Official Does access to Guns cause Gun Crime Thread

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

Yes, home made guns are the problem. Every other act of gun violence is perpetrated with home made guns. Come on, let's try and have this discussion based on reality, okay?

Banning things obviously doesn't get rid of them. How went the banning of crystal meth? Heroin? Marijuana?

People can and do make their own meth and I have seen documentaries in developing nations in which the police storerooms did have quite a few homemade guns in them (some even made with staplers).

Prisoners don't make weapons either I guess and bootleggers never made their own alcohol.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The question is illogical. Gun crime is ONLY possible through ACCESS to guns.

Re-Read the title . I asked does access to Guns CAUSE gun crime. Of course you can't commit gun crime, that was not the question. Access to guns is possible without crime, so the question is very logical.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Re-Read the title . I asked does access to Guns CAUSE gun crime. Of course you can't commit gun crime, that was not the question. Access to guns is possible without crime, so the question is very logical.

Access to Guns doesn't cause crime. Access to Guns increases the lethality of crime.

But then I agree with others who have said that cutting off access would be impossible. It would be the next war on drugs scenario.

Ironically, cutting off access to guns does cause crime. For instance, people who lose their rights to own a firearm are more likely to engage in a straw purchase. If we are talking a nation-wide ban, many new criminals would be created and I have no doubt civil unrest would occur.

[natty bumppo 297]

Banning things obviously doesn't get rid of them. How went the banning of crystal meth? Heroin? Marijuana?

People can and do make their own meth and I have seen documentaries in developing nations in which the police storerooms did have quite a few homemade guns in them (some even made with staplers).

Prisoners don't make weapons either I guess and bootleggers never made their own alcohol.

making homemade guns .... guess people never heard of zip guns or improvised firearms.

to keep the person who is simply good with tools for creating a gun there would have to be a ban on DIY stores, shovels, cutting tools, welding tools, etc

a nice simple .22 variation would take longer to shop at home depot (drive over, select material, return home) than to make a single shot firearm.

[bsd058 296]

Could they machine their own? I doubt it. The latter constitutes access.

I think it's impossible to prevent all access. In Canada, where hand guns are greatly restricted, people still get their hands on them illegally.

Also to answer the question on a purely logical level. Access to guns is a pre-condition of gun crime, though it never causes gun crimes.

Edited November 30, 2012 by bsd058

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Banning things obviously doesn't get rid of them. How went the banning of crystal meth? Heroin? Marijuana?

There's a difference between a ban and a lack of access. The former doesn't usually achieve the latter. That's not the discussion at hand, though, is it?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There's a difference between a ban and a lack of access. The former doesn't usually achieve the latter. That's not the discussion at hand, though, is it?

If we are talking about access to existing criminals, there needs to be a national discussion that meets on middle ground with a standardized system. State by State laws won't work.

Here is where I see the middle ground compromise.

1. Forget an Assault Weapons Ban. Its a hollywood type view of firearms that is illogical.

2 Forget magazine capacity limits. It makes owners angry and does not effect criminals...ie it can be circumnavigated easily unless you want to ban springs and sheet metal.

3. Allow shall issue conceal permits. May issue has been shown to be discriminatory.

4. Flag any firearm purchase greater then 3 per month as a possible straw purchase for further investigation.

5. Require a waiting period.

6. Require all firearm transfers to go through FFLs

7. Require the registration of handguns only.

8. Create a fine for not reporting a stolen firearm within 30 days unless a plausible reason can be presented (out of town etc.)

9. Allow open carry of all firearms.

4-8 would go far to limit access to criminals.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If we are talking about access to existing criminals, there needs to be a national discussion that meets on middle ground with a standardized system. State by State laws won't work.

Here is where I see the middle ground compromise.

1. Forget an Assault Weapons Ban. Its a hollywood type view of firearms that is illogical.

2 Forget magazine capacity limits. It makes owners angry and does not effect criminals...ie it can be circumnavigated easily unless you want to ban springs and sheet metal.

