AFAIK in all the Euro-countries with strong regulation there is still recreational shooting and hunting. Stating that regulating guns will prevent people from engaging in these activities doesn't make a lot of sense, unless the US instantly goes from being one of the least regulated to something close to the most regulated country in the world.

That's why I said retraining gun workers was necessary. I really hate all these practical and legal arguments from people who don't even agree with the premise. If you don't believe that america needs to radically reduce the number if guns in its society then I'm not interested in talking about the practical ways we get there.

Keep double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles legal = hunting & shooting sports covered

Serious question: What percentage of gun owners, or even a total number of guns do you think will give up guns in these situations:

-Voluntarily turn in their guns because the government asks
-Give up guns do to a buyback program
-Give up guns because the government made them illegal

No reduction-of-guns-in-america plan actually answers these questions, or explains how they will collect guns from the current felons that illegally possess them.

well presumably there's a register of all legally-held guns? So anyone on that register who didn't hand their weapons over would go to prison. So I guess the question becomes, how many gun owners would be prepared to go to prison rather than hand in their guns?

No, your presumption is wrong, there luckily is not a register of guns in the US.

oh, silly me!

That's what did eventually stop this guy, just like the other psycho nut jobs intent on killing: guys with guns. However, it takes police time to respond. If one of the victims was armed and competent with that weapon, fewer people would have died.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? I'm asking seriously. I am not trying to get into a political argument, which is mostly what's in this discussion, apparently.

I've just joined this discussion and have spent the morning reading the thread from the beginning. There seems to be a lack of understanding throughout the thread that in every case, the carnage is stopped only when someone with a gun shoots back.

Setting aside the question of "should we have guns?" because the fact is that we do, why is it so hard to understand that if the bad guys are armed, the good guys ought to be, too?

Apparently you missed the fact that there was an armed guy on site, and he chose not to try and shoot the shooter.

Serious question for those in favor of a complete ban on guns..Does the ban also apply to the police?

should it also apply to the army?

Of course not and that wasn't the question

Why don't we look at what the Brits and Aussies do?

I don't know what that is but I'd assume they have clubs and tasers? The US police have shown they can murder enough with clubs, tasers and chokeholds.

Oh right, the old "people can kill with anything, so there's no issue in giving them the most efficient tool to do so."

No I'm saying if guns would ever get banned take them from the police also.

Don't you have to register your gun and have a license in most cases?

Not really

Nice to see #9

Lol. Good job keeping up with the news there bub.

"Consider the several states at the front of the current debate, Florida, Michigan, and Texas: each one provides easy web access to detailed records of permit holders. While permit holders in each and every state are very law-abiding,Florida is included here because it has issued more permits than any other state. Michigan and Texas are discussed below because they provide detailed data on active permit holders and revocations by age.These three states account for over 2.5 million of the over 11.1 million active concealed handgun permits.
During almost three decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida issued permits to almost 2.66 million people. These permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations at an annual rate of only 0.0003 percent. For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent.
The numbers are similarly low in Texas. In 2012 (the latest year that crime data are available), there were 584,850 active license holders. Out of these, 120 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.021 percent. Only a few of these crimes involved a gun.
Revocations and suspensions occur when people are charged with a crime, but only about 5 percent or less of these cases result in conviction and thus people are eligible for having their licenses reinstated.
National data on firearms violations by police officers is available during the three years from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007. The annual rate of such violations by police was at least 0.007 percent. That is about twice the 0.003 percent rate for permit holders in Florida.
Police data also provide a direct comparison for Florida and Texas. The rate of all crimes committed by police is 0.124 percent – a number about 6 times higher than the rate for in Texas and about 10 times higher than for Florida."

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/...tes-by-age.pdf

How many people are actually competent though? Lots of people walking around with guns, why do you never hear about all those guys stopping these shootings? How about we try to keep the guns out of the hands who might use them to do harm? Gun right activists have shown they have no interest in doing anything to curb gun violence even in regards to background checks.

I don't understand. If a background check needs to be run on someone upon purchase, why then do we not know who owns the gun that is purchased after the background check?

You really used this as your cite?

Hahahaohwow.jpg

If guns were banned, the police wouldn't need to carry them.