Mass Shooting in Germany

[MarAzul]

This is the Sig Sauer .223 weapon I believe the shooter in Orlando used. Not an AR15.

Not a particularly useful weapon in my view. I don't like the front sight so close to the rear sight. Not very good for accurate shoot at more than short range.
At short range, might as well have a weapon with a short range cartridge, like a 9 or 10mm. My Ruger .223 has the rear sight aft of the receiver and the front sight out on the recoil compensator I built for it. This gives you long range sighting ability and the compensator helps stay on target by assisting to keep the muzzle bounce down. Since the .223 cartridge is good for several hundred yards, the weapon is matched up to take advantage of the range while it still can do the same job the Sig Sauer will do. It's no longer, perhaps a tad heavier. Neither are classed as assault rifles.

 

[MarAzul]

I've spent a total of maybe 5 hours of my life talking about gun restrictions here, that's about it. I spent 7 years doing cancer research, have worked on charities that have raised several million dollars on the campaigns I worked on. Just cause you do one, doesn't mean you can't do the other. Cancer BAD. Mass Shootings BAD. The two are not connected. Guns are fun, but I sure would like some ways to mitigate the violence in which guns play a role.

Out standing Further! Well the gun critics wouldn't necessarily have to do the research, they could fund it with the labor they can do. Still more productive. I sort of like working to eliminate the shooters myself not the weapons.
The more good guys we have, proficient in the use of weapons, the better off we will be.

 

[Further]

Out standing Further! Well the gun critics wouldn't necessarily have to do the research, they could fund it with the labor they can do. Still more productive. I sort of like working to eliminate the shooters myself not the weapons.
The more good guys we have, proficient in the use of weapons, the better off we will be.

Well I see it a lot like dealing with cancer. Eliminating the shooters is best, that's akin to curing cancer. One day, I hope that's doable. However, as we work on that goal, I think we can also keep those weapons out of the hands of likely killers, like using chemo, not a cure but it keeps a lot of people alive.

The black and white viewpoints on both sides of the argument I think are out of whack with reality. We can't eliminate guns, or eliminate violence, or eliminate shooters..... Logic kind of fucks those arguments up. But there are things that can be done to lessen the amount of shooters, and lessen the amounts guns those shooters get ahold of. Both result in fewer lost lives.

 

[MarAzul]

common sense measures, mainly the no-fly list gun-purchase alert

What is common sense about bureaucrats putting people on that list with no due process? No proof required! And then there is no due process to get off when you are wrongfully put on the list?
Damn man, that defies common sense that you would do that to a fellow citizen.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think it's really important to remember that a lot of anti-gun stats include suicides in their gun deaths. I don't think that's fair. Taking away guns won't stop people from committing suicide. People jump from high places. They take pills. They step in front of trains. That's not going to stop. If we're going to have a discussion about gun violence, it's important that suicides not be included.

 

[Natebishop3]

What is common sense about bureaucrats putting people on that list with no due process? No proof required! And then there is no due process to get off when you are wrongfully put on the list?
Damn man, that defies common sense that you would do that to a fellow citizen.

Seriously... how do people not understand this? They rage over discrimination and racial profiling, and yet they're in favor of a list of people with no due process, no verification, and no process for getting removed from the list. They think it's perfectly fine to strip someone of their rights if they're on an arbitrary list that required no warrants, no charges, no jury.... just a decision by some fed that you're potentially a threat.

Not only is this a violation of the second amendment, it's also a violation of the 6th amendment as well.

 

[Further]

I am an advocate of alerts going to the FBI if a no-fly person tries to buy. That's not too much, doesn't restrict 2nd or 6th.

I also want to close the loophole for person to person gun sales without background check. People can still buy at retail, or spend ~ $25 to have a retailer host the sale. Also, not against the 2nd or 6th.

 

[Denny Crane]

Doesn't matter what the overall number is, if they aren't in use, their is virtually no risk. when you consider that we travel an average of 29mi/day, or about 30+ minutes, and maybe on average we spend a few seconds shooting guns, yet guns kill about 1/3 as many people in America as cars, I think pretty ostrich-like to claim that cars are more dangerous. That's like telling someone in Texas they are more likely to be killed by a hippo than a cow, even though there are no hippos in Texas yet people get killed every year there by cows.

First, there is a bigger chance of being killed or injured by gun than car based on time operating them, as discussed already.

The reward you speak of for guns I don't buy. The govt already has so much more firepower, fully auto, tanks, planes, etc... There are plenty of countries that have banned guns and don't have authoritarian governments. And besides, we aren't talking about banning (which I would strongly oppose) we are talking about putting in place a few common sense measures, mainly the no-fly list gun-purchase alert, and blocking of any gun sales without a background check (mainly stopping non-retail sales). Sure, some want to go further, but most just want a couple major problems corrected. Keep your guns, keep the guberment in check, just do a couple things to make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns.

A lot of misstated assertions here.

"In use?" If a gun isn't stored, it's in use. When a car is parked, it's not in use.

1/3 as many deaths as cars? All the car safety laws make 50m less cars than guns 3x less safe. By any honest measure, you are 3x more likely to die in a car.

How about rifle deaths, including the AR-15 types. Knives killed 5x more people than all the rifles combined. No cries for knife safety and for government to track every knife and everyone who has one? What about the knife show loophole? LOL.

There is already instant background checks and the killers are buying their guns legally. If you make a law requiring those planning to kill to declare their intention, do you think they'll comply?

The left wing NYTimes writes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

The Assault Weapon Myth

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

 

[Natebishop3]

I am an advocate of alerts going to the FBI if a no-fly person tries to buy. That's not too much, doesn't restrict 2nd or 6th.

I also want to close the loophole for person to person gun sales without background check. People can still buy at retail, or spend ~ $25 to have a retailer host the sale. Also, not against the 2nd or 6th.

The problem with person to person background checks is there's no way to enforce it. Most guns aren't registered. It's not like a car where all cars are registered with the government, so transferring one to another person requires paperwork. Many guns are old and don't exist is any database, so how are you going to know if Joe sells his 50 year old hunting rifle to Greg for cash? You're not. It's a nice idea, but once again it's only going to affect the people who care enough to follow the law.

 

[barfo]

I think it's really important to remember that a lot of anti-gun stats include suicides in their gun deaths. I don't think that's fair. Taking away guns won't stop people from committing suicide. People jump from high places. They take pills. They step in front of trains. That's not going to stop. If we're going to have a discussion about gun violence, it's important that suicides not be included.

Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

barfo

There isn't really any going back from jumping either. With that said, if someone wants to punch their own ticket, that's up to them. Someone who chooses a gun understands the finality of it. Someone who chooses pills might be doing it as a cry for help.

 

[Denny Crane]

Left wing Daily Beast article

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...f-defense-expert-paxton-quigley-says-yes.html

“Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the U.S. There are 207,754 victims of sexual assault each year. Eighty percent are under the age of 30,” she says, citing statistics from the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, or RAINN. “That’s a lot of women walking around who are targets. They’re talking on their cellphones or texting, totally unaware of what’s going on. It’s part of the reason why people get themselves into trouble.”

It’s also why, she argues, women need a handgun. “There just aren’t many good weapons to protect yourself other than a handgun. If you want to stop an attacker, you have to think about the best means of stopping an attacker.” She adds, “It would be nice to live in a world of utopia, but that’s not the case. I’m a liberal. I’m pro-choice. I’ve never voted for a Republican. I just believe guns protect women.”

And what if the rapist also has a gun? “Then you better shoot first,” Quigley says. “If you feel that you can’t use the gun, don’t own it. You have to be ready to stop the attacker. Don’t hesitate. If you want to have a handgun, you have to be trained—I’m not just talking a course for an hour or two, but an all-day course at least. Then go to the range afterward and practice.”

 

[Further]

A lot of misstated assertions here.

"In use?" If a gun isn't stored, it's in use. When a car is parked, it's not in use.

