"Instead I like to know how you honestly think an AR ban would make the community safer?"

You're right. I don't know that much about guns. But the only use for a gun is to kill things. If you take away - or at least limit the availability of - instruments that kill things, less things are going to get killed.

Gun ownership we've been through too. I don't own guns, but personally I'd prefer if every criminal on the street didn't automatically know that information.

Separation of church and state is a little more difficult for me to decide on. I see both sides. I don't like when Atheists disrupt religious celebrations, mostly because there's a part of me that says that freedom of religion shouldn't lend itself to non-religion freedoms getting to trump the rights of the religious in the name of freedom of religion. That's a lot like saying that because I don't own guns, nobody else should be able to have one within my presense.

Right to healthcare? No. You have the right to pickup health insurance, and the right to open your wallet if you don't have it. If you cannot afford it, then I don't believe being poor entitles you to free shit. I'm in a vast minority here it seems, but the entire idea of a nation built on capitalism and free-enterprise doesn't hold much merit to me if we're going to carry the weight of the welfare on our shoulders because they don't do for themselves. I understand some cannot, but there is no way to put in a carry system that's truly only being used by the needy. It will be exploited, and I'd rather we took a more hardline approach to it, and then relied on charity and good will of citizen's individually to take care of the needy. That's just me though.

Right to gay marriage? I'm all for it, but those idiots had better realize what they are asking for. Sure there's the income tax filing, and the insurance provisions.... There's also spousal support, losing half of everything you own in divorce, financing, grants/loans/scholarships for higher education that are distributed based on household income, not personal... They better be prepared to take the bad as well, and no bitching. I'll hold a barstool for you.

Anyway, that's politics to me! lol

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"Gun ownership wasn't perceived as a "constitutional right" until the 1970s"

It's right next to the constitutional right to an abortion.  Or the constituional right to separation of church and state.  Or the constitutional right to health care.  Or the constitutional right to gay marriage.

The last three are about equality. The abortion issue is never going to be settled because there's no middle ground, but I would suggest that anyone who is opposed to abortion shouldn't have one.

I would similarly suggest that anyone oppose to guns not own one.  So we're even on that point.

"If you take away - or at least limit the availability of - instruments that kill things, less things are going to get killed."

Why don't we hear about these sort of massacres in Switzerland where every household is issued a fully automatic rifle by the government?

forsberg_us wrote:

"If you take away - or at least limit the availability of - instruments that kill things, less things are going to get killed."

Why don't we hear about these sort of massacres in Switzerland where every household is issued a fully automatic rifle by the government?

Because the Swiss are pansies.

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

The last three are about equality. The abortion issue is never going to be settled because there's no middle ground, but I would suggest that anyone who is opposed to abortion shouldn't have one.

I would similarly suggest that anyone oppose to guns not own one.  So we're even on that point.

Not really. If an abortonist breaks into my house with a coat hanger, I'm pretty sure I could handle him. If a killer breaks into my house carrying a gun, I'm in trouble.

Send the 2nd guy to my house.

alz wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

I would similarly suggest that anyone oppose to guns not own one.  So we're even on that point.

Not really. If an abortonist breaks into my house with a coat hanger, I'm pretty sure I could handle him. If a killer breaks into my house carrying a gun, I'm in trouble.

If he breaks in with a bat, you might find yourself wishing that dude had just shot you...

Some dude in China slashed through 22 kids (killing nobody, but that likely wasn't his intent or he would have) right before Newtown, which immediately overshadowed it. Crazy will not be swayed by the instruments available. McVeigh killed 168 people with household chemicals and motor-racing fuel...

But, as you pointed out, all the kids in the attack in China survived. I understand the argument that crazy is still crazy, but we don't have to arm and train the crazies to make it easier for them to kill.

"Maybe banning guns is a simple answer to a complex problem, cutting off or limiting access to weaponry is a good start."

How has that worked with the illegal drug market?

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"Maybe banning guns is a simple answer to a complex problem, cutting off or limiting access to weaponry is a good start."

How has that worked with the illegal drug market?

Good point, but the drug market is a little different because some of the most dangerous drugs are from foreign countries which historically don't have much of an interest in controlling or means to control production. If I'm not mistaken, most of the guns that are used in this country are made in this country, and you have a better chance of controlling the supply side.

You may be right on the current place of manufacture, but as long as their legal in other countries the manufacturers will just move. And there are plenty of foreign weapons floating around.

Quite honestly, I believe time and resources would be better spent trying to figure out why our culture seems to churn out so many of the whack jobs who do this. We know Columbine was a bullying issue. Some are clearly the result of mental illness. I've seen speculation that some of these are nothing more than idiots with a desire to die famous.

