Just another gun thread, don't bother reading.

[Losty]

"Fun regulation"

---

So to translate:

Losty:How would they take all the guns?

Mini: They can't.

Did I read that right?

They did it in Australia.

So.....you're not going to answer my question?

And no they did not do it in Australia. At what point in the history of Australia did its government confiscate millions of guns from millions of people?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ditto with the "guns keep government honest" crowd.

Now that is a line of reasoning that completely horrifies me, as when you look past the appealing dress-up, what it actually says is "I wish to menace government employees so that they only do the things I approve of."

I don't think most of them mean in the "I'm going down to the IRS office and gonna shoot me some taxmen" way.

I think they mean it in the "I have a fantasy about living off the country and blowing up tanks with bubblegum and paper clips, and my trusty gun will lead the charge" way.

Not to say that they're less horrifying in their own way, but they're certainly less likely, and therefore easily dismissed.

None of them who adhere to this trope have the balls to menace government officials with a gun, because they know that superior force will be mounted promptly. The gun is their buy-in for their own self-identity.

[Whateverist]

That's quite a set of balls you have on you Losty. I agree with most everything you said. But I have an alternate plan to suggest. Perhaps we could just outlaw guns and give people a yearly one week opportunity to turn them in for 'blue book' value. In between anyone caught with a gun would be fined big time and lose the gun for nothing. Anyone actually caught in the act wielding a gun would simply be shot on sight. Could work.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's quite a set of balls you have on you Losty. I agree with most everything you said. But I have an alternate plan to suggest. Perhaps we could just outlaw guns and give people a yearly one week opportunity to turn them in for 'blue book' value. In between anyone caught with a gun would be fined big time and lose the gun for nothing. Anyone actually caught in the act wielding a gun would simply be shot on sight. Could work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIy_KiBpKU

[AFTT47]

For starters, there is the 2nd Amendment. We need to respect that if we're going to trumpet the separation of church and state - otherwise we are hypocrites. Repealing or modifying it is not realistic in the current climate.

I think the love of guns if largely a cultural thing. The Brits have their royals and we have our guns. I think a lot of Americans equate guns with freedom in a symbolic way. They look at their gun rack and they see it as their protection against a potentially oppressive government. I doubt many of them are under the illusion that they can form a neighborhood militia and hold off the military but that's not entirely the point. The queen has no actual power in Britain but they hold on to that for cultural reasons. I think it's the same here for a lot of people. It gives them comfort and cultural identity. It's an emotional thing - like religion. It may go away eventually but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

[Whateverist]

That would feel weird.

[Losty]

That's quite a set of balls you have on you Losty. I agree with most everything you said. But I have an alternate plan to suggest. Perhaps we could just outlaw guns and give people a yearly one week opportunity to turn them in for 'blue book' value. In between anyone caught with a gun would be fined big time and lose the gun for nothing. Anyone actually caught in the act wielding a gun would simply be shot on sight. Could work.

I do not have any balls Mr.SexyMemberMan. :p

Hmm...you'd need more than blue book value to convince most people, afterall, if guns are illegal you can sell yours to a doomsday preparer or a member of the Michigan Militia for over blue book value.
Also, I think shoot on sight is a terrible idea. Don't you remember that guy in the toy section who was shot dead for holding a toy gun? Or that 7 year old kid who was shot dead for holding something or maybe nothing (I can't remember for sure) that appeared to be a gun?

---

For starters, there is the 2nd Amendment. We need to respect that if we're going to trumpet the separation of church and state - otherwise we are hypocrites. Repealing or modifying it is not realistic in the current climate.

The second amendment is a right to be armed in militia for the purpose of overthrowing the government should it become corrupt. Seems a bit obsolete dontcha think?

I think the love of guns if largely a cultural thing. The Brits have their royals and we have our guns. I think a lot of Americans equate guns with freedom in a symbolic way. They look at their gun rack and they see it as their protection against a potentially oppressive government. I doubt many of them are under the illusion that they can form a neighborhood militia and hold off the military but that's not entirely the point. The queen has no actual power in Britain but they hold on to that for cultural reasons. I think it's the same here for a lot of people. It gives them comfort and cultural identity. It's an emotional thing - like religion. It may go away eventually but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

How many Brits accidentally kill themselves or others with their royals each year? What about those who use the royals to intentionally kill each other?
I don't even think they like the royals. Americans are the ones who love the royals.

[Minimalist]

They did it in Australia.

So.....you're not going to answer my question?

And no they did not do it in Australia. At what point in the history of Australia did its government confiscate millions of guns from millions of people?

They called it a Buy Back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...australia/

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

I could live with buying the fucking things back. I don't care how they get them off the streets and out of the hands of morons. Just Do It.

[Whateverist]

Also, I think shoot on sight is a terrible idea. Don't you remember that guy in the toy section who was shot dead for holding a toy gun? Or that 7 year old kid who was shot dead for holding something or maybe nothing (I can't remember for sure) that appeared to be a gun?

Okay, only shoot them after you check their ID to be sure they aren't minors .. and then maybe just wing them a little?

[Losty]

So.....you're not going to answer my question?

And no they did not do it in Australia. At what point in the history of Australia did its government confiscate millions of guns from millions of people?

They called it a Buy Back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...australia/

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

I could live with buying the fucking things back. I don't care how they get them off the streets and out of the hands of morons. Just Do It.

Yea...how many doomsday prepping gun nuts did Australia have vs America?
You think they're going to sell their precious guns to the big bad government?

---

Also, I think shoot on sight is a terrible idea. Don't you remember that guy in the toy section who was shot dead for holding a toy gun? Or that 7 year old kid who was shot dead for holding something or maybe nothing (I can't remember for sure) that appeared to be a gun?

Okay, only shoot them after you check their ID to be sure they aren't minors .. and then maybe just wing them a little?

You're goofy