Handgun Sales

Jonny_B said:
I would never expect the likelihood of injury to be greater when you are defending yourself with a gun. I would, however, expect you to be more likely to die if the robber and/or you has a gun. You can recover from an injury, you can't recover from dead.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you cannot obtain the gun legally and they can get it illegally you will be the one without the gun, the dead one. Which I completely see that point and always have, just think we should do more to make sure the ones obtained legally are obtained by sound people.

eh, was gonna edit more in but think that last sentenced sucked enough anyways... harder to explain than I thought when first typing
 
Last edited:
Syrup Beaver said:
Nor logic, really.

I'd like to think I had a hand in swaying your opinion, way back when :lol:
Click to expand...
In my mind, at least initially, gun bans and/or gun control seems to be a good idea. Take away the guns, take away the harm. That was my knee jerk reaction. I was very wrong.

And you were likely one of the culprits. :lol:
BeerAd said:
True and I am not arguing with statistics but to think we cant do anything just because the ultimate end(banning guns) didnt work is a little short sided. I dont think my opinions are absolutely correct or will even be the next step but thats why they are my opinions. I never mean to work anyone up over them and dont think I have given any reason in this thread to do that but if I have it was not intensional. I enjoy guns and I enjoy shooting them I just think there is more we could do safety wise, you know?
Click to expand...

But until you can somehow eliminate the ability for criminals to get guns, your laws are only hurting honest citizens. And if you don't think your opinion is correct, then why not seek out one that you DO find correct (but that is probably offtopic here...)
 
fly said:
In my mind, at least initially, gun bans and/or gun control seems to be a good idea. Take away the guns, take away the harm. That was my knee jerk reaction. I was very wrong.

And you were likely one of the culprits. :lol:


But until you can somehow eliminate the ability for criminals to get guns, your laws are only hurting honest citizens. And if you don't think your opinion is correct, then why not seek out one that you DO find correct (but that is probably offtopic here...)
Click to expand...

It is my opinion and yes I do think it is correct but its an opinion that has not been tested so how am I going to know if it will work, how will you?

How bout a thumb print safety feature to guns? I know it will not get rid of the ones that dont have it but if we make it mandatory they will eventually be seized. As for who would pay for it, how bout the gun maker?
 
BeerAd said:
How bout a thumb print safety feature to guns? I know it will not get rid of the ones that dont have it but if we make it mandatory they will eventually be seized. As for who would pay for it, how bout the gun maker?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the most useful feature of most firearms is their reliability. Adding an electronic device to one is going to completely eliminate that.

IIRC Police unions are against those features, that should tell you something.
 
Syrup Beaver said:
Perhaps the most useful feature of most firearms is their reliability. Adding an electronic device to one is going to completely eliminate that.

IIRC Police unions are against those features, that should tell you something.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that the police didnt want to have to pay for it :D


I am sure if there is enough money thrown at it they can make it just as reliable.
 
BeerAd said:
Yeah but if you cannot obtain the gun legally and they can get it illegally you will be the one without the gun, the dead one. Which I completely see that point and always have, just think we should do more to make sure the ones obtained legally are obtained by sound people.

eh, was gonna edit more in but think that last sentenced sucked enough anyways... harder to explain than I thought when first typing
Click to expand...
which was the initial point i was trying to make in posting this thread. because it is legal to sell the guns, they are available to be stolen, and thus procured illegally. it's something that hadn't ocurred to me before.

i do understand, however, that there will always be a black market for banned items. however, with fewer guns in production perhaps all black markets would suffer from a decreasing supply of means to protect turf and eliminate competitors.

it was just a thought. i didn't expect the thread to go this long, nor did i intend to post anything after the OP initially.
 
Jonny_B said:
which was the initial point i was trying to make in posting this thread. because it is legal to sell the guns, they are available to be stolen, and thus procured illegally. it's something that hadn't ocurred to me before.

i do understand, however, that there will always be a black market for banned items. however, with fewer guns in production perhaps all black markets would suffer from a decreasing supply of means to protect turf and eliminate competitors.

it was just a thought. i didn't expect the thread to go this long, nor did i intend to post anything after the OP initially.
Click to expand...

Besides the minor hiccup I enjoyed the thread. I really enjoy this topic because I do have kind of an oddball view on it. Still dont know why my view pisses some people off to no end but hey, cant please everyone. I just hate this one side or the other shit that always happens when talking about gun regulation. Just cause someone feels there should be more safety to protect the public from illegal guns and legal improperly used guns doesn't mean he wants to ban all guns.
 
Jonny_B said:
which was the initial point i was trying to make in posting this thread. because it is legal to sell the guns, they are available to be stolen, and thus procured illegally. it's something that hadn't ocurred to me before.

i do understand, however, that there will always be a black market for banned items. however, with fewer guns in production perhaps all black markets would suffer from a decreasing supply of means to protect turf and eliminate competitors.

it was just a thought. i didn't expect the thread to go this long, nor did i intend to post anything after the OP initially.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out... guns are NOT hard to make yourself. Decreasing the supplies from factories will only increase the supplies made from "joe" in his basement and we'll end up with gun turf wars and what not (see: drug trade).

For a criminal that wants a gun, it'd still be just as easy... hell, probably easier becuase they wouldnt be looking for ways to steal/buy them from a gun shop... "joe" will sell his homeade guns to anyone.
 
BeerAd said:
It is my opinion and yes I do think it is correct but its an opinion that has not been tested so how am I going to know if it will work, how will you?

How bout a thumb print safety feature to guns? I know it will not get rid of the ones that dont have it but if we make it mandatory they will eventually be seized. As for who would pay for it, how bout the gun maker?
Click to expand...

And who really pays for it when the gun makers do? That's right, the consumer...
 
fly said:
And who really pays for it when the gun makers do? That's right, the consumer...
Click to expand...

Not like it isn't currently done with cars. They are regulated to a high degree of safety because as someone stated they are just as deadly. Maybe I am missing a large stretch there and correct me if I am wrong but what would be the difference?
 
BeerAd said:
Not like it isn't currently done with cars. They are regulated to a high degree of safety because as someone stated they are just as deadly. Maybe I am missing a large stretch there and correct me if I am wrong but what would be the difference?
Click to expand...

There is no expensive "sanity" test currently being done for cars, as you propose. No psychologists needed at all actually, just a few brain cells!
 
fly said:
There is no expensive "sanity" test currently being done for cars, as you propose. No psychologists needed at all actually, just a few brain cells!
Click to expand...

Huh?

So a psych evaluation would cost more than seatbelts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, built-in child seats, head restraints, side curtain air bags and the millions of dollars spent of safety research. Thats not even accounting for recalls, defects, crash tests ect...


This wasn't even originally about the psych test it was more geared to what the gun manufacture would have to take on, like a identify-grip. Which if compared to car safety would be the exact same thing.

So I ask again, whats the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back