From my cold dead hands!

[Mighty AC]

As to the threat of a tyrannical government, and the forces that guard (With namely the AR-15‘s select fire cousin), maintain and if required, implement the United States nuclear weapons, their loyalty lies with the Constitution…….

So there is no need for legal public possession of assault weapons. I agree there.

But at the end of the day, the Assault Weapons Ban part II and magazine capacity limits won’t be made into federal law, and if the rest of his package does make it to a vote and manages to make it through the Senate, it will be stopped once it hit’s the Congress……

Your side has lost

No...sanity doesn't lose. Most of the world is moving in the right direction, the US has just been held back by the GOP for hire...but even that seems to be changing. The repubs are beginning to severe ties with living fossils and Christian wingnuts.

[Guest Derek L]

So there is no need for legal public possession of assault weapons. I agree there.

I doubt there is a threat of a evil tyrannical government taking charge anytime soon, but then again, the 2nd amendment has yet to be trashed, obviously one needs to happen prior to the other taking form……Kinda Chicken and the egg if you will.

No...sanity doesn't lose. Most of the world is moving in the right direction, the US has just been held back by the GOP for hire...but even that seems to be changing. The repubs are beginning to severe ties with living fossils and Christian wingnuts.

The world can move any direction it so desires……..Yet since Obama has been President, there have been on average 32 required background checks for gun purchases a minute in the United States……..

President Obama is the best gun sales person of all time.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/fbi-conducting-32-gun-purchase-background-checks-minute-under-obama

And even form a Canadian perspective, the rate of new gun owners, especially those applying for the restricted class (handguns and AR-15s etc), has been increasing over the last several years, reversing the downward trend over the last several years after the Long Gun Registry, from a previous peak of 1.9 million licensed owners in 2006, reaching 1.93 million as of last December……..with over 95k licences (including renewals) being issued from October to December of 2012, a direct correlation with the demise of the LGR last year.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm#a

………If guns startle you so, perhaps you should move to somewhere in the “rest of the world”...

Edited April 11, 2013 by Derek L

[Mighty AC]

President Obama is the best gun sales person of all time.

Adding the "available for a limited time" label to any product will increase sales. I guess those who were in the market for guns fear Obama will actually make progress on this. Good for him for trying.

If guns startle you so, perhaps you should move to somewhere in the rest of the world...

Tempting suggestion, but I prefer to solve problems and help to improve the quality of life right here.

[Wilber]

………If guns startle you so, perhaps you should move to somewhere in the “rest of the world”...

Why should he, you don't own this one.

[Guest Derek L]

Adding the "available for a limited time" label to any product will increase sales. I guess those who were in the market for guns fear Obama will actually make progress on this. Good for him for trying.

Indeed, and I’m sure Colt, Smith & Wesson, Armalite, Bushmaster etc appreciate the “help”…

Tempting suggestion, but I prefer to solve problems and help to improve the quality of life right here.

How do the guns I own negatively effect your quality of life?

[Guest Derek L]

Why should he, you don't own this one.

Nor does he, yet I'm not the one trying to change it, well forcing my opinions and beliefs upon others........I frankly don't care if he chooses to ever own a gun.

[Guest Derek L]

Well the Democrats sure are making the country safe:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/10/us-gun-control-deal.html

Nevertheless, two major provisions in Obama's original gun control package — a ban on sales of military-style assault weapons and a limit on the size of ammunition magazines — are not even being discussed any more since they have no hope of being passed.

The deal would expand the checks to cover all commercial sales, including at gun shows and online. Private transactions that are not for profit, such as those between relatives, would be exempt. Currently, the system only covers sales through licensed gun dealers.

First all internet sales are already regulated. If I lived in Texas and bought a gun from a online dealer in Florida, unlike Canada, the gun won’t be shipped to my home, but to a FFL holder within Texas, who then runs my name through the FBI’s NICS prior to me receiving said Floridian gun.

