Obama Continues to Ineffectively Restate his Opinions on Gun Control - Polidicks

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;49205488]We can blame guns all we want; getting rid of them won't stop a person really intent on killing from killing. This is a people problem, not a gun problem[/QUOTE] No, but it will stop: 1. Easy killing sprees. 2. Accidental killings. 3. Spur-of-the-moment/opportunistic killings.

[QUOTE=David29;49206364]No, but it will stop: 1. Easy killing sprees. 2. Accidental killings. 3. Spur-of-the-moment/opportunistic killings.[/QUOTE] It hasn't had that effect in Australia. People love to cite Australia as proof of gun control's success, but all that really changed was that killers migrated to, realistically, more effective methods - fire in most recent cases. Additionally I'll point out that the firearm crime rate in Australia had been steadily dropping for a long time before their ban and continued dropping at the same rate after. It didn't really fix anything. All it did was cost a lot of fine people their hobbies, and eradicate a ton of historic guns for nothing. If you're motivated to kill someone in the spur of the moment then you are going to use whatever you can get your hands on - this is proven. Angry people reach for guns first, if they have access to them, but will go for knives, bottles, bricks, fire, cars, or whatever. People die accidentally all the time, accidental firearm deaths can be addressed without bans. Killing sprees are generally either planned (in which case a gun can be substituted for other tools) or spur of the moment (in which case a gun can be substituted for another tool). Finally, guns don't cause violence. They're objects that deranged people often reach for when motivated to commit violence. The gun didn't motivate them to commit murder, though - the actual problem lies elsewhere, and a firearm ban addresses a symptom, not a disease.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49206378]It hasn't had that effect in Australia. People love to cite Australia as proof of gun control's success, but all that really changed was that killers migrated to, realistically, more effective methods - fire in most recent cases. Additionally I'll point out that the firearm crime rate in Australia had been steadily dropping for a long time before their ban and continued dropping at the same rate after. It didn't really fix anything. All it did was cost a lot of fine people their hobbies, and eradicate a ton of historic guns for nothing. If you're motivated to kill someone in the spur of the moment then [B]you are going to use whatever you can get your hands on - this is proven. Angry people reach for guns first, if they have access to them, but will go for knives[/B], bottles, bricks, fire, cars, or whatever. People die accidentally all the time, accidental firearm deaths can be addressed without bans. Killing sprees are generally either planned (in which case a gun can be substituted for other tools) or spur of the moment (in which case a gun can be substituted for another tool). [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49205528]You can't do a driveby shooting with a knife. You can't walk into a room and kill everyone in it from the doorway with a knife. You can't have an armed standoff with police officers with a knife. Removing guns from the equation will not stop somebody from committing an act of violence if they are truly committed to doing so, but it will dramatically lower the ceiling on how much damage they are capable of doing, how quickly they are able to do, the conditions in which they're able to achieve it, etc. The hugely availability of handguns and small automatic weapons, and, to a lesser extent, high capacity rifles in the United States is directly contributing to the problem.[/QUOTE] [quote]Finally, guns don't cause violence. They're objects that deranged people often reach for when motivated to commit violence. The gun didn't motivate them to commit murder, though - the actual problem lies elsewhere, and a firearm ban addresses a symptom, not a disease.[/quote] I take drugs against migraines because i don't understand the underlying issue, and i can't fix the underlying issue. Consider that the whole mental health/well-being argument works against weapons of any type, at any time and place. Its like the "Think of the children" straw man, you have to draw the line somwhere. You already do, thats why the current gunlaws exist.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49206378]It hasn't had that effect in Australia. People love to cite Australia as proof of gun control's success, but all that really changed was that killers migrated to, realistically, more effective methods - fire in most recent cases. Additionally I'll point out that the firearm crime rate in Australia had been steadily dropping for a long time before their ban and continued dropping at the same rate after. It didn't really fix anything. All it did was cost a lot of fine people their hobbies, and eradicate a ton of historic guns for nothing. If you're motivated to kill someone in the spur of the moment then you are going to use whatever you can get your hands on - this is proven. Angry people reach for guns first, if they have access to them, but will go for knives, bottles, bricks, fire, cars, or whatever. People die accidentally all the time, accidental firearm deaths can be addressed without bans. Killing sprees are generally either planned (in which case a gun can be substituted for other tools) or spur of the moment (in which case a gun can be substituted for another tool). Finally, guns don't cause violence. They're objects that deranged people often reach for when motivated to commit violence. The gun didn't motivate them to commit murder, though - the actual problem lies elsewhere, and a firearm ban addresses a symptom, not a disease.[/QUOTE] Ah I see now. So even without gun control people are still going to go on school massacres armed with bricks or aluminum baseball bats? [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] I don't leave wires and knives lying around my Psychiatric ward because "Eh, if someone really wants to kill them self they'll find away or it's only treating the symptoms not the disease!"

