[LinearPhilosopher]

would the buy back be volountary or would gun owner be compelled to do so? If it's the former, you're not really doing anything

[Nicodimas]

Obigore--

A wouldn't necessarily argue proliferation of guns creates crime and leads to increased death. Successful self defense also increases again just like you said not a bubble and guns are the greatest equalizer.

A gun buyback wouldn't work and has shown not to work in America at all. Let's argue your gun buyback, at what cost would something like this run per gun and per bullet?
http://www.policemag...k-programs.aspx

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 05 October 2015 - 08:09 PM

[Macros]

compulsory, no license, bring your gun in, we'll give you your money back.
no license you don't bring your gun in, we take your gun, and you pay through the fucking nose

[Nicodimas]

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

compulsory, no license, bring your gun in, we'll give you your money back.
no license you don't bring your gun in, we take your gun, and you pay through the fucking nose

Annd...you just created a civil war, by sending police with guns to grab guns from people. This can't happen. Again, you can't send people to take things from people. Bad idea.

[Obdigore]

LinearPhilosopher, on 05 October 2015 - 08:05 PM, said:

would the buy back be volountary or would gun owner be compelled to do so? If it's the former, you're not really doing anything

Compelled. If it lands under, for some reason, the firearm falls on list that is becoming illegal, you have XXX (30? 60?) days to turn it in and receive your fair market value from the government.

After that period you are now ready to get a felony on your record and thousands of fees if you have one.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

compulsory, no license, bring your gun in, we'll give you your money back.
no license you don't bring your gun in, we take your gun, and you pay through the fucking nose

every gun nut, 2nd amendment nut proudly states that they keep their guns to prevent their goverment from opressing them. Regardless of the veracity of that claim, it is what they believe. As such, if one were to enact the policy you are describing. you'd have a bloodbath on your hands.

[Macros]

civil war?
hardly, you apply for a license to keep your guns, people aren't kicking down doors screaming "gimme all your guns naow!"


edit - cross post

the government oppresses the shit out of america already, the "land of the free" is one of the least free 'democracies' about, the 2nd ammendment hasn't done shit

This post has been edited by Macros: 05 October 2015 - 08:16 PM

[Itwæs Nom]

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:12 PM, said:

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

compulsory, no license, bring your gun in, we'll give you your money back.
no license you don't bring your gun in, we take your gun, and you pay through the fucking nose

Annd...you just created a civil war, by sending police with guns to grab guns from people. This can't happen. Again, you can't send people to take things from people. Bad idea.

you can, and it doesnt work that bad with drugs

[Nicodimas]

Obdigore, on 05 October 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 05 October 2015 - 08:05 PM, said:

would the buy back be volountary or would gun owner be compelled to do so? If it's the former, you're not really doing anything

Compelled. If it lands under, for some reason, the firearm falls on list that is becoming illegal, you have XXX (30? 60?) days to turn it in and receive your fair market value from the government.

After that period you are now ready to get a felony on your record and thousands of fees if you have one.

It's tough as you probably won't understand this part, but who enforces this law? Explain this part to me. The people you are sending are pro-gun.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:15 PM, said:

civil war?
hardly, you apply for a license to keep your guns, people aren't kicking down doors screaming "gimme all your guns naow!"

you're operating under the impression these people are sensible and receptive to a reasonable policy.

[Macros]

the people sent are law enforcement officers

[Nicodimas]

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

the people sent are law enforcement officers

They do nothing to enforce this law. what now?

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

Obigore--

A wouldn't necessarily argue proliferation of guns creates crime and leads to increased death. Successful self defense also increases again just like you said not a bubble and guns are the greatest equalizer.

A gun buyback wouldn't work and has shown not to work in America at all. Let's argue your gun buyback, at what cost would something like this run per gun and per bullet?
http://www.policemag...k-programs.aspx

No, you are starting with fallacies in your logic.

No one is arguing that guns create crime. They make crime more deadly. That is a fact, when you compare the US to the rest of the western world. The article you brought up is arguing against a straw man, a point no one is making. No one is claiming that reducing firearms leads to a drastic reduction of crime, but rather it makes crime less deadly.

There has been no gun buyback in the US that results in the firearms being illegal after the gun buyback, and you are utterly wrong about what guns do to crime, because you want to hold on to your firearms, apparently because you are one of the people that define their manhood and/or personality around their firearms.

[Itwæs Nom]

LinearPhilosopher, on 05 October 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:15 PM, said:

civil war?
hardly, you apply for a license to keep your guns, people aren't kicking down doors screaming "gimme all your guns naow!"

you're operating under the impression these people are sensible and receptive to a reasonable policy.

but are they really gonna turn those guns against law enforcement officers?

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 05 October 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 05 October 2015 - 08:05 PM, said:

would the buy back be volountary or would gun owner be compelled to do so? If it's the former, you're not really doing anything

Compelled. If it lands under, for some reason, the firearm falls on list that is becoming illegal, you have XXX (30? 60?) days to turn it in and receive your fair market value from the government.

After that period you are now ready to get a felony on your record and thousands of fees if you have one.

It's tough as you probably won't understand this part, but who enforces this law? Explain this part to me. The people you are sending are pro-gun.

I had no idea you could decide that every single law enforcement person in the world is 'pro everyone and their mother having guns', and then deciding to state this in the discussion forum with absolutely nothing to back up your point.

This is the utter lack of logic expected from the 'theres nothing we can do, mass murders just sort of happen. Reducing the amount of firearms in the 'wild' wouldn't affect this! IGNORE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE FUCKING PLANET!!!!!' folks.

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:12 PM, said:

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

compulsory, no license, bring your gun in, we'll give you your money back.
no license you don't bring your gun in, we take your gun, and you pay through the fucking nose

Annd...you just created a civil war, by sending police with guns to grab guns from people. This can't happen. Again, you can't send people to take things from people. Bad idea.

Who said the police are going to grab guns? There is a voluntary gun buyback, and after that those firearms are ill-fucking-legal. They can't be sold in the US. They can't be possessed. When, in the normal course of their duties, the police find these firearms, the owners get the book thrown at them and the weapons are confiscated and destroyed.

This is just more 'ITS THE END TIMES, DOING ANYTHING TO TRY TO PREVENT MASS MURDERS MEANS IM GOING TO SHOOT ANYONE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. I LIKE MY GUNS!'

[Nicodimas]

Obdigore, on 05 October 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:12 PM, said:

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

compulsory, no license, bring your gun in, we'll give you your money back.
no license you don't bring your gun in, we take your gun, and you pay through the fucking nose

Annd...you just created a civil war, by sending police with guns to grab guns from people. This can't happen. Again, you can't send people to take things from people. Bad idea.

Who said the police are going to grab guns? There is a voluntary gun buyback, and after that those firearms are ill-fucking-legal. They can't be sold in the US. They can't be possessed. When, in the normal course of their duties, the police find these firearms, the owners get the book thrown at them and the weapons are confiscated and destroyed.

This is just more 'ITS THE END TIMES, DOING ANYTHING TO TRY TO PREVENT MASS MURDERS MEANS IM GOING TO SHOOT ANYONE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. I LIKE MY GUNS!'

Obdigore

Your argument is not rational.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

the people sent are law enforcement officers

oh i'm not worried about the law enforcement officers. I'm worried about all these nuts thinking they should live and die by their rights becoming matyrs to what is already a fanatical gun movement. They would be lauded as political heros and come midterms the party in charge would loose in a landslide and the following legislation would be even more liberal towards gun proliferatios and would also be even more anti big goverment so thered be a slew of goverment cutbacks including cutbacks to programs that actually help people.

Macros the United States of America is a clusterfuck, and saying there is a simple solution to anything in that country is wrong. The solution may be simple and obvious, the implementation, anything but.

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 05 October 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:12 PM, said:

Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

compulsory, no license, bring your gun in, we'll give you your money back.
no license you don't bring your gun in, we take your gun, and you pay through the fucking nose

Annd...you just created a civil war, by sending police with guns to grab guns from people. This can't happen. Again, you can't send people to take things from people. Bad idea.

Who said the police are going to grab guns? There is a voluntary gun buyback, and after that those firearms are ill-fucking-legal. They can't be sold in the US. They can't be possessed. When, in the normal course of their duties, the police find these firearms, the owners get the book thrown at them and the weapons are confiscated and destroyed.

This is just more 'ITS THE END TIMES, DOING ANYTHING TO TRY TO PREVENT MASS MURDERS MEANS IM GOING TO SHOOT ANYONE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. I LIKE MY GUNS!'

Obdigore

Your argument is not rational.

Except it is. You don't want anything to affect your hobby, because you have fun with it and haven't personally lost anyone to the rash of firearm violence in this country.

Your entire stance is predicated on 'I don't want to give up my toys because I like them and I don't care what happens to anyone else'.

That is not rational.

I'm still waiting for you to post facts about anything you claim you want to do to fix the gun violence and rash of mass shootings in this country.

[Nicodimas]

If you are making something illegal...100's of millions of 'things', how is this law enforced? how does this even pass congress to become law?