Second, at dealer and/or manufacturer sponsored gun shows, of what over 90% are in the States, said background checks are already in place and self governed by said organizers for liability purposes…….A gun show sponsored by say Cabela’s or Smith & Wesson wouldn’t want trouble with local law enforcement, the ATF or the media……..hence, like in their stores or distributors, they too perform background checks……..What this will effect will be the small local shows put on by the local hunting or rotary club held at the local high school gym……

Third, Private transactions are exempt when not for profit………

Hey Joe, would you like this new AR-15?

Sure, thanks Bill.

Hey Bill, can I loan you some money?

Much appreciated Joe.

Of course the NRA will oppose this proposed legislation, and it’s very possible that it still doesn’t pass, but well the NRA is spouting off about this affront to Freedom and 2nd Amendment, they alongside the other gun lobbies and manufactures will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[Mighty AC]

How do the guns I own negatively effect your quality of life?

Hmmm, let's see... My child is over to play with Derek Jr. who has found the key to your lock box. Wanting to impress his friends Jr. shows off the gun and while imitating movie scenes one kid ends up dead and the other traumatized.

Suddenly woken from a deep sleep by someone breaking into your house, groggy and nervous you grab your weapon and investigate. You turn a corner to see the shadowy figure of an intruder and bam, you shoot your teenage daughter who is back from an impromptu, post-curfew encounter with her friends. She happens to be my child's swimming instructor and the news bothers her greatly.

It is fairly common, especially among men, to become angry quickly and also cool off in a short period of time. Unfortunately, with guns in the house, you kill your wife (my wife's friend) in a fit of rage before you can calm down.

Faced with increased manufacturing costs I am forced to layoff several employees, including Derek. Bipolar and not on your meds you meet me in the parking garage with your gun that evening.

Again, lacking proper medication you become convinced that government officials are plotting to insert a tracking device in your brain. While walking home late, from watching a sporting event I pass you on the street. Unfortunately for me I look a little too much like the imaginary agent who is stalking you and I take two in the back.

Really, one gun toting Derek doesn't scare me, as our paths are unlikely to cross. However, many Dereks are a problem and hearing about all the incidents of recent gun violence more people feel the need to own weapons to 'protect' themselves.

[Guest Derek L]

Hmmm, let's see... My child is over to play with Derek Jr. who has found the key to your lock box. Wanting to impress his friends Jr. shows off the gun and while imitating movie scenes one kid ends up dead and the other traumatized.

Suddenly woken from a deep sleep by someone breaking into your house, groggy and nervous you grab your weapon and investigate. You turn a corner to see the shadowy figure of an intruder and bam, you shoot your teenage daughter who is back from an impromptu, post-curfew encounter with her friends. She happens to be my child's swimming instructor and the news bothers her greatly.

It is fairly common, especially among men, to become angry quickly and also cool off in a short period of time. Unfortunately, with guns in the house, you kill your wife (my wife's friend) in a fit of rage before you can calm down.

Faced with increased manufacturing costs I am forced to layoff several employees, including Derek. Bipolar and not on your meds you meet me in the parking garage with your gun that evening.

Again, lacking proper medication you become convinced that government officials are plotting to insert a tracking device in your brain. While walking home late, from watching a sporting event I pass you on the street. Unfortunately for me I look a little too much like the imaginary agent who is stalking you and I take two in the back.

Really, one gun toting Derek doesn't scare me, as our paths are unlikely to cross. However, many Dereks are a problem and hearing about all the incidents of recent gun violence more people feel the need to own weapons to 'protect' themselves.

So, these are all irrational fears you hold towards "what could happen with Derek's" guns, fore statistically speaking in Canada, you have a greater chance of being in a car accident caused by either a drunk or someone texting, yet no reasonable person calls for bans of cars, booze or cell phones, only regulations on people using them to be put in place to lessen the chance of them having a negative impact on your (well society) quality of life.

So after myself obtaining a Government issued Restricted Possession and Acquisition licence, a licence that included mental health screening, criminal record checks, employment/financial history, a interview with my wife in addition to two other non related people that I’ve known for over five years, plus me then complying with safe storage laws (laws that prevent little Derek and AC playing with my guns) you still fear “people like me”?

