Okay Gun Control People, Let's Say You Win...

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

...now what?

(This is mostly geared toward people discussing gun control in the country in which they reside. Not the "armchair Americans" that think they understand our gun laws or culture, or other people similarly commenting on countries in which they do not currently reside.)

Let's say that this latest event makes your point, and suddenly a majority agrees that we need to get rid of the guns. How do you plan on doing it? This isn't about preventing guns from getting out there -- they already are -- but about disarming the population.

What's your plan? How do you get the guns back?

_______

My guess: Pass a law. Then attempt to enforce that law. How do you enforce a law that demands someone surrender a gun? By threatening them with guns, I suspect. Maybe the cops, maybe the military, but this would demand we further arm some enforcement body... increasing the power of the cops and lowering the power of the law-abiding, which leads to a follow-up question: What will you whinge about when it's a cop or soldier that goes nuts, then?
_______

Now really, I'm seriously asking this question: What is your plan to get rid of the guns, folks?

But also, admittedly, I'm pointing out the futility of this idea to drive home a particular point: These kinds of tragedies are about how awful SOME PEOPLE are. Quit using every single one as a vehicle to push an unrelated agenda, especially one so ludicrously impractical and solely based on emotional outrage.

So yeah, it's a question nested in a rant. But it's not a pro-gun rant. It's a rant about why can some of you people not direct your energies toward being useful instead of just self-righteous? Why not look to fix a problem, instead of just pointing it out in your "Told You So" voice, especially when you clearly couldn't have?

You can't really confiscate all guns

For example, I would just say I shipped my guns somewhere else, and then hide them all in my basement.

You can't confiscate all the guns. To buy a gun in Texas, even an assault rifle as long as it is only semi-automatic, it does not have to be registered to your name. I could be sitting on top of a fucking arsenal and the government wouldn't know about it because of the laws where I live.

Dastardly:

Now really, I'm seriously asking this question: What is your plan to get rid of the guns, folks?

Well the main idea would to control the sale of Assault Weaponry, then focus on tighter checks on imports. Of course it would be impossible to stop ALL of the guns from coming in, but you'll be able to prevent M4's and Barettas from being sold beside the cornflakes.

Also having a decent intelligence agency and better police would also help to maintain tighter gun control laws.

So yeah, it's a question nested in a rant. But it's not a pro-gun rant. It's a rant about why can some of you people not direct your energies toward being useful instead of just self-righteous? Why not look to fix a problem, instead of just pointing it out in your "Told You So" voice, especially when you clearly couldn't have?

Also, I'm not self-righteous about gun control, I just find it offensive that when a high school shooting occurs the blame is placed on Metal/Computer Games/DnD/whatever, all the while ignoring the cutthroat nature of Secondary level education and the availability of Assault Weaponry.

Ninjamedic:
Well the main idea would to control the sale of Assault Weaponry, then focus on tighter checks on imports. Of course it would be impossible to stop ALL of the guns from coming in, but you'll be able to prevent M4's and Barettas from being sold beside the cornflakes.

1. Define "assault weaponry."
2. Where are your sources on how easy it is to legally purchase "M4's and Barettas." I say "legally" because it's silly to legislate against illegal sales, since they're already illegal (and it clearly didn't help)

Also having a decent intelligence agency and better police would also help to maintain tighter gun control laws.

How, though? What practices would you implement? All you've given here is who you feel would be responsible for enforcement, but now how it would be enforced. That's the whole problem here.

Also, I'm not self-righteous about gun control, I just find it offensive that when a high school shooting occurs the blame is placed on Metal/Computer Games/DnD/whatever, all the while ignoring the cutthroat nature of Secondary level education and the availability of Assault Weaponry.

I find it offensive when the blame is put on both. The problem is the person behind the gun. And again, you still haven't provided a definition of "Assault Weaponry," so we can't really have any meaningful discussion on just how "available" it is from a legal standpoint.

