” . . . criminals will not ALWAYS get guns. If guns are harder to come by, many criminals will not make the extra effort necessary to find alternate means of acquiring them. With proper gun control laws in place, private sales with no background check will not be an option. Theft will be harder due to safe storage law enforcement. Straw purchasing will all but cease to exist with licensing and registration. What’s left is buying from other criminals, but even this will be more difficult due to the other restrictions. Guns on the black market will become more scarce. What we have to remember is that criminals are like everybody else, they seek the path of least resistance. If guns are harder to come by many will do without.” – Michael Bonomo, “Criminals Will Always Get Guns” is a Poor Argument [via mikeb302000.blogspot.it]
No MikeB302000, All the criminals have to do is as Holder, he will give them guns.
uhh….replace guns with cocaine…..
criminals will not ALWAYS get cocaine. If cocaine is harder to come by, many criminals will not make the extra effort necessary to find alternate means of acquiring it. With proper cocaine control laws in place……Cocaine on the black market will become more scarce. What we have to remember is that criminals are like everybody else, they seek the path of least resistance. If cocaine is harder to come by many will do without.”
see what i did there?
That’s a stupid comparison, even worse than most. Drugs are illegal. Guns, according to my suggestions, would not be. They would be controlled properly, owners would be qualified and held responsible in ways that are not possible now.
So you’re saying it will be harder for criminals to obtain something that is legal, but controlled, than it is for them to get something that is completely illegal?
Uh….ok?……I guess??????
Your silly questions prompted me to write this one.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/10/comparing-gun-control-to-prohibition-is.html
That is a less-than-intelligent counterargument. How does holding legitimate gun owners responsible allow greater control than making something totally illegal in the first place.
Your argument suggests that we can solve the drug problem by making drugs legal for people who have proper credentials, and holding drug owners responsible if they transfer them illegally. So there is no Oxycontin problem because
a) it is legal, under the proper circumstances
b) someone who transfers it illegally is held criminally liable.
Therefore, if we want to eliminate all the other drug problems like we have eliminated the Oxycontin problem [yes, that’s sarcasm], all we have to do is to make every illegal drug into a prescription medication with the same controls as Oxycontin. Sounds logical to me….?
I live in a country with extremely stringent gun laws. And guess what? Criminals still get guns. Easily. The vast majority of robberies include illegal guns. The vast majority of “gun incidents” include illegal guns. According to the police there are four times as much illegal guns in circulation than there are legal ones.
Criminals will always get guns.
While you might have some technical knowledge, Mike, your knowledge of psychology and your inclusion of human factors in your cute theories is near zero.
MikeB, you’re obviously not stupid, but calling someone who makes a valid point “stupid” IS stupid.
Beyond that I can say that your delusion, denial and wishful thinking is truly a wonder; thank G-d that people who think like you have become a minority in my wonderous country; as for you and your fellow peasants, peons and out right saves that live in pitiful subservience in the hell hole you currently reside in, you have my sympathy.
Drugs are illegal? Cocaine derivatives are used as topical analgesic. Drugs are controlled substances much like guns would be I’m your realm yet drugs are oh so easily found on the black market. Making something illegal for certain people does nothing to stop posession and use by said people.
criminals will not ALWAYS get stolen cars. If stolen cars are harder to come by, many criminals will not make the extra effort necessary to find alternate means of acquiring them. With proper theft protection and VIN laws in place……stolen cars on the black market will become more scarce. What we have to remember is that criminals are like everybody else, they seek the path of least resistance. If stolen cars are harder to come by many will do without.”
No, Mr Bonomo, it is you who is being a simple minded first order thinker. The reason that we don’t see a large flow of illegal guns from outside the country is that there isn’t a large market for them. If you make gun too hard to get from internal sources then you create a large market for transnational criminal organizations like MS-13 and the Russian mob to fill. The same crews that bring in cocaine will add a firearms product line ot their business. The most likely outcome is that criminals will end up with real assault rifiles and not AR-15 look alikes.
I’m preaching to the choir here but here it goes. The sinaloa cartel manages to get tons upon tons of heroin and coke into this country despite hundreds of billions spent keeping it out.
At best, you can make guns more expensive for criminals, who, believe it or not, actually have a harder time getting guns than you might think.
