???? BILL, THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FOR A CITIZEN'S MILITIA, NOT HUNTING. UnU Your senator is very silly.

I'm sorry to be all over your posts recently, but.
We really don't even have a two party system any more, except for divisive issues like the gun debate and "social" issues such as LGBTQ rights. It's often because they can pay lip service while remaining basically in gridlock on those issues. While everyone's championing their minority rights of choice or arguing about whether birth control should be covered by health insurance, they ignore the multiple unofficial wars we're in, shit like the NDAA indefinite detention of US citizens gets slipped into spending bills, and corporations are allowed to not only break all the laws they want as long as it's in pursuit of profits, but actively bribe and purchase officials that directly regulate their industries. Our entire system is broken.

We don't really even have elected representatives at this point. They're all put there by money, and half of them are gerrymandered into office anyway. It's a sorry state of affairs. Divide and conquer indeed.

Seriously. Obama... NDAA... Come on dude. you told us that you specifically where not going to sign that..

Just wondering, but why the fuck would a civilian need an assault rifle. Pretty sure other things will be sufficient for self-defence. And once there's a need for a militia you bet they'll get their hands on assault rifles anyway.

Well, the thing is, "assault weapons" are just a term used to scare people. The truth is a deer hunting rifle in 30-06, semi automatic has the same rate of fire, and fires a round 3 times as powerful as an AR 15. So, they are banning a way a gun looks, not a way gun functions. The idea of these rifles being somehow the root of the problem is very misleading. As rifles with the same features in a slightly different package are going to still be legal. This is why the "gun nuts" are so riled. It's not exactly because the most powerful guns are being taken, it's that the reasoning for taking that type of gun defies logic when a gun more powerful is still legal.

So what kind of gun legislation would you be okay with (if any), better checks before selling someone a gun or?

The issue is that guns already exist. In the United States we have over 270,000,000 guns. Though I do not have an issue with background checks, the issue is one of illegal arms proliferation. Not one of responsible gun ownership. During Fast and Furious the ATF sold guns to Mexican drug Cartels. Why? Well, we don't know.. They never really figured out why. So, the very government that is expecting you to give up a right (even if you choose not to use it) has furnished criminals with the very weapons they seek to ban. these kind of actions flood the black market full of unregistered, unlawfully obtained, firearms. When we ban weapons, we are not eliminating any of the already circulating firearms that exist. And anyone that has criminal intent is not prone to following the law, as their intent is to break the law. We are punishing our own law abiding citizens, and eroding our own civil liberties all under the idea that somehow we will be safer, even though millions of already illegal weapons are still on our streets.

So, the real question is, what exactly would another ban do?

Austrailla had a full out ban, and this is how it turrned out.
http://youtu.be/fP1dMhXYA1s

Jefferson had this to say in the matter.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Yeah I'm not for a flat out ban either, but background checks, and proper certification/training required for certain guns (To reduce accidents involving said guns) are things I would like to see.

But indeed knee-jerk reactions because someone decided to shoot up someplace aren't exactly useful. And in the past knee-jerk reactions haven't resulted in any good laws either.

Both sides have had ideas that did not work out. During Columbine we are quick to point out that their was a weapons ban in place at that time. But, at the same time people do not mention that their also was an armed guard present at the school.

So, what dose that mean?

I am really really for education. You need a licence to drive, why not have to pass a test to buy your first gun? We need to focus on the people behind the guns. Because, a gun alone will not pull it's own trigger. Unfortunately crazy still remains crazy. We really need to make sure that we are helping people first. As, if you really wanted a gun, you could get one.

>>why not have to pass a test to buy your first gun?

Good way to employ jobless Veterans.

VFW could have classes. and Also get much needed funding.

Dude, its amazing though. The amount of people, even prior military that are in the contracting field working with US Diplomats, that don't know how to properly set up their gear, shoot correctly or even proper weapon safety.

I had an excuse of a Sgt. Major of some branch tell me that during his entire carreer in whatever branch he was from, that he NEVER shot a pistol. Literally, flagging everyone, and yet gets pissed when I kick him off the range and he's fired because of it.

You should see the fucking morons at the free range in Ocala. There where two city slickers that dusted off daddy's 870 express. And asked me what the piece of metal coming out every other shot was....

You mean the wad?

Then they drop the shells in the dirt, and jam them into the magazine tube with the safety off, round chambered.

