<p>If you say so.:-)</p>
<p>Here is an interesting perspective from Dr. Ludwig . Gun related deaths are a public health issue. Just like smoking. While limiting the magazine size on its own will not do much, a complex of measures can put a significant dent in the number of gun deaths:</p>
<p><a href=“http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167”>http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167</a></p>
<p>It is an open access article, so you should be able to read the whole paper.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read the first two paragraphs and after noticing multiple errors, there’s no way I’m reading an article on someone who has no idea what they’re talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rapid fire “Assault weapons” are already illegal, but the gun grabbers try to lump semi-automatic guns (one shot per trigger pull) into this category nonetheless, and I don’t think anyone buys into that anymore fortunately. Piercing bullets have basically never been brought up by anybody so I don’t know where that came from, and high-capacity ammunition CLIPS don’t exit, because they’re called MAGAZINES, and yes there is a clear difference between the two, and I don’t trust a word from someone who doesn’t acknowledge the difference. Someone who doesn’t bother to learn basic terminology is not someone worthy of being listened to in my opinion, so you’re going to have to try harder. It would be like going to a doctor who doesn’t know the difference between a vein and an artery. Just ridiculous. “Dr. Ludwig” is clearly no expert in guns and therefore has zero credibility in regards to guns.</p>
<p>Ok, why don’t you call Dr Ludwig and have a nice chat with him? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you said that too soon because you missed this in the last paragraph of that article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Smoking is a public health issue. Guns deaths are a public health issue. What’s “too soon about it”? Read the entire article. The article is well balanced and supports some of what you stand for. </p>
<p>As far as the first paragraphs go, sure - the authors point out that some of anti-gun debate is focusing on stuff that is wrong to focus on if something meaningful is to be achieved here.</p>
<p>Just because certain tools can cause death doesn’t make them a “public health issue”. Otherwise you’d have to say cars are also a public health issue, and swimming pools and millions of other things. It isn’t even close to being comparable to cigarettes because no matter how you use cigarettes it has a negative impact on your health, but if you use guns responsibly you aren’t going to be harmed at all. </p>
<p>Read the article, please. He specifically mentions cars, too. If you incapable to understand the renowned scientist who basically supports responsible gun ownership in this editorial, you are not capable to rationally debate the issue. </p>
<p>If a “renowned scientist” can’t figure out the difference between a clip and a magazine, explain to me why I should read an entire article full of his inaccuracies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“The "clip vs magazine" crisis – HotAir”>http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/02/the-clip-vs-magazine-crisis/</a></p>
<p>bl4ke360: if you want to engage in a serious discussion with the grownups on this forum, I suggest you start treating people with a little more respect. You really don’t help your cause when you are so rude. As an aside, if you are going to college and want to succeed in debates with others–on any topic–you will need a more sophisticated way of defending your position that does not rely on dismissing others based on semantics.</p>
<p>Thinking about smoking, these arguments remind me about how I used to fool myself back when I did smoke. Of course I knew it was wrong, bad for my health, etc., etc., but I got good at backpedaling, finding excuses to avoid people on that “smoke out” day in November, and used all sorts of twisted logic to kid myself that it was fine. Twisted logic is pretty transparent to anyone with a keen eye!</p>
<p>Id like to see gun advocates push for taking responsibility when your gun is stolen & or used in a crime/ accidental death. Why haven’t they?
If you want to own a gun, the responsible thing is to keep it locked up and unloaded unless it is actually being used.</p>
<p>Id also like to see better control over the amount & types of ammunition avaiable.
Have all the guns you want, just no bullets.
And certainly not ones like these.
<a href=“A New Bullet Has Been Invented. This is What it Looks Like.”>http://mic.com/articles/80211/a-new-bullet-has-been-invented-this-is-what-it-looks-like</a></p>
<p>I recently bought a house and the seller left a lot of junk behind. While clearing out an old armoire, something fell, with a loud sound and when I looked over, it was a rifle! Loaded, because why forget about an old gun in an armoire that is not loaded? Unfortunately, I’m sure I’m not the only one who has “found” a gun this way. I’m just lucky it didn’t end up firing. </p>
<p>^^^Wow.</p>
<p>Right. Yet no responsibility attaches to the owner of the (presumably) registered, legally acquired weapon.</p>
<p>“First of all they’re magazines not clips (not that you’d ever know the difference), and just because people don’t want to have to reload every 2 seconds at the gun range doesn’t mean they want to “shoot people really fast”.”</p>
<p>Ewwww. I’m not a redneck, so I have no need to know the difference between a clip and a magazine. </p>
<p>There’s a reason why these discussions are generally unfruitful…It’s hard to get far when either side doesn’t take the other seriously. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We can start doing that as soon as we start prosecuting people who’s car was stolen and killed someone in a crash by the thief. I think it’s safe to say that wouldn’t go over very well. </p>
<p>We are talking about two different things. People who have their cars stolen are victims of crime. People leaving their guns in cabinets when they move, or leaving them accessible to small children, or accidentally going off in their purses at Starbucks are IRRESPONSIBLE and deserve to be held accountable for their negligence.</p>
<p>Let’s re-read what I quoted:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it’s a crime to steal someone’s car but not a crime to steal someone’s gun? I don’t understand.</p>