Manufacturing guns is a bit more complex than cocaine. But let us not forget that South American armies/police departments are notoriously corrupt. So that’s one source. FARC in columbia has access to Russian weapon smugglers, I’m sure the Mexicans prob do to.
And even if the guns do need to be manufactured in the black market, there’s plenty of people up to the task. LSD is an incredibly difficult drug to make, requiring precursor chemicals that have exactly one other use, and are tightly watched. High school kids manage to get it.
One final note. You can kill quite a few people with a can of gas and some matches too.
tniinva, and you’re guessing that the increase in imported arms would completely make up for all the other sources that are diminished. I don’t think so.
Then replace “Cocaine” with “Oxycodone.”
Oxycodone is legal, but strictly controlled. Care to guess how hard it is for drug dealers to get ready supplies of Oxycodone for their customers?
Oh mikey, you and your fantasy world where if you take the gun away from the criminal he ceases to be violent.
Oh, and you still havent explained Chicago, where guns are all but banned for ordinary citizens…why isnt that stoping criminals from shooting people?
+1 Chicago with all their gun control is a prime example of why gun control doesn’t work. I live in IL and would much rather drive to STL than Chicago for vacation. No way am I taking my kids to a place like that.
Chicago, which is a short drive from Indiana, is the other stupid argument that you guys love to repeat. You don’t think about it, you just repeat it.
k, mikeyb. If Indiana is awash with easily obtained guns that are being used in Chicago, why isn’t Indiana, or any of the other states with easy gun access overrun with violence like Chicago?
It’s the places with heavier restrictions, Chicago, Oakland, DC and NYC that are leading the way in violence.
It’s because guns aren’t the only factor. You know this but you pretend not to when it’s convenient. When it’s not, you remind me that correlation does not equal causation.
Gangs are the only factor. Gangs are the problem, not guns.
Gangs and a number of other factors are involved in the violence problem called Chicago. But to pretend gun availability has nothing to do with it is nothing short of mendacity.
Equally, the automobile. Liquor. Cocaine. Meths. The culture of dependency. Etc.
Exactly jwm nailed it. The places that have the strictest gun control measures tend to have higher rates of gun crime (and violent crime overall) than other places where citizens can own guns…Huh. Not a sterling example of what gun control does is it mikey?
Did you see the geographic breakdown of the violent crime in the US. Overall decrease, but where there are guns, there’s more violent crime.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/11/false-argument-gun-ownership-is-up.html
your constant self aggrandizing is getting out of hand, dude. Everyone needs a certified scientific study to say a sentence to you about anything, while you make wild unfounded proclamations and actually stoop to citing yourself as a source of information. That is the height of pretense and self worship. A very similar attitude to the violent criminals you admire so much and want to save from evil law abiding people who just want to sleep in their own homes.
“self worship?” “Similar attitude to violent criminals?” Jake, I think what you mean is you disagree with me. Why don’t you just say that and stop with they hysterics.
It must be lonely in your world…
wrong. criminals do not seek only the path of least resistance, they seek profit also. As black market guns become more scarce, the price increases…as the price increases, more criminals will procure guns with the intent to sell them to the violent thugs who need them, which will cause the price to drop. Criminals will still get guns, and those who don’t, who use other violent means of coercion in crime, will be less likely to encounter an armed civilian who is willing to jump through all the legal hoops.
The completely obvious point is far too often overlooked. Think gun thefts are an issue now? Ban them and see what happens. The cost/benefit of certain crimes will adjust accordingly.
That’s why safe storage laws are needed.
So Banks and other places with valuables kept in Safes don’t get robbed by criminals?
Good news, everybody. MikeB’s invented a new theft-proof safe to store guns in.
No they don’t, at least not as easily as gun shops and you super-responsible gun owners who store the gun under your pillow.
Drew, wake up and pay attention. No one is talking about banning guns.
ITT we learn that saying you are not talking about a thing, while you are talking about that thing, incontrovertably means that you are not talking about that thing. See you all next time for more Grabber Logic!
Many will do without… And use knives, batons or muscle to achieve their ends… If a criminal comes at me with a knife I would like a gun to defend myself… Why wouldn’t I? But the same argument applies to law-abiding citizens… Make gun purchases harder by adding more laws and requirements and the average citizen is less likely to buy one since that person will follow the path of least resistance and buy a blade for defense…. So basically you would be disarming the populace from defending themselves in case of attack by a criminal….
