Where Do You Stand On Gun Control/Second Amendment?

[KnightBrolaire]

So just to add insult to injury regarding the debate over bringing more guns into schools:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/florida-school-shooting/index.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...who-never-went-in-during-shooting-report.html

[Two sources provided so we can stop talking about CNN.]

I get that it's a hard tactical call to make, and I actually think I'd side with the deputy as far as not just running in blind shooting. But it stresses the point that the "good guy with a gun" scenario isn't very effective in the real world. If this trained LEO can't/won't engage, how can a teacher?

I don't know what the SOP they have at that sheriff dept. but a lot of PDs won't allow a single officer to engage and tell them to wait for backup. Doesn't help that a lot of deputies (depends on the county) aren't consistently training kill houses/reactive firing situations, which would probably make them a liability in that type of situation anyways.

 

[Nightside]

Doesn't make it right.

Well no but right doesn't really matter. They face no real consequences for doing wrong. They are all in politics for decades and have the system set up to protect them.

How many wealthy politicians that come from wealthy families ever were held responsible, served prison time, lost every penny?

Everywhere we go there are cameras watching us, people monitoring our commutations. We are assumed to be criminals in waiting. We are required to submit, be transparent and honest. Who is watching them? Who is monitoring them and holding them accountable?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I don't know what the SOP they have at that sheriff dept. but a lot of PDs won't allow a single officer to engage and tell them to wait for backup. Doesn't help that a lot of deputies (depends on the county) aren't consistently training kill houses/reactive firing situations, which would probably make them a liability in that type of situation anyways.

Which is why I said that I agree with what he did. Running in half-cocked (no pun) just because he's armed wouldn't have helped anyone.

But his job involves some level of firearm competency and even he knew not engage. I can't say an armed teacher would be any better.

Who is watching them? Who is monitoring them and holding them accountable?

We are. It's our job. We've just done absolutely awful job of it. We've been absent and apathetic. Misguided and blissfully ignorant.

 

[Nightside]

We are. It's our job. We've just done absolutely awful job of it. We've been absent and apathetic. Misguided and blissfully ignorant.

Dun dun dun DUNNNN!!!!!!!!!

Yes. How do we change this and get the common folk (especially the 75%) to actually hurt their brains long enough to learn something and care enough to get off bookface and do something?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Dun dun dun DUNNNN!!!!!!!!!

Yes. How do we change this and get the common folk (especially the 75%) to actually hurt their brains long enough to learn something and care enough to get off bookface and do something?

Things typically get worse before they get better, and the powers at be are making things awfully bad.

I really believe we're at something of a turning point politically in this country.

Whether that means that we're going to turn this ship around and right the course or sink the whole damn thing remains to be seen.

 

[Nightside]

Things typically get worse before they get better, and the powers at be are making things awfully bad.

I really believe we're at something of a turning point politically in this country.

Whether that means that we're going to turn this ship around and right the course or sink the whole damn thing remains to be seen.

I agree.

 

[Randy]

I can't say an armed teacher would be any better.

Right? So if the policy isn't to engage unless you have backup, that means the teachers won't shoot back until they're in some kind of SWAT team formation? What the actual fuck is going on?

 

[Explorer]

I think the strategy is, even if this is a stupid idea, having people arguing over this is better than them looking at Russia's interference in US elections and connections to the Trump administration and the NRA.

 

[Rosal76]

Does this all still not transfer over to guns? (not a rhetorical question)

Depending on the owner and how well he takes care of his firearms, yes, it can (damage/problems) happen. Firearms like cars have their weak spots when left alone for long periods of time when not looked after. Rust will affect metal parts, weathering will affect certain finishes like stainless steel, rifles with wooden stocks can warp, springs will lose their springiness, barrel fouling will be harder to clean if not cleaned thoroughly, etc, etc, etc. Obviously, a firearm is far more easier to take care of over a car because of the larger amount of parts on a car. It just depends on the owner.

 

[narad]

"Florida shooting survivor: We should call AR-15s ‘Marco Rubio’ because they’re both easy to buy"

Daaamn, where's the medic? Waiting behind the building for 4 minutes?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Welp, there goes the "waiting for backup" theory.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

What's the conversion of armed teachers to deputies? Is it like one armed teacher is worth two deputies? Would it be the other way around?

