Gun Control Advocates, Quick Question

How does disarming the law-abiding make them any safer?

Well, I'm a moderate on the issues of gun countrol as I believe that qualified and well licensed individuals should have the right to purchase certain types of guns. What I oppose is the ease at which they can be obtained in the US with open access for pretty much anyone above a certain age and that the weapons they can purchase are far above satisfying the need to be armed, with huge automatic machine guns and so forth on the market. That's what I have a problem with.

As for your question, I do not understand it as it implies that those in favour of gun control wish it only to be enforced against those who do not commit crimes, which is obviously a nonsense. Gun control by default would make a certain percentage of the law abiding population safer if it means that those who commit serious gun crime are also disarmed. That, to me, seems like obvious logic.

And since criminals are never going to be disarmed, and it's only the law-abiding that are affected by gun control laws, how does disarming the law-abiding actually make them safer?

We have about five armed robberies (that are reported anyway) a week and two or three shootings in my town. None of them are commited by people with "machine guns". It's always easily concealed hand guns or sometimes shotguns. Machine guns/asault rifles don't seem to be a problem. And yes, these are relatively readily available.

Too late - if you stopped making them there are still millions in homes.
Now thieves would break in to law-abiding homes and just steal them.

So you're saying that the banning or controlling of guns would not reduce the amount of criminals that had them?

Well, I would assume that any law controlling or banning guns would require those in possession of them who fall foul of the law to surrender them. And, from my perspective, an increase in burglaries is more desirable than the risk of physical harm cause by gun crime.

FUCK THAT! I should accept more burglaries because some people abuse gun rights/priviledges?
That's like negotiating with terrorists IMO.

Would you feel the same if one of your family members were shot and killed, even accidently, but a gun bought in a hardware store, and then compared it to the possibility of them simply having their house broken into?

An ill-informed and somewhat delusional post.

Why only certain types of guns? Choice and variety are the cornerstones of capitalism, and are enjoyed by purchasers of every other tiem on earth.

Why should I be licensed to practice a civil right?

What defines "the need to be armed?" - I'd say equivalent (or better!) firepower to the illegally-obtained guns the bad guys use. Beyond the "need" to be armed, there's the recreation and hobby factor, wherin there should be no upper limit in what a person who means no harm may own. If Jay Leno can own dozens of cars, including high-end racing cars that he can't drive on public roads, why can't I own dozens of guns, including high-powered rifles I can only shoot at special ranges? If people can own refurbished fighter planes out of a love of military aviation and history, why can't I own military firearms out of the same historical interest?

There are no "huge automatic machine guns" on the market, at least in your "easily obtained" category. You're spouting pejorative liberal catch-phrases with no bearing on reality. Owning a mchine gun is a specialized, expensive, and rigidly controlled hobby requiring special permits.

Your second paragraph is obtuse, and displays a lack of understanding of the anti-gun movement, and a lack of understanding exactly what anti-gun laws do. The anti-gun movement wants ALL guns removed from the planet, period. You may not, but that's what the political leaders of the movement want. They've said so, unequivically (sp?!) in public statements. Anti gun laws have never had any effect on gun crime. The only thing anti-gun laws have ever done is make it more and more difficult on people who OBEY the law to own a gun, and easier for them to accidentally violate an obscure rule, while the law-breaking criminals continue to use whatever gun they can steal with impunity.

Been there, done that. Had family members shot, had family members burglarized. Both shooting victims survived (most do BTW) but both brought the shootings on themselves...you snooze, you lose...too bad.
I never even considered "availability of guns" as a factor, because 99 percent of guns aren't used for bad purposes. So I should give up guns?

People drive drunk and kill people too.....should we ban alcohol and cars from those who don't abuse these priviledges?

Of course I'd rather deal with a burglary than a shooting.

^ (to Forbin) Does "the anti-ban movement" exist?

Of course anti-gun laws have an effect on gun crime... just compare the ratio of gun related crimes in the US to that in Europe. I'm pretty sure that gun control can lead to more safety... the question is whether more safety is worth giving up what you (Americans) consider a basic right.

