***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

 

[ren hoek]

This video makes some real good points. I agree that nonexistent/abusive parents and humiliation in school is at the root of the problem. Add in antidepressants (as was the case in Columbine) and it's no shocker that children's mental health is being systematically destroyed.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

This sounds an awful lot like cherry picking a post for the one partial sentence out of 4 that you can find fault with.

 

[Henry Ford]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

This sounds an awful lot like cherry picking a post for the one partial sentence out of 4 that you can find fault with.

Are you of the opinion that most Americans are of above-average intelligence?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

This sounds an awful lot like cherry picking a post for the one partial sentence out of 4 that you can find fault with.

I wasn't trying to make a serious point.

 

[Henry Ford]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

This sounds an awful lot like cherry picking a post for the one partial sentence out of 4 that you can find fault with.

I wasn't trying to make a serious point.

 

[derek245583]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

I would say 50% are below and 50% above...the averageI think

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

This sounds an awful lot like cherry picking a post for the one partial sentence out of 4 that you can find fault with.

I wasn't trying to make a serious point.

Neither was I. I was making reference to all of the accusations of cherry-picking going on and that you two must agree with everything else I said

 

[Henry Ford]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

I would say 50% are below and 50% above...the averageI think

So none of them are average?

 

[derek245583]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

I would say 50% are below and 50% above...the averageI think

So none of them are average?

2 people...

 

[Henry Ford]

Most Americans are intelligent

Not sure about this part.

I'd venture to say that close to 50% of them are of below average intelligence.

I would say 50% are below and 50% above...the averageI think

So none of them are average?

2 people...

I see. So the American populace consists of 100% of its population plus two people. Now I think I have it.

 

[tom22406]

The link below is straight from Dianne Feinstein's website and details what she wants to do.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

I'm not sure where to begin with this without seeing a listing of these weapons she wants banned.

I will say that IMO this has very little chance of getting passed as a whole.

Anybody got any thoughts on what she is proposing so far?Here is the summary for those that care

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: 120 specifically-named firearms

Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic

Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by: Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test

Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test

Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by: Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment

Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and

Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include: Background check of owner and any transferee;

Type and serial number of the firearm;

Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

 

[badmojo1006]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

 

[Henry Ford]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

If only those police officers had guns.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

If only those police officers had guns.

Did you even read the article?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

What is the purpose of posting this? Is it your belief that police officers shouldn't carry guns?

 

[Henry Ford]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

If only those police officers had guns.

Did you even read the article?

Yes. A guy took a gun from a police officer during processing and used it to become a gunman. Of course, such a thing could never happen to a teacher, but that's because they're much better with guns than police officers.

 

[Henry Ford]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

What is the purpose of posting this? Is it your belief that police officers shouldn't carry guns?

I assume it has something to do with guns being taken from people who are otherwise responsible and using them to shoot people who aren't criminals. Like some people are concerned may happen in a school setting if teachers have guns.

 

[boots11234]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

If only those police officers had guns.

Did you even read the article?

Yes. A guy took a gun from a police officer during processing and used it to become a gunman. Of course, such a thing could never happen to a teacher, but that's because they're much better with guns than police officers.

I bet you anything that cop wished he had a backup gun.

 

[Henry Ford]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

If only those police officers had guns.

Did you even read the article?

Yes. A guy took a gun from a police officer during processing and used it to become a gunman. Of course, such a thing could never happen to a teacher, but that's because they're much better with guns than police officers.

I bet you anything that cop wished he had a backup gun.

Absolutely. Every teacher and student should be issued two guns at the beginning of the school day for just such an occasion.

 

[parasaurolophus]

What you're missing is a later study with opposite results.

Not true. There were decreases in areas that there were no bans. So saying it is because of the bans is hardly "opposite results". The ban in England was in 97. In 2003 the numbers were still up.

Study being the key word there. Some anecdotal evidence from cherry-picked data didn't qualify.

I dont recall you linking to a study that showed gun violence being down in the 5 years after the ban? Could you please post it again?

 

[badmojo1006]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

What is the purpose of posting this? Is it your belief that police officers shouldn't carry guns?

