|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 03:05 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 02:26 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote:Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change. Hmm interesting.... because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act1993 was when the Brady Act was passed. "The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks." Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem? Interesting.... Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period. On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back  In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over. You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable. Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns. At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future. Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ? He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point.
I've already pointed out how just because a law doesn't stop 100% of an act is not a valid argument against said law. They freak out when you say that of course, but yeah, totally agree.
|
On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 03:05 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 02:26 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote:Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change. Hmm interesting.... because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act1993 was when the Brady Act was passed. "The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks." Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem? Interesting.... Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period. On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over. You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable. Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns. At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future. Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ? He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point.
I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Regulating a tool of violence is not solving the cause of violent behavior, and guns are obviously not the cause of violent behavior.
|
On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 03:05 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 02:26 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote:Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change. Hmm interesting.... because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act1993 was when the Brady Act was passed. "The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks." Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem? Interesting.... Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period. On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable. Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns. At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future. Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ? He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess.
Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons.
|
On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 03:05 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 02:26 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] Hmm interesting.... because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act1993 was when the Brady Act was passed. "The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks." Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem? Interesting.... Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period. On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future. Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ? He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons.
A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that.
|
On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 03:05 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 02:26 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
[quote]
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future. Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ? He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that.
It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home.
|
That would be an amusing thought experiment. How would the NRA go about opposing home-printed guns?
|
On May 14 2013 04:19 JinDesu wrote:
That would be an amusing thought experiment. How would the NRA go about opposing home-printed guns?
Quietly.
|
On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 03:05 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ? He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home.
The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach.
|
On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach.
You think guns will be more regulated when everybody can print them from their own home?
I believe the phrase for that is: "ass backwards"
|
On May 14 2013 04:28 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. You think guns will be more regulated when everybody can print them from their own home? I believe the phrase for that is: "ass backwards"
Wow. Did you respond without reading what I wrote? Or is your reading comprehension just that bad?
|
On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach.
Brazil, Canada, Czech republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary and the rest of the alphabet would like a word with you. Notice I kept a few (like australia) excluded because they did a handgun ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
|
On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future. Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach.
"3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach"
I'll save us both a lot of frustration and I'll just stop responding to your posts. Feel free to do the same.
|
On May 14 2013 04:28 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. You think guns will be more regulated when everybody can print them from their own home? I believe the phrase for that is: "ass backwards"
The government is already debating the legality of freely available gun schematics. There are several issues that makes this a valid point of contention.
1. Anyone can make a gun because there is no age limit for 3D printers and no background check.
2. This bypasses current gun regulations (mostly quality standards)
|
On May 14 2013 04:35 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. "3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach" I'll save us both a lot of frustration and I'll just stop responding to your posts. Feel free to do the same. It's kind of comical you read it again yet still don't understand.
|
On May 14 2013 04:37 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:28 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:
[quote]
I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. You think guns will be more regulated when everybody can print them from their own home? I believe the phrase for that is: "ass backwards" The government is already debating the legality of freely available gun schematics. There are several issues that makes this a valid point of contention. 1. Anyone can make a gun because there is no age limit for 3D printers and no background check. 2. This bypasses current gun regulations (mostly quality standards)
All I can say is that guns aren't exactly regulated heavily now, and I don't see regulation increasing once individuals can physically produce the weapons in their own home.
|
On May 14 2013 04:41 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:37 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 04:28 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that.
Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. You think guns will be more regulated when everybody can print them from their own home? I believe the phrase for that is: "ass backwards" The government is already debating the legality of freely available gun schematics. There are several issues that makes this a valid point of contention. 1. Anyone can make a gun because there is no age limit for 3D printers and no background check. 2. This bypasses current gun regulations (mostly quality standards) All I can say is that guns aren't exactly regulated heavily now, and I don't see regulation increasing once individuals can physically produce the weapons in their own home.
He said:
3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach.
And you deliberately extended the definition of 3D printing to mean broader gun regulations to attack a strawman (3d printing will cause more regulation on guns, which nobody said) and completely missed his point that there will be strict regulations on 3D printing before we an ordinary person will be able to do it.
|
On May 14 2013 04:41 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:37 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 04:28 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that.
Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. You think guns will be more regulated when everybody can print them from their own home? I believe the phrase for that is: "ass backwards" The government is already debating the legality of freely available gun schematics. There are several issues that makes this a valid point of contention. 1. Anyone can make a gun because there is no age limit for 3D printers and no background check. 2. This bypasses current gun regulations (mostly quality standards) All I can say is that guns aren't exactly regulated heavily now, and I don't see regulation increasing once individuals can physically produce the weapons in their own home.
