Why do certain people try to control the law abiding citizen's guns instead of criminals?

Question

They seem to do as much as they can to make a criminal's life easier and restrict the lives of law abiding citizens.

If you make one more gun law do you think criminals are going to suddenly follow it?

My guns have never killed or shot anyone.

Answer 1

Gun Control.......

A theory espoused by some monumentally stupid

people; who claim to believe, against all logic and

common sense, that a violent predator who ignores

the laws prohibiting them from robbing, raping,

kidnapping, torturing and killing their fellow human

beings will obey a law telling them that they cannot

own a gun.

Answer 2

Were this to be the only restriction on firearm ownership, it might have some support. If you want to do something like this, then it should be a requirement to graduate high school to take a gun safety and shooting course. All students would be required to pass with at least a C or have to retake the class.The syllabus would cover gun terminology, ammunition terminology, ballistics, gun handling, and marksmanship. I would be supportive of this to be a requirement for all schools in the nation. The problem is, the people that push anti gun laws are shown to not stop with this step. California has required for decades that requires exactly what you are suggesting. They also have draconian anti gun laws. The other problem is that those most likely to use a gun in the incorrect fashion are the exact groups you name. The criminal does not get his gun at a shop, the mental health system does not report to the FBI as they should (The Virginia State shooter was known to be nuts, but the doctors did not report as required.) I would have to say that I would not support this in the form that you suggest.

Answer 3

The best way to make guns hard for criminals to get is to make them hard for everyone to get.



The thing is, there's no sure way of differentiating between someone who owns a crime for recreation of protection, and someone who intends to commit a crime with their gun. All criminals were law-abiding citizens before their first conviction. Just because someone isn't a felon now, doesn't mean that they're never going to be. And even if someone did commit a felony, doesn't mean that they were caught, and even if they were caught they weren't necessarily convicted - so they might not have the record to keep them from getting a gun.



Not everyone who kills with a gun is a gangsta or something. For example, a lot of domestic violence goes unreported and unprosecuted. There can be some really dangerous relationships that are made all the more deadly by the presence of firearms



Also, the more people own guns, the more accessible they are to criminals. If no one owned guns, then getting a hold of one wouldn't be as easy as breaking into someone's home. Or even as easy as swiping one from a friend or relative.



Restricting access to guns reduces accidental killings too. Some incidents might deserve a "Darwin award", but there's no way to restrict gun ownership based on IQ. Sometimes it's the result of something that can't be measured, like carelessness, leaving guns where kids can get at them. Sometimes it's just natural human error. Everyone makes mistakes, and mistakes involving guns are far more likely to be deadly.



There's also some notable cases where people over-react in the name of "self defence" - like shooting to kill trespassers (not a valid defence), or shooting people whose presence makes the gun-owner uncomfortable, like pan-handlers.



Police do it too - remember the guy who got shot reaching for his wallet? There's a couple of cases of police shooting at kids with toy guns too. Maybe if guns were less accessible, the police would have been less likely to jump to conclusions.



The bottom line is that guns are dangerous, they are made for killing things. It doesn't matter who they belong to. If there were no guns, no one would get shot. Simple.

Answer 4

I think what people are looking for is prevention. How can something like Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Immigration Center in Upstate New York be prevented?



The easiest thing would be to make sure how to keep guns out of these people's hands. Unfortunately, it's not the easiest thing at all. People can pass psychological tests. People can have no criminal backgrounds. People can be upstanding citizens. They can also fly into a blind rage, and start shooting.



Next thing you know, the guy you accidentially cut off was the last straw. The person fired from their job is looking for payback. The kid who was picked on to the point of total humiliation is looking for revenge.



Then there is the other side, the people like you, responsible. You have every right to protect yourself and your family. If someone breaks into your house, should you be at their mercy? If someone tries to take your life should you not be able to defend yourself?



The problem is not guns. There are a lot more responsible gun owners than criminals. Criminals do not go to the gun store.



I read once how a man got out of prison, was able to get a gun that same afternoon and kill his girlfriend because she was the one who ratted him out. He didn't go to the gun store to get his gun.



That is where our focus should be, not at the gun store, but the criminal gun dealer.

Answer 5

Here is some information that was presented to Congress in 2003. This is a sample:



"The new study, which analyzed information from the Justice Department from 2000 to 2002, found that illegal possession and use during a crime accounted for 85 percent of the more than 25,000 federal firearms cases in that period.



Gun control groups say by focusing so extensively on street crimes, the department under Mr. Ashcroft and his predecessor, Janet Reno, has largely ignored black market dealers, corrupt shop owners, ''straw purchase'' distributors and others who are central to the problem of illegal guns. The report cited 20 ''rarely enforced'' federal gun crimes."



Another:



"It found that although people younger than 18 committed an estimated 93,000 violent crimes, federal prosecutors brought 24 cases for selling firearms to minors.



Although an estimated 420,000 firearms were reported stolen in that period, prosecutors filed 524 cases related to the possession, transfer or sale of stolen firearms, the report said. An estimated 450,000 would-be buyers were found to have lied about their histories and had their applications rejected, but fewer than 1,600 were prosecuted for lying in their background checks, the report added."



this is the source of my information:



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/us/justice-dept-plans-to-step-up-gun-crime-prosecutions.html



Since that time prosecutions have gone up, although not nearly enough, and interestingly enough gun related crimes have steadily declined.



If reducing gun related crimes is really the goal, why are not groups like the Brady Campaign pushing congress for more prosecutions of already existing law violations, rather then creating more laws that criminals will ignore? Could it be that they have a different agenda that includes totally banning guns?



I know the NRA (being the redneck nutcases they are) are constantly pushing for and backing legislation to increase the penalties for gun related offenses, and for more prosecutions.



Go figure?

Answer 6

It is MUCH simpler for a politician to make an inanimate object look bad (simply by saying so) than to deal with the real issue - the criminal. Besides, not doing anything to the criminal will likely mean the bad guy will be voting for that politician (who, by passing more gun control laws, will make it easier for the bad guy to ply his trade).



You've answered your question - passing more laws doesn't make the criminal suddenly want to obey the 20,000+ laws on the books; all that's been done is make potential criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.



My spoon has never made me fat; my pencil has never (by itself) misspelled any words, and my guns have never killed/shot/hurt anyone without the legal need to do so in my job.



CA Deputy

Answer 7

Because they are to afraid to take the guns from the criminals. Why chance a shooting with them when they can just take them away from the law abiding people of this country. Democrats, afraid of the shadows that bite you back!

Answer 8

If you have a gun and are a law abiding citizen, then register it. Go through the waiting period. And understand that you shouldn't be buying military grade (fully automatic) weapons. There is nothing that you can hunt with those except people. That's the law. Law abiding citizens should follow that right? I don't understand how anyone can see this as an infringement on their rights.

Answer 9

We have so many Gun Laws now,that pretty much every realistic loophole is covered.And quite frankly,even the way they want to "close loopholes" that may be left,are being intentionally designed to be so expensive and intrusive as to make firearm ownership as much trouble as possible,and to make it nearly impossible to not miss some regulation and end up breaking the law even though you tried to stay in compliance.



But eventually we will probably see S. Africa style banning of firearm ownership,and considering the size of our criminal element,a S. Africa style jump in violent crime.



AD

Answer 10

The only control I want to see on guns are concealment, background checks, waiting periods and no assault rifles or machine guns. If somebody wants to keep a gun in their home for protection or if they are a hunter I have no problem with it. But the facts are that many criminals get hold of guns illegally when they break into homes and steal them.

Answer 11

Self-evident. They hate and fear law abiding citizens more than criminals. Their actions prove that beyond reasonable debate.

These SAME people are the ones who routinely block penalizing criminal misuse of guns. Who wants to prevent lawful citizens from arming themselves? 100% of the Democrat Caucus. (near election time some will get permission from the leadership to vote against gun-bans.) Who balks mandatory prison time for using a gun in a crime? The same Democrats.