Well, exactly the way it's done now. A hand-in action at the police station during transition period, and after that anyone who gets caught gets punished. It doesn't take all that long to destroy most weapons, and over the years the number of remaining ones also decreases. It's been done before succesfully in conflict zones and there's no reason why it wouldn't work much better in a normally policed society.

Don't forget to catalogue the ballistics of the firearms first so you don't destroy any yet unknown murder weapons in the process. The costs can be reclaimed from the manafacturers. It's only right that if they earned money from selling death, they contribute to the solution for the problem they created.


One thing the gun freaks are conveniently blind to is that this is not a new concept. It has worked before, everywhere all over the world. A better question is why would it not work, because there's no indication firearms violence would continue at the same rate after a gun ban.

Dastardly:

1. Define "assault weaponry."

Assault Rifles, Submachine Guns, Pistols. basically guns that have no other purpose than "Self-Defense".

2. Where are your sources on how easy it is to legally purchase "M4's and Barettas." I say "legally" because it's silly to legislate against illegal sales, since they're already illegal (and it clearly didn't help)

Well I'm not the CIA, ATF or the Gardai, so I'm not the one to talk about in this situation.[1] Although I have to ask, do you think that your intelligence organizations and police would be unable to come down harder on the illegal sale of firearms?

How, though? What practices would you implement? All you've given here is who you feel would be responsible for enforcement, but now how it would be enforced. That's the whole problem here.

Again, the solution would be to gradually introduce tighter laws on the more dangerous weaponry. While having more officers to investigate the operations/locations of the black markets where they function.

I find it offensive when the blame is put on both. The problem is the person behind the gun.

Actually this video is a good insight into this:

[1] Apologies if this seems like I'm dodging that question, I'm not an expert on Gun Control

A blanket stop on the production and sale of ammo. Guns might still be around, but slowly have all the use of Betamax and 8-track tape players.

On my own rant I wish pro-gun people would quit thinking gun control equals gun prohibition. I have nothing against a pistol for home or personal defense, or a shotgun if you have to deal with wild annimals, nor hunting rifles kept unloaded unless being used to hunt. AK 47s and extended ammo clips however just reek of overcompensation and paranoia.

Blablahb:
The costs can be reclaimed from the manafacturers. It's only right that if they earned money from selling death, they contribute to the solution for the problem they created.

Yeah, I know we legally permitted you to sell these completely legal items... but now that we've made them illegal, we're going to punish you for having sold them, despite the fact that ex post facto crap like that hasn't been considered "only right" since the Stone Age.

One thing the gun freaks are conveniently blind to is that this is not a new concept. It has worked before, everywhere all over the world.

Name me another country with the same population and geographical size of the US in which your "voluntary hand-in" has worked.

But that's beside the point, really. You haven't addressed how this will be enforced. You're playing the same game other pseudo-policy-makers do -- you write a convenient little law, and assume near-universal obedience. Take us through how this process went in one of your cited "conflict zones."

How will your law enforcement officers find and apprehend gun owners?

A better question is why would it not work, because there's no indication firearms violence would continue at the same rate after a gun ban.

There's no indication that it wouldn't, either. By your logic, why not ban alcohol? I mean, there's no indication that alcohol use and alcohol related crime would continue at the same ra---wait, yea there is.

You're naively pretending that in a country as large and populated as the US, that does not have any history as a police state, is an easy place to put this genie back in the bottle.

I do not think people realize that an attempt to remove firearms in the United States would most definately result in a civil war where the military actually turns against the law...
That does not appear to be a very well thought out idea. The military would deem it an attack on the constitution they swore to protect, and would become divided.

To think otherwise would be incredibly naive. I live in a heavy military region. They are the biggest supporter for the 2nd amendment there are.

Ninjamedic:

Dastardly:

Now really, I'm seriously asking this question: What is your plan to get rid of the guns, folks?

Well the main idea would to control the sale of Assault Weaponry, then focus on tighter checks on imports. Of course it would be impossible to stop ALL of the guns from coming in, but you'll be able to prevent M4's and Barettas from being sold beside the cornflakes.

Also having a decent intelligence agency and better police would also help to maintain tighter gun control laws.

So yeah, it's a question nested in a rant. But it's not a pro-gun rant. It's a rant about why can some of you people not direct your energies toward being useful instead of just self-righteous? Why not look to fix a problem, instead of just pointing it out in your "Told You So" voice, especially when you clearly couldn't have?

Also, I'm not self-righteous about gun control, I just find it offensive that when a high school shooting occurs the blame is placed on Metal/Computer Games/DnD/whatever, all the while ignoring the cutthroat nature of Secondary level education and the availability of Assault Weaponry.

Guns winding up in criminal's hands is because of lack of enforcement. The laws are all there, its that no one bothers to enforce them.

The laws are costly.

Even harder to control than pot.

And criminals would just resort to smuggling anyway.

second of all: Teens in middle and high school can't buy assault weaponry legally. All of that is illegal.

Saying more laws would curb guns is like saying more laws will curb pot. It doesn't work like that and never will.

The worse part is that both sides are too ignorant to notice the real problems. The REAL reason why gangs are so powerful and have access to military grade explosive weaponry.

Education is a mess.
The American dream is dead.
There is no support or hope for poor Americans.

The list goes on. But god forbid anyone look at the bigger picture.

If you wanted to get rid of guns, the most efficient way is probably to stop production and sales of ammo. It's not easy to confiscate all guns if the populace already has them. It'll probably take a while for people to run out of ammo, and they can still turn to the black market, but it'll probably work better.

Ninjamedic:
Assault Rifles, Submachine Guns, Pistols. basically guns that have no other purpose than "Self-Defense".

"Assault rifle" is the same category of jargon as "assault weapons." You haven't given a definition for what turns something from a "weapon" to an "assault weapon." You might also want to clarify what makes something a submachine gun, or what it is about pistols you find particularly evil.

I'm not really asking you to do all this, by the way. I'm simply pointing out how arbitrary these distinctions really are, in terms of what is/isn't acceptable. Two guns might fire the exact same round, but one is smaller, or one fires faster, based on how it's made. Outlawing them simply for that reason is like outlawing cars that are capable of going over the speed limit.

Although I have to ask, do you think that your intelligence organizations and police would be unable to come down harder on the illegal sale of firearms?

It's easy to use phrases like "come down harder." It's like watching a football player miss an important reception, and insisting he should have just "tried harder." Tried what harder? Which of the countless variables could/should he have altered, and in what way, and is it even possible to do so without subsequently changing one of the others?

There's no specificity to "come down harder."

How, though? What practices would you implement? All you've given here is who you feel would be responsible for enforcement, but now how it would be enforced. That's the whole problem here.

Again, the solution would be to gradually introduce tighter laws on the more dangerous weaponry. While having more officers to investigate the operations/locations of the black markets where they function.

Again, you're not talking practices. Introducing tighter laws does nothing. Those laws must be enforced, and that's the entire focus of "how."

So we get more police officers... from where? From what money? How do we investigate the operations and locations of the black market without first finding them? That's not a simple question of manpower. There's a reason it's called the "black market." It's hidden, in the dark, occluded.

All I'm getting at with this is that I have yet to hear one person present a specific, practical solution. It's a lot of generalizations like "Just have the police try harder" or "Pass a law to enforce that other law."

And behind every solution? More cops with more guns. And obviously the criminals are keeping their guns, being criminals and all. So the law-abiding public is disarmed and put in the crossfire, or they are criminalized for refusing to be made hens in the foxhouse.

We also come back to the same question: What do we bitch about when a shooting happens anyway, because someone illegally obtained a gun? or worse What do we bitch about when it's one of those well-armed cops that goes nuts and shoots people?

