If You Have No Gun, You Cannot Shoot Anybody

[MineralMan]

And there's the bottom line in all of this. You can be angry, mentally ill, a racist, a jihadist or whatever sort of awful person anyone can imagine. It doesn't matter.

If You Have No Gun, You Cannot Shoot Anybody

Guns are the means used by violent people with a grudge. Without them, nobody will die from a gunshot wound.

End Mass Shootings! Eliminate the Guns!

[RainCaster]

1. If you have no heart you can join the GOP

If you have no brain Putin will put you in the White House.

[beachbum bob]

2. not a positoin I agree with or support. I have been a long time gun owner as I enjoy target shooting

since I was 8yrs old and at age 65 still enjoy it. I have dozen of friends who are avid hunters and would never agree to this. I agree that weapons like assault rifles have zero place in the hands of any one except the military they were created for. Banning all guns would never happen in america, ever. A waste of time to think it would be possible. What we need are smart laws and real enforcement. Require real background checks, require insurance on each gun, require limits on rounds of ammunition, clip sizes, gun conventions, private sales, etc.

btw way guns are not the only weapon used by violent people. The use knives, ball bats, cars, trucks, acid, poison,hammers, pipes...the list is huge. What we need is commonsense to address the issues. Hard to do as the extreme views are so divergent from each other. The answer does not lie at either extreme

[MineralMan]

4. OK. It's my position, though. That's why I posted it here.

[MarvinGardens]

33. Problem is

If that's your position, responsible gun owners will be suspicious of reasonable reforms that may be associated with your political faction. "Ban all guns" has hampered reasonable reforms. That's my position.

[MineralMan]

82. I'm a responsible gun owner. I have no problem with it.

There are others like me.

[MarvinGardens]

98. Fair enough.

I agree that it is incorrect to say that all responsible gun owners would disagree with "ban all guns". But perhaps "many" or "most" would be accurate.

[LonePirate]

79. For shame MineralMan! How dare you not prioritize his love of target shooting over the lives of kids

[MineralMan]

81. OK. Let's have target shooting emporiums.

He can go there, pay the fee, and target shoot with firearms owned by the emporium. Problem solved.

[PJMcK]

83. *** LOVE THIS ***

You're a jewel, LonePirate.

[bitterross]

101. While that is cute snark, it's not productive.

You should look up the term "fallacious argument." I think reasonable people know that it was not the intention of the other poster to put his target shooting over the lives of kids.

The other poster made the valid argument that a total ban is not reasonable. We should probably work for something attainable rather than attacking one another with snark. It makes me feel good for a minute when I snark someone but it really doesn't do much for the cause.

[LonePirate]

104. What's not productive is not doing whatever we can protect the lives of our children.

Reasonable is merely a state of mind. Clearly a choice was made that target shooting is more important to that poster than protecting our children. He has his values and I have mine.

[boston bean]

7. People enjoy lots of things we arent suppose we to have in a civilized society.

Time to pick up another hobby. Maybe bowling. That includes aiming a round projectile at targets as well. Difference is the targets aren’t humans. Guns are for killing. Bottom line.

[beachbum bob]

11. I find it funny to suggest a civilize society and having a pistol are not compatible, whats next?

having a beer? Smoking a joint? Opening a door for a woman?

I have been a responsible gun owner going 5 decades as the MAJORITY of gun owners are and when we see these opinions...it verifies what I posted...the answer doesn't lie at either extreme.

[boston bean]

17. The children of your chldren and mine will thank you for understanding.

[bullimiami]

29. Banning all automatic and many semi-automatic weapons should be a no brainer.

Hunters and hobbyists could get on just fine with that.

[pangaia]

34. Whether or not ALL guns will ever be banned.....

I can make arguments that are not extreme, as you suggest-

These are stated in a very simplistic way, although each 'bullet point' is, of course not so simple and I don't mean them to be. On the other hand, the points are pretty simple...

- you enjoy target shooting. That is not a reason to allow guns. I mean you COULD find another hobby.
- what is an 'avid hunter?' Somebody who enjoys killing animals? Likes to go for a walk in the woods?
- knives.......pipes... can usually not be used to kill 17 people in a matter of minutes.. Unless, of course, you have the skills of a Musashi..and he didn't kill for the pleasure of it....He was also a poet and calligrapher.

You may be right in stating that, "Banning all guns would never happen in america, ever. A waste of time to think it would be possible."