 

[pwsusi]

I voted No. This poll is way too vague. It depends on what the definition of "gun control" is. "Gun control" is like the war on drugs, it's something that will never be completely solved no matter how much money we throw at it or laws we throw on the books. We can have law after law but at the end of the day laws only apply to law abiding citizens; those that deliberately go out of their way to commit an atrocity such as this don't care what the laws are. They will find a way cause mass destruction. I'm not saying we don't need gun laws and I'm open to create more if sensible, but the problem is it seems a lot of the gun control rhetoric is feel good type of stuff that really won't do anything to fix the problem except infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. It doesn't matter how many hoops we make people jump through to get a gun...a bad guy will get their hands on one. Even if we confiscated every single one of the 300+ million guns (which i know gun control advocates aren't necessarily proposing) they will always be available on the black market, coming in over our borders or resorting to other weapons of mass destruction like what we saw in the Boston marathon.

Here are a few things that I think make more sense then "gun control"

First and foremost while we figure this out make the schools more safe. Have some kind of marshal or other trained person on the premesis at least until we get a handle on things. Don't arm teachers, they're there to teach...get someone trained. it's foolish to think an armed person isn't going to help a situation where a bad guy has a gun. Think about it, what usually always ends a situation like this.... law enforcement showing up WITH GUNS. It's a matter of having someone trained and there as opposed to showing up after the carnage has happened.

Second is security -- When I go to work i swipe a badge and walk through a turnstile that lets one person in at a time. At a minimum schools need similar security. The buzzer thing is a joke. Receptionists let everyone in and it's not like a bad guy is going to be out there waving a gun at the buzzer. We should be hiring security experts to look at this. Other things like biometrics, better lock systems that secure people in that aren't a problem in terms of letting people out in the case of a fire, etc. I'd leave it to the experts.

Third is improving gun technology as opposed limiting access to guns. Limited access to guns and infriging on the the rights of for law abiding citizens does not thing for people who don't care about laws. A kid may steal their parents gun, get one on the black market, use a pressure cooker like the boston marathon etc. My kid can't access my phone because he he can't unlock it. If it's simple enough for a smart phone why can't we have this for guns. Perhaps fingerprint technology that will not let a gun be fired by anyone but it's owner. Perhaps something that doesn't allow ti to fire if you're under the influence, etc. Just like having a car that won't start if you have to breathe into a breathalizer would be more effective than another another drunk driving law...same concept. Limiting how many guns or what type of gun a good law abiding person can have does very little. Better to make the guns smarter so they cannot be abused by someone who chooses to abuse them.

Last and most importantly is our culture -- None of the above completely solve the problem. The real problem is some people are nuts...always has and always will be the case. Seems we have more of them now for various reasons. It's laughable that gun control advocates complain so much about the NRA but say nothing about all the violence in movies and video games that glorify guns. These things have more of an impact on the thoughts and actions of crazy person than the NRA does. Instead of being so quick to jump on responsible gun owners as if they're the problem maybe we should be looking at how we glorify violence and the impact on impressionable minds. How about also help for problem kids who may not be getting proper parenting and other mentally ill people. I'm open to restricting access to guns for these people but the problem defining who fits that criteria and remembering that a first time offender who hasn't been deemed mentally ill yet can do just as much harm.

 

[narad]

It's like a broken record.

it's foolish to think an armed person isn't going to help a situation where a bad guy has a gun.

You literally just saw this happen, both with the guard and with deputies who showed up.

Second is security -- When I go to work i swipe a badge and walk through a turnstile that lets one person in at a time.

So they're already cutting funding to tons of school programs, and you basically want a TSA at every one. Not accounting for the fact that schools have many entrances/exits

Perhaps fingerprint technology that will not let a gun be fired by anyone but it's owner. Perhaps something that doesn't allow ti to fire if you're under the influence, etc. Just like having a car that won't start if you have to breathe into a breathalizer would be more effective than another another drunk driving law...same concept. Limiting how many guns or what type of gun a good law abiding person can have does very little. Better to make the guns smarter so they cannot be abused by someone who chooses to abuse them.

This is universally hated. Gun owners don't want their guns refusing to fire in a clutch situation. And the gun owners ARE the ones committing the crimes. They're legally obtained.

Last and most importantly is our culture -- None of the above completely solve the problem. The real problem is some people are nuts...always has and always will be the case. Seems we have more of them now for various reasons. It's laughable that gun control advocates complain so much about the NRA but say nothing about all the violence in movies and video games that glorify guns. These things have more of an impact on the thoughts and actions of crazy person than the NRA does. Instead of being so quick to jump on responsible gun owners as if they're the problem maybe we should be looking at how we glorify violence and the impact on impressionable minds. How about also help for problem kids who may not be getting proper parenting and other mentally ill people. I'm open to restricting access to guns for these people but the problem defining who fits that criteria and remembering that a first time offender who hasn't been deemed mentally ill yet can do just as much harm.

Why are so many young impressionable minds calling for increased gun control? The groups advocating for arming teachers and putting guns everywhere are the same ones that make fun of kids sitting around playing video games. This is besides scientific studies that do not support this story at all. And besides spending my youth playing mortal kombat and the like, only to freak the fuck out when I wound up in front of an actual cadaver (and immediately abandoned my intentions of being a doctor). Real life is not video games. Weirdly the people who have the hardest time grasping that are the people that don't play them.

And like, jeez, we could make it harder for mentally ill or troubled young people to legally purchase guns, or we could just ..remove violence from life??

Have you even seen the NRA TV channel? Those are the people glorifying guns.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I voted No. This poll is way too vague. It depends on what the definition of "gun control" is. "Gun control" is like the war on drugs, it's something that will never be completely solved no matter how much money we throw at it or laws we throw on the books. We can have law after law but at the end of the day laws only apply to law abiding citizens; those that deliberately go out of their way to commit an atrocity such as this don't care what the laws are. They will find a way cause mass destruction. I'm not saying we don't need gun laws and I'm open to create more if sensible, but the problem is it seems a lot of the gun control rhetoric is feel good type of stuff that really won't do anything to fix the problem except infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. It doesn't matter how many hoops we make people jump through to get a gun...a bad guy will get their hands on one. Even if we confiscated every single one of the 300+ million guns (which i know gun control advocates aren't necessarily proposing) they will always be available on the black market, coming in over our borders or resorting to other weapons of mass destruction like what we saw in the Boston marathon.

You took the time to write that all out, but didn't even skim the thread?

Obviously nothing is going to stop everything. That's not the point.

Gun Control has worked well in every single modern society. Why wouldn't it at least curb the problem here? We have tons of data from all over the world. The burden is on the "no" folks to come up with a compelling argument besides "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."

Here are a few things that I think make more sense then "gun control"

First and foremost while we figure this out make the schools more safe. Have some kind of marshal or other trained person on the premesis at least until we get a handle on things. Don't arm teachers, they're there to teach...get someone trained. it's foolish to think an armed person isn't going to help a situation where a bad guy has a gun. Think about it, what usually always ends a situation like this.... law enforcement showing up WITH GUNS. It's a matter of having someone trained and there as opposed to showing up after the carnage has happened.

Are you even trying? There was an armed officer at the school at all times.

I grew up in the Broward Country School System and there was always an armed Resource Officer even going back to elementary school.

Second is security -- When I go to work i swipe a badge and walk through a turnstile that lets one person in at a time. At a minimum schools need similar security. The buzzer thing is a joke. Receptionists let everyone in and it's not like a bad guy is going to be out there waving a gun at the buzzer. We should be hiring security experts to look at this. Other things like biometrics, better lock systems that secure people in that aren't a problem in terms of letting people out in the case of a fire, etc. I'd leave it to the experts.

All of the schools I attended (two public, three college) since my early teens has had some form of magnetic/RFID system in place. Not to mention tons of cameras and exterior fencing.

We can't fortify the schools. Remember the Ft. Hood shooting? If folks can get onto a base, they can get into a school.

Third is improving gun technology as opposed limiting access to guns. Limited access to guns and infriging on the the rights of for law abiding citizens does not thing for people who don't care about laws. A kid may steal their parents gun, get one on the black market, use a pressure cooker like the boston marathon etc. My kid can't access my phone because he he can't unlock it. If it's simple enough for a smart phone why can't we have this for guns. Perhaps fingerprint technology that will not let a gun be fired by anyone but it's owner. Perhaps something that doesn't allow ti to fire if you're under the influence, etc. Just like having a car that won't start if you have to breathe into a breathalizer would be more effective than another another drunk driving law...same concept. Limiting how many guns or what type of gun a good law abiding person can have does very little. Better to make the guns smarter so they cannot be abused by someone who chooses to abuse them.

