[Liberator]

I wanna know what nutbomb inbred POS cult they belong to....

[karajorma]

I must say, even with all of the people telling me that a gun ban would prevent a lot of gun crime, and even assuming that is true, I still don't want to ban guns.

Frankly I don't care whether you do or not. I just find it hilarious when people make silly comments about how criminals can always get guns as if that in and of itself should be the end of the discussion.

[Polpolion]

I just find it hilarious when people make silly comments about how criminals can always get guns as if that in and of itself should be the end of the discussion.

But it's true. Well, sort of. A gun ban wouldn't solve the problem. At best, it would be a good step to solving the problem, and at worst, it would be prohibition all over again, except with guns.

A gun ban eliminates one source of guns from criminals, the very same source of guns for the responsible people. As NGTM-1R said, you still have all of the rest of the sources of guns.

So the result of a gun ban is the near total loss of guns from responsible owners, and a very declined amount of guns in the hands of the less responsible. You still have a problem on your hands. You need to enact more policies stemming all of the other sources of guns, and you need to take the guns away from the people that didn't turn them in as a result of the initial ban. Plus, you'd have to be aware that the initial ban on guns would only make further actions much more difficult.

It seems like pro-violent-killing-gun people fail to see that a ban on guns couldn't be the only action taken to "completely" solve the issue, and anti-second-amendment people fail to see that most of their ideas probably aren't practical any more. Or I just fail to see how I'm completely wrong...

Whether a gun ban would be practical or not isn't really something that my feeble high school mind can figure out, but if I had to guess, I'd say it couldn't be done properly.

I know even less about whether a gun ban would is worth the resources to carry out and follow up or not. Since I don't think that a gun ban could be done properly, of course I don't really think it should be done.

[Colonol Dekker]

This discussion, although interesting is way off the mark of parental responsibility. . .
 
Regarding the previous few posts above, it seems to me that any action is better than no action and i'm far from qualified to criticise anyone for agreeing or disagreeing with it. . . .

[colecampbell666]

The discussion needn't stay on topic as long as it's a real discussion, and not spam. My .02

[Scotty]

Yeah, I must say I've gotten used to a thread that reads like a stream of consciousness novel.  It's fun, and who knows where you will end up?

On-topic (lol):  Personal thoughts:  Gun ban == bad.  Stricter gun control (as in liscensing) != bad.  Compulsory reporting of missing guns == good.

[Rick James]

On-topic (lol):  Personal thoughts:  Gun ban == bad.  Stricter gun control (as in liscensing) != bad.  Compulsory reporting of missing guns == good.

QFT. I wish this happened in Canada. Buying a gun is so damn difficult here...

[karajorma]

I'd go further than compulsory reporting and raise that to compulsory re-registration every year. You have to do it with car tax over here and the government find that very useful when it comes to fighting car crime, yeah it's a hassle but it would do a hell of a lot to cut down gun smuggling.

[BloodEagle]

I'd go further than compulsory reporting and raise that to compulsory re-registration every year. You have to do it with car tax over here and the government find that very useful when it comes to fighting car crime, yeah it's a hassle but it would do a hell of a lot to cut down gun smuggling.

That's all well and good for people who only own a couple of sidearms. But there are a suprising number of people (mostly hunters and enthusiasts) who own well over a dozen firearms. I doubt that such a requirement would easily come to be. :/

[karajorma]

I doubt that any of the suggestions on this thread could easily come to be. No matter how sensible.

[Flipside]

I wanna know what nutbomb inbred POS cult they belong to....

What genuinely scares me about that story is the Jury to be honest, cults exist, but to have a Jury turn around and say it's ok for parents to neglect their child to death rather than take them to hospital is contemptible. After all, how many people go to hospital with urinary tract problems and survive?

It's not a question of not 'believing' in doctors, that's like not believing in a table, the thing that infuriates me is that the child could have been saved, there is law in place to prosecute people who cause a childs death through precisely these circumstances, and yet the Jury were still willing to let them walk away, I think that disgusts me more than the cult itself.