Right to bear arms?

[Syntho-sis]

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.

 

Maybe you're thinking of the North Hollywood shootout. Happened back in '97 got alot of press.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

One of them actually had an AK-47 I think..

[A Tripolation]

Yep, that's the one.

And guys like that are PRECISELY the reason that a ban on guns would do mroe harm than good. Those guys BOUGHT their weapons illegally, so what effect would a ban have on them? Like they care about law.

 

Thanks Syntho-Sis.

[The Bear's Key]

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.

Don't forget that you can sell drugs or weed to criminal and noncriminal alike. You won't have nearly the same luxury with guns. Thus it's not as profitable as you might imagine (except when filling a niche).

 

 

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.

And then you'd be one of the criminals in that popular saying, "only criminals will have guns". Even if you'd just kept the guns you already had before they were made illegal, you'd nonetheless be one of those criminals with guns.

 

If someone's going to deal with illegal things, it might as well be addictive for the most profit evah.

[Sisyphus]

Don't forget that you can sell drugs or weed to criminal and noncriminal alike.

 

What do you mean by that? You can't sell illegal drugs to a non-criminal, by definition.

[The Bear's Key]

What do you mean by that? You can't sell illegal drugs to a non-criminal, by definition.

If you to go with that as a logical basis, and since most people have likely experimented with marijuana, then a huge percentage of the U.S. gun owners are by definition criminals already....therefore if guns were made illegal, little would change.

[CaptainPanic]

Should Americans be allowed to own and use firearms?

 

Given the fact that a murder on about 3000 people in two certain towers in New York in 1999 started at least one war and has inspired the US government to change many laws and spend a colossal amount of money, you would expect that a year-in-year-out murder on more than 10000 people would inspire the government to change at least one law.

[Severian]

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

 

Exactly! So no-one should be allowed a gun (including the police).

[CaptainPanic]

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

 

Don't you guys differentiate between a misdemeanor and a felony or something? Do both fall under the category of "crime"?

 

In the Netherlands, you have to be doing something worse than jaywalking in traffic for it to be called a crime (or more correctly our translation for "crime"). For example, going 100km/h in a pedestrian zone in a truck would be a crime. Jaywalking not.

 

Crimes are also handled by judges, while traffic cops can give you a ticket without any judge being involved.

 

I'm not 100% up to date with the laws and definitions in the USA... but I thought this question to make sense in response to the remark of Sisyphus. But we might go slightly off topic

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, it's something like that. I was just making the point that "the criminals" are not a group that you can make coherent statements about, because basically, "they" are us. Sometimes these discussions go as if there are groups of supervillains' henchmen roaming the streets.

[John Cuthber]

I read this bit "Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and sex is far different as they're addictive substances. " and wondered if I had missed something.

Last I heard, sex was not adictive, a substance or prohibited.

 

Also, I wondered about "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. "

The constitution has been changed before.

 

BTW, in many countries- I suspect most- jaywalking isn't an offence.

Many of us realise that people are more important than, and take precedence over, cars.

[JillSwift]

Many of us realise that people are more important than, and take precedence over, cars.

Just to illustrate a point germane to politics in general and this topic in particular...

 

Assume: We all agree that people are more important than cars.

 

Possible conclusion 1: People can cross the street at will, people in cars yielding to them. Drivers failing to yield will be consequenced for failing to follow the rules.

 

Possible conclusion 2: Crossing the street at random points puts people in danger from passing cars, whose drivers may not be paying sufficient attention. Solution: Provide specific places and conditions when a pedestrian may cross the street. A jaywalker will be concequenced for failing to follow the rules.

 

Funny how the same intent to make people more important than cars can lead to such dramatically different conclusions.

 

Ferreting out the optimal method for achieving a goal ain't easy.

[Sisyphus]

Last I heard, sex was not adictive, a substance or prohibited.

 

Prostitution is illegal in many if not most places, though, and there is usually a thriving black market.

