Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
|
My apologies. I did misread your question. My answer is no. It would NOT be any easier for a criminal to carry in a carry state vs. a no carry state. criminals conceal their weapons, they do not wear them open.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
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?
|
This would be a NO again. Since criminals conceal their weapons, it is not any more difficult for a criminal to carry a gun in a no carry state as it is in a carry state.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
|
The national firearms act of 1934. The gun control act of 1968. The registration restrictions in chicago. The ban on handguns in morton grove. The pending handgun ban in san francisco. The gun ban in D.C. The firearm owners protection act of 1986. The lautenburg amendment of 1996.
I did not say that guns are the only form of self defense, just the most effective. Gun controls flaws at this point are that the 'laws' in place only prevent or inhibit law abiding citizens from obtaining them. The only good form of gun control is to enforce heavy punishments upon the criminals who use them illegally.