3D Printed Gun

[Captain Seafort]

Guns, more specifically those not under criminal use, are not an everyday risk.

Really?

The problem is that banning cars saves lives where banning firearms would also save lives.

Fixed.

Regardless that you are more likely to be killed by a car then by any other non-natural form.

So what? Overall, heart disease is the leading cause of death. Does that mean that all research into all other fatal illnesses should be abandoned?

Anti-defense laws always mean more crime and more crime mean more people dying from crime which means job security for me.

Then why is the US murder rate four times that of the UK, despite the overall and violent crime rates being worse?

[Jim]

My guns have never killed aynone. I have had loaded guns, including handguns, in my house for about 20 year. No one has ever been killed, or injured.

[Captain Seafort]

My guns have never killed aynone. I have had loaded guns, including handguns, in my house for about 20 year. No one has ever been killed, or injured.

And? I bet your car's never killed anyone either. Does this mean that all legislation applicable to road safety should be repealed?

[McAvoy]

Banning guns will not prevent guns being sold on the black market which is already established. It will take a long time before guns and ammo becoming more limited therefore more expensive if ever.

Banning cars is much different. Driving and owning a car is not a right but a privilege. Which can be taken away at any time. Though this is based on some crime or punishment on a individual not a society.

[Captain Seafort]

Banning guns will not prevent guns being sold on the black market which is already established. It will take a long time before guns and ammo becoming more limited therefore more expensive if ever.

Agreed, but the mere fact that something is difficult is not a reason to dismiss it out of hand. It also doesn't count as an argument against tighter regulation short of a ban.

Banning cars is much different. Driving and owning a car is not a right but a privilege. Which can be taken away at any time.

Then why are weapons, which unlike cars are not essential to a modern society, not treated as such?

[McAvoy]

The difficulty in the fact that you disarm a society and people who wheel and deal weapons gives those criminals an advantage. Combined with the I think 80 million (might be more) Americans who own weapons who will not give it up easily. That makes it difficult if not downright impossible for a ban of guns. Remember guns is part of being American as a horse is (which is why eating horse meat in the US is a big deal).

Banning cars serves no purpose. Cars kill people because people are stupid. Gonna ban stupid people too? Should we ban knives and give everyone sparks?

Keep in mind I don't buy in the bullshit propaganda that guns prevent home invasion or whatever. Guns inside a house is as useful as a baseball bat. Not everyone will be able to use their guns in self defense. In fact drawing a weapon might cause the criminal to kill you as opposed to not.

I also do not believe people need a Gatling gun for self defense either but that is technically legal in the US to own.

[Captain Seafort]

The difficulty in the fact that you disarm a society and people who wheel and deal weapons gives those criminals an advantage. Combined with the I think 80 million (might be more) Americans who own weapons who will not give it up easily. That makes it difficult if not downright impossible for a ban of guns. Remember guns is part of being American as a horse is (which is why eating horse meat in the US is a big deal).

I've never used the word "easy" with regards to disarming the US, merely that it would be a positive step towards improving the situation.

Banning cars serves no purpose. Cars kill people because people are stupid.

Absolutely. However, cars are heavily regulated, because they're dangerous. Licenses are required to legally operate them, with additional requirements for heavier vehicles. They must also be registered, and be regularly inspected to ensure that they're still safe. Why all the whinging (from the wider population) about doing the same with weapons? Applying rigorous training and background checks to everyone who wants to own a weapon, ensuring that those with mental conditions don't have access to weapons, ensuring that local law enforcement know who has access to weapons, and ensuring weapons are properly secured when not in use are trivial matters. Nowhere in that list is "ban all weapons", so why the fuss?

Keep in mind I don't buy in the bullshit propaganda that guns prevent home invasion or whatever. Guns inside a house is as useful as a baseball bat.

Probably less so.

[McAvoy]

Cars are heavily regulated for many reasons. But banning them because someone could potentially make it into a 2 ton mobile bomb? Might as well start banning everything that can be made into bombs.

Where does the banning stop?

People are concerned about gun registration but I think this a good idea. People are concerned about tracking who has guns. Still haven't heard the bitching and outcry that Big Brother can track us by our cell phones.

