01-29-2004, 02:42 AM
I would be fine with everybody being able to own whatever if it weren't for people in general being so stupid. Personally I like all forms of weaponry (it's just cool. why, I have no idea), but I can easily do without if it means reducing the amount of death/injury. Anything in bad hands is dangerous, but weapons are tools designed to cause as much damage as possible. A sword is useless for day-to-day use, (though I'm sure someone could find something) anything you'd want to cut with the sword on a daily basis there's already a tool for it that's more practical. Ranged weapons are worse for alternate, passive uses. What I'm saying is, if you buy a gun, it's because you're going to shoot stuff. What said stuff is, well that's up to the person lining up the sights. I'm sure most people can handle not shooting things that aren't meant to be shot (ie. road signs), but a person can easily decide to kill their neighbour, or shoot animals out of season without a permit.
Think of gun control as a firewall, sure there are people who are determined and skilled enough to get past it, but it cuts down the number of people who will. Even if 99% of nutjobs can still get firearms, it's better than 100%, and it keeps misuse to a minimum until somebody comes along with a revelation and stamps it out completely.
The sore spot with most gun rights activists is they are no longer being allowed to fully pursue a hobby of theirs. However, instituting only legislation that allows quicker capture (like a registry) brings in the can of worms called "acceptable losses". Even if you catch all abusers within fifteen minutes, there are still things dying and stuff getting vandalized. That's why there are preventative measures. Not because 'they' are evil, freedom hating gun stealers.
Come to think of it, with proper regulations, shooting ranges and the like could be allowed more weapons than civilians without too much trouble.There would be a licence anywhere with a shooting range could apply for, allowing them to legally obtain weapons otherwise illegal to possess. That wouldn't be hard to implement at all, and it would at least provide enthusiasts a way to enjoy some of the more destructive firearms. If the manufacturers complain, a small surcharge could be tacked on the membership fee to compensate them for the lost business. Risk of organized theft can be reduced with more secure gun lockers.
Think of gun control as a firewall, sure there are people who are determined and skilled enough to get past it, but it cuts down the number of people who will. Even if 99% of nutjobs can still get firearms, it's better than 100%, and it keeps misuse to a minimum until somebody comes along with a revelation and stamps it out completely.
The sore spot with most gun rights activists is they are no longer being allowed to fully pursue a hobby of theirs. However, instituting only legislation that allows quicker capture (like a registry) brings in the can of worms called "acceptable losses". Even if you catch all abusers within fifteen minutes, there are still things dying and stuff getting vandalized. That's why there are preventative measures. Not because 'they' are evil, freedom hating gun stealers.
Come to think of it, with proper regulations, shooting ranges and the like could be allowed more weapons than civilians without too much trouble.There would be a licence anywhere with a shooting range could apply for, allowing them to legally obtain weapons otherwise illegal to possess. That wouldn't be hard to implement at all, and it would at least provide enthusiasts a way to enjoy some of the more destructive firearms. If the manufacturers complain, a small surcharge could be tacked on the membership fee to compensate them for the lost business. Risk of organized theft can be reduced with more secure gun lockers.