If Having More Gun Laws Works, Why Do We Hear of So Much Gun Crime in California??

[astromanluca]

The only way to lower crime through gun control measures is to ban virtually all guns and not grandfather existing ones. That's the only way to make the supply dry up... if there are no more guns, then criminals won't be able to steal them and use them to commit crimes.

But that is utterly ridiculous, and a total violation of our second amendment rights. Besides, judging from the UK's crime rates, banning guns isn't even that effective.

Any gun legislation short of what I describe, though, does nothing to stop crime, because people will still own guns and criminals will still steal and resell them for use in crime. And for that reason, you can pretty safely view nearly any gun control legislation as another step toward a near-total gun ban.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Is being stabbed to death...

The only way to lower crime through gun control measures...

Two statements which eloquently prove that the problem is human nature not the weapon of opportunity used to act out that nature. I'm reasonably certain that people were killed with bow and arrows before guns and spears before that and clubs before that....

 

[Kreyzhorse]

"The gun control measures are working. However, illegal gun sellers combined with the effect of the Gun Show Loop Hole are allowing more and more dangerous cop killer assault style sniper pistols on the street and into the hands of felons. The powerful gun lobby are hard at work to ensure that guns continue to reach the hands of felons by fighting common sense gun control measures."

Sarcasm by the way ^

In other words, we don't expect the Brady Campaign to admit gun control laws don't curb crime. They'll continue to look (and make up) excuses to further their own agenda of a complete gun ban.

They'll never let the facts get in the way of their goal.

 

[Saab1911]

They'll never let the facts get in the way of their goal.

What do you expect? They're liberals.

When Grey-out Davis finally started building power plants during Kalifornia
black-outs, the liberals were protesting the impact to the environment of
all the new power plants.

 

[Yellowfin]

Part of the problem is that there are enough rich areas in the PRK with the same anti gun laws which by their demographic nature have low crime rates, so there is the illusion that the laws can work. So those with money and influence think they're safe so they can pass laws that affect the riff raff and keep them away- the politicians they support fully take advantage of this mistaken belief and use it instead to keep pro gun voters away instead.

The object of the laws by those who write them isn't to curtail crime at all. It's to keep people helpless and dependent on them for safety, to create a problem for them to have the solution for. They then have something they blame the other side for- they get the press to believe that guns = crime so pro gun = pro crime. The fewer and/or more ostracized gun owners are the less the public sees to refute their BS. The antis actually want more crime, so there's more to blame the NRA for, misdirecting the blame so they can continue. The press naturally won't give any space to us to refute it- if they did the left would be history.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Part of the problem is that there are enough rich areas in the PRK...

In central NY we've got areas of poverty where there are more guns than people (literally) and some of the lowest crime, especially violent, anywhere.

 

[S832]

The whole argument that people with guns replace police or security organizations is nonsense, owning guns doesn't replace the need for a police force. Obviously guns are useful for personal protection but, they are not a replacement to trained professionals held to strict guidelines.

 

[Old Timer]

Saab1911 said:

What you're doing is sophistry. You must have learned that from JuanCarlos.

I respectfully disagree. I was not being illogical nor was I attempting to be deceitful.

If you start with an incorrect premise, you can prove anything.

It was not my premise. I was responding to the OP.

Cities of similar size do not have similar levels of crime. That was your
incorrect assumption. Just look at San Francisco and Oakland. Those
two cities are separated by a bridge, but Oakland has much more crime.

Again, I did not claim that cities of similar size have similar levels of crime. In fact I showed the opposite to be true. In the sub-context of population demographics I showed that the perception that crime in California was more rampant than elsewhere, presumably in spite of California's draconian anti-gun laws, was a mistaken preception.

There are cities in Texas with a lot of crime, but at least in Texas law
abiding citizens can defend themselves.

As can I in California.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Eventually somebody would find a way to kill somebody with a feather pillow if that's all you left them.

It's very easy to get surgical tubing (exersize tubes), a Y shaped piece of ash, (OK, let's not play any games with that phrase, and you know what I'm talking about), a small leather patch, and some steelies, marbles or rocks. I think they call it a slingshot. You can kill with a sling shot. At the very least you can cause severe injuries, especially at close range. How long have sling shots been around? Of course you have axes, hatchets, knives, rocks, etc. Cave men learned how to make spears to kill large beasts. The bow and arrow was a staple of killing large game before the industrial revolution and the widespread use of firearms which came with it.

 

[Swampghost]

My point was that even if we could eliminate every firearm in the country it would simply fuel a new business (gun-running) and the BG's would own them ALL. As previously stated; laws didn't work for alcohol or drugs. Who in their right mind would think that it would work for firearms?

 

[Yellowfin]

^ They're not in their right mind, and again remember that limiting crime or the number of guns in the hands of criminals is NOT the objective of the people passing the laws.