Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve? (Page 4)

Provided good positioning, could not a small team of folks with semi-automatic rifles take down a chopper?  Perhaps positioned on an airstrip, aiming at jet engines?  While not ideal, you'd have to admit, a group of gunmen could do some serious damage if so inclined.  It's scary stuff.

So can a 300 magnum bolt action... much better too.

You could do it with a box cutter, yet I can go buy one of those or a gross of them without even showing my ID.

Regarding shooting down a plane, anything is possible, the AR15 or .223 wouldn't be your first choice, a Bolt Action in a 308 or higher caliber would be a preference but shooting at a jet taking off or landing going 100+ miles and hour good luck with that.

CD, you do realize the projectile in the typical AR15 isn't much bigger around than a regular 22 don't you?

I'm sure it's painfully obvious, I'm not a big gun guy.  I believe in the 2A...but I also believe times change, and I don't want to live in a world where everyone walks around with a deadly weapon.  You guys make very good arguments on the pro-gun side...it's just unfortunate we can't come to some sort of compromise.  Oh well...I'll gracefully bow out of this one now!     The only Guns I wanna see and hear are GNR.  

CD... I'm genuinely asking... what does compromise mean to you?

It is said often that the gun guys do not compromise. Full auto has pretty much been settled, nobody is trying to get them back. Is that not a compromise?

We do have back ground checks and most do not have a problem with it. Most do not have a problem closing loopholes... compromise?

If I have the right to bear arms... then why do I need a permit for it? But never the less, I fill out my CCW permit, take my training, submit my fee and fingerprints for something the Constitution says I already have the right to do. If that isn't compromise, I do not know what is.

Seems to me today in the world of politics, "compromise" has come to mean "do what I say". And now we are supposed to "compromise" with gun control advocates on what "they" deem appropriate the arms I can bear.

What are you giving in return?

I too have learned a lot in these discussions. One of the things it appears to me that I didn't understand just weeks ago is why I believe there are so many who are ,,,,,, trying to phrase this in a way not to offend or sound disrespectful. Well here is my shot attempt, I grew up in a small town and I think I killed my first goose at the age of 10 with a single shot 20gauge shotgun, having a shotgun or rifle in the trunk of my car at school wouldn't get a second thought back in the early 70's neither would a couple of kids walking in town with a rifle or shotgun over their shoulder. They were just another tool or hobby that we enjoyed and since we weren't old enough to drive, we had to walk.

Now what I've come to realize is that there is a large segment of the population that didn't grow up with guns around, have never shot a gun or even held one. Things that we are not familiar with, don't completely understand are often found to be scary. It's just a matter of conditioning and comfort. I now understand and try to respect that. What I have a hard time tolerating is those who feel that way, dictating to me that I shouldn't be able to exercise my rights.

Compromise,,,,, in the 1960's when I was 12 I could go to the sporting goods store and buy ammo. Compromise #1

When I was 21 I could go buy a handgun without having to show ID compromise #2

I use to be able to put my gun in my backpack and not be in violation of some law. I can't today #3

I use to be able to carry my pistol without some special permit. I can't today compromise #4

Just to own a hand gun in Clark Country I have to have it registered. Compromise #5

These are just a few that I know of where I've lived or live, with 20,000 gun laws on the books, I'm sure the number of "compromises" is closer to that.

When will the anti gun folks stop asking for "more compromise" that's my question.

To say the gun owners are unwilling to compromise is a little disingenuous.

I just want to say that I appreciate your participation in these gun threads, you bring a lot to the table.

Well put!

I just got done paying $128, waiting 2 months, taking two mornings off work and I still don't have my CWP, it will come in the mail in another 2 weeks. Awful lot of hoops, time and money to go thru to exercise my right to carry a gun, but I "compromised" and did it. 

It looks like your question is (which seems mostly rhetorical) is there a movement toward gun control when the stats don't support it.  Which I have no argument against.  But you seem to single out crime and, to me, the solution seems to be to take a look at areas where crime is most prevalent and see what the common denominator is there?  Whatever that common denominator is, if you address/solve that issue, then you are  solving the problem.  Guns are a tool used by criminals, take away the guns and they use something else, but the crime doesn't stop.  Poverty seems to be the common denominator to me.  Fix poverty and increasing income gap and you've got a pretty good start, IMO.  Mass shootings, well that's just mental illness.

