Futurama Fry

Not to mention those screwdriver-related stabbings.

Hardware stores would go out of business if we had to register everything that is used to kill someone.

Interesting discussion. Nobody yet mentioned that we did ban alcohol & how that worked out. Thousands of people got sick or died from bad alcohol, & serious alcohol related crime was rampant. I'm mostly pro gun but I would still hope for more accountability for legal buyers who resell or give to terrorists & murderers, and more care in who is able to buy assault weapons. However, I would bet that bad guys would smuggle more of the tens of millions of AK-47s out there in the world to the U.S. anyway because there is a market.

There were multiple reasons behind the banning of alcohol. The ban wasn't really a ban but a restriction on the alcohol content of the drinks. This was to reduce the usage of grain during World War I. Later the 18th Amendment was put into place because of some religious groups, but it was never at the federal level, since the federal government didn't have enough resources to monitor anything. It was done to try to reduce crime rates, but instead it actually increased it. What they eventually did was regulate more of who could produce it and the regulations they have to follow in order to do so, with the 21st Amendment.

I don't think people realize the biggest problem when it comes to obtaining a gun today. People want to say it is the trade shows, others will say it is the smuggling that takes place. But do people realize that you can own an AK-47 without getting any background check or have the gun registered if it is a kit gun? You can actually purchase the majority of all the parts separately and only have to craft a couple pieces, and you can have a fully functional AK-47 with no serial number and no record that you even own it. That is just the start. People are coming up with ways to make their own guns with plumbing parts. It won't take long (if it hasn't happened already) that people will be able to make their own "assault riffles" with magazines or clips holding multiple rounds and either be semi-auto or fully auto. But since there hasn't been a recall on guns or anything like that yet, if it is taking place, it isn't very common. Once regulations are put into place to take away people's guns, I would bet everything I have that people will be finding more ways to make the same guns that were taken from them. I know, these regulations have taken place in other countries and we don't hear about that happening there, but how many of those countries have the freedoms we have had and don't want them taken away, let alone have a passion for guns like a lot of people here do.

I'm not trying to say let's not have any regulations on guns or reduce them, in fact I would like to see more in-depth background checks take place. However I don't think there is going to be anything that can be done to really slow people down from doing what they want to do.

That sounds very reasonable to me. You & Wunmor had a decent discussion. The more I looked into it recently, the more I've agreed with the position you just stated.

So since people still drive drunk then we should repeal all the laws and programs that pertain to DUI's?

Actually I think their laws are not harsh enough, honestly. A drunk driver kills someone and they might only get 3 years in prison. They knew what they were doing when they got behind the wheel while drunk, so when they hit and kill someone it should be treated as what it is, 1st degree murder. You just seem to have missed the point of the meme. Drunk drivers do receive blame when they cause an accident, just not as much blame and punishment as they should, but the alcohol is not being blamed. A shooter doesn't get blamed when they pull out a gun and shoot 16 people, the gun gets blamed. That is the point that I am making. Both people made an intentional decision that lead to the death of someone, but only one of those people gets blamed for their actions, the other the object used gets blamed. How much sense does that make?

