Another day, another shooting in the US

[BryanM]

Isn't it a given that you presume a certain amount of mental instability here?

Assumptions are lazy. Maybe it was logical. Maybe this was the best course of action available to him.

Maybe he really, really fucking hated country music more than anything else. Maybe he was old, expecting to die soon with his life amounting to nothing and no one remembering him.

Young women have sex with Joss Whedon to be remembered by society. Old men go on killing sprees.

< Meaningless speculation intensifies >

< 50% of all donations to GoFundMe is for healthcare. Wouldn't it be great if the charity we gave the victims went toward them being able to take time off of work or something instead of minimal necessities. Similar to how great it would be if charity could go toward curing cancer instead of feeding broke people. >

[MintyTheCat]

Unless this argument that "if he was smart he would have used a truck" is just a line to convince us that the "deep state" set up the entire attack for reasons that are clearly too stupid to even mention out loud (for fear that they'll hear us!).

Or, I could just be illustrating the point that banning guns won't work because gun violence is a symptom of a fractured, ailing society, not a cause.

So if you have a fractured, ailing society in which people are broken enough to suddenly commit an act of unprovoked mass murder, having legal and easily accessible firearms within that society is totally by-the-by.

What kind of fucking logic is that?

This is not a sensible argument and it smacks of "not my problem" syndrome. You do not solve anything by empowering the one thing that detracts from the solution - do we help an alcoholic by giving the man free whisky on tap? How is arming up every dickhead with a dollar bill a good solution? You have a system that enables the acquisition of guns and such to pretty much any one with the cash. Now, if money was the only requirement you'd have all and sundry getting their hands on them. I know you guys often harp on about it being your right to bear arms and such but you cannot have it both ways: you allow pretty much anyone to obtain guns and accept that innocent, random members of your society will be gunned down or you act like a bloody grown up and start asking the serious questions. All this counter-point arguing sets you up as a gun lover who does not want a solution and just wants this to perpetuate, quash. No one gives you any prizes for coming up with idiot arguments about mowing people down with vans/trucks/waffles/etc. we get that pretty much any object and indeed mechanism can be weaponised - just that some are more effective than others and hence why the gun is a symbol and an obvious choice.

It pisses me off to read about all the silly, ridiculous and down right short-sighted bullshit that occurs in your country over the use of guns and I for one do not have to live in your country. Just think beyond the end of your nose and think what the long-term effects of this ridiculous worship of guns gets you as a country.

I have said it before but US law was inherited from a cut of the British law and yes we also allowed citizens to own guns in the past but we worked out that it was counter to safety. I see no reason for anyone to own a gun unless they are hunters. You have no need to militarise a society - that's the entire point of having a military - you keep the rest of your society 'safe' - and that's a darn site too much of a pipe dream in the US right now. I have also said this before too: you could legally buy amphetamines at the chemist in a number of countries but they worked out that there was an epidemic of users and they altered the law. The result was that fewer people got addicted to amphetamines.

I get the argument that it is all personal choice but just how much of a personal choice is it to those lot who got gunned down yet again at another shooting in the US? This is very much so an issue of attitude. I hope to god you never have to deal with the effects of this, quash - but perhaps people around you will be affected by it themselves personally.

[Mischief Maker]

From CNN:

He had an arsenal of weapons, including bump-fire stocks found in the hotel, which is a legal device that enables a shooter to fire bullets rapidly, similar to an automatic rifle. Paddock had outfitted 12 of his firearms with the bump stocks, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Someone enlighten this snowflake, whose only gun was the NES light gun. Does that mean he effectively (and legally) modified a non-full automatic rifle to be more or less fully automatic? Or were these devices he had in addition to some military-grade style rifle.

Modded a semi-auto rifle to (effectively) full-auto. The stock slides just enough to move the entire gun the length necessary to pull the trigger. Recoil bounces the gun back and forth against your shoulder while you keep your trigger finger steady. The net result is the trigger being pressed rapidly enough to approximate full auto fire.

Bump stocks in action.

If full-auto rifles were legal, nobody would buy these things. If you attach one of these things to a bolt-action hunting rifle it wouldn't work.

[jepjepjep]

Minty, you bring up some very rational points. A lot of Americans feel the same way. But there are also a LOT of Americans that can't go along with this sentiment:

You have no need to militarize a society - that's the entire point of having a military - you keep the rest of your society 'safe'

There is a very genuine mistrust of the government where citizens feel they need the remained armed precisely to protect themselves from the government. No amount of rationalization about safety will convince people of this mindset otherwise.

