Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

[Vonsalza]

If the gun were more strict, you mean.

Or do you think a man who is dedicated to die for his cause who believe gun control arguments even though he was going to kill as many innocents as possible in a blaze of glory?

Oh don’t be silly. Gun control advocates are generally well-aware that there’s nothing you can do to stop a man who plans to die in the commission of his crime.

Our efforts are aimed at the other 99.99% of gun-wielding criminals.

 

[starshiptrooper]

So why not target them instead of the average citizen who should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise?

 

[Vonsalza]

So why not target them instead of the average citizen who should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise?

Gun control advocates are trying to keep those folks from becoming criminals in the first place, since there is no magic ball that predicts who will individually.

On common-sense thing to do? Reduce the availability of guns.

 

[starshiptrooper]

No the common sense thing to do is to be armed. Criminals avoid victims who fight back, Victimology 101. They do not rob the cop cashing his paycheck. They go after grandma and her social security money.

 

[Duesenberg]

That’s like saying “because someone died of ebola and an ebola vaccine doesn’t exist, we should stop vaccinating our kids for other diseases”.

Odd you aren’t suggesting background checks and safety certificates before being allowed to rent a truck.

 

[Duesenberg]

Reduce the availability of guns.

You can’t do that to CRIMINALS via more gun control laws. That’s just silly.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Reduce the availability of guns.

You can’t do that to CRIMINALS via more gun control laws. That’s just silly.

No it’s not.

27 million guns were sold in the US last year. So that’s 27 million guns potentially available on a black market.

Lets say you put in a $500 permit for semi-autos. If sales fell to 13 million, that’s that many fewer guns available
-and-
They’d demand a higher after-market premium due to the desire to recoup the permit fee.

It’s a doubly whammy to the potential nefarious gun-buyer. Reduced availability and a higher initial cost - both driving up his price.

It’s exactly why you virtually never see crime committed in the US with fully automatics. Your average thug probably wants them, but simply can’t afford them.

 

[Duesenberg]

27 million guns were sold in the US last year. So that’s 27 million guns potentially available on a black market.

You really don’t seem to get it. There are already ~350M firearms in the USA. There will ALWAYS be plenty of firearms for CRIMINALS who by definition, don’t follow the law.

Your “$500 permit for semi-autos” (what a revealing statement THAT was!), it will just make it more expensive for law-abiding citizens to legally acquire guns. It will have absolutely no impact on CRIMINALS – except to perhaps create more criminals who would start making firearms in their garages and small shops.

It’s exactly why you virtually never see crime committed in the US with fully automatics. Your average thug probably wants them, but simply can’t afford them.

Poppycock. First, VERY FEW gun-related crimes are committed in the US using rifles of any kind. You knew that, right? By far the HUGE majority are created by those using handguns. Fully automatic handguns are largely a novelty item. FWIW, a “thug” wouldn’t care what they actually cost – he would simply steal them, after all he’s a criminal by definition.

If I didn’t know any better I would swear your comments were a parody.

 

[Vonsalza]

You really don’t seem to get it. There are already ~350M firearms in the USA. There will ALWAYS be plenty of firearms for CRIMINALS who by definition, don’t follow the law.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but its a pretty basic law of economics that the more expensive something gets, the more scarce it becomes. We have tens of thousands of 18 year old college freshmen who seem to be able to grasp the concept…

When it’s more scarce, its more scarce on subsequent, secondary markets as well (even the black market).
When it’s more scarce, its less available to steal.

As to the 350m already out there - you’re totally right; too many. And while the plastic guns may not last as long and older weapons, I’m totally for a voluntary buyback as well. Those are proven to suck up guns, particularly during the next recession

It will have absolutely no impact on CRIMINALS – except to perhaps create more criminals who would start making firearms in their garages and small shops.

Given the education level of most criminals, if they had to resort to homemade firearms, what a far safer world it will be!
If they have access to the expensive equipment and extensive education required to actually mill one out of billet steel and aluminum, I seriously doubt those folks would be engaged in a life of crime. So sounds good to me!

For every tutorial on youtube you find about a guy making a “pipe gun” in his garage, you can also find one of some moron actually trying it and often nearly blowing one of his fingers off.

Poppycock. First, VERY FEW gun-related crimes are committed in the US using rifles of any kind.

I’m well aware. And looking back at the last few posts, it looks like we weren’t really focusing exclusively on rifles. Automatics are just a nice data point because they’re nearly banned and so few crimes are committed with them. There’s probably a relationship there.

FWIW, a “thug” wouldn’t care what they actually cost – he would simply steal them, after all he’s a criminal by definition.

