4-year-old grabs loaded gun at family BBQ and accidentally kills wife of Tennessee sheriff’s deputy - Polidicks

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40224587]The Economist is internationally staffed and respected international affairs magazine, not a blog. That article was wrote by an american. Try again.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance]Not biased at all[/url] and the author has lived in Britain for most of her life.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;40224889][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance]Not biased at all[/url] and the author has lived in Britain for most of her life.[/QUOTE] Editorial Stance =/= bias Because The Economist has a stance that the legalisation of drugs the "least bad solution" and so forth, doesn't mean it is biased in the way you're trying to maintain. Every publication has a stance. The whole purpose of The Economist is to give its opinion on world affairs you dolt.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;40223465]Neither situation is realistic at all. The reality is probably more like this; A few disgruntled owners from the millions will decided "nah, not having that", keep their guns to shoot illegally at unregistered ranges, sell on the black market, or use in future crimes. They'll get caught out one day and lose said gun, landing themselves in prison and everyone else will go on with their day like nothing happened. There's not enough care amongst the American public to actually rise up against anything like this. They can't even be bothered to rise up in any real meaningful way against other weapon bans, why would this be any different?[/QUOTE] I don't think the general public would rise up. For one thing, the general public doesn't own enough guns. However, the people who do own guns(as in more than one) take that shit very seriously. No, not all will put up a fight but I think the reality is more like this: Law passed, guns must be turned in. Most registered owners- "Gun, what gun? I sold my guns long ago, or they were stolen, etc". Okay smart guy government gun collector, now what? A)Either you enlist a storm trooper army going house to house to find guns, good luck with THAT approach because now you're going to have gunfights in every neighborhood and NOW the general public may well be motivated to say "Okay, it's time to cut the shit, the cure is worse than the disease" Or B)You admit you can't possibly take the guns away from people. This causes your law to be meaningless. The best you can do is occasionally confiscate a weapon from someone when cops catch them doing other things. Such as, call for domestic violence? While there, the cops see a gun and take it. Rounding up guns like that should work, it might take a few hundred years but eventually you'll get most of them.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40225608]I don't think the general public would rise up. For one thing, the general public doesn't own enough guns. However, the people who do own guns(as in more than one) take that shit very seriously. No, not all will put up a fight but I think the reality is more like this: Law passed, guns must be turned in. Most registered owners- "Gun, what gun? I sold my guns long ago, or they were stolen, etc". Okay smart guy government gun collector, now what? A)Either you enlist a storm trooper army going house to house to find guns, good luck with THAT approach because now you're going to have gunfights in every neighborhood and NOW the general public may well be motivated to say "Okay, it's time to cut the shit, the cure is worse than the disease" Or B)You admit you can't possibly take the guns away from people. This causes your law to be meaningless. The best you can do is occasionally confiscate a weapon from someone when cops catch them doing other things. Such as, call for domestic violence? While there, the cops see a gun and take it. Rounding up guns like that should work, it might take a few hundred years but eventually you'll get most of them.[/QUOTE] Option B is basically how any law restricting anything ends up in the western world. We can't take everything at once because people will hide it or keep producing it. But that doesn't make the law useless, we can still retrieve whatever has been restricted after the law passes, it doesn't matter. Yeah it's not an instant fix like some people seem to think it would be, but it does still work as long as it's enforced.

Yeah but there are millions of guns in circulation, MILLIONS. If cops confiscated one or two here and there and that was the essence of how it's going to be done, it's effectively the same as doing nothing. This is because new, illegal guns will be flowing in to the country and/or being illegally manufactured in the country. As an example look at the drug trade. Highly illegal drugs are flowing in because there's money in illegal stuff people want. Guns will be no different.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40226563]Yeah but there are millions of guns in circulation, MILLIONS. If cops confiscated one or two here and there and that was the essence of how it's going to be done, it's effectively the same as doing nothing. This is because new, illegal guns will be flowing in to the country and/or being illegally manufactured in the country. As an example look at the drug trade. Highly illegal drugs are flowing in because there's money in illegal stuff people want. Guns will be no different.[/QUOTE] tell me where the guns are going to flow from please

I'm starting to think it's not the guns but their irresponsible owners just like Adam lanza's mom.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40226710]tell me where the guns are going to flow from please[/QUOTE] Canada, mexico, people who go to hardware stores... If someone want's to shoot someone, they can make all the components, down to the bullet themselves if needed, or they can make .22 rounds out of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder-actuated_tool"]ballistic nail-gun cartridges[/URL].

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40226710]tell me where the guns are going to flow from please[/QUOTE] A pipe.

Less then 12 hours and already a gun control thread I may as well contribute my two cents People want gun control to stop crime A law to stop criminals is like a cake to stop a fat person The point about criminals is that they will break the law

[QUOTE=ojcoolj;40227412]Less then 12 hours and already a gun control thread I may as well contribute my two cents People want gun control to stop crime A law to stop criminals is like a cake to stop a fat person The point about criminals is that they will break the law[/QUOTE] People want gun control to make it harder for criminals to do crimes.

[QUOTE=deadoon;40227163]Canada, mexico, people who go to hardware stores... If someone want's to shoot someone, they can make all the components, down to the bullet themselves if needed, or they can make .22 rounds out of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder-actuated_tool"]ballistic nail-gun cartridges[/URL].[/QUOTE] Doubt the less hardcore criminals would sport a firearm if it gets that difficult. And the more hardcore ones are more concerned about using it sparingly. [QUOTE=coldroll5;40227578]People want gun control to make it harder for criminals to do crimes.[/QUOTE] Well, more exactly so the supply line of guns going to criminals gets severed

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40221716]hi [t]http://andysgunthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/img_1933.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] By this logic people who spend time customizing their motor vehicles with silly shit are treating them like toys too, but I don't see you calling them idiots, despite the fact that motor vehicle accidents resulting in serious injury or death and deaths caused by people speeding far outweigh accidental firearm injury/death.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40229893]By this logic people who spend time customizing their motor vehicles with silly shit are treating them like toys too, but I don't see you calling them idiots, despite the fact that motor vehicle accidents resulting in serious injury or death and deaths caused by people speeding far outweigh accidental firearm injury/death.[/QUOTE] You're comparing something which is mainly designed with transporting people or goods (with a side effect of it potentially happening at dangerous speeds) in mind, to something that were pretty damn much designed with killing as first priority.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40229893]By this logic people who spend time customizing their motor vehicles with silly shit are treating them like toys too, but I don't see you calling them idiots, despite the fact that motor vehicle accidents resulting in serious injury or death and deaths caused by people speeding far outweigh accidental firearm injury/death.[/QUOTE] This argument is all kinds of retarded because a car or any vehicle's purpose is not a weapon. You could apply the same argument to escalators, elevators, planes, boats, even space shuttles. Anything going at a high speed with a ton of mass behind it is dangerous, but its' usefulness in society for the public far outweighs guns.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40229893]By this logic people who spend time customizing their motor vehicles with silly shit are treating them like toys too, but I don't see you calling them idiots, despite the fact that motor vehicle accidents resulting in serious injury or death and deaths caused by people speeding far outweigh accidental firearm injury/death.[/QUOTE] It's also a thread about guns, why would he argue about people not taking their cars seriously? I think driving responsebility is huge problem, but we're not talking about cars.