I really believe we will see Civil War #2 before anyone is able to take away Americans' guns. It's that deeply rooted into the culture.

[GaijinPunch]

Modded a semi-auto rifle to (effectively) full-auto. The stock slides just enough to move the entire gun the length necessary to pull the trigger. Recoil bounces the gun back and forth against your shoulder while you keep your trigger finger steady. The net result is the trigger being pressed rapidly enough to approximate full auto fire.

Bump stocks in action.

If full-auto rifles were legal, nobody would buy these things. If you attach one of these things to a bolt-action hunting rifle it wouldn't work.

Well that's just fantastic. At work I've been educated that these things cost like $70.

[Rob]

I know you guys often harp on about it being your right to bear arms and such but you cannot have it both ways: you allow pretty much anyone to obtain guns and accept that innocent, random members of your society will be gunned down or you act like a bloody grown up and start asking the serious questions.

Conservatives are willing to put your life on the line for guns, liberals are willing to put your life on the line for diversity, and pretty sure neither wants to compromise on anything. You'll definitely never hear "serious questions" about immigration from places like Somalia or Sudan or hostile Arab nations from a non-conservative. Maybe it's time to split this project in two.

It pisses me off to read about all the silly, ridiculous and down right short-sighted bullshit that occurs in your country

Things a man from Germany says with zero self-awareness.

[MintyTheCat]

Minty, you bring up some very rational points. A lot of Americans feel the same way. But there are also a LOT of Americans that can't go along with this sentiment:

You have no need to militarize a society - that's the entire point of having a military - you keep the rest of your society 'safe'

There is a very genuine mistrust of the government where citizens feel they need the remained armed precisely to protect themselves from the government. No amount of rationalization about safety will convince people of this mindset otherwise.

I really believe we will see Civil War #2 before anyone is able to take away Americans' guns. It's that deeply rooted into the culture.

I agree, I only loan the trust to the government but in all honesty there's absolutely no way I or anyone else can do to go against a government in terms of using guns and such. They are simply better funded, better organised and better trained than pretty much any of us can ever hope to be. As such, this notion of rising up against the state with guns and such seems a little far fetched to me.

To be honest, the citizens more over need to be protected from themselves. Apart from the odd riot or what not I bet most civilians are killed by other civilians and not the state appointed military or what not so this argument doesn't sit with me.

[MintyTheCat]

I know you guys often harp on about it being your right to bear arms and such but you cannot have it both ways: you allow pretty much anyone to obtain guns and accept that innocent, random members of your society will be gunned down or you act like a bloody grown up and start asking the serious questions.

Conservatives are willing to put your life on the line for guns, liberals are willing to put your life on the line for diversity, and pretty sure neither wants to compromise on anything. You'll definitely never hear "serious questions" about immigration from places like Somalia or Sudan or hostile Arab nations from a non-conservative. Maybe it's time to split this project in two.

It pisses me off to read about all the silly, ridiculous and down right short-sighted bullshit that occurs in your country

Things a man from Germany says with zero self-awareness.

Without any compromise it'll just continue on forever more. the issue is that there's far too much money cooked up over the arms industry over there, add in a culture that worships guys and you end up with a far gone situation.

Just for your info: I'm British. I'm willing to bet you guys have more problems with violent crime in the US than we have in Germany and the UK per capita combined.

Not that the BBC are usually on point but here's a graph:



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

[BulletMagnet]

So if you have a fractured, ailing society in which people are broken enough to suddenly commit an act of unprovoked mass murder, having legal and easily accessible firearms within that society is totally by-the-by.

What kind of fucking logic is that?

Nobody needs gun control because Jesus is the answer, silly.

EDIT: Or another level of this shit.

[ZacharyB]

I'm all for more gun control, but that graph needs more context. i.e., the UK/Wales could have 1,000 deaths, with 45 of those from guns and 955 from knives, while the US has just 100 deaths with 64 of those from guns and 36 from borax or what-have-you.

I think the numbers were something like, 50 deaths from guns in the UK, and 11,000+ deaths from guns in the US.

[jepjepjep]

To be honest, the citizens more over need to be protected from themselves. Apart from the odd riot or what not I bet most civilians are killed by other civilians and not the state appointed military or what not so this argument doesn't sit with me.

That brings up another angle to this situation. There is not a lot of trust that the police will be there when/if you need them for protection from other citizens. A famous example is from the LA Riots in 1992 and what happened in Koreatown: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/la-rio ... index.html

We have problems, bigly, in this country. Sad.

