Interestingly, I was discussing this with my dad just the other day, and we came up with a system just like this. Seems to be what the smart money is on; let's see if it sticks, eh?Jonluw said:Introducing gun control to a country like the US is a gradual process.Suki_ said:Well what if you want to use the gun to kill a mouse and are to tired to properly put it away. What if you are a crazy American who thinks guns are useless if kept in a locker because how are you gonna shoot somebody for looking at you the wrong way if its locked up.
You can't just suddenly ban all guns. That would leave a shitton of guns on the market, none of them legal.
You need to restrict what kinds of guns can legally be produced and sold and slowly increase the difficulty of getting a license to buy a gun.
Banning magazine sizes greater than what's needed for hunting, etc.
After a while you may ban handguns entirely.
You don't change the public's attitude towards keeping guns locked up overnight.
You put WHAT up your mouse?!scw55 said:Most serious injury I sustained from a toy was treading on one barefoot. I suppose you could argue you might choke on the toy. But in honesty the thing I was sticking in my mouse were lego techniq bits because they were crunchy or chewy if a tire, or I chewed K'nex rods because they were very good to use to dislodge loose milk-teeth.Kinguendo said:I think they are more afraid of the toy you have to build yourself... there could be anything in that tiny capsule! It may look like a dinosaur but when you look at that small instruction manual it is clearly telling you how to make copious amounts of Mustard Gas with household materials.scw55 said:You can kill a man by forcing him to stick half a plastic capsule down their throat.Lumber Barber said:Guns in the United States are perfectly legal, but Kinder Eggs are illegal and could result in a 300$ fine.
Thought you'd like to know.
I had plenty of Kinder Eggs when I was a child, as a result I died many times.
Samantha Burt said:Interestingly, I was discussing this with my dad just the other day, and we came up with a system just like this. Seems to be what the smart money is on; let's see if it sticks, eh?Jonluw said:Introducing gun control to a country like the US is a gradual process.Suki_ said:Well what if you want to use the gun to kill a mouse and are to tired to properly put it away. What if you are a crazy American who thinks guns are useless if kept in a locker because how are you gonna shoot somebody for looking at you the wrong way if its locked up.
You can't just suddenly ban all guns. That would leave a shitton of guns on the market, none of them legal.
You need to restrict what kinds of guns can legally be produced and sold and slowly increase the difficulty of getting a license to buy a gun.
Banning magazine sizes greater than what's needed for hunting, etc.
After a while you may ban handguns entirely.
You don't change the public's attitude towards keeping guns locked up overnight.
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.PrinceFortinbras said: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.
I don't understand the whole "humans are dangerous" part of your argument: you could use that to justify absolutely anything.Mathurin said: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 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.Mathurin said: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 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.Mathurin said:No, I havent had to purchase weapons for this, I already have them.
I am not concerned with your doubts, success is never certain.
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?Mathurin said: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.
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.Mathurin said:Its not a utility knife, its big black scary military style knife (still a folding knife though). I use it as a utility knife.
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!Mathurin said: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"
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?Mathurin said: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.
*mouthKinguendo said:You put WHAT up your mouse?!scw55 said:Most serious injury I sustained from a toy was treading on one barefoot. I suppose you could argue you might choke on the toy. But in honesty the thing I was sticking in my mouse were lego techniq bits because they were crunchy or chewy if a tire, or I chewed K'nex rods because they were very good to use to dislodge loose milk-teeth.Kinguendo said:snipscw55 said:snipLumber Barber said:snip
Well, that would depend on which side the army takes, ultimately. If the soldiers have no problem shooting at the people any kind of a revolution is bound to be a short-lived one.Mathurin said:In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?
My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice. The fact that rifles like the AR15 are always the focus of ban proponents is proof of this. They want to ban big scary rifles, despite the fact that handguns are the majority tool in homicides involving guns [http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm](in the US anyway). Rifles are part of the "other guns" line, which also includes bolt-actions and shotguns. The number of deaths from that combined category is about even with knives. Knives.Hazy992 said:I'm not saying we should ban guns (in fact I think it should depend on the country) but you're going to need a better argument that.
Nice generalization. Right back atcha. If I had a cent for every time a pro-gun person went on about how they need it to defend themselves from the government if it decides to go tyrannical and how they need to sleep with their gun in their nightstand in case someone breaks into their house to kill them. I say, if someone's out for your blood they're going to find a less risky way to go about it.Deimateos said:My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice.
I could explain to you how the statement "rarely" infers that the ones who want to ban guns for logical reasons are in the vocal minority or that my post is clearly voicing my problem with anti-gun proponents who focus on rifles instead of handguns, even though the facts show that handguns are the real problem area in gun killings (while rifles and shotguns combined account for near the same deaths as knives), not all gun ban proponents.Vegosiux said:Nice generalization.blah blah snipDeimateos said:My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice.
I will go further to banning the use of that Hyperbole and a Half meme X all the things. It has several times almost driven me to kill from being so overused and that''s a danger that must be stopped.Raven said:All those in favour of banning hyperbole say aye!
Are you my advocate? No? Then please, quit saying what I will or will not do. If I need representation, I'll ask for it. I'm perfectly capable of choosing my course of action myself. Plus, this is nothing other than a cop-out and you know it. It's akin to a person saying, for example "I refuse to call my opponent -insert insult here-".Deimateos said: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.
XKCDVegosiux said:Cookies for anyone who gets the reference
How exactly does one's nationality come into play?Hazy992 said:Yeah you're absolutely right there. Accidental death and death caused by illness is not even remotely comparable with deaths caused by something designed specifically to kill and wound.Knobody13 said:That last fact is the one I find the most compelling. Many of the above statistics will be dismissed as irrelevant, because they are "self inflicted." Also, many people say that guns are different because they are only useful for killing.
I'm not saying we should ban guns (in fact I think it should depend on the country) but you're going to need a better argument that.