Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC - Polidicks

I didnt say thats not something to work towards but like. Thats gonna take like. I dunno, a century or something, maybe more?

There are exponentially more cars in this country than guns, so it's more likely that accidents will occur. On the other hand, when someone kills with a gun, there's a pretty good chance they intended to kill someone with it, due to it's nature of 'being a deadly weapon.' If there were as many people with guns in this country than there are people with cars, let's just say there would probably be a lot more non-accidental death. Like I said, ideally I would want all guns to be banned, but realistically that's never going to happen. It would be much more productive to suggest that automatic and semi-automatic weapons be kept out of the hands of average citizens, and those who actually have need of them, like hunters or people who live in Nevada and need to fend off fucking mountain lions and shit, can still have access to them, however they should have to undergo extremely strict background checks and training regimens, and have essentially a 'driver's license' for their gun that can be taken away if they use it recklessly. Yeah, why don't we? That's exactly I was saying!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey I noticed you disagreed with my post, I was wondering what you think is going to stop someone from doing something more surely than them literally being on the ground dead??

I find that its the opposite. Few gun advocates use hobby shooting or collection as a reason for why they should keep their guns. It's typically the gun control side that couches it this way. Not only do they listen, they respond to criticisms with solutions. You may not agree with their solutions, but they aren't ignoring the problem. Again, kinda get the opposite feel from this one, what with the "what, do you want more children to die?" posts from the gun control side.

You're talking about pretty much every weapon past like the 1880s there. Like what, is everyone supposed to go back to single action revolvers and winchester rifles?

For average hobbyists and people who, y'know, don't need guns (aka the vast majority of people)? Yeah. For people who do need them, like hunters, and like I said, people who live in places with wildlife that has a history of eating humans, they can go through a very strict process to obtain them.

The way I see it, even if "non-lethal firearms" became a reality, it would not work in the principle of the 2nd Amendment. You cannot win a war with non-lethal firearms. Even if a bullet wounds and does not kill an enemy soldier, it still takes them out of the fight and allows your force to push forward. Any sort of stun device, even if used on both sides, would not be as effective as "wounded" soldiers will be able to get up and keep fighting within a very small time frame. Unless you want some sort of weapon that guarantees maiming but not lethality, which as far as I know is banned by international law. Besides that point, the fact that we have firearms that can kill means that there will always be a force in the world that will use it, and I don't see a non-lethal firearm winning a fight against a lethal one.

Citation please

I believe the issue is that the inner cities can get fed and at a state level, most states can't fight or prevent it. By making it federal, the ATF would actually have a good damn job.

I mean, it's hard to blame them. Outside of guns, they are becoming politically active at a time when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton despite being behind by 2 million votes. The Republican party is fighting against the bedrock principles of Democracy in several states at the same time. Adults who have lived during arguably more troubled times in the history of the United States regarding war and economic downturns are saying this is the worst it's been in their lifetime. Then you come back to the fact that after growing up all their lives hearing about mass shootings and nothing being solved by legislators in all those years they suddenly find themselves the victim of the same shit that was going on since before they were born. People are just becoming disenchanted by democracy, or at least the way America implements democracy.

How. How do you even go about this. And why would anyone agree to it. Also that sounds pretty unfair if you gotta defend yourself and say a guy has a semi-auto and all you got is an SAA or something.

please show me sources that imply that owning a sauer is of equal importance to a human being as food, water, shelter, a livable income, etc.

In the event that something like that somehow happened i doubt the types who do home invasions would comply.

> There are exponentially more cars in this country than guns This is factually incorrect. There are an estimated 263.6 million cars in the US as of 2015. Same year, an estimated 265 million guns. Please keep your statistics within factual basis.

Thats not at all what he implied.

No you see criminals won't have glocks because they are banned.

Self defense? I don't even need a source for that.

More surely? Nothing, I'll admit. As surely? Well. Who knows? And if that option presents itself, why not use that instead? Who said it had to be energy weapons? Or anything else that was a century or more out? Again, if the result is equivalent, it could take any form. Point is, the amount of resources we've put into developing less-lethal weaponry is magnitudes smaller than what we've put into traditional firearms. It took less than two decades to get from something as primitive as the M1 Garand to the AK-47, a weapon still competitive with the best we've got today. Could a real less-than-lethal contender still be a decade or several out? Sure. But I bet if even a small fraction of what we spend on guns goes towards LTT weapons, we'd arrive at that contender a lot sooner than you think.

Because how do you make a metal pebble travelling at the speed of sound non-lethal?

How about this instead: take away the ammunition. Confiscate people's bullets, and not their guns; not immediately, anyway. If they want to kill a bunch of paper targets, they can go down to a range and use the ammo there.

Thats an even dumber, even bigger logistical nightmare than trying to confiscate weapons. Jesus christ.

Can't wait to see the underground manufacturing industry of ammunition, then.

You really are a shitter, aren't you. Youre gonna run into the same problems as confiscating guns. How do you know who has bullets? How are you gonna confiscate?

What would you suggest, then?

How about dont confiscate either?

Like how would you even confiscate ammo.

I admit, I don't have answers for most of this. But I disagree on the notion that there will never be a less-than-lethal weapon that can beat a lethal one in terms of a single fight. Unfortunately, neither of us can prove that either way right now. All I'm saying is, don't discount what you can't currently imagine, as whimsical as that admittedly sounds. And with that, I'm out. Seven hours in this thread is enough for me today.

Theres almost as many firearms here as there are people.

At the end of the day, pushing for "what if" scenarios are pointless in regards to actual laws for today. "What if X" is like the cousin of "whataboutism".

Personally, I'm always going to go with the method that is the most effective when it comes to, uh, stopping someone from killing me, and I'm going to vehemently resist anyone who insists I do otherwise. You'll be hard pressed to find many cops or people in similar situations and the like who disagree. Every Less-than-lethal system has an unacceptably high failure rate to use against an angry drunk, let alone someone who is shooting at you. I don't see any less than lethal system reaching the point where it exceeds the effectiveness with a similar rate of failure as turning most of the organs in an assailants body to mushy grey and red bits and dropping him on the spot.