the only perfect experiment that will FINALLY END the gun debate

Can you not see that this is an obvious troll thread? There's about 50 of them on the boards every day, and this was way overdone. 9/10 for getting so many offended guns rights advocates to respond.

All liberals off themselves.

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

There are well over one hundred million guns in the United States currently. What do you propose to do about those existing guns during this ban?

Try 3x's that many.

This is a dumb idea. Gun related crime has been dropping despite rising numbers of guns. If it continues to drop with a halt on gun production, it's meaningless data.

The bleeding hearts side is pretty simple to understand - remove as many tools to kill as possible from society. There will be homicides everywhere even without guns, but my educated guess is that if the crazy Chinese psycho that goes on a stabbing spree had a semi instead, it would be 50 murders vs 10. Why do we ban 50calibers and explosives? Maybe I want to mess around in my private back yard and blow up pumpkins.. why is this not my right??? So you see, the bleeding heart argument goes for your radical side. Why do we need so many of these so called rights in a society that most conservatives claim is more out of control and dangerous than ever? I love American history and completely understand the cultural and legal issues preventing America from ever being gun free.. but personally I have to side with the choice that will cause less deaths in the end. What about innocent people's right to live? The outcome of just about every single mass shooting incident could have been lessened if there were no access to guns. The more accessible guns are, the less power law enforcement has to fight gun crime. I'll get criticized for comparing the US to any other place.. but look at Japan.. we're talking about one of the most violence-addicted societies in the world. Guns are not actually banned there, they just make it so difficult for anyone to get a license that few try. Not only do you have to go through 2 years of training/shooting range, you also have to provide a super transparent map of where your gun is stored and how.. there are specific guidelines for this. I say in the US we should lean that way... allow farmers/hunters easier access and other people who can demonstrate a real need and/or make the rules strict enough to ensure that whoever wants to own one will definitely be trained and knowledgeable enough to be able to handle properly. It's still hard to believe someone without any ID can simply buy a riffle at a gun show. I'm a vet and in boot camp we spent two months cleaning and taking apart and putting back together our riffles before going to the range. Even after I thought it wasn't enough education and training for some. Guns really don't belong in a civilian setting. Civilization is supposed to progress toward more peace and less violence... so many gun owners want to own for the sake of owning. Honestly I also doubt there would be a revolution in the US if guns are phased out slowly over say a 20 year period. In Australia most gun owners were p*ssed about their ban and there was mass fear they would resist in violent ways.. never happened. Here it's not the avg hillbilly who has a say, it's all politics and money.

HonestThief wrote:

I can't stand this stupid debate. I live in Texas, and on one side there are the radical gun toters, who want to shoot Obama, and on the other side there are the bleeding hearts, who want to villanize everything in the world that causes a death. I hate to side with the radicals, but in this I must. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Look at China, where firearms are illegal. Do they still have homicides? Yes. Of course they do. Let me keep my damn rifle for hunting and sport shooting, and I'll promise not to shoot you.

I do like the comment of changing school food though. That would definitely be a positive change for America

It's not just the criminals, but the rise in irresponsible gun owners. Supply and demand buddy, if there are less guns it will make harder or at the very least more expensive for the criminals to get them. Isn't that worth it? This has been proven for other countries that banned.. overall, homicide rates dropped in those countries. Yes, some people will kill anyway.. but taking away a lethal weapon from the equation makes a big difference.

It's a moral right until it isn't... just like happened in Australia. So let's just continue to have stupid laws because the constitution is being interpreted a certain way? Yeah you're pretty bright

Except obviously there's even resistance to mandatory background checks!!! This country is full of baffoons

Just ask yourselves this... if your child was a victim of a mass shooting how would you feel if you knew the shooter may not have been able to get a weapon as easily if the laws were different? You people have no compassion until it happens to someone you know. Another big cultural problem with our country - we're so obsessed with our space and rights that we forget we are living amongst other humans. Sickening..

BadArgument wrote:

Just ask yourselves this... if your child was a victim of a mass shooting how would you feel if you knew the shooter may not have been able to get a weapon as easily if the laws were different? You people have no compassion until it happens to someone you know. Another big cultural problem with our country - we're so obsessed with our space and rights that we forget we are living amongst other humans. Sickening..

You are stupid. You know nothing. You hate America. You don't know how to debate. Nauseating...

This is the response that's worthy of your argument. You flung insults and emotional garbage without forming a coherent thought. I will never understand why the same people who say prohibition never works (for alcohol and drugs) will say it works for guns.

All anti-gun propaganda is a Marxist/socialist tactic. They need to disarm the citizenry so they can abscond power.

It will never happen in this country, you dumb gullible libs can get suckered by leftism all you want, but you're just wasting your time whining. Americans would blow the commie filth's brains out if they try to so much as come near their guns.

BadArgument wrote:

Just ask yourselves this... if your child was a victim of a mass shooting how would you feel if you knew the shooter may not have been able to get a weapon as easily if the laws were different? You people have no compassion until it happens to someone you know. Another big cultural problem with our country - we're so obsessed with our space and rights that we forget we are living amongst other humans. Sickening..

The only thing that would have averted that liberal raised lunatics' shooting spree would be if victim #1 was a registered firearm owner.

I find your solution reasonable. I'm not against legislation to make attaining a firearm more difficult and more reasonable. I feel Japan's process is a little extreme, but our current system is stupid.

Of course, you are right. It's all politics and money. So everything else is noisy chatter.

