NerblyBear wrote:So you're not in favor of extensive and rigorous background checks?

No. I don't think the government has any right to know more about me than anyone else, and whatever excuse made to gather the information, it will be used elsewhere. This is spying and I don't think the government should do it to me.

Not in favor of keeping them out of the hands of criminals?

Hah! That's funny. You think criminals will obey a law! Hah! That's funny! You already called them criminals, and you think a law will stop them! Hah! Maybe we should just make crime illegal!

I'm not in favor of a total ban, but I don't see how sanely regulating gun ownership--and the concomitant "fuck you" to both the NRA (who perpetuate an ugly, racist machismo) and gun manufacturers, who have entirely too much lobbying power in Washington--is any different from sanely regulating any other hazardous public commodity. Our food and drugs are inspected by the FDA. Same thing holds here.

The problem isn't that guns are unsafe (the reason foods and drugs are inspected), but that certain people shouldn't own them. A law will have no effect on this, given that the reason you don't want them to have guns is that they don't obey laws.

And these regulations would be enforceable in a way that a total ban would not be. A total ban would indeed encourage Prohibition-type smuggling and even more street crime, so I'm with you there. But I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm all for that too. It's impossible, unless you make them contraband, like bazookas, which are kept out of the hands of criminals by being kept out of the hands of everybody.

Okay, well, given that it'll be impossible to completely eradicate criminals' usage of guns, we can at least ameliorate the problem somewhat by toughening up possession laws and making it significantly harder to buy one from a licensed merchant. If I've just been released from jail, and possession laws are very strict, it might be the case that I choose to look for a different line of work when I re-enter society. You might call this idealistic claptrap, but it's at least logically possible.

The same thing applies to crack and heroin, and I think legalization of them would probably entail an increased amount of possession and abuse.

I have no beef with Rush. He's basically a shock-jock not to be taken seriously. And thusly, his ignorant "political views" are dismissed. I personally think it's all just an act.

My problem is when people take him seriously & follow his views to the tee. Those're the real problems.

NerblyBear wrote:Okay, well, given that it'll be impossible to completely eradicate criminals' usage of guns, we can at least ameliorate the problem somewhat by toughening up possession laws and making it significantly harder to buy one from a licensed merchant.

Do you believe that criminals go to licensed merchants to buy their guns? If so, then I guess you've solved the problem once and for all then. Except that they don't.

If I've just been released from jail, and possession laws are very strict, it might be the case that I choose to look for a different line of work when I re-enter society. You might call this idealistic claptrap, but it's at least logically possible.

The same thing applies to crack and heroin, and I think legalization of them would probably entail an increased amount of possession and abuse.

Then why hasn't that happened in countries with legal narcotics programs? Are we Americans somehow special and prone to going crazy when officially allowed to do things?

steve wrote:Do you believe that criminals go to licensed merchants to buy their guns? If so, then I guess you've solved the problem once and for all then. Except that they don't.

Okay, you've got me there, but what about strengthened possession laws? Might that make a difference? At least a small one?

Then why hasn't that happened in countries with legal narcotics programs? Are we Americans somehow special and prone to going crazy when officially allowed to do things?

Honestly, Steve, I don't know what would happen. I guess my only reason for supporting drug laws is an irrational one--I've seen friends lose every good thing in their lives to drugs, and I fully admit that I'm scared about what would happen if they were fully legalized. (Imagine for a moment that such a thing had a snowball's chance in Hell of actually occurring.) So, I'm not going to argue for drug laws. But I will admit that I'm frightened of the power that these hard drugs have over people, and I'm not chomping at the bit to legalize them.

Pot? Hell, yeah. Legalize that today.

NerblyBear wrote:Okay, you've got me there, but what about strengthened possession laws? Might that make a difference? At least a small one?

A criminal buys an illegal gun to commit crimes with. So we should make it more illegal than it already is for him to posess the gun. Extra-super-double illegal.

Do you think that will make a difference?

steve wrote:The problem isn't that guns are unsafe

No, that's the problem. Guns are unsafe. By design. That's the whole idea of the gun. Unsafety to the extreme.

steve wrote:A criminal buys an illegal gun to commit crimes with. So we should make it more illegal than it already is for him to posess the gun. Extra-super-double illegal.

Do you think that will make a difference?

No, but keep in mind that you're in favor of completely eradicating any laws against criminals' possession of guns. And that will make a difference.

vockins wrote:

steve wrote:The problem isn't that guns are unsafe

No, that's the problem. Guns are unsafe. By design. That's the whole idea of the gun. Unsafety to the extreme.

Unsafety to the extreme? How about this: I have a pretty average kitchen. In the wrong hands (or the middle ages) it would be a treacherous dungeon. I have a car. In the wrong hands, it is a top notch people/squirrel flattener. I have a garage full of motor oil, propane, cleaning products, styrofoam, and a rake. In the wrong hands, it is a bomb/rake-attack factory.

Guns are no different. And assholes who want to commit crimes will find ways to get them, regardless of what the law states.

vockins wrote:

steve wrote:The problem isn't that guns are unsafe

No, that's the problem. Guns are unsafe. By design. That's the whole idea of the gun. Unsafety to the extreme.

By that I mean that no gun is more unsafe than another, and inspecting them won't keep the unsafe ones off the streets. Any gun is pretty much as good as any other for gunsmanship. And gunning.