There's no such thing as a "stray dagger" killing anyone.

[headexplode]

What does that have to do with gun control? NOTHING. Please stay on topic.

Or are you saying that it is ok for a 17 year old to be able to buy either? These arguments make no sense when you follow them through.

I think what he's saying is that demand and/or availability wouldn't necessarily decrease (significantly, anyway) because something is made illegal.

[Switchgear]

Ok, to dive into this one:

If the gun control laws were tight enough to make it impossible to obtain a gun legally, then yes. Because I'm willing to bet the gun was obtained legally.

Plus, to the generality of the problem, tighter gun control laws would reduce the supply and demand overall of guns in this country. If people can't legally buy them, people wouldn't make them.

From the original article:

Jared Adams, 24, allegedly raised his gun at a Chevron gas station attendant during a holdup and fired.

...

Adams was charged Monday with attempted murder, robbery, evading a police officer, driving recklessly and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, Oakland Police Department spokesman Roland Holmgren told CNN.

He couldn't have obtained the gun legally due to his prior convictions.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It's easier for a teenager to get a hold of weed then beer. All you have to do with weed is find a supplier. With beer, you have to find a legal buyer. In other words, the fact that beer is legal with restraints makes it harder to buy for those not allowed to buy it. Since weed is illegal, it's everywhere and there's not moral objection to selling to a kid because it's illegal to posess in the first place.

If you take that same logic and apply it to guns, it would be easier to obtain a firearm if they were illegal. They aren't going to stop being made. We've proven we can't stop plants from entering this country, who thinks we'd stop guns? They exist and aren't going away.

Now, if you made gun ownership illegal accross the nation, I'm sure the amount of weapons would eventually go down. But not for 100 years. In the meantime, you'd have people that illegally own weapons being able to use them because a. they would not worry about getting return fire and b. it would be much harder to track where the gun is, who owns the gun, etc...

We just can't get rid of them. If it's illegal, only the criminals would have them. And that's something I don't want to see happen.

First of all, its totally inaccurate to say its easier for a 17 year old to get weed than beer. You are discounting all the kids that get someone to buy it for them, or steal it from their parents, etc. These would all be illegal ways to obtain alcohol, which is the only way to obtain weed.

Second, its not analogous unless you are saying that 17 year olds should be able to buy beer legally because you are saying people should be able to buy guns legally. So, you can't apply that "logic," which is largely based on the ridiculous assumption that its easier to buy weed than beer, unless you are willing to say that everyone should be allowed to buy beer.

Third, it has nothing to do with guns, which are a totally different threat - by their nature - than beer. Are beer and weed dangerous - especially to youth? Absolutely. Are beer and weed as dangerous to those around them as guns. No. And I'm pretty sure even the biggest gun advocate in the world will agree that a gun is a dangerous tool which must be highly respected by the carrier - even more than beer and weed.

That really doesn't have any bearing on anything right now. There are already gun control laws in the books, along with other various laws of who can possess/sell/ or buy a handgun.

If these laws currently aren't being enforced, how are piling more on top of them going to help anything?

As to your argument about supply and demand, I highly disagree with what you say. If anything, generally making something harder to get makes a person want it more. Especially a person with ill intentions.

I admit I think we need to enforce the gun control laws better. Sure, that is part of the problem.

To the second part, if companies in this country did not mass produce guns because they were illegal, the supply would undoubtedly drop, which would cause a shift in the demand curve as well. It is not analogous to illegal drugs either because THIS country is the producer of guns, but most drugs are easily grown in other countries and smuggled here.

[Rumrunner6900]

From the original article:

He couldn't have obtained the gun legally due to his prior convictions.

Exactly...so what is throwing new laws at this going to accomplish. Let law abiding citizens be. Go after the criminals. Enforce the laws that are out there.

[TODD]

THere are more traffic accidents that result in death than gun accidents that involve death. I don't see you clamoring to restrict licenses.

Cars aren't built for the purpose of killing/wounding. Buildings fall down. I'm not trying to eliminate building permits.

I think a lot of you are distracting yourself from the point that guns were created for the purpose of harm.

