<p>[Poll:</a> Most Americans support new gun-control measures after Newtown massacre - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-hell-offer-plans-to-stem-gun-violence-this-week/2013/01/14/b7ad8ea8-5e6c-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_story.html]Poll:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-hell-offer-plans-to-stem-gun-violence-this-week/2013/01/14/b7ad8ea8-5e6c-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_story.html)</p>
<p>[Americans</a>’ Dissatisfaction With Gun Laws Spikes to 38%](<a href=“In U.S., 38% Dissatisfied and Want Stricter Gun Laws”>In U.S., 38% Dissatisfied and Want Stricter Gun Laws)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no license required to own a gun in my state (and many others). However, if you are a felon you are considered a prohibited person and are not legally able to own a gun.</p>
<p>[In</a> Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press](<a href=“http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/]In”>In Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>52% is not “a very high percentage” like you originally said. And from my source which is undeniably more accurate (Gallup), only 26% of republicans want to ban semi-auto guns, and 61% of democrats do. That does not work out to be a majority, in fact it’s only barely a majority among democrats.</p>
<p>
Why are gun owners against regulations to ensure that they ARE?</p>
<p>You would love for us to believe that the people involved in these mass shootings choose places without guns, but it’s just not the case. Adam Lanza didn’t choose Sandy Hook because it was a gun-free zone. He chose it because he was jealous of the children, and that was the local school where he could find those children he wanted to harm.</p>
<p>You and others love the quote “guns don’t people, people kill people.” Yes, that’s true, but they kill people USING GUNS. The primary purpose of a gun is to inflict damage - you can’t argue that. The primary purpose of an automobile is for transportation, so claiming more people are killed by cars is a red herring. And we have regulations regarding the operation of an automobile, to help prevent some of those deaths. Yet many gun owners (note, not all, and the number may be shrinking now) are very much against ANY regulations which would do the same for guns.</p>
<p>Blame the irresponsible gun owner - but understand that gun control is about forcing them to be more responsible, or to be liable for the damage done. Can I go out an buy a car designed to operate at 200 MPH, and drive it on our highways? No, I can’t!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you see as an alternative to 1 trigger pull produces one projectile? That is the way ALL modern weapons (handguns) work.</p>
<p>ETA: Modern weapons not including fully auto.</p>
<p>“SOME gun owners are irresponsible owners (such as the friend in the example). Some drivers are irresponsible drivers. Should we not allow anyone to drive because some people drink, or text, or drive recklessly?”</p>
<p>Should we not require drivers to be licensed, pass a written and road test, be insured for liability, be required to pass an eye test for renewal, just because SOME drivers are irresponsible?</p>
<p>Again, the argument that having an armed “good guy” in place is a solution is belied by actual history. Columbine had an actual sheriff in the school. He engaged Harris in a gun fight. 1 minute later another cop showed up. 24 kids were shot by both Harris and Klebold after the gun fight. The “solution” is thus that having an armed guard may reduce the number of deaths. It won’t actually prevent them, which is what other people might define as an actual “solution.” The police officers on the scene did not rush into the building. They did what officers do: they called for help. </p>
<p>There is a weird misunderstanding of what people do. Not many people are going to lay down their lives. People love to believe they would be the hero. After Aurora, I read some of my favorite gun boards - yes, I read some of those. They were filled with guys talking about how they’d have sighted the shooter by propping their weapon against the seat edge and other video game nonsense. Idiots.</p>
<p>And when people say “gun free zones” they stupidly mean a sign posted in rather small letters near the ticket window in a movie theater has the magical property of excluding guns. After a theater employee in CO saw a man with a gun and called the police, the officer asked for the person to stand up in the theatre and 3 other people did as well. They were carrying. They were asked to put their guns in their cars. A sign “gun free zone” doesn’t have magical properties. This isn’t Harry Potter and the Gun Free Zone Sign.</p>
<p>This thread has officially jumped the shark if we are questioning why any president’s children require Secret Service protection. I expect secret -Kenyan-socialist-Mooslim any minute now.</p>
