<p>How you are saying what you are saying is not only unreasonable, it is offputting enough to have convinced me that I was actually wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not about the “votes” it’s about the constitutionality. The fact is, Americans aren’t obligated to follow unconstitutional laws, no matter who’s elected.</p>
<p>Bl4ke, you are not being reasonable and nor are those who are stubbornly sticking to this stance. I know a number of them, and they know they are unreasonble and are flying in the face of the facts. They don’t want the law to change because they are supported in one way or other by the gun industires, or they personally do not want to give up their thrills with shooting a semi automatic rifle. They love to do this and taking their guns away is like castrating them. </p>
<p>As for my careless friend, where I grew up, I could go from house to house picking up guns if I so pleased as could any of us. That’s how careless most of the gun owners are. A gun is often an integral part of the home and not locked up. And, you know what, yes, the right to do this is clear. But what about that gun that Adam Lanza used? How many rounds do you have to be able to shoot in rapid succession to keep safe and when does that become even more deadly so that the chances of mass murders are increased? Do you really need 20, 30 shots per loading? No compromise on this at all?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, given that they can illegally wire tap your home, right now? Sure, 
the entire patriot act was unconstitutional. Just try not following it. 
</p>
<p>No, really. Please try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So now you’re admitting you want to give our corrupt government even more power by taking away our guns. Sound familiar to what Hitler and company did?</p>
<p>
You are mistaken- it is legal to own full auto rifles but you have to jump through many hoops to do so. If you can find one for sale they go for 10s of thousands of dollars each.</p>
<p>GladGradDad, you’re 100% correct, the shooting accident was caused by the shooter’s negligence. I was part of a hunting party. Have you ever hunted and had to climb over barbed wire fences? I had been taught since I was little and first began shooting that you put the gun down, climb the fence, then pick the gun up again. The other guy, who was at least 25 years older than me and hunted all his life, just got careless. He decided he knew enough to be able to climb a fence and hold onto his gun at the same time. As it turns out, he was wrong. Yes, it was serious, but thanks for your good thoughts.</p>
<p>That’s the problem, isn’t it? Good people do negligent things. When the negligent thing is climbing a fence too fast, you get a cut. When the negligent thing involves a gun, lots of really bad things can happen.</p>
<p>I don’t think we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. I certainly understand why a family on a farm, far from a police response to some 911 call, would want a gun, and I don’t blame them. </p>
<p>But I do think we can craft laws to regulate guns better, without letting the gun manufacturers dictate our laws to us.</p>
<p>Is there anything we can agree on? Do you all favor a) universal background checks? b) prohibiting online sales of guns?</p>
<p>[and ps to texaspg: sorry if I misinterpreted your comment. Since the “good for you” didn’t quote the fact that I survived, but only the fact that I knew a person who’d been in a gun accident, I thought you were being sarcastic. My apologies. And I have visited Texas, but only San Antonio - great place!)</p>
<p>Now by the time I’ve finished this, the thread is probably 2-3 pages more than when I started the comment . . . .</p>
<p>Poetgl, have you read the NRA’s response to the call for measures? They aren’t budging. I do believe if it is taken to the Supreme Court there will be some leeway to outlaw some types of weapons that are currently legal out there. Like I said, the line has already been drawn and deemed constitutional. It’s a matter of whether it can be moved down to 18th century weaponry standards when the second amendment was drawn up. You can’t legally own any weapon you please. And I don’t think we’ll ever move to not being allowed to own any weapon at all. It’s where the line should be drawn to cut back on the death tolls that we are seeing with the type of weapons out there. This last round showed how fast someone can slaughter a class of kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’ve already ruled on this, as I already pointed out. They allow for regulation on “dangerous and unusual weapons”. Since all guns are dangerous, that part can be dismissed. As far as “unusual”, there are 2 million semi-auto rifle which by definition means they aren’t unusual, including the fact that they operate just like any other gun out there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is, that statements about how risky gun ownership is, are generally not true. There are something like 200-300 million guns in the US (no one know exactly how many), and as emilybee posted, there were 851 accidental firearm deaths in a year. If you own one of those guns, what are the real chances it will end up killing you or someone you know accidentally? I cannot even do that math confidently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no compromise on this because it’s completely ridiculous to ban a metal box with a spring. Watch this video, and then try to tell me how effective a magazine ban would be:</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0[/url]”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0</a></p>
