Guess we just aren't going to talk about this

[jimmyz]

I wonder if Saz would have wished he had a firearm on his person when he was mugged in New Jersey a few years ago. Do re-tell the story Saz and wonder aloud how your property, psyche, and self esteem may have been preserved had you elected to carry and had been legally able to do so to protect yourself in the Garden State.

[Bauce]

I think he was in NYC. If he used a handgun in that situation he'd have been arrested.

[Gremlin]

Most stool groomers would have to get raped or killed to change their opinion on firearms.

[Leviathan]

[Darkhorse]

[jimmyz]

[Leviathan]

1. I'm not saying ban guns in Montana or the like. I think certain things like background checks or registration should be required on a federal level. My main argument is states and municipalities should be free to enact firearms bans without the federal government blocking their ability to do so.

2. Yes, it's not a perfect solution. But gun bans would make it much easier to convict and prosecute people within the jurisdiction, and would provide law enforce by with a better ability to police the flow of guns into and out of the jurisdiction. Additionally, prices would rise making it harder, or at least more costly, for people to buy guns. Think of it like a tax. I also think it would send a strong message that society is serious about dealing with our absurd homicide rate, which matters from a moral and cultural perspective. It would also disrupt illegal gun commerce if major hubs like Chicago were to enact a ban.

There is obviously a distinction between the cost and benefit analysis for gun rights in urban and rural areas. Rural areas it's less of a killer, and has more legitimate and beneficial uses. No one on the sour side of Chicago needs a gun for anything other than recreation and shooting other people. They should be able to enact policies that restrict firearms in their jurisdiction.

[Leviathan]

[Dobby]

[Dobby]