Another gun thread...

[Napoléon]

@Free_Thinker

All I can do is point you towards whateverist's response to your argument (which he actually posted just before your post). It's exactly what I'd have to say on the matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

So strange that people who recognize nonsense when they hear it in regard to gods and religion fall under the spell of this sort of hogwash. It ain't happening. There won't be a suspension of our democratic process by any tyrant nor will we storm the capital with muskets. We will suffer a continued erosion of responsible government by moneyed interests but at no point will they overreach so egregiously that wholesale carnage makes sense. Those looking forward to running around like in the movie Braveheart who can't be bothered to put any effort into making the government we already have accountable through democratic processes don't deserve any better government and will never have it with such wishy washy commitment.

Especially if we're willing to put up with it to avoid carnage - which we clearly are at this point. Should I really have to invoke the potential threat of tyranny (however unlikely) just so I can shoot at a squirrel with a .22? I'll be honest with you, that already sounds like tyranny. The seed, at least, is planted. Public opinion is anti-gun, (or pro-gun, depending on where you live) and the mob screams for blood, I get it.

Not that I'd run around freezing my balls off and starving as a rebel if some outlandish shit went down, mind you, I'd most likely end up as the cruel boot of the system, or a cog in the gears of the machine - I have mouths to feed. What that has to do with my .22 and those squirrels though, is beyond me.

---

Oh for christ sake, this logic keeps coming up but it's still not an argument against better gun regulation. Obviously tougher gun laws are going to affect the average person more, but to say it won't affect criminals either is flat out wrong.

"Oh criminals don't pay attention to laws". No shit.

It keeps coming up because I seriously doubt that anyone's checked those books, firstly, and secondly because it's demonstrable accurate. To some, being stabbed or clubbed to death rather than shot (even as a potentiality) may seem like a victory, but to me it isn't. We do have hard data that shows us that the regulations do not have the desired effect - but the one effect they most definitely do have is the one that perplexes me the most.

IMO, "better gun regulation" would begin and likely end with thorough enforcement of current gun regulations - which is a hair shy of a fucking pre-crime unit.........and only remains so because we are -allowed- to have guns at all.

[Ryantology]

We'll never have effective gun control as long as we allow individual states to determine what that level of control is.

When compared to other developed nations, it is patently obvious that current regulations are vastly ineffective.

[The Grand Nudger]

State's laws, and county/city ordinances are actually the stringent ones Ryan, because they can be (they aren't as limited by the 2nd as the Fed is). Our states regulations are ineffective though (most of them anyway- the prevalence of handguns as opposed to say, assault rifles used in the commission of a crime might suggest that some regulations work - on the other hand...handguns are more handy for the commission of crimes...so it may not) but I'm not sure that increasing the arm of the federal government is really going to address that.

[Gilgamesh]

So strange that people who recognize nonsense when they hear it in regard to gods and religion fall under the spell of this sort of hogwash.

Proof that atheism and free-thinking don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Although, it does make for arguments, even between us atheists - which is good for a discussion board.

Guns are pieces of equipment that have one purpose - to kill. Why such equipment is being mass produced and basically handed out to the population is beyond me.

Other than a hunting rifle (ya'know, for hunting), no average-joe civilian needs - or should have one of these death-machines.

[The Grand Nudger]

They handing out guns where you live? Fuck, I love guns, maybe I should move.

(just add them to the ever increasing list of things we don't need)

[Whateverist]

So strange that people who recognize nonsense when they hear it in regard to gods and religion fall under the spell of this sort of hogwash.

Proof that atheism and free-thinking don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Although, it does make for arguments, even between us atheists - which is good for a discussion board.

Guns are pieces of equipment that have one purpose - to kill. Why such equipment is being mass produced and basically handed out to the population is beyond me.

Other than a hunting rifle (ya'know, for hunting), no average-joe civilian needs - or should have one of these death-machines.

Good points all but I still worry how all our hogs are going to stay clean if our best and brightest keep using that stuff up.

[Napoléon]

(just add them to the ever increasing list of things we don't need that kill people)

Fixed that for you.

We do have hard data that shows us that the regulations do not have the desired effect

Like the hard data from Australia when they outlawed guns? Wait, that shows the absolute opposite.

Data will always represent whatever side of the post you stand on in an argument like this.

[Ryantology]

State's laws, and county/city ordinances are actually the stringent ones Ryan, because they can be (they aren't as limited by the 2nd as the Fed is). Our states regulations are ineffective though (most of them anyway- the prevalence of handguns as opposed to say, assault rifles used in the commission of a crime might suggest that some regulations work - on the other hand...handguns are more handy for the commission of crimes...so it may not) but I'm not sure that increasing the arm of the federal government is really going to address that.

The problem is that, even if some states have stringent restrictions, it does little to stop interstate trafficking from states which do not. The DC handguns ban was ineffective in large part because all you have to do is step over the Potomac into Virginia, where gun control is a joke.

[popeyespappy]

The DC handguns ban was ineffective in large part because all you have to do is step over the Potomac into Virginia, where gun control is a joke.

You know you're right Ryan. The DC handgun ban was a joke as the only people it affected were law abiding citizens. A resident of DC can't go to Virginia or any other state and legally purchase a handgun. So pretty much the only people with handguns in DC were the criminals.