Guns

Here's the 2nd amendment Here's a definition of "arms" So, from a very literally stand point, any and every firearm imaginable from a .22 to an M2 to a gatling gun should all be perfectly legal in these United States.But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.Where do we draw the line?Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Completely changed my post, but not my opinions.

This would be the assaul weapons ban with the giant loop holes which the NRA is actively trying to dismantle, and which, if memory serves, the Republican Congress didn't extend. False. It may be illegal to own an "unregistered" handgun. But owning a gun in NYC remains legal. Also false, with the exceptions of heads of state there are no individuals capable of wracking up the numbers we see at VT by themselves. Not the best swordsman in the world. Not the best spear thrower. Not the best muzzle-loading rifleman. It just doesn't happen.The CLOSEST you can come is Jack the Ripper who's 5 victims (add another 12 if you wanna include everyone who died during the period) were killed over a couple of years, not a couple of minutes. Your monumental assumption here is that there is no gun crime save repeat gun crime. That is massively in error.There are plenty of deaths via gun (accidental and deliberate) in which the person pulling the trigger is shooting another person for the very first time.If those people had not had those guns lying around, it's extremely unlikely they would have accidently shot someone with a knife.Or in their moment of passion, gotten their keys, gotten in their car, driven into the city, found a guy on a street corner, asked him who they could buy a gun from, follow his directions to another guy, hand over the cash, pick up the gun, go to another guy to get some bullets, then drive all the way home, rush in and blow away their cheating husband.Would a career criminal, for whom it's already illegal for him to have a handgun, continue to use a handgun? Yes. Do they do that now under this system? Yes. This is not a valid counterargument against me. This is one of those ridiculous statements the conservative shock troops like to parade around.How many gun weilding maniac home invasion cases happen? Is it more or less than accidental shootings. And to use your own glib bs (hint: the vice president SHOT A MAN IN THE FACE!) Or.Now you answer one. How many people were beaten to death by the first of enraged students at VT over the last, let's say 50 years?

So you hold to the belief that EVERYONE is a homocidal maniac waiting to kill as many people as they can, but the ONLY thing holding them in check is the thought that MAYBE one of the people they are intending to kill MIGHT have a gun.You are EXACTLY the type of person who should not have a gun.

I think that fingerprinting is less about background check than it is about preparing to solve the upcoming criminal case when the gun nut kills someone.Coming from a state that takes a fingerprint when you get your drivers license, I find it hard to imagine an objection to fingerprints for gun (particularly hand gun) purchases.

Choo obtained his hand gun without having to go through much of a hassle. That's easy access. It's not like he had to take a mental exam, or wait six months for a background check.

Not my intent. Unlike One_wing I don't believe that everyone who has a gun is hellbent on mass murder. I do believe that everyone hellbent on mass murder, however, is very likely to go out and get a gun.

Yeah, we here this so much it's a cliche. "I don't know what happened officer, I was holding the knife and all of the sudden it just went off." Right. But preventing those same lousy parents from stockpiling assualt rifles and glocks will. And I'm suggesting that she not have bullets.Guess what. If a housewife goes after her husband with a knife he stands a chance to get away. Believe it or not, you can outrun a knife. You can not outrun a bullet. I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but believe me the deathtoll from accidental shootings in the US is WAY higher than 32 this year. And you are claiming it's been less than 32 over the 200+ year history of the country? come on. Wait, you are contradicting yourself. You say this type of crime happens now, when people have easy access to guns, but also say that criminals wouldn't do it because we have easy access to guns. Pick a side and stay on it. Either the criminals are afraid of hte guns and therefore this type of crime doesn't happen, or the criminals aren't afraid of the guns and this type of crime does happen. Again, pure insanity. You are suggesting that if someone were simply in error but NOT holding a gun, there is a equal chance of an innocent victim being shot in the head. False. If there is no gun, there is no accidental shooting.

No, because you feel the need to defend yourself against IMAGINED threats. You are suggesting that the only thing keeping criminals from instituting a nationwide killing spree is the off chance that someone might have an assault rifle under their trenchcoat.That's ridiculous!

