Are you fucking kidding me? I don't know if anyone (except maybe RoyalDude, I can't manage more than a quick scan of his posts anymore) said anything even close to "guns are bad, lets ban them."
So your straw man "they're going to take our precious freedoms!" bullshit doesn't cut the mustard.
Actually it was Chez boyardee I was responding to that started this conversation, but I do realize that (and would expect) a more reasoned response from the regulars on here,
However, this forum isn't the only place people are talking and there are a lot of people I've heard anyway who are talking like the sky is falling and all guns need to go...
Instinctively I hate knee jerk solutions and I would point to Hitler's suspension of Germany's constitution in 1933 as a prime example of such.
Granted, Sandy hook as a tragedy is way more serious than the Reichstag fire, but as rabble rousing goes, I'd just rather not go headlong into crazy over reaction.
Hey this is some super sound reasoning. Why not just stop having laws, since it doesn't seem to stop criminals from breaking them?
That's a slight exaggeration don't you think? How do you go from the sound logic that restricting legal weapons to prevent illegal ones being used in crimes won't work to well let's have no laws then?
Let's just say it's similar to going from "meaningful gun control helps reduce gun deaths" to "guns are bad, lets ban them."
Except I didn't seriously do that, nor did I proceed to form an argument against that position.. since you know, nobody actually believes it.
It seems we are arguing against ourselves here for no reason...
How about we say that somewhere between, "I shall have any gun I want, whenever or wherever I want, to "there is no good reason whatsoever to own a gun so lets ban them" lies the reasoned position?
What exactly is wrong with that?
Oh I don't know, what's wrong with stripping rights guaranteed in the constitution? Perhaps freedom of speech will be next?
Pastor Martin frickin Niemoller, ladies and gentlemen.
its not such a ridiculous position to take, have you been paying attention since 9/11? Home land security for starters...
Aside: I was absolutely stunned to find out you now need to produce your drivers license to be scanned to enter a night club in BC...doesn't that magnetic strip contain personal information...ahem, Right to privacy anyone?
Uhh gee, I thought only career criminals like Al Capone break laws.
Ok if I concede that stricter gun control might have impeded Lanza enough to either delay his rampage or change it enough to result in a different outcome,
Would you admit that if there are less guns in the hands of the " good guys" (the other result of gun control) there will be less to stop the bad guys?
Btw I hope you aren't gonna say that's what the police are for ...
I'm not going to get any further into this with you than this: they studied deaths by cirrhosis of the liver and other indicators of alcohol consumption.
That's interesting, I have to admit I didn't think of that, however, wouldn't it make sense that if you take booze away from alcoholics they will die sooner and in bigger numbers from drinking bathtub gin, rubbing alcohol, or some other rot gut? Thereby skewing numbers? (off topic I know but interesting nonetheless)
Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to respond to this.
Actually I kind of was, but only to point out the non sequitur. I can't see how a reliable inference could be drawn just by looking at numbers... You know, "lies, damn lies, and all that...
London Met story....
The point of that story was that if the UK is a safer society because it prohibits guns, why does its police force operate like an elite special forces, theoretically the criminals here only have knives?
Ya, some people are always going to have guns. There goes my plan of establishing a completely gun-free society.
Shame, would be a wonderful world...
A "bad guy" - which I guess by your reasoning means that nobody who ever commits a crime (you know, nobody who is "a bad guy") ever purchased the weapon they use to do so at Guns R Us. Too bad the facts don't back you up on that absolutely ludicrous claim.
Okay your point that there is a death toll related to the existence of guns in society is point taken, but that in of itself is not enough reason to control them beyond the intentions of existing laws.
Lets just enforce what's on the books already...
(For the life of me I can't figure out why that's such a clusterfuck by the way, its not like the technology doesn't exist..)
Uh huh. How do you hold someone who kills a bunch of people and them himself accountable, again?
How hard is it to attach a serial number to the rightful purchaser and owner and hold that guy responsible for that weapon a long as he owns it?
Would it be that difficult to hold the guy who owns the gun at least partially responsible for any deaths that occur from the use of that gun...Even if he didn't pull the trigger himself?
The way I see it, like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms is a noble ideal, however if someone else loses their rights in the process- obviously that's a major league fail.
mechanisms need to be in place to prevent that, but the sticky part is how to di that without "infringement"
One way is to track the guns from manufacture to destruction, a monumental task in the past, but with data collection technology in existence now, not so impossible. ..
But anyways this is all pointless and right now I am only arguing with your posts because it's fun to be so incredibly, one-sidedly correct - since you pretty much admitted earlier you are arguing against a complete straw man and actually hold similar views to mine
You're welcome, however, I'm not sure you agree with the right to bear arms as sacrosanct.
(some weapons should be restricted, some people should not be able to own guns, guns should be stored in a safe and responsible manner, people who break these and other laws should be held accountable for their actions).
That's a reasonable position alright, but the trouble I see with it is the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment. How does limiting my ability to bear certain arms jibe with that I'm not sure...throw in state level constitutions and its a hodgepodge...
My last question would be though, how can you be in favour of free speech and in favour of people scratching, clawing and kicking to keep every bit of every aspect of their "rights" and still be in favour of legislation against hate speech?
I don't really know how to answer that other than to say I recognize my rights can't infringe your rights...
If my words or my gun hurts you then I'm in the wrong..
I will say however one huge reason I argue against gun control as a response to Sandy Hook is that I don't want people to go "Ok ban automatic weapons and problem solved" that sucks because whatever is going on is systemic and its way deeper than gun control.
letting what's going with these kids destroying themselves be about gun control is crime in of itself.