I disagree. If the car is parked, it's waiting to be used to take you from point A to point B. If a gun isn't in use, especially if it isn't even on a person, then it poses no risk as it's just a paperweight. They are the same thing in that regard. I'll put it this way, if tomorrow, everyone stopped driving, would there be any more car deaths? If tomorrow, everyone stopped shooting guns, would there be any deaths? Nope, because both aren't in use.

1/3 as many deaths as cars? All the car safety laws make 50m less cars than guns 3x less safe. By any honest measure, you are 3x more likely to die in a car.

How about rifle deaths, including the AR-15 types. Knives killed 5x more people than all the rifles combined. No cries for knife safety and for government to track every knife and everyone who has one? What about the knife show loophole? LOL.

There is already instant background checks and the killers are buying their guns legally. If you make a law requiring those planning to kill to declare their intention, do you think they'll comply?

The left wing NYTimes writes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

The Assault Weapon Myth

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

I'm not a proponent of the Assault weapons are worse than other guns philosophy. Perhaps, there is a little something to high-capacity mags, but that's not much. In my mind, and I haven't done the research on it, but it seems that semi-auto handguns would be the most dangerous as they are easy to use, easy to conceal. I'm not looking to ban them either, just make sure that we have measures in place to keep people who shouldn't have them from buying them. And measures to inform the FBI when possible threats to America buy guns.

 

[Further]

The problem with person to person background checks is there's no way to enforce it. Most guns aren't registered. It's not like a car where all cars are registered with the government, so transferring one to another person requires paperwork. Many guns are old and don't exist is any database, so how are you going to know if Joe sells his 50 year old hunting rifle to Greg for cash? You're not. It's a nice idea, but once again it's only going to affect the people who care enough to follow the law.

I have bought and sold guns from person to person and I would not do so if it were illegal. I am not someone whom society needs to keep guns away from, but perhaps the person I sold to was. (in my case I know they weren't as I would only sell to someone with a carry license.) Point is, most gun owners abide the laws of our land, and that will continue. That means, if registration is required, and person to person becomes illegal, that gun market will dry up fairly quickly leaving ongoing sales to mostly be amongst people who shouldn't own guns. They will be paying more, buying less, and it will become much easier for the police to hone in on those illegal sales. This isn't a static world we live in.

 

[magnifier661]

a couple hundred million people probably drove or were in cars today in America. How many do you think shot a gun today?

The society, it's economics, it's transportation, schooling, everything is based on the automobile. Guns, not so much.

There are laws requiring a license, registration, insurance and a host of other driving related qualifications. Most people aren't looking to ban guns, they are looking to add a couple restrictions (no-fly list for example) and perhaps require registration of the weapon. Your car analogy is BS from every angle.

Meanwhile, as driverless cars become better and more accepted, and as the accident rate in those cars drops to near nothing, we will see legislation to ban human driven cars from many roads.

I think you are missing the point where owning a gun is a right and driving cars are a privilege.

But, as a society, we should learn from our mistakes. There have been more drug related overdoses from prescription medication "heavily regulated by the government" than gun deaths per year.

 

[magnifier661]

I disagree. If the car is parked, it's waiting to be used to take you from point A to point B. If a gun isn't in use, especially if it isn't even on a person, then it poses no risk as it's just a paperweight. They are the same thing in that regard. I'll put it this way, if tomorrow, everyone stopped driving, would there be any more car deaths? If tomorrow, everyone stopped shooting guns, would there be any deaths? Nope, because both aren't in use.

I'm not a proponent of the Assault weapons are worse than other guns philosophy. Perhaps, there is a little something to high-capacity mags, but that's not much. In my mind, and I haven't done the research on it, but it seems that semi-auto handguns would be the most dangerous as they are easy to use, easy to conceal. I'm not looking to ban them either, just make sure that we have measures in place to keep people who shouldn't have them from buying them. And measures to inform the FBI when possible threats to America buy guns.

If your gun is loaded in your safe for self defense, it's ready to use as well.

 

[Further]

I think you are missing the point where owning a gun is a right and driving cars are a privilege.

But, as a society, we should learn from our mistakes. There have been more drug related overdoses from prescription medication "heavily regulated by the government" than gun deaths per year.

