"Criminals Will Always Get Guns" is a Poor Argument

[mikeb302000]

"Criminals will always get guns," is one of the most touted little pieces of wisdom the gun-rights crowd has. They repeat it incessantly. If you propose gun restrictions in the hope of thwarting criminal gun abuse, they trot out the old tried and true dictum, "criminals will always get guns."

I suppose what they mean is "since criminals will always get guns no matter what gun control laws we try, we shouldn't try any at all." Of course, this is false for two reasons.

Number one, criminals will not ALWAYS get guns. If guns are harder to come by, many criminals will not make the extra effort necessary to find alternate means of acquiring them. With proper gun control laws in place, private sales with no background check will not be an option. Theft will be harder due to safe storage law enforcement. Straw purchasing will all but cease to exist with licensing and registration. What's left is buying from other criminals, but even this will be more difficult due to the other restrictions. Guns on the black market will become more scarce. What we have to remember is that criminals are like everybody else, they seek the path of least resistance. If guns are harder to come by many will do without.

Number two, even if criminals would always be able to get guns anyway, that does not justify making it easier for them to do so.

One thing the pro-gun crowd likes to overlook is that almost every single gun used in crime in the US started out the lawful property of some gun owner. That's why, as much as they hate the idea, it makes sense that most gun control laws focus on them, the law abiding. Everyone knows that criminals won't obey laws, so by constraining gun owners to act more responsibly, access to guns by the bad guys is diminished.

I reject the other argument too which says all this would put undue hardship in those law-abiding gun owners. There would be additional requirements but I don't see them as excessive. Even Second Amendment adherents, who I think are completely wrong in their thinking, have to admit that "reasonable restrictions" are allowed. So says Justice Antonin Scalia, one of their own heroes.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[graham4anything]

1. +zillion trillion million Biggest strawman the NRA/gun lovers use is this one

until you stop legal guns from being in the streets, you cannot stop illegal guns
Which is why even the current laws/the old brady bill, etc. do not necessarily work

thanks for posting this. We need more and more people on our side.

and we need something/someone to neutralize or be the equalizer to the NRA, which is the #1 lobby group in the nation, and which at the end of the day has at most 4.3 members, which is just 1.4% of the entire USA popluation (meaning 99% are NOT members, a vast majority).

again, thanks for posting this.

(I am sure the usual heavy 3 plus a few other gun lovers will be posting shortly with their normal million dollar suit NRA stock replies or going personal on those that want the streets to be cleaned up).

And every soundbyte reply they give, can be easily retorted too.

at the end of the day- all guns are manufactured to kill something or someone, and it goes without saying that the ammo has not one other reason for being.

[holdencaufield]

2. "all guns are manufactured to kill something or someone"

All guns manufactured for civilians are for target shooting, hunting or self-defence.

So, unless you never indulge in a hobby or sport, never eat any meat or fowl, never wear or use any leather, and swear never to put up a defence if you or someone you care about is attacked -- anything you have to say would be extremely hypocritical.

[graham4anything]

3. thanks for agreeing with me.

and as if on cue, you are #1(with a bullet as they say in the music biz.) of the three of you plus a few other names to follow.)

for those target shooters-your guns could be in the shooting gallery(much like mini golf fans get a putter and ball when arriving, almost no one packs their own)

for self-defense IN THE HOME, one doesn't need ONE gun on the streets legal or illegal.

for hunting-well, the supermarket has plenty of food. The days of Native Americans are over.
(or use your bow and arrow. Works the same...if someone had a bow and arrow outside a movie theatre, everyone would know. and he couldn't reload much.)

by the way vegetarians don't shoot their lettuce before eating it.

as for my hobbies- as said minigolf, or bowling or stamp collecting or whatever doesn't require a weapon of mass destruction soley manufactured to kill something
Can't recall the last time I went to the pizza place carrying my bowling ball to protect me.

even if we say "okay, a protection in the house is fine" well,that does not explain the deluded idea of carrying and concealing on the streets.

epic fail again on the pro-gun side.

and if someone wants to mug me, take my wallet, i won't fight you.
take my jewelry, it doesn't make me less of a man to live to file the insurance claim the next day

and get the legal guns off the street, makes it then easy to spot and rid the street of illegal guns. But first you need to add a couple of things, none of which is weapon of mass destruction


and the wheels on the bus go round and round

[MicaelS]

36. "Days of Native Americans are over" my ass.

Plenty of Native people in Alaska still subsistence hunt. I have watched TV programs, and they have stated this multiple times. They said if they could not subsistence hunt, they might not have enough meat to make it through the winter.

And there of plenty of poor people in other places in the US who hunt to put meat in their freezer. Unless of course you want all of these people totally dependent on the Government.

[glacierbay]

41. Went Turkey hunting 2 weeks ago, a 25 pounder, used a .410 shotgun

to bag it and also have my wife and I have our deer hunting tags and we're going deer hunting in about 2 weeks. Love the taste of wild Turkey and venison.
And of course he wants all those other people dependent on the govt., as long as it fulfills his dream of a ban on firearms.

[mikeb302000]

123. Subsistence hunting is a tiny fraction of overall hunting.

It's not about the meat, it's about the macho, comradery of going out and shooting things with the boys, often while drinking,

[PavePusher]

138. Sez you. n/t

[MicaelS]

140. So what? As long as it's legal,

It's none of your business. Of course we know that if you get hunting banned, that's just one less reason (in your mind) that we would be "allowed" to own guns.

[gejohnston]

141. no, it is about culture

and organic food. Where I'm from, women hunt, they take their daughters hunting. You have been watching too many movies, which thrive on stereotypes. Maybe that is how it is in Italy, but not North America.