This right here is the major disconnect.Yes, you CAN kill someone with a .22. you CAN kill someone with a #2 pencil.However, it's a LOT harder to kill someone with a .22 than it is to kill someone with a 9mm.In fact, I saw a cops episode where a fat kid in jeans was running away from a guy who shot at him with a .22 and it didn't break his skin. I kid you not. It left a hell of a welt, but no penatration.

ORI've already answered that. And the kid died right? Or did he just have to get stitches? Do you think the kid would have just needed stitches of this same drunk idiot accidently put a 9mm round between the guys eyes? The would be a good start. But a 3 month wait period so that Joe Schmo can have a fully automatic M-16 isn't gonna cut it.Additionally, that same Schmo buying a 9mm in 1980 and still having it today means that 27 years of crazy could have happened since the 3 month wait period.Or him have a 9mm and then 10 years later having a crazy kid, means that there's nothing stopping that kid from getting his hands on the gun and bringing it to school today. You scenario still holds to this theory you have that the only thing keeping criminals from running amok us the potential threat of handguns.Ask yourself this: Was gun violence more common or less common in the wild west? Just about everyone had easy access to guns. If your theory is correct, the percentage of the population exposed to gun violence in Tombstone, AZ should be MUCH lower than in modern Phx. Yes, that's what you were saying. And what you were implying is that the number of people killed by accidental shootings was less than 32, as you were answering my question about home invasions as a comparison to accidental shootings in the home.Don't accuse me for misleading people just because you made an unsupportable claim. Do you have ANY figures showing the number of houses not broken into because the owners owned guns? Do you have ANY figures on the number of criminals actually fought off by gun owners as opposed to gun owners killed by their own hand guns? Do you have any figures at all?You are trying to push this wild theory that somehow it is safer to have a hand gun in the home because of the "crime menace" lurking out there waiting to break in and rape your women. But there's NO evidence that supports the theory. It's just regurgitated NRA crap.Yes, it happening the movies. Guess what, movies aren't real life. Any evidence of this? Any figures? Is it MORE or LESS criminals than are scared away by "ADT" stickers or big dogs? You THINK that this is true, but you don't have any evidence to prove that it's true. I'm surprised it took you this long to fall back on this old standby.Yup, people are killed by drunk drivers. But cars are not manufactures specifically to kill people. There is no reason to own a hand gun other than to shoot a human with it. And how exactly does the criminal know which house has an uzi vs which house has a shotgun vs which house has a karate expert vs which house has a big dogs in it. They don't.You scenario relies on psychic criminals hellbent on mayhem held in check by the specter of gun ownership. It's pure fantasy.

Guess what? This really doesn't happen with the kind of regularity you think it does.The VAST majority of the women killed in handgun violence are killed by people they KNOW. Like abusive husbands, spurned lovers, etc. These people aren't breaking in. They are already in.

Or 0 to 200 or 0 to 20.Either way, you are saying you'll happily have over 300 women killed so that one woman can shoot a criminal. Fantastic. either you are sick or very very bad at math

You really have a pretty big fantasy about how easy it is to kill someone with a knife.Guess what, the victim is unlikely to cooperate with the stabbing, and even a small woman can scream.

Yes, and yet even though they had a lack of guns, there was not a sudden increase in "Home invasion" robberies.And further, no matter how violent the Aztec's were, do you think they lost more people before or after Cortez showed up with his guns? Where did I EVER imply that disarming people would reduce violence? I make no claims about the number of violent incidents, I do however claim that a crazy person with a pointy stick is LESS dangerous than a crazy person with a gatling gun. A claim which you continue to attempt to refute with no success. So, now it's my fault that you can't substantiate your claims. Very nice. How about you stop making stuff up if even you can support the stuff you are saying. There's nothing misleading about Nator's posts. Just because they COMPLETELY disagree with your crazy theories doesn't mean they are misleading. It means that you are very very wrong. Can you please explain why you can only kill rodents with a hand gun and not with a shotgun or rifle.Hand guns are made to kill people - plain and simple. You don't need to conceal guns from the target at the range. You don't need to conceal them from the rats in the backyard. I have a particular beef with hand guns and automatic rifles. I have an even bigger beef with the mid-west redneck mentality of shooting up rusted out cars with fully automatic machine guns cuz "loud noises and stuff blowing up is cool." Criminals stealing for a fix are much more likely to steal from an empty house than an occupied one. Guns or no guns - it's simply easier to steal from people who aren't home.