America is in many ways a pretty sick place.

[democratisphere]

3. They will just mow people down with a car, truck or other vehicles.

No legal guns will result in all black market guns. You think you have trouble now? Dems need to support the second amendment and install background checks for all handguns and long guns in all 50 states. Time to get smart; extreme views and actions will never solve anything.

[MineralMan]

5. Yeah? Well, OK, then.

It's tough to drive a car into a school building, though.

[democratisphere]

9. The students were about to go home on sidewalks next to roads.

Enough said.

[MineralMan]

10. That does not falsify my statement. Not at all.

Reread it: If You Have No Gun, You Cannot Shoot Anybody

Your argument does not make my statement wrong, now does it? It is true, regardless of your example.

[democratisphere]

21. The second amendment isn't going away and the guns are not going away.

Once people understand that and push for rational, reasonable and sane solutions, progress can be made to stop the heinous carnage. Mental illnesses are ignored and this requires new thinking and positive action.

[MarvinGardens]

37. +1 (nt)

[pangaia]

38. "PROGRESS" hasn't been made yet.

Australia seems to have solved the problem pretty easily and quickly.

Basically, NO FUCKING GUNS.

OK, everybody back to work.

[Hangingon]

88. We cannot stop guns in Chicago, Baltimore or Detroit yet we are going to take the 250-300M

In the whole country. I don’t see it happening. Start a demo project in Cook County Illinois and show us how it can be done.

[BannonsLiver]

19. Sounds a lot like something Steve Doocy would say.

[MineralMan]

85. Bollards. Google it.

[democratisphere]

110. You are not going to install bollards between every sidewalk

and road throughout Parkland or any other community.

[MineralMan]

117. I cannot install anything, anywhere.

Last edited Sun Feb 18, 2018, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Bollards are being installed in many places by people who can. Go look it up. Your statement is meaningless.

[EX500rider]

13. Actually a car/truck at high speeds might have been more lethal

It certainly was in Nice France:

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

[pangaia]

39. Cars and trucks are not built primarily to kill other human beings.

Guns are.

[aikoaiko]

89. Death by homocide is death by homocide. I don't mourn less because the instrument is different.

Do you?

[pangaia]

90. No, of course not not. Why would you ask that?

I don;t see how it is relevant.

[loyalsister]

114. It seems like it would take more effort

I suppose someone could steal a car. In comparison to gun ownership, legal acquisition is a more complicated and difficult process. I would think stealing one would be even more difficult.
The guns these shooters are using allow them to do massive damage with little effort either in acquisition or usage. I can't see how a bare minimum solution of making it more difficult to gain access is so objectionable. What happened to waiting periods with extensive background checks. For example, a single arrest for any reckless behavior, especially violence - even at a misdemeanor level should be a red flag. I don't understand why compassionate, law abiding citizens would have a problem jumping through a years worth of hoops if it could prevent a single unjust civilian killing.

[Major Nikon]

62. You mean extreme like all civilized countries?

The US is pretty much the only developed country that allows unfettered access to guns.

[Brainstormy]

6. I would like laws like the UK

no assault weapons. period. Handguns only for law enforcement. People don't need target shooting unless they are honing skills to shoot somebody. Buy a Gameboy.

[MineralMan]

8. They have pretty sensible laws there.

The same sort of rules applies in many countries. We should study those countries, I think. However, in the UK, they issue assault rifles to trained law enforcement people in some circumstances.

[beachbum bob]

14. agaian incorrect. I and others like me enjoy target shooting as its a skill. I don't need to shoot a

person to develop a skill. Same with archery, I suppose you would like archery banned too? How about fishing, might as well ban that too. See where this is going. Its running away from developing responsibility into a type of totalitarianism based on your dogma

[Brainstormy]

47. no, I wouldn't like archery banned and congratulations

for an excellent example of the fallacy of false equivalency

[BannonsLiver]

20. I agree

The problem is we’d have a thousand ruby ridge situations if we tried to confiscate them. As we’ve seen in this thread there are progressives who won’t give up their guns either, for any reason apparently.

[pangaia]

40. LOLOL

Can I buy you dinner?

[Phoenix61]

12. Pretty simple isn't it

For the folks that say it will never happen, that America will never change our gun laws they need to check our history. Many said African-American men would never get the vote. Then it was women would never get the vote. Then there was desegregation will never happen, granted that is still a work in progress but we ware making progress. Ask MADD about changing laws and cultural norms to prevent the wholesale slaughter that was happening on our roadways. We absolutely can change gun laws and we absolutely have to. There isn't any other choice.

