Question about legal guns vs. illegal guns

[MartyH]

How do we counter this argument that a friend of mine has made:

"Since all illegally owned guns were originally legally owned guns, then the reduction of legally owned guns would naturally lead to a reduction in illegally owned guns. And taking that a step further, if gun owners are supposedly so responsible about gun ownership, then how were so many of them so criminally negligent to allow their legally owned guns to fall into the hands of irresponsible people? And, if the answer to that is that not all gun owners are responsible enough, then why does the NRA consistently block any attempt to make the acquisition of guns more difficult for irresponsible people?"

The argument really comes down to numbers: If there are less legal guns, there are less legal guns that could become illegal guns through theft, irresponsibility, etc. Is it just totally irrelevant? If so, why?

Yes, I feel stupid having to ask this question so please don't jump on me for that. Help me become better informed and a better 2nd amendment advocate.

 

[DFuller]

Link Removed

Do you think people will actually turn in their guns?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[laswkayaker]

In response to you statement: " And taking that a step further, if gun owners are supposedly so responsible about gun ownership, then how were so many of them so criminally negligent to allow their legally owned guns to fall into the hands of irresponsible people? "

In my case, some low life broke into my house and stole my guns that I had displayed in a gun cabinet (as well as other valuables). I had my house and my guns secure, but someone wanted my stuff so they broke the LAW to get what they wanted. Only law abiding people follow the gun laws, criminals do not. I live in a nice quite middle class neighborhood, so I did not think of protecting my house and guns like I do now. Now I have a security system, cameras and soon a gun safe. So am I criminally negligent? No ! If someone wants your stuff bad enough they will find a way to get it.

 

[tricolordad]

In response to you statement: " And taking that a step further, if gun owners are supposedly so responsible about gun ownership, then how were so many of them so criminally negligent to allow their legally owned guns to fall into the hands of irresponsible people? "

In my case, some low life broke into my house and stole my guns that I had displayed in a gun cabinet (as well as other valuables). I had my house and my guns secure, but someone wanted my stuff so they broke the LAW to get what they wanted. Only law abiding people follow the gun laws, criminals do not. I live in a nice quite middle class neighborhood, so I did not think of protecting my house and guns like I do now. Now I have a security system, cameras and soon a gun safe. So am I criminally negligent? No ! If someone wants you stuff bad enough they will find a way to get it.

Do you carry one on your hip? If not...What happens if you are home and they break in?

There's a high probability that you know the thief. You displayed them in a glass case? I have one displayed, it is non-operational. My working guns are hidden. I do not acknowledge their presence if asked. My kids scream "no!"if I even talk about them. It's what they were taught. There's a learning curve, and it looks like you're catching up. I live in a somewhat secluded area off a highway. They are all locked up, my wife only knows where two are. One is in my holster.

FWIW, my power tools are also hidden and locked up. Along with the hatchets, machetes and hammers. You must have complete power in your home, that means securing anything that can be easily taken and swung. Failing to do so might have a devastating consequence.

 

[gunnerbob]

Incorrect, reducing the number of legally owned firearms will not decrease the number of illegally owned firearms, it will in fact increase the number of illegally owned firearms. Why? B/c there will be numbers of people who will become criminals by not giving up their firearms, or existing criminals will just continue to get their firarms illegally on the Black market. Firearms technology has been invented, thus it can't be uninvented... no matter how many laws you pass. Also, there are over 200 million known firearms on American soil... do you really think the gov't will be able to confiscate all of them? Could they do it without becoming Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union? I doubt it, for them to get every gun in America they'd have to suspend any and all rights and go door to door with millions of LE or Military sticking rifles in people faces, throwing them on the ground and ripping apart their homes. Even after that, how's the gov't going to stop the illegal manufactor or illegal importation of weapons? They can't stop either one of these avenues in the War on Drugs... and they've been at that for decades.

As to why the NRA supports the blockage of restricting firearms to people, possibly people "un-fit" to own them? Simple... who is going to decide who's fit to own a firearm and who's not? The gov't? Yeah, b/c they know what they're doing.... Further, is it right to prevent a person from owning a means of self-defense b/c they have a particular mental illness? What if that illness isn't very severe? What if there is no reseach indicating that a person with illness X will become a blood-thirsty criminal? Are we really going to say that, that person will act the same as this person... b/c of a particular mental flaw? What's next? Religion? Color? Sex? The simple truth that our idiotic society has to except is that humans are violent, there's no sure-fire way to prevent who is going to be violent and who's not going to be without stripping everyone's civil rights away. Should a person with documented anger issues as a child be prevented from owning a firearm as an adult? If you have a tragic death in the family should you have your right to self defense taken b/c you MIGHT take it badly?

If there is a need for something, there will be a supply... whether it's legal or not. There are risks living in a free society, at times those risks include people who are insane, and there not being a way to know... and acting out whatever it is they think is right. Y'know what I think...? Motor vehicles kill far more people than firearms every year, they should be banned and confiscated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Motor vehicles are not vital to our survival as a species, so let's get rid of them. Also, alcohol should be banned!!!! Smoking!!!!!!!!! Burgers!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sunlight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell your friend to smarten up...

 

[tricolordad]

Link Removed

Do you think people will actually turn in their guns?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

,

A large number of people will.

 

[croute]

I don't have any proof, but I would dare say that most illegally-owned guns come across our borders to be sold illegally here. It won't matter if you stop selling guns legally, the problem will never go away.

 

[stantheman1976]

,

A large number of people will.

Nearly 600 firearms collected during gun buybacks in Oakland and San Francisco - San Jose Mercury News

A large number of people already are. I saw the story on TV and one woman said she just couldn't take the thought that this gun she has could hurt someone so she turned it in.

These buyback programs will become more frequent. Law abiding citizens will turn in weapons voluntarily because they don't want the gun they have to hurt someone.

 

[tricolordad]

Nearly 600 firearms collected during gun buybacks in Oakland and San Francisco - San Jose Mercury News

A large number of people already are. I saw the story on TV and one woman said she just couldn't take the thought that this gun she has could hurt someone so she turned it in.

These buyback programs will become more frequent. Law abiding citizens will turn in weapons voluntarily because they don't want the gun they have to hurt someone.

If that moron wanted to sell an AR for $200, i would have paid him that much. Even for a fixer upper...

 

[Aielman]

Well...this is going to make me unpopular, but yes...if there were fewer legally owned guns, there would eventually be fewer illegally owned guns. It's simple numbers. According to the FBI an average of 241k guns are stolen every year, most of which are handguns. Sure, some people would hold onto weapons illegally, myself included, if they were somehow banned. But by and large, more would turn them in. And sure, some criminals would find a way to import them, but they're already doing that now, so in the end, the numbers are going to go down.

Quite frankly, way too many gun owners don't store their weapons correctly...but to be honest, alot of them can't. Short of a 600lb+ high quality safe, you can break into most gun safes in a few minutes if you have some time to work. And you can't always either afford one of the monster high end safes, nor can you put them into some properties, especially if you rent.

The bottom line, however, is that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in both the 2nd and 14th amendment. The right to keep your property is guaranteed by the 4th amendment. So there is little likelihood they're going to be able to take them away, although they may contrive to make us jump through an enormous amount of hoops to keep them legally.

And more importantly, like Mr Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." Less guns isn't going to mean less violence. A gun isn't even used in most crime. It may change how violence is perpetrated, but it's still going to exist as long as there are evil men and/or there is substantial profit motive in prohibited items/substances.

If your well meaning friend wants to lower crime, tell them to push for legalization of recreational drugs. More than half of all violent crime committed revolves around the sale of illegal drugs, or procuring money to fund your habit. Getting rid of guns isn't going to do it.

 

[tricolordad]

Well...this is going to make me unpopular, but yes...if there were fewer legally owned guns, there would eventually be fewer illegally owned guns. It's simple numbers. According to the FBI an average of 241k guns are stolen every year, most of which are handguns. Sure, some people would hold onto weapons illegally, myself included, if they were somehow banned. But by and large, more would turn them in. And sure, some criminals would find a way to import them, but they're already doing that now, so in the end, the numbers are going to go down.

Quite frankly, way too many gun owners don't store their weapons correctly...but to be honest, alot of them can't. Short of a 600lb+ high quality safe, you can break into most gun safes in a few minutes if you have some time to work. And you can't always either afford one of the monster high end safes, nor can you put them into some properties, especially if you rent.

