Funny how if a guy kills someone with a hammer, or a bat, or chops his head off with an axe, or strangles him with a chain, or poisons him with cyanide, or runs him over with a car, or drowns him in a pool, the PERPETRATOR is held responsible. But if a gun was used, the crime was apparently commited because he had a gun, not because he had evil intent or anything.
A gun does nothing with no one using it, empty, loaded, or sitting muzzle-down in a can of baked beans.
PS, one could pull a GTA using a car and kill/injure people by ramming them on the sidewalk much faster than aquiring and firing using a gun.
No one, not even insane liberal idiots, deny that the perpetrators is responsible when they use any object, including guns, to hurt people. However, guns are weapons, tools designed to hurt other people as effective/efficiently as possible. True a gun does nothing when nobody uses it. But neither do grenades, claymores, and nukes. Yet we keep those things out of the way of most people. (I'm pretty sure cyanide is illegal to buy). GTA is a poor comparison for the real world in this aspect.
Really, the problem IS people. Specifically, people who should not be owning efficient killing devices. The real goal is to keep guns away from them, so they cannot hurt others as easily. Banning guns outright may be overboard, but the intention is to prevent tragedy.
But the problem faced involving firearms in the US is that there's too many out there, legal or otherwise. (Not to mention the 2nd Amendment being a hinderance for politicians who want to do away with them.) Criminals and ill-intentioned people will find a way to get killing devices, whether it's knives, guns, poison, or otherwise, whether they're illegal or not. There's the black market as well, dudes selling full-auto MACs or AKs from the trunk of a car for mere hundreds of dollars a pop. Of course it's illegal on so many levels, but that doesn't stop them.
Plus I'm pretty sure criminals are not going to turn in their arms if all guns are outright banned. Any potential laws banning guns from private ownership do not do anything to get guns out of criminal hands. They only handicap those that obey the law. I personally want to be equally or better armed than anyone who tries to cause me harm, be it with a gun as well, a knife, a mace, or anything. Whoever is better armed controls the fight. Look at interviews of inmates jailed for burglary or robbery. Their number one fear is for their potential victim to be armed.
As for explosive/destructive devices, well, that's just silly to try to compare, because they aren't firearms (with a couple exceptions). Didn't stop McVeigh. Anyone with chemical knowledge can make HME, but it's not often anyone does.
As for the GTA thing, I said it could be done, not that it was likely. Though people killed in car accidents alone outweigh deaths with firearms of all sorts. (And the statistics don't show how many of those deaths were citizens protecting themselves, so that doesn't help either.)
Illegal black markets will always be there, but generally they are more inconvenient than the grey market, like gun shows and internet sites. Just because these markets can still be accessed, doesn't mean they shouldn't be made harder to get to. As for legal means, they should be made so normal citizens can get guns, but crazies will be turned away.
Materials for explosives are pretty closely monitored; buying too much of a material commonly used for bomb-making will alert authorities. In addition, the getting the knowledge and materials is inconvenient compared to obtaining a gun through the grey market.
Guns and gun ownership should be kept track of at least like cars. Need to show you're mentally capable and have the skills to use a gun properly for its purpose.
Gun shows and sites on the net still require going through background checks if it isn't a private sale. Dealers have to, by law, background check the buyer. With websites, they HAVE to ship to an FFL dealer, who conducts said background check. If it doesn't come back OK, they are legally denied the sale. If the FFL sells to them anyway, they are breaking the law, and risk losing their license.
I definitely agree that crazies shouldn't get ahold of guns, or anything that can be used as a weapon for that matter. But then comes, who's to say what is crazy; some will legitimately define it where someone is actually mentally unstable, while others will try to take it to the extreme and make a Catch 22 out of it (i.e. you must be paranoid because you want to buy a gun for self-defense, but if you don't feel like you need to buy a gun, then you're mentally stable).
While in some concepts, firearms registration is similar to a car registration, it is not completely comparable. You don't have to register your car, and you CAN drive on public roads with it if it isn't. You'll just get in HUGE trouble with the police and DMV. Also to note, your car is impounded (confiscated) AFTER you break certain laws.
I personally think the whole registration of firearms is pointless when it comes to preventing crimes. It only serves to show who has what and where they reside. If the owner suddenly decides to snap, the registration does not prevent him from doing so, nor does it stop him from carrying out an act of violence. It also does nothing to stop someone from stealing his firearm, which then is unaccounted for, and much easier to hide and harder to track down than a car.
