Universal Health Care CHECK, next up the 2nd Amendment! Once this is done, the 1st amendment....and without guns we will be helpless to stop this tyrannical movement!!
Universal Health Care CHECK, next up the 2nd Amendment! Once this is done, the 1st amendment....and without guns we will be helpless to stop this tyrannical movement!!
Pssst.... [wags finger to motion "come here"]
Bud, you're helpless now, your pop gun isn't going to help you against the gubamint.
Universal Health Care CHECK, next up the 2nd Amendment! Once this is done, the 1st amendment....and without guns we will be helpless to stop this tyrannical movement!!
Pssst.... [wags finger to motion "come here"]
Bud, you're helpless now, your pop gun isn't going to help you against the gubamint.
Out of curiosity - what's a "pop" gun?
Why does "gubamint" want my "pop" guns if they (pop guns) can't do anything anyway?
I'm not saying people shouldn't stay on top of what's being proposed to remove rights. However, at about 2 minutes into the clip a speaker is saying we can't wait until 2006. I hate gun grabbers, but stirring up fear with old news clips is wrong.
The polarity of the last two administrations has really been enlightening...you have two separate administrations, who thus far have been quite similar in their actions. The only real difference is in inconsequential rhetoric. And yet now one side thinks things are on the upswing and the other side thinks the sky is falling.
As far as universal health care...not happening. What's happening currently is simply a shift in the money...and perhaps (likely) a higher profit margin for insurance and pharm companies.
As far as guns...the gun control push in America is where it has been, as far as I can tell. I really haven't seen much progression legally...they've been making the same strides they've been making for the last decade...if the current administration has any major plans for it, look for it to roll out in the second term.
And rest assured....they will eventually lose out.
If what they passed was universal healthcare, we need to re-evaluate the definition of "universal." Like PDR said, this is hardly a change from the past and can only loosely be applied to the definition of "reform." The same problems will still exist as in the past.
I'm not exactly sure how Universal healthcare and gun control go hand in hand, unless you consider the rhetoric thats pandered about by the Beck's and Limbaugh's of the world. If anything, I'd say that most of the populace are more liberal towards gun control, meaning they want the ability to protect themselves through the use and ownership of firearms. We've seen a large number of states in the past decade adopt concealed carry laws. No matter what the Right side says, the extreme Left will not be able to pass an anti-gun law. Now, what they may try to do is close some of the loopholes that exist so that people can't purchase firearms that aren't registered to them, but that's hardly taking away someones ability to own a firearm (unless said person is a felon ... but they probably shouldn't own one anyways).
Quote: but stirring up fear with old news clips is wrong.
Please let us, the individuals, judge for ourselves on whether it frightens us or not. We are not children. I can, with certainty, as an individual, say it did not frighten me.
Whao, an ominious music video. I made it through the first 5 minutes of it. Seemed to me we simply have opposing groups exercising their 1st amendment rights trying to make the most of their case through scare tactics.
Quote: Please let us, the individuals, judge for ourselves on whether it frightens us or not. We are not children.
Discourse between individuals is an important part of the decision making process as it helps to (hopefully) weed out the poor ideas and reinforce the good ones. KyDawg was merely pointing out the basis and goal of Sun's argument, to sway you in favor of their argument by scaring you, thus promoting an emotional, not rational, decision. It's important to recognize and call out logical fallacies such as this in order to help others make informed, not fear-driven, decisions.
Don't we not even have an assault weapons ban right now (like it expired 2-3 years ago?) I really don't understand the constant panic that "somebody's always tryin to take my guns!"
And for anybody who thinks they're going to "stand up to the government" with their Colt .45 or their hunting rifle, well... ever seen an Abrams tank? Wait, it's illegal for the government to use tanks against the american public. Ever seen an Apache?
In most things, Americans and Canadians are extremely similar but I don't know if I'll ever understand the gun debate.
Why is increased gun control bad? Its not saying that you outlaw guns or you're prohibited from having them- just that more strict measures are in place to better ensure that good gun owners have the guns and less fall into the hands of criminals.
Is it the whole revolutionary aspect of the American identity? That a good american is one with a gun thats ready to rise up at a moment's notice? I can kind of understand the attachment to that notion but that was a long long time ago and political activism isn;t carried out with firearms anymore.
You don't read much about the US government do you? Anytime they get one foot in, they don't take long to put their whole self in and shake it all about.
it's an assumption based on prior history, and one I'm not willing to test if I can avoid it.
