It's time for another gun threadFollow

Somebody shoot tarv's graph!

That'll learn him!

All right there, Obiwan.

People sometimes overreact to things and start brandishing weapons?

Then again... given your racist attitude, they both probably did want to do you bodily harm. I imagine you probably offended them mightily at some point.

I'm sorry. Conservapedia does not count as a valid source, any more than Encyclopedia Dramatica does.

And yes, Japan still loves its guns. One of the most popular Japanese tourist destinations is Hawaii, where many a Japanese citizen happily blam blams at a shooting range such as they are not allowed to do at home.

But because only "criminals" have them, most of the non-homicide gun-related deaths in Japan have been eliminated. Remember, not all gun deaths in the US are from responsible adults defending themselves. A great many of them are from stupid teenagers getting a hold of their parents' guns and doing stupid teenage things and shooting siblings accidentally.

Nor do people who post a link and say "Thoughts?"

Oh I read your link, and then I pointed at laughed at it. Because it is Conservapedia, and it was made for liberals to point and laugh at. I can't think of any other valid reason to make up such a load of paranoid right-wing drivel.

I'd be all for an all out ban on guns. But, that's just me. Most wouldn't. Rights and all that. Fewer guns out there would make for fewer gun deaths. Regulating guns, at least the approaches they've used so far haven't seemed very effective. They need to be regulated. They shouldn't be in the hands of crazies, kids and criminals. Criminals will get them regardless if they're needed for business eh. I guess I'd rather see the regulations simpler maybe, more enforceable and aimed at the groups that it will actually have some impact.

You can say that about anything though. You get that if you talk about fewer gun deaths, you're always going to reduce that number if you reduce the total number of guns, right? Same can be said for cars, knives, toothpicks, and make-up bags. Assuming there are any "<insert object here> deaths" at all, then banning that object will reduce the number of deaths caused by the use of that object.

That's not a great reason to ban something though.



That depends on what you mean by "effective". If the objective to regulating guns is purely to decrease the rate at which guns are used for crime, violence, etc, then you're absolutely correct. But as I just pointed out, that's not enough of a reason.

If your objective is to reduce overall crime rates as much as possible, while protecting as much liberty as possible, then you'll arrive at a completely different conclusion.




Personally, I believe that regulations should never be "aimed at groups". They should be consistent and fair on their own, otherwise they are rife for abuse. I get what you're saying though, it's just that I get a bit alarmed when people so easily toss out ideas about targeting laws based on the groups they want to affect. Laws should apply equally to everyone.


Honestly, I'm of the opinion that most of the problems with guns in this country occur not because of the guns themselves, but because of the mixed messages we place on them. If every single person was simply free to own or not own a gun, and simply held responsible for the use of said gun, we'd have the "simple" system you desire. But because the gun control issue is constantly placed before the public, with a strong push to demonize guns and anyone who owns them on one side, but sufficient public support to prevent illegalization for the most part from the other, we end up with essentially the worst of both worlds. Guns are largely legal, and a whole lot of people view them like a vice instead of something that should be owned responsibly.

Those who want to play with a "bad toy" will seek out guns and are vastly more likely to use them irresponsibly as a result (if not just outright use them criminally). It's not the "gun culture" that causes this. It's the anti-gun culture that does. Constantly tell people how bad guns are, and people will obtain them in order to be "bad". The result is a bunch of yahoos who never learned any sort of responsibility regarding guns going out and buying one for the exact wrong reasons.

Art collectors.

Not it's not an especially debate destroying reason, but guns are a commodity as much as they are a tool of destruction.

Guns don't really do anything but kill people. I suppose if you had a really pretty gun, or if it was a historic example of firearms development, it would have worth beyond killing things, but all guns are built to kill people. It is the function of a gun.

The ironic thing about claiming a legal right to own a firearm for self-defence is that you're claiming a legal right to kill people. I've always found that highly suspect.

The purpose in collecting guns is that they are authentic; it's not to have a pretty display. You might actually consider selling them at some point. Instead of just insulting gun collectors you'd be much better of stating that the benefit that is gained by collecting guns as a commodity isn't ******* worth all the deaths that guns which are NOT commodities cause.



Sure

I own a few wwi mausers and a luger. My father owns quite a few guns, including a really nice enfield. I don't kill people with them.

I would probably give sell them voluntarily to the government if they decided to ban guns totally. I don't have anything against the confiscation of dangerous property as long as you could get payed for it.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is a valid source for memes & lulz.