3. Allow shall issue conceal permits. May issue has been shown to be discriminatory.

4. Flag any firearm purchase greater then 3 per month as a possible straw purchase for further investigation.

5. Require a waiting period.

6. Require all firearm transfers to go through FFLs

7. Require the registration of handguns only.

8. Create a fine for not reporting a stolen firearm within 30 days unless a plausible reason can be presented (out of town etc.)

9. Allow open carry of all firearms.

4-8 would go far to limit access to criminals.

Middle ground? Between what?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Middle ground? Between what?

Middle ground between pro gun control and anti gun control I suppose.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Middle ground between pro gun control and anti gun control I suppose.

Looked more like middle ground between anti gun control and the 'slap a free gun on every person's belt' crowd.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Looked more like middle ground between anti gun control and the 'slap a free gun on every person's belt' crowd.

In what way? Its arguably stricter than current law in a majority of states and weaker than current law for about four states.

[bsd058 296]

If we are talking about access to existing criminals, there needs to be a national discussion that meets on middle ground with a standardized system. State by State laws won't work.

Here is where I see the middle ground compromise.

1. Forget an Assault Weapons Ban. Its a hollywood type view of firearms that is illogical.

2 Forget magazine capacity limits. It makes owners angry and does not effect criminals...ie it can be circumnavigated easily unless you want to ban springs and sheet metal.

3. Allow shall issue conceal permits. May issue has been shown to be discriminatory.

4. Flag any firearm purchase greater then 3 per month as a possible straw purchase for further investigation.

5. Require a waiting period.

6. Require all firearm transfers to go through FFLs

7. Require the registration of handguns only.

8. Create a fine for not reporting a stolen firearm within 30 days unless a plausible reason can be presented (out of town etc.)

9. Allow open carry of all firearms.

4-8 would go far to limit access to criminals.

1) It is not illogical. Assault weapons are prohibited in Canada (except for law enforcement and military) and most people respect that ban up here. (Sorry I think I got this wrong, since I was looking it up, but I could have sworn in the course I took that they said assault rifles were prohibited. Oh well)

2) Magazine capacity limits are stupid. I agree.

3) Unsure.

4) Register EVERY FIREARM and make it illegal to not report a stolen firearm's serial number. So that the government can keep track.

5) I agree. This prevents rash decisions like suicide and murder.

6) Register EVERY FIREARM.

7) Agree.

8) Agree.

9) Unsure.

Edited November 30, 2012 by bsd058

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

1) It is not illogical. Assault weapons are prohibited in Canada (except for law enforcement and military) and most people respect that ban up here.

2) Magazine capacity limits are stupid. I agree.

3) Unsure.

4) Register EVERY FIREARM and make it illegal to not report a stolen firearm's serial number. So that the government can keep track.

5) I agree. This prevents rash decisions like suicide and murder.

6) Register EVERY FIREARM.

7) Agree.

8) Agree.

9) Unsure.

On Numbers 4 and 6, the primary reason I think long gun registration is a waste of time is because they represent a very very tiny percentage of use in criminal acts.

On number one, I want to double check and see if you are aware of what an assault weapon is as previously classified during a 90s US Federal ban. Its a rifle or pistol that looks like a military weapon but is still semi-auto. (a lot of people assumed it banned full auto weapons which is not true, there was a restriction placed on those about 25 years ago).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In what way? Its arguably stricter than current law in a majority of states and weaker than current law for about four states.

Today, anyone has free and ready access to handguns. No gun control worth speaking of exists in this country. None.

[bsd058 296]

On Numbers 4 and 6, the primary reason I think long gun registration is a waste of time is because they represent a very very tiny percentage of use in criminal acts.

On number one, I want to double check and see if you are aware of what an assault weapon is as previously classified during a 90s US Federal ban. Its a rifle or pistol that looks like a military weapon but is still semi-auto. (a lot of people assumed it banned full auto weapons which is not true, there was a restriction placed on those about 25 years ago).

Ya. It must have been fully automatic weapons I was thinking of. Either way, any firearm should be registered, IMO. If all handguns were registered, criminals may turn to long barreled firearms. I want it to be a crime to have a gun that's not registered. I don't mind not knowing if someone has a gun on them or not. I just mind the government not keeping them accountable as an owner.

And I'm considered conservative in Canada.

Edited November 30, 2012 by bsd058