So you think you know the 2nd Amendment

[creaker]

I love ya Peggy but that was kind of mean. I think Bae - as well as other's here like Free and Alan (and I'll include myself as well having both military and tactical law enforcement training) - seems to be one of the most experienced, trained and knowledgeable people on this issue. Certainly not a George Zimmerman in my book. He also seems to be a calm levelheaded person who wouldn't make rash choices. And the dude also wears a kilt - which goes a long way for me :-)! So while I get that you think that we (not counting Free here) and all people like us are all a bunch of wacko, paranoid, shoot-em-up cowboys, I like to think that we can all have a rational friendly discussion about this topic and present our side of it (the "darkside" if you will :-)!) without fear of getting called names. It is one of the most important topics of our generation - ending gun violence - and I like to hear everyone's opinion whether I agree withit or not. So now I will return to my bunker, put on my tin foil hat, and drink some more rum toddies -and join Jane in being confused at just which thread I'm in :-)!

I didn't know about the kilt :-) I think the character would be Lazarus Long. ("Methuselah's Children" or "Time Enough for Love", among other titles, if anyone is interested)

Competent, practiced gun owners for whom guns are one of many life skills worry me much less than those obsessed exclusively with guns, or those who buy a weapon "for defense" and have it sit like an unused kitchen appliance impulse purchase until they feel compelled to use it for something (usually not good) - or their kids find it.

It's not the life style I would choose - I couldn't keep up the level required to maintain it.

[freein05]

Here are some statistics from 2011 for those who like to see how many people were killed in the gun capital of the world.

In 2011, guns were used to murder 8,583 people living in the U.S., according to the most recent FBI data available. Among those murdered by guns, there were 565 young people under the age of 18, and 119 children ages 12 or younger -- the latter number nearly equivalent to six Newtown mass shootings. And these figures include only homicides.

[mira]

Although I have nothing unique to contribute, I have to say that I find it so refreshing to read debate topics on this forum, as opposed to those on other forums or Facebook where people get offended and snarky if you question their opinions.

[freein05]

I have clarify something. When I say there are too many guns in this country I really think I mean there are too many gun owners. As said above too many people buy a firearm and have no idea how to use it. They buy it and do not spend all time that is necessary to become a safe firearm owner. I really feel one very important aspect of firearm ownership is the safe and secure storage of them so bad guys don't get them.

So I will rephrase my gun statement.

THERE ARE TOO MANY GUN OWNERS IN THE US!

[Mrs-M]

THERE ARE TOO MANY GUN OWNERS IN THE US!

My sentiment to a T!

[Yossarian]

Here are some statistics from 2011 for those who like to see how many people were killed in the gun capital of the world.

In 2011, guns were used to murder 8,583 people living in the U.S., according to the most recent FBI data available. Among those murdered by guns, there were 565 young people under the age of 18, and 119 children ages 12 or younger -- the latter number nearly equivalent to six Newtown mass shootings. And these figures include only homicides.

Thanks for the HuffPo stuff. No doubt we should try to minimize those, but really, and be honest, how many of those would be affected by an "assault weapons" law?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

[Yossarian]

My sentiment to a T!

Fab, you can vote for that whenever you want. Oh wait...

[freein05]

Thanks for the HuffPo stuff. No doubt we should try to minimize those, but really, and be honest, how many of those would be affected by an "assault weapons" law?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

I guess you did not see the source of the data that was printed by Huffington post. IT WAS THE FBI!

[Yossarian]

I guess you did not see the source of the data that was printed by Huffington post. IT WAS THE FBI!

Free, no one is disputing the numbers, but it is at least courteous to source your cut and paste contributions. But that's just format. As for substance, how many of the deaths are attributable to "assault weapons" in a way that would not have occurred by other means (such as still legal pistols or rifles) if those "assault weapons" were not available?

[Yossarian]

Most of the 30,000-ish deaths by firearms are drug-related or suicide in nature. Feel free to look it up. Of course, I'll not argue that this is acceptable. Would these disappear if the guns did? Not likely. W

Gun homicide rate appears to be about 10k per year. Again, far too many. Wonder what the decriminalization of drugs would do to that number? Right. Much easier to talk about limiting magazine capacities. Anyone with any experience at all knows that mags can be changed in a second or so with some practice. If it would save one life, should we not proceed with it? That is a slippery slope, for sure:

You might be interested to know that over 100,000 of us die every year from bedsores in medical care facilities. Intentional? Probably not. Preventable? Yes. Worth more than a snippet on the evening news? Not when you can rile up emotions on both sides of the gun control debate and sell "product" to the audience, spreading a couple dozen funerals over a week's worth of evening news. It's obscene, out of scale, sensational. Tragic, no feeling person can deny.

Deaths by motor vehicle travel are also much higher at nearly 100 citizens a day (never mind the huge contribution alcohol makes to this statistic). Where is the outcry for regulation here? Shall we ask or allow our all knowing, all caring government to help us out of this jam by perhaps limiting vehicle power, weight, top speed, acceleration? Does anyone really need a sports car with over 600 horsepower capable of three times the speed limit? Why is this allowed to continue? Some people even collect these killing machines. Jay Leno should probably be institutionalized. Speed kills. It is obvious to most of us. What kind of an icky person wants the capability to go that fast where it is generally not possible or legal?

I can envision an Approved Travel regulation being promulgated that would help save our precious humanity from these killing machines whose sole purpose is to go faster than legally permitted and encourage our vulnerable citizenry to commit dangerous acts on the roadways we all must use to get to our next very important destination (Starbucks, Walmart, and such). Unnecessary travel (government should define and enforce) is a big contributor, here. How many trips do our citizens make that they could perhaps consolidate or do without? Perhaps walk or bike and go GREEN while saving a life. I don't own a fast car, don't feel like I need one, and I don't trust people who seem to have a fetish for them. Oh, and why such large capacity tanks on vehicles? Does anyone really need 18, 22, 30 gallons of low flashpoint, highly volatile flammable liquid strapped to the undercarriage of their conveyance. Government limit should be three gallons in the interest of fuel efficiency and traffic reduction. Inspections can be fortified to address owners who get a black market expanded fuel tank for their own convenience (which obviously increases the risk to all of us). I'd go on but I've lost interest. I'm off to dedicate my efforts to avoiding a hospital stay and the sixth largest leading cause of death: medical treatment screw-ups.

Great perspective!