[QUOTE=Cold;49206434]a[/QUOTE] You can't do any kind of shooting with a knife. That's a really dumb, empty argument. "You can't carry out a stabbing with a gun! Ban knives!" As for killing everyone from the doorway - you can't really do that with a gun, either. They aren't magical deathrays. I'd argue that someone running with a knife could easily be far more deadly in a room of unsuspecting people. [QUOTE=Cold;49206434]I take drugs against migraines because i don't understand the underlying issue, and i can't fix the underlying issue.[/QUOTE] You don't force everyone else to take your migraine medicine without bothering to check if they get migraines too. [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49206441]Ah I see now. So even without gun control people are still going to go on school massacres armed with bricks or aluminum baseball bats? [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] I don't leave wires and knives lying around my Psychiatric ward because "Eh, if someone really wants to kill them self they'll find away or it's only treating the symptoms not the disease!"[/QUOTE] A psychiatric ward is a place full of people who have already demonstrated self-harming tendencies. The vast majority of Americans have not attempted to murder people with a firearm. This is not an argument.

[quote]then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets[/quote] The beauty of this statement is that he does not specify so he's not technically incorrect. We can buy bolt action rifles which were weapons of war until the 1940's and 1950's. But people hearing this statement will automatically think of Assault Rifles and Machine Guns, which will garner more support from people that don't know those are already illegal (with a few expensive and highly regulated exceptions). I swear some people must think getting a gun is like going to Ammu-Nation and buying a PK Machine Gun and a crate of HE Grenades.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49205461]There we go with this nonsense argument again. "It worked for Australia so it'll work in the USA".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RichyZ;49205473]‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens[/QUOTE] What I find funnier about this, is how the person who lives in the one country where it happens regularly, is telling the person where it doesn't happens regularly because guns are mostly banned, that it could actually help.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49205461]There we go with this nonsense argument again. "It worked for Australia so it'll work in the USA".[/QUOTE] And how do you know it won't work in America if you never try it?! Try it out for a while and if it works, done, problem solved. If it doesn't work, strike it off the list and move to the next potential solution. Doing nothing is [I]not[/I] a fucking solution.

[QUOTE=sltungle;49206988]And how do you know it won't work in America if you never try it?! Try it out for a while and if it works, done, problem solved. If it doesn't work, strike it off the list and move to the next potential solution. Doing nothing is [I]not[/I] a fucking solution.[/QUOTE] Good joke. There's no going back once we ban guns. Even if all the results were negative and the murder rate skyrocketed we wouldn't get guns back. The same people would just come up with an even more strict "solution."

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49205661]when was the last time people were killed with a legal fully automatic weapon in the US anyway?[/QUOTE] I'm primarily referring to automatic pistols, and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols. The Tec-9, for example, which is a common and popular weapon for gangbangers due to its availability, affordability, large magazine, and high rate of fire.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49207125]I'm primarily referring to automatic pistols, and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols. The Tec-9, for example, which is a common and popular weapon for gangbangers due to its availability, affordability, large magazine, and high rate of fire.[/QUOTE] Automatic pistols are also illegal; every semiauto pistol has about the same rate of fire (As fast as you can squeeze the trigger). The Tec-9, as far as I know, was only ever made in semi-auto

[QUOTE=sltungle;49206988]And how do you know it won't work in America if you never try it?! Try it out for a while and if it works, done, problem solved. If it doesn't work, strike it off the list and move to the next potential solution. Doing nothing is [I]not[/I] a fucking solution.[/QUOTE] Even if it were possible to give a trial run to sweeping gun control legislation, the timeline to see any proposed system fully implemented, and to measure its impact, would be measured in decades, not months. Realistically, I imagine it would take [I]at least[/I] ten to twenty years of regular confiscation, dramatically limited production, and highly regulated sales to see a large enough dip in the current gun population to sufficiently limit their availability to a point where it would start becoming too difficult and expensive for most people to realistically acquire an illegal firearm.