[BryanM]

I'm all for more gun control, but that graph needs more context. i.e., the UK/Wales could have 1,000 deaths, with 45 of those from guns and 955 from knives, while the US has just 100 deaths with 64 of those from guns and 36 from borax or what-have-you.

There's a page for that.

The homicide rate in the USA is about 4.88 per 100,000 people annually. Which is fairly high for a peaceful 1st world country, most of them are between 0.5 to 1.5 per 100,000.

Norway is typical of these places that still have firearms - it didn't stop Anders Breivik from his rampage, but on a day to day basis they manage to only murder 10% as many of their own people as we do.

... but of course this all well known, the guns themselves are more of a boojum for us to look for simplistic solutions to a much more endemic problem. The problem being we don't give a single shit about one another, or ourselves.

All of those other countries with a fraction of our murder rate have a few things in common - they're not an insane blood empire like we are, they have health care systems of varying kinds, and some of them even try to treat prisoners like human beings who'll one day have to reintegrate with society. Instead of kicking them like dogs, charging them thousands of dollars in fees for the privilege of being locked up, and then setting them loose and pretending to be surprised that now that their situation is even worse off, they resort to even worse means.

Closing the flea market loophole and decreasing the murder quality of our weapons are actually possible. But only as part of a much larger political movement that gives a damn about human life in general. You can't be a good person if you're all against guns, but you're completely fine with the fact that slavery is still fucking legal and practiced in the United States.

I would submit, possibly, that slavery is probably universally bad for everyone aside from Mr.Burns, with no valid perspectives that deviate from that.

[Dochartaigh]

I'm only replying to this topic to respond to some misconceptions about firearms in the USA I've seen in this topic. I'm not planning on getting into discussing the horrible atrocities of late - just to set some facts straight about some firearm related things so the dialog can be more accurate.

Well this stupid shooting fucked up the NRA's big bill to loosen restrictions on sound suppressors. They already had to delay it once right after Scalise got shot during that baseball game. This sucks!

................................

Now imagine how much more freedom that shooter could have spread to the crowd if he had a suppressor attached and most of the crowd was unaware they were being shot at.

Someone already chimed in to this effect, but I will add that an AR-15 like the shooter used, even when suppressed, is about ~130-140dB. Depending on the study you read, the measuring equipment they used, distance, angle away, etc. That's in the same exact realm as firecrackers, a jackhammer, or even a jet plane taking off! It's not like the movies portray it in the least. You NEED to have ear protection on or you will damage your hearing when you fire a suppressed rifle it's that LOUD!

Now I know your quote is most likely in reference to Hillary's tweet - but that just shows the disconnect between perception and fact (not to even get into how at that distance a ton of the noise is from the bullet breaking the sound barrier...which suppressors do nothing about

I'm willing to bet that it's easier to buy a second-hand gun than get a driving license in the US and I bet they do a credit check on people attempting to rent a rental vehicle.

My last 2 car rentals I signed a form on the bottom, initialed another place on that form, showed them my license and was on my way -
literally took 5 minutes. For a drivers license, it's definitely a more detailed process involving a written and in-person test (just like in many states you are required to take a firearm safety class and pass the test).

For guns, the guns the shooter bought were bought legally at a store the news has reported (one store even posted their condolences). The last gun I bought I needed to fill out a 3-page detailed form, another 2 page form, and have my license already be on file with the gun shop. I then had to wait about an hour while they ran me my info through the state wide databases which interfaces with the federal databases as well. I live in a very gun-friendly state, FYI. You should see what they do in nearby NJ/NY...it's MUCH worse than what they put you through at the DMV (which is saying a lot

For my ATF registered firearms I had to submit a ~20 page document prepared by a lawyer specializing in firearm law (expensive), a signed/notarized form, (and since June of last year) 2 sets of fingerprints, 2 passport photos, and sign-off by my local sheriff. Submit a $200 check, then wait for OVER 9 MONTHS before I was approved. I then can't even leave the state with this ATF registered item without submitting in writing to the ATF my travel plans, the address I'm staying at, which dates, and receiving their approval.

But you are correct that if I had bought a regular used gun (and only a rifle or shotgun NOT a handgun) from a private individual, yes, it can be done in some states without a background check. - on a personal note I am completely against that (I think ANY firearm transfer/purchase needs, to have a background check ran - and this is part of the left's "common sense" approach I'm all for).

