the only perfect experiment that will FINALLY END the gun debate

quote]HonestThief wrote:

Only problem with this, is there are still so many ways to get weapons on the street. And all confiscated guns are destroyed after being used for evidence.

The stupid thing to me, is do you really think the law matters to a criminal? That, if hand guns are illegal to buy from someone other than an approved dealer, who I cant buy from since I'm a felon, oh well. Guess I wont buy one...

No. I'd get the stupid weapon illegally, just as Im about to commit an illegal crime. Laws don't change or stop human nature[/quote] +1

Randy Oldman wrote:

Just imagine how many murders there would be if the assailants had access to guns.

And note, the vast majority of firearm injuries in the UK are caused by BB guns.

agreed wrote:

quote]HonestThief wrote:

Only problem with this, is there are still so many ways to get weapons on the street. And all confiscated guns are destroyed after being used for evidence.

The stupid thing to me, is do you really think the law matters to a criminal? That, if hand guns are illegal to buy from someone other than an approved dealer, who I cant buy from since I'm a felon, oh well. Guess I wont buy one...

No. I'd get the stupid weapon illegally, just as Im about to commit an illegal crime. Laws don't change or stop human nature

+1[/quote]

Not really. The flaw in this argument is in assuming that crimes of violence using guns are committed solely by folks who are 'career criminals' who would just find some other way to get a gun.

Look at this clown at UCSB. Basically just a loser who was mentally ill. Chances are he could not punch his way out of a paper bag, much less figure out how to get a gun if they were not so readily available.

Add to this all those folks who commit 'crimes of passion' with guns just because the guns are around. They aren't 'criminals' in the sense of living a life of crime and violence. They would never have bothered to figure out how to get a gun if guns were not so readily available.

Then there are those who steal guns from parents/friends/... where parents/friends/... would never have bought a gun in the first place if they were illegal.

Of course, there are those who are relatively stable at one point in their lives and acquire a gun legally without nefarious intent but for various reasons lose that stability and then have a gun around with which to wreak havoc. Again they would never have acquired a gun in the first place if they were illegal.

Etc. etc. etc....

In short, your argument does not hold water. Having guns easily obtainable in a legal manner may well make sense. But the argument you use to justify this position is entirely illogical.

nerd alert wrote:

The most recent shooter went through background checks in the most restrictive state in the country. What's your point?

Ban gun sales to the mentally ill.

That's a long term change.. it's basic math, reducing the overall supply of guns will have an impact on gun crime rates. If there are fewer to go around, even obtaining illegally becomes more difficult. Basic supply and demand.

I am for very strict measures to dissuade people from getting guns as I am a firm believer that most of us just don't need them. Not talking about just criminals, but idiots that just acquire a gun just to be cool and then it ends up in the wrong hands.. esp since there seems to be zero punishment for "irresponsible" owners.. it boggles my mind that when a little kid picks up their dad's riffle and accidentally shoots someone they just call it an accident and case closed. How is it ok to just leave your gun out?

Scalia -

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

I feel like you guys are having the standard debate where each side is fighting for their position, when the positions don't align with one another. You're both right.

You can own a gun. Which gun you own can be regulated. The important words are "in common use at the time". It's the sole reason why a handgun ban can't be passed, but an assault weapon ban could be.

Regardless, the argument is this. If owning a weapon is your right, is it unconstitutional to require the person who owns it to have knowledge and training in how to use, store, and operate the weapon. Should the weapon be licensed? Should the people who sell weapons have to go through the same verification processes as a dealer?

Keep in mind we have in place many other instances where age requirements, licencing restrictions, certifications are required before being allowed to use or operate a multitude of things. Why is it such a burden on your freedom to apply the same logic towards something that's general purpose is to kill something?

I could really care less that responsible gun owners use whatever weapon they want. The key word is "RESPONSIBLE". How best do you ensure this. The argument can be made that a majority of weapons used in crimes are obtained illegally and can't be traced.

How are all these weapons even getting on the streets? Gun shows seem to be one way, selling weapons to individuals on a personal level is another. I'm relatively sure we can find ways to limit the accessibility of weapons used for illegal means without infringing on your right to own an AR-15.

I simply hope you can make a better argument than, I want a gun, and I want it now.

1) "in common use at the time" seems to inject a bit a circularity into the discussion. How does a gun get to be "in common use" if it is made illegal?

2) I think that you meant "I couldn't care less".

They can't make a better argument - only ones available are:

a) It's the law period

b) It's my god given right

c) Who's going to prect us from the govt

"In common use" was interpreted by the court that because a majority of people use handguns as the primary way of protecting themselves, it would be in common use by the people. Just like muskets at the time of 1776. Clearly, owning a SAW has no "common use" purpose other than a military one.

As it pertains to the discussion, I suppose I've digressed from the OP from banning guns to further regulation on how one can be obtained. My opinion is that you don't need to ban guns to find common gun laws that positively affect the declining gun violence and crime rate even further.

I did mean couldn't... thanks!

Sell out

hahaha, ok.

Selling out would require me to change my argument, which I haven't, since page 1. There is no point in arguing that people have the right to bear arms. You can argue which ones they can have and regulating the requirements needed in order to obtain them.

The main argument, with regards to the OP then becomes, by regulating background checks at gun shows, personal sales, gun registration etc... you can start to quantify it's impact on the violent crime rate and gun related crimes.

Is it worth trying? My answer is absolutely. The only counter argument I hear is "it's my constitutional right to own a gun" and even though you explain to them that like most rights, it's not an unlimited right, and you aren't arguing they can own it gun, you'll never get passed the "Thanks for Smoking" debate tactic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlm0PQGrBzA

Once again I find myself agreeing with you.

But, I think you meant, 'you'll never get past'.

Dang it! At least it's not lol speak.