:iagree: And I stand by my belief that guns are just not needed.
And I'm not buying the argument that only criminals will have guns.
What i'm saying is "NO ONE" should have guns. Unrealistic in today's
world? Perhaps. But just think about it........ Nothing else makes sense.

It seems to me that the argument gets polarized with words like banned. The question was gun control, not gun elimination.

Leaving aside habitual criminals such as bank robbers and home invaders, mass murderers seem more like individuals who are mentally ill. Having half the number of guns around means it would be twice as hard for them to arm themselves. Seems like a step forward. Having smaller magazines means that the two individuals who rushed the last shooter may have been successful before being shot. Seems like another step forward.

I've been and read it as well, to try and understand the genesis of the position that there is a right to be armed. Obviously that right is enshrined in the second amendment. But when I read it I don't think about Cowboys and Indians, I read the phrase about a 'well-regulated militia' and think about government tyranny, putting down the English kng, and so on. So what I want to know is, where is the well-regulated militia? It appears to be required in order to justify an armed populace. And that regulation by militia leaders would presumably include putting those that don't keep their guns secured into stocks every now and then. Those that support gun ownership would appear to have an obligation to participate in that well-regulated militia. And by extension, if they believe the government of the day is not responsive to their desires, they have an obligation to take those guns and overthrow the government. Is that the country that 21st century Americans want? If so, I'll try to remember to duck when the serious shooting starts

JCL

I can appreciate your point and all the comments and your right about the thread title. However I don't think the argument gets polarized by bringing
in gun elimination. I set the stage by saying "Nothing will change because men don't have the guts to do what's necessary to stop the carnage". In my view
the answer is clear if a person doesn't have a gun he can't shoot anyone. I am not alone in that view. Many of my friends feel the same way.

I respect everyones right to state their position but if it is felt that my opinion polarizes the argument. I'm happy to abstain from further comment.

Thanks for the feedback

BB

I don't think that your comments polarize the discussion, Quick, and I don't think you should withdraw from the discussion. I just think that if one side wants guns eliminated, and the other thinks that any control means zero guns for them, that we may be missing an opportunity to significantly reduce the number of guns and thus significantly reduce the carnage.

I read that in Israel, where defence is well-appreciated, you can still be denied a gun if you don't need it for defence, and you can only have certain types of guns. And it is rare for anyone to be allowed to have more than one gun. All that might be a start.

I understand and appreciate your opinion. And I'm a pragmatist.

when the 2nd amendment was written, the forefathers could not have foreseen the weapons develop into rapid bullet discharge monsters that did not require any special arms knowledge, and thus prolifirating themselves into the hands of mass population...

the firearm has brought an equilizer into the fight scene, where a less powerful opponent is capable of taking out a stronger enemy by discharging a projectile from a distance, thus keeping him/herself safe and at the same time inflicting the most damage/injury to the opponent.
So, the weapons should be classified as tools - while it clearly possible to kill someone using an ax or a hammer, the ax and hammer have distinct purpose, other than to kill... a handgun, machine gun or for that matter of fact, any gun, has no other purpose for its existence other than destruction or murder - even target practicing damages the target beyong repair.

So, while the argument has been repeated numerous times, that the guns do not kill people, people kill people, it is very similar in its notion to the fact that wrenches do not unscrew bolts, people do... go ahead, and try to unscrew a bolt with bare hands... so... the guns are the tools - many states ban posession of lock picks (unless you are a licensed locksmith) as tools of burglary... the locksmiths are registered, bonded individuals or businesses entrusted with those tools... how comes we can not bond or otherwise regulate the weapons?

we do not allow drunk drivers on the road, and label them as killers behind the wheel, and some jurisdictions going to some crazy extends to ruin their lives beyond repair... and yet, we are OK with a handgun in the hands of some old lady (why in the hell my mother needs a hand gun??? she never shot one, and probably will hurt herself if she tries to use it!!!)

We do not allow sales and consumption of alcohol by an individual under 21 years of age (has nothing to do with biological maturity, it is due to mental immaturity) yet allow an individual at 18 to vote, bear arms in military and bear arms in private settings...