Closing the gun show loophole and decreasing the murder quality of our weapons are actually possible.

As a whole (of course there's always people who break the law), but there is no such thing as a gun show loophole as commonly portrayed by the left. Portrayed so much so that they brought to popularity (i.e. invented) the term "gun show loophole". In the type of large gun shows they usually talk about, they only allow vendors to sell guns at their gun show if they're licensed. Otherwise the people running the gun show could be sued – so it's in their best interest to be strict about this. Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks on all firearm sales. This is FEDERAL law so it doesn't vary by state.

Now, the confusion...I mean the sensationalism of how this "massive" (-ly untrue) amount of firearms are being bought and sold at gun shows without background checks probably came from the private transaction I talked about above, or maybe the super-rare 1 out of every 200-300 people I see at a gunshow who might have a rifle slung on their back (unloaded, and with the firing mechanism rendered inoperable by the gunshow staff per their rules, FYI) with a "for sale" sign on it does occasionally happen at gun shows. 99% of the time they're collectable hunting rifles 50-100+ years old...this is not mainstream and a common occurrence (and would only be legal for starters in certain states, and could very well not even be allowed at some gunshows)

And just so the knowledge is out there: ALL pistol sales and transfers have to get a background check done (which always runs through the states database which interfaces with the federal gov't database) no matter who the people involved are (private or a dealer).

[xAzurexEonx]

While it is true that the "left" exaggerates things, the "right" (NRA especially) like to embellish that this is about taking away your rights.

PRIVATE gun sales DO NOT have to follow the same regulations as dealers. The gun show sponsor MAY enforce this but this all varies. It is LITERALLY the same way you sell a used car. You aren't validity their drivers license, checking if they have insurance, have all the transfers going, no you sign a piece of paper saying you've sold/gifted/transferred ownership and hope they don't cause an accident while it's still under your name in the state system.

I live in OKLAHOMA and lived in FLORIDA, both are big about guns. In FL, my experience the major shows are pretty strict. Now in OK, things are far looser. It is VERY common to sell, trade, borrow with ZERO checks of any kind. I know plenty of "dealers" who for smaller shows will sell their "private" collection to their preferred/good customers as a private transaction. Realistically what is stopping any dealer making a side deal after the show? Oh the not so typical representation of the black market.

I know this all for a FACT because I have bought firearms via private sales. We did bill of sale, the transfer and register paperwork, the end.

Now is there a paper trail? Yes typically so, but what good is it if the person is already in possession of the firearm and they turned out to be a nutcase? Though is it ever possible your good customer, who'd never hurt anyone, could lose his shit someday? I mean only if they were human. It is not like I could show you a video of a man shooting out tires of a AT&T utility vehicle...or two neighbors who ended up shooting each other as they were mowing their lawns... or account the times guns were drawn on electric meter readers. All whom were law abiding citizens but maybe weren't all there mentally.

[Mischief Maker]

Here's a great little 5-minute video talking about the horror of truck rampages and the question of common sense truck-control measures.

[Rob]

Not that the BBC are usually on point but here's a graph:

Who needs graphs when we have Tweets.

[CIT]

There is a very genuine mistrust of the government where citizens feel they need the remained armed precisely to protect themselves from the government. No amount of rationalization about safety will convince people of this mindset otherwise.

I never understood what these people think their AR15s will accomplish against the US government's drones with laser-pinpointed guided missiles.

[BryanM]

Animal control is incredibly important for rural areas. The wellbeing of livestock, crops, and people crashing into deer are enormous concerns.

It's not always all about the paranoia or "fun" family outings.

I never understood what these people think their AR15s will accomplish against the US government's drones with laser-pinpointed guided missiles.

There's a history article on that!

[CIT]

I never understood what these people think their AR15s will accomplish against the US government's drones with laser-pinpointed guided missiles.

There's a history article on that!

[Mischief Maker]

Looks like it's gonna be a ban on bump stocks to distract from further gun deregulaton.

Especially the reciprocity law where if you bring your gun from a lenient gun law state to a stricter one, the stricter state is forced to apply the more lenient standards to you. States rights!

Can't wait for the next full-auto modification du jour. Maybe a hundred people will get killed next time!

[Dochartaigh]

Looks like it's gonna be a ban on bump stocks to distract from further gun deregulaton.

Especially the reciprocity law where if you bring your gun from a lenient gun law state to a stricter one, the stricter state is forced to apply the more lenient standards to you. States rights!

