How can we regulate guns ... ?

You need to bold the message in the frame, AZ Paul. The frame overwhelms it. Just an aesthetic consideration.

You moron.

I see. Everybody here is screaming that we need to take guns away from the millions of good people in this country because a few crazy people murder children, because you want to protect those children from the crazy people by taking the guns away from the non-crazy people, leaving the crazy people to find ways to get them anyway while the non-crazy people are now subject to any kind of criminal assault and even government oppression and even murder by that same government that you all agree needs to be protected by guns against us, while the children in the schools are still unprotected from homicidal maniacs, and you scream and yell against any suggestion that armed citizens or armed guards might help protect those children better than taking guns away from the good guys who WERE promised the right to keep guns for self defense but you've already destroyed the first amendment anyway so why not the second as well, while you see the need to protect the government against us that the amendment was supposed to protect us against.Sorry I can't follow you lunatics. You make no sense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wikipedia is a big problem on certain subjects but I don't have any reason to doubt it on gun information, FYI since you think I would.Your post is a lot of nitpicking as far as I can see, that doesn't contradict anything I said because my point was very general and you are getting all obsessed with irrelevancies. Oh but you get a ton of cheers anyway because nobody bothers with such facts around here.I didn't make a statement about the Nazis making a confiscation effort other than from the Jews did I? Why should who they targeted make a difference anyway? Using such laws to victimize any group is evidence for the claim that such laws facilitate genocide.I thought I said something rather general about Hitler making use of gun laws, and specifically referred to gun registration. I should have been more clear about that since as I recall he made use of registration records in countries other than Germany when he invaded. Yes I'm too lazy/disgusted with EvC to go look this up so everybody's going to scream and I'm going to jeer them in return. Try Poland but I don't remember for sure. Someplace they already had registration of guns -- and Jews as I recall were the target there too.And you do seem to be accusing me of not knowing it was the Weimar Republic that made the first anti-gun laws though you objected to that when I complained. I even gave that information myself somewhere, maybe on the other gun thread.What exactly did the Nazis do you ask? What I believe I actually SAID is that Hitler "MADE USE OF" gun laws in his projects to bring down his "enemies." I was careful NOT to say he made the laws because I know he didn't make most of them, although I've heard he did add to them, but mostly he simply USED those that were in place against people -- WHICHEVER THOSE HAPPENED TO BE AT THE TIME, as your information says some were, and as I understand it some of them had been made by the Weimer Republic for the purpose of disarming THE NAZIS. Even your information includes the requirement that owning firearms required a PERMIT. Is that registration or not?You've given an awful lot of detailed information that I suspect does not in any way affect the general statements I made that Hitler MADE USE OF existing laws and ADDED some to them. I'm only going by what I heard, you don't trust what I heard, who cares, but I don't see that anything you said contradicts it. Hitler's more relaxed laws probably had giving his own henchmen more freedoms since the previous administration was out to restrict his henchmen. None of that affects the claim that gun laws were used to make victims of some people, you know, the Jews. That was the focus of that video in relation to Germany and Germany was only one of LOTS of nations that victimized certain populations and I said NOTHING as specific as you are answering.What's the point in even bothering though. Blah blah blah.

You essentially accused me of using it when I hadn't, you were responding to a post of mine where I did not use it, and you are now accusing me of probably going to use it anyway. What a bunch of *&$#@_#(&^^@$%)**

This is the core silly idea on the gun control side of this argument. The silly idea is that THINGS AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE, that the circumstances in which these statements apply are going to stay the same, which denies what I've been trying to argue, that WHEN YOU RESTRICT OR TAKE AWAY GUNS YOU CREATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH THEY WOULD BE NEEDED. That's
the point being made by the video and the books on the subject I mentioned.The whole point of the Second Amendment is to protect us against circumstances that are less likely to happen BECAUSE WE HAVE GUNS. Take them away and THAT's when we are set up for the circumstances where we REALLY need them.Sheesh.

Here's a regulation I could go with: Pass a law that there should be at least one armed person on school premises for every couple hundred children or something like that.I also don't mind if you want to require more training. Nothing wrong with training, the more the better.But you can't regulate criminals, as you yourself seem to acknowledge. Any regulations designed for that purpose only succeed in penalizing the good guys.Some people I know who favor possession of guns are OK with banning the gun called AR5(?). If it's OK with them it's OK with me.But my impression is that there are enough regulations. I know there are an awful lot of them. If they don't do what you want them to do it's because regulating guns isn't the solution to the problem you want it to be. The problem is not guns.Hunters I happen to know personally (and I personally am no fan of hunting) have no fear of other hunters. Why do you think they should have? They are busy teaching their own children how to be responsible about guns when they take them out hunting with them.The "gun culture" is made up of people who are responsible about guns and they've generally grown up with guns. The ones you are worried about are not among the millions who are responsible about guns. You are talking about regulation as if you think guns are the problem. They aren't.I'm not part of the gun culture. I did some shooting with my family but was never interested in it even though I was a pretty good shot. I hated the kick of the rifle. Who needs a sore shoulder especially when your father takes care of the gopher problem anyway.I don't know much about guns and don't want to, my interest is in keeping the good guys armed who want to be armed, because I appreciate the importance of the Second Amendment which few others here seem to do. My interest is only in keeping BASIC self defense guns, whatever those happen to be, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and the fact that every time some criminals kill people logic-challenged and emotionally distraught people rise up with the knee-jerk solution of further restricting or banning guns when that can't possibly stop such events is a huge red flag to me. The way this happens is evidence that this is NOT about protecting the children in the schools, it's about depriving us of our liberties, whether you want to recognize that or not. So my answer is, this thread is irrelevant to the actual problem you want to solve.

Responding that regulations are a stupid response to the problem is addressing the topic of the thread. And arguing the case for that is addressing the topic of the thread.And you are living in fantasy land if you think you've proved that armed people wouldn't improve the problem. You're just playing with numbers and deceiving yourself.Regulations are not the answer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You guys aren't very careful to distinguish between the two but it's the most important part. What percentage is accidental versus intentional please. And of the intentional, any of them done in self-defense?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

RAZD quoted the following: Zowie, RAZD posted this and expects it to be taken seriously? I posted quotes from the founders about their reasons for wanting the second amendment but he doesn't care what THEY said, only what this leftwinger says. And it's nothing but assertion, not even a quote to back it up. Even if this sort of thinking applied in some cases the claim that this was THE reason for the Second Amendment deserves a good punch in the nose.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.