The bottom line, however, is that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in both the 2nd and 14th amendment. The right to keep your property is guaranteed by the 4th amendment. So there is little likelihood they're going to be able to take them away, although they may contrive to make us jump through an enormous amount of hoops to keep them legally.

And more importantly, like Mr Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." Less guns isn't going to mean less violence. A gun isn't even used in most crime. It may change how violence is perpetrated, but it's still going to exist as long as there are evil men and/or there is substantial profit motive in prohibited items/substances.

If your well meaning friend wants to lower crime, tell them to push for legalization of recreational drugs. More than half of all violent crime committed revolves around the sale of illegal drugs, or procuring money to fund your habit. Getting rid of guns isn't going to do it.

We have a couple thousand mile long border of wilderness with Canada. Terrorists frequently enter and leave through it unchecked and undetected. How do you propose to keep the guns from coming that way as well? Also, while in Superior WI, i observed a speedboat run ashore, two men threw bags on the beach and ran just as the coast guard came into view. Whatcha think might have been in them? If i wasnt holding my daughter above the waves, I would have drawn and detained them. Either way, the coast guard got a new boat and a good description. Spend enough time on the beach at Wisconsin Point, you'll notice a few things. Hopefully you also take national security as seriously as you do dismantling our 2a rights.

 

[HD0027]

The question is not how do we reduce the numbers, but "How do we require gun owners to accept the responsibility required to own / handle firearms" Just because the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own firearms it does not give us the right to abdicate the responsibilities of owning them. Answer that question, and you will find your answer. So How do we move the argument to ownership responsibility and away from the guns themselves?

 

[DFuller]

The question is not how do we reduce the numbers, but "How do we require gun owners to accept the responsibility required to own / handle firearms" Just because the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own firearms it does not give us the right to abdicate the responsibilities of owning them. Answer that question, and you will find your answer. So How do we move the argument to ownership responsibility and away from the guns themselves?

Well...if someone breaks into my home...and steals my guns are you saying I didn't accept my responsibility to own a firearm?

The shooting in Oregon was with a stolen weapon...the shooting at the school was stolen from his mother (after he killed her). In both cases the owner of the guns had them TAKEN from them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tricolordad]

The question is not how do we reduce the numbers, but "How do we require gun owners to accept the responsibility required to own / handle firearms" Just because the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own firearms it does not give us the right to abdicate the responsibilities of owning them. Answer that question, and you will find your answer. So How do we move the argument to ownership responsibility and away from the guns themselves?

Your illogical fear of an inanimate object does not trump my constitutional rights. The gun did not kill those kids. The psycho did. Look at Japan. Guns are banned. The Yakuza still use them. They also use swords. Do you know how long it takes for someone to die from a stab through the abdomen?

Even if you took a giant magnet and sucked all the guns into space, people would still be committing massacres. With rudimentary, crude, heavy and/or sharp objects. It's the person, not the object.

 

[Aielman]

Well...if someone breaks into my home...and steals my guns are you saying I didn't accept my responsibility to own a firearm?

The shooting in Oregon was with a stolen weapon...the shooting at the school was stolen from his mother (after he killed her). In both cases the owner of the guns had them TAKEN from them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Only up to a point. Was your house locked? Did you make a good faith effort to secure your weapons in something that didn't include a glass door?

Yes? Then of course not.

Your illogical fear of an inanimate object does not trump my constitutional rights. The gun did not kill those kids. The psycho did. Look at Japan. Guns are banned. The Yakuza still use them. They also use swords. Do you know how long it takes for someone to die from a stab through the abdomen?

Really? You want to use a country that had less gun murders last year than an average holiday weekend in Miami Florida as an example?

We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to keep arms. We have a right to defend ourselves. We don't have a right to be careless about it and we don't have a right, at least according to 200 years of SCoTUS rulings, to be completely free of regulation.

Gun bans do work to reduce violence. They don't eliminate it, but you're ignoring the obvious if you think it isn't true, at least in countries that aren't as inculcated in a gun culture as we are and don't have as many freely circulating, unregistered weapons as the US has. It would do far less to reduce violence here in the US because we have 200M+ weapons out there, so that cat is out of the bag with almost no way to put it back in, nor should we try. It's who we are. But it does work in other countries and running around with our fingers in our ears going la la la la everytime someone mentions it is one of the big reasons why we can't get the anti-gun lobby to sit down and listen to reason when we talk to them.

