School Shooting

[Felch]

If Prohibition is your model for gun control, then you're a lunatic.

Extending the franchise to women, and respecting the civil rights of blacks is a matter of legal reform. It is nothing like the scope of seizing and destroying 270 million guns.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you really not getting what his point was or are you being deliberately obtuse?

(ie, it's saying something is "impossible" is no reason to do absolutely nothing - that self-perpetuates the claim its "impossible" for one)

[Felch]

Impossibility is an absolutely perfect reason to not do something. We're not responsible merely for our intentions, but for the outcome of our actions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And he's disputing your notion of what is "impossible" (you know, hence being in quotes). Considering all that's been accomplished in the last 150 years, I wonder if we need to redefine what we think is or is not impossible.

There is a great scene in the movie "Lincoln" where the advocates of the 13th Amendment are accused of next wanting to give women the right to vote and everyone stands up in shock and horror and says there is no chance of that happened. Woman's rights, far from just being simply "legal reform" was thought to be socially impossible.

[Felch]

You seriously think that expanding the franchise is the same level of complexity as tracking down and seizing nearly 300 million guns? You realize that there's no registration, and no definite records detailing where these guns are, right? It's not just a matter of convincing a bunch of cowards to be afraid of inanimate objects. It's not just changing the Constitution. It's a matter of enforcing the law. It's why the comparison to Prohibition and the War on Drugs is more apt than Women's Suffrage. Women's Suffrage just required a change in laws. With this, changing the law is the easy part.

[regexcellent]

It would be easier to deport all of the illegal immigrants.

[ricketyclik]

You seriously think that expanding the franchise is the same level of complexity as tracking down and seizing nearly 300 million guns? You realize that there's no registration, and no definite records detailing where these guns are, right? It's not just a matter of convincing a bunch of cowards to be afraid of inanimate objects. It's not just changing the Constitution. It's a matter of enforcing the law. It's why the comparison to Prohibition and the War on Drugs is more apt than Women's Suffrage. Women's Suffrage just required a change in laws. With this, changing the law is the easy part.

As has been said before by others in this thread, it's not a matter of going door to door. It's primarily about stopping the ongoing supply and expansion of numbers, getting some handed in voluntarily and then having the numbers decrease (possibly over a century or more) through attrition.

The sooner you start, the sooner the numbers will be down to sane levels. The longer you leave it, the more will be out there and the longer the process will take.

[Felch]

I like how your plan ducks the issue of accountability by setting your end goal for a century or more in the future. That way, when it all turns to ****, the people responsible will be long since dead.

[regexcellent]

The rest of us fundamentally disagree with the idea that we should be reducing the number of guns in the country. The fact that it would be pretty much impossible to do is just another reason not to bother.

By then, who knows, it'll probably be possible to 3d print a gun in your basement. It's already possible to 3d print most of an AR-15.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As has been said before by others in this thread, it's not a matter of going door to door. It's primarily about stopping the ongoing supply and expansion of numbers, getting some handed in voluntarily and then having the numbers decrease (possibly over a century or more) through attrition.

The sooner you start, the sooner the numbers will be down to sane levels. The longer you leave it, the more will be out there and the longer the process will take.

Indeed. And furthermore, Felch pointed out very clearly there is no registration - well that's far easier to get in force now isn't it? And you work at it step by step. Who ever said it'd be a one and done type solution? That's not thinking it out very clearly.

[regexcellent]

The reason there isn't any registration is explicitly to prevent the possibility of confiscating guns. That is the reason groups like the NRA and its supporters will never support it. In the meantime, the number of guns in this country continues to increase at a pace faster than the growth of the population. Gun ownership, while lower than it was 50 or 60 years ago, is on the rise again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You just continue to think that it's never going to happen.

[regexcellent]

Even Canada doesn't have a reigstry for all of its guns. It used to have a long gun registry but it got axed because it was stupid.

edit: According to Pew poll numbers, there is slightly more support for gun control now than last year, but still less than in 2007 after the Virginia Tech shooting. And no gun control came out of that; in fact, several states responded by weakening gun control laws.

Some northeastern states might tighten their AWB laws or institute new ones. That's also possible for Oregon and Washington. But don't expect anything at the federal level. Meanwhile, the courts have decided Illinois' ban on both open and concealed carry is unconstitutional, and it is now being forced to allow concealed carry of firearms. That makes concealed carry nominally legal in all 50 states for the first time.

[The Mad Monk]

Gotta watch out for those 47%. They're nothin' but trouble.

I was wondering if you'd catch that.

[ricketyclik]

I like how your plan ducks the issue of accountability by setting your end goal for a century or more in the future. That way, when it all turns to ****, the people responsible will be long since dead.

You'd see a measurable drop in gun deaths immediately. Just not a virtual eradication. That'll take longer.