Dastardly:
Name me another country with the same population and geographical size of the US in which your "voluntary hand-in" has worked.

Like I said in my previous post already: All countries with gun laws.

Dastardly:
How will your law enforcement officers find and apprehend gun owners?

Through law enforcement. That thing which police officers do.

Dastardly:
There's no indication that it wouldn't, either.

The lower rates of violence in countries with gun bans speak for themselves. It will work. It has worked. It has always worked and will continue to work.

In order to even BEGIN implementing a legal mass disarmament, the Second Amendment would have to be repealed.

But then what? A buy back program as Blablahb suggests? How is the government going to afford that? I mean, California wants to introduce a driving tax to recover from the fiscal hemorrhaging, and the Federal Government is not in that good a shape to buy 200M+ firearms. Oh, wait, we're going to make Colt, Winchester, Browning, and Remington recoup the costs? How? Under what legal means could we compel these companies to do anything of the sort? The sales they made were perfectly legal at the time, you cannot penalize people for new laws retroactively.

And even if you could: Do you think Colt, Remington, Winchester, or Browning are going to want to sell their weapons to the US government (providing our M4s, M16s, M2s, and plenty of other weapons) anymore if it's just eliminated a significant consumer base AND is penalizing them for legal sales?

But let's say we find the money under the mattress of some embezzling Senator, could it work? Well, some people might go for it, hell; maybe even most of them. But even if 90% (liberal estimate) turn in their guns, that still leaves MILLIONS out on the street.

So, good job; you're just made millions of armed criminals overnight. So what do you do about it? The police can't just enter people's homes and search them for no reason...not unless you repeal the 4th Amendment too.

Now murder is already illegal, and crimes committed with a firearm already have increased penalties in many states. So it stands to reason that anyone who intends to commit a crime with a firearm is still going to.

So what have we accomplished? We've made MORE armed criminals than there ever were, we've spent a horrendous amount of government monies, we'll wind up spending even more as we now have to re-outfit our entire armed forces and law enforcement agencies with foreign weapons because we've bankrupted the domestic manufacturers, and we've taken a chainsaw to the Bill of Rights.

All the while, we've done nothing about the people still inclined to use firearms in the commission of a crime and in fact have created an enormous black market for the things (because who's going to miss One or Two or Three million missing 'confiscated' guns in a bureaucratic monolith that still can't account for several tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of dollars that went 'missing' during our various campaigns.)

So it fails on its face. Just like prohibition, just like the drug wars. It's fine if it worked out for other countries; but we're not other countries. In order to effect a truly enforceable ban, we would have to compromise some of the most protected and cherished portions of this government's contract with its own people, and make the entire situation a lot worse for DECADES long before (read: if) it ever gets better.

Redd the Sock:
A blanket stop on the production and sale of ammo. Guns might still be around, but slowly have all the use of Betamax and 8-track tape players.

On my own rant I wish pro-gun people would quit thinking gun control equals gun prohibition. I have nothing against a pistol for home or personal defense, or a shotgun if you have to deal with wild annimals, nor hunting rifles kept unloaded unless being used to hunt. AK 47s and extended ammo clips however just reek of overcompensation and paranoia.

People can pack their own ammo. Many folks do, in fact. The black market will fill in any "supply vacuum." I mean, seriously, the government stopped allowing the legal production and sale of marijuana and opiates... did bongs go the way of the 8-track?

As to things like AK-47s, why the hatred? It's just a rifle, like any other. I mean, good luck legally getting hold of a fully automatic AK-47. And a semi-auto is just like any other rifle -- except it looks like an AK-47.

(But seriously, are most acts of gun violence perpetrated with high-end weapons? Or is it pretty much run-of-the-mill pistols and shotguns?)

Now don't get me wrong: For home defense, I only need a handgun and a shotgun. They are sufficient, and much safer than rifles. I don't have a 300-yard living room, so I don't need that kind of reach for home defense.

But most of the hatred toward specific guns is borne of ignorance. Generally the same kind of people that believe police should "shoot for the leg," or that a single gunshot will generally put an attacker down (or even stop them). To these people, an Uzi is a magical death machine, an AK-47 is a terrorist gun, a sawed-off shotgun can clear an entire room in a single blast, and "warning shots" are a safe and smart practice.

"Oh, hey the cops took my legally acquired firearms. But luckily for me I could use some of the tools in my basement, and some rudimentary sheet metal and some pins to make my own!"

Yeah no, if someone really wants to get their hands on a firearm, they're going to, one way or another.

Dastardly:
snip

As I've said I'm no expert, if you want to discuss this issue in an attempt to prove the infeasibility of Gun Control, talk to someone who has sat down and fully thought this through. All I can tell you is that Britain (A country with the same basic social issues) has had Gun Control and has far fewer firearm related deaths than the US. I don't speak for the entire Anti-Gun movement.

My main beef was with your last point in the OP. Just because I think there should be tighter access to firearms that have no practical civilian use beyond self-defense doesn't mean I look down the pro-gun movement.

Allow me to ask you a question. How would you stop gun violence if Gun control is off the table?

Blablahb:
Like I said in my previous post already: All countries with gun laws.

All of them are the same size and population of the US? And all of them started this process with as many guns as we already have? I was wondering where you live, as in "what country," but now I'm left to wonder what planet.

Through law enforcement. That thing which police officers do.

You're right. They just hop in the car and hit the "Enforce Law" button, and nearby crimes in progress just pause, like TiVo. (And then, after explaining the law to the criminal, that criminal voluntarily turns over all illegal materials and climbs into the back of the police car to go make a full, unconditional confession.)

And the cops have magical "Truth Vision," so they can just ride through a neighborhood and look at people, and those people will yell out if they own firearms, thus eliminating the need for probable cause, because they don't even have to search.

The lower rates of violence in countries with gun bans speak for themselves. It will work. It has worked. It has always worked and will continue to work.

Let's do the nooooo dataaaaa tangooooooo... And then we'll follow it with a round of "Let's Pretend Crime Stats are Only Based on One Variable" cocktails, for everyone!

Dastardly:
AK 47s and extended ammo clips however just reek of overcompensation and paranoia.

But the 7.62x39mm is an actually good hunting round, you'd be surprised how many people go Deer hunting with WASR-10/63s and Saigas.

Smagmuck_:

Yeah no, if someone really wants to get their hands on a firearm, they're going to, one way or another.

I doubt Cletus the Anti-Government Boogeyman knows enough of Mechanics to build a fully functioning pump action shotgun.

Ninjamedic:

Smagmuck_:

Yeah no, if someone really wants to get their hands on a firearm, they're going to, one way or another.

I doubt Cletus the Anti-Government Boogeyman knows enough of Mechanics to build a fully functioning pump action shotgun.

If Cletus has an internet connection he does.

And even if he doesn't, have you seen redneck engineering? If there is an embodiment of the term 'crude but effective', it's that.

Blablahb:

Dastardly:
How will your law enforcement officers find and apprehend gun owners?

Through law enforcement. That thing which police officers do.

Blablahb, that's not an argument or an explanation. That is the trope "Shaped Like Itself". It should only be used ironically, not in a serious discussion.

The question was how will law enforcers enforce the law? Do you have any ideas or answers or are you just trying to cover up things you haven't thought through?

senordesol:

If Cletus has an internet connection he does.

And even if he doesn't, have you seen redneck engineering? If there is an embodiment of the term 'crude but effective', it's that.

"And this week on The Salvager, how to build a MG36 using Iron pipes and Garden Gnomes!"

Ninjamedic:
All I can tell you is that Britain (A country with the same basic social issues) has had Gun Control and has far fewer firearm related deaths than the US. I don't speak for the entire Anti-Gun movement.

