Originally Posted by Kevsh (Post 14393545)

Clearly there are a few things that even the staunchest pro-gun advocate can admit:

- The majority of guns used in committing crimes were, at one point, legally purchased.
- That the likelihood of someone in your home being killed or wounded by a handgun increases dramatically if you keep a gun in your home.
- That the ability for people to own firearms without at least some firearms and safety training can lead to careless and sometimes wreckless use.
- The right to defend your home is certainly a strong argument, but owning a small arsenal is not a necessity for home defence.

So for every gun legally bought by and individual, the odds that someone, somewhere will be shot increases. It's simple logic.

But since guns are everywhere, I completely agree that that stopping the legal sale of guns would (at least in the short term) leave home owners and citizens defenceless. In the long term, there would be no guns and then you wouldn't have any valid excuse to need them to defend your home (that is, in countries with gun control they don't suffer from home invasions nearly enough to be concerned about it).

So as a bit of a compromise, why not at least force people who buy a gun to:
1) Be interviewed by an agent (likely of the police) for a basic evaluation of the individual
2) Be required to take a gun safety course
3) Be issued a licence (very simple, just showing they completed the course, etc.)
3) Register the firearm with the police and check back, perhaps once a year, with the gun (basically renewing the licence)

A pain in the ass? Sure it is. But to drive a car, look what you have to go through - and although cars can be dangerous, lets be honest, a gun is designed to shot people and yet it's easier to get one than a licence to drive a car, truck or 18-wheeler?

Hey, agree or not but as someone is certainly pro-gun control, at least I'm reaching across the aisle :)

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix (Post 14393556)

You're twisting my words, I have said nothing about 'powerful' weapons.

I spoke merely of weapons of precision as opposed to weapons which cannot be controlled or directed and that kill indiscriminately. Those are two very different topics, do not confuse them.

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix (Post 14393556)

I think it's safe to say that catapulting corpses infected with common and naturally occurring illnesses is a bit different than the exotic man-made or refined strains of extremely weird and deadly shit that scientists have cooked up in modern labs :winkwink: So yes, modern germ/chemical warfare would have been inconceivable to them. The framers of our constitution were no doubt brilliant men, but I don't think they could easily predict 150+ years of scientific "advancement" into a field which did not even exist during their lifetimes.

Originally Posted by Kevsh (Post 14393545)

1) Be interviewed by an agent (likely of the police) for a basic evaluation of the individual
2) Be required to take a gun safety course
3) Be issued a licence (very simple, just showing they completed the course, etc.)
3) Register the firearm with the police and check back, perhaps once a year, with the gun (basically renewing the licence)

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14394546)

A laser guided missile can be controlled. So can most new age rocket launchers. A target for a grenade can be chosen just as much as one using a gun. An IED has more precision and accuracy as a gun as you can choose your target beforehand.