BadArgument wrote:

It's a moral right until it isn't... just like happened in Australia. So let's just continue to have stupid laws because the constitution is being interpreted a certain way? Yeah you're pretty bright

Sure, freedom of speech is a moral right, until it isn't. Let's just let that one fade out. We don't actually deserve that right, do we? Or freedom of religion. Science proves everything now, doesn't it? Or how about freedom of press, freedom of assembly, our God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Lets just get rid of those stupid laws, it's just an interpretation is all... not very bright. We don't need rights

It would be interesting to see if the people that want to ban guns are also the same folks that want to legalize pot. The legalize pot folks think that if you take away the criminal element the price would go down and it would be safer.

Now apply this to firearms, if they are all banned, they instantly become worth much, much more. Then you would have both hard drugs and guns both being controlled by criminals.People that don't follow laws want citizens to be unarmed.

This is a grey area argument. Reminds me of a religion & constitution class I took in college. Snake handling was banned in Pennsylvania even though that is a key ritual of some religious group. Snake bites were happening often and became a public health issue. I can argue that loose gun laws is a public health issue. I'm not saying no guns, period.. it would be nice but not gonna happen. I would start with toughening laws around irresponsible gun ownership. This may prevent a lot of 'accidental' guns murders, where some idiot parents leave their riffle out on the table after cleaning it.. or simply keeps it under the bed or in an unlocked closet. Lets start there and the background checks.. some conservatives claim even this is an infringement of their constitutional rights!!! Just plain ridiculous.

To the idiot with the communist comments... 0.5/10. Bring back the wild wild west right? In fact, let's make it mandatory for everyone to own a weapon and be able to defend themselves. That way we can fire all law enforcement and save money. Everyone will be packing so no one will committ a gun crime.. last time I checked the wild wild west wasn't very safe.

When all the guns are in the hands of the State... who's going to keep the State in check? Don't be a fool and blindly trust the State. It's very prone to exercise tyranny. One could argue, it's already happening here in the US.

I'm for banning both -- medical is fine with me. The last documentary I watched showed a busy shop in Colorado with a massive queue outside. They were interviewing all the people... I didn't see one that looked prensentable or seemed intelligent. The tax rev argument is flawed, when people pay cash it's easy to keep off the books. The country's productivity will further decrease. Back to guns, I don't think the prices would drop... there are so many guns in circulation it will take a long time to deplete some of that inventory. Making guns overly expensive is not an effective solution.. today rednecks are saving for years to buy a $500 riffle they can't afford so they would save $1,000 if they had to.

Chatterer wrote:

Bring back the wild wild west right? In fact, let's make it mandatory for everyone to own a weapon and be able to defend themselves. That way we can fire all law enforcement and save money. Everyone will be packing so no one will committ a gun crime.. last time I checked the wild wild west wasn't very safe.

Surely you don't actually believe the garbage you just wrote.

Yes, the bill of rights gives us specific freedoms (the entire moral freedom is moot, the government doesn't determine moral judgment), but it doesn't give you unlimited freedom.

Scalia's opinion in Heller -

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The problem with the second amendment argument is that people always argue the wrong shit. No one is trying to take your guns, just like people with guns aren't trying to shoot everyone. The irony in this, is that most people are polarized by the classic lobbyist/political agenda's that keep people voting the same way they always do.

Gun violence is down, gun ownership is down, gun sales are up. You can find plenty of articles with the statistics,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

,for example

What does that tell you? Most people don't have guns, the people who do have guns want more guns, and crime drops either way. So, you have a gun lobby that keeps acting like your rights are being stripped, even though the supreme court has ruled that while you can have guns, you don't have unlimited freedom in which ones you can have, or how you get them. They keep forcing this down your throat, and what do you get, awesome gun sales with no legislation that would keep the gun you want out of your hands.

As for the left, crime is down. There's a vast majority of statistics out there proving that violent crime and gun crime is dropping. It isn't responsible gun ownership that causes crime.

So, here is where I can't understand both sides. How is there not common sense middle ground. Why is registering guns such a hot issue for gun owners? Why are background checks such a bad thing for gun shows? Why is making sure people who own guns are properly trained to use and store them?

I feel like this debate is just dumb. It resorts to, I want a gun and I want it NOW! There's a litany of other things you have to be licensed to do or has an age requirement. You need to be 16 and have a license to drive a car, the bigger or more advanced the vehicle, different licenses are required. You have to register your car, etc.

Why is it so unreasonable to think guns shouldn't be handled in a similar way. I could care less if you own an AR-15, but I damn sure want to know you're qualified to use it, store it properly, and make sure unwanted people don't have access to it.

I dislike the idea that a guy can go to a gun show and come home with an armory and have zero proof that he is who he says he is and is knowledgeable about how to handle and store weapons.

I don't think these are wild requests who's aim is to take your guns and I think it helps settle the idea that not just anyone can get their hands on them.

If someone wants to kill someone else, they're going to find a way to do it, that's a shitty reality. But we might at least be able to chalk easily getting a gun off the list of possible methods of accomplishing the goal.

The inconvenience of waiting a few days before you get to sport shoot your AR-15 is a compromise I feel most people would be fine making to make sure that people like Adam Lanza's mother isn't storing her assault rifle in the closet where her mentally ill son could just grab it, or some gangsters can't buy a plethora of guns at a show and disperse them among their compatriots.

Does it stop people, eh, not everyone, but it would make a dent.