EPTAnother Teenage Shooting/Suicide - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
On December 08 2007 13:43 Mayson wrote: Actually it's not convenient at all, considering I'm writing an editorial on the flaws of gun control. Servolisk, don't bother posting unless you intend to cite a (reputable and unbiased) source. qgart, I am in no position to pass judgment on the ease of committing crimes, and presumably, neither are you. Does it take a criminal to know how crimes are committed? Then I guess we should all be very afraid of cops. It is a simple matter of logic: If you want to smuggle firearms into a country where all firearms are illegal and sell it cheap, then you would need to smuggle a LOT of it for your business to pay off. Or, you can smuggle a small quantity and put a high price tag on it. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 13:46 Servolisk wrote: You cared enough to tell me the unbiased facts and statistics I've found are wrong without posting any kind of legitimate source.Hm, I don't care enough about this argument to actually source myself, so I think I'll not bother posting to you. Funny; the moment someone challenges your logic, you suddenly "don't care enough" and back down. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 13:49 qgart wrote: That's obvious.Does it take a criminal to know how crimes are committed? Then I guess we should all be very afraid of cops. It is a simple matter of logic: If you want to smuggle firearms into a country where all firearms are illegal and sell it cheap, then you would need to smuggle a LOT of it for your business to pay off. Or, you can smuggle a small quantity and put a high price tag on it. Before you were talking about how easy or difficult is it to smuggle illegal items into a given area. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
On December 08 2007 13:50 Mayson wrote: That's obvious. Before you were talking about how easy or difficult is it to smuggle illegal items into a given area. Ever heard of the "risk factor" when you are making an investment? What is easier, smuggling a lot or smuggling very little? How does each case affect the price of an illegal firearm? No need to be an economics major to see that illegal firearms would cost more in a country where firearms are outlawed. More importantly, I am waiting for your answer to my previous previous comment. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 08 2007 13:49 Mayson wrote: You cared enough to tell me the unbiased facts and statistics I've found are wrong without posting any kind of legitimate source. Funny; the moment someone challenges your logic, you suddenly "don't care enough" and back down. Did you see what I responded to when I said that? Crime rates do not change in a statistically-significant way as a result of gun control laws. Therefore, gun control laws serve no purpose other than to restrict the means of self-defense of law-abiding citizens. This has a source, other than you? You did not challenge any logic, you asked me to show you a source. I don't have one on hand, and I don't care to find one. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
Gun control laws currently in place do not affect the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms, as shown by the fact that said gun controls laws currently in place are broken on a daily basis by criminals. Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. I've cited sources previously. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
On December 08 2007 14:05 Mayson wrote: Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. I've cited sources previously. To the above, I objected: Do you agree that if a "law-abiding" citizens successfully defends against a violent crime, then he/she would not figure among the "murdered" "raped" or "robbed" when the stats are compiled? If so, the violent crime rates should be much lower in areas where ppl are allowed to carry firearms. Your own stats showed that this was not the case. I didn't say that citizens who own guns have to fight crime. However, if you successfully defend yourself against a criminal, can we say that you have effectively contributed in the decrease of crime rate in the area you live? But then again, you showed yourself that letting ppl own guns does not decrease crime rate. Also, if making firearms illegal in the entire country has a chance of increasing the prices of illegal firearms, then would it not a good thing to try? If nothing else, criminals will have to spend less money on drugs (which will probably make them less subject to violent behaviors). And until you provide me with reliable sources that illegal firearms would cost less in a country where firearms are outlawed, logic commands me to believe the opposite. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On December 08 2007 14:05 Mayson wrote: Gun control: restricting legal ownership of firearms with the intent of impacting the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms. Gun control laws currently in place do not affect the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms, as shown by the fact that said gun controls laws currently in place are broken on a daily basis by criminals. Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. I've cited sources previously. In a society where every single weapon either has to be smuggled into the country or stolen from the army/cops its a lot harder for a "criminal" to acquire a gun than in a society where you can find one in every other house. How can you deny this? If there are fewer gun then there are fewer people with guns. I know you dont like looking at europe but from now on in this thread could you stop saying that gun control doesnt work. Your argument was that gun control didnt work in the US remember? I dont think the higher level of crime in the US is only due to no gun control. I would however like to hear why you think the US has so much crime and why you think that amount of crime is something inherent to the US society/culture and something that cant be changed. I like your black and white view on criminals. Remember that all "criminals" are "law-abiding citizen" until they commit their first crime and remember that anyone who downloads music online or tries pot is a "criminal". Many people who are "criminal" in their youth turn out just fine when they grow older etc. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 08 2007 14:19 qgart wrote: You sound like a broken record. Maybe that's because people keep shrugging off his points, refusing to acquiesce, but also failing to rebut with sources/logic. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 08 2007 14:05 Mayson wrote: Gun control: restricting legal ownership of firearms with the intent of impacting the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms. Gun control laws currently in place do not affect the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms, as shown by the fact that said gun controls laws currently in place are broken on a daily basis by criminals. Which gun control laws do you refer to, ones in other countries, proposed gun control laws, or...? Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Did any of your sources say how many crimes involving guns were purchased legally/illegally? In the short term, what you say is probably somewhat accurate. Some criminals will have guns and regular citizens will not, but someone tell me why in the long term guns wouldn't eventually heavily decrease in the hands of criminals? | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
