Gun Control Laws That Keep CRIMINALS from using Guns

[ReadyOnTheRight]

On another board that includes a lot of anti's, this question came up during arguments for and against gun control during the Maryland "Sniper" (Bushwacker) murder spree.

Someone asked -- "OK, if you are for more gun control, tell me how you would implement gun control in such a way that it controls CRIMINAL use of guns?"

I think this is a great way to try to get anti's and fence-sitters to open their minds a little and really think about what they are trying to accomplish. Most of the true anti's just shut down or resort to name-calling, but fence-sitters may start thinking.

What do you all think of this as an argument against gun control? Is there some sort of gun control that we don't currently have that might work? I'm fairly sure there's not, but many uninformed folks think they will lower crime if they can just control those evil guns.

Invariably, they'll come back with some version of the "Giant Magnet" theory. If all weapons disappeared (like...with a giant magnet in the sky), criminals wouldn't have weapons and non-criminals wouldn't then need them.

Besides the fact that you can't close Pandora's box, what many don't seem to realize is that then we would have a return to rule by gangs and force. To protect us from the barbarians in the next county, we would need regional allianaces led by the lords and kings (or whatever you want to call them) who can get the largest number of soldiers and subjects to fight when required.

I just wanted to get some thoughts from you all on these arguments before TFL closes.

 

[madkiwi]

Gun Control laws are a placebo that do not address the issue- criminal conduct. No "gun control" law has anything to do with crimes against others, they are all about restraining possession of inanimate objects. Saying that a law imposing extra penalties for using a gun in a felony is a "gun control" law is stupid- it is a law against violence (or the threat of violence).

They are also doomed to failure because the only people who abide them are the law-abiding citizen.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, by definition no "gun control" law is acceptable. You can forbid possession of weapons by convicted felons, but that is not a gun control law per se, and the prohibition should extend to knives, baseball bats and billy clubs.

Banning a law abiding citizen from possessing any potential weapon is an insult to anyone who has no evil or criminal intent. Once the precedent is set then the logical conclusion is the banning of any item that has potential to cause any harm (which is what they have now in England, with the bizzare consequence that people who resist attackers with a tool of any kind will be charged with a crime).

You can take that kind of existence and shove it. I won't live like that.

madkiwi

 

[Green Republican]

A few rough notes in preparation for my next masterpiece:
1. The existance of the police does not relieve you of the responsibility to take full measures to protect yourself. They (the police) are generally very good, as criminals don't commit crimes in front of them, but chances are excellent that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.
2. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours when you assume no responsibility yourself? If you feel it's so reprehensible to possess the means of lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
3. The liberal elite know what's best for us and that we simply can't be trusted. They are going to show us how to live and detest those who stand in their way. Firearm ownership is a threat to their utopian illusion that doesn't exist.
4. The "civilized" liberal elite distrusts its citizens more than they fear rapists and murderers. Those who believe it's wrong to arm themselves proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, believing that he cannot trust himself to behave responsibly. A state that deprives its law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves is a barbaric accomplice of violent crime.
5. Laws that keep honest, law-abiding citizens from the concealed carry of firearms breed nothing but disrespect for the law. Our Founding Fathers knew that a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding citizens with the means of self defense, is not itself worthy of trust.
6. Whose who call for more gun control exhibit a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights.
7. The complacent majority has consistently voted in leadership who promises to fulfill "what's in it for me" while overlooking the ideals that have made this country great. This has bred an environment where average thinking and mediocre performance is the rule of the land. We now have a state (I'm speaking of New Jersey) almost completely devoid of leadership lead by those who take from the public trust even for their own personal benefit. Where Constitutional Rights are trampled on in favor of the largest big screen TV and the newest BMW.
8. I'd love to agree with you, but then we'd both be an idiot.

 

[ReadyOnTheRight]

I guess I wasn't clear. If you read my post, you will see that I am totally against any new gun control laws -- and most old gun control laws.

My question -- or statement -- is that asking anti's and fence sitters:

Question: "What type of gun control law do you propose to keep CRIMINALS from using guns?"

might be a good way to get them to really think about their real objectives in pushing for more gun control.

Answer: THERE AIN"T NO SUCH THING. Gun control laws only affect (and hurt) the law-abiding.

But you can't just tell people this -- they need to get there on their own. I believe that this one question and some follow-on debate is a great way to bring a fence-sitter over to our side or to at least get an Anti to shut down (and typically resort to name-calling).

Most people in the middle -- including many hunters -- never really think about the 2nd Amendment or guns, but they certainly DO think about crime. The Anti's have jumped on this and associated criminals and guns in many people's minds: "If we could just get rid of those awful guns...everything would be just great!".:barf:

We have 18,000 TFL members here who can help associate guns with upstanding American citizens. When led there the right way, many Americans who don't even care to see, hold or shoot a gun will open their eyes and finally agree with our side. I've seen it happen many times, but you can't just lecture people or they immediately categorize you as a gun-totin' nutbag -- just like the media has taught them.

I was merely hoping to get some good ideas together (like AnklePocket and madkiwi's excellent points) on how to argue with an Anti before TFL closes.

I'll post a more straight-forward thread on this.

 

[TearsOfRage]

There could be some laws which slightly reduce - though of course not eliminate - strawman purchases and theft.

For instance, I might support a law that required dealers to give each customer a leaflet and a little lecture about safes (especially those quick-access handgun safes) and cable locks.
While I wouldn't require them to keep safes in stock, I would require them to have catalogs available and help the customer (IF he was interested) pick one out and order it.

I'm sure many people (like myself) buy their first gun or two and just don't think about getting a safe for a while, and many people aren't even aware that those quick-access safes exist.

 

[Quartus]

The existance of the police does not relieve you of the responsibility to take full measures to protect yourself.

Blissninnies usually have no clue about the existence of something called, "responsibility", so telling them about THEIRS makes no difference to them.


11.43x23, that's a lousy username. Can I just call you "Eleven"?


Anyway, I think your question is excellent. In general, asking them questions is a very effective tool, IME. You force THEM to walk through the "unintended consequencees" and come to the logical conclusions for themselves. Frankly, it's the only technique I have ever found that gets them to start thinking. Once they do that, you can pour some facts into the process.

 

[Blackhawk]

11.43x23,

I think that's an excellent gambit.

It would seem that jail would keep criminals from using guns, so why aren't they there? Some venues tack on extra mandatory jail time for crimes involving guns, etc.

The upshot would be having the antis focusing on criminals instead of upright citizens with guns.

Good thinkin'...!

 

[BogBabe]

I think such a discussion only validates the hoplophobia that anti's exhibit. Why should we want laws specifically to prevent criminals from using guns, any more than we want laws to prevent criminals from using knives, tire irons, bombs, airplanes, bare hands, big rocks, baseball bats, or any other conceivable type of weapon?

This type of discussion only lends credence to the hoplophobic view that guns are somehow more dangerous than anything else in the world, and that guns, specifically, must be targeted for special treatment.

I'd rather focus on crime and criminals, and I don't give a flying fart about what kinds of weapons they may or may not use.

 

[Blackhawk]

Good point, BB. Extra penalty laws should apply to criminals who use ANY weapon in a crime. Of course, that would include fists, feet, and on and on.

Looks like the existing laws should be enforced with mandatory penalties for committing any violent crime.

Problem there is, the antis will say that's what we already have and guns are more onerous that a poke in the eye, then the arguments are right back where they were and are now.

Instead of the antis blathering on about the false "inherent evil" of guns, I'd rather have them on a crusade against criminals who use guns. It's sort of like tossing a pesky dog a bone to distract him....

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Florida used to have the perfect law enforcement device for preventing criminals from obtaining guns. It was named "Old Sparky." Unfortunately, it was retired because occassionally, the criminal being prevented from acquiring guns had a little smoke coming out his ears and some liberal folks thought this was bad.

 

[BogBabe]

It's sort of like tossing a pesky dog a bone to distract him

Well, but this particular dog is very big, and very demanding, and his appetite is huge. Every time you toss him a bone, he chews it up and comes back at you for the next one.

