America's Gun Violence

KC138045

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.

Go Beavers

KC138045 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.

And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 

KC138045

Go Beavers said:

KC138045 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.

And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 

I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other I just don't know what the answer is to stop or limit these events.  The story on Yahoo had a quote from a neighbor that the shooter had been firing off a lot of rounds lately and had threatened them.  It didn't say if they reported it or anything but this is a definite red flag.  Another mentally disturbed individual who shouldn't of had gun in the first place.

From the article:

Another witness, Brian Flint, told KCRA-TV that the suspected gunman stole his truck after killing his roommate.

Flint said he and his roommate lived near the suspect, who he only knew as Kevin.

“The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “This guy has been crazy, and he’s been threatening us and everything. I just feel like there maybe should have been more effort put into stopping things like this.”

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

KC138045 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.

And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 

but but but but.....CHICAGO!

Gern Blansten

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

Come one, it was only 3.  He could have killed 3 people with a fork.

Are you going to outlaw forks now?  WELL...ARE YOU??!!!1

Halifax2TheMax

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

tbergs

KC138045 said:

Go Beavers said:

KC138045 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.

And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 

I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other I just don't know what the answer is to stop or limit these events.  The story on Yahoo had a quote from a neighbor that the shooter had been firing off a lot of rounds lately and had threatened them.  It didn't say if they reported it or anything but this is a definite red flag.  Another mentally disturbed individual who shouldn't of had gun in the first place.

From the article:

Another witness, Brian Flint, told KCRA-TV that the suspected gunman stole his truck after killing his roommate.

Flint said he and his roommate lived near the suspect, who he only knew as Kevin.

“The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “This guy has been crazy, and he’s been threatening us and everything. I just feel like there maybe should have been more effort put into stopping things like this.”

Are you insinuating this is a mental health issue? He was crazy or is now clearly crazy based on his actions?

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Bentleyspop

Gern Blansten said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

Come one, it was only 3.  He could have killed 3 people with a fork.

Are you going to outlaw forks now?  WELL...ARE YOU??!!!1

Up to 4 now plus the gunman. I mean well armed citizen.
And had he been armed with a fork or a knife  or a spoon or all 3 I'd be ready. I got a spork  and I know how to use it.

CM189191

Bentleyspop said:

Gern Blansten said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

Come one, it was only 3.  He could have killed 3 people with a fork.

Are you going to outlaw forks now?  WELL...ARE YOU??!!!1

Up to 4 now plus the gunman. I mean well armed citizen.
And had he been armed with a fork or a knife  or a spoon or all 3 I'd be ready. I got a spork  and I know how to use it.

You mean well-regulated militia-man

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

No, directed at gun owners who claim they support further gun restrictions but don’t acknowledge the carnage guns cause or dismiss fact based evidence to the contrary while throwing out the term “ban” as in ban guns or gee, I’d hate to see gun shows banned because of the in exact terminology or definition of “loophole” that’s being used. It’s an underhanded way to delegitimize the issue and undermine the need for reform. Then to compare the insignificant numbers of gun deaths to cancer or deaths from second hand smoke and eating fast food, two activities or products, that have seen and continue to see further regulation in an effort to lessen their harm, further exhibits your skepticism and inability to come across as a serious proponent of better, more effective gun control. It’s the yea, I’m for it but what if, what if, what if argument (don’t get mad at the gun show, get mad at state laws that don’t require background checks). And because you claim to have attended well run and regulated gun shows, you’d have us believe that all gun shows are on the up and up and everything is legal. Again, despite evidence presented to the contrary. Your reply? But, but, but.......I’m sick and tired of the reality that only gets worse. Did you read the definition of gun show loophole another poster put up and what the seller’s requirement is? It’ll answer your question. “Gee, I asked him if he was a convicted felon not allowed to possess a gun and he said no, shrugs shoulders as he puts money in his pocket.” Also, to claim that the reason nothing changes is because a poster poked fun at gun owners on a band’s web page forum is just deflecting responsibility.

Is it too soon to talk about the latest mass shooting that occurred in CA today?

CM189191

Halifax2TheMax said:

Is it too soon to talk about the latest mass shooting that occurred in CA today?

Yes, but too late to talk about Vegas.  Not sure where we stand on that other shooting that I've already depressingly forgot the details about, but definitely not time to talk about that either.


oh right, the church thing in texas....that's what it was

Go Beavers

CM189191 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Is it too soon to talk about the latest mass shooting that occurred in CA today?