[beachbum bob]

15. no way the 2nd admendent would be repealed. No way that 2/3's of all states would support that..

again, the answer is not at either extreme edges

[Phoenix61]

27. "Women will never the vote" except they did

We should be pushing for the repeal of the 2nd amendment as hard as the NRA is pushing against gun regulation. Maybe then the vast majority of people in the middle will get off their collective asses and do something to address the situation besides "thoughts and prayers."

[pangaia]

41. I wish you would not keep using the term 'extreme.'

[MarvinGardens]

77. 3/4 of all states would be required (nt)

[Ohiogal]

16. Well Said!

[MicaelS]

18. You are living in a fantasy world.

The result would be a major insurrection at best, full scale civil war at worst.

Many cops and soldiers own guns outside their career and thus empathize with other gun owners. The military is taught there are such things as illegal orders. Do you think they would open fire on people like themselves?

So who is going to collect these guns if they refuse to do so? You? People like you? Who hate guns, have no knowledge how to use one, won't even touch one?

[oberliner]

24. They did it in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre

No insurrection or civil war.

[Phoenix61]

28. Ironic that a country that started as a

penal colony seems able to write and follow sensible laws better than we can.

[MicaelS]

30. Australia is not the US.

In the US Prohibition failed with alcohol, has failed with drugs.

So what makes you think gun prohibition would work, especially today with 3D printers that allow you to make parts?

Really all you need is some knowledge, access to a machine shop, and some common metal tubes and springs to make a fully functional illegal full auto submachine gun.

As far as ammo goes, we can't stop thousands of tons of drugs being smuggled in, what makes you think you could stop ammo from being smuggled, or just the components?

[oberliner]

31. Let's ban automatic and semiautomatic weapons and see what happens?

[MarvinGardens]

42. Agree.

I've said elsewhere on here that "ban all guns" will go over about as well as alcohol prohibition did.

[treestar]

56. How is it different in a way that allows it to ban guns

and stop having massacres, while we cannot?

[Captain Stern]

116. The question should be, 'why are the Australian people different than us?'

When Australia passed their gun control, over 90% of the Australian population supported it.

Support for an identical set of gun control laws here probably wouldn't even be 25%.

[Major Nikon]

64. In order to buy the "it won't work here" idea...

You have to ignore virtually the rest of the entire developed world where it does work.

[pangaia]

46. Yeah, Mineral Man is just an old ignorant fogy...

May I ask if that how you view people with different views from you?

Then, I guess I am an old ignorant fogy as well.

[MineralMan]

57. Perhaps I am. That does not change the truth of my statement, though.

Truly, it does not. I merely stated a fact.

[oberliner]

22. It seems so simple and straightforward

[MineralMan]

59. That's because it is simply true.

[oberliner]

73. And yet we can't get any real Congressional action

[MineralMan]

74. I suggest we use that as the basis for a massive

GOTV strategy. That is the answer. That is probably the only answer.

If Congress does not do what we want, we must elect a different Congress. Nothing else will work.

In all of my time on DU, my single most frequent call has been for GOTV. Those threads sink quickly, though.

Maybe it's time to think about that and act on it?

[oberliner]

75. The Alabama special election could serve as a good model to follow

Defeating Roy Moore was an impressive achievement for our side.

[MineralMan]

76. I agree. However Judge Roy Moore had a serious issue that

made a great difference. Had it not been for that, he would certainly have won.

Not all Republicans in Congress have such issues we can leverage. The solution is simple: We need to turn out Democrats and others who will vote for Democrats in unprecedented numbers. If we can do that, we will completely rearrange Congress. If we cannot do that, the current untenable situation will continue.

It really is that simple. We just need to recognize it and get to work yesterday.

[John1956PA]

23. At least place restrictions on the sale of new semi-automatic rifles.

Such a policy would restrict sales of new semi-automatic rifles to only those buyers who are active service personnel, honorably discharged veterans and others who demonstrate in-depth training with such weapons. Another path would be implementing tight, uniform background checks designed to identify unstable would-be purchasers.

[bullimiami]

25. MineralMan for the win!

[Takket]

26. The problem is the logistics of getting them all rounded up

Even if you eliminate 2A, people aren't just turning in all their guns without a fight. So what do we do? Have the police to door by door warrant less searches of every home in America to make sure there are no guns in them?

