Things besides guns we should ban to give ourselves the delusion of safety

[Hazy992]

How exactly does one's nationality come into play?

I don't really want to get into this discussion so I'm just going to quote what I said in an earlier thread on the subject. Sums up my feelings on this:

The US and the UK are two very different places. America has a large gun culture and has always had access to them so the argument that 'if we outlaw guns only the criminals will have them' makes sense there. Everyone has guns, you suddenly try take them away and only the people who have them are those who are ignoring the law anyway.

The UK however has almost no gun culture. Hardly anybody has a gun in this country and if we suddenly had access to them we wouldn't know what we were doing and it could get pretty dangerous. Gun control makes sense for the UK.

In short what I'm saying is what works for the UK doesn't necessarily work for the US and vice versa.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Other than guns? How about large numbers of bullets and high capacity magazines...
Oh wait "dellusion of safety". In that case, not having a gun.

I'm not saying getting rid of military-grade weaponry in the civilian population will fix all murders, but they'll make the premediated ones harder. Not to mention the possibility of early identification of shooters, so they can be stopped and helped before they become mass-murders. If you think I'm wrong (and you live in America) start Google searching things like "how to make bombs" and "route of the president's motor-cave." If you keep at it long enough the FBI will show up with a couple questions.

And to put your statistics into perspective roughly 14,000 Americans die in fire-arm related incidents a year, as opposed to most other first world countries who's death count can be tallied on your fingers and those of some of your closest friends.

But all your statistics are indictive of problems America has and should work toward comprehensive solutions for. Most of which I feel many Americans have had the wrong mentality about. According to a Mother Jones poll, 42% of Americans are against the phrase "gun control", but 88% of Americans are in favor of a gun registry--something that would be marked as 'gun control' by (arguably) the most powerful interest group in the country, the NRA. We haven't even had anyone at the head of the ATF for three years to inforce compliance with what we do have, because Congress won't pass the president's nominee.

(TL,DR)In conculsion, I understand your sentaments over guns equal power and the sense of security, but ultimately it doesn't work. Too many people die. The US averages about one mass shooting (more than 4 dead) a year, and I consider those, for the most part, preventable.
We should limit bullet stockpiling, ban military weapons in civilian hands, form a gun registry so weapon stockpiling can be flagged, and hopefully potential shooters will be stopped and helped. There's no reason to look at those stats and think, "well fuck that's a problem, too bad" and there's no reason why we shouldn't at least try to make mass-murders harder. That's just my opinion, though.

 

[Deimateos]

I could do all those things, but I'm sure you'll disregard all those facts and focus instead on whatever I say that gets you butt-hurt next.

Are you my advocate? No? Then please, quit saying what I will or will not do.

Interesting, seeing as you originally tried to be mine. Oh, but trying to tenuously tie the easily dismissed views of anti-government nuts to my original post doesn't count, right? You can claim that your specific replying to my post with some good old, pre-fab "gun nut" visuals wasn't an attempt at demagoguery, but good luck getting anyone to believe that.

First I'm a gun nut, now I'm a smug, clairvoyant ass (upgrade)? Address the real issues I presented, or kick rocks, ad hominem troll.

In which case, I of course sincerely apologize for wasting that time, and for presuming that you have nothing better to do than act smug on the internet.

I also fully accept this heartfelt apology.

 

[Vegosiux]

Interesting, seeing as you originally tried to be mine. Oh, but trying to tenuously tie the easily dismissed views of anti-government nuts to my original post doesn't count, right?

You give me too much credit. I merely pointed out that "fear and cowardice" are present on both sides and not exclusive to "anti-gun" people. So no, I was actually not trying to be your advocate there, at all.

First I'm a gun nut

Care to show me where I called you that? Exact quote, please. Because, what I said is "If I had a cent for every time a pro-gun person...".

I don't remember talking to you on this subject at all up to this point.

And if you never said anything of the like, that one would kind of not apply to you, personally, now would it? It was just a description of what I have encountered in the past.

, now I'm a smug, clairvoyant ass (upgrade)

I don't remember calling you that, either.

Address the real issues I presented, or kick rocks, ad hominem troll.

You know what? I don't think I will. You don't seem like you genuinely want to discuss them - I may be wrong of course, but call it a gut feeling. Maybe because you misinterpreted my post so grossly that I simply don't expect a reasonable discussion anymore, so I'm stepping out of this one.