Criminals will get guns, controls or not. That is why they are called criminals, they don't abide by laws.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 01/13/1001:45 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
It really isn't that big of an assumption. You can look to smoking laws, trans-fats and probably a half dozen other things as examples of how the U.S. Gov't is trying to assert control over every facet of its citizens lives. Once this Gov't gets its paws into something, it does not let go and it *always* grabs more than it said it would.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: It really isn't that big of an assumption. You can look to smoking laws, trans-fats and probably a half dozen other things as examples of how the U.S. Gov't is trying to assert control over every facet of its citizens lives. Once this Gov't gets its paws into something, it does not let go and it *always* grabs more than it said it would.
Well, the root of the word "government" is "govern" which you elect them to do. Regulation does not equal control.
Here's I guess part of the root of the issue is that there seems to be alot of people who fundamentally distrust government. I mean, I can't say that I think that government officials are all great people who live their lives selflessly and are wholly dedicated to my quality of life but do you really think that they are out to get us?
I look at the laws you state as intrusions and:
Smoking- Its bad for you and kills you. It has an incredible impact on the health care system and raises people's premiums. (And seriously, you think you're regulated? You should see the taxes on tobacco up here....yowza.)
Trans fats- Once again, something not good for you. Restaurants have options to replace without affecting food quality or taste- just costs more. So end of the day, people pay for a better product thats better for them.
The job of government is to work for its citizens. It's a shame that there is so little faith in the government and its work in the US. It's even more of a shame that government action over the years has caused that lack of faith. Is that what it is? Has there been so much government corruption over the years that citizens just refuse to trust the system, even when it does something good?
I struggle to understand...... For being just 2 hours from the border, the US seems a world away when I try to understand the political will.
Quote: Smoking- Its bad for you and kills you. It has an incredible impact on the health care system and raises people's premiums. (
Whether it is good for me or not is completely irrelevant. It is my RIGHT to be able to do as I choose in regards to myself. Alcohol is bad for you, so is chocolate, cake, ice cream, pizza, coca-cola, breathing the air in Cleveland, etc.... do you support your government restricting or even denying you access to these things?
Quote: And seriously, you think you're regulated? You should see the taxes on tobacco up here....yowza.)
Just because you have it worse doesn't mean that we should just accept what we're saddled with and say "ho hum... they're in charge, they must know what's best".
Quote: even when it does something good?
The crux of the problem - "something good" is VERY, INCREDIBLY subjective.... and moreover, whether or not I should be forced to do something - or prevented from doing something - based upon some elected officials deciding that it is good/bad for me is NOT their job. Their job is to govern industry, provide for the common defense, etc.. it is MY job to decide for myself what is good/bad for me.
That is what Freedom means. I'm (supposedly) Free to do good for myself, Free to do bad for myself, and Free to take on the consequences of either. It is MY choice in all cases, not dictated to me by some people that are being led around by the nose by lobbyists.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
I think the biggest issue is with American Politics is the polarization that has happened over the last 20 years.
It is almost physically impossible to make any argument on either side without being labled a radical. We as a country have lost the ability to see in Gray. Everything has to be black and white.
From my standpoint we have a "two party system" where both parties act the same. They scream about different things, but do the exact same things when they are in power. So since they are basically the same party, they have to distinguish themselves through their rhetoric,and this has led to the above polarization.
I agree with you, that there is a difference between gun control and gun bans. i am for Gun control and against gun bans, but a majority of people do not see the distinction. Or in this case one has to lead to the other. So by Pythagoras's Theorum we are against all guns. isn't this black and white political world great?
Quote: Just because you have it worse doesn't mean that we should just accept what we're saddled with and say "ho hum... they're in charge, they must know what's best".
First off, wasn't trying to make a point here.... just a point of humour. When I was smoking, I LOVED roadtrips to the states for cheap cigarettes. Twas a beautiful thing.
Quote: Whether it is good for me or not is completely irrelevant. It is my RIGHT to be able to do as I choose in regards to myself. Alcohol is bad for you, so is chocolate, cake, ice cream, pizza, coca-cola, breathing the air in Cleveland, etc.... do you support your government restricting or even denying you access to these things?
