No, Sass. That is not true. You did NOT draw the line at a certain type of firearms. You said that automatic weapons are what you want banned, but in the future you would love to see all handguns banned as well.

I take your point Tom, but I don't agree. I'm more than happy for a small, achievable step to be taken towards a greater eventual goal. So long as you're honest about what the eventual goal is then I don't really see how it's a problem.

That is exactly why I am concerned. You say one thing and desire another.

Brad, I think I've been upfront from the outset (I actually set out my position years ago and I've stuck by it ever since). I want handguns to be banned. I also want automatic weapons to be banned. I'm quite happy for one to be banned even if the other isn't because I'm realistic enough to accept that handguns won't be banned in the near future, but that doesn't change the fact that I'd also like to see handguns banned. There's no ulterior motive here, I'm quite honest about the law I'd like to see in force.

For the record btw, I've also set out those types of weapons that I would not ban, which includes certain types of firearms and also includes swords and other bladed weapons. I accept that there's a certain inconsistency in calling for the banning of one tyope of weapon while allowing another, but I'm comfortable with that and I'd like to think I've done a reasonable job of explaining my reasons.

I note the intricacies of your statement and accept it as such. Thank you.

Even the gun range is not safe....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... Count=4362

Now, now freeman, don't jump the gun. Clearly the real issue will be that the victims were not armed or not sudlfficiently confident to use weapons. If only they'd been in a place where other who were armed could have intervened.

And there can't possibly be any suggestion that letting a mentally unstable guy near guns had ought to do with it.

very funny but you should try a story that supports your position? They were the only ones at the shooting range, kinda proves just the opposite of what you want us to believe. If there were others there who were armed, this may not have happened at all?

Can you imagine the conversation that led to this gun outing? "Hey, what should we do to cheer up our friend who is depressed and suffering from PTSD? Hmm, what would be good? I know what would make feel better--let's go the gun range! Won't that like trigger bad memories for him, remind him of Iraq? Nah, man,he'll forgot about his problems at the gun range..."

There's no cure for stupid!

GMTom wrote:very funny but you should try a story that supports your position? They were the only ones at the shooting range, kinda proves just the opposite of what you want us to believe. If there were others there who were armed, this may not have happened at all?

Supports what position?

It's a bad idea to let people with mental problems have access to guns. This proves it. Even a well trained soldier well acquainted with weapons was unable to stop someone else shoot him. Yet we are told that guns protect people.

What kind of weapon was he shot with? All I have heard was a semi-automatic pistol.

Yes even a legendary sniper who was armed could not stop a guy who got the drop on him...This isn't the movies, unfortunately. Of course the deranged guy always has the element of surprise and after that even if there are armed people there is the difficulty that they may shoot innocent people (and most people would be reluctant to shoot in a crowded place for fear of hitting someone) personally, I think it would be far better for malls, movie theaters, stadiums,arenas, and movie theater to work closely with police so that there as quick a response as possible.

and banning guns would of course make them all go away, nobody wants to break the law when they kill someone else now do they?

tom

and banning guns would of course make them all go away

If the ban is effectively enforced, yeah. See Japan where deaths from gunfire are rare....
Whats the point of making this statement Tom? Isn't it self evident that the absence of guns would result in the absence of gun deaths?
Is your point that a gun ban would be difficult to enforce? That whatever gun restrictions or limitations that would be brought in would be imperfect? That's also a given. The point is that any improvement in gun regulation, properly enforced, would be an improvement. And that would save lives.
You need to figure out whether the cost of the gun regulations, balances the benefit of lives and injuries saved.
That's really a pretty simple equation. There's now a running tally being kept of gun deaths and injuries in the US. Since Sandy Hook its up to 1545.
Reducing this by one third, as drunk driving regulations have down, would have saved over 500 lives since December 14. Inaction has cost those lives...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... oting.html

Whats going on in the gun debate today is very reminiscent of the debate over Tobacco and the Climate Change debate.
A major industrial player finances and fuels a phony "scientific controversy" over the
1) fact that use of tobacco leads to cancer, heart disease, circulatory disease etc. Including those victims of second hand smoke.
2) the fact that increasing levels of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere traps heat and warms the planet.
3) the fact that more guns in society leads to more gun deaths, and has no leavening effect on crime rates or personal safety. In fact, in terms of personal safety guns in a house, increase the risk of death and injury to those in the house.

Look at how long the tobacco industry delayed real action on society taking steps to limit the damage done by tobacco . And consider the parallels to the funding, almost exclusively in the US, of a phony scientific controversy over warming...
The NRA is now playing the same role for the gun industry. They have an advantage in that the 2nd amendment is a powerful legal weapon, and a tool for confusion. And yet, witness the tone death LaPierre, they also aren't communicating very well....
The emotional reality of the ongoing death toll, is balancing the emotional argument regarding "liberty" and the 2nd amendment. It reminds me of when Life magazine published an issue that contained nothing but the pictures of one weeks dead in Viet Nam.... Putting names and faces to the sacrifice ... makes the sacrifice real. In the case of Viet nam, it became harder and harder for proponents of continued involvement to make their case. I suspect this is happening for the NRA now...

OK smarty pants, banning guns will make them magically disappear? Tell you what, YOU prove how this will happen. You point to Japan ans some sort of shining example, ok, how many guns did Japan have floating about in their society before a ban was made? I honestly have no idea but can pretty well guess it was nowhere even near the number here in the States.

It is indeed "self evident" that the absence of guns would result in the absence of gun deaths, you tell me how waving your magical gun ban wand will make them disappear. Go ahead, we will wait for an answer...
And who said their was no room for improvement in gun regulation? Again, I will wait for your reply...
Now you want us to believe anything you have to offer????

Your relating this to tobacco and Alcohol is laughable. The ways we reduced those problems was not through any sort of ban now were they? You point to how we improved the numbers so a ban would work???
Just like those products, improved education, improved enforcement of the laws, and yes, improved laws will certainly help as well, but how can you compare your call for a ban on guns (an absence of guns in your words) to alcohol and tobacco, in fact it's such a foolish claim to make, we did have a ban on alcohol at one point, how did that work out?
Maybe we should make marijuana illegal as well? that should make it go away as well???

Tom

Your relating this to tobacco and Alcohol is laughable.

What I wrote.

Whats going on in the gun debate today is very reminiscent of the debate over Tobacco and the Climate Change debate.

Did you take any notice at all of the phrase "gun debate" or "debate over Tobacco".

But, by the way, off my topic , there were considerable restrictions put on the use of Tobacco . If you don't realize this watch an episode of Mad Men. You can no longer smoke on planes, for instance.