Don't you libs understand that criminals don't obey laws?

[raleah]

Thats why the have cops,F.B.I,S.W.A.T

[kyledyr]

You miss the point that having laws either stops good people from doing something bad, or it give punishments to those who do. No, we can not stop criminals from committing crimes, but they can get receive justice afterwards.

[mace]

Some people ARE deterred from doing things that are against the law, just because there is a law.

I guess you don't get that part. Another reason to have laws is to have the "rule of law," which means that everyone who is NOT a criminal chooses to obey the law, and those who violate the law are identifiable and can be removed from causing harm to the rest of the population, after a fair trial and conviction in a court.

I am fascinated that you imagine anarchy would be a better way for all of us to live together. A study of history might be very helpful, may I suggest.

[chason62]

Where do you think guns come from? Do you think it is like drugs where they are grown or made in basements or jungles or back yards? No, they are made in factories by large companies that operate in accordance with laws.

I'm not saying that the right thing to do is to outlaw guns. That would be unconstitutional. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of this common argument. If you were to outlaw guns, only criminals will have them, but the criminals will not have very many of them. Invariably, that is what happens in countries that outlaw guns, like the UK. Gun violence goes WAY down. Smith & Wesson doesn't sell out of the back of a truck. If you stop guns at the original point of sale, they never get to the people who get them to criminals (either by reselling them, losing them, or becoming criminals themselves).

[iomar]

The problem is that there is a surplus of guns, that is exactly what makes it easy for criminals to get guns.

Tight controls on manufacturing would reduce the supply of guns, which would make more difficult to get them illegally.

For instance not allowing manufactures to produce more than their orders.
Only allowing production made to order.
And basically not flooding the market with surplus would decrease the supply...however it would also decrease the profits.
Manufactures sell in bulk, and do not worry if their weapons are used by criminals or law abiding citizens.

[troyes]

How utterly disingenuous
First the Cons idiot war on drugs created a world of full of new criminals that follow the rules of the Cons beloved free-market economy
Then the Cons encouraged everybody and their mothers to easily be able to get as many guns and ammunition as their violent little hearts desire
Then the Cons come a boo-hoo -crying and demanding that we Libs try and understand exactly how badly they need to have guns to protect themselves from the violent criminal world that they created

[mads]

Do you know a better way to stop some nut from buying an assault rifle and blowing away a crowd of innocent people?
It was fortunate that he was mostly ignorant of how his weapons worked and how to use them. Otherwise, he would have killed dozens more
Charles Whitman killed and wounded far more at a greater range in 1966 but he had been trained with firearms both as a hunter and the Marine Corp.
Charles Whitman didn't have an assault rifle. He used a shotgun and a Remington bolt action 6mm rifle with a scope for his long range shots and he was accurate.
So we had a well trained gunman in Whitman and a gun novice in Aurora. With consideration of our Constitution rights, the type of weapon used for hunting has at least some practical use other than killing people. Assault rifles are a poor choice for hunting so they have only one use and that is for killing people.

[eadweald71]

Yes, that's why they keep doing what the criminals want.

Criminals vote for liberals. Liberals court the criminal vote.