Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Case Study - The failure of gun control laws.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    To the contrary, having laws against possessing bombs and bomb-making materials facilitates the arrest and prosecution of terrorists, because making possession criminal eliminates the need to prove intent to use them in an unlawful attack. It also makes it easier to catch these people sooner.

    "Destructive device" is defined as follows:

    (f) Destructive device
    The term “destructive device” means
    (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
    (A) bomb,
    (B) grenade,
    (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
    (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
    (E) mine, or
    (F) similar device;
    (2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and
    (3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

    I have not heard any clamoring for the general public to be able to own missiles, grenades, RPGs, howitzers or the like.

    Should we generalize your argument to "Nuclear weapons really aren't dangerous until they are misused"? In consequence, we would allow private manufacture and possession of nuclear weapons, as well as the items you propose to legalize, such as artillery pieces, artillery shells, anti-aircraft guns (which aren't dangerous until you shoot down a plane), grenades and bombs.

    I doubt that the views of people on this forum are at all representative of those of the general public.
    Hmmmmmm.......Unless I missed it, which I do not believe is the case, nowhere on that list do I see fertilizer or diesel fuel. No where on that list do I see other common household chemicals available in retail stores. Nowhere on that list do I see gasoline. Nowhere on that list do I see black powder or smokeless powder.

    These laws have very limited value in my opinion. Most of the bad guys who use those things are not going to be stopped by the law. Just ask Bill Ayers, the president's buddy. He'll tell you. I think in most cases, they are smart enough not to construct the device until the time they are ready to use it. The ones who are dumb enough to make and store them ahead of time, are also dumb enough to have a good chance of blowing themselves up when they are putting them together. It's a nice feel good law, but I doubt that it prevents much crime.

    As far as nukes go, it's not possible to make a fission/fusion bomb in your garage but obviously possession of a nuke or any weapon of mass destruction has no legitimate purpose. But that is another subject.

    If Grog wants to have some dynamite or C4 to blow up tree stumps or if I would like some dynamite or C4 to remove a snow berm why should the government prohibit it? Because all people should be treated as terrorists? It is that kind of simplistic logic that has led to the stripping of freedom and liberty from the American people in exchange for a perceived increase in security. Regarding firearms, it has been a proven failure.

    Personally, I don't care that much about the destructive device laws except perhaps the explosives part because I do own some rural property and I currently have a stump I'd like to remove. I have been putting it off because it is going to be a bit of work to whittle it down to the point that my truck can yank it out of the ground. It would be a lot easier and a lot more fun to have a beer and blow it up. But it's not a big deal to me.

    What is a big deal is the continuing loss of freedom and liberty under the guise of security. It is looking more and more like it is not an unintended consequence but rather a deliberate and targeted end unto itself.

    You still seem to be missing the point. The point is that laws have little value in stopping crime because law abiding people don't commit crime. Criminals commit crime and by nature they couldn't care less what some politician or judge has to say about what they can and can't do.
    JPR
    Forum Member
    Last edited by JPR; 11-05-2009, 07:09 PM.
    Jubilant Patriotic Republican

    America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

    Comment


    • #47
      I was referring more to weapons such as machine guns and missiles, which some people favor making legal. I am dubious about those.
      Most states do allow the ownership of full auto weapons. Legally owned FA weapons have the lowest incident of illegal use of all firearms.
      "The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism. Under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every segment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

      Norman Thomas

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JPR View Post
        You still seem to be missing the point. The point is that laws have little value in stopping crime because law abiding people don't commit crime. Criminals commit crime and by nature they couldn't care less what some politician or judge has to say about what they can and can't do.
        "Unintended Consequence..." Nicely said.

        Watchman-- People that share his (DAL's)"opinions" don't care that hundreds of thousands of machine guns are legally owned by people, and are not used in crimes. They don't care that there has only been one (1) registered destructive device (an M203) that was actually used in a crime, and that perp was a policeman. They don't care that laws don't prevent crime. It just makes them feel better to have those restrictions on society, because they don't trust society. They don't even want to trust policemen. When a criminal breaks these laws, they stand around in amazement wondering what better law they can write that will prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again. Then when they come up with even more freedom restricting laws, they walk around, patting each other on the back, content in the knowledge that this new law will prevent future crimes... Then when the next criminal acts, they do the whole thing over again, calling for more draconian laws. Harumph, harumph, harumph.

        All they know is that machine guns frighten them, as do launchers and other DDs, as well as 50 caliber rifles. Armed people frighten them, because they trust no one, and everyone is a potential terrorist. Because of people like Feinstein, and Hollywood in general, people have a fear of these items that is unfounded. They think that a machine gun is more deadly than any other gun, and that grenade launchers cause huge explosions with fire and crashing buildings, and blow up cars. Fact is, in most military engagements, rifles are used on semi-auto. Full auto is fun at the range, but, as any combat veteran knows, full auto in combat is good for three things. Supressing fire, running yourself out of ammo sooner, and heating your barrel up fast. If you want to actually hit something, you'd use semi.