No, I'm disputing the assertion that cars are more deadly than guns. Cars are so heavily used that the original assertion is based on a false equivalency.

And we need to look at our drug laws. I had an old friend die last week from an overdose leaving her 12 and 15 year old children motherless. But one fix doesn't fit all. Should stabbing someone in the neck be illegal? yes, but according to your one size fits all logic, having anti-stabbing laws cause the neck stabbings in the first place.

 

[Further]

If your gun is loaded in your safe for self defense, it's ready to use as well.

If your car is in the garage with gas in the tank, is it in use? Does that parked car pose a threat if nobody gets in and turns the key. The gun in the safe is likewise ready for use, but not in use. So when someone is carrying the loaded gun, concealed, or hunting or whatever, I would agree that the gun is in use as it has immediate capability of action just as if someone got in that car, turned on the engine but just idled.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

These analogies with regards to the danger of vehicles to prove points about guns is full of logical fallacies. It may be difficult to admit that ones argument is not driving the point home, but now that you are aware of it please try another means of making your point. I really want to respect the views of everyone here and learn as much as I can from differing viewpoints, but the transportation causes more deaths argument is faulty and pointless to debate.

 

[stampedehero]

Everything I have seen says that nobody was shot, which quells the whole idea of a "mass shooting," and that it's possible the gun wasn't even real.

Our media SERIOUSLY needs to lay off the term Mass Shooting because they clearly don't understand what it means.

NB3> Slowly yet steadily, the National Enquirer format is replacing accurate unbiased news coverage. "Like an infection across the Nation" -(Sharp edge 1980's band.... Reflex-1983). When January 21st, 2017 comes there will be a media plague.

 

[stampedehero]

If your car is in the garage with gas in the tank, is it in use? Does that parked car pose a threat if nobody gets in and turns the key. The gun in the safe is likewise ready for use, but not in use. So when someone is carrying the loaded gun, concealed, or hunting or whatever, I would agree that the gun is in use as it has immediate capability of action just as if someone got in that car, turned on the engine but just idled.

Sounds like Newtons stinkin law of motion. A knife can't stab and a gun cannot propel an object 1800 fps without a human brain and hands.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

I think you are missing the point where owning a gun is a right and driving cars are a privilege.

But, as a society, we should learn from our mistakes. There have been more drug related overdoses from prescription medication "heavily regulated by the government" than gun deaths per year.

edit:

Just noticed that Further replied to this comment already and was much kinder in his response than I was. Thank you, Further.

I will condense what I wrote. It would be nice if all of us would refrain from using logical mistakes in arguing our points. Thanks.

 

[Denny Crane]

I disagree. If the car is parked, it's waiting to be used to take you from point A to point B. If a gun isn't in use, especially if it isn't even on a person, then it poses no risk as it's just a paperweight. They are the same thing in that regard. I'll put it this way, if tomorrow, everyone stopped driving, would there be any more car deaths? If tomorrow, everyone stopped shooting guns, would there be any deaths? Nope, because both aren't in use.

I'm not a proponent of the Assault weapons are worse than other guns philosophy. Perhaps, there is a little something to high-capacity mags, but that's not much. In my mind, and I haven't done the research on it, but it seems that semi-auto handguns would be the most dangerous as they are easy to use, easy to conceal. I'm not looking to ban them either, just make sure that we have measures in place to keep people who shouldn't have them from buying them. And measures to inform the FBI when possible threats to America buy guns.

Did you ever notice that when the authoritarians in government try to do things like capture medical records of every american that there is strong resistance?

Think about why.

 

[Denny Crane]

These analogies with regards to the danger of vehicles to prove points about guns is full of logical fallacies. It may be difficult to admit that ones argument is not driving the point home, but now that you are aware of it please try another means of making your point. I really want to respect the views of everyone here and learn as much as I can from differing viewpoints, but the transportation causes more deaths argument is faulty and pointless to debate.

The fallacy is that it's worth taking guns away from hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens to save a few lives. If that's the logic, then why not look at saving lives where you can do it in much bigger numbers?