That doesn’t seem to actually be true. The last time the ATF studied it, the primary place criminals obtained their firearms was through straw-sales followed by direct buys from dirty dealers who would just write someone else’s name on the background forms for a little extra cash. Theft actually wasn’t super-high on the list.

Yours is yet another misperception by supporters of the gun lobby, it all seriousness.

If I didn’t know any better I would swear your comments were a parody.

You have to dehumanize your opponents so it makes it easier to just dismiss their reasonable claims rather than address them; a well-worn tactic.

A common troupe on the other side is that most pro-gun folks get portrayed as such:
“A score of dead kids at Sandyhook? 500 dead and wounded in Vegas? Just the cost of liberty, boys! Now pass me my ammo, by the grace of God!”.

So lets avoid the cheap rhetoric and actually consider one another’s points like adults do.

 

[Duesenberg]

I’m sorry you feel that way, but its a pretty basic law of economics that the more expensive something gets, the more scarce it becomes.

Are you sure about that? Have you actually thought this through? Have you considered that:

• Guns are durable goods. VERY durable goods. In civilian use they last for many generations – literally forever.
• An M1911 pistol designed in 1911 and the AR15 rifle in 1957 are still near fairly state-of-the-art. Obsolescence is a non-issue with these firearms.
• There are already ~350M firearms in the US. Even if all new guns sales stopped tomorrow the supply would never dray-up.
• Slapping a $750 fee/gun would accelerate clandestine manufacturing of guns in the US.
• Criminals don’t typically legally purchase their firearms. They steal them – or buy them from someone else who stole them.

Before talking about “a pretty basic law of economics”, make sure you understand the market conditions first.

 

[Apache75]

Where I live you can buy a gun from a person (online, not a dealer) and you don’t even need a bill of sale. No more private sales of firearms unless you go and have it registered in your own name. This may help with gun violence but not much unless it was a federal law. But people will always find a way to kill each other with or without guns. Look at N.Y. I’m all for folks owning firearms but we need to keep the guns out of criminals hands.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Our efforts are aimed at the other 99.99% of gun-wielding criminals.

All this says is intentions matter more than results.

 

[Duesenberg]

No more private sales of firearms unless you go and have it registered in your own name.

We’ve had that in place for years here in CA – including background checks for all sales. hasn’t reduced violent gun-related crime.

 

[Duesenberg]

Where I live you can buy a gun from a person (online, not a dealer) and you don’t even need a bill of sale. No more private sales of firearms unless you go and have it registered in your own name. This may help with gun violence but not much unless it was a federal law. But people will always find a way to kill each other with or without guns. Look at N.Y. I’m all for folks owning firearms but we need to keep the guns out of criminals hands.

There is no place in the USA where you can buy a firearm on-line from a private person without committing a serious felony. Not a single state. That’s a federal law.

Some states allow face-to-face sales of used firearms without a background check or waiting period.

Some people state that firearms may be “be bought online” to scare others – but they cannot – not without going through a federally licensed firearms dealer.

We require both here in California for used firearms. They don’t reduce gun-related, violent crime.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Of course the liberal response is that people are bringing in the guns from the outside, of course they offer no evidence for that. Even if that was the case, California’s lack of border security is their problem, not ours.

 

[Duesenberg]

Of course the liberal response is that people are bringing in the guns from the outside, of course they offer no evidence for that. Even if that was the case, California’s lack of border security is their problem, not ours.

They never seem to acknowledge that this in itself is a serious felony…

 

[DarkLight]

They never seem to acknowledge that this in itself is a serious felony…

I actually did just that upthread. My point was it’s a felony that anyone with the brains of a 12 year old could figure out how to not get caught at. So by itself, the failure of local gun control isn’t evidence that national gun control would fail, since we already have a system to prevent smuggling at national borders. (It’s not necessarily evidence it would succeed, either, mind.)

Majority of Guns Used in Chicago Crimes Come From Outside Illinois: Report – NBC Chicago

 

[vz71]

Until they can come up with a way to make criminals obey the law, we should not be even addressing laws at all.

 

[Duesenberg]

the failure of local gun control isn’t evidence that national gun control would fail,

Sure it is. It’s out-and-out laughable to actually think that “national gun control” would reduce violence UNLESS you take away everyone’s firearms (which would be impossible anyway.) That’s against the law in the US.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Our efforts are aimed at the other 99.99% of gun-wielding criminals.

All this says is intentions matter more than results.

No it doesn’t. It’s a simple admission that virtually nothing can stop the tiny, tiny fraction of criminals who are willing to die in the commission of their crime.

“Common sense”, in fewer words.