Our favorite gun grabber (no really) asks: So WHERE DID those illegal guns come from?
I think we can safely assume they did NOT originate with the manufacturer selling them to the bad guys. So HOW did all these illegal guns we keep hearing about get into the hands of these bad people in the first place?
And that raises the logical question, if legal guns were just a little more difficult to come by, so that we could be more confident that the only people who had them were LEGAL people, who further, would because of that difficulty be a lot more careful with them, would there be so many guns circulating among people who DID NOT have them legally?
Theft.
I love one word answers that get to the heart of the problem. Nice.
Well, we have a suggestion for that too. Instead of leaving a gun under the pillow or in the night stand drawer and crying when some burglar steals it when you go out to the 7-11, let’s make it illegal to leave unsecured weapons around the house when you’re not there. By making it a tiny bit more difficult for the thief, you’d be doing all of us a favor.
Too bad you guys (too many of you) couldn’t think of that yourselves. I guess you need Uncle Sam to tell you what to do, eh?
A better idea would be to eliminate all of this bullshit “gun-free zones” that force individuals to leave their guns at home and not secure on their person. That’s a start.
Why punish the law abiding citizens for the crimes others have committed?
Apply that same logic to any other circumstance and listen to how absurd it sounds.
Should we punish someone who leaves their house unlocked and has their camera stolen, and a criminal used it to take naked photos of children?
Most gun safes only slow the burglars down by twenty minutes or so. Of course we secure our guns, at home, in gun shops, etc., but thieves will find a way.
As long as you are arguing with your straw men, you’re deluding yourself.
Correct, I have no illusions about the security of my guns if a professional thief wants them. He is there to get your guns and what ever else he decides he wants. I have a gun safe to keep the quick smash and grab thief from gunning up or selling it to a bad guy.
Alcohol and tobacco are pretty well regulated. And because we have laws in place, teenagers never use alcohol or tobacco.
Why don’t we forget the guns and just make murder illegal?
Then we would have to make cars legal and DUI illegal. That makes no sense.
Fantastic… what a great morning laugh.
I would guess that straw purchasing contributes to a large volume of the guns on the illegal market.
I would add to this corrupt LEOs and you got to wonder whether there is a domestic version of Gunwalker out there somewhere.
I agree with you, in fact I think straw purchasing is bigger than theft for driving guns into criminal hands.
You’ve heard my solution for that, I know.
1. license every gun buyer.
2. register every gun bought to one of those licensees.
3. require renewal of the registration after 3 months and yearly after that.
Straw purchasing stops cold.
And yet no solution to stop any sort of government abuse of their power, should they decide to confiscate your firearm for no good reason.
Utter failure.
And in this day and age, if you think the typical, legal weapon is an effective deterrent to government force you’re simply deluded.
Further, armed insurrection is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, as was evident by the putting down of Shay’s Rebellion by our first President, that famous father of our country, George Washington.
Under your scenario:
1. Licensed gun buyer purchases gun.
2. gun sold to illegal market
3. buyer claims gun was stolen
How does this stop straw purchasing cold? It doesn’t. The only thing it does is institute registration, which is the gun grabbers real goal.
This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where they told us how to cure cancer.
1) Go to medical school and become a doctor
2) Study really hard and become an expert on the disease
3) Use that knowledge to find a cure for cancer
Problem solved!!
How about countries with total licensing and registration? Black market exists even there. And stolen guns are minority there.
Total banning doesn’t help to “ban” anything, except from law-abiding citizens. Ever.
Alcohol and tobacco are forbidden to youngsters. Or at nights. You haven’t seen one drunken kid, or kid with cigarette? Not high school, some mid school. Geez, I’ve seen a lot of younger kids (even about 10 y.o.) with cigarettes and “cocktails” or beer. Or lot of drunken adults, visiting stores selling alcohol at nights or mornings. And, unfortunately, I’ve met a lot of people, who drunk and/or drink AT work. Imagine how they get to work, if they don’t use any public transportation or walk on foot. Yes, they drove them to work (and then – back home). And “work”. With “post-alcohol intoxication”. What’s its name on English? Hangover? Driving under influence is illegal? Yeah, sure, whatevah (misprint intended).
Or drugs. They illegal in 99,(9)% of countries. What, there are positively no drugs in world?
A lot of guns that turn up at crime scenes were sold legally by US manufactures to foreign nations. They have a way of finding their way back home.
Can you cite some documentation of that?