Some of you kids evidently think guns come from the armament fairies. New flash - humans make them. Getting rid of guns is not nor will it ever be an option. They aren't even very complicated machines. Anyone with metalworking tools can make a gun. So, the ONLY question is: "Do you prefer gun commerce to be controlled by the criminal class?" Many of you say yes. Kindly explain why?



"When all the guns are gone there will be no gun crime" is a retard-level axiom. Setting aside it's literally an impossible condition, compare: when red-cars are gone there will be no traffic violations by red cars. Do you honestly imagine it would be helpful? If you ever feel the need to dial 911, you will ask the police to come unarmed - unless you're a hypocrite and/or liar.



Severely limiting guns would make the criminal's life much easier, according to the criminals, AND according to crime statistics. With NO exceptions, every place/time where LAWFUL civilian access to arms has been made easier, crime and violence has fallen. Seriously - NO exceptions. The reverse is just as true. For example, people have this image of the U.K. as a very peaceful and safe place. That image is a holdover from the days when the COPS weren't armed because when they blew their whistle ALL citizens were required by law to turn-out ARMED to render aid. Now that the U.K. has the kind of gun-control Democrats dream about, it is literally more dangerous in London than in Baghdad. There is no more dangerous place in all of the developed world than the U.K. and there is MORE gun crime there than ever in its history.



Here, we CAN arrest criminals for carrying weapons, but such charges are routinely dropped since DEMOCRAT judges ruled that a professional criminal applying for a licesne to carry would have to incriminate himself so they needn't be licensed at all - thus no "gun crime" applies to them. (I swear to GOD this is true)

Look at your language: "used them irresponsibly?" Typical. To a liberal, violent crime is "a mistake" that needs to be forgiven. LAWFUL citizens packing heat without harming anyone is an unacceptable terror, though.

The fact is, if guns "only purpose is to hurt or kill people," they are the most ineffective product ever devised. Even including war-casualties, less than one-in-a-billion gun uses results in anyone getting hurt. You are manifestly NOT "fully for allowing shotguns and hunting rifles." Your rhetoric, shared by the "ban-them all" crowd reveals this as does your previous defense of Obama's vote to ban ALL common hunting ammo and his attempts to prosecute people for pointing it out.

Answer 12

I'm glad you are using your guns safely. Still, I think it's reasonable to require firearm registration, and to make sure that they're used only by people who will keep them secure and handle them properly. In the interest of public safety, we do that with automobiles.



I've listened to arguments against a ban on "assault rifles," and I think they have some merit. But tell me, will the anti-gun control people concede that *some* weapons should not be in the hands of private citizens? Grenades? Nuclear warheads? Anything at all?

Answer 13

Sadly the law makers have no idea whom is a law abiding citizen or not, so the laws apply to them all criminals that continue to not follow these laws along with the new ones will suffer more penalty's on the plus side :D.

Answer 14

It is a liberal principle to control people in order to assure their allegiance. Your rights, under new thought, flows from the generosity of "public servants." Not the constitution. In the case of guns, the government gains the advantage of disarming any who resist a police force which will enforce any law to be granted a pension.

Answer 15

Anti 2nd Amendment activists are fools.



They just don't seem to get it that gun control laws only apply to people who will legally buy a gun. People that are going to commit a gun crime aren't picking up their 9mm in the local gun store and filling out the required paperwork.

Answer 16

Not sure, I have a 12 guage shotgun that I use to hunt with, but it can be used to defend this country if need be, although I would prefer a long range rifle.



Try to take my guns and the sh!t will hit the fan.

Answer 17

Washington DC, under a TOTAL gun ban, had more gun related murders than both its contiguous states combined and that includes the City of Balitmore, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.



There is only one place in Virginia where it is illegal to carry a firearm.

The campus of Virginia Tech, site of the country's worst gun crime.



Gun bans are not productive and childish.

Answer 18

As long as 'Responsible' gun makers, gun dealers and gun owners are facilitating the acquisition of guns by the criminal and crazy element, then gun laws we need. You are free to be a responsible gun owner but the real threat to responsible gun ownership is irresponsible gun ownership, not government. Just look at the carnage of the last week.

Answer 19

Since the criminals don't obey the law what's the point?

Answer 20

Criminals don't follow any laws or rules that is why they are criminals.

Criminals will always find a way to kill even if you removed all the guns there would still be knives, rocks, poison, explosvies, etc.

Once an insane person decides to kill they will find a way.

Answer 21

1

Answer 22

a large percentage of guns illegally owned come from legal gun owners...



I don't care about gun control, its a dead issue that is right up there with abortion. Its just something for each partisan crowd to harp on and defend.

Answer 23

What a silly statement, "do as much as they can to make a criminal's life easier and restrict the lives of law abiding citizens."

I do nothing to assist criminals.

And perhaps your guns never killed or shot anyone. But you bought them with that intent, didn't you? Why are the assault weapons made? To shoot deer? No, specifically to kill another human.

Keep your silly handguns and hunting rifles. But no, you don't need the others. And this "it's my right" nonsense. Like spoiled children stomping their feet. I want the right to do a lot of things, too, but I control myself. If the gun owners can't do the same, then it is time for the gov't to control them.

I have absolutely no problem with that.

Answer 24

Maybe what we should do is pass a law that says, "If you're law abiding, you get to have guns, but if you plan on committing a crime, you're not allowed to have guns."



Problem solved!



EDIT: But what we need is a law that prohibits gun ownership not only among people who have been convicted of a crime, but among those who may commit crimes in the future. Both types are not law abiding citizens.

Answer 25

Because those people are ignorant and foolish.



the people who go after law abiding Citizen's guns actually hate law abiding citizens and support violent criminals.



This is something that I have noticed when I sepak to my fellow members of the Democratic Party.



Many members of the Democratic Party will tell me privately that they hate law abiding people, and in particular people who live in "Red" (Republican) rural states.



Banning guns is a way for the radical left to attack law abiding people who generally tend to be Politically Conservative.



Unfortunately, contrary to what some of the other responders said, most of the illegal guns on the street do not come from legal sources.



Most of the illegal guns on the street were smuggled into The United States of America in shipping containers.



Ony 2 or 3% of the containers are inspected.



The presence of illegal guns in a shipment of machine parts cannot be detected by drug sniffing dogs.



The potential profits are enormous.



The gun of choice on the streets is the fully automatic AK47 assault rifle.



Fully automatic assault rifles have been banned for over 70 years, yet our street criminals are awash in fully automatic AK47s.



Those fully automatic AK 47s are smuggled in shipping Containers generally from China or Russia.



A container load of Fully Automatic AK47 Assault rifles has a cost of approximately $100,000 when purchased on the world market.



That container load of Fully Automatic AK47 Assault Rifles has a street value of over $5,000,000.



That is a profit of over 5,000 percent!!!!!



That is a huge profit and the gun smuggler is much less likely to be caught than a drug smuggler.



That is where the Fully Automatic AK47s that are on the street come from.



They do not come from licensed firearm dealers.



They come from the same people who are smuggling drugs into this country.

Answer 26

because the criminals are democrat votes, the law-abiding citizens are more likely NOT democrat votes.

Answer 27

Severely limiting guns would make the criminal's life much harder, not sure what you're talking about there. Just because SOME would break the law and still carry guns illegally, it certainly wouldn't be as easy for them to get one as it is now, and we would be able to arrest them on the spot for carrying illegal guns, we wouldn't have to wait until they used them irresponsibly. The fact is, guns only purpose is to hurt or kill people, for the most part, and I'm fully for allowing shotguns and hunting rifles, but we can do without the weapons only intended for killing people.

Answer 28

so you cannot rebel against the government, they think that the Government Police should be their strong arm and they like to disable honest people

Answer 29

Because "certain people" are idiots.

Answer 30

When all the guns are gone there will be no gun crime. Only a terrorist or a coward needs a gun.

Answer 31

they're crazy...plain and simple