 

[Denny Crane]

If your car is in the garage with gas in the tank, is it in use? Does that parked car pose a threat if nobody gets in and turns the key. The gun in the safe is likewise ready for use, but not in use. So when someone is carrying the loaded gun, concealed, or hunting or whatever, I would agree that the gun is in use as it has immediate capability of action just as if someone got in that car, turned on the engine but just idled.

Someone is likely to carry their gun all day long. They're likely to drive, what, an hour each way commute max?

This line of reasoning is absurd.

If you want use the excuse "it saves a few lives so it's worth it," then why not go after things that take way more lives?

 

[jlprk]

Good article from a Republican organization, which has former Senator Coburn as its figurehead chairman.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-irs-need-guns-1466117176

Click where it says "report" to see an excellent, colorful report full of illustrations of weapons.

Edit: If that requires log-in, try one of these.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...117176&usg=AFQjCNHwq7RcFumDJ9midWpvi9mXYBpIsg

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/18/report-irs-spent-11-million-on-guns-ammo-in-the-past-10-years/

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=coburn irs&oq=coburn irs&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.66117.74387.0.74882.16.7.3.6.8.0.130.481.6j1.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.LzpYAh18ytk

 

[MarAzul]

I am an advocate of alerts going to the FBI if a no-fly person tries to buy. That's not too much, doesn't restrict 2nd or 6th.

>>>What happens when the FBI receives the alert? Do they investigate the person and take them off the no-fly list when they do not belong on there? Damn! That would be nice. I have found no way to get off that list!
But some how I don't think this is what you want. I suspect you want them to hold up the sale and infringe on the persons rights, doing so without a trial, due process.

I also want to close the loophole for person to person gun sales without background check. People can still buy at retail, or spend ~ $25 to have a retailer host the sale. Also, not against the 2nd or 6th.

We have had a number of attacks now by terrorists in the past few years. Can you identify any that would have been stop by these measure you want implemented? Some did it by making bombs, so we know it ain't going to stop those. But I sure would like to implement some measure that would target the terrorists, put them under surveillance as well as stop them from buying guns. Shine the light were it will do the most good if possible.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

The fallacy is that it's worth taking guns away from hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens to save a few lives. If that's the logic, then why not look at saving lives where you can do it in much bigger numbers?

Edit: Working on a TL;DR. Please stand by heh

1. Most here don't advocate complete gun removal, so the premise is a straw man argument.

2. Slippery slope argument of the gun lobby et al is just that. It is not possible to get rid of all guns and it is not desirable by most reasonable people.

3. We can agree that the process of determining who should not be able to buy a gun has issues, that is something we must debate for good reason.

4. We can strike a balance between the various freedoms and the greater good without ruining the whole or any one freedom or liberty.

5. Personal autonomy ie cars and such are essentially rights in a modern society and can't be done away with nor should they. Infringing on driving affects more people in a real way than gun control is ever likely to affect the same number of people or as dramatically.

6. Cars are made safer as a matter of course. Guns are made more dangerous as a matter of design and purpose. In addition gun culture wants guns to push the limits as dangerous as the society can accept.

7. Cars and guns are both potentially deadly. So both need to be addressed. Cars are constantly being improved with safety technology, while guns are meant to kill and their safe usage as far as accidents are concerned is an intractable problem.

8. NRA/gun industry has the strategy of not giving an inch on any aspect of loss of gun freedoms as they see it. This trickles down to gun owners such that they mirror their leadership thus having a reasonable discussion of improving gun safety much more difficult than car safety.

Conclusion, cars are essentially a right, even if not defined as such and even if they were a right they should be regulated for safety and they are. Guns are a right and will not be done away with, should be regulated for safety and they are. Both can be improved, but one embraces safety and the other resists it.

The "meat" follows insomniacs, you can thank me after you wake up, you're welcome!
===============
Those of us here seem to be talking about common sense laws about gun safety and not about the wholesale removal of all guns from our citizens. Some of us own guns and all of us appear to think the 2nd amendment is worthwhile. Its interpretation is debatable obviously and how it should be implemented is debatable, but I think you will find us here not looking to dismantle and smelt every gun in America.