Yes, and fewer people will die because those other weapons are not as lethal and as efficient as a gun.
Fewer crooks will die. The pile of innocent victims will grow as will the numbers of rape, robbery and other brute force crimes.
You hate women and the elderly enough to see them disarmed in a violent world Mikey?
Your whole thing is based on the fictitious exaggeration of how many DGUs save lives and prevent rapes. It’s bullshit and you know it.
mikeyb, prove it’s bullshit. And don’t try some bait link to drum up hits on your little blog site. Prove it here where you made the claim.
How would I possibly prove that I don’t hate women and the elderly? That’s one of your bullshit tactics, asking for proof where you know there is none. It is my belief that guns make matters worse overall. Except for very specific situations, people are better off unarmed. What do you want proof that I really really believe that?
Mikeyb, I know you understood what I meant but if you want to play dumb I’ll clarify my remark.
Prove how many DGU’s are “ficticious exaggerations”.
There is no proof for that. Does that mean there are none?
There’s proof that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible, safe people but you ignore that to focus on what you yourself state is an unprovable number of bogus DGU claims.
Mikey, you’re dishonest at the very least and you do a great service on behalf of gun rights by showing how bogus the arguments are in favor of stricter gun control.
The Brady Bunch must wish you’d shut up and go away.
What you call the overwhelming majority I say is not enough. The percentage of fuck-ups, whatever that is, is too high and can easily be corrected.
From another comment:
So, if I’m supposed to put a number on a percentage, how about you do the same?
I have put numbers on my remarks many times, as you well know. They’ve ranged from 10% to 50% when trying to guess how many are unfit for various reasons. It changes due to my mood at the time of writing.
Now there’s a sound basis for social policy re: our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: your mood. Do you realize how inane, irrational and autocratic that sounds?
Well, actually, “my mood” only influences the number I put on it, not the need for changes. If only 10% of you so-called lawful gun owners were unfit to own guns, that’s too much. And, by the way, it would fit with all you “vast majority” nonsense.
Your mood “only” influences the number of unfit gun owners you perceive? Again, public policy based on “feelings” and “perceptions” is inherently unsound.
There’s an enormous difference between [an entirely unscientific] claim that 10 percent of gun owners shouldn’t have a gun and upping that to 50 percent. Unless you go for the “if one madman is stopped it’s worth it” philosophy. Well do ya? Do ya Mike?
BTW: You do realize that the percentage of Florida concealed carry license revocations is less than five percent? Way less. I could link to the data but you seem to have this allergy to hard facts.
Rwanda with 1MM+ deaths from machetes is just peachy because unarmed, they may have theoretically prevented a few thousand gun homicides in that country?
Keep trying mikeb…
I should keep tryin’? When you have to resort to the Rwanda/machete example?
Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves against violence?
If so:
Do you believe that that right is limited only to people physically able to overpower their attacker?
If so:
Why
If Not: Then you believe that people have the right to defend themselves using firearms.
They’re not called the great equalizer for nothing.
“God created man, Sam Colt made them equal.”
What is wrong with you? Listen very carefully now. I am not opposed to gun ownership. I feel gun owners need to be better qualified and when they fuck up once they lose their rights. That’s all. You and your friends keep talking to me as if I oppose all civilian gun ownership. I don’t.
About it being a right, it depends on what you mean by that. I agree with Justice Stevens. Scalia and the others were wrong about it being a Constitutionally protected right. It’s not. The 2A was about something else.
I have no snark for this, it is simply a very naive and factually false statement. Spend one night in an ER watching stabbing victims get treated and educate yourself on the frailty of the human form.
If I cared what Mike thought, I’d go to his blog, and chat in the comments section with the little ghost-army of invisible gun control fanatics he claims follow him (despite their complete silence).
Mike again? Really?
He drums up comments like no ones business…and for a blog which measures success by views AND number of comments, its good for business.
And his ideas just get more hilariously pathetic as time goes on…
I’m not sure if Mike B was writing as quoting someone or if he’s just an anti-gun troll.
In either event, whoever came up with that is really too smart by half.
They forgot to consider the home-made firearm.
Guns aren’t that complicated to make.
+1 Commercially-made guns are preferred because they are cheaper and easier than home made. Hypothetically, if every gun in the US were to disappear overnight, and all the firearms manufacturers cease to exist, do you really think that gun violence would end? Or would it just be delayed until the black market set up illegal manufacturing and distributing?