[Captain Seafort]

Cars are heavily regulated for many reasons. But banning them because someone could potentially make it into a 2 ton mobile bomb?

At no point have I suggested banning cars - I've simply pointed out that they're an example of items that are responsible for a very large number of deaths, and are therefore heavily regulated. Ergo, why should firearms, which don't have anything like the economic importance of cars and are designed to kill as a result of normal use rather than misuse, not be at least as heavily regulated.

Might as well start banning everything that can be made into bombs.

If you can make a bomb out of something then it should at least be very heavily regulated.

[McAvoy]

I am just saying banning stuff because it can potentially kill people is just stupid.

I can make napalm out of styrofoam and gasoline. Should we ban Styrofoam? Or what about gasoline and other fuels? Or better yet, take a spray paint can and cook it, creates a nice grenade.

I can think of many things that can be made into a bomb that you can buy at a grocery store. But just because I know how to doesn't make me a potential criminal or those materials should be banned.

[Captain Seafort]

I am just saying banning stuff because it can potentially kill people is just stupid.

Agreed. Weapons have nothing to do with this, because they're not dual-use - killing is their primary purpose.

[McAvoy]

I am just saying banning stuff because it can potentially kill people is just stupid.

Agreed. Weapons have nothing to do with this, because they're not dual-use - killing is their primary purpose.

People kill people. Guns are just tools. Now I would ask how would making guns more heavily regulated than it is now solve the issues right now? What are the stats on people being killed by guns that could have been solved by it? Or how many people have been killed by someone using someone else's gun?

[Captain Seafort]

People kill people. Guns are just tools.

The purpose of a tool is to make a task that would otherwise be difficult or impossible easier or possible. The complete removal of weapons (the theoretical objective of a ban) would not make murder impossible, but it would make it a sight more difficult. This is a good thing.

how many people have been killed by someone using someone else's gun?

The majority of murders, I would have thought.

Now I would ask how would making guns more heavily regulated than it is now solve the issues right now? What are the stats on people being killed by guns that could have been solved by it?

Sandy Hook for starters - properly securing the weapons used would have made obtaining them more difficult, and proper mental health checks on members of households with guns may also have lead to refusal to issue a firearms license. Likewise, the various accidental deaths noted in the link I posted earlier would have been prevented by competent storage arrangements.

[McAvoy]

People kill people. Guns are just tools.

The purpose of a tool is to make a task that would otherwise be difficult or impossible easier or possible. The complete removal of weapons (the theoretical objective of a ban) would not make murder impossible, but it would make it a sight more difficult. This is a good thing.

how many people have been killed by someone using someone else's gun?

The majority of murders, I would have thought.

Now I would ask how would making guns more heavily regulated than it is now solve the issues right now? What are the stats on people being killed by guns that could have been solved by it?

Sandy Hook for starters - properly securing the weapons used would have made obtaining them more difficult, and proper mental health checks on members of households with guns may also have lead to refusal to issue a firearms license. Likewise, the various accidental deaths noted in the link I posted earlier would have been prevented by competent storage arrangements.

Proper storage arrangements cannot be regulated. That is up to the gun owner. You can fine people but it would only happen after the fact. You cannot have cops or whoever go into the house to inspect the house. Will never happen.

Of the many murders caused by guns how many were from someone they knew or stole from, and how many were illegal?

Now how many people would have survived if they had a gun? That is harder to qualify because like I said how many people were killed because they had a gun?

You can regulate guns all you want, you can even ban them outright. Won't fix anything.

[Captain Seafort]

Proper storage arrangements cannot be regulated. That is up to the gun owner. You can fine people but it would only happen after the fact. You cannot have cops or whoever go into the house to inspect the house. Will never happen.

Does happen. I don't know about the US, but in the UK vehicles must be inspected annually to ensure their safety. Doing the same with firearm storage arrangements is no more than common sense.

You can regulate guns all you want, you can even ban them outright. Won't fix anything.

Why not? While an outright ban is a non-starter as a short term goal, I can't understand the large-scale opposition to minor things like licensing, background checks and proper storage arrangements.