        They think that if they control these items, that terrorists won't have access to them here. I got news for them... If drug runners can smuggle tons of dope into this country, they can smuggle tons of real machine guns and real grenades, and real bombs too. Will those laws prevent them from doing this? Nope.

        I am not, as they are, gullible enough to believe for one single second that a single crime has ever been prevented anywhere in the US simply because the criminal realized his conduct was illegal and decided not to go through with it on that basis.

        JPR is 100% correct when he says that if someone is going to use a bomb, or grenade, or missile, or whatever in a crime, they are not going to make it, store it, or show it around. They are going to make it, then deploy it. Timothy Mcviegh. No laws prevented him from doing what he did, or making what he made. What law caught him sooner? The speed limit.

        As far as the "Nuke" argument for pro gun control... Get real. I mean really. Why do gun control arguments always generate into morbid stupidity? If you can't support your argument with reality, let's just go to the everyone will be building nukes in their backyard and blowing up the world argument... "So you think everyone should be able to legally own Nukes???" That is a sad, pathetic, argument, and not even worthy of rebuttal.

        As far as having those extra crimes to charge people with... I have never needed any extra crimes. People break plenty of laws already on the books.

        As I said, I am all for enhanced penalties, but when you do that, you then have lawyers who feel those punishments are too harsh, drop those charges just because of their personal feelings. I've had many big narcotics cases plead to lesser offenses just because of those enhanced penalties.
        As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...

        Comment


        • #49
          You 2% group of "Pro gun control laws" should move to a county that have implemented such laws recently, I.E. Australia.


          Read Lott and other completely footnoted research papers on this subject and remove the rose coloured glasses...


          Study historical facts regarding this discussion and apologize for being ignorant...

          If you desire my resume', Please P.M.
          asullivan
          Learn'in ma' boy, BBM
          Last edited by asullivan; 11-05-2009, 10:49 PM. Reason: Additional statment
          Originally posted by mookster
          Sully, usually I hafta glance over your posts cuz my brain would have issues with the imagery you portray, however with that one I get it. I agree one hundred percent with ya.
          Originally posted by CityCopDC
          I swear to god you are not human. I know a rogue VI when I see one.
          Originally posted by OfficerDotCom
          I think no one is probably happier than Sully and I that we ARE NOT the same person.(seriously thanking God for that one).
          -Frank




          Old Physicists neva' die, they just hop on a horsey and fly away inta' an infinitely massive black ho ...

          Comment


          • #50
            You are quite talented at jumping to conclusions. I do not oppose the legal ownership of machine guns. In fact, a friend an I bought and M60 when I lived in Virginia. It was, of course, legally owned. It was fun, but essentially useless for defensive purposes, and expensive to shoot.

            I do oppose the free availability of machine guns. I think we would have a lot more gang violence if machine guns were easy to obtain. As it is they are expensive because the supply has been cut off and require a background investigation to obtain. As a result, few people own them, and those who do safeguard them, so they are rarely stolen.

            Crimes committed with machine guns are not a major problem in the U.S.; they certainly are a major problem in other countries. Machine guns stolen from law-enforcement agencies probably have been used in crimes. While one hears that no legally-owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime, I have never seen any proof of that. If a machine gun is used in a crime, you won't know whether it was legally owned unless you can identify the criminal, seize the weapon, and show that it was used in a crime. And you may not even know that a machine gun was used in a particular crime, especially if no one witnessed it being fired.
            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by asullivan View Post
              You 2% group of "Pro gun control laws" should move to a county that have implemented such laws recently, I.E. Australia.


              Read Lott and other completely footnoted research papers on this subject and remove the rose coloured glasses...


              Study historical facts regarding this discussion and apologize for being ignorant...

              If you desire my resume', Please P.M.
              I have read Lott. I think his research is sound. But you can't read it to support assertions that allowing felons and mental patients to possess firearms would reduce crime. Those are some of the bizarre views being espoused here.
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by DAL View Post
                ......... I think we would have a lot more gang violence if machine guns were easy to obtain..............
                Have you been reading the posts here? Availability is not an issue for criminals.

                I recall hearing somewhere that an estimated 60-100 million AK-47s have been manufactured to date. I do not believe obtaining a fully automatic version on the black market is much of a hurdle for the criminals. Granted a full auto assault rifle is not technically a machine gun, but it is pretty close. Furthermore, I would hazard a guess that obtaining a genuine, belt fed machine gun would not be difficult either if there was sufficient demand. I believe the reason we don't see AK-47s in more crimes than we do is because they aren't concealable. I believe most of the time, gang members want to use a concealable firearm.

                That said, I doubt many criminals are looking for a belt fed machine gun. They are hard to conceal and fairly cumbersome so my guess is they aren't practical for street crime purposes. I don't think the gangs want them. If they did, we would be reading in the newspapers about them using them.

