Hello, I am against fire arms.

Originally posted by AdamLaw

Originally posted by j230ns
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

"15% of firearms crime were committed from stolen legally bought guns.

This stat just sounds really funny.

"HEY! THis firearm is stolen legally bought! Fair and square!

reply to post by Wolf321


Great answers, thank you.

Originally posted by AdamLaw
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Thank you for giving me a non emotional answer to all 4 questions. I was starting to lose hope.

You're welcome. I find that injecting too much emotion can cause a decent debate to take a turn towards a mere argument, and the salient points often get lost in the shuffle of the infighting. Debates are lost by turning them into arguments, because by then the points can't be made in an effort to "win", which will never happen.

Of course The Miller case could be used against my premise but I try to remain as objective as possible or at least not censor information that would disadvantage me during argumentation. I will not deny that there is facts and statistics out there that prove that gun control is not the answer for the violence we are currently facing in America. On the other hand I will not deny that there is too, facts and statistics showing that it does indeed have a correlation.

Well, yes, there has to be a correlation between "guns" and "gun violence" - that correlation is built-in, by design. Take away "guns", and by necessity "gun violence" is eliminated - but the violence portion isn't, only the gun portion. My concern is more towards violence in general, independent of the instrument. I believe it will always be, and can only be mitigated by addressing the underlying issues that cause it, rather than forcing a change in instrumentality.

The argument concerning gun possession is generally framed to stack the deck in favor of prohibitionists in just that way, semantically, and violence appears to be at best a secondary concern of the prohibitionists... just as long as they can get rid of the guns, they care not what new instrument will replace them in the cycle of violence.

In other words, the root causes of "the will to kill" are of more concern to me than what object the killing is accomplished with.

Originally posted by AdamLaw
Where do you guys think illegal firearms come from? The millions of illegal firearms currently in the United States did not get here by boat by Gun Lords.

Actually, yes, quite a lot of them did. From China, specifically. that's the "illegal guns" I know of. Now you may have different stats in mind, to have made this statement. First, I suppose, I need to know what you are classing as "illegal" firearms, in order to evaluate the statement.

15% of crimes with firearms were committed from stolen legally bought guns.
27% of firearms legally bought will have a crime associated with it in the following 2 years.

27%? That's nearly a third. Where does that figure come from? I also note that it specifies "legally bought", then moves on into a criminal frame without specifying just what made the gun suddenly "illegal". Going by that, and the law of averages, at least one of my associates in possession of a firearm should have committed a crime with it by now, yet I know of no such occurrence.

Criminal steal guns but it is nothing compared to the Biggest source of illegal guns , huge transactions with corrupted firearms dealers.

I thought you said above that they didn't get here via "Gun Lords"?

Thousands of firearms go "missing" or are "lost" each year.

'Tis true. many such "disappearances" are preparatory to an expected gun confiscation. They'll be back - after the confiscation - don't worry about that.

Every illegal firearm has its roots in legally purchased gun by commercial firearms dealer at the top of the chain.

EVERY one? Are you sure about that? If they were legally purchased as specified, what then makes them subsequently "illegal"?

Ban them from buying/selling gun and you will see a significant decrease of criminals with guns.

I've got my doubts as to just how "significant" that decrease would be, but there is little doubt that there would be a concomitant increase in criminals with other objects of mayhem. Addressing the object does nothing at all to address the criminal mind that wields it.

The logic that only law abiding citizens will not have guns is completely flawed. People who want guns for criminal purposes will be affected the most.

How so? Expand upon this notion, please. I'd like to see the logic behind it, if any.

Originally posted by AdamLaw

I have nothing against hunting rifles if you are registered, licensed and have no criminal record or mental disease and that the gun is locked at all time if you are not hunting.

Oddly enough, in my line of work I must be licensed to go armed. Even more odd, those whom I am armed against have no such licensing requirement, yet there are far more of them than there are of me. I am near certain that, if a law is passed that criminals must be licensed, very few of them will give up their guns or apply for the license.

They do, however, only take their guns with them when they are hunting... it's just that the hunt is near constant for them.

They also seem to ignore already in place requirements for criminal record checks and mental history. One must wonder how they get away with that, but I'm sure that all we need is just another law. That will doubtless put an end to their shenanigans.

