Here's where the gun debate should go!

[Rogar]

If it wasn't predictable, our news is already talking about making military assault style weapons like the AR-15 or the AK-47 (semi-auto citizen style) illegal or harder to get. I think that is the low hanging fruit for those wanting more gun control. It makes sense to me, though I don't know how effective it can be. They seem to be a weapon of choice for mass murders and I read a few reports where police are saying they are becoming so common among gangs and drug dealers that the criminals have better fire power than the police.

Bae mentioned that they are becoming popular hunting guns, but most of my friends who do deer and elk hunting use larger caliber bolt action rifles and would probably consider the AR-15 too small a bullet for big game. They probably have some function to plink at varmints. So limited use as a hunting weapon and plenty of alternatives.

I can not visualize a practical other than Limited hunting. There are better choices for home defense and they are not especially portable as a concealed weapon for personal defense out side the home. Maybe they could be used for defending a food source when the hordes attack after nuclear winter or an attack of zombies.

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by San Onofre Guy.
People say that they need guns for protection! From whom or what?

I see it as a "monkey see- monkey do" sort of mentality. No real reason behind it (related to most people), but because the US Government is extravagant in allowing a profusion of latitude related to affording "about" anyone the freedom to own/buy/carry (and use), suddenly, gun-ownership becomes "the right thing to do". Everyone hopping aboard the bandwagon/welcome-wagon.

Remember the old 80's Quaker Oats commercials with Wilford Brimley? "It's the right thing to do". Wilford Brimley says so, so it must be true. Same goes for guns. Because the US Government allows it (and encourages it), then it must be the right thing to do, "sign me up"!

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Lizii.
Mrs-M, it puzzles me why you choose the Americans to give your views about "gun toting" in their country.

As a proud Canadian myself, surely you realize that Canada isn't exactly lily white about gun use here.

Here in Canada, at least our government has taken a proactive approach to curb and tighten gun-ownership/use. There is no "perfect" system, but allowing a free-for-all system with unlimited flexibility, definitely isn't the answer.

[Alan]

I see it as a "monkey see- monkey do" sort of mentality. No real reason behind it (related to most people), but because the US Government is extravagant in allowing a profusion of latitude related to affording "about" anyone the freedom to own/buy/carry (and use), suddenly, gun-ownership becomes "the right thing to do". Everyone hopping aboard the bandwagon/welcome-wagon.

Maybe you simply don't understand the ethos of the United States. We are a free nation and the US Government was not designed to "allow us a profusion of latitude", as that is something we have in spite of government.

From our Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

In other words, the government cannot be "extravagant" in allowing us anything as it is not our master.

[creaker]

I heard something, and it just made too much sense for me not to ask. For those concerned about personal protection, either with or from guns, does anyone purchase/wear like bullet proof vests, body armor, whatever as passive protection?

It is something that would have probably saved lives in the Aurora shooting.

[CathyA]

Bae probably has a bunch of them and he'll show us his collection.
What a sad world if bullet-proof vests were part of everyone's daily attire.
But then all the ammo would be invented that could penetrate it.

[Gregg]

The way you just casually drop in that not allowing guns in businesses is discrimination fits right in.

So I'm confused peggy. Are you saying a business owner should not have the right to implement a no gun policy on their property? I thought bae was pretty clear that he supports the rights of the owners to decide on their own whether they would allow guns in or not (a position I support as well). Your comment and the attached post, while sarcastic, also seems to indicate that you also feel that this is not a discrimination issue, but an issue of the right to decide by the property owner. Do I have that wrong?

It's an important point in the larger debate. Think about homeowners. Should I have the right to tell everyone entering my home that I do not allow guns, please leave them in the car? What if a police officer comes to my home? Do I have the right to ask them to check their gun at the door? Forget the officer's reaction, I'm just curious to know how far my right to have a gun free house goes if that is what I so choose. For the sake of debate lets assume that officer is there performing a civil duty of some kind, not to arrest me as a murder suspect or for any other reason that would indicate I may pose a threat of violence to anyone.

[Simpler at Fifty]

Spartana said: "And while the Colorado shooting was tragic - just as any unwarranted shooting is - owning a gun is not what lead to his behavior. "

Amen. +1000

[Simpler at Fifty]

If people would have had body armor on, they would have been packing too. Just sayin.

[creaker]

If people would have had body armor on, they would have been packing too. Just sayin.

Maybe not - passive protection is a very different thing. And you don't have to be a good shot for armor to be effective.

The problem I think is that while carrying a gun is "acceptable", wearing armor, vests, etc. is considered on par with wearing tin foil caps.