[Rumrunner6900]

First of all, its totally inaccurate to say its easier for a 17 year old to get weed than beer. You are discounting all the kids that get someone to buy it for them, or steal it from their parents, etc. These would all be illegal ways to obtain alcohol, which is the only way to obtain weed.

Second, its not analogous unless you are saying that 17 year olds should be able to buy beer legally because you are saying people should be able to buy guns legally. So, you can't apply that "logic," which is largely based on the ridiculous assumption that its easier to buy weed than beer, unless you are willing to say that everyone should be allowed to buy beer.

Third, it has nothing to do with guns, which are a totally different threat - by their nature - than beer. Are beer and weed dangerous - especially to youth? Absolutely. Are beer and weed as dangerous to those around them as guns. No. And I'm pretty sure even the biggest gun advocate in the world will agree that a gun is a dangerous tool which must be highly respected by the carrier - even more than beer and weed.

I admit I think we need to enforce the gun control laws better. Sure, that is part of the problem.

To the second part, if companies in this country did not mass produce guns because they were illegal, the supply would undoubtedly drop, which would cause a shift in the demand curve as well. It is not analogous to illegal drugs either because THIS country is the producer of guns, but most drugs are easily grown in other countries and smuggled here.

This country isn't the only producer of guns. There are many other countries that produce quality (and not so quality) weapons. Hell....some are probably already smuggled here.

I could see that smuggling increasing greatly. And dont think OC wouldn't get in on that....they would make a killing on selling guns. (No pun intended!)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Exactly...so what is throwing new laws at this going to accomplish. Let law abiding citizens be. Go after the criminals. Enforce the laws that are out there.

Ok, so I admittedly was wrong that it was obtained legally. But to me, that does not change my opinion about gun control.

I still believe if we didn't have guns being produced so massively, we wouldnt have as much gun violence. I think that is sound.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Cars aren't built for the purpose of killing/wounding. Buildings fall down. I'm not trying to eliminate building permits.

I think a lot of you are distracting yourself from the point that guns were created for the purpose of harm.

PLUS, we already do restrict people who get licenses, and we do so much more stringently than we restrict people who get guns.

I didn't see anyone spitting out stats about how many car accidents were the result of "illegal" use of the cars either. So, come with those stats like you come with the meaningless arguments that the guns were "illegally obtained" if you want to compare those two things.

[GibbsFactor]

I was thinking more along the lines of, track and license firearms to whoever wants one and anyone caught with an illegal firearm getting 5 years min. Anyone caught trafficing illegal firearms gets 30 years. Something needs to be done to get guns out of the hands of criminals because allowing everyone to carry solves nothing at all, it's a reactionary measure.

Sorry but this notion that guns are this holy thing that the government shouldn't even look at it absurd. It's an industry that needs to be put in control.

I totally agree. The traffickers need to be dealt with with stiffer penalties. I'd be for stricter gun applications as well. But there's a problem with the length of time it takes to obtain a gun. I personally like having some time because in acts of rage, it may give people time to cool off. Of course, that means that they go and get one illegally which is harder to track.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

So you let everyone carry, and if you shoot someone you go to jail for a minimum 10 years. If you kill someone, minimum 20 years.

You don't let EVERYONE carry. You allow the law-abiding, mentally stable members of society who are over 21 years of age to carry a concealed firearm. Anyone committing a crime with a gun loses the right to possess a firearm at all. Anyone using a firearm in a violent crime gets a MINIMUM of life in prison (no parole possible) and if someone is killed it's a Capital Crime with only one appeal allowed.

If people still commit these senseless crimes, nothing we can do would stop them anyways.

People are always going to commit senseless crimes. What we need to do is to start punishing people when they do commit these senseless crimes.

[TODD]

How many more people are killed by drunk drivers? And based on this, where do you stand on reinitiating prohibition? Because that worked out so well, elevating the mob to such a height and what not. You outlaw guns, and you create another scathing black market for someone to rise to power operating.

