"Let me make a short, opening, blanket comment. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody - except bad people". Charleton Heston on NBC's Meet the Press, May 18, 1997

I am with you . It is also honest to put a human face on firearm ownership. Really pleased with this reporting.

Sorry....why do gun owners feel that need their guns for protection? Protection from who? Are you so afraid of your neighbors and other people in your community? Is American that unsafe? Do you want to be like Afganistan where tribal groups rule the communities with guns? No, too much gun violence and gun deaths in this country. I question the need for guns and I am seriously wondering where the NRA gets all it's money. I am concerned that the NRA is supported by the drug world and that is frightening.

They are filled with fear and propaganda is the reason they need all these guns. I have no issue with gun ownership but an issue with the ease at which ownership is given. We don't track person to person sales on guns but do so with cars. Why? Cars can be dangerous to others depriving them of their life and liberty the same regulations should apply to weapons IMO.

The NRA is a shill group for the corporate gun manufacturers nothing more. They are concerned with profits over life clearly.

They need protection from people like the nut in the theater, that's why!

If guns are so evil why do police carry them?!

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen? What are you afraid of, do you think a fire will somehow spontaneously erupt?

See the stupidity of your argument? You don't buy or carry it to use it, you would like to think you will never use it. But it is there if you do need it. Is that simple enough for you?

Visit south Korea . Machine gun towers, barbwire, public bomb shelters. To defend everyone a Constitutional need that is what it would look like except modern and manned in your neighborhood. To the same effect of individual defense which is largely reasonable.

Linda: I am concerned that the NRA is supported by the drug world and that is frightening.

That's okay, I am concerned that the anti-gun lobby is supported by criminals, and that's even MORE frightening!

Answer me this... which of these things is not like the other?
Don't want an abortion? Don't have one!
Don't want gay marriage? Don't have one!
Don't want a gun? BAN ALL GUNS!!!

food for thought.

Most rapist I have read about use knives. I think most of my neighbors own knives.

All Drunk drivers who kill, kill with automobiles. All of my neighbors own cars.

WTF.

@Linda,

Who do we need protection from?? All the crazy CRIMINALS who don't mind hurting or killing you for what you have or they think you have. If a gun owner had been allowed to be in the Theater with the crazy idiot shooting people it MAY have been stopped quicker. If LAW ABIDING citizens regularly have guns CRIMINALS don't mess with people as much because THEY are afraid of for a change. There is a community here in Georgia(USA) that REQUIRES every household to have a gun except by religious exemption. The crime rate in that community is one of the LOWEST in the area!! Imagine high gun numbers low crime rate.....

Sadly people always blame guns for the crazy idiots, but don't do the same for cars, motorcycles, planes or any other MACHINE.

really esteban? that is one the stupidest things I have read all day. Linda, they get the money from membership dues and donations.

gun ownership is a hobby and not to mention, a constitutionally protected right. gun laws do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and people that want to inflict harm on others. A pencil, pen or any PC with word processing software can be just as dangerous, but you don't see people getting there feathers ruffled about banning writing utensils when someone commits suicide because someone writes something about them that is not true or is hateful and spiteful.

I find it pretty disturbing that people and the media would use this to advocate or dismiss gun control.... granted there are plenty factual arguments for and against.... but this is not one of them... you can not legislate evil away... people like this that plan ahead will gain their means to a end any way they can....

I think almost everyone agrees...it's not law-abiding gun owners and your feelings about gun control that is an issue. The question remains...what do we do about wackos, nut jobs, drug dealers and other criminals who have access to assault weapons and other weapons of mass destruction? How do we prevent them from gaining access to weapons like those used to kill the innocent at Columbine High, Virginia Tech and Aurora? There has to be a way!

Yes, I am sure many of my neighbors are gun owners, and that is the scary part. Everyone who pops out to buy a gun for "protection" morphs into Chuck Norris overnight, a "defender of my home and family". Three incidents with guns here in Fairbanks within the last few days. One incident involved two 12 year olds - one of them was shot in the chest, the other was responsible for the shooting. Nice. Lets make sure we have no regulations on guns because 99% of the people who own guns are responsible gun owners. Yeah, right.

mscupersport, ..."There is a community here in Georgia(USA) that REQUIRES every household to have a gun except by religious exemption."

And the Right is upset that the government mandates that we buy health insurance? Come on. Mandating that we buy a gun?????!!!!!!! F'n crazy.

This article a step towards reasonable discussion about firearms. The problem is both sides have been mischaracterized by ecological fallacies created by studies directed by a agenda.

"Get them while you can, buy them while you can, that's the thinking behind it."

And that's the rub - NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. These people have bought into the constant barrage of fear-mongering bs that the NRA/Fox News/RW extremists have pushed 24/7.

@SpyderGirl

Yeah, he was killed by a professional shooter team of the police, but was he cornered or slowed down by the off-duty cop?? How many people were saved by the fact the crazy idiot couldn't walk freely shooting at unarmed people?? What would have happened if more than 1 person had of had a gun to oppose him?? Maybe he would have been shot quicker or more lives saved. Crossfire?? yeah, maybe but then again, if the idiot is having to duck he isn't actively aiming at the people fleeing and thus they have a better chance of living.

My reasons for owning firearms for defense are:

1) As demonstrated by Hurricane Katrina, given the opportunity, people will go absolutely nuts and turn into animals. The second emergency services are too tied up to respond, looting and anarchy prevail.

2) ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE 

RepublicansForObama-6186389

i volunteer in my community, i donate to my local food pantry, i volunteer at my kids schools when they need a hand, etc. I own guns, does that make me a thug? I have never been arrested and I have never even been ticketed. does that make me a thug?

@una dagger

nice, all anti-gunners are ignorant panty wearing liberal stooges,.....see I can do it too. Get over yourself, most gun owners are NOT mouth-breathing hillbillies, they are just people. I own guns, and I hope to heck I NEVER have to shoot someone, and can only ever shoot either ainimals(which I eat) and targets, BUT I will have a gun(in a safe) for home defense and for times when I want to carry to defend myself. Sorry you don't like them, you don't have to have one, but for you sake, I hope the day never comes that you are facing an armed IDIOT CRIMINAL and a gun could save your life. Sure accidents happen, but most are because someone forgets the basics of gun safety or do something stupid. IF you really want to save lives, then work on banning the automobile.

Mark:

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one!
Don't want gay marriage? Don't have one!
Don't want a gun? BAN ALL GUNS!!!

Which of these is not like the others? Really?

Abortion has been severely curtailed througout America.

Gay marriage has been severely curtailed.

Gun ownership still thrives. Guns and ammunition can be preadily purchased with little regulation.

Well, I guess gun owners don't go to midnight showings of The Dark Knight Rises. If there had been just one of these gun owners who are intent on protecting their families present at the movie theatre, they could have whipped out their sidearm and shot the mofo down.

Linda: Are we afraid of our neighbors and community? Ummmm, YES!! Do you not READ the paper every day? Do you not SEE what happens around you? Because you don't think violence exists doesn't mean it doesn't.

Look at that family in Connecticut where the husband was beaten left to die in the basement, wife and one of the daughters raped, then the three women tied to their beds and burned alive with gasoline? You mean THAT violence that doesn't occur? How about in central florida (where I live) a woman jogging and was attacked, raped, and killed. Do you mean THAT violence that doesn't occur? How about Christopher Newsom (23) and Channon Christian from the University of Tennessee that went out on a date and carjacked. Newsom was raped prison style then his penis cut off and Channon forced to watch. Newsom taken to nearby train tracks where he was executed and set on fire. We only wish Channon got off that easy. I won't go into the details if you are not familiar with the story but she was ultimately killed, set on fire, and body put into 5 different trash bags. You mean THAT violence that doesn't occur?

If you don't want to protect yourself from evil that is your choice. But if ANY of the above situation occurs to me I will not end up on the wrong side of the outcome. You are naive if you believe there is not evil in this country and this world. You are naive if you think the police can protect you - they can't. In fact the police SUPPORT gun ownership and conceal carry. I had to get fingerprinted for my carry conceal license at a local police station and they congratulated me for getting my carry conceal (that's right - CONGRATULATED me!!) and said they are glad to see honest citizens able to protect themselves.

If you don't want to own a gun that is your call - and I hope I don't ever hear a story where they find your remains in 5 different garbage bags. But that is your decision. However, you won't read that story about me. There IS evil in this world but I will protect myself and my family from that evil.

Look people. We have the right to possess guns without the 2nd Amendment. Read the 9th Amendment. Just because a right is not listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean you don't have it.

Go ahead, take the 2nd Amendment away...I still have the right to own guns. And the federal government can't do a damn thing about it because of the 10th amendment.

mojo:

Most rapist I have read about use knives. I think most of my neighbors own knives.

All Drunk drivers who kill, kill with automobiles. All of my neighbors own cars

What is the primary purpose of a knife? To cut things.

What is the primary purpose of a car? Transportation.

What is the primary purpose of a gun? To kill other living beings.

Tim-1496116:

Please reread the 2nd amendment and comment on the part that reads "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"

Which MILITIA was Mr. HOLMES a member of??????

SRS what did I just say? Reread the post. I said we don't need the 2nd amendment to bear arms. Meaning.....since you're referring to the 2nd amendment, your post has no relevance to mine.

fielden - Yes, really. I'm talking about liberal hypocricy, not the actual rights. (Funny, now that you mention it: in every state gay marriage is legal in and abortion is "easy" gun rights are seriously curtailed. HMM.

Please reread the 2nd amendment and comment on the part that reads "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"

If you own a gun...at least understand what a well regulated militia means.

Allow me to educate those of you who have no idea what this refers to.

When the Amendment was written, 'well regulated' meant well-timed or well drilled.

You see, back then the militia consisted of ordinary people. People who had firearms, but were not well trained in loading, priming and the manual of arms.

The word "regulate" related to timing.

That's why clocks of the period had the words "REGULATOR" on them:

http://mikecollinsauctions.com/images/sales/sale13/a21.jpg

http://www.jeannesantiques.com/Products/Sessions%20Regulator%20clock1.JPG

**

Now, as to the militia.

Here is the OFFICIAL definition of a 'militia' according to 10USC311:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

Consider yourselves enlightened!

basedrum777 - How tight can restrictions get? I can't carry in NYC, Massachusettes and many other states legally. No one EXCEPT criminals were armed in DC & Chicago for years. You have to be pretty rich to get your Class 3 license, and (let's not forget) I had to be "granted" the privledge of holding a license by my town's Chief of Police. Could you imagine if such restrictions existed on driver's licenses?

Una Dagger - if we assume all of that, we must also assume that rape is constitutionally protected.

Fielden - Neither abortion nor gay marriage are constitutionally protected.

SRS: I won't go into great detail but your response (about "militia") does nothing but confirm you have no grasp of the Constitution, reality, or competence.

Here is the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

A couple quick points:

1) The wording does NOT state the right to keep and bear arms IS a Militia, it is simply stating that a Militia is important so BECAUSE of that people have the right to bear arms. A Militia at that time was calling people together when needed to form a level of protection. So each person was allowed to have a gun so WHEN a militia was called upon the people were already prepared.

2) But it goes even further and have to understand history (sorry, I guess you don't). The country was founded on the concept of "individualism". EVERYTHING is written in the Constitution in regards to the limits of government, what they CAN'T do, and how individuals have freedoms. All the Amendments in the Bill of Rights speak of the rights of the INDIVIDUAL not the government. The rights of the government are limited to what the Constitution states. ALL remaining rights go to the individual. 1st Amendment: right of the individual to free speech and religion. 3rd Amendment: right of the individual to not have their house quartered by government. 4th Amendment: right of the individual to not be illegally search and seizure. 5th Amendment: right of the individual to not have to speak against themselves. 6th Amendment: right of the individual to a speedy trial. And so on. READ the Bill of Rights. Do you REALLY think the Founding Fathers would throw in a 2nd Amendment that gives the right of GOVERNMENT to limit the individual? Are you REALLY that naive?

Our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of a government that grew too big so the Constitution LIMITS the federal government - NOT the individual. There are scores and scores of quotes from George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson to name a few who CLEARLY state that the government can NEVER take away the right of the individual to own a gun. In fact Thomas Jefferson actually stated "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.". So do you think for a MOMENT the 2nd Amendment and its reference to militia was a GOVERNMENTAL army? You REALLY can't be that naive - can you?

Gun owners: 'We are your neighbors, co-workers, friends'

Until we decide to get drunk, stoned, or mentally unbalanced and take out a few of the other neighbors. We will decide who lives and who doesn't. It is the right of ALL Americans to have the ability to go postal anytime we want.

Why stop at the 'wild west' days, we can go back to 'neanderthal' times and kill ANYONE anywhere anytime. It is Guaranteed by the second amendment.

