Do "madmen" and criminals have a right to bear arms?

[tbrown 26]

You would think not. I think they shouldn't either. But "shall not be infringed" is pretty daunting language if taken literally.

But it might not apply to letting them own the ammo.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[billvon 3,132]

>Restricting criminals is fine because they've demonstrated an
> unwillingness to live by society's laws.

I agree. Laws that prevent criminals from getting weapons are a good idea; laws that prevent sane law-abiding adults from getting weapons aren't a good idea. Laws that prevent criminals from getting them by requiring things like background checks etc. _can_ work if they are implemented well. They may inconvenience legal purchasers, but as long as the inconvenience is kept to a minimum, they might well make a difference.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As long as I have the means to shoot back at the occasional madman who goes off the deep end, I can live with the fact that sometimes the wrong person gets his hands on a gun despite any and all laws that are on the books. It's one of the prices of a free society.

Of course, the madman may get you first.

If guns are the answer, then street gang territory should be the safest place in the USA.

Or a gun store..

The owner of our local gun store and range, and his son, were shot dead in their store, Sept. 1998. A customer was also shot but not fatally. The perps were looking to steal guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

As long as I have the means to shoot back at the occasional madman who goes off the deep end, I can live with the fact that sometimes the wrong person gets his hands on a gun despite any and all laws that are on the books. It's one of the prices of a free society.

Of course, the madman may get you first.



If guns are the answer, then street gang territory should be the safest place in the USA.

Or a gun store..

The owner of our local gun store and range, and his son, were shot dead in their store, Sept. 1998. A customer was also shot but not fatally. The perps were looking to steal guns.

Now you are comparing an apple to a mango. In the instance you first mentioned, that of a gang-infested street corner, and the competitions I mentioned, all were many people each armed with a single gun. A few may have more than one.
In the case of a gun store being robbed it was relatively few people with a lot of guns.
I think there are enough cases from each side to show that the number of guns present is not a reliable indicator of the relative safety of the situation, rather it is the mindset of those holding the weapons.

[Amazon 7]

I just wish everyone would leave the poor bears alone... I dont think anyone other than the bears should have access to their arms.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So what can be done to make it harder for madmen and criminals to get guns. "Nothing" is NOT an acceptable answer.

How many civil rights are you willing to take away from the law-abiding in your zeal to stop a few madmen?

There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Apparently, all of those are still not good enough for you. So you want just a few more gun laws, and then magically, madmen will quit killing people?

No, they won't. And then you'll want still more gun laws... And so it goes, with more ineffective laws being piled on top of all the previous ineffective laws. And anti-gun folks always crying for still more. And this cycle leads to the inexorable march towards total confiscation. Until in the end, there are no more more guns for the law abiding.

So at some point you just have to stop and say; "no more". We've done all we can. The time has come to accept the fact that madmen will always get guns no matter what measures you try and implement to stop them. Therefore, the only logical response is to ensure that the good citizens have the means to stop the madmen.

So if "nothing" is not the response you want, then my response is this: Implement nationwide shall-issue concealed handgun carry licenses, and ban gun-free zones from public areas like schools, churches and malls.

Not exactly what you wanted though, eh? Your solution, I'm sure, only involves more restrictions on the law-abiding, rather than less...

[billvon 3,132]

(begin counterpoint)

There are already 230 million guns in America, Apparently, all of those are still not good enough for you. So you want just a few more guns, and then magically, you'll be able to better defend yourself?

No, you won't. And then you'll want still more guns . . . And so it goes, with more deadly guns being piled on top of all the previous ineffective guns. And gun folks like you crying for still more. Until in the end, there are so many guns that a child can't play in a schoolyard without picking one up and accidentally shooting himself.

So at some point you just have to stop and say "enough." We've built all the guns we need. The time has come to accept the fact that we have enough guns, no matter how fanatic the gun nuts are about building their arsenals. Therefore, the only logical response is to ensure that we stop building guns.

(end counterpoint)

The above is as absurd as your example. We have thousands of laws on EVERYTHING. I am sure you could list 20,000 laws on terrorism. Does that mean we should never alter any law on terrorism, or pass new laws to try to stop it? There are that many laws on campaign financing. Does that mean we should never try to pass a new campaign finance reform act?

Laws that prevent madmen and criminals from obtaining weapons are good. Laws that prevent legal gun users from buying and using their weapons are bad. Laws that inconvenience legal gun owners, but also help prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, may also be a good idea if the inconvenience is minimized (like a short wait for a handgun while your background is checked.)

