Will Criminals Still Have Access to Guns if the Law Takes Away the Good Guy's Guns?

repeter said:

Like pretty much everyone here (except those stubborn enough to say they already know), I'd like to see some comprehensive studies conducted. Ideally, they'll take into provide recommendations for areas of different demographics and population densities (you can't compare hicksville Montana to Chicago or LA). Based on that, I'd like to see legislation, and I'm sure there would be legislation of some type, because we have far too much gun violence at present to not do anything.

Right now, I personally advocate reduction/elimination of weapons that exceed those required for self-defense and hunting (you don't need an AR-15 for hunting game). At the same time, I'd like to see California and New York become shall-issue states for concealed carry permits, and I'd like to see most states decrease the requirements for a concealed weapons permit (I don't know what they are at present, state-by-state, but concealed firearms are largely beneficial).

I do not think we need to put guns at schools, in the form of armed guards (there was one at Columbine, by the way). I would be okay with removing most no-gun areas, with the exception of places like courts.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

What? There are 300 million+ guns in the USA, so every criminal can have 3,000 of them yet, somehow, that does not occur. That is akin to saying that every alcoholic started life by drinking milk. While probably true, that it is correlation and not causation. Try again.

Click to expand...

marsden said:

Two or more home intruders armed with weapons (hand guns or assault rifles) with kevlar body armor and multiple 20+ round mags would wait until my 20 round mag was empty and then move in on me to deliver a fatal shot.

That's just one scenario where the proposed restrictions would play right into the bad guy's hands.

Every long gun owner should know this.

Almost NONE of the leading voices for gun control can offer a solution to that scenario and still believe in restricting mag sizes and assault weapons.

Click to expand...

repeter said:

Has this, or something comparable, ever happened? To an average citizen?

My initial thought is that if someone comes after you with that much firepower, you're either in a Bruce Willis movie, lying, or you have some really serious lifestyle choices to rethink.

Tell you what, if you find a time this has actually happened, and then we'll talk.

Click to expand...

marsden said:

Do you believe that criminals will still have access to guns if a law is enacted to take guns away from law abiding citizens?

Yes or No

No 'maybe's' or 'sometimes' or 'I don't know's'

This one is as incisive as can be.

Click to expand...

repeter said:

Has this, or something comparable, ever happened? To an average citizen?

My initial thought is that if someone comes after you with that much firepower, you're either in a Bruce Willis movie, lying, or you have some really serious lifestyle choices to rethink.

Tell you what, if you find a time this has actually happened, and then we'll talk.

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

I have a solution to the gun problem.

Everybody who turns in their guns right away, gets $1 million per gun. After the grace period, you will only get $100K, after that, you only get $10K.

You can keep your guns if you want to. If its worth giving up a million bucks, then you love that gun so much I trust you with it. You'll consider it too valuable to leave lying around. You'll also feel like a nitwit but that's your problem, not mine. If you get your hands on a gun years from now, and you're thinking "gee, I'll rob that 7-11, they've got at least $850.33 inside", you'll probably just go get your $10K instead.

Look at all the wealth that would create. We'd have a booming economy with all these new millionaires coming on line and nobody will use a valuable gun to commit petty crime. A sfe, secure America.

I'm a ****ing genius.
View attachment 67140597

Click to expand...

Laura80L said:

ohh man... I could be a multi-millionaire!! AND STILL HAVE A GUN! where do I sign up... and who's gonna give me my 10 mil?

Click to expand...

repeter said:

Jeez, don't say that! People will think you're serious, and then proceed to tell us how in their great and long experience, castration and...dehandment...have never worked in stopping illegal gun ownership. Well, at least someone will :roll:

Worse, others will think all Democrats want to introduce legislation to that effect.

Click to expand...

Many will object that "few people actually believe in radical Islam," and we heat things along the lines of "only 10 percent of Muslims are radicals/sympathetic to the radicals," and that "only a miniscule number of Americans/Westerners buy into radical Islam so the danger is overblown."

But history is not made by taking a vote at every important moment. Only 1/3 of the American colonists wanted independence from Great Britain in 1776. The Jacobins were a minority of Frenchmen in 1789, and the Bolsheviks a minority of Russians in 1917. The quota on imported sugar in America today is not there because it has the broad support of Americans but because of the political influence of a small minority of sugar growers in Louisiana. Less than half of Americans even vote in most elections, and the more local the election is the fewer people vote. History and outcomes are made by determined and well-organized minorities.

So it is with radical Islam. It matters not a whit that most Muslims are not radicals. If the average Muslim moderates are not willing to stand up and demand that Muslim Brotherhood influence be purged from Muslim organizations, then the radicals win, no matter how few their numbers. Consider the fate of Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist who organized the "Everybody Draw Mohammed" day in 2010 as a protest against censorship. After threats she canceled the contest and apologized. No matter, the threats continued until she has changed her name and gone into hiding on the advice of the FBI. There was and is no support from Muslim groups, or hardly anyone outside of a few conservatives, for that matter, for the concept of free speech.

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

Are you sure you don't want that 11th million? Lot of money.....

The gubmint. Twill be the best, funnest stimulus in history.

Click to expand...

Laura80L said:

nnnnaaahhhhhh... I think I'll need that last gun when my more questionable friends and family find out I have 10 million. :monkey

Click to expand...

marsden said:

The Pentagon and our political braintrust in Washington DC (HA!!!) learned a lesson about the dangers of preparing for the PREVIOUS war rather than THE NEXT WAR.

Tell me when someone shot a Congressperson at a Safeway store before Gabby Giffords was shot?

Tell me when a theater was shot up before Aurora.

