This article does a pretty good job of countering the ban gun group's arguments. It's a long article but a good read.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2013/1/an-opinion-on-gun-control

Pay particular attention to the number of times guns are used defensively to ward off a criminal, in effect preserving and protecting life and property.

It's long, but a very good piece on the gun bigots and the crap they push:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

On the features, no, that is ENTIRELY cosmetics: Feinstein has written on the past, on the Clinton 'assault weapons' ban, that she and Kerry and some others looked through a catalog and basically picked out the features that scared them and announced 'anything with two or more of these features is an Evil Assault Weapon and should be banned from the commoners.'

Her current bill is an attempt to get around those mistakes, with the predictable results: they're again trying to ban anything with a scary appearance- this time based on a SINGLE feature- and now trying to list everything they'll 'allow' us to own(if we register, AND get a license, AND etc. ad Bullshit).

On point #3, I think that it is also important to not confuse "gun violence" with "gun crime".

If I use a gun in self defense, that falls under "violence", but if I am justified it most definitely does not fall under "crime".

I will read the links above to get better informed.
IMHO, the assault weapon is the one that can shoot multiple rounds per minute. For hunt or self -defense a person does not need a gun producing 30-60-100 rounds per minute.

Oksana:

A muzzleloader fires "multiple rounds per minute".

If "30 per minute" (reachable easily with a revolver) is "too many", how many do you consider acceptable?

What, by the way, are your qualifications and experience with firearms to back up your opinions?

"IMHO, the assault weapon is the one that can shoot multiple rounds per minute."

I think I understand your point, but you might want to refine it a little. In the first place, there's a difference between a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic means that the weapon will fire a single shot every time the trigger is squeezed, with no further need to reload or cock the weapon. What people are calling assault rifles are semi-automatic weapons, as are most handguns. Automatic weapons fire as long as the trigger is squeezed. Machine guns and submachine guns fall in that category, and as far as I know, are illegal to own in most cases.

Which brings us to the rounds per minute issue. Thirty to sixty rounds per minute is doable with a semi-automatic weapon, although you'll run out of ammo before that minute is up, and your hands might get tired. One hundred rounds per minute with a semi-automatic weapon seems kind of pointless if you're actually trying to hit anything. So, from what I can see, most weapons available to civilians today aren't really designed for 30-60-100 rounds per minute anyway.

I'll leave it to others to disagree, which should occur shortly.

"For hunt or self -defense a person does not need a gun producing 30-60-100 rounds per minute"

Uh, you don't know that.

"For hunt or self -defense a person does not need a gun producing 30-60-100 rounds per minute."

Strange.

Apparently, you haven't read the 2nd Amendment, and thought about what it means.

And you haven't really thought about yourself.

It is YOU, not the gun, who would fire that often. Guns are held by people. Decide who that should be.

If not you, why not?

And, just to add to the argument, read about the Mad Minute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute
I've seen video of a rifleman with a WWI bolt-action rifle and ammo on stripper clips firing almost 30 aimed shots in a minute, including reloading.
So do you plan to ban bolt rifles, too?

"For hunt or self -defense a person does not need a gun producing 30-60-100 rounds per minute. " Oksana

The thing is It's NOT your call. I need a weapon that will produce precisely as many shots as I need, in the time I need it.

Most lever action Rifles can easily produce the numbers you are against, and often hold 10-15 shots in their tube.

But, they aren't exactly easy to use in a small place like your house...

Which is why? A handgun. Of which all except for target shooting models are Semi-Automatic one trigger pull, one bullet. The question is usually a simple how many bullets do you think you need, NOT how rapidly can they be fired.

Ultimately it's the RIGHT to be armed, that is important. Regardless if it takes one bullet or many, that isn't the purpose of the right.

The purpose of the right is to defend yourself. Regardless if it's a burglar, or the government itself. Hunting with a gun, is a happy sidelight.

And if you give up this right, how are you going to get it back? Once they have a knee on your neck, why would they let you up?

Again, it doesn't matter if it's a evil person, or the govt. they've still got you right where they want you, and who is going to back you up?

"For hunt or self -defense a person does not need a gun producing 30-60-100 rounds per minute".

You OBVIOUSLY have never had to defend yourself or loved ones with a weapon. I would also take a guesss and surmise that you have never read the U.S. Constitution either.

So since you seem so keen on attempting to strip my freedoms from me, allow me to reciprocate.

You don't need a car that goes above 20MPH to get anywhere.

It's interesting that the old geezers who claimed last year that a woman's body could prevent rape-pregnancies, etc. were slaughtered, yet misinformation about guns is routinely passed around and accepted as a valid argument for gun bans.

