Right to bear arms?

[Syntho-sis]

So there's been all this talk lately about whether or not gun rights are in jeopardy with our current congress and president running things.

 

My question has more to do with: Should Americans be allowed to own and use firearms?

 

And is the ability to acquire firearms the main cause of gun-related crimes in this country?

 

Where do criminals really get their guns?

[Sisyphus]

My question has more to do with: Should Americans be allowed to own and use firearms?

 

Short answer: yes, within reason. And really that's all anyone can say without invoking absurd implications, like arguing for the right to own and use your own nuclear missiles.

 

And is the ability to acquire firearms the main cause of gun-related crimes in this country?

 

I don't think so, but that's kind of a fuzzy question.

 

Where do criminals really get their guns?

 

Define "criminals."

[Syntho-sis]

Define "criminals."

 

I guess the short answer would be, a person who commits crime.

[Sisyphus]

 

I guess the short answer would be, a person who commits crime.

 

I guess we're pretty much all criminals then. Has anyone never jaywalked?

[Syntho-sis]

I guess we're pretty much all criminals then. Has anyone never jaywalked?

 

Actually I'm sure there is at least one person on here who hasn't jaywalked.

 

For the purposes of this discussion though, I'm referring to criminals who commit fatal offenses, personal offenses, property offenses, and Participatory offenses.

[JillSwift]

Actually I'm sure there is at least one person on here who hasn't jaywalked.

 

For the purposes of this discussion though, I'm referring to criminals who commit fatal offenses, personal offenses, property offenses, and Participatory offenses.

I've committed a property offense. Theft.^* I got my gun at a local pawn shop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* $0.25 candy bar, when I was 5 years old. I did my time, earned that quarter by cleaning the store owner's car.

[Syntho-sis]

I've committed a property offense. Theft.^* I got my gun at a local pawn shop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* $0.25 candy bar, when I was 5 years old. I did my time, earned that quarter by cleaning the store owner's car.

 

 

Yea but did you take that gun and go shoot your neighbor in the back?

 

No didn't think so.

 

My question was "Where do criminals really get their guns?"

 

"Criminals" being....People who attain guns...then use the guns....as a tool...in order...to commit crimes.

 

Certain crimes are alot easier to commit with guns, for instance, its much easier to murder your *neighbor* with a gun, than by repeatedly striking his foot with a plastic spoon.

 

"Criminals" could be definitive of literally millions of different terms. Do criminals get their guns from licensed dealers?

 

No, I don't think so. Most seem to get their stuff from black market trade. I'll need to find some evidence for that though.

[Sisyphus]

Well, not necessarily. Until you commit a crime with a gun, you aren't a "gun criminal." And in order to commit a crime with a gun, you need to procure one beforehand (when you aren't yet a gun criminal).

 

As far the black market, I'm not as interested in the end user as I am in how guns end up on the black market to begin with. Unless they're homemade or the manufacturers are crooks, at some point somebody necessarily bought them legally.

[timo]

My question has more to do with: Should Americans be allowed to own and use firearms?

A council of Tailban leaders recently came to the conclusion: No.

 

And is the ability to acquire firearms the main cause of gun-related crimes in this country?

You probably meant "legally acquire firearms", the question is quite a no-brainer otherwise.

 

Where do criminals really get their guns?

Dunno. Where do the guys selling guns to criminals on the black market (wouldn't that make them criminals, too?) get them? Saying that criminals [people attacking or threatening other people with guns in a way not allowed by the law] get their guns from the black market so legally selling guns is fine sounds a bit like blindly preferring electrical motors over diesel motors because they consume electricity instead of fossil fuel.

[SH3RL0CK]

 

My question was "Where do criminals really get their guns?"

 

... Do criminals get their guns from licensed dealers?

 

No, I don't think so. Most seem to get their stuff from black market trade. I'll need to find some evidence for that though.

 

There probably is a black market for guns just as there is for drugs. While I suspect most guns in this black market are from the US (originally sold by a licensed dealer), there are probably lots of ways these guns go from legal to illegal hands. And there is no realistic way for the law to stop the black market for guns. For example, if you are part of a criminal enterprise shipping in a few tons of cocaine from Columbia, I don't think it would be a big deal to throw in a few guns as well. As long as there are drugs on the black market, there are going to be guns on a similar black market. The solutions for both can't be entirely more laws and harsher penalties (we've seen how well the war on drugs has worked).

 

My question has more to do with: Should Americans be allowed to own and use firearms?

Yes. This is expressly permitted by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment, Americans will have this right.

[JillSwift]

Yea but did you take that gun and go shoot your neighbor in the back?

 

No didn't think so.

 

My question was "Where do criminals really get their guns?"

