The correct analogy would be drugs used to rape women, roofies or whatever.

Which are illegal.

Oh look, i asked Tigger direct questions and he quoted my post yet answered zero of them. Great job, thanks for coming out.

I'll ask again. Are you up for regulating firearms as much as we regulate driving?

Interesting question, sorry if I missed seeing it previously.

When did we regulate purchasing automobiles? I've not been out of the country that long.

If what you want is a gun safety test, akin to a driver's license test, yes, I'm all for it. In fact, to obtain my concealed carry permit I had to take a class, demonstrate safety and proficiency with my weapon, and pass a written exam.

I carry a gun. I do not want militarized police.

I'm in favor of anything that makes sure people that conceal carry are qualified, although again stats show that people that bother to get CC permits are usually very qualified. Most people that have a CCP practice shooting regularly and are much more proficient than your average police officer who normally trains with his weapon at most 1-2 times a year.

Also driving is a privilege, not a right unlike gun ownership.

Active shooting situations are completely unlike hitting paper targets at the range.

Also cops should also be trained better and eventually disarmed, but in any case they are currently way better trained than the average civilian for these situations.

Almost no one in this thread is advocating for guns to be made illegal. We're all aware that no such thing can or will happen.

You also just name-called, and insulted using a rather ridiculous graphic example, after complaining about someone having done the same.

No, all chaos caused by guns is relevant. It's generally something like 9000 annual homicides, 19000-20000 suicides, 500-1000 accidental deaths, and 70000 serious or severe injuries.

Maybe there was a good reason for the right a long long time ago but things change. Now it seems more like an historical artifact and perhaps it's past time to remove the right.

I agree, but how can we ban cars?

you mean ban drivers.

Very possible that sometime within the next 200 years it will be so obviously better to have self drive cars that the damage caused by human drivers leads to driving being banned.

Going to be a lot sooner than 200 years imo.

Much sooner imo as well. 200 years seemed an appropriate timescale for some reason.

More like 10-30 years. The revolution is coming. Self driving cars will save thousands of lives and make the lives of millions easier. And gun nuts will lose another really ****ty argument against gun control and will revert to something equally stupid.

Are they really? What do you think officers train on? Paper targets at a range. 1-2 times a year. The extent of training the your average patrol officers receives in regards to active shooter scenarios is find the shooter as fast as possible and engage. That's it. Only tactical officers receive in depth training on responding to active shooter scenarios and their response time is 10-12 minutes usually. Many civilian CCP holders practice way more regularly because it's something they actually care about and it's not just their job. The friends I have that carry concealed I would certainly choose them in any active shooter scenario over any first responder patrol officer.

The driving example shows that in basically every other thing in life if something is dangerous everyone works very diligently to make such safer. With guns, something that has a literal purpose of being dangerous you throw your arms up and go "WELL, WHAT CAN WE DO?"

The criteria cannot be perfection. There are plenty of proposals that would get guns away from some mentally ill people while minimizing the number of people who have rights infringed upon.

None of those who intervened had guns, so that's not an example of civilians with guns stopping bad guys with guns in an attempted mass killing.

Because my proposal allows people to have guns at home for defense and doesn't ban concealed carry. I'm also focused more on stopping mass shooting, where the perpetrator is motivated by killing others as opposed to taking property. The safest way to survive a car jacking is to give up your car, so you're really talking about using a gun to protect your property, not yourself.

I agree with its intent. Today, owning guns does not realistically help you fight off tyranny in America... Thus there's no Amendment-driven reason not to modify our gun laws in some way.

That's not true - it's based on a made up quote which there is no citation for or proof of ever having been said. (According to FactCheck.org) There's no military in the world that would be powerful enough to invade the US by overpowering our military, which outspends other countries by an extreme margin, that would then be intimidated by or turned back by citizens with guns.

That's fine, I'm sure any issues would be quickly brought to light, and there would be a process to deal with that.

Clip, magazine, whatever. I'm not here to debate the technical terms of guns. There's no reason anybody realistically needs a 30-round magazine for defense. There's got to be a trade off in what people are allowed to own, when they make other people LESS SAFE. I'm less safe because everyone who wants to own AR-15's gets to own them, and some mentally unstable person can get one and come shoot up my movie theater, sporting event, shopping mall, etc.

So you feel the same way about all government spending, or just the parts you disagree with?

That's fine, people would also miss less often with a hand grenade, but our goal shouldn't be to let people have the weapon with the highest success rate, it should be to balance that with societal safety. If you feel passionately that you need a firearm to protect your home, you can go to the shooting range and practice with your handgun or shotgun until you feel that you're proficient enough.

We shouldn't have people walking around in fear of a mentally unstable person with an AR-15 just so that you can defend your home to the extreme, when you could achieve a similar level of home defense with a weapon that is less dangerous in a mass shooting scenario.

Under my proposal in which you need a permit to carry any gun in public, openly or otherwise, they could pull them over and ask to see their permit and photo ID. If everything was up to date, then they would tell them to have a nice day and be safe. If not, then they would act accordingly with an arrest. It would be a minor inconvenience for those with permits, which they could avoid by carrying concealed anyway.

My primary goal is to keep mentally ill people from getting guns and to treat the mentally ill and prevent breakdowns. My secondary goal is to keep people from carrying and possessing assault weapons. My third goal is to prevent anyone without the proper training, psych exams and background check from carrying firearms in public. Fourth, I want to keep people from owning guns without some degree of the same exams/checks. Finally, I want to reduce the number of firearms in this country in accordance with the law and constitution (i.e. reasonable gun control, voluntary buybacks, etc).

There is a massive difference from having a stringent set of requirements to carry a firearm in public and pre-crime police powers. Note that I'm not talking about buying a gun in terms of the strictest requirements, I'm talking about carrying in public.

As long as you have it locked up and secured, you won't be held liable. If you leave it sitting out and they break in and grab it and go, you can be held liable. If you're holding it and they overpower you and take it, you're not liable. I mean it is pretty common sense stuff here, and you're just trying to come up with very specific "what if," scenarios to poke holes in the idea due to your own political agenda.

The reason is that those who want no restrictions on gun ownership imagine that their gun will one day save their life or the life of a member of their family. The odds are infintesimally small that that will ever happen, in fact more likely their gun kills or injures themselves or their loved ones via suicide or accidental discharge. But it doesn't matter. It could conceivably happen and that's enough for them.

Having a gun for protection is the same as not wearing a seatbelt, with the justification being if you drove into a river it might reduce your chances of survival.

Wow its been less than a week and the media has moved on. Reality in order for actual gun control to reduce the amount of mass killings you would have to adopt a similar system as Australia or Canada/ Its never gonna happen. Any candidate that mentions any form of gun control in the USA is doomed.

The one thing we can do is not analyze the shooter . Not publish his name or picture. Oops thats not gonna work either Freedom of the Press

This is actually a really good analogy.

While this is true, Hillary is laying out a gun control program today so there should be at least a bit of a renewed focus on it today.

Thanks.. I thought so

Except if you live in like Montana or Alaska etc. cuz Bears. That's why the 2nd amendment even exists...Bears.