"For hunt or self -defense a person does not need a gun producing 30-60-100 rounds per minute."

I'm quoting someone else on this (sorry, I cannot remember who said it, I think it was someone commenting on NeoNeocon's blog):

"Rosa Parks did not NEED to sit in the front of the bus; but she had the RIGHT to do so."

The same can be said about guns - neither YOU nor anyone else has the right to say what someone else NEEDS.

Personally, I think most folks do not NEED an SUV - that doesn't give me the right to ban SUVs, now does it?

Amy likes her kale with bacon, and I'm sure some who keep Kosher would like her to not do so; but they do NOT have the right to force her how to eat or not eat bacon. (They have to right to politely tell her not to do so; and she has the right to tell them to mind their own beeswax)

The bill of rights was written to prevent just such "popular" viewpoints ("you don't need that" crap) from smashing not-so-popular viewpoints (and rights). At least that is what I learned in school many decades ago.

What The Media Gets Wrong About Guns

That's a misnomer, as this is the official narrative being passed around, it's not "wrong".

What The Media Gets Wrong About Guns

That's a misnomer, as this is the official narrative being passed around, it's not "wrong".

For hunt or self -defense a person does not need a gun producing 30-60-100 rounds per minute. -- Oksana at January 28, 2013 1:34 PM

It depends on what you are hunting. For example, wild boar will run in sounders of up to about 20. They weigh in about the 150 pound range, if not significantly more. So you have several charging you. Do you think that 5 rounds is going to be enough?

But realistically, the AR-15 and the civilian version of the AK-47 is not any more dangerous than most other civilian rifles. They are just demonized by the looks. The other thing is that the many parts are interchangeable with the M-16/M-4 fully automatic weapons. They are produced by many companies. That means the maintenance is relatively easy, replacement parts are, normally, readily available, most of the military and vets have trained with them and are familiar with the style.

They are essentially the modern M-1 Garand or Enfield rifles.

But regardless -- the second amendment was not put in the constitution for hunting or sport shooting. It was to allow the citizens of the United States to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, whether it is the state or federal government.

How many school age children are killed by being hit by cars? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the number is far greater than those killed by school shootings.

On that basis, you could argue that cars should be banned (and then we'd all have to drive pirates to work). In fact, I could make the argument for banning cars even stronger by pointing out that car ownership is not protected by the Constitution.

There was a good pic going around Facebook a couple of weeks ago that should two different guns. Near as I find the article was correct though I suppose only the manufacture or someone with both guns could say. It claimed they were the exact same mechanism. One had transitional looking wood stock, etc screwed on, the assault looking stuff. When shown disassembled it certainly looked like the same barrel and magazine, trigger, etc.

"2. Assault weapon bans target guns based on appearance, and not on any higher destructive potential or disproportionate influence on gun violence."

When the left understand that there is no functional difference between a scarey looking rifle with a black plastic stock and a pistol grip and ordinary rifle with a wooden stock and no pistol grip they'll want to ban the ordinary ones too.

They already want to; they learned that lesson from the Clinton AWB. Which is why Feinstein's current mess says any ONE scary feature on her list makes the gun a assault weapon which the commoners cannot be allowed to own.

There's several of those pictures. One of the best is of a Ruger 10-22 rifle straight from the factory- wood stock and all- over the same rifle with a machinegun-lookalike polymer stock. Same action, same barrel, same GUN; but the outside looks different. And those cosmetic changes, according to the gun bigots like Feinstein, makes it a 'assault weapon'.

If anyone out there can give me a logical argument for owning a gun, I'll give the head of the NRA a blowjob on the lawn of the white house.

There is no possible reason for owning a gun other than crime or hunting. And you don't need a gun to hunt. I'm even being generous on that point, because I don't agree with hunting. A bow and arrow is more sporting, environmentally friendly, and a hell of a lot less dangerous to children in specific and the populace in general. Also harder to hide. If hunters were really concerned about being able to hunt versus being concerned about the right to arms, then they'd willingly switch to bows and arrows.

If it's self defense you're worried about, how about a deadbolt, floodlights, security system and large dog? All of which are guaranteed not to go off in your five year old's face. And if the criminals don't have guns, then you don't need a gun.

You don't need a gun. You need a way to get to work in the morning.

