Why do criminals in other countries obey gun laws?

I think the difference is "being in the wild", and the consequent low risk to other human beings, rather than the species of the potential assailant.

 

Like all cars and knives are unsafe?

 

A great many everyday items encountered in everyday life are unsafe if utilized in an irresponsible manner.

 

Guns in the hand of the law abiding are lower risk than two legged predators anywhere. I have yet to see the predicted bloodbaths when State turn Constitutional carry, open carry or that begin issuing CCLs.

 

None of them are unsafe.

 

Those who prefer to be ruled by them do.... and you clearly prefer to be ruled instead of free.

 

My grandfather started me off with a .38 revolver, firing wax bullets as he taught me basic firearms safety and how to be responsible with them.

 

I thought guns required no training. Lol

 

where did you come up with that? like many big statists, you don't believe that there can be training other than government enforced training. Its like charity: many liberals only believe that charity comes from taxing the rich more and more. The concept of people given help to the poor is foreign to them. That is why conservatives are far more generous in donations than the lefties.

 

Most totalitarians are offended that people can and should take responsibility for themselves with a minimum of interference by government. They want to micromanage every facet of people's lives that might make people like them feel "unsafe."

 

You are the one that continually spouts on about training, but can not answer what training you'd require for a gun license...

 

OK, I can certainly give you wax bullets

 

But guns are unsafe if they are used in the manner intended in their manufacture and purchase

 

Too late, that guns are dangerous has already been conceded.

 

So how did guns get into the hands of the non-law abiding?
People change. Every single criminal was once a law-abiding citizen.

 

Dangerous does not mean unsafe.

 

Various ways. An FBI study showed that straw purchases and theft account for the majority of guns found in the hands of criminals.

This really means nothing. Every single rapist was once a cute three year old.

 

Really? I didn't purchase any of the 10+firearms I own with the intent of hurting anyone, and the majority were purchased strictly for target shooting and competition. None of them were manufactured with the intent that a purchaser commit a crime with them, either.

 

They are intended to be utilized by prohibited individuals for the purpose of harming and killing others for no legitimate reason? Drive-by shootings, armed robberies, and gangland executions, are the purposes that were intended by the manufacturers?

 

I think you might be going out on a limb on that one....

 

What it means is that providing or selling firearms into the public is inherently unsafe. Straw purchases, theft and the conversion of people from law-abiding gunowners to criminals of opportunity would all be drastically mitigated as enablers of gun crime if the general sale and ownership of firearms was prohibited.

 

I would suggest that this is exactly the intent of manufacturers, as such activities directly utilize guns and also encourage gun sales to potential victims. I know a little something of the arms trade, and I'm telling you these are very, very cynical people.

But in any event, the act of killing, or practising killing, (humans and animals), whether in aggression or self-defense, is the main objective of gun manufacture and purchase. I'm surprised you would try to argue otherwise.

 

I don't think so. A firearm can be dangerous, but unloaded, or locked up or in the hands of a trained user it's not unsafe.

 

How asinine. That same argument could be made for automobiles, which could be described as so inherently unsafe that the manufacturers, knowing how unsafe they are, install features like seatbelts, air bags, turn signals and headlights knowing that regardless of these that more people will die from accidental car crashes than from even deliberate misuse of firearms.

Perhaps, but you'd have to eliminate the 2nd Amendment to even attempt that. We'd save more lives mandating mass transit and taking cars away from the populace.

 

As you also seem to be. Be that as it may, it's a very tiny fraction of firearms that are ever used in foul play, and at least and equal number used to prevent murder, and 99% or more used safely and lawfully each year. Those numbers don't lend credence to your claim that firearms are inherently unsafe and should be totally banned.

If you assume that all target shooting is only practice for killing humans or animals, that's an assumption that likely wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. My latest purchase was a bolt action rifle chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor that was purchased to shoot at targets 1000 yards away. I can assure you that I would neither shoot an animal or a person at that range. Likewise, in 3 Gun competition, the courses of fire typically require the shooter to engage 25-40 targets per stage. None of the firearms I purchased were with the intent of shooting 40 people in succession in 2 minutes. Given the decline in hunters in the US and increase by millions of firearms ourchased, I'd say most of those weren't for hunting, either. Regardless, hunting is a legitimate reason to purchase firearms.

I can't look into the minds of all 80 million gun owners, and neither can uou, but given the crime stats I'd say it's far more likely that most guns were purchased to enjoy shooting sports and hunting than to murder someone, and those who purchase guns for self defense will most likely never use then for such or commit a crime with them.