It DOES however make it easier to confiscate arms from legal owners as people in charge see fit (such as Canada did for a couple decades, constantly changing what weapons could or couldn't be owned and confiscating them for no compensation, to my knowledge at least; I don't know too many Canadian gun owners). Basically they can say, "We know you haven't done anything wrong, and you might not have any intent to, but because you CAN, we're going to take these away." It's the equivalent of treating all males like sex offenders because they have penises. (A bit exagerated, I know, but best example I could pull out of my head at the moment.)
Either way, there's too many guns out there, legal or not, to be able to go through and register all of them. I personally will not support it, not only because it's pointless, but also because the hidden intent isn't to disarm criminals, it's to disarm average citizens. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was definitely not for hunting, but for the security of a free state, from enemies foreign and domestic alike. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying or misinformed. The government is to represent the people that elected them. When they fail at that, we vote someone else in. When they try to stay by force, that's when we are to fight back. (Look up the Battle of Athens, TN when you get the chance.)
On the level of stopping crimes, less "gun free zones" would be a start. This translates to "no one here is armed" to criminals. "Field day." "Easy pickin'." "No one can shoot back." Anything along those lines does increase likelyhood of being held up with any weapon, let alone a gun. Allowing conceal carry would help too (even with licenses). Potential robber in TX: "Anyone in this store could be armed… do I really want to take my chances over a couple hundred dollars?" Potential robber in NY: "CCWs are impossible to get here… and law enforcement is at least fifteen minutes away… good thing…" Conceal carry doesn't turn places into the wild west; just look at places that allow it. School shootings? It's been said for so long; train and arm teachers, principals, guards, police officers, anyone that works on campus. Not only does the knowledge of armed good guys discourage anyone who would rampage, but in the event that it does happen, it can be stopped right away, instead of having to wait for several minutes for police to come and stop the guy.
Sorry for the long reply, I just like discussions and rants.
I'm glad you agree about making it harder for "crazies" to get guns. I meant mental disease, criminal history, etc. But the Catch-22 situation is very unlikely, given likely public outrage against such a policy.
I think that registration, or some other policy, should be designed more to control the transfer/sale of weapons, rather than weapons that are in ownership. Indeed, what owners do with their weapons is hard to control, but cutting off ways for potential ill-intentioned owners to obtain guns is something that can and should be done.
"Hidden intent" sounds like paranoia. Sure, some people feel safer if nobody owned guns, but really, the intent is to stop bad guys from having them. The Battle of Athens was almost 60 years ago. Politicians will always try to screw people over, but this was an extreme case. Nowadays, armed siege is generally not the most prudent way to deal with political problems. The 2nd Amendment was created in a time when firearms couldn't kill 10+ people in seconds, and homes were threatened by Native Americans and wild animals, and reliance on militias for protection.
Gun-free zones do seem somewhat dumb. However, arming everybody isn't a great idea either. I would rather not have shootings resulting in firefights. There's definitely a solution for this too, but its beyond me.
nah its fine, I like it too. It's good to re-examine stances every once and a while.
"Evil people kill people with anything they can get their hands on."
Take away guns, and they'll break out the knives, grenades, poison, bare fists, water, carbon monoxide, hell f*ckin baseball bats.
Take away guns, and you tell me how many people in Detroit Michigan who AREN'T criminals are gonna have a backup defense.
Take away guns and you tell me how you're gonna defend yourself against a 7 foot muscle man who breaks into your house to rape and kill the wife and kids. Heck maybe even the man of the house.
Take away guns and you tell me how that's going to stop the illegal distribution of them.
Criminals will ALWAYS get their hands on their drugs and guns no matter HOW illegal they are. God you people and this argument are so ignorant to those who might feel a little safer in their home at night by having one. Sheesh.
There doesn't just exist two options: "banning guns outright" and "letting everyone have guns" The middle option "letting only people who will use guns properly obtain guns through legal and proper means"
The impression that gun control = banning guns entirely has prevented productive progress in preventing people who should be having guns from acquring them. Teenagers with mental disease can still easily buy firearms from gun shows or the internet with no background checks.
In addition, the possibility of people obtaining dangerous things illegally is no excuse to make them easier to obtain in general. For example, just because kids can get their hands on alcohol doesnt mean liquor stores shouldn't ask for IDs. Dealing the firearm black/grey market is legitimate thing that should be done.
Scenarios like the 7-foot muscle man are too idealized.
I recommend reading that link. Gun control allows criminals to feel more confident in their capabilities. Because, just like when alcohol was banned back during the Prohibition, people STILL participated in consuming it illegally.
If guns are limited, they will eventually be banned, which will lead to civilized people being killed faster than ever before.