How is that working?
Haha
Hahaha
Hahahahahahahaha
Unless you live in Iraq of Afghanistan, there’s not much chance of that happening.
Any weapon specifically designed to kill people should be illegal.
Any weapon specifically designed for hunting should remain legal.
At least for now.
Because guns used for hunting can’t kill people?
Besides, it’s probably not as easy as you think to deter what guns that are designed for killing people, and what guns that are designed for hunting.
Companies could just claim that their gun is the latter.
Self-defense is a legitimate justification for owning a weapon. I’m all for strict licensing and regulation of sales, though. In other words I’m both pro-gun and pro-gun control.
And a M4A1 or a fully automatic Glock 18 is totally designed for hunting, eh?
Self-defense against what? Other peoplse who own a gun?
Well, there are certain guns that, regardless of the manufacturer’s protests or attempt to exploit loopholes, are indeed specifically designed for killing people and not animals.
All handguns and automatic weapons, for example.
Shotguns in the form of goose guns would still be allowed (they are gigantic and unwieldy), as well as the full range of semi-auto hunting rifles.
The point is basically to take away the ease-of-use of the weapon if it were to be used to kill a human. Imagine drug dealers carrying hunting rifiles instead of pistols. A tad cumbersome, wouldn’t you think?
Of course all guns can kill people. Not saying a rifile couldn’t or wouldn’t be used in such a manner. It just makes things more difficult for the bad guys if pistols and automatic weapons were extremely rare and expensive (moreso than today, in any case).
As for gun enthusiasts? Sorry, I guess you picked the wrong thing to be enthused about.
I was talking in case they were looking to pass a law to ban guns meant to kill people. You’d have to have completely different criteria as to what to ban than simply “this gun was meant to kill peepz”.
Pretty much. If you make guns illegal, law-abiding citizens can’t own guns, but making guns illegal really won’t affect violent criminals, now, would it?
Yes they would. There’s not many criminal with guns here.
The black market under more intense gun control would swell to meet the demand of those who still want guns and don’t respect the government, quite a large group these days. As a result, powerful guns like AK-47’s, Uzis, etc. will be pushed by the black market on eager gun-owners, who now have no reason to stop at a simple handgun when its just as much a crime to get a more powerful automatic rifle or sub-machine gun as it is to get a handgun.
It’s a bad road to travel down, you guys. Trying to socially engineer people via legislation is a fool’s gambit, as we are a stubborn, willful species. I understand and sympathize with the urge to curb violent crime, but gun control is not a legitimate solution to the social problem of violence.
Also, violence levels in America have fallen over the last decade as gun ownership has risen. So, yeah.
Criminalizing guns won’t do much good if crime rates stay the same. They’ll just get guns some other way.
It’s pretty much the same issue as with drugs, really. Criminalizing it doesn’t make it go away, it makes it uncontrollable.
Regularizing (i.e. allow it, but have a set of laws controlling who uses it and how it is used) makes the problem much more controllable, and will make it less severe.
versus
…good luck with that.
The thing is, the government is NOT going to nuke itself, then they have no one to rule and oppress.
It’s “laughable” that a government would allow police or military to use lethal force against their own citizens? That’s incredibly naive - google Kent State for a historical perspective, or any one of the dozens of recent police shootings of unarmed suspects, where the guilty cop goes on “administrative leave” (read: paid vacation) for a month and then is back on the street.
Of course, proposing personal firearms as a defense against that kind of thing is just as
retarded as suggesting it never happens.
Hunting, practice shooting, self-defense, and the creation of a militia are the only reasons I have so many guns. No gun control I say.
You’re right. The government is also not going to start killing its citizens en masse either like those that suggest taking up arms against such a government suggest. Those in government like their job too much to do anything of the sort.
The moment that someone in government becomes that corrupt is the moment that they’re out on their ear.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not anti-gun or a gun-grabber. I just don’t like the “we’ll use it against our government if it gets to be corrupt” argument.
was that at me or someone else?
I don’t think it’s impossible that the government would use lethal force against its citizens, that’s why I support the right to bear arms. I do, however, think that it’s extremely improbable that they would essentially destroy the country with weapons like nukes.
EDIT: just a disclaimer, I don’t own guns nor do I plan to purchase any.
I’m also guessing you were directing your post at someone else… :retard:
It’s a metaphor of when and when not to shoot. There is a fine line between (in some cases) misdirected just good and chaotic good, where the chaos can get you into trouble.
Were you laughing at the suggestion that police/military would use lethal force against civilians? No? Then I guess I wasn’t replying to you.