Guns are designed and engineered to injure/kill. Cars are not.

 

But since we are talking about cars... In order to legally operate them, you have to take a written test (don't have to in order to buy a gun), a driving test (no test required to buy a gun), and if you mess up too often you can lose the privilege to drive all together.

 

Again, what is the problem with making it a little tougher to get a weapon?

 

Heck, you have to have an ID card to check a book out of the library.

I am not an anti-gun guy, but the response of "well let's ban X" counter-arguments grow tiresome.

 

I am fine saying it is not a gun problem, but there is definitely something around the gun culture this nation has harvested that doesn't jive. To me it is not about regulating or abolishing guns, it is about reshaping said culture.

 

I mostly agree. However, it's tough to reshape the culture without some more regulation (not abolition) IMHO.

Then yes, you are okay with continuing down the path we are on.

 

That's not what I said. I just don't think taking my right to own a certain gun is the right thing to do.

Sure if you guys want.

 

I'm open to discussing solutions to help reduce the number of drunk driving fatalities in our country.

 

The vast majority of pro-gun people are okay with these mass shootings continuing to happen as long as they get to keep their guns though. That's IMO the difference. They aren't willing or open to looking for solutions.

 

The vast majority of pro gun people are ok with mass shootings? You wanna stick with that? Really?

 

The vast majority of anti gun people are completely ignorant about guns and their only idea is to strip law abiding citizens of their constitutional right.

The vast majority of pro gun people are ok with mass shootings? You wanna stick with that? Really?

 

The vast majority of anti gun people are completely ignorant about guns and their only idea is to strip law abiding citizens of their constitutional right.

 

Those that are unwilling or open to looking for solutions, yes IMO, they're okay with what's been happening at a growing rate in our country when it comes to mass shootings. If they weren't they'd be open to finding ways to make it harder for people to do it. And, from my experience with pro-gun people, that's the majority of them.

As is often the case, Will Durst nails it, with a healthy dose of humor.

 

A Bit of Common Sense on Guns - Will Durst, Humor Times

As is often the case, Will Durst nails it, with a healthy dose of humor.

 

A Bit of Common Sense on Guns - Will Durst, Humor Times

 

Conservatives get mad in 3...2....

Let me ask some questions to those who oppose stricter gun control measures, specifically those who say more regulation won’t work.

 

It’s often brought up in these threads that automatic weapons are illegal (or the process of acquiring them legally is so arduous that hardly anyone does it). It’s also brought up in these threads that more regulation or restrictions won’t have any impact on gun violence. Yet, in cases of mass shootings/terrorism/whatever the perpetrators have almost never used automatic firearms (I’m sure someone will unearth an exception, but in the last decade of these events I don’t recall one; I think you’d have to go back to the Hollywood shootout), even though, at the risk of sounding macabre, they seem to be a better tool for the job.

 

So, do you believe the difficulty of legally acquiring an automatic weapon is part of the reason these weapons have not been used in these situations? Or, why not?

 

Those that are unwilling or open to looking for solutions, yes IMO, they're okay with what's been happening at a growing rate in our country when it comes to mass shootings. If they weren't they'd be open to finding ways to make it harder for people to do it. And, from my experience with pro-gun people, that's the majority of them.

 

Just because pro gun folks don't agree with every gun control measure doesn't mean they're ok with mass murder. That's a pretty big leap.

Just because pro gun folks don't agree with every gun control measure doesn't mean they're ok with mass murder. That's a pretty big leap.

 

Which ONE has anybody agreed with?

Just because pro gun folks don't agree with every gun control measure doesn't mean they're ok with mass murder. That's a pretty big leap.

 

It's more the fact that they won't even give a second's worth of consideration to changing what we've currently got in place. What we've got in place is clearly not working. If you're not willing to consider some sort of changes, that tells me you're (general, not you specifically) okay with how things are now, i.e. the mass shootings.

Let me ask some questions to those who oppose stricter gun control measures, specifically those who say more regulation won’t work.

 

It’s often brought up in these threads that automatic weapons are illegal (or the process of acquiring them legally is so arduous that hardly anyone does it). It’s also brought up in these threads that more regulation or restrictions won’t have any impact on gun violence. Yet, in cases of mass shootings/terrorism/whatever the perpetrators have almost never used automatic firearms (I’m sure someone will unearth an exception, but in the last decade of these events I don’t recall one; I think you’d have to go back to the Hollywood shootout), even though, at the risk of sounding macabre, they seem to be a better tool for the job.

 

So, do you believe the difficulty of legally acquiring an automatic weapon is part of the reason these weapons have not been used in these situations? Or, why not?

 

What makes you think a fully automatic weapon would be better for the job?

 

And do you think laws restricting them have kept them out of the hands of criminals who want them?

 

Which ONE has anybody agreed with?

 

I've seen a few but I'm not going to do the work for you.

 

It's more the fact that they won't even give a second's worth of consideration to changing what we've currently got in place. What we've got in place is clearly not working. If you're not willing to consider some sort of changes, that tells me you're (general, not you specifically) okay with how things are now, i.e. the mass shootings.

 

Again, it's a pretty big leap you're making.

 

Just because they might not think guns are the issue doesn't mean they're ok with people being murdered.

 

Believe it or not, everyone doesn't have to agree with your way of doing things.

I'm not making a leap at all.

 

If a person thinks the solution is to "do nothing", at the very least they don't care that people are being murdered.

 

I know full well most people don't agree with me and I'm 100% okay with that. Just reaffirms my beliefs...