Run To State

Wasn't directed at you. Was kind of saying what you just said.

Right. No constitutional right should be trampled, yet....

I wouldn't be surprised.

You can turn a blind eye all you want. I find it hilarious that you and the other's that think the gun is at fault completely ignore the fact that a few decades ago we had much more prolific guns available yet we didn't have these kind of problems. I find it both hilarious and sad that you will continue to vilify the object and not the actual problem. I find it alarming that you can't figure out that if we confiscated guns that we'd see bombings instead; a sick mind is going to find a way, just look at what goes on in the Middle East. That's coming here. Just watch. Seems France and Germany have had recent shootings. Come on man, wake up! I think you listen too much to what the administration wants you to believe. Deaths from mass public shootings where at least 15 people have been killed (1970 through March 20, 2016) Click to enlarge

Might be better before the Beer, bacon, cheese and bourbon... At least at my age.

You can't seem to grasp the concept that all countries are different. There aren't near the guns in other countries that are in this country. Our gang problems are worse, our drug abuse problem is worse, our culture is different, we have a larger population than most if not all of those countries. Yet, despite all that, this is still the greatest country in the world. So, you agree we have a people problem, yet you want to blame the gun. Makes zero sense. I'm telling you, ban and confiscate all guns and the problem doesn't go away. Why is that so hard for you and some others on here to understand?

How many Uzis have been involved in mass shootings? Pick any full-auto, they're more efficient for killing. Since we know this is a fact, ask yourself why there weren't any mass shootings using these much more efficient "killing machines". My point? Something has changed in this country since 1986. It isn't the weapon. They haven't really changed. The problem is people. Why are we chasing our tails by targeting what obviously isn't the problem? Agenda driven perhaps?

Is an AR-15 or an Uzi more deadly? Which would do more damage in a mass shooting, especially by someone well armed with ammo and proficient in it's use?

Explain how this stops the next shooter, please. I'm confused as to how it would work. I'm not getting how putting the onus on manufacturers and dealers will regulate or stop a sick, twisted mind or a criminal intent on breaking the law. I'm seriously asking because I'm not understanding.

I argue they haven't been stiff enough or swift enough.

Bourbon would be all I can think of.

I understand that, but you aren't considering how many semi-autos there are out there. The fact that those firearms weren't used in mass shootings (gangster days excluded), as you yourself pointed out, should speak volumes that it isn't the gun. Looking for shootings with legally owned full-autos I found this: Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. So a ban because of how they look is the answer? If not, what are you proposing? Do you realize how much damage a .22 semi-auto can do in a room full of people? I'm curious as to where you want to take this.

This is really beneath you. It's also a vile, disgusting, deplorable, fraudulent attack on people simply because they don't agree with what you think should be done. For a guy that speaks of others using a broad brush and pointing out hyperbole, you've managed to outdo any I've ever seen on here. Disappointing to say the least. :no:

Anything that isn't made anymore is more expensive, I see it no different than something that is short of supply, regardless of regulation. I also can't see a reason to regulate a semiautomatic rifle the same way you would a fully automatic one based on how it looks and the fact that a small percentage of people misuse it. Seems backward, ineffectual and fruitless. As am I to it being the object rather than the change in people.

I think gun safety training is a good idea. I've always been a fan of things like the Eddie Eagle GunSafe program for young kids and I feel like the NRA is a good source for any age to start. I'm not sure how I would feel about a government controlled training course simply because of the problems with bureaucracy and I wonder how good the training would be. Just look at any road or highway these days, more than half the people that drive don't even seem to know the rules. That side, I think I could get on board if it was done right. I don't know about recurring for all gun owners. Seems like overkill for your average gun enthusiast. The second part could well be part of what I already proposed. In all, you and I are as close to agreement on guns than we have ever been. So, that's a plus.

Yeah, and yet somehow we're the ones that get accused of painting others with a broad brush. Nothing sanctimoniousness about that...

No. Because of cost and availability. Do you realize how many semiautomatic weapons are in circulation compared to full auto? Was just as true 40 and 50 years ago when we weren't having these mass shootings. So, tell me Habib, what's changed?

A gun is also designed and engineered to protect yourself and family, to compete, to enjoy recreationally. Since we are talking about cars you brought up THE key word. Privilege. Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a constitutional right. Huge difference. What's wrong with doing the things I and others have proposed first?

I don't know about the gun part so much as the culture part. We definitely have a culture problem.

That's quite a mendacious comment.

Depends on the owner. What is the end result when either is misused?

Okay. Ban alcohol?

If these nuts start using .22 rifles to kill with, do they get added to a ban?