Tim you're mistaken as to believe that the right to own the machine that kills things is an human right.

And Probusiness I believe you are underestimating the intelligence of our forefathers. If the militia and its inclusion in it had nothing to do with the right to bear arms they wouldn't have mentioned it.

Gun owners do in fact go to midnight showings where they are not allowed to carry firearms of any kind. The bad guys know this very well. When was the last time a thug went into a Swat firearms training seminar and started shooting up the place?.

And the big question that was the media hot button yesterday? Why have the politicians not come forward to demand more gun control?? The answer is that they are waiting for the media to whip the fine citizens into a frenzy first, both pro gun and anti taking their respective polar stands and start fighting the battle for them.

Bottom line is that for the media, this argument and these mass shootings that cause them are nothing more than money making news. Not that they do not care but the story readership is more important

When the story dies down a new little spark is ignited to get a little more mileage from each story and we are all pawns in the game. So as we rant and rave and call each other fools and thugs, the networks are in their glory.

Vince...yikes. I hope you didn't just have a heart attack. In the event you didn't: 9th Amendment is intentionally vague in order to empower the population. The US Constitution is a document designed to limit the federal government. It was written by people afraid of tyrannical rule so they wanted to avoid the ability of the government to gradually gain more power. The 9th and 10th amendments are purposely vague and broad to, in essence, make it unfair for the federal government. Or put another way, to stack the cards in favor of the states. Like it or not, that's the truth and, since it was ratified, that's the law of the country you live in. Get over it.

PS. I think you have the right to possess all those drugs too. Now you're thinking along the right lines! You can't have it both ways. Either you have the right to possess things or you don't.

Basedrum. No I'm not. Read the constitution. Next. Well, I just saw you're talking about human rights. If you're talking about outside the constitution then we're just on different sides of the aisle on that one. But at what point does that stop? Should knives have been outlawed? Sticks? Rocks? When something surpasses the gun as the main weapon of armies, will guns then be counted among rocks, sticks, clubs and swords which were all things thought to be the pinnacle of destruction in their time?

Basedrum: It is called history. It is called reading - left to right and top to bottom. If you are ABLE to read then read the Bill of Rights and read my notes above (no reason to repeat - if you can't read the post above what makes anyone think you can read it here).

The 2nd Amendment NEVER states the right to keep and bear arms IS the militia. It states we the people will be asked from time to time to protect ourselves and our community. So every individual has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves AND the community. Not JUST the community. Again, try reading it again and try COMPREHENDING it this time. I know you were government educated so that is always a restriction but reading and comprehending shouldn't be too difficult. So try it again and see if you can read it and comprehend it THIS time.

I'm not gunna argue with any of you..... you can have all my guns..... come and get em.

esteban-1136282:

Would be so great if every, and I mean every gun owner, gathered their little peaceful butts together and moved to land far, far away, never to return, to practice their cute hobby of inadequacy, and left the rest of humanity alone.

We did, Esteban, who the heck let YOU in? Want to live in a gun-free socialist Utopia? Move to one and leave US alone.

I don't want to ban guns - hand guns, shotguns....but assault weapons? Armor piercing ammunition? Yeah, ban them.

Oh PUH-LEAZE!

Read the Federalist papers. Look at the history. The right to bear arms IS RELATED TO BEING IN THE STATE MILITIA. READ IT AGAIN:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

BECAUSE WE NEED A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, we need people with guns. Not so people can protect themselves, not so you can hunt, not so you can shoot up a theater. FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

Jeepers. GUN NUTS CAN'T EVEN READ!

...AND DON'T LISTEN TO THE NRA or FAUX NEWS. Read it YOURSELF. Check the history YOURSELF.

A FREE STATE! Perhaps I need to take MY GUNS down to FAUX NEWS. They are OBVIOUSLY a THREAT to the AMERICA I KNOW AND LOVE!

To those that want to ban guns... so why is it that not a single one of you haven't talked about banning smoke grenades?

Anyone read United States v Miller? Interesting case regarding the National Firearms Act. The Supreme Court interprets "militia" to mean: "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." It also says they're expected to show up with weapons that are in common usage at that time. Wow. So, today that ruling would mean M4s at least. If anything, this ruling tends to say that your weapons only fall under the 2nd amendment if they're capable of defeating a military. Wow.

Isn't that special that my neighbors, friends and co-workers are gun owners!!

Gee, there are only about 700 accidental gun deaths per year!

To give that some perspective that's nearly the number of victims of mass murderers for the last 100 freaking years!!!

bottom line for all you people who dont like guns they are not going away deal with it. look at the crime rates in wyoming idaho utah montana the dakotas nebraska and yes colorado. you go to these states and find some one who doesnt own a gun.they own many guns. its the big city gangbangin criminals that are responsible for killing the majority of people. i own guns i carry guns and god forbid if i need to i will use one. uncle sam paid me to pull a trigger. by god to protect my family or someone who cant protect themselves iwill pull it again. even if its for someone who doesnt like guns.

I understand why some people are against gun ownership. I had never even handled a gun until early 1984 when I went to Marine Corps Recruit Training. I was afraid of guns. Nearly 30 years later, I'm still afraid of guns. I'm afraid of guns and the lack of education where they are concerned. I'm not a member of the NRA, although I am certified by the NRA as a pistol instructor. Firearms safety is always the first topic. I taught my children about firearms safety and how to shoot. I would rather they learned from me than on their own. I wanted them to be familiar with guns, how they operate and, what they could do. Because they chances are likely that they will encounter firearms at some point in their lives and I would rather they knew what they were dealing with rather than trying to figure it out at the time of the encounter.

I'm afraid that guns will always be here. We can make them as illegal as we would like to make them. We can stop manufacturing them. We can stop manufacturing ammunition. Guns will still be all over our culture, not unlike illegal drugs. Unless of course we can convince the rest of the world to stop making guns also. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not going to try to interpret nor argue the constitutionality of private gun ownership. This is a pointless endeavor and in reading above gets a person called "toothless in-bred hillbilly mouth breather" or "pantie-waist latte drinking sissy" depending on ones stance.

You don't have to own a gun. You don't have to like guns. But please educate yourselves about gun safety and gun laws. The media is not a good source for this education either. Again, be angry about the violence, whether it's with a gun or otherwise. It is entirely possible that a law can be passed that requires me to give up my gun but that doesn't mean your children won't have access to guns. They'll just have access to guns without someone to educate them properly.

Semantics:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect11.htm

What were they thinking in 1791 ?

The intent of the word "militia"....

Summary...we don't NEED the NRA... seriously...we don't.

Supporting a lobbying group is promoting a "bought" vote...

something that our FOUNDING FATHERS would abhor.

Read the Federalist papers. Look at the history. The right to bear arms IS RELATED TO BEING IN THE STATE MILITIA. READ IT AGAIN:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

BECAUSE WE NEED A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, we need people with guns. Not so people can protect themselves, not so you can hunt, not so you can shoot up a theater. FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

Jeepers. GUN NUTS CAN'T EVEN READ!

Get educated.

See: #155

I live rural. Most of my neighbors are liberal democrats and they all own guns and they would fight you tooth and nail if you tried to take them away.

I married somebody that grew up around guns and used them a lot as a hunter. I didn't like the idea of guns and alcohol which is often the combination with hunting, and so guns ceased being a part of our lives. We still own two guns,and actually I would be a collector of antique guns because I find them fascinating. However, to just own 20 guns for all sorts of specialized reasons bothers me. We have wild animals come up to the house all the time. I might need a gun one day, but should I keep so many guns for that eventual day that may or may not come.

The wedding picture of the couple in the car is disturbing and I support the right to bear arms. It just seems that some people are too attached to these weapons.

That being said, I signed up back in 2008 to receive daily e-mails from the Obama team. I got them every day and then one day I started receiving e-mail updates from the Brady group that I never solicited. I found out that Obama sold my e-mail address to this group and to push his anti-gun agenda.

If guns are taken from our citizens we become like many countries in the ME which is defenseless against our government. I fear that more than the bear in the forest. I should have the right to arm myself if I want, and to be able to purchase a gun by passing reasonable checks.

The bad guns will get their hands on guns all day long. The average citizen is the one finding the path to buying a gun difficult. There is something wrong with this picture.

Anti-gun nutz are just that nutz. Nothing more, nothing less. Some have posted is America that scary, I guess you must all be living in gated communities and never travel more than 50 miles in ether directions. Must be nice to be so niave. When you allow me to tell you how you can live, then I'll allow you to tell me I can't own guns. Otherwise its all stinky air from the other hole.

This link will take you to a pretty decent article on the subject of mental health in America, related to the Aurora tragedy. I doubt politicians will take it seriously, but it makes a lot of sense and is worth reading.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/25/colorado-shooting-reminder-that-psychiatry-not-gun-laws-needs-fixing/?intcmp=related

Linda-1902513

Sorry....why do gun owners feel that need their guns for protection? Protection from who? Are you so afraid of your neighbors and other people in your community? Is American that unsafe? Do you want to be like Afganistan where tribal groups rule the communities with guns? No, too much gun violence and gun deaths in this country. I question the need for guns and I am seriously wondering where the NRA gets all it's money. I am concerned that the NRA is supported by the drug world and that is frightening.

Gun owners feel they need guns for protection because they don't live in Utopia, like you, where there is no criminals, no rapes, no assaults, and no one ever breaks into people's houses. Personally I don't live in Utopia either, my own parents were victims of a burglary (in their house), so were my sister and brother in law (also their house), and so was I, eventho at a lesser degree, when someone broke into my car and stole the radio. Note that both my parents and sister and brother in law lived areas where the crime rate was low.

And yeah the NRA is supported by the drug world ... as if they (the "drug world") gave a s*** about anti-gun or pro-gun laws.

Criminals, for whom anti-guns laws won't make any difference, certainly love posts like yours.

Pedestrian-in-SF

And that's the rub - NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. These people have bought into the constant barrage of fear-mongering bs that the NRA/Fox News/RW extremists have pushed 24/7.

Some people seem to want exactly that, you just have to read the anti-gun messages here. Linda for instance, who thinks you don't need guns and shouldn't worry about protecting yourself. Of course we all know there is no criminals here.

RonInColorado

Isn't that special that my neighbors, friends and co-workers are gun owners!!

Gee, there are only about 700 accidental gun deaths per year!

To give that some perspective that's nearly the number of victims of mass murderers for the last 100 freaking years!!!

Here are a few statistics for you:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others
from crime at least 989,883 times per year

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977
households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households
had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of
property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this
amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military
service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to
frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times
per year.

Full document here: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

With anti-gun laws only criminals will have guns.

In 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was passed:

Major roads were almost nonexistent, and the quality of the roads that did exist varied from colony to colony. The main means of transport over land distances were horses, river boats, or your own feet.

Hunting produced the American diet during the colonial period.

There was poor nutrition and an almost total ignorance as to the causes of disease or the most effective treatments.

Men who could never own their own land in England could easily acquire large large plots of land here. This applied only to some people. Those who were brought to America either as slaves or indentured servants rarely obtained these kinds of benefits, and property rights remained mostly in male hands.

221 years ago...the Founding Fathers never conceived of a defense of guns that permitted no regulation or monitoring of web sites that sold arsenals.

They gave us RIGHTS...with responsibilities.

Time for us to be RESPONSIBLE with the 2nd Amendment.

Those who treasure these rights have an obligation to see that they are not abused by internet sales or fear mongering by the NRA.

ri mom do you know how many gun owners belong to the nra? i dont know. but i will bet its a small percentage i know alot of gun owners incuding members of law enforcement but i dont know anyone who is an nra member

this pretty much sums it up.

the anti gun people on here are basically saying there is no reason or need to defend ourselves from anything in the world.....

that is the most naive thing I have ever heard.....

we aren't animals isolated in little friendly cages in the zoo... at least not yet... so as long as monsters roam our society looking to do us harm, we should have the right to defend ourselves.....

Pro Business - I don't know about that statement about no good guns, I have an 1850 Ashmore 30 cal. muzzle loader that went from Virginia to Colorado in a covered wagon with my Great Great Grandfather, and it is a pretty darn GOOD gun. Peace

1.71: Show me one person who 

 

 

 

 are basically saying there is no reason or need to defend ourselves from anything in the world.....

What are you afraid of?

Apparently msn does not like me using hyperlinks.

Anyway, back in Jan. An 18 year old mom with a 3 month old baby shot and killed a man
wielding a knife who had broken through the barricaded front door of her home a
few days after her husband had passed away. He broke in knowing she was vulnerable
with a clear intent to harm her and possibly the infant. She shot him with a 12
gauge. If she hadn’t had any firearms in the house, she would probably be dead.
And all of those people saying guns don’t belong in my neighborhood would have stated
it was a horrible tragedy and they can’t believe it happened here. NEWSFLASH! It
can happen anywhere. A shotgun for home defence if a force
equalizer. It allows weaker individuals to successfully defend themselves and
other. Period.