 

"Criminals" being....People who attain guns...then use the guns....as a tool...in order...to commit crimes.

Well, that's what you get for not being specific.

 

Certain crimes are alot easier to commit with guns, for instance, its much easier to murder your *neighbor* with a gun, than by repeatedly striking his foot with a plastic spoon.

Ok, sure. it's easier to kill using a gun that a plastic spoon. And?

 

"Criminals" could be definitive of literally millions of different terms. Do criminals get their guns from licensed dealers?

 

No, I don't think so. Most seem to get their stuff from black market trade. I'll need to find some evidence for that though.

Some get their guns legally. Some get them by stealing them. Some get them by buying them from someone who stole them. Some... well, you get the point.

[Syntho-sis]

Dunno. Where do the guys selling guns to criminals on the black market (wouldn't that make them criminals, too?) get them? Saying that criminals [people attacking or threatening other people with guns in a way not allowed by the law] get their guns from the black market so legally selling guns is fine sounds a bit like blindly preferring electrical motors over diesel motors because they consume electricity instead of fossil fuel.

 

What is it you are saying then?

 

Some criminals may attain guns legally. But most get them by somewhat shady methods.

 

One misconception people have is that gun criminals often steal the weapons.

 

This is wrong, nine times out of ten, they'll just have a buddy buy it for them..

 

This is called straw purchasing. Another way they might weaponry is contact a licensed gun dealer who sales guns illegally at his house. They'll often buy them that way.

 

Ability to attain guns legally is not the main cause of violent gun related crime. It's the illegal or shady methods that criminals will often use.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There probably is a black market for guns just as there is for drugs. While I suspect most guns in this black market are from the US (originally sold by a licensed dealer), there are probably lots of ways these guns go from legal to illegal hands. And there is no realistic way for the law to stop the black market for guns. For example, if you are part of a criminal enterprise shipping in a few tons of cocaine from Columbia, I don't think it would be a big deal to throw in a few guns as well. As long as there are drugs on the black market, there are going to be guns on a similar black market. The solutions for both can't be entirely more laws and harsher penalties (we've seen how well the war on drugs has worked).

 

Yes. This is expressly permitted by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment, Americans will have this right.

 

 

Well you have to take into consideration that alot of weapnonry can end up on the black market when a nation goes bankrupt. Sattelite nations ended giving alot of their stuff away. Litterly saling AK-47s for pennies to terrorist organizations.

 

Remember Afghanistan's big heroin trade? Like you said maybe a few guns get thrown in as part of a deal, then shipped over here. And I don't see the heroin trade slowing down anytime soon. Who's cares that its cold war stuff, most of it never even got used and is still in good condition

 

I specifically agree that solutions to these problems won't be found in more laws and penalties.

[bascule]

So there's been all this talk lately about whether or not gun rights are in jeopardy with our current congress and president running things.

 

As a passionate gun owner and user, I am not concerned.

[Sisyphus]

A council of Tailban leaders recently came to the conclusion: No.

 

A council of Taliban leaders decided that Americans shouldn't have guns?

[iNow]

as a passionate gun owner and user, i am not concerned.

 

+1.

[Syntho-sis]

A council of Taliban leaders decided that Americans shouldn't have guns?

 

Nope, not even water guns. Remember, the Taliban doesn't believe in "wild and wet fun."

[timo]

What is it you are saying then?

I said that saying the legal ways to obtain guns were unproblematic and that it was only the illegally-obtained guns that are a problem is -in the context of the question whether people should be allowed to have/carry/buy guns in principle- short-sighted. That is because legal and illegal market are probably not independent.

What I did not say, but in effect did mean, is that there would be much less guns illegally bought if there was no legal market. You already mentioned scenarios. Guns are not drugs that a farmer or wannabe-gangster can grow in his backyard. And despite knowing little of US reality I claim that the problem with assault rifles illegally smuggled in from some east-block state is negligible compared to attacks with ordinary pistols.

 

EDIT: To make that clear: Above is not a conclusive statement about my attitude towards legal private gun ownership (but for the record: I value the freedom/right not to be treatened with guns above the freedom/right to own guns). I just say that I think the statement "the legal market is unproblematic" is not correct.

 

A council of Taliban leaders decided that Americans shouldn't have guns?

This attitude comes as a surprise to you?

Edited September 24, 2009 by timo

[Syntho-sis]

I said that saying the legal ways to obtain guns were unproblematic and that it was only the illegally-obtained guns that are a problem is -in the context of the question whether people should be allowed to have/carry/buy guns in principle- short-sighted. That is because legal and illegal market are probably not independent.