 The problem with regards to illegal acquisition is this: Guns are available two ways: The first is legally. Law-abiding citizens fill out the proper paperwork at their local law enforcement station, complete the necessary class time, class work, and range time under the direction of an NRA-certified instructor. The laws vary from state to state in the US, so that's a general overview of typical, and reasonable laws in the US. The second way is illegally. Criminals trade guns with one another, they steal them from people who own them legally or illegally to begin with, and so on. Criminal behavior is perpetual. The shooter in Omaha had a criminal history, including the theft of the rifle used in said shooting. By definition, criminal behavior operates outside of, and in defiance of, the laws in place. There are already gun laws banning and restricted various things, whether it be the legal acquisition of handguns (Washington, D.C.) or the acquisition of fully-automatic weapons and weapon suppressors (Massachusetts). Given this fact--and it is a fact, mind you--criminal behavior, and the illegal trafficking of firearms will not be drastically impacted by gun laws. So, gun control could become law, and law-abiding citizens will directly lose the means with which to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property, while criminals will not be affected, as, as has been shown through years of criminology, criminals break the law. That's why they're criminals--they break the law. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 15:05 Servolisk wrote: Great source!Stolen guns only account for 10-15% of guns used in crimes. I am supposed to be surprised that corruption (read: CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN DEFIANCE OF THE LAW) feeds criminal behavior? This is why I fully-support federal, state, county, and local law enforcement having the power to directly enforce firearms laws, and that firearms laws be enforced in much more severe ways. Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. | ||
|
qgart
Canada89 Posts
Someone said previously "Funny; the moment someone challenges your logic, you suddenly "don't care enough" and back down." | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 15:03 Servolisk wrote: No, what I've said is completely accurate.Which gun control laws do you refer to, ones in other countries, proposed gun control laws, or...? Did any of your sources say how many crimes involving guns were purchased legally/illegally? In the short term, what you say is probably somewhat accurate. Some criminals will have guns and regular citizens will not, but someone tell me why in the long term guns wouldn't eventually heavily decrease in the hands of criminals? Divide the population of the US into two groups: Citizens: people who do not engage in criminal activity or behavior Criminals: people who engage in criminal activity or behavior Apply gun laws to each group: Citizens: do not break the law, do not have the means to defend themselves Criminals: already defined as not following the laws, so they break the laws and use their means of violence A gun is a different tool based on who's hands it's in. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
Given this fact--and it is a fact, mind you--criminal behavior, and the illegal trafficking of firearms will not be drastically impacted by gun laws. So, gun control could become law, and law-abiding citizens will directly lose the means with which to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property, while criminals will not be affected, as, as has been shown through years of criminology, criminals break the law. That's why they're criminals--they break the law. I don't doubt they would still try to break the law, but if 85-90% of criminal gun sources are a result of lax gun control laws, as the source indicates, why would gun control not be able to severely lessen illegal acquisition? Criminals who buy them illegally through a friend will no longer be able to do so if their friend cannot buy the gun themselves. There would be no corrupt gun dealers if there were no legal gun dealing, etc. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 08 2007 15:09 Mayson wrote: Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior. Actually, a great deal of them do... | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
1. There are already many firearms in the hands of criminals, and available on the black market, and through corrupt FFLs, as you kindly pointed out to me. (Thanks again--that's a great source.) 2. Banning the legal sale of firearms completely would stop the illegal flow of firearms from FFLs to criminals. It also stops the legal flow of firearms to law-abiding citizens, who have never been the problem in the first place. What happens as a result of these two things is this: a hypothetical ban on guns deprives the law-abiding, those characterized by not being the problem in this issue, of the right to self-preservation and the protection of one's property, while the criminals are still armed. A disarmed society of citizens against armed criminals is a win-win for the criminals. As far as I'm concerned, gun control directly aids and abets criminals. So if not gun control, then what? How about instead of making more laws until we find the right one, we allow federal, state, and local law enforcement to enforce laws? Why doesn't the ATF begin doing random checks on FFLs themselves? Making cocaine illegal does not stop the flow of cocaine to the streets of the US. Enforcing the law that makes cocaine illegal produces results. Cut off the head, the body dies. | ||
| ||