RI mom. Did you just use the semantics argument to dismiss a legal debate? lol That's all legal debate is, semantics.

Midnight Toker 4+20

...The NRA is a shill group for the corporate gun manufacturers nothing more. They are concerned with profits over life clearly.

Thank GOD someone else has said this finally. I'm an owner, and a CPL holder, and I've been saying it for years and years: it's about the manufacturing - not the ownership.

What I don't understand, is that if all owners want to be seen as reasonable people - why do some insist on wearing sidearms to political rallies? I mean, given the political climate today, I would think that if owners want to show themselves as decent, doing something like that would be viewed as just plain stupid.

Motz in KC

I think almost everyone agrees...it's not law-abiding gun owners and your feelings about gun control that is an issue.

I wish everyone agreed with you, indeed law-abiding gun owners shouldn't be an issue.

The question remains...what do we do about wackos, nut jobs, drug dealers and other criminals who have access to assault weapons and other weapons of mass destruction? How do we prevent them from gaining access to weapons like those used to kill the innocent at Columbine High, Virginia Tech and Aurora? There has to be a way!

Unfortunately the police (and FBI, CIA, etc) cannot prevent everything and find every single criminal before they commit the crimes. Even people who knew these mass murderers personally probably didn't think they would do what they did. I think the best we can do is keep our eyes open, be prepared as much as possible (just like most of us own fire extinguishers in case of fire, but hope we won't need to use it), and take action if/when possible and necessary.

Speaking of which, Switzerland have pretty interesting gun politics, where most men (personally I think this should include women) are conscripted in the militia and undergo military training (they don't have an army tho, which I am glad we have). They have one of the highest gun ownership in the world but also one of the lowest crime rate.

With anti-gun laws only criminals will have guns.

Well, there are somewhere around 30,000 non-accidental gun deaths every year - just a little shy of the number of motor vehicle deaths - except we usually call them accidents.

...or, 3 or 4 a day. Every day.

seattle not all people do. i like to carry 38spl ultralite tucked in the waist band. no one can tell so you dont have to offend people that that are uncomfortable around guns. its not about a statement. its about safety.

All you Liberals try and get gun regulation in , I dare you, You'll be gone by Christmas !!!

When was the 2nd amendment ratified? Like 200 years ago. When we had no standing army. When people hunted to feed themselves, Protect themselves from Bears, Wolfs, Mt. lions. Indians. Back then we had no Police to call. You had to defend yourself, Maybe help your friends out also. They banded together to protect your town. What kinds of guns did we have then. Single shot guns. Those same people carried a Hatchet, Knifes. That was self defense. Most common sense thinking people do not think we should take anyone's guns from any honest person. But any common sense thinking gun owner has to know that any gun that can shot 100 rounds with out reloading is just wrong for a person to own. I have no problem with a 9mm with 10 shots. But not with 30 round clips. These Mac 10's are for nothing but drugs dealers. Who else buys them. All we have done is to help drive down the guns the criminals. We have a standing army, and National guard. We the people do not need to be armed with military firearms, unless we are up to no good.

AVeteran: I stand corrected:) that DOES sound like a good gun!! BTW, we thank you for your service. God bless America.....

We are the 99.9% of Law abiding Gun owners, who never bring harm to anyone. This same group makes up the NRA. Regardless of what the Anti-Gunners lie about. We don't brag, we don't threaten, we just try to live Our lives like everyone else. We live each Day, Work and play. We grow old and die. Guess what? You'd never known if we owned Firearms or not.

Well said. If only more people thought like you regarding gun owners (or gays or blacks or liberals or Muslims, or any other class of people, we wouldn't have mistrust of gun owners or anyone else).

maybe all you anti-gun pansies should move to another country I heard of. It's called La-La Land.

Bonos: Well said. I carry a .357 with me virtually everywhere I go: Wal-mart, grocery store, mall, and even movie theater. Nobody ever knows I have it and nobody will. We live our lives and enjoy the same things everybody else does but with one major difference: Should my family or I ever be put in danger I have the ability to protect myself.

If you take away my gun who has benefited? Did I benefit? No. Did my family benefit? No. Did society benefit? No, because the crime will still take place - I just can't do anything about it. I can be assaulted and brutally beat up. I might have to watch my wife and daughter violated before all three of us are murdered. Sorry, you can "settle" for that. You can say "that never happens" but the only question is what are you smoking? You read these things happening EVERY day. Not on my watch. Not with my family.

If you don't feel the need to be able to protect your family then I hope and pray you or your family are never attacked. I also hope my family or I are never attacked too and, if that is the case, nobody will EVER know I am carrying a concealed weapon. But if my family or I ARE attacked there will be one major difference: In MY case the assailant(s) will get two shots center mass to the chest. In MY case my family and I are stunned by the event but alive and safe. In your case you and your family.........well, I just hope in your Utopia fairy land you never have to find out.

Linda-1902513

Sorry....why do gun owners feel that need their guns for protection? Protection from who? Are you so afraid of your neighbors and other people in your community?

Well, I had guns for for hunting and for self defense. However, my job wouldn't allow guns on the premises, permit or not, so I had to leave the self defense pistol at home while gone to work. Then, I came home one day to find out that a neighbor broke into my house and stole my guns. How do I know it was a neighbor you ask? Because I saw him come out of the house across the street one day with a large duffel bag that was obviously full. The occupants were in the process of moving out at the time and already staying elsewhere. Then, 4 days later, I came home from work to find that my house was burglarized. I went and checked the house across the street and found that the back door had been kicked in. The police wouldn't arrest him because no-one called it in and I couldn't confirm that anything was taken, never mind the breaking and entering. The punk left my laptop and tablet computers, Plasma and LCD TVs, gold chains, money and other valuables that he walked past and only took guns. So, to answer your question, yes I am afraid (more like intently aware of) my now armed neighbor, who already didn't have a problem with breaking into my house! Now, I have a borrowed pistol ready for him if/when he comes back to get the other "goodies". Since I know that he is armed, if I catch him in my house, I will shoot first and ask questions later! I just hope I can find out where my guns are before he takes his last breath!!!

1.74 @wolf: Pretty much summed it up in my opinion. Great post.

OK, we heard your opinions, let us hear what the Lord(Jesus Christ) has to say on the subject:

"The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked; who can know it(Jer. 17:9)?"

The Apostle Paul(Saint Paul) said in the word of God: "For I know that in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing..."

It ain't the gun, the booze, the truck, or the machinery, it's the people behind these products that kill and murder people, why can't you people understand this?

The human race is "wicked as Hell!" Until you are born again by the word of God, there will be no CHANGE! I know you do not want to hear it, but there it is! "Repent" and get right with God.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself." This sounds good to me, right out of the Holy Bible. And this ain't Religion, this is the "TRUTH!"

For the "Anti-gun" people. you're stereotyping everyone that owns a gun as if we're going to run out and shoot somebody for no reason except the fact that we're gun owners.

• If you don't like guns, don't buy one. Simple huh? It's not going to do anything at all but waste your breath stereotyping.

I read a story where a 14 yr old (I think. Maybe 12) was at home with his little brother or sister and there were two gun toting dudes who kicked in the front door.

It took them a minute but the kid heard it and ran for his father's pistol in the gun cabinet (as instructed by his dad if something like this should happen) and when they finally broke in, the one dude was starting to run up the stairs towards the kid and the kid shot and killed him.

The other perp high tailed it out of there and the kid is alive (along with his sibling) because he "PROTECTED" his family (YES) with a gun.

Personally, Iknow of a few people in my town that were totally "against" guns and the NRA and all that. Then there was a few tragedies nearby from perps and now, they are all gun owners (For Protection).

For those of you guys choosing to continue being "ANTI-GUN" people, then good luck bringing your fists/knives to a gunfight if you're unfortunate enough to get caught up in a situation like that.

Have a nice day...

CD

fielden

mojo:

Most rapist I have read about use knives. I think most of my neighbors own knives.

All Drunk drivers who kill, kill with automobiles. All of my neighbors own cars

What is the primary purpose of a knife? To cut things.

What is the primary purpose of a car? Transportation.

What is the primary purpose of a gun? To kill other living beings.

Intent and purpose is merely smoke and mirrors used by the control crowd. Any object can be used to cause harm to people, some more effective than others, some have 'easy access' and do far more damage than a 'purpose built' firearm can ever do. Blaming any object for it's use in a crime is ridiculous. The object obeys the direction of its master, whether made to kill or not, it is the intent and intellect of the person animating the object that is criminal and only a criminal can animate the object to do evil things. Sadly but fortunately no zealous control freak can ever legislate civil behavior. How we treat others is the sole responsibility of people, and people who 'go crazy' will be held accountable for their un-civil behavior if they do.

Owning firearms does not make a person a neanderthal, un-civil, or a madman. We don't need more 'control' of the objects, we need more personal control on the individual level.

"Answer me this... which of these things is not like the other?
Don't want an abortion? Don't have one!
Don't want gay marriage? Don't have one!
Don't want a gun? BAN ALL GUNS!!!"

Actually, they're all the same. They fall under the heading of things that those who know what's best for you don't want you to have.

I encourage all of you gun touting idiots to read:

THE MILITIA AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, OR, HOW THE
SECOND AMENDMENT FELL SILENT, by H.
Richard Uviller and William G. Merkel. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002.
338 pp. Cloth $19.95. ISBN: 0-8223-3017-2.

You will quickly understand that your arguments on and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is completely off base.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Read this carefull and do not take anything out of context. That last part is the most important. This does not say that you have the right to bear arms. It states that Congress cannot take them away from you. All of the first ten Amendments do not give you any rights. They state that The government cannot pass laws removing the ability.

Britt - That's not the whole story, though. The Bill of Rights is not absolute.
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the BoR and Congress' laws to ensure constitutionality.

That's why it is legal (wrong, stupid, and short sighted, but legal) for cities and states to "severly limit/basically ban" guns. Or abortions. Or drinks over 16 oz. Or the ability to get a mixed drink poured at a bar from anything but a mini-bottle (I'm looking at you, South Carolina!) Because those are local laws and must be considered seperately.
It's also why you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and say it's covered by the First Amendment, or why it's not illegal for protestors to be not allowed within 12 blocks of a Presidential Convention.

Every Amendment has a laundry list of "reasonable restirctions" on it. Heck, even Prohibition made exceptions for alcohol for religious services and medical purposes.

The problem with guns is that the laws across the country (unlike those for operating a motor vehicle) have little in common with each other. New Hampshire and Massachusettes are basically at oppposite ends of the scale.

SanAndresMan: You know what's funny? I've read that book.

It came out in 1988, and had to do with the author's experiences walking the beat with NYC police officers. In 1968. The world has changed JUST A LITTLE since then.
For example, imagine if we applied 1968 norms to Travon Martin. I can assure you that NYC is nothing like it was in 1993 (when Dinkins left office), let alone 1968!

...so, I encourage you (as a non-gun touting idiot) to... not insult people or assume they're ignorant. The debate is far from over, it never will be unless we address these six gun control problems. Since they cut across party lines, I don't ever see the political will for these things ever happening.

The sanest solution to me (which NEITHER side of the debate would ever go for) would be this. I'll note all pieces the "pro-gun" folks would like with a "+", and all that the "anti-gun" folks would like with a "-" sign.

1 +) National reciprocity law. It already exists for police officers... so why doesn't any given state's permit work across the country like a driver's license? If I can conceal-carry in Bridgeport, I should be able to in San Francisco, too.

2 +) Regulate all state firearms licensees as driver's licenses are. In every state in the union, you need an endorsement for motorcycles, Class 2, tractor trailers, etc. No state tells you that once you have such an endorsement that "Oh, I see you're licensed for driving bikes, but that 2011 Harley Fatboy is too big. You can't have one". Likewise, if I want to have a 50 round mag on my .45, it should be legal.

3 +/-) "Firearms Ed" - training for gaining a license ala driver's licenses, with no grandfathering. At the very least, anyone with a valid license has to be aware of how to safely handle firearms. I'm continually amazed at the habits I see by some "old timers" (both while driving and when at a firing range!). If everyone had to retake their driver's and firearms tests every 8 years or so, we'd live in a MUCH safer society.

4 +/-) Remove all restrictions on legal gun purchases. I'm a law abiding citizen. I've met the requirements for my license, I should be able to buy whatever the heck I want. Bear in mind, of course, that any unusual purchases would be logged just like they are for fertilizer or other large cash/credit transactions.