I think this is your problem, not legal gun owners.

edit to add, the PAL/RPAL licence also requires a gun safety course, followed by a Government test.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Derek L

[Wilber]

Nor does he, yet I'm not the one trying to change it, well forcing my opinions and beliefs upon others........I frankly don't care if he chooses to ever own a gun.

So what, are you saying that anyone who want's change that you don't like should leave the country? He has just as much right to advocate change as you do to resist it.

Not a big fan of "love it or leave it", that's not what democracy is about.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Wilber

[Mighty AC]

...in Canada, you have a greater chance of being in a car accident caused by either a drunk or someone texting, yet no reasonable person calls for bans of cars, booze or cell phones, only regulations on people using them to be put in place to lessen the chance of them having a negative impact on your (well society) quality of life.

Agreed, and I'm not calling for a ban on all guns.

Cars are dangerous and far more useful than guns. In Ontario a prospective drive must pass two tests and an eye exam in order to obtain an entry level license. A year later he/she can get a full license provided the rules were followed. Why do so many scoff at the idea of applying similar standards to guns?

No reasonable person would look at the devastation caused by combining booze, cell phones and cars (seriously, don't drink and text) and conclude that nothing should be done. However, that is exactly what many are doing in the US on the issue of gun violence.

So after myself obtaining a Government issued Restricted Possession and Acquisition licence, a licence that included mental health screening, criminal record checks, employment/financial history, a interview with my wife in addition to two other non related people that Ive known for over five years, plus me then complying with safe storage laws (laws that prevent little Derek and AC playing with my guns) you still fear people like me?

No, I don't fear you partly because of regulations and the effect it has on the total number of guns in circulation. I would just like to see similar regulations put into force across the US. I want mandatory background checks, wait times and safe storage laws. I don't want conceal and carry permits. I don't want to arm teachers, bank tellers, drive through and daycare workers.

[Guest Derek L]

Agreed, and I'm not calling for a ban on all guns.

Cars are dangerous and far more useful than guns. In Ontario a prospective drive must pass two tests and an eye exam in order to obtain an entry level license. A year later he/she can get a full license provided the rules were followed. Why do so many scoff at the idea of applying similar standards to guns?

And it’s similar here for drivers licensing……..And I don’t scoff at firearms licensing, as I’ve stated in every single firearms related thread that I’ve posted in, I’m supportive of it (and safe storage laws) and in this very thread commended State Democrats and Republicans in Connecticut for passing legislation, that though not mirroring our current PAL/RPAL system, borrows several aspects.

What I scoff at is ineffective proposals that will do nothing to reduce gun violence, especially those that get into the technical merits associated with firearms (The action type, appearance or magazine capacity etc), and are created by those that know nothing about them.

No reasonable person would look at the devastation caused by combining booze, cell phones and cars (seriously, don't drink and text) and conclude that nothing should be done. However, that is exactly what many are doing in the US on the issue of gun violence.

Gun owners are scoffing at proposals that would be akin to banning sports cars, Lambs Navy Rum and Smartphone’s to reduce driving well drunk or using the phone.

No, I don't fear you partly because of regulations and the effect it has on the total number of guns in circulation. I would just like to see similar regulations put into force across the US. I want mandatory background checks, wait times and safe storage laws. I don't want conceal and carry permits. I don't want to arm teachers, bank tellers, drive through and daycare workers.

What does the number of guns have to do with anything? Adam Lanza had his mother’s AR-15, shotgun and two handguns……..or four guns………just one of my safes has six times as many guns, yet as you correctly stated, you have no reason to fear me or my guns.

I agree with Safe Storage fully for namely two reasons:

1. It help curtails accidents in the home namely amongst children

2. It help reduce one of the major sources of firearms used in violent crimes, theft.

Background checks that don’t include mental health records (The NRA’s primary complaint) wouldn’t have prevented Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech or the shooting of Gabby Gifford’s.

And wait times I’ve never understood……..

And why are you opposed to concealed carry? Shouldn’t a man or women be allowed to protect themselves? Clearly some form of permit/licence should be in place prior, but amongst the United States, CCW holders are the most “regulated” gun owners, often requiring (depending on State) a safety course through local or State law enforcement, background and mental health check and registering the firearm they choose to carry……

I posted a link several months back in one of the gun threads demonstrating the level of convictions of concealed carry holders versus regular convictions in the State of Texas, a State that has something like five handguns for every man, women and child:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

In total, CCW holders make-up on average 0.19% of convictions in the State.

