That is a different example. Your question above was, "So if all Americans give up their weapons, no more (American) children will be hurt by guns?" We answered yes, that is true. In face, we hold that truth to be self-evident, to quote a famous document. You didn't agree. So now you are saying you don't agree because only some people give up their guns, ie not the criminals. You have changed the question, and that wasn't what we were discussing. Come on, noncom, keep up! :nanana: Sorry, I saw somebody used that just above ;)

But again, you are deflecting. Nobody said somebody was going to take your guns against the constitution. You made that part up. We are discussing gun controls. As per the constitution. As per the Supreme Court ruling. You keep using examples that are beyond the scope of gun control proposals on the table.

I have tried to answer your question. Now will you answer mine? Why does this always turn into examples of gun confiscation instead of a discussion of gun control? It seems that exageration and hyperbole is the only way to counter the seemingly logical hypothesis that fewer guns results in fewer gun deaths and injuries among children (and others, for that matter).

Well, to answer your question,
check out the news from Washington
on gun bans and the list they want
to ban.
I'm keeping up. Lol!
Your splitting hairs, again! :-{)

Constitution (2nd amendment) guarantees you the right to have guns to protect yourself against tyrannical government, not agaisnt criminals... Along the way, the (tyrannical) governmanet substituted the 2nd amendment notion with DC vs Heller where the guns are not to be used against the tyrannical government (not to serve in militia anylonger) but to protect against criminals in the selfdefense, not connected with political change of the governing system.

So... either we have the guns per constituion to keep the right to overthrow the duly elected US government, or, as the DC vs Heller stated, the guns are NOT to be used against the duly elected government but against the criminals.
Timothy McVeigh (or whatever his name was) would have fallen under that 2nd amendment provision, when he did not agree with the government - but we all know that he is a homegrown terrorist.

I sure hope that you are not proposing keeping your guns in order to reign domestic terror - in that case you will become my client (client of my agency), and Uncle Sam is not easy on terrorists, domestic or otherwise...

and again, for another yet time, keep your guns, i just want make sure that those powerful tools are not in the hands of dilitants who will hurt themselves before inflicting any harm to a criminal... so, proper registration, proper licensing, proper training should be in order

The threat of taking ALL guns came
from the above, I think...

Well, the jump to confiscation was made prior to this post.

However, if you read my comment, it acknowledges that taking away all guns isn't possible, but that reducing them is an achievable goal.

Do they want to ban anything with a barrel and a trigger? Or is the list a subset of all guns in circulation? If it is the latter, then you are not correct to position it as confiscation of all guns.

If the question below is the question you are referring too
then you missed my point at the beginning
of this thread. My premise (which I admitted
may not see practical at this point) is that no one
should have guns. That would include criminals and
the police.

Will that end violence? No. Will it stop senseless
shootings by the police and mass murders by stupid
and mentally ill people you bet your life it will.
A person cannot shoot someone if he doesn't have a gun.
If a criminal breaks in i suspect he'll be taking his chances
because there will be a level playing field.

Exactly. Controls, not confiscation.

When various people take a discussion of gun controls, such as the above, and claim that someone is taking away their guns, I conclude that that could only be true if in fact they didn't qualify under whatever rules were agreed, for reasons such as not being trained, or whatever. Those who cry the loudest about losing their guns, I suspect, might be some of the same people who perhaps should lose their guns. But if the guns are secured and the owner trained, what is the issue? What would be the point in even wanting to take those guns away?

A separate issue is which guns may be banned under such gun controls. Whole other topic.

More laws, no violence change...

States' crime rates show scant linkage to gun laws - Washington Times

From your own link:

Emphasis mine. From your own link. Thanks for supporting the goal of gun laws that work. :thumbup: