Good news.

Why do you not believe we can enforce gun ban laws? Is it because you expect the population that owns banned guns to criminally defy the law?

 

Except that you’re just picking and choosing where to apply your “morals”. Are you for banning alcohol due to abuse of alcohol being the cause of deaths?
By banning guns you will embolden criminals. But I suppose you don’t care about that.

 

Just like they are doing now where guns ae banned.

 

What point are you making?

 

You asked the question. My point is that universal registration cannot be done.

 

Maybe you’re right maybe not. I’m not even for registration of all firearms. I’d prefer to see the banned sale and ownership of all magazine fed semi automatics. All that needs to be done is institute that ban, offer a year of mandatory buybacks, then ownership beyond that point is a criminal offense.

 

Most law abiding would comply. The people most likely to do us harm would not.

 

I wonder where all these criminals get their guns. Do you suppose it’s by illicit means? Maybe stealing them from law abiding citizens? Buying them? If they’re not available then the supply eventually goes dry. We keep supplying them and they will always be there.

 

With close to four hundred million out there, they will have a a supply for a very long time. I have an old Enfeld which is about sixty years old. It is not a semi-automatic, but properly cared for, they last a long time. One of my semi-automatic pistols is over twenty years old and it looks and performs like new .Then there are foreign suppliers. Eventually he supply will dry up, but most of us will not live that long.

 

Can you shoot "thirty plus people in less than ten seconds" with what people call an "assault rifle"?

I have serious doubts.

Remember the Virginia Tech massacre? The killer there only needed a couple of handguns along with two chains and padlocks.

Evil finds a way.

 

The two boys that murdered five people at the Joneboro, AR. middle school stole the weapons they used from the uncle of one. IIRC those guns were locked up.

 

Just like legislation has kept the criminal element from committing crime? What effective legislation will keep crazy people from committing mass murder?

 

I've never understood this ridiculous assumption that gun control advocates seem to have.

They seem to actually believe that a guy wants to murder 20 people. But he can't acquire a gun, so he says to himself "oh well" and goes back to his everyday life.

Does this sound even remotely realistic?

 

Thanks for making my point. The guns of law abiding citizens are not guaranteed to be safe from being the implements of harm.

 

Sure. Ever seen a 100 round drum mag or a bump stock? Ever been to a crowded mall or street fair?

 

My position is that you are dangerous to the people around you, and to yourself. And before you decide to do anything crazy, keep in mind that at the rate killings by gun nuts who want to "overthrow the government" go today, you might make it to the bottom of page 3 of your local paper... at best. Just another statistic that will not even be mentioned by name on the media. My advice is that you should consider discussing this with a professional.

 

Most likely it won't save anybody. That would be as misguided as those who think that if you want to stop global warming, you shouldn't have a car.

No. The way to save lives is to stop the sale to the public of the guns that can make the most damage, ammunition, and gun parts.

 

So no proof, got it.

 

Except there will still be hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of millions of people all across this country. How is that supposed to save lives?

 

Red herrings are always a signal of lack of arguments. Alcohol abuse must be handled in whatever way it saves most lives. The moral principle is the same: save lives. But here I'm discussing guns.

Every time you feel a need to "suppose" my position, you will be wrong. It never fails.

 

You act as if you have a good argument. You don't. Punishing everyone else because of a few is beyond silly. And you can deny it all you like but your idea of banning guns will in fact embolden criminals. So it's painfully obvious you don't care about that,.

 

Pick any crime you want. What effective legislation has "kept" crazy (and often sane) people from violating it.

There is not legislation in existence that completely eliminates any unlawful behavior. The only thing legislation is meant to do is to reduce the number of victims. Gun legislation is no different from drug legislation, robbery legislation or tickets for going over the speed limit. Now, go ahead and tell me that we should get rid of speed limits because they don't stop everybody from speeding.

This is how ridiculous all pro-gun talking points are.

 

Do you think giving out speeding tickets is equivalent to banning all guns?

 

I wouldn't know. Ask the gun manufacturer. It's their statement. Sounds reasonable to me: shooting a bullet at somebody increases the possibility that they will die. Shooting more rapidly more bullets at more people increases the probability that more people will die.

If you need "proof" of that... you probably also need proof that if you jump off a building you are unlikely to fly. In both cases, you'll have to find "proof" yourself.

 

It's easy: less guns to shoot, less people get shot, less people die from gun shots. What part don't you understand?