[Eleanors38]

148. Are you also a hunting prohibitionist? nt

[Atypical Liberal]

40. The voice of privilege speaks!

for those target shooters-your guns could be in the shooting gallery(much like mini golf fans get a putter and ball when arriving, almost no one packs their own)

I don't think you are very familiar with sport shooting. Here in Huntsville, Alabama, while there is one private indoor shooting range, most people shoot at the taxpayer-funded (through the sale of hunting licenses) public shooting ranges. These are big open areas with covered shooting benches for target shooting. There is no attendant on duty. There is no place to store firearms even if you wanted to (and I don't).

for self-defense IN THE HOME, one doesn't need ONE gun on the streets legal or illegal.

There are many things in life that we don't need that many people still avail themselves to. Spare tires, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, flashlights, emergency food supplies, and more. No one needs these things, but we are all free to decide to purchase them if we see fit.

If you don't feel the need to carry a firearm on the street, then don't. That is your choice. You need to respect the choices of those who feel differently. Every state in the Union except one or two now allow concealed carry. People who have permits to do so are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than people without them.

for hunting-well, the supermarket has plenty of food. The days of Native Americans are over.
(or use your bow and arrow. Works the same...if someone had a bow and arrow outside a movie theatre, everyone would know. and he couldn't reload much.)

I haven't hunted in many years, but I am about to start because the cost of meat is getting so expensive. I have friends who hunt because it is the only way they get meat on the table. As the cost of living increases more and more people are going to turn to growing and hunting their own food. We already garden for our own vegetables.

as for my hobbies- as said minigolf, or bowling or stamp collecting or whatever doesn't require a weapon of mass destruction soley manufactured to kill something
Can't recall the last time I went to the pizza place carrying my bowling ball to protect me.

Are you equally down on martial arts for a hobby? How about Olympic athletes who compete with javelins, discuses, archery, or firearms?

Yes, firearms can kill. This does not de-legitimize the fact that shooting sports are a huge, serious undertaking for millions upon millions of Americans. I shoot competitively on a team. I don't need people like you telling me I should take up bowling instead.

even if we say "okay, a protection in the house is fine" well,that does not explain the deluded idea of carrying and concealing on the streets.

What is delusional about it? It's completely safe. The people who lawfully carry concealed weapons are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than any other random person you will encounter on the street.

and if someone wants to mug me, take my wallet, i won't fight you.
take my jewelry, it doesn't make me less of a man to live to file the insurance claim the next day

When faced with violent crime, victims without firearms have three choices: run away if they are fast enough, submit to their attacker if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker if they are strong enough.

If you wish to submit to your attacker, that's fine by me. Everyone must make their own choice in a survival situation and I won't second-guess yours.

However, just as I don't expect you to be bound by my choices for self-defense, I won't be bound by your choices in making my own choices for self-defense.

[gejohnston]

42. for hunting-well, the supermarket has plenty of food

so you are saying supporting the factory farming industry is more civilized?
http://www.idausa.org/facts/factoryfarmfacts.html

[PavePusher]

43. Self-defense is often required outside the home.

I don't see you volunteering to provide security for others.

Epek phale 4 yoo.

[PavePusher]

46. You seem to be claiming that supermarkets are morally superior to hunting....

but have supplied no basis for the claim.

And why would you shoot lettuce? The proper method of harvesting is to rip it screaming from the ground. Less wastage that way.

Since my (and most peoples) fireams hobbies do not involve "a weapon of mass destruction soley manufactured to kill something" (wrong on all counts, FTR), you don't seem to have a point.

and if someone wants to mug me, take my wallet, i won't fight you.
take my jewelry, it doesn't make me less of a man to live to file the insurance claim the next day

You seem to be attacking a self-made strawman. A badly stuffed one at that, it almost all leaked out before you "defended yourself" from it.

and the wheels on the bus go round and round

Yours seem to produce a resounding "Thump. Thump. Thump....." soundtrack. Good luck with that.


More epyk fale four yoo.

[EX500rider]

76. "doesn't require a weapon of mass destruction"

Which hobby requires the ownership or use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons?

[EX500rider]

78. "it doesn't make me less of a man to live to file the insurance claim the next day"

"..and if someone wants to mug me, take my wallet, i won't fight you.
take my jewelry, it doesn't make me less of a man to live to file the insurance claim the next day"


Really? You have muggers insurance? Where does one get that?

And what if they want to stab or shoot you while they are at it?

[graham4anything]

84. they would do the same if I have a gun

and shoot a member of the mafia and kill them, then the entire mafia will come after you

so it is a stupid situation

you can't get rid of crime by shooting "them"

after all, there but for the grace of God, it could be if you were desperate enough, you
needing a few dollars to feed yourself.

Yet someone like Zimmerman stalked and killed in cold blood a long way from his own house an innocent unarmed man.
There but for the bravado of a gun. Why didn't Zimmy stay home. His life was NOT in danger the moment of the gun shot.

[DonP]

95. So it's obvious you don't believe in the jury system either

That whole innocent until proven guilty gets in the way of your version of justice I guess. That's OK, your hero Bloomers thinks that way too.

I assume you think a fast mob lynching is all that's really required for Zimmerman.

Don't bother with an attorney or all those needless court costs, right?

And you're supposed to be progressive? You sound more and more like Dick Cheney

[graham4anything]

96. Zimmerman was judge jury execution. love how you twist things around

rovealopolis style

let's get a jury of Mr. Martin's peers and see how the outcome is

Good people found OJ not guilty
bad people would have found OJ guilty in spite of all the evidence that didn't fit

good defeated evil again.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. Actually the law reads of the defendant's peers, not the victim's peers

I also note that OJ is in a prison camp, in Lovelock, Nevada, a real armpit until at least 2017. He is reportedly trying to sell the knife that was used and recently had some success in getting some issues reopened for appeal. Are those who convicted him bad people?

[DonP]

105. Twist things! Hey dummy, you're the one that doesn't want to bother with a trial

That's not "Rovian", that's downright fascist by anybody's measure. Based on your ignorant adoration of Bloomie though, I can see how dictatorships appeal to your basic instincts.

