But it would do nothing to reduce gun crime
In the long term it would, as such registration would assist in finding and where relevant imprisoning the shooter, and its the long term that the USA needs to look to.
Just answer the question: Why are cars registered and guns are not?
Quote: billwill @ 4th October 2017, 2:56 AMIn the long term it would, as such registration would assist in finding and where relevant imprisoning the shooter, and its the long term that the USA needs to look to.
Sorry, Bill, but that's not true. Perhaps it might slowly make a difference if we had a finite number of gun criminals out there and we gradually put all of them behind bars, but that's not the case. Every year more people replace the criminals we put in jail for gun crimes -- and there are a lot of them already behind bars. Hundreds of thousands of them. And every year about 250,000 firearms are stolen in the country. Identifying and jailing shooters is not going to reduce our gun crimes, as we've been doing so for decades.
Quote: billwill @ 4th October 2017, 2:56 AMJust answer the question: Why are cars registered and guns are not?
Vehicle registrations in the United States are done for tax purposes. States use them to collect money from citizens. Some states charge by the weight of the vehicle (heavier vehicles cause more wear & tear on roads) and greedy states like California charge by the value of the vehicle. The money is used to pay for highway construction and repair.
Guns are not taxed to the extent that vehicles are because, unlike vehicles, the constitution guarantees citizens the right to own them.
Quote: DaButt @ 4th October 2017, 3:33 AMGuns are not taxed to the extent that vehicles are because, unlike vehicles, the constitution guarantees citizens the right to own them.
Then the fault is surely in a constitution that encourages irresponsible types to have guns. Everywhre you take this argument leads back to a terribly out of place clause in a constitution that in the modrn highly populated world we all now live is the root cause of almost constant carnage in yorucountry.
Quote: DaButt @ 3rd October 2017, 4:49 PMAs I said, you've lost the debate.
Your argument boils down to: "Anyone who disagrees with me that guns are fun and safe is wrong." That's not debating. That's feeble-minded, arrant tarradiddle.
Your country needs a mental revolution to realize that guns are not fun sporting equipment. They are for killing. Not sure I can dumb it down any further for you. Americans don't want to be disarmed? Well stiff shit; if governments are too cowardly to try to disarm their grossly over-armed people, they can carry on enjoying the wonderful fun of mass shootings. Imagine if a nationwide gun/ammo confiscation and sales ban had come into effect after Columbine. Do you think Stephen Paddock would have so easily assembled his arsenal? Or would he have simply gone in with a baseball bat and a knife?
Whether or not the right to bear arms is right or wrong, the orinigators of the American constitution could never have envisioned the advances in firearm technology. If you want to bear arms, non-automatic weapons only should be allowed.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 4th October 2017, 4:34 AMThen the fault is surely in a constitution that encourages irresponsible types to have guns.
No, it does not. It allows citizens to arm themselves for protection.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 4th October 2017, 4:34 AMEverywhre you take this argument leads back to a terribly out of place clause in a constitution that in the modrn highly populated world we all now live is the root cause of almost constant carnage in yorucountry.
No, the root cause is gangs, drug dealers, street criminals, and the occasional mentally ill spree killer. All of those people are prohibited from buying, possessing, or using firearms, yet people seem to think that yet another law will magically get them to comply.
At the end of the day we should not be upsetting DaButt. After all he's the bloke with a gun...
Quote: Kenneth @ 4th October 2017, 5:50 AMYour argument boils down to: "Anyone who disagrees with me that guns are fun and safe is wrong."
No, my argument is: "Anyone who says that guns do not have a legitimate sporting use, or anyone who says that people who oppose ineffective and unnecessarily restrictive gun legislation are supporters of, or responsible for, gun massacres, has lost the argument."
Quote: Kenneth @ 4th October 2017, 5:50 AMif governments are too cowardly to try to disarm their grossly over-armed people, they can carry on enjoying the wonderful fun of mass shootings.
Boom, argument lost. And as I've said, the government is not a living entity. It is the will of the people, and the people do not want to be disarmed.
Quote: Kenneth @ 4th October 2017, 5:50 AMImagine if a nationwide gun/ammo confiscation and sales ban had come into effect after Columbine.
Imagine the sight of heavily armed police and military troops kicking down every door in America and ransacking every home in the search for Grandpa's hunting rifle or Mom's purse pistol. The carnage as Americans resisted being disarmed by their oppressive government would make the Las Vegas shooting look like a stroll through the park.
Quote: Kenneth @ 4th October 2017, 5:50 AMDo you think Stephen Paddock would have so easily assembled his arsenal? Or would he have simply gone in with a baseball bat and a knife?
He would have done whatever he could to kill as many people as possible. Timothy McVeigh killed many more people with his truck bomb. We've had arsonists who've killed more people than Paddock, and the guy in France killed more people with a truck. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Quote: Will Cam @ 4th October 2017, 9:12 AMWhether or not the right to bear arms is right or wrong, the orinigators of the American constitution could never have envisioned the advances in firearm technology.
They certainly did, and they made sure that the wording was "to bear arms" rather than "to bear muskets." The whole intent was to allow citizens to defend themselves, whether the aggressors were animals, criminals, or an oppressive government. The wording and meaning has been upheld by the courts again and again over the last 200+ years. Its meaning and intent are clear.
Quote: Will Cam @ 4th October 2017, 9:12 AMIf you want to bear arms, non-automatic weapons only should be allowed.
Automatic weapons have been banned since 1934. Since then, not a single legally owned automatic weapon (very rare) has been used by a private citizen to murder anyone. (I think there are one or two cases where a police officer used a department-owned automatic weapon to murder someone.)
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 4th October 2017, 12:26 PMAt the end of the day we should not be upsetting DaButt. After all he's the bloke with a gun...
More than one. 
Although I'm completely harmless if you're not trying to rob or kill me. 
If anyone needs further proof that guns are fun and that shooting ranges are safe, this video of a nine-year-old girl accidentally killing a shooting instructor with an Uzi should do the trick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfMzK7QwfrU Anyone who disagrees has lost the debate.
Quote: Kenneth @ 4th October 2017, 12:40 PMIf anyone needs further proof that guns are fun and that shooting ranges are safe, this video of a nine-year-old girl accidentally killing a shooting instructor with an Uzi should do the trick.
The instructor died due to his own stupidity and ignorance of range safety. Anyone who hands a fully automatic weapon to a small child is an idiot. The weapon should have been restrained/constrained, either by the instructor or a safety device.
Now I'm off to YouTube to find a video of a toddler with a fork sticking out of their eye, as proof that such utensils should be banned.
Quote: DaButt @ 4th October 2017, 12:53 PMNow I'm off to YouTube to find a video of a toddler with a fork sticking out of their eye, as proof that such utensils should be banned.
Yes, imagine the carnage that Stephen Paddock would have caused with a set of cutlery! Terrifying!
Quote: Kenneth @ 4th October 2017, 1:07 PMYes, imagine the carnage that Stephen Paddock would have caused with a set of cutlery! Terrifying!
More people are murdered with knives in the United States than by rifles. And that includes the so-called "assault" rifles.
Quote: DaButt @ 4th October 2017, 12:39 PMAnyone who says that guns do not have a legitimate sporting use, or anyone who says that people who oppose ineffective and unnecessarily restrictive gun legislation are supporters of, or responsible for, gun massacres, has lost the argument.
Which boils down to: I am a gun lover and anyone who disagrees with my stance on guns is wrong. That's not debating. It's a false dilemma.
Quote: DaButt @ 4th October 2017, 12:39 PMBoom, argument lost. And as I've said, the government is not a living entity. It is the will of the people, and the people do not want to be disarmed.
There is no argument. Just a nation of gun-lovers, too stupid, too brainwashed to see that guns cause carnage. As you say, guns are fun.
Quote: DaButt @ 4th October 2017, 12:39 PMImagine the sight of heavily armed police and military troops kicking down every door in America and ransacking every home in the search for Grandpa's hunting rifle or Mom's purse pistol. The carnage as Americans resisted being disarmed by their oppressive government would make the Las Vegas shooting look like a stroll through the park.
No it wouldn't. It would start with a mental revolution to make people realize their nation would be better off without guns. Doors wouldn't be kicked down (the way your military does things in the Middle East). You'd start with voluntary handovers. As I said before, registered hunters could keep guns under certain conditions. You'll protest: "But the gangs, drug dealers and criminals will keep their guns, so we will lose our Constitutional right to bear arms to defend ourselves and everyone will suffer." That's when your military and police can start kicking down doors, to confiscate guns from bad guys. Meanwhile, ban all gun and ammo sales, and melt down every confiscated gun. Future generations will suffer fewer gun deaths. It's your choice.
"77% of Americans DON'T own a gun. Nearly 90% want STRONGER gun control. It is NOT a democracy if a vicious few control what the law will be."
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/915306953836056576
Obviously I've no idea if those numbers are accurate. And I'm sure Dabutt will swoop in and say it's all lies.
But the whole gun culture thing seems to be largely about money and the NRA controlling the government with their huge donations. Pretty disgusting.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 3rd October 2017, 10:34 AMit definitely this website. as y see cursor jumping all over placemissing le
Nokeyboard workifine on word and otherYou have to make a clear distinction betwen sportinguse of guns and military or police use and ofcourse criminal use. I've target ot and clay pigeonshot and it is indeed greatrerecreation or if you want, fun. I dot agreewith hunting onally but knowdddeng themto murdrmany people enjoy it immensely. For a while I did target archery which I found even more enjoyable, as it's a real skill to develop. These are pleasurable idddevms to use for recreation, omillions wouldn't do it. Soingmeone just needs to lop a way of stopping peopledevvelop a way using them to murder and maim people. Shouldn't be beyond human capability t way.
I think you've been reading Comedywriter Dude too much.