some dark orifice.

[depakid]

15. True enough-

It's just frustrating sometimes to hear the same memes over and over when you'd lived places where its patently (and pleasantly) obvious that they're BS.

As to articles, I've linked to studies about the Australian experience with their gun buyback and regulations on forearms and ownership often enough- kinda tired of rehashing it.

[SteveM]

27. Vermont has a low crime rate. And few guns laws (nt)

[WWFZD]

34. An unfortunate typo

but swinging forearms probably do murder more Americans than "assault rifles".

[yellowcanine]

6. Faulty logic. Criminals disobey motor vehicle laws all the time. That doesn't mean they aren't a

good idea. Gun laws make it easier to trace guns when they are used in a crime - and thus apprehend the criminal and they also make it easier to trace guns when they are stolon from their lawful owners - and thus arrest the thief and return the gun to its lawful owner. Sorry, but I find it very frustrating when gun owners fail to grasp this basic premise.

[jody]

11. Please post a link to a credible source confirming your assertion re registering firearms and

solving crimes.

[JuniperLea]

13. I'd like to see that too... eom

[yellowcanine]

17. I will as soon as the OP posts a link to a credible source supporting his assertion that gun laws do

not make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. Deal?

[jody]

18. The two seminal studies below conclude no research to date has presented statistically valid

findings that gun-control laws reduce crime.

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

Now it’s your turn to make good on your boast.

[yellowcanine]

36. Well you are not the OP and your links do not address my question but is Hopkins credible enough for

you? http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/ballistic_fingerprinting.pdf

Of course it is an argument, not an actual study (hard to do a study on something that doesn't exist) but you can't say that it is not credible.

[jody]

50. Sorry, but that's not a credible paper for the issue under discussion. n/t

[AmyCamus]

16. Yeah. And get rid of child rape laws too. Cuz criminals would just break them anyways.

The logic displayed in the OP is brilliant!

[Caliman73]

24. Riddiculous statement!!

Rape laws target behavior that is offensive to all but the most depraved people. Gun control laws target an inanimate object which can be used for legal and appropriate purposes such as self defense and sport as well as for crime. Rape laws do not protect the victim, they just make it possible to punish the offender. Gun control laws do not protect people either, they just make it more difficult for people who respect the law to protect themselves. Think before you put statements out there that make you look foolish.

[AmyCamus]

54. Thank you for accurately labeling your post!!

"Think before you put statements out there that make you look foolish."
Yeah. Try that, will you?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[milou]

62. Something more comparable....

Ban video cameras because they're used in the production of child pornography. Or how about alcohol because it causes more deaths on the streets than murders with guns? How about we restrict people to one liter of spirits or two bottles of wine per month? That should really lower alcohol related deaths, especially the untold deaths related to liver failure. Yeah, it's great logic, ain't it?

[Caliman73]

72. don't forget motor vehicles...

People are killed and injured by those too, and at a much higher rate than firearms by far. So yeah, no video cameras, no computers (cause some people use them to steal, exploit children, etc...), no alcohol, and no motor vehicles. That will make the world safe. :sarcasm:

[enid602]

7. Argentina

I'm spending 6 mos in Buenos Aires, where there are enough poor folks and beer to ensure an astronomical homicide rate in any neighborhood in the States. The only thing largely missing is guns, which are illegal here. Neighboring Brazil, however not only has gun ownership rights, but also has a pretty influential NRA-style lobbying groups. You can't walk around the block in most parts of Rio or Sao Paulo at night without worrying for your life.

[JuniperLea]

10. Don't get too complacent...

"In Argentina, one out of 10 people over the age of 18 say they have a gun, and more than half say they carry them around "for protection."

A study carried out this year by the Mora y Araujo polling firm found that as a result of the increase in violent crime in Argentina, more people now believe that it is a good idea to own or carry a gun for self-defence."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38203

[enid602]

56. guns

You can't keep guns out of a country if neighboring countries actively manufacture, promote and permit them. Guns have been the major import from the US in Mexico, much to the detriment of their crime statitistics. Guns are illegal in Mexico, but hard to keep out.

[tburnsten]

57. Mexico? HA!

Mexican drug cartels can kill anyone they want, however they want. Where is that stupid video piece where the administrative LEO character shoots reactive targets with an AK and spouts all kinds of B.S. about "mata policia" and .50 caliber assassinations?

[unpossibles]

8. by that reasoning, we should just stop all laws

right? I mean, criminals don't care about driving laws, or anything else.