5 -) National registration of guns. Look, we have it already for cars. The usual argument against this is that every time it's been done (Nazi Germany, Australia, UK...) it's lead to the future confiscation of guns. Well, yes. But that's irrelevant for three reasons: a) this is the USA. Unlike those other countries, we're not used to authoritarianism and b) with the Internet age and mass media, no politician would ever dare try it and (most importantly) c) they already know. Seriously, it doesn't take an act of Congress to track that Master Card purchase you made, or to go to pull the gun shop's sales records. If you're worried about your privacy, you're already losing it just by being on the internet and having a cell phone.

6 -) Immediate suspension of a firearms license if convicted of violent crime, proven insane, etc. This is common sense. Losing the license should involve the same points system it does for motor vehicles -- unpaid tickets/taxes, failure to renew your license, carrying while intoxicated, etc.

Not all gun owners are NRA members. I own a gun, my boyfriend owns one, and members of my family all own several (mostly for hunting). We all hate the NRA. They are all about profit, but they hide it behind a false pretense of supporting second amendment rights. Maybe at its inception, the NRA had good intentions, but money will always corrupt good intentions in the long run.

SanAndresMan

I encourage all of you gun touting idiots to read:

I encourage you to read Tyler's admonition that immediately preceds your post.

tyler

How come I'm Not impressed by you "thugs with guns".

RepublicansForObama-6186389, this is a #1 violation despite the disclaimer.

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.

...

Gun owners are mouth-breathing hillbillies.

Una Dagger, smearing everyone like this is bad for discussion. You're suspended for a day for violating #5 of the Code of Honor.

The problem is that your weapons are designed for what exactly? To kill. plain and simple.

No, my guns are designed to send projectiles on their merry way.

I have fired tens of thousands of rounds. Many a clay and paper target have been perforated.

No one has been hurt.

So, are my guns defective?

All guns are designed to kill.

Unless you use a Nerf gun.

The point is, YES they are designed to kill they are used for hunting and protection.

The target range is for fun and in the event of that "bad" day when you might have to kill to protect yourself

or your family you will be prepared.

In today's world, if you do NOT own a firearm YOU are the true nutcase.

great comment Steve. To listen to many hear one would think that all violence and criminal activity would cease as soon as all of your guns are disposed of.

my gun has not killed anything either. I think I will go check to see if it is working right now...

Maraudershileds - you're serious? What about my target pistol?

Knives were designed to kill. Do you have any knives in your house?

"My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car!" - Charlton Heston.

No, not plain and simple. The problem is, you just want to demonize the firearms and have no experience at all with them, I'd wager. I have guns and none of them kill. Plain and simple. Unless you count "killing" water-filled milk jugs, paper targets, "shoot fruit", that would be zucinni, squash and melons that have become too big or unfit to eat. I have a .44 magnum just because I like to shoot something with some "horsepower", same as you. You drive a car with 53 horspower? That's plenty to get you where you're going, correct? Have you ever experienced road rage? Do you ever exceed the posted speed limit...ever run under a light after it turns red? Aren't you, then, a menace to society??? There's any number of reasons to own a gun besides killing things. And yes, I do keep one for self protection out where I live. Do I want to kill someone with it? No, having someone kill me or my family would be the worst thing in my life. Having to kill someone would be second worst thing. Most gunowners know that responsibility comes with possession and aren't just out killing things. I'm guessing most people who own a gun have never killed anything with it. Go to an NRA sanctioned event sometime and see what they are really about...gun safety. There is no careless playing around allowed....or you'll be sent packing.

Steven,

you forgot the one main principle of gun control, use both hands!

NO. CRAZY PEOPLE with GUNS are the problem!!!!

See how easy it is to get an impression of gun owners? Just look at some of their silly arguments, comparing the gun ownership question to cars, knives, fire extinguishers and so forth. Not really indicative of deep thought processes. I am not against gun ownership; some of my best friends own guns. I AM against ordinary people stockpiling assault weapons. I AM against the insulting, fear-baiting propaganda from the NRA. I have been wary of them since I first became aware of their slogans and tactics since the '60's when they first began their mind-boggling campaign against "commies trying to take our guns". Then it gets applied to whoever is on the current hate/fear list, from democrats, the French, Muslims, Big Bird, and finally to that old standby, the oppressive, tyrannical, tax-happy, freedom-hating, anti-American US government. I get a kick out of people like one of the previous posters who complained about the lies from the anti-gun crowd. This from a supporter of the NRA, which has published as much misinformation, outlandish fear/hate propaganda and out-and-out lies as any organization in the history of the United States. They live off bumper stickers and slogans that have one purpose in mind, and that is to instill fear and stir up the emotions of their audience, and they have become experts at pushing just the right buttons of their audience.

So do you want a rifle or shotgun for recreational use? Have at it! No problem with me. Do you want a pistol if it makes you feel safe? Have at that, too if you're nervous about self-protection. But please don't try to sell me on a 100 round clip on your AK under the bed. Who do you think is going to invade your home? The Chinese army? Wait - don't answer that!

But I'll tell you what makes ME nervous - a puffed up macho guy walking around with a 50 cal strapped to his leg looking for a "reason to use it". All the while bragging about how he "ain't afraid to do it, either"! And if he does finally find someone who rubs him just the wrong way, the NRA will simply classify him as just an isolated nut case. In fact, they'll tell you he is just the kind of nut case our guns will protect you against. And the circle stays unbroken.

The meat of this story is that mss murder is good for the gun business.

2.11

you nailed it

Stay in school. Don't curse, smoke, drink or associate with Republicans.

"See how easy it is to get an impression of gun owners?"

The same thing can be said of anti-gun nazis too, or do you just skip those lovely posts? So you think a puffed up macho dude walking around with a 50 cal strapped to his leg looking for a reason to use it is not a nut? or do you think all gun owners are puffed up macho dude looking for a reason to use their guns?

You should be more nervous of the thugs and criminals that don't give a rats about using their guns or the lunatic that don't need a reason to use their guns. All legal gun owners I know don't go looking for a reason to use their guns, unless it's hunting season.

Try enforcing the laws we already have!

That wouldn't have done a damn thing to prevent this incident.

These people seem so stupid and probably racist. Our black President is going to come after white people guns. How ignorant they sound. I have own guns since I was ten, I started re-loading when I was 14. When I hunted and my family hunted it was one shot, one kill. If it took two shots to bring something down, it was,"what your problem". So ask the hunters, from this article, if they hunt with assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines. Of course they don't, so why are assault rifles for sale, why are 20, 30, 50, 100 round magazines for sale? For the uprising when black people, led by President Obama come after your TVs, computers, or other electronic devices? Then with your house AK and a fifty round banana clip you can mo' 'em down as they come through the front door. Or do people really think we are getting ready for doomsday, a Mad Max massacree as it were? There should be restrictions on assault rifles, on high capacity magazines. Remember those two guys in California, who had AK assault rifles and body armor, they were caught robbing a bank. They held the police at bay for several hours, finally the police went to a gun shop and got high powered weapons to fight back. It's ridicules that things like this keep happening. People shot to pieces by some crazy person with an assault rifle. How many more women and kids are going be slaughtered before people realize it's finally too many? When is it going to stop? Working with the NRA, not anytime soon. And what's really funny is thinking that in a high stress situation, in a movie house or the like, with someone blazing away, people who have never shot at a person before, are going to calmly draw their weapon and put a two inch grouping in the shooter chest, though his body armor; gimme a break, with so much lead flying through the air, they would have to take the dead out with a fork-lift.

you know whats funny, people forget that guns in themselves cant do anything.... It takes a person to use the gun as a gun does not fire on its own.... blame the people not the items...

To point out there are more things in ones house that can kill than a gun... knives, tools, chemicals, People

Dude, my question is how many people would have been hit if the shooter was using a bolt action rifle instead of an assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine, I mean use your head! If the police arrive on scene in 90 seconds, how many rounds would he have got off with a bolt action rifle. That is the real question in all of this.

To all you goddamn gun Nazis out there i have one message for ya.

MOLON LABE

Has anyone noticed the paranoia of some of these gun owners who go straight to the 'don't take my guns away' thing? Seriously. We are discussing some reasonable limitations and there is more to the discussion than 'all' or 'nothing.' The fear that Obama is going to take their guns away is based on what, exactly? Nothing more than right-wingers whipping it up. Point to ANY thing Obama has done that even HINTS at taking guns away. Anything at all.???

Most hard-core criminal elements with this kind of weapon use it on other criminals... It is the 'regular guy going off the edge' that I worry about doing this kind of thing. Have we heard of many of these crazy incidents being caused by career criminals?

Seriously, I know a very immature 'senior citizen' who just loved to own an AK-47 because he knew liberals didn't think they should be legal. There is no reason for the average person to have such a weapon. Background checks aren't good enough. I don't think many of those who suddenly go loony tunes have a criminal background. It is the widespread sale of assault weapons that makes it more difficult to track down where criminals are getting theirs.

I'm really getting sick of completely irrational people dictating the policies of the US. Truly sickened.

Gun owners: 'We are your neighbors, co-workers, friends'...and We Are Mormons...can't even figure out their won phrase...HAH

Yes, it's true, lots of guns (though not all) are designed to kill. What you anti-gunners don't seem to understand is that killing is sometimes necessary if you yourself want to survive.

RI Mom,

AFAIK his protective gear wasn't truly bullet proof. If it was, a heavy round such as a .45 would break a few ribs, or possibly knock him to the ground. Shooter, subdued.

There are two uses for a gun.First to kill, second as a paperweight and an AK47 or M15 or M16 do not make good paper weights.

Guns are most certainly designed to kill, but that does not mean they were designed to murder. The person holding the gun is the one that makes the distinction. Mental health control would do wonders vs gun control.

In a letter to her colleagues, Rep. McCarthy claimed, “The only reason for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as quickly as possible.”

Rep. McCarthy. Yes, that is exactly why we want those high capacity magazines.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

In mentioning the security of a free state, it is clear that the Second Amendment is not talking about target shooting or hunting but intended to reserve to the people weapons equal in power and capacity to those of the government itself, in order to hold the government, which even now is looting the populace to pay for Wall Street's crimes, at bay. Yes, we desire high capacity magazines specifically because they allow us to kill a lot of people very quickly, so that you, Rep. McCarthy, and your cohorts will think twice about pillaging the population and remember that you too are bound by the letter of the Constitution. There is no pretense about it; the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the people to kill as many of the government as the government kills of We The People. Cold-blooded murder is not the exclusive right of the state.

Anyone with less shrapnel scars than me, has no right to judge me - just blowing self-righteous smoke. Anyone who votes for a member of the two major political parties is voting for the same corporate powers that keep the people fighting amongst themselves instead of confronting the real evil. "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil" - and are not fit to judge (and if you don't vote - well, look around at the results of your apathy). I've gone more than a half century without taking a life - without the sanction of my gov't. And that statement brings to mind two questions. 1. Is it right to kill? 2. Is it right to kill because your gov't. tells you to? Every night, until I pass over, that second question is gonna plague me. BTW, I don't own any guns, but I carry five deadly weapons at all times - head, hands & feet, you come lookin' for justice - you're gonna find 'just us'.

Yep, thats right, go ahead and have your guns for "protection", then when you pull that gun to defend yourself and a stray bullet from your gun kills my child I will have you strung up in a jail cell and I will be coming after you for wrongful death just in case you get off on the manslaughter charge.

We live in the 21st century, I carry defensive weapons with far less of a chance or hurting or killing other innocent people around me. My defensive weapons and my training to use them lets me disarm people efficiently and effectively.

It really is scary to think that when someone buys a gun for protection that they seem to not understand that using it to defend themselves can cost an innocent person their lives. Your "good guy" bullet dose not stop when it "sees" an innocent person instead of the purp you fired at.

Guns are easy, looking for and being trained on non lethal counter measures is a bit harder, so you wont find people doing research into effective safer ways of disarming a criminal.

I collect guns, ranging from the old black powder weapons to the modern, and yes the statement, “Gun were designed for killing” is true, they were designed to acquire food and to protect.

Some of my weapons have a very high price tag, and are not fired at all; others while costly are fired for the pleasure of target shooting, an enjoyment I get simply from the interest in the weapon.

IMO, there is a craftsmanship in the manufacture of a gun, the mechanics of it can be most interesting, in others there is the beauty of the craftsmanship in the art work on the weapon.

Weapons of war were designed to kill people, the defense of a people, or country, but even then, it is the person or people who chose to do the killing, not the weapon.

It remains a fact that it is the user, not the weapon that is the cause of deaths, in the hands of a trained person, a gun can be and is a tool, however given to a person with a murderous mentality it becomes a dangerous killing machine.