So what's the difference? Well, first off the above substances (with arguably the exception of alcohol) are not chemically addictive products. The fact is that people are often able to self-regulate, which too often, is not the case with tobacco. Thus, for the good of its people, the government regulates. They serve the citizenry in a way they cannot serve themselves.
In addition, smoking in certain instances infringes upon other's health and thus affects their freedom and liberty hence the widespread removal of smoking in public places (Side note: Can you guys still smoke in bars?)
Quote: The crux of the problem - "something good" is VERY, INCREDIBLY subjective.... and moreover, whether or not I should be forced to do something - or prevented from doing something - based upon some elected officials deciding that it is good/bad for me is NOT their job. Their job is to govern industry, provide for the common defense, etc.. it is MY job to decide for myself what is good/bad for me.
Making policy decisions on a national or state level IS their job. They don't decide what is good or bad for you....They decide what is good or bad for the group. Hence, they don't come to your house and say "Hey, that's your 60th smoke today, you should really cut back." but they will raise the tax on them to inhibit the overall populace from smoking more or start smoking or whichever.
It is your choice to do what you want to do but don't expect the government to endorse something that is bad for you and ultimately may cause a burden on the country as a whole.
I think the biggest issue is with American Politics is the polarization that has happened over the last 20 years.
It is almost physically impossible to make any argument on either side without being labled a radical. We as a country have lost the ability to see in Gray. Everything has to be black and white.
From my standpoint we have a "two party system" where both parties act the same. They scream about different things, but do the exact same things when they are in power. So since they are basically the same party, they have to distinguish themselves through their rhetoric,and this has led to the above polarization.
I agree with you, that there is a difference between gun control and gun bans. i am for Gun control and against gun bans, but a majority of people do not see the distinction. Or in this case one has to lead to the other. So by Pythagoras's Theorum we are against all guns. isn't this black and white political world great?
Awesome insight hungry....thanks! That actually makes alot of sense!
Wasn't there a third party trying to get off the ground.....Libertarians?
Why is increased gun control bad? Its not saying that you outlaw guns or you're prohibited from having them- just that more strict measures are in place to better ensure that good gun owners have the guns and less fall into the hands of criminals. I just don't see the point.
What more gun laws do we need? It is illegal for felons to own guns. They still do - they don't care about the laws.
It is illegal to use a gun in crime. Happens every day though.
It is illegal to use lethal force unless your life, or the lives of others, depends on it. It still happens, every day.
Long story short, the gun laws in the u.s. are unbelievably tight. (aside from the gun shows - no restrictions there).
And, aside from the gun shows (which is a problem, I admit), the law followers get handcuffed more and more, while the law breakers - hell, they don't care about the laws.
Take the guns out of the hands of people that obey the law and what would we have? Law abiding citizens with no guns - and criminals chomping at the bit - with guns in hand.
We have enough gun laws. More laws won't do anything to deter the bad guys. All more laws will do is further the difficulty for legal gun owners to abide by the law - thus, making them criminals. (gilbert arenas? - can't have a gun in DC unless it is broken down - parts stored seperately......yeah, at 2 a.m. when someone breaks into my house I really want to grab this locked box, unlock it, then go grab another locked box, unlock, then assemble my gun, then go somewhere else and grab the ammo. May as well call 911 and tell them to hurry, cause I'm fearing for my life.......and step on it).
I will say, recently Ohio has passed the "castle doctrine". What's that mean? Without it, I, as a homeowner, was legally required to, even if I had a gun - do everything possible to escape from my own home if an intruder entered. Yup - I'm sitting around, watching t.v.....a guy breaks in - I needed to first try to flee. Otherwise, I would've/could've been held and charged for any injury to the intruder.
The way it is now, I am free to protect myself, my family, and my home if someone breaks in. And, keep in mind, there are still strict rules in place on me, even WITH the castle doctrine.
More laws will not make the criminals follow the new ones. It WILL. however, make criminals out of good people.
Very well laid out arch....compelling argument. Although I'm not convinced that more controls couldn't be laid out....
Home defense is, in my mind, a valid reason for owning a firearm. You have the right to protect your property. Absolutely. But that still leaves steps that can be taken to better control the proliferation of firearms without infringing upon people's right to defend their home or hunt or target shoot.
Off the top of my head:
registration- Helps track firearms in circulation and identify ones that may have been used in crime
handgun restrictions- Right to bear arms sure....right to a handgun...why? Its not like you need something to quick draw. Cuts down on easily concealed weapons that are most often used in crime.