Do you have a valid link to this, from a state.gov website (or I'll even take a federal and/or proposed committee legislation link with this info)? I would be interested in learning more about it.

I ask because firearm owners are usually always subject to the laws of the state they are in - NOT their home state (this is really part of gun ownership 101). This puts it better than I can:

"""Firearm owners are subject to the firearm laws of the state they are in, and not exclusively their state of residence. Reciprocity between states exists in certain situations, such as with regard to concealed carry permits. These are recognized on a state-by-state basis. For example, Idaho recognizes an Oregon permit, but Oregon does not recognize an Idaho permit. Florida issues a license to carry both concealed weapons and firearms, but others license only the concealed carry of firearms. Some states do not recognize out-of-state permits to carry a firearm at all, so it is important to understand the laws of each state when traveling with a handgun."""

If you were specifically talking about concealed carry (which I think you are since that's where the term "reciprocity" is commonly used), then that is a slightly different topic than overall state firearm laws...

Anyway, the only exception to the regular firearm laws in each state (i.e. having to abide by local laws when you're in that state) is the federal interstate transportation of firearms law, which basically says if the firearm is legal in the state it came from, and the state it is going to, you are allowed to drive through ANY state legally (even if that firearm isn't legal in the state(s) you're driving through).

[Mischief Maker]

H.R.38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

12 states, like Arizona, have no concealed carry permitting requirements. So someone with an Arizona driver's license could legally be packing in California despite local permit requirements. Also this has the effect of giving the cops probable cause to search anyone at any time. I predict even more police panic-shooting of innocent people if this bill passes.

But the really big one is H.R.3668 - SHARE Act

Loosens regulations on silencers, lead bullets and tackle in wildlife preserves, and especially cop-killer bullets.

Blue Lives Matter!

[Dochartaigh]

I can look into replying to every point you just posted about if you really want me to, but I'll quickly touch upon three ones real quick. I just want to show you how much misinformation is there - even at a quick glance (and I'm not saying that to be mean, but simply factual). Please let me know if you want some more info and facts, OK?

For the concealed carry reciprocity act, you are aware that Speaker Ryan (R) himself is the one blocking that from even reaching the floor, right? Like it has/had no chance before or after these horrible events of late.

For silencers, I'm at a loss of why you mentioned them again (in what I'm assuming is a negative manner), when TWICE now people have told you how LOUD suppressed guns like rifles are. Like it's an unarguable scientific fact that they're at the same dB as A FRIGGIN JET ENGINE AT TAKEOFF OR A JACKHAMMER (yes, I am yelling, but can't possibly yell as loud as a jet engine...even in all caps... lol ...so I'm confused as to why you still think they're somehow evil? I mean, do you think the decibel charts on the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) website are lying to you about how loud things are on their charts or something? There's hundreds of videos on YouTube with people shooting rifles with a dB meter right next to them...did somebody fake all those videos?

For "Cop Killer" bullets, please, I urge you to spend the time to google that. They don't exist how you think they do. It's an urban myth (even Snopes debunked it). Furthermore, this type of extremely pointed, teflon coated bullet (i.e. Black Talons or whatever) actually causes LESS soft tissue damage than regular (completely legal and widely used) hollow point bullets every LEO (Blue Lives Matter!) has in his/her gun. You're also aware that pretty much every regular rifle round will zip right through the type of "bullet proof" vests police officers commonly wear, correct? (only hard Level III plates -usually ceramic- stop rifle rounds - like the big bulky vests soldiers in Afghanistan wear - which has soft armor underneath it which only stops handgun rounds and shrapnel - that's what most cops wear FYI).

Anyway, I can look into the other specifics of those bills if you really want a reply...but it seems like it may fall on deaf ears I'm very sorry I have to say...

[Mischief Maker]

Anyway, I can look into the other specifics of those bills if you really want a reply...but it seems like it may fall on deaf ears I'm very sorry I have to say...

Woah, dude! Give me a chance to actually reply before declaring that I never listen to you and storming off in a huff. What are you, my crazy co-dependent girlfriend?

[Dochartaigh]

Anyway, I can look into the other specifics of those bills if you really want a reply...but it seems like it may fall on deaf ears I'm very sorry I have to say...

Woah, dude! Give me a chance to actually reply before declaring that I never listen to you and storming off in a huff. What are you, my crazy co-dependent girlfriend?