Perhaps we can start by passing a law to require them to obey the laws? I'm sure that would do it.

Originally posted by AdamLaw

Originally posted by knightrider078
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

If you dont like firearms you dont have to own one but you cant tell me I cant have one because you dont like them.

No but I have the right to fight for them to be banned and will keep doing so until it is. Firearms are a plague to this country.

If you and your friends at the UN try to take Americans Lawful right to own firearms you will have a Revoultion on your hands.

Originally posted by AdamLaw

Originally posted by j230ns
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

not in this state i wouldn't. in this state it is in the hands of prosecution to prove it was not self defense, which in this case it would have been. and even if i had to prove it, the pocket knife with his prints on it would have been enough.

edit on 1-10-2012 by j230ns because: edited to add last sentence

I guess you could have shot him in the leg and legitimately claim that even with a deadlier weapon all you wanted to do is subdue the threat.

Lesson 1: You NEVER, EVER shoot to wound.

That's just mean, to put someone through that sort of pain.

reply to post by nenothtu

I thought you said above that they didn't get here via "Gun Lords"?

Maybe I did not express myself properly. When talking about gun Lords I mean exactly what you were referring to when talking about the illegal arms coming from China or Russia etc... These are a tiny fraction of the guns used for criminal intent.

The corrupted suppliers I am referring to are the big legal gun suppliers in this country who are well in their rights to buy guns and sell them to suppliers accross the United States. The problem is all transactions are not all on the books and these legitimate firearms marchand often do massive transactions with mafia, cartels gangs etc... These weapons and up in our streets.

The stats used came from the ATF, I should have posted them when I had them infront of me. I will look for them and post them soon.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by AdamLaw

Originally posted by j230ns
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

not in this state i wouldn't. in this state it is in the hands of prosecution to prove it was not self defense, which in this case it would have been. and even if i had to prove it, the pocket knife with his prints on it would have been enough.

edit on 1-10-2012 by j230ns because: edited to add last sentence

I guess you could have shot him in the leg and legitimately claim that even with a deadlier weapon all you wanted to do is subdue the threat.

Lesson 1: You NEVER, EVER shoot to wound.

That's just mean, to put someone through that sort of pain.

I do not know if this is a joke or not, but I think subduing a threat by shooting them in a foot or leg isn't as mean as killing them.

reply to post by nenothtu


As an avid collector ,shooter, CCW holder and class 3 FFl holder, I can only tell you that this horse is dead. Beating it wont revive it. Simple fact- all anti gunners hate guns........until they need one. They call the police to defend them. The police have guns. Yet theyre against guns. Makes no sense. I prefer to cut out the middle man and defend my self if the need should arise. Youre better off talking to the wall.

Originally posted by AdamLaw

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by AdamLaw

Originally posted by j230ns
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

not in this state i wouldn't. in this state it is in the hands of prosecution to prove it was not self defense, which in this case it would have been. and even if i had to prove it, the pocket knife with his prints on it would have been enough.

edit on 1-10-2012 by j230ns because: edited to add last sentence

I guess you could have shot him in the leg and legitimately claim that even with a deadlier weapon all you wanted to do is subdue the threat.

Lesson 1: You NEVER, EVER shoot to wound.

That's just mean, to put someone through that sort of pain.

I do not know if this is a joke or not, but I think subduing a threat by shooting them in a foot or leg isn't as mean as killing them.

edit on 2-10-2012 by AdamLaw because: (no reason given)

No, it's not a joke. I'm entirely against causing undue pain in my favorite criminals.

reply to post by AdamLaw


ALL legitimate transactions are on the books, except for private sales of individual weapons, which is a miniscule fraction of gun sales. Some of those are even "on the books". I've never sold a weapon privately without requiring a copy of their firearms purchase permit for my records. I'm not alone in that.

Don't trust BATFE stats too far - they are bureaucrats, and have a vested interest in keeping the fear pumped up so they can keep that paycheck rolling in. I personally wouldn't trust a BATFE man as far as could throw him, and most are chunky enough that I can't throw them very far. Remember, it was BATFE who implemented Fast and Furious for DoJ. Sort of like setting the fox to guard the hen house.