But the last time I looked most liberals thought the courts were where things like this got settled.

Here's an idea. Why don't you save us a lot of bother and go up to GD and post your POV that they don't need to bother with a trial, just lynch Zimmerman.

Then you'll most likely go away like so many others that preceded you.

[Eleanors38]

149. Major error, here...

You said:

"you can't get rid of crime by shooting "them"

The issue is SELF-DEFENSE against a lethal attack. The question is not social policy like "...get rid of crime..."

This is a fundamental error, but I appreciate the opportunity to correct it. Thanks.

You further state:

"after all, there but for the grace of God, it could be if you were desperate enough, you
needing a few dollars to feed yourself."

I assume you speak of the motivations for someone robbing me. I am not interested in their motivations, only in their threat, and my self-defense response. Again, we are not into speculations about one's psychological state, or the ramifications of social policy.
As for Zimmerman, I'll let the case run its legal course.

[ileus]

5. Mine are mostly defective it seems...

Some are meant for saving lives, some for collecting, some for plinking, many for harvesting animals during different seasons. I however own none that were designed to kill.

[safeinOhio]

6. I hunt and use a handgun for selfdefense.

In no way would I be impaired from either of those activities if background checks were mandatory in my state for private sales. Also, if everyone had to register their handguns, myself and other legal owners would still be able to own and carry handguns. It would make it more difficult for straw sales and other criminal activity. Gun owners, like me, need to take responsibility for their weapons. That includes reporting lost guns and making sure they are secure from children and crooks. If a child or criminal gets hold of a handgun, a legal owner is most likely to blame somewhere down the line.

[mikeb302000]

124. Right on. I love gun owners like you. nt

[Remmah2]

17. I nominate this for misinformed post of the month. Any one second this?

I kill paper and clay targets. Occasionally bowling pins and tin cans as well.

Common sense gun laws require intelligent discussion. If you start an arguement with a closed mind you're already admitting defeat.

[glacierbay]

26. I'll second that

All those in favor say Aye, all those opposed say Nay.

[Clames]

27. Aye n/t

[graham4anything]

34. you are the #1 groupie of this gun thread, real big surprise which vote you take.LOL

726 posts in the last 90 days (50% of total posts) as pro-gun in the gun thread.


btw-how did your Cardinals do in the World Series this year.
oops

Weren't the Giants (my 2nd favorite team, home of Willie Mays and Stretch McCovey and Juan Marichal great in their sweep of the lesser league champs?

[glacierbay]

39. So are you stalking me now?

And if I'm #1, then that makes me proud.
Why in the world would you even care how many posts in the gungeon I have? Is there some reason for this?
If you don't like what I write or believe in, there's always the ignore button, utilize it.

[Clames]

45. He's also a bit hypocritical...

Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 194 posts in the last 90 days (14% of total posts)

Seems we've made a new fan.

[graham4anything]

61. except as my bio says, 100% of mine are anti-NRA & anti gun. I mince no words.

[Clames]

101. You also make little sense and your rantings prove you are grossly uneducated on the subject...

...at hand. 100% of nothing is just that.

[PavePusher]

47. Wait a minute, I thought I was #1.

I demand to know my place in the hierarchy of "groupie of this gun thread".

And if I'm not #1, I demand to know why. Where have I been lacking/slacking?

[glacierbay]

48. I will gladly trade you the #1 spot today for a hamburger on Tuesday.

[ileus]

50. you'll probably get alerted on for this post.

For some reason I bet all your comments get flagged.

[glacierbay]

51. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if all of our posts

get alerted on by the cabal of serial alerters.

[ileus]

58. Thats going to jury...

Bad Gb...bad bad Gb.

[ileus]

69. I see someone cried enough.

They smell blood.

[PavePusher]

52. Stop selling FEAR!!!!1!11!

ZOMG, I can't take it anymore.!.1.1.1.3214235881

(just in case...)

[EX500rider]

81. What's you point?

OP: (mikeb302000)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 290 posts in the last 90 days (100% of total posts)

[graham4anything]

83. the point is

it is amusing because of course you guys will all agree with each others posts.

One day we will have enough people that become vocal against guns.

I have found(because i used to just ignore the gun threads)that most bypass them and you have the echo chamber you want.

Now, if there are anti-gun threads, would you stay out of those threads, if I(we) stayed out of the pro-gun threads?

and let the outside readers decide?

[Remmah2]

137. Actually the whole thing is about the democratic process.

Do you have a problem w/democracy?

[mikeb302000]

125. The post was about "criminals getting guns anyway" being bullshit.

What are you responding to with the clay targets?

[Remmah2]

136. Pay attention to the sub-threads.

Many of the people who respond to you are as silly as you.

ARGO

[Eleanors38]

150. Aye. (Hey, do you think we'll be canned for 'calling out'?)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. The 2nd amendment, state constitutions, and court decisions scarcely count as soundbites

Since this concerns you so, I suggest you work on the root causes for violence in our society (clue, its not guns). When you solve that, many people will not feel a need to carry weapons for self defense and guns will be for the sportsman, police, military. Your goals would be achomplished in a positive manner that respects people's rights.

Note that attempting to remove forcibly remove or deny firearms has been historically rooted in classism and racism. In other words TPTB are forever trying to disarm the poor and minorities so they cannot resist.

And remember, private ownership of firearms is and remains a progressive vale.

[graham4anything]

33. you are correct-disarm the racists that hate blacks, I agree.Lets rid the world of racism.

and the NRA like the John Birch Society is proven racist and mostly rightwing extremists and anarchists like the asswipe that asssassinated the groovy kind meek doctor

so you are right, get rid of the racists first, then the world would be better off.

such a strawman
like the liars that said it was the blacks shooting in Katrina, when it was the cops that shot the blacks for nothing more than being black.
there were NO riots by blacks during Katrina
It was proven false and a lie facilitated by white racists ).

(see= Danzinger bridge)

(then again, back to Tom Jefferson, who wrote the papers while owning slaves and abusing the females he owned.)

[PavePusher]

49. Disarming racists does not make them non-racist, or end racism.

and the NRA like the John Birch Society is proven racist and mostly rightwing extremists and anarchists like the asswipe that asssassinated the groovy kind meek doctor

Please provide evidence for your assertions/associations.

like the liars that said it was the blacks shooting in Katrina

Who made this claim? Links, please?

[graham4anything]

59. do I know U?

your writing is very familiar

did you post on cgcs?

[PavePusher]

74. I'm not sure. What is CGCS?

If I did, it would be under the same username I have here. I use it for almost all my internet discussion.

[graham4anything]

79. was the offshoot of the official Kerry board started the week after Kerry lost in 2004

that board also had a minority of posters but very vocal in their pro-gun beliefs
and that board just up and disappeared (you can't even find it much in google anymore, it totally disappeared, losing 80,000 plus posts I made there), around the time I signed up here.It was a subscription board the last couple of years...

I outlasted all of them and had my same view then as I do now.First I ignored that section, but then I decided silence was their best friend, so I joined the conversation.

[PavePusher]

86. Then that would be a "no".

I didn't get into the on-line discussion thing until early/mid 2007, and started on some firearms discussion sites, while stationed in the U.K.

Some of my political/philosophical positions have changed a great deal since then, others have been re-enforced. I live, I learn, I adapt to new situations and evidence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Except it is you and your fellow 1%ers want to disarm everyone

starting with those who need it most and get the worst police protection.

Those pushing gun control are the ones with the racist and classist roots.

Whatever your motives may be, your proposed actions are both racist and classist and not progressive in the least

[graham4anything]

64. Actually, did you know that the main benefactor of MMM's superpac funds is Angus King?

It is thought that Maine's King shall win

did you know that?

The largest sum of money MMMM gave was to Angus King.

before you speak, and infer something or other, read.

and your NRA propaganda is fine, for those believers.
I am not an NRA believer, nor in your interpretation of #2, which is well, 100% innocrrect and a better SCOTUS will one day correct that (along with corporate personhood)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. Which has nothing to do with your declared intent to disarm people, including those who need it most

You cannot sanitize the classist and racist impacts of your goals. Own up to them and be proud them and what you are.

[graham4anything]

70. imagine the Million Man March as opposed to the Teaparty idiots.Remember Danzinger Bridge

they would have carpetbombed the Million man marchers

and you are talking like a great-great grandpa
I think you have forgotten this is 2012, you are talking ancient history

Lincoln was a pre-Democrat which became the modern Democratic party
things are different today.

WE all saw the people with the guns and the signs, those are NRA people, the true face of them at the townhalls.Same people that ended up shooting a judge and Gabby Giffords for the sole reason to attempt to get a democrat out of office

(much like it was assumed katrina was a racial cleansing and changed a 50-50 into an 80-20 area.)

Funny how you quickly attempt to hide the reference to DANZINGER BRIDGE.

[PavePusher]

77. The NRA, for all their faults/foibles, have had nothing to do with shooting anyone.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

The Giffords shooter was a mentally ill person with no particular political leanings of any coherency (which is not the same thing as being right-wing).

[graham4anything]

80. the NRA does, and its too bad they are not taken to task in court trials

while rush limbaugh is an entertainer and cannot under our laws be held accountable for the words of his followers (though in WW2 he might have been considered a traitor or spy for the enemy)

the NRA backs the gun.

I am not a lawyer, and the last time I attempted to make a case a lawyer on the board had mentioned the thread deteriorated badly

but...

and you say about Gabby's shooter.

[PavePusher]

87. Really not sure what you are trying to say here.

Do you have some evidence that would be allowed into court, let alone stand up to scrutiny?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. Danzinger Bridge is not what this thread is about

It is you who keep throwing up strawmen only to see them washed away.

And what does my age have to do with anything? I have seen a lot in my day...including a lot of racism in many forms, sometime overt, other times hidden in the guise of helpfulness.

Lincoln...nice guy, too bad about the Marfan syndrome, and not relevant to this thread.

The NRA is not a hate group, they are a one issue lobbist and are seemingly quite effective. The perp who shot Gabby Giffords is an acknowledged nut case and I am unsure if he was an NRA member. Gabby was also a gun owner and shooter.

Clearly you are unable to argue within the context of the thread, but you should realize that the hurling of strawmen outside of context does nothing to support your viewpoint.

[graham4anything]

92. any point that is against guns is not part of a thread, according to all of you

I didn't bring racism into the thread

and Katrina showed who had the guns and it was legal guns by law enforcement used to kill and harm and bully out of New orleans unarmed people like Zimmerman did in Florida.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

97. Not sure what you have more of, hyperbole or strawmen

If you can make a valid link, do so. Haven't seen one from you on this thread. However, to pacify you lets look at the Danziger bridge incident during Katrina

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings):

The Danziger Bridge shootings were police shootings that took place on September 4, 2005, at the Danziger Bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana. Six days after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, members of the city's police department killed two people: seventeen-year-old James Brissette and forty-year-old Ronald Madison. Four other people were wounded. All victims were unarmed. Madison, a mentally disabled man, was shot in the back. New Orleans police fabricated a cover-up story for their crime, falsely reporting that seven police officers responded to a police dispatch reporting an officer down, and that at least four people were firing weapons at the officers upon their arrival.[2]

On August 5, 2011, a New Orleans Federal Court jury convicted five police officers of a myriad of charges related to the cover-up and deprivation of civil rights.

I don't see NRA involvement, I see serious police misconduct. With Katrina in general, I see poor planning and maintenance by the COE. I also see poor FEMA responses and a realization that rebuilding the 9th ward is just not going to happen. Again nothing involving the NRA. I am not in love with the NRA, but if you are going to throw rocks at them, at least target something they are responsible for, not some fantasy you have. Are you blaming them for Sandy as well? Are the NRA and Law Enforcement the same in you mind?

[holdencaufield]

120. "John Birch Society is proven racist"

Actually, untrue. While the ranks of the JBS most certainly included some racists -- the ranks of the Democratic Party most certainly includes some racists as well -- the primary bugbear of the JBS was Communists of all colours.

In any case, you can't just indiscriminately disarm people with a particular philosophy.

[mikeb302000]

126. It's not an either/or situation

we are working on the root causes, but we should also do something more about the gun availability.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

139. Not until it is safe for the good people to disarm

Which I would support when that happens. I would love to have a society where no one fears violence. I some how doubt I will see it in my lifetime.

Until then I will support progressive values like private ownership of firearms.

[Eleanors38]

32. Funny. Sanford Levinson made much the same argument.

[sylvi]

119. "...the NRA, which is the #1 lobby group in the nation..."

[mikeb302000]

122. thanks Graham. nt

[ileus]

4. I thought everyone with a gun was a criminal...

[aikoaiko]

7. Too many would still be able to get guns and otherwise victimize innocent people

Stripping people of civil liberties is not an acccetable response to crime.

[safeinOhio]

8. How would registration of handguns and

mandatory background checks on private sales be "stripping people of civil liberties"?

[aikoaiko]

11. Much like overly strict voter registration.

Under the guise of one person - one vote (a collective good thing), republicans are aiming to strip the civil liberty of voting from disadvantaged and others by tripping them up with new requirements.

Our OP has made it clear that any infraction of a gun law would mean your lose your right to keep and bear arms forever. His registration process is every 3 months for a while and then every year. Infractions would mean losing guns forever.

The same goes for overly strict storage laws and the requirement to report thefts. Such infractions would lead to loss of the RKBA forever.

Background checks on private sales can be accomplished on the state level. It can even be done well if there NICS were opened to the public.

[glacierbay]

21. Because it gives the govt

a list of what firearms a law abiding citizen owns and that could lead to confiscation, see California's assault weapons ban.
The govt has no business knowing what a citizen owns IMO.
Ya know, it's not like the govt has ever violated the civil rights of citizens.

[gejohnston]

23. your definition of reasonable/common sense is different than his

his not only includes "one strike your out" but also adds anyone who ever smoked a joint, responsible drinkers, obese people, anyone over 60.
Registration would create some civil service jobs.

[mikeb302000]

127. No one's talking about stripping people of anything. nt

[aikoaiko]

133. Is this not your goal?

Extremely strict gun control laws enforced nationally which would disqualify about half the present gun owners. Since that half, although legal under today’s rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including gun flow into the criminal world, the results would be tremendous.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-official-goal.html

[mikeb302000]

145. Oh, now I get it

You're against disarming the unfit, the irresponsible, the mentally ill. Why didn't you just say so.

[aikoaiko]

147. I'm against you creating mountains out of molehills....

...and creating millions of prohibited persons through minor infractions because you don't like gun culture.

[clffrdjk]

143. The phrase "too cute by half" comes to mind N/T

[Trunk Monkey]

9. Mandatory background checks

There are over 300 million guns in this country. Some unknown number of those guns has changed hands, some multiple times, from their original owner.

Because of this I could sell most of the guns I own without any documentation and no one would ever be able to connect them to me.

Now multiply that by millions

How do you intend to enforce mandatory background checks?

[safeinOhio]

10. Enforcement

Massive sting operations. If you saw lots of folks going to jail for selling a handgun without a check, you might think twice about breaking the law. If not, you might be looking at never being able to legally own any gun. It might not stop the current felons, but would make it tuff on the legal owner from selling to that crook.

[Mercracer]

12. Making Criminals out of Reasonable Responsible Adults

Have you paid attention to California and Illinois among other States? When you force firearm owners to register firearms and you ban common sporting firearms, you simply create a system of revenue generation and you end up imprisoning otherwise responsible law abiding citizens. I California I know of police officers who waited too long to register their AR15s and then got charged later when they were found to have one.
So called "assault weapons" are statistically rarely used in crimes. Actual machine gun use is almost unheard of.

[holdencaufield]

13. Enforcement...

... Massive sting operations ... lots of folks going to jail ...

Are you SURE you're a liberal?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. I'm quite sure...

...that other party has its "liberals". The brown shirts keep things from getting too far out of line.

[glacierbay]

19. I was wondering that myself

I'm a cop and I soundly reject what SIO , Mikey, and G4A are proposing. Just more police state policies IMO.

[glacierbay]

18. So your for creating a whole new class of criminals

and expanding the prison system even more, where does the money come from to house these newly created prisoners? Are they felons? Why ruin there lives?
Massive sting operations? So you want more police presence?
You really think that criminals will have any problem getting guns? They would just resort to smuggling them from across the border.
Your support of more police stings tells me all I need to know about you, I wholeheartedly reject massive LE stings, oft times, they go awry and police or innocent civilians get hurt or killed, and I speak from 30 years of experience.
No fucking thanks.
The only thing that registration will do is give govt a list of who owns what, the only people affected by registration are the law abiding citizen.
The govt has no business knowing what firearms a citizen owns.

[mikeb302000]

128. You sound a bit hysterical in that response.

Demanding gun owners to be responsible is not "creating a whole new class of criminals."

[hack89]

24. Just like 50 years of enforcing drug laws? Is that your model? nt

[mikeb302000]

129. Bad comparison.

We're not talking about making guns illegal and attempting to eradicate them from society.

[hack89]

134. You are trying to eradicated illegal gun use, correct?

you can't do it now. Why do you think you can do it in the future?

[Clames]

28. Doing an excellent job of proving concepts of being liberal...

...and progressive are things you are not familiar with..

[Eleanors38]

35. Hmmm. Sounds like God's own pot bust! Can' wait.

[MicaelS]

38. Do you seriously think millions of Americans are going to let you

Make criminals of them? And not do anything about it? Because if you do, you are deluded.

[Trunk Monkey]

94. That's kinda my point how do you enforce it?

I sell you a gun in Ohio , you use it to commit a crime in Indiana, the police check the serial number and it was originally purchased from an FFL in tampa in 1982.

I bought it from a news paper add in Colorado in 2008

Now how in the Hell is my name (that I never gave you when I met you in a Wal mart Parking lot in Ohio) ever going to come into it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Get over yourself.

Good and evil become reality not based on how you vote but on how you live and your day to day choices.



Weapons are manufactured because people have innate creativity.

Even here:


Those who haven't sought to harm others don't belong there, not because you made up a law that they broke. Here in the US private citizens own half of all the firearms in private hands in the world. Legislating them out of their private property and/or into prison would not achieve your goal.

[Remmah2]

15. Every baseball bat ever used in an assault started out as a legal bat somewhere.

Some of them started out in the little league.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Surely there's a way...

...to discover which of those little league players are future criminals.

[Callisto32]

20. "Bad"

A bad argument.

[glacierbay]

22. Everything he puts forward here

is generally a bad argument, problem is, he's one of those true believers, he doesn't care about the consequences of his actions.

[rrneck]

31. Criminals won't need guns if their victims can't fight back. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

37. In other words, punish the law-abiding.

Everyone knows that criminals won't obey laws, so by constraining gun owners to act more responsibly, access to guns by the bad guys is diminished.

In other words, punish the law-abiding people in the hopes of preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

No thanks.

In a free society where there is relatively free access to firearms, criminals will always also have relatively free access to firearms.

I'm not willing to give up my free society where there is relatively free access to firearms in an attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

I'll support an opt-out licensing program, but that is as far as I'll go.

This will help reduce the number of people selling firearms to people not qualified to own firearms, but it won't do much for reducing firearms in the hands of criminals. There are simply too many untraceable firearms already in circulation.

Theft will be harder due to safe storage law enforcement.

Are you satisfied with the current California Department of Justice requirement for safe firearm storage?

[mikeb302000]

130. It's not a punishment to require that gun owners be responsible. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

135. Registering firearms and/or owners is punishment.

And it's funny how I have to demonstrate my responsibility to you because of the actions of criminals.

Sounds like I am being forced to do something because of the actions of other people.

[sarisataka]

44. How is it a better argument than

Having a gun means you are enabling the criminal?
or
The police will protect you?
or
You will never be able to successfully defend yourself anyway?


It is true that it is not a great argument but'

Number one, criminals will not ALWAYS get guns

Yes, some of them will, 10%? 99%?, we don't know but there will always be armed criminals

Number two, even if criminals would always be able to get guns anyway, that does not justify making it easier for them to do so

And gun owners agree. Where there is a break down is that not every 'gun control' law will automatically reduce crime *cough,AWB,cough*. Many of the proposed 'reasonable' or 'common sense' laws will have an effect of something between zero and minute on criminals but does give a burden on those who legally own or purchase guns.

so by constraining gun owners to act more responsibly

We agree here but no in the way you might think. Act is the operative word. Requirements for security when not using a gun-sure, report stolen guns-I sure would. Ban arbitrary classes of weapons- um, no. Place limits on capacity, caliber or other features based on 'feeling' or 'it seems logical' with no data to back up what is proposed... that is not constraining how I act responsibly, it is an enforced mandate, limiting my right with no demonstrable increased public benefit.

[DanTex]

53. Exactly right.

The right-wingers making this argument miss the obvious fact that, while we may not be able to prevent all criminals from acquiring guns, we can certainly make it much more difficult, which will result in far fewer gun crimes.

[gejohnston]

54. have any evidence if this?

Canada's murder rate was 1/4 as ours when their gun laws were about the same or laxer than ours. The murder rate is still the 1/4 ours. Criminal use of handguns has increased there over the past 30 years.

[DanTex]

56. Yes, there is tons of evidence.

I'm not sure you've got your facts right with Canada. Nevertheless, since guns are only one of many factors that drive homicide and suicide rates, dedicated propagandists will always be able to cherry-pick statistics and find isolated instances where the general trend of more guns/more death doesn't hold.

The US has far laxer gun control laws than the rest of the world, and as a result, we have much higher rates of homicide and gun violence. Besides that, several studies have examined the relationship and found that guns are a significant factor driving homicide rates.

One of the reasons that it is basically only right-wingers make the "criminals will always have guns" argument is that if you look outside the US, the world is full of counterexamples. In Canada, UK, Japan, etc., criminals do not in fact have easy access to guns. Sure, there are a few gun crimes, and a very dedicated criminal can get a gun if he wants one, but the fact that it is so much more difficult means that there are less armed criminals, which means less shootings and less homicides.

[gejohnston]

60. actually I do

I'm not sure you've got your facts right with Canada. Nevertheless, since guns are only one of many factors that drive homicide and suicide rates, dedicated propagandists will always be able to cherry-pick statistics and find isolated instances where the general trend of more guns/more death doesn't hold.

compare their federal laws before 1977 with ours. Yes dedicated propagandists do cherry pick statistics, but there is no evidence gun availability drives suicide.

The US has far laxer gun control laws than the rest of the world, and as a result, we have much higher rates of homicide and gun violence. Besides that, several studies have examined the relationship and found that guns are a significant factor driving homicide rates.

Our homicide rate is not far higher than everyone elses. Funny, studies done by criminologists that don't start with the "guns are bad, let's find a way to prove it" don't quite come to the same conclusion.

One of the reasons that it is basically only right-wingers make the "criminals will always have guns" argument is that if you look outside the US, the world is full of counterexamples. In Canada, UK, Japan, etc., criminals do not in fact have easy access to guns. Sure, there are a few gun crimes, and a very dedicated criminal can get a gun if he wants one, but the fact that it is so much more difficult means that there are less armed criminals, which means less shootings and less homicides.