[MarvinGardens]

45. And as good Democrats

Surely no one on here would support house to house searches, because we believe in the Fourth Amendment.

[Pope George Ringo II]

51. This is where the original post goes to die.

The "no guns" ship has sailed. Heck, it's been gone so long it won the Blue Ribbon, got bought by another shipping company, completed an entire career, was replaced by airplanes, and has now been scrapped.

[MineralMan]

65. Consider this: I did not mention ways to do anything.

I simply made a very simple statement. Now, imagine that a 19-year-old in Florida not being able to legally purchase a rifle. He couldn't legally purchase a pistol, you know. What if the same laws applied to semi-auto, removable magazine rifles? If he had no gun, so nobody would have died from gunshot wounds.

Read what I wrote. It's a simple statement that is true. What we do with that statement is something altogether different. I did not address that, really. That's a different discussion.

[MarvinGardens]

67. Your proposed policy here is reasonable. (nt)

[B2G]

32. If You Have No Car, You Cannot Drive Drunk

End Drunk Driving! Eliminate the Cars!

[MineralMan]

36. That is true. But I'm talking about mass shootings

in this thread. Nothing else. Drunk driving is not the topic I chose. I have ideas about that, too.

Some countries punish drunk driving very seriously. I suggest we adopt that, too. For example, there was a story in our local paper today about a guy who had something like 48 DUIs. He finally got a prison sentence for it. 48.

My idea is jail time for the first DUI. Not much, but jail time. Second DUI? Take the drivers licence and jail the violator for 6 months. Third DUI? Permanent cancellation of driver's licence and three years in prison.

Kill someone while driving drunk? 10 years minimum sentence.

How's that? That would make people think, I believe, especially after people got sentenced for a while.

Nobody has to drink and drive. That's the truth. I don't. If I've been drinking, I don't drive. Period.

[boston bean]

43. It is against the law to get into a car and drive drunk. Our latest mass shooter got his killing

implement legally. He will not have any gun charges levied against him.

[B2G]

49. A drunk driver who kills with his car got the car legally too.

Whether or not he should have been able to buy it in the first place is not what the OP is addressing.

[pangaia]

48. Not a comparison, and one that is often made.

Cars are not designed to kill people and serve a useful function.

Guns are designed for one purpose only. to kill other human beings....and other than that, serve no useful function.

[B2G]

50. Tell that to a hunter. nt

[pangaia]

54. Yes. You are right about that.

But that opens a whole other discussion, I would say.

[Pope George Ringo II]

92. We also often hear cars invoked for licensing/insurance comparisons, though

To be candid, it's not the pro-gun crowd who introduced cars into the discussion.

[stonecutter357]

35. K&R

[Motownman78]

44. Look up the Bath Township School Massacre

in 1927. Still the deadliest school massacre in US History.

[MineralMan]

52. So? What is incorrect about my statement?

I was not discussing bombings. I was discussing shootings. Preventing bombings is a different issue. We can talk about that in a different thread, can't we.

My statement is correct. You're posting about something I did not say.

[B2G]

58. Of course your premise is correct.

However the fact that it isn't even remotely feasible to accomplish seems to escape you.

[MineralMan]

61. No. It doesn't escape me at all.

I made a simple statement.

I did not discuss feasibility. However, I do not acknowledge that such at thing is not feasible. Imagine if that 19-year-old in Florida had not been able to acquire that weapon. What if there were a law limiting legal purchases to people over 21?

The bottom line is that without a gun, nobody gets shot. We can start from that simple, true statement. We should, I think.

[B2G]

63. I completely agree that one should be 21 to purchase a firearm.

I thought we were addressing the complete elimination of guns in your post.

My bad.

[MineralMan]

66. I mentioned elimination of guns in the body text.

I did that with another simple, true statement. I am not discussing means of doing so in my OP. Just making simple statements.

[B2G]

68. Well OK then.

But I'm not sure what this is going to accomplish.

[MineralMan]

69. Before Taking Action, Think!

That's what.

[EX500rider]

70. Actually lots of countries where guns are outlawed and have few guns have a higher homicide rate..

...the the US

[MineralMan]

71. From gunfacts.info - a gun rights website...

Here's the thing. I'm not talking about total homicides. I'm talking about one form of homicide only. My statement is simply true.

