Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
for those that do not lock up their guns, yes, its easier when the criminal steals them from the civilian.
|
That's not what I asked. I asked if it would be easier to carry. The question had nothing to do with acquisition. If you are to answer my question, then answer the question I ask, not the question you want to hear.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
chicago has effectively forbidden gun ownership, yet criminals posess, and use, them on a daily basis. gun ownership is illegal in D.C., yet criminals use them on a daily basis. No, I do not think its difficult at all for a criminal to get a gun in either place.
|
Again, that's not what I asked. Neither of my questions had anything to do with the acquisition of the guns, they had to do with a criminal on the street carrying a weapon. Again I ask: Do you think it might be difficult for a criminal to carry a gun where no one but police officers carry guns?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Does it matter if guns are 'controlled' yet criminals still easily obtain them? Do 'controlling' guns make law abiding citizens more safe or less safe by denying them effective self defense?
|
Question 1: As I've said before, the current system of gun control is broken and either in neeed of repair or replacement. I have no illusions about how many guns are in the hands of people who have no buisness having guns.
Question 2: Guns are hardly the only form of self defence, so your second question is fundamentally flawed. 'Controling guns' should be an effort to keep guns from the very people you seek to defend yourself from. We seek the same result. Also, what gun control law denies 'law abiding citizens' from getting guns? Before you answer that question, remember that a gun ban is not gun control just like a fast is not a diet.