[Dimensio0]

42. Your reasoning is faulty.

Laws should be tailored to address specific behaviours that are inherently harmful. Laws against actions such as theft and murder are legal prohibitions against actions that directly cause harm to others. Laws restricting or prohibiting firearms ownership do not prevent any behaviour that directly causes harm.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Some gun laws are to keep

weapons from transferring from legal hands, to criminal hands. Such as requiring safe storage. Waiting periods are intended as a cooling off period, or somesuch. Whether they work or not, I do not know. I can think of anecdotal examples either way.

If the various laws proposed restrict the pool of weapons that generally find their way into criminal hands, I think they should be seriously considered, and weighed against the impact on our Constitutional rights.

I'll say it, I think NICS is a good idea. Any criticism I have heard of it, is to me a good argument for better funding, and oversight of the system, not it's destruction.


I am tenatively in favor of registration, if certain provisions for grandfathering all existing owned firearms are met. I would like to see a mechanism where local police can automatically round up and safely store a person's firearms if they are subject of a warrant or order relieving them of their property. Like a surrendered passport, I expect them to be stored in good condition, and returned in the same, when the courts make it appropriate.


I'm willing to meet the 'gun banners' halfway, on certain items if they make sense, BUT I expect some concessions on their part. The goal should be reducing the use of ANY weapon, in any crime. Not disarmament, or politically correct disarmament, or any other agenda.

[AmyCamus]

14. Guns should be free, and everyone should have as many of any kind they want.

And howitzers. We'll need bigger garages, but we should all get howitzers too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QetJQjhPAI&feature=related

[jody]

19. Come on AmyCamus, you're on DU's Guns forum and statements like yours have been made and rebutted

tens of thousands of times.

Please browse the Gun forum archives and see if you can make an original contribution.

Welcome to DU's Guns forum where the Democratic Party's pro-Second Amendment platform plank is protected by a stalwart pro-RKBA force of Democrats and visited infrequently by the nearly 70% of DUers who support that Democratic Party position as does Obama.

:hi:

[AmyCamus]

55. Free guns for all scares you?

You're against the 2nd amendment and want gun controls? Not me! Free guns for all!

[gaspee]

20. Can I have

Anti-aircraft missiles? I know I live in the flight path of the airport and all, but I'm a law abiding citizen!

[SteveM]

29. Silliness, over and over and over again. Come up with something new (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Where do we sign up?

I'd love my own howitzer. That would keep the neighbors kid from throwing trash in my yard.

David

[iverglas]

31. So Daaaave

If we get married, will it be half mine? This could influence my position.

I've been banned from the genealogy board for a month again. I'll be needing something to occupy my time. All proposals and propositions will be given due consideration.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. I didn't think you'd let me have one.

I was planning on building a secret bunker to hide it in.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. How far back have you tracked your genealogy?

Scotch-Irish here. My family fought the English at Falkirk.

David

[iverglas]

45. eh?

Not a drop of Scots blood in me, so I have no clue what Falkirk is. ;)

One Irish drop that I've found -- a greatx3 grandmother living in Cheshire in the early 1800s. The census gives her place of birth as "Ireland" and her surname is common ... although her father is living there too and his name isn't quite Michael Murphy in terms of common, but I still don't think I'd ever have any way of figuring out who they were.

I've got Wiltshire back to a 1761 marriage -- and I am very sure that the surname in question was shared by a pair of Massachusetts settlers in the mid-1600s, from the same village or the next one over, except that all the US descendants seem to have quite randomly, and contrary to all the indications I see, settled on a matching pair from another English county, for no reason but the very common names in question.

In Cornwall, my grx4 grfather was a parish clerk! It's in the genes. ;) I get back to the 1500s in one line there, purely because of wonderful parish records and a couple of wonderful modern-day on-line parish clerks who have transcribed them.

I've got some dead ends in the early 1800s in a couple of lines, in Nottinghamshire for instance, and a number of others I just haven't pursued hard, sometimes because other people have already done it so I'll pick it up when I need it, in case I ever learn how to work one of those family tree programs.

I have Ancestry.co.uk membership (at least until the end of the month, if Visa and I don't come to an understanding before that), so if there's anything at all in the on-line records there I can do, don't hesitate to ask. It's what I do for fun (after paying for my membership) at the genealogy board that has banned me -- track down strangers' missing ancestors, and sometimes missing parents and children, for adoptees and the like, with quite astounding success. Combination of dogged stubbornness and psychic flashes ... and really knowing how to work a search engine.