If You Have No Gun, You Cannot Shoot Anybody

Do you disagree with that statement?

[EX500rider]

91. They footnote where the info came from....

Kinda obvious anyway, the US is number one in firearm ownership yet 94th in homicides.

Don't really get the obsession some have with banning a certain model like the AR-15, if you ban that model it's not like a homicidal manic couldn't use another model or a pistol like Seung-Hui Cho did at Virginia Tech, he shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17. Only looking at the how instead of the why is a losing proposition.

And the concentrating on rifles that kill on avg 300 to 400 people a year Vs pistols that kill over 9,000 seems even more misguided.

Sadly enough 150,000 people die every day, 100,000 from natural causes, so 50,000 people a day die of unnatural causes like homicide worldwide.

Even the 9,000 a year by firearms in the US is a small number compared to :

Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 42,032

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,736

Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 31,959

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

So over 60,000 dead a year from falls and poison in the US yet no one seems to give a crap about that around here, no outcry for safer ladders or better poison control, seems like it more about hatred of firearms then caring about how many people die.

And to answer you OP, I think homicides would rise if you magically got rid of firearms as gangs and criminals got emboldened and could break and enter and mug/kill/rape the weaker with no fear.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

53. K & R!

[Hoyt]

55. +1. Without his gun, George Zimmerman would have remained in his car rather than stalking an unarmed

kid, intimidating him and murdering him.

All the mass shooters would have found other ways of relieving their hatred, stress, or whatever. Yeah, gunners, they might have taken a hammer, but the results would highly likely been much less tragic.

And, gunners, don't give me the BS about the Chinese guy who killed 25 or something people with a knife. That doesn't happen often. Your knives don't make you feel powerful enough, that's why you need gunz.

[MineralMan]

60. That is also true.

[Locrian]

72. the tide didn't turn...

The tide didn't turn on cigarettes until a small chink was made in their armor.
We didn't get to just "ban" them. Follow a similar strategy.

Something like 80% of people want stricter laws, better background checks, etc - start there.
Add restrictions on a capacity, silencers etc, - just TURN THE TIDE.
Allow funding of research again. Remove the protections of lawsuits etc.

Right now the GOP and NRA are actually making it EASIER to get guns, etc.
We need to expose and relentlessly attack the lack of action - maybe a nationwide signup of people refusing to vote for ANYONE who is cozy with the NRA or refuses to act. Walk outs, etc.

But get some wins. Not just "ban all guns"

[Eliot Rosewater]

78. Someone with a knife though could chase you down and stab you

of course someone would stop them before they stabbed and killed 17 people probably

so now that you mention it, yeah, guns ARE the problem actually

[MineralMan]

80. Maybe you could. I can run pretty fast when necessary.

But you might be able to do that. Meanwhile, others will run in another direction and you won't be able to stab them.

Nobody can outrun a bullet.

[Eliot Rosewater]

84. I have run out of ways to say that guns ARE the problem, the 2nd provides for ONLY

while in a well regulated militia.

More will die though, because the white nationalists/supremacists want that

[MineralMan]

86. I'm all for a well-regulated militia.

The militia can go to the armory for training. Firearms will be issued and practice will ensue. Then, the firearms are put away at the armory. In case of an emergency, the militia can head for the armory and get their orders. They can also train in military tactics and the like.

Wait...we have that with our National Guard. Maybe all those folks can sign up for that. Who knew?

[Eliot Rosewater]

87. Scalia should rot in hell for Heller.

[Pope George Ringo II]

95. I'm very, very wary of saying the Bill of Rights is to protect the government.

Outright repeal of the Second Amendment is one thing, but saying that any part of the Bill of Rights is to give the government something strikes me as a terrifying precedent.

[EX500rider]

93. Actually the it was called the "Bill of Rights" for a reason.

And that was to guarantee the rights of the people, as it says right in the amendment.

"In order to guarantee a free press, the rights of the people to free speech shall not be infringed"
Do you think that would only allow the Press free speech or the people?

[Marengo]

120. Ill ask you yet again, if this was the original intent where has this interpretation been enforced?

[Q_Nemesis]

122. By your logic,

There is no individual right to freedom of speech.
I refer you to the very simple phrase "The Right of The People" perhaps you should look into how that has been interpreted through the years.

