How Do Criminals Get Their Guns? (Page 5)

StuckInTheSixties:

TauKiloOmega says:
"I've only tried to get it in to you that regulating the tools of a crime won't take crimes, or criminals away."

I haven't said that it would.

TauKiloOmega says:
"It's hard to see that any physical actions of controlling the flow of guns out the the "criminals"
(I've had a hard time using that word as it's a bit ambiguous. you're a criminal as soon as you have done a unlawful act), especially when you got people willingly selling them guns (not as straw purchases, "unlicensed" sellers or flea market/gun shows) to get guns out on the streets."

Then wouldn't it make sense to change laws in such a way as to make it more difficult to legally traffic in firearms to criminals, while still allowing law abiding people access to firearms?

TauKiloOmega says:
"Take a look at the system instead of trying to get a bunch of people on a forum to answer your question."

Says the guy trying to answer my question.

celinete03: how do criminals get their gun? they make one!! haha

davidk14: .


Man With Ax Kills Four in Central China Attacks

Published September 13, 2011

| Associated Press

Four people have been killed and two wounded by an ax-wielding man who attacked children and parents in central China.

A local government spokesman says villagers have identified the perpetrator of Wednesday morning's attack on the outskirts of the city of Gongyi as a local farmer with a history of mental illness.

The spokesman says one young girl was among those killed while another was wounded. The spokesman declined to give his name, as is common among Chinese bureaucrats.

Last month, a worker slashed children with a knife at a daycare center for migrant workers in eastern China, wounding eight of them.

China has experienced a string of rampage attacks at schools and on city streets over recent months that left dozens dead and scores more wounded.



_________________________________



(Edit: deleted comment which twisted Sixties thong.)

.
.

StuckInTheSixties:

Puh-leeeeeeeeeze!

That's the best you can come up with to try to support that lame argument?

You have to go to CHINA to find some crazy guy's axe attack?

Compare American murder rates with those of other developed countries without the gun culture we have. Those people have access to axes, knives, baseball bats (well ... cricket bats, perhaps), corkscrews, weedwackers, ice picks, whatever non-firearm "other device" you want.

What do the numbers suggest?

The numbers suggest that "If a criminal doesn't have a gun, they will use other devices" is a patently STUPID justification for our love of guns.

davidk14: .

News Flash!



All chemicals once used to manufacture explosive materials of any type have suddenly become impotent including gasoline, airplane fuel or any combination of chemicals causing combustion, even steam. Hand grenades, IED’s have been rendered harmless. Law enforcement officials and militaries all over the world are in complete disarray. Military chemists have been trying to understand how raw materials once ‘mixed’ are not ‘exploding’. These chemists have hypothesized that an asteroid upon entering the atmosphere created a chemical reaction in the atmosphere which renders all chemicals in the manufacturing of any type of explosive material impotent even when combined. Some conspiracy theorists believe aliens are responsible which may mean a prelude to invasion.

Even household chemicals, some when mixed as well as nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons were also tested and also found impotent. All nuclear reactors everywhere have ceased to operate causing massive power outages all over the world especially in France where 80% of their electricity was produced by nuclear fuel. All coal fired energy producing facilities also are not functioning anywhere on the planet since steam also has lost its ‘energy’ making water that once boiled at 212F at sea level, to not reach boiling point. Hydro electric producing plants are not affected.

Gasoline has also stopped working. All cars, ships, planes, even farming equipment, no longer function.

The world has been plunged back into the Bronze Age, at best, overnight.

At least, no longer will a human be killed by a single handgun ever again. After all, it’s not humans that kill humans, its was guns that killed humans.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

And the meaning of all that is ...?

davidk14: .

Even if you remove all current forms of explosive and man is reduced to using knives or other sharp objects to kill one another, you can't control the weapon of opportunity.

News Flash!

All knives and sharp objects over 1" long are now being controled to protect citizens from illegal use of these objects. The National Knife Asssociation is filing a lawsuit against the government stating the law is unconstitutional according to the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

Instead of your clumsy attempts at sarcasm, why not just make your point in a literal way?

davidk14: .

Even if you remove all current forms of explosive and man is reduced to using knives or other sharp objects to kill one another, you can't control the weapon of opportunity.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

I can only assume you're just being petulant in your last few posts, because that statement certainly doesn't further this discussion.

Let's assume that statement is literally true. It isn't, but let's assume it is.

With that statement in mind, are you suggesting that there should be no attempts whatsoever to control any weaponry whatsoever?

(That's my best guess with trying to figure out what you're trying to get at.)