So seriously, if you want a hand with anything Brit, lemme know!

[krispos42]

47. Neat!

My dad's side of the family can only be traced back to the 1840s. I think my mom's side ends about a hundred years ago when they came over on the boat from Italy.

1500's.... :wow:

[iverglas]

48. Just dumb luck

Cornwall started parish record keeping early, in particular a parish in Cornwall that a family of mine happens to have been in from before record keeping, and up to about 1820. There's a book, part fanciful though it likely is, about that family, and I think one ancestor of mine is in it -- the only family I can identify that's actually in the Domesday Book, and the first one to appear right after record-keeping started in that county in the mid-1500s.

I'm amazed, from reading the genealogy board here at DU and the boards at Genforum, mainly, at how many people in the US can go all the way back to the first settlements -- and at the amazing number of ethnicities and nationalities so many people in the States have. But for that drop of Irish blood, I'm English all the way back and forward to today (my nieces have a Portuguese father, so there's a whole nother tale now). Whatever "English" is. ;)

[iverglas]

60. hey --

If it didn't involve disclosing present-day identities, feel free to give me some of those 1840s details. We should be able to do well better than that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Quite interesting.

Seems silly to ban you for helping people out.

David

[iverglas]

59. well ...

I actually got banned the last time (suspended for a month) for starting a competition about who had been suspended the most times / for the longest total time. ;)

At the time the thread was deleted by management, I seemed to hold the crown.

The immediately preceding suspensions were apparently for telling people's horoscopes by posting quotations from:

http://www.smartalexinc.com/cards.asp?minorCatID=16

I'd read those back in the dark ages or the 1970s or something and was fortunate that someone has preserved them in cyberspace. I actually successfully nailed several people's signs from those descriptions.

Here, Dave. Keeping in mind that the sign in question is my own ideal match, I'll say you are:

CAPRICORN
You are conservative and afraid of taking risks. You are basically a chicken shit. There has never been a Capricorn of any importance. You should just give up and end it all.

Of course, so is the person ahead of you in line, so if I'm right, it gives you no advantage. ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Sorry wrong.

Middle of May, Taurus I believe. I'm in the wrong line of work if I wanted to avoid risk taking, probably wouldn't of parachuted out of airplanes or climbed any mountains either. Besides I'm way to happy to end it all. Never put much stock in horoscopes, to each their own though, live and let live and all that.

David

[iverglas]

64. but of course

Taurus. I wasn't thinking. Of course you're

TAURUS
You are practical and persistent. You possess a dogged determination and you work like hell. Most people think you are a stubborn and spoiled asshole. You are nothing but a pinko communist.


That's my next best match, btw. But it loses you your place on the wait list should another Capricorn come along!

Now, you don't have to be a pinko communist I think. I'm supposedly neat and orderly. Sometimes one just gets it backwards and spends one's life struggling against one's true nature! I mean, I have to work hard to be as messy and disorderly as I am.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Closer

Stubborn and opinionated (see asshole) not so much spoiled started work at 15 well I left military school. Don't know how I was successful in the military considering my general disregard for authority and my messiness. I'm really trying to get more organized it just doesn't work. In regards to the Capricorn, I'll just have to wait till you can see what is obvious to everyone else.

David

[iverglas]

66. yeah, that, and

I'll just have to wait till you can see what is obvious to everyone else.

til you put yourself in a position to make an honest woman of me.





She was poor but she was honest,
Though she came from 'umble stock,
And her honest heart was beating
Underneath her tattered frock.

But the rich man saw her beauty,
She knew not his base design,
And he took her to a hotel
And bought her a small port wine.

It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame,
It's the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn't it a blooming shame?

In the rich man's arms she fluttered
Like a bird with a broken wing,
But he loved her and he left her,
Now she hasn't got no ring.

Time has flown - outcast and homeless
In the street she stands and says,
While the snowflakes fall around her,
'Won't you buy my bootlaces.'

It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame,
It's the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn't it a blooming shame?

Standing on the bridge at midnight
She says, 'Farewell, blighted love!'
There's a scream, a splash, good 'eavens!
What is she a doing of?

Soon they dragged her from the river,
Water from her clothes they wrang.
They all thought that she was drownded,
But the corpse got up and sang:

"It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame,
It's the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn't it a blooming shame?"

She was poor but she was honest,
Victim of a rich man's game.
First he loved her, then he left her,
And she lost her maiden name.