[John Cuthber]

"Crossing the street at random points puts people in danger from passing cars, whose drivers may not be paying sufficient attention. "

Driving without due care and attention is also an offence.

Cars are dangerous- we don't let children and drunks etc drive them.

The people who opt to do something dangerous- like drive a car- have the responsibillity for any adverse effects of that choice.

In crossing the street other than at a crossing I accept that, while I may be legally in the right if I get hit, this won't help.

 

 

I may be mistaken, but I think that prostitution is perfectly legal in the UK. Pimping isn't, nore are soliciting or running a brothel.

 

Incidentally, it seems to have been a while since anyone mentioned guns.

My 2 cents' worth is that the observation that "if you ban guns then only criminals will have themn" misses a vital point.

To a good approximation anyone in the UK with a gun is a criminal or a police officer (a crass simplification but it makes the point).

This makes it nice ans simple for the police- if they see someone with a gun they shoot them and ask questions later (agian a gross oversimplification).

 

Apart from coppers who can't tell a shotgun from a chairleg, where's the problem?

[padren]

Yep, that's the one.

And guys like that are PRECISELY the reason that a ban on guns would do mroe harm than good. Those guys BOUGHT their weapons illegally, so what effect would a ban have on them? Like they care about law.

 

Thanks Syntho-Sis.

 

Just a note on this North Hollywood Shootout - if the guns were illegal, why were they returned when they were pulled over for speeding not long before?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Backgrounds

 

In October 1993, Phillips and Matasareanu were arrested in Glendale, northeast of Los Angeles, California, for speeding.[7] A subsequent search of their vehicle—after Phillips surrendered with a concealed weapon—found two semi-automatic rifles, two handguns, over 1,600 rounds of 7.62 mm rifle ammunition, over 1,200 rounds of 9x19mm Parabellum and .45 ACP handgun ammunition, radio scanners, smoke bombs, improvised explosive devices, body armor vests, and three different California license plates.[8] Though they were initially charged with conspiracy to commit robbery,[9] neither of them served more than 100 days in jail, though they each were put on three years' probation.[10] After their release, most of their seized property was returned to them.[11]

 

Were these just the legal weapons they had on them? Of course the AKs and such they had at the time of the robbery were not on that list, but they had a pretty hefty arsenal.

 

They were armed for Armageddon and they didn't serve more than 100 days and had most of their items returned. I've never quite understood this part of the story to be honest.

 

 

Secondarily while police took one pretty clear message from that exchange (we need bigger guns) it also demonstrated the golden rule of crime for criminals - being armed to the teeth and shooting it out is still more lethal than getting in and out without a shot fired. No matter how prepared you think you are, being prepared to shoot it out still means being prepared to die. Being prepared to get in and out with a pistol beats preparing with bombs and AKs any day.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

To a good approximation anyone in the UK with a gun is a criminal or a police officer (a crass simplification but it makes the point).

This makes it nice ans simple for the police- if they see someone with a gun they shoot them and ask questions later (agian a gross oversimplification).

 

Apart from coppers who can't tell a shotgun from a chairleg, where's the problem?

 

First, before you can do that you have to determine if such a ban in the US would be as effective as a ban in the UK. In a lot of this country you may as well ban alcohol if you ban guns. You'll have a lot of people simply reject the law and by definition become criminals, subject to all the costs of criminalizing any activity - shattered careers, families, incarceration, prosecution, etc.

 

What's more, if all guns were illegal then someone who wants a gun for home defense may have an easier time finding guns that are illegal now (clip size, etc) than guns that are less dangerous.

 

That doesn't even touch on the constitutionality of such a law - just the practicality.

[Sisyphus]

You don't need any weapons to rob a bank. You just have to say you're robbing it. Bank employees are instructed to do what a robber asks, and only alert the police after the robber has left. The idea is always to minimize the chance of violence. The banks don't care about the money, because they're insured against robbery anyway. A "smart" bank robber (relatively speaking, of course) is as low key as possible. [/trivia]

[Saryctos]

 

**** (don't know how to quote within a quote apparently)

Originally Posted by A Tripolation

 

Yep, that's the one.