We appear to have a problem with U.S. guns ending up in Mexico. If the traffic is going the other direction from foreign countries into the U.S., then we should do our best to stop illegal gun traffic in both directions.
Well there’s a recent article here where the ATF reports 40mm grenades manufactured in the U.S. end up with mexican drug gangs through legal foreign (south american) sales. Not stolen from inside the United States. I’m sure I can find some more documentation on those same gangs trafficking weapons and drugs back to their Californian cousins.
Actually that was my co-blogger Dog Gone who wrote that. But she speaks for me.
I am Dog Gone, the person who wrote the post, not MikeB.
The appellation ‘gun grabber’ is hysterical, not objective. I have no desire to prevent anyone who can legally own a gun from having guns. I am advocating that those guns be kept secure, and that the buyer be the actual, custodial owner.
An example that illustrates my concerns, would be the 17 year old in MN, who appears to have long standing mental health issues, who shot two convenience store clerks in Iowa. His parents owned guns, which they kept locked up in a gun safe to keep them away from him. Which turned out to be a good idea, as he claims he was planning to kill THEM. Instead the kid stole an unsecured firearm from his grandfather’s cabin, and used that (allegedly) to shoot two women who were innocent stangers. I advocate for the NICS data base to be more complete – particularly the categories of the dangerously mentally ill and convicted felons. Minnesota has provided ZERO names to the NCIS in the category of dangerously mentally ill people, and very few names in the other categories. Nothing would have prevented this 17 year old from legally buying a gun when he reached legal age, prior to this tragedy. I’d like to see legal owners do more to keep their firearms safely stored, to prevent theft, and to keep dangerous people from being able to buy them. I have no desire whatsoever, despite your hysterical characterization, to prevent anyone who is legal from buying and owning a firearm. Legal owners are safer as are non-gun owners IF we make it more difficult for people ILLEGALLY to acquire fire arms. I think this kid’s grandfather should be held accountable for not storing his firearm securely. Doubly so as it was no secret within his family that this kid was dangerous, and he had previously stolen a car (as he did in this instance also) giving him the means to access the firearm.
I’d similarly like to know where the guns came from that were seized in the instance I wrote about that you quote here. If they were stolen from people who did not secure them, or if they were sold by the original purchaser or otherwise transferred to a person that is not legally allowed to own guns, then those people should likewise be held accountable.
There are responsible legal gun owners – more power to them. There are irresponsible legal gun owners, lets have more accountability from them when their irresponsibility results in harm to others. Lets track the history of these guns that are turning up in arrests and at crime scenes. If your car is stolen and you left the keys in it, and the doors unlocked, you are considered to have contributory negligence for the theft; lets do the same with firearms that are unsecured and stolen.
Or are you advocating for no accountability for gun owners?
If I lock the doors to my home, my weapons are secure.
If you advocate that weapons should be locked behind an additional security measure,what about the other things in my house that could be used illegally?
Do I have to lock up my camera because it can be used to take illegal pictures of children?
Do I have to lock up the beer in my fridge because someone who steals it might drink and drive?
Do I have to lock up my kitchen knives because they might be used to harm someone?
Do I need to lock up my television because someone might steal it and use it to rebroadcast baseball games with the implied oral consent, and not express written consent of the MLB?
Your car analogy is invalid. By locking my doors I am taking reasonable measures to prevent my property from being stolen.
Why do you advocate punishing the victim, instead of the criminal?
Anything which is dangerous needs to be secured, and the extent of that security is dictated by the level of risk.
So, for example, if you have a swimming pool, as we did when I was growing up and for a couple of decades after I was an adult, we also had to have a 5 foot or taller fence around it, on the premise that it was a dangerous nuisance which posed a risk to someone who might trespass. If we had not done so, it would have been impossible to get the permit for the pool to have been installed, and it would have been impossible to get home owners’ insurance.
I can remember exactly one instance where someone scaled that fence in the very long time we owned that home, and they made a hasty retreat back over the fence just ahead of a very fierce dog.
Had the fence been left unlocked – and that was a tremendous pain in the neck to lock and unlock often during use – we would have been considered responsible for that death. Maybe not solely responsible, but responsible.
I don’t. I advocate mandating a level of security that equates to the level of risk.
While it was stated earlier that a determined criminal would find a way to steal a gun no matter what the security, that is specious. The figure of 20 minutes to break into a gun safe was given, although it sounded a bit arbitrary. Twenty minutes is a long time for a criminal to risk getting caught, nor is every criminal who steals an unsecured firearm going to equate to a determined professional criminal.
