Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[geK0]

Well not being a gun owner, I'd be completely unaffected by this

but if I had guns, I'd expect some sort of compensation, otherwise it's theft as far as I'm concerned. I owned the guns before they made the law and they can't just take them without giving something in return.

*obligatory joke answer*
They can't have my guns but they're free to have the bullets.

All I can imagine from that is you trying to hide your guns while flinging unspent rounds at the people trying to take them.

OT: Wouldn't care much, my friends would be pretty pissed though.

Now when you say you're picturing me doing this, do you mean the tophat kitty?

I find that mental image very amusing x D

 

[tangoprime]

I actually don't oppose a better NICS system, but what I do oppose are people who don't understand guns or mental health throwing out emotional pleas

Guns are simple - They kill people, in any civilized and well policed country you do not need them other than agricultural use. And perhaps well controlled club use for range shooting etc.

Live in inner-city Chicago, a city with the epitome of US gun control advocates' ideals for a couple of years, then, THEN you can come on here and tell people who've experienced it that they don't need firearms.

There are >200,000,000 million firearms in the US, and have been ~250k firearm thefts per year since 1993 (per ATF and US Justice Dept.). It is unfeasible to outright ban, and even if it happened, there are millions of criminals who will remain the only ones armed. I don't want every urban area in the nation to turn into Chicago/Detroit/Baltimore, I quite like being able to stroll around my city at night without looking over my shoulder as I used to have to when I lived in east Baltimore.

It wouldn't be like, "okay guys from thruday privately owned pistols, shot guns (without an agricultural or hunting need) semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal".

In the UK it was a gradual shift over about 80 years, from essentially having what you want, to very controlled.

Your logic is, allowing everyone to have guns has created a gun culture where people need them, lets do nothing and allow this cycle of death to continue where by my own admission some areas are literally hell.

You would start by ceasing the introduction of more firearms to the system and very very heavily restricting and regulating the flow of ammunition. Ceasing all together the sale to private citizens rounds for assault rifles. Perhaps even changing the law so that the now "legal" weapons only take a specialist shape of ammunition and so on. There by making so weapons out there are eventually useless. Then when things are not at the same level, gun amnesty where the government pays the metal value of the weapons. Introduction of new laws that make it clear if you are found in possession of an illegal firearm your life will be over. when your talking in the scope of 50 years to secure a safer future slowly, it could very easily be done. That it can't is just propaganda spread by people who don't want to listen.

I'll be honest, I'd be totally for a long-term wind-down as you mentioned, as long as other things are being done, societally, to tackle the crime issue. I made a pretty extensive post a month or so ago about ending the expensive and ineffectual war on drugs which would kill off the underground drug trade, one of the major things fueling inner city violence, whilst also cutting the hundreds of millions wasted per year, and generating new revenue in taxes which could be used for treatment programs/mental health care/urban renewal.

The problem is, and the reason so many are (god I hate to use this phrase) up in arms about this, is that the politicians are not interested in the draw down you've laid out, but rather want a knee jerk arbitrary ban-stuff-that-looks-scary and begin a federal registry (which, interestingly enough, is illegal under the recently passed healthcare reform bill).

 

[Single Shot]

So a normal person has no right to defend himself, according to your take. Right? So, let's say, how about an ...ABnormal person? Because, if you ask me, I think a "normal" person is just the type that deserves the right and the ability to defend himself.

Of all the things, the word "normal" is what you jump on. Funny. What I mean is that nobody except the army and police should ever own a gun. I did not say they don't have the right to defend themselves. That would be madness, and you know it.

And don't ever accuse me of not seeing other perspectives. I'm quite thorough in the practice, actually. It just so happens that I have concluded that all anti-gun swill is wrong. Simple. There's not a single redeeming or valid argument in the lot. It just so happens that a swarm of weak-minded, weak-willed stay-at-homes managed to out-breed individuals with a more pragmatic approach, and are going to implore the government to sic armed goons on people to get their way. Simple.