The purpose of posting this article is to show that more guns are not the answer. If people can get shot in a Police station or on a Military Base, then how is arming Teachers, Principals, or volunteers going to help. It will just make it worse

 

[parasaurolophus]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

What is the purpose of posting this? Is it your belief that police officers shouldn't carry guns?

I assume it has something to do with guns being taken from people who are otherwise responsible and using them to shoot people who aren't criminals. Like some people are concerned may happen in a school setting if teachers have guns.

34% of schools have a person carrying a firearm. I would imagine since it hasn't been linked yet in this thread there are not very many times that a gun has been wrestled from them.

 

[Dvorak]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

What is the purpose of posting this? Is it your belief that police officers shouldn't carry guns?

The purpose of posting this article is to show that more guns are not the answer. If people can get shot in a Police station or on a Military Base, then how is arming Teachers, Principals, or volunteers going to help. It will just make it worse

The Fort Hood base was a gun free zone. This example does not help your argument.

 

[boots11234]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

What is the purpose of posting this? Is it your belief that police officers shouldn't carry guns?

The purpose of posting this article is to show that more guns are not the answer. If people can get shot in a Police station or on a Military Base, then how is arming Teachers, Principals, or volunteers going to help. It will just make it worse

Faulty logic here. Teachers and students are guaranteed victims, police and military may be victims. Are guns going to guarantee no one is hurt? No. I'm guessing your of the mentality that we must prevent EVERY gun death. Sadly that's never going to happen yet in your desire for this goal your willing to violate the bill of rights. I'm not.

 

[Henry Ford]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

What is the purpose of posting this? Is it your belief that police officers shouldn't carry guns?

I assume it has something to do with guns being taken from people who are otherwise responsible and using them to shoot people who aren't criminals. Like some people are concerned may happen in a school setting if teachers have guns.

34% of schools have a person carrying a firearm. I would imagine since it hasn't been linked yet in this thread there are not very many times that a gun has been wrestled from them.

I appreciate your imagined statistics. I can guarantee you that it hasn't happened in the schools that didn't have a firearm on campus.

 

[badmojo1006]

Three NJ Police Officers shot at Police Station

What is the purpose of posting this? Is it your belief that police officers shouldn't carry guns?

The purpose of posting this article is to show that more guns are not the answer. If people can get shot in a Police station or on a Military Base, then how is arming Teachers, Principals, or volunteers going to help. It will just make it worse

Faulty logic here. Teachers and students are guaranteed victims, police and military may be victims. Are guns going to guarantee no one is hurt? No. I'm guessing your of the mentality that we must prevent EVERY gun death. Sadly that's never going to happen yet in your desire for this goal your willing to violate the bill of rights. I'm not.

I would like to do my best to prevent as many Gun deaths as possible. And please drop the very tired "Violating the Bill of Rights".

 

[timschochet]

I don't like what Feinstein is proposing. I would like to see separate bills for the 3 main issues. Don't allow Republicans to vote against closing the loophole and limiting mags by arguing against broader 2nd Amendment concerns. Force them to confront the specific issues- IMO, that's the only way public opinion will play a role here.

 

[zDragon]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

 

[zDragon]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

I can't believe we keep rehashing these same arguments. Probably why I checked out of this thread b/c it is literally having the same argument night by night, week by week. As others have said, the utility and benefit of cars seemingly outweigh the costs associated with them. But what utility do guns provide us? Not to mention the research going into making cars more safe. Research is currently being done for cars to drive themselves in the future. We are always trying to make cars less deadly. So what are we doing to make guns less deadly? If anything, it seems we are trying to make guns more lethal?

1. What about the alcohol involved. It serves no utility or major benefit to society.2. How do you make a car safe for a pedestrian that is hit by a drunk driver.

3. The sole purpose of a gun is to be deadly.

Just because you don't like guns does not mean other do not get a benefit and utility out of them. I used to carry a Judge when I was living in a less populated part of the country. Always hiking and hunting but it was always with me. Now that I live in a large city and never see the woods I sold the guns off as I really don't have a use for them here. I just do not find shooting at a range enjoyable. There are a lot of people who do though.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

 

[zDragon]

Why is there NEVER any feedback on these postings?

You all say it is "mythical", "paranoid" and these things don't happen to real people.

Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon

Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire. The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter. ”As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.

Two wounded in theater shooting

Two people were wounded late Sunday when gunfire erupted at a local movie theater, sending panicked moviegoers rushing to exits and ducking for cover, police and witnesses said. A lone suspect was in custody after being wounded by an unidentified law enforcement officer, a Bexar County Sheriff’s Office spokesman said.



Man pistol-whipped during home invasion

Police are searching for suspects in a late night armed home invasion in East Springfield. Just before midnight, either three or four Hispanic men broke into a house. They allegedly pistol whipped the man inside and stole cash, jewelry and video games.

One dead, one injured in Amarillo home invasion

Amarillo Police are investigating a homicide after one person was killed and one man was injured in a Wednesday night home invasion.

Armed home invasion reported in Havre de Grace

Police are investigating an armed home invasion in the Battery Village area early Thursday morning. Residents told police two men, both with handguns, forced their way into the home at about 1:19 a.m. through a back door. The suspects then demanded money while assaulting two adult victims.

Woman, 77, shoots at would-be burglar.

A 77-year-old grandmother says she used a gun to protect her home from a burglar. A man tossed a brick through the bedroom window of her northwest Atlanta home Wednesday afternoon. The man tried to crawl through her window. She saw no reason to yell or try to talk to the man, so she started shooting.

Homeowner shoots intruder near Mulvane.

A 31-year-old burglary suspect is listed in serious but stable condition after he was shot in the chest by a homeowner in rural Mulvane. It happened about 3:30 a.m. Wednesday.



Clerk shoots at knife-wielding robbery suspect in Brownsville.

A Brownsville man is behind bars after trying to rob a store where a clerk used a gun to defend himself.

Statistical blip across 300 million people. for every one of these there are ten of a kid shooting himself in the face with dads gun.

Care to take a stab at how many suffocate themselves?Care to guess how many poisoned themselves?

Are there as many killed by firearms as unspecified means?

If they do not have access to firearms do you think they numbers for suffocation and poisoning would remain the same?

Are you looking at the tool or the individual?

Are more kids killed yearly by accidental discharge of a firearm or drowning?

Are more people killed per year due to diabetes than firearms?

Are more people killed by drunk drivers or firearm homicides yearly?

Should we regulate food and pools? Do I have the right as a healthy individual to demand my health cost go down by banning crap food?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

I think you are in the minority of gun owners, so stating so does not lend any credibility to your cause. For the record I do not own a gun and I disagree with your POV.

 

[zDragon]

I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

What would make you think this? I haven't seen any polls that suggest public opinion is steadily moving in that direction.

Neither have I, but I haven't seen any reliable polling data yet, either. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, there weren't any such data when the move came about to restrict tobacco use 10-15 years ago, either. Through strong leadership, though, the culture has changed with cigarettes, and use has dropped considerably. Drastically. And, quite frankly, that's as it should be. Politicians sometimes need to lead, as opposed to taking polls all the time to figure out which way the wind is blowing. i choose to believe, and sincerely hope, that the tragedy of Sandy Hook is a catalyst for change in a way that other tragedies before this unfortunately failed. I might be wrong. It may be more of the same. But, I don't think so.

Ummm...cigarettes weren't banned. Education about they're danger was the primary reason for the drop. That and the gov't making huge profit from tobacco.

Exactly. Same can and should be done with guns.I know you NRA people really don't want to hear it, but nobody is calling for a ban on your handgun. The arsenals of assault rifles, semi-automatic guns, among others are very concerning and shouldn't be owned by anyone without a super awesome reason. But a ban on handguns is not the debate. In fact, the title of this thread is in relation to gun control. Part of that is removing certain weapons. Part of that is getting rid of the gun shows and hobby element. Part of it is education. Part of it is taxation to help support a buy back program. There are a lot of things that likely will go into this. A ban on your handgun is not one of them.

Can we do this with cars also? The last number i saw speeding was a factor in 40% of all road deaths. By banning car shows, add on parts, and limiting the top speed of all cars you could save a lot of lives. I understand cars are used for utility but there is no need for it to go faster than say 55mph. I know at one point Bill gates was working on a speed control device that could set the top speed based on where you where. So Max speed for cars would be 55mph and everywhere else it is controlled by what the government considers safe for that area.I'm sure no one would have a problem with this. In the short term we could remove the licenses of all drunks, speeders, red light runners and they could use public transportation to get back and forth to work and the stores.