I have to pass on this opinion of Feinstein's bill and what she describes it as doing:
"Thank you Senator Feinstein, that line should go down in history with other memorably phrases such as the following:

We are freeing men from the responsibilities of freedom.
The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic.
If any citizen wants to possess arms, let him join the Party.
All certificates for keeping weapons are therefore invalidated.
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
"Arbeit macht frei" a German phrase meaning "work makes (you) free". "
From this guy: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2013/01/25/quote-of-the-daysenator-dianne-feinstein/

The constitution was never intended to be so rigid. Any democratic, free thinking society has to allow for change. The drafters of the constitution could never in their wildest dreams imagined the changes brought about in society during the last two hundred years. If they had, they would realize the need to allow for changes, and adjust accordingly. Societies have been changing laws for thousands of years to adjust to changes. It's human nature. Sticking to a right that has been granted simply because you are entitled, even though that right is detrimental, is childish.

"Sticking to a right that has been granted simply because you are entitled, even though that right is detrimental, is childish."

Should we apply that same standard to your right of free speech? How about your right to liberty...or even life?

"There is no possible reason for owning a gun other than crime or hunting."

Upon what crack induced fantasy do you base this on? What makes YOU the arbiter over MY freedoms?

If I were to get a few mugs together and decide "democratically" that you have no possible reason to go on breathing, would that make it alright to put you down? After all, we can't let a few trifling Constitutional Rights get in the way of eliminating things you have no "need" to have can we?

Beyond that, there are myriad reasons to have a firearm that do not involve hunting or crime.

But let's use the examples you provided. You say that I have no legitimate use for a firearm because I don't "need" one to hunt.

Ok, by that same standard, you don't need a car to get around because you can walk or take a horse. Both of which would be vastly safer for those around you. Therefore comrade serf, in the interest of the public safety and the feelings of those who don't like your polluting and terribly dangerous car, you no longer may possess an automobile. You must turn your vehicle in to the People's Redistribution Center for immediate disposal.

What was that? You don't like it as much when it is YOUR freedoms and liberties that are taken away? Oh, well that's just too bad...

If it's self defense you're worried about, how about a deadbolt, floodlights, security system and large dog? All of which are guaranteed not to go off in your five year old's face. And if the criminals don't have guns, then you don't need a gun. -- wtf at January 28, 2013 7:44 PM

About 95% of everyone has to leave their house at some point. And even with all that "protection" I can still circumvent it all. Cut the power, cut the phone lines, shoot or otherwise poison or incapacitate the dog, and either have a battering ram or crowbar for the door, or break windows.

Let's see, the U.K. has 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 people.[1]

For the year 2011, the murder rate per 100,000 people for England & Wales was 1.35 and for Scotland 2.34.[2]

And of course the if the criminals don't have guns there is some other reason that 12 people died in the spree killing in the Cumbria, England.[3]

Then of course there is Mexico. You can have a .38 revolver or rifle(s) stored at a gun club. Google how many shootings are occurring.

The way to stop a bad guy with a gun is have a good person with a gun deal with them. There have been any number of crimes stopped without even pulling the firearm, let alone firing it.

wtf -- the reality is that America's martial art is not karate, the rapier, jujitsu, or a sword. It is the firearm. You don't consider self-defense a valid reason to have a firearm. Then that means I have no responsibility to do anything to protect you when you are being mugged on the street? Or help you if I see prowlers around your house?

[1] -- The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

[2] -- UK Murder Rate higher than some US States
libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states/

[3] -- Body found after 12 killed in northern England shooting spree
www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/02/uk.england.shootings/index.html

Dear WTF,
While you have named youself aptly, you apparently dont understand what The Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution is for.
It is to RESTRICT the government's powers.
Am I using hard to understand words?

In addition, it provides the vehicle with which to keep that government restricted. The right OF THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hunting is a fun sidelight, guns exist to keep the government from having too much power over us.

Prolly should have paid attention in US history class... we fought a war over such things... they called it a revolution.

@wtf:

Would like to know more about the Constitution?

Did you know that there are procedures for changing the Constitution? Did you know it's happened 27 times so far?

Did you know that rights are not granted by the Constitution?

Who is to decide what is detrimental and what is not? Has anyone ever told you that the American Republic as laid out in the Constitution is in fact a scheme for answering this question with a minimum of bloodshed?

Did you know that calling people who disagree with you names seldom convinces them of the worth of your ideas?

WTF: (at least you created a decidedly self referential handle):

Though phunctor above stated it, it bears repeating:

The constitution does not bestow upon the government the power to decide what rights belong to the people. It, instead, serves to restrict the government from infringing upon the natural rights that we already possess (by simply being here in the world).

Now, if you can convince a super majority of both houses of Congress to pass, and the president to sign, and 37 states in the union to affirm, then, yes, you can amend the constitution to repeal the 2nd amendment.

You have a better chance of winning the lottery.

You talk about 'protection.'

Is your house *utterly* inviolable?

Is it impossible for someone with sufficient motive to break a window and come in after you?

Do you stay in your house every moment of every single day of your life?

(I'm going to go with 'no').

Can you fight off 4 or 5 home invaders with your compound bow or kitchen knife?

Or are you (far more likely) going to lay on the floor, cringing in terror, begging them not to hurt you (but they can take your wife)?

Now, it is true that simply having a gun on the premises won't magically get you out of any situation. It will, however, get you out of more situations than not having a gun will get you out of, especially if you take the trouble to train yourself about how to use them.

The following quotation is utterly true, and anyone with a working brain already understands it:

'When seconds count, the police are minutes away.'

By saying that no one needs a gun, you're actually saying that you're okay with handing off your very well being (and that of your family) to a public servant (however well meaning) who won't be there when you need them, and who isn't actually compelled to protect you in the first place.

And, apart from your reckless disregard for those you claim to care about, self defense isn't the only reason for the 2nd amendment.

In the federalist papers (and various other correspondences), the founding fathers (you know, the ones who actually *wrote* the constitution), explicitly state that having arms in the hands of the citizenry is a bulwark against the abuse of governmental power.

Government is supposed to work *for* us, not us working for them.

The 2nd amendment is deliberately included to ensure that very policy.

If someone wants to disarm you, they mean to control you and make you a slave.

Hope you like being a slave.

Another think I have noticed in the media...say a guy has a six shooter. If gets in a shoot out the gun shoots like 50 times without being reloaded! Think how many shots he could have gotton off with a 50 round magazine! like 2500! /sark

"If anyone out there can give me a logical argument for owning a gun, I'll give the head of the NRA a blowjob on the lawn of the white house."

You are already beyond reason, and not a person of your word, with your mind made up, but the reason appears in uniform in your neighborhood on a regular basis...

...to investigate the aftermath of a crime.

See, a crime does not exist, for the police and courts to handle, until after it has been committed. That means you are already hurt or dead. The thug gets to choose when to attack you, too.

Now, there is so much hypocrisy in your position it is to guffaw, because you will call people with guns when you feel threatened, and you will complain about the justice system when they do not enact the penalty you imagine is correct...

... and you know in the deepest, darkest crannies of your heart that you do not dare post a sign on your door advertising that you are unarmed.

Because that would be stupid. Just like your position - that your safety is someone else's responsibility.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Orwell

That's you, asleep. The rough men on your side have your back, even in your disdain.

Nothing like looking at the FBI Murder stats to see how often rifles are used to murder (half the number from hands/fists/feet). The FBI stats for 2011 firearms murders was 8385 total (in the nation), of which rifles accounted for 323. That's all rifles, and normally assault weapons (their definition of them) is about three or four percent, but let's call it 50% of rifle murders, so no more than 150 or so. Yes, I guess so-called AWs are such a scourge that the first ban that did nothing at all for safety or crime prevention, means we need another totally useless ban to make sure that the first one didn't do the trick. Chicago kills 150 in 1/3 of a year with guns, versus a national total (and I've inflated that) of 150 so-called AW killings in a year. That's 3 per state per year on average. Ban texting and you'll save thousands.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Total assault weapons (according the the NYPD) used in gunplay in NYC in 2012 -- three.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/kelly_the_piece_keeper_IUlCTr3YodkRPsPCtRPYOM?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Local

Handguns account for nearly all murders by firearm in New York City and state, data show. An analysis by the NYPD determined that assault weapons were used in just three of the 1,400 instances of gunplay in the city last year.

On a different tack, since all of the folks who think that rights should be based on need and are somehow granted by governments have been properly schooled, I'd just add that I know of few, if any, military weapons with thumbhole stocks. There are, however, a lot of competition shooters, of Olympic caliber (pun intended), whose target rifles have thumbhole stocks. My guess is that this particular restriction is due to ignorance, rather than a desire to eliminate or restrict competitive rifle shooters.

"If anyone out there can give me a logical argument for owning a gun, I'll give the head of the NRA a blowjob on the lawn of the white house.

There is no possible reason for owning a gun other than crime or hunting."

Pucker up buttercup.

One, guns are fun. A lot of fun. Spending the afternoon on the rifle range is the best form of meditation I've ever done. Controlling your breathing, singling your focus on one thing and blocking everything else from your mind, paying attention to your heartbeat. . . . it is incredibly peaceful. Archery is not the same at all.