For one, Britain does NOT have the same social issues as the US. Because Britain doesn't have the same society as the US. We have more people, a slightly larger geographical area, and a very, very different mixes of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Our health care and tax systems aren't even the same.

Also, Britain and many other European areas have fewer guns because, for one, many of the advances in modern firearms were pioneered here, which means many of the guns were made here, too. We might also mention that events surrounding the World Wars had a drastic impact on the legality and availability of firearms to the average person -- look into the gun control policies of some of the naughty men that controlled huge portions of Europe for awhile.

My main beef was with your last point in the OP. Just because I think there should be tighter access to firearms that have no practical civilian use beyond self-defense doesn't mean I look down the pro-gun movement.

But you've already admitted you're not an expert on how easy or hard it is to legally obtain these weapons in the US. You have a beef with a problem that you're not even entirely sure is a problem -- it's shadow-boxing.

Allow me to ask you a question. How would you stop gun violence if Gun control is off the table?

Same way the National Weather Service stops weather-related deaths -- not by trying to stop the weather, but by making sure people are prepared to handle it. Making sure people understand how guns work (and how they don't), and how to use them safely. Making sure that law-abiding people have access to the tools they need to protect themselves from what might be used against them.

Basically, through treating the public like self-determining people, not like criminal children.

Ninjamedic:

senordesol:

If Cletus has an internet connection he does.

And even if he doesn't, have you seen redneck engineering? If there is an embodiment of the term 'crude but effective', it's that.

"And this week on The Salvager, how to build a MG36 using Iron pipes and Garden Gnomes!"

Don't be silly, Garden Gnomes aren't a very good building material when constructing a firearm.

That sheet metal sculpture on the other hand...

Smagmuck_:

Dastardly:
AK 47s and extended ammo clips however just reek of overcompensation and paranoia.

But the 7.62x39mm is an actually good hunting round, you'd be surprised how many people go Deer hunting with WASR-10/63s and Saigas.

Wrong quote, mate, I didn't call it a clip.

Dastardly:

Smagmuck_:

Dastardly:
AK 47s and extended ammo clips however just reek of overcompensation and paranoia.

But the 7.62x39mm is an actually good hunting round, you'd be surprised how many people go Deer hunting with WASR-10/63s and Saigas.

Wrong quote, mate, I didn't call it a clip.

I know, I'm sorry about the miss-quote. _-_

Smagmuck_:

Ninjamedic:

senordesol:

If Cletus has an internet connection he does.

And even if he doesn't, have you seen redneck engineering? If there is an embodiment of the term 'crude but effective', it's that.

"And this week on The Salvager, how to build a MG36 using Iron pipes and Garden Gnomes!"

Don't be silly, Garden Gnomes aren't a very good building material when constructing a firearm.

That sheet metal sculpture on the other hand...

Sheetmetal sculpture nothin! Ole Bubba's a plumber, and has all the parts to make a fully automatic firearm! Gots me a friend that's a carpenter too, and has access to power tools that can easily be converted to firearms. Dat internets box told me how to do it!

Captcha: teflon president...I'm...not sure what captchas trying to tell me...

Dastardly:

My main beef was with your last point in the OP. Just because I think there should be tighter access to firearms that have no practical civilian use beyond self-defense doesn't mean I look down the pro-gun movement.

But you've already admitted you're not an expert on how easy or hard it is to legally obtain these weapons in the US. You have a beef with a problem that you're not even entirely sure is a problem -- it's shadow-boxing.

So what you're saying is that I can't oppose the idea of blaming a high school shooting on "Dem Vidya Games!" without asking "How did he even get that gun in the first place?"?

Just because I say I don't know the full ins and outs of the solution doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Lets go with your idea, you want to tackle urban violence by better instructing people on the use of Firearms?

I like the idea that violence is lower in some countries that have gun bans, therefore gun bans reduce violence. Correlation does not imply causation, people. Sweet mother of God, that's elementary school logic.