I’d bet on the latter.
“What we have to remember is that criminals are like everybody else, they seek the path of least resistance.”
Absolutely correct. It is much easier to steal a gun from a lawful gun owner or buy one illegally than it is to get one legally. Can’t remember the year but a DOJ study showed that even in the current culture, 80% of criminals convicted of gun related crimes got their firearms outside the commercial market.
Some points for you to consider.
1. A straw purchase is when someone legally buys a gun and then gives it to someone else without going through the paperwork process. Registering guns and background checking legal citizens won’t change that process since the crime occurs post-purchase.
2. There are millions of guns in private hands right now. Consider that firearms simply don’t break at the rate of cars and other products. For instance, I own a colt 1903 pistol that was made over 100 years ago, and it works as well now as it did when it was first purchased. Your laws won’t change the availability of guns to the average criminal because, unlike drugs, firearms are a durable good and therefore don’t expire.
3. If you want an example of why this process doesn’t work, look at Russia or Mexico. Both have strong limits on civilian gun ownership. Both are plagued by gun violence (largely through organized crime.) The reality is that people who follow the laws will be limited by further restrictions and criminals (who by definition don’t follow the legal code) will continue as is. Straw purchasing is already illegal as is murder.
4. Registering an item tells you who bought it and who last legally claimed ownership. It does not tell you where it is after it leaves the registered owners domain. Stolen guns, guns that enter the country illegally, guns that weren’t registered in the first place, and registered guns used illegally have the same lethality, whether on-record when a crime occurs or not. The registration process simply adds an additional hurdle to the law abiding citizen, which again, by definition a criminal is not.
There are plenty of ways to reduce gun violence that don’t involve adding needless hardship on law-abiding citizens. Your suggestions may be well intentioned, but do not fall into that category.
Very good points except for your definition of a straw purchase.
Paper work and background checks are not a requirement to sell to another person in some other States. A straw purchase is when someone knowingly buys a gun for a person who cannot buy a gun themselves. A girlfriend buying a gun for her thug boyfriend is one example. A person who buys guns for resale to others knowing or suspecting and not caring if that person can or cannot buy a gun is another example.
The gov’t has no business meddling in my personal property sales.
So our right to bear arms would be subject to peer review from the likes of MikeB203000 and depend greatly on who happens to control government at the time, at all levels, with the default position being guns are so restricted it’s not worth anyone trying to keep one.
Criminals won’t need guns is right. They can use any number of means instead to commit acts without worrying about and defense of the victim.
Actually i think his Paine’s comparision is spot on. You are just not understanding the concept.
[sigh]
Gun control: The theory that aberrant behavior can be controlled by legislating objects. See also: futility.
Seriously, why are you giving this guy any attention? Please stop.
Entertainment 🙂
+10 😉
And MikeyBnumbers proves his own point.
Instead of stating facts and truth he also takes the path of least resistance by quoting made up BS and numbers instead of stating the obvious reality.
Everyone who knows the truth knows that guns owned by legitimate citizens do more to stop crime than any gun control law ever has.
I am still wondering tho why MikeyBnumbers is worrying about our laws when he doesn’t care enough about this country to even live here, you are still in Italy right Mikey?!??!
That in itself renders your arguments for more gun control laws in this country null and void!!!!!!
Mike: Your argument fails because you assume that a new law requiring documented sales of all used guns would be followed by all citizens. However, I can tell you right here and now that I, for example, would not abide by that law. In fact, that law would give me greater incentive to sell my collection of undocumented guns and make a healthy profit in the process. It might even become worthwhile to get into the gun-running business. The bottom line, we tried prohibition on alcohol and it did not work. We tried to stem the flow of cocaine and heroin into the U.S. and it has not worked. There are just some things that government cannot accomplish no matter how hard it tries. By making guns illegal, you just open up a new avenue for criminals to make some money, and you will create a new criminal class in the process – of which I would be a proud member.
Well, I live in a country where gun control laws are, in some respect, quite stringent. All legal guns (the exception are some black-powder guns and similar) have to be registered, all sales get recorded, we have laws about safe storage…
The laws around here are also quite liberal, CCL are shall issue, so basically anyone but recent felons (OK, also some other minorities, e.g. the blind) can get their hands on half a dozen legal guns quite easily.
Yet some of the guesstimates say illegal guns outnumber the legal ones here. So I’d say we are a whole country that is a proof of the fact that effects of gun control have their limits.
At Martin:
That’s interesting.
I’m blind and both own guns and enjoy shooting (at a range with a spotter and safe handling.)
Truthfully, the history and science behind firearms interests me more than the act of shooting itself, but it’s still fun.
I’m not saying blind people can’t enjoy shooting. My *significant other* is blind and she loves shooting. And as for history, well, both our armory and our library are well above-average.
But in the country where we live, a blind person can’t legally own post-1890AD firearms (not counting exceptions, like modern black-powder muzzle-loaders). She can use them, supervised, but even a collector’s permit requires (besides other things) a shooting score that’s beyond her abilities. One might question why the law requires a collector to prove his shooting skills but the fact remains that he/she *has* to prove them.
Ugh. Mikey again. He’s like the occasional canker sore, except he serves even less of a purpose.
Feeding him is futile. Don’t do it. You will never change his mind. His mind isn’t open to change just as ours isn’t. He is a statist ideologue and is very comfortable remaining as such. Take comfort in the idea that when push comes to shove you side with individual liberty while ol’ Mikey happily “assumes the position” whenever the state tells him to do so. Accordingly his answer is always more control… more laws. He is sadly predictable. Leave him be. He has no power here or anywhere. His arguments are broken.
“If guns are harder to come by, many criminals will not make the extra effort necessary to find alternate means of acquiring them”
“What we have to remember is that criminals are like everybody else, they seek the path of least resistance”
— The key-word is ‘if’. Criminals already “rent” guns from other criminals for a hit. If or when the cops arrest the first criminal they don’t find a gun on the person or at his home. A little acid can delete the gun’s serial number if a criminal is caught in the act. People acquire illegal marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs easily. The more controlled natural drugs are such as marijuana and cocaine the more people will turn to making even more dangerous ones in their kitchen. In the 1930s people could find sources to buy alcohol. People can relatively easily make their own beer, wine, and moonshine now.
Learning to use legal and easy to buy machinist-type tools, guns can be hand-built. Any criminal can learn to make some nasty cheapo zip guns. Then there is the near-future prospect of the emerging 3D gun printing. Old fashioned smuggling will thrive the more guns are regulated. Those that can make or supply guns to criminals will become very rich. Bottom line: criminals will always be able to get guns.
If not guns then there are other things that can harm large numbers of people from knives to arson to bombs to poisonous gas. A combination of products from your local grocery and hardware stores along with some technology from Radio Shack can create some bad stuff.
“Any criminal can learn to make some nasty cheapo zip guns.”
Gun control advocates fail to understand just how fast, easy, and cheap it is to make a zip gun from merchandise available at any hardware or home improvement store. Granted those guns will be single shot firearms but they will work quite nicely at ranges of 10 feet or so. And to overcome the single shot limitation, a criminal can simply carry two zip guns and even bring a partner along who has two zip guns which enables them to shoot four times. And while some people would scoff at a criminal attack that can only shoot four times, that is incredibly formidable if gun control disarms most citizens.
This profoundly undermines any argument that gun control laws would disarm criminals and reduce the violent crimes they commit with firearms.
uncommon sense, by easy, do you mean things like this?
1.) http://specialized-weapons.wonderhowto.com/inspiration/shanks-shotguns-and-stoves-ingeniously-crafted-prison-contraband-0128501/
2.) http://www.craphound.com/images/chechenhomemade.jpg
3.) http://englishrussia.com/images/chechen_weapons/7.jpg
One of those is very similar to the British Sten gun which is cheap and something that any handy person could make at home.
I was thinking of something much simpler, easier, and faster. Here is a link that shows such a shotgun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Va87gB_4AI
Uncommon sense, that’s some neat stuff there. And that shotgun doesn’t look like a shotgun until it’s ready for use.
I am so glad I don’t have the tools or the shop knowledge to make one of those. I’d be tempted to make one and heavens knows we can’t be having unregulated firearms running loose.
Think how that would upset mikeyb.
