Now, here's a surprise...

[reel]

Are you unclear on the meaning of the word production?

[Anonymous]

Banning import and especially production? How much will that cost in terms of jobs and economy? I think they would have to criminalize gun ownership first before they do that. That would require a constitutional amendment, so good luck with that.

To be sure, what you say is true.  And murder decreases unemployment by reducing directly or freeing up opportunities for others.  The economics of guns are pretty clearly in favour of mayhem.  Hopefully tragic loss of life doesn't come down to a simple question of economy.  It doesn't seem to in any other sector of society.



You don't need a constitutional amendment to ban the production or import of guns.

Murder reduces unemployment?  :001_rolleyes: That was stupid not funny.



I've worked in the states. Most gun owners are very responsible. They like their guns and they are legal, so is their production and import. Why would they be illegal when the right to own them is in the constitution? I gave up my guns long ago, but I can understand if lawful, responsible owners do not or even want to buy more.

[reel]

Murder reduces unemployment?  :001_rolleyes: That was stupid not funny.

It's a true statement.  In exactly the same way that what you said is a true statement.  Evidently that went over your head.

I've worked in the states. Most gun owners are very responsible. They like their guns and they are legal, so is their production and import. Why would they be illegal when the right to own them is in the constitution? I gave up my guns long ago, but I can understand if lawful, responsible owners do not or even want to buy more.

As I said, (in fact the entire point of my post) there is a way to reduce gun deaths that is not a safety risk and does not contravene the constitutional right to own guns.  Americans just don't want to because they don't feel they, individually are the problem and the mass shootings are an acceptable penalty to pay for the right to indulge in gun ownership.

[shin]

Because guns are legal and used for more than crime, simply prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning guns won't go over well, and there doesn't seem to be an easy way around it. The extreme circumstance might result in a police state where government removes the possibility of concealed firearms through mandatory searches, but that would be a last resort that very few people wouldn't want or allow to happen.



The kinds of weapons people are allowed to keep vary from city to city. Even though I feel no reason to need a gun, I couldn't vouche for those who live in a high crime urban setting where armed assault and robbery are common and police presence doesn't deter assailants or significantly prevent them from threatening whoever they target. If I were in constant fear for my safety or even had a family living with me that I felt it was my duty to protect, maybe I would think differently.



For rural inhabitants who rely on hunting to supplement their food supply and aren't shooting animals for sport, they also have a valid reason to own guns.



Perhaps fewer mass shootings would occur if it weren't popularized through media, but it would take a long time for senseless random murders to become a less favorable outlet for disgruntled gun wielding maniacs, and it could easily become the equivalent of a wasted effort in the long run. Education is often the most reliable preventative measure, but there are too many X factors involved in the reasons why murder happens on any level.

[Anonymous]

Murder reduces unemployment?  :001_rolleyes: That was stupid not funny.

It's a true statement.  In exactly the same way that what you said is a true statement.  Evidently that went over your head.

Nope, your idiotic trolling did not go over my head. In fact, it was beneath me.



Production of anything including firearms creates or at least maintains jobs. Your asinine statement may be true of funeral directors, but no one else. Now, I have I wasted enough time on a trolling asshole. I guess with Odinson sanctioned, it was inevitable that some wanker would come along and pick up the slack.

[reel]

You must be new here.



I'm not going to argue with you if you are going to get your panties all in a knot over a bit of light sparring.  You clearly did completely miss my point, just as you missed it in the original post.  Economics should not trump public safety.  It doesn't in any other industry.  Why should it in this one?  People are so intent on gun ownership that they make enormous concessions to protect it that are not permitted in any other area of society.

[Anonymous]

You must be new here.



I'm not going to argue with you if you are going to get your panties all in a knot over a bit of light sparring.  You clearly did completely miss my point, just as you missed it in the original post.  Economics should not trump public safety.  It doesn't in any other industry.  Why should it in this one?  People are so intent on gun ownership that they make enormous concessions to protect it that are not permitted in any other area of society.

Sparring? Arguing? Missed you point? Are you high too when you go trolling? The debate was going well until you showed up asshole.

[Anonymous]

I get the argument that there are just too many guns in circulation in the US and that they can't all be removed, thus giving people the psychological impetus to feel they need to own a legal gun to protect from the illegal ones.  So you can't ban gun ownership.  Then don't.  



Ban the import and production of guns.  Destroy illegal guns as they are seized.  Increase penalties to and ease prosecution of people owning illegal guns.  People who own guns can keep them to protect themselves from the bogeyman.  People who want to own guns will have to pay an increasingly higher price to buy one from a decreasing stock.  Everyone will be hesitant to use their gun because its use will mean its destruction and a high price of replacement.



There are ways to control guns that overcome this perceived problem of only the criminals having guns.  You just don't want to.



And guns are not drugs.  They don't grow in fields.  A skilled blacksmith could handcraft a gun, but he's certainly not going to flood the market with them before he gets caught.  Banning import and production would rapidly decrease stock.

  Then we need to completely get rid of all weapons evetywhere. How realistic is that?

[Anonymous]

I get the argument that there are just too many guns in circulation in the US and that they can't all be removed, thus giving people the psychological impetus to feel they need to own a legal gun to protect from the illegal ones.  So you can't ban gun ownership.  Then don't.  



Ban the import and production of guns.  Destroy illegal guns as they are seized.  Increase penalties to and ease prosecution of people owning illegal guns.  People who own guns can keep them to protect themselves from the bogeyman.  People who want to own guns will have to pay an increasingly higher price to buy one from a decreasing stock.  Everyone will be hesitant to use their gun because its use will mean its destruction and a high price of replacement.



There are ways to control guns that overcome this perceived problem of only the criminals having guns.  You just don't want to.



And guns are not drugs.  They don't grow in fields.  A skilled blacksmith could handcraft a gun, but he's certainly not going to flood the market with them before he gets caught.  Banning import and production would rapidly decrease stock.

  Then we need to completely get rid of all weapons evetywhere. How realistic is that?

Trolls are never realistic Dove.

[Anonymous]

I mean I'd we continue this and really start narrowing in on the actual problem (people) that'd be great.

[Frood]

People don't like personal responsibility.  It's a societal flaw.

[Anonymous]

People don't like personal responsibility.  It's a societal flaw.

The younger generation in particular.

[Anonymous]

People don't like personal responsibility.  It's a societal flaw.

 I hate agreeing with you.

[Frood]

Lol

[Anonymous]

You must be new here.



I'm not going to argue with you if you are going to get your panties all in a knot over a bit of light sparring.  You clearly did completely miss my point, just as you missed it in the original post.  Economics should not trump public safety.  It doesn't in any other industry.  Why should it in this one?  People are so intent on gun ownership that they make enormous concessions to protect it that are not permitted in any other area of society.

Sparring? Arguing? Missed you point? Are you high too when you go trolling? The debate was going well until you showed up asshole.

Herman, I like you and delight in your contributions to our little community..



But, reel is the furthest person you could find from a troll..



He is respected by myself, RW, Shen Li and cc la femme..



I understand you got off on the wrong foot, but I wanted to clear up any confusion about reel before this went any further.