Blaming guns for murders is nothing more than blaming cars for drunk driver accidents that kill, guns were not made for such things as happened in Colorado any more than cars were made for what happened here two weeks ago.

To take away my guns or my right to have them is the same as taking away the right to drive of everyone simply because of the drunk driver, and there are more people killed every year here in the US by the latter than by gun owners.

@Barlow...

The police grabbed hunting rifles to bring those two down with fully automatic weapons..

The hunting rifles have more power then what the full auto shooters were using. The only difference was the quantity of bullets going "down range"

I have 4 guns and they too are very proficient at destroying paper targets and flying clay targets. I am also licensed to carry a concealed gun. Fortunately, I've never had to use it on anything but inanimate targets. I also take frequent gun classes to keep prepared if I ever need to defend myself! It's all about responsibility!

If more people carried guns, crazy a$$holes like James Holmes would not be so successful!

The simple fact is guns are here, they are NEVER going away, deal with it. I have plenty of guns, shotguns for hunting, Glock .40 to carry and protect me, and my family, and an AK and AR because they are fun to shoot.... Oh yeah, and I have a spotless record, and have never hurt anyone.

Complain, and preach about gun control all you want, but it wont change anything. Gang Bangers, Criminals, and the occasional nut case will always have them. Don't be a victim, educate yourself, and learn to protect yourself.

I feel sorry for the poor people and their loved ones in Colorado... but blaming high capacity magazines, or the type of gun is not the answer. If he only killed 4, is that acceptable?

@QE137

All gun instructors will tell you that you must be aware of who or what is around and behind your intended target. Defensive handgun classes will drill this into you. Gunowners aren't gangbangers. Most have taken classes and practice regularly to improve accuracy. In the unfortunate event that one does need to use there gun in self defense, it usually won't end with half the neighborhood shot up because legal gunowners don't shoot their gun one handed and canted sideways.

Wow... here this article was a positive statement about law-abiding gun owners, and the anti-gun crowd immediately start regurgitating the same non-sense the article warned about. Show of hands, class: how many actually read the article before adding their two pennies?

"Well, let's see here, the article says that lumping all gun owners into one homogenous group wasn't good. Oh, what's this? A comment section!? Great, now let's see here: all gun owners are paranoid cowards. Yup! That 'bout sums it up. No need to differentiate hunters from gangbangers, nor ex-military from crazed mass murderers. All the same, eh?"

Pathetic...

And to those (few) who actually took the time to post a thoughtful comment rather than reverting to the parrot maneuver without actually taking the article into consideration at all, thank you.

I, for one, won't (and don't) lump all gun owners into the same group, nor do I lump all anti-gun or pro-gun-control advocates into the same group. Like all things, there is not a black and white distinction, but rather a continuum of opinion and belief that determines an individual's stance on this issue driven by personal philosophy and life experience (or lack thereof).

All gun owners ≠ paranoid, delusional nut cases.

All gun control advocates ≠ gun grabbing zealots.

There's a lot more to individuality than this. C'mon folks.

Lidke said. “We don’t have guns to kill human beings. That’s not our goal. It’s a privilege to be able to protect your family.”

Protecting your family is NOT a privilege. It is your GOD given RIGHT as a human-being, not to be taken away by the cowardly Sheeple of the world. The fact that the Sheeple are too ignorant to distiguish between Good and Evil, is truly sad.

When Evil knocks on my door (or breaks in) I will have Good (and my Glock) on my side. I sleep like a baby.

To all who wonder if they have defective tools if their guns are not killing, I suggest a good eyeball inspection of the front end of the barrel, maybe immediately after making sure the gun is fully loaded and there is an active round in the chamber. Maybe its the hammer that's not working, cock it back, pull the trigger.....

jk.... if your guns were not designed to kill, you would not be keeping them for protection or for hunting. A gun that won't kill is just a poorly designed club.

"We are discussing some reasonable limitations and there is more to the discussion than 'all' or 'nothing.' The fear that Obama is going to take their guns away is based on what, exactly? Nothing more than right-wingers whipping it up. Point to ANY thing Obama has done that even HINTS at taking guns away. Anything at all.???"

I'm a gun person, but you do make some reasonable points. I believe there should be some sort of regulation and/or proof of competency. After all, we have to prove we can handle a car safely before we can get a license, right? And it's true that Pres. Obama has done nothing to restrict gun ownership - yet. But he has told Sarah Brady that he's "working under the radar" to deal with the firearm issue. Don't know what he's got planned for his second term when he doesn't have to worry about re-election. Hopefully he'll be defeated in Nov. and we'll never have to find out.

However: the problem I have with regulation is simple. There ARE people out there who want to disarm the American public. Maybe Pres. Obama is not one of them, but here's some who are: Bloomberg, Soros, Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi. THOSE are the ones who want to take away our freedom. What do you think would happen if "Nanny" Bloomberg or that fat hypocrite Rosie O'Donnell ever got into a position of power? Nothing good, that's for sure.

@dirp

I own knives. I carry a pocketknife that I use from opening packages to prepping food. Can I use it to stab someone? Sure. Am I going to? No, unless that someone is trying to kill me.

I own guns. I shoot targets on a regular basis for fun. Can I use it to shoot someone? Sure. Am I going to? No, unless that someone is trying to kill me.

I have guns because I enjoy target shooting. I live in an almost crime free city (one homocide in the last 10 years) and don't hunt. My guns are for paper, but in a worst case scenario, I could use it to defend my self.

Ranks From Seattle: 'Gun Owners: We are your neighbors, co-workers, friends'...and We Are Mormons...can't even figure out their won phrase...HAH'

What?! What the hell is a "won phrase..."? Seems like you're the one not figuring things out... And what on earth does this have to do with Mormons?

This is a Really Vain Argument, for Those of You that are Anti-2nd Amendment-You Don't Get it and Never Will. For those that are Pro-2nd Amendment, thank you for participating in exercising your Freedoms. These are Two Really Important Points for Both Sides, 1. Don't Bring a Knife to a Gun Fight 2. When You Need a Cop, He is Only Minutes Away. Think About It.

"My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car!" - Charlton Heston.

It's "fewer," Chuck, not "less."

Yep, thats right, go ahead and have your guns for "protection", then when you pull that gun to defend yourself and a stray bullet from your gun kills my child I will have you strung up in a jail cell and I will be coming after you for wrongful death just in case you get off on the manslaughter charge.

Fair enough. You can certainly try. What will you do if that bullet saves your child? Have me arrested for brandishing a weapon?

Dear lord you have no idea what you are talking about. This was a case of normal people thinking it was safe to go to the damned movies without someone with a gun killing them

I have a sign on my fence for the neighborhood punks who have been stealing lawn chairs.

"Forget 911, I dial 357" I have not had any problems as the others..........

Ed-So people busting off rounds in a tear gased dark theater would have saved more lives? hahah ridiculous.

You can't blame high capacity magazines for gun violence just as you can't blame high speed internet for child prom - but they both do facilitate their respective problems.

And the first time you shoot someone for stealing a lawn chair, you're going to prison for it. Be warned.

Marauder, you're right. "Normal people". That pretty much excludes the shooter.

There was a gun owner carrying during the Trolley Square Massacre. The police were still the ones who shot and killed the perpetrator.

So if you saw some kids stealing your lawn chair you would shoot them???

In CA our neighborhood watch cops told us to buy weapons. A loaded shotgun within reach is what they recommended. A pistol was alright if you had shooting experience. They began by describing a whole list of violent crimes and how short it took to commit them, then said they were 20 minutes away.

Everybody weaponed up after that meeting.

IXLR8, be careful with that. In a court of law, your premeditated statement could be used against you if you ever shot someone.

Actually, I am good with a shotgun, properly protected (it needs to be in a GUN SAFE when you are not at home). What I am NOT GOOD WITH is people being able to buy AR-15's with 100 round drum magazines. What is that for but to kill? Why is it available to anyone who wants one? It would seem the VERY FACT you want one indicates YOU ARE INSANE!

IXLRwhatever-

You, my friend, are exactly the one the NRA will turn on as "an isolated nutcase" if you ever back yourself into a corner and feel compelled to deliver on your silly threat. You are exhibit A when people are asked for examples of ordinary-appearing citizens who shouldn't have guns.

@Ed: So in your scenerio of the perfect world: When the guy opens up firing at the front of the theater, someone, such as yourself, who happens to be packing, takes him out and saves the masses. The problem with that is there may be 123 people such as yourself packin, so when the killer starts shooting and you and the other 11 gys start shooting you will be shooting each other because you don't know the bad guy from the good guy.

Holmes dressed up as though he were actually going to be in combat—helmet, Kevlar vest, throat/groin protection—

sooooo...how would a random pistol firing have stopped him...or would it have angered him into pointing to the area where the lone bullet was launched?

No threats, just reality and in FL we still have the stand your ground law.

@ SIASD:

Would you be for the government regulating your internet speed because some perv downloads kiddie porn?

@ the Hoplophobes (look it up) that think I went through all the background checks so I can carry a means of self defense to protect YOUR keester, or 'Go Rambo' on an active shooter across a smoke filled room.

Sorry Charlie, I carry to protect myself, and MY loved ones.

Feel free to dial 9-1-1 and wait far a cop to arrive if the bad man has targeted you.....You made the choice, you're on your own.

Ed, your not making it any easier for us gun owners. Oranges and apples still taste different.

Jamey-370955

Your scenario is not all accurate, can't say for the rest, but everyone I know who has a CCW would know who the real threat would be. We arn't shooting at random like street thugs.

RI Mom
Holmes dressed up as though he were actually going to be in combat—helmet, Kevlar vest, throat/groin protection—

sooooo...how would a random pistol firing have stopped him...or would it have angered him into pointing to the area where the lone bullet was launched?

Hold your arms up as if you were firing a rifle or shotgun. They will be in front of that vest. His arms and hands were no better protected than yours. in addition when your arms are up you are exposing gaps. Here is an example:

In November 1992, South Carolina Highway Patrolman Mark Coates shot an attacker four times in the torso with his 4 inch Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. His attacker, an obese adult male who weighed almost 300 pounds, absorbed the hits and shortly thereafter returned fire with one shot from a single-action North American Arms .22 caliber mini-revolver. Coates was fatally wounded when the tiny bullet perforated his left upper arm and penetrated his chest through the armhole of his vest where the bullet cut a major artery. Coates, who was standing next to the passenger-side front fender of the assailant's car when he was hit by the fatal bullet, was very quickly incapacitated.

If you want a more scientific and gory epxlanation of what happens when bullets it body armor, ballistic helmets, or flesh:

http://www.google.com/search?q=kinetic+transference+of+a+bullet+to+a+helmet&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=

No threats, just reality and in FL we still have the stand your ground law.

You have a lot of stupid laws in Florida, but you'll still go to jail for killing someone for stealing a lawn chair, dummy.

Here is a test for all you smart gun dudes. Take your AK or your AR-15 with your 100 round drum magazine out in the back yard, with a stopwatch and time how long it takes to empty the mag. Next take a bolt action .243 and time how long it takes to fire 100 rounds. The time difference is why assault rifles and high capacity magazines should be restricted. You are all right, guns don't kill people, people kill people, no argument, it's just that assault rifles with high capacity magazines kill more people faster. It seems to me any sane person would want to make as difficult as possible for a shooter to kill lots of people!

If you need to be packing a gun to go out, then you are living in the wrong neighborhood or you are just paranoid. No one, and I mean no one needs a gun. If you get a kick out of shooting, then you're suffering from p**is envy. If you need a rifle to slaughter animals then you're just sick. We haven't had to hunt for food for about a century now. And if you need to own an AR-15 then you're freakin crazy. Or does it take 30 rounds to take down a deer?

He didn't say he was going to shoot anybody for stealing his lawn chairs. He said he posted a sign letting the delinquents know that he's armed, and that was enough to keep them from stealing his lawn chairs. You see, guns aren't always used to shoot criminals, they're more often used to deter criminals from committing their crimes in the first place. Another thing you liberal types don't seem to understand.

So what would happen if someone stole his lawn chairs? You're telling me they wouldn't be shot dead. A liberal wants to know. Please explain.

I doubt it. I don't know the guy and can't say for sure. But I have a similiar sign up on my carport ever since my pitt bull was stolen and I haven't had to shoot anybody all week!

Ok, I'm kidding about the pitt bull.

sam adams

"So what would happen if someone stole his lawn chairs? You're telling me they wouldn't be shot dead. A liberal wants to know. Please explain."

I suppose if he lived in Texas then the answer would most certainly be yes.

Stupid-is-as-stupid-does yes you can blame both but the gun only has one real use to Kill

So what would happen if someone stole his lawn chairs? You're telling me they wouldn't be shot dead. A liberal wants to know. Please explain.

Why do you want to know? Are you planning to steal lawn chairs?

MarshallW: Thanks for enlightening me! I never realized that killing people is an Olympic sport!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon_at_the_Winter_Olympics

And the first time you shoot someone for stealing a lawn chair, you're going to prison for it. Be warned.

Depends on where he lives. If an unknown individual uninvited and unannounced is on your private property in some states, you have every right to shoot first. Take this case from Wisconsin, for example:

http://newsone.com/2003385/bo-morrison-unarmed-killed/

This kid wasn't even stealing anything-- he was just hiding on the guys porch. Yet, this man was within his rights to shoot the young man as an intruder on his property.

So, really, it just depends on your state. IXLR8 may very well be within his rights to shoot some punk stealing his personal property. Bottom line: KNOW the laws in your state.

Real funny things is, none of the gun owners would have been better off in this theater. The theater owner does not allow guns to be brought into them.

For some reason they don't want a bunch of gun toting yahoos walking around in the dark, shooting at unknown targets.... go figure.

Barlow-1919963

Here is a test for all you smart gun dudes. Take your AK or your AR-15 with your 100 round drum magazine out in the back yard, with a stopwatch and time how long it takes to empty the mag. Next take a bolt action .243 and time how long it takes to fire 100 rounds. The time difference is why assault rifles and high capacity magazines should be restricted. You are all right, guns don't kill people, people kill people, no argument, it's just that assault rifles with high capacity magazines kill more people faster. It seems to me any sane person would want to make as difficult as possible for a shooter to kill lots of people!

The majority of people could never afford a full automatic. You pay well over $15k for the privilege to buy a full automatic AR. Yes anyone can buy one but it has been priced out of the average person's budget intentionally.

Yes a full auto can empty a magazine pretty quickly, but the majority of AR's are semi-auto and if you get caught with an illegal modification to make a semi-auto a full auto, you pay tremendous fines and possibly go to jail.

Firearms are very well regulated, funny how tho, the criminals still won't follow the rules, imagine that!

What I am NOT GOOD WITH is people being able to buy AR-15's with 100 round drum magazines. What is that for but to kill? Why is it available to anyone who wants one?

For the same reason some people want a car with 400+ horsepower. Some people just enjoy the kick they get from owning and shooting a powerful weapon. The real problem is not guns, it's that there are too many people out there with unrecognized, undiagnosed and untreated mental illnesses. Take the Aurora shooter as an example. He's at the exact age when schizophrenia normally manifests, and I have no doubt that will be his diagnosis. And given his mother's comments, she at least suspected he had some kind of mental issue. If we had better treatment programs, and if people would stop stigmatizing the mentally ill, incidents like this might be prevented.

I do not know any gun owner who does not appreciate background checks. Texas has background checks.

Now criminals are another story. Keep adding gun laws to the books. they by their very definition do not care.

Just enforce the laws we have.

And yet these regulations have not done as much as they could. Crazy people are still able to purchase assault weapons. New regulations are required

I look forward to reading your plan to get criminals to obey these 'regulations' you write about.

All states do some form of background check. There are federal laws already in place regarding the requirements.

If you need an assault rifle to go hunting, maybe hunting isnt your sport. Just saying.

I Live in NY- the most restrictive gun laws in the country...yet the shootings continue everyday.

It's not the law abiding citizens doing the shootings- it's the criminal element that doesn't care at all about the law.

I have MY legal weapons to protect MY family from the animals.

I have no problems with intense background checks. I would like to see strict proficiency testing required, too.

By the same token - more people are killed by moronic drivers than murdered with guns, yet we hand out driver's licenses to just about anybody.

Most of these mass killers get their guns legally and would be incapable of getting them "on the street." In fact, Mexican gangs enlist people here in the US to buy guns legally at gun shows and then they smuggle them into Mexico. What do you think Fast and Furious was about? If we clamped down and required background checks ALL the time, then we'd close a major pipeline that moves legally purchased weapons onto the black market.

Remember, at some point between the time that gun leaves the factory till it gets into a criminal's hands, its been bought and sold legally at least once.

I have a GREAT idea, why dont we start a registry of NON gun owners and make it available online to the criminal element and law abiding citizens alike. We can give it a year, and at the end of the year, we can measure how many ARMED citizens were robbed and how many UNARMED citizens were robbed, raped, killed, etc.

Iam certain that YOU have no problem telling the world your unarmed and ready to become a victim!

It's not more laws, it's enforcement of those laws and personal responsibility. Judging by the mother's reaction, she should have committed him for a psych eval. If he was deemed incompetent to own a weapon a call to the police could have prevented this disaster.

it is already illegal for mentally unstable people to own guns.

Your thought is so flawed, You don't need an assualt rifle with a big clip to kill many people. I carry an M-92a ( thats 3 clips) and I can reload just as fast. So please stop crying about something you will never be able to change. Never...There to many of them.. Never

DON'T LET YOUR GUNS GET STOLEN!

If you own guns and DO NOT own a gun safe YOU ARE NOT A RESPONSIBLE OWNER!

I say, if your guns get stolen, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for the crimes they commit.

Gun owners seem to stand on their purported 2nd amendment rights, but do not want to acknowledge their RESPONSIBILITIES.

Another example of rampant SOCIALISM. Personalize RIGHTS but SOCIALIZE RESPONSIBILITY!

@ well DOH

It would seem from your statements, you're promoting crime and violence, is that what gun ownership do to people? If you're trying to put it in a good light, you might want to actually think about your statements.

Maruadershields
I don't mind people being able to own weapons that they actually use for hunting, shooting ranges, etc.What I do mind is the fact that these people wont submit to more screening to be able to purchase assault weapons.

Here is what it takes to buy one:

1. You must be at least 21 old and legal buy a handgun (meaning no felonies, violent misdemeanors, dishonorable discharges, etc.).

2. Call your local CLEO (chief law enforcement officer - sheriff, police chief, etc.) and ask what his procedure is for signing Form 4 (federal applications for NFA transfer and ownership-the dealers supplies).
Make sure that he will sign for you BEFORE you buy the firearm. If he won't sign, you can't get the gun. Make sure you can own it BEFORE you buy it, as payment must be made in full before the firearm is ordered. (You have to have the serial number before any paperwork can be processed to begin the transfer.)

3. Get two 2" X 2" color passport photographs. Attach one to the reverse side of each of the two copies of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) Form 4 (Target World supplied). These photos typically cost $5 to $10 and are commonly done at places like Kinkos and Walgreens.

4. Complete a small section on the reverse side of the BATF Form 4 that declares why you wish to possess the item. Most folks say "collector of firearms" or "target shooting."

5. Take the two copies of the Form 4, with pictures attached and your section completed, to your local law enforcement agency. Also take the two FBI FD-258 fingerprint cards we will give you. Ask the agency to officially take your fingerprints. This will usually cost $10 to $15.

You have to get a local CLEO to sign off and complete the section on the reverse side of the Form 4. This merely attests that you are not wanted locally and that the official knows of no law which will be broken if you are approved by the government. The official signing should be made aware that they are not held liable if you do something stupid or break the law.

*Local CLEOs that can be asked to sign off are: police chiefs or local law enforcement officers of the same rank, sheriffs, city or town police chiefs, state police commanders, district attorneys, state attorney generals, and judges of state courts that preside over felony trials.

6. Bring the two copies of the Form 4 and both completed fingerprint cards with a money order or certified check made out to the BATF ($5.00 for an "AOW" or $200.00 for silencer, machine-gun, destructive device, SBR, SBS). This is a one time fee for life! Note that each firearm, device, etc. requires that a separate tax be paid. E.g., a machinegun with a suppressor would require a tax payment for the machinegun (actually for the receiver) and another tax payment for the suppressor.

7. You also have to send in a form to the Department of the Treasury. This form is called the Certification of Compliance, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B), ATF Form 5330.20, which simply states that you are a United States citizen.

8. The BATF will first remove the money order and examine the paperwork for completeness. It will be assigned to an agent, who will have a nationwide FBI background check performed on you. Once you pass this (all legal folks over 21 should pass it), the BATF will mail back one certified copy of the Form 4. On this copy will be a stamp that looks like a postage stamp. This is a Federal tax stamp indicating the transfer tax is paid and the item is officially yours.

9. When the Class III dealer receives this Form 4 back with the stamp on it (generally 90-120 days after it is mailed in), you have to complete a BATF Form 4473 at the store. The 4473 is not called in for a background check since that has already been done, but is kept on file at the store in compliance with BATF regulations. We will then transfer the item to you along with the Form 4.

You should immediately make several copies of the Form 4 and carry one with you at all times when you have the product with you. Be sure to put the original in a safe place.

In addition to the above you are subject to the laws of your state. So what else would you like to see added for more screening?

Once you have your assault rifle you have to:

1. Once you have legal possession of the Class III item (except suppressors/silencers for which this does not apply) you may not take the item across state lines unless you notify the BATF in writing with the ATF Form 5320 before doing so. You are not asking for their approval but, instead, merely letting them know you are taking a Class III item across state lines and when you will depart and return.

2. You may not loan this Class III item to anyone.

3. You may not store this item at a friend's home who has access to it.

4. This is a restricted distribution item. To possess it requires (at the very least) an extensive background check. You are obligated by law (and common sense) to prevent unqualified people from gaining access to it. You may let others use the item if they remain in your physical presence.

5. If you decide to sell the item you should bring the item to a Class III dealer to legally effect the transfer. Not all transfers require dealer assistance, but the law is confusing and the best way to ensure and demonstrate compliance is to enlist the help of a professional Class III dealer. The buyer then has to go through all the steps described above and pay the required transfer tax(s).

In addition to the above you must be willing to play show and tell with the BATF any time that they feel like it.

Bassai, in some states you can buy a gun at a flea market. You can buy a gun at a yard sale here in Alaska. You can buy a gun at a gun show. The NRA and assorted gun nuts have managed to scare enough people into believing that any kind of background check, registration, or waiting period is just one step closer to taking their guns away. Balderdash, but the fools believe. Go to any of the states where such sales are legal and you will have no problem buying a gun of any kind, all you need is cash.

magnificent50
Bassai, in some states you can buy ...

Therefore what?

The above was specific to the purchase of an assault weapon.

Magnificent, it's not that easy to get an assault weapon, You aren't buying one at any, flea market, yard sale, gun show, or anything like that.

Besides, assault weapons here in the States will cost you at least $9,000.00. And that is cheap. At that price it may not even work.

SpyderGirl, it was the ATF that told gun shop owners to sell the firearms when the gun shops called the ATF and told them someone who was wanting to buy them was suspicious. However, the drug cartels get most of their weapons from other countries military through the black market. Why would a drug cartel pay $500.00 for a semi-automatic weapon when they can spend $50.00 on the black market for a select fire full automatic? Drug cartels aren't exactly stupid.

Gun control is not about paperwork.

Nowhere in that description does it require the purchaser to prove they're qualified to own and operate a gun.

And even if it did, there's no more reason to be permitted to own an assault rifle than there is to own a bazooka. Same thing for high-capacity clips.

They're not toys. It's time we stopped treating them like it.

Curt, I'm not talking about you, a person who is familiar with fire arms. I'm talking about someone who is not familiar with rifles. What I want is to make it as hard as possible for the shooter to kill a lot of innocent victims. With an assault rifle and a large clip, it's very easy to start shooting and keep shooting. That is what I'm talking about. I want to stop these events before they start.

The answer is NOT simply arming everyone with guns. This only makes the problem worse.

Maruadershields, Google Kennesaw, Georgia. Pay particular attention to the demographics and crime stats before the law was passed to the present. You will see the error of your statement.

The Swiss have the best idea.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

When everyone has access to firearms, crime rates drop because criminals will be playing Russian Roulette with every crime attempted.

Shields,

No it does not. FBI statistics prove what the NRA has been saying for decades, more guns = less crime. The more liberal the gun laws have become the less violent crimes have been committed. Call the FBI a pack of liars if you like but if they say it, I believe it.

There is a reason 49 states now allow conceal carry and over half have "stand your ground" laws, they work. FBI statistics prove it.

The very reason this is such a big story is because it is so out of the ordinary.

Has it slipped anyone's attention that it's the very places where guns are banned that these massacres occur? Gun free school zones and this theater have one thing enticing to idiots, a guaranteed target rich environment with zero chance of being stopped before they are done killing.

In 2009, 33,808 people died in traffic fatalities in the US.
Meanwhile the total number of murders was 13,756, of which firearms were involved in 9,203.

Got that? CARS KILL over 3 and a half TIMES more people than guns do!

Or, if you prefer: there were 4,487 US deaths in Iraq from 2003-2012...being a US service member for any one of those years in Iraq was ~13 times SAFER than driving a car in the US!

SpyderGirl

Yet at the same time, guns are illegal to own in Mexico. See the point? Only the criminals have them.

Maruadershields, Google Kennesaw, Georgia. Pay particular attention to the demographics and crime stats before the law was passed to the present. You will see the error of your statement.

Violent crime has been on the decline overall nationwide for nearly thirty years, including in 'Guntown', Georgia.

The trend has nothing to do with gun ownership. Correlation is not proof of causation.

Mojo 7 - The problem for you and other gun owners is that the CRIMINALS enter the scene with their weapons drawn and attitude to shoot.

When you are watching the game on your big screen and the gun-wielding criminal comes into your home, he's not going to give you 3 seconds to reach under the couch for your shotgun. When he hears someone coming from another room, he will shoot first to eliminate you as a threat, then take cover and ambush the next person.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM - You are going to be off-guard 90% of the time, so it's almost useless to have the weapon, even if it's on your body in a holster. The criminal came in loaded for bear, and you are ALREADY AT A DISADVANTAGE. You will be shot before you can draw your weapon (most, but not all of the time).

I understand that you want a fighting chance, but criminals are not inclined to give that to you.

===========

OTOH, I agree that people who conceal/carry can spring to the AID OF OTHERS who have been attacked. This is because they have heard/seen the attack and know what to expect.

Likewise, I understand that if you simply shoot first when an intruder comes into your home, YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE. Just be sure you're not shooting at your kids coming home like the careless officer in the news last week.

The residential burglery rate in Kennesaw dropped by 89% in the year immediately after the passage of the law. Are you trying to say you think this was the trend nationally?

There is a pretty serious difference between the slow decline seen nationally and the dropped off a cliff decline seen in Kennesaw.

Kennesaw hasd a tiny population when the law was passed, less than 9,000 people. Not statistically significant.

Lets just say my sister received a license to carry a gun and my brother as well, and the point is I wouldn’t let them take my dog for a walk let alone drive my car. So my point the law has broken down from getting the background check right, issuing of the license to have a gun. Also we don’t have holidays, birthdays, family gathering due to their new found right to bare arms, could you not point that gun at me and please pass the rolls. Yes they play show and tell with their new found guns during family gatherings.

Thanks NRA…

Great example.

Just because someone can own a gun doesn't mean they should.

Tim- Great example.

Please also take a second and notice how many people shouldn't be behind the wheel of automobiles, driving motorcycles, or having/raising children.

you must not read much.

You are the paranoia!

Gun owners aren't afraid, it's gun grabbers that live in fear. Read the above posts. Post 8 sums it up.

Excuse me, but what other than FEAR caused you to get a GUN? And that fear is quite irrational. THAT IS PARANOIA!

The point being that WANTING A GUN is a SYMPTOM of a DISEASE that should disqualify you from owning a gun. We need PRE-PURCHASE psychological testing THEN follow-up testing every year or so.

THAT would have stopped the theater killing and VA Tech.

SRS, I buy mine to shoot at nonliving targets. Some of my rifles are a part of history.

It seems you are the one in fear. You get loud in all your posts, which means you are angry, which a lot of times stems from fear.

Why are there not these psych tests to get a drivers license? A knife? A hammer? Perhaps humans should be psych tested every year if they have arms, hands, legs, feet, teeth....one of those or any combination?

How often does that happen??

most rapist I have read about used knives.

When will you have too much to drink, too much to smoke, pop too many pills or find out your daughter is a hooker and take it out on the neighborhood?

Is that what you did when you found out your wife was hooking? Responsible gun owners are actually responsible citizens too. No different than you or I. Ok, maybe different than you. But when the Crap hits the fan you will be the first to hope that someone that knows you will protect you. With your attitude though, I highly doubt that someone will be there for you.

The fact that you ARE my neighbor, co-worker or "friend" scares the hell out of me.

When will you have too much to drink, too much to smoke, pop too many pills or find out your daughter is a hooker and take it out on the neighborhood?

It would be better off for all of us - you included - if you grew up and stopped playing cowboys and right-wing terrorist.

Unfortunately, the fact that all gun owners are lumped into this category is crazy. As you describe it, we are all alcoholics, drug users, or people who are emotionally unstable and capable of losing it and shooting the place up at any time.

I typically don't respond to comments like these, but your thinking is actually quite widespread in our communities and it is bothersome and needs to be addressed.

As you say, we need to grow up. But I learned that growing up was understanding that people came from different backgrounds, had different interests, and different ideas about the way things should be done. Not always wrong, but different. I think this may be one of those times where the cliche saying "practice what you preach" actually fits.

Shooting does not mean killing. Gun owners don't sit and talk about how cool it would be to shoot someone. (Most of the time we talk about something other than guns. Believe it or not, we also have families that we love and are proud to talk about) Growing up, shooting was a great lesson in physics, measurements, and responsibility. My experience loading ammunition with my father helped me in chemistry. Shooting at different ranges/wind speeds taught me a lot of things that got me through physics. I learned respect and how to handle power when given it.

I guess the point of this is, Gun owner is not another word for hick, redneck, psychopath, blue collar or any other stereotype. It is a group of people who grew up with a different experience than you. It is a group of people that contains some of our biggest perfectionists and safety advocates. They really are your neighbors, and bankers, and lawyers, and doctors, and teachers, and .....

Sometimes we need to look past the stereotypes and just agree to disagree on topics without taking it to the extreme.

Excuse me, but what other than FEAR caused you to get a GUN? And that fear is quite irrational. THAT IS PARANOIA!

The point being that WANTING A GUN is a SYMPTOM of a DISEASE that should disqualify you from owning a gun. We need PRE-PURCHASE psychological testing THEN follow-up testing every year or so.

THAT would have stopped the theater killing and VA Tech.

What other than fear caused me to get a gun?

Are you kidding? Do you know how much fun it is to go hunting with your Dad? Do you know how neat skeet shooting is? Any idea how much skill and patience it takes to line up a 300 yard shot on a legal buck? My sister and I used to sit on the back porch with the .22 taking turns knocking hickory nuts out of a tree 30 yards away. Good times.

I do also have a 12 guage loaded with double aught by the bed and I'm not scared at all. Go figure.

I am sorry for those that hold these things in contempt. You don't have to like what I like, but you don't have to dis it either.

What gets me is how fast it goes from should we restrict assault rifles and high capacity magazines, to O my God, President Obama wants to take all of my guns. It seems insane, nobody is talking about taking people guns, nobody. I really think it's racist, President Obama is black so black people are coming to take our guns. That is the only thing that could make so many people so crazy so fast!!

Gee Henry, shooting a defenseless deer at 300 yards. That must really give you an org@sm. I'm sure you hunt just to feed your family, right? And your dad taught you on squirrels, or popping groundhogs. Do you take your rifle out once in a while and fondle it 'cause it's bigger than you are? Give you a thrill does it? Makes you want to go out and slaughter something. Sick moron.

Gee Henry, shooting a defenseless deer at 300 yards. That must really give you an org@sm. I'm sure you hunt just to feed your family, right? And your dad taught you on squirrels, or popping groundhogs. Do you take your rifle out once in a while and fondle it 'cause it's bigger than you are? Give you a thrill does it? Makes you want to go out and slaughter something. Sick moron.

LOL, are you serious?There are no trophies on my wall. I do eat what I hunt....legally. Don't you? And I LIKE it. The "thrill" is in carrying on the skills and self-sufficiency of my father who learned from my great-grandfather. My father taught me how to bark a squirrell. He taught me how to snare and trap. He taught me how he used to hunt with a slingshot during the depression. He taught me how to track and be silent in the woods. And I do take my rifle out and clean it ... a bit lovingly. It even has a name and my whole family goes out back to taget practice with it.

Still laughing... if you think deer are defenseless... you should see a cow!

Herb1938

Gee Henry, shooting a defenseless deer at 300 yards. That must really give you an org@sm. I'm sure you hunt just to feed your family, right? And your dad taught you on squirrels, or popping groundhogs. Do you take your rifle out once in a while and fondle it 'cause it's bigger than you are? Give you a thrill does it? Makes you want to go out and slaughter something. Sick moron.

Wait a minute....who's really the sick moron here....??

A defenseless deer? Better to shoot them and eat them than let them die a horrific slow death of starvation over the winter because the habitat cannot support all of them. Who is the humanitarian here....?

I agree Mother Cluster Duck...not all civilians need to be armed with assault weapons..

This latest shooter purchased all of his guns legally. Unfortunately he went crazy and caused a lot of collateral damage. There is no way to regulate for that, sometimes regular people develop mental illness down the road.

It seems to me that considering how that guy booby trapped his apartment that the guns are the least of our worries. If he hadn't gone into that theater with guns he probably would have rigged up explosives or pipe bombs.

If he could pull off tear gas, he could have wiped out the entire theater, without firing a shot.

This latest shooter purchased all of his guns legally. Unfortunately he went crazy and caused a lot of collateral damage. There is no way to regulate for that, sometimes regular people develop mental illness down the road.

Ban assault rifles (again) and high capacity clips, and it would be far more difficult for him to hurt so many people.

Well, if he had blown these folks to bits it probably would have made the anti-gun folks feel a bit better. Somehow, if he had blown them up they would be less dead. You're only seriously, unimaginably, absolutely dead if you are killed by a firearm.

It's obvious, really. When it's a firearm they are all wanting firearms banned, and not much talk about the person doing it. When it's something else, the person who killed them is the most vile person around, and not much talk about the items or ways used to kill them.

Well said, I was going to point that out.

Excuse me, but what other than FEAR caused you to get a GUN? And that fear is quite irrational. THAT IS PARANOIA!

The point being that WANTING A GUN is a SYMPTOM of a DISEASE that should disqualify you from owning a gun. We need PRE-PURCHASE psychological testing THEN follow-up testing every year or so.

THAT would have stopped the theater killing and VA Tech.

You are funny, SRS. And yes I am laughing. I wish you could have met my Grandma. She was a strong country woman who split her own cook wood and milked her own cows. I am laughing becuase she carried her shotgun with her almost everywhere she went on her farm. She WAS scared! Of snakes!

And she made all her kids take the shotgun with them to the outhouse when they had to go after about the age of 6! She raised 12 kids and lost one to snakebite. I can't help but laugh when you say that gun ownership is fear.

And the last time someone deliberatly mowed down a sidewalk full of people with their car was when exactly?

A few months ago in Santa Ana, California.

L.A. a few years ago. There have been a spate of other incidents over the past decade as well. Google it!

@BunnySlayer - this is becoming all too common as well. Must be the people that couldn't pass the background check for a gun.

Try driving your GUN to WORK. A gun is meant to KILL. A car is meant to TRANSPORT.

O&O the reason that antigun types pour out like cockroaches is because they are cockroaches. Antigun types just cannot leave other people alone; they have to require that the entire world march to the rhythm of their drum. Liberals can't let the rest of us just live our lives. They have to legislate and regulate everything the rest of us do. I don't know what the reason for that is: if they are so out of control, they need to be regulated or if they just can't stand to see anyone else having a good time.

I mean, I do model trains. Does that make me need to be regulated? I might run over my finger if I put it on the track. My club allows the children of members to run trains. Do we need to be stopped before we injure a child? The liberals on this thread might insist on that. In the meantime, we are all having what passes for fun for us.

Can't you people just leave us alone to have a good time?

if you are a gun owner start with a sense of responsibility to all of us and quit talking about freedom, rights, and all that other blather the nra stands behind. assault weapons with 100 bullet clips. put a stop to this carnage thru common sense within your own group, have the courage to stand up without a gun and change your laws within your collective group!

A few months ago in Santa Ana, California.

In January, killing 2 people, not 12, including the operator of the car and a passenger.

Hardly comparable.

When was the last time someone killed a dozen people and injured fifty or sixty more with a car?

Mother, who is using assault weapons to kill people here in the U.S.? The person who committed this had a semi-automatic rifle.

Quit talking about freedom, rights and all that blather? I think you are in the wrong country if you live in the U.S.

Which laws would stop a criminal from breaking them? Let us know these laws of yours and explain how a criminal will abide by them.

And while you are getting those together, why don't we start getting rid of the some 20.000 laws regulating firearms that aren't common sense. Which would be most of them. Let's start there.

By that logic, laws have no purpose at all. This guy didn't break any laws until he pulled the trigger. Therefore the law is not sufficient and should be revised.

tim, you watch too many movies. We don't have people sitting in a pool of water predicting crimes. What do you want to do, arrest people for what they MIGHT do?

What do you want to do, arrest people for what they MIGHT do?

No. I want to make it much more difficult for them to do so much harm to so many people. Ban assault rifles, ban high capacity magazines, and preferably ban hand guns. Ban the sale of guns in gun shows and flea markets. Tougher background checks, and mandatory certification in firearms training, not just meaningless paperwork. All of it federal, so people can't buy a weapon in Indiana and ruin lives in Chicago, for example.

Let's stop the Founding Fathers Fetish that assumes we're not as smart as people were over 200 years ago.

tim-2799493By that logic, laws have no purpose at all. This guy didn't break any laws until he pulled the trigger. Therefore the law is not sufficient and should be revised.

Really? Please tell us where making bombs and incendiary devices is legal.

Ok, a typo - he didn't break any gun laws until he pulled the trigger.

Under the National Firearms Act
of 1934 ("NFA"),2 the possession of a destructive device is prohibited.

Gun
Control Act of 1968,15 which amended the NFA and defined "destructive
device"16 as follows:
(f) Destructive device— The term "destructive device" means
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C)
rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile
having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(E) mine, or (F) similar device;
(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may
be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or
other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than onehalf
inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary
finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;
and
(3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in
converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs
(1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term 'destructive device' shall not include any device which is neither
designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally
designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling,
pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device...17

http://lawjournal.rutgers.edu/sites/lawjournal.rutgers.edu/files/issues/v42/2/09NardolilloVol.42.2.pdf

Not really, the problem as I see it, is your mind set.

Your kind go to meetings and scream "mindless" crap too.

And if you want an original reason for gun ownership, (not my favorite) but I can give you one.

INVESTMENT.

Guns, when taken care of NEVER go down in value.

And if the anti-gun nuts have their way, I will be set for life should I sell.

Kind of hard to shoot ducks it you can't take your shotgun out of your house. Or do you prefer to hire someone to kill and clean your food for you?

There is no need for an ORIGINAL or newly thought up justification for gun ownership. The original ones are perfectly logical and part of the US constitution.

It's called a right, not a need. Get over it.

Can anybody come with an ORIGINAL justification for gun ownership

Yes. The second amendment to the constitution.

The best justification for gun ownership is this: An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

The 2nd amendment is the amendment that guarantees all other freedoms. It is the ultimate check and balance system to malicious government or foreign enemy. Why do you think the swiss have never been overrun? Because the govt there makes it a requirement that every home have an assault rifle. They have the lowest rates of gun related crime in the world, and everyone packs heat.

People forget in this information age that it is entirely plausible at some point the citizenry may be called upon again to take up arms in defense of their families, neighbors, their homeland.. whether it be against criminals, foreign threats, or a government that decides to take too much control.

Never forget that some of the most horrible regimes in world history took their 1st steps to power and destruction by making sure the populace was unarmed: see Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany.

Why would you need to own a gun you ask?

I ask why you would feel the need not to.

RamFla, the funny thing is, you are most likely standing next to a couple of people that are carrying a concealed weapon right now and don't have a clue. In most states, signs that say "no guns allowed" do not carry the force of law. IF they ask you to leave, you do and that is that. If you don't, then it is nothing more that a trespass violation.

Why would people want to leave their weapons at home? According to the Criminal Victimization Survey by the DOJ 77% of all violent attacks happen away from the home. Why don't I just leave my airbags and seat belts at home too?

Glocks? Is that all you've got? Don't get me wrong; these are awesome guns for self-defense because they're so reliable (you can drop one in mud and it'll still fire), but personally I prefer my custom 1911 (okay, we have 4 of those), but I'll also stand behind the Browning Hi-Power (9mm) and the S&W revolvers!

Sig man myself.

Wilson combat 45, Springfield 45 tricked out by the guy that smiths Seal weapons. That one is a collectors item, I've already been offered 3x it's price.

No one is talking about taking away all your guns. No one.

If we're going to have a civilized, adult conversation about gun control, that's the first bit of hyperbole that has to go, along with the silly 'slippery slope' metaphor.

The problem doesnt end with removing guns. You also have to remove knives, then sticks and while you're at it, i guess fists. Thats the problem with all these "what are you gun owners afraid of?" people. They don't know about or ignore the fact that people have hurt and robbed each other long before the gun was around.

Ahh where to you think criminals get guns? They buy them privately or steal them. The more legal guns that exist will increase the number of illegally held guns.

Assualt weapon definition-

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
-see link below

IMO people have no need for these weapons. Why not rocket launchers? Tanks? Missiles?

Funny how gun nuts bring personal freedom and responsiblity into the argument for guns yet not for Cannabis, Wall St. fraud, white collar crime ect..

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault+rifle?show=0&t=1343247556

You want to equate gun ownership with pot smoking?

Not for nothing, I bet most gun owners don't do drugs, being stupid and having firearms is a bad combo.

BTW, you cannot be a pothead and own weapons. They ask on the form. Your entitled to your opinion, but please put down the joint and actually learn something about gun ownership. You may actually become a useful part of society.

Well Toker, I for one: am a gun owner, am concealed carry licensed, support gay marriage and support the legalization of marijuana.

BOOM...your argument just exploded

Well Toker, I for one: am a gun owner, am concealed carry licensed, support gay marriage and support the legalization of marijuana.

BOOM...your argument just exploded

So anyone who feels that people should be responsible gun owners is a gun nut? And somehow that is anathema to feeling people should be able to responsibly use Cannabis if they so choose? I guess that makes me both a gun nut and whatever the people who are for the responsible use of Cannabis are. And exactly how do Wall Street Fraud and white collar crime have anything at all to do with the two aforementioned topics? Fraud and crime are illegal things, no? So what do they have to do with legal gun ownership and the fight for decriminalization of weed?

The more legal guns that exist will increase the number of illegally held guns.

You can make the same argument for prescription pain killers (or any number of things that have value on the black market). Better to have no defense? And since there are no legal guns in Chicago, how is that working out for them?

Midnight Toker, you might find it surprising that you can, in fact, buy tanks and missiles. Some wealthy people have bought and restored tanks, other people are into high power rocketry, and some others have bought ex-Soviet fighter aircraft.

Must be more of that hopey-changey thing working out in Chicago. Lots and lots of black grandmothers and aunties on the South Side hoping for change: crazy black males shooting each other all in jail.

Well- You are right smoking MJ never killed anyone. Stupid? Only a stupid person would equate MJ with stupidity. You can own a gun no matter what you do if you buy from another private citizen Einstein. Maybe you should get an education before opening your pie hole huh?

Enough- No a gun nut is a person no matter the peril will defend not the ownership of guns but the lack of regulated ownership i.e. gun laws. What my references has to do with the topic is that gun nuts are always claiming the right to lax regulation on personal responsibility YET that same notion doesn't apply to other harmful things they usually support.

Chicago's issues are like NY are because laws are not applied evenly throughout the country so guns can be imported from other less regulated areas. The same issue NJ has with Philly.

How in the world is everyone missing this incredibly basic point. The right to bear arms is not an unlimited right to own whatever kind of mass murdering weapons you want. A rocket launcher is "arms", should private citizens have those? Tanks? Nukes? There are perfectly rational ways to regulate *which* arms you have a right to bear. Hunting rifles? Sure. Handguns for personal protection? Absolutely! Fully automatic assault weapons? No. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for a private citizen to have an AK47 or anything similar. You want to play with "toys"? Join the military and request deployment to a war zone.

How do you miss the incredibly basic point that everything that you listed including fully automatic weapons are regulated.  Download a copy of the BATFE's National Firearms Act Handbook and educate yourself.

Join the military and request deployment to a war zone.

Already did that and the "toys"were pretty nifty. So now what?

While I am sorry for your family's loss of your uncle, I doubt the person who pulled the trigger acquired the gun by legal means, or was even legally permitted to own it (refer to my Post #14, above).

I had a dear friend killed by a drunk driver. What should I scream to have banned ... alcohol or cars? Or both? People responsibly drink without driving and drive without drinking every day. Just because one irresponsible individual mixed the two doesn't make either alcohol or automobiles evil.

My father's brother was killed by a gun, just like one of the guns those two people featured in the article possess

What, one that shoots bullets? Since the guns listed by those two people are guns owned by "responsible gun owners" and you uncle was killed by an "irresponsible" person, I would suspect the only thing in common would be the ability to shoot bullets.

My first cousin was killed by a runaway tractor (yes, for real). I'm not calling for tighter restrictions on farming.

My first cousin was killed by a runaway tractor (yes, for real). I'm not calling for tighter restrictions on farming.

Of course not. That would be stupid. But we don't have over 30,000 tractor-related deaths every year in this country either.

If we did, it would be a different story altogether.

See, this is the thing - these silly analogies about guns compared with ordinary tools and devices, none of which have the same potential casualty rates from their use in cases of intentional violence. What if it was a tractor? What if it was a knife? What if it was a car.

What if we could prevent so many people from dying because of the use of guns?

We have a gun problem in this country.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck - so go ahead and hunt ducks, not people.

My father's brother was killed by a gun

And my step-daughter was killed in a car crash.

I am sorry for your loss. I too lost a family member. A man was so "relaxed" from smoking marijuana he drifted over the centerline and hit my step brother head on.

Tim - Please cite your souce that we don't have 30,000 farm related deaths every year in the US.
Also, your statistics are off. See my other point (5.5) regarding how much safer it was to be a soldier in Iraq than driving in the US and how automobiles kill over 3 times as many people as guns per year.

Personally, I've never hunted people except with a paintball gun. The meat is generally too fatty.

You don't need a 20 oz coffee, Triple Whopper with Cheese, SUV or any number of other goods. Everything else is consumer culture craziness...

Bashir, you don't need internet access either, yet here you are.

Everyone thinks Zombie Apocalypse...

But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

That's because their chief weapon is surprise...

You know, I've been forming a theory over the last couple weeks.

Propaganda has been used fairly extensively over the last century as a way to dehumanize other cultures/races/countries to make them much easier to kill. It's easy to pull the trigger when the person you are killing is a monster and not someone protecting their home/country/family.

But all this recent pop culture attention on Zombies has got me thinking. Is this not also propaganda, but rather than turning the Gerry or Tojo into bloodthirsty subhumans, it's being done to our fellow Americans, so that when the societal collapse (engineered by the wealthy also known as a "market re-set") happens, it's going to be easier for us to kill our neighbors (or as you put it shove your .40 in the face, or knee if you're being charitable)

Your post was rather enlightening, because it totally validated my theory, you went from "when the Zombie apocolypse comes" to "I will happily shoot someone (your neighbor for example, as zombies are imaginary) who threatens my family".

Because when law and order collapses everyone and anyone is a threat.

Big Dawg-3501358

If you are willing and able, a lawfully concealed weapon will level the playing field.

Yeah, sure. When the bad guy bursts into a crowded movie theater, throws a tear gas grenade, and opens fire with a semi-automatic a 100-round clip that fires 50 rounds per minute, you're going to level the playing field with your concealed pea-shooter. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Since "fair" is the latest addition to our list of 4-letter words, yes that would make it more fair. The first time you hear a round go "wheeeeet" past your ear, you get a whole new sense of selfpreservation that includes leaving the scene.

"Assault Weapon" is just a term used to make semi-automatic rifles scary to Lib ladies . AR-15s are not capable of automatic fire. They are not faster, one pull still equals one round. Banning them solely because of what they look like is an exercise in feel-good idiocy.

If you don't want to be immediately branded as a nut, educate yourselves about weapons, Wikipedia is a good place to start.

.

"We are your neighbors, co-workers and friends". Are you referring to gun owners or pedophiles.

Just as long as I don't have to live around those dirty astronauts!

What about baby fights...totally overrated and surprisingly cruel...but oh so much fun...place your bets!

Most rapist I have read about use knives. I think most of my neighbors own knives.

All Drunk drivers who kill, kill with automobiles. All of my neighbors own cars.

When was the last time anyone used a knife or a car to kill a dozen people and maim nearly five dozen more before the police were able to stop them?

Seriously. You want to use analogies, then please stop using stupid ones.

459 people killed in pennsylvania in 2009 by alcohol related accidents thats 1 year and 1 state alone.

... and how many people have died world wide throughout

history because of guns?????

gildar - It may surprise you to hear this, people died before guns too.

Bows & arrows, crossbows, slings, spears, swords, knives... You cannot stop violent death by getting rid of the means. You have to change behavior. (Good luck with that!)

459 people killed in pennsylvania in 2009 by alcohol related accidents thats 1 year and 1 state alone.

Note the use of the word 'accidents'. Most gun deaths are not accidental. It's an important distinction.



Note the use of the word 'accidents'. Most gun deaths are not accidental. It's an important distinction.

So, just to confirm your points:
1) Killing people by driving drunk is acceptable to you.
2) That while you admit that gun owners are obviously more careful than drivers, shooting someone is never acceptable to you.

Hmm.