Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Gun controll types don't need that many numbers. All they need is a shift of one SCOTUS judge.

I don't think so, if they want to do it right, they need to go through the amendment process. Heller and some other recent cases put too much precedent the other way for SCOTUS to reverse in the near term.

Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

There were lots of Supreme Court cases that ruled the same way on an issue until ONE case completely switched it up. Brown vs Board of Education comes to mind.

All it would take would be one swing vote to change the meaning of the word "militia" and render the 2nd useless.

Not that i am pushing for that or that I think that would happen. But it would be a single ruling accomplished by switching a single swing vote.

And it would be followed by immense outrage.

Politically, congress and the POTUS would have to act immediately to counter it or risk losing their seats to their opponents. The pressure would be very strong.

Thats if the SCOTUS wasn't overwhelmed by an angry mob first.

slight exaggeration, but you get the idea

 Peregrine wrote:
without doing anything about the things that make people want to commit violent crime.

I have a feeling you're implying a different solution here.

Please, elaborate.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Gun controll types don't need that many numbers. All they need is a shift of one SCOTUS judge.

I don't think so, if they want to do it right, they need to go through the amendment process. Heller and some other recent cases put too much precedent the other way for SCOTUS to reverse in the near term.

Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

There were lots of Supreme Court cases that ruled the same way on an issue until ONE case completely switched it up. Brown vs Board of Education comes to mind.

All it would take would be one swing vote to change the meaning of the word "militia" and render the 2nd useless.

Not that i am pushing for that or that I think that would happen. But it would be a single ruling accomplished by switching a single swing vote.

I can't think of a time where a case reversed such a recently set precedent of this magnitude though. (I freely admit there may be dozens of such examples, but I can't think of one).

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
without doing anything about the things that make people want to commit violent crime.

I have a feeling you're implying a different solution here.

Please, elaborate.

He means that the solution to violence isn't to legislate the tools of violence, but the causes of violence. Like unemployment, mental health, drugs, gangs, etc...

Its treating the symptom and not the disease.

The biggest one that comes to mind was segregation, which was held constitutional many times until it wasn't. I don't know how many (if any) others there might be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Gun controll types don't need that many numbers. All they need is a shift of one SCOTUS judge.

I don't think so, if they want to do it right, they need to go through the amendment process. Heller and some other recent cases put too much precedent the other way for SCOTUS to reverse in the near term.

Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

There were lots of Supreme Court cases that ruled the same way on an issue until ONE case completely switched it up. Brown vs Board of Education comes to mind.

All it would take would be one swing vote to change the meaning of the word "militia" and render the 2nd useless.

Not that i am pushing for that or that I think that would happen. But it would be a single ruling accomplished by switching a single swing vote.

And it would be followed by immense outrage.

Politically, congress and the POTUS would have to act immediately to counter it or risk losing their seats to their opponents. The pressure would be very strong.

Thats if the SCOTUS wasn't overwhelmed by an angry mob first.

slight exaggeration, but you get the idea

Well, anybody trying to angry mob the SCOTUS is a constitution hating fool.

But yeah, it would be very unpopular. I don't think it would happen anytime soon. I was just commenting on how it wouldn't be very hard to actually do.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He means that the solution to violence isn't to legislate the tools of violence, but the causes of violence. Like unemployment, mental health, drugs, gangs, etc...

Its treating the symptom and not the disease.

Exactly. There is no single easy solution to those problems, but as long as people want to kill each other banning an easily-manufactured weapon is not going to do very much to stop them. Illegally-manufactured guns would just end up like drugs: they're obviously illegal and you're in trouble if you get caught with them, but if you want them it's not very hard to find a source.

 Peregrine wrote:
Illegally-manufactured guns would just end up like drugs: they're obviously illegal and you're in trouble if you get caught with them, but if you want them it's not very hard to find a source.

Depends on the drug, but I am fairly sure some are pretty hard to find.

 d-usa wrote:
The biggest one that comes to mind was segregation, which was held constitutional many times until it wasn't. I don't know how many (if any) others there might be.

Yeah, but it wasn't recently set precedent that got reversed. Brown was one in a series of cases which had started to move case law that direction.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Illegally-manufactured guns would just end up like drugs: they're obviously illegal and you're in trouble if you get caught with them, but if you want them it's not very hard to find a source.

Depends on the drug, but I am fairly sure some are pretty hard to find.

Not the ones which people want. Only the very odd kinda are difficult to find.

Meth, Heroin, Speed, Ecstasy... Its not hard to find if you've got the cash.

Certain areas tend to have specialties, but there's always at least one guy dealing each of the major ones. And new drugs show up all the time too.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Meth, Heroin, Speed, Ecstasy... Its not hard to find if you've got the cash.

Well, I guess even just being very expensive is already making hard to get some. I would not have any idea where to look for it if I was searching for drugs. I would likely end up asking a cop or some stupid stuff like that .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Meth, Heroin, Speed, Ecstasy... Its not hard to find if you've got the cash.

Well, I guess even just being very expensive is already making hard to get some. I would not have any idea where to look for it if I was searching for drugs. I would likely end up asking a cop or some stupid stuff like that .

Good guns are also very expensive. Illegal guns (bought illegally) tend to be more expensive.

Which motivates people to go out and commit more crimes so that they can get money to buy it.

People pls.

Good quality illegal guns are expensive, bad quality ones are dirt cheap. I can probably buy a crappy .38 off the street for under $25 but it'll have a handle that's held together with duct tape and I'll be lucky if I have an intact hand after the first firing as it's more likely to explode on me then actually shoot.

Most of the illegal ones are stolen to fuel raging drug additions and the guy selling it is desperate to get whatever small amount they can. They also don't care about the condition of the stuff they are fencing so low level street level firearms are usually in some rough shape. To get better guns it's usually coming from somebody with connections and that comes with a much steeper price tag but if you have the money and know the right people you can get full auto stuff.

Drugs are not hard to find if it's part of your world as you sort of develop a second sense for who is holding. After working in rehab centers and having dealt with people in those circles I could probably walk into any part of a major city and come back in 10 minutes with just about any drug you could name. You just learn how to spot the addicts and dealer without even trying.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Which motivates people to go out and commit more crimes so that they can get money to buy it.

People pls.

Or, you know, get jobs and buy legal guns and live a legal life.

Criminals/thieves are criminals/thieves. I strongly doubt they increase the number of their crimes all that much to enable buying an illegal gun. They may reallocate money towards one if they are they type of gak bag that feels the need to commit armed robbery or assault, but if they are a gak bag thief, they are a gak bag thief.

pls.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Which motivates people to go out and commit more crimes so that they can get money to buy it.

People pls.

Or, you know, get jobs and buy legal guns and live a legal life.

Criminals/thieves are criminals/thieves. I strongly doubt they increase the number of their crimes all that much to enable buying an illegal gun. They may reallocate money towards one if they are they type of gak bag that feels the need to commit armed robbery or assault, but if they are a gak bag thief, they are a gak bag thief.

pls.

...I am not certain of what you think I was implying, but I am fairly certain I did not imply 'gun owner = criminal". You said guns, especially illegal guns, are expensive. So I mused that this may be one reason crimes (Say, theft, robbery, even stealing the guns instead) are committed in this context. I did not say this was the case for the majority of committed crimes, nor that the criminals would suddenly live legally if the situation had been different. :S

You come off as very defensive, even where tnere is no attack.

 CptJake wrote:


Or, you know, get jobs and buy legal guns and live a legal life.

So what exactly is you adressing here?

Not to mention, was not unemployment listed as one of the issues?

 Ashiraya wrote:

...I am not certain of what you think I was implying, but I am fairly certain I did not imply 'gun owner = criminal".

What he's saying is that criminals don't commit crimes for the same reasons many of us work jobs... As in, a criminal doesn't "save up" his/her ill gotten gains in order to get a gun the same way that I save up money to go on vacation, buy a gun, buy shoes, etc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

...I am not certain of what you think I was implying, but I am fairly certain I did not imply 'gun owner = criminal".

What he's saying is that criminals don't commit crimes for the same reasons many of us work jobs... As in, a criminal doesn't "save up" his/her ill gotten gains in order to get a gun the same way that I save up money to go on vacation, buy a gun, buy shoes, etc.