Reducing the amount of legal firearms will reduce the number of instances of theft of firearms, as well as accidental shooting, and illegal guns.

They're developing "Smart Guns", have been for years. The thing is biometric technology is garbage. It's always been easy to defeat and unless there is a breakthrough, it always will be. The biometric locks on cell phones are constantly being hacked.

Last and most importantly is our culture -- None of the above completely solve the problem. The real problem is some people are nuts...always has and always will be the case. Seems we have more of them now for various reasons. It's laughable that gun control advocates complain so much about the NRA but say nothing about all the violence in movies and video games that glorify guns. These things have more of an impact on the thoughts and actions of crazy person than the NRA does. Instead of being so quick to jump on responsible gun owners as if they're the problem maybe we should be looking at how we glorify violence and the impact on impressionable minds. How about also help for problem kids who may not be getting proper parenting and other mentally ill people. I'm open to restricting access to guns for these people but the problem defining who fits that criteria and remembering that a first time offender who hasn't been deemed mentally ill yet can do just as much harm.

Every nation has it's "nuts" or angry people who just want to do terrible things. We're just the only place that it happens this much, we also happen to be the only place to have this many guns.

The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Canada, etc. all have violent movies and video games. This argument has been used since the 80's and has been disproven again and again.

 

[StevenC]

Not to stereotype too much, but I feel like telling American gun nuts that gun control works in "the rest of the world" is like telling a christian how great Buddha is.

 

[pwsusi]

Gun Control has worked well in every single modern society. Why wouldn't it at least curb the problem here? We have tons of data from all over the world. The burden is on the "no" folks to come up with a compelling argument besides "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."

Data about guns from all over the world does not take into account the culture and society. Guns are only part of the problem. The burden isn't on the No folks, it's on the Yes folks when right here in the US Detroit has some of the strictest gun laws yet we see the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. As for your comment "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."... you must have responded before you read the rest of the post because there are other suggestions made. No one is throwing their hands up in the air. The point was, let's focus on other things that may have a greater impact.

Are you even trying? There was an armed officer at the school at all times.

Patronizing doesn't help your argument or help change anyone's mind. It actually does the exact opposite which is a part of the problem with many on both sides of this debate.

There was an armed officer at the school at all times.

Right, and in this case the officer was a disgrace and stood outside instead of going in and doing what was necessary so you can't really use that to make the argument against this. Had he done his job it would have helped the situation, no? It's not a solution, but certainly one measure to help secure the premises. Just about every one of these situations ends with a good guy and a gun.

I grew up in the Broward Country School System and there was always an armed Resource Officer even going back to elementary school.

All of the schools I attended (two public, three college) since my early teens has had some form of magnetic/RFID system in place. Not to mention tons of cameras and exterior fencing.

We can't fortify the schools. Remember the Ft. Hood shooting? If folks can get onto a base, they can get into a school.

Any how many school shootings were you when you were there? Is it because of the armed guard...maybe, maybe not. Would there have been shootings if they weren't there...who knows. Nothing is fool proof for sure, but they are measures taken for a reason, no? Would you feel safer if they were removed? As you said earlier. (and i think appropriate here) .. "Obviously nothing is going to stop everything. That's not the point. Why wouldn't it at least curb the problem here? The burden is on the "no" (armed guards/magnetic/RFID) folks to come up with a compelling argument besides "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."

Reducing the amount of legal firearms will reduce the number of instances of theft of firearms, as well as accidental shooting, and illegal guns.

Says who? Will reducing the number of prescriptions written by doctors reduce the number of drug overdoses, and use of illegal drugs? And if so at what cost? I realize denying people prescription meds isn't the same as denying someone from legally obtaining a gun...but limiting access to law abiding people because of what law breaking people may do is not the solution. Remember the Boston Marathon?

They're developing "Smart Guns", have been for years. The thing is biometric technology is garbage. It's always been easy to defeat and unless there is a breakthrough, it always will be. The biometric locks on cell phones are constantly being hacked.

You're making my point. Someone with ill intent who is determined and knows what they're doing will navigate their way around just about everything to get what they want. That doesn't mean people should stop locking their phones, their houses or start shopping on websites with unsigned certificates and not using 128 bit encryption.

Every nation has it's "nuts" or angry people who just want to do terrible things. We're just the only place that it happens this much, we also happen to be the only place to have this many guns.

The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Canada, etc. all have violent movies and video games. This argument has been used since the 80's and has been disproven again and again.

My point wasn't really about the movies or video games. It's more about our society, broken homes, kids that are abused, poverty, etc, etc. These all play into it but just counting the number of guns does not tell the whole story. My point on the movies and video games is that gun control advocates are often asking those on the other side to give up something and viewed as not giving up anything in return. That makes it difficult to compromise if one side doesn't have skin in the game. What are non gun owners willing to give up to fix this problem?

In summary, I think you missed the point. You spent a lot of time shooting down each point as to why it's not a solution however none of these were intended to be a single solution, but instead measures we can look at which in aggregate can help the situation. I'd be willing to include additional gun laws in there too, as well as stricter enforcement of laws we have on the books. The problem is though you spent a lot of time shooting down ideas (no pun intended) but offered nothing except a vague statement about limiting the number of legal guns ... which i could use all your same arguments to refute. LIke my suggestions it may help some, but unlike some of the other measures has some issues with respect to the bill of rights and quite frankly (and we disagree) may be less effective. If we can start by proposing specifics on how we're going to limit guns then that would be a good debate to have, but I see this is opening a can of worms in terms of all the problems, and really disagree as I see the the people being the real the problem here and not the guns themselves.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Data about guns from all over the world does not take into account the culture and society.

I never said it did. But, it certainly combats the argument that there's something "different" about the movies, TV and video games.

Guns are only part of the problem.

So we can agree that guns are a problem. Progress.

The burden isn't on the No folks, it's on the Yes folks when right here in the US Detroit has some of the strictest gun laws yet we see the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. As for your comment "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."... you must have responded before you read the rest of the post because there are other suggestions made. No one is throwing their hands up in the air. The point was, let's focus on other things that may have a greater impact.

Once again, if you had bothered to read even a little bit of what was already posted, places with strict gun laws like Detroit and Chicago still have problems because the areas around them have some of the most lax gun laws. Over 60% of guns involved in crimes in Chicago come from Indiana.

Patronizing doesn't help your argument or help change anyone's mind. It actually does the exact opposite which is a part of the problem with many on both sides of this debate.

Disregarding all the constructive conversation we've already had in here just to rehash the same lame points is just as disrespectful.

I'm sorry if me being real with you is getting in the way of you thinking logically to help stop kids dying.

Right, and in this case the officer was a disgrace and stood outside instead of going in and doing what was necessary so you can't really use that to make the argument against this. Had he done his job it would have helped the situation, no? It's not a solution, but certainly one measure to help secure the premises. Just about every one of these situations ends with a good guy and a gun.

Officers. Once again, please put a little effort in. There were four officers total at the scene. Would a fifth have helped?

That's also incorrect. In most school shootings the perpetrator either surrenders or turns the guns on themselves.

Any how many school shootings were you when you were there?

While I was a student in the BCSS, there were two incidents, no deaths if I remember correctly. Not at my school, thankfully, but I lived in a somewhat affluent area.

Is it because of the armed guard...maybe, maybe not. Would there have been shootings if they weren't there...who knows. Nothing is fool proof for sure, but they are measures taken for a reason, no? Would you feel safer if they were removed?

Considering one of the Resource Officers for one of my schools was later found out to be touching kids inappropriately, I think I would have been fine not having one.

These guys are human. They're not perfect. They can be amazing or terrible, just like the rest of society.

As you said earlier. (and i think appropriate here) .. "Obviously nothing is going to stop everything. That's not the point. Why wouldn't it at least curb the problem here? The burden is on the "no" (armed guards/magnetic/RFID) folks to come up with a compelling argument besides "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."

Can you please show me where folks are saying to remove all protections?

Says who? Will reducing the number of prescriptions written by doctors reduce the number of drug overdoses, and use of illegal drugs? And if so at what cost? I realize denying people prescription meds isn't the same as denying someone from legally obtaining a gun...but limiting access to law abiding people because of what law breaking people may do is not the solution. Remember the Boston Marathon?