Me, I don't trust a safe. but I sure as shit keep a gun pointed downrange when reloading. Damn fool almost shot his foot off.

Still though.. Never fired a pistol.. What a joke.

This journal is going to get good, wheres my poppin corn.

40 minutes later......

Dunno if you find my civilized discussion about it popcorn worthy, but other than that you're SOL xD

Nah, you and is actually quite logical. Don't mind me and my buttery Orville Redenbacher.

honestly to think criminals would fallow the law! That's just funny!

Srsly limiting what guns we are allowed to have isn't going to stop people from doing what they are going to do. Weather it be illegal gun trades, or shooting people in the face regardless of the law's in place it's going to happen.

The only way to get rid of that threat is to get rid of guns completely... but then people would just makes bomb's or actually find away to use nail clipper's to hijack a plane..

Criminals in the UK occasionally get their hands on a gun, but it's difficult, risky and expensive for them to do so, so the low level "street punk" type criminal usually doesn't have one. Easily available guns lower the barrier of entry to going from "person who can kill an enemy with significant foreplanning and/or personal risk" to "person who can kill many enemies from a distance with little difficulty"

Compare it to poisons. If someone really wants to get their hands on some ricin, botulin or mustard gas, they can make it in their garage with materials bought from a hardware store or seed dealer. The materials, equipment and specialist knowledge are all readily available. But if pharmacies sold that shit over the counter in easy to use powders, you bet your ARSE there would be more people using it to kill.

Most criminals are not highly organised planners, they're just regular people who are criminals because of a lack of opportunities, or education, or a shitty background, or addiction, or sometimes because it's just easier than working. So sure, the drug cartels won't stop using guns if you make them hard to get, but the heroin addict who robs liquor stores to feed his habit will, the street mugger will, and the domestic violence case that escalates will more often result in recoverable injury rather than a fatal shooting.

While I appreciate your point of view, I can honestly tell you comparing the UK to the US is comparing oranges and apples.

It is incredibly easy for criminals to get their hands on guns in the US. We've had a fully auto weapons ban for years, but I can go down to any pawn shop in DC and pick one up for a few hundred bucks.

The social, policial and geographical atmospheres are much, much different. Trying to apply 'what works for the UK' to the US is foolish. The UK is TINY and easy to control with a minimum police force. Also you don't have a buttload of drug cartels in the UK. You can't go ten feet in Texas or Florida without running across a heavily armed shipment of south american or island imports.

Enforcing a 'no gun' ban would rob many people of their safety. Enforcing a 'no "assault" weapons' ban would do the same. I'm certain you don't lose any sleep in the UK thinking that a Mexican gang is going to come into your house and cut off your forearms. But I'm fairly certain folks in Riviera beach DO.

TL; DR: Guns are always readily available in the US, most gun violence is suicide or gang related. Removing "assault" weapons from law abiding citizens hands is NOT going to reduce gun violence in the US. You might get 100-200 less deaths a year. But probably not, because the gangs are going to JUMP ALL OVER that shit.

You do have a point, I was more making a broader point about availability heavily influencing use, and I only use the UK as an example cos I live here.

To be honest, when talking about reducing violent crime, the focus on weapons is a distraction from the real issues of poverty, inequality, racism, unemployment and lack of social support. The US is the richest nation in the world where many people live in atrocious conditions, where the social support mechanisms are extremely weak, where the prison population per head is double that of any country in Western Europe, where you can die of treatable diseases if you don't have enough money, and where everyday prejudice affects millions of peoples life chances. A porous border and availability of weapons probably aren't even in the top five causes of the high rates of violent crime.

Ah, sorry. I've seen a whole lot of UKers using the "Well it works for US" argument over the years so I kind of kneejerk and make a face.

Very much this. Unfortunately the US is in a VERY bad place right now for this. The poverty level is rising, costs of everything are skyrocketing to artificially inflate the poverty level, and it all falls down to senatorial incumbents. Our cash isnt being spent in the right places, its all being reinvested in businesses, as opposed to education and reform or relief programs. It's a WHOLE MESS of bullshit, and it's frustrating that SO MUCH government money is being funneled to "GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS" campaigns right now, but schools are still cutting art programs? Give me a fucking break. Someone needs to carpet bomb the senate.