The idea that “safe storage laws” will reduce gun thefts is uninformed. most storage laws only pertain to some sort of device to render the gun inoperable without removing the device, e.g., a trigger lock or cable. These devices are easily overcome, and of course the gun can be transported elsewhere to permit the operation. There are no laws mandating that gun owners buy safes. And the only safes that might deter a thief are the big, multithousand dollar jobs that weigh hundreds of pounds that not a lot of people can afford. All the rest are sheet metal that can be defeated with either a lock pick or a crow bar. The average professional can break into one of these in five minutes or less. The gun vaults for use in dressers and cars can be defeated in less than thirty seconds. pr just carried off for a subsequent breaking and entering; the securing cables are essentially a nuisance, not a deterent. Are we to mandate laws requiring us to lock up our guns in Fort Knox? Isn’t that your prefered result?
Just a minor nitpick… Not everyone here lives in the USA. So yes, where I live, anyone who owns more than two guns has to buy a safe. And the safe has to meet certain standards. And even the one I have, one of the cheaper ones, weights some 200 pounds. It is designed to be afixed to a wall or floor.
Sure, the safety standards are not designed to stop a grade A professional who has time aplenty and good tools. But the safe will protect the guns from 95%+ of common burglars. And we’re insured.
So yes, it will reduce gun thefts. It will not reduce them to zero but it will reduce them.
And a poll tax would reduce illegal voting. Not to zero, but some.
The right to keep and bear arms (in America) is a civil right. Safe gun storage and mandatory theft and loss reporting laws might be effective at decreasing gun thefts and thus increasing public safety—an entirely unproven supposition—but they are an infringement on that right none-the-less.
Realists realize that freedom is not free.
Look, I’m not saying somebody should introduce mandatory gun safe legislation in the USA.
But claiming that the idea that safe storage laws would reduce gun thefts is uninformed is, well, uninformed.
Those gun safes do reduce gun theft. Denying this places one amongst those who ignore hard facts. And I thought we are in favor of hard facts.
The question, one I’m not trying to answer but one that should not be ignored, is this – is the price of this safety increase, both in monetary terms and in terms of reduced firearms availability, acceptable? After all, the price of my safe is a fraction of the price of the guns it stores. The law would not force me to buy one if I only had one or two guns. And I would buy one even if the law didn’t exist. So is the idea really that bad?
Compare it to god knows how many other regulations that limit your rights, regulations that cost you real money and whose main aim is to increase public safety. Is 2A really so special that NO debate about any rules is permitted? Or are you hypersensitive to any perceived threats to 2A?
I’m hypersensitive to any perceived threats to 2A. Actually, make that hyper-vigilant to any threats to 2A.
That sounds like a good reason to keep your gun in the night stand or under the pillow. The thieves are gonna get it anyway right?
I don’t know why Robert is not piping up with his opinion on this. If I remember correctly, a gun should be on your person or in the safe. Which sounds like he agrees with me, except like a rebellious boy, he doesn’t want the government telling him he has to do it.
I’d say he’s had to expend so much energy defending gun rights from all kinds of attacks that he’s pre-emptively striking at any attempts to limit those rights. And, considering how many sneaky, crazy, stupid, counterproductive and unrelenting attacks he’s had to fight, I understand he’s sort of hyper-vigilant.
And to give you an example of how things can work elsewhere, I’ll add to what I’ve already said about the country where I live. Yes, we do have safe storage laws. But even here you can keep your pistol in your night stand and your shotgun under your mattress. You only have to keep your third and more guns in the safe.
We don’t have rivers of blood running down our streets.
I promised I wasn’t going to feed you. Sigh.
RF is a free human being who has espoused liberty. However he recognizes that liberty also come with responsibilities. His responsibilities do not need to be legislated nor should they be. He chooses to lock up his guns not because he is ordered to do so by law, but because it is the right thing to do.
What we’re talking about here is the difference between a free state and a softly tyrannical nanny state. Should people lock up their guns (Minus a home defense weapon which gets locked up when it is not staged and/or in use as such)? Yes they should. Right or wrong you should also be free to leave them strewn about in any manner you choose. A lot of people wield the first amendment irresponsibly to do harm to both individuals and to entire groups of people. Should they do it? No. But it is not the State’s place to tell them what they can and cannot say. Just as it is not the State’s place to regulate religion, or to quarter troops in our homes, or to tinker with privately held arms.