So, the hyperbole of the premise you allege we stand for of taking away the guns of hundreds of millions to save a few lives is the fallacy. Our position is that our agencies must do a better job with enforcing the safety laws already in place and try to do reasonable things to keep guns out of the hands of those that demonstrate they are a risk. Admittedly that is imperfect and some law abiding citizens will be at best inconvenienced or at worst will have a right infringed, but the alternative of allowing every citizen no matter their past or potential the easy access to a gun in the name of standing up for the amendment is foolhardy and extreme. I am sure no reasonable person feels that way, so I won't take my rhetoric in that direction in my arguments. The reasonable happy medium between no restrictions and full restriction is always going to be closer to the gun ownership side for no other reason than the difficulty of getting a big change through our government. Changing the constitution? Forget about that. That slippery slope argument is unrealistic and used to get the base riled up.

Some number of citizens, not in the millions, that are being watched or have some red flag will be the ones that get trampled on. We can agree that there will be those that don't deserve to be on that list and that is unfortunate and very wrong. We should have methods in place to correct errors and remove false positives. I assume that you feel as I do that this is not their priority and for them it is better to cast the net wide and worry about removing the dolphins from the tuna net after all the tuna have been caught, as in never. But since we are already infringing on the rights of suspected terrorists by having no fly and personal information collected, what is it about them not having a gun that is so problematic? There will be enough patriots with guns to serve in the militia! Anyway, that point of how we determine who should be unable to acquire guns can and really should be discussed.

The intersection of liberties and peaceful coexistence are at odds at times. Sometimes one trumps the other, but if we strike a reasonable balance we really can do what is right for the greater good.


Part 2

Personal autonomy is something everyone can identify with as opposed to bearing arms. Whether it's driving to get your groceries or buying unhealthy food once you get there. We can all agree that the choices we make about our freedom to move about and how we take care of our bodies is fundamental to our very existence. So, if society wants to make inroads on preventing death from transportation it has factor in what freedoms would have to be lost. What economic losses would be incurred. And how would society function without personal transportation as it exists today?

Automobiles are, in general, safer today than 40 years ago. The direction most humans want from their transportation is to get safer and safer since it is a potentially dangerous activity we must engage in nearly every day for sometimes many hours a day. The manufacturers are aware of this economic incentive and additionally are forced by regulation to do things to continually improve safety.

On the other hand when it comes to guns, while there are naturally those that are very strong advocates for gun safety, there is a desire by the NRA and some gun advocates that if you give an inch on changing any regulations about guns you will eventually embolden the gun control side to keep stripping away at guns until guns are either emasculated or removed from circulation. This natural propensity for such a powerful leader of the gun industry to shape gun owners in to a confrontational us vs them stance goes against reasonable discourse and proper decision making. The NRA is about the NRA and not about what is safe for the population as a whole.

Cars aren't going away, guns aren't going away. So the question is how can you improve the safety of both? It isn't a zero sum game. Cars kill more because it is a part of daily existence and nearly unavoidable. Guns kill fewer people because they are not a daily hazard that must be navigated. So just because one kills more than the other doesn't mean we can divert attention from one to another. Car safety is being addressed to a balanced degree as technology and other pressures advance, and gun safety makes no significant advances and is actively being fought against to different degrees.

There is an incentive to make daily transportation safer. There is an active disregard for having a safer less deadly personal firearm. By its nature you want it to be deadly. And for many, it seems, the deadlier the better. In addition, the gun culture/lobby/industry wants to push as far and as hard as possible in the direction away from infringement on gun control and regulation in order to keep the flag in the middle of the tug-of-war on their side as long as possible. If you lose an inch you may never get it back.

I apologize for the lack of editing, I saw some repetition of points, but I hope you won't throw me out of bed because of it. More importantly I hope my arguments are not full of shit. Please correct me where I am using faulty reasoning.

Thanks if you made it this far

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Tl;dr summary?

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Tl;dr summary?

Yeah, I hear ya... I was too tired for one. I will get on that for ya.