Banning all weapons is foolish. Do you know how many guns come illegally through the borders? If we got rid of ALL guns, we'd see a rise in gun violence like this nation has never seen before. Gangs would be running rampant in the streets.

It was more of sarcastic statement. Damn you semantics! * shakes fist *

The point I was trying to make, it that regardless of what law's are passed the issue will still remain. I mean we can't do much about boarder jumpers, or drug trafficking. Even more so people who are violent will be violent just cause a gun is the quickest and easiest way to get the work done doesn't mean they won't find something else, or get said guns if they become illegal.

Stupid internet D:< CURSE YOUR LACK OF FACIAL EXPRESSIONS.

This whole campaign stinks to high heaven. I was in VA during the VA tech massacre, and first thing you saw on EVERY news network was that kids face plastered all over everything FOREVER. This guy murders a bunch of KIDS and we don't know who he is until like a week after the fact? WELL after they start this anti gun violence bullshit. Wasn't his mom shot with a 30 ot 6? OH WELL EVERYTHING IS AN AK 47

relevant: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lcjcCJdw6.....ak47_glock.jpg

I didn't find out till the day after it happened... I was to busy having a baby and the hospital staff didn't say anything about it. only when my roommate came to see me did I find out.

XD that blog link! Yeah that's another thing, Evidently lot's of people tend to not realize the emotional trauma of the little girl who did survive the event is going threw. I mean THINK ABOUT IT! You just watched all your friends and your teacher get head shot-ed like some resident evil zombie rush, then this guy blow his own brain out... You'd be horrified at that age or not! Not to mention the survivors guilt, and all her classmates parents are wondering why she made it an non of their children did. Then Fucking media stick's is ugly face in making her relive the event every time they ask.

I think the worst part is it the her parents let them. Publicity or some petty shit who know's just goes to show you how fucked up this country can be at times.

It's not weapons, it's not the drug's, it's the people. Living in Orlando I see my far share of people not giving a shit. I try to go for a walk and I have stroller with my new born son. The walk guy is on the cross walk sign and I nearly get hit by a car at lest 3 times per walk. I don't even wanna get started on stupid drivers. If people don't care enough to look both way's while turning their nearly half a ton explosive hi-speed death box which is something required pass a drivers test in all states, what manes you think gun classes are gonna help?

People are not only violent but can be very stupid at times. I mean even " sane " ( Using that term very loosely mind you ) people have lap's in judgment due to emotional distress.

The people mentioned in the horrible events that have occurred in the past could have been perfectly fine people. Your average joe, But then something happened to them and they freaked and took a bunch of people out then them selves.

What made them do this? You have to think, people have need for acceptance, company and the basic need's of life such as food and shelter. Giving a test on the emotional sanity of the person owning gun isn't really gonna solve anything as well.

In all honesty the best way to solve this and many other problems is for All of us to learn how to re learn mutual respect.

Everyone has there perception, Ideas, opinions, or what have you. Finding that middle ground where we can agree to disagree and not belittle each other for petty thing's like your skin color, piercing's, who you have sex with, and so on Is really the only way people like the Columbine kid, and the grade school killer won't need to feel as if need to pick that gun and take not only them selves but everyone else out with them.

Again this is just my perception, some people believe that forcing laws and more punishment is the ways to go then who am I to judge. Not like you really have any say in what anyone besides your self will do any ways.

Lotta crimes have been linked to people taking guns from legal gun owners. The sandy hooks dude stole his parents' gun I think? My concern is how are we going to make sure people don't steal guns from the "responsible gun owners" (and I put that in parentheses because if you're that responsible, your gun would be locked up better, or would be stored separately from the clips/ammo/magazines.

And if we /had/ to keep guns in stock, that's fine. But assault rifles? no. Please tell me the merit in owning a personal assault rifle lol. A pistol? Fine. Shoot a robber. A rifle? Sure, shoot a deer. I get it people don't want to let go if this "wile west", Hobbes-ian philosophy of man vs man. But jeeze. <___>

