Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms?

[Herknav]

So, let me get this straight. You don't want to punish the criminal. (BTW--It's already illegal to be a felon in possession of a firearm.) What exactly is it you propose?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[dcb188]

When was it stated that i don't want to punish the criminal? Tell me the post number.

[dcb188]

Let me start over again.
When I ask a question or when anyone asks one, it is only that question that he or she would like answered.
So if someone asks about the temperature in Madrid this time of year and you ask how come I am not asking about traveling to South Africa, as they both involve potential travel, you can see that I asked one question, and you suggested I ask two.
When a criminal is put behind bars it is always after the fact.
They use firearms.
They have no license to carry.
They kill someone, they are sent to prison. Off the streets.
After the victim is dead.
Beforehand, the guns that are waiting there for criminals to pick them up and use them, where are they coming from?
There are so many criminals. So many illegally possessed handguns. We take criminals off of the streets but are not concerned about where the next savage is going to get the gun that HE will use.
Now, that is my only area of concern.

[Kerbouchard]

Don't expect a good reception to a question on a Pro 2A Concealed Carry website that mimics the Brady Campaigns entire purpose.

That is the difference between most of the 2A proponents and the Brady Bunch.

The Brady Bunch want to remove the ability of people to commit crimes by making 'illegal guns' unavailable. Most of the 2A proponents wish to prosecute the PEOPLE who are committing those crimes because we know the gun was just a tool.

Your question is more in line with Sarah Brady than with just about any of the members at this forum.

[dcb188]

Posts four and six question what is meant by an illegal gun, saying that a gun is an inanimate object etc. The statutes in the various states that prohibit illegal weapons list them, and without regard to whether they are animate or inanimate, they are prohibited.
So let us call them prohibited weapons, prohibited guns, not allowed to have that particular gun, no license to carry.
Anyone knows that a gun in someone's house or on their person, if not licensed to carry, is an illegal weapon. To say that a gun is an illegal gun does not mean it is inanimate or animate, that misses the point also.
Unless you really and truly do not know what an illegal gun is. But I think that you do have a very good idea.

[deadeye72]

Yes, but when said criminal is released soon after his arrest because of whatever reason, that same criminal is back on the streets to commit another crime. What was being suggested was to quit letting these scumbags out of jail and eventually, maybe, it would help.

[dcb188]

I don't expect any reception at all, neither good or bad.
There does not seem to be any distinction made at all between the Ruger SP101 .357 that I carry in my pants pocket and am legally licensed to carry,
And, on the other side of the spectrum:
The 9 mm sitting in some thug's bedroom waiting to be used in a crime.
I have a license to carry, my firearm is legal, is being legally possessed and carried.
The thug has no license to carry, his firearm is illegally possessed and carried.
And if we do not see the distinction, then, as I said, the criminals have nothing to worry about re having their guns taken away from them before they commit a crime.

[dcb188]

deadeye72: That is a completely different question. I had no intention of asking about punishing criminals because it is a given. We all talk about it all the time. My question focused only on one thing.
Our guns, legally possessed and carried.
The hoodlum's guns, illegally possessed and carried.
Always plenty of guns on the street to go around for all thugs who want them.
There used to be a war on illegal drugs (someone will now ask why I don't name them all :)
I still had my prescription drugs and over the counter meds.
Apples and oranges.
Do we think that taking guns away from criminals BEFORE THEY KILL PEOPLE is a bad thing to do?

[deadeye72]

Anyone knows that a gun in someone's house or on their person, if not licensed to carry, is an illegal weapon.

I don't think so. I am not required by any law to have a license to carry a firearm in my home, my property, my place of business, or my vehicle. I don't know about where you live, but things work a lot different down here.

[dcb188]

We think that any effort to rid thugs of the guns THEY have, automatically means that we will have ours taken away.
One is legal the other is illegal.
So it seems odd to say that by allowing thugs to have guns, we thereby preserve our rights to have our legally possessed guns. By protecting the thug's rights we protect our own.

