>>75
"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 stance doesn't affect this? What? The topic is gun control, you give your stance on the issue and respond to others, that's how it works. How doesn't your stance affect this? If you have no answers and can only criticize mine, well that's pretty stupid if you ask me. How is the tyranny argument alien to you? Are you familiar with American history? Well, it all started with some tyrannical mercantilist Brits exploiting their American colony through taxation etc. This pissed the Americans off and they rebelled. They beat the vastly superior British Army because of... guns! Yes, they gave everyone and their kid a musket and even though they lacked military experience, they won because guns leveled the playing field. Their are lots of other examples of this in history. Guns are the key to revolution, whether you can "relate to it" or not.
"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."
A hypothetical system in which the access to firearms is very limited? What the hell is that supposed to mean? That is too vague to mean anything and I suspect you don't actually have any idea how to reduce crime through gun control.
"A guy wants to get rid of his boss. He doesn't have the stomach to stab him to death (he probably couldn't overpower him anyway) and besides he doesn't want to risk leaving fingerprints or DNA. With the magic of firearms he can overcome his inhibition to kill and sufficiently lower the risk of being seen and getting caught. There are people who won't be deterred by anything, those fueled by revenge or other strong emotions, but a rational individual will always make the risk assessment."
Okay... so how do you prevent a person with no criminal record who wants to murder someone from obtaining a gun? You can ban all guns, which punishes law abiding gun owners, as well as the tyranny problem, as well as the whole violation of the constitution. So, what do you propose? If you have no answers and can only raise hypothetical situations, then your ideology doesn't make much sense.