[QUOTE=kweh;49206928]What I find funnier about this, is how the person who lives in the one country where it happens regularly, is telling the person where it doesn't happens regularly because guns are mostly banned, that it could actually help.[/QUOTE] In most of these threads it's inbetween fighting between Americans and then a couple of UK and Australian people going "ya dumb yanks and your guns!" flapping their fat cheeto stained fingers on the keyboard with half-arguments, it's only fair that there's a European here and there who actually looks into this stuff a little deeper than "lol americans and guns xDD hamburger xDD" Not to mention that someone's arguments aren't more or less valid based solely on where they live PS. let me tell you that getting a handgun license (B1) here in Portugal isn't as complicated as you probably think it is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49207039]Good joke. There's no going back once we ban guns. Even if all the results were negative and the murder rate skyrocketed we wouldn't get guns back. The same people would just come up with an even more strict "solution."[/QUOTE] You can vote in right wing governments and have them deregulate/unban guns. Also, the voice calling to ban guns is microscropic. Most people call for regulation.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;49206244]Oh boy, here we go again. My god damned Mosin Nagant was designed as a weapon of war with an effective range of well over 500 meters. It has not been fired out of anger at any living being for over a century. Just because firearms can be used to take lives, does not mean that an individual must use them for that purpose. Recreational shooting and hunting is kind of a big thing in this country.[/quote] I never have or would imply that simply owning a gun makes you a killer, or that there are no legitimate uses for guns. You're attempting to undermine my argument by making unreasonable assumptions about my position, which is just dishonest. I am not now, nor have I ever, made any arguments about bolt-action rifles, pump shotguns, or even target or small game pistols. Hell, even revolvers. My focus is on handguns, with proper legislation of course for things like semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines. I have no problem with your standard hunting weapon, but I don't believe for a moment that a semi-automatic civilian variant of an otherwise military assault rifle or carbine is at all necessary for hunters. And, sorry to say it, but the desires of collectors just aren't as important as the potential for mass casualties should weapons of that nature not be properly regulated. Hang a decommissioned rifle on your wall with the firing mechanisms destroyed and the barrel plugged if you're so intent on the aesthetics. However, I will agree that handguns are the bigger threat, if only for their availability and low cost. [quote]30 thousand deaths out of like what, 300 million guns floating around on the streets? That seems to be the general consensus on how many firearms there are in the US, although I’ll admit there is no real way to really keep track of how many people own them. Point is the ratio of firearms to firearm related deaths is actually minuscule, and the biggest reason why people keep hearing about shootings in the United States is due to the sheer size of the country. Also out of all the shootings that take place, how many of them were committed with firearms which were legally obtained by shooters?[/quote] I was corrected on the 30,000 figure, just to be clear. Of that 30k, approximately ~60% are suicides, which are technically gun violence, but not in the sense that I'm building my case off of. The figure of firearm related homicides is about 11k. That 11000 annual homicides to firearms still places the United States as the absolute leader in gun-related homicides in the developed Western world by a fair margin, however. We are only beaten out by countries such as Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador -- deeply povertous nations plagued by colossal gang warfare, political strife, and a huge host of other crippling socioeconomic issues. This is unacceptable. As per your comment about how easy it is for people to illegally obtain firearms used in crime... You think that has nothing to do with your aforementioned availability of firearms in general? We are a country absolutely [I]saturated[/I] with weapons. We have as many guns as [I]people.[/I] Of course it easy to obtain them illegally. Dramatically reducing the population of guns would also dramatically increase the cost and difficulty of obtaining them illegally. [quote]Ok sure, handguns are often used in crimes and I think there should be some more sensible regulations on who is allowed to have ANY firearm in general. Yeah there are plenty of people who probably shouldn’t have guns. However that last bit about the assault weapons and full auto firearms is a bunch of fear mongering from the media.[/quote] I very deliberately and specifically mentioned handguns as being the primary threat. I mentioned "assault weapons" (IE- high capacity rifles) only because they need to properly regulated as well. I am well aware that they are used considerably less frequently than handguns, but it's not fear mongering to point out that they are capable of doing considerably more damage. The reason they are not used more frequently is because they are not appropriate for most situations. A handgun is cheaper, easier to acquire, more concealable, and generally more versatile. The only people seeking out an assault weapon for use in crime are those specifically looking to commit acts of mass violence or intimidation. So, assault weapons need to have proper controls on production, sale, and ownership requirements as well. However, as you pointed out, it is the handgun, especially the automatic handgun (IE, any handgun with a mechanism that automatically feeds rounds and ejects used shells), that has caused the most death and destruction by a long stretch in the United States. Again, I feel like you're arguing against an imagined version of me right now. You're arguing against points I haven't made, assumptions on what I'm recommending based on whatever your perspective of the Anti-Gun Boogeyman entails. [quote]Name one place where the average Joe Schmough can legally and easily obtain a fully automatic ANYTHING, and not have to pay the price of a luxury SUV. That just simply doesn’t happen because of the Hughes amendment and the NFA. I can think of only like 1 incident which may have happened with a legally registered machine gun, and the suspect in question was a police officer. Other than that, I’m not aware of any criminal offenses that have been perpetrated with a legally registered machinegun within the last 30 years.[/quote] I'm sorry, I should have clarified that by "small automatic weapons" I was referring primarily to weapons in the pistol category, such as the Tec-9. You're right to call me out on that, as it's a bit misleading. The Tec-9 is not, by default, a fully automatic weapon. It is, however, a pistol with a high capacity magazine capable of sustained rapid fire. And it is quite common throughout the US, a favorite of drive-by shooters and gangbangers.[/quote] [quote]It’s also pretty common knowledge that the majority of firearms related crimes are not committed with “assault weapons”. Again, handguns are probably a bigger issue there.[/QUOTE] Yeah, as I said. [editline]28th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=-nesto-;49205624]No, people are the problem.[/QUOTE] lol thank you for the pointless distinction. Let me rephrase it in a way that you're not tempted to turn into misleading fluff: people who are problems and have guns become bigger problems.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49207125]I'm primarily referring to automatic pistols, and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols. The Tec-9, for example, which is a common and popular weapon for gangbangers due to its availability, affordability, large magazine, and high rate of fire.[/QUOTE] You cannot legally just walk in and buy any automatic firearm, including an automatic version of the Tec-9. The Tec-9 was easily converted to automatic, this caused the ATF to force Interdynamic to redesign it as a closed bolt system. They haven't been made since 94, and they are not nearly as popular as you think. Nowadays they are just a novelty gun or a collectors item. Anyway, wanna real "Ghetto blaster", Lets put a 15 round Hipoint 9mm Carbine mag in my HiPoint C9 pistol. You may be more likely to find that combo, then a Tec-9.