I do not agree that the only reason to have an AR 15 is to blow away crowds. A ball tipped .223 round tends to break up in drywall, and dose not penetrate into other rooms. Even the bird-shot in my shotgun passes through walls. If you have kids on the other side of that wall that becomes very important. The rail system on the gun makes it very practical for adding flashlights, or other sights. And who is to say how many rounds is enough? That lady in Atlanta unloaded 7 rounds into an invader, and he ran away. The .223 round is not even legal in some states as it is not powerful enough for deer. The AR variant we are allowed to have is not military spec, and dose not allow for select fire, or fully automatic modes. A savage semi-auto 30-06 has a round that is able to punch through body armor, and has up to a 10 round magazine. Yet, that will not be banned on the current list. Even though pound for pound it has the same fire rate, and has ammunition that is 3 times more powerful than the .223 used in the AR. So, this is why people are all "WTF". Because the legislation is picking on guns that are used the least in gun crime, all under the argument that they are so powerful, and so dangerous. When a real deer rifle is 3 times as powerful, and handguns are the main weapon used. Even the Virginia Tech Shooting where done using just 2 pistols. Living in Florida, I can tell you that a hurricane is a real threat we have to deal with. I have been lucky, but many of my friends down south have had to deal with very bad situations of lawlessness after a hurricane hits. An AR 15 is the prefect match when it comes to a martial law situation. When you are the only house left standing on the block, and 20 people come a knocking for your food, and your provisions.. that AR 15 dose not look so useless. Even if this seems like some slippery slope example, I know of more than one person that found themselves in this exact scenario, including my friend Ray, who had a wandering group of people invade his house, and steal his food, post Katrina. These are examples that may seem unlikely, but knowing more than one person who dealt with them, it's going to be a tough sell to say that banning these weapons is justifiable.

I would agree about this whole thing. I don't think we should ban guns all together. People should really understand this saying: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." If the general public understands that, the better off this society is. It's not the guns that make people want to kill. It's pretty much anything that sets them off to do so. To give them that drive. Whether it'll be stress, anger, depression, exhaustion, frustration, or just plain crazy. Even some blame things that also drive that urge to kill like violent video games and movies. Sometimes I wonder why society blames things that should never be blamed in the first place. As long we just blame the person him/herself. The better off we are.

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

By that logic, we should allow all incendiary devices to be legal as well, since it's the person with the bomb who kills people, not the bomb itself.

Problem is, when you have a society that is already unstable and you add easy access to a weapon that is capable of laying waste to large crowds of people, you're just adding fuel to the fire. If bombs were as legal and readily available and easy to obtain as guns, I guarantee we would see a LOT more bombings in this country.

You are fogetting my point. It's not the weapons that make people go kill. It's a certain thing that will make people go kill. I'm not saying we should make every single kind of weapon legal. I'm just saying we should not put a blame on something that shouldn't be blamed in the first place. People have the responsibility to receive the consequences on their actions. Not just say, "Ban all weapons because it's the weapons' fault".

It's like saying you went out to play football, and one kid got seriously hurt. And the community decides to ban the sport because of that incident. That's pretty much the mindset of certain people.

I'm not forgetting your point. I'm applying your logic to the argument. Saying that guns, and the easy accessibility of guns in this country, are never the problem is ignoring the evidence.

Obviously there are deeper issues with these people that need to be addressed, but like I said, when you make something deadly so easy to obtain, you're just making it worse. Obviously people should be held responsible for their actions, but you can't say that the method used can be ignored. Why do you think bombs are illegal? Because they're dangerous, and they're deadly. There's a reason we don't sell them at Walmart. But guns? Easy to get, easy to use, and easy to kill dozens of people. So when you have a mentally unstable person who decides they want to go to their local school and kill a bunch of kids they don't even know, he's not going to choose a knife to do it. He's going to choose a gun. What would have happened if he hadn't been able to get his hands on a weapon that did that kind of damage? Did you ever think of that?

I agree that guns are not the problem, but they are a factor in the equation.

Your analogy about football is not logically sound, because you don't have football players deciding to mow down the other team. You don't have exploding footballs that have a chance to kill the person who catches them. Nor do the players throw spiked footballs into the crowd to injure or kill random people. If football were like that, I'd hope it would be banned, myself.

Look. I get what you are saying, but you couldn't be right. The method they used to kill people can't be ignored, but the fact is. The person who did the killing SHOULD be put to justice. Not just decide to ban guns because of it. And hell, if you put away guns overall. People will find other means to kill. Like you put out, knives. I've heard stories in Australia and China where they have strong gun bans were people used them to go into schools and slaughtered several children and teachers.