I do not have a high opinion of you, your ideology or your intellect. However, you ARE well educated even if that education wasn’t formal (It could be formal, but who knows? You don’t like to divulge the details of your past). As such, I won’t launch into an explanation of the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. What I will say is that the less of the latter, the better. Whatever you choose to believe, that is truly what divides you and RF. You think it’s okay (and effective) to pass laws in order to regulate behavior. You also believe it is alright limit the rights of a demographic which is 99.9% law abiding. Even if that percentage was dramatically different, RF would STILL oppose the type of busybody BS laws you’re proposing.
Hal, I had no idea you thought I was well educated. I’m speechless with pride.
The fact is that most of you guys obey the laws pretty much. Therefore safe storage laws would convince many of you who don’t take the proper precautions now to do so. Fewer guns would get stolen. Everybody wins. Of course your adolescent egos would take a bit of a bruising with having succumbed to the governments orders, but you can comfort yourselves with the knowledge that in spite having been constrained to do the right thing, you did do the right thing.
Mikeyb, an ex pat living in Italy. Basically a failed American who fled the responsibilty of living in a nation of free men, is giving advice, from afar, on how to run the country he ran from. He didn’t take his ball and go home, he went to a whole other continent.
I would like to hear from any TTAG viewer that has actually been persuaded to rethink their stand on gun control based on Mikeyb’s arguments.
I’m waiting.
I rethought my stand on gun control based on MikeB’s arguments and concluded that his arguments fail to hold water. Thus I do not support gun control.
There are to many gun control laws on the books now. The gov. needs to clean up all the laws and just get a basic one and enforce it. Wait, there is a gun law on the books. its the 2sd Amend. A gun is a tool just like a knife, hammer, screwdriver, and fire. All these can be used either for good or bad. If you band them we might as well go beck to caveman days and throw rocks. I rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 in defending myself and family using a gun.
One need only look at violent crime in the UK to understand that banning guns does nothing to prevent crime.
Sure not many folks die from guns in the UK, but their violent crime rate is out of control.
Same can be said of places like Chicago, California, and DC.
Lets break down this “brilliant” quote of the day once and for all:
” . . . criminals will not ALWAYS get guns.”
Just because you say it, doesnt make it true. Criminals ALWAYS do get guns, even if you dont want them to. Please, do tell, is there a example of “criminals not ALWAYS getting guns”?
“If guns are harder to come by, many criminals will not make the extra effort necessary to find alternate means of acquiring them.”
Again, where is there a example of criminals not making the extra effort necessary to acquire them? As far as I know, countries with the strictest private firearms ownership laws still have criminals that harm and kill people with firearms. How do criminals obtain firearms in Britain? or Mexico?
“With proper gun control laws in place, private sales with no background check will not be an option. ”
Oh really? so these gun control laws will magically appear as a giant magical hand and stop two private individuals from exchanging a gun for money? That is the problem of laws such as these. Unless there is a police officer there to enforce such “gun control”, the crime will commence absent the eyes of the law. But this has been the case with criminals and the laws they circumvent since the etching of the Code of Hammurabi.
“Theft will be harder due to safe storage law enforcement.”
As in safe storage at a police station? or depot? (like britain) Right. The police do a wonderful job in securing evidence (especially firearms) used in a crime http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=180306
Why wouldnt they do a good job in securing a lawful firearm??? LOL http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearm-accessories/firearms-storage/articles/2006236-Report-claims-officers-lost-243-Homeland-Security-guns/
Oh wait. They dont. I guess all is not well in the land of the “police storage” argument.
“Straw purchasing will all but cease to exist with licensing and registration.”
Because of these “gun control laws”? It is already a crime to initiate straw purchases and people get caught and hammered. Lets take a look at “licensing and registration”:
“Licensing systems are very expensive to administer. Canada’s experience with its full licensing and registration system, begun in December 1998, is not encouraging. The government originally estimated that the cost of licensing Canada’s three million gun owners and registering their seven million guns would be $185 million [Canadian] over five years including a one-time start-up cost of $85 million [Canadian]. But, by March 2000 the Canadian Firearms Centre admitted that the system had already cost Canadian taxpayers $327 million [Canadian] and was running up an annual bill nearly 10 times higher than the government’s original forecast. The March announcement also revealed that although 270,000 valid licenses existed from the country’s earlier gun control system, only 142,000 new licenses had been issued. Using these figures as a baseline for America’s arsenal of 65 million handguns, the estimated cost of such a system here is staggering.”
