Here Is the Place, if any on this forum, for Gun Discussion

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Clearly banning weapons is an effective way to reduce gun violence. Just look at Britain.

That's a blanket statement without all the facts. Of course it stands to reason that the US has more gun violence than Britain - because we have MORE guns. Duh! They have less guns because they started enacting gun legislation in the early 1900's. America did not. If Britain had the amount of firearms in their hands that the US has, they would have a gun violence problem as well.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Another question for you. I'm sure you'll ignore this one too as you always do, but I'll ask anyway.

If banning drugs doesn't resolve the drug problem, how would banning guns resolve the gun problem?

It seems to me that if someone wants to use drugs, they have no problem finding them. Don't you think if someone wanted to get a gun (for the sake of argument, let's just assume they're all banned), do you think they would have a a problem finding one? It's always been my experience that if someone wants something bad enough, they'll find a way to get it - illegal or not.

[packs]

If its your position that if a law can be broken it shouldn't be a law, then why do we have laws at all? Every law has been broken. So does that make them senseless?

Also, I don't need to be the one to come up with some singular solution so I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say when you keep asking me questions and expecting me to have some end all solution. Your line of thinking and reasoning is inherently flawed and that makes you incapable of having a meaningful conversation.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

If its your position that if a law can be broken it shouldn't be a law, then why do we have laws at all? Every law has been broken. So does that make them senseless?

No, that's not my position. I'm just smart enough to know that banning guns isn't a solution and doesn't eradicate the problem. It doesn't address the millions of guns that are already in the hands of individuals. You just keep spewing your stupid rhetoric and refuse to address that point.

[packs]

What point? That something that occurred in the past occurred in the past? What are you even saying? My point is that today a person can waltz into a store and buy an AR-15 legally without hassle. That's what I'm trying to change. You keep bringing up the past. What does that have to do with increasing gun restrictions and banning the sale of certain types of weapons? I'm concerned with how easy it is to buy guns, not with the fact that people have bought guns before.

Like I said before, it's impossible for you to have anything pertinent or constructive to say.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

My point is that today a person can waltz into a store and buy an AR-15 legally without hassle. That's what I'm trying to change.

Again with the stupid rhetoric, but no answers. Okay, let's say that is changed. Let's say that ALL guns are banned. You got your way. Now, what do you do about the ones already in the hands of individuals? What is to keep those out of the hands of the bad guys?

[packs]

You're the only one talking about banning all guns. It has no place in the discussion, which is centered around banning the sales of assault weapons previously banned, while not restricting your access to other types of weapons.

[packs]

Double post.