Have you been reading the news lately? Have you heard of the opiate epidemic this country is facing? It's rooted in doctors overprescribing. It's well documented.

But, we're already talking about stopping law abiding citizens from obtaining guns, unless mental illness has been completely criminalized.

You're making my point. Someone with ill intent who is determined and knows what they're doing will navigate their way around just about everything to get what they want. That doesn't mean people should stop locking their phones, their houses or start shopping on websites with unsigned certificates and not using 128 bit encryption.

So we should make it as easy as possible?

The statistics show that the more roadblocks you put in the way, the more you stop. Whether we're talking about violence or suicide.

My point wasn't really about the movies or video games.

You're the one who brought it up.

It's more about our society, broken homes, kids that are abused, poverty, etc, etc. These all play into it but just counting the number of guns does not tell the whole story. My point on the movies and video games is that gun control advocates are often asking those on the other side to give up something and viewed as not giving up anything on their own. That makes it difficult to compromise if one side doesn't have skin in the game. What are non gun owners willing to give up to fix this problem?

I'm a gun owner, and would HAPPILY surrender them if it meant that kids wouldn't die.

But, if someone doesn't own a gun, what should they give? This makes no sense.

In summary, I think you missed the point. You spent a lot of time shooting down each point as to why it's not a solution however none of these were intended to be a single solution, but instead measures we can look at which in aggregate can help the situation. I'd be willing to include additional gun laws in there too, as well as stricter enforcement of laws we have on the books. The problem is though you spent a lot of time shooting down ideas (no pun intended) but offered nothing except a vague statement about limiting the number of legal guns ... which i could use all your same arguments to refute. LIke my suggestions it may help some, but unlike some of the other measures has some issues with respect to the bill of rights and quite frankly (and we disagree) may be less effective. If we can start by proposing specifics on how we're going to limit guns then that would be a good debate to have, but I see this is opening a can of worms when you take into account the fact that the people are really the problem here and not the guns themselves.

In summary, read the thread before commenting. Everything has been discussed, from disproving your red herrings and straw men, to proposing what a "good" law or set of laws might look like.

 

[narad]

Says who? Will reducing the number of prescriptions written by doctors reduce the number of drug overdoses, and use of illegal drugs? And if so at what cost? I realize denying people prescription meds isn't the same as denying someone from legally obtaining a gun...but limiting access to law abiding people because of what law breaking people may do is not the solution.

My point wasn't really about the movies or video games. It's more about our society, broken homes, kids that are abused, poverty, etc, etc. These all play into it but just counting the number of guns does not tell the whole story. My point on the movies and video games is that gun control advocates are often asking those on the other side to give up something and viewed as not giving up anything in return. That makes it difficult to compromise if one side doesn't have skin in the game. What are non gun owners willing to give up to fix this problem?

Ownership of guns is conclusively linked to school shootings, video games are not. That's why people want policy changes that affect guns, and not those that affect video games. I want to be an open-minded person but when points like these are made it really makes me feel like there's just an intellectual gap across the divides of this debate. You might as well be asking for non-gun-owners to give up red meat so that we can have stricter gun control [not an exaggeration].

 

[pwsusi]

I'm a gun owner, and would HAPPILY surrender them if it meant that kids wouldn't die.

So why haven't you? If you haven't one can only conclude from this statement that you don't think it will have this result otherwise you would have already done so. Your whole argument is centered around reducing the number of guns out there, why don't you lead by example and start with the one(s) you have control over, or is this more about restricting guns to other people that you or some government agency should think should have them? It's a slippery slope. Your gun is one more gun that could be doing harm, no? How about leading by example. Ironically I'm not a gun owner, and don't think your gun is contributing to the problem at all nor do i think it matters what kind you have or how many you should have. It's not of my business.

In summary, read the thread before commenting. Everything has been discussed, from disproving your red herrings and straw men, to proposing what a "good" law or set of laws might look like.

You're completely missing my points. Either it's because of the method in which we're communicating or perhaps because you're not interested in hearing any opposing views (or both). You seem to have it all figured out. If only the rest of the world were as smart. You should run for office, you'd fit in well...this is EXACTLY why nothing gets done. Nice chatting.

 

[pwsusi]

This isn't a very persuasive counter argument