Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms?

[dcb188]

The post this morning under Personal Defense News: Good, Bad, Ugly re high school graduation shootout at McDonalds, prompted me to wonder why, if we used to have a War on Drugs, which actually did not seem to me to be a real war but a minor conflict, why have we not, as a nation, seen fit to start an all out war on illegal firearms?
A savage uses a gun, we put him behind bars, there are many others ready willing and able to step up and take his place. The guns are available and are everywhere. How come no infiltration, to speak of, of gangs, of cooperation among police agencies nationwide to try to get these guns off the streets.
Or should we be trying to do that?
As a society, there very few problems that we actually really try hard to do anything about. This is just another in a long list.
Meanwhile the list of victims keeps on growing. Kind of an urgent thing to get these illegal guns out of circulation but look at the response the Boston Police Iniatiative thread met with.
What are your thoughts ? Should we even bother to get these illegal guns out of circulation, when we hardly pay attention to anything else that needs fixing?
Is there a way or ways to get illegal guns off the streets without endangering the right to bear arms? Or do you think that any effort to rid the cities of illegal firearms automatically means they will try to take your weapon too?
Do you think we could do both? Ignore legal weapons and focus on illegal ones?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[MitchellCT]

The post this morning under Good, Bad, Ugly re high school graduation shootout at McDonalds, prompted me to wonder why, if we used to have a War on Drugs, which actually did not seem to me to be a real war but a minor conflict, why have we not, as a nation, seen fit to start an all out war on illegal firearms?
A savage uses a gun, we put him behind bars, there are many others ready willing and able to step up and take his place. The guns are available and are everywhere. How come no infiltration, to speak of, of gangs, of cooperation among police agencies nationwide to try to get these guns off the streets.
Or should we be trying to do that?
As a society, there very few problems that we actually really try hard to do anything about. This is just another in a long list.
Meanwhile the list of victims keeps on growing. Kind of an urgent thing to get these illegal guns out of circulation but look at the response the Boston Police Iniatiative thread met with.
What are your thoughts ? Should we even bother to get these illegal guns out of circulation, when we hardly pay attention to anything else that needs fixing?

A war on illegal guns?

Where have you been, we have been waging one for about 50 years.

The only people who get screwed in this partial birth abortion of an idea are the honest people of this country.

[dcb188]

Where is the war being waged? I have not heard about it yet.
So a war on illegal guns is a war on legal guns. I understand.
The reason I ask is not because I have any personal stake in it. I thought that with all the shootings going on every five minutes somewhere in the country, well, it was just a thought.

[Kerbouchard]

I don't believe there is such a thing as an 'illegal gun.'

There are people who illegally use guns, or people who illegally possess guns, but so far as I know the gun is breaking no laws. The criminal is breaking the law.

A gun can only perform an illegal act in fiction. In real life, people perform actions.

As far as why don't we have a war on crime? Well, we do...unfortunately our prisons operate on the 'Catch & Release' Program.

And if you want to know why we don't have a war on criminals, it's because if we locked 'em all up, we wouldn't have anybody left to run Congress.

[dcb188]

That is okay, we can close the thread if there is already a war on illegal guns.

[Herknav]

How about deep-sixing a few habitually violent felons?

First, somebody needs to define what an illegal gun is. To me, a gun is an inanimate object. It's not capable of thought or action, good or bad.

What's next? Is Mothers Against Drunk Driving going to wage war on illegal cars?

[dcb188]

I meant illegal use of a gun, as in a high school kid with no license to carry, using a firearm or even having one. Do you think it is okay if he has one, and if you do not, then what should or could be done about it
I have to phrase the common sense question just just right, I see. By illegal guns I don't mean a piece of metal cowering in someone's closet hoping not to be discovered. I was hoping we did not have to start at the very beginning:)
But to rephrase so it is absoutely and unequivocably correct, do you think we should try to seek out and confiscate illegally POSSESSED firearms or just ignore the daily violence etc.
And the war on drugs, when the govt began it, did they go after your legal drugs or prescriptions, or was it a war on illegally possessed drugs?

[Kerbouchard]

What's next? Is Mothers Against Drunk Driving going to wage war on illegal cars?

Yep, you know, those cars that don't require a breathalyzer test to start.

[MitchellCT]

I thought that with all the shootings going on every five minutes somewhere in the country, well, it was just a thought.

The price of freedom is that someone will act the fool.

I'm willing to risk it.

[dcb188]

Well, let me rephrase the question another way.
Are there firearms out on the streets right now in the hands of people who are not licensed to have them. i.e. thugs?

[MitchellCT]

First, somebody needs to define what an illegal gun is.

Kimbers.

They look so nice, then they barf on match grade ball ammo.

Their aught to be a law.

(No. I'm not bitter about the company's customer service...)

[dcb188]

I understand now that the thugs who carry guns on them and shoot people including innocent people, have absolutely nothing to worry about any time soon.

[Kerbouchard]

I meant illegal use of a gun, as in a high school kid with no license to carry, using a firearm or even having one. Do you think it is okay if he has one, and if you do not, then what should or could be done about it
I have to phrase the common sense question just just right, I see. By illegal guns I don't mean a piece of metal cowering in someone's closet hoping not to be discovered. I was hoping we did not have to start at the very beginning:)
But to rephrase so it is absoutely and unequivocably correct, do you think we should try to seek out and confiscate illegally POSSESSED firearms or just ignore the daily violence etc.
And the war on drugs, when the govt began it, did they go after your legal drugs or prescriptions, or was it a war on illegally possessed drugs?

We are not trivializing your question. Think about what you just said. You wanted to start a war on 'illegal guns'. You wanted to get the 'illegal guns' off the street. You wanted to confiscate all 'illegally possessed firearms'.

In all of your statements, you didn't say anything about putting the people who were breaking the laws in jail for a long, long time.

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.

We all, presumably want the same thing...we want our streets to be safe, our country to be safe, and our kids to have a good future. The difference, and its a HUGE difference, is the way you go about achieving it.

I also disagree with the 'common sense' statement you made. It is not common sense to equate 'Illegal acts committed with a firearm' and 'Illegal Firearms'. The slip of your tongue that allowed you to say 'War on Illegal Guns' instead of 'War on Criminals', is what allows the Brady Campaign to recruit so many people and to pass the 'common sense legislation' that they desire.

[Herknav]

If we're going to have a debate, it's important that we agree on what words mean. Sorry, poor use of the language is one of my pet peeves.

My solution, you ask? As I alluded to in my earlier post, fight the person, not the inanimate object. Quit turning our criminals back out onto the streets so that they can commit crimes again. We should learn from the Brits that people will be no matter how strong we make the gun laws. They will just choose other weapons. Fight the criminals. There will always be bad people, but we can at least thin the herd.

[dcb188]

How is asking one question and having another suggested to me that I should have asked, how is that poor use of the language. It seems more a lack of focus on the one question that was asked. If someone asks one question and the response is well how come you did not ask this other question, where is the sense in that?
I did not ask about punishing the criminal. That was hardly unintentional. It was not my question. Punishing the criminal after he uses a gun is great, but it is after the fact. I was asking about prevention. If I ask a question about my car's engine, and you tell me the tire pressure is important also, I respond that I was asking about the engine. If someone asks a question and does not ask another question, it is never a slip of the tongue. It is asking one question instead of another.
For the person responding to answer the one question by asking well there is another question you could be asking, is not a response to the one question.
To ask a person why he is not asking other questions likewise misses the entire point.
But I can see that the people who use firearms illegally, are all set for quite some time.