That is a narrow point of view and naive. Kind of funny (ironic) how that is the same thought process with each and every "gun control" measure for each an every emotional reaction to highly publicized shooting. Not every mass shooting, just the ones that meet an agenda.

Not that type of gun, this one. Not that magazine type, this one. Not that bullet type, this one. Rinse and repeat until there is precedence to ban everything. And Yes, staying true to the 2nd Amendment you have the right to access for that type of weaponery.

You think that because of the 2nd Amendment, there is no limit on what type of arms you are allowed to own?

Trying to apply "the no limit" standard is a cop-out when there is no further debate to be had. As the most abundant and available firearm in the U.S., it is not considered unusual or special in ownership, operation, and capabilities. It is the musket of modern times. As far as a limitation to the type of arms, I believe there should be no limitation to any Constitutional Amendment unless it is a direct infringement on an individuals rights. The simple ownership of any type of firearm does not infringe on anyone's rights. Using the tool in a manner that does infringe on a right is already covered by current laws.

---

That is a narrow point of view and naive. Kind of funny (ironic) how that is the same thought process with each and every "gun control" measure for each an every emotional reaction to highly publicized shooting. Not every mass shooting, just the ones that meet an agenda.

Not that type of gun, this one. Not that magazine type, this one. Not that bullet type, this one. Rinse and repeat until there is precedence to ban everything. And Yes, staying true to the 2nd Amendment you have the right to access for that type of weaponery.

So because people are emotional after innocent lives are taken, we can’t use that to try and better this country?

You think the gun laws are perfect the way they are now? 

I’m not saying I know the answer here but I don’t think anyone knows. it seems to me that what we have now isn’t working. The wrong people are getting a hold of some serious ammunition. 

I would also take my chances against a man with a knife than a man with a gun.

That is exactly what I am saying. If you think knee-jerk reactions based on emotion has its place in clear-headed decision making or society in general, that is a problem. The bottom line is your government wants guns to go away and needs your emotion to push it because rational thought hasn't and won't allow it. If you think it is because they care, why not talk about Dayton or the multiple mass shootings in Chicago just this week? How about the multiple homicides by gun in El Paso the weeks prior to the Walmart incident? 

Nothing is ever perfect, especially laws based on emotion. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a combined federal and local set of over 20K gun laws on the books already.

You finally touched on a valid point. There is no singular answer, and we are throwing [BLEEP] against a wall to try and see if something works. There will never be a solution, as humans are emotional and violent by nature. Some just more so than others. Let's put that time, effort, and money to formulate actionable data to come up with possible deterrents.

The ammo type has no bearing on any of this. And unlike you, I'd rather take my chances with an individual in close quarters with an rifle or gun in general over a knife/cutting object. But, in any situation, the tool is only as good as the individual that uses it.

---

Are you seriously saying we have no historical accounts of what happens to a people when they have their means of self-defense confiscated? We can't find a single example in the entirety of the history of humans, much less just in the last, oh, 75 years or so to give us pause?

I don't think anyone (except maybe a very few on the far left) is advocating confiscating your means of self-protection.  What most gun control discussions are about is the kind of weapons that can kill a whole bunch of people within seconds.   Unless you're planning to defend your house against an army, do you really need that kind of weapon?

Any one of these can be used to "...kill a whole bunch of people within seconds."  Are these the weapons you want to get rid of?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

As a legal gun owner I will say this.  The "solutions" being floated right now concern me.  The so-called "solutions" range from taxing to outright banning.  I personally think that it's un-constitutional and poses a hardship more to law abiding citizens and responsible firearm owners.

First of all the "assault weapons" argument is pretty much a non-argument.  An AR-15 is the same as a .223 hunting rifle.  The difference?  An AR-15 is black in color (ironic isn't it?).  It typically has a collapsible stock, a pistol grip and a flash suppressor.  Those are standard on a modern sporting rifle.  The ones that I have purchased came with 30 round magazines (they are not called "clips").  They are not much different from a .22 rifle, in fact the round has the same diameter.  The only difference is the velocity.

Getting out of the technical difference between different rifles, one argument comes up saying "why do you need that to defend your family"?  Well, I happen to own some acreage in the middle of the woods (forest) with some livestock and some small pets.  There are predators there (coyotes and bobcats) that threaten and will kill my livestock and/or pets.  A .223 or a 5.56 round (the same round fired from and AR-15) is perfect for eliminating the threat.

When the argument comes up about round capacity again I point to why I own the weapons that I do, coyotes and bobcats can be pretty quick.  You WILL fire off multiple rounds trying to drop one.

Now of course, this part of the argument only deals with someone in a rural setting.  Most gun violence happens in an urban setting.  Most of the calls for "sensible gun control" comes from people that grew up and/or live in an urban environment.  I would invite any one of them to come onto my property and take a walk along my trails after dark. I invite them to listen to the bobcats and the coyotes sounding off, especially if the animals are close.

The thing that makes me cringe is when some anti-gun nut says "you don't need that".  Come and take a walk in my shoes and see what you think that you "need".  Come and see what it looks like when wild animals tear up and eat your pets.  Out in the woods, the police aren't going to get there very soon.  The "need" for guns and protection is real.  Not so much in an urban environment.  All of the US doesn't live in an urban environment.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not necessarily in favor of gun control, sort of on the fence about it, but I do want to point out that the argument, "more people are killed by knives than by guns, therefore we should [not have gun control or whatever it is you're saying]," is not a good argument.  Because you could just as well say, more people are killed by falling coconuts than by nuclear weapons, therefore trying to control nuclear weapons is a waste of time.  It's not a good argument.   