Waiting periods- Admittedly, I'd like to know more about this but the mass media portrayal makes it sound like very little is required to buy a firearm. Toughen the process up- examine past gun ownership to look for evidence of black market gun sales?
Limitations on licensing- Different licenses for different acts. Want a gun for hunting? Here's the licensed candidates. Home defense? There ya go. Target shooting? There ya go. Ensure people are using this things for the correct purpose.
Limitations on the number of guns owned- Do they have this?
Ammunition purchase limits
etc
This is just spitballing here and I know there's vast gaps to address but I just wanted to demonstrate that regulation and restriction does not mean removal. Unrestricted access can be unneccessary and dangerous.
What they really need are laws put in place to regulate and control the media. Less glorification of violence in the movies and TV ... less 15 days of fame for guys who go on shooting rampages ... etc. Would probably go a LOT further in preventing violent crimes than trying to ban guns from law abiding citizens.
But the irony is that the same guys who be completely happy if we repeal the second amendment will cry complete foul if we dare think of touching the first amendment. If control and responsibility is something that should be accepted by 2nd amendment advocates, than why is it so frowned upon when regarding the 1st amendment?
For a lawful abiding citizen....WHY? Why would you put them through all of that...what do you hope to accomplish?
Quote: registration- Helps track firearms in circulation and identify ones that may have been used in crime
Understandable...but that is one more list that the government doesn't need to have power over...
Quote: handgun restrictions- Right to bear arms sure....right to a handgun...why? Its not like you need something to quick draw. Cuts down on easily concealed weapons that are most often used in crime.
And it also cuts down on the number of people who are able to have defended themselves. You realize one of the inventors of the Kevlar police vests personally defended himself from 3 men who were known murderers with a small .22 handgun. He lived in Detroit and was a pizza delivery man....while delivering a pizza, the 3 men went to surround him and the main guy went to pull his gun on him...had it not been for the .22 he would surely be dead and body armor develeopment definitely wouldn't have been the same.
Now I understand you want to get the gun out of the hand of the murderer.... but what you are proposing does not do that...what you are proposing gets the gun out of the hand of that pizza delivery man.
Quote: Limitations on licensing- Different licenses for different acts. Want a gun for hunting? Here's the licensed candidates. Home defense? There ya go. Target shooting? There ya go. Ensure people are using this things for the correct purpose.
The biggest purpose for owning a firearm is not listed and would NEVER be listed....It is the original intent of the 2nd ammendment. The 2nd ammendment is not about letting some redneck shoot beer cans in his back yard to his hearts content.....It's not about hunters shooting as much game as their limits allow.....It has always been about checks and balances concerning the power of the government. The founding fathers deliberately put a clause in to allow the people of the United States the ability to to overthrow any government, should that government become too powerfull and/or tyrannical. It is a protection clause not just against criminals...but mainly against a corrupt and overbearing government. And if a government wanted to stop that possibility...that registration list is a great place to start eliminating the threat....don't you think???
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
If we stick with your line of thinking and extend it to the other things that are dangerous we can have permits for knives, workshop tools, gas/fuel, and the list never ends. EVER.
Anyone can look up how to make a bomb out of household chemicals and a steel can. Rocks are shrapnel. Do we sell permits for rocks?
While in the USMC I participated in demolitions and improvised explosive classes. You wouldn't believe the bombs and weapons you can make with the items in most everyones house.
What would make more sense is to empower the people - not assume that because the "risk" is out there, that no one should be trusted. That just leaves citizens as wards of the State, with them deciding what's best for us.
Quote: registration- Helps track firearms in circulation and identify ones that may have been used in crime
...only if the criminals register their firearms. Fat chance of that happening.
Quote: handgun restrictions- Right to bear arms sure....right to a handgun...why? Its not like you need something to quick draw. Cuts down on easily concealed weapons that are most often used in crime.
....and cuts down on easily concealed weapons that are most often used in self defense. Do you honestly think a criminal is going to care whether there's a handgun law in effect.....and then decide "I can't use a handgun to commit this crime....it's against the law".
Quote: Waiting periods- Admittedly, I'd like to know more about this but the mass media portrayal makes it sound like very little is required to buy a firearm. Toughen the process up- examine past gun ownership to look for evidence of black market gun sales?
