for the record (re: guns thread)

Okay, totally missed this thread for awhile.Look--it took me awhile to keep in mind what your perspective was when Nuggin kept spewing out stuff about inbred rednecks shooting up cars with machine guns, and putting words in my mouth about maniacal gun nuts shooting up the streets once we ban guns.When I get strawman-associated with that extreme, it's hard to remember that the other side isn't the opposite extreme, because otherwise why would they brand me? I don't think you actually did this, per se, but you jumped on me when I was already trying to get my point across without being branded as a right wing gun nut.So, sorry if I misinterpreted you for some of the debate. I mentioned in one of my last posts in the old thread that the solution you proposed sits fine by me, permitting you keep the rifle and shotgun age at 18.

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

Can I just interject something real quick?1) The 'anti-gunners' in this thread are NOT trying to ban guns, just suggesting a reinforcement of the background checking process in order to acquire one. They're NOT saying that having a gun for home defense is a stupid concept. Scraf? Wounded King? Am I right on this, or have you guys changed gears since the last thread?2)The 'pro-gunners' in this thread aren't suggesting that, as it's been falsely portrayed, that the only thing holding a mass criminal uprising of apocalyptic proportions is the thought that someone might be walking around with a nine millimeter in their pocket. They're saying that disarming the nation completely (which, again, the 'other side' is NOT proposing, but STILL debating against this 'pro-gunner' arguement as if they are) would put a lot of people in more dangerous parts at risk, as criminals will always have guns, no matter what. If you disagree with the italics, you need to get out of your shell. I hope that the comparison of a deadly pair of human hands to guns is saying only that they can concievably kill the same number of people, but in all practical intents and purposes the gun can much more easily reach such a massive potential a lot faster. Jon? ICANT? Am I right on this?I hope so, because both sides don't seem to get eachother very well on this one.

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

Then it sounds to me like population density has more to do with violence than guns. That certainly goes with the point he just made.

I didn't say it was one or the other, I said that it sounded like more of the problem was with people.I KNOW you don't think guns=violence. Forgive me for daring to interject?