What I'm trying to say is that gun banning is not the solution. People will find other ways to kill and making them illegal will just get people like career criminals to get them by any other means. Just like what is going on with illegal drugs right nowand what happened during Prohibition.

What scares me more is not how a gun is used or how deadly any kind of gun is. Is the person who goes and kills a bunch of innocent children and adults for NO reason whatsoever. Like what happened at the VT Massacre. He killed himself before we had a chance to know why.

And I know that the football analogy is a poor one because they're different matters. But it is logically sound when I point out of how people react. Football caused a lot of injuries and several factors to the brain which caused several players to go crazy and kill themselves or loved ones. Like that one player from the KC Cheifs. But, I never heard a cry of banning football in general because of those factors.

Just comparing the mindsets. Lots of people get seriously hurt and they ban football because of it. I know we just had a huge pike of gun violence in the last couple months from these mass shootings, but I rather put the people who do the killing get justice rather than just ban weapons in general.

As I said (did you miss it?), obviously the person committing the crime needs to be punished for it. I would never imply that they wouldn't. But we're not just letting these people walk free while we argue about gun control, here. It's a NON-ISSUE, because they will always be punished for it. Punishing people after the fact does not help stop it before it happens, though.

The stories in Australia and China? As far as I know, no one was killed in those incidents.

I get that you're scared of the people who commit these crimes and not the weapons themselves, but think about it this way: if we ban "assault rifles," which as far as I'm concerned don't really have much everyday use anyway, and the only guns available are small, non-automatic handguns, wouldn't you worry less about someone showing up and killing large groups of people? It's a lot harder to do with a handgun.

I'm scared of the people, too. And the sad fact is, we haven't had a recent spike in gun violence these last couple months. This is just an ongoing thing. It happens way too often, and has been happening way too often for years. You probably don't even hear about 2/3 of these incidents. But you say you're not scared of the gun itself? I know if we could purchase bazookas at walmart, I'd probably be living in a bunker at this point. The weapon is worth being afraid of, because the more deadly and dangerous the weapon, the more damage is done when it's used for things like this.

That said, I think we've both said our peace about this. I'm obviously not going to change your mind (and you seem to be ignoring some of the things I'm saying anyway), and you're not really offering me any argument as to why I should change mine, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this issue.

Thank you for the discussion.

I have a few issues with this argument.

Namely we forget the Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Now the shooter in this instance did not have an AR 15, not even close. He had a bolt action .22, and a double barreled shotgun.

Killing sprees are often brought into the debate, the issue with killing sprees is that almost every culture has them, and though guns make it easier for the killer. The type of weapon is not a limiting factor for a creative spree killer, Most notable example being The Oklahoma City bombings, or the uni-bomber.

Virginia Tech was done with two pistols.

Beltway sniper did it with daddy's old hunting rifle.

Spree killings are troubling, but they are not an issue of gun control. They are an issue of mental health. No matter what style of gun we ban, until we get people the help they need we will simply see creative solutions to a lack of guns. I know that most people like to cite that many cultures where guns are totally banned, people often survive a mass knifing.. That also means a culture that has been gun free long enough to not have domestic illegal arms proliferation. So in the United States gun control takes on a different meaning. But it dose not minimize our chances of a troubled person creating bombs, or other improvised weapons from time to time.

I had said this in an earlier post.

"The issue is that guns already exist. In the United States we have over 270,000,000 guns. Though I do not have an issue with background checks, the issue is one of illegal arms proliferation. Not one of responsible gun ownership. During Fast and Furious the ATF sold guns to Mexican drug Cartels. Why? Well, we don't know.. They never really figured out why. So, the very government that is expecting you to give up a right (even if you choose not to use it) has furnished criminals with the very weapons they seek to ban. these kind of actions flood the black market full of unregistered, unlawfully obtained, firearms. When we ban weapons, we are not eliminating any of the already circulating firearms that exist. And anyone that has criminal intent is not prone to following the law, as their intent is to break the law. We are punishing our own law abiding citizens, and eroding our own civil liberties all under the idea that somehow we will be safer, even though millions of already illegal weapons are still on our streets. "

Spree killings are not even the #1 contributing factor to gun violence. Not by a long shot.
So, are we attempting to curb gun violence, or spree killings? Though they are related, I am not disputing that, they pose unique problems that do not have the same answer.