A crazy person probably can't kill 200 people with a knife, but with a gun, it's easy.  That's why people focus on finding some way to get some sort of control over who has  really deadly weapons.

Let's assume you can effectively ban guns and make them impossible for private citizens to obtain.  The crazy person who wishes to do harm to others will simply switch to another tool, most likely a car.  You don't need a special event, any cluster of people will do.  A crowded sidewalk, a bunch of kids waiting for a schoolbus...…....they're easy targets.  What's your solution then?  Do we ban cars?

If you eliminate guns you eliminate "shooting" deaths.

Like Japan

But you don't eliminate mass murder.

Kyoto Mass Murder

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

That is a narrow point of view and naive. Kind of funny (ironic) how that is the same thought process with each and every "gun control" measure for each an every emotional reaction to highly publicized shooting. Not every mass shooting, just the ones that meet an agenda.

Not that type of gun, this one. Not that magazine type, this one. Not that bullet type, this one. Rinse and repeat until there is precedence to ban everything. And Yes, staying true to the 2nd Amendment you have the right to access for that type of weaponery.

You think that because of the 2nd Amendment, there is no limit on what type of arms you are allowed to own?

As with the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment literally exists to say that there can't be a law about owning guns. I mean, they didn't even group it together into the 1st, they carved out gun ownership into it's own Amendment specifically to say "Congress cannot make any laws or say anything about this right of the People." Any "limit" violates the 2nd Amendment, that we've permitted the government to whittle away at that right as much as they have is to our shame.

---

As a legal gun owner I will say this.  The "solutions" being floated right now concern me.  The so-called "solutions" range from taxing to outright banning.  I personally think that it's un-constitutional and poses a hardship more to law abiding citizens and responsible firearm owners.

First of all the "assault weapons" argument is pretty much a non-argument.  An AR-15 is the same as a .223 hunting rifle.  The difference?  An AR-15 is black in color (ironic isn't it?).  It typically has a collapsible stock, a pistol grip and a flash suppressor.  Those are standard on a modern sporting rifle.  The ones that I have purchased came with 30 round magazines (they are not called "clips").  They are not much different from a .22 rifle, in fact the round has the same diameter.  The only difference is the velocity.

Getting out of the technical difference between different rifles, one argument comes up saying "why do you need that to defend your family"?  Well, I happen to own some acreage in the middle of the woods (forest) with some livestock and some small pets.  There are predators there (coyotes and bobcats) that threaten and will kill my livestock and/or pets.  A .223 or a 5.56 round (the same round fired from and AR-15) is perfect for eliminating the threat.

When the argument comes up about round capacity again I point to why I own the weapons that I do, coyotes and bobcats can be pretty quick.  You WILL fire off multiple rounds trying to drop one.

Now of course, this part of the argument only deals with someone in a rural setting.  Most gun violence happens in an urban setting.  Most of the calls for "sensible gun control" comes from people that grew up and/or live in an urban environment.  I would invite any one of them to come onto my property and take a walk along my trails after dark. I invite them to listen to the bobcats and the coyotes sounding off, especially if the animals are close.

The thing that makes me cringe is when some anti-gun nut says "you don't need that".  Come and take a walk in my shoes and see what you think that you "need".  Come and see what it looks like when wild animals tear up and eat your pets.  Out in the woods, the police aren't going to get there very soon.  The "need" for guns and protection is real.  Not so much in an urban environment.  All of the US doesn't live in an urban environment.

The wild animals in urban environments are much more dangerous that those in the sticks.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You're skeptical of actual facts and a multitude of historical representation? 

So, shouldn't the same standard of data collection and interpretation (skeptical eye as you call it) hold true if attempting to add another gun law or ban altogether? Sounds like you are all for throwing [BLEEP] against the wall and just seeing what happens, not understanding once you give an inch of freedom in hopes of additional safety through government control, you will not get it back.

That's not true.
Our ancestors gave up their right to drink alcohol, hopefully to get more safety, more productivity, and better health.
They didn't like how that deal was working out, so they undid it.
We could do the same... unless you think amending the constitution is too hard...

Oh my deity, you've finally made a micro amount of sense! If this gun thing is really that bad then amend the damn Constitution. Enough with this inch by inch crap, just open it up to the States to change it, we have a built in process to do so. Then you'll see just how much the American People are going to tell you to [BLEEP] off with this nonsense.

---

That is a narrow point of view and naive. Kind of funny (ironic) how that is the same thought process with each and every "gun control" measure for each an every emotional reaction to highly publicized shooting. Not every mass shooting, just the ones that meet an agenda.

Not that type of gun, this one. Not that magazine type, this one. Not that bullet type, this one. Rinse and repeat until there is precedence to ban everything. And Yes, staying true to the 2nd Amendment you have the right to access for that type of weaponery.

So because people are emotional after innocent lives are taken, we can’t use that to try and better this country?

You think the gun laws are perfect the way they are now? 

I’m not saying I know the answer here but I don’t think anyone knows. it seems to me that what we have now isn’t working. The wrong people are getting a hold of some serious ammunition. 

I would also take my chances against a man with a knife than a man with a gun.

Gun laws exist, therefore they aren't perfect. Once they are gone then they will be.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato