Nothing says that we have to go in the other direction and make EVERYTHING legal. Just because drinking is permitted doesn't mean that DUI should be.

Last edited Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

why there's so many batshit crazy fuckers in this country who are going on murderous rampages? it seems we have a mental health crisis goin on thats playing a big part in this.

easy access toweapons only makes it worse.

comparing guns to drinking is absurd

And there is no reason for automatic weapons to be in the hands of civilians. the mass lethality is not comparable to the dangers of getting drunk

Not the ownership of guns to the act of drinking. But, that's just how I read it.

I read it that way too. it's apples and oranges. and it's like saying we shouldn't have gun control because they would use knives, or some other weapon. it's irrational to say do nothing....that's like saying we shouldn't have ended slavery or fought the nazis

I don't see it so much as apples and oranges.

I would not say that they would use knives, etc... Quite the opposite. They would still use guns.

Basically, stating that it was solely a result of prohibition that the underground market for alchohol was created overnight. From that market came an oportunity for a lot of money to be made. From that oportunity came those willing to hurt, maim and murder to make an easy buck in the illegal trade of the prohibited item.

We prohibited alchohol and the illegal trade increased violent crime.
We prohibited drugs and the illegal trade is responsible for up to 80% of the violent crime we have today (according to the FBI).

The thought is that if we prohibit guns all together that it would continue on that same trend of increasing violent crime.

Personally, I feel that something HAS TO be done, however an all out prohibition is probably not the solution. Just my opinion.

As someone who's home country has outlawed guns and yet has had one of the highest violent crime rates.

I wish there was an answer to this, but I don't believe an outright ban is the answer.

My nana was robbed in her home twice. Once the perp used a knife and the second time a cricket bat.
Crime happens..lo

To paraphrase John Paul Jones.

We need to obey the Constitutional mandate and REGULATE HELL OUT OF GUN OWNERSHIP. What we have now is pathetically inadequate.

did nothing to reduce the availability of assault weapons, in fact all it actually did was increase demand.

Todays murders occurred in a gun-free zone, in a state with an assault weapons ban. Laws don't stop criminals, that's why they're criminals. Laws only constrain the law abiding.

Think it through, who's going to go door to door to forcibly confiscate the property of armed citizens?

I understand the desire to live in a world where guns don't exist, but we don't, and never will.

Semi-automatic firearms have been around for over a century, people produce AK47s with iron-age manufacturing technology all over the world. It doesn't matter how draconian you get or how much you inconvenience your fellow citizens you'll never make weapons unavailable to the tiny minority motivated to kill a bunch of people, if there weren't guns they'd use something else, might as well start banning fertilizer, fuels, vehicles and sharp objects.

Millions of American would forcibly resist the forcible confiscation it would take to even make a dent, tens of millions would not comply with a ban, Do you really want to make tens of millions of Americans felons, turn them into enemies of the state? are you ready to go to war? because a war is what it would be, a war of choice with no hope of achieving it's stated aim.

If the Democratic party is going to screw up this victory we're currently enjoying this is exactly how it's going to happen, a ban in this environment? I don't think most of the people pushing for it have thought it through.

If we had only laws that everyone obeyed we'd have no laws.

Regulation of the well-armed militia that is the American populace is perfectly Constitutional. It is to be regretted that the loyalty of many is to their fetishized firearms rather than to the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Bans and confiscations are not realistic. Regulation by way of vigorous licensing, training, psychological screenings, creating distinctions between lawful and unlawful firearms, lawful and unlawful ammunition, etc. would simply constitute the well-regulated provision of the Second Amendment which the NRA rejects.