No solution will work perfectly, but we can reasonably do more than we do now to hold gun owners accountable for the security of their weapon.
I am similarly responsible for one of my dogs injuring someone if I allow it to run loose or otherwise fail to keep one of them under control.
Are you responsible for someone stealing your locked car, w/o keys in it, “carelessly” left in your driveway? It could be used in a hit and run, a robbery, etc.-and even by a teenager with auto theft skills. The person who commits the crime is responsible. If my house is hit by a tornado, my belongings scattered to the wind, and a handgun or knife I lost is taken and used in a crime, does that make me responsible? No, it is the fault of the criminal. Trying to legislate citizens to death and make the victim of theft responsible for an aftermath crime is utter folly and senseless.
“Or are you advocating for no accountability for gun owners?”
Nice strawman.
The appellation ‘gun grabber’ is hysterical, not objective.
How about people afraid of inanimate objects that feel the need to control others, for an objective name.
And considering that the UK has an even higher crime rate than the US, with even more draconion restrictions, how the heck do you think your hair-brained registration scheme will even work?
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/11/you_must_be_joking.html
That’s about on par for conversations involving your handle, MikeB.
Considering that he looked it up from somewhere else and he didn’t pull those stats out of his ass….hmmm….
a lying criminal like yourself trying to cover your own ass – not surprising at the least.
Every time you go around spouting that silly “peace and love” crap of yours I’m going to be on your tails with all of this stuff. People do see through false compassion, you know.
One word: England… How’s that working out?… or is that exactly what you seek?
How about this… why not quit fooling yourself into thinking you can solve all the problems in the world? Are you really that misguided or is all this “we care so much” BS just a cover for something else, some other agenda?
Are some people just more “equal” than others, Mike?
Two words: England Canada…
Both are not working at all.
Our favorite antigun blahgger strikes again! I think he’s lobbying for Helmke’s job. Hey, mikey, there’s a job opening at the Brady Wingnut Society. Submit your application on Form 4473.
If a gun registration system WERE instituted it would become a public record subject to public scrutiny. Even if the promise was made that it would remain confidential (which I doubt) do you honestly think that it could forever remain so? Has anyone ever hacked any system to illegally obtain cedit card information… anyone… Sony? And credit card info is PROTECTED and supposed to be locked behind several layers of security (PCI Compliance).
So now, to keep guns from falling into the hands of criminals, you’re going to create a database of all the guns and their owners with addresses, probably SS numbers and who knows what else, putting all of the fish into a single barrel. Criminals WILL do what criminals do and get that info as soon as it becomes profitable enough to do so and no amount of security within the reasonable bounds of your average citizen would be able to stop them from getting their hands on those guns.
And burglary (when nobody’s home) is the most preferrable means of doing so. Ever heard of home invasion? I AM giving somone the access code to my safe if they put a gun to my kid’s head. Or will that be made illegal too? What’s to stop criminals from targeting owners of “concealable” handguns and ambush mugging them away from their home in the hopes that they’re carrying it?
My point is, you are foolishly underestimating the terrible lengths that terrible people will go to in order to get what they want. In the process, you’re punishing and hobbling law abiding folks who are far less ruthless and far more vulnerable, turning them into de-facto criminals and making the real criminals resort to more brutal, intra-personal crimes. This is the downward spiral along which all black markets descend and the reason why the problem MUST be addressed with the real criminals rather than deferring it outward to the law abiding.
Agreed. Good post. Unfortunately those making the rules have the least to worry about the consequence or have unexplained exception to those said rules. From what I have seen and read those that are trying to impose these laws are folks that are removed from the situation and have little actual knowledge of what folks can and will do to acquire a weapon.
An unrelated example for two folks back home in Canada who didn’t want to rob a bank but didn’t have time or ability to hack an ATM: Rammed into the doors where the ATM was with a backhoe. Rammed the ATM with said backhoe. Carried ATM toward the ocean where they smashed it open. Stashed cash. Drove backhoe and ATM into ocean. All done on a super foggy day and no one was caught. Even with security cameras.
Long and short. Enterprising criminals get it done. Stop trying to screw the legal and get over it.
Another analogue would be Oxycontin. Here you have a legal, but heavily regulated and highly sought after substance that you’re supposed to go through a bureacracy to obtain. No matter what obstacles and restrictions are put in place, those desperate enough do what is necessary to get it; to the point where there are now armed robberies of pharmacies for the drug, not the money and signs posted at many stating that they don’t carry it. Meanwhile, the “good guys” who need it for legitmate purposes are stymied.
okycotten is not hard to get at all. i live in a suburban wealthy area. and i could ring up a kid i know and have it in a half hour if i wanted.