<p>Pay attention to the part at 4:18, to see how worthless a high capacity magazine ban would be.</p>
<p>well, DC decided they didn’t need to prosecute the member of the media that went on live TV with an illegal magazine.</p>
<p>meanwhile they are still pressing charges against a veteran that carried a gun through DC locked in his trunk and not loaded, just as he was instructed.</p>
<p>gun laws are no good if you don’t enforce them. There is clearly a double standard.</p>
<p>guns are ok for some people and not for others. why?</p>
<p>and regarding the bullets per magazine… is it ok to shoot 6 children, but not 30? is this the distinction we are making?</p>
<p>Nancy Lanza did everything right with her guns. She registered them, locked them up and trained herself and her son to use them properly and care for them. Her son knew exactly how to work those guns and even jury rig them to be more lethal than they already were. He tried to buy some guns on his own, but was turned down due to the waiting period, and he didn’t want to go through any background check. So he just took the guns from home. It appears that his mother tried to stop him and lost her life in doing so. The guns were stored in the basement rec room where he pretty much lived, and that is where she was found. That it was her own son who did this would have been an agony beyond the fires of hell for her had she lived, but just as much damage could have been done by anyone who knew she had those guns and got in the house and took them from there. That she had those guns was the problem. And that there are unbalanced people out there. Can’t lock up someone without clear evidence that he is a danger to self and/orothers and there was hardly a sole less likely to harm someone than Adam Lanza who never attacked other, no police record, and needed to be protected when he was at school, not the other way around. Very smart, and very capable of using the guns and clearly on a directed mission–no, I doubt one armed security guard or police office even would have been expecting someone armed like him to come blasting through the door. They would have most likely been shot dead too. </p>
<p>Yeah, I’m waiting for more. With the media blitz these cases are getting, some more people at the breaking point just mind go over that cliff.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No she didn’t, she let her mentally ill son have access to them. Explain to me how that is doing “everything right”.</p>
<p>“what are the real chances it will end up killing you or someone you know accidentally? I cannot even do that math confidently.”</p>
<p>2.7 times more than a person who does not own a gun. And 4 x more likely death by suicide of you or a family member. That figure also doesn’t include people who are injured by your gun. </p>
<p>851 dead people might seem trivial, until it’s your family member. </p>
<p>That figure also does not include your gun being stolen and used to murder another or, in the Newton case, your guns being used to commit mass murder against others. </p>
<p>And with that I bid you all a good night.</p>
<p>Soccerguy, there is always some judgement used when making the decision to prosecute someone or not. Not always fair either. Doesn’t always make sense either. But when you see anyone break the law and get a pass, doesn’t mean you will doing the same thing. </p>
<p>I’m not familiar with the veteran case, so I can’t comment. If it is as you say, it isn’t right that the person is prosecuted. That the reporter was given a pass–well, like I said, people do get a pass when no harm is done, many times. Doesn’t mean the next time or the next person gets the same one. People do not get prosecuted every single time they break the law, especially when no one is hurt, no charges pressed. I still think that reporter was an ass, don’t get me wrong, but I can also see why he was not prosecuted.</p>
<p>Also, Emilybee puts it into perspective as to how manymore times a gun causes harm rather just being there.</p>
<p>We are not just talking about people getting killed. But also injured, shot, or a gun being fired in anger or accidently or in play, and reported, just as every event where a gun may have stopped a situation does not result in a body count. The numbers go way up in terms of gun abuse when you look at those numbers, and those are just the events reported.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can say the same thing about people’s homes that are broken into, and having nothing to defend themselves with. You think it doesn’t happen until it happens to you, and let me tell you something, that amount is much higher than just 851.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fixed your quote for accuracy.</p>
<p>Hayden - I see that I missed to include your last line about your survival in my quotes.</p>
<p>Why do some hunting accidents seem to involve bird shot and others real bullets?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what is that rate? </p>
<p>If my chances of accidentally dying when I own a gun are 851/300,000,000, then are my chances of accidentally dying when I don’t own a gun 315/300,000,000? Is that even a significant difference?</p>