I suspect you are right, but I think gun control would be easier to get.

Exactly!

What we need to do is ban, restrict or make more difficult anything we can regarding guns today and after that has been accepted, we can go after more the next,,,,, week/month/year.

I am officially changing my position on what weapons I think Law Abiding US Citizens should be able to own.

You could always subsidized abortions, vasectomies, and tubal ligation......

Your logic is completely flawed. Prescription medication is abused, but it is also 100% completely regulated and tested through the rough.. look how long it takes to get a drug approved, how many rounds of testing, human trials etc etc.. a hugely regulated industry.. abused yes, regulated yes

Car accidents and accidental deaths through it.. completely regulated again, how much is spent of safety, safety device, speed limits, crash tests, etc etc.. billions are spent regulating the industry with licenses, safety checks, you cant just go out and buy a race car and race it down the interstate. You can't operate an 18 wheeler without a special license and training, you can buy a bulldozer and drive down the highway with no permits.. accidents yes, regulated yes

Both things you site point out exactly the fact that things that have potential (not specifically created) to kill has a lot of time and money spent on.. mention further regulation of guns and gun people freak out.. I don't want your guns, I just want the same level of effort put into safety, regulation, etc as other dangerous things..

I will get the "2nd amendment is my permit/license/training", seen it, heard it.. tired of it, I just want people to accept the fact that guns, a device intended for killing doesn't have the same level of consistency in testing, licensing etc across this country as a motor vehicle or many other things and that to me boggles the mind

I can buy and drive what ever I want when ever how ever I want. Just like the other criminals do. FDA approval has nothing to do with doctors trying to shove what ever they can down my throat and sending me out the door with a handfull of scripts.

The only problem with all of that is driving and perscription meds are not a right. They are a privellege, and as such, can be regulated and restricted how ever we want. The 2A can't. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. We can chip away and limit and restrict and regulate all the other rights too... but somebody somewhere has a cow anytime they try. ACLU ring a bell?

Abortion is about the 4th and right to privacy... what happens anytime sombody tries to ban partial birth abortions or late term abortions... pro abortion people have a fippin cow over it... slippery slope, government has no business in my uterus!!! Hell, I would love to see the hell that brakes loose if you limited abortions to those that "need" it, or only one a month or one a year... and you have to endure a waiting period of 30 days for a "cooling off"!!! Are you kidding me?

Same thing for 2A... it isn't drivers ed, it isn't a privelege, it's a right. We can argue the need for such a right and perhaps we can discuss repealing it.. but right now it is a right, and it gets the same treatment as all the other rights in the Constitution. You can't "allow" people to have their right once they meet your demands, jump through your hoops, pay fees, take test and only get it if you are deemed worthy or can afford it, or have a "need" for it. You have it, period, end of discussion.

HA!!  Regulation on prescription drugs is about as useful as regulation on guns.  I bet fully half of the drug arrests we make are for illegally trafficked prescription drugs.  I'm sorry, but comparing the danger from prescription drugs to the danger from guns just doesn't wash.  Again, stick with the facts....not the emotion.

There are plenty of people in this country that do not believe gun ownership should be allowed and there are those who couldn't care less one way or the other.  Just like there are those in the country that are ambivalent about unreasonable searches and seizures; or think people should be deported for their views / speech (Piers Morgan); or don't respect the religious beliefs of others.

Purposefully, the Founding Fathers enumerated certain rights in the 1st through 8th amendments to the Constitution such that those that care about their rights do not have bow to the whims of those who do not.

I am totally confused by your post? am I the one not sticking to facts or emotional? because I am neither, in fact i don't really care that much about guns. I was trying to understand powermans logic, still not sure I get it.. he brings up cleaners, drugs cars, accidents etc etc.. almost all things in this country have regulation, doesn't stop all illegal activity but it has a roll and purpose, it attempts to provides teeth when necessary, and limit or control industry that have been unable to self regulate.