Make of that what you will. If you consider that you "won", good on you - notice that I said "if", so that means I'm not actually saying you're doing it, just considering a possibility (I'd leave the explanation out of it, but it seems I need to spell out everything I say or be misinterpreted).

But please do look up what "ad hominem" means. I don't like it when people use expressions incorrectly.

 

[zehydra]

The fun thing about the whole debate about gun control is that you have essentially two main points:

Either:

-Guns are dangerous and for the sake of the safety of the public, they need to be banned.

of

-Guns are dangerous and for the sake of the safety of individuals they need to be allowed, so that individuals can protect themselves.


It is not of any particular surprise to me that US liberals tend to prefer the former solution and that US conservatives tend to prefer the latter.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

The government is usually composed of the elites, even my elected representatives are usually from the elite class, only their wealth allows them to run for office, with few. I am no happier allowing these people control of arms or speech than I am a king of old, thats the point of a constitution, limiting their power.

Let me first say that you have a really bleak(dare I say apocalyptic) view on your own government. And while I don't think that is called for, but I don?t think that I can change your opinion on it either.
All I will say on the matter is this: If you have lost faith in the democracy you are a part of, try and do something about it! American history, from the progressive movement to the civil rights movement, is full of examples of successful movements for change that started small. Petition, campaign, talk to other people that agree with you! And are you sure that all your politicians are morally corrupt elitist? If you think it too late for change then that is your problem, and I can't change your mind, but please, don't just complain when you think something is wrong. Then nothing will happen.

first, cops are jerks, letting them now I have a gun before they knock on my door can turn routine questioning into an exercise in suspicion.

You do have a point about the cops, I will grant you that. But again, one of the points of such a list would be to have an overview of the people owning guns in a given area so as to solve gun related crimes easier. If there has been a murder in your community, the police have no clues beyond the fact that the victim was shot to death and you were the only person in that community owning a gun, then of course you would be suspected, and rightly so. (Don't get me wrong; this is for the sake of argument. I am not saying that you or gun owners in general are potential murderers).

But if you ensure proper education then what further need would you have for limiting firearms ownership.

Ensuring that the wrong people didn't get their hands on guns regardless of education. That one is pretty simple I think. Such a system of education would never be perfect.

Yep, its powerful, but its also tiny. And like all miliataries fighting insurgencies, they will have a hard time finding targets, and their own people will defect rather than fire.

This is a fair point, but I still maintain that your chances of winning in the long run would be slim without outside help (Like NATO helped the Libyans, Turkey helps the Syrians etc.) This is also quite revealing. You don't trust your elected officials but you do trust the army to not fire? Why? That is a genuine question that interests me by the way. Would the soldiers defect, or the generals? The generals are surly a part of "the elite" aren't they?

And if the government really wants to shut down that speech, all your laws will do nothing.

If this is true then laws and rights are pointless. But they are not, because we are not in a hobbesian state of nature where power is right. We are in a world were western governments for the most part are made up of people with principles and respect for the laws. You might not believe that, and in some instances you are right, but for the most part you are not. Guns are not the only thing standing in the way of dictatorship. If they were Europe would not be democratic.

Nobody has a better system in place if this happens, if enough congressmen die then congress cannot reach a plurality and it is dissolved, new elections take time and effort, effort which might wel be blocked by the new 'king'
Thats the issue, how much trust do you have in your democratically elected leaders to act in the populations best interest and against their own personal best interest.
I have none. I dont know about your nation, but in mine election cycles are filled with unsavory practices all in the search for power.
Obama might give it up, in time, but Bush would hold onto power for as long as he could.
Guns would allow us to attempt to fight. Citizens would have an option other than being peacefully slaughtered or silently enslaved.
I dont mind if you want to be disarmed, subject to the government rule even when its wrong, but why does it bother you that I dont.

I will say no more than that again you demonstrate a rather misanthropic world view that I don't agree with.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

But the US has the most powerful professional army in the world now so what is the point in keeping this system alive? Your chance of survival (least of all victory!) against your own government is almost zero.

If your interpretation of the constitution is correct the second amendment is utterly outdated.