Mimee_red: Criminals get their guns from undercover fanatics posing as benevolent individuals..those who don't want to soil their hands yet gt the job done their way. sure there is violence inside anything that has life, but that is pat of survival instinct. The criminal mind on the other hand is a form of madness and a blatant belief that a gun in the hand makes him/her superior.

davidk14: Of course not Sixties.

StuckInTheSixties:

Okay. Then I can only surmise that there was no real point to your last few posts, and that they were made in lieu of constructive comment ... sort of a more sophisticated version of trolling.

Lazarus65: Speaking as a former criminal, guns are easier to get and cheaper on the black market than from lagitimate dealers. And outlawing guns would only benefit criminals, at the high end demand would increase prices and proffits for those already useing back door channels. And fewer victims would be able to defend themselves. And besides you would be surprised how easy it is to make a firearm, from crude single shot spring activated pipeguns to rifels. Never underestimate the criminal mind or its motivation.

StuckInTheSixties:

Lazarus65 says:
"Speaking as a former criminal, guns are easier to get and cheaper on the black market than from lagitimate dealers."

Okay ... speaking as a former criminal, what do YOU think would work to reduce the access to guns for criminals without infringing on reasonable access by law abiding citizens?

Lazarua65 says:
"... you would be surprised how easy it is to make a firearm, from crude single shot spring activated pipeguns to rifels. Never underestimate the criminal mind or its motivation."

If that was relevant, societies with restrictive gun laws would be awash in guns crudely made in the way you describe. They aren't.

davidk14: .

You said: "If a criminal doesn't have a gun, they will use other devices" is a patently STUPID justification for our love of guns.

So to be clear, you are saying if there are no guns, criminals will not use other devices.

.

Lazarus65: I don't believe there is anything that can be done. I do believe that the only way to greatly reduce crime is to reduce poverty.

StuckInTheSixties:

david says:
"So to be clear, you are saying if there are no guns, criminals will not use other devices."

Of course I'm not saying that. It's nonsensical. I'm not saying ANYTHING about your silly hypothetical about criminals not having guns.

Here's what I'm saying:

Topic: Politics

davidk14: .

Sixties,

I'm not a 'gun advocate" I support the second amendment and alos believe there should be checks and balances for gun ownership.

I do not avoid the question although any answer i seem to give in my support of the second amendment 'labels' me a gun advocate.



Am I right or not.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

Too ambiguous of a question to answer. Are you a "gun advocate" or not? I don't know. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. Admittedly, "gun advocate" is a pretty vague term.

But your posts, in general, and on this page in particular, strongly suggest to me that ANY notion of "gun control" makes you at least a little bit squeamish, although I was pleasantly surprised when you told someone or other that you thought it was crazy to allow felons on parole access to guns.

davidk14: .

On the contrary, there are people that should never ever be allowed to own, rent, lease, borrow or ever place a firearm in their hands. IT IS CRAZY to allow felons on parole access to weapons.

We consider driving a car a privilege where training, testing, re-testing, licensing, insurance, registration, vin numbers, titles, are part of the privilege yet there is no amendment regarding owning a car. DWI, DUI can put you in jail as well as heavy fines, loss of license, higher insurance premiums and in some instances, loss of employment.

And yet gun ownership should not have at least the same accountability? The second amendment does not say you can't own a gun but it also does not say you should not be held accountable and held responsible.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

Well, what you're saying is what quite a lot of gun advocates (for lack of a better term) also say. "Enforce the laws already on the books," "tough penalties for criminals," etc.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it only addresses the problems AFTER they occur. That seems to be a pretty ineffective approach.

You mention "accountability." I'd like to see more that.

There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the USA. I'd like to see an "accounting" of all those guns.

One OBVIOUS loophole in the accounting of guns happens in private exchanges, flea markets, pawn shops, and gun shows. The gun changes ownership, and then, there is no longer any accounting of it. Who knows who has it?

I'd like to see those kinds of loopholes plugged with a necessary accounting of ownership under all circumstances, and if someone purposefully negates that accounting, they should be "held responsible."

davidk14: .

If guns are accounted for as auto are, then it's possible. It will not eliminate the lawbreakers but it will definitely reduce the availability to those that should not have weapons. Unfortunately I feel this this will only open up a huge market for foreign guns that will make there way into the bad guys arsenal.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

I doubt a "huge" market. Remember, smuggling astronomically increases the cost. Consider drugs. If their cost was commensurate with what it takes to produce them, they would cost pennies on the dollar to what they cost now.

What's a cheap pistol cost now? Couple hundred bucks? What would it cost if it had to jump through the same hoops as cocaine does instead of just being in the glass case at your local sporting goods store?

Smuggled in from ... (where?) ... how much would it cost?

davidk14: .

Perhaps. Yet, if there is a demand, the demand will be filled. It's all conjecture at this point.

.