A genuine question for gun regulation supporters.

[Decoy of Fenris]

51. I feel like taking a crack at this, if only to test myself.

It's easy as ABC
to have the back of those that support his goals

Obviously not, as I have no clue who "He" is, nor what "his" goals are.



We can eradicate some cancers
we can eradicate guns

you seem to have mixed up that both are good things to strive for

Not at all. I distinctly pointed out and in fact emphasized that it was fully possible to support multiple, or indeed all, worthwhile causes at the same time. I think you might have missed the two or three times I said otherwise.


you I think were citing "bad" people out there.
well, those people will always exist

Of course people like that will always exist. They always have and they always will. However, when examining crime and criminal activity, in addition to the method in which said crimes were executed, it is important to look directly at those "Bad" people and recognize them for what they are.


but saving 1 or 2 or 10 or a million lives from legal and illegal guns can happen without anyone getting another gun

Prove it.



I don't believe in the radical rightwing court that interpreted the 2nd the way they did
same sort of court gave us corporate parenthood

That is your right as a human being. No one said you had to agree with anyone.


wanting more guns to stop a gun is so wrong I can't count that high.
the old NRA talking points are old and stale.

The only ones who seem to routinely bring up "NRA talking points" are those arguing in favor of strict gun control measures. Arguing the case for owning a gun based on interpretations of the Bill of Rights is hardly parroting talking points.



This is 2012

We need to stop the killings by legal guns and then help those less fortunate to rise on the social ladder (the lower class is more important than the middle class which is more important than the upper class.

You know, I actually agree with you here, to an extent. Crime is largely based on the overall satisfaction of the classes involved, and a direct correlation between social status and criminal intent can be found. However, judging by what you have said further down in your post, you contradict yourself by stating that eliminating killings via legal guns will come from social establishment, not the other way around, which you have asserted here. Can you clarify for me, please?


give the lower class something other than crime, and they no longer need the gun.

But first you gotta stop the LEGAL guns to later put a dent in illegal

I disagree. Simply removing a stimulus from an environment is not enough to affect a long-term social migration away from criminal behavior. Remember that in some areas, the "poor" have as much established in their being poor as in criminal acts. In rural New York, the local lower class take great pride in being "Rednecks". This has little to do with crime as opposed to an appreciation for the "heritage" that they have, and that they have come from. Certain activities are as ingrained as some survival instincts, and the same holds true for crime. Simply removing one tool of the capability to commit violent crime cannot and will not cease to perpetuate a class-based function that has been essentially genetically transferred from parents to children time and time again. To put it simply, "You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy", so to speak.


IF all you are worried about is crime- well, more security OUTSIDE the perimeter of a hotel, theatre, restaurant, movie house, baseball stadium means we could keep ALL guns out, provided that those with legal guns are also not allowed to enter.

I am not worried about crime at all, personally. Crime is dropping, and my chances of being murdered are about on par with being hit by an asteroid within my lifetime. Thrice. What I -am- worried about is the potential long-term control and regulated distribution of a consumer product arbitrarily enforced on faux-humanistic grounds; I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and likewise personal freedoms of consumption and distribution.


SEE the problem?
It's the LEGAL guns that stop getting rid of the illegal ones.
It is so clear.

but then "some see what they want to see and disregard the rest"


I don't see that problem at all. If people do not have access to firearms legally, then people will get said firearms illegally in one way, shape, or form. If said firearms cannot be procured through legal or illegal means, then alternate methods of attaining a firearm will be implemented; see garage-built zip-guns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm. Said weapons are even -harder- to track than illegally owned guns, as they never saw a manufacturer.



But in just 2 posts I tore down every single NRA talking point


In one post, you praised a man who dubiously may or may not be the second coming of the Messiah, given your lack of content, and in this post, you've solved exactly no problems and only raised questions.


You can have your guns, inside your home (but make sure you alert anyone who may not want to enter your home that you have one.) I myself would not choose to enter a home where if we argue a political hot topic (like guns or abortions, someone in the fit of rage uses that gun against me, legal as it is.)(then says they were defending themselves.)


I think I'll just let this quote speak for itself. Nothing to do here.


You can collect guns, you can go to a shooting range.

But you don't need to have a gun on your possession in the restaurant I am eating at and then accidentally a child gets hurt, or something happens.
I don't want you thinking you will save my life.

(that is what GOOD police are for (not though bad cops).

I agree that no one -needs- to have a firearm on them. That does not disqualify anyone from exercising a desire. Your fear of a child being accidentally shot is just as viable as a CCW fearing a criminal altercation while they are at that same restaurant. Both points hold merit, but neither should take priority.


Long as you keep ALL (legal and illegal) guns out of a place, then no one gets shot.

In theory, that works. In practice, everywhere will have to have metal detectors; simply claiming "remove all guns" or "ban all guns in public spaces" does not mean that said action will result in a gun-free area. As mentioned before, zip guns are common and growing in popularity, thanks to the complexities of the internet.



How much simpler can it be?

Meek Mayor Mike is the NY Mayor who announced 3 days ago he is giving and starting a new pac and giving 8 figures (that means 10-99 MILLION dollars, which will compete against the NRA should he choose, and gun is something he is against.
(as he no longer is running for any office, he is immune to campaigning himself, but now other candidates will have someone protecting their back and not cowering in fear of the bully NRA

Bloomberg? He's a laughingstock. You know what happened in his Soda ban? Individuals bought two Small sodas and made a Large and sold them for a profit. Now imagine the same thing happening, but with unlicensed, unregistered, unnumbered and hypothetically untraceable firearms. THAT is the situation you want to perpetuate to promote social change? If anything, it sounds like a lead-up to an underground American firearm black market.


imho

again-simple as A B C. Get the legal guns out of the outsides, and bring them only inside your own home, and then we can get rid of illegal guns.

It is like cigarettes-there was NO need to get rid of cigarette companies. Just make people stop smoking outside, showing them cigs are so bad, and they also stop smoking inside.
Cig. companies still exist, but most people no longer smoke.

I will just categorically say, no, it's not that simple, unless you ignore vast swaths of precedent and focus only on idealistic and unachievable or downright unsafe goals. You want to talk about cigarettes? People don't care about -where- they can smoke, they care about the prices. When a pack of cigarettes approaches half a tank of gas in value, people are forced to choose: Cigarettes, or drive to work today. Is such a "sin-tax" inevitably successful? Of course it is. Is it -right-? No. I'll elaborate if I need to, but if you really don't get why the government micromanaging the lives of it's citizens through selective economic disassociation is wrong, you have bigger problems.