You are making a rather large assumption. You are assuming that the US military would remain intact if the federal government declared war against the states. That really depends on the state. I am sure there are more than a few people in my state (NY) who would gladly volunteer to flatten our state capitol building if the government demanded it because we are disenfranchised with our state government.

Go down south and a war between the federal government and the states is literally the doomsday scenario they have been dreading for decades, especially since people down there are more loyal to the state than their northern brethren on average.

So it is entirely possible for whole units or divisions of the military to switch sides if a civil war between te states and the government broke out, ESPECIALLY the national guard.

It looks to me as if I am not the only one making large assumptions, but I do not live in the US so you might be right. Even though the military did not stay intact however, someone would be sitting on the fightingjets, predator drones and nuclear codes so my point stand. What good would the guns be?

 

[Ryotknife]

But the US has the most powerful professional army in the world now so what is the point in keeping this system alive? Your chance of survival (least of all victory!) against your own government is almost zero.

If your interpretation of the constitution is correct the second amendment is utterly outdated.

You are making a rather large assumption. You are assuming that the US military would remain intact if the federal government declared war against the states. That really depends on the state. I am sure there are more than a few people in my state (NY) who would gladly volunteer to flatten our state capitol building if the government demanded it because we are disenfranchised with our state government.

Go down south and a war between the federal government and the states is literally the doomsday scenario they have been dreading for decades, especially since people down there are more loyal to the state than their northern brethren on average.

So it is entirely possible for whole units or divisions of the military to switch sides if a civil war between te states and the government broke out, ESPECIALLY the national guard.

It looks to me as if I am not the only one making large assumptions, but I do not live in the US so you might be right. Even though the military did not stay intact however, someone would be sitting on the fightingjets, predator drones and nuclear codes so my point stand. What good would the guns be?

The rebelling/defending/uprising/(whatever the hell you want to call it) states could also have some sort of access to that kind of equipment as well from Armories located in their state. A lot of military camps are located in the south. Navy would be probably remain completely intact due to where the naval bases are located.

If there was a civilian uprising in the US, it would (probably) be the states vs the federal government (which probably sounds weird from an outside perspective)

and yea, this is all just pure speculation.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

The rebelling/defending/uprising/(whatever the hell you want to call it) states could also have some sort of access to that kind of equipment as well from Armories located in their state. A lot of military camps are located in the south. Navy would be probably remain completely intact due to where the naval bases are located.

If there was a civilian uprising in the US, it would (probably) be the states vs the federal government (which probably sounds weird from an outside perspective)

and yea, this is all just pure speculation.

But we are discussing guns here. If there will be states versus federal government, and the states have access to military hardware what is the point of private ownership of guns?(The point of guns according to some begin to defend one self against the government). Just trying to pick your brain here..

It can be fun to speculate though

 

[Mathurin]

Humans are dangerous, guns are just tools.

Very few modern firearms are designed to inflict bodily damage, well the ones in civilian hands anyway, they are designed to target shoot

Shooting cans is actually very good target practice btw.

I don't understand the whole "humans are dangerous" part of your argument: you could use that to justify absolutely anything.

Fair enough to target shooting, if you have your own land large enough to fire at a target without accidentally harming someone then I don't see a reason why not. I personally would not be able to fire a gun in my garden, since if I missed I'd fire straight into someone else's window. Still wouldn't make me want people carrying guns around town, though.

Humans are dangerous means just that, if you want to live in a free society you have to put up with a certain level of danger from other human beings, because the only way to prevent it is to control people. Those levels of control have frequently been used in the past to gain and maintain power.
Yes it justifies alot, because it should.

I grew up on approximately a square kilometer of land, in an area with an approximate population density of 3-7 persons to the kilometer. Even then I always placed my targets in front of a small hill, its one of the important parts of safe gun ownership, be sure of your backstop.

Regardless, there are private shooting ranges even in cities where a person can target shoot safely

You have shown yourself sir.
You arent interested in crime, you know gun crime will still occur, and probably in similar quantity, all you want to do is punish a segment of society. Not for a rational reason, because you are scared.

I am interesting in crime, yet you yourself have said there is no law that can prevent someone unlawfully obtaining guns. I'd arguing making it a pain in the neck to acquire guns helps reduce this (since illegally sold guns don't magic out of nowhere) but my main concern is the idea that a random civilian has access to weapons that allows them to dole out justice in the same way as a police officer.

