In a time where our economy is in the crapper, you want to spend millions, if not billions of extra money getting rid of guns? Why not pile some more debt onto our nations already growing problem.

 

Who cares if it actually works in Japan? Just because it works there, doesn't mean it'll work here.

 

As to your second point, you're admitting that crazies will find a way to cause crisis even if guns are banned, so what good will it do? I'd much rather have law-abiding citizen's rights not infringed upon because of a few psychopaths, then have the only people with the guns be the psychopaths.

Not sure if I do or not. But if there is something that would work I'm willing to entertain the idea.

 

To the last, why try to cure any problem? For example, why attempt to cure diseases if another one is just going to pop up?

What I am wondering is how many lives do you think guns save? How much crime is deterred because of fear that guns maybe in the house?

 

I will give you the assault rifle angle...but not a shotgun/handgun.

 

???

Seems 1st Amendment may fall before 2nd Amendment.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4CT4boLPrU

???

 

Anything that resembles an assault rifle will probably be on the radar for some kind of regulation...just my guess. I'm hoping magazine size will be the only thing regulated. Something must be done. I'd sacrifice that.

 

Even though any of these guns can be just as effective as the other.

Former, I do find it a bit ironic that as someone who routinely calls out other Libertarians on here when their beliefs don't fall in line with the Libertarian view, that you would take the "pro-gun ban" stance.

Concerning Japan, a couple of observations or questions:

 

* They have had some pretty violent situations occur that involve knives, or maybe swords? Wasn't there a big story where a guy in a video game store a few years back killed a bunch of people & I think it was with knives?

 

* Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be), but I think the Japanese culture in many aspects is vastly different from America. In particular, isn't it a big deal over there that you not bring shame to your family or your family's name? And that actually serves as a huge deterrent?

I find it ironic that this follows post #129.

I find it ironic that you can't understand something as simple as that, oh well...

Former, I do find it a bit ironic that as someone who routinely calls out other Libertarians on here when their beliefs don't fall in line with the Libertarian view, that you would take the "pro-gun ban" stance.

Where'd I take a stance?

 

Btw, since you chose to use the party I will say that while I carry strong libertarian beliefs I'm registered Independent...

I find it ironic that you can't understand something as simple as that, oh well...

I haven't saw anything from you that wasn't "this won't work". Including post #129. So how am I not understanding it?

So you can't also work to get rid of what we have here? It won't be an overnight change for sure.

Get rid of them how? Come on, changes are coming but the're not going to outright ban guns. There is no way. Japan doesn't allow handguns, not even revolvers, they have airguns instead. You really think something like that will pass in this country? I think we both know the answer to that one. You can continue to get angry and snipe at me, but I'm just being realistic. It's nothing personal, it's not because I don't think some change is needed. I just want proper, well thought out change. Not something based on emotion.

Anything that resembles an assault rifle will probably be on the radar for some kind of regulation...just my guess. I'm hoping magazine size will be the only thing regulated. Something must be done. I'd sacrifice that.

 

Even though any of these guns can be just as effective as the other.

 

OK, Just was not sure how that statement melded with the question.

 

I have tried not to think of the carnage related to this. It had nothing to to do with any specific technology of firearm. The same carnage could have been done with almost any type of firearm. Pistol, shotgun, 5 round capacity, 14 round capacity - it did not matter. If the reports are correct the shooter had to reload multiple times if he had to reload 2x as many times the same result would occur. A 10-gauge was in the car (supposedly so was the BM at first) and a 6 shot 10-gauge shotgun could have been equally bad in an indoor enclosed area. The technology did not do this. It was not even a contributor. Limit the technology and the same thing happens with different technology. Demented minds are creative they will work around 'bans'.

Get rid of them how? Come on, changes are coming but the're not going to outright ban guns. There is no way. Japan doesn't allow handguns, not even revolvers, they have airguns instead. You really think something like that will pass in this country? I think we both know the answer to that one. You can continue to get angry and snipe at me, but I'm just being realistic. It's nothing personal, it's not because I don't think some change is needed. I just want proper, well thought out change. Not something based on emotion.

TRUST ME, I am by no means asking questions on emotion.

 

P.S. I have taken nothing personal. Truly hope you haven't either.

Get rid of them how? Come on, changes are coming but the're not going to outright ban guns. There is no way. Japan doesn't allow handguns, not even revolvers, they have airguns instead. You really think something like that will pass in this country? I think we both know the answer to that one. You can continue to get angry and snipe at me, but I'm just being realistic. It's nothing personal, it's not because I don't think some change is needed. I just want proper, well thought out change. Not something based on emotion.

I think the questions we SHOULDN'T be asking are the "will it pass" type. Those are the questions that lead us to do the same thing we've always done. To me the better type of questions are "what will work". Think outside the partisan box and see if there is actually something that can work.

In a time where our economy is in the crapper, you want to spend millions, if not billions of extra money getting rid of guns? Why not pile some more debt onto our nations already growing problem.

 

Who cares if it actually works in Japan? Just because it works there, doesn't mean it'll work here.

 

As to your second point, you're admitting that crazies will find a way to cause crisis even if guns are banned, so what good will it do? I'd much rather have law-abiding citizen's rights not infringed upon because of a few psychopaths, then have the only people with the guns be the psychopaths.

 

What do we think putting a security guard in each school is going to cost???

 

I'm not ready for an all out ban but I think the big magazines and yes, even semi-automatic rifles and arms ought to be considered IMO.

 

One question I have: what if a ban on selling such weapons went into effect today? Don't collect what is out there but confiscate them when they are used in a crime or are turned in by a family.

 

Just thinking outloud and pretty much out of the box.

I haven't saw anything from you that wasn't "this won't work". Including post #129. So how am I not understanding it?

You haven't seen me post that mental health issues are a major role? Or that video games could be partially responsible? How about a ban on some of these shooter games? You haven't seen me mention parenting?

 

Former, I'm being honest. If that's bothersome for you, I can't help you there. I've seen bans, they haven't worked. Do you want me to lie and just nod along? I don't have an answer yet. I'll say I think schools should have armed, trained security to keep these things from happening. That won't come cheep though, but that's a tax I'd support.