Yes, I would be. A lot of people wouldn't be.

 

My whole point is to show that the vast majority of people who are pro-gun will never even consider any kind of change to the current laws, regardless of what it could mean with regards to gun violence. To me, that says they don't really care about incidents like what happened in Oregon or Sandy Hook.

 

I don't think anyone can deny that we have a problem with violence, specifically gun violence, in this country. Yet, a very large group of people refuse to even consider addressing it. It's the "criminals are always going to have guns, so nothing we can do" attitude that irks me.

 

The street criminals and gang-bangers, yeah, they'll always have guns. But the cowards that go in and shoot up movie theaters, or elementary schools, or college campuses? Those are the ones that can, while not completely eliminated, be greatly prevented. We have to be willing to have the discussion though. Very few in the pro-gun crowd are.

 

Collateral damage.

[h=1]hypothetical[/h]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adjective hy·po·thet·i·cal \ˌhī-pə-ˈthe-ti-kəl\

: involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis

: not real : imagined as an example

 

Again, I'm not surprised. In order for change to occur, for things like Sandy Hook or the Oregon shooting to never happen again, people have to care to prevent it. Too many people don't. It's why the whole gun control debate is utterly useless.

Collateral damage.

 

And an acceptable one at that it seems...

So we banned alcohol, how'd that go?

 

In the hypothetical above I'd think it more a pipedream. However, to play along nicely, I'd like to keep my guns for recreation, i.e. hunting and recreational shooting. If that scenario you proposed was reality, I'd gladly give my handguns up for that scenario.

[h=1]hypothetical[/h]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adjective hy·po·thet·i·cal \ˌhī-pə-ˈthe-ti-kəl\

: involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis

: not real : imagined as an example

I appreciate your concern with my understanding of the definition. But, hypotheticals by definition are not real. If I may interject some humor, a frog wouldn't keep bumping his butt from hopping if he had wings.

What if banning all alcohol in the US would prevent every alcohol related deaths, 88,000 per year, would everyone be willing to give up all alcohol in the US?

 

Yes, I would be. A lot of people wouldn't be.

 

My whole point is to show that the vast majority of people who are pro-gun will never even consider any kind of change to the current laws, regardless of what it could mean with regards to gun violence. To me, that says they don't really care about incidents like what happened in Oregon or Sandy Hook.

 

I don't think anyone can deny that we have a problem with violence, specifically gun violence, in this country. Yet, a very large group of people refuse to even consider addressing it. It's the "criminals are always going to have guns, so nothing we can do" attitude that irks me.

 

The street criminals and gang-bangers, yeah, they'll always have guns. But the cowards that go in and shoot up movie theaters, or elementary schools, or college campuses? Those are the ones that can, while not completely eliminated, be greatly prevented. We have to be willing to have the discussion though. Very few in the pro-gun crowd are.

 

I see a lot of people discussing it from both sides here. Just because you might think further restrictions on guns is the answer doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

Maybe the answer isn't banning guns or restricting them more.

What if banning all alcohol in the US would prevent every alcohol related deaths' date=' 88,000 per year, would everyone be willing to give up all alcohol in the US?[/quote']

 

Good point. We should ban drugs too, to stop people from getting them and dying from them while we're at it.

Good point. We should ban drugs too, to stop people from getting them and dying from them while we're at it.

Boom, narcan debate over. These hypotheticals are fun.

Again, I'm not surprised. In order for change to occur, for things like Sandy Hook or the Oregon shooting to never happen again, people have to care to prevent it. Too many people don't. It's why the whole gun control debate is utterly useless.

OK, hypothetically you are made Gun Guru overnight...your word is law. What Law would you write and put in place to ensure a School, Theater, Army Recruiting Center, Street Corner shooting never occurs again?

 

I'm very open to discuss this issue and have repeatedly given my recommendations.

So we banned alcohol, how'd that go?

 

In the hypothetical above I'd think it more a pipedream. However, to play along nicely, I'd like to keep my guns for recreation, i.e. hunting and recreational shooting. If that scenario you proposed was reality, I'd gladly give my handguns up for that scenario.

 

I don't hunt, I disagree with hunting for sport. But if people hunt and eat what they kill, I have no issue, how are they going to be able to hunt if all guns are banned?

That's why it's hypothetical. Hypothetically, all mass killings and gun violence would cease.

 

For many, that obviously still isn't good enough.

 

I don't deal in hypothetical where my constitutional rights are concerned. I deal in reality. The reality of it is, as has already been pointed out, that once government has complete power over the people they can pretty well do as they please. Add to that that in a crisis situation where seconds matter the police are only minutes away. Those aren't hypotheticals, those are realities.

I don't hunt, I disagree with hunting for sport. But if people hunt and eat what they kill, I have no issue, how are they going to be able to hunt if all guns are banned?

Glad you don't hunt. More game for me.

 

I said handguns, you know, since it's hypothetical.

Collateral damage.

 

And an acceptable one at that it seems...

 

Whatever you two are smoking you need to put it down. What a load of adsurd, baseless rhetoric.

I don't deal in hypothetical where my constitutional rights are concerned. I deal in reality. The reality of it is' date=' as has already been pointed out, that once government has complete power over the people they can pretty well do as they please. Add to that that in a crisis situation where seconds matter the police are only minutes away. Those aren't hypotheticals, those are realities.[/quote']

 

Winner winner....