And yes, the idea does scare me. People do stupid things in a rush and in a high point of emotion, and I've had people attack me in ways that could have left me with lasting damage or death as a result of stupid things which nowhere-near warranted the aggression: if that person was armed with a gun I may well have ended up being shot. My 'rational reason', if you so want to call it, for wanting harsher restrictions on guns is that I see no reason for police when your average citizen is just as capable of obtaining the same equipment as the police and using them how they like, lawfully or otherwise.

I've made no attempt to hide my fear of guns: I think anybody who owns a gun should still be scared of it to some degree just as how you should be owning a dangerous animal or the responsible caution you would have in having an open fireplace in your livingroom. I also understand that my culture and upbringing will naturally colour my views on such matters, but I still don't understand why it is necessary for anyone to walk around with a concealed weapon on them. To me, that's bonkers.

Guns dont come from nowhere, but with strict gun laws they would be coming from the same place drugs currently come from.
The police do not dole out justice, they detain suspects and gather evidence, Judges dole out justice. Civilians can act on crime in progress, but police do the follow up which places a person in jail.

As I said I dont see a point to it either really, but I'm not a vulnerable person, people dont look at me and say "lets rob the big guy" so its just not a big deal. But until you can prove concealed carry is dangerous, I see no reason to disallow it.
See, thats how things should work, harm must be proven to remove them, fear is just speculation.

And yes, I do..... respect firearms, as do most shooters I have met.

No, I havent had to purchase weapons for this, I already have them.

I am not concerned with your doubts, success is never certain.

I don't understand this section, if I'm honest. You just seem to brush my doubts aside as if they are so trivial as to not answer them. If I am mistaken I would enjoy being enlightened on the subject as I prefer to be proven wrong than to remain ignorant. However, I still don't understand how allowing members of the public to carry pistols on their person in any way prevents an evil dictatorship. I don't think legally purchased guns have toppled governments - I imagine it is always circuits of illegal gun ownership. England doesn't have many guns in it, yet our government isn't sentencing people to die for public meetings or protesting.

No, they are not trivial, what I am saying is that some unfortunate people find themselves in a position of living their life under the abusive power of others, or taking arms to potentially die fighting it.
This isnt some kind of false bravado, I hope such a time never comes, but I have no doubts the battle would be very harsh on the rebels.

Lack of arms doesnt = tyranny anymore than presence of them prevents it, they just allow an option, they are merely a tool.

To an extent actualy, a somewhat modified version of the standard assault rifle issued to US troops is available for purchase in most gun stores, thats enough for me.
The Free Syrian army has AKs against tanks and helicopters, and while its too early to say they are winning, they are definitely doing something.

But why not weapons on-par with military weapons? If your viewpoint is that humans are dangerous and not weapons, and that civilians need to have weapons capable of defending themselves from an evil dictatorship, why have any limits at all? There's no boundaries or clear lines in your view - do you believe I should be able to legally purchase a tank? If so, or if not, why?

Because on par means explosives, which are area of effect weapons, ie, always pointed at everyone around them. They are also unstable and accidental discharges are much more dangerous.
Finally, they arent really needed to get started.

You can legally purchase a tank, even in the UK, it just cannot have a functioning main gun.

Its not a utility knife, its big black scary military style knife (still a folding knife though). I use it as a utility knife.

May I ask why wouldn't a utility knife be sufficient, if you are only using it for utility? Unless you are a part of the military and just happen to have a knife issued to you, I can only imagine it would be because it looks cool.

Which is fine as an answer, but I still don't understand the argument presented here since guns cannot be used for anything but shooting things, and I've yet to see someone use a gun for DIY.

Nah, sure it looks cool, but that doesnt matter to me, I like it because it opens quickly and onehandedly, for easy use on boxes.

Ah, comparison of the citizens of a nation to children, how revealingly patronizing.
Its sad really that our big daddy government hasnt taken all our guns and said "no, you are collectively not responsible enough for that"

Considering the fact that are more heavily armed nations out there with lower rates of gun-related crime, I wouldn't say calling general American views on firearms "immature" as too much of a stretch. Also, I still don't see what's so bad about the government drawing lines in the sand about what we can or can't do - otherwise what's the point of them? Every argument you've presented so far just seems to promote anarchy: we should all be as armed as one-another and no-one should be able to tell anyone else what to do!