I would like to again use the same logic applied to "assault weapons" to other weapons. Hand guns cannot really be used to hunt, they can kill many many people in a very short amount of time, they can hold over 30 bullets.. and on top of that, try hiding an AK 47 in a pair of baggy jeans. On top of that, they are used in the vast majority of all gun crimes here in the United States.

handguns can do this.
http://youtu.be/Zw-o3p4ZMtE

So, while I do admit we stand on different sides of the argument, one of my biggest gripes is the argument itself. When your fathers old hunting rifle has the same ballistic capabilities as the proposed "assault weapons" have, what are we really solving?

Again, something i used in a previous debate.
"I do not agree that the only reason to have an AR 15 is to blow away crowds. A ball tipped .223 round tends to break up in drywall, and dose not penetrate into other rooms. The rail system on the gun makes it very practical for adding flashlights, or other sights. And who is to say how many rounds is enough? That lady in Atlanta unloaded 7 rounds into an invader, and he ran away. The .223 round is not even legal in some states as it is not powerful enough for deer. The AR variant we are allowed to have is not military spec, and dose not allow for select fire, or fully automatic modes. A savage semi-auto 30-06 has a round that is able to punch through body armor, and has up to a 10 round magazine. Yet, that will not be banned on the current list. Even though pound for pound it has the same fire rate, and has ammunition that is 3 times more powerful than the .223 used in the AR. So, this is why people are all "WTF". Because the legislation is picking on guns that are used the least in gun crime, all under the argument that they are so powerful, and so dangerous. When a real deer rifle is 3 times as powerful, and handguns are the main weapon used. Even the Virginia Tech Shooting where done using just 2 pistols. Living in Florida, I can tell you that a hurricane is a real threat we have to deal with. I have been lucky, but many of my friends down south have had to deal with very bad situations of lawlessness after a hurricane hits. An AR 15 is the prefect match when it comes to a martial law situation. When you are the only house left standing on the block, and 20 people come a knocking for your food, and your provisions.. that AR 15 dose not look so useless. Even if this seems like some slippery slope example, I know of more than one person that found themselves in this exact scenario, including my friend Ray, who had a wandering group of people invade his house, and steal his food, post Katrina. These are examples that may seem unlikely, but knowing more than one person who dealt with them, it's going to be a tough sell to say that banning these weapons is justifiable. "

Any magazine fed semi-auto is equally as functional, and destructive as the ban list. They simply lack the add on's that somehow make the same mechanisms more deadly.. such as the addition of a flash light, adjustable stock, shoulder sling, or another place to hold the gun.

Really, again, the proposed gun bans do not ban any real instrument of destruction. They simply ban the look of a weapon, not it's functionality. If you are for tighter controls on weapons citing their destructive potential, take it from a guy who knows guns. Not some media frenzy over what looks evil. If you wanted a list of guns more powerful, and with the same function as an AR 15, or AK 47, let me know. and you can at least pass on a logical argument to your state, or national representative.

I don't mind an intelligent debate. But all I really see is the respective right and left spamming each other with the same loop of nonsense. If you want meaningful gun control, we need more information, and we don't need it from emotionally charged talking heads on our respective glowing rectangles.

In regard to how often this happens, lets take a look across the pond, shall we?

This was taken from Ben Swann's argument.

“In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people,” Swann noted, showcasing that fewer guns is certainly not indicative of a lower crime rate (the rate in the U.S. is 466 per 100,000 residents)."
“The U.S. has the highest gun ownership in the world…[making it] first in the world for gun ownership,” said Swann. “[The] U.S., despite being number one in gun ownership, is number 28 in gun homicide, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people.”

By ratio I did some math by population and the overall homicide rate in 2010.
In England you have a 1 in around 70000 chance of being murdered. In the US you have a 1 in 35000 chance of being murdered. However in a spree killing scenario in England you have a 1 in 4416666.6666.. you get the idea. Vs. the US that did not have any mass shootings in 2010, but just for the sake of argument lets use the 2012 number for a basis of comparison. You have a 1 in 9840625 chance of being involved in a spree killing in the United states.. That's about half.

I used the current population, and divided it buy the numbers posted by the CDC. I rounded the figures, as it was getting to be quite a bit of paperwork. If you would like I can submit something more formal to uphold my rough calculations.

So, when we cite that these horrific weapons are used to mow down people, statistically you are more likely to die from a crazed man in England with a double barrel shotgun, and a .22.



