Leave the guns alone!!! - DPChallenge Forums

01/10/2011 01:43:53 PM · #26

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Did you know I can build a gun (and the bullet) out of a bit of discarded pipe and dirt? Now, it won't exactly keep pace with a modern gun design, but it will fire lethal projectiles, and depending on my work level, perhaps fairly accurately (since we're talking about this in response to the Az. shooting, keep in mind that was a point-blank shot so accuracy was not important.)..

So, in recap, until you can keep people away from dirt and pipes you probably won't see the end of nutjobs having guns.

Well, countries with a history of stringent gun control don't have anything LIKE the problems we do with gunshot deaths, Cory. And can build a freakin' BOMB out of common household chemicals, so by the above logic the gov't has no business regulating explosives?

Look, you know as well as I do that it takes a whole different level of intestinal fortitude to knife somebody than it does to shoot them. For you to argue with a straight face that the gun "saved her life" is, as K10D guy said, unmitigated bullshit. Sorry, but that's how I see it. And I'm far, far from a bleeding heart, ban-all-the-guns peacenik, believe me.

R.

Please read and respond.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2011 01:44:52 PM · #27

Originally posted by Melethia:

The foul language is not necessary. Kindly just shoot at each other. :)

You're quite right, I just felt the need to respond in kind.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/10/2011 01:48:50 PM · #28

Oh, and my nephew and his friend found instructions on he internet (gasp!) For building a little crossbow from four old pencils, an empty pen, some tape and a ruibber band. The used wood skewers as arrows and decimated an apple and a cereal box. Told 'em not to put out anyone's eyes....

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 13:49:37.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

01/10/2011 01:49:47 PM · #29

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Your point that the type of weapon used being irrelevant is lost in the bullshit that is your attempt to justify one particular decision as some kind of heroic choice. It IS ignorant. I don't care if you don't 'think' so.

WTF are you smoking? Where the hell did I imply that his choice of a gun was somehow fucking heroic? The guy's a huge ass-hat psycho..

And as an aside, you're pretty cool with your 1-line responses that are effectively equivalent to "You're so f-ing stupid I don't even need to state my point.".. Maybe if you actually had something to say I'd find you to be less of an sniping asshole.

How ISN'T your whole post implying it was heroic? You've bolded "It probably SAVED HER LIFE!" Why do I need to explain that in greater detail? My hope is that 99% of people reading your post would just shake their head sadly anyway. I was just hoping maybe you'd see how ridiculous you were being in your desire to defend guns. There are far, far, FAR better ways to get a point across.

You want something "actually said"? Fine:

1. Yes, if some person using a knife that they were proficient in using WANTED to kill a whole group of people (and not just one or two in an assassination attmept), they could probably pull it off. This person was no trained assassin. He was a mentally unstable person that, had he had a knife, probably would have just went for Giffords (and maybe her guards/entourage) and then would have been done with it. People also would have fled (especially the crowd). Good luck chasing down that many people with a knife. With a gun, you just have to start shooting randomly. Sure, you run out of bullets, but you'll have killed/wounded far more people than the target by that point, especially if you're not trained with said gun. In this instance, this person was NOT some trained assassin. It's obvious he wasn't very good with a gun either. Trained gunmen hit what they're shooting at. Not the people around them.

2. If you truly think that using a gun probably saved her life, then the only way that is true is if you're advocating that only bad shots can have guns. A truly trained gunman would have put her down efficiently. Quite frankly, it's all moot because the only reason Giffords is alive is by pure luck. Her life was saved because the bullet didn't hit her in one of a hundred other places by pure random chance.

Need any more?

ETA: Your links are, quite frankly, beside the point and useless. They don't apply in this situation whatsoever.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 13:52:36.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

01/10/2011 01:50:42 PM · #30

Cory,

It is hard to take seriously someone whose rhetoric provides almost a perfect self-parody of the unhinged "gun nut" stereotype. The fact that you are a 30-something white male who brags about his "martial arts" training as a teenager, brings the face-palm moment to its fruition.

Unmitigated bullshit is exactly what you are shoveling, and I firmly believe that you know it. Sophistry is not argument.