When had 19 hijackers slammed jetliners into skyscrapers before 9/11?

The 9/11 Commission Report blamed the successful attack on a failure of imagination.

Wouldn't that indictment also apply to your shortsighted view?

Click to expand...

marsden said:

Hey, I just experienced an epiphany.

You and your fellows only imagine sunshine and flowers. That's why you can't imagine why guns are needed at all!

You don't have a failure of imagination, you have a psychedelic imagination!

LOLOL

Click to expand...

marsden said:

This will be the third time in as many days that I've felt it necessary to correct the faulty belief by my opponents, usually Progressives, that a majority is needed to rule the day and prevail in any particular contest.

But, in this case substitute DEMOCRAT for Muslim in the text above.

A majority is seldom needed to decide an outcome such as the one we are talking about.

Click to expand...

marsden said:

Do you believe that criminals will still have access to guns if a law is enacted to take guns away from law abiding citizens?

Yes or No

No 'maybe's' or 'sometimes' or 'I don't know's'

This one is as incisive as can be.

Click to expand...

repeter said:

Like pretty much everyone here (except those stubborn enough to say they already know), I'd like to see some comprehensive studies conducted. Ideally, they'll take into provide recommendations for areas of different demographics and population densities (you can't compare hicksville Montana to Chicago or LA). Based on that, I'd like to see legislation, and I'm sure there would be legislation of some type, because we have far too much gun violence at present to not do anything.

Right now, I personally advocate reduction/elimination of weapons that exceed those required for self-defense and hunting (you don't need an AR-15 for hunting game). At the same time, I'd like to see California and New York become shall-issue states for concealed carry permits, and I'd like to see most states decrease the requirements for a concealed weapons permit (I don't know what they are at present, state-by-state, but concealed firearms are largely beneficial).

I do not think we need to put guns at schools, in the form of armed guards (there was one at Columbine, by the way). I would be okay with removing most no-gun areas, with the exception of places like courts.

Click to expand...

But I was peeved to see Dave Weigel and a couple others imply that having armed police presence at schools wouldn’t help prevent mass shootings there because, after all, Columbine High School had a sheriff’s deputy on scene when the shooting broke out.

That’s right, but it isn’t like the deputy was sitting around eating doughnuts during the Columbine massacre. He traded fire (that is, he drew fire) with Harris for an extended period of time, during which Harris’s gun jammed. The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before the SWAT teams and the rest of the cavalry arrived, and before Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the library. Harris and Klebold had an assault plan — a sloppy plan, but a plan nonetheless. They had dozens of IEDs, some of which detonated, others of which did not. And there were two of them. In this highly chaotic tactical environment, the deputy acted both bravely and prudently, and who knows how many lives he saved by engaging Harris.

At Newtown, Lanza was delayed from entering the school’s main entrance, and had to shoot his way in through a security window. His tactics were far less sophisticated than Harris’ and Klebold’s. It’s not implausible to think, afforded the time to respond by Lanza’s delay at the front door, an armed officer could have put him down before he began killing in earnest. Not a guarantee, but far from implausible.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

Diane Feinswine and a GOP judge both want complete confiscation of the stuff called "assault weapons"

those who think gun bans will stop crime would probably support a complete gun ban if you asked them while having them attached to a car battery. The only reason they don't admit it now is that they now being honest would retard their agenda

Click to expand...

marsden said:

When you listen to the gun control or anti-gun lobbyists ask yourself if their agenda is to keep the kids safe or do they have another axe they are attempting to grind.

Click to expand...

marsden said:

When you listen to the gun control or anti-gun lobbyists ask yourself if their agenda is to keep the kids safe or do they have another axe they are attempting to grind.

The ONLY agenda we should permit to be advanced is that which will best safeguard the kids.

Period.

Click to expand...

marsden said:

Have you ever bothered to research the facts of the Columbine massacre with particular regard to the difference the armed school guard made in saving lives there?

I hadn't until now. And the reason why I did it just now is because I'm dog tired of having you guys bring up that portion of the truth without telling the ENTIRE story.

And, no, I didn't know what I'd find when I looked it up but I was inclined to feel that the media you devour hasn't bothered to tell you the truth so you sure wouldn't be able to tell the entire story here.

And sure enough, you are now on notice that that tired old half-truth will only be slapped down by truth seekers from now on. And this is what they will use to swat it with.



‘Columbine Had an Armed Guard.’ - By Daniel Foster - The Corner - National Review Online

The armed guards prevented what easily could have been a much greater loss of life.

Click to expand...

lizzie said:

In our society, it isn't only about safeguarding, but about constitutional rights. I honestly believe that most anti-gunners are misinformed, and having knee-jerk reactions, without thinking their stance through to the end. Many of them think that our society, if disarmed, would be the same as, say, Japan, with their gun control laws. The problem is, our culture is so very different than many others, because of our diversity, and because we are so diverse, we are also more proned to more inner conflict. When a population is this large, and has so many people from different cultures, division, at least minor divisions, are to be expected. Gun control in this country would cause harm to honest law-abiding citizens, but would not disarm criminals. In Japan, their population is so homogenous, that they all strongly identify with each other, and law enforcement officials are so personally involved in the community, that crime is not ususally considered a rational or acceptable way of life.

Click to expand...

marsden said:

Do you believe that criminals will still have access to guns if a law is enacted to take guns away from law abiding citizens?

Click to expand...

marsden said:

Do you believe that criminals will still have access to guns if a law is enacted to take guns away from law abiding citizens?

Yes or No

No 'maybe's' or 'sometimes' or 'I don't know's'

This one is as incisive as can be.

Click to expand...