I will give this point of view that I may have, that others that may not have had with the privilege of living in the US bubble their entire life. I grew up in a third world country, south africa, there are tons of guns, easily accessible, if feels like almost everyone owed them.. I also lived in house behind a giant wall, with security gates, and electric fences and broken glass on top of walls.. when out in public you had to look over your back at all times.. let me tell you, that feeling sucks.. let me also tell you this, having a gun doesn't make you feel safer.. if you are vulnerable you are vulnerable, someone who is trying to get your car, wallet etc.. doesn't walk up showing you a gun, there is a complete element of surprise, you have no chance to react and if you do.. bye bye .. every one of my cousins has been mugged at some point, my aunt and uncle where murdered ( shot in the face with a host of riffles, handguns etc in the house and in the store), a couple examples.. my one cousin pulls up lowers his window to press the button to get the vehicle gate opened to the house.. guess what guy comes out of the darkness, gun in the face.. too late to respond..  another example.. my uncle use to drive around with a pistol between his legs for safety from carjacking (#1 in the world) .. one day, sitting at a light, next thing he knows gun at the window.. he has no time to grab his pistol, but instead he takes a pistol whipping so my aunt can get their grand kids out the back of the car, the carjackers get the car and then they activate the anti theft system..  what is the point of all of this.. I just think if we have a society with such an obsession with guns and want guns all over the place, in close, concealed carry etc etc there is point where you stop feeling safer and in fact it turns the corner into a chaotic mess where you don't know who to trust or not trust at all times.. this is a great country because I don't have to think about that and I hope it stays that way..

As a side note do people actually think the second amendment does anything today to protect you from the government? (i think the original intent of the fore farthers was to provide for the people to be armed in the face of a potential tyrannical government and not purely just about owning a gun).. I personally think it is the second amendment is outdated with respect to the protecting the people from a tyrannical government.. it was written at a time when tomahawks, fighter jets, aircraft carries, drones, stealth bombers, ICBMs etc didn't exist.. today we the people have no chance in he** against any type of tyranny.. if the amendment was to be updated today i think we would need a lot more fire power rights granted to the citizens..

I really do not get the logic of gun control advocates... that sice a gun is not a garantee of 100% self defense in 100% of all circumstances... then we should not have them at all. I have never met one single pro gun person that felt a gun was 100% assurance they they would never be harmed ever and all situations would work out in their favor. Not one, ever. All it is is a tool... it's an option. If running away would assure me 100% positive outcome...guess what, I'll run away. If hiding will, then I will. If a punch to the throat will get it, then that is what I will do... if screaming like a little girl would get them to run away... I would scream like a little girl. A gun isn't a garantee, it's an option. I like have as many as I can get to give me the most favorable out come.

And so when the tyranical government gives the order to the U.S. Army to take action against U.S. citizens... both sides will have tanks, planes, and missles. Guess what else, there will be a few million people with guns. You can't possibly think 300 million guns in this country does not matter. With all of our incredible technology and military might... we have yet to figure out how to hold ground without a guy with a gun.

Just a couple of points.

1. Some prescription drugs carry a warning label that they may cause homicidal tendencies.

2. Prescription Drugs normal side effects cause over 100,000 deaths in the country a year.

3. As LeftBrain mentioned Prescription Drugs are the new illegal drug

5. I don't know how many kids die from overdoes of Prescription Drugs because the parents don't keep them stored properly but if you care about children you should look it up.

So you are tired of hearing people say they have a right to bear arms because of the 2nd Amendment. There is a process that is in place so it can be repealed.

I would like to ask you, what more regulation would you like to have put in place regarding guns, keep in mind that there are already 20,000 laws regarding firearms? Why do you think there needs to be more laws regarding firearms?

The reason they came to the number 7 is because with that number there are virtually no handguns that can be purchased other than revolvers.  Almost all handguns have a capacity of 10 or more unless you are talking revolvers.  So New York has essentially banned semi automatic hand guns.  So good luck to gun owners in New York and all criminals just know if you are robbing someone and the shoot 6 times you are good to go ahead and rob them they are our of bullets and cannot reload fast enough to stop you.  Ask this lady if 6 rounds is enough.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/238138/158/Intense-911-Call-Of-Ga-Mom-Who-Shot-Intruder-Released

what if there had been two intruders in the story above.  She and her kids would likely have been dead.  Bet she is glad to have had a gun.

Maybe we could get congress to pass a law that you can't use your first amendment rights to talk negatively about the 2nd amendment.... or at least work on a compromise of some sort.