                You still don't get the point.
                Jubilant Patriotic Republican

                America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by DAL View Post
                  But you can't read it to support assertions that allowing felons and mental patients to possess firearms would reduce crime. Those are some of the bizarre views being espoused here.
                  You are not understanding the posts Bro. You are too busy reading what you want, and assuming a lot. (...and doing that undercover lawyer name calling thing that lawyers think is clever)


                  #1. We are not talking about reducing crime. We are talking about increasing freedom. There is a huge difference, and I don't see that as bizarre at all. (Only to someone from NYC or California... you know, the people that think the government will protect you, and the only recourse you have to crime is to be a victim and sue in court...) I already posted the only way to reduce it is to treat criminals much harsher by removing them from our society for much longer periods. You can't rehabilitate a fly and teach it not to bite or bother you. Since we can't swat these flies all the time, the only other recourse is to put them somewhere they won't have access to society. (Charlie Manson)

                  #2. No one said anything about allowing mental patients under treatment in an institution firearms, however, there was a huge discussion on SOCNET about this very topic. There were those in the Government that were talking about classifying hundreds of thousands of veterans diagnosed with PTSD as "mental patients" thus effectively denying them their right of self protection with a firearm. So someone who fights for your freedom and has problems dealing with the aftermath... You going to deny them their right of self protection?

                  #3. I know of a few felons (my arrests)that went on to get waivers from the military and are currently serving in Iraq and A-stan. What about these felons? Are they allowed to carry an M16 in a combat zone, fight for YOUR freedom and Country, and then you are going to deny them their right of self protection on US soil?

                  Not all "cut and dry" is it?

                  You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either people have rights or they do not. You seem to fully desire to give up whatever freedom you have, in order to make LE's job "easier". Doesn't work that way Bro. I worked 20+ years in LE and never went beyond the rules. I never had to, and never wanted to, and was never ordered to. I respected the rights of others, and enforced the law. There was no need IMO to create any new laws to "catch criminals sooner".

                  The best thing for us is to go back to the Constitution. We the people and Law enforcement officers can take care of the criminals, as long as no one has any delusions that jail = rehab, and that criminals need to be punished for their crimes. They also need to realize that, once time is served, that criminal then returns to society, with all the rights and privileges accorded to civilians in this society. I do believe it is wrong to strip someone of their rights for life, unless the sentence is life (or death). ...and before you go all weird, I also believe fully in the two strikes and your in for life rule... (it's my own rule that does not put up with criminals) People can make a mistake, and there are circumstances where criminals don't deserve to be in society. A criminal commits two separate felonies, it is not a "mistake" and they then deserve to be removed from society. I can be lenient, but I ain't stupid. Oh, and there are certain felonies that should = life, such as child molestation, rape, murder, robbery, and so on. These criminals deserve to be removed from society, as their crime is not a mistake, but a choice. There is plenty of evidence that these types of criminals do not stop after they are jailed, but continue when they are released.

                  On another note... I believe we really, as a society, need to do away with the 12 foot long rap sheet flies. I mean really people... A lifetime career criminal like that needs one thing. Removed from society. The world WOULD be a better place if we took these people, and removed them. Case in point the rapist they just released and found 10 women's bodies in his house. Why was this animal released into society? Bad system. Bad sentence. Life (or death) for him the first time, problem solved and 10 women alive and well today.
                  As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Compassion for themselves, thugs and nut jobs only. They don't have much compassion for Conservatives and Christians, or worse yet both(i.e. Sarah Palin.) They preach "tolerance" yet they practice intolerance.

                    Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.


                    p.s. I hate that term "progressive". That is just what they fantasize themselves as being. In reality they are Marxists or Statists as Mark Levin puts it.
                    JPR
                    Forum Member
                    Last edited by JPR; 11-06-2009, 07:22 PM.
                    Jubilant Patriotic Republican

                    America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by WSB_Hunter
                      But Grog, these criminals have had a bad life and are victims of a cruel capitalist system. They were teased as kids. The innocent victims are just something we have to live with. This is why I love progressives, because they are so compassionate. They don't have common sense or logic, just compassion. Every decision they make is based on emotion. This is why I am so content with our government these days, more compassion and less logic.
                      Wow... You CAN read sarcasm.
                      As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        FNA209,

                        ROTFLMAO!!!!

                        Rev

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Since when did making something a crime actually stop it from happening?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I have continually asked the exact same question.

                            That does not stop people from making more laws.
                            As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Gun control has worked so well in England that crime is down pretty much to the boy scouts and with guns gone they easily took away their knives with the stroke of a pen.

                              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ing-trips.html

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Well I guess that rules out eating steak or ham at a boy scout outing. I guess the libs would prefer them eating mind numbing pablum.
                                Jubilant Patriotic Republican

                                America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3967 users online. 242 members and 3725 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X