Response above in blue.

 

I don't have the answers nor do I claim to. Maybe it's not as a big of a deal for either side? Maybe there is enough control and maybe there is not? My only argument was that to have no restriction on weapons is just plain silly in a modern society. Limiting type of weapons available to the general public just seems reasonable to me. 

 

It is difficult for me to step back and say there should be some limits or some forms of gun control. That said I reluctantly will agree that not everyone should own a firearm and some control is needed. I will however insist we've reached that point and probably gone a little further.

 

As for the gun show issue, the only way around it would be to create a registration to verify transactions between parties. And the registration is the ultimate no-no. I'd risk 1,000 criminals owning a gun over creating a registration.

---

I'll look into that. 

 

My point though was that does it really equal causation? There are very few guns in Portland and also pretty low crime. 

 

 

I've been to Alabama, and I can say for a fact there are A LOT of Guns in Slapout/Holtville and NO crime except for 1 murder in I don't know how many years

---

More like Crazy NRA and their creating fear of all and any gun control.  First thing the NRA does after a school shooting is blame video games.  (apparently the 2nd amendment doesn't always protect the first) 

 

I've heard people use this excuse, but I didn't know the NRA did too. Can you provide examples because I didn't see them.

 

 

That's the problem with gun culture in this country. An attempt to have a reasonable to discussion about potential gun control laws is met with screams of oppression and tyranny. Why because maybe someone wants to limit fully auto guns or the ability to buy a friggin tank? Other's see it as safety for our society. I don't believe for a second the ability to buy military grade weapons of our level of technological advancement is exactly what the founders had in mind with the 2nd amendment. 

 

Whoa now... that isn't entirely true. I've seen far too many arguments from the opposing side that use nothing but emotions as a legitimate reason to extend gun control. It works both ways, of course. 

---

I've heard people use this excuse, but I didn't know the NRA did too. Can you provide examples because I didn't see them.

 

 

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA (I think it's fair to say that he represents them) 

 

 

 

 

 “And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like “American Psycho” and “Natural Born Killers” that are aired like propaganda loops on “Splatterdays” and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it “entertainment.” But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of [BAD WORD REMOVED]?Left off this part sorry:

 

 

"Guns don’t kill people. Video games, the media and Obama’s budget kill people

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA (I think it's fair to say that he represents them) 


 

 

Is that the only one?

---

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA (I think it's fair to say that he represents them) 

 

 

I don't see a problem with what he said?

---

Not the only one, no.  


 

 

 

“The evidence against Grand Theft Auto is not to be disputed. Clearly, excitement over the imminent release of this game led Mr. Alexis to commit celebratory murders,” said LaPierre. “Either that, or he was going on a ‘practice run’ in anticipation of playing this degraded piece of garbage.”

 

 

 

“If videogames were not so widespread and easy to get your hands on, this horrible act might never have happened. It’s high time Congress and our president backed sensible video game regulation. Anybody that wants to purchase a copy of Grand Theft Auto V must undergo a background check, a psychological evaluation, and a five-day waiting period. Most importantly, all copies of the game must be kept under lock and key when not in use.” 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I don't see a problem with what he said?

There's a lot wrong with what he said.


Video games and media don't sow violence against their own people.  If that were the case crime would be much higher in other countries where video games are much more prevalent.  Yet, that's not the case.  And the crime rate would be far higher if video games influenced behavior as LaPierre suggested.  Because games like GTA sell tens of millions of copies.  Heck a game like Kindergarten Killers was something absolutely nobody heard of until the NRA brought it up.  It was a game created in Flash, that only a handful of people ever saw.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It's not the video games themselves, it's a lack of proper parenting teaching the kids whats right and wrong (and Libs, there are absolutes)

 

I grew up watching Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd blasting Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck to pieces and I never shot anyone. I was raised around guns and learned gun safety at an early age so........

 

Sure the current crop of video games can desensitize you to certain things like gun violence but.... Like I said, it's the lack of proper parenting in the country today that is the major problem

---

It is difficult for me to step back and say there should be some limits or some forms of gun control. That said I reluctantly will agree that not everyone should own a firearm and some control is needed. I will however insist we've reached that point and probably gone a little further.

 

As for the gun show issue, the only way around it would be to create a registration to verify transactions between parties. And the registration is the ultimate no-no. I'd risk 1,000 criminals owning a gun over creating a registration.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't buy the concept that it ALWAYS leads to confiscation that you said before. There has to be other reasons. I say this because it's just not a plausible course of action. All the people have the guns that they have to protect themselves from the government and in essence would have to go to war against the entire nation which also comprises the governmental offices and the military. I don't see that being even remotely plausible. 

---

I've been to Alabama, and I can say for a fact there are A LOT of Guns in Slapout/Holtville and NO crime except for 1 murder in I don't know how many years

That's not less anecdotal then my comment about Portland and lack of crime. My point isn't weather it's right or wrong and again I don't advocate gun bans just weather it's actually causation or just correlation. 

---

As for the gun show issue, the only way around it would be to create a registration to verify transactions between parties. And the registration is the ultimate no-no. I'd risk 1,000 criminals owning a gun over creating a registration.

 

Does registration always lead to confiscation?  You have to register your vehicle, and you have a driver's license, but I don't think people have had their cars taken away.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Does registration always lead to confiscation?  You have to register your vehicle, and you have a driver's license, but I don't think people have had their cars taken away.

 

Ask the Jews what was the first thing Hitler took from them after gun registration..........

---

Ask the Jews what was the first thing Hitler took from them after gun registration..........

 

Actually their guns were taken from them before Hitler came along.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Ask the Jews what was the first thing Hitler took from them after gun registration..........

He didn't take guns from the French, yet was having a croissant and some wine after a few weeks against their wishes.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Could you elaborate on this? I don't buy the concept that it ALWAYS leads to confiscation that you said before. There has to be other reasons. I say this because it's just not a plausible course of action. All the people have the guns that they have to protect themselves from the government and in essence would have to go to war against the entire nation which also comprises the governmental offices and the military. I don't see that being even remotely plausible. 

 

Well there's the documented history of Cuba pre-Castro and their extensive gun registration and restrictions which left the populace helpless as Castro over threw the government.

 

Then there's also the well documented history of Germany pre-Hitler and their extensive gun restrictions, all though it probably wouldn't have stopped the NAZI party from rising in Germany.

 

Then there's the pre-Soviet Union era where the Bolsheviks attempted to disarm all the peasants. After the civil war Lenin allowed only hunting rifles to be owned by peasants (sounds familure only reason to own a rifle is to hunt?) Stalin went a step further and actively disarmed the peasants during collectivization.

 

The United Kingdom in 1921 created it's handgun registration and then every decade after instituted stricter laws until present day guns are essentially non-existent in the UK.

 

New Zealand in 1921 created a registration of revolver owners in the 1970's that list was used for confiscation.

 

Canada in the 1990's used the registration list to confiscate guns grandfathered in without compensation to the estates. 

 

1996 Australia used their registration list to confiscate all semi-automatic rifles.

 

Let's bring it home,

 

In Chicago during the 1990's the long-rifle registration was used to confiscate all semi-auto long guns owned in the Chicago city limits. 

 

In California they had a fun issue with the SKS after the registration period was closed they went back and forth every few years if the SKS was covered or not. Eventually many counties used the registration list to confiscate registered SKS rifles and without compensation to the estates. Later they offered to compensate the owners of SKS rifles with receipts of confiscation only twist was they didn't give receipts when they where confiscated. 

 

that's a short list, I'd challenge someone to find me a registration list that hasn't been used to confiscate or restrict ownership of firearms.

---

Does registration always lead to confiscation?  You have to register your vehicle, and you have a driver's license, but I don't think people have had their cars taken away.

 

Let that tag on the back of your vehicle expire and see what happens to your private property. 

---

America has the most guns. America has the most crime. America's police has the most fear of the civilians, leading to more deaths. Guess what the root of the problem is? Guns. Guess what is NOT the solution to the problem. More guns. 

---

Ask the Jews what was the first thing Hitler took from them after gun registration..........

 

A post as stupid as this should be a ban-able offense. 

---

America has the most guns. America has the most crime. America's police has the most fear of the civilians, leading to more deaths. Guess what the root of the problem is? Guns. Guess what is NOT the solution to the problem. More guns.

Sure if you want to ignore every tyrannical regime in historically just about every other region of the world guns in America is the root of all our problems.


I guess you also have to ignore the highest crime rates in America are in the areas with the strictest and therefore lowest amount of legally owned guns.

---