I've given anti-gunners a fair shake, really I have. It just so happens that every single one I've personally talked to has been critically wrong in every way, has nothing relevant to say, and no argument. And lately, they've turned to disgusting tactics, taking advantage of the deaths of children to get their way, going to far as to come out with their rhetoric and accuse me, head-on, of murdering children. So no, I have no respect at all for anti-gun nuts. They prevail only out of the sheer loudness of their voice, as do spoiled brats.

As I said, guns are machines of death. They are created for the sole purpose of threatening, wounding, and killing. I personally believe that it would be nice if people didn't own them simply because of that. Of course, I am a fool who also believes it would be nice if people only used knives for cooking, not for sticking into other people.

I have to say, I do agree with you on that last bit. I think owning a gun makes you about as likely to murder children as playing video games makes me to go on a violent rampage. That is, not at all. It's dumb and untrue, and anyone saying that it is should shut up and go away.

Yeah, but while owning a gun won't make you go on a rampage it does make it easier for the people who do want to kill to do so. the Lanza kid would have gotten nowhere without guns, but with them he... well you know the rest.
It isn't the gun owners who are the problem most of the time. it is the people who use them when they snap.

Actually, with that last bit you posted about your little movie theater scenario wherein my wife is murdered ... and now you've followed that up with use of the word "Lanza..." you know, I've come to the conclusion that you're a post-whore. Yeah. I went there. Truth hurts, don't it.

It's the people with the guns who stop the people who snap, too, by the way. I don't think I've ever heard of a case wherein the shooter ran out of ammo, shrugged, and went home.

By the way, your little tirade about rifles automatically being better than handguns...God, I honestly think most people actually function day-to-day based entirely on videogame logic. I mean, I don't know - please try to explain THAT bit, if nothing else.

Okay, two point on this.
1) i have never heard of somebody snapping and killing lots of people with anything other than a gun. gun control would stop that.
2) in a shootout in front of the empire state ended in the police shooting 9 civilians becasue of the panic and confusion. my suggestion wasn't that pistols are weaker, at that range it makes no differnce, but the maniac wants to shoot everyone. you can very easilly hit another civilian as my example here proves

 

[Single Shot]

I stopped reading when "no gun massacres take place in lah lah lah"

Bullshit. BULLSHIT. How about knife massacres? Huh? How about pickup truck massacres?

Oh, God, you people.

And then I went back. And laughed. Really? I'm dumbfounded, honestly. Truly. Why...just...why...no. No, this is a stroke waiting to happen... but I'll try.

Okay. -sigh- Your answer to crazy people trying to go down in a blaze of glory, trying to ruin as many lives as they can on the way out of their pitiful existence as possible, trying to make as many headlines as they can... Your answer is...what? Don't try to fight back? ...Or...what? Don't go to movie theaters? Don't watch movies?

Don't watch movies. You know, THAT I think I can actually get behind.

Dear God why.

and once again you change an old post to change my reply.
you seem to have missed the point. without guns these depressed psychos wouldn't be able to go out in a 'blaze of glory' as you put it. they would just kill themselves or get help.
remember i'm fighting for GUN CONTROL the statement previously was related to that, not just a scream of "WAHWEDHWADHAWDHAW" like your side of the debate.

Again, more biting insight from the world's number one criminal expert. I'm glad you've finally cracked the case. Mass murder exists because of guns. My God, that's been a real mystery for...years. Like...thousands of y...

Oh, wait.

and yet again you avoid the question. ignore the facts. and mock the common sense.

 

[Single Shot]

There's no common sense to be found, and you are thoroughly mock-worthy. Sorry.

You're just repeating Brady campaign bulletpoints and you, like everyone else in the anti-gun camp, are failing to actually provide me with a good reason that I should turn my weapon over to the government other than "we have guys with guns who will kill you if you don't." And, hell, that pretty much makes you a classic "bad guy" in my book.

