Summations Only

And how does the supposed atheism of scientists correlate with (let alone cause) this increase in mass killings? It's not as if scientists themselves are committing these crimes, so you need to explain what persuades you that the two increases are in any way related.

There is world enough, and time, and if there isn't, it won't matter. I couldn't resist poking you about the capitals--you don't need them. Your emphases are already clear; trust your own words.My larger point on Limbaugh and Breitbart is that everyone hears what they have to say, whether they tune them in or not--even liberals who avoid conservative media like the plague. Liberal web sites and publications post their video clips and print their statements; entire web sites, in fact, are dedicated to a right wing watch. The left frightens the left with the right; the right frightens the right with the left. Round and round we go, stupider and stupider, while people drop dead faster and faster.I'm not a liberal, by the way, so I'm happy to acknowledge that the prevailing sentiment here is liberal-ish Many liberals speak as if eliminating gun ownership is the only real solution to gun deaths. In part that's because there is no apparent willingness on the right to compromise by supporting reasonable regulation, and in part because there are genuine differences of opinion on the left.For example, I agree with marc9000: pass a law requiring gun surrender, and you will create tens of millions of criminals, because my farming and forestry friends here in the Adirondacks, and their counterparts around the country, aren't going to give up their guns. I don't think they should have to. The notion of police-enforced seizure is as ridiculous as attempting to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Both just ain't gonna happen.Many conservatives speak as if unregulated gun ownership is sacred, rather than admit that guns are a civil right subject to reasonable regulations like all other civil rights. I can find candidates on the left who share my views in favor of regulation and opposed to seizure--in fact, most do; you've affirmed that you support background checks, but I don't see any conservative candidates who are willing to say the same.I'm not trying to win a gun control debate; I normally don't even address the issue. I'm only trying to communicate clearly my own perspective, neither liberal nor conservative. My libertarian friends think I'm just swell, if I'd only shut up sooner, stopping before the "But...".

Even those with elite skill are human and don't execute perfectly every time. And everyone fails to successfully carry out even the simplest of actions once in a while, such as flipping a light switch. Human imperfection guarantees that training and skill and care are not enough to render guns completely safe, and even you concede guns are dangerous: Precisely. And all your training and skill and care are not enough to make your claim true, that "the threat of mishandling or misuse of my guns really is zero." Unless you're superhumanly perfect, it's not zero. What you're actually doing is acting somewhat deranged. My assertion, the one you quoted, was that you can't use single data points or anecdotal data. If you're laughing at that there's something wrong with you, at least compared to the Jar of ten years ago. You then repeat the claim that your personal experience up to the present is somehow predictive of the degree of safety in the future, a clearly incorrect statement and something you used to know about the laws of probability: It may indeed be a fact that no one's been harmed by your guns in the past, but that is not a measure of the probability that no one will be harmed in the future. You need a representative dataset, which we already have, and which says that the probability of someone being harmed by your guns is not zero. You're making no sense. Obviously you understand that laws do not prevent criminals from illegally taking possession of your guns. I don't understand why you would say something so self-evidently wrong. What's happened to you? I don't mean being pro-gun, that's not what's puzzling me. I mean how you're attempting to support your position with a series of obviously incorrect statements.Leaving aside the possibility of criminal threat, unless you're perfect you must concede the possibility that you could forget to lock up your guns, and make any one of enumerable other mistakes that could put the safety of yourself and others at risk. News accounts often relate stories about people injured and killed who before the incident would have made the same claims you're making now. Many continue to make such claims even after a gun accident. As your nonsensical comments reveal, gun love is an emotional feeling, not a rational decision. I don't feel threatened by *your* guns in particular. I do feel threatened (but not criminally threatened, as I make clear below) by the prevalence of guns in general, and with good reason since annually guns cause around 80,000 injuries, 11,000 homicides and 500 deaths due to accidental discharges. You know all about accidental discharges, right, since you "do not believe an accidental discharge is even possible with any modern weapon." That's not generally true, but I think I know what you mean. There *are* laws against criminal threatening, but in general it has to be intentional. Your mere ownership of a firearm, say in your house or on your person, does not give anyone the right to feel criminally threatened, but pull out your gun and depending upon the situation it could be criminal threatening. In a recent arrest here someone pulled out their gun while driving and just showed it to another driver.So if you're saying there's no legal right to a claim of criminal threatening just because someone happens to own a firearm, you're correct. But it's important to note that if something intentional is done with the firearm then it can be a different story.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.

Since I don't blame guns for the killings, I regard the accusation that gun owners don't care about children or people who get murdered as propaganda against the security of America.I'm not for MORE guns, saab, though I AM for having fewer or no gun-free zones.I would like to see reasonable ways of preventing guns from getting into the hands of mentally unstable people.People in foreign countries don't understand America's history of guns or the second amendment. I refer you to my Message 57 for a refresher.Finland is probably under no threat from enemies, just as the rest of Europe isn't right now (at least not from external armies I hasten to add). But disarm American citizens and then see what happens. I know people ridicule the idea of gun-totin' citizens facing down a massive army with sophisticated weaponry, but that isn't the view from the right: the view is that the massive army isn't going to show up as long as the citizens are armed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Conservatives regard liberalism as a threat to American security in general, and I don't think they're wrong although I think most liberals are totally nave about the reality of threats to America. Then, cutting to the chase, what is needed is a way to check backgrounds without putting the identity of all gun owners in the hands of the government. Can background checks be done in a way that does identify potential abusers of guns without threatening the good guys? Liberals trust the government, and especially liberal government; conservative don't, to say the least.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Whereas the reality is that a massive army isn't going to show up as long as America has the world's most powerful armed forces ( only just - their sophistication and capabilities still just outweigh Russia's and China's greater manpower).And nukes, of course. Lots of them.The idea that armies don't invade the US because of the citizenry having some privately owned firearms is risible. Honestly, it really is. That line of argument does nothing to promote your cause - it is lunacy of the most gibbering order.