Here is something from Wikipedia - granted, not being an American history scholar, I can not vouch for correctness of this article, but these are conditions in the country BEFORE the 2nd amendment was adopted (as per Wikipeadia) - the US gov-t had no money to maintain its army and loading the responsobility to "bear" your own weapon on to the shoulders of the "recruits" was one feasible option...
***********

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America.[3] The chief problem with the new government under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington, "no money."[4]
The Continental Congress could print money, but by 1786 the currency was worthless. (A popular phrase of the times chimed that a useless object or person was .. not worth a Continental, referring to the Continental dollar.) Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.[4] No state paid all their U.S. taxes; Georgia paid nothing. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[4] No interest was paid on debt owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on outstanding debts as their dates came due.[4]
In the world of 1787 the United States could not defend its sovereignity as an independent nation. Most of the troops in the 625-man U.S. Army were deployed facing—but not threatening—British forts being maintained on American soil. Those troops had not been paid; some were deserting and others threatening mutiny.[5] Spain closed New Orleans to American commerce; U.S. officials protested to no effect. Barbary Pirates began seizing American ships of commerce; the Treasury had no funds to pay the pirates' extortionate demands. If any extant or new military crisis required action the Congress had no credit or taxing power to finance a response.[4]
The new government (of the united states) was proving inadequate to the obligations of sovereignty within the confederation of the individual states. That is, although the Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed between Great Britain and the United States and each of the states by name, the various individual states proceeded blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the protests of both Great Britain and the Confederation Congress.[4]Individual state legislatures independently laid embargoes, negotiated directly with foreigners, raised armies and made war, all violating the letter and the spirit of the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”.
During Shays' Rebellion in Massachesetts, Congress could provide no money to support an endangered constituent state. Nor could Massachusetts pay for its own internal defense; General Benjamin Lincoln was obliged to raise funds among Boston merchants to pay for a volunteer army.[6] During the next Convention, James Madison angrily questioned whether the Articles of Confederation was a binding compact or even a viable government. Connecticut paid nothing and "positively refused" to pay U.S. assessments for two years.[7] A rumor had it that a "seditious party" of New York legislators had opened a conversation with the Viceroy of Canada. To the south, the British were said to be openly funding Creek Indian raids on white settlers in Georgia and adjacent territory. Savannah was fortified and the State of Georgia was under martial law.[8]
Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all thirteen. When a state produced only one member in attendance its vote was not counted. If a state's delegation were evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement.[9] The Articles Congress had "virtually ceased trying to govern."[10] The vision of a "respectable nation" among nations seemed to be fading in the eyes of revolutionaries such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Rufus King. Their dream of a republic, a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt.[11]

I stand by the statement that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Whether that good guy is on the spot as the shooting starts or is nearby, that is the only way the shooter could be stopped. It was asked about the Fort Hood mass shooting. Well, that shooter did kill 13 people but it could have been worse but for him being engaged and shot by responding police officers. I simply do not see any way around the proposition that lethal force of the mass shooting variety can only be stopped by lethal force.

I respect that some of you do not understand the desire or need to own guns and choose not to or associate with people who do. That is certainly your right and it doesn't make me like or respect you any less. I would say though, that one third of American households disagree with you and for whatever reason, choose to own firearms. Bear in mind that "firearms" can mean anything from a .22 caliber target pistol to a 12 gauge duck hunting shotgun to a so-called "assault weapon". I have my reasons and they are really of no consequence to the discussion. The simple fact is that the majority of Americans do understand gun ownership and do so lawfully.

It was also mentioned that there is "ease of access". I think this is notion created by the media. As I stated, there are almost always some procedures in order to buy a gun. Where someone like Adam Lanza kills the owner and steals them or the burglar who steals one during a burglary is not "ease of access" but I do think that gun owners have a responsibility to maintain their firearms in a safe way. To me, that means my guns are locked away in a 600 pound safe. I have always done that even before having a child and before California mandated gun locks or gun safes.

