Gun Control




It’s even worse than that.

Technology to make guns safer is heavily opposed by the gun lobby. Biometrics, smart locks, bullet serial markers, traceability features: every one of these is violently opposed by the gun lobby.


I feel I perfectly countered your entirely rational argument. :stuck_out_tongue:


I’d just like to say that I can’t wait until all cars drive themselves. Humans in general are terrible drivers and the faster we automate that system the better. It will be faster, more efficient, less fuel consuming, a lot more safer, and in general more pleasant experience.


Here’s an interesting chestnut of Gun Control.

How do we feel about gun control executed poorly? I’m all for banning guns entirely, but I think it should be done in a sensible fashion.

My home state of CT bans guns that hold too many bullets. I think this is excellent. However if you want to own a gun that holds more bullets than the law says you can, the law lets you do this provided you alter the bullet holder to hold less bullets. I think this is stupid. Ban the gun outright or allow it outright but don’t go having people artificially changing their stuff.

I think if they say guns can’t hold x bullets then guns that can hold that many should be outright banned, modified or otherwise. Furthermore I think the very concept of modifying them to be less like themselves is just dumb itself


If all cars in America were to disappear tomorrow, a whole hell of a lot of Americans would die from not having them. If all guns in America were to disappear, the few hundred or so Americans who rely on hunting for survival would die, and thousands of Americans would not be killed by guns.

As said above, barring truly mind-boggling changes to American infrastructure, banning cars would honestly do a lot more harm than good. Banning guns would be almost entirely good.


Other than revolvers and some others, most guns can “hold” variable numbers of bullets in differently sized magazines. There can be several sizes of magazine that all fit the same gun.

In terms of “dumb” or poorly executed regulations, I don’t really care. The harder it is for people to have anything more complex than a simple hunting rifle or shotgun, the better.


This is fine. If the gun can hold magazines that are above what my state allows in terms of bullets. Ban it.

Done deal. Maybe ban that clip. and ban it based on a volume calculation rather than allowing clips that have had just so much cement poured into it so as to allow it to abide by state laws.

I’m with you on gun control I’m just applying my pedantry to it. Like I do everything else.

I’d love to see the day where basically only revolvers were the last handguns allowed in my state. Then all we’d have to do is ban them too.


Most of the regulations that require an individual to make something would substantially reduce the number of that thing. Banning sale and still allowing ownership is kind of weird but is similar to how we handle anything else with safety regulations. You can build your own vehicles and power tools, but you generally can’t sell them unless they are within regulation.


Gun nuts flip out if you confuse clips and magazines.


Can we just ban people who flip out when you confuse clips and magazines?


I’m ok with this, it will solve 99% of the problem.


The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington, having spent more than $52 million in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A large bulk of that funding benefitted Republican candidates, with more than $30 million going to support President Trump.

$52 million is chump change for any of the actual rich people out there. Ask yourself. Why is it only the evil rich people like oil companies and gun industry that is giving this kind of money to congress. If they listen to money, why isn’t anyone paying them to do the opposite?


Because all rich people are evil, publicly perceived to be evil, or good or otherwise. Duh.


This is the correct answer.


The NRA brings way more than money to the table.

It brings a fairly large single-issue voting bloc.

Do what the NRA wants, and that bloc will lock-step vote for you. The money is not the carrot: the bloc is. See also: anti-choice activists and (formerly) anti-marriage-equality activists.


So you’ve kinda stumbled on something that’s kinda been on my mind lately. The problem isn’t like some small cabal of people being evil. It’s like… about half the country. I don’t think there’s a solution for a country when the problem is literally half of the whole country.


There was a solution. We tried it from 1861 to 1865. It worked, but we didn’t finish the job.


So I like the idea but have you considered what a modern civil war would look like?

It wouldn’t be like ye olden times, where both sides have armies. The world’s biggest army, navy, air force and all police forces would be on one side.

It wouldn’t look like a war in the traditional sense of the word.


Who says it has to be a war of guns?