[Blue]

I wasn't calling you a right winger, or implying it. I was however equating your concern over the 4th Amendment to the kind of crazy conspiracy stuff right wingers dream up.

Thanks for clarifying that. However, the 4th Amendment has been undermined by people in both parties. Go look at what NYC did regarding the 1967 registration and the confiscations in the 1990s. Also look at the 2011 bill I linked regarding taxing registered weapons. There are plenty historical accounts of registration leading to confiscation. NYC threatened to do spot checks which sounds like a 4th Amendment end run to me.

[Tom S.]

See, this is the problem . . . that most people aren't aware of just how rampant illegal gun sales are in the US. I was watching panels on news programs discuss gun laws yesterday in the wake of this latest tragedy, and all of it centered around whether assault-type weapons should be legal. While I wish they weren't (though I am for private ownership of registered guns, strict safety standards, and other reasonable limitations), it was distressing to hear how uninformed the mainstream media really is.

Strawman sales, corrupt licensed dealers, and street sales are where most criminals get their guns (that's how Mexico gets plenty of them), and after that blame can be laid on lax state laws that refuse to put any limitations on gun ownership.

You are correct on Straw Purchases. Let me point out a few things about them though. They are illegal. Be that as it may, if you research, you will almost never find someone convicted for it. Worse, will you not often find dealers convicted for it. Did you know the absolute worse case of straw purchases was done by our own government? Look up Fast and Furious, and you will find where our own ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) illegally bought weapons from gun dealers that nor only ended up in criminal hands, but one was actually used to kill one of our border patrol agents! Some of those sales, the dealers protested the sales to ATF, knowing they were illegal, yet were instructed to carry them out anyway!

A lot of folks fail to realize that there already a lot of laws on the books, both federal and local that could prevent guns getting into the wrong hands if 1) they were enforced to the maximum extent of the law, and 2) were made public. Give the girl friend who bought a gun for her boyfriend who ended up using it in a homicide the same sentence he gets - and publicize it so others know about it. We are now spreading the discussion out to our countries' legal system, but the truth of the matter is it is most often too lax and often makes crime worthwhile in the eyes of the criminals.

[Winder]

Why does society blame inanimate objects for the actions of people? I have seen more idiocy expressed in the media over this in the last few days than normal. I have heard it blamed on the crumbling of Christian values, violent video games, bullying, he was a "Trekkie", he was part of "Occupy Black Bloc." which is apparently a violent group of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Maybe he had no Christian values, maybe he did like violent video games, maybe he was bullied, maybe he was a Trekkie, and maybe he was a member of the Occupy movement. It really does not matter. Ultimately people are responsible for their own actions. Where he bought the guns from is no more important than who he bought the gasoline that he used to drive to the theater. Had the guy really wanted to kill a lot of people, $40.00 and some gasoline or propane and you can create a primitive FAE, and there would be no survivors. Gasoline has 6x more energy per-kilo than dynamite, should we ban gasoline?

If you push someone off a tall building, do we ban tall buildings?
If you strangle someone with a rope, do we ban ropes?
If you beat someone with a baseball bat, do we ban baseball bats?

If a person has a phobia of rocks (or any inanimate object) it is not someone else's responsibility to go around riding the world of rocks.

[boriscleto]

You are correct on Straw Purchases. Let me point out a few things about them though. They are illegal. Be that as it may, if you research, you will almost never find someone convicted for it. Worse, will you not often find dealers convicted for it. Did you know the absolute worse case of straw purchases was done by our own government? Look up Fast and Furious, and you will find where our own ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) illegally bought weapons from gun dealers that nor only ended up in criminal hands, but one was actually used to kill one of our border patrol agents! Some of those sales, the dealers protested the sales to ATF, knowing they were illegal, yet were instructed to carry them out anyway!

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

A*Fortune*investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

[Blue]

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Whether it was intentional or not, the net result was the same. Furthermore, not all the documents have been provided so the final assessment of that hasn't been made YET if ever.

[Wheatfield]

It's classic transference. Blame inanimate objects for the way they're used.
Guns kill people (and turn people into murders, even if they don't want to be)

As always, you take a very simplistic and rather (in my opinion) dumb view of other people's opinions. You seem to take great joy in lying about what others think, then building an argument on top of that lie.
We've already shot down the guns don't kill people argument. It's not the guns.
I'm happy with that.
We have also, apparently, shot down the argument that American's are a more violent society that seems to take some joy in killing. It does leave me somewhat perplexed regarding exactly why your society is statistically more violent than pretty much any other on the planet and why gun crimes are so prevalent, considering that your society is all about puppies and little furry kittens and all, but I accept that when you say Americans are more virtuous than anyone else, that you know what you are talking about.
After all, I am the foreigner to the subject. Living where you do, in the same country as the apparent (but apparently no real) carnage, you are automatically the expert.

However, what guns are capable of doing is allowing someone with a bent towards going on a killing spree a much more efficient way of doing it.