That is why I used a comparison between children, because to me your view is coming across as childish I'm sorry to say.

Whats wrong with it is multifold, but the number one thing is that its addressing a symptom, not a cause.
Address gangs and drugs and our overall crime would drop.

Actually crime is generally committed with pistols, the criminal arms race you speak of is limited by concealment, so they can access them, but they rarely if ever use them.

So what's the answer to this? If someone has a weapon concealed on them, how will you owning a gun prevent them from doing anything to you with it?

I don't like the idea that the only reason nobody is going around shooting everyone in the local vicinity is because they might get shot back, and I certainly don't buy that as a reason to keep guns: because it relies on the same stereotypes of the United States of America as you rightfully criticised me for earlier.

They must produce it to use it.


Mass shootings are an anomaly, nothing prevents them.
However I do expect you to believe that the reason burglaries in the US happen almost exclusively on unoccupied houses is because of the presence of guns.

 

[X10J]

Banning guns wont make them disappear anymore than making drugs illegal has made them disappear.

Only relevant premise in the argument.

The rest of the argument basically boils down to "Alcohol is also dangerous," and "People will find other methods of murder."

The alcohol point works better as an argument against the consumption of alcohol than an argument against the outlawing of fire arms.

And the "other methods" point is also irrelevant. Someone's ability to kill you with a car doesn't justify the legalization of firearms.

Please note that I do not intend this as a counter argument, or as a statement of my own opinion on the matter. It's just some issues I had with your argument.

 

[Ryotknife]

The rebelling/defending/uprising/(whatever the hell you want to call it) states could also have some sort of access to that kind of equipment as well from Armories located in their state. A lot of military camps are located in the south. Navy would be probably remain completely intact due to where the naval bases are located.

If there was a civilian uprising in the US, it would (probably) be the states vs the federal government (which probably sounds weird from an outside perspective)

and yea, this is all just pure speculation.

But we are discussing guns here. If there will be states versus federal government, and the states have access to military hardware what is the point of private ownership of guns?(The point of guns according to some begin to defend one self against the government). Just trying to pick your brain here..

It can be fun to speculate though

well yea, state vs federal government in the "doomsday tyranical" scenario would be no different than colonies vs Britain, therefore local militia will still be neccessary. This wouldnt be just a random bunch of pissed off people who no leaders, no government, and no organization like some of the Arab Spring countries when they first started. There is a framework to start from. Hell we already went through this once....kinda....in our Civil War.

The republican/conversative/Tea party states, in very BROAD general terms, are against the federal government taking away citizen/state rights and want to SHRINK the size/power of the federal government. Therefore, if the federal government became tyranical and overstepped its bounds, logically that would mean you could throw your support behind the ones who wanted to shrink it in the first place in the armed conflict.

and i KNOW someone is going to get pissed off at my broad statement so ill leave this. I am an independent, i think both parties are a bunch of tools lately. I am no way intentionally endorsing one party.

Also, random note. I may be off base here but i think the National Guard takes orders from their state. I know state officials can deploy the guard.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

well yea, state vs federal government in the "doomsday tyranical" scenario would be no different than colonies vs Britain, therefore local militia will still be neccessary. This wouldnt be just a random bunch of pissed off people who no leaders, no government, and no organization like some of the Arab Spring countries when they first started. There is a framework to start from. Hell we already went through this once....kinda....in our Civil War.

There is a differece though: There has been an enormous techonological devolopment in the last 150 years. So hasn't this militia sort of lost it's relevance? I might be wrong though. This isn't really my area of expertice.

 

[Mathurin]

The government is usually composed of the elites, even my elected representatives are usually from the elite class, only their wealth allows them to run for office, with few. I am no happier allowing these people control of arms or speech than I am a king of old, thats the point of a constitution, limiting their power.

Let me first say that you have a really bleak(dare I say apocalyptic) view on your own government. And while I don't think that is called for, but I don?t think that I can change your opinion on it either.
All I will say on the matter is this: If you have lost faith in the democracy you are a part of, try and do something about it! American history, from the progressive movement to the civil rights movement, is full of examples of successful movements for change that started small. Petition, campaign, talk to other people that agree with you! And are you sure that all your politicians are morally corrupt elitist? If you think it too late for change then that is your problem, and I can't change your mind, but please, don't just complain when you think something is wrong. Then nothing will happen.