 

[tom22406]

I don't like what Feinstein is proposing. I would like to see separate bills for the 3 main issues. Don't allow Republicans to vote against closing the loophole and limiting mags by arguing against broader 2nd Amendment concerns. Force them to confront the specific issues- IMO, that's the only way public opinion will play a role here.

I will use the words you have been using to describe gun nuts since they seem to be very fitting here for her proposal.She is ####### crazy if she thinks this bill will pass.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

I think you are in the minority of gun owners, so stating so does not lend any credibility to your cause. For the record I do not own a gun and I disagree with your POV.

I'm sure I'm in a minority of gun owners but I've said this many times and have yet to have anyone, gun owner or otherwise, give a good reason why they would need a semi-automatic gun as opposed to an x-action equivalent.

 

[zDragon]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

So you do not think there was a reason for me to carry my Judge Pistol? How about a Ruger 750 for hunting?

 

[Henry Ford]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

I'm fine with getting rid of semi-auto, but not fine with getting rid of magazine feeding, and I think that probably kills semi-auto bans on handguns. Guns are much less dangerous to the gun owner and non-interlopers when kept unloaded. Loading a revolver in a high-adrenaline moment is cumbersome and problematic.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

So you do not think there was a reason for me to carry my Judge Pistol? How about a Ruger 750 for hunting?

I think double action revolvers are fine, as are bolt or single action rifles for hunting.

 

[Henry Ford]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

So you do not think there was a reason for me to carry my Judge Pistol? How about a Ruger 750 for hunting?

I'm confused - a Judge is semi-auto?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

I'm fine with getting rid of semi-auto, but not fine with getting rid of magazine feeding, and I think that probably kills semi-auto bans on handguns. Guns are much less dangerous to the gun owner and non-interlopers when kept unloaded. Loading a revolver in a high-adrenaline moment is cumbersome and problematic.

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

 

[Henry Ford]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

I'm fine with getting rid of semi-auto, but not fine with getting rid of magazine feeding, and I think that probably kills semi-auto bans on handguns. Guns are much less dangerous to the gun owner and non-interlopers when kept unloaded. Loading a revolver in a high-adrenaline moment is cumbersome and problematic.

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seem any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

I definitely get where you're coming from, I'm just torn because of personal experience. Having a magazine-loaded handgun probably contributed to saving a loved one's life when I was young, and I don't think the gun wielder could/would have gotten a revolver loaded at the time. I know it's a pure emotional reaction, but I have it. I should probably sort that out before making a blanket proclamation about what I would and wouldn't accept.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

I'm fine with getting rid of semi-auto, but not fine with getting rid of magazine feeding, and I think that probably kills semi-auto bans on handguns. Guns are much less dangerous to the gun owner and non-interlopers when kept unloaded. Loading a revolver in a high-adrenaline moment is cumbersome and problematic.

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seem any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

I definitely get where you're coming from, I'm just torn because of personal experience. Having a magazine-loaded handgun probably contributed to saving a loved one's life when I was young, and I don't think the gun wielder could/would have gotten a revolver loaded at the time. I know it's a pure emotional reaction, but I have it. I should probably sort that out before making a blanket proclamation about what I would and wouldn't accept.

I understand. Practically speaking a loaded and trigger locked revolver would be just as effective as an unloaded semi in that situation, and safer to boot if the ammo is co-located with the gun.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't like what Feinstein is proposing. I would like to see separate bills for the 3 main issues. Don't allow Republicans to vote against closing the loophole and limiting mags by arguing against broader 2nd Amendment concerns. Force them to confront the specific issues- IMO, that's the only way public opinion will play a role here.

That's only the beginning. By the time this comes up for a vote their will be funding for a research center in Neb to turn cow manure to fuel, medicare expansion to include cosmetic breast implants, and some tax cuts.