Cries about "oh, there are so many laws that don't work!" are counterproductive. You think laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals don't work? Then either suggest a better law or get out of the way and let someone better equipped deal with fixing the problem.

(Or you could support guns for criminals - but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that and assume you would not do that.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Cries about "oh, there are so many laws that don't work!" are counterproductive. You think laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals don't work? Then either suggest a better law or get out of the way and let someone better equipped deal with fixing the problem.

We've ALREADY suggested ways, and we know damned well that the criminals can still get guns. Unfortunately, when we suggest solutions, we get answers like the bolded above, courtesy of the emotional kneejerk of the liberal left and the Brady Bunch.

So, how many MORE laws that the criminals WONT heed do you suggest, Bill? Do you HONESTLY think that making things harder for the law-abiding are going to affect the criminals one bit?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,132]

>So, how many MORE laws that the criminals WONT heed do you suggest, Bill?

How many more laws do we need to stop terrorism? Would you campaign against any new law to protect the US from terrorism, no matter what? After all, terrorists don't heed laws either.

Or would you instead look at the law and decide whether or not it was a good law or not?

There are far too many gun nuts out there who see everything in black and white. Either you own lotsa guns or you are a liberal sheep who wants all guns banned - and any proposed laws are just intended to eventually disarm all americans. Such black and white thinking is no better than any other blind partisanship, and is counterproductive on the whole.

Edited to add - there are also too many anti-gunners who do want laws passed that (effectively) make guns illegal. That's why each law should be evaluated on its own merits, not on what the NRA website or the mothers-against-gun-violence pamphlet says.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

So, how many MORE laws that the criminals WONT heed do you suggest, Bill? Do you HONESTLY think that making things harder for the law-abiding are going to affect the criminals one bit?

We don't need any more of those.

We need laws with teeth that law abiding gun shop owners can use to deny gun purchases by criminals and the mentally unstable. (The current laws are so toothless as to be useless). We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Between these two sources (sales by "law abiding" shops and theft from "law abiding" gun owners) we evidently have the bulk of the guns entering the hands of criminals every year.

We need less obstructionism and whining by the gun lobby when anyone makes a suggestion that may be a little bit inconvenient.

I don't expect criminals to obey the law. I expect "law abiding" gun owners and gun shop owners to play their part in preventing their weapons being used by criminals and madmen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Cries about "oh, there are so many laws that don't work!" are counterproductive. You think laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals don't work? Then either suggest a better law or get out of the way and let someone better equipped deal with fixing the problem.

We've ALREADY suggested ways, ?

What ways have you suggested?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So, how many MORE laws that the criminals WONT heed do you suggest, Bill? Do you HONESTLY think that making things harder for the law-abiding are going to affect the criminals one bit?

We don't need any more of those.

We need laws with teeth that law abiding gun shop owners can use to deny gun purchases by criminals and the mentally unstable. (The current laws are so toothless as to be useless). We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

How about ENFORCING the laws that are already on the books, then, Professor? The Brady campaign trumpeted that their instant check requirements kept over 600000 criminals from making purchases between 1994 and 2000 - where were the arrests?

And, since you brought it up again, exactly HOW would you solve this problem, Professor? No sound bites like in the post I'm replying to - I want CONCRETE statements as to EXACTLY how you are going to make this come about.

Quote

We need less obstructionism and whining by the gun lobby when anyone makes a suggestion that may be a little bit inconvenient.

We need less obstructionism and whining by the anti-gun lobby when pro-self defense people make suggestions that might be a little bit effective in stopping criminals and madmen once they get their hands on a gun.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Cries about "oh, there are so many laws that don't work!" are counterproductive. You think laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals don't work? Then either suggest a better law or get out of the way and let someone better equipped deal with fixing the problem.

We've ALREADY suggested ways, ?

What ways have you suggested?

A nation-wide, shall-issue concealed carry program and removal of useless, feel-good "gun free zone" laws that do nothing to stop crime.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

We need laws with teeth that law abiding gun shop owners can use to deny gun purchases by criminals and the mentally unstable. (The current laws are so toothless as to be useless). We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

How about ENFORCING the laws that are already on the books, then, Professor? The Brady campaign trumpeted that their instant check requirements kept over 600000 criminals from making purchases between 1994 and 2000 - where were the arrests?

And this is where the teeth are needed. The Clinton Administration (I don't believe the Bush reign was really much better, but for some reason the gun control lobby doesn't want to raise any visibility on the issue, and the Right will protect their own) didn't prosecute for it - maybe 100 cases out of half a million. It may be of course that many of these fails were technical glitches and not cases of criminals being so stupid as to openly try to buy a gun.

InstaCheck (or the 3, 5, 10 day waiting periods) doesn't fail if it doesn't flag the buyer before the sale is made. You still have a record of the attempt and subsequent sale, which has a drivers license (and address) recorded that the local or homeland security cops can pursue.

so if Kallend is truly looking for solutions, there is step 1. It will be hard to convince the NRA and its *millions* of members to accept more restrictions when the government won't follow through on the current ones. They all came to the logical conclusion long ago that criminals don't obey laws, only citizens do. Only citizens are afraid that the government might actually enforce them. Criminals know better.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Cries about "oh, there are so many laws that don't work!" are counterproductive. You think laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals don't work? Then either suggest a better law or get out of the way and let someone better equipped deal with fixing the problem.

We've ALREADY suggested ways, ?

What ways have you suggested?

A nation-wide, shall-issue concealed carry program and removal of useless, feel-good "gun free zone" laws that do nothing to stop crime.

Do you like Texas's requirements for issuing a CCW permit? I do.

Do you have any evidence that it will prevent 300,000+ stolen guns entering hands of the criminals every year? How will it stop a loony from getting a gun?

It's nonsense and you know it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Cries about "oh, there are so many laws that don't work!" are counterproductive. You think laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals don't work? Then either suggest a better law or get out of the way and let someone better equipped deal with fixing the problem.

We've ALREADY suggested ways, ?

What ways have you suggested?

A nation-wide, shall-issue concealed carry program and removal of useless, feel-good "gun free zone" laws that do nothing to stop crime.

Do you like Texas's requirements for issuing a CCW permit? I do.

Do you have any evidence that it will prevent 300,000+ stolen guns entering hands of the criminals every year? How will it stop a loony from getting a gun?

It's nonsense and you know it.

THEN TELL HOW ***YOU*** WILL SOLVE IT!!!!!! Quit backtrailing and simply ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lefty 0]

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

One trick pony - it's all he's got.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

OH my - surely OWNING A GUN is what you need to prevent yourself from being robbed. I mean, that's what you guys keep telling us week after week after week.

Do try for a little credibility here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

Hey, at least I can count to 10 and get it right.

One trick pony - it's all he's got.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

OH my - surely OWNING A GUN is what you need to prevent yourself from being robbed. I mean, that's what you guys keep telling us week after week after week.

Do try for a little credibility here.

Not even remotely what I meant. Take what I said as being completely independent of guns and the gun issue. You'll then see why your idea makes no sense.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

OH my - surely OWNING A GUN is what you need to prevent yourself from being robbed. I mean, that's what you guys keep telling us week after week after week.

Do try for a little credibility here.

Not even remotely what I meant. Take what I said as being completely independent of guns and the gun issue. You'll then see why your idea makes no sense.

How can it be independent. Please use a little logic here.

You claim you want a gun to prevent crime but don't want to take responsibility! Puhleese!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

OH my - surely OWNING A GUN is what you need to prevent yourself from being robbed. I mean, that's what you guys keep telling us week after week after week.

Do try for a little credibility here.

Not even remotely what I meant. Take what I said as being completely independent of guns and the gun issue. You'll then see why your idea makes no sense.

Dont you get it? He does not care what you meant. He sees his oportunity to throw chum and apear cute. Did it work for you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

OH my - surely OWNING A GUN is what you need to prevent yourself from being robbed. I mean, that's what you guys keep telling us week after week after week.

Do try for a little credibility here.

Not even remotely what I meant. Take what I said as being completely independent of guns and the gun issue. You'll then see why your idea makes no sense.

Dont you get it? He does not care what you meant. He sees his oportunity to throw chum and apear cute. Did it work for you?

Learn a new word today, Marc?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns so the 300,000+ stolen from them each year by criminals can be reduced.

Hah. We need more laws in place so people won't allow themselves to be robbed, eh? This idea is just as asinine in this thread as it was in the others...sorry.

OH my - surely OWNING A GUN is what you need to prevent yourself from being robbed. I mean, that's what you guys keep telling us week after week after week.

Do try for a little credibility here.

Not even remotely what I meant. Take what I said as being completely independent of guns and the gun issue. You'll then see why your idea makes no sense.

How can it be independent. Please use a little logic here.

You claim you want a gun to prevent crime but don't want to take responsibility! Puhleese!

I love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin