>>78
Hello, friend, sorry for the delay.
"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."
No, I don't have to take a stand on gun control in order to debate it. That's not "how it works". You go on about tyranny and rebellion and I chose not to respond to that out of politeness and respect for our cultural differences. I understand that "defense from tyranny" is a valid argument in America but it isn't in the rest of the civilized world. My only alternative to silence would be to mock you, and that wouldn't be nice. Let's just rejoice in our diversity.
I actually have answers, my answer is: restrict gun ownership. You will enjoy less crime in general and more importantly a lower murder rate. Criminals won't be able to get hold of guns as evidenced by the fact that in no country with restricted gun ownership is gun crime rampant. There is of course the issue of transition, I'll give you that.
"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."
It is vague because I was previously accused of repeating myself. The hypothetical system is the system used in the rest of the world - one in which gun ownership is limited to that for the purpose of hunting and competitive shooting. In such a system there would not be a ready access to firearms and in the risk assessment stage any individual considering murder would have to factor in a more taxing (both physically and mentally) and risky "modus operandi". Since you responded to this by saying that a three day waiting period is hardly enough to deter anyone you are obviously not familiar with this argument, in fact one might even say that you inadvertently support it.
"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."
When there are no guns on the market obtaining one is a hassle. This is not only obvious prima facie but supported by the fact that murders in countries with few or no guns on the market are committed with other means - again, usually knives or blunt objects. Not only is your claim that criminals always will have access to guns false (by the same rationale criminals will always have access to plutonium), but a system without guns would also deter from impulse murders - for example a non-habitual criminal acting in a fit of rage.