I agree that DUI laws could be harsher,but think if there were no laws for drinking and driving.Does it stop everyone from doing it,no it doesn't but it does keep a greater number of people from doing it.Those repeat offenders will usually continue until they kill others or themselves.I feel repeat offenders should face a sentence equal to that of murder,but instead states regulate themselves and sadly do not address penaltys at the same levels.When a drunk driver gets behind the wheel chances are they have not made plans weeks in advance to use their car to kill people.If 2 drunk drivers planed to smash their cars of the same type into a theater and nightclub,killing and wounding nearly 200 people within a few minutes the laws would have to change to try to prevent these "automobile terrorists" from killing children in schools,workplaces,theaters,nightclubs ect.Would it be guarantee that it wouldn't happen again?No it wouldn't,but it could keep that model of car that's capable of being used to kill innocent people out of the hands of those who purchase it for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in mere minutes,or stop the production of cars that are intended to kill.
Other items are weapons yes,but they are not able to kill many people within reach in 1 or two minutes.Should we regulate all of those,if hammers for example were becoming a source of frequent mass murders of dozens of people surprise attacks,we would have to change policies on who buys or sells hammers.Thus the reason for the TSA.box cutters,hammers,scissors,lighters ect are forbiden on planes.Does it work?maybe yes because since 9/11 nobody has breached the cockpit or hijacked planes.A pain in the ass to wait in screening lines.
The ideal of "tighter regulations won't stop it from happening so there isn't reason to put new laws in place" isn't an option... We must add reasonable ideas that make it harder to get certain military style weapons,and stiffer penalties for offenders who shouldn't have guns but do,for people that purchase guns for others.If the penaltys were a mandatory 30 years for example it would make some,not all people,unwilling to take any part in that kind of activity.
There are failures in any system but a person who was on terrorist watch list should have been stripped of their ability to have any access to guns,pistols,rifles ect.That information should've been nation wide and then unable to pass a background TEST & CHECK

If a person was to point a gun up in the air, fire it at random, and the bullet came down on some random person and killed them, doesn't the shooter receive a life sentence for murder? Killing someone wasn't intintional or planned, it just happened. They know the risk by doing that, just thought it will be fine and no one will get hurt. But yet because it is a gun they receive the full penalty of the law. The same should go for a drunk driver. They know that getting behind the wheel while in toxicated can be dangerous and someone could get killed, but they think they can be safe and no one will get hurt. They are intentional when getting behind the wheel and therefore on the first offense of killing someone they should receive the same treatment and charged with murder and life in prison. Someone caught while drunk driving should be charged with attempted murder with a dangerous weapon. It is stuff like this that would slow people down from drunk driving, not harsher regulations on getting certain cars or alcohol after a major event happens.

Do you know that it was the NRA that wanted stricter background checks first not the government. In fact it was Bill Clinton that made it easier for people to get guns. There are many legally gun carrying citizens that wouldn't care and in fact would like for their to be stricter background checks as well. What is not going to stop these attacks from happening is outlawing certain guns to be owned by citizens. Do you know why the right to bear arms was put into place? Not to allow hunters to use guns, but for the citizens of this country to be able to defend themselves in case the government was to get too big and became a tyranny. You allow the government to take away all assault weapons from the citizens and now who has the big guns? But maybe it is time you make a comparison. How many "assault riffles" are owned by law abiding citizens compared to how many have been used in mass shootings. I bet the number is around 1%. There isn't going to be a way to stop someone from obtaining an "assault riffle" if they really want to get one. And the way technology is growing and the type of equipment that is becoming more available to homes, it wouldn't take much for people to build their own. Then what? Regulating the equipment that could be used to make a weapon that is also used to make other good and useful items only because people have found a new way to obtain an "assault riffle"?

We star allowing the government to regulate what we can own, it won't take long before we obtain things only as rations from the government. Is that what you want? To have the government regulate how much and what type of food you get, or what you can get to drink, how much gas you can have eacb week, electricity usage (which there are some areas this is regulated already), or just anything else you can think of? Yes I know this sounds extreme, but sometimes it takes extreme thinking to get people to realize that there is no limit to the potential of how far something can go. The government was to be ran by the people and for the people, not the government running the people.

Think about this. More and more attacks seem to be taking place in this country, and seems like it is growing more each year. If that has been growing than that means something has been shrinking over the years as well. I would say that is God. This country has been turning more and more away from God, and look what has happened. Do you really think it is a coincidence? You start taking light out of a room and it becomes darker. The same will happen if you start removing the good from something, it becomes more evil. The problem isn't the items that are used, it is the hearts of those who use them. You stick a million loaded guns in a room by themselves and not a one goes off. You start putting people in that room one at a time and eventually shots will be fired. It isn't the system that is broken, it is our hearts. If someone one wants to do something, no matter the regulations, they will find a way. Why should everyone else pay for that person?