<p>There is a big difference between a semi automatic that can shoot 20 shots with rapid fire and one that limits you to 6 shots. Like three times the body count. That rifle that Adam Lanza used is not something you want people toting around. And you don’t see them out and around. They are used primarily for entertainment. Target practice. Not for protection or hunting. You use those guns to go to a range and pretend you are Rambo and feel important. It’s a step, a big step up from the high and fun you get from the video games to be shooting one of those things for real. ANd if the full automatics were legal, there would be peoople wanting them to play with too. The uzis and bazookas and machine guns too. Feel really big and powerful shooting those. Few people leave them loaded and available for protection because at that point, it 's pretty danged clear whose likely to get iced by that thing. The semi with lot of shots is somewhere in the middle. All I am saying is to draw the legal line under those with more than 6-8 shots, where ever the logical point is with what weaponry is out there. There is no reason to have guns like that around other than ego and pleasure and it is at the risk of a lot of people getting hurt and killed.</p>
<p>I don’t even think guns make sense, as you can tell from my arguments, except in certain circumstances and even then, such people need to stop and think what the odds are. Too many gun owner do not do this and won’t face the numbers. </p>
<p>When your arguments make no sense and fly in the face of facts, you really lose ground. Do stop and think about what you are writing, and what your stance is. Like I said, I grew up with guns, am pretty well versed in them, and I understand very clearly why people want them and I can see how and when they are warrented. I also understand that we do have the second amendment, and do not believe it is outdated in that there should be some rights to protect onself. But when the threat to society by certain weapons that were not in existance when the Bill of rights was being put toghether, weapons that can kill a large number of people before anyone can even react or escape or have much of a chance…I think that common sense needs to kick in.</p>
<p>[After</a> Newtown Shootings, Most Back Some Gun Controls, Poll Shows - ABC News](<a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/on-eve-of-newtown-recommendations-most-back-new-gun-control-measures/]After”>After Newtown Shootings, Most Back Some Gun Controls, Poll Shows - ABC News)</p>
<p>
I just responded to the rapid fire comment - I consider a semi-auto to be rapid fire - as opposed to a single action revolver or a pump gun. I can pump a gun pretty fast but not as fast as a semi-auto.</p>
<p>Until this thread, I was really for minimal gun regulation, like licensing, background checks, mental health laws, not allowing person to person sales, only through dealers–closing the loophole, so to speak. </p>
<p>After having witnessed Bl4ke? I think such unreasonable ness ought not to be allowed the force of a weapon behind it. Frightening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know what guns you’re talking about that limit you to 6 shots, there are many revolvers that hold 10 bullets or more. This one seems to hold about 50:</p>
<p><a href=“http://bobbailey1959.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2010/11/revolver-gun-handgun-multiple-cylinder.jpg[/url]”>HotGuns and things that go pphhffffttt...: Image;
![http://bobbailey1959.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2010/11/revolver-gun-handgun-multiple-cylinder.jpg[/url]](http://bobbailey1959.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/revolver-gun-handgun-multiple-cylinder.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>“After having witnessed Bl4ke? I think such unreasonable ness ought not to be allowed the force of a weapon behind it. Frightening.”</p>
<p>Welcome back from the dark side. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t even have a gun, so I don’t see your point. By the way, gun owners and people that follow the constitution agree with me so you can stop pretending what I’m saying is unreasonable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, guns are evil, the constitutional is evil, I’ve heard it enough from you guys and it’s getting old. If you hate guns so much you’re free to move to China.</p>
<p>^^Yup, you’re not unreasonable.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, there is no way any gun control measures will pass for most of the country. The NRA is 100% correct in saying that they control the votes on that one. And if Obama tries to mandate this nationally, I don’t know if he can pull it off. I think we need a few hundred, or thousand more kids and families get slaughtered. The Sandy Hook massacre silence the NRA for a few days. When someone shoots up more kids and people in rapid succession, it might silence them for a few weeks or months. Maybe if a few of the more rabid proponents has some of his children, grandchildren slaughtered that way, there will be some movement. There is a lot of money tied up in this. Be aware that gun sale went UP, especially for semi automatic rifles which is, by the way one of the most popular models, a best seller, after this happened. More people think like Bl4ke when it comes to an absolute vote. When it comes to those in the House who are bought and paid for by those who think that way, it’s a majority. Though people who want a change are being vocal as well as those invested in keeping the status quo, there are a lot of people lying low and they are not giving up there guns. And that is in the Newtown, CT area too. Those gun ranges bring in a lot of money. They are just keeping quiet because they know they will look bad, very bad, if they state their views. And I think they are wrong and are not facing the facts because of their own selfish desires and feelings.</p>