Gun Control....

C

Cuz

New member
I was reading the posts about fingerprinting
guns and a few questions came to mind that i would like to ask...now keep in mind, I am not off-my-rocker, I have NOT been listening to rosie or any other anti gunner, and I am NOT getting rid of any guns yet, I just want an honest opinion from others like myself.
1st question: Do you think that something needs to be done to stop people from using guns in crimes? (I know this is a stupid question)
2nd question: What do you think should be done/can be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? The reason I ask is that, I beleive there has to be a way, WE just have to figure it out.
3rd question: After reading about the attempts to fingerprint guns by using spent casings, and reading Glocks statement that they "support crime control, but not gun control". Do you agree that this could be a possible answer to crime control? and why do/dont you think so?
4th and final question: Do you think it is possible to reduce crimes with firearms without doing some type of liscencing(sp?), fingerprinting or registration?

Now, please understand, I am not for gun control, but i do agree that something needs to be done soon, or we could very well see a gun ban happening. I know something can be done, and unless we can come up with a way, the people with the power will begin to feel pressured into acting too quickly and we will be stuck with the results...Maybe together all of us "gun nuts" can come up with an idea? Id like to hear your opinions...Thanks...Cuz
 
  1. <LI> No further legislation will make a difference. <LI> Produce less criminals. Take all of the failed social and cultural experiments and abandon them. In many cases do exactly the opposite of what is currently espoused. <LI> No. It ignores the reality of the simple technology and the human inclination to constantly tinker with it for good or evil. It also opens the door wider for more intrusive regulation which only hinders the good. <LI> Yes. See number 2.
 
I will only address part od the question.The fingerprinting idea is totaly %*#)@**.Any idiot can in 2 min.can change the finger prints of a firearm.Klintons 20 mil for a computer system is I think the system that he will try to use for registration of all firearms and owners.
The way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?Lock them up.Behind bars they can not do the damage.Allso make them work manual labor even if its a crew digging ditches and another filling them in.They will be too damm tired to create any problems then.
Bob
 
These are reasonable questions of a newbie. Such questions are raised because of a certain mindset; the trick for you is to understand that there is a very different and more effective way of thinking about these issues.

1st question: Do you think that something needs to be done to stop people from using guns in crimes? (I know this is a stupid question)

Yes. We all believe that. What we differ on his how this should be done: non-gun people think it is done by controlling inanimate objects, while gun people think it is done by persuading the person controlling the inanimate object.

There are two parts to an effective solution:
a) teach people what the real effects of criminally using guns are, and
b) swift, fair and consistent punishment of those who do commit crimes, with or without guns (using a gun or a club to kill someone results in them being equally dead).

2nd question: What do you think should be done/can be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? The reason I ask is that, I beleive there has to be a way, WE just have to figure it out.

We can't keep cocaine out of the hands of criminals, and that's 100% illegal throughout the country and is oppressed by a "war on drugs"...and that's a consumable (i.e.: must be imported regularly). There's no way durable, small, portable goods - guns - can be kept out. "Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" ignores the fact that criminals are people too, with needs and resources. Attempts to disarm criminals almost exclusively disarm innocents instead.

Two steps will effectively discourage criminals from gun-related crime:
a) swift, fair and consistent punishment for violent criminals ("Project Exile" is succeeding in this), and
b) allowing innocents to arm themselves, dramatically increasing the immediate price of crime (wherever innocents are increasingly armed, violent crime drops dramatically and consistently).

3rd question: After reading about the attempts to fingerprint guns by using spent casings, and reading Glocks statement that they "support crime control, but not gun control". Do you agree that this could be a possible answer to crime control? and why do/dont you think so?

Absolute waste of time and resources.

There are roughly 250 MILLION guns in this country, most of which are never used in crime. To fingerprint them - or even just future guns - requires tremendous effort. Every time a gun changes hands, records would have to be updated - and criminals are not going to do that. When a shell casing is recovered at a crime scene, the crime is long over and the criminal long gone...only rarely will such "fingerprinting" ever result in an apprehention.