I vote libertarian, it changes little.

first, cops are jerks, letting them now I have a gun before they knock on my door can turn routine questioning into an exercise in suspicion.

You do have a point about the cops, I will grant you that. But again, one of the points of such a list would be to have an overview of the people owning guns in a given area so as to solve gun related crimes easier. If there has been a murder in your community, the police have no clues beyond the fact that the victim was shot to death and you were the only person in that community owning a gun, then of course you would be suspected, and rightly so. (Don't get me wrong; this is for the sake of argument. I am not saying that you or gun owners in general are potential murderers).

So its for harrassing gun owners now?

In the US we believe in very strong privacy rights and robust due process, they will question everyone around, if there is a reason to suspect me then they will find it, but this registry idea will just send them after gun owners the same way they seem to go after released felons.

But if you ensure proper education then what further need would you have for limiting firearms ownership.

Ensuring that the wrong people didn't get their hands on guns regardless of education. That one is pretty simple I think. Such a system of education would never be perfect.

You can still license, and require a license at purchase, I just want the base of licencees to be broad enough that its not a clear indication of firearms ownership.

Yep, its powerful, but its also tiny. And like all miliataries fighting insurgencies, they will have a hard time finding targets, and their own people will defect rather than fire.

This is a fair point, but I still maintain that your chances of winning in the long run would be slim without outside help (Like NATO helped the Libyans, Turkey helps the Syrians etc.) This is also quite revealing. You don't trust your elected officials but you do trust the army to not fire? Why? That is a genuine question that interests me by the way. Would the soldiers defect, or the generals? The generals are surly a part of "the elite" aren't they?

Its not about trust, its about history, you can see it happening right now, individual soldiers are choosing to defect rather than fire on civilians.

And if the government really wants to shut down that speech, all your laws will do nothing.

If this is true then laws and rights are pointless. But they are not, because we are not in a hobbesian state of nature where power is right. We are in a world were western governments for the most part are made up of people with principles and respect for the laws. You might not believe that, and in some instances you are right, but for the most part you are not. Guns are not the only thing standing in the way of dictatorship. If they were Europe would not be democratic.

No, guns are not the only thing, and I will not advocate for their use until all legal and peaceful methods have proven fruitless.

Nobody has a better system in place if this happens, if enough congressmen die then congress cannot reach a plurality and it is dissolved, new elections take time and effort, effort which might wel be blocked by the new 'king'
Thats the issue, how much trust do you have in your democratically elected leaders to act in the populations best interest and against their own personal best interest.
I have none. I dont know about your nation, but in mine election cycles are filled with unsavory practices all in the search for power.
Obama might give it up, in time, but Bush would hold onto power for as long as he could.
Guns would allow us to attempt to fight. Citizens would have an option other than being peacefully slaughtered or silently enslaved.
I dont mind if you want to be disarmed, subject to the government rule even when its wrong, but why does it bother you that I dont.

I will say no more than that again you demonstrate a rather misanthropic world view that I don't agree with.

Yes, very misanthropic, I didnt used to be this way, but then I started learning, reading about history and power struggles of the past, abuses of power in the present. About secret police sending millions to gulags on false charges (many never to return) to maintain a culture of fear and maintain power.

Human beings are bad creatures, this is a founding principle of our nation, if allowed power they will use it for ill, including things like illegal internment and interrogation. Only a decentralized system and a watchful public will keep the leaders in line.

Just read some history, you will see.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I live in Australia and I have never seen a gun that would be good at killing someone. Believe me, I feel a lot safer that way then I would knowing everyone around me has a gun on them. If guns are available, people will get shot. Its that simple.

 

[Ledan]

Japan. Only 22 killings involving firearms in 2007. 22 for the entire country. See, strict gun control laws do work.

Japan existed for centuries before guns. America exists because of guns. Add in the severe differences between cultures, and you'll see why this statistic means exactly jack squat.

Japan made better guns when they got them, 400+ years ago.