Yes, I know you did. I think it's safe to assume that European scientists, reflective of the society in which they live, are more often atheists than American scientists. So why aren't mass killings more frequent in Europe than in the United States, instead of the opposite? This is all just your imagination. People in general aren't a terribly scientific bunch and don't seem particularly influenced by the spiritual opinions that some scientists express, both for and against religion. For example, Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian. The things that make people snap are as varied as the people themselves. Is there no opinion so nutty you won't express it? You appear to be contradicting another aspect of your opinion. If most gunfire is between police and criminals, then why do average citizens need guns for self defense?Anyway, your assertion that most gunfire is between police and criminals is clearly wrong. Police and criminals are a tiny fraction of the population. Most guns are possessed by people who are neither police or criminals. Statistically one would expect that most injuries and deaths would be at the hands of the largest group, normal people. Most murder victims die at the hands of someone they know, in other words, family or friends (the largest category is unknown, meaning police couldn't determine the relationship, so no conclusions can be reached about how many were known to the viction): This is obviously untrue: I understand your concern about costs, both monetary and to society. Obviously the more wealthy a society the more valuable is human life and more wealth it can devote to keeping its citizens safe.--Percy

You do know that we are situated next to an unpredictable country, Russia?
It is just silly to think that pistols or rifles had any role in modern warfare.What is just idiotic is the proposal that more guns were to have a beneficial effect on having less people killed in shootings. Even more so is introducing pink "My first rifles" to little girls - just about evil I'd say. The piece of news I linked made me just sad and angry - if the shotgun hadn't been available the little girl was still alive. There's no sugar-coating there.

Op-ed contributor Alan Berlow requests in today's New York Times that gun owners ask themselves if the NRA really speaks for them. These are NRA positions he mentions. The NRA is against:

• Background checks for all gun purchases.
  ​
• A central database for gun purchases.
  ​
• Expanding the ATF's capabilities.
  ​
• Research into gun safety (Berlow didn't mention this one, but it's another known NRA position)

So, gun owners: Are you with the NRA on these things?--Percy

As a gun owner myself, I think the NRA is the best example of an organization that was hijacked by some shrewd corporate lobbyists and now exists merely as an extension of the gun industry to further their own agenda.It certainly is a far cry from how it originated, which was an organization that existed to provide classes on safety and the proper handling and storage of firearms.The end result is it caters to the fringe elements of the gun-nut crowd as a means to and end of helping to keep Colt, Winchester and Smith&Wesson making money hand over fist.From my perspective regarding the list you provided, here is my feedback:

• Background checks for all gun purchases: Absolutely. Along with closing the loophole regarding gun purchases at gun shows.
• A central database for gun purchases: Agreed.
• Expanding the ATF's capabilities: Fine. So long as they don't do another stupid thing like Fast and Furious; i.e. chips in guns that are sold to drug cartels.
• Research into gun safety: Could not agree more. I want Judge Dredd type capabilities with 'smart guns'. I think that would save countless lives, especially young children who get a hold of their parent's guns.

Some others I would add:

• Forbid the selling of guns to anyone on the terrorist watch list. By the way, the NRA is against this too.
• Restrict magazine sizes and severely curtail the sale of assault rifles. Guns in the hands of the general public should be for defense, not offense.
• Severely increase the penalties to criminals for using guns in the commission of a crime. And if anyone wonders how we will make room in our prisons, that is easy. End the stupid drug war.

That's just off the top of my head. Also, start educating the public regarding that tired old rationale for being armed to the teeth because you need to overthrow the government. That is the most asinine, anachronistic concept we have in place today. I am sorry, but you could be armed to the teeth with thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammo, but it won't mean a hill of beans when you see ten M1A1 Abrahams tanks at your doorstep. You might as well arm yourself with Nerf guns for all the good it will do you.

All of it is hypothetical and citizen guns could be a deterrent. Not willing to give them up to find out.

I'm not a gun owner but I am a gun defender. I would like to see the identity of the good guys protected somehow if that's possible. So I'm not really for a huge database with everybody in it, even though I considered that earlier. Background checks good but with the same proviso if possible -- maybe along the lines I suggested earlier: not available to government but to police and gun sellers, but only for the buyer of the moment, by using his driver's license number or something like that. You get either an OK or a notOK and the OK disappears into the ether. This is because what bothers gun owners the most is being identified by potential enemies. And certainly research into safety ought to be done. Not sure about the ATF.

Who exactly would be the enemies of a civilian purchasing a gun?

I am a gun owner.I keep my guns locked in a safe when I am not around them.Background checks for all gun purchases. YESA central database for gun purchases. YESExpanding the ATF's capabilities. Not sure.Research into gun safety (Berlow didn't mention this one, but it's another known NRA position) YES.The NRA does not speak for me. They are idiots.

All purchases? At a Federal level? I'd pass. The juice ain't worth the squeeze. I don't think it'd help a lot and it would cost too much.What about gifts? Can I buy my brother a shotgun for Christmas? Can someone give me a gun so long as I don't purchase it from them? Nope. Sure, I can't see why anybody would be against research unless it hurt their bottom line.