Why Gun Laws Don't Work

Yes, the gun control crowd always likes to compare the USA to countries such as the UK, Australia, and Japan and point out how countries such as those have much more restrictive gun control than the USA and much lower murder rates. Well that's all fine and dandy, if you want to cherry pick. That's what the gun control crowd does, they cherry pick without taking into account the whole picture.

 

The U.K. wouldn't be a good one to use anymore, due to the influx of Muslims they had over 10,000 gun crimes over the past few years working out to a 27% increase per year.

 

The graphic BB posted from a Bloomberg funded anti-gun group only indicates those, who over a long number of years, are people who where denied from legally buying a firearm by NICS, and is quite irrelevant to the criminal purchases of firearms, which by a United States Department of Justice study totally destroys the narrative BB is promoting.

Criminals by a large majority do not obtain their firearms from licensed gun dealers, the majority of the guns they obtain are from street purchases in the same manner they buy their illicit drugs to sell and use from the black market provided to them by smugglers.

 

Their true goal is to harass law abiding gun owners and make their life difficult, for example, you are my son, you have a clean background and it's your twenty first birthday and I am going to gift to you my grandfathers Colt 1911, that he brought home from WWII, under most of the proposed UBS plans, you my son and I would have to meet and go to a FFL and do the transfer, you would have to pass a NICS background check and pay a fee to the FFL for the privilege of transferring that firearm to you, my son.

But here's the rub, I live in Florida, your down here with you family, wife and two great children from Ohio, well the only way I can gift that firearm to you, is ship it up to a FFL in Ohio, where you will complete the transfer and pay the fee's to receive it, on top of what the FFL here in Florida will charge me for a FFL to FFL transaction.

Now the GCA's claim UBC laws will prevent unlicensed gun dealing criminals from doing on the street transfers, because by doing such they will have committed another cime and could get into legal trouble, say a slap on the wrist for doing so.

Well I am going to say those criminals will laugh at such laws, they are already selling illegal drugs, selling kidnapped humans, some children for sex, killing those who fail to make payments for such and killing opposing gang members.

How can any person with a fourth of their brain working, believe UBC's will do anything to stop the street sales of firearms, which by the way is where the majority of criminals obtain their firearms from?

UBC's are no more than another tool in the GCA toolbox to harass and disarm the American law abiding citizens.

 

Indeed, gun regulations will make guns much harder to get for individuals interested in homicide and suicide.

 

No they won't. People interested in homicide will get guns off the illegal market. People interested in suicide will jump in front of trains or jump from heights.

 

About 90% of suicide and homicide perpetrators are very ambivalent. Few plan their crime.

 

And what is your source of that claim?

 

thats 3.5 million people who were allowed to seek alternative means to finding access to firearms, because the police dont investigate attempted purchases by prohibited persons.

If those people were locked up for the crime of attempting to purchase prohibited weapons, its a good bet violent crime would be lower.

 

I'm going to point out that there was a time in this country's history where what this man did would not have been a crime.

Let's suppose we turn the clock back and go to 1900. In many jurisdictions, this man would have only been charged with battery (for whatever the domestic violence was), and then possibly charged for unsafe use of a gun or threatening with a gun (which might not have been that serious considering the context).

I certainly do not see any clear moral ethical impetus for this man being sent to prison. I think it could be argued that this man is a victim of the system society has created. That the law has made criminals out of people who would otherwise not be criminals.
As such, it could [perhaps] be argued that the laws are evil [in a way].

According to the Libertarian "Non-Agression" principle, this man should only be punished for harming, or infringing on the individual rights of others. Did he do so? From the story, I think we can derive an answer of "not really" (though we don't know the full details behind the "domestic violence" history).

In short, these type of stories completely disgust me. There is not a clear ethical wrong that was committed. Men have fabricated their own ethics.

I realize this man was probably a no-good worthless drug addict. But should not we as a society and government still respect his natural individual rights, and only punish him in accordance with what he deserves?

I fear this plea will just fall on deaf ears, since we as a society have, gradually over the years, become so totalitarian.

 

Why have the absolute prohibitions on substances such as heroin failed to stop the acquisition and use of such substances in the united states? There is absolutely no legal venue for an individual to acquire such substances, and yet countless individuals are addicted to such and dying from overdoses.

Explain why such is the case. Explain why such a failure with regard to illicit narcotic substances, would not also exist with regard to firearms.

 

Thus demonstrating a complete lack of understanding or basic knowledge about the subject.

 

You skipped their death by gun rate of 6.9 vs ours 10.6. Is it not logical to assume if guns were more widely available as they are here that the murder rate would be even higher?

The poverty rate is 55%. You've not been to Soweto.

 

We've been over this before....your argument is we shouldn't have laws because people break them. How will that work in the real world?

 

The argument being presented, is why bother implementing what has already proven to be a failed policy?

 

Why does the implement utilized matter more than the total number of homicides committed? Why does one country having a higher firearm-related homicide level matter, when the country it is being compared to has a higher total homicide level?

 

Or the murder rate could be lower. Guns are used many times to prevent murder and other such crime in the USA, by some estimates over a million times a year.

I suppose some places in South Africa are undeveloped but some places in the USA are undeveloped too, such as this place.

 

Most people who commit murder or suicide act on impulse. Many of them act in a state of intoxication. Most do not plan their actions.

 

Perhaps prohibition of drugs has indeed reduced the volume of drug consumption by a large factor.

 

False. Not merely factually incorrect but outright false.

Do not repeat such a delibately ignorant statement again.

 

Speculation, not fact. Therefore it is not worth discussing as if it had merit. If an absolute prohibition cannot result in next to no deaths occurring, then no standard of restriction will.

 

I do not know. If drug restrictions would be lifted, overdose rate would likely grow very fast.

 

Meaning the very best than an absolute prohibition can achieve, is a slight reduction that is only hypothetical at best.

Thus meaning such a restriction on what is ultimately a constitutional right is without merit or justification in even being discussed.

As someone who willingly immigrated to the united states, such a fact should be well known on the part of yourself.