No weapon can do any damage without a person. And a person can defend themselves more effectively with a gun.

If you were able to actually eliminate all firearms, we'd be back in the realm where bigger/stronger people could effectively threaten smaller and weaker people by wielding a club or edged weapon. But that doesn't worry me, because you can't eliminate all firearms. In fact, I recently saw a collection of firearms manufactured *in prisons*. What does worry me is liberal dilettantes with little knowlege and less thought who want to use the government to disarm me because they think it might help them "feel better".

Yes, I'm aware that there are hobbyists who make guns in their basements.

My point is that there are no criminals who make guns. Criminals are mostly stupid and lazy, and they don't have the discipline to make anything. If they could make a gun, they would have a skill and a temperment that would allow them to lead a law abiding life. It's a numbers game. Criminals need the law abiding populace to have a large number of guns, so they can steal a subset of them.

It may be easy to smuggle one or two guns, sure. But the number of guns in use by criminals today to commit crimes is astronomical. It's too many to smuggle easily. Dope can be stuffed into teddy bears and vases and fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars. A gun can be smuggled for what, maybe as much as grand? It's too difficult, and the economics that would drive the smuggling are just not there. Criminals don't invest in tooling to commit crimes. They get a stolen gun for $50 and rob somebody and toss the gun. Again, it's a numbers game.

I'm not arguing in favor of banning guns. I just don't buy the lie that banning guns won't reduce the number of guns available for criminals. That's a crock.

:luv: :madhop: :apistola: :bong: :hide: :rattat:

I love a good gun thread. :)

You're really batting 0.000 on this. I just got done telling you about the guns made IN PRISON.

I'm sure ATF will be interested in your theory that "there are no criminals who make guns", because they arrest people for making guns in ways ATF doesn't approve of fairly frequently.

Banning guns would have the same effect on availability of guns for criminals that banning drugs and banning alcohol did. It might raise the price, but that's about it.

Since you claim it's a numbers game, tell us how many crime guns there are per year, so we can see exactly how "astronomical" it is, and how impossible to smuggle/manufacture them. Bear in mind that many crime guns are used in multiple crimes, so a simple count of gun crime won't cut it. Also remeber that in this day of NC machining, a gun design is basically software. (In fact, my carry piece was made on NC milling machines in a shop that does other work besides firearms manufacture.)

But don't you see that the precise reason smuggled drugs can fetch a high price is because they are completely illegal?? If guns were banned, you could not buy one for $50 and toss it. The economics would shift such that smuggling was by definition profitable. A car trunk full of guns would be just as expensive and just as easy to sell as a car trunk full of cocaine.

You're all missing the point.


Columbine, the more recent shootings and the amish massacre were not committed by criminals with illegal guns.

You do understand that stealing a gun from someone else A.) means you almost certainly do not have a permit for a gun, and thus it is illegal for you to own; and B.) makes you a criminal, both for having possession of it at all and for stealing it in the first place?

Since it's illegal here to have a gun in a school without a legal purpose, the perps were in fact criminals, and the guns illegal.

were you ever in the military? you have all the attributes of the barrack-room lawyer...

A leadership sighting this afternoon. Gov. Rendell was served up the opportunity to connect the Amish shooter's crime with new gun control legislation. Ed Rendell is one of the most anti-gun politicians you will find. But instead of taking the political road, scaring the public in order to move the legislation, he flatly shut the connection down with his honest response: no, even our hardest gun control won't stop the crazies.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...03/cnr.03.html

MaggieL again ignores facts. Those who carry guns for defense more often have that gun used against them. Cops carry a gun as an offensive weapon. When called to defend another, the cop goes offensive. Guns for defense is reasoning based only upon emotion, speculation, and in direct contradiction to statistical reality.

Second fact from history. As number of guns increase, then number of violent murders increase accordingly. This was documented many years previous in the Cellar.

We license drivers and cars. Dangerous items require the user and machine to be carefully trained and maintained. That is the purpose of licensing – responsibility. MaggieL does not demand requirements for responsibility. She advocates rights. But responsibility is secondary and sometimes ignored. No wonder she also advocates extraordinary rendition, torture, violations of the Geneva Convention, violations of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, nonsense called 'unlawful enemy combatant', and eliminating the writ of Habeas Corpus. A complete denial of responsible attitude – what some call American morality.

Responsibility is secondary to rights? Who often suffers when carrying the gun? MaggieL forgot that fact.

No one is talking about banning guns. But then need for responsible gun owners is somehow spun into myths about eliminating all guns. Included is a myth that more guns means safer streets - a complete lie.

Everyone working in a Post Office should carry a gun? Good. Then the wacko need not go home - realize his mistake - before shooting his manager. A perfect solution to underfunded pension funds and social security.

Ever heard of a zip gun, Glatt? Criminals (mostly teen gangs in the 50s and 60s, when gangs were social and protective gatherings rather than a means of transporting and selling drugs) made them all the time.

Today there aren't a lot of hollow car antennas with the diameter of a .22 available.

And you don't look as cool as a dude who holds a Glock sideways.

Dude - relax.
Because cops..??

You couldn't have done that with a shotgun or rifle?

I don't. Buy a bulletproof vest, a burglar alarm, a knife, a rifle, a bodyguard, whatever. Why does defense/protection have to mean a handgun?

I said I don't have a problem with hunting for food.

Who, here, has ever had to use a gun to protect themselves? I am 47 years old, and have never needed a gun to defend myself. I am alive, never been robbed, haven't been in a fistfight since high school. Why do you pro gun folks feel like it's the only way to protect yourselves?

Because most defensive uses of handguns occur within less that 7.5 feet, IIRC (I pulled that particular number out of my ass, rather than spending the time to look it up, but I'll bet it's correct). My rifles are made to shoot at distances up to 1000 yards.

Do you use a sledgehammer for all of your small home improvement projects?

The handgun, incidentally, is there when all other options fail. Bulletproof vests are heavy, unwieldy, uncomfortable, only protect your center of mass, and are illegal in many jurisdictions.

I don't go strolling around in crack neighborhoods for fun at night, just to see if someone hassles me enough to justify shooting them.

As others have stated, most legal handgun owners go out of their way to avoid overtly dangerous situations. Safety is as much a matter of pre-planning as it is response.

Unlike a lot of people here I get credibly threatened fairly regularly. I can go so far as to say that I collect death threats the way most people collect baseball cards.