>>73
Hey, there are only so many ways to elaborate your position in. You'll notice that the other guy (or guys, who knows) makes pretty much the same case over and over again. Point taken though, I'll try to be more responsive. I see now that I fucked up in this respect since 68s post was truncated and I didn't read the final paragraph. Also I missed the last few points in the penultimate.
>>68
"I still haven't heard your position on gun control, do you propose banning all guns? Because as I have already said this is a surefire way to breed a despotic regime since you would be expanding the government significantly to enforce it and you would be taking away the option of rebellion, but you haven't responded to those points."
I don't necessarily advocate gun control, I advocate good arguments. My stance doesn't affect this.. quarrel ("debate" would be stretching it). As I said earlier the whole tyranny thing is too alien to me and I can't relate to it. Since there are plenty of other points (exciting things like logic and behavioural science) to discuss I won't comment on it.
Your example is strange, because you talk about a three day waiting period and whatnot. That is the current American system. I am of course talking about a hypothetical system in which the access to firearms is very limited, and the impact such a system would have on the previously mentioned risk assessment stage. You're missing the point, which leads me to believe that you aren't really trying.