Then she ran away to London
For to hide her grief and shame.
There she met an Army captain,
And she lost her name again.

"It's the same the whole world over.
It's the poor that gets the blame.
It's the rich that gets the pleasure.
Ain't it all a bleeding shame?"

See him riding in a carriage
Past the gutter where she stands.
He has made a stylish marriage,
While she wrings her ringless hands.

See him there at the theatre,
In the front row with the best,
While the girl that he has ruined
Entertains a sordid guest.

"It's the same the whole world over.
It's the poor that gets the blame.
It's the rich that gets the pleasure.
Ain't it all a bleeding shame?"

See her on the bridge at midnight,
Crying "Farewell, blighted love".
Then a scream, a splash, and . . Goodness!
What is she a-doing of?

When they dragged her from the river
Water from her clothes they wrung.
Though they thought that she was drownded,
Still her corpse got up and sung:

"It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame,
It's the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn't it a blooming shame?"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. and then there's that.

My poor tortured soul. Oh the humanity.

David

[WWFZD]

68. Wudja do?

"I've been banned from the genealogy board for a month again. "

Reach too far into the bag of Pollock jokes?

[iverglas]

69. see # 59

Once I've googled that ... oh, I get it. It was the odd spelling put me off the scent. Well, almost the right era as the truth, except I wouldn't know one if I fell on it. Might actually have been a little before my time, those. Besides, I was into Jesus jokes then. Jesus and Moses were playing golf ...

But hockey jokes, remember?

Here, I found one for you.

Did you hear about the Polish hockey team?
They drowned during spring training.

Actually, the Newfie hockey joke is better.

How did the Newfie get to Toronto?
He was playing hockey on the St. Lawrence and got a breakaway.

Newfies have much better jokes about mainlanders, though. I'll bet Poles are the same.

[Major Hogwash]

41. And then they can all go to the zoo.

Like they did here, just to prove that they can!

LoL

[damntexdem]

23. The major effect is on citizens, law abiding or not.

they have restrictions put on acquiring, storing, and using guns. I strongly support that. The fewer John Wayne wannabes the better, especially when a nutcase does use a gun in a public place. I'd rather dodge bullets from one nutcase than from a myriad of "heroes."

But the major damage is done when children, or others incapable of responsible gun use, find guns that are stored improperly. This leads to many domestic tragedies.

Then there are the occasions when the law-abiding citizen may become a gun-using outlaw -- if a gun is readily available. When a spouse, or child, or sibling, or other family member, gets very angry, it really is better if there is no immediately-usable gun readily available.

Gun controls can make acquisition more difficult -- not impossible, but more difficult -- for the outlaw. I'm in favor of that. Moreover, even if the lawbreaker acquires a gun, gun laws still make prosecutions easier and more-effective. Lawbreakers are often put away much longer for use of guns in commission of crimes.

I especially support urban gun laws. Saturday Night Specials have long made urban streets more dangerous. Rural life is different, requiring different tools -- generally long guns, in any case. Nor do I have anything against possession and use of guns for legitimate hunting.

I am particularly outraged by concealed-cary. That is pure idiocy, especially when state law overrides individual and organizational rights to keep guns out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Of course you have some statistics to prove your point?

Citizens can't enact laws that violate the Constitution. No matter how they feel. If the District voted to ignore the 4th Amendment they could stop huge amounts of crime, it still wouldn't be right.

David

[jody]

28. See # 18 and then provide links to credible sources that refute those two studies. Don't be upset

when you fail to support your assertions because no gun-control person has ever succeeded including those from the infamous Scary Brady Bunch and the Vigorously Protecting Criminals (VPC) gang.

I suggest you study the majority opinion and dissenting statements in D.C. v. Heller and at least read all the briefs submitted to SCOTUS. Links to the briefs can be found at http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

[pipoman]

32. It seems

your first paragraph and your last are related. What you are describing in the first sentence is known in these parts as the fabled 'cross fire scenario'. This is where a criminal gunman opens fire and several ccw holders begin firing and there is a blood bath of innocents from the cross fire. I say fabled because there are literally millions of ccw holders in the 42 states with shall issue ccw and this scenario has NEVER played out...not once. It is a giant man-o-straw. Further of ccw holders, less commit crimes than even law enforcement officers.

