But Criminals Don't Follow Laws!

[KitterCat]

regulating weaponry in a sensible manner would make it harder for criminals to get them while keeping it still reasonable for a law abiding citizen. but nope, the total ban boogyman is always thrown in despite it's nonexistance in 90% of the conversation.

so, explain to me HOW requiring a criminal background check and a special license to buy varying types of guns would make it harder for a law abiding citizen when it would be designed for law abiding citizens to be able to pass. because it would be. because that's what a sensible regulation system is.

as far as i'm concerned, an individual has no right to claim guns are for safety unless they also agree they need to be treated safely and sensibly.

/rant

What the bigger problem is that most people don’t realize what regulations are already in place under federal law, what’s in place by state law and where the loopholes are between the two. Under federal law a buyer must go under a background check due to The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

“Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives”

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Now different states have different rules on holds for gun purchases. These holds have been legislated for various reasons. Some of which include making sure a person does not go on a shooting spree and kill others or themselves. Some are to have the state do a background check to check on possible updates that haven’t been sent to NICS or for medical records for mental stability. The mental issue is the biggest factor I can personally see for change. There are some states that have tougher privacy laws on medical problems that go unreported to NICS. So depending on what your mental issue is NICS may or may not ever receive information on it.

There are already also special licenses one can buy (again varies by state) in order to buy special types of guns/rifles. There are limits as to how many guns a person can buy per month, but a registered gun collector can buy a licensees to buy more. There are ways to buy fully automatic guns, grenades, tank ammunition. No I’m not kidding you can purchase tank ammunition depending on type and each round has to be registered. Each has its own category background check, cost to buyer for background check, tax stamp, tax on item and item price its self. It is prohibit expensive and time consuming for most people.

Gun ownership is one of the most regulated things in this country. It gets even more difficult when your talking about different states regulations and hobbies such as hunting.

A good amount of people I think take the statement “we need more gun regulation” to mean “we need to take all guns away from people” because there already is a ton of gun regulation. In some states far to much. For example I live in Maryland where getting a concealed carry license was virtually impossible. You had to have multiple police reports showing that someone was threatening to kill you or deal with huge amounts of money. Currently this law is slowly moving its way through the court system of appeals to be revoked as being unconstitutional. Eventually it will make its way to the Supreme Court but its going to take a while.

And while getting CC permits in Maryland is close to impossible, getting them in states surrounding it isn’t. Which Maryland does not honor. So you live in WV, get a CC and then carry a gun around with you in Maryland. You will be arrested if your found. Until recently you couldn’t even go into D.C. with a gun of any type with out being arrested. If you were going to a shooting range and had to travel better make sure you travel around the city.

So please I’m not trying to be facetious when I say this, but what regulations would you enact that haven’t already been done? Or what rules would you do away with?

[Zod]

Like the US would turn into Somalia inside of a week after any new gun control law because suddenly there would be no "good guys" with guns around to turn back the tides of darkness.

They *wish* it would turn into Somalia : no gun control at all : it must be a utopian paradise where nohing bad ever happens and everyone lives to be 120.

if my neighbor broke the law and obtained a gun for the purposes of killing me, then it does put me, a law abiding citizen, at a disadvantage.

Neighbor knocks on your door. You open it. He shoots you.

How does having a gun locked away in your safe change this?

[siead_lietrathua]

... Assuming there is a strict "no-gun" policy, if my neighbor broke the law and obtained a gun for the purposes of killing me, then it does put me, a law abiding citizen, at a disadvantage.

ok, cuz this is starting to make me a little bonkers, pardont he mini-rant, and this is not directed at you, Huckster, but at the concept. but...
NOBODY. IS. SAYING. TOTAL. GUN. BAN. IN. THE. STATES!!!

jeebus, people have said regulate, licence, limit, sure, but ban, NO. and throwing in the "banning will just make the bad guys be the ony ones armed" are NOT LISTENING to what people are actually saying, as far as i'm concerned at this point.

regulating weaponry in a sensible manner would make it harder for criminals to get them while keeping it still reasonable for a law abiding citizen. but nope, the total ban boogyman is always thrown in despite it's nonexistance in 90% of the conversation.

so, explain to me HOW requiring a criminal background check and a special license to buy varying types of guns would make it harder for a law abiding citizen when it would be designed for law abiding citizens to be able to pass. because it would be. because that's what a sensible regulation system is.

as far as i'm concerned, an individual has no right to claim guns are for safety unless they also agree they need to be treated safely and sensibly.

/rant

[TheHuckster]

Murder's illegal. Still happens.

And if only the criminal had the gun, it would be easier to accomplish.

Rapes illegal. Still happens.

And if only the rapist had the gun, it would be easier to accomplish.

The vast majority of drugs are illegal. Still used and made.

If my neighbor broke the law and consumed drugs, it does not put me, a law abiding citizen, at a disadvantage. Assuming there is a strict "no-gun" policy, if my neighbor broke the law and obtained a gun for the purposes of killing me, then it does put me, a law abiding citizen, at a disadvantage.

I understand this kind of argument only works when discussing a complete no-tolerance ban on guns, and ironically I feel as though better gun control laws could effectively increase the ratio of "good" gun owners to "bad' gun owners, but the argument is not completely analogous when you're discussing a complete gun-ban to other bans on items that aren't designed to both kill [i]and[i] defend.

[Duelist925]

So...did we ever come up with reasoning as to why criminals are law abiding citizens who would NEVER break the law in attaining guns in a complete gun ban?

The entire point of the OP was that no matter what laws are made, they are broken by some people.

This is not a reason to not have a particular law. If it were, there would be NO laws, because, hey, every law is broken.

Murder's illegal. Still happens.

Rapes illegal. Still happens.

The vast majority of drugs are illegal. Still used and made.

It was never about reasoning why criminals wouldn't break a gun control law. It was simply pointing out how utterly stupid that argument is.

[Greenday]

So...did we ever come up with reasoning as to why criminals are law abiding citizens who would NEVER break the law in attaining guns in a complete gun ban?

[KitterCat]

I will try not to use one of the arguments that guns are a right in this country that our founding fathers put in place so that the citizenry could overthrow a tyrannical government if it was needed. Instead I will try to go by your bases of laws being in place that in order for a society to work. Since I am not as eloquent as I would like I will use others words to make my point.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."Thomas Paine

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"Patrick Henry

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence John Adams

I think your hearts in the right place CrashHelmet, but you are having a knee jerk reaction to the newest flurry of gun debates. Most of the laws on the books regarding gun control are duplicates of other gun laws. Many of which are not needed. New laws regarding former bans back to the Assault rifle Ban of the 90s aren’t needed either. My husband and his father still play games sending pictures of rifles and spouting off to each other how to change the cosmetics to make it an assault rifle or vise versa.

Personally I don’t think there is a law that can be enacted for a quick fix - which lets face it that’s what we all want. A way to stop crazy/lawless people from shooting up other people. It dose seem to be a systematic problem in our society and I don’t know why. Part of it I cant help think is partially due to most peoples fear in reacent generations of guns, so they never even contemplate learning how to handle one. Part is how our mental medical health system is not run well and due to differing states privacy laws even the same from state to state. What you seem to be asking for though is a blanket law that will simply stop all crazy/lawless people from owning guns while letting law abiding people go about their business. There simply isn’t now or ever will be such an easy fix.

[Nyoibo]

Pfft, you think there's vast tracts of nothing over there? Try driving around Australia.

[Nekojin]

I'm actually a Sou'Wester. While i was raised all over the world, I was born in Orange, CA and spent a considerable amount of time in LA and Orange counties. I've lived here in Vegas for the last 11 years.

The "Nor'Easter" comment was mostly a joke - the eastern seaboard (and particularly the New England states) are the only place in the US where it's a nearly unbroken string of city-suburb-city-suburb (and Los Angeles and its sprawl as well). There's a ton of desolate, uninhabited space in the US, particularly west of the Mississippi. Even in Las Vegas, you don't have to go more than 10 miles out of town (if that) before you run into actual desert. I worked at the Poker Palace in North Vegas, and I could have thrown a rock from the parking lot and hit a cactus. (I'm sure it's a little more built up now than it was then, but not by much)

The biggest difference between Mexico and the US is the degree to which the government is in cahoots with the criminals, and the difference shrinks yearly. We've still got a long way to go to be in Mexico's boots, but we're headed that way.

[Andara Bledin]

Honestly, the topography and population density of the western US is very similar to northern Mexico, only bigger.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Metroplexes.

More seriously, it's Metropolises.


Spoken like a Nor'Easter. There's vast stretches of lightly-inhabited or uninhabited desert in the Southwest states. Death Valley and the Mojave Desert are two notable such wastelands in just California, to say nothing of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas.

Metroplexes.

More seriously, it's Metropolises.


Spoken like a Nor'Easter. There's vast stretches of lightly-inhabited or uninhabited desert in the Southwest states. Death Valley and the Mojave Desert are two notable such wastelands in just California, to say nothing of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas.

I'm actually a Sou'Wester. While i was raised all over the world, I was born in Orange, CA and spent a considerable amount of time in LA and Orange counties. I've lived here in Vegas for the last 11 years.

Spoken like a Sou'Wester.

Don't forget the large swathes of mostly-uninhabited terrain in the mid-west, too.

Here's an awesome image of night-time lights in North America (minus some of northwest Canada and southern Mexico) showing that the eastern half of the US is very heavily populated, while the western half is concentrated almost entirely on the coasts. (the image is huge, so it will take a while to load) Here's one of the entire world.

^-.-^

How much of that "unenlightened" terrain in the Midwest is mountain ranges and/or farm land?

Look at the northern half of Mexico in either picture you posted. That is all empty desert. The occasional podunk town here and there. To give you better perspective, I took this screen cap from the world picture of the more populated parts of Mexico. It is an 8 hour drive between Guadalajara and Mexico City. It is very similar to the 8 hour drive between Las Vegas and Reno. You leave one major metropolis and have nothing but desert and hit the occasional gas station town every few hours before you reach your destination.

That northern, empty half of Mexico is where the Cartels reside. Sure, they have power in the major cities like Mexico City and Guadalajara, but their armies are in the northern half where they can go virtually unnoticed.

[AdminAssistant]

Don't forget the large swathes of mostly-uninhabited terrain in the mid-west, too.

There's nothing I hate more than driving through Missouri. Especially southwestern Missouri. It's amazing how much nothing can be in one state. That said, I've never driven the length of Kansas, and it's also very unpopulated west of Topeka.

[Andara Bledin]

Spoken like a Nor'Easter. There's vast stretches of lightly-inhabited or uninhabited desert in the Southwest states. Death Valley and the Mojave Desert are two notable such wastelands in just California, to say nothing of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas.

Spoken like a Sou'Wester.

Don't forget the large swathes of mostly-uninhabited terrain in the mid-west, too.

Here's an awesome image of night-time lights in North America (minus some of northwest Canada and southern Mexico) showing that the eastern half of the US is very heavily populated, while the western half is concentrated almost entirely on the coasts. (the image is huge, so it will take a while to load) Here's one of the entire world.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

(What is the plural for metropolis?)

Metroplexes.

More seriously, it's Metropolises.

The biggest problem with Mexico is the country is too spread out. It isn't like here where we have major metropoliseseseseses (What is the plural for metropolis?) within a short distance from each other, filled with suburbs in between. They have their large cities separated by hundreds of miles of desert. To throw numbers into this, the United States has 366 metropolitan areas. Mexico has 55.

Spoken like a Nor'Easter. There's vast stretches of lightly-inhabited or uninhabited desert in the Southwest states. Death Valley and the Mojave Desert are two notable such wastelands in just California, to say nothing of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas.

[crashhelmet]

the mexican drug cartels would like a word.

That would require years of government corruption allowing the said piracy to grow to large levels.

The cartels didn't just spring up overnight and become the powerhouses that they are. They were much like the mafia, using money, fear, and power to control elected officials.

The biggest problem with Mexico is the country is too spread out. It isn't like here where we have major metropoliseseseseses (What is the plural for metropolis?) within a short distance from each other, filled with suburbs in between. They have their large cities separated by hundreds of miles of desert. To throw numbers into this, the United States has 366 metropolitan areas. Mexico has 55.

When the cartels started making their move, the country was too big and too poor to police/protect itself. Drug money easily bought the poor and corruptible.