That does seem believable indeed. Have I disputed this?

The original post in question was one where I suggested the possibility of criminals stealing the money to get a gun. (Of course, just stealing the gun is possible too.) I do not feel this is an implausible scenario in itself.

I mean, I may be non-English, but I -really- can't see how I implied that criminals were saving up on money over time specifically.

 CptJake wrote:
Good guns are also very expensive. Illegal guns (bought illegally) tend to be more expensive.

But you don't need a good gun to commit a crime. You aren't competing in a sport where a few millimeters of accuracy is the difference between winning and losing, you're either showing someone your gun and demanding their money, or shooting someone at close range. Even a fairly crude gun will get the job done, and crude guns are easy to manufacture. For example, it is very easy to make a machine gun with common tools and some random parts from your local hardware store. And that gun will be more than adequate for most crimes committed with guns.

Edited by Manchu. If you feel the need to include a disclaimer it probably is not appropriate for Dakka.

re-edited by motyak. Don't do edits like that. PM a mod if you are unhappy with a decision

Disclaimer: making your own machine guns is illegal. If you are caught you will probably be convicted of multiple felonies and spend years in prison. Making your own guns is also dangerous and can kill you if you do it wrong. This information is provided for discussion purposes only, and Peregrine does not take any responsibility for any misuse of it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Guns are fairly easy to manufacture ... The only reason we don't see more criminals building their own guns is that it's so easy to get someone else to do it right now.

The problem with that statement is 'criminals' is such a broad term. There is a world of difference between career criminals who plan bank heists for hundreds of thousands, and some kid or junky opportunistically holding up a liquor store. The former will get guns no matter what (make them if they have to). The later can't even get a job, there's no way they're spending hours in a machine shop, and going to all the trouble of manufacturing ammunition from scratch. The former also pose less risk to the public, since they're only interested in high value targets.

 Smacks wrote:
The later can't even get a job, there's no way they're spending hours in a machine shop, and going to all the trouble of manufacturing ammunition from scratch.

But they don't need to make their own guns, just like most drug addicts don't make/grow their own drugs. The more likely situation would be that a few people with the manufacturing knowledge and lack of concern for the law would build lots of illegal guns and a large network of people would distribute them, just like drugs are grown/made and then sold. The desperate addict who needs to rob a store to keep their drugs coming isn't going to build a gun, they're going to ask their drug dealer to find them a gun as well. And just like drugs are easily available if you talk to the right people the only way they'll have any difficulty in obtaining a gun is if they can't afford one.

Disclaimer: this is a disclaimer following a post. It is intended purely for humor value, not because it is necessary for any legal reasons. This disclaimer should not be viewed by children, the elderly, or anyone with a weak sense of humor. Forum moderators are especially cautioned as prolonged exposure to disclaimers may cause permanent damage.

 Peregrine wrote:
But they don't need to make their own guns, just like most drug addicts don't make/grow their own drugs. The more likely situation would be that a few people with the manufacturing knowledge and lack of concern for the law would build lots of illegal guns and a large network of people would distribute them, just like drugs are grown/made and then sold. The desperate addict who needs to rob a store to keep their drugs coming isn't going to build a gun, they're going to ask their drug dealer to find them a gun as well. And just like drugs are easily available if you talk to the right people the only way they'll have any difficulty in obtaining a gun is if they can't afford one.

The point is, the more difficult you make something: the fewer people will succeed at it (or even try). This is a rule that can be applied to anything (exams, diets, jobs). If you make guns harder to obtain then fewer people will succeed in obtaining one.

What you described still requires a certain amount of premeditation, and most criminals are opportunistic. In the UK, for example, holding up a liquor store at gunpoint is almost unheard of, because it isn't an 'easy to do', or profitable crime here. Robbers are interested in money, not guns, they won't bother to obtain a gun unless they've exhausted all the easier ways of obtaining money.

Something like a handgun would be fairly difficult to obtain in the UK. So by your reasoning there should be a whole network of criminals manufacturing guns for junkies, but there isn't. Most petty criminals don't have guns, and carrying a gun here is not something that would benefit you much, unless you want to attract the attention of helicopters and police snipers.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

...I am not certain of what you think I was implying, but I am fairly certain I did not imply 'gun owner = criminal".