Originally posted by Egyptia
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

I adhere to my Father's commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill" but I know my nature in instinct, desperation and injustice, especially in an unfair situation.

edit on 1-10-2012 by Egyptia because: (no reason given)

You do Know its means Thou shalt not MURDER is what it means. Killing in self defense of yourself or another is acceptable if done without malice and pre planned intent. If you are accosted and have no other choice than to defend yourself do not feel guilty about it and let the attacker regain control and kill you.

Guns are tools. Nothing more nothing less. If I set out to build a fence, I will need a hammer. If someone breaks in my home thus putting my family at risk, I will need a gun.

If you can read this, thank a teacher, if you can read English thank a Gun owner

Interesting thread. Couple questions for you...what influenced your decision to not be pro-firearms and anti-firearms. Do you have any practical experience with firearms? (perhaps I missed this in the reading).

Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American citizens?

Besides "criminal crimes," what other types of "crimes" are there? Also, you do realize that criminals will continue to have firearms whether or not the government revokes the 2nd amendment or not, right? Criminals will continue to use firearms and essentially be at a distinct advantage of the average citizen during such a ban. All you would have accomplish is disarm law-abiding citizens. Without taking offense, these are elementary firearm discussions Are you new to this topic? Just curious. There is a lot to learn on this subject on ATS.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
Interesting thread. Couple questions for you...what influenced your decision to not be pro-firearms and anti-firearms. Do you have any practical experience with firearms? (perhaps I missed this in the reading).

Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American citizens?

Besides "criminal crimes," what other types of "crimes" are there? Also, you do realize that criminals will continue to have firearms whether or not the government revokes the 2nd amendment or not, right? Criminals will continue to use firearms and essentially be at a distinct advantage of the average citizen during such a ban. All you would have accomplish is disarm law-abiding citizens. Without taking offense, these are elementary firearm discussions Are you new to this topic? Just curious. There is a lot to learn on this subject on ATS.

Hello, "criminal crimes" was just a typing error I am sorry. A ban on guns penalize criminals the most not law abiding citizens. Who uses a firearm the most? A dentist or a crack dealer? The criminals will see the availability of guns go down drastically within a few years following a ban.

Sorry if I brought such an elementary discussion to the table.

reply to post by AdamLaw


the dentist likely uses it more and for legal purposes. i know i shoot at least once a week at a "range", i hunt in the fall and spring, i carry daily (this is technically using it as its there if i need it) and nobody ever knows, and god forbid its there at my house should i need it.

If no one in the world had a gun or bombs or anything of the like then that'd be great, we could go back to using medieval weapons, that'd certainly be more fun.

reply to post by AdamLaw

A ban on guns penalize criminals the most not law abiding citizens.

Again, you have a grave misunderstanding of the gun control issue if you believe this is true. I admire you for wanting to learn more about this subject. Use the ATS search function. There is a wealth of information on this topic.

After I finished this thought I considered editing my post to help explain how the majority of gun legislation, up to and including a complete ban on firearms only hurts law-abiding citizens, and Not the criminals. Quite simply, criminals do not follow laws, whereas law-abiding citizens do. So no matter what legislation gets passed by the state or feds, it is really quite irrevelant. Let's keep this simple, let's say the state and feds ban all firearms...All the law-abiding citizens turn in their firearms. The criminals, however, do not, and keep selling guns on the black market. Thus, besides LEOs and the military, the only other people possessing guns are who? The criminals! Criminals don't care if they break the law, get ticketed, go to jail, etc. So please explain to me, and the hundreds of thousands of gun owners in the U.S. how a ban on guns penalize criminals. In all my years as a gun owner and a veteran, and law-abiding citizen, never have I heard the statement you have made as a legitimate argument. It falls short on the execution because it's not based on reality.

I'm not trying to offend you here, and I'm quite mild compared to other ATS members, but only someone with no experience with a firearm and/or firearm legislation would believe such a thing. In depth understanding of gun control legislation reveals itself to be what I call, feel-good legislation. It's feel-good legislation because politicians gain a sense of acomplishment by creating pretty much worthless laws. You can't punish criminals because they don't care about consequences, but what they end up doing in severely impeding on the rights of law-abiding citizens, like you and I. Criminals don't care about having another aggravated felony on their rap sheets. Again, S&F for putting forth an interesting topic with an honest opinion. And even though I don't agree with said opinion, I admire you for putting forth your ideas on this public forum.

Cheers!