Most importantly, a gun's "fingerprint" changes a little every time a gun is fired. By firing a few dozen rounds (which takes about one minute), the "fingerprint" is completely altered, thus totally undoing the whole "fingerprinting" process.

Far better that all those resources and manpower be put into apprehending criminals through more straightforward methods (consider: the NICS check supposedly identifies some 100,000 FELONIES each year, yet the FBI utterly fails to prosecute them even though the criminal and crime is clearly specified and located and the FBI alerted within SECONDS).

4th and final question: Do you think it is possible to reduce crimes with firearms without doing some type of liscencing(sp?), fingerprinting or registration?

Counter-question: what makes you think that licensing, fingerprinting and registration does anything to reduce crime? (answer: they don't.)

Most gun-related crimes are committed with unregistered, unlicenced, and unfingerprinted guns - even though the crimes occur in areas where such steps are REQUIRED. Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the law - what's with this crazy notion that by enacting more laws they'll follow those?


[This message has been edited by ctdonath (edited December 23, 1999).]
 
Forgive me if I don't answer your questions on a line-by-line basis. Here are my thoughts:

You must eliminate in your own mind the idea that guns are in the slightest way responsible for, or contribute to, crime. You must (we all must) remove the phrase "gun crime" from our vocabulary. It's just "crime." It's not "hate crime" or "drug crime" or "sex crime" or "gun crime." Just "crime." Once you have eliminated these thoughts, you can begin to focus your energies where they belong: reducing crime.

Also, remember this: even if we didn't have the 2nd amendment, the government would still have no Constitutional authority to enact any gun control. It's not one of the government's enumerated powers. Even if 100% of the population agreed that a certain type of gun control law was good, the government could not legally enact it, because it is outside their Constitutional authority.

------------------
Stay cloze to ze candles, ze staircase (dramatic pause) . . . can be trecherous.
 
1) No, my question to you, HOW? Criminals by their very nature are breaking the law. Laws are re-active form of prohibition. How are you going to pro-actively prevent a criminal from committing any crime, with or without a gun. (One possible hare-braied off the wall solution, a police force of average citizens. Train these citizens as you would train Seal Team 6. Give them the arms, the capability and the authorization to use them. Do this with one out of every 100, 500, 1000? citizens. Now think of this from a criminal mind-set. Just about anyone you see on the street could be capable of meeting your force with deadlier, more accurate force. Takes the bite out of person to person crime I would think.)

2. well, my semi-sarcastic answer would be to take some quotes out of the bible and do what some other nations do. If they commit violent crimes, chop of their hand. Don't think they'll be doing it again. And if they do, we'll have to come up with something for them to do without hands.
But seriously, enforce the law, but them away. Dont let them train to become bigger, badder criminals in jail.

3. No, I would have to agree, any teenager who's been to shop class could by-pass this multi-million (billion?) plan.

4. Yes, see #2 above. The serious part.


------------------
Peace through superior firepower...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
does anyone think that a private transfer of a "fingerprinted gun" will ever happen?
nope! you will have to transfer the gun in a registered manner

do you think you will be able to buy & register a fingerprinted gun at a gun show?
i doubt it

mobsters in the 20's removed the fingerprints from thier own fingers with acid.
i doubt the average criminal would have much of a problem flexhoning a camber with a bit of tripoli

this proposal is a backdoor registration of all guns

it will not impact criminals

dZ
 
How many of you see this "fingerprinting" of a gun as a way to forbid gun owners from obtaining repair parts and such without big brothers approval just a few years down the road? Or at very least just one more way to regulate the sale of these parts requiring that any gun repaired be"fingerprinted" again as part of the strategy to make guns unaffordable to the average Joe while they busily continue to add more restrictive and expensive constraints to what was once an accepted right for americans?

"Just because you aren't paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top