OT: I think I'm siding with the argument "If I can't own a nuke, I can't own artillery, I can't own a tank, I can't own an rpg, I can't own an assault rifle, I can't own an automatic weapon. If I'm a hunter, I should be allowed to own a hunting rifle."
And yes, people will still kill people. But it's going to be a lot more difficult. One guy with a knife can't hold up a large group of people, even if it's a guy with a sword. A dude with a gun can.

 

[SkellgrimOrDave]

People just want to feel secure; they want to feel safe in a world without safety, and they are willing to sell their freedom away to the government for the PROMISE that the government will make the bad people go away.

This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
THIS FOR THE THIS GOD! THRUTH FOR THE THRUTH THRONE!!

Hundreds of people will die tomorrow. The only thing that stops them going insane and doing whatever they wanted to do that would be illegal, unsafe, hedonistic, etc, is the belief that they won't die tomorrow. Everyone who went to work in the WTC felt safe and secure that morning. Everyone who got on the tube carriages during the 7/7 incident felt safe that morning.

I ride a motorbike. I could very well be dead tomorrow. Or mabye some nut stabs me. Or maybe someone happens to bomb somewhere where I happen to be. Or someone starts war with someone else, so someone somewhere presses a button that makes a missile land somewhere where I'm in lethal range of the blast.

Or maybe i'll live till i'm 120, nobody knows.

If someone told you you would die tomorrow for certain, what would you do to make the most of your day?

Now go do that thing, no matter how stupid, small, dangerous, risky, or hedonistic it is, because all it takes to end one of us is a hard knock to the side of the head. Now go out there and make the most of your day.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

So its for harrassing gun owners now?

That is not harassment, that's just forensic logic. Harassment does not mean just being questioned by the police. You would not be a suspect; but if they were not talking to you if you were the only gun owner in town they would not be doing their jobs.

In the US we believe in very strong privacy rights and robust due process, they will question everyone around, if there is a reason to suspect me then they will find it, but this registry idea will just send them after gun owners the same way they seem to go after released felons.

How do you know? Other countries have such a system and I don't have any reason to think that harassment of gun owner is running rampant.

You can still license, and require a license at purchase, I just want the base of licencees to be broad enough that its not a clear indication of firearms ownership.

I will let this rest now. You have made your point and as stated before I don't quite see the point in such a system.

Its not about trust, its about history, you can see it happening right now, individual soldiers are choosing to defect rather than fire on civilians.

Aren't you trusting history to repeat itself though? It doesn't always do that. In this particular case I would say that it is a likely outcome though. As do the generals probably so I guess they wouldn?t order their soldiers to fire on civilians. Well, we'll see.. (Hopefully not though).

No, guns are not the only thing, and I will not advocate for their use until all legal and peaceful methods have proven fruitless

Good. I wholeheartedly agree.

Yes, very misanthropic, I didnt used to be this way, but then I started learning, reading about history and power struggles of the past, abuses of power in the present. About secret police sending millions to gulags on false charges (many never to return) to maintain a culture of fear and maintain power.
Human beings are bad creatures, this is a founding principle of our nation, if allowed power they will use it for ill, including things like illegal internment and interrogation. Only a decentralized system and a watchful public will keep the leaders in line.
Just read some history, you will see.

I study history at a university. I read quite a lot of history. Therefore I would say that it is not as full of horror as you think. Yes, there are plenty of terrible events spread out through our history, but look at the big picture. In the western world we have never been more materially wealthy and never freer. And the good news is that this is slowly spreading throughout the world (If consumer capitalism is sustainable, but that is really a whole other debate). As a student of history I know that stuff like this takes a really long time (often hundreds of years), but I also know that it is possible.

I do not doubt your knowledge. You probably know as much, if not even more than me. But it is obvious that we have interpreted history quite differently. And I will dare to say that you have not considered the big picture in the positive light that it deserves.

If we continue to discuss philosophy of history though I fear we will go dramatically off topic. Maybe we already are

 

[The Harkinator]

People think guns make you safe, well nobody is going to threaten somebody with a gun are they? But a gun gives its wielder the option to kill with a single movement of the finger. If you carry a gun to protect yourself from being mugged then you have the option of shooting the mugger.

Guns don't kill people, the bullets fired from them do, the people who own them do, the people who use them do, the people who panic and think they need a gun do.