And guys like that are PRECISELY the reason that a ban on guns would do mroe harm than good. Those guys BOUGHT their weapons illegally, so what effect would a ban have on them? Like they care about law.

****

Just a note on this North Hollywood Shootout - if the guns were illegal, why were they returned when they were pulled over for speeding not long before?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Backgrounds

semi-autos(as listed in the speeding arrest) aren't illegal, which allows their return later. However the conversion into full-auto is illegal, and there's no way to tell until the weapon is fired.(or tear it apart I suppose) I would speculate then that the guns were purchased legally then illegally modified.

Phillips imported steel-core ammunition for his illegally modified assault rifles..

This is a different case than A Tripolation's point, however I the believe the intent behind the words is the same in that Illegal modification/purchase laws won't restrict access to those who don't obey the laws.

 

Were these just the legal weapons they had on them? Of course the AKs and such they had at the time of the robbery were not on that list, but they had a pretty hefty arsenal.

 

They were armed for Armageddon and they didn't serve more than 100 days and had most of their items returned. I've never quite understood this part of the story to be honest.

How does the size of the legal portion of their arsenal affect the sentencing for their illegal activity? If the items were legally owned, they must legally be returned upon release.

[padren]

How does the size of the legal portion of their arsenal affect the sentencing for their illegal activity? If the items were legally owned, they must legally be returned upon release.

 

I agree 100%. I don't know the best solution, but the fact they had all that and everything was still legal seems a bit too lax. More importantly, there was no way to tell if it was legal. I am not suggesting a ban on any large group of weapons - just saying there's got to be a better way to fine tune the laws with this one.

[A Tripolation]

Well padren, I was assuming that they bought the full auto version of the weapons illegally. I guess I wasn't thinking clearly when I read the part about their weapons being returned.

 

See...you make a very good point in that gun laws are too lax. They are. But should we ban the selling of semi-auto weapons just because they can be modified? People that want auto weapons will STILL figure out a way to find one.

 

I must say, when I acquire enough money, I plan on purchasing some very deadly firearms...but just in case of an apocalyptic situation or for infected people/zombies <no...really>

[SH3RL0CK]

I agree 100%. I don't know the best solution, but the fact they had all that and everything was still legal seems a bit too lax. More importantly, there was no way to tell if it was legal. I am not suggesting a ban on any large group of weapons - just saying there's got to be a better way to fine tune the laws with this one.

 

Or better enforcement of current laws. I do not know if the guns, ammo, etc. were legal. Alternatively to them being legal, they were possibly illegal, but perhaps the DA didn't want to take the case to court. Perhaps he didn't think he had a strong case, maybe he was lazy or overworked, maybe they thought the sentence was sufficient punishment, there could be lots of reasons for this. In fact, I had thought that conspiracy to commit robbery is a felony and that it is illegal for felons to own guns...but maybe that was not the case in the early 1990's?

 

More and stricter laws do not help when current laws are not being enforced.

 

EDIT: Indeed the DA really dropped the ball here by returning their guns. Felons, even in the early 1990's were not permitted to own or possess guns...

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1032128620083

 

 

While convicted felons generally are not permitted to own guns, a provision in the federal firearms laws allows someone who has served his time and been released to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for permission to own a weapon.

 

But the ATF hasn't green-lighted any felon's request for relief ... It can't. In 1992, Congress eliminated the funds that enabled the bureau to do it and has refused to restore them ever since.

 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/cri...ome-felon.html

 

Under current federal law, the vast majority of felons are prohibited from so much as touching a gun or ammunition, on pain of punishment of up to 10 years in prison...

 

The only felons who can lawfully retain a gun, according to exceptions written into the statute, are those convicted of anti-trust violations or crimes involving unfair trading practices.

Edited September 29, 2009 by SH3RL0CK