Black market gun sale is a felony. The current background check will reveal all information regarding criminal history of the purchaser. A waiting period will do nothing additional....except prevent someone who's been threatened from defending him/herself. If you think the police are going to provide 24hr security to someone that's been threatened, you're sadlly mistaken.
Quote: Limitations on licensing- Different licenses for different acts. Want a gun for hunting? Here's the licensed candidates. Home defense? There ya go. Target shooting? There ya go. Ensure people are using this things for the correct purpose.
You're again assuming criminals will abide by the law. We already have enough gun laws that, if they were followed, would prevent all gun related crime.
Quote: Limitations on the number of guns owned- Do they have this?
Ammunition purchase limits
Why?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Home defense is, in my mind, a valid reason for owning a firearm. You have the right to protect your property. Absolutely.
But in a lot of states, still, the homeowner needs to take every action they can to flee the premises. And that's wrong in my opinion.
Quote:
But that still leaves steps that can be taken to better control the proliferation of firearms without infringing upon people's right to defend their home or hunt or target shoot.
Okay - let's see:
Quote:
Off the top of my head:
registration- Helps track firearms in circulation and identify ones that may have been used in crime
Yes. And every gun I have bought new - I've had a back ground check from the FBI. Tracking which ones were used in crimes? Not sure how that helps - meaning - the gun was used in a crime - so where's the gun? Now, if by "identifying" which ones were used you mean coming back to the original owner and questioning them - fine. But keep in mind there are millions of guns that are literally untrackable. I myself have a .22 rifle that my grandpa bought new - prior to 1946, because that was the last year they made that particular rifle. How do we track that? Oh, we have the lawful owner go register it. Okay, so I will. Will the crooks/criminals? No. Why penalize me, a lawful owner? (and yes, although there is not a registration fee currently, there will be, I"m sure)
Quote:
handgun restrictions- Right to bear arms sure....right to a handgun...why? Its not like you need something to quick draw. Cuts down on easily concealed weapons that are most often used in crime.
Don't need anything to quick draw? Talk to concealed carry holders. It's tough to conceal a shotgun. (oh, and legal concealed carry people go through training and approval from the county sheriff - in Ohio anyway). Why should I be put at a disadvantage to someone that would want to do me harm? If I'm sitting on my couch watching tv with a gun at my side and someone breaks in and points a gun at me - why should I have to pull up a shotgun?
Quote:
Waiting periods- Admittedly, I'd like to know more about this but the mass media portrayal makes it sound like very little is required to buy a firearm.
To go to a store to buy a gun - you need i.d. No biggie. You need to pass the FBI background check. No biggie for most people. (non felons, non mental people, etc) Hard to qualify? Not really. Keep in mind, this is for handguns, long rifles, shotguns, semi auto, pump, and single shot. Automatic rifles are illegal, everywhere.
Quote:
Toughen the process up- examine past gun ownership to look for evidence of black market gun sales?
I agree. However - how do you do that? Do you make someone coming in to buy a gun bring all their other guns so that the store can say "yup, he had 10 registered to him, and he brought them all in"? How do you enforce that? Okay - put a limit on the number of guns you can buy per year. I'm fine with that. As long as it is reasonable.
Quote:
Limitations on licensing- Different licenses for different acts. Want a gun for hunting? Here's the licensed candidates. Home defense? There ya go. Target shooting? There ya go. Ensure people are using this things for the correct purpose.
So I need to get 3 licenses for my shotgun? I hunt with it, I shoot skeet with it, and I have it close by for home defense. I need 3 licenses? What about my handgun? I hunt with it, I target shoot with it, and I use it - check that - I HAVE it for home defense. I need to get 3 licenses for both guns? Okay - I will. The bad guys? They couldn't care less about the laws. And really, that's where all this heads to - law abiding citizens will follow the laws. The bad guys won't - no matter what the laws are.
Quote:
Limitations on the number of guns owned- Do they have this?
Why would they? What does that do to protect anyone? You want the gov't. to limit how many cigarettes you can buy? You want the gov't. to limit how many cars you can own, or how many tv's you can have? You want the gov't. to limit how many beers you can drink? You want the gov't. to limit how many times you can have sex in a month? Sounds silly - but each of these things I mentioned also costs society as a whole.........it's ludicrous to limit how many times you can have sex, isn't it? It's ludicrous to also limit how many guns John can have, isn't it?
