This why the U.S needs to get rid of guns.

[patches70]

Can I have a lightsaber?

Sure, why not? If you got a working light saber I might even buy it off you if you'd be willing to sell. I'd have to think about it though, first. Lightsabers seem fairly unsafe to me. Either way, I'd suggest you be careful with it though. You could poke an eye out with that thing, and it's all fun and games until someone pokes an eye out....

[Metsfanmax]

There are firearms that are made that can only fire if one specific person's fingerprint activates the weapon. The fingerprint is taken there on the grip. The weapon will only discharge for the person with that specific fingerprint.

If such a weapon is stolen, it doesn't matter because it won't function for the average thief. He'd have to get the weapon reprogrammed which there are safeguards against (though not impossible).

However, such weapons can still be used to shoot anyone. One can suicide themselves, shoot someone else accidentally and so on and so on.

So you'd oppose this policy because it doesn't magically solve every problem?

It doesn't solve any problem at all.

The best it could do it make stolen guns harder to use. It would be a far better solution than your-

Isn't it obvious how, despite the "illegality" of this action, it would be significantly harder for these actions to be committed if there were no guns in the home?

Your solution is to ban guns. People can't have them in their home. Besides the fact that you have no idea if people need a gun or not, what gives you the right to tell your neighbor he can't have a gun?

I don't advocate banning guns. That was a hypothetical point I used to address TGD.

Anyway, the biometric guns aren't solutions either. Imagine a world where every firearm is biometric. Normally, it wouldn't do any good for the common street hood to bother stealing the gun. It wouldn't fire for them, it could even be tracked remotely so it can't be hidden.
Except, criminals aren't entirely stupid. A specific market would rise that would involve of how to dispense with such stolen weapons. The biometric safeguards would be bypassed and reprogrammed. There would be certain criminal elements that would specialize in this task (making great gobs of money while they were at it). The weapons would then be reprogrammed for a new shooter (the new illegal buyer, biometric weapons ain't cheap).

Yes, some criminals would be able to bypass the biometric safeguards. But not all. So it would likely prevent some crimes from happening. The problem here is that you can't keep examining this situation in black and white. Not all criminals are the same, and not all crimes are the same.

Also, regarding your point that guns would get more expensive: I am ok with this.

[2dimes]

Can I have a lightsaber?

Yes. There are no restrictions on lightsabers currently.

[2dimes]

Move to Sweden patches.

Why?

They have the gun laws we like. Possibly Switzerland too.

[thegreekdog]

We start with the premise that criminals who obtain guns, either obtain them illegally (likely) or obtain them with intent to use them illegally. In other words, criminals are breaking the law. If you pass a law banning guns, why would that law have any effect on those same criminals when current laws don't have any effect on them?

Many criminals use guns that were obtained legally (either by themselves or a friend/family member). These people would have significantly less access to guns if they were heavily restricted.

How would you heavily restrict them? I ask that in the context of the illegality of obtaining guns and giving/selling them to criminals.

You're using "obtaining" and "criminals" way too broadly here. First, many people who murder others were not criminals prior to their action, so it's not obvious what exactly you mean by "criminals." Second, many shooters get their gun from their family home. Isn't it obvious how, despite the "illegality" of this action, it would be significantly harder for these actions to be committed if there were no guns in the home?

EDIT - I'm looking for data now but my firm's firewall does not let me go to websites talking about guns.

In any event, a 1991 study I actually had access to (from the US Department of Justice) indicates that a survey of state prison inmantes indicates that 9% had acquired a handgun by theft and 28% had acquired a handgun through an illegal market. Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least one gun and 11% had sold or traded stolen guns.

So, again, unless we ban and destroy all guns, how are more laws restricting gun ownership going to stop criminals from getting guns when they already steal them?

What about the vast majority of these inmates who have not illegally acquired a handgun? Your argument would be more convincing if more than 10% were stealing guns.

The problem with these statistics (which I think you understand) is that they are garnered in a world where someone can purchase a gun legally and then commit the crime. Does making the gun illegal result in a decrease in the amount of gun violence because the criminal will then not be able to purchase the gun? In other words, making gun ownership more restrictive should not result in less gun violence because criminals will still attempt to and succeed in getting firearms. The only option to prevent criminals from getting guns is to destroy them all (a situation I would be okay with).

So you'd oppose this policy because it doesn't magically solve every problem?

I don't object to fingerprint-type security. In fact, I would think gun owners would embrace it.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states.