Perhaps that is something that should be implemented nationwide: Require gun owners to store firearms in approved locking devices. That could prevent the owner's child from getting the gun or help prevent burglars from stealing them. That could reduce the "ease of access". To me, that is just smart and just makes sense. I would not want any of my guns stolen much less stolen and then used in a crime. So, I take great pains to safeguard my firearms. I even keep my ammunition and magazines in another large safe. If people were required to lock up their guns, fewer guns would fall into criminal hands. That, I think is common sense and would work. Reducing the number of guns that could be stolen is not realistic. The idea of taking or confiscating guns from law abiding people is offensive to me. (Yes, innocent people being killed is offensive to me too.)

As for the Second Amendment, people like to point to the age of the amendment and the time period in which it was drafted but the United States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the Second Amendment in a couple of recent decision so as of 2012 the Second Amendment still stands for the proposition that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

JCL is correct that the issue is polarized. Every political issue in the United States is polarized these days. He is also correct that there is talk of gun control. Again, as I stated earlier, I agree with effective controls. There is though also a ban being talked about and that is a ban on a certain class of weapon, a class of weapon that has been used in the recent mass shootings. I think it is the talk of this ban and the perception that it is an erosion of the Second Amendment and a start of a slippery slope that causes the strong reaction.

I found this a little confusing. The majority of Americans may understand gun ownership, granted. The majority of gun owners (not the majority of Americans) do so lawfully, I am sure. But the majority of Americans simply don't own guns. They outnumber American gun owners 2 to 1. So if a politician or group of politicians wanted to reduce the number of guns in circulation, or restrict certain types of guns or ammunition, or invoke more restrictive permitting systems, it would appear they have a solid base to start from. And they may say that their right to security from gun violence outweighs other's right to combat gun violence with gun violence. At least that is the sense I get, observing from outside the US.

Since when does what the majority of people want effect the course of political policy? ;)

I brought up that point to illustrate that a significant number, albeit outnumbered by two thirds, understand gun ownership. That is still a large majority that cannot be ignored. What politicians do can have so little to do with what constituents want of feel so the notion that politicians can feel emboldened by popular opinion does not always result in that side "winning". (I don't mean to be condescending. I'm trying to explain myself as simply as possible.) I just don't think it's about one side outweighing the other. As a corollary, look at the US electoral college method of electing a President but I digress.

Also, this assumes that all of the remaining two thirds are against gun ownership, the statistics of which I am unaware. It could well be that some or much of that two thirds who do not own guns are not opposed to civilian gun ownership, whether with restrictions or limitations or not. I would venture to say that there are many people who are not gun owners who have absolutely no problem with law abiding people who pass background checks owning firearms.

In light of that, the political will of the public that theoretically would drive political change might not be as strong as it would seem. Couple that with other variables that enter in the political decision making process and the course becomes even less clear.

Let's say a kid takes dad's BMW X5M for a spin without asking permission, then gets drunk and goes crazy speeding on the highway, getting into an accident killing a few people.

What if because of that there was a sudden clamor for the banning of high horsepower vehicles, especially BMWs?

Why, less high performance cars would mean less incidents of speeding! A positive step in reducing the number of drunk driving accidents is to reduce the number of cars, especially high performance cars, on the road.

After all, who really NEEDS a high performance car when a hybrid will get you where you need to while being good for the environment too?

I dont buy those arguments, because I am in the belief that BMW's or high performance cars dont in and of themselves cause anyone to drive irresponsibly. If a person causes a problem with one, he was most probably a problem to begin with.

A gun will not cause a shooting just like a BMW will not make me speed if I didnt want to in the first place. Smilarly, if a person is intent on killing a few people he will do it, with or without a gun.

Identify the crazies that do these things (whether driving or shooting), get them help or separate them from society, punish those that do crazy appropriately. The gun/car is not the problem, it didnt do it itself.

CT already has an assault weapons ban in place.

Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban that sunset in 2004.

Knowing this, do I advocate not doing anything? No, not at all.

I would like to see action on identifying the root cause of these incidents and addressing them, not knee jerk reactions that limit the rights and criminalize the law-abiding when the people who do these thing have no regard for the law.