Originally Posted By: sinij
How that contradicts anything I said?
I wasn't attempting to contradict anything. I was merely attempting to educate.
Originally Posted By: sinij
My personal view on automatic weapons is that we are outside of traditional definition of guns and into "tools of war" territory. You shouldn't be able to own such weapons for the same reason you shouldn't be able to own a tank or cruise missile - potential for collateral is too great.

What is the traditional definition of guns? How far back are we going to define "traditional"? It wasn't that long ago that the guns used by the military were the exact same ones used by citizens. In fact, less than 200 years ago the guns the military used belonged to the citizens.

On the surface I can see the merit in Sinji's suggestion that guns be issued some sort of tracking device. However, I have two problems with it, that, if can be sufficiently addressed, will convince me that this idea is ok.

1) You suggested that people would be more careful about their guns if they knew that they would be held responsible if their gun was used in a crime, even if they weren't wielding it. I'm not sure how you're going to reconcile that with our constitution or our current laws. I tried to use your car analogy to get there but failed since, if someone uses my car, even with my permission, and they get in an accident or use it for some malicious purpose, I'm not held responsible.

2) Many people fear that further regulation of firearms will continue down what they consider to be a slippery slope to prohibition of guns. How would you assure people that this won't happen?


[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]