I support anything all the way up to a complete ban that would mean never another Sandy Hook.
I hate to disagree with you j4 but I gotta go with rd this time. A complete ban of funds would I'll serve the populace. Criminals will be the only ones with guns at that point. And this country already had issues with smuggling contraband. Have fun when the south secedes on grounds of second amendments rights violation. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It simply can't be done. So we need to find other alternatives.
Well, it would cause a lot of problems for people who live far away from regular civilization who need guns to do everything from protect their property and livestock, to hunt for food. There's also the fact that sport shooting and hunting are both past times that are enjoyed across the country, though I do know that hunting is on the decline and I wouldn't be surprised to hear if sport shooting was too. As for the fact that criminals would be the only ones with guns, I hear that sentiment thrown around a lot and yeah, there are so many guns in this country that if they were completely outlawed, it would be heck of a struggle to get them all off the streets. I doubt that would happen again.I hate to disagree with you j4 but I gotta go with rd this time. A complete ban of funds would I'll serve the populace. Criminals will be the only ones with guns at that point.
Have fun when the south secedes on grounds of second amendments rights violation.
Yeah, the link I posted suggested an alternative. I'd post the other things I'd like to see, but given that the link I posted wants to control distribution and rd said the only solution s/he'd accept is controlling distribution, well. I'm not sure s/he wants to agree.
I can't take a look at it right now but I will try to later and get back to you. Gotta pick up a friend
No. No. I totally agree that better distribution regulations would help. I even said that closing the gun show loopholes as well as using licensed dealers to facilitate sales between individuals would be a great start. What the author of this article suggested though, I disagreed, because quite frankly, I find the ideas to be both crazy, poorly thought out, and quite frankly, overkill.
Getting rid of guns won't prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312) Edit: Look. I only have half a dog in this fight. I personally don't think guns should be banned. However, I do think more regulation is needed. Throwing out half assed ideas though, that are easy to argue against and don't actually make concrete solutions, are not the way to go. There's better ways to go about gun control then taking half thought out ideas and trying to fly to the moon with them. The other problem is, the chances of banning guns in our country is probably never going to happen. They're so ingrained in our culture and they're legitimately used by so many people, that the very thought of doing it is not only unpalatable, it's political suicide as well. This is one of the areas where smarter, more acute regulation could really do wonders. That's what we need to push for. Not zany ideas and not half assed measures.
The Wikipedia article states otherwise unfortunately. I really wish you were right though. The NRA is a DC lobby group. A more reputable organization for gun owners is the 2nd Amendment Foundation. That said, there are good solutions out there. The biggest one being, in my opinion, better regulation of sales.A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured.
The solution being discussed now is never the right solution. I know. The NRA has done a very good job.
The link I posted suggests this solution (which will get sales at least somewhat more under control) because Congress has been unwilling to pass better regulations. Edit: Also, the Chenpeng stabbing is the one gun nuts used to make themselves feel better after Sandy Hook. No one died: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing
I literally laid out a quick counter argument for every point in that article. If you would like to go back to my original posts and discuss those points, I would be more than happy to. However, ignoring my arguments and acting as if I've offered nothing is not a good way to get a dialogue going. The chances of Congress or The President going through with any of the suggestions proposed in the article are next to none. The gun lobby has a lot of influence. You're cherry picking here. There was a rash of school attacks in China, and there were deaths involved. Let's be honest here. If I went and found a random school shooting here in the States where no one was killed, you'd accuse me of cherry picking as well. Trust me. I like this discussion. I think it's an important discussion to have. I'm very much willing to talk about it, but you have to give me something to work with here. Edit: Combined the two posts I just made for ease of reading.The link I posted suggests this solution (which will get sales at least somewhat more under control) because Congress has been unwilling to pass better regulations.
Also, the Chenpeng stabbing is the one gun nuts used to make themselves feel better after Sandy Hook. No one died: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing