Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
And what happens when they take one site down? Another one pops up. What happens when you confiscate drugs more pop up. What's going to happen when you take the guns away ? More will pop up. You know how easy it is to make a gun? This idea of banning an object is absurd and won't work. Anything that is illegal is able to be obtained or made.
This is completely speculative, what makes you think that the number of guns in circulation will increase or stay the same if they are restricted? It certainly didn't go that way for Australia, Japan, Singapore - and many other countries that have stricter gun laws. I'm sure our Australian and Japanese friends are just as capable of 3D printing their own guns whatnot.
Maybe I don't know about guns, but I do know how easy it is to construct a nuclear device. I was licensed to do so as far back as when I was in high school, and later on I went on to study physics in university. And I certainly think that we should control the export of deuterium, zirconium tubes, low boron concentration graphite, thorium and enriched uranium. Same goes with guns. Just because it's easy to build a nuclear weapon doesn't mean we give up and freely export nuclear grade materials all over the world.
This. Great thread folks. I love the recreational aspects of owning a gun, but that's just about the extent of my involvement with them. I'm learning a lot from this conversation, thanks.
Yes, I always enjoy this argument too. The funny thing is, in the near future guns will be such an antique. There will be less primitive assault weapons that can be easily obtained or made. And then there will be the new argument that they should be banned? They just don't get it? People make the decision to kill, not the weapon! If I'm still around then, I will have to hear all my liberal friends say "But that's such the strawman argument"
So couldn't agree more with Rrrracer. Great argument, and always fun.
And remember..... Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one!
No one has ever said that guns kill people all by themselves. Obviously, people kill people. Sometimes, some guns make it easy for them to kill more.
The guy in the Las Vegas shooting who used a modified AR15 that let him fire off automatic bursts into the crowd below killed a whole lot more people than he could have with a regular AR15, because of the rate of fire. A hunting rifle with a smaller magazine would have let him kill still fewer, because he would have been stopping to reload. This matters. There would have been a whole lot fewer dead people if it had not been so easy to kill them at a high rate.
Why do you think the military uses weapons with a high rate of fire? Because it makes it easier to kill people on the other side, why else?
The guy in New Zealand had a regualr AR15, which, with its semi-auto fire and big magazine, let him kill more people faster than a rifle with a smaller magazine (which would require more reloading time) and much more than a non-semi-auto rifle (slower rate of fire.)
If it were harder to get high-output firearms, it would be harder to use them. So it would be harder to massacre so many people before law enforcement can put a stop to it.
The guns didn't make any choices to kill people, they didn't make any choices at all. But their greater capability to deliver firepower made the shooters more deadly.
Of course, regular, non-killing people have every right to own a rifle for hunting or recreation. But if you're such a lousy shot that you need 30 rounds fired very fast to hit a deer you plan to eat, your family is going to starve. And yes, it's terrific fun to shoot up a target on a firing range with a high rate of fire rifle. I have done it and I like it too.
If I had to live by hunting, I wouldn't need 30 freaking shots to hit something, nor would anyone else. If I wanted to go to the range and shoot up some targets, I could do it without high-capacity semi-auto. Maybe it wouldn't be as fun, but maybe my right to have fun is less important than some totally innocent person's right to stay alive. Maybe my recreation isn't so damn important if that's what we compare it to.
The most tragic thing is that even small changes would matter. The guy who killed those people in an African-American church was a convicted felon with a record. The background check with the dealer was held up due to some delay, and the dealer then legally sold him the gun he wanted. This is just an error in the law, because it doesn't require the background check's results to actually be in the dealer's hand with a positive result before the sale can go through. (After three days it's OK to sell whether anything came back or not.) Likewise, you can buy a firearm of any type at a trade show and there will be no background check at all.
Is any of this even slightly rational, considering the harm that the wrong person can do, and considering how small the inconvenience of changing it would be to non-violent people? I understand that a majority of even the NRA's members approve of better background checks, and why would they not? We're not talking outlawing these guns here, we're talking being careful about who gets to buy them. And yes, they could get around it -- but why not make it at least a little harder? It would matter.
Even small, obviously worthwhile changes that most people in this country favor in polling can't go through, probably because politicians fear the gun lobby and its money. The gun lobby wants to sell more guns -- not itself a bad thing, but it shouldn't govern our policy or laws. Public safety should figure in too. It also has become a cultural/social/political issue, instead of a matter of trying to make it harder for a few people to kill a lot of others.
With this, I guess I'm done. Sometimes a conversation will affect people's opinions, sometimes it won't. All I'm sure I've done in this thread is that my fingers have gotten tired typing stuff that I think people of many persuasions should be able to agree on.
I think most peeps agree on some types of gun control. So were not to far apart.
The funny thing is, I don't even own a gun, don't like shooting them, and certainly would have trouble pulling the trigger on another living creature. Only if it was to protect family or friends.
Just like in trading. You can have all the filters you want and you will still have losing trades. So the question is, what filters and how many do we need?