Is it even possible to get rid of guns in the US?

[Byron Carter]

Have to start somewhere. Start confiscating more. Stop selling so many. It's not a quick fix but something needs to change. I'm all for constitutional rights, I would like to keep at least one of my guns but I don't need a collection and I don't need an automatic rifle or anything like that and neither does anyone else.

Do police?

Do military?

Are those agencies immune to corruption? What keeps them in check if not an armed citizenship?

 

[MusterX]

Have to start somewhere. Start confiscating more. Stop selling so many. It's not a quick fix but something needs to change. I'm all for constitutional rights, I would like to keep at least one of my guns but I don't need a collection and I don't need an automatic rifle or anything like that and neither does anyone else.

Its too late for that. We have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. If you never sold another gun, ever, we probably have a good 100 year supply. The number is almost obscene. For every 100 people we have 88 guns and that is just the ones we know about, there is almost certainly more. I've seen the numbers anywhere from 300-500 million.

You could confiscate from criminals and slow down sales and we would still have a supply of guns probably into infinity.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Have to start somewhere. Start confiscating more. Stop selling so many. It's not a quick fix but something needs to change. I'm all for constitutional rights, I would like to keep at least one of my guns but I don't need a collection and I don't need an automatic rifle or anything like that and neither does anyone else.

Is there an underlying philosophy here or should the law simply reflect what you find personally suitable?

 

[Byron Carter]

Its too late for that. We have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. If you never sold another gun, ever, we probably have a good 100 year supply. The number is almost obscene. For every 100 people we have 88 guns and that is just the ones we know about, there is almost certainly more. I've seen the numbers anywhere from 300-500 million.

You could confiscate from criminals and slow down sales and we would still have a supply of guns probably into infinity.

 

[Hitman81]

Do police?

Do military?

Are those agencies immune to corruption? What keeps them in check if not an armed citizenship?

You had my until your last statement. Yes, there will always be corruption unfortunately. I don't think though that if certain weapons were banned to civilians that cops would be going door to door shaking people down because they knew they had them out gunned.

 

[matburn H]

also, it ever actually came to it, civilians would stand absolutely zero chance. Even the worthless national guard could roll in w/ like a lone stryker and fuck whole cities up, cmon now. The police would take huge casualties, but once the military is involved, it's a wrap.

Don't be so sure. There are a lot more armed citizens than military. And the US military is famously horrible at fighting guerilla wars. Not to mention a large portion of your military are gun rights advocates and another large portion would never fire on citizens. Doubt the US military could do shit.

 

[Hitman81]

Its too late for that. We have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. If you never sold another gun, ever, we probably have a good 100 year supply. The number is almost obscene. For every 100 people we have 88 guns and that is just the ones we know about, there is almost certainly more. I've seen the numbers anywhere from 300-500 million.

You could confiscate from criminals and slow down sales and we would still have a supply of guns probably into infinity.

Maybe, but again I think you have to start somewhere. Just throwing yours hands up and saying nothing can be done when all this gun violence is going on is not ok.

 

[Byron Carter]

You had my until your last statement. Yes, there will always be corruption unfortunately. I don't think though that if certain weapons were banned to civilians that cops would be going door to door shaking people down because they knew they had them out gunned.

I remember a movie where only the police and military had weapons...

Spoiler

Schindler's List

 

[Hitman81]

Is there an underlying philosophy here or should the law simply reflect what you find personally suitable?

The philosophy is less guns obviously.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The philosophy is less guns obviously.

That sounds more like your preference than a philosophy.

 

[Hitman81]

I remember a movie where only the police and military had weapons...

Spoiler

Schindler's List

Not only is that a completely absurd comparison, I never said no guns.

 

[Hitman81]

That sounds more like your preference than a philosophy.

What's the difference? Or rather what's your point?

 

[Byron Carter]

Not only is that a completely absurd comparison, I never said no guns.

I don't need a collection and I don't need an automatic rifle or anything like that and neither does anyone else.

You're saying you'd limit the quantity, and type of weapons people are allowed to own.


I'm saying you're a traitor and a communist, and dangerously delusional.

Thank the universe that there are fewer people like you every day, and you're already a minority.

 

[Hitman81]

You're saying you'd limit the quantity, and type of weapons people are allowed to own.


I'm saying you're a traitor and a communist, and dangerously delusional.

Thank the universe that there are fewer people like you every day, and you're already a minority.

Those are big internet words. I'd really like to compare our Patriotism in real life. I'm simply tired of seeing innocent people die, is that so wrong?

 

[Irving]

also, it ever actually came to it, civilians would stand absolutely zero chance. Even the worthless national guard could roll in w/ like a lone stryker and fuck whole cities up, cmon now. The police would take huge casualties, but once the military is involved, it's a wrap.

Yea, just like Iraq & Afghanistan. Our "worthless" national guard rolling in w/ like a lone stryker and fucking whole cities up, right? As soon as our military invaded it was a "wrap", right? /sarcasm

How dumb can you be?

 

[Byron Carter]

Those are big internet words. I'd really like to compare our Patriotism in real life. I'm simply tired of seeing innocent people die, is that so wrong?

So you think disarming the common populace is going to stop the criminal elements like drug-dealers, human traffickers, rampage killers, etc. from using weapons?

If you want to see innocent people better protected, you need to encourage them to protect themselves. Encourage self-defense courses and concealed weapons permits. Stop trying to disarm law abiding citizens. You are only helping the wolves.

 

[Hitman81]

So you think disarming the common populace is going to stop the criminal elements like drug-dealers, human traffickers, rampage killers, etc. from using weapons?

If you want to see innocent people better protected, you need to encourage them to protect themselves. Encourage self-defense courses and concealed weapons permits. Stop trying to disarm law abiding citizens. You are only helping the wolves.

And how am I discouraging those things just by saying there should be more gun control? The correct answer is not at all.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What's the difference? Or rather what's your point?

A philosophy would include some kind of rationale that would offer some logical guidance on a broad scale. A preference does not. Your position, that I saw, can be interpreted as some of us non-government employees can have one gun (of limited action-types) because you want at least one that isn't select-fire capable.

If you want to just boil it down to "less guns is good" that would make a lousy philosophy because history is full of cultures & civilizations getting outgunned and suffering because of it.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Yea, just like Iraq & Afghanistan. Our "worthless" national guard rolling in w/ like a lone stryker and fucking whole cities up, right? As soon as our military invaded it was a "wrap", right? /sarcasm

How dumb can you be?

How dumb are you? what actual battles has the US lost since Korea? none? I actually served a year in afghanistan, in the fucking capitol city none the less, and it was actually relatively peaceful, b/c you know, it was a wrap once we came in.

isolated attacks aren't winning, you can lose politically and dominate every single skirmish.

also, let me know when american citizens get badass at VBIEDS, suicide bombings, and IEDs......not like Iraqi insurgents were taking us out in mad firefights.

In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about, step your weak ass game up

 

[Hitman81]

A philosophy would include some kind of rationale that would offer some logical guidance on a broad scale. A preference does not. Your position, that I saw, can be interpreted as some of us non-government employees can have one gun (of limited action-types) because you want at least one that isn't select-fire capable.

If you want to just boil it down to "less guns is good" that would make a lousy philosophy because history is full of cultures & civilizations getting outgunned and suffering because of it.

This is Sherdog, I'm just offering my two cents. Were you expecting the dissertation I'm presenting to Congress?