What I did not say, but in effect did mean, is that there would be much less guns illegally bought if there was no legal market. You already mentioned scenarios. Guns are not drugs that a farmer or wannabe-gangster can grow in his backyard. And despite knowing little of US reality I claim that the problem with assault rifles illegally smuggled in from some east-block state is negligible compared to attacks with ordinary pistols.

 

EDIT: To make that clear: Above is not a conclusive statement about my attitude towards legal private gun ownership (but for the record: I value the freedom/right not to be treatened with guns above the freedom/right to own guns). I just say that I think the statement "the legal market is unproblematic" is not correct.

 

 

This attitude comes as a surprise to you?

 

Depends on the market. The gun market in Rwanda is gonna be a tad bit more "problematic" than the one over here in the U.S.

 

Not all gun markets are created equal...

 

And gun-related crime is precipitated by different factors. IMHO

[padren]

1) I think the 2nd amendment is pretty safe. I personally support gun rights, even if I think at times it's taken a little far (The calls to arm teachers after Columbine, etc.) - but I don't see any major shifts coming.

 

 

2) Naturally the 'ability to acquire firearms' impacts gun related crimes as if no ability to acquire firearms existed then such crime would be impossible - but that is an impossible scenario. I do think it impacts gun related crime in a realistic way, but it's hard to break down what to take from that fact.

 

 

3) Criminals that use guns as an aid to commit crimes (I believe that's the demographic of criminal you were trying to isolate) includes a very wide spectrum. I doubt the majority are premeditated - in the world of disorganized crime when someone decides to commit a crime they use the tools they have on hand.

 

When it comes to organized crime, I don't know a lot about it but I do recall guns being smuggled into the US found in a bust from Canada, which were smuggled in because they wouldn't be tracked. As far as AKs and the like, I don't know the statistics but I think assault rifle violence in the US seems to be exceptionally low, so I am not too worried about smuggled weapons from collapsing countries.

[A Tripolation]

Yeah, our gun laws are fairly lax now.

It is easy for "criminals" to get guns and commit crimes with them.

 

Do I think a ban on guns us the way to go? Hell no.

And this opinion is based on a little piece of history called "Prohibition" where they outlawed alcohol. People wanted a drink, bad people saw a market, and thus, the bad people grew in power, and people were still getting drunk.

 

So...bad people would still seek guns, good people wouldn't have any, more "bad" people would sell guns to the really bad people, and guns would still be used to commit crimes.

 

A ban does nothing.

 

 

And I partially agree with Bascule. I see no immediate threat from Obama on gun ownership.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As far as AKs and the like, I don't know the statistics but I think assault rifle violence in the US seems to be exceptionally low, so I am not too worried about smuggled weapons from collapsing countries.

 

Yeah...I've always wondered about that. Maybe because you can do the same thing with a pistol that you can do with an AK-47? And the pistol is easier to find and buy, and prob cheaper? Those might be the reasons.

[Syntho-sis]

Yeah, our gun laws are fairly lax now.

It is easy for "criminals" to get guns and commit crimes with them.

 

Do I think a ban on guns us the way to go? Hell no.

And this opinion is based on a little piece of history called "Prohibition" where they outlawed alcohol. People wanted a drink, bad people saw a market, and thus, the bad people grew in power, and people were still getting drunk.

 

So...bad people would still seek guns, good people wouldn't have any, more "bad" people would sell guns to the really bad people, and guns would still be used to commit crimes.

 

A ban does nothing.

 

 

And I partially agree with Bascule. I see no immediate threat from Obama on gun ownership.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Yeah...I've always wondered about that. Maybe because you can do the same thing with a pistol that you can do with an AK-47? And the pistol is easier to find and buy, and prob cheaper? Those might be the reasons.

 

I pretty much agree with all that..

 

Pistols are easier to conceal also.

[padren]

Yeah...I've always wondered about that. Maybe because you can do the same thing with a pistol that you can do with an AK-47? And the pistol is easier to find and buy, and prob cheaper? Those might be the reasons.

 

AKs are all about heavy firepower - rarely a requirement in any given criminal enterprise. If criminals planned to say, storm a prison - then AKs may be of value. However, criminals generally want to avoid shootouts, taking fire is seriously threatens your average criminal's retirement plan. You want firepower that ensures you are unchallenged and a handgun and/or shotgun is usually enough to do that. If you need enough firepower to overpower opposing firepower then someone on your side is probably going to die even if you kill those in opposition - most criminals will rethink their plan of attack in those situations.

[The Bear's Key]

As long as there are drugs on the black market, there are going to be guns on a similar black market. The solutions for both can't be entirely more laws and harsher penalties (we've seen how well the war on drugs has worked).

 

And this opinion is based on a little piece of history called "Prohibition" where they outlawed alcohol. People wanted a drink, bad people saw a market, and thus, the bad people grew in power, and people were still getting drunk.