[chang50]

Mine was just going to be a sarcastic response that "Symtopia" is just something Mets made up to have a go at me. I don't know what the gun laws are like there.

Not 100% certain but I thought I coined the term Symtopia.

Is that the place where you are encouraged to mischaracterise the views of others in order to ridicule them?

[Night Strike]

Also, regarding your point that guns would get more expensive: I am ok with this.

Because you believe government regulation should make everything more expensive: guns, energy, etc.

I don't object to fingerprint-type security. In fact, I would think gun owners would embrace it.

That would make it pretty hard to teach your own kids how to use a gun safely and properly. It would also make it harder for people to test out which type of gun they would then want to purchase for themselves. It would also make it more difficult to defend ones house in a home invasion if the wife is the only one home but the gun is only coded to the husband's fingerprints. There are lots of reasons to be against a mandate of it.

[Gweeedo]

Yep, that's terrible. Glad I'm not in America.

Are you Americans happy with all these guns and feel safer or are you stuck with this law you don't really want? I'd migrate if those numbers were shown about my country.

I feel Happy about it.

Why would America wish to adopt European attitude towered gun laws?
It is in the Constitution...I think it is here to stay!

We are living the Wild west up here in Alaska (some places).
I walk the streets with a gun on my side.
Where else can you do that (in the civilized world).
Hey, How about that...seems the Police are doing that same thing!

The only way America will ever rid the nation of its Guns, is by eliminating them from the Police force as well...Not likely!
Years ago a pot grower shot (killed one) two kids who tried to rob his crop...No Charges, self defense.
We love our Guns up here.
we have a big fuss with the State (country) trying to stop us from burning wood (Right, not going over too good)...nobody will ever try to take our guns away!
Just have to deal with the problem as it stands.

[Metsfanmax]

The problem with these statistics (which I think you understand) is that they are garnered in a world where someone can purchase a gun legally and then commit the crime. Does making the gun illegal result in a decrease in the amount of gun violence because the criminal will then not be able to purchase the gun? In other words, making gun ownership more restrictive should not result in less gun violence because criminals will still attempt to and succeed in getting firearms. The only option to prevent criminals from getting guns is to destroy them all (a situation I would be okay with).

Of course making guns illegal will result in a decrease in the amount of gun violence, because there simply won't be as many around. Some criminals are indeed well-connected and could easily purchase a gun, even in a world where they're illegal and the supply has diminished substantially. But many are not -- they are poor, or are from a wealthy suburban neighborhood and don't have those kind of contacts -- and so there's a good chance that if the supply is substantially diminished, many of them simply will not have access to a firearm. Again, I urge you (and everyone else) to stop thinking in terms of black and white. Not every criminal is the same, and not every crime is the same. We shouldn't be judging the success or failure of a gun control policy on whether it stops every gun crime.

Also, regarding your point that guns would get more expensive: I am ok with this.

Because you believe government regulation should make everything more expensive: guns, energy, etc.

I believe government regulation should make energy cheaper, if it can; certainly not more expensive. But for guns, if they were more expensive, fewer people would likely buy them, which is a good thing, since I don't like instruments of death.

[Agent 86]

I have followed the thread and it's been interesting. I'm from Australia and was totally against the banning of guns when it was introduced by the Howard government at the time. Many years later it has been a total success.

For the past 10 years I've been living in China, no guns here either..so now I advocate the banning of guns. Society is safer overall, it's a fact.

American constitution was written a long time ago, doesn't really apply anymore to owning guns.

[Sackett58]

For the past 10 years I've been living in China, no guns here either..so now I advocate the banning of guns. Society is safer overall, it's a fact.

So when are you changing the avatar?

[Night Strike]

American constitution was written a long time ago, doesn't really apply anymore to owning guns.

People are no longer in danger of being hurt by others or from having a tyrannical government rule their lives?

[2dimes]

Tyrannical gov? That won't happen where he is.

[Phatscotty]

Just stupid, why is this politician even a politician???

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... 6797948780

Worry about your own country. Our rights are none of your business.

[Army of GOD]

SHOULDA HADDA MOTHERFUCKIN GUN

[Phatscotty]

For the past 10 years I've been living in China, no guns here either..so now I advocate the banning of guns. Society is safer overall, it's a fact.

So when are you changing the avatar?

Nice. This would be like me whining about the psychological trauma caused from Batman saving the day yet again

[demonfork]

Many anti gun bandwagoners obviously have no idea how easy it is to make a gun.

