Gun Control in the U.S.-The Truth

Actually let's consider the car arguement because "generally" drivers have to go through training and take tests before they are let loose on the roads....this is not the case with gun ownership as far as i am aware. Perhaps a gun owner could set me right on this.
Now i know that there are people on the roads without a license. I do appreciate law breakers exist.
I don't think a justification for a tool of death is just because something else kills...2 wrongs never make a right.

I don't want to ban guns...i want proper enforcement and proper controls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Cars arent designed to kill, Guns are...

---

This is primarily the point.

The dual use argument is one I have seen before - (matches can be used for arson, I think it was). The key difference is that all these items are manufactured for non-violent purposes. The overwhelming majority of the time they are put to full use in their primary non-violent function. The gun has no non-violent function. Indeed, it is particularly inflexible on that front. Paperweight perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

This is primarily the point.

The dual use argument is one I have seen before - (matches can be used for arson, I think it was). The key difference is that all these items are manufactured for non-violent purposes. The overwhelming majority of the time they are put to full use in their primary non-violent function. The gun has no non-violent function. Indeed, it is particularly inflexible on that front. Paperweight perhaps?

---

Hmmm... but guns are not used most of time by everybody. I bet most registered guns are not used to wound people. I go to the gun range, clean the gun, and then putting back in it's hiding place.

Again so what if guns are only designed to kill?

You've just explained the dual use argument. Fine.

Still what's the point?

In that post simply highlighting the weakness of the dual use argument.

I have nothing against shooting ranges and shooting as a sport. (Clay pigeon shooting etc., not fluffy bunny blood lust :blink: )

I have never argued that there should be no guns, just that they have little or no use in making society a better place. It sometimes seems (mistakenly I am sure) that gun ownership is equated as the closest thing to godliness.

as was proven yesterday.

I think that all baseball bats should be banned too..and cricket bats. They are really dangerous in teh wrong hands. Teh Yankees excluded of course.

If the USA general public must have guns let them have the same guns they had when they drew up the constitution. I am sure that if you have to reload with powder and ball before your next shot it would save a lot of lives. I don't really mean that literally.:)

They could make it an offence to possess a gun that is capable of firing more than one shot without manually reloading.

The problem being laws will be broken...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewizeard

The problem being laws will be broken...

---

But that's not a reason not to make them.

The solution would be a pop up message, that ask's the would be assasin, "Are you sure you want to kill this man/woman, who has an extended family, and whose husband is planning to perform a major operation on your baby child a little later this evening?" ..Then, when he pulls the trigger anyway... another pop-up message with, "You tax money would be better spent if you save this bullet for Bush" If that still dosn't convince him/her not to ruin everyones night out, ..then another pop-down message this time, with 20 choices... and it sends a gprs message to the closest cop, pinpointing his position.:)