I think alcohol is a lot bigger problem for society at-large than some of the other drugs we outlaw. We need to revisit our policies for the exact reason you said. IMO, the best way to do it is to have more officers policing the roads and monitoring vehicles outside of bars than raiding for the purpose of issuing citations for underage drinking (which is where most of the energy goes in college towns and suburbs across the country).

You make a good point, though. The difference, I think, is that organized crime would have a much harder time manufacturing guns than cooking up moonshine. The said problem would exist, as you mention, but it would be on a much, much smaller level for the simple reasons of concealment and production issues.

Another difference is that there is already a huge black market for weapons, as evidenced by the large number arrests stemming from the possession of unregistered and illegally-held guns. You can make the analogy of underage drinking (I'm sure Poker will), but again, that issue is fundamentally different. Would a handgun ban make the black market significantly more problematic? I say no.

[Switchgear]

I was thinking more along the lines of, track and license firearms to whoever wants one and anyone caught with an illegal firearm getting 5 years min. Anyone caught trafficing illegal firearms gets 30 years. Something needs to be done to get guns out of the hands of criminals because allowing everyone to carry solves nothing at all, it's a reactionary measure.

Sorry but this notion that guns are this holy thing that the government shouldn't even look at it absurd. It's an industry that needs to be put in control.

I agree with this also. There are a lot of people that simply shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms, but there should be a legal way for law abiding citizens to possess them.

[TODD]

YES THERE IS!!!!

It's called the United States Prison System. Put the criminals in jail and throw away the key. Take the violent criminals and put them out of our misery through that system.

The prison system is only useful after a crime has been committed. Shouldn't we focus our efforts on limiting those crimes and their severity in the first place?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I was thinking more along the lines of, track and license firearms to whoever wants one and anyone caught with an illegal firearm getting 5 years min. Anyone caught trafficing illegal firearms gets 30 years. Something needs to be done to get guns out of the hands of criminals because allowing everyone to carry solves nothing at all, it's a reactionary measure.

Your first suggestion already exists under FEDERAL LAW. Virginia and Texas have programs to ensure that gets added to the charges in gun-related cases. Unfortunately the gun charges are what DA's generally barter away to get "Guilty" pleas on the other charges.

Sorry but this notion that guns are this holy thing that the government shouldn't even look at it absurd. It's an industry that needs to be put in control.

You'd be hard pressed to find an industry that isn't controlled as strictly as the United States fireams industry, Destino. Trust me on that one.

[TODD]

This question needs to be answered......

I would wager that the answer is "no"

And if it is no, would tighter gun control laws have helped in any way whatsoever?

Yes, even though it doesn't guarantee that it wouldn't have happened.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The prison system is only useful after a crime has been committed. Shouldn't we focus our efforts on limiting those crimes and their severity in the first place?

Interestingly, from what I've read and heard over time, most criminals who commit firearms related crimes aren't first time criminals. Generally they start with smaller crimes and work their way up, so yes the prison system CAN be a useful tool.

[Destino]

Your first suggestion already exists under FEDERAL LAW. Virginia and Texas have programs to ensure that gets added to the charges in gun-related cases. Unfortunately the gun charges are what DA's generally barter away to get "Guilty" pleas on the other charges.

Incorrect. Without a way of knowing what guns are out there and who legally owns what (and making that retroactive) there is no real control on guns. We know about those we register their guns (or at least about the ones they choose to disclose).

You'd be hard pressed to find an industry that isn't controlled as strictly as the United States fireams industry, Destino. Trust me on that one.

Nonsense. Take explosives for instance - those are regulated and extremely hard to purchase if you aren't someone that is supposed to have them.

[Destino]

I totally agree. The traffickers need to be dealt with with stiffer penalties. I'd be for stricter gun applications as well. But there's a problem with the length of time it takes to obtain a gun. I personally like having some time because in acts of rage, it may give people time to cool off. Of course, that means that they go and get one illegally which is harder to track.

But when all legal guns are registered and known - even holding an illegal gun for a period of time would be a huge risk. As it stands some guns are registered some not. You could legally obtain a gun that was illegally used in a robbery at a gun show for instance. The objects (gun) need to be tracked and licensed themselves like cars. There should never be a question regarding who owns the gun.