[QUOTE=sltungle;49206988]And how do you know it won't work in America if you never try it?! Try it out for a while and if it works, done, problem solved. If it doesn't work, strike it off the list and move to the next potential solution. Doing nothing is [I]not[/I] a fucking solution.[/QUOTE] straight up banning guns is a terrible idea and you would be naïve to think otherwise. you go on, rightfully, about how deadly guns are, then say they should be taken. who will take them? some people would willingly give them up but i have entire branches of my family who i know would defend their right to bare arms to the death, and they have the tools to defend themselves with. hell we had people getting up and ready to start shit with Federal agents over fucking cows down at Bundy Ranch. if you thought Waco and Ruby Ridge were bad, you haven't seen anything when there's several of them happening at once all across the country. hell, you'd see people deserting the army to support those who do fight back because a lot of people in the army like their guns a hell of a lot more than they like the federal government even if the fed is signing their paychecks. an australia style ban of guns would quite literally tear this country apart and easily could result in another civil war, insurrections across the nation at the very least would be guaranteed.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;49205450]If we didn't have the entire American South holding back any form of progress, we should just ban any guns other than hunting rifles and shotguns altogether. Look at Australia, it worked for them.[/QUOTE] So, i'd like to state first off. I don't like the idea of giving up my firearms or rights to use them because someone might shoot a place up. I don't care about others to that extent. That said, if I wanted to get any firearm I wanted to, and blast some people. Not having legal access to firearms is gonna stop me. I could build one out of a couple pipes, or just buy one from any number of shady individuals in the area. I agree that gun control would help to lessen the impact of gun violence eventually. But I like the idea of having my weapons more.