Actually they do. The reasons for less use has little to do with availability. Using your logic, Canada should have had more machine gun crimes before 1977 than handgun crimes, since their restrictions on those weapons was less than ours. Since you don't seem to have the slightest idea about the laws, culture, or history of any of these places.......................... your rants are often simplistic and boorish.

[DanTex]

68. Well, a lot of what you have posted here in the past has been outright false.

For example, your often-repeated claims about "criminologists". You seem to be using the strategy of making things up with the hope nobody will check.

Who knows whether you are right this time -- maybe I'll look it up later if I feel like it. But, like I said, one datapoint means very little in the overall picture, so whatever happened in 1972 in Canada or whatever doesn't change the overall picture which very clearly shows that higher gun availability results in higher homicide rates.

[gejohnston]

72. prove anything I said was false, since you are making the claim

like your "respected scientists" because they tell you what you want to hear.

Who knows whether you are right this time -- maybe I'll look it up later if I feel like it. But, like I said, one datapoint means very little in the overall picture, so whatever happened in 1972 in Canada or whatever doesn't change the overall picture which very clearly shows that higher gun availability results in higher homicide rates.

I seriously doubt you will, since you don't seem to check out anything that challenges your world view.
Is it gun availability or is it economics? If it is gun availability, what difference does it make if it is in a "developed" country or not? Of course you will reply with ridicule because you can't answer the question with an intelligent answer.

[DanTex]

75. Really? Just one thing?

Where do we start. Well, there was the time that you claimed that "70 percent (of murderers) have at least one felony conviction", a statistic you apparently made up off the top of your head (even the pro-gun ideologue Gary Kleck only estimates 25%):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=472482&mesg_id=472633

Then there was the time you claimed that Kellermann's gun study was funded by the Joyce Foundation (it was funded by the CDC):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=472482&mesg_id=472614

Then there was the time you claimed Rachel Maddow said something "demonstrably false" about plastic guns, and when asked to "demonstrate" you responded with an all-time classic line "Since you can not prove a negative, I have to go with my version."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117228759#post104

And so on. There list if false statements made by you is extremely long. So, like I said, based on your history of just making up "facts" to suit the pro-gun narrative, I don't put much weight on any sort of statistical or factual claims you make.

[gejohnston]

82. she did make the claim on her show

you have links claiming something is false, but no evidence is false. What I find interesting is that you describe Kleck as a "pro gun ideologue" although you have no idea what his personal view on guns are, and his work has been peer reviewed and published in criminology journals, won awards etc.
Meanwhile, Kellermann and Hemenway are "respected scientists" but not ideologues. Interesting.
Speaking of the Kleck link, the operative word is " conservatively"
Citing yourself is ummmmmmmmmmmmm not impressive.

[DanTex]

85. Umm, but the claim was not "demonstrably false".

Do you know what the word "demonstrably" means?

The fact that you weren't able to independently verify what she said doesn't mean it is "demonstrably false". Rachel Maddow is a highly reputed journalist with a research staff at her disposal. I think I'll go with her reporting rather than "the gejohnston version", particularly given that you can't seem to put together two sentences without making a false claim.

Citing yourself is ummmmmmmmmmmmm not impressive.

So does that mean you are still standing by any of those claims you made? You are still claiming that the Kellermann study was funded by Joyce, and that 70% of murderers have prior felony convictions? That Rachel's claim was "demonstrably false".

I hope you will actually answer these questions. I'm curious as to whether you are the kind of person who lies but then is willing to accept the truth when proven wrong, or whether you are the kind that will just cover your ears continue to repeat the lies over and over again.

[gejohnston]

88. are the kind of person who always falsely accuses other people

of lying, but whine when proven wrong or are you the kind of person who covers their ears and sing lalalalaalalala over and over again.

[DanTex]

89. Well, do you still stand by your false claims or not? Answer, please!

It's a simple question, gej. Either you still believe those statements or you don't. Sorry, you don't get to wriggle away and change the subject.

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. She did make that claim, and it *is* demonstrably false. See and hear it for yourself:

(FF to 0:48 to see and hear it)

Apparently, the "highly reputed journalist with a research staff at her disposal." neglected to obtain the opinion of a half-competent materials scientist-

or did and rejected it...

[DanTex]

104. LOL. Your "demonstration" that she lied is a youtube video from some right-wing idiot.

Just when you think the arguments from gun fanatics couldn't get any more idiotic...

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. So is the clip faked? If yes, my bad & I'll delete the link. If not, care to discuss what she said?

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Here it is direct from MSNBC. Got any more cavils?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#41030180

[DanTex]

108. LOL. I know what she said. Problem is, it's not "demonstrably false".

The only evidence you've presented to refute it is a youtube video by a gun fanatic. I know that the standards for "evidence" in the circles you frequent are very low, but even by gun nut standards, this is laughable.

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. Perhaps- but it's also not demonstrably *true* either.

I note the much touted "highly reputed journalist with a research staff at her disposal" neglected to source her claims in re the purported claim by Glock about the feasability
of all-plastic guns.

Sauce for goose, and all that...

[DanTex]

110. Look, gej claimed she said something "demonstrably false".

That's the point here. And, to the extent that words have meaning, gej was dead wrong: the only person who made a false statement was gej.

I never claimed that I could personally verify her story.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the way TV news works, but it doesn't usually come with footnotes. If you are curious about where she sourced her info from, you should contact MSNBC and ask. I did a little googling and I found an article about another firm (not Glock) that claimed that they were going to be able to manufacture all-plastic guns, so it's not hard for me to believe that Glock made such a statement.

Given that Maddow is a journalist who I respect highly and who has a research staff at her disposal, until someone presents any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that she didn't just make up that thing about Glock, but that it was based on some press release or news report. You, of course, can believe that she is making the whole thing up if you want, but what you can't do is provide evidence to support gej's false claim that she made a "demonstrably false" statement.

