In the United States, annual firearm homicides. total 2010: 11,078
Not just children who are shot.

you cannot walk into a school with a pool and kill 20+ kids. You're comparing accidents (a unfortunate part of life) to an object which give a single individual power to take many lives... which is also "easily" available.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to have guns, but I don't think there's justification for assault rifles. There's a reason we make an effort to track and limit access to materials which can be used to make large explosives. The question is how much control over which of these potentially dangerous items should the law be allowed, given that it's virtually impossible to control it all.

You are severely underestimating my ability to use a pool as an instrument of death.

Because the military has it, would be one. History has shown that every government becomes destructive eventually. Because I sometimes don't hit a vital spot on deer on the first try, would be two. Many gun owners are hunters. Because I don't own one to complete my collection, would be three. A 2935869348 horse power engine is only good for getting really fast in a short period of time, but we don't assume that is why the guy owns a sports car.

Although I do agree with you, I must play devil's advocate, the whole governments oppressing people argument is irrelevant now because while the constitution was written, the most anyone had was a cannon, and anyone could get that. Now, the most anyone has is a nuclear weapon, but 0 citizens have that, its just something to consider.

I would imagine it was harder to get a cannon than that, but I will blaketly accept the claim. The question is, will the government bomb itself? I don't think so. So the particular example is void. I feel it is important to be able to appropriately defend myself against any hostile government, I think guns will help. It would be much harder with swords.

But swords look more badass.

Remember that saying, don't bring a knife to a gun fight, well it turns out (I have extensively researched) swords are just big knives.

I know I know. It's a depressing and painful truth. Sword vs. gun doesn't work.

Well I can understand semi-automatics. I haven't gone hunting but I've always wanted to (it's a big family thing). I'd rather automatic weapons be in the hands of trained military personnel, not of Uncle Bubba or Loony Larry. And you can buy these things at WALMART. They are so easy to get a hold of, and that's what I think needs to be controlled. At least get the autos out of Walmart. And I can tell you why I want a sports car, because they are purty.

Automatic weapons are already illegal.

Zombies.

I agree. You know what else we should ban? Fast cars. All cars that go above 80 miles per hour should not be legal. I'm okay with a 60 miles per hour car, but who needs to travel that quickly? Give me one reasonable use for it. I can't come up with any.

Apples and oranges kid, apples and oranges. Cars are meant to be used as transport, and guns were invented for the sole purpose of killing things.

180? Did you even read what I said? Also, that you need a license is an insanely weak argument. More people die from cars than guns.

This is an acceptable argument, yet when someone says that gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals, everyone thinks they're goddamn stupid..

No, that's a stupid argument, a gun is a cannon, whether you like to admit it or not, that's what it is.

It is much different than a nuke, that is a god damn WMD, that will vapourize you, your dog, and the small town you are currently living in.
It's like saying, we let people have rottweilers, a dobermans and pitbulls, should we let them have lions and tigers and bears as pets?
No, because there is a logical barrier there that separates something useful from something that is not.

His point is that there is no clear limit on what weapon is too dangerous for the public to have access to. We can only identify extremes, like how obviously handguns should be legals but nuclear warheads not. We need to actually make a clear standard .

Nuclear war heads don't kill people, people kill people.

We have laws on which types of fire arms are legal and illegal. That's where we draw the line.

Genocide is specific to a certain group of people - So no, it's not genocide.

Both are weapons made with the sole intention to kill (in their raw form they have other purpose). So what I'm asking is, what (if any) weapons do we allow the common average to have?

Bolt action rifles
Semi-auto rifles
Carbines
All capped at 12-15 round magazines
You may obtain larger clips and full auto rifles if you are in a region where hogs or other wildlife are a nuisance and pose a threat to your livelihood.
Pump action shotguns
Double barrel shotguns
Auto-loader shotguns
Capped at 8 shells in the tube
Single action revolvers
Double action revolvers
Repeating pistols
all capped at 12 round magazines without full auto options

You are so certain of the validity of your statement that you hide in anonymity?

It is easier to kill people with a bomb made of fertilizer and diesel fuel than it is with a single shot action. "Assault Rifle." Diesel fuel is still unregulated, and, last time I checked, ammonium nitrate fertilizer is still on the market. Just wondering, do you remember a bastard named Timothy McVeigh?