For all of you that believe that a gun ban will equal no guns, think again.

For a "no guns" reality you will also need to add the following to the same pile that your banned guns are in...

1. Plastic
2. Aluminum
3. Steel

Good luck!

[chang50]

Just stupid, why is this politician even a politician???

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... 6797948780

Worry about your own country. Our rights are none of your business.

As if you and other Americans restrict their comments only to their own country.You had shitloads to say about the Breivik shootings in Norway (not USA) remember?As well as being unenforceable such self censorship would result in an extremely boring INTERNATIONAL forum.Someone from a small country like Andorra or San Marino where relatively little happens of great importance would effectively be prohibited from posting.You see this is not America's planet and bullies don't get to make all the rules.

[demonfork]

Just stupid, why is this politician even a politician???

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... 6797948780

Worry about your own country. Our rights are none of your business.

As if you and other Americans restrict their comments only to their own country.You had shitloads to say about the Breivik shootings,remember?Such a policy would result in an extremely boring INTERNATIONAL forum.Someone from a small country like Andorra or San Marino where relatively little happens of great importance would effectively be prohibited from posting.You see this is not America's planet and bullies don't get to make all the rules.

[codeblue1018]

Just stupid, why is this politician even a politician???

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... 6797948780

Worry about your own country. Our rights are none of your business.

As if you and other Americans restrict their comments only to their own country.You had shitloads to say about the Breivik shootings in Norway (not USA) remember?As well as being unenforceable such self censorship would result in an extremely boring INTERNATIONAL forum.Someone from a small country like Andorra or San Marino where relatively little happens of great importance would effectively be prohibited from posting.You see this is not America's planet and bullies don't get to make all the rules.

You're correct Chang; this isn't "America's planet" but the fact remains that we're the "big brother" of the world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... uperpower/

[chang50]

Just stupid, why is this politician even a politician???

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... 6797948780

Worry about your own country. Our rights are none of your business.

As if you and other Americans restrict their comments only to their own country.You had shitloads to say about the Breivik shootings in Norway (not USA) remember?As well as being unenforceable such self censorship would result in an extremely boring INTERNATIONAL forum.Someone from a small country like Andorra or San Marino where relatively little happens of great importance would effectively be prohibited from posting.You see this is not America's planet and bullies don't get to make all the rules.

You're correct Chang; this isn't "America's planet" but the fact remains that we're the "big brother" of the world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... uperpower/

All indisputable,I only wish more of your countrymen weren't such bullies and hypocrites.Maybe this is an inevitable consequence og being 'big brother'?

[mrswdk]

Bit of an overly-defensive article. Touchy touchy.

[chang50]

Bit of an overly-defensive article. Touchy touchy.

More complacency?

[thegreekdog]

The problem with these statistics (which I think you understand) is that they are garnered in a world where someone can purchase a gun legally and then commit the crime. Does making the gun illegal result in a decrease in the amount of gun violence because the criminal will then not be able to purchase the gun? In other words, making gun ownership more restrictive should not result in less gun violence because criminals will still attempt to and succeed in getting firearms. The only option to prevent criminals from getting guns is to destroy them all (a situation I would be okay with).

Of course making guns illegal will result in a decrease in the amount of gun violence, because there simply won't be as many around. Some criminals are indeed well-connected and could easily purchase a gun, even in a world where they're illegal and the supply has diminished substantially. But many are not -- they are poor, or are from a wealthy suburban neighborhood and don't have those kind of contacts -- and so there's a good chance that if the supply is substantially diminished, many of them simply will not have access to a firearm. Again, I urge you (and everyone else) to stop thinking in terms of black and white. Not every criminal is the same, and not every crime is the same. We shouldn't be judging the success or failure of a gun control policy on whether it stops every gun crime.

Also, regarding your point that guns would get more expensive: I am ok with this.

Because you believe government regulation should make everything more expensive: guns, energy, etc.

I believe government regulation should make energy cheaper, if it can; certainly not more expensive. But for guns, if they were more expensive, fewer people would likely buy them, which is a good thing, since I don't like instruments of death.

Ignoring other countries, I have not seen evidence that making a thing illegal reduces the supply sufficiently for criminals to not have access. For example, criminals do not appear to have a lack of access to illegal drugs. In any event, I enjoy your plan to make fingerprint access tor guns, so let's go with that instead of having a pointless debate about things like the "success or failure of a gun control policy" where the "gun control policy" is some undefined glob of whatever.