Quote:
Ammunition purchase limits
We already know that guns will not be banned. They may make law abiders jump through more hoops, but they won't ban guns. However, raising the hell out of taxes on ammo is very much within their power and desire. Got a gun? Great - you need to pay $30 for a box of what used to cost you $5. (and yes, not 2 years ago I was able to buy shotgun shells - skeet shells, for about - on sale - $4 per box - now, I have to search real hard to find a box for under $6.) Wanna buy 9mm ammo? Pony up cowboy - the price is through the roof - IF you can find them. Now, some of that is people buying and hoarding ammo in fear of the taxes I mentioned. I know that.
I know many, many people that are stockpiling. I want more .223 ballistic rounds. (don't let the name scare you - they knock the hell out of woodchucks - take down a coyote if you're a good shot, but I wouldn't use them on a deer - a hollow point maybe, but anyway)
Quote:
Unrestricted access can be unneccessary and dangerous.
Counter that with "restricted access IS unnecessary and can be dangerous.
Wasn't but 2 years ago our county sheriff (wanting more money because things have been tough here - he laid off quite a few employees....etc) said: If we don't get more tax money, I will tell everyone in the county to get a gun, because we will not be able to protect them".
Exaggeration on his part? Maybe. But keep in mind - as I speak - type, that is, my bad - there are 2 deputies on patrol in Henry County - right now. My guess is Henry co. is about 625 sq. miles. 2 guys on duty. I have no local police to call if something happens. What if something happens and both deputies are 20 miles away from me? Someone breaks in my house..........I get to the phone, dial 911, and am told "help is on the way".......but I have to wait 20 minutes for it..........
Yeah I'd say so...and interesting, well thought out responses by all. Couldn;t possibly reply to everyone individually but there's a common theme among responses I'd want to address.
Lots of folks are saying "Gun restrictions are useless because criminals won;t follow the laws." Well, this is right and wrong.
Absolutely correct in that you've average villian doesn;t give a rats what gun laws are or aren't. They want a tool to commit crime with and thats exactly what they do.
However, I'd put it to you folks that better gun regulation makes it more difficult to acquire a weapon as more checks are put in when selling weapons.
I'd guess that mostly all weapons used in crime were likely bought from a commercial vendor originally and then have slowly made their way from purchase or theft into the criminal side of the equation.
If you regulate or limit the original sale of weapons at the source, wouldn;t it make sense that there's a trickle down effect? With less weapons on the street and less weapons in the hands of people who don't qualify, I would propose that less weapons find their ways into criminal hands.
Thoughts?
Interesting point as well on the "armed rebellion" response. There's something there I want to respond to, just not sure what it is yet. The idea of a citizen's uprising seems pretty unrealistic however.
Oh - one other thing - any clue how many tax laws there are in this country? A lot. All one need do is look at our current administration to see how many tax cheats there are in this country. Would more laws prevent that? No. Catching the people that break the current laws - that's what needs to be done.
Same with guns.
Although - there's a difference - of the 100 or so tax cheats that are currently in some office due to this president - they only have to say "sorry, here's my money" if they get caught. End of story.
For me? If I had cheated on taxes - yeah, the law abiding citizen - I would have to pay my taxes, a severe penalty, pay my lawyer for defending me, AND face jail time.
More gun laws are not needed. More tax laws are not needed. Enforce the laws we have. Fairly - meaning - the laws we have apply to EVERYONE.
Quote: However, I'd put it to you folks that better gun regulation makes it more difficult to acquire a weapon as more checks are put in when selling weapons.
By better, do you mean more restrictive? Again, you are only affecting the law abiding citizen, not the criminal.
Quote: I'd guess that mostly all weapons used in crime were likely bought from a commercial vendor originally and then have slowly made their way from purchase or theft into the criminal side of the equation.
If you regulate or limit the original sale of weapons at the source, wouldn;t it make sense that there's a trickle down effect? With less weapons on the street and less weapons in the hands of people who don't qualify, I would propose that less weapons find their ways into criminal hands.
It's been proven around the world that criminals will always find guns. There is absolutely no data indicating reduction in violent crime with increased gun control legislation. There is, however, lots of data showing a decrease in violent crime in areas enacting concealed carry.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: With less weapons on the street and less weapons in the hands of people who don't qualify, I would propose that less weapons find their ways into criminal hands.
How will there be fewer guns on the street? There are millions out there now...mostly unregistered I would think. The criminals will find those...always have.