[dcb188]

I thought the violence in America was a problem and of course punishing the criminal after the fact does not bring the victim back to life. I was trying to think of a way to remove the guns from thugs before victim is shot to death. But that does not seem to be such a good idea after all. So we live and learn.

[Kerbouchard]

I reject the idea that we, as citizens, or we, as the government can prevent a crime. We have a punitive justice system. If somebody is inclined to commit a crime, they will find a way to do it.

If we ban all guns, and systematically go through every house and destroy ALL firearms, it will not lower the violent crime rate. Studies and history has proven that it will increase violent crime.

Confiscating guns, illegal or otherwise, is not a solution to the problem. The problem is the people who would use a gun for a malicious purpose.

By your definition of an 'illegal' gun, there is an endless supply as long as any guns are legal. If my firearm is stolen, it becomes an 'illegal gun' by your argument because it is now in possession of a criminal. If I recover my firearm it becomes a 'legal gun' again.

It's still the same gun. It hasn't changed in any way. That is why I reject the idea of an illegal gun causing problems.

If my firearm can become legal or illegal by virtue of who is holding it, than I would say the person holding it should be held accountable. Not the machined piece of metal.

So to answer your question. Why don't we have a 'War on Illegal Guns?' Because the attributes that make a gun legal or illegal are arbitrary. The difference between a legal gun and an illegal gun are completely dependent upon the person who uses it.

Which is why we, as Pro Right, and Pro Self-Defense people, are against any campaign, war, or restriction upon firearms.

You go after the person. You put him in jail and you keep him there until he has served his time. You enact stricter penalties for violent crimes and repeat offenders.

Does this mean that people will be victims to crimes? Or that people will be killed by criminals with illegal guns? Yes, it does. But getting rid of the guns isn't going to change anything.

A lot more people have been killed with sticks and rocks than with guns.

[dcb188]

I understand a lot more about it now, thanks :)

[edr9x23super]

dc, you are falling prey to the same type of thinking as the Antis; you want a war on a bunch of inanimate objects? the guns don't shoot themselves, after all. It takes human intervention to cause one to fire.......

[dcb188]

Well, I just went out and bought me a nice suit of armor so I can sit back down here and continue on with two more questions. It is expensive and bulky but it might come in handy with the posts coming at me :)
Now, if I ask a question and you wonder why I did not ask a different question, it is because I am just asking the one.
A guy is coming up from, say, Florida, to NJ, and he is driving a semi and it is loaded with handguns headed for the wonderful urban areas of NYC and Newark and Philly, no offense to those folks who live there.
Info is accurate, police know about it, they have confidential informants, etc they have warrants etc so they can go after this guy.
My question is, should we go after the gunrunner types? They have guns, they are not legal, they are for sale to street savages, should we target these runners?
The other question is this: On a lower level, should police infiltrate these smaller distribution sites in the cities where thugs buy guns at discount prices etc or should those be untouched and untargeted.
Do you think stopping the gunrunners, say he has 500 guns, do you think this will take 500 guns off the street or is his right to have firearms protected the same as yours is? You have yours for a lawful purpose. He has his for an unlawful purpose i.e. to sell or distribute.
This is just one of the wars on illegal possession of guns that I had in mind and wondered if this crackdown affects your right to have your own firearm at home or on your person.
Should those 500 guns be taken off the truck before they hit the streets?
Should we wait til they are in the hands of thugs and then prosecute the thugs after they have used the firearms. This is a variation on the discussion of awhile ago because most thought that by protecting the thugs's rights re guns they were thereby protecting their own.
The question of punishing the criminal is not being asked, largely because I am asking about prevention now, not punishment.
This scenario is still a war on illegal possession of handguns and I wondered if you thought that stopping the gunrunner should or should not be done. If it is okay to stop him at this level then why not at a lower level?