Criminals are, by definition, violators of the law. What sense does it make to think that a criminal would follow the law and not obtain a weapon and use it for criminal purposes? I usually hate cliches, but this one works: "If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns."
2007-04-20 06:29:10 · 17 answers · asked by Mike K 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Good point. I'm probably what you would consider part of the left. But I've also heard that both the left AND the right are to blame for these all these laws, so its not really a matter of the liberals vs the conservatives here.
I've not seen this pointed out, nuclear weapons. A lot of people have them. That's what keeps countries from using them really. It would start too much crap.
Since I like the samurai, I'll use them as an example. The didn't carry guns, but had their swords and could and would draw them at the slightest dishonor shown towards them by another. As a result it is said their culture is really polite.
Well, wouldn't you be polite if you thought somebody might draw their gun on you and shoot you? You see, if everybody THAT PASSED THE REQUIREMENTS had guns and carried them in open view like the samurai did with their swords, I suspect that people would be a lot more polite towards one another.
And using the nuclear example. If you know most of the people around you has a gun and is willing to use it to protect themselves, would you use it? Only if you had a death wish ofcourse.
But then, how about we get rid of all the handguns and go back to be able to wear swords out in public? Ok, so I'm a bit biased with that. lol
2007-04-20 06:46:40 · answer #1 · answered by Humanist 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you restrict all guns, you are right, a criminal won't really care.
But consider this. How many times are people picked up that are criminals, but aren't caught in the midst of a crime. Since there is no crime (now) in having a hand gun, they haven't done anything wrong.
If you restrict handguns, then anyone that has one has done a crime. If you aren't allow to carry a gun, but you have one, it makes sense that you have it to commit a crime.
Having a hand gun then gives law enforcement officers the clue that this person has a weapon to more or less commit a crime. Having a gun then can carry a sentence. If you have a gun, you are likely more than willing to use a gun. Therefore, possession should be the equivilent of 2nd degree murder.
A better solution would be for the government to essentially buy out the gun manufacturers and then ban private manufacturing of weapons. Let the government, who have to police anyway, be the only authorized producers of fire arms and have them only dispense them to military and police officers.
the majority of the crimes committed in Canada are done with weapons from the US. So, we know all about the smuggling of weapons.
2007-04-20 06:43:35 · answer #2 · answered by brettj666 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, just because they are criminals, doesnt mean that they break ALL laws. That being said, it is true that they could still get guns, however, the same basic rule applies to all laws. Lawmakers know that not everyone will follow the rules, but as long as they see a decrease in gun-crimes, then they are successful. By the way, most gun crimes are committed by people who are law abiding. For example, the VT shooter, Cho, was not a criminal when he purchased the handguns.
2007-04-20 06:39:15 · answer #3 · answered by joe w 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Statistically, when guns are outlawed, gun crime goes up. Outlawing guns will not disinvent the gun - guns will still exist. Therefore, criminals will still obtain them, just criminally. Law-abiding citizens will be the only ones unarmed. This creates a safe haven for criminals. They are free to rob, rape, and whatever else they desire, simply because they know their victims will be unarmed. We have seen this in Washinngton DC, which is now the gun crime capital of the nation, having the highest gun crime rate, which skyrocketed since guns were outlawed, and we have seen this in England, where gun crime also skyrocketed after guns were banned, and many other places. I don't know what you're trying to say with the rest of your question, so I answered what I knew.
2016-05-19 22:12:53 · answer #4 · answered by karol 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The idea isn't that criminals will respect the law, but that restrictions in general will reduce overall availability of guns to criminals.
Just like outlawing drugs made them impossible to find.
Basically gun control advocates have the political reasoning ability of small children.
EDIT: Hey Bill, how many baseball bats are used to commit assault?
How many innocent people are killed by drunk drivers?
Should we take away everyone's right to baseball bats and cars because a very small percentage of users are irresponsible?
Idiot.
2007-04-20 06:35:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Criminals /do/ pay attention to the law, because that's how they make thier living - by doing things that are more profitable, because the law-abiding won't do them. Gangsters really sat up and took notice, for instance, when Prohibition was enacted, as it meant they could make tons of money making and distributing booze - they also took notice when it was recinded, as that marked the end of a lucrative business.
Criminals /do/ pay attention to gun laws. They know that having a gun gives them a greater advantage over the law-abiding, the more restrictive gun laws are. And, the smarter ones 'game' complex gun laws to acquire guns for illegal re-sale.
2007-04-20 06:45:10 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mike any new proposal is merely a knee jerk reaction so a liberal can feel good and go to his or her constituents with an "I did something" statement for the next election. They don't even care that criminals will ignore the law. In fact they are empowered by terrible events like that in Virginia - it gives them cause to redirect other issues they don't want to deal with.
2007-04-20 06:40:04 · answer #7 · answered by netjr 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what type of disordered thinking, would arrive at such a flawed conclusion.
"Meth" is completely illegal at the Federal, State, County, and Local levels, and CAN'T be grown (must be manufactured--like guns), yet is easily acquired in every town in America.
Why are people so near-sighted?
2007-04-20 06:39:58 · answer #8 · answered by sarcasm_generator 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point, I want to know why the people that want to outlaw guns hire body guards that carry guns.
2007-04-20 06:37:19 · answer #9 · answered by ! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How many murders are committed by people who are not criminals in the heat of the moment
How many people get murdered by their own weapons
How many children get their hands on guns that are legally owned by family and use them to murder
2007-04-20 06:35:07 · answer #10 · answered by bill 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