Take away the guns, and the person who would be a mass murderer, walking into (as an example) a crowded movie theater to whack a dozen people would have a much harder task ahead of him.
He might still kill, after all a kitchen fork can be weilded with the same intent as an AK-47, but odds are, he would kill perhaps a couple of people rather than a dozen with his fork.

I think we admit that people kill people, what is it that you can't admit about the killers having guns allowing them to kill more people.
This is, of course, all moot. The horse has escaped this particular barn, and has gone loco in the lea, and for good or bad, you guys are stuck with what you are stuck with. I suspect this is why you take such a lassez faire attitude towards the mass killings.
I suppose also, it is why those of us who don't have this sort of thing happening on such a regular basis are still so very shocked by it.

Too bad some of the midnight movie goers weren't armed and capable of defending themselves. A little more self defense and swift justice would curtail these nut cases. No interviews! No notoriety! No years of legal rights defense.

But probably a lot more dead people. You sure are bloodthirsty.

AAHHH..my friend....how are you?
Here in Aus, we have VERY strict gun laws....so strict in fact, that it is almost impossible to own one. If you were caught on the street with a pistol....it'd be pretty hard for you not to end up in the can.
I myself believe that it is everyone's right to carry a gun....if ya want to.....but let me tell you....I'm in the minority...big time.....and I suppose with events happening that are the subject of this thread, then it'd be hard to say that there shouldn't be more control over guns.....

Your logic is rather strange. You realize that giving everyone the right to carry guns would inevitably lead to the types of carnage that this thread is about?
Our countries haven't let the horse out of the barn, and we would be drooling idiot stupid to move towards an American style society.

[Blue]

As always, you take a very simplistic and rather (in my opinion) dumb view of other people's opinions. You seem to take great joy in lying about what others think, then building an argument on top of that lie.
We've already shot down the guns don't kill people argument. It's not the guns.
I'm happy with that.
We have also, apparently, shot down the argument that American's are a more violent society that seems to take some joy in killing. It does leave me somewhat perplexed regarding exactly why your society is statistically more violent than pretty much any other on the planet and why gun crimes are so prevalent, considering that your society is all about puppies and little furry kittens and all, but I accept that when you say Americans are more virtuous than anyone else, that you know what you are talking about.
After all, I am the foreigner to the subject. Living where you do, in the same country as the apparent (but apparently no real) carnage, you are automatically the expert.

However, what guns are capable of doing is allowing someone with a bent towards going on a killing spree a much more efficient way of doing it.

Take away the guns, and the person who would be a mass murderer, walking into (as an example) a crowded movie theater to whack a dozen people would have a much harder task ahead of him.
He might still kill, after all a kitchen fork can be weilded with the same intent as an AK-47, but odds are, he would kill perhaps a couple of people rather than a dozen with his fork.

I think we admit that people kill people, what is it that you can't admit about the killers having guns allowing them to kill more people.
This is, of course, all moot. The horse has escaped this particular barn, and has gone loco in the lea, and for good or bad, you guys are stuck with what you are stuck with. I suspect this is why you take such a lassez faire attitude towards the mass killings.
I suppose also, it is why those of us who don't have this sort of thing happening on such a regular basis are still so very shocked by it.

Al Capone's outfit, Bonney & Clyde, Ma Barker's Gang, Pretty Boy Floyd, Kelley and others were able to get weapons before the police were. Criminals have always been able to get weapons whether it was bow and arrows or swords. Plus you seem to forget the trouble the police have had disarming this Punk's incendiary devices. This guy was own a mission what ever the hell it was. You also seem to forget about Tim McVeigh and the World Trade Center (both attacks, '92 and '01) not to mention the bombings by the Weather Underground and others. Mass murders seem to be motivated.

[Parallax]

Plus you seem to forget the trouble the police have had disarming this Punk's incendiary devices. This guy was own a mission what ever the hell it was.

Imagine the carnage if he'd used those in the theater instead of guns. I'll bet there was no background check at all for the stuff he made them from,.

[les3547]

You are correct on Straw Purchases. Let me point out a few things about them though. They are illegal. Be that as it may, if you research, you will almost never find someone convicted for it. Worse, will you not often find dealers convicted for it. Did you know the absolute worse case of straw purchases was done by our own government? Look up Fast and Furious, and you will find where our own ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) illegally bought weapons from gun dealers that nor only ended up in criminal hands, but one was actually used to kill one of our border patrol agents! Some of those sales, the dealers protested the sales to ATF, knowing they were illegal, yet were instructed to carry them out anyway!

A lot of folks fail to realize that there already a lot of laws on the books, both federal and local that could prevent guns getting into the wrong hands if 1) they were enforced to the maximum extent of the law, and 2) were made public. Give the girl friend who bought a gun for her boyfriend who ended up using it in a homicide the same sentence he gets - and publicize it so others know about it. We are now spreading the discussion out to our countries' legal system, but the truth of the matter is it is most often too lax and often makes crime worthwhile in the eyes of the criminals.

Well Boriscleto beat me to posting this great article The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features, but aside from the flagrant misrepresentation by the GOP of the government's role in Fast and Furious to score political points, there is another part of that article which is quite relevant to my point about illegal gun sales. Reading it you see the deep frustration of the Feds from their inability to get past state laws (and the lack of strong enough federal laws) that thwarted all their good efforts to stop the straw purchases.

Then you have the NRA so powerful they can force congresspersons to vote for something utterly irrelevant to gun rights, like holding Holder in contempt, you have rogue private dealers selling without requiring any documentation, you have states that refuse to require registration . . . and at end of that funnel we have a very large angry, violent segment of the population who can easily get guns.

I say, if we want to keep sane and reasonable gun rights, we need to fix all the above problems.

[debmalya]

So?
The problem was that they weren't used legally. Nearly every car that was ever used by a drunk to kill somebody was purchased legally as well; so what's the point.
The fact that guns can be purchased legally in the U.S. isn't really news.

Meaningless analogy. Cars are made with a completely different purpose - transportation. Like buildings are designed for accomodation, even though people perish when buildings collapse. On the other hand as far as common sense goes, guns are designed for this application primarily - injuring and killing.

[Blue]

Meaningless analogy. Cars are made with a completely different purpose - transportation. Like buildings are designed for accomodation, even though people perish when buildings collapse. On the other hand as far as common sense goes, guns are designed for this application primarily - injuring and killing.

Vehicles can be used as a deadly weapon and Police officers can legally shoot you if you try to run them down. It happens a lot. There are also charges such as vehicular homicide. The materials the Perp made the incendiary devices out of weren't likely intended for that purpose either. Furthermore, firearms aren't made and sold for purpose of mass murder. This guy was motivated and spent a chunk of money on weapons, protection, and materials.

http://rt.com/usa/news/batman-gunman-apartment-explosives-703/

[les3547]

Meaningless analogy. Cars are made with a completely different purpose - transportation. Like buildings are designed for accomodation, even though people perish when buildings collapse. On the other hand as far as common sense goes, guns are designed for this application primarily - injuring and killing.

Nope, my guns are for trying to get all my shots within a 5 inch circle on the target from 20 yards (even tighter if possible), decking out with fancy grips and night sights, taking apart and cleaning, and generally enjoying the marvelous technology that goes into making one. Now, if somebody smashes in my door intending to do me or mine harm, at that moment a gun, knife, baseball bat, pepper spray, or whatever I first get my hands on will suddenly turn into an object to prevent them from getting control.

[debmalya]

I agree with you Jim. The gun banners will grasp at any straw to prove their point on banning gun ownership. If we used the same logic and emotional appeal that they use on guns and then apply it to cars and trucks, all of them would have to be banned and taken off the market because of all of the deaths they cause. Obviously they don't use the same yardstick with them as they do guns, since according to them, "guns kill people" but the don't use the logic of "cars and trucks kill people" so we should ban cars and trucks. This guy could have just as easily have driven his car into a crowd of people and done the same kind of damage, but chose this more dramatic way to exercise his madness.

Wrong argument, completely. For argument sake consider this: we now have the technology in automobiles to automatically apply the brakes and stop if it senses an obstruction in its path of travel. Say we refine this technology to make it more accurate and introduce some tamper resistant security features in it. Lets say hypothetically for our argument, the government makes this mandatory in all cars and trucks. I bet drivers like you and me will not have any objection to this implementation. Now, if we came up with a similar technology in guns, like if it senses a human target then it will be disabled and cannot fire (assume for argument sake). Will majority gun buyers be okay with this? I doubt it.

Not only cars and trucks, electricity, a falling tree, a collapsed building - all these can take lives. But these things exist for a different purpose. Weapons do not and therefore cannot be compared with innocent things.

[Blue]

. . .

Not only cars and trucks, electricity, a falling tree, a collapsed building - all these can take lives. But these things exist for a different purpose. Weapons do not and therefore cannot be compared with innocent things.

innocent things? You mean like a baseball bat or ice pick or hammer? Or do you mean fertilizer and diesel fuel?

[Wheatfield]

Vehicles can be used as a deadly weapon and Police officers can legally shoot you if you try to run them down. It happens a lot. There are also charges such as vehicular homicide. The materials the Perp made the incendiary devices out of weren't likely intended for that purpose either. Furthermore, firearms aren't made and sold for purpose of mass murder. This guy was motivated and spent a chunk of money on weapons, protection, and materials.

Police say controlled detonation 'successful' at Colorado gunman's explosives-packed apartment — RT

Nope, my guns are for trying to get all my shots within a 5 inch circle on the target from 20 yards (even tighter if possible), decking out with fancy grips and night sights, taking apart and cleaning, and generally enjoying the marvelous technology that goes into making one. Now, if somebody smashes in my door intending to do me or mine harm, at that moment a gun, knife, baseball bat, pepper spray, or whatever I first get my hands on will suddenly turn into an object to prevent them from getting control.

Meaningless analogy. Cars are made with a completely different purpose - transportation. Like buildings are designed for accomodation, even though people perish when buildings collapse. On the other hand as far as common sense goes, guns are designed for this application primarily - injuring and killing.

The first two posts I've quoted are why this sort of discussion is meaningless. There is no common sense on the side of the gun advocates.