[Mighty AC]

Gun owners are scoffing at proposals that would be akin to banning sports cars, Lambs Navy Rum and Smartphone’s to reduce driving well drunk or using the phone.

No it's more like banning F1 or Indy cars on regular streets. They have a specialized purpose but not in the general public.

What does the number of guns have to do with anything?

In general, the fewer people with guns, the fewer accidents and incidents of violence.

And wait times I’ve never understood……..

Really? You don't think making people experiencing rage or depression wait 30 days could prevent a few bad decisions?

And why are you opposed to concealed carry? Shouldn't a man or women be allowed to protect themselves?

Sure, with non-lethal means. People carrying guns become a danger to others and create an anxious and tense environment that I do not want to be the norm.

At Joe Louis arena in Detroit they have to make every patron walk through metal detectors in order keep weapons out. It's a sad way to live.

[Guest Derek L]

No it's more like banning F1 or Indy cars on regular streets. They have a specialized purpose but not in the general public.

Again, you’re demonstrating your ignorance…..An AR-15 is to a Ford Mustang, what a M-16 is to a NASCAR.

In general, the fewer people with guns, the fewer accidents and incidents of violence.

Again an ignorant statement, my ~50 guns are no more dangerous then several guns owned by another PAL/RPAL holder…….As I said, if I own 1 gun or 100, the potential for accidents or violence doesn’t increase.

Really? You don't think making people experiencing rage or depression wait 30 days could prevent a few bad decisions?

No, not at all……..There are zero mandatory wait times in Canada once one receives their PAL/RPAL.

Sure, with non-lethal means. People carrying guns become a danger to others and create an anxious and tense environment that I do not want to be the norm.

At Joe Louis arena in Detroit they have to make every patron walk through metal detectors in order keep weapons out. It's a sad way to live.

Yet the crime statistics I relayed above from Texas disprove your assertion that people carrying guns become a danger to others and create an anxious and tense environment……..Like I demonstrated above, all instances of crime by licensed CCW holders in Texas account for ~0.19% of convictions.

I’m not suggesting that you should be forced to carry (or own) a firearm, and if you feel a taser or pepper spray is sufficient, all the power to you, yet non lethal means don’t always stop a threat, where as .45 ball stops them all……hence why police in North America still carry firearms and more devastating hollow point ammunition when contrasted with say the military and most sport shooters that use full metal jacket rounds or soft points for hunting.

[Mighty AC]

Again, you’re demonstrating your ignorance…..An AR-15 is to a Ford Mustang, what a M-16 is to a NASCAR.

I know exactly what an AR-15 is; we just have a different bias. My position is that there is no beneficial use to civilian owned semi-automatic weapons. Those with guns already get shot and killed more often than those without. Allowing guns with no practical purpose, that shoot more bullets faster, makes absolutely no sense.

Again an ignorant statement, my ~50 guns are no more dangerous then several guns owned by another PAL/RPAL holder…….As I said, if I own 1 gun or 100, the potential for accidents or violence doesn’t increase.

Re-read the section you highlighted in bold. The fewer people with guns, the fewer incidents of violence. "When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death."

The negatives of guns in the home far outweigh the positives:

Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity.ars

People are also far more likely to be shot and killed if they are carrying a gun:

Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

[Guest Derek L]

I know exactly what an AR-15 is; we just have a different bias. My position is that there is no beneficial use to civilian owned semi-automatic weapons. Those with guns already get shot and killed more often than those without. Allowing guns with no practical purpose, that shoot more bullets faster, makes absolutely no sense.

And here again you demonstrate your ignorance, fore AR-15’s doesn’t shoot any faster then a kids’ .22lr…….Well at the same time, all rifles, including semi-autos, account for less then 4% of homicides in the United States:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

So again, your response to AR-15s is baseless when including actual facts and is purely emotional.

Re-read the section you highlighted in bold. The fewer people with guns, the fewer incidents of violence."When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death."