Buddy, come on now, let's be real. Do you really think it's worth my time spending a couple hours reading those bills (and decoding their legal mumbo-jumbo) so I can intelligently reply, if you can't even spend 2 minutes to type into google "how loud are suppressed guns"? Or google "cop killer bullets" to see how they're a myth? (and even by chance if you did take that time to google, and STILL posted those things, that makes it even worse!)

With the above being said, can't you see how, from your posts, that anybody with even a small amount of cursory knowledge of these issues would very quickly come to the same exact conclusion I did?

...not even to mention how you're interjecting in random "blue lives matter", and proselytizing about "even more" "innocent people" being shot (and yes, I know you're attempting to use humor to prove a point, but this is hardly something to joke about, wouldn't you agree?).

[Mischief Maker]

Do you have a valid link to this, from a state.gov website (or I'll even take a federal and/or proposed committee legislation link with this info)? I would be interested in learning more about it.

H.R.38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017
H.R.3668 - SHARE Act

Buddy, come on now, let's be real. Do you really think it's worth my time spending a couple hours reading those bills (and decoding their legal mumbo-jumbo)

You ARE my crazy co-dependent girlfriend!

But look, I don't want to fight, and I can admit when I'm wrong. I don't read Gun Fancy, I'm hopelessly behind in the gun fashion trends. You would have laughed when I was going on a police ride-along and in the station someone put up a sign warning about real guns that resemble toys with a photo of a hot pink semi-auto pistol, and like a rube I blurted out, "I DIDN'T KNOW THEY MADE GUNS IN PINK!"

So when I foolishly assumed that "cop killer" was a generic term for any armor-piercing bullet on the street, you totally went Meryl Streep to my Anne Hathaway and set me straight. I admit I was wrong in using that language and stand corrected.

Feel better?

[evil_ash_xero]

We had a truck of peace attack in NY.

Diversity is our strength, and guns make us safer. Repeat after me.

I actually know someone who is visiting from London. First time in the U.S., and she went to New York. We've had some spats about immigration and Islam. I hope she's alright.

[neorichieb1971]

I was anti gun until recently for the USA. Now I'm totally pro gun.

You might wonder why I had a change of heart. The reason is because I watched a facebook video which stated "The best argument for a gun pro America". The video stated that a woman who had a gun permit for a concealed weapon needed to enter into a non gun zone and thus left her weapon at home. She got raped in the non gun zone.

So then I thought about all the extra crimes that would be committed if you made the sheep of the country weaponless, then added the amount of non wolves that would suddenly become wolves under a USA weaponless society where only criminals had guns. Then I thought if that happened the USA would turn into a world like Robocop and murder would be through the roof.


So basically, although I hate guns, pro gun people and all that. I now believe the current gun laws is the lesser evil. The USA let the genie out of the bottle all those 100's of years ago and it cannot be put back in the bottle now. The USA does have to put up with the media displaying mass shootings of school children from time to time, but there is no way of controlling it and thus this should be expected. Its collateral damage nobody will take responsibility for and likely a unique American problem. But so be it.

[evil_ash_xero]

I was about to give my opinions on gun control...and then I realized what a futile and frustrating conversation that would be.

I'll tell you this....I'm not a fan. I am armed, but...you kind of have to be here. It's a mess.

[ZacharyB]

So then I thought about all the extra crimes that would be committed if you made the sheep of the country weaponless, then added the amount of non wolves that would suddenly become wolves under a USA weaponless society where only criminals had guns. Then I thought if that happened the USA would turn into a world like Robocop and murder would be through the roof.

I don't know if murder would skyrocket... For example, if you make it so that no one can get guns, i.e. making gun sales even more strict or banning gun sales entirely, and criminals have to get around that, it becomes harder for criminals to get guns. Pretend you can't even get them in another state any longer; criminals would have to go through the black market. Supply and demand economics also works in the illegal world. Many criminals might not be able to afford to get guns, whatever that entails.

We hear about and see all of the murders in the news, but we don't see the murders that are prevented, because they didn't happen.

I mean, even if someone were to suddenly threaten me with a gun, and I had a gun, do I pull it out? How fast is my draw? We might both end up dead on the ground, or shot and permanently injured. At that point, is it just a matter of pride? It's a mess. Even if the guy has a knife and I pull a gun on him and he runs, he just upgrades to a gun. If he can. But if you make it difficult, they might just abandon their criminal pursuit. Give them time to wake up.

This doesn't even call into consideration making it more difficult for ordinary citizens with criminal thoughts finally making the jump to criminal with their newly-purchased guns. You're not a criminal until you use it to murder someone, after all.