If you haven't "heard" of mass killings not involving guns, there's a reason: the media. Cases of positive gun use actually FAR out way cases of negative gun use in the United States. Guess which the media would prefer you to hear. In fact, CNN, TRYING to look far and balanced, recently ran a segment about how an off-duty cop (YEAH OMG THEY WENT WITH A COP CAN YOU BELIEVE THEY WENT WITH A COP) stopped someone from shooting up a movie theater by using her gun. Then they said "but what about situations in which armed citizens can make a problem worse instead of better?" Their example? The shooting of the Senator, after which an armed citizen held at gunpoint the man holding down the perpetrator. He held the man at gunpoint, but DID NOT SHOOT. And that's "making a situation worse?" The best they could do.

Go look up knife killings in China. That's all I've got to say, if you need your mass murder fix.

Okay, so what i think has been said before. great. so why hasn't anything been done?

"we have guys with..." huh? rambling again Travis. i will say it again IF THE CRIMINALS DON'T HAVE GUNS THEN YOU NO LONGER NEED GUNS. IF YOU CAN'T GET GUNS THE CRIMINALS WON'T BE ABLE TO GET THEM AS EASILLY.

okay, you start off like you're going to explain why, they WHAM! okay. it's all the media's fault. but can you name a single case of knife/truck/ or other massicres in USA within living memory? no? okay then.

knife killings in china, you do know that china is bigger than america? and that they treat their workers very badly, and that causes a lot of them to snap, and that most jump of bridges or out of their workplaces. and that they still have a massive organized crime ring, and that their police are still inferiour to American police. and that their system activly tries to f**k over the poor and unemployed. the case in china is nothing like America.


- and there are still less killings per 100,000 people.

 

[Crazy]

There are no guns where I rule, heck they haven't even been invented yet! So I suppose I would have no quarrel with myself if I pass laws removing guns.

 

[the doom cannon]

As a future gun owner, I would most certainly hide my guns. It's not like I would go and shoot up everyone I see like so many people on this forum think. Guns are not pointless and they're not just for killing people. So yea screw the govt I will keep my guns because I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

[Single Shot]

and again you say ou won't provide the proof that would win you the arguement because of time. if you know of a case it takes 30 seconds to google the name. you have burden of proof in that part.
Chinses working conditions are much worse than the the civilized world. there they have a proble of workers killing themselves by juping out the window of the factory and solve it by putting nets over the windows.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/7773011/A-look-inside-the-Foxconn-suicide-factory.html (No, it's not what i read, just the first google responce.)

and you again say FACT without proof.

and lastly i redirect you back to my ealier post where i said at indoor ranges rifle=handgun

 

[Single Shot]

We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.

Nobody is trying to discuss that.

Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.

I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

Then you're a partisan. The rationality and logic of a proposal is not determined by the venue through which it is enacted, but by the content of the proposal. A good idea is a good idea, no matter who comes up with it.

So again, there is no middle.

You are simply wrong, and you are poisoning the debate.

This goes beyond gun control. Every debate Americans have tried to have in the last decade has been poisoned by hysterical people on the conservative side of the argument trying to twist the rational debate into an argument between the status quo and an extreme no one has asked for. Health care was twisted into "No health care vs. death panels". Tax increases got spun into "No taxes vs. communism." The debt ceiling got turned into "keep the current debt ceiling vs. unrestricted spending forever". Hell, I just watched a video from a hearing in the Louisiana Congress discussing opposition to their law that permits the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, and the conservative representative of the state tried to twist the argument into "allow intelligent design in science class vs. ban all mention of Christianity from any subject in school." This deceitful rhetoric of yours isn't just some game on some silly gaming message board- it's hurting America. Please stop hurting America with lies.

You know, some things are actually black and white. Sorry about that. But it's the truth.

Denying the fact that anti-gunners want ALL guns taken away, and the government is more than happy to oblige, well, that's deceit. Every anti-gunner KNOWS as much. There is no thing is an anti-gun lobbyist who believes owning a gun is acceptable in any way.

Black and white. That simple.

Yeah, because NOBODY wants to limit gun ownership so that responsable people can have them but tighten control so criminals and crazy people can't. grow up.