In instances of violence, demonstrating a violent intent is already present. This does not make guns, nor people violent though, just that violent people will use guns.

So again, how do my ~50 guns make a increased risk of injury or death when compared to a gun owner with a single gun?

The negatives of guns in the home far outweigh the positives:

Quote

Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor.

http://arstechnica.c...k-ambiguity.ars

Indeed, and in Canada, suicides make-up the overwhelming majority of gun deaths, and in the United States they also make up majority……..I’m not sure off hand the percent in the States, but firearms are the third or fourth method of choice within Canada……..So do we ban rope and sleeping pills?

People are also far more likely to be shot and killed if they are carrying a gun:

Quote

Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

http://www.newscient...and-killed.html

And from the above link:

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

Quite obviously, gang-members and other criminals do shoot each other, same as in Canada, but being a gun owner doesn’t make one a gang-member or criminal………..That’s like saying a solider fighting in Iraq is more likely to be killed then a milkman in Wisconsin, fore the fellow in Iraq is carrying a M-4.

[kimmy]

Yes, I think the study showing people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot is a new low. That argument is bad, and you should feel bad, Mighty AC. If you can find similar study that has factored out crimes committed by professional criminals against other professional criminals, I'll be more inclined to take it seriously.

-k

[Mighty AC]

And here again you demonstrate your ignorance, fore AR-15s doesnt shoot any faster then a kids .22lr.Well at the same time, all rifles, including semi-autos, account for less then 4% of homicides in the United States:

By faster I am referring to the fact that semi-autos allow a person to shoot more bullets in a given amount of time. Semi-automatic weapons are estimated to account for about half a percent of privately owned firearms. It makes sense that their impact on crime stats is low.

Bears kept as exotic pets are only responsible for 4 human deaths world wide, but that does not make a good case for legal ownership.

Guns are used in 60% of all intentional homicides in the US. Guns are already more likely to harm the owner than help. Semi-autos have no legitimate purpose and are a more dangerous weapon when used. Banning semi-automatics, or "modern sporting riffles" as the NRA idiots like to call them, is an obvious baby step forward.

In instances of violence, demonstrating a violent intent is already present. This does not make guns, nor people violent though, just that violent people will use guns.

Violent/angry/depressed/unstable people with guns kill more effectively and often unintentionally.

So again, how do my ~50 guns make a increased risk of injury or death when compared to a gun owner with a single gun?

Read the statement again. "The fewer people with guns, the fewer incidents of violence."

You and your guns just make you and the people you come in contact with less safe. Fewer people with guns, make a nation safer. In the US people with guns own an avg of 4. Even if the total guns in circulation was unchanged the nation would be safer if total gun owners decreased.

Indeed, and in Canada, suicides make-up the overwhelming majority of gun deaths, and in the United States they also make up majority..Im not sure off hand the percent in the States, but firearms are the third or fourth method of choice within Canada..So do we ban rope and sleeping pills?

In the US guns are the weapon used in 60% of intentional murders. Since, they are such an effective killing tool, they worsen suicide stats too.

Quite obviously, gang-members and other criminals do shoot each other, same as in Canada, but being a gun owner doesnt make one a gang-member or criminal..

The article didn't mention gang members, but did account for socioeconomic status and demographics when comparing deaths. Rich, poor, male, female, black, white, purple...those who own guns are 4.5 times more likely to be killed than those without.

[Guest Derek L]

By faster I am referring to the fact that semi-autos allow a person to shoot more bullets in a given amount of time. Semi-automatic weapons are estimated to account for about half a percent of privately owned firearms. It makes sense that their impact on crime stats is low.

Your stat relating to semi-automatic firearms is also false……..Semi-auto firearms have been being produced for the civilian market since the early 1900s, and some of the most popular and best selling firearms in North America, namely the Ruger 10/22 and Glock 9mm are semi-autos…For when you include semi-autos, you include everything from children’s .22lr rifles, hunting & trap shotguns to the majority of handguns produced today.