[btfoom]

Guns don't kill people criminals with guns kill people, others will say. The pro-gun argument is simple, if criminals have guns and we don't than we are at their mercy.

While some people use this argument, more folks who are 'pro-gun' arrive at this belief because we believe in the Constitution (in this case, the 2nd Ammendment) and want LESS govt control in our lives. The great thing about the USA is that the Federal and State Govts do not intrude into our lives as much as in many other countries.

Mass slow down and think, a violent criminal is someone that has already hurt someone. We already know we can punish people AFTER the crime. The aim is to reduce gun violence - they are seeking to do something BEFORE the crime.

I did not expect this from you. Pleast think about what you are saying - the 'anti-gun' folks are trying to do something before the crime by depriving all of us our Constitutional rights. I could easily use the same argument by saying the police should be able to stop anyone on the street and search them in an effort to prevent drug sales, robberies, etc before they happen.

I don't own a gun and don't have a strong desire to do so. I also don't want the government telling law abiding citizens that they CAN'T own a gun (or many guns). Until you commit a crime, you should be given the benefit of the doubt (like in court - innocent until proven guilty).

The real control that needs to be exercised (but sadly, isn't), is the control (either by incarceration or strict monitoring) of convicted criminals.

[TODD]

Interestingly, from what I've read and heard over time, most criminals who commit firearms related crimes aren't first time criminals. Generally they start with smaller crimes and work their way up, so yes the prison system CAN be a useful tool.

If a person has been in prison at least once, then how is the system working when he or she is committing violent crimes after his or her previous imprisonment? That indicates to me the prison system is not working AT ALL.

[China]

I'm curious, what are the restrictions on ammunition? As has been mentioned, even if you outlaw guns, those in existence won't just disappear. However, if ammunition is controlled, it's single use only.

[btfoom]

I agree with this also. There are a lot of people that simply shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms, but there should be a legal way for law abiding citizens to possess them.

Ummm, there is. There are literally thousands of gun control laws enacted both locally (States) and Federally. The people who shouldn't be allowed to posess firearms, due to criminal convictions or psycological instabilities are not premitted to purchase, own, or carry guns.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Incorrect. Without a way of knowing what guns are out there and who legally owns what (and making that retroactive) there is no real control on guns. We know about those we register their guns (or at least about the ones they choose to disclose).

Thanks Mr. Stalin. Or are you wearing your Hitler Hat today? Or maybe your Khadafi or Hussein mask? That wasn't meant to be personal, but EVERY SINGLE serious gun registration program in the 20th Century ended in gun confiscation, Destino. I go back to the first post I made in this thread...

FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!!

Nonsense. Take explosives for instance - those are regulated and extremely hard to purchase if you aren't someone that is supposed to have them.

You said the INDUSTRY, not the distribution system. Big difference. The firearms manufacturers are VERY tightly regulated and their paperwork/tracking systems are required to be very well vetted and constantly checked.

As for tracking gun owners.... If it wasn't for that nasty Constitution you're always crowing about you could do something about that.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

If a person has been in prison at least once, then how is the system working when he or she is committing violent crimes after his or her previous imprisonment? That indicates to me the prison system is not working AT ALL.

My question is a little different.... If they've been in the prison system, WHAT THE **** ARE THEY DOING BACK OUT IN SOCIETY?!?!?!?!

[btfoom]

...Guns kill (or in this case, paralyze) people. People kill people, too, but the fact of the matter is the medium of violence crippled this kid, not the violent person...

I missed this little part until I read your whole post again. I really hope you simply typed before you really thought this one through. If not, it goes down as one of the top 10 Dumbest things I have ever read on the internet (and that says alot).

Maybe a defense attorney should use this reasoning in his defense - 'Your Honor, my client did not kill (or in this case, paralyze) the victim. It was the gun (or more specifically the bullet fragments) that in fact paralyzed him. We even have several spinal surgeons that will testify that it was in fact the victim's own bones that severed the spinal cord. Therefore, you can not find my client guilty (though the victim's bone fragments need to be better federally controlled). Thank you.'