He's voracious, and his appetite will never be satisfied.

Sorry, I can't believe that tossing a bone to this doggy will accomplish anything.

 

[SIGarmed]

TearsOfRage,

I just thought I'd post my opinion on the matter. Creating any law forcing a gun dealer to do what you described in your post is IMHO wrong.
This is similar to what is being done in California. The gun dealers must instruct,and test the buyer so they can recieve a permit,make sure the buyer has a CA DOJ approved gun lock or safe, and keep track of all related documentation. While what you suggest isn't as much as California is doing I think you get the picture.

What happens when a person has an accident? Can you say litigation? This is a step in putting gun dealers out of business not to mention increasing government control. This is the exact goal of the anti gun victim disarmament crowd. This accomplishes what they want without actual bans.

 

[Zundfolge]

The only laws you could ever pass that could actually prevent criminals from using guns would be laws that render criminals unable to use a gun. This means either you execute every criminal or maybe chop their hands off or something. Not something I think you could get past the old "cruel and unusual punishment" thing


Which I think is your original point ... there is NO LAWS THAT CAN STOP BAD PEOPLE FROM DOING BAD THINGS IF THEY REALLY WANT TO.

All gun control laws can do is make more honest people into "technicality" criminals and disarm the victims of real crime.

 

[Blackhawk]

Which I think is your original point ... there is NO LAWS THAT CAN STOP BAD PEOPLE FROM DOING BAD THINGS IF THEY REALLY WANT TO.

All gun control laws can do is make more honest people into "technicality" criminals and disarm the victims of real crime.

Agreed.

And with you too, BogBabe.

We have plenty of laws to keep criminals from using guns. They're just not enforced vigorously enough.

 

[sm]

Agree with BogBabe and Blackhawk.

Gangbanger once told a group:
"criminals love gun control...we don't pay attention to it...just makes the law abiding more vulnerable".

This was part of the answer given in response to my question:
"Ok your 17, where'd you get your guns?"

 

[labgrade]

Stated it before.

I am for some form of gun control.

Big problem I have is how do you prevent those who should clearly not have any access to firearms (other "bad" stuff? that comes in a minutes) without infringeing on those who won't misuse 'em?

That is the entire crux of our Bill of Rights.

There is no prior restraint. You must first screw the pooch before our legal system can "punish" you.

Attempting to restrain anyone from possessing anything in the vain attempt to prevent its future misuse is so totally contrary to our "governmental belief system" as to be from Mars.

One either gets that basic premise, or there is no sense discussing anything else."Misadventure" with a gun, knife, bat, penis .... how you gonna prevent these things?

Was a time, not so long ago (call it the early-mid 60's) one could actually buy - mail order, no less - most anything one could want & pay for. No NICS, no background checks .... in fact, the only check anybody cared about was if it cleared (as in the money being good).

Compare/contrast crime rates when we were so much more free to today, when we are clearly not.

Clearly, the availability of "weapons" has absolutely nothing to do with teh crimes rates, or the violence of same.

Something else going on.

Restricting our freedoms has done jack to curtail our societal slide into the sludge.

Your call - sadly enough - in this "new democracy."

:barf:

 

[agricola]

they arent specifically speaking "gun control" laws, but over here we have legislation that states if a perp has in his possession a firearm during the commission of or at the time of arrest for (which of course may not be the same time) an offence, then he/she commits a separate offence for which one can get as much as life.

i know gun control is anathema to you, but IMHO the law should come down severely upon those who use firearms criminally.

 

[Hal]

<snip>but IMHO the law should come down severely upon those who use firearms criminally.

Sorry, that's just too stupid to let pass. In reality, what you're saying is that if a gun is used to commit murder, it's worse than beating someone to death with a club, setting them on fire, impalement,,or a couple of hundred other more sadistic and cruel methods.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

if a gun is used to commit murder, it's worse than beating someone to death with a club

That's something I've always wondered about so-called Hate crimes. Why is it worse to kill someone belonging to a group or race that you are prejudiced against than for killing someone for the $5 in his wallet?