I'll concede you one point. There are a lot of people who own guns who shouldn't. My wife asked me once about taking her and teaching her to shoot. I asked her one question--if push came to shove, could she actually kill someone. When she said she wasn't sure, I told her she had no reason to learn. If you can't answer that question "yes" without hesitation, then you have no business owning a handgun. You can't hunt with them.  They only serve one purpose--to kill. If you can't do it, don't own one.

artie_fufkin wrote:

I'll give a more serious answer to your question and Fors'question about Switzerland. I don't know. I don't know why there are 11,000 gun deaths here every year and less than 100 in just about every other developed country. I don't know why the police in England don't carry guns and we have SWAT teams here. I don't think it's because we have a more violent history or video games or violent movies.
Maybe banning guns is a simple answer to a complex problem, but cutting off or limiting access to weaponry is a good start. Maybe this lunatic in Newtown would have still carried out a violent act, but if he wasn't exposed to and educated how to use guns at such a young age, his mental illness might have manifested itself in a less catastrophic way. And for all the "responsible" gun owners out there, it's harsh, but it's hard to listen to the "guns don't kill people ..." argument over and over every time one of these mass shootings occurs, especially when there's a bunch of kindergarteners dead .

Like wise it is hard to listen to gun control talk when you are pro gun ownership rights.  I means lets ignore the fact that mommy bought the guns.  Lets ignore the fact that the kid was mentally ill and allowed to have access to weapons and ammo.  Lets ignore the fact that she was a shitty mom.  Lets ignore the that a police presence at the school might have prevented this.  Then lets ignore the fact that we shouldnt be ignoring those fact and just blame a machine because that is what is easy.  Let ignore the fact that a bunch of kindergarteners are dead and politics are being played instead of trying to solve the problem.  I have young kids.  there has been an alarming amount of scares at our small town schools.  I honestly do not think gun control is the solution.   

So lets talk about "cutting off or limiting access".  How do you do it?  In Illinois we have a 3 day wait period.  Make it a 30 day wait period and I bet gun buys dont change much.  Hell with all this gun control Bs if you want to order a new one it takes months anyway.  Ban ARs and I bet these killings dont stop.  Make a magazine capacity limit and I bet that doesnt help a bit.  what do you do?  Ban guns completely?  that is unrealistic.  That is why I want to approach this problem from another angle.   

as to your questions in the first paragraph I simply think it is a culture difference.  This anything goes mind frame that this coutry has is the problem.  It isnt okay to be different sometimes.  We are more of a gun culture as well.  You cant change that and that makes it impossible to outlaw guns.  that is why that angle is just pure BS in my mind.

Fors hits on a good point.  I will expand with my view point.  This is America.  Guns are out there and going to stay out there.  Outlawing them is unrealistic.  These school shootings are a fade.  They are something that is being copycatted.  The cycle needs broken.  I dont see how gun control does that.  I dont see how Americans give into gun control.  we can either keep talking about trying to push a square peg into a round hole or we can start thinking of a real solution.

artie_fufkin wrote:

alz wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Not really. If an abortonist breaks into my house with a coat hanger, I'm pretty sure I could handle him. If a killer breaks into my house carrying a gun, I'm in trouble.

If he breaks in with a bat, you might find yourself wishing that dude had just shot you...

Some dude in China slashed through 22 kids (killing nobody, but that likely wasn't his intent or he would have) right before Newtown, which immediately overshadowed it. Crazy will not be swayed by the instruments available. McVeigh killed 168 people with household chemicals and motor-racing fuel...

But, as you pointed out, all the kids in the attack in China survived. I understand the argument that crazy is still crazy, but we don't have to arm and train the crazies to make it easier for them to kill.

I did, but I'm also noting that I don't think his intent was anything but maiming. If you can get knife wounds on 22 people, especially kids, the odds of not killing one of them are pretty slim, unless you're using a pocketknife.

With the internet, you can be trained on anything. Including the construction of your own weapons. To prevent this entirely you would have to put a net-nanny on the internet communications in the country, and marshall the use of any and all materials that could be used to make weapons. Steel, gunpowder, brass, lead, etc.

I'm simply wondering where you draw the line, not to argue, but just trying to hear what you think is a good solution. To me gun control won't work well, because the only people that would obey it would be people like AP and Fors, and I have no reason not to trust them with guns. You can give Fors a bazooka, and I'm okay with it. Why? Because I imagine he's only going to fire it at junkyard cars and or trees, and for no other reason other then to slap his buddy on the shoulder and say, "Did you see that shit? That was awesome!". Nobody who I want to give up their unregistered and likely already illegal weapons is going to say, "Oh hell, it's illegal, I better give these to the authorities, or I'll get in trouble."

Going back to the bat though, I'm serious. I'd rather be shot then bludgeoned. For pure trivia purposes, I'd rather be bludgeoned then set on fire.

"My guns are under lock and key.  More people are killed because of poor gun saftey then home invasions."

You're exactly right.  I only have two guns in the house: my service Berreta and my backup Smith & Wesson 5-shot.  Neither are locked.  Both are kept in the top drawer of the dresser closest to my side of the bed.  They're unloaded, but the ammo is in the same drawer and also unlocked.

Around the time Bob turned 8, I sat him down and talked to him about the guns.  I then brought them out (unloaded) and let him hold them, aim them, pull the trigger and ask whatever questions he had about them.  After that, I told him where they were kept and explained that if I ever so much as saw him look crossways at that drawer he'd get the beating of a lifetime.  When Madison turned 8, I did the same thing with her.

Since those discussions, the only time there's even been a mention of them is Bob recently asked me if I would take him and teach him to shoot.  I'm sure I will at some point, but I don't think he's old enough yet.