Now if you’re talking about the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, that itself is one of, if not the largest niche market amongst rifles and firearms produced today……..Nearly every North American, European and Chinese firearms maker produces a variant of the Armalite Rifle #15.…….And there are nearly more AR-15/M-4 clones within the United States, then there total firearms within Canada…..

Yet, all rifles, including semi-auto AR-15s, are used in less then 4% of all homicides within the United States.

Bears kept as exotic pets are only responsible for 4 human deaths world wide, but that does not make a good case for legal ownership.

AR-15s aren't exotic.........They’re made of plastic and namely aluminium, fairly accurate out to a couple of hundred yards and use a relatively under powered intermediate rifle cartridge with a bullet that is smaller then what‘s used in most handguns……….And the entry level ones can be had (prior the run) in the United States for about $500-700 and in Canada for about $750-1000.…………

Guns are used in 60% of all intentional homicides in the US. Guns are already more likely to harm the owner than help. Semi-autos have no legitimate purpose and are a more dangerous weapon when used. Banning semi-automatics, or "modern sporting riffles" as the NRA idiots like to call them, is an obvious baby step forward.

Yet people of your baseless viewpoint failed in banning such guns…….And rightfully so, fore they are used in less then 4% of homicides within the United States:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

More people are killed in the United States with blunt objects such as baseball bats and hammers then rifles, including AR-15s.

Violent/angry/depressed/unstable people with guns kill more effectively and often unintentionally.

So ensure such people receive treatment and until such time, are not allowed to legally own firearms.

Read the statement again. "The fewer people with guns, the fewer incidents of violence."

You and your guns just make you and the people you come in contact with less safe. Fewer people with guns, make a nation safer. In the US people with guns own an avg of 4. Even if the total guns in circulation was unchanged the nation would be safer if total gun owners decreased.

Bullshit.....As I demonstrated above, Mexico and Brazil have the most restrictive firearms ownership laws in the Western Hemisphere, yet you’re more likely to be shot in Mexico then in the United States or Canada.

In the US guns are the weapon used in 60% of intentional murders. Since, they are such an effective killing tool, they worsen suicide stats too.

So.........Your side just tried (and failed) to ban AR-15s, that among other types of rifles, are used in less then 4% of all homicides within the United States.

Clearly firearms, like I said above numerous times, don’t cause people to murder others or kill themselves………But people murdering others and those that kill themselves use firearms amongst other things…….By that reasoning, baseball bats and sleeping pills are far more deadly to society.

If drunk drivers prefer Honda Civics and Molson Canadian, clearly we should ban Honda Civics and Molson Canadian…….Newspeak enough for you?

The article didn't mention gang members, but did account for socioeconomic status and demographics when comparing deaths. Rich, poor, male, female, black, white, purple...those who own guns are 4.5 times more likely to be killed than those without.

And what is the violent crime rate in Philadelphia compared to say Austin Texas, a city within a State with a far greater rate of gun ownership and less evasive gun laws?

Or what about Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws, in a State with the strictest gun laws, within the United States? People can't legally carry concealed handguns, yet you're far more like to shot in said city......

Edited April 14, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, I think the study showing people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot is a new low. That argument is bad, and you should feel bad, Mighty AC. If you can find similar study that has factored out crimes committed by professional criminals against other professional criminals, I'll be more inclined to take it seriously.

-k

But you won't Kimmy, sadly they feel folks such as ourselves are pretty much ticking time bombs because we own something made of wood and steel………As has been demonstrated, with them, this is purely an emotional “issue”, as such, their “arguments” can be devoid of both logic and reason.

[Guest Derek L]

But at the end of the day, the Assault Weapons Ban part II and magazine capacity limits won’t be made into federal law, and if the rest of his package does make it to a vote and manages to make it through the Senate, it will be stopped once it hit’s the Congress……

Your side has lost, and all you’ve accomplished is record sales of firearms and ammunition, coupled with lining the pockets of gun rights advocacy groups, dealers and the manufactures………..

You know what they say, when you can’t beat them……….

And no surprise:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/background-check-plan-in-trouble-as-dems-call-votes-on-gun-bill/

The Senate on Wednesday defeated a vital amendment seen as the linchpin to Democrats' gun control bill, dealing a major setback to President Obama as he campaigns to expand the federal background check system.

