Guns can't harm anyone if they're not around. When will people figure that out?

So...I went to this lil' island off the coast of my island/country for a day to have some fun:
Sandy Island


So some guys carried their pellet rifles just in case they spot something they wanna eat.
I decided I wanna shoot something...anything for that matter...I just wanna try my hand with the rifle
So one of the guys loaded it up for me and I followed him into the bushes.
There were some small birds flyin around but I was like "I can't shoot at the bird, I'll try to hit a coconut instead "
So imagine me hittin coconuts but I wanted to see proof that I was actually hittin something,
so I set my sights on a lil birdie high up on a coconut tree branch,
and I shot the lil birdie.
The pellet went through the birdie's neck and bust out through the eye...
and he fell spinnin to the ground.
Now of course I was excited...my first time usin a rifle and I actually hit something and there's proof cause it fell!
Within a few seconds I realised wat I did...I killed a lil birdie ...
and all for the sake of wat?...to use ah effin rifle

So!...that's my story!

japanrocks said:

Cool! Post a pic of it!

Shorty said:

It's true that if he wants to bad enough, some thug will illegally acquire and use a gun in the commission of a crime regardless of governing law. HOWEVER, that gun he'll use likely will have been trafficked at its initial and highest level of distribution and almost certainly manufactured legally. If that production and top-level distribution is effectively gutted, there is progressively less supply to support a lower-level black market. The option for criminal operations, then, would be to create their own manufacturing upstarts, which is not only terribly (albeit not impossibly) expensive, but easier to detect than mere trafficking schemes.

It wouldn't be as fast or fail-safe as many gun control advocates argue, but it could be quite effective in time, I suspect. The main problems would be roundup of guns already in circulation, a lack of faith in current policing, and (at least in the States) a culture of anticipation we'll have to fight off some encroaching future authority.
[Edited 11/25/09 8:39am]

CarrieMpls said:

except that's only in lala land....totally unrealistic.
[Edited 11/25/09 9:08am]

Lammastide said:

no...not some thugs...ALL thugs.
and your "if" statement is such a HUGE statement...it can't just be said like there's nothing to it. again...only in la la land.
the time it would take to progessively dimish the supply would probably be roughly the same time it would take for these upstarts to be pumping out enough guns to supply only the thugs who they deem need one. The rest of us law obiding, govt. gun seized individuals would be left defenseless.

I'm glad NYC has the toughest gun laws in the country, with all the crazy mfers in this town. Still have too many damn guns on the streets, and too many punkasses who think owning a gun makes them tough or a real man.

They should legalize or de-criminalize ALL drugs. THAT would put an end to "thugs" and all the issues that come with them.

personally, i think MONEY should be criminalized after all, it is the reason many violent crimes are committed. because if we could just get rid of money, we would live in a far more peaceful world, right??

Shorty said:

Legal gun production and distribution could be stopped next week. Production stop orders, frozen distribution and recall of supply ain't at all the hard part. The hard part is getting folk like you and me onboard.

And I agree the lag in diminishing residual illegal supply may buy criminal operations some time to begin production before their supply all but dries up. But if efforts toward, say, a losing war on drugs ( ) were reallocated to battle illegal firearm manufacturing (which, incidentally, I doubt could ever be quite as pervasive as drug cultivation), we wouldn't be too far behind on their tails.

In the meantime, let's not forget that unarmed citizens wouldn't be altogether defenseless. We still do have police forces, not all of which are bad, which, if their resources were better managed, could do a decent enough job of protecting us all from gun violence.
[Edited 11/25/09 9:43am]

Lammastide said:

I really do resemble that remark.

I have a 9mm, .22 pistol, and a old .22 bolt action rifle that was my grandfather's.

Lammastide said:

no it couldn't.
ok...I appreciate your arguements and your respectful level headedness in this discussion, but I just so whole heartedly disagree with the majority of it. I appreciate the police and agree they should be focusing on other things but...I am NOT putting all my eggs in that basket. especially when the gun cartel and the police are the only ones with guns.
and let's not forget the main reasons for the 2nd amendment was to let us defend ourselves against an over powering federal govt. should they try to controll the states. The federal govt. is not supposed to rule over the states. In the preamble to the declaration of independence it says

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

These are the reasons we should not and can not EVER ban firearms in this country.
Sure, I agree that some folx ain't qualified, and there should be some kinda background check for that on a state level.
we need to be very careful of our extremely powerful fed. govt. and what we think they should provide or allow.

bluesbaby said:

very true.

Shorty said:

Long story short...

Lammastide said:

...Anyway, I totally appreciate your position and respectful approach, too.

In the end, I think it's safe to say gun control of the sort I imagine won't work, in fact. But, for better or worse, I think it's also safe to say it won't for reasons far more ideological than logistical.

Lammastide said:[quote]

Shorty said:

ok ok...you're right...you said all that in one simple sentence.