Criminals ignore gun laws - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

whunter · #1 12-20-2012, 02:29 AM

Yes, I know, it's a SHOCK..
Criminals ignore gun laws!

VR to Gun Control morons after Wacko in Aurora - Testimony by Dr. Gratia-Hupp - Luby Massacre - YouTube
.

.

Rapper Ice T on US gun control (20July12) - YouTube
.

kmaysob · #2 12-20-2012, 03:57 AM

Stop school shootings by letting teachers fire back, say Texas officials | Fox News

but but but if we just ban hi capacity magazines and those scary looking "assault" rifles, people will stop using guns to kill people! right?

layback40 · #3 12-20-2012, 07:23 AM

If they dont have guns they will find some thing else.
weed the nut cases out, make the consequences fit the crime.
When the DEA confiscate a quantity of drugs, just lace it with cyanide & let it back in the delivery chain. Make sure all know that its out there.

MS Fowler · #4 12-20-2012, 07:41 AM

GREAT post Mr. Hunter

I'd like to see an effort to give some incentive (extra$) to schools and school systems to hire Vets and retired police--especially those with training in urban warfare--to be hires as substitute teachers. Placards advertise that the school hires vets and police and that they may be armed. Just to put some fear that maybe THIS school isn't the easy mark that it appears.
I don't favor arming teachers or administrators--their primary focus is nurturing. But vets have been trained to kill--lets allow them to help. Substitutes gennerally are poorly paid, but maybe a 25% boost for trained/ armed Vets/ police would be all it takes.

Air&Road · #5 12-20-2012, 07:48 AM

Thanks for posting this Roy. It makes what SHOULD be the obvious point, but no liberal politician is going to miss an excuse to try a little gun grabbing.

Brian Carlton · #6 12-20-2012, 08:35 AM

Excellent.

The minimal efforts to introduce "gun control" to placate the electorate won't accomplish any more than the "gun free zone" signs that were put up around various schools.

The failure to recognize and address the ills of society isn't going to change when gun possession laws get a bit more stringent.

JB3 · #7 12-20-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whunter

Yes, I know, it's a SHOCK..
Criminals ignore gun laws!

VR to Gun Control morons after Wacko in Aurora - Testimony by Dr. Gratia-Hupp - Luby Massacre - YouTube

.

Im glad you brought up Aurora Whunter. Here we have a 24 year old kid, who immediately prior in a few month period, and with excellent use of lax gun laws and lax waiting periods, buys himself two glocks, a shotgun, and a rifle.

All legally owned, all immediately supplied. Was he a criminal prior to shooting over 70 people and killing 12?

Criminals do ignore gun laws, however, when it comes to a lunatic attack on large groups of people, criminals do not represent the biggest risk to the public do they? It has been proven over and over again that your home defense weapon is a larger risk to you, than to anyone you might defend the house from.

No criminal is going to commit a mass shooting. That is the place of insane people, and something like 90% of the 30 plus mass shootings since columbine have been with legally bought firearms, either stolen from the rightful owner, or aquired by the killers themselves.

With that in mind, any regulation or increased gun control that effects the average law abiding citizen would probably have an effect on the availability of these weapons for the average nut. Certainly the requirement of a gun safe would have changed the outcome of the most recent mass shooting.

elchivito · #8 12-20-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Im glad you brought up Aurora Whunter. Here we have a 24 year old kid, who immediately prior in a few month period, and with excellent use of lax gun laws and lax waiting periods, buys himself two glocks, a shotgun, and a rifle.

All legally owned, all immediately supplied. Was he a criminal prior to shooting over 70 people and killing 12?

Criminals do ignore gun laws, however, when it comes to a lunatic attack on large groups of people, criminals do not represent the biggest risk to the public do they? It has been proven over and over again that your home defense weapon is a larger risk to you, than to anyone you might defend the house from.

No criminal is going to commit a mass shooting. That is the place of insane people, and something like 90% of the 30 plus mass shootings since columbine have been with legally bought firearms, either stolen from the rightful owner, or aquired by the killers themselves.

With that in mind, any regulation or increased gun control that effects the average law abiding citizen would probably have an effect on the availability of these weapons for the average nut. Certainly the requirement of a gun safe would have changed the outcome of the most recent mass shooting.

Well stated.

davidmash · #9 12-20-2012, 10:50 AM

Wow. Criminals ignore laws. Go figure. That's like being surprised that the $100,000 you left in a wheel barrow in central square got robbed. If you allow criminals to buy guns why would you be so stupid to think they would not buy them?

Brian Carlton · #10 12-20-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

No criminal is going to commit a mass shooting. That is the place of insane people, and something like 90% of the 30 plus mass shootings since columbine have been with legally bought firearms, either stolen from the rightful owner, or aquired by the killers themselves.

With that in mind, any regulation or increased gun control that effects the average law abiding citizen would probably have an effect on the availability of these weapons for the average nut.

OK, so we agree that the illegal weapons are not in the discussion with regard to the mass shootings.

Do you have any suggestion of merit regarding the AR-15 or any semi-automatic handgun? Right now they are all legal. If you suggest that you can make them illegal, you're pissing in the wind. If you managed to make them illegal, you'll need to wait two generations before all of them might be exhausted in the secondary marketplace.

So, what's your solution for the mass shootings if you intend to control the supply? I really don't believe you have anything meaningful.

JB3 · #11 12-20-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

OK, so we agree that the illegal weapons are not in the discussion with regard to the mass shootings.

Do you have any suggestion of merit regarding the AR-15 or any semi-automatic handgun? Right now they are all legal. If you suggest that you can make them illegal, you're pissing in the wind. If you managed to make them illegal, you'll need to wait two generations before all of them might be exhausted in the secondary marketplace.

So, what's your solution for the mass shootings if you intend to control the supply? I really don't believe you have anything meaningful.

Well, you already know what I want, and what we both know wouldn't happen, so ill skip that.

Given not getting what I want, im not sure why a much better system of control tracking weapons, longer time limits to get weapons, and a better storage requirement wouldn't be that outrageous of an imposition. You still get what you want, but it takes a bit longer, a bit more paperwork, and a bit more responsibility. If discovered with an unregistered weapon, it is taken and you are fined, without the right to ever own a gun again, ect. There would be a grace period for people to register their weapons.

Id want to see a similar system to Canada in relation to ammuntion purchases, so we can at least limit all ammunition sold over the counter to legal gun owners with a certificate saying so. Id also want to see a requirement for locked and sealed gun storage solutions, and stiff penalties for anyone whose firearm is used in a crime as an incentive to get people to put them away safely. All those ideas make sense to me, and allow the same access to the weapons we already have, while getting some control over how these things are sold, and how they drop off the map or get in the hands of random people who would never qualify to own one in the first place.
Id love to see yearly or every other year inspections of the firearm, with again, evidence that you are not maintaining it results in confiscation and limits to your ownership rights. Only people who treat weapons with respect and maintain them should be allowed to own them.

Of the 7 mass shooting incidents in the country this year prior to the sandy hook shooting, locked weapons might have prevented the most recent school shooting, and probably the december 11th shooting where Jacob Tyler stole an AR-15 and shot two people before the gun jammed.

Though on that one, we have to thank the average careless idiot for not maintaining the weapon, or it would have been much much worse than that.

Id love to see a much greater increase on time limits and focus on the buyer in order to get weapons in the first place, especially identical weapons.

Couple examples of that would be the Aurora incident with the double glocks, Ian Stanwicki in seattle with his 6 handguns which were either .45 or 9mm (also, this guy was arrested for beating his GF prior, but it was thrown out. They sent a dog after him when he beat her, grabbed a .45, and ran outside)

I think if you are arrested for something like that, you should immediately lose the right of all the guns in hand for at least a waiting period and psychiatric evaluation of stability.

Basically, what id want is some responsibility to be required with ownership. Right now we have nearly no call for responsibility once the license is actually issued. The car examples made on the forum are decent.

When you get a license, you then register your car, get it tested, ect. If the same rules were applied to cars as to guns, you get a license, and own as many cars as you like with effectively zero restrictions on how you maintain those cars, what you do with them, how careless you are with them. We have none of that for guns.

Brian Carlton · #12 12-20-2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Well, you already know what I want, and what we both know wouldn't happen, so ill skip that.

Given not getting what I want, im not sure why a much better system of control tracking weapons, longer time limits to get weapons, and a better storage requirement wouldn't be that outrageous of an imposition. You still get what you want, but it takes a bit longer, a bit more paperwork, and a bit more responsibility. If discovered with an unregistered weapon, it is taken and you are fined, without the right to ever own a gun again, ect. There would be a grace period for people to register their weapons.

Id want to see a similar system to Canada in relation to ammuntion purchases, so we can at least limit all ammunition sold over the counter to legal gun owners with a certificate saying so. Id also want to see a requirement for locked and sealed gun storage solutions, and stiff penalties for anyone whose firearm is used in a crime as an incentive to get people to put them away safely. All those ideas make sense to me, and allow the same access to the weapons we already have, while getting some control over how these things are sold, and how they drop off the map or get in the hands of random people who would never qualify to own one in the first place.
Id love to see yearly or every other year inspections of the firearm, with again, evidence that you are not maintaining it results in confiscation and limits to your ownership rights. Only people who treat weapons with respect and maintain them should be allowed to own them.

Of the 7 mass shooting incidents in the country this year prior to the sandy hook shooting, locked weapons might have prevented the most recent school shooting, and probably the december 11th shooting where Jacob Tyler stole an AR-15 and shot two people before the gun jammed.

Though on that one, we have to thank the average careless idiot for not maintaining the weapon, or it would have been much much worse than that.

Id love to see a much greater increase on time limits and focus on the buyer in order to get weapons in the first place, especially identical weapons.

Couple examples of that would be the Aurora incident with the double glocks, Ian Stanwicki in seattle with his 6 handguns which were either .45 or 9mm (also, this guy was arrested for beating his GF prior, but it was thrown out. They sent a dog after him when he beat her, grabbed a .45, and ran outside)

I think if you are arrested for something like that, you should immediately lose the right of all the guns in hand for at least a waiting period and psychiatric evaluation of stability.

Basically, what id want is some responsibility to be required with ownership. Right now we have nearly no call for responsibility once the license is actually issued. The car examples made on the forum are decent.

When you get a license, you then register your car, get it tested, ect. If the same rules were applied to cars as to guns, you get a license, and own as many cars as you like with effectively zero restrictions on how you maintain those cars, what you do with them, how careless you are with them. We have none of that for guns.

I don't have a problem with any of that. The gun safe is a bit onerous, but, upon reflection, not over the top considering our current situation. I don't think that any responsible gun owner would balk at most of it. But, I'll defer to them since I only have a single gun.

You would stop the individual who acts without much of a plan and simply decides on the spur of the moment to kill 26 people. You will not stop the individual who makes his plan over the course of one year and executes it.

Benz Fan · #13 12-20-2012, 11:35 AM

Why ban weapons of any type? We all know that guns don't kill people - people kill people! Oh sure, the latest bastard used semiauto weapons with high capacity magazines, but he easily could have shown up at the school with a Boy Scout penknife or an M1 Abrams tank and still would have been able to hurt someone! It's all about intent, not the implements used to carry out the intent. Leave the gun manufacturers alone! As long as we prevent the mentally ill or those who happen to be in a really sour mood once in a while, from accessing guns, we'll be fine as a society.

At this point, I see no philosophical or moral obstruction to making small nuclear bombs available to the general public, as long as we solicit a promise from those who possess these weapons that they'll be used for self-defense only, and the purveyors of these weapons won't sell them to nutjobs, or the parents or friends of nutjobs...

Air&Road · #14 12-20-2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Im glad you brought up Aurora Whunter. Here we have a 24 year old kid, who immediately prior in a few month period, and with excellent use of lax gun laws and lax waiting periods, buys himself two glocks, a shotgun, and a rifle.

All legally owned, all immediately supplied. Was he a criminal prior to shooting over 70 people and killing 12?

Criminals do ignore gun laws, however, when it comes to a lunatic attack on large groups of people, criminals do not represent the biggest risk to the public do they? It has been proven over and over again that your home defense weapon is a larger risk to you, than to anyone you might defend the house from.

No criminal is going to commit a mass shooting. That is the place of insane people, and something like 90% of the 30 plus mass shootings since columbine have been with legally bought firearms, either stolen from the rightful owner, or aquired by the killers themselves.

With that in mind, any regulation or increased gun control that effects the average law abiding citizen would probably have an effect on the availability of these weapons for the average nut. Certainly the requirement of a gun safe would have changed the outcome of the most recent mass shooting.

Do you REALLY think those nut cases would not have found a way to get their hands on the guns they wanted? If so, there's some oceon front property in Wyoming you might be interested in buying.

Air&Road · #15 12-20-2012, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Fan

Why ban weapons of any type? We all know that guns don't kill people - people kill people! Oh sure, the latest bastard used semiauto weapons with high capacity magazines, but he easily could have shown up at the school with a Boy Scout penknife or an M1 Abrams tank and still would have been able to hurt someone! It's all about intent, not the implements used to carry out the intent. Leave the gun manufacturers alone! As long as we prevent the mentally ill or those who happen to be in a really sour mood once in a while, from accessing guns, we'll be fine as a society.

At this point, I see no philosophical or moral obstruction to making small nuclear bombs available to the general public, as long as we solicit a promise from those who possess these weapons that they'll be used for self-defense only, and the purveyors of these weapons won't sell them to nutjobs, or the parents or friends of nutjobs...

So if he used semi auto pistols, why are the gun grabbers going after the so called "assault rifles?" Because he had one in his car?