The vote was 54-46, with supporters falling six votes short of the required 60-vote threshold.

The Senate is proceeding to several other amendments, but the failure of the background check proposal authored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., imperils the entire legislation. The proposal would have expanded background checks to gun shows and Internet sales while exempting personal transactions. The amendment was aimed at winning over reluctant conservatives, who were opposed to the more stringent background check plan in the existing bill.

And meanwhile, going quietly on at home:

Hehehehehe

[Argus]

But you won't Kimmy, sadly they feel folks such as ourselves are pretty much ticking time bombs because we own something made of wood and steel………As has been demonstrated, with them, this is purely an emotional “issue”, as such, their “arguments” can be devoid of both logic and reason.

I don't think you're ticking time bombs. I think your gun is, though. Like I said before, I get the emotional feeling you have for guns. Guns make you feel powerful. Guns make you feel safe. I understand that. I even feel the same way, emotionally. But logically, I recognize what every study ever undertaken (not paid for by the NRA) has shown, which is that those who have guns are MORE, not less likely to be killed or wounded by guns than anyone else. Guns do not save lives, they take them, in the thousands every year.

And for every gun in the hand of a responsible person, who locks them up tightly and makes sure they're handled safely, well.. come on. Not all gun owners are morons and rednecks, but all morons and rednecks have guns. That's how you have 4 year olds killing people, and each other, with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxqpeSFtSXg

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think you're ticking time bombs. I think your gun is, though. Like I said before, I get the emotional feeling you have for guns. Guns make you feel powerful. Guns make you feel safe. I understand that. I even feel the same way, emotionally. But logically, I recognize what every study ever undertaken (not paid for by the NRA) has shown, which is that those who have guns are MORE, not less likely to be killed or wounded by guns than anyone else. Guns do not save lives, they take them, in the thousands every year.

And for every gun in the hand of a responsible person, who locks them up tightly and makes sure they're handled safely, well.. come on. Not all gun owners are morons and rednecks, but all morons and rednecks have guns. That's how you have 4 year olds killing people, and each other, with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxqpeSFtSXg

But as Kimmy rightfully suggested, said studies are flawed since they will include numbers associated with illegal firearm activity……….I don’t doubt armed urban gang members and those in organized crime are more likely to die from a lead injection, then your regular folks.

And for the life of me, I don’t get where both you and Waldo, both non-gun owners, come up with these assertions on the emotions associated with firearms…….I’ve got lot’s of them, and I don’t get any of that……I must be using them wrong?

[Argus]

But as Kimmy rightfully suggested, said studies are flawed since they will include numbers associated with illegal firearm activity……….I don’t doubt armed urban gang members and those in organized crime are more likely to die from a lead injection, then your regular folks.

What, all of them? All the studies are flawed? I don't think so. Gun ownership in the US is too widespread to be heavily influenced in that way. And anyway, on a macro scale, I have no doubt that society would be better off without any guns. Then even the cops wouldn't need them. They could use tasers or whatever.

And yes, I recognize that getting rid of guns to the extent criminals could not get them is not a realistic goal in our society.

And for the life of me, I don’t get where both you and Waldo, both non-gun owners, come up with these assertions on the emotions associated with firearms…….I’ve got lot’s of them, and I don’t get any of that……I must be using them wrong?

Most gun owners in the US are not hunters. In fact, I think only about 20% of gun owners in the US are hunters. There's a smattering of people who enjoy sport shooting. But most have them because they make them feel safe (little old ladies/single women) and powerful (powerless losers, rednecks, macho idiots, etc.).

[Guest Derek L]

Most gun owners in the US are not hunters. In fact, I think only about 20% of gun owners in the US are hunters. There's a smattering of people who enjoy sport shooting. But most have them because they make them feel safe (little old ladies/single women) and powerful (powerless losers, rednecks, macho idiots, etc.).

I see what you mean.........Don’t really agree with your contention in that regard………I would suggest that a gun solely for the purpose of self defence might allow oneself to feel equal to a potential threat……..Perhaps not powerful, but not powerless if you will.