We really just need to execute all the gun owners. They're the ones who cause these deaths. Hell, lets execute all the soldiers and veterans as well. Kill the police too, they have also handled weapons in the past. But we have to kill them melee otherwise we'll have to kill ourselves after. Then there will only be fags and jews left. A perfect world. :suicide: [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting again" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49207125]I'm primarily referring to automatic pistols, and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols. The Tec-9, for example, which is a common and popular weapon for gangbangers due to its availability, affordability, large magazine, and high rate of fire.[/QUOTE] Tec-9s are garbage though. Like, literally, they redefine trash. My buddy has one, it's the biggest joke I've ever seen - like most popular "assault weapons", it's designed to look cool first and work well second. [QUOTE=sltungle;49206988]And how do you know it won't work in America if you never try it?! Try it out for a while and if it works, done, problem solved. If it doesn't work, strike it off the list and move to the next potential solution. Doing nothing is [I]not[/I] a fucking solution.[/QUOTE] What are you going to tell the millions of people who you confiscated guns from when it inevitably doesn't work? Sorry? Sorry we stole, with zero compensation, your family heirlooms, personal projects, and irreplaceable historic artifacts from you and chucked them in a smelter, looks like it didn't work out the way we wanted, oh well! It doesn't fucking work that way. There's no undo button on this shit. It's not like taking away candy. You're talking about snatching away devices that can cost multiple thousands of dollars, that can be over 400 years old, that can have extremely rich sentimental/family value, as a 'test'. You're proposing a kneejerk legislation to satisfy your personal paranoid delusion that everyone else will kill you if guns are available to them. That's all. Saner controls are the only way forward. Did you know the FBI isn't required to respond to background checks? If it doesn't respond within 3 days, the sale can continue legally. A shooter in Louisiana with a felony record was able to buy a gun that he used to murder a reporter this way. So I'd start there - [I]require[/I] the FBI to respond to background checks. Then I'd make mental health data available to the FBI for reference in background checks - currently it isn't. Require background checks for gun shows. [I]Strongly suggest[/I] background checks for private transfer - as in, if you don't conduct one through an FFL, you're held as an accomplice (for negligence) if a crime is committed with the gun you sold (exception made if the gun is then stolen from the person who bought it). The next step? The majority of the homicides in this country are committed by people in poverty, against people in poverty. There is an obvious trend here - the poverty rate in this country is unacceptable and it drives a lot of people into a criminal lifestyle in an attempt to scrape out a living. That, and the overall lack of any sort of mental health care here, are the real festering wounds - gun ownership is not the cause, and firearms homicides are just one of many symptoms.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49207564]Tec-9s are garbage though. Like, literally, they redefine trash. My buddy has one, it's the biggest joke I've ever seen - like most popular "assault weapons", it's designed to look cool first and work well second. [/QUOTE] if more criminals used tec-9s instead of revolvers there'd be less gun deaths because every other murder would be thwarted by their gun jamming

[QUOTE=Ridge;49205720]Colorado has already enacted the stuff Obama says he wants. We have a mag cap law, no private sales without background checks, and so on. What else could have stopped this guy?[/QUOTE] California has all this plus a ban on importing handguns to, yet Texas has [i]no gun laws[/i]. Yet in California you are 5.7% more likely to be murdered with a gun than any other means than in Texas. [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a12oiMSmAXY/USmpoKbEnMI/AAAAAAAACR0/HEXGO207EpE/s1600/Gun_Law_Homicides.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Broseph_;49207747]California has all this plus a ban on importing handguns to, yet Texas has [i]no gun laws[/i]. Yet in California you are 5.7% more likely to be murdered with a gun than any other means than in Texas.[/QUOTE] Texas has gun laws - you can't discharge a firearm within city limits, you can't open carry a pistol, and state police will enforce federal gun laws. [I]Arizona[/I] has no gun laws... like, none. And there's no enforcement of federal gun laws. How are the homicide rates there? I haven't checked. e: 3.6 per 100,000 in 2010. Interestingly, D.C. is [B]16.5[/B] per 100,000, despite having probably the tightest gun laws in the country as far as I know. What the hell? ... Anyway, when you actually get to looking at the numbers, the homicide rates are almost statistically negligible. We're dealing with percentages that could be disregarded as anomalies in other fields. Detroit's comparatively high murder rate of 45 in 100,000 comes up to 0.00045%.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49207776]Texas has gun laws - you can't discharge a firearm within city limits, you can't open carry a pistol, and state police will enforce federal gun laws. [I]Arizona[/I] has no gun laws... like, none. And there's no enforcement of federal gun laws. How are the homicide rates there? I haven't checked. e: 3.6 per 100,000 in 2010. Interestingly, D.C. is [B]16.5[/B] per 100,000, despite having probably the tightest gun laws in the country as far as I know. What the hell?[/QUOTE] There's no state law against discharge of a firearm within city limits, and we get open carry in a month. Also we don't have a State Police. Per 2011 figures, in Arizona, if you are murdered, you are 3% less likely to have been murdered with a firearm than in California.