01/10/2011 01:54:57 PM · #31

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Meh, like I said, it has no bearing on my life anymore, and while it is true that I once would have qualified as a full "gun nut" type, I now longer actually care about guns very much, but I do think some of the arguments about gun control are simply short sighted, as they will not have the intended effect.. In any case, I do know what I know, and stating my qualifications in this context is appropriate, and I take umbrage that you see it as bragging, it is not. (note that I've never bothered to do so previously in over a year here, it's actually something I generally prefer people don't know about me)

I haven't even fired a gun in months. I also see you have responded before reading my links above.

Actually, I could care less if they ban guns entirely, it will have zero net-effect on my life, but I can assure you that it will be ineffective.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 14:14:47.

01/10/2011 01:56:00 PM · #32

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Please read and respond.

Cory, I do understand that. I'm aware of that. It's not our point of dispute.

My position here is twofold:

1. In the broader sense it makes no sense to tell us that guns are less dangerous than knives because a knife is a better close-in weapon. It's like saying one deadly poison is less dangerous than another because (fill in the blank), whatever. It's pointless, friend. I'll concede that you're very possibly correct, that had he come at her with a knife and succeeded in wreaking havoc on her she'd be even worse off, but so what? That's a ridiculous argument. And it's made even MORE ridiculous by point...

2. With all your real-life nitty-gritty and martial arts experience, you know better than most of us how different is the mindset required of a successful knife-fighter than is the one required for shooting. It's very unlikely that this perpetrator was courageous enough, well enough trained, GUTSY enough, to attack another human being, in a crowd, face to face, wielding a personal weapon like a knife. How much easier to hide behind a gun, to just pull the trigger and spray destruction about you until you're brought down.

You KNOW all this Cory. You're not helping your position at all by saying stuff like that.

R.

01/10/2011 02:04:30 PM · #33

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

... Quite frankly, it's all moot because the only reason Giffords is alive is by pure luck. Her life was saved because the bullet didn't hit her in one of a hundred other places by pure random chance.

Need any more?

ETA: Your links are, quite frankly, beside the point and useless. They don't apply in this situation whatsoever.

Ignoring everything else (which I mostly agree with)..

I absolutely agree, she is alive by pure luck, as with all gunshot wounds - luck plays a huge role. I do not, for one second, however, believe she is "lucky", let's be clear on that point though, I think it probably may have been kinder for her to die.

Secondarily, yes, I think if the assailant had been armed with a knife (of sufficient size, etc - I agree, this guy probably would have used a pen-knife) she would probably have died of the wounds. Statistics back me up here..

And, how exactly does gunshot lethality vs. knife wound lethality not apply to this? Seems to me like that's exactly what we're talking about..

Just to tie this all back into my original (and now lost) point - You can take away all the weapons in the world, regulate them to death, but since people can create weapons from almost anything, (some of which are FAR more effective than a gun with regard to lethality), there is basically no point..

Geez, I mean, don't all of you people understand how easy it is to create crude chemical weapons that would decimate huge crowds???? Sure a guy with a gun can shoot a few dozen people on a good day, but someone with a crude chemical weapon could dole out much more damage.. *shrug* again, it's all sillyness, these types will always be able to do what they do, and it's possible that the arming of the general population that is "normal" might be a reasonable defense... Like it or not.

01/10/2011 02:06:28 PM · #34

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Please read and respond.

Cory, I do understand that. I'm aware of that. It's not our point of dispute.

My position here is twofold:

1. In the broader sense it makes no sense to tell us that guns are less dangerous than knives because a knife is a better close-in weapon. It's like saying one deadly poison is less dangerous than another because (fill in the blank), whatever. It's pointless, friend. I'll concede that you're very possibly correct, that had he come at her with a knife and succeeded in wreaking havoc on her she'd be even worse off, but so what? That's a ridiculous argument. And it's made even MORE ridiculous by point...

2. With all your real-life nitty-gritty and martial arts experience, you know better than most of us how different is the mindset required of a successful knife-fighter than is the one required for shooting. It's very unlikely that this perpetrator was courageous enough, well enough trained, GUTSY enough, to attack another human being, in a crowd, face to face, wielding a personal weapon like a knife. How much easier to hide behind a gun, to just pull the trigger and spray destruction about you until you're brought down.

You KNOW all this Cory. You're not helping your position at all by saying stuff like that.

R.

I do know and agree. But on point #2. there are other options, some of which are potentially much more effective.

01/10/2011 02:15:10 PM · #35

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
... Quite frankly, it's all moot because the only reason Giffords is alive is by pure luck. Her life was saved because the bullet didn't hit her in one of a hundred other places by pure random chance.

Need any more?

ETA: Your links are, quite frankly, beside the point and useless. They don't apply in this situation whatsoever.

Ignoring everything else (which I mostly agree with)..

I absolutely agree, she is alive by pure luck, as with all gunshot wounds - luck plays a huge role. I do not, for one second, however, believe she is "lucky", let's be clear on that point though, I think it probably may have been kinder for her to die.

Secondarily, yes, I think if the assailant had been armed with a knife (of sufficient size, etc - I agree, this guy probably would have used a pen-knife) she would probably have died of the wounds. Statistics back me up here..

And, how exactly does gunshot lethality vs. knife wound lethality not apply to this? Seems to me like that's exactly what we're talking about..

Just to tie this all back into my original (and now lost) point - You can take away all the weapons in the world, regulate them to death, but since people can create weapons from almost anything, (some of which are FAR more effective than a gun with regard to lethality), there is basically no point..

Geez, I mean, don't all of you people understand how easy it is to create crude chemical weapons that would decimate huge crowds???? Sure a guy with a gun can shoot a few dozen people on a good day, but someone with a crude chemical weapon could dole out much more damage.. *shrug* again, it's all sillyness, these types will always be able to do what they do, and it's possible that the arming of the general population that is "normal" might be a reasonable defense... Like it or not.

It was never the weapon vs weapon lethality I was arguing Cory. Ever. It was your method of expressing it which was pointedly ridiculous. There's no guaranteeing a knife would have ended up killing her either. There's no guaranteeing a bomb would have. There's no guaranteeing chemical weapons would have.

However, if your point truly is that just because people CAN make a weapon out of anything, that regulating the most dangerous types is pointless then I'm afraid it's a point we can never agree on. Regulation WORKS. It's not a cure-all, and it'll never prevent EVERYTHING, but it prevents a lot. It's a useful tool and a step in the right direction. We can't just run societies based on what SOME people can do regardless. It simply doesn't work that way.

01/10/2011 02:22:39 PM · #36

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

However, if your point truly is that just because people CAN make a weapon out of anything, that regulating the most dangerous types is pointless then I'm afraid it's a point we can never agree on. Regulation WORKS. It's not a cure-all, and it'll never prevent EVERYTHING, but it prevents a lot. It's a useful tool and a step in the right direction. We can't just run societies based on what SOME people can do regardless. It simply doesn't work that way.

Sure, of course... Regulation works.. right..

Have you actually heard of prohibition, or the war on drugs? Taken a look at violent crime statistics in gun-free society? Your argument fails to hold water. It simply doesn't work.

What compounds this situation is the fact that we're actually talking about crazy people, which means that predicting their actions is impossible as they are not always based upon logical choices. I don't see that regulation is going to help..

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/10/2011 02:23:24 PM · #37

Originally posted by FocusPoint:

Shooting in Tucson and now every narrow/backward minded anti-gun doorstops attacking, not to crazy son of a bitch gunman, but to guns.

Listen up, you can kill anyone with one gas paddle... everyone from 16 to 90 drives today. Guns are not the reason of any crimes, people are. Guns don't fire by themselves. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing "gun-control" from those who DO NOT understand a crap about the subject. If you take guns from people who obey the law, DO YOU THINK criminal will stop carrying it? How DUMB do you think they are, or HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK WE ARE?

Google, and see how many crimes stopped by people who carry weapons daily. You will not hear any good stories but only the bad ones from time to time.

Seems like weapons vs. weapon lethality was a large part of this in the beginning, hence my comments on the subject... Sorry to re-rail the ~~conversation~~ rant..

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 14:24:30.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

01/10/2011 02:23:29 PM · #38

In "Modern Warfare 2", the wife shoots me to death unless I can sneak up from behind with my knife.

01/10/2011 02:29:11 PM · #39

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

However, if your point truly is that just because people CAN make a weapon out of anything, that regulating the most dangerous types is pointless then I'm afraid it's a point we can never agree on. Regulation WORKS. It's not a cure-all, and it'll never prevent EVERYTHING, but it prevents a lot. It's a useful tool and a step in the right direction. We can't just run societies based on what SOME people can do regardless. It simply doesn't work that way.

Sure, of course... Regulation works.. right..

Have you actually heard of prohibition, or the war on drugs? Taken a look at violent crime statistics in gun-free society? Your argument fails to hold water. It simply doesn't work.

What compounds this situation is the fact that we're actually talking about crazy people, which means that predicting their actions is impossible as they are not always based upon logical choices. I don't see that regulation is going to help..

You keep erroneously equating regulation with prohibition/banning. DIFFERENT THINGS :D

01/10/2011 02:31:09 PM · #40

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

However, if your point truly is that just because people CAN make a weapon out of anything, that regulating the most dangerous types is pointless then I'm afraid it's a point we can never agree on. Regulation WORKS. It's not a cure-all, and it'll never prevent EVERYTHING, but it prevents a lot. It's a useful tool and a step in the right direction. We can't just run societies based on what SOME people can do regardless. It simply doesn't work that way.

Sure, of course... Regulation works.. right..

Have you actually heard of prohibition, or the war on drugs? Taken a look at violent crime statistics in gun-free society? Your argument fails to hold water. It simply doesn't work.

What compounds this situation is the fact that we're actually talking about crazy people, which means that predicting their actions is impossible as they are not always based upon logical choices. I don't see that regulation is going to help..

You keep erroneously equating regulation with prohibition/banning. DIFFERENT THINGS :D

No I'm not...

For example, morphine is highly regulated... Heroin is the street name for Morphine... It's not banned, it's regulated, but still - people on the street (criminals, because it is illegal - back to where I got involved in this damned thing) are able to get the stuff just fine...

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 14:38:28.

01/10/2011 02:31:34 PM · #41

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

You keep erroneously equating regulation with prohibition/banning. DIFFERENT THINGS :D

Bingo!

R.

01/10/2011 02:38:35 PM · #42

You can put whatever name on it you please, but in the end prohibition / regulation simply doesn't work... It keeps the people who aren't a problem in the first place from enjoying what they should be able to enjoy, and ensures that the people with disregard for the law, social norms, and good behavior are the only ones who are freely utilizing whatever it was that is banned/regulated..

Essentially I argue that you can ban guns, and it will absolutely keep guns out of all the hands that should have guns in them, while doing nothing about the guns that are in the hands they shouldn't be in...

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/10/2011 02:39:44 PM · #43

The most direct comparison we have is Motor Vehicle Laws. That's regulation that works, pretty much. Motor vehicles are potentially deadly objects that require training and mental stability to operate safely.

I don't think it makes much sense to use failed attempts to regulate addictive substances as an argument against attempting to regulate use of potentially deadly objects to trained, qualified individuals.

R.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

01/10/2011 02:40:35 PM · #44

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

However, if your point truly is that just because people CAN make a weapon out of anything, that regulating the most dangerous types is pointless then I'm afraid it's a point we can never agree on. Regulation WORKS. It's not a cure-all, and it'll never prevent EVERYTHING, but it prevents a lot. It's a useful tool and a step in the right direction. We can't just run societies based on what SOME people can do regardless. It simply doesn't work that way.

Sure, of course... Regulation works.. right..

Have you actually heard of prohibition, or the war on drugs? Taken a look at violent crime statistics in gun-free society? Your argument fails to hold water. It simply doesn't work.

What compounds this situation is the fact that we're actually talking about crazy people, which means that predicting their actions is impossible as they are not always based upon logical choices. I don't see that regulation is going to help..

You keep erroneously equating regulation with prohibition/banning. DIFFERENT THINGS :D

No I'm not... The war on drugs uses regulation as a key component of their strategy.

And I was actually referring to "THE prohibition", not prohibition as a concept.

Prohibition did not work. So, they switched to regulation. It is illegal for people under a certain age to drink. Can they still get alcohol? Of course, but, it's much harder to do so then if there wasn't an age limit. And fewer young people attempt to get it because of the consequences (like not being able to drive till they're 21 if caught). And as far as I know, drugs are illegal unless precribed by a doctor. And I'm pretty sure even with a doctors prescription you can't go get some heroin. Therefore, drugs are banned/prohibited. Can you still get them? Of course, but you're going to jail if you get caught.

No one in this thread is asking for guns to be banned/prohibited. They are asking for regulation "gun control". Crazy people shouldn't have easy access to guns. Would they still be able to get them? Sure, but if they get them illegally as opposed to legally, the consequences will be much more severe.

eta: And they're going to have to work much harder to get their hands on what they can't obtain legally.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 14:42:44.

01/10/2011 02:43:24 PM · #45

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Essentially I argue that you can ban guns, and it will absolutely keep guns out of all the hands that should have guns in them, while doing nothing about the guns that are in the hands they shouldn't be in...

Goldanggit, Cory! WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BANNING GUNS! We're talking about regulating their use, about trying to keep them out of the hands of unqualified or unstable indviduals. It can't ever be perfect (unlicensed drivers still drive) but it's better than nothing. In the case in point, the assassin was a known nutcase. He never should have been allowed to own a gun. You can't argue against that by saying "If he wasn't allowed to, he would have done it anyway." That's complete BS. It's not the point. The point is to make a good-faith effort to keep the weapons out of his hands. A lot of the time, it'll work.

R.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

01/10/2011 02:45:21 PM · #46

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

However, if your point truly is that just because people CAN make a weapon out of anything, that regulating the most dangerous types is pointless then I'm afraid it's a point we can never agree on. Regulation WORKS. It's not a cure-all, and it'll never prevent EVERYTHING, but it prevents a lot. It's a useful tool and a step in the right direction. We can't just run societies based on what SOME people can do regardless. It simply doesn't work that way.

Sure, of course... Regulation works.. right..

Have you actually heard of prohibition, or the war on drugs? Taken a look at violent crime statistics in gun-free society? Your argument fails to hold water. It simply doesn't work.

What compounds this situation is the fact that we're actually talking about crazy people, which means that predicting their actions is impossible as they are not always based upon logical choices. I don't see that regulation is going to help..

You keep erroneously equating regulation with prohibition/banning. DIFFERENT THINGS :D

No I'm not...

For example, morphine is highly regulated... Heroin is the street name for Morphine... It's not banned, it's regulated, but still - people on the street (criminals, because it is illegal - back to where I got involved in this damned thing) are able to get the stuff just fine...

Yet people that aren't 'criminals' aren't able to just walk into a store and get Morphine for their weekend warrior addictions either, which could and would potentially lead to far more people being addicted to a drug they don't mean to get that addicted to. Same goes with guns, bombs, etc. Regulation helps keep these things out of the hands of people that really don't need or really shouldn't have them. It doesn't keep them from these people ALL of the time, but it helps do it a good number of times. In countries where it's done WELL, there are fewer per capita examples of violence using such weapons.

Thing is, we can't stop trying just because the occasional mishaps happen. We can't stop trying just because fringe components of society abuse it. We can't stop trying just because of the occasional failing. We're trying to PROGRESS here, not regress. The last thing I want is a return to Old West justice. To Neanderthal thought processes. If you are a decent, good, deserving member of society and you want a weapon then you should be able to have one, but you should have to PROVE on a reasonable level that you can be responsible enough to deal with having one. That criminals can get weapons regardless is meaningless to me. That should never be a reason to just allow any Joe, Dick and Harry to randomly purchase any weapon they want whenever they want to.

There's a huge difference between being able to walk into a Wal-Mart and just anonymously purchase a gun, and having to work to find some street thug to buy one off of. A huge difference.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

01/10/2011 02:47:10 PM · #47

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Meh, like I said, it has no bearing on my life anymore, but I do know what I know, and stating my qualifications in this context is appropriate. (note that I've never bothered to do so previously in over a year here, it's actually something I generally prefer people don't know about me)

I haven't even fired a gun in months. I also see you have responded before reading my links above.

Actually, I could care less if they ban guns entirely, it will have zero net-effect on my life, but I can assure you that it will be ineffective.

The problem is that your "qualifications" - which you seem to feel are imminently impressive and should trump the other perspectives brought to bear in this thread - really are not that impressive or even relevant. They are not that impressive because they brand you not as an expert, but someone with some little bit of knowledge, which is often the basis for being even more spectacularly wrong about an issue that pure ignorance. They are not relevant because the real issue is whether the widespread availability and general low-level of regulation/restriction of guns in the U.S. somehow contributes to a heightened level of otherwise avoidable deaths - murder, suicide, accidental, etc. (Additionally, you seem to assume that those you are arguing against do not have equivalent or greater "qualification," of which you are assuredly incorrect in at least one respect.)

Robert has already taken apart your "argument" on the relative lethality of knives versus guns at close range on the merits, but more importantly it was just a dumb and callous argument. So blindingly dumb and callous, in fact, that the only logical conclusion is that you were being deliberately provocative.

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Taken a look at violent crime statistics in gun-free society?

The studies that I have seen which compare the U.S. to demographically equivalent countries definitely show a correlation between firearm availability and the rates of death and/or serious injury that result from violent crime, but If you have seen studies that suggest otherwise, I would be interested to look at them.

As others have pointed out your "crazies will be crazy" argument doesn't hold up because what we are looking for is whether regulation/restriction effects the rate of incidence, not whether the presence of a gun in any particular incidence would have lead to an avoidance of harm/injury/death.

Your argument would be like saying that since an expert car thief can get by even the most advanced security system, people should just leave the keys in the ignition and leave the doors unlocked.

01/10/2011 02:48:26 PM · #48

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Essentially I argue that you can ban guns, and it will absolutely keep guns out of all the hands that should have guns in them, while doing nothing about the guns that are in the hands they shouldn't be in...

Goldanggit, Cory! WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BANNING GUNS! We're talking about regulating their use, about trying to keep them out of the hands of unqualified or unstable indviduals. It can't ever be perfect (unlicensed drivers still drive) but it's better than nothing. In the case in point, the assassin was a known nutcase. He never should have been allowed to own a gun. You can't argue against that by saying "If he wasn't allowed to, he would have done it anyway." That's complete BS. It's not the point. The point is to make a good-faith effort to keep the weapons out of his hands. A lot of the time, it'll work.

R.

*Shrug* Regulation is semi = to bans. It's just that it only bans it from a certain sub-segment.

I would say that your argument at least holds some water, as he didn't drive himself there, so I guess he was regulated out of a vehicle (or more likely, he simply couldn't afford one..)

But let's talk about using vehicles as weapons, assuming all gun control worked, even the crazy f-ers can still steal cars and use them... Again, that might have proven more lethal in this case as a high-speed impact could have been devastating in that crowd.. Regulate away, it won't make a damned bit of difference I suspect... The people who want to do this type of insane shit will always be able to find a way, it's just that their method will be chosen based upon what is available - and humans are very creative, especially when it comes to violence.

01/10/2011 02:58:28 PM · #49

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Thing is, we can't stop trying just because the occasional mishaps happen. We can't stop trying just because fringe components of society abuse it. We can't stop trying just because of the occasional failing. We're trying to PROGRESS here, not regress. The last thing I want is a return to Old West justice. To Neanderthal thought processes. If you are a decent, good, deserving member of society and you want a weapon then you should be able to have one, but you should have to PROVE on a reasonable level that you can be responsible enough to deal with having one. That criminals can get weapons regardless is meaningless to me. That should never be a reason to just allow any Joe, Dick and Harry to randomly purchase any weapon they want whenever they want to.

There's a huge difference between being able to walk into a Wal-Mart and just anonymously purchase a gun, and having to work to find some street thug to buy one off of. A huge difference.

The problem with this is that eventually the people who follow the rules have nothing, and the outlaws have everything.. I don't think that's a good model.

Beyond this, let's just talk about society and the failings of "proof"... Essentially, if you haven't acted out or been caught acting out, or somehow otherwise established a reason to be distrusted, you are automatically "trusted" in that you can "prove" that you are not a nutjob.. Aside from that, I know I've had my moments of temporary insanity, and while I might not be Joe Normal, I'm pretty sure he has his moments of insanity as well. It's just that I happened to have the self control to act logically, which is what I feel probably separates the sane from the insane when it comes to those "moments".

This is where our small group "tribe" setting was superior to our modern society... Neanderthals at least KNEW their tribe members, all of them, in great detail - and you can bet that the f-ing fool who acted insanely would have been either made an oracle or fed to the wolves. Today we don't have the ability to really know if the person we're talking to is insane or not, or, even if we can tell they are obviously insane, we have no idea what sort of insanity they are likely to display. I know a couple of nut-jobs that I have no problem with them owning guns - despite the fact they are bat-shit crazy... I also know a couple of perfectly sane people with really bad tempers that should NEVER be allowed to own a gun.... Trying to detect this via a system of regulation is an impossibility, therefore regulation of this is doomed to fail IMO..

As for the Walmart gun thing... In any case, it's damned easy to follow the legal purchaser home and then violently steal their weapon - or just steal it while they are away..