I have a problem with the quoted lines of reasoning.

 

Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and sex is far different as they're addictive substances. Combined with ultra-heightened prices due to scarcity and risk, we get a stupendously thriving economical bull market for illegal products awaiting underground venture capitalists everywhere.

 

And all those products are instantly expendable, drawing repeat customers, therefore putting heaps of delicious icing on the already golden cake.

 

Plus alcohol, weed, and sex can be made at home, where guns are a different matter entirely. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Trust me, it's best to just use the one argument that's strongest and enjoys a higher moral ground: it's in the Consitution.

 

 

Until there is an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment, Americans will have this right.

I can't imagine any party wanting to be known in the future as the one who caused that empty space in the Bill of Rights. If anything, they'd probably use national emergency reasons of an urgent nature to indirectly bypass a guaranteed right.

[SH3RL0CK]

I have a problem with the quoted lines of reasoning.

 

Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and sex is far different as they're addictive substances. Combined with ultra-heightened prices due to scarcity and risk, we get a stupendously thriving economical bull market for illegal products awaiting underground venture capitalists everywhere.

 

And all those products are instantly expendable, drawing repeat customers, therefore putting heaps of delicious icing on the already golden cake.

The dealer of the illegal product does not care why their customer comes to them, except where the dealer can use these reasons to increase sales. You are correct that the gun black market will be/is smaller because of the above, but in the end it is no different, just a smaller market. There are, no doubt, criminals who will sell whatever (drugs, prostitutes, guns, etc.) brings them cash.

 

Plus alcohol, weed, and sex can be made at home, where guns are a different matter entirely. Wouldn't you agree?

Not at all. A gun is not really that technologically challenging. You can build a crude gun from components and chemicals you can legally buy at the hardware store. In my opinion its at about the same technological level as a crude "still" for making alcohol. It might actually be easier to build a gun than to produce some of the drugs out there...I'm not sure - will coca (the feedstock for cocaine) even grow in a temperate climate?

 

Trust me, it's best to just use the one argument that's strongest and enjoys a higher moral ground: it's in the Consitution.

true, this is the best arguement, but its far from the only one...but it is good to think through all the reasons for forming an opinion, not just the best.

 

 

 

I can't imagine any party wanting to be known in the future as the one who caused that empty space in the Bill of Rights. If anything, they'd probably use national emergency reasons of an urgent nature to indirectly bypass a guaranteed right.

Well, I think Prohibition clearly shows this isn't necessarily the case. But whatever the future for guns and gun control, it probably won't fall along party lines (much as Prohibition, IIRC, didn't). The gun issue doesn't divide along either political parties.

 

I do feel the 2nd amendment is quite secure, however we shouldn't take our rights for granted. You may be on to something with regards to efforts to indirectly bypassing the rights, and not just for the second amendment. I think many other rights could also be threatened in this manner...

[A Tripolation]

AKs are all about heavy firepower - rarely a requirement in any given criminal enterprise. If criminals planned to say, storm a prison - then AKs may be of value. However, criminals generally want to avoid shootouts, taking fire is seriously threatens your average criminal's retirement plan. You want firepower that ensures you are unchallenged and a handgun and/or shotgun is usually enough to do that. If you need enough firepower to overpower opposing firepower then someone on your side is probably going to die even if you kill those in opposition - most criminals will rethink their plan of attack in those situations.

 

Yeah...and committing a crime with an assault rifle would probably be MUCH more likely to attract the attention of every cop within a 25 mile radius...not to mention swat teams and the such.

 

Wasn't there one bank robbery in NY where the bad guys just literally came out and blew the cops away because they had high powered weapons and body armor? Im pretty sure a sniper still put them down...but does anyone know what I'm thinking of? I may have the details a bit off.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I have a problem with the quoted lines of reasoning.

 

Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and sex is far different as they're addictive substances. Combined with ultra-heightened prices due to scarcity and risk, we get a stupendously thriving economical bull market for illegal products awaiting underground venture capitalists everywhere.

 

And all those products are instantly expendable, drawing repeat customers, therefore putting heaps of delicious icing on the already golden cake.

 

Plus alcohol, weed, and sex can be made at home, where guns are a different matter entirely. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Trust me, it's best to just use the one argument that's strongest and enjoys a higher moral ground: it's in the Consitution.

 

I agree, the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution is one of the best, but, it's not the only argument (as has been stated already).

 

Yeah, since guns are harder to procure and traffic, then that just means they would be more expensive and profitable than other black market items.

 

But there will ALWAYS be a market for illegal items. I know I would be part of that market if they ever decided to outlaw guns. How else am I supposed to fight the zombies/aliens/infected people?? With a knife? Don't think so.