Furthermore, it's not what is more popular to do, it is what our rights are.
That's one of the reasons we have a bill of rights. To make sure our basic rights are not infringed, even in the face of a vocal majority opposed to those rights. The bill of rights is not a part of democracy. Even if 80% of Americans wanted to re-enslave the blacks, because of the bill of rights, that will not fly.

I don't think the bill of rights is worth using as an argument. It's already been ruled that the right to keep and bear arms isn't a free-for-all, and that federal restrictions on certain types of weapons are constitutional. Hence why I mentioned things like bombs and rocket launchers. My point is still: what use does a gun like that serve? The right of the general public to bear arms is typically interpreted as "you can keep a gun for self defense." Do you need an assault rifle to defend yourself? No.

I'd be fine with banning certain weapons that have no real use to the general public other than personal entertainment, if it might help avoid more instances like this.

I feel like I covered this in my statement. Please re-read it.

I read it. The hurricane thing. A very, very small portion of the country is at negligible risk of a rare situation like that. I don't feel like that's enough of a reason to keep assault weapons legal.

I will chat with you a little later tonight, Jake. I have to get back to work. And I know if I don't stop now I will be at this with you for at least a few more hours.

Or better yet, if you are free at FWA, I will buy some beers, and we can discuss all the finer points of all of our favorite topics.

Though I do think you have some valid points about which guns are up for debate, here. I'm no gun expert myself, but then I don't really have to be, because I honestly don't care if we decide to ban a bunch of weapons. I agree with strict gun control across the board. I would like law abiding citizens to still be able to get certain handguns and hunting rifles, obviously, but everything else? Feel free to take them.

That's the point though. the same argument can be made against handguns. i feel if we are to ban anything, why not start with those? Seeing that they are the most used in all violent crimes, it seems silly to think that we would start with any other weapon.

Because handguns may be the most used in violent crimes, but they're also the most used for self-defense. I'd be happy to keep a handgun locked up beside my bed at night. I wouldn't be happy to have a gun safe beside my bed with an assault rifle in it.

Also, I did give you a wall of text to assimilate and understand my take on the issue. So, please feel free to take your time to read over it, and come up with a response. As I don't think it's fair to ether one of our arguments to be reduced to one jab sentence back and forth. I respect your opinion, and I would like to hear what you have to say to the whole of my argument.

Feel free to hit me up on AIM as well. I would be happy to chat with you.

Also, just because you gave me a wall of text doesn't mean I didn't read it. It's kind of rude to assume that I skimmed the whole thing and just decided to reduce it to a one-liner. What I said was the only thing I had a response for, really. I'm not debating, really, just sharing my opinion.

I was not your ability to read, sorry if you inferred that. It is text, and tough to really know intent. I just wanted to give you a few minutes to reply in kind if you wanted. i know if I am discussing something with someone, how annoying it is to try to get out a point when by the time I am ready to hit post, like 30 other messages have showed up. That's all.

Oh, alright. My bad. :)

One last item I will add, then I promise to leave you alone until you have a chance to actually say something.

I do think if you are looking to infringe on the rights of your fellow citizens, you should become more educated on the guns. As it's not fair to say "I don't understand it, so I don't care if you ban it". Jake, I think in any other topic you would be the first to shoot down the argument of ignorance. Because, i do think you are smart, and very capable of understanding the nuance argument here. See, for the gun owners you would like to take rights away from, don't they at least deserve your full understanding of the issue, before you would advocate sweeping action? I am not asking you to agree with me, I am asking you to understand my point from a technical aspect. You have nothing to loose by furthering your understanding on the matter. If you came to the same conclusion with that knowledge, I would have a much harder time discounting your input.

I'm not using an argument of ignorance. I agreed that the guns they're trying to ban are pretty pointless, but this country is all about baby steps, and always has been. And as I said, I'm pretty much okay with the idea of banning assault weapons. I have zero use for them, and I just don't see any point in the general public having access to them. I never have.

I even know that the ban won't prevent any mass killings, either. Until we've gotten rid of guns completely, and addressed the actual issues, that'll never happen. But still, baby steps. Maybe eventually we'll get there.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm ignorant about this issue. I could probably stand to educate myself more. That's why my opinion is not super-strong about it, though. It really boils down to "I don't care if it happens." When I'm indifferent about it, it's hard to muster up the energy to spend hours trying to educate myself when I have a hundred other things I could be doing, you know?

