This is quite easily one of the dumbest arguments conservatives use. Using this logic all laws are pointless because some people would break them. Ironically the politicians who argue this make me wonder if they realize this train of thought could eventually lead to us wondering why we have politicians in the first place.

You arent getting the point, the solution isnt creating a law to ban guns, but to look at the actual issues, and solve the problem, instead of just instituting a stop gap measure, which wont work.

I'm going to say this again because I've said this multiple times before. I'm not for banning all guns. Just better background checks, tougher enforcement, and mandatory gun training. However none of these will happen because of the NRA's influence and stupidity. I'm getting kind of tired of repeating this statement. I've looked at the issues and think this would work if the Republicans weren't in the NRA's pocket and the democrats had some balls.

You realize the NRA supports better background checks right? Looks like your another clueless individual that thinks the NRA is completely bad

They used to be, now they're not.

No they are still for better background checks

What do I have to do to buy a gun in California? I really don't know. Like, what are the steps and background checks and stuff?

Lol i get that, but you obviously dont understand the argument made about criminals dont follow laws. Im in line with what you propose, but the NRAs(which i hate) polar opposite, would have all guns banned, IE, california being the liberal fag capital of the US, is banning hunting rifles, because they have the potential to look scary. Example: look at the various models, of the same exact gun. They banned the 20cf version, but not the standard hunting rifle. Go figure why.

I get it but when you argue that a law is pointless because someone will break it you're indirectly arguing against laws in general. If they point out actual flaws with a law that's different and understandable but that's not what they're doing.

Might as well not have speeding laws as people speed anyways. Quite a foolish argument to stand behind. Also, if you are standing behind that you, at some point, have to believe that weapons would be easily obtainable if they were banned. Refer to my other post. I'll make it simple if you don't want to. Let's say you are a petty thug that wants to step his game up and you want to rob a jiffy store. What conditions do you have to pass to obtain a weapon after a decade of gun regulation being in effect? [b]- Do you have the cash to buy even a simple pistol?[/b] Pistols on the black market now are almost double the retail price. Now imagine those weapons slowly being sucked up by the government over a few years. How much do you think a pistol that was smuggled into the US would cost compared to weapons that are simply stolen from lawful owners for free (which is what happens most of the time now)? [b] -How would you go about finding people that would actually sell to you?[/b] Even with illegal substances as low as marijuana, no seller is going to sell to an unknown person and I am willing to put money down that no individual other than well known gang members will be able to obtain banned weapons for a while. Then it would be passed down the "chain of command" until it reaches end sellers which would bump the price up even more and still don't sell to random people. So basically, it would take a substantial social effort to even have the opportunity to by a weapon and that isn't even taking into account if you can even afford it. [b] Is buying an overpriced weapon worth it?[/b] As most people aren't willing to go along with a heist or even rob a store, it would come down to robbing individuals. Now, how many people do you think you would have to rob to make even a small amount of profit? Quite a bit. It would take more than once to actually make a profit. Is it worth it to risk your life and go through all of the effort to obtain the weapon just to have to go through three or more potentially fatal events and risking a substantial amount of time behind bars for a small gain? [b]Considering the above, is it worth it?[/b] Just wondering. Unless you were in a gang or involved in some crime organization, there would be no reason to own a weapon given the above circumstances. [b] If you turn down the action of obtaining an illegal weapon, would you still go through with your plans?[/b] Do you honestly think your average lowly thug would risk robbing a store or other people with something not as lethal as a gun? I, for one, would much rather a person come at me with a knife as that would make it ten-fold harder for the assaulter to achieve his goals.

[quote]Even with illegal substances as low as marijuana, no seller is going to sell to an unknown person and I am willing to put money down that no individual other than well known gang members will be able to obtain banned weapons for a while. Then it would be passed down the "chain of command" until it reaches end sellers which would bump the price up even more and still don't sell to random people. So basically, it would take a substantial social effort to even have the opportunity to by a weapon and that isn't even taking into account if you can even afford it. [/quote] THIS IS THE WHOLE GOD DAMN POINT. ONLY THE CRIMINALS WOULD HAVE THE GUNS! Why can't you thick-skulled people see this? We are not worried about the petty thugs. We are worried about the hard core criminals. THEY are the ones who will have access to guns, but you want to take away guns from people who have done nothing wrong with them, leaving them defenseless against these kinds of people. Your entire argument is based on creative hypothesis, and you act as if you know everything about how criminals work. The fact of the matter is that you do not know that any of what you are saying would actually happen, so your argument is very shaky. You talk about the petty thug who can't get a gun yet you completely ignore the gang members who have all these guns. Do you think that gang members won't do anything? Will they just sit on their asses all day? You admitted that the gangs will have guns, and that is what we're trying to say.

Most gang violence is within the gang society and almost 100% of the time retaliation is not the way to go against a gang. You also act as if people defend their homes every day from thugs robbing it. I haven't even seen anyone go near my home or anyone's in my neighborhood, much less rob it. Also, most of the time deaths occur BECAUSE people pull weapons when they are being robbed at gun point or try to retaliate. If people just submitted to losing a few hundred dollars worth of items instead of trying to pull out their man card and try to fight back, a lot less deaths would occur. Is it worth it to pull a weapon back and have a confrontation for a few dollars?

LOL [quote]If people just submitted to losing a few hundred dollars worth of items instead of trying to pull out their man card and try to fight back, a lot less deaths would occur.[/quote] Proof please.

It's literally the first thing they teach you in safety classes, moron.

Thats not proof, and they never said that in the two sit down classes i took for my chp, nor did any instructors say that either So again colby, you are just bullshitting.

Wow, what is this? The first thing that pulled up. [url]http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/11/five_things_to_do_if_you_are_robbed.php[/url] and another one- [url]http://www.wisegeek.com/what-should-i-do-in-a-mugging.htm#didyouknowout[/url] [url]http://www.wikihow.com/Act-when-Held-at-Gunpoint[/url]

1-Wikihow article, lol im sure the others are more credible. 2-LOL nope, St. Louis Circuit Attorneys advice. 3-WiseGeek, yea more opinions pieces See youre too daft to understand what i wanted, so ill spell it out for you. [quote]If people just submitted to losing a few hundred dollars worth of items instead of trying to pull out their man card and try to fight back, a lot less deaths would occur.[/quote] Im looking for [url=https://www.google.com/search?q=define+proof&oq=define+proof&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i65j69i61l2j0.2130j0&sourceid=chrome&espvd=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8]proof[/url], not [url=https://www.google.com/search?q=define+proof&oq=define+proof&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i65j69i61l2j0.2130j0&sourceid=chrome&espvd=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&q=opinion+define]opinions[/url]. I included the links just so you could familiarize yourself with the definitions.

Every safety class I've sat in has said otherwise and that includes one mandatory death by powerpoint class from the Army. There is no proof behind it, you're asking me to provide evidence for something that there is none for either side. I could flip it and ask you to provide evidence that you would be safer if you retaliated, which you would have to be a dolt to believe. You actually believe that creating a fight when the thug isn't looking for one is safer than submitting?

CDC report on gun violence- [quote]* According to the FBI, 3% of firearm assaults known to police result in a death. * Four studies have been done showing that crime victims who actively used a gun to defend themselves had lower rates of injury than crime victims who did not use guns to defend themselves - Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Tark and Kleck 2004; and Southwick 2000.[/quote] Holy -blam!-, straight from the big dogs mouth Now, there was a common thread in the courses i took, and it was, dont put yourself in the situation, and avoid all conflict, only use as a last resort.