 

[gunnerbob]

Only up to a point. Was your house locked? Did you make a good faith effort to secure your weapons in something that didn't include a glass door? I didn't make the buglar enter home, I didn't make him steal my possesions... he did that. I'm not responsible for his actions, he is.

Yes? Then of course not.


Really? You want to use a country that had less gun murders last year than an average holiday weekend in Miami Florida as an example? They also have far less people, don't they?

We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to keep arms. We have a right to defend ourselves. We don't have a right to be careless about it and we don't have a right, at least according to 200 years of SCoTUS rulings, to be completely free of regulation. Actually, you do have a right to be careless... just like people have a right to be stupid.

Gun bans do work to reduce violence. No, they don't. They don't eliminate it, but you're ignoring the obvious if you think it isn't true, at least in countries that aren't as inculcated in a gun culture as we are and don't have as many freely circulating, unregistered weapons as the US has. It would do far less to reduce violence here in the US because we have 200M+ weapons out there, so that cat is out of the bag with almost no way to put it back in, nor should we try. It's who we are. But it does work in other countries and running around with our fingers in our ears going la la la la everytime someone mentions it is one of the big reasons why we can't get the anti-gun lobby to sit down and listen to reason when we talk to them.

I have zero responsibility for what another individual does, even if it's murder with one of my stolen weapons. You're not going to make me feel bad for another's actions. You can't ever prevent human violence, ever. No matter how many laws you pass, or how many LE officers you have... If you expect to live in a free society, further, an American free society where Individual Liberty is the most important factor... Firearms have to be in every home, on every hip, in every vehicle and the population needs to nut-up, find its balls agian and stop criminals where they stand. Responsibility with firearms? Absolutely right, every child should be taught their safety, every child should be taught morals, ethics, personal responsibility, hard work, what liberty is & what it costs and taught how to be a f#*king free American! Sadly, we are very far away from any of these things, our society shows it and America as we knew her... is dead.

 

[DFuller]

Only up to a point. Was your house locked? Did you make a good faith effort to secure your weapons in something that didn't include a glass door?

Yes? Then of course not. .

I'm curious what part of the 2nd amendment mentions a good faith effort securing your firearms in something that doesn't include a glass door?

Keeping MY GUNS in MY HOUSE should be enough to eliminate liability even if somebody breaks in to steal them...attaching liability to someone other then the shooter is opening Pandora's box and will ultimately erode our rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[S&W645]

I'm curious what part of the 2nd amendment mentions a good faith effort securing your firearms in something that doesn't include a glass door?

Keeping MY GUNS in MY HOUSE should be enough to eliminate liability even if somebody breaks in to steal them...attaching liability to someone other then the shooter is opening Pandora's box and will ultimately erode our rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Florida law does just that. If a child get a gun because someone broke into a house, the homeowner is not responsible. Locked doors are all that are needed if there normally is no one under 16 in the house by law.

790.174 Safe storage of firearms required.—
(1) A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm, as defined in s. 790.001, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
(2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law:
(a) In a public place; or
(b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.

This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.
1(3) As used in this act, the term “minor” means any person under the age of 16.

In other words, no kids in the house or expected, the locked doors of the home are enough to meet the requirements.

 

[MartyH]

Thanks for the insight. I didn't really see anything new, but reading it in well thought out, direct responses to the specific issue raised by my friend was a huge help in pulling all together for me in a way I can use to respond.

For those that went off on the tangents about outlawing all guns or confiscating guns, I don't think he is advocating that. (I sure hope not.) He realizes it isn't realistic or in keeping with the 2nd amendment no matter how you skew it. I don't think he is considering that such an act would make many more guns illegal just by making criminals of their current legal, responsible, owners.

I certainly hope that gun owners are responsible. But I certainly don't want the government to determine what that means! So that's just one of the risks we take.

I hope all those rushing out to buy their first gun this week take the time to learn how to handle and store it responsibly if they don't already know. We need them to be part of the solution and not a contributor to the problem.

 

[longslide10]

If someone wants you stuff bad enough they will find a way to get it.

And to the god of guns and bullets please let them find themselves on the business end of a 12ga.....oh wait that might hurt someone, nevermind.