[gejohnston]

112. Glock never made the statement

no one said she made it up. It is entirely possible that her staff found it from some news report that got it wrong by confusing some parts with a "plastic gun". Since you nor anyone else can find any evidence of Glock making the claim, nor is such a gun in any European gun shop. I think that meets the definition of "demonstrable".

[DanTex]

114. Can you "demonstrate" that?

Or does your definition of "demonstrably" not involve demonstrations.

[gejohnston]

115. you are the last person who has any business giving vocabuary lessons

are you going to try to give me Japanese history lessons too? Your definition of demonstration. It seems that your narrow definition of demonstrably over shadows your very broad definition of vigilante.

[DanTex]

116. Why? What's wrong with my vocabulary? So have you given up on trying to defend your lies?

[gejohnston]

118. you don't know what the word lie means

and I have not been lying, so what's your point? Come to think of it, you don't know what the word troll means either.

[mikeb302000]

131. That's so simple and obvious. They know it too. nt

[Straw Man]

55. Ha-ha!

If guns are harder to come by, many criminals will not make the extra effort necessary to find alternate means of acquiring them.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Thanks! I haven't had such a good laugh in weeks.

BTW, I love the way you and your cronies try to pre-emptively stifle discussion by invoking the specter of the "usual suspects" who will be along shortly to disagree with you. It's so rhetorically ... authoritiarian that it give me a little thrill.

[DanTex]

57. Now that is the intellect I've come to expect from gungeon dwellers!

[Straw Man]

63. Love you too. At least I didn't say "LOL."

Let me explain it for the interpretively impaired:

The notion that criminals will lack the motivation to seek and find firearms is so farfetched as to be laughable. Even the yakuza in the gun-free paradise of Japan somehow manage to arm themselves. Any additional difficulty they may face in acquiring their weaponry will be more than offset by the growing likelihood that their victims will be unarmed. Advantage criminals.

Your sneering and substance-less rejoinders are what I've come to expect from gungeon "guests." You bring no credit to your cause, Danno.

[DanTex]

66. Japan is not really a great example to bring up for your side of the argument.

Have you checked Japan's homicide stats recently? Like everyone outside the NRA bubble seems to understand, if you make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, then you end up with lower rates of homicide and gun violence. This is why the US has by far the highest homicide rate in the developed world.

On second thought, you were better off not even attempting to make a rational argument.

Japan!

[gejohnston]

71. nor is it yours

If you actually knew anything about their history or culture, you would grasp that. I lived there. They take "sense of community" very seriously. Just for starters, they have very little wealth inequality, a very good social safety net, and their neighborhoods are not as stratified as ours. In the neighborhood I lived in, I had one neighbor, my landlord, who owned several apartment buildings, the family on the other side of me were like the Cleavers. a cab driver lived on the other side of the Cleavers, and where was a day care center and a welding shop across the street.

A few more differences:
there is no exclusionary rule
forced confessions are admissible

in civil cases, you never win against big business.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. Japan has a far higher homicide rate than the US-suicide *is* homicide.

Apparently non-gun homicides and suicides don't count amongst you lot...

[Dr_Scholl]

111. You should be just a little more condescending....

that'll REALLY get your point across.

[gejohnston]

113. that and personal attacks is best he can do

even when he pretends to be "scientifically minded" any critique of a Hemenway study gets the same treatment.

[Straw Man]

117. Japan

I'm sure Japan's low crime stats have nothing to do with it being a homogeneous culture that enforces its rigid social hierarchies with a shame-based system of peer and familial pressure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the police having virtual carte blanche in matters of detention and interrogation, resulting in a 99% conviction rate based mostly on coerced confessions. I'm sure a universal social welfare safety net and a high degree of income equality have nothing to do with it either.

Yes, Japan.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. At least it has more content than your exiled friend

[graham4anything]

73. who is exiled?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. Check the group info to see who has been banned

One of them was quite a cause celeb in Meta for a while, the other conveniently ignored.

[graham4anything]

93. live or learn. I did not know the "GROUP" can ban anyone anti-gun they want.

so anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint can be blocked from posting here in this particular forum which is not a forum but a group

so I ask again

If there is a separate forum(or group) for those who are anti-gun or anti-NRA or pro-gun control, does that mean if "we" stay out of your pro-gun group, you would stay out of "ours"?

as said, live or learn I guess (pun intended)

How does one start a new group and would you agree to an arrangement?
(I would wager the answer is no).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. Those individuals were not blocked for being anti gun but for bad behaviors

We have LOTS of antis hearabouts...

Site owners have indicated that they are good with things as they are. Check out the threads in Meta on this. Some of them were not even sporting.

[gejohnston]

100. this group is unique

If there is a separate forum(or group) for those who are anti-gun or anti-NRA or pro-gun control, does that mean if "we" stay out of your pro-gun group, you would stay out of "ours"?

I find echo chambers boring and pointless. All of us being together bitching at each other makes us all challenge our assumptions, ideological orthodoxy, etc. In short it makes us all better liberals/Democrats.
I read LBN and GD to read, the news. I subscribe to a couple of other groups, but I don't post often because I don't do the "me too" thing.

[rl6214]

121. "Even Second Amendment adherents, who I think are completely wrong "

You don't fucking live here, you don't have a say so.

[mikeb302000]

132. Who decided that, you? nt

[rl6214]

142. Do you have a congressman you can call to make what you want done happen?

You've been asked this many times and you ignore it every time. I would expect you are going to ignore it this time as well. What are YOU doing to make your anti-gun dreams come true, other than blogging about it? Are you active in any election campaigns? Have you contributed to the Brady campaign or the VPC or Maig? Who IS your congressman? How often do you call their office to voice your concerns? Inquiring minds want to know.

[4th law of robotics]

144. If everyone were equally disarmed, hypothetically

wouldn't the physically strong and violent tend to win out?

So hurray for large home intruder with a bat/knife/crowbar/etc!

Not so great for the frail old lady having her house broken in to.