Why do criminals in other countries obey gun laws?

Again, the question I was answering was about gun laws making it more difficult to get guns so that’s what I answered. I do think the difficulty (and especially the illegality of possession) will discourage some felons from getting guns.

Locking your doors makes it more difficult for burglars to rob the place but it doesn’t stop it happening. We still lock-up when we go out though.

 

It's already illegal for a felon to have a gun; in fact, it's a felony. That doesn't seem to discourage them at all. An additional charge of acquiring a gun without getting a background check would be a secondary charge, at best, and would certainly not be more of a deterrent than the felon in possession charge.

A better analogy would be just locking the front door while leaving the back door unlocked, the windows open and the garage wide open. UBCs do nothing to inhibit straw purchases, theft or illegal street sales, and that's where the vast majority of criminals get their guns.

 

Even so, you are advocating for the assassination of criminals--no jury trial, etc. It just shows how bloodthirsty liberals are.

 

Just the ones who threaten to kill law enforcement officers who come for their guns.

 

How do you know. There could be loads of felons out there who would get a gun if it were legal for them to do so. There’ll also be a significant number of felons who’ve no interest in getting a gun regardless.

Nobody has suggested restricting felons is the be-all and end-all of gun control, it’s a tiny part of the picture. That’s not a good reason not to have it though, it’s just that you need to deal with all those other problems too (many of which aren’t just about gun control).

 

This presumes they are interested in obeying the law.
If they aren't, and/or they plan to commit another crime, the fact they have to break the law to get a gun means nothing to them.

No one wants to repeal the law that prohibits felons from owning a gun - the point is no law can or will prevent them from doing so.

 

Because felons have guns and commit crimes with them.

True. I'm not suggesting making it legal for felons to buy or own guns.

Likely also true. Those felons aren't part of this discussion.

They're already restricted. It's a felony for them to try to buy or possess a gun.

You're not talking about restricting felons. You're asking to restrict law abiding, peaceful citizens in the name of making it "more difficult" for a felon to get a gun, in a way that places no effective obstacles in the way of a felon getting a gun.

 

Somehow there are many examples of other countries that manage, for the most part, to keep guns out of the wrong hands and that is a point that your regurgitated gun lobby talking points don't address.

 

You can blame the NRA for that. They use their political power and influence to make it difficult for law enforcement to do its job. They know gun industry profits would plummet if criminals were prevented from buying guns.

"Ricker says there's one more reason why executives at the gun companies refused to crack down on dealers — profits. One study has found that as many as 25% of all handguns sold in America end up being used in a crime. Ricker says some gunmakers could go out of business if criminals couldn't buy their guns.... The ATF is overworked, understaffed and under paid. And the industry knows that.... The gun lobby has convinced Congress over the years to make it incredibly hard for the ATF to shut down crooked gun dealers."
http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript_insider_print.html

"For most of the past 20 years, Robert Ricker was a top lawyer for the NRA as well as the chief spokesman for the gun industry, which relied on him to argue the industry's position against gun control... Ricker disagrees. 'This is spin. This is what I used to do for the industry,' he says. 'The National Rifle Association, every year, is before the appropriations committees on Capitol Hill advocating that ATF's budget be cut. They know that ATF does not have the manpower or the money to do an adequate job enforcing our gun laws.' "
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/firing-back/

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

Your two sentences here have no rational link between them.

Unsupportable nonsense.
Gun manufacturers cannot legally sell guns to criminals.

More nonsense. This statement cannot be proven in any way.

You cannot provide a transcript of any such appearance before any congressional committee.

 

The NRA hates the ATF. They are the EPA to the oil and gas industry. The ATF costs the NRA money.

 

Which is of no relevance to the discussion. What you have just said is akin to arguing that if alcoholic beverages were not available at convenience stores, fewer individuals would engage in their consumption.

Prohibited individuals are able to acquire firearms through a myriad of sources, all of them illegal. Theft, straw purchases, or through a friend of acquaintance. There is not a single legal avenue available to them, and yet they acquire firearms regardless.

 

Then actually show such. Show that the NRA is actively using its political power and influence to make it difficult for not only law enforcement, but also the justice system, to actually convicted prohibited individuals who have been found in possession of firearms.

A claim for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Pray tell exactly what can firearm manufacturers do pertaining to federally licensed dealers, whose licenses are valid? Do they have the authority to demand that federally licensed dealers not sell their products in a way that may result in them later ending up in the wrong hands? Can they dictate that sales not be made to individuals who pass federal background checks?

Show the evidence of such. A single claim is not sufficient.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. Whether it’s a good thing or not and whether the other consequences of the law or policy are worth the benefits are further questions but they weren’t part of the post I was responding to.

Yes, but some won’t because it’s more difficult or because they don’t want to break the law again (or at least not without direct benefit). We’re talking about all convicted felons here and many of those won’t want to reoffend, though some may well fall back in to a life of crime regardless (it’s that subset who are probably most relevant here).

 

Pray tell what are you talking about? A prohibited individual who wishes to acquire a firearm, will not go about doing so through illegal means, because they do not wish to commit a secondary offense in addition to being in possession of a firearm?

Pray tell what does the above even have to do with what is being discussed?[/QUOTE]

 

What are you talking about? The minute they hold a firearm in their hand, they are re-offending. No matter where it came from.

 

Oh dear, too many unsupported assertions declared in your post to answer them all, just one will suffice to show why your comment is not going impress anyone who want more than this.

Meanwhile some actual information to show that America is NOT in the top 100 nations for per capita murder, that despite a huge increase in firearms and concealed carry permits issued, the per capita murder rate dropped over 50% from 1980.

Not in top ONE HUNDRED Nations,per capita murder rate:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Map: Here are countries with the world's highest murder rates

Selected Excerpt:

June 27, 2016 · 2:45 PM EDT

By Kuang Keng Kuek Ser

"From the interactive map above, most of the top countries with the highest homicide rates are in Africa and Latin America. The homicide rates, defined as the number of deaths by homicide per 100,000 people, of the top 20 countries are showed in the chart below. The US was ranked 107 out of 218 countries, according to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime."

LINK


Murder rate dropped 50%,since the 1980 high,
-----------------------------------------

From the Death Penalty website,citing the 2015 FBI crime stats,

 

A question I have been seeking an answer too for some time now. Canada allows almost all the same firearms as America, including the oft maligned AR-15, yet Canada has a much lower firearm related homicide rate. Why? Hell if I know!

 

They have more gun control in other areas. And it works

 

Fewer people who want to murder others perhaps.

 

I think the cause of a lower firearm related homicide rate in Canada is likely social differences as opposed to differences in firearm regulation.

 

That is a guess. But they do have more gun control than we do

 

If someone wants to murder someone with a gun in Canada, or any other country, they'll do it.

 

Yes. They just do it a lot less. The concept is harm reduction

 

The problem is, of course, that gun control laws do not have any effect in reducing crime.

The only thing that reduces crime is criminal control enforcement.

The few laws that have any measurable effect have already been implemented. Unfortunately people like you think they're too expensive to enforce.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016816670457