Your second statement about children is often bandied about 'round here too. Child firearms accidents are always tragic. The truth is that CDC stats show that child (0-14) deaths due to firearms rank somewhere south of 10th most common cause. In fact death due to drowning is over twice as common with most of those deaths occurring in backyard swimming pools. Now there are guns in an estimated 40% of American households, I don't think there are swimming pools in the back yard of 40% of houses. There is no movement afoot to outlaw or ban private swimming pools which would be much easier to regulate and would save far more lives.




The third paragraph the same could be said of beer bottles, kitchen knives, candle sticks, rocks, baseball bats, and even hands and feet.

The fourth paragraph I can agree in part with. I have no problem and in fact support laws which increase penalties on those who use guns in the commission of a crime. I also support NICS which has been effective in preventing prohibited persons from buying guns...too bad the less than 1% of people who are prohibited buyers are investigated, let alone charged.

Saturday night specials is demon name for inexpensive hand guns. For some people who can't afford a better gun they are thr only defensive gun option, without them poor people are left defenseless.

The bottom line is, I don't have a problem with narrowly crafted legislation which targets prohibited people from buying/possessing guns.

[SteveM]

33. Your positions have been refuted many times before. Again...

"I'd rather dodge bullets from one nutcase than from a myriad of 'heroes.'" The "myriad" you refer to are those licensed, registered and tested to carry concealed weapons and constitute a few percentage points of the gun-owning public; IOW, in any given public place, very few if any will be present.

"...major damage is done when children, or others incapable of responsible gun use, find guns that are stored improperly." According to the National Safety Council, firearms-related fatalities are at record low levels (down 40% from '95-'05), and accidents involving youths have fallen more sharply than any other classified accident type (drowning, electrocution, falls, etc.). www.outdoorlife.com May, 2007. It would seem that maybe more attention should be given to preventing drowning, electrocution, falls, etc., since gun-owners seem to be doing a better job of securing weapons.

"Then there are the occasions when the law-abiding citizen may become a gun-using outlaw -- if a gun is readily available" Do you have any data on this?

"Gun controls can make acquisition more difficult -- not impossible, but more difficult -- for the outlaw. I'm in favor of that. Moreover, even if the lawbreaker acquires a gun, gun laws still make prosecutions easier and more-effective. Lawbreakers are often put away much longer for use of guns in commission of crimes." Here, I agree if the laws are aimed at outlaws. I do think that illegal possession of a gun by a criminal should be a higher crime; in D.C., little punishment is given to these types of criminals.

"I especially support urban gun laws. Saturday Night Specials have long made urban streets more dangerous. Rural life is different, requiring different tools -- generally long guns, in any case. Nor do I have anything against possession and use of guns for legitimate hunting." This is the latest talk from the gun-control movement. It is in urban cores where beleaguered citizens ought to have the STRONGEST right to keep and bear arms; it is they who are subject to the constant drone of crime by career criminals. And just what do you mean by "Saturday night specials?" Where I grew up, this expression came from "Nigger town, Saturday night" to describe the allegedly raucous atmosphere in the black quarters of Southern cities; in other words, a gun cheap enough for a poor person to buy; a "nigger gun" for short. This is a racist expression and illustrates why from start (ante-bellum South) to present, gun laws have been a means to subjugate minorities. As the meaning of "Saturday night special" becomes more widely-used, I caution you to not use it. SEE: www.georgiacarry.org Scroll to the Heller brief and see what I'm talking about.

"I am particularly outraged by concealed-cary. That is pure idiocy, especially when state law overrides individual and organizational rights to keep guns out." Where is the idiocy? Concealed-carry is regulated, tested, and registered. All local governments (your "organizations"?) are creatures of the various states, and their laws cannot supersede those of the states. You really need to gain a basic understanding of how the federal system works. Said another way, if you don't like what the state is doing, elect different legislators. In any case, NO individual, local government, state government or the Federal government can pass a law that is unconstitutional.

And we come to Heller and the Second.

[spin]

35. Why does concealed carry outrage you? Ridiculous!

Permit holders are not angels, but they are an unusually law-abiding collection of citizens. In Florida, for example, permit holders are about 300 times less likely to perpetrate a gun crime than Floridians without permits. Florida's experience has been copied nationwide.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574822.html

If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

Here's the up to date Florida Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report October 1, 1987 - June 30, 2008
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

You might note that out of 1,363,087 concealed carry licenses issued, 165 were revoked for Crime After Licensure.