I thought that the firearm discharge law was statewide but alright, seems you're correct - open carry in a month, true, but we [I]do[/I] have state police - the DPS - and they aren't going away any time soon.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49207874]I thought that the firearm discharge law was statewide but alright, seems you're correct - open carry in a month, true, but we [I]do[/I] have state police - the DPS - and they aren't going away any time soon.[/QUOTE] DPS isn't State Police, they're Highway Patrol, and apart from the State Capitol Grounds they perform absolutely no policing beyond traffic enforcement.

State troopers do more than traffic enforcement in unincorporated areas and there are also the Rangers: [quote]The duties of the Texas Ranger Division consist of conducting criminal and special investigations; apprehending wanted felons; suppressing major disturbances; the protection of life and property; and rendering assistance to local law enforcement in suppressing crime and violence. The Texas Ranger Division is also responsible for the gathering and dissemination of criminal intelligence pertaining to all facets of organized crime. The Texas Ranger Division joins with all other enforcement agencies in the suppression of the same; under orders of the Director, suppress all criminal activity in any given area, when it is apparent that the local officials are unwilling or unable to maintain law and order; also upon the request or order of a judge of a court of record, Texas Rangers may serve as officers of the court and assist in the maintenance of decorum, the protection of life, and the preservation of property during any judicial proceeding; and provide protection for elected officials at public functions and at any other time or place when directed. The Texas Rangers, with the approval of the Director, may conduct investigations of any alleged misconduct on the part of other Department of Public Safety personnel.[/quote] - though they are few in number.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49205494]Oh, but there are certainly ways to mitigate numbers of firearm homicides in your country. Those ways are just slightly more feasible and realistic, and also more desireable to law-abiding people who want to own certain guns than proposing an Australia/UK solution, which would be expensive, impractical, and quite a knee-jerk reaction.[/QUOTE] A knee-jerk reaction is an 'automatic and unthinking' reaction to something, i.e., a reaction in which the reactor is not properly considering the situation and is instead relying on (often fallacious) preconceived biases. I think we've all been watching this situation for long enough and have enough other countries to compare the US to in terms of gun ownership v. shootings that our opinions are pretty well though out and considered.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;49207930]A knee-jerk reaction is an 'automatic and unthinking' reaction to something, i.e., a reaction in which the reactor is not properly considering the situation and is instead relying on (often fallacious) preconceived biases. I think we've all been watching this situation for long enough and have enough other countries to compare the US to in terms of gun ownership v. shootings that our opinions are pretty well though out and considered.[/QUOTE] Calling for a blanket ban because "gee I have never handled one but guns are scary" is entirely a knee-jerk reaction. Without exception, it's grounded in an irrational, paranoid distrust of other humans - the fear that anyone could turn on you at any time for any reason, and you want them to be as lightly armed as possible. Most human beings knowledgeable in responsible handling of firearms will never be a measurable threat to anyone else, let alone actually take a life. That's indisputably proven by all statistics available anywhere. What this means is, quite simply, that the firearm is not motivating people to commit murders, so [B]removing it from the equation doesn't actually address the issue[/B].

Heh. Funny this comes up to me today; Me and my dad just bought a Glock 21 today. Federal form, State form, 2 forms of ID, and then a background check. It really didn't take that long, too. We spent more time just chatting with the guy than we did filling out forms. Honestly, the way my state(Virginia) does it is pretty well designed. Yeah, there's paperwork, but it doesnt take long and it's very thorough. We walked out with our Glock that day. I mean, we're law abiding citizens. Extra paperwork simply isn't necessary when the state and the government know that we just bought that Glock today. A waiting period is a severe annoyance because we dont intend to do anything illegal with that weapon, and, if we're buying that weapon because we feel that we're in danger and need a means to protect ourselves, it could be up to a month until we would have a means of self-defense. Nonetheless, we will still eventually get that weapon, so it doesnt really stop us if we DID want to do something illegal with it. But why the actual fuck would we buy a Glock from a retailer and then go to use it in a crime? The government literally just got the serial number and make and model of that Glock, our address, a photo of us, our phone number and email address, our physical features, what cars we drive, and so on. But by buying illegally off the streets, the government doesnt know, they can't track it, and you bypass every single piece of gun control put in place. Effectively, it's single use is to prevent store-bought firearms from being used in a crime and allowing the perp to get away with it. But there's very, very easy ways around that. I'm not saying that those forms we filled out today should go away; I'm saying that what we did today should be the farthest extent of what a gun owner should have to deal with.