Actually beating someone is the easiest
If you go into public with a gun people Will panic and attack you,
But if you just have a baseball bat That is less likely to happen allowing you to Kill your target by bashing their head In.

Obtaining a baseball bat is easier as well because there cheap and common

I like how you have one thumb, and I have a neg and we say the same thing...

shit how can that be? maybe fucking different people read your comments

I apologize, I wasn't being ironic, I actually thought it was amusing.

Easiest? That would be my bear hands (tools at hand and all). Maybe as a compromise the nearest heavy object. I hear hammers are good at such things.

Completely ignoring the compromise point of hammers.

Shit. I just replied to an anon...I said I wasn't going to that.

you're so cool

Nope, I am actually quite the opposite. But nice ad hominem attack against a logical point that undermines your argument.

Yeah, I like to go with what Canada is doing.
< Basically, no automatics guns.

Pistols are only allowed in three places, the gun shop, home and shooting range. No where else. (Of course you need to put the pistol in your car, but if you are caught with the pistol in your car at public place, just to stop in for a second, is illegal. You're allowed to go from your house to the place you want to go, then back. No pit stops)

Rifles and shoot guns are allowed to be used in hunting, but besides that, the same rules as pistols.

All guns must be under lock and key, and the ammo for said guns must be in a different room and also locked up.

Thats what I think is a good system, but what can I say?

Let me clue in on a very unfortunate reality in the US. People in power will not do anything unless they get recognition or credit for it.

As a legal gun owner in California, I had to go through an awful lot of hoops to get my handguns; paying fees, going through waiting periods, and intensive background checks. One of the things they point out is if you ever commit a felony or a misdemeanor domestic violence, you can never have a gun. If you ever are committed to a mental hospital against your will, you can never have a gun. If there is a restraining order against you, you can not have a gun. There are even times where someone can take you to court, and if they demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that you pose a significant danger, they take your gun away. I believe the people in the last few gun crimes had major warning signs that were outright ignored. One guy's shrink ignored a note that hinted he was going to shoot up a theater. However, these laws aren't enforced well enough, so deeply troubled people will commit horrible acts while those who have a lot to lose see their rights get taken away.

The problem with this country is that lawmakers will never say "Hey, let's see how we can better enforce our existing laws in order to protect people." Instead, they wait until a tragedy happens and say "Elect me and I'll pass a law that will make sure this never happens again." Then years later when the new law not being enforced allows another tragedy, the cycle repeats.

For my personal opinion, I don't use my second amendment right enough to be really hurt by any knee-jerk legislation, but just because I'm not using my right doesn't mean I should let someone take it away.

No it was not meant for just militias, it says that there needs to be a well regulated militia. If there are more guns out there most crime would drop drastically, maybe not the psychotic people, because they are crazy anyway, but criminals get whatever weapon they want, so I believe that there should be absolutely no gun laws. If the criminals come into my house with some automatic weapon, I want something that is equal. www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

The problem isn't someone invading your house and being killed, the problem is you could have serious mental health problems and you have access to firearms.
This doesn't mean you couldn't be dangerous without access to guns, you could make a weapon out of anything. But outside of a range of lets say 1 meter, the person with the gun will win the confrontation.

I agree with the mental illness part, I don't think we put restraints on the average citizen, but rather have better background checks. Don't punish the people who didn't do the crime.

It was an FBI survey of prison inmates...not even gonna bother with a link on here. They basically asked them where they got their weapon, fewer than 2% from a flea market, 12% from a retailer... and more than 80% said a friend, family, street buy or other illegal source. you can google it if you want.

I just reference the drug rates...nice to see research has been done on guns themsleves.

They can't, which why they don't talk about it (except Al Sharpton who has already talked about knife control). The question is why is it the gun's fault in the case of a shooting but the person's fault elsewise.

Well, your talking to a logician and a libertarian. Any line is arbitrary, so I don't really draw one. Along similar lines though: it was recently legal to by dynamite, pvc piping, potatoes, and butanes (or air compressor). This would effect similar results.

Have you tried Walgreens?