Now the million dollar question is: where did the above paragraphs come from??? oh yes, your very own Violence Policy Center. Here’s the link (2nd amendment supporters, im on your side, be nice!) http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/licreg.htm
“What’s left is buying from other criminals, but even this will be more difficult due to the other restrictions.”
Except the laws of supply and demand still apply with the black market. If you crimp the supply of illegal guns, the price goes up, the criminal is encouraged to expand business to make a wider profit margin, etc etc rise repeat.
“Guns on the black market will become more scarce.”
Only if the principal manufacturing of firearms is ceased, which everybody knows will never happen. As long as there are firearms being manufactured (private or government is irrelevant), then there will be a market for them, illegal or not.
“What we have to remember is that criminals are like everybody else, they seek the path of least resistance. If guns are harder to come by many will do without.”
While that is true to a extent, at what line do you cross to make guns more difficult to keep criminals from obtaining? the line that impedes law-abiding citizens from lawfully purchasing arms? if that is the case, then law-abiding citizens are effectively debarred from the use of arms, while criminals continue business as usual. Increased restrictions on firearms are a zero sum game, in complete contradiction to the Bill of Rights ill add, which results in lawful people getting punished for no obvious gain or benefit.
It seems Bonomo needs to wipe the slate clean and try again.
FLAME DELETED Your best quote is this one.
“Criminals ALWAYS do get guns, even if you dont want them to.”
Just think about that one for a minute.
And I’m glad you mentioned England. There they enjoy a 4 times lower murder rate, and you know one of the reasons for that? You guessed it, lower gun availability. So, no, criminals will not always get guns.
Except England gets to enjoy one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. So they have that going for them.
Highest in the world? Is there no limit to the nonsense you spout?
England, apples. America oranges. Dishonest to compare any already subjugated country to a free nation like the US. Well free-ish.
But as our gun rights continue to grow we’ll have more of our freedom back.
I don’t see any way for the brits to regain their freedom short of outright rebellion.
Good little subjects dont rebel. So I think they’ll be little better than slaves to their government for quite some time yet.
Excuse me, jwm, but you guys are the ones who compare to England all the time. Now, it’s apples and oranges all of a sudden? If you think they have already lost their freedom, what about ours? What about the government-sanctioned torture and eaves-dropping. What about the indefinite detention? When are you going to do something about that?
Can’t do anything about those problems mikeyb cause I’m too busy trying to protect my gun rights from people that just don’t get it. I only have so much time and resources so I put our #1 right and freedom at the top of the list.
If you and your kind would back off my gun rights I would have more time to devote to those issues.
“Number 1 right and freedom” huh? That shows what a small-minded and biased opinion you hold on this subject. There’s more to it than you and your precious guns.
No mikey, there’s not more to it than me and my guns. You’ve given up on the notion of indiviual freedom, I have not. Now when you recognise my right to own and carry a gun with no restrictions as it says in the constitution I’ll start giving some effort towards those othwer problems.
Small minded and biased is exactly how I describe you.
You’re the small-minded one and self-centered too. Don’t you see that your way all the people who don’t want guns have their freedom infringed upon? Even now, when you go out you have to wonder not only if some crazy criminal is going to harm you but also if some supposedly lawful gun owner might. Some of you guys drop your guns in crowded restaurants, others of you take drugs and drink too much, some of you are just fucking stupid and clumsy. You may be the most responsible guy in the world, but don’t think that applies to all of you. And our problem, those of us who worry about these things, is usually you all look alike.
So my rights are null and void mikeyb because of some vague fear of a future gun incident on your part? Your fears have overwhelmed you to the point that you had to flee the country?
When your fears lead you to making irrational choices like that it’s time to seek help mikey.
The facts are that you’re at greater risk from a drunk driver than a legal gun owner and running to Italy does nothing to protect you from drunk drivers or criminals.
You fixate on the very miniscule chance of an accidental shooting enough to drive yourself out of your nation of birth for the supposed safety of the birthplace of the mob?
Your stance in this matter is past pathetic. And I’ve wasted my time responding to you.
“Null and void,” jwm, did I say that. I thought I was saying you should be qualified and held accountable when you fuck up. That’s a long way from “null and void.”
Why are you gun-rights fanatics so hysterical?
Why do you love gangs so much?
Why are we always in such a hurry to feed the troll?
Comments are closed.