What he's saying is that criminals don't commit crimes for the same reasons many of us work jobs... As in, a criminal doesn't "save up" his/her ill gotten gains in order to get a gun the same way that I save up money to go on vacation, buy a gun, buy shoes, etc.

That does seem believable indeed. Have I disputed this?

The original post in question was one where I suggested the possibility of criminals stealing the money to get a gun. (Of course, just stealing the gun is possible too.) I do not feel this is an implausible scenario in itself.

I mean, I may be non-English, but I -really- can't see how I implied that criminals were saving up on money over time specifically.

They don't steal more to buy a gun, that is what we've been saying.

Criminals only steal money to buy a gun if they can't steal a gun directly/easily. Even then, how many people do you know who sell cheap guns on the black market? I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for someone like that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The measures work because the lab never had the massive numbers of bacteria to begin with AND its a controllable environment. This is, say, Europe. You never had very many guns in circulation, had a historical trend of keeping the plebs unarmed for the last few hundred years, etc...

This would be the same Europe that a hundred years ago armed a significant proportion of its population and fought a sustained war? Where after the conflict, people put away the guns and got on with their lives? That a few years later, when it all kicked off again armed another generation and fought another large scale, sustained war, where guerilla groups took part in plenty of action? Where again, after the fighting people gave up their weapons and got on with their lives?

A continent where, up until (historically) quite recently, if you were alive you could be called into the service of your lord, king and/or country and where games which distracted from practising with weapons were banned?

A continent which still has countries where national service is in place? Where you are required by law to have and maintain weapons and ammunition?

Europe is a very diverse place with a long and interesting history relating to weapons. It is never too late to start on a path towards increased weapon control.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The measures work because the lab never had the massive numbers of bacteria to begin with AND its a controllable environment. This is, say, Europe. You never had very many guns in circulation, had a historical trend of keeping the plebs unarmed for the last few hundred years, etc...

This would be the same Europe that a hundred years ago armed a significant proportion of its population and fought a sustained war? Where after the conflict, people put away the guns and got on with their lives? That a few years later, when it all kicked off again armed another generation and fought another large scale, sustained war, where guerilla groups took part in plenty of action? Where again, after the fighting people gave up their weapons and got on with their lives?

A continent where, up until (historically) quite recently, if you were alive you could be called into the service of your lord, king and/or country and where games which distracted from practising with weapons were banned?

A continent which still has countries where national service is in place? Where you are required by law to have and maintain weapons and ammunition?

Europe is a very diverse place with a long and interesting history relating to weapons. It is never too late to start on a path towards increased weapon control.

Are you saying the soldiers who fought these wars in the last century were able to keep their weapons after the fighting was done?

Relapse wrote:
Are you saying the soldiers who fought these wars in the last century were able to keep their weapons after the fighting was done?

There were literally millions of guns in circulation after the wars. It would have been impossible to account for them all. Many actually were kept, and a lot were sold. They still turn up in fields from time to time.

 Breotan wrote:
Criminals only steal money to buy a gun if they can't steal a gun directly/easily. Even then, how many people do you know who sell cheap guns on the black market? I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for someone like that.

Craigslist.





Disclaimer: I in no way, shape or form condone the illegal purchase of firearms for any reason.... and I actually have no idea where you'd actually get one illegally either

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Are you saying the soldiers who fought these wars in the last century were able to keep their weapons after the fighting was done?

There were literally millions of guns in circulation after the wars. It would have been impossible to account for them all. Many actually were kept, and a lot were sold. They still turn up in fields from time to time.

Interesting bit of knowledge Ipicked up today. Thanks you, sir.

 Breotan wrote:
Criminals only steal money to buy a gun if they can't steal a gun directly/easily. Even then, how many people do you know who sell cheap guns on the black market? I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for someone like that.

I take it you've never spent time on a college campus.

 Breotan wrote:
Criminals only steal money to buy a gun if they can't steal a gun directly/easily. Even then, how many people do you know who sell cheap guns on the black market? I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for someone like that.

It's usually the neighborhood methhead selling Grandpa's old .22 or .38 to his Dealer for a solid fix who then pawns it off through his own means.