 

[Henry Ford]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

I'm fine with getting rid of semi-auto, but not fine with getting rid of magazine feeding, and I think that probably kills semi-auto bans on handguns. Guns are much less dangerous to the gun owner and non-interlopers when kept unloaded. Loading a revolver in a high-adrenaline moment is cumbersome and problematic.

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seem any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

I definitely get where you're coming from, I'm just torn because of personal experience. Having a magazine-loaded handgun probably contributed to saving a loved one's life when I was young, and I don't think the gun wielder could/would have gotten a revolver loaded at the time. I know it's a pure emotional reaction, but I have it. I should probably sort that out before making a blanket proclamation about what I would and wouldn't accept.

I understand. Practically speaking a loaded and trigger locked revolver would be just as effective as an unloaded semi in that situation, and safer to boot if the ammo is co-located with the gun.

Not to get too hung up on this, but if you can't put a bullet into a cylinder, you probably can't remember a combination and/or fit a key into a lock.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't like what Feinstein is proposing. I would like to see separate bills for the 3 main issues. Don't allow Republicans to vote against closing the loophole and limiting mags by arguing against broader 2nd Amendment concerns. Force them to confront the specific issues- IMO, that's the only way public opinion will play a role here.

That's only the beginning. By the time this comes up for a vote their will be funding for a research center in Neb to turn cow manure to fuel, medicare expansion to include cosmetic breast implants, and some tax cuts.

I don't understand why you gun-rights nuts want the disabled and elderly to be flat-chested to boot.

 

[zDragon]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Would these be the same people doing this http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/27/3748672/two-killed-3-injured-in-us-74nc.htmlI guess a gun makes you deader than a car.

Don't you guys get it yet. The guys wanting to limit gun use don't like guns. They like cars, alcohol, pools, etc. They are perfectly willing to take away something they could care less about.

I like and own guns. I don't think there is any legitimate need for the general public to have semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

So you do not think there was a reason for me to carry my Judge Pistol? How about a Ruger 750 for hunting?

I'm confused - a Judge is semi-auto?

Maybe my definition is a little off. The judge is a double-action so I thought it fell under the semi-auto classification of reloading itself after firing.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I definitely get where you're coming from, I'm just torn because of personal experience. Having a magazine-loaded handgun probably contributed to saving a loved one's life when I was young, and I don't think the gun wielder could/would have gotten a revolver loaded at the time. I know it's a pure emotional reaction, but I have it. I should probably sort that out before making a blanket proclamation about what I would and wouldn't accept.

I understand. Practically speaking a loaded and trigger locked revolver would be just as effective as an unloaded semi in that situation, and safer to boot if the ammo is co-located with the gun.

Not to get too hung up on this, but if you can't put a bullet into a chamber, you probably can't remember a combination and/or fit a key into a lock.

Possibly, a lot of this is situational. At the point you are describing though isn't much general difference in safety if the semi-automatic is kept unloaded but unsecured and with the ammo. Again, in that situation it may have been, but much of this debate is really about how we weigh outlying events. Mass shootings are outlying events, so are defensive instances of gun use that involve a loaded gun being fired.

 

[Henry Ford]

I definitely get where you're coming from, I'm just torn because of personal experience. Having a magazine-loaded handgun probably contributed to saving a loved one's life when I was young, and I don't think the gun wielder could/would have gotten a revolver loaded at the time. I know it's a pure emotional reaction, but I have it. I should probably sort that out before making a blanket proclamation about what I would and wouldn't accept.

I understand. Practically speaking a loaded and trigger locked revolver would be just as effective as an unloaded semi in that situation, and safer to boot if the ammo is co-located with the gun.

Not to get too hung up on this, but if you can't put a bullet into a chamber, you probably can't remember a combination and/or fit a key into a lock.

Possibly, a lot of this is situational. At the point you are describing though isn't much general difference in safety if the semi-automatic is kept unloaded but unsecured and with the ammo. Again, in that situation it may have been, but much of this debate is really about how we weigh outlying events. Mass shootings are outlying events, so are defensive instances of gun use that involve a loaded gun being fired.

Like I said, I know it's an emotional response.

 

[Slingblade]

I'm willing to drop extra gun regulation if the far right is willing to sign off on single payer national healthcare, including and especially mental health care. Anyone else with me?

As a gun-toting liberal...that's fine with me.