Arguable the most popular hand gun of all time is a 1911.... yes, they have been around since 1911. Without a doubt the most popular semi-auto hand gun of all time. I would not even venture a guess at how many were/are manufactured and how many are owned. 7 round magazine. It was my guess the law was a nod to 1911 owners. 

I just want to point out that members of the military take a military oath to "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,..." so their first job is to defend the constitution. Now, I do not know about you but a tyrannical government that orders its own military to attack its own civilians en mass, would not be upholding the constitution (as it stand right now - who knows if they change it in the future!). knowing many retired and active military personnel from different branches. None of them would follow an order like that. 

I also agree that south africa does not equal the US. different laws, different culture, different groups. 

And powerman - I actually asked a fried whom I was talk about gun control and this recent debate, about your question regarding household chemicals/poisons. Where is the outrage about that. If someone took a household chemical and added it to a school drinking water, poisoning and possibly killing tons of kids instead of using guns, would people then be calling for household chemical control? No they would talk about the poor victims and the crazy person who would do something like that. 

Its funny that you try to paint me into the corner as a gun control advocate, I actually am not. I do vulnerability analysis and mitigation for a career, I am all about risk..  so I am actually into risk reduction, and statistically it has been shown over and over again that an increase in weapons increases the risks of gun deaths, just like a reduction reduces gun deaths.. I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying, so you carrying your gun actually does impact me through increased risk .. pure and simple risk.. I don't actually care that much about guns as a form of death, since in the US the risk is still extremely low, but I do poke my head if I see things that can turn society riskier or see a lobby such as the gun lobby that actually doesn't care about an improved society, but instead care about "their guns" .. hard to argue against when you have the gun lobby in the mid 90's pushing restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget.

Abuse of prescription drugs is irrelevant, powermans argument was that people die from prescription drugs and accidents so why aren't we in a huff about it.. all I pointed out was that we spend a ton of money on safety and testing and regulating so we actually are concerned about it.. his logic was flawed. I am not going to go through each point because I never discussed legality, but regulation allows for federal prosecution in cases of illegal movement of drugs.. FYI to your #5, as you can see we take steps to prevent accidental taking of pills by mandating the use of child proof lids.. get it.. we are taking steps to eliminate known risks, and pushing the envelope to improve fringe or new risks.. and that is my point.. u have the gun lobby restriction the research the CDC can do on gun safety, you don't have gun manufacturers shipping weapons that can be fired only by the rightful owner.. known risks are not being actively reduced, we are not doin gthe best we can do in the name of protected guns

to you final point, I cannot legally campaign against the second amendment.. and what I want is a cleaned up logical system that doesn't have a billion complicated rules that need to be met since there are 20000 laws you have comply with, I want a system that makes sense that has a license that is valid across the country and meaningful, I want less guns laws that make sense to improve the system, the process, the ability to tie a weapon to a rightful owner.. real solutions and not rhetoric .. if people can look at this with less emotion and actually had leaders that could work together we could have a better system (I actually think the 2nd hurts this because it has resulted in the SCOTUS determining that the majority of gun regulation should occur at the state level producing an inadequate country wide system) enough straw man and protect my guns, we need to get the 20000 laws straightened out

I'm 100% with Felton. Growing up in Ukraine (Soviet Union at first), there was a complete ban on anything but the hunting weapons. I grew up as a hunters daughter. The hunting weapon was plenty enough to deter anyone from braking into out inner city condo. In fact, we never had an attempt to rob us, or get broken into. May be it was because we did not own a huge house where if anyone is attacked and screams, no one is there to hear it, and come to help. Living close to one's neighbors was the biggest defense because the bad guy would never know what neighbor is home at any given time. I still refuse single family homes because living close to my neighbors in tight communities feels right to me. Plus, i'm too busy training on weekends to take care of any large backyards.

Then the Old Order in Ukraine broke down, and the guns became available everywhere. Guess what happened? People started getting shot left and right. The country went from zero gun violence, to a crazy Wild West outbreak. It was not fun, let me tell you. Actually it was one of the contributing factors in my decision to take my three years old son and immigrate to the USA ASAP.

If you get licensed to operate a vehicle and get re-licensed all the time, why object to get licence, invasive background check, and invasive mental history check to operate a killing object?

Lastly, no gun supporting friend of mine wants to answer this question for some reason... if you intend to protect yourself from a "tyrant" government, at what point you deem the government a "tyrant" and start shooting?