I think gun culture is silly but I also think it's silly we're focusing so much on gun deaths we dont focus on deadlier things like car accident deaths and other things.

It's interesting watching this gun control debate play out because there appears to be two clearly defined arguments being made.

The first has to do with individual gun ownership and if Americans are responsible enough to own guns due to the very few that ruin it for everyone else. Never mind the number of mass shootings that have been stopped in their tacks by responsible gun owners that goes unreported by the media but what's the fun in reporting an attempted shooting or whatever- right?

The second argument, which most other countries don't seem to grasp, is the second amendment. The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms which many of them had fought for.

So, we have never seen the government turn into a tyranny or go into a total anarchy, but if the second amendment is taken away what would stop the country's leadership from taking our other freedoms? They have already done a good job at attacking religion so... What's next? Maybe free speech?

If this or any administration keeps nudging issues, eventually they will get thier way - no matter how big or small the issue is. So, banning this gun or that gun will eventually lead to all guns. That's what politicians do, they nudge until they ultimately get what they want. It could take 4 years or 40 years but they will do it.

I've never been big on guns but I do believe in the rights given to us. I will withhold who those rights come from to save myself from another arguement but... There you go.

Just wondering, what do you mean by religion is being attacked? Is this in relation to the controversy over 'under god' in the pledge? Or are you talking something else?

Purre curiosity, not trying to pick a fight or be condescending.

The point of freedom of religion in our Constitution is just it; freedom of religion, not from religion. I can understand that there are people who are offended and don't want to see Christian symbols everywhere but there has to be some compromise. There are now crosses being taken down at military chapels because they offend people.

I don't want to get into that sort of discussion here, and I realize that we are very privileged as Americans to have the ability to practice our different faiths (or lack of) openly, but it is an issue of stripping away our freedoms little by little until there is nothing left.

The government is not allowed to endorse any religion. By not allowing a military chapel to display crosses (a symbol, and thus an endorsement of, only one religion), they are following the law.

*applauses* Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's nice to see someone who has the same views but articulates them so much more nicely than I ever could. ;u;

Dang it Jeff, you and your politics. D<

hey, if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything..

Amen, brother.

Teach me oh wise simian..

you make a good point about the small hand guns vs. rifles clear and present danger. if i'm remembering correctly, before the 2nd amendment was gutted to it's current simplistic state, i think rifles for hunting and war-time use was about all you could own in the beginning years of the constitution (not like handguns were around anyway but when did they first appear in history?). you're right and you logically can't really hunt with anything but a rifle and i can't stand the people who just try to have a laugh at hunting with stuff so over the top it could probably cut a human body in half with enough rapid fire or simply dismember the target because of the size of the round used.

Most "military style" guns are not even functionally different than the wood stocked hunting counterparts. The real difference is that "Military style" weapons are weaker than many hunting weapons. Rapid fire is possible with any semi-auto, not just the ones that look military. "Military style" weapons are functionally the same as any other semi-auto rifle. They are just more practical because they are able to use many more parts. We are not even talking more deadly parts.. just more. Like the ability to have adjusting stocks, or a flashlight. Truth be told, you cannot hunt deer with a .223 round in some states, because they are not strong enough. So, even if you wanted to play the "don't need that to hunt" card, you would be wrong, as if you hunted using a less powerful round, you better have enough lead to not let an animal suffer. You really don't go hunting with gun like that. It's too weak.

Handguns have more powerful ammunition too. A 9mm round will penetrate a wall into the next room. A .223 round is more likely to break up in the wall. So, even in regards to home defense, the handgun is more of a problem. Handguns are hard to aim, and are clumsy at best. having a small rifle is a good way to make an accurate shot quickly, and without hesitation.

The more I think about it, the more I start to wonder why we don't push to ban handguns.. talk about a weapon with the least purpose for law abiding citizens.

i just realized something while reading your response. many accidental shootings in metro detroit (and likely any city) are often a result of police not having good enough accerasy with their handguns. I'm sure some of that is a result of poor training but maybe lawinforment should just go back to carrying rifles instead. not only do that look more intimidating but they literally are all around better than a handgun (from what you're telling me), aside from not being able to fit into a side holster.