I keep saying I won't post any more, but I can't seem to help it...
In relation to Agrotes plan...it could well take 100 years.
Yes, you're right. And it would be worth it. It's called building a better world for our children and grandchildren. It's similar to the global warming issue... maybe nothing terrible is going to happen in our life times, but it still makes sense to reduce carbon emissions for the sake of future generations. Of course, in the case of guns, terrible things are
happening in our lifetimes... many many people are getting shot.
If America doesn't do something drastic about gun violence, the problem will remain. Things might even get worse.
i did view your post as a plan.
your plan was to get rid of all the guns, in order to prevent gun violence.
i was simply stating that the high number of unregistered guns, is why you cant get rid of gun violence this way.
What you're basically saying is: you can't get rid of all the unregistered guns, because there are lots of them.
This sounds to me like a challenge rather than an impossibility. Why can't you get rid of lots of unregistered guns? If you can get rid of one, why not all of them? It'll be hard work, sure, but isn't it possible?
my entire point with this argument is that since controlling firearms is near impossible, why should a law abiding citizen with a permit to carry concealed, not be able to protect themselves?
If it's near
impossible, that means it's possible.
what good is a hypothesis when you dont even provide a procedure for its success?
Presumably by 'hypothesis' you mean my claim that America needs to get rid of all its guns. What good is that hypothesis? Well if it's true, then making Americans realise that it is true would be a step towards achieving it. One of your country's many aims should be to vastly reduce gun violence. Right? There are a lot of shootings in your country, and it would be better if there weren't so many. I am trying to argue that the most effective way to achieve this would be to (somehow) get rid of all your guns. I think that your goal should be to get rid of guns (and thus get rid of gun violence). I imagine that, before determining that he needed send British troops into the second world war, Churchill came to realise the following: Hitler needs to be stopped. After identifying this goal, or this desired outcome, he did what he needed to do to achieve it. Identifying 'getting rid of all guns' as a desired outcome, or goal, is the first step towards achieving it. The next step is to plan what needs to be done to achieve it, and I am not qualified to do that. I'm not an expert. But I can have a go if you want me to. Here is a rough plan of how America could get rid of all its guns:
1) Stop making guns (but don't confiscate them from permit holders yet).
2) Stop selling guns, close gun shops, melt down any guns that were going to be sold (but still let the permit holders hang onto theirs).
3) Crack down on illegal possession of guns... I mean really crack down. I don't know how, because I'm not a policeman. But perhaps one method would be to tell criminals that if they come forward with an illegal firearm, and hand it in to the police, they will not be charged for their crime. Whereas if they hang on to the weapon, they could face a severe jail sentence. Something like that could work, but I don't know what would be the best method. Destroy every gun that is confiscated.
4) Once the illegal gun problem is under control, ask the permit holders to give up their guns, and then destory them. Destroy the guns, I mean... don't destroy the permit holders.
5) Once gun ownership is down to an absolute minimum, the police would not longer need to be armed and their guns could be destroyed as well (or donated to the army... whatever).
Now as I said, I'm not an expert in these matters, so the above is bound to be a very naive idea of how guns could be eradicated. I'm sure that you will find many things wrong with it. But every problem with my plan is a clue as to what would be a more effective plan. For example, if there is a problem with step 1 (e.g. unemployment), then that problem may indicate how the plan could be modified to be more effective (e.g. by securing jobs for people who currently make guns for a living).
So rather than ripping my plan to shreds and writing an incredibly long post about why it will never work, why don't you take my plan as a first draft which could be improved upon by an expert. Hopefully I have added some plausibility to my claim that it is possible for America to rid itself of all guns.
Anyway, I think you agree with that claim. You only said that it was 'near impossible'... not that it was
impossible to get rid of all guns. And when vikorr suggested that it would take 100 years, you didn't say, "no it wouldn't... it could never be done". You seemed to accept that it could happen in 100 years, and then you just complained about what would happen in the meantime.
So it seems that you might actually agree with me that America could
get rid of all its guns. And I think you'd have to be insane to suggest that there would be any gun crime if guns simply did not exist. So presumably your main problem with my arguments is that you want to be able to defend yourself from the armed threats that exist at the moment, and which are likely to continue to exist within your
lifetime. Getting rid of guns would be all well and good for future generations, but for your generation it would be hard and dangerous work. Right? Well that's understandable. But if some form of my above plan were implemented, then perhaps this would not be too much of a problem... as a permit holder, you would be able to defend yourself right up until there is nobody for you to defend yourself from (i.e. no armed criminals).