[NCTraveler]

94. K&R nt.

[SWBTATTReg]

96. Gun ownership is a given, and will be around for a long time. Responsible ...

gun ownership is different. Keeping firearms locked away from children in the home is a priority for those who own guns and also have children. This is why they have gun safes. A lot of young families I know don't keep guns in the house solely for that possibility that the kids will think that they are toys (remember all of the toy guns around) and play w/ them, not realizing that they are not in fact, toys.

Crimes committed with a gun should be handled differently, as the damage that can be propagated by guns is enormous. I read somewhere in Missouri or the like (it's been some time ago), that gun courts, established for processing crimes committed by guns, seemed to be effective in dealing w/ crimes of this nature.

A higher standard is implied with the right to own a gun, when someone owns a gun. Gun owners, who failed to adequately protect or lock up their guns (making them more readily available to those who shouldn't had access to those guns), have faced inquiries and/or charges on failing to adequately safeguard the home environment.

I, for one, living in an urban area, do prefer to at least keep one gun (a pistol) around, just in the very remote possibility that I will have to defend my home against a threat against my and my family's life and limb. Thank god that 999.99% of the time, the gun sits silently in my home, hidden to all but me and my spouse. If anything, the gun will remain forever unused, only to be resold later or passed down in our families after our deaths, when that time ever comes.

[chumpchange]

97. Leaving aside your amazing naivete about human nature...

How exactly do you propose to do so? Such a law would almost certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court. You are not getting the 2nd amendment out of the Constitution. And if by chance all of this came to pass, how exactly do you plan to round up the 300 million or so firearms (plus more certainly purchased in the last week) which are owned by and large by people who emphatically have no interest in giving them up? Oh yeah, and by definition all of those unhappy people are armed.

This also ignores the issues of black markets, alternate means of committing crimes (acid attacks are fairly common in the UK, for example), and the political infeasibility of getting anything like this passed.

[Blue_true]

99. But people will die from bombs, knives, ect.

I am no lover of guns, I have none and despise them. But I believe some people use guns for legitimate purposes, whether I agree or not.

I am ok with removing assault style guns from general society and having them only in the hands of certain types of police officers, or held at certified gun ranges so that people that love them can have shooting competition there. Hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, if we try taking those, we will fail completely.

[chumpchange]

100. In that case, you should be aware...

That ARs and similar weapons are pretty commonly used for hunting.

[bronxiteforever]

102. And it is very popular with the mass killer crowd

Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.
Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.
June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.
June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.
March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.
May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.
Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.
Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.
June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.
Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.
Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.
Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

[chumpchange]

103. Have you ever looked at

The proportion of crimes committed with an AR as a percentage of total crimes committed with a firearm? Percentage of people killed with an AR vs. all people killed with a firearm? Vanishingly small. The overwhelming majority are committed with handguns.

[bronxiteforever]

105. I have read the autopsy report summaries from Sandy Hook and

Las Vegas and that is all I need to know.

[chumpchange]

106. Good for you

I read the back of the Cheerios box this morning...

[Blue_true]

112. Anyone that hunts game with an AR is not a hunter.

Despite what they call themselves. The guns are dangerous to society, they must be restricted.

[chumpchange]

115. Not sure how you come up with that one

Lots of hunters use semiautomatic rifles of one sort or another for everything from squirrels to elk. They are still hunting.

[Blue_true]

118. They are idiots. End of discussion. nt

[chumpchange]

119. Nice try

Tyrant much?

[sarisataka]

107. We often see it said here

" no one wants to take your guns" and that anyone who believes in NRA propaganda that there are people out there trying to outlaw and confiscate guns is simply paranoid, yet here is one of many posts promoting those exact things. How do we reconcile these positions?

Now before I am labeled a gun Humper who promotes guns anytime anywhere and available out of vending machines, I should note I have actively worked for gun control. When Minnesota passed its domestic violence law to remove guns from those subject to restraining orders I would actively promote the bill among the Twin Cities gun-owning community. I spoke to people at ranges and would even go to stores simply to engage other gun owners in discussion of this bill and how it was a good bill for everyone and no gun owner, except those prone to violence who nearly all agree should not have guns, had anything to fear.

I still work for for support for Universal background checks, even though there really is no bill on the table at this time. My logic is the more people who favor it, the easier passage will be when such a bill actually makes it out of a subcommittee. It is difficult to promote further gun control, however when people can make the claim it is simply one more step to Total confiscation.