You haven't done enough research on the liberator. Yes it has made big ripples in the libertarian news circles. Unfortunately it's basically another bitcoin fad. The practical limitations are pretty large and include
1. Barrier to entry - you have to already know how to use a 3D printer, which isn't easy.
2. You have to buy a printer and pay for materials, including ammunition. This is most likely more expensive than buying a gun legally (or if printed guns get banned, then it's most definitely more expensive than buying a gun illegally.)
3. Legality is actually a pretty big deal. Most people won't print a gun with the accuracy of a musket illegally when they can just buy a manufactured, multiple shot handgun for a lower price.
4. Government intervention will likely reduce the number of companies that will try to develop these plans. Defense Distributed mainly did this for marketing purposes, and if it is determined illegal/regulated, then subsequent generations will get less hype.
TL;DR
3D printing hype bubble is eventually going to burst.
|
On May 14 2013 05:00 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:41 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:37 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 04:28 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. You think guns will be more regulated when everybody can print them from their own home? I believe the phrase for that is: "ass backwards" The government is already debating the legality of freely available gun schematics. There are several issues that makes this a valid point of contention. 1. Anyone can make a gun because there is no age limit for 3D printers and no background check. 2. This bypasses current gun regulations (mostly quality standards) All I can say is that guns aren't exactly regulated heavily now, and I don't see regulation increasing once individuals can physically produce the weapons in their own home. You haven't done enough research on the liberator. Yes it has made big ripples in the libertarian news circles. Unfortunately it's basically another bitcoin fad. The practical limitations are pretty large and include 1. Barrier to entry - you have to already know how to use a 3D printer, which isn't easy. 2. You have to buy a printer and pay for materials, including ammunition. This is most likely more expensive than buying a gun legally (or if printed guns get banned, then it's most definitely more expensive than buying a gun illegally.) 3. Legality is actually a pretty big deal. Most people won't print a gun with the accuracy of a musket illegally when they can just buy a manufactured, multiple shot handgun for a lower price. 4. Government intervention will likely reduce the number of companies that will try to develop these plans. Defense Distributed mainly did this for marketing purposes, and if it is determined illegal/regulated, then subsequent generations will get less hype. TL;DR 3D printing hype bubble is eventually going to burst.
Sounds like a bigger pain in the ass than just making the gun yourself o_O
|
On May 14 2013 05:00 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:41 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:37 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 04:28 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. You think guns will be more regulated when everybody can print them from their own home? I believe the phrase for that is: "ass backwards" The government is already debating the legality of freely available gun schematics. There are several issues that makes this a valid point of contention. 1. Anyone can make a gun because there is no age limit for 3D printers and no background check. 2. This bypasses current gun regulations (mostly quality standards) All I can say is that guns aren't exactly regulated heavily now, and I don't see regulation increasing once individuals can physically produce the weapons in their own home. You haven't done enough research on the liberator. Yes it has made big ripples in the libertarian news circles. Unfortunately it's basically another bitcoin fad. The practical limitations are pretty large and include 1. Barrier to entry - you have to already know how to use a 3D printer, which isn't easy. 2. You have to buy a printer and pay for materials, including ammunition. This is most likely more expensive than buying a gun legally (or if printed guns get banned, then it's most definitely more expensive than buying a gun illegally.) 3. Legality is actually a pretty big deal. Most people won't print a gun with the accuracy of a musket illegally when they can just buy a manufactured, multiple shot handgun for a lower price. 4. Government intervention will likely reduce the number of companies that will try to develop these plans. Defense Distributed mainly did this for marketing purposes, and if it is determined illegal/regulated, then subsequent generations will get less hype. TL;DR 3D printing hype bubble is eventually going to burst.
I admit to not know much about 3D printing. But, I am also willing to bet that in 10 years, printing a gun at home will be a much more viable option than it is now.
|
On May 14 2013 04:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 03:23 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future. I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. Brazil, Canada, Czech republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary and the rest of the alphabet would like a word with you. Notice I kept a few (like australia) excluded because they did a handgun ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
Most of those are not really fair given the context of what I said. Most of the countries you listed have only enacted national registries in the past few years and still grow stricter on gun laws, give it time. As for Canada you're flat out wrong. Firearms act of 1995 made many types of guns illegal and the registry was used track them down. All you did was go down the list and pick ones that say they have registry and guns available. You didn't even check to see if the registries were actually used to remove certain guns(but not all) as in the case of Canada. What I should have said is there is precedent for using registries to collect guns from citizens and many countries have done just that so it is justified that people would be leery of a registry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