I'm more of an agnostic on gun control, but to play devil's advocate...

1. Gun control would reduce the number of accidental shootings among the law-abiding, making them safer.

2. Some criminals would be caught in the process of illegally obtaining guns or deterred by the fact of having to illegally obtain guns, making the law-abiding safer.

"huge automatic machine guns" are expensive as hell. They also can't be legally bought (from a gun shop) or owned unless you pay $300 to the ATF and get a more in-depth background check done.

No liquor store robbery is ever going to be committed with a "huge automatic machine gun" About the closest you might ever get is an ak-47. And that doesn't fall into the HAMG bracket in my book.

Not in the least. Certainly not for many, many years. Possibley decades. Need we remind you, criminals do not obey laws.

We haven't been "flooding the criminal market," any more than car makers flood the criminal market with getaway cars. guns, like any other tool, are sold with the best intentions - self defense, law enforcement, recreation. criminals rarely get them legally, and always misuse them

Obviously, any criminal arrested with a gun gets it taken away already. Did you think they get to keep it or something? Of course the catch-and-release legal system throws them back on the street immediately, where he steals another gun or buys one illegally on the street.

As for the increase in burglaries - well, it's the burglars I want a gun to protect myself from!!

Even though I'm not a liberal?

Ok, calm down your little rant and point out to me the obligation I have in this thread to give commentary on the removal of all guns when the thread is about gun control. As a non-American why am I not permitted to voice an opinion based on my own thoughts on the issue of gun ownership per se without subscribing to the view of the American anti-gun lobby. Personally, I could give a flying fuck what the political leaders of your anti-gun lobby says as its utterly irrelevant to my giving my own view of the basic concept when applied to any society and for that reason I don't care for your tone. My reference to the US in this thread has only be in an illustrative context and not a political one. It might interest you to know that JCD's orginal post was born out of a thread discussing gun ownership on Canada, not the US.

Furthermore, while I accept your comments regarding machine guns and the requisition of permits, would you please tell me why you feel the need to heap scorn and insults on me for failing to have a detailed, in depth knowledge of gun ownership in the US when the level of detail on the subject that you seem to feel I need to have is totally irrelevant to my daily life, areas of interest, hobbies or profession?

FUCK NO! Because Americans are smart enough to know that criminals will be criminals will be criminals, period. All gun control does (at least here in America) is help criminals and hinder the average law-abiding Joe.

I'm sure gun control works for Euros, Aussies, etc. Great.....I'm glad for you. But it will not work in America...we may seem similiar to you those folk, but we are very, very different. Our country evolved differently (not better, just different).

If we had been disarmed in 1776 - but that's another story I guess.
But it's a story that could happen again. Just say "no" to gun control.

A curious comment when put against the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to hurt or kill. I mean, even when used for defense the context of that use is to defend by the use of threat rather than the use of shielding, as, say, a bullet proof vest would give.

By "bad purpose" I mean a criminal using a gun as an offensive device to rob, intimidate, etc.

If you break into my home (in the middle of the night when people are likely to be home) and you die of lead poisoning, that's a "good purpose".

Robbers = bad (eliminate)
Sleeping family = good (preserve)

What?

Oh, just talentless

Just think of how well regulating alcohol and driving have made our highways safer...

Indeed....if "only" a few dozen die in auto accidents on Memorial Day weekend, we pat ourselves on the back.

If "only" a few people die of alcohol poisoning on New Year's Eve, we again pat ourselves.

I guess a total ban on booze and cars is the only way.
Let the buyback program commence! Who's coming with me?

The question for me isn't whether anti gun laws reduce gun crime but whether anti gun laws reduce crime, and the answer to that is no. There will always be criminals whether they commit there crimes with guns, knives, blunt objects, or computers makes no difference, I as a living, breathing, free and law biding individual should be afford the best possible means to defend myself from these people. End of story.

Who in this thread has advicated a total ban on guns?

Whoa, Herbalist......you're from Miami? We should be sending all our spare guns to you - you need them more than we do!