Are my efforts simply a Fool's errand? Or am I promoting a false agenda?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

108. While all of this is true, there is another aspect to it:

We not only have way too many guns of all sorts that can be obtained by anybody who wants them, we, as a society, have an attitude toward guns that doesn't seem to exist elsewhere in so-called first-world countries. Gun ownership is common in a number of other countries, notably Canada, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries - but they don't have mass shootings almost every week like we do, even though they probably have an equal percentage of disturbed or mentally ill people. What they do have is a system of regulating firearm ownership, and as far as I know, civilians can't buy guns like the AR-15. They also don't have anything like the NRA.

And therein lies a major issue, I think. Since the 1970s the NRA, once a pretty benign firearms hobbyist and safety organization, has encouraged a fanatical and inflexible attitude toward gun ownership based on an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment that not even Antonin Scalia endorsed. 2A absolutists believe that everyone, without exception, is entitled to own any kind of gun, without exception, and that any regulation or restriction on gun ownership is unconstitutional. For the NRA, which really represents manufacturers, not owners, this is a cynical way to get people to buy more guns. But they have also managed to instill in many people the notion that gun ownership is an essential aspect of being a real, self-sufficient, independent, truly American male, and conversely that not owning a gun or being opposed to the unrestricted ownership of them is un-American, wimpy and unmanly. The NRA has encouraged, if not created outright, a dangerous and perverse gun culture that glorifies the ownership of guns, and its vast amounts of money have enabled it to purchase the obedience of politicians.

Note, I am not talking about ordinary hunters and hobbyist target shooters here. I'm talking about the guy who amasses dozens of guns, not because they are valuable antiques or collectors' items, but because the gun culture has compelled him to think of himself as a potential warrior for Freedom and Real America when the black helicopters come to send his family to a FEMA camp or some damn thing. This guy is mostly going to sit in his basement cleaning his guns and indulging in Walter Mitty fantasies about becoming a hero by shooting an agent of ISIS at the local shopping mall. He is dangerous not because he's likely actually to shoot people (although that's a concern if he's inclined toward domestic violence), but particularly because he will vote in a knee-jerk fashion for any politician who opposes all gun restrictions. Worse are the disturbed people like Nikolas Cruz and so many other mass murderers who fetishize guns and see them as a means to carry out their angry fantasies. But the NRA and their purchased politicians, in furtherance of the gun culture they have essentially created, believe anyone at all, no matter how unhinged they might be, ought to be able to buy a weapon capable of murdering dozens of people in seconds.

But mental illness is a red herring. Mental illness exists in all countries. The United States is the only country where mass shootings are almost routine, and it's because there are too many guns. And the underlying reason there are too many guns is because we as a society have been led to believe that gun ownership is part of what it means to be a real American. We won't be able to have meaningful gun control until we find a way to kill that idea. But a good start would be somehow delegitimizing the NRA, like the GOP did to ACORN.

[chumpchange]

109. The mental illness issue is interesting

In part because when you compare the US with the other countries you mention the US pretty much lets mental illness fall into the cracks even for those who have good health insurance. I am pretty sure that Canada, Switzerland, Scandinavia, etc. do not do so. In the US what those who are mentally ill mostly get is stigma rather than treatment.

I also wonder at the international comparison. The US is the only one of the list you cite that is heavily multi-ethnic, multi-religious, etc. Diversity has lots of plusses, but it also tends to result in more conflicts of every imaginable kind. Just the way people are wired, I guess.

[Meowmee]

111. According to these statistics listed

At Wikipedia 1.4 million people have been killed by firearms in the us between 1968-2015. Way more than died in the Vietnam war. Something to think about. The per year death rate from firearms is much higher than was quoted elsewhere here. Injuries are higher than deaths and I think deaths were around 23,000 last year.

[struggle4progress]

113. "But ... but ... you could still suffocate 17 people with a box of ordinary kleenex!"

[Q_Nemesis]

121. Why Not?

"And there's the bottom line in all of this. You can be angry, mentally ill, a racist, a jihadist or whatever sort of awful person anyone can imagine. It doesn't matter.

If You Have No Gun, You Cannot Shoot Anybody

Guns are the means used by violent people with a grudge. Without them, nobody will die from a gunshot wound.

End Mass Shootings! Eliminate the Guns!"

If you eliminate all the angry, mentally ill, racist, jihadist, violent people with a grudge, it seems you would solve all the murder and violence problems. So why not?

Or at least universal annual mental and social health exams, with the results for all maintained in a database.