Yes, but too late to talk about Vegas.  Not sure where we stand on that other shooting that I've already depressingly forgot the details about, but definitely not time to talk about that either.


oh right, the church thing in texas....that's what it was

You can’t talk about the Texas shooting since we’re now in the blackout from today’s shooting. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Bentleyspop said:

Gern Blansten said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

Come one, it was only 3.  He could have killed 3 people with a fork.

Are you going to outlaw forks now?  WELL...ARE YOU??!!!1

Up to 4 now plus the gunman. I mean well armed citizen.
And had he been armed with a fork or a knife  or a spoon or all 3 I'd be ready. I got a spork  and I know how to use it.

Got a spork.
Fact I got two.
That's okay man, cuz I love God.

KC138045

tbergs said:

KC138045 said:

Go Beavers said:

KC138045 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.

And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 

I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other I just don't know what the answer is to stop or limit these events.  The story on Yahoo had a quote from a neighbor that the shooter had been firing off a lot of rounds lately and had threatened them.  It didn't say if they reported it or anything but this is a definite red flag.  Another mentally disturbed individual who shouldn't of had gun in the first place.

From the article:

Another witness, Brian Flint, told KCRA-TV that the suspected gunman stole his truck after killing his roommate.

Flint said he and his roommate lived near the suspect, who he only knew as Kevin.

“The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “This guy has been crazy, and he’s been threatening us and everything. I just feel like there maybe should have been more effort put into stopping things like this.”

Are you insinuating this is a mental health issue? He was crazy or is now clearly crazy based on his actions?

I'm not saying this is a mental health issue but if your neighbor was firing off full clips and threatening you wouldn't you report it?

That being said history of mental health should be part of background checks before a gun is purchased. 

tbergs

KC138045 said:

tbergs said:

KC138045 said:

Go Beavers said:

KC138045 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Guns don't  kill people....

At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF

And It happened in California which has some of the strictest gun laws.

And you’ll find states with stricter gun laws tend to have a lower gun homicide rate. Single eposodes of anything aren’t evidence. 

I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other I just don't know what the answer is to stop or limit these events.  The story on Yahoo had a quote from a neighbor that the shooter had been firing off a lot of rounds lately and had threatened them.  It didn't say if they reported it or anything but this is a definite red flag.  Another mentally disturbed individual who shouldn't of had gun in the first place.

From the article:

Another witness, Brian Flint, told KCRA-TV that the suspected gunman stole his truck after killing his roommate.

Flint said he and his roommate lived near the suspect, who he only knew as Kevin.

“The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “This guy has been crazy, and he’s been threatening us and everything. I just feel like there maybe should have been more effort put into stopping things like this.”

Are you insinuating this is a mental health issue? He was crazy or is now clearly crazy based on his actions?

I'm not saying this is a mental health issue but if your neighbor was firing off full clips and threatening you wouldn't you report it?

That being said history of mental health should be part of background checks before a gun is purchased. 

Gotcha. I think there's been a lot of misrepresentation with the mental health angle. It seems that the term is now used for anyone who is involved in a shooting because the obvious observation is that the person must be "insane in the membrane" to even commit such an act. Where there needs to be a distinction made is between mentally unstable (devious, heinous thoughts/acts) and suffering from a mental illness that has been clinically diagnosed (depression, bipolar, schizophrenia). Unfortunately, only the mental illnesses can be screened unless the unstable individual has a criminal record. No background, thorough or not, will stop the unstable person from purchasing a gun even if they've displayed anger, made threatening statements or is verbally abusive if there's nothing on record.

I agree that a mental health check should be a component of the background, but it's only one of many things that should be considered. If you want to own more than a single handgun and a hunting rifle, you should be required to complete a psychological assessment on top of a basic requirement for all gun owners to pass a thorough background check and gun safety/owner course.

RYME

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Halifax2TheMax

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

mace1229

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion some just don't want to have a rational conversation about guns. I didn't compare gun deaths to smoking, I don't fear a ban, but keeps bringing it up multiple times that I have for some reason.
I've never said it is too late or too early to talk about gun control. I was on here the day after the vegas shooting talking about it.
Its amusing at this point how he keeps bringing those up over and over and hasn't answered a single one of my questions.

unsung

Gern Blansten said:

RYME said:

CM189191 said:

RYME said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.

So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.

Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

Also, your point is wrong. 

I can multitask.
The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.

The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.

How is that working in Afghanistan?  How did it work in Vietnam?  Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.