After they get the severly mentally ill placed into the gun registry DB, who’s next on the list. There always has to be someone to go after, group after group after group. I’m just wondering who the next group will be. New parents? Unlicensed drivers? High school drop-outs?
I just want to be left the f*ck alone. I’m a grown MAN, living in a supposedly ‘free’ country. I’m getting sick and tired of being told what I can and can’t do for the “safety of ‘whoever'”.
You know that old saying, “freedom isn’t free”? Well, it doesn’t only apply to military men and women serving our country. Being free has it’s hazards. Part of your freedom is allowing me to be free!!
“And that raises the logical question, if legal guns were just a little more difficult to come by… would there be so many guns circulating among people who DID NOT have them legally?”
That question has been asked for more than sixty years now. More importantly, it’s already been answered.
It’s been answered in countries like Russia and England, where civilian gun ownership is flat out illegal but they still have more than their fair share of gun crime. And it’s been answered right here in America, where expanded gun ownership has correlated with a drop in violent crime. Of course we know that correlation isn’t causation, but it certainly disproves the notion that more armed civilians causes more crime.
Actually your whole post raises another logical question: why on Earth do you continue to support and propose courses of action that have been repeatedly proven not to work? There’s something like 50,000 federal, state and local gun laws in this country, what makes you think that the 50,001st law is the one that’s going to finally end violence? What makes you think that the folks who smuggle drugs (and people!) into this country wouldn’t be willing & able to smuggle guns?
Those aren’t rhetorical questions, I’d really like an answer.
Couple of questions for Mike:
(1) We have made certain drugs illegal. Why do we have an illegal drug problem.
(2) If more control leads to more crime why does Northern Virginia where there are few restrictions and lower police density have lower crime rate then the District of Columbia? (Please don’t come back with Demographics because NOVA has 2.5 x the population of DC and has plenty of drug dealers, gangs like MS-13 and illegal immigrants.)
more control leads to more crime should have been:
More control leads to less crime….
Missed that edit…
Maybe we should just make crime illegal. Then there would be far less of it.
Here! Here!
Or maybe we should actually punish criminals.
I think this really gets to it. How completely devoid of logic does someone have to be to think laws stop crime? Criminals by definition break the law. So how can more laws ever equal less crime?
Case in point was the earlier comment about the mentally ill son who couldn’t steal guns from his parent’s safe – so he stole one somewhere else. Multiple laws already existed preventing his ownership of a firearms.
Micromanaging the already law abiding citizens and preventing them from defending themselves is the exact opposite of anything remotely logical or bearing any resemblance to reality.
Gun grabbers need to come to terms with the truth that making self defense easily accessible to law abiding citizens equals less crime. Their ideology is false and they need to cowboy up and admit it.
And here we have come full circle, William. Some people think that micro-managing law abiding citizens makes sense. They think this because they, on a subconscious level, know that trying to establish and enforce law is pointless with criminals. So, to compensate, they create new laws for folks that otherwise don’t need anymore. Then and only then do they ‘feel’ they have accomplished something.
Gun grabbers are by and large emotional, and most times, willfully ignorant to the statistics and crime stats that are glaring in posts made to retort them. I don’t know how many times I have ended a thread with MikeB or Magoo by simply posting facts on the crime in my area in one week! I don’t get a response because there is no emotion in numbers and facts and they cannot be argued by anyone but someone intimately involved in the research of said stats. If you want to see proof, head over to MikeB’s blog. It is blogged hysteria (at its best) and people reacting accordingly to things/people they cannot control – criminals. So, again, they think it best and serving some purpose to try and control the sensible folks because what sensible folk break the law?
Long and short: They will try and keep imposing on us because we are the only ones listening and even willing to give someone an ear because we are sensible and believe in freedom of speech. The folks committing the crimes could care less.
Just a personal theory, but I’m betting that the *sincere* gun control people, the ones who really believe they are trying to make things safer, have little to no personal experience with criminals or the legal system. Ask a lawyer (like me) if laws stop criminals. (My answer: No). For extra fun, look up local court records of no contact/domestic protective orders at random, see how many include violations of the order. Probation violations are another good one. I’ve had clients get probation where the ONLY requirement is to have no further law violations for some specified amount of time. Far too many of them just can’t go that long without breaking the law, even knowing they’ll be headed right to lockup. It can’t be said enough, Laws Only Influence The Law Abiding.
Comments are closed.