Maybe we could solve the gun violence problem merely by giving all gun owners, legal and illegal, concealed carry permits.
':sarcasm:'

[Dimensio0]

43. I am sure that your position against concealed carry is rational.

As such, you should be able to demonstrate as much by showing that allowing civilan concealed carry causes demonstrable societal harm. Please do so.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. The "crossfire" urban legend rears it's head again

they have restrictions put on acquiring, storing, and using guns. I strongly support that. The fewer John Wayne wannabes the better, especially when a nutcase does use a gun in a public place. I'd rather dodge bullets from one nutcase than from a myriad of "heroes."

This is as much an article of faith here at DU as "Obama is Muslim" is at Free Republic.

[one-eyed fat man]

74. gun law immunity for career criminals

"Lawbreakers are often put away much longer for use of guns in commission of crimes."

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/cain-howard-court-summary.pdf

Here is the rap sheet for just one of the Philadelphia cop-killers.

Over Cain’s criminal career he had thirteen arrests for unlawfully carrying a firearm, that were listed “Nolle Prossed,” meaning the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. In a further eleven arrests for violations of Pennsylvania’s firearms laws, the charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. In only three cases was he prosecuted and either plead guilty or was found guilty. On weapons charges alone, he could have done 12 years in prison, in which case he would not have been on the streets to kill a police officer.

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/warner-levon-court-summary.pdf

His accomplice, Levon Warner, arrest record is only six pages. We are happy to see Warner facing three charges for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for unlawfully carrying firearms, in his latest arrest for conspiring to murder a police officer.

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/floyd-eric-court-summary.pdf

Eric Floyd was arrested for robbery in 1994,, and the prosecutors declined to prosecute him for carrying firearms illegally in two counts. Also in 1994, the courts declined to try him for two counts of carrying firearms illegally.

Prosecutors routinely do not use the gunlaws they have and the deceitful and corrupt proponents of gun control refuse to acknowledge that even absolute vermin who have repeatedly used guns to prey on society almost never spend any time in jail on the gun law violations.

[jody]

75. Felons convicted for firearm possession may receive concurrent sentences meaning the effect of

gun laws is zero because there is no effective penalty for using a firearm to commit a crime.

I wish federal and state legislatures would pass a law mandating sequential sentences for firearm possession.

[iverglas]

30. oh look

It's another Original Thinker.

Criminals don't obey laws.

Isn't it time that Barack Obama announced his intention to repeal all laws?

[Realityhack]

37. That is a little bit of an oversimplification. n/t

[spin]

38. Another long posting showing anti-gunners rely on emothion...

pro-gunners rely on facts.

[Major Hogwash]

40. Not really. Most rely on dictionaries.

Of course, there was no shortage in emotion in your knee-jerk response to this thread.

LoL

[spin]

46. Oops, forgot to use the D.U. spell checker...

it helps when my computer gets tired of my typing and rebels by misspelling words.

Actually I got distracted by the Larry King interview with T. Boone Pickens which I had playing in the background.

To be fair, emotional arguments can be as valid as factual arguments. After reading many of the posts in the gungeon, I am beginning to wonder if the pro-gun contingent has a more technical or scientific background and the anti-gun group a more literary background.

I worked for years in a technical field and technicians and engineers are not noted for spelling ability.

[one-eyed fat man]

76. you maybe on to something...........

I work in aerospace now, was military before that. Guns, radios, airplanes all seem to be shared hobbies among those in technical occupations. Machinery either fascinates us, or at least doesn't scare us.

The antis might certainly be literary Luddites. They certainly can use hyperbole, mixed metaphors, and dangling participles to great effect in their shrill and deceitful way.

[Scout]

71. why bother, when your basic premise is false?

it's not that they don't understand your premise, they aren't stupid.

:rofl:

[ajh60]

73. People Don't Care

Thats the point. I don't own a gun, but I fully understand someone that wants to purchase a gun for legitimate purpose. That can be protection, shooting club or whatever. I also think it is reasonable to apply for a permit, get a background check, come out clean and get his gun. It seems to me there has to be some common sense. I see very little use for a Uzi type gun, etc. But banning all is simply wrong. Washington DC had the strictest gun laws in the nation AND the highest crime rate involving guns.

Some people who simply do not like guns and want a ban and nothing you say can convince them it is your right. But I think the state has a right for some control through the permit process. Your premise is 100 percent correct. To some though it doesn't matter.

[old mark]

77. Thanks for posting this.

Most of the anti-gun positons are based on stupid crap like this concept.
Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws.
Not very difficult to grasp, you would think.

mark