I'm not American, but here's how I view it anyways, because I have nothing if not contempt for the instructions of others.

Obviously, in a country as saturated with guns as the US you would need to do this very gradually.
Pass some legislation that limits import of guns and the amount of guns factories can produce, then put into place higher requirements for what it takes to own a gun.
No one should be allowed to buy guns before they have earned a license proving that they're not mentally unstable, do not have a criminal record, and that they're able to shoot with reliable accuracy.
It should be illegal to own guns without owning an approved safety box for storage.

Fully automatic weapons should be illegal to acquire.
Assault rifles and sub machine guns (and other firearms primarily intended for combat) should be removed from the market, leaving only designated hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns on the public market, all with restricted magazine capacities.
Handguns in particular should be made very demanding to buy, requiring a license that proves several years of experience with firearms. Preferably, the sale of handguns should be phazed out completely over a few years.

Edit: Also, guns may not sell your used guns unless you are an approved salesman.
There should also be put a restriction in place regarding the amount of firearms and firearm parts one person can buy in a space of time.

Jonluw:
I'm not American, but here's how I view it anyways, because I have nothing if not contempt for the instructions of others.

Obviously, in a country as saturated with guns as the US you would need to do this very gradually.
Pass some legislation that limits import of guns and the amount of guns factories can produce, then put into place higher requirements for what it takes to own a gun.
No one should be allowed to buy guns before they have earned a license proving that they're not mentally unstable, do not have a criminal record, and that they're able to shoot with reliable accuracy.
It should be illegal to own guns without owning an approved safety box for storage.

Fully automatic weapons should be illegal to acquire.
Assault rifles and sub machine guns should be removed from the market, leaving only hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns on the public market, all with restricted magazine capacities.
Handguns in particular should be made very demanding to buy, requiring a license that proves several years of experience with firearms. Preferably, the sale of handguns should be phazed out completely over a few years.

Essentially this, Ireland has the basics of this implemented, and we came out of a civil war with an private Army for christ's sake.

wintercoat:

Smagmuck_:

Ninjamedic:

"And this week on The Salvager, how to build a MG36 using Iron pipes and Garden Gnomes!"

Don't be silly, Garden Gnomes aren't a very good building material when constructing a firearm.

That sheet metal sculpture on the other hand...

Sheetmetal sculpture nothin! Ole Bubba's a plumber, and has all the parts to make a fully automatic firearm! Gots me a friend that's a carpenter too, and has access to power tools that can easily be converted to firearms. Dat internets box told me how to do it!

Captcha: teflon president...I'm...not sure what captchas trying to tell me...

I think this whole conversation just proved if someone wants a gun and or to kill someone, they're gonna find a way to do it.

Ninjamedic:
So what you're saying is that I can't oppose the idea of blaming a high school shooting on "Dem Vidya Games!" without asking "How did he even get that gun in the first place?"?

Sure, you can ask. But it's pretty silly to automatically assume that he 1) got it all legally, and 2) has always been crazy. To use "How did he get it?" as a way of blaming the US for handling things poorly is like blaming the cops because someone chose to rob your house.

Lets go with your idea, you want to tackle urban violence by better instructing people on the use of Firearms?

Yep. You can turn fear and ignorance of guns into respect and safe handling. It's sure a hell of a lot easier than trying to un-invent them.

Seriously. I don't like hurricanes, but it doesn't matter how many laws I write or how many dollars I spend, I can't stop hurricanes from existing. I can prepare myself for its effects, equip myself to defend against them, and there ya go.

Notice that when people started getting hit by those newfangled automobiles, we didn't try to stop making them. We made crosswalks and traffic lights, so they could be used more safely. A gun is just a tool. It doesn't create intent or evil, and it doesn't make killers out of people who normally wouldn't be(except in the event of accidents due to lack of education).

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked