It's a hypothetical. Thanks for answering by not answering.
If you read in an answer you're just illustrating that paranoid mindset I noted, the wellspring of fantasy.
Not only do you support confiscation by forced sale, but you support confiscation if people don't want to sell (but I repeat myself).
See what I mean? That's why I don't follow you down that fantasy path. And what's odd is that I've literally never spoken in support of door to door, but have more than once noted that all you need is the law. If you can't make and sell them you can't replace and repair them effectively. And if you can't use them on the range, or to actually defend yourself without becoming a criminal in the process, outside of collectors there's no real incentive for anyone to not turn them in, to forego compensation.
Forced sale is the same as rape, but throwing money at the woman and calling it prostitution
That's grotesque, unsupportable rationally, and a poor parallel...but it does underscore my point about paranoia and fantasy. Rather, paying people for the financial inconvenience is a good idea. If it wasn't advanced you'd just tack on "theft!" as well.
Because you didn't answer the major point of contention. You called my nutshell assessment an oversimplification and turned up your nose.
No, I never just declare a thing. I set out why and usually illustrate the error. Unless it's a repeated point I've done that to prior.
Not at all. It was you saying you wanted to remove what is, in your esteemed opinion, certain guns from the stream of commerce.
Like most Western Industrial Democracies, the ones with dramatically safer populations. Sure. It's my opinion that we should learn from nations doing a better job of it.
This is what elites like Gruber would do, say "remove from the stream of commerce" when they meant "confiscate property from innocent citizens".
It's what rational people do when they realize the guns you're fighting to protect actually make them less safe when they're in circulation.
Nope. We can establish with some reasonable accuracy how many households have a gun in those same areas.
I can establish with absolute certainty how many guns there are in my house, but without registration we're really just guessing who has how many nationally.
Violence rates are lower where gun regulations are less in the US.
The opposite is true and I've linked to sites in support with the data. It's even more dramatic comparing nation to nation.
Of course not. That would just be you looking down your nose at an innocent citizen that statistically means nothing. But for some reason, tyrants don't want guns in the hands of millions of individually insignificant citizens.
So Yor doesn't have a rational or factual leg to stand on, which is why he's beating the confiscation, elitist, and nose and tyrant bit. The fact is that I'm all for guns in the hands of US citizens. I own them myself. This isn't about owning guns, or the number of guns you own. It's about laws that will and have, everywhere they're found in likened nations, make you safer. It's about registration, mandatory safety courses, the end of large magazines, bump stocks, and speed loaders, along with a class of weapons that make us less safe by being in the stream of commerce.
It's about working proof in every other Western Democracy going. Don't let him distract you with his kill the messenger/distort the message routine.
This is too important. The other day a teenager in California killed three people and wounded 12 more. One of those dead was six years old. He deserved better and it's time we gave him and all the kids growing up in this nation a better chance of surviving to adulthood.
Not only are semi-autos estimated at %40-%60 percent of guns in the US, the rest of your bans and requirements ensure innocent people will unknowingly become criminals.
You will not cite to any authority on that percentage and no one would become an unknowing criminal. That's part of what you do with a buy back period, make sure that people understand the change in the law.
Many more currently responsible people will be dissuaded from going through the process at all - similar to what the Nazi's accomplished with the Jews before they started there final solution.
Whenever someone compares the efforts of other Americans to make you safer by culling weapons that didn't exist for most of our national life, to the work of Nazis, or rapists, they're only demonstrating a thin hold on reality.
If you aren't stopping every murder, then you don't care at all about those being murdered.
If you can't stop every disease why try to cure any?
We are asking you why would we change society for a statistically insignificant number of deaths.
I wouldn't and I'm not. It's no social upheaval. It's losing a thing we barely had, historically, to save lives and taking measures to promote responsible gun ownership in general.
You claim we don't care about the lives of these few - an emotional appeal. But any death at all uses your same argument.
I'm saying you care more about your fantasy than you do lives, more about your fear than you do lives. And no, any death doesn't use the same argument. We can get into that if you'd like.
You haven't been vague about your arbitrary position.
There's nothing arbitrary about it. We have the Constitutional right to bear arms. We also have a responsibility to make the exercise of that right as safe as possible.
But you are too good to...
No, I'm just too bored by nonsense to entertain much of it.
Bad laws are unfair to innocent people.
Thankfully, I'm not supporting those.
Laws that make a spare magazine that was forgotten about a criminal offense is a bad law.
What a complete load that is.
No, it's just something from one of the little people below your station to consider.
The whole elitist shtick is a puppet show Yor has been putting on for a while now...emphasis on the "putting on."
Your argument can be used equally as well with guns that can shoot more than once per reload.
Not if you understand my argument, no.
You only talk about Braddock because he's an emotional appeal, not because smaller crazy mass murders are any less a tragedy.
No, I talk about him because one of the first and most immediate things we can impact is mass shootings on a larger scale, by preventing the easy commercial access that allowed him to have the weapon. As I said to Idol, thank God even this president acted on bump stocks. Who knows what the body count might have been with one of those in play.
the choice is between the right to defend one's self or eventual tyranny.
No, the choice is between the rational or the tyranny of irrationality. We can preserve the right and significantly impact how many people die needlessly in this nation.
We should do that.
), so instead maybe the murder rate would increase by 10% (a wild but possibly reasonable guess) to 16500 per year.