"if the criminals don't have guns, then you don't need a gun."
Two, I'm guessing you're a man WTF. Because as a woman I'm very aware that most men out there, especially the ones who are practiced at malfeasance, could pretty easily overpower me. If a bad guy is unarmed and I'm unarmed - I'm probably going to lose. If we both have knives - I'm probably going to lose. If we both have guns - the playing field is suddenly level. Even when I'm a cancer-riddled grandma, I can still defend myself against violence if I have a gun. Like they say, "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." I know that a gun isn't a magic wand that will keep me from being hurt, but I at least want the option of effectively defending my person.

And since you're so generous about allowing hunting, I'll be generous and say that even though I've given you two very logical reasons you only have to give Wayne LaPierre one blowjob.

"If it's self defense you're worried about, how about a ... large dog? All of which are guaranteed not to go off in your five year old's face."
Yeah, no little kid has ever been bitten in the face by a dog.

Finally, as others have already said, the Constitution does not grant citizens privileges from the government. It is rights that we have, by nature of existing, that the government is not to infringe upon. Folks have already explained the utility of the 2nd amendment, but here's some more food for thought: There is nothing that makes the 2nd amendment less sacred than the first, fourth, fifth, or any other amendment. If the government can by fiat (without changing the constitution) essentially abolish the 2nd amendment (for the good of us all of course), then what's to say they can't do the same for any of the others? Don't say it won't happen, because it is currently occurring. There have been frightening incursions on the fourth amendment already, all for our own good of course.

If it's possible to legislate the 2nd amendment into being toothless, then it can be done to *any* of our rights.

wtf:

Just to add my .02 to the end of the kicking...

And you don't need a gun to hunt.

2nd Amendment isn't about shooting Bambi or his mom. It wasn't deer that the Colonists were blocking on that bridge in Mass.

I'm even being generous

Oh, well, THANK YOU. I'm glad you're GENEROUS with what you know nothing about.

because I don't agree with hunting.

Once you graduate high school, you might get some more experience and be more well-rounded.

A bow and arrow is more sporting

What sort do you prefer, who makes it, and do you prefer carbon-fiber or alumnium shafts?

environmentally friendly

D'oh! Trumped!

and a hell of a lot less dangerous to children in specific and the populace in general.

Actually, a bow and (the arrows) are far MORE DANGEROUS. Those things be sharp, yo.

If hunters were really concerned about being able to hunt versus being concerned about the right to arms, then they'd willingly switch to bows and arrows.

wtf, WTF?

See kids, this is why you don't start meth. Not even once.

WTF,

WTF?
I am still waiting for someone to tell me, with a straight face, how taking guns away from the general populous rids us of “gun violence”? You care to offer a solution? Or would you rather stand there on your soapbox and tell the rest of us what we do and don't need. Well, I've decided that you don't need that soapbox. You'll need to turn that in, along with your car, all your shoes but one pair, your jewlery, your cosmetic products, your electronic devices, and your bank account numbers so you can't buy more. You don't NEED all that stuff. Oh, and we'll be shutting down all resturants and bars, and also all movie theatres. You don't NEED to do any of that stuff either.

I find the idea that I, a law-abiding, responsible gun-owner should have to give up my firearm because there is a less than 1% chance that someone could use it in the act of a crime or that my kid might shoot themselves accidentally, preposterous.

My gun, (a beautifully, well-crafted, vintage .38 Smith and Wesson revolver) has never been or will be used in the act of a crime nor will any kid in my home accidentally blow their face off. How can I be so confident? Two reasons. One, because if we had children in our home, the first lesson they’d be taught about our gun is "it is not a toy". The odds are higher that my neighbors big dog is going to bite his face off than my gun. Two, because hubby and I are the only ones who know where it is. In order to use my gun in a crime you’d have to break into my home, locate it (which you wouldn’t upon simply ransacking the place), remove it from its case, locate the bullets (also hidden), and load it by which time, you’d either have been confronted by the police (because you’ve probably set off our home alarm) or you’ve already been confronted by me or hubby with hubby's gun which again, only hubby and I know about. (Yes. We own more than one. GASP!) And, the mere fact that you are breaking into my home already proves that you have no regard for the law, anyway.

The thing that makes shootings so terrifying is the “control” factor; you cannot control what another person might do so people think that a simple gun ban is the safest thing for all. If we can save just ONE life, it's worth it, right? But, if we are talking about the value of human life vs. individual rights, you’d be mistaken. You probably believe that home is the safest place your kid can be. However, the rate of drowning deaths in family pools or car accident deaths is much higher for children than gun related deaths. If we are really concerned about safety and the value of human life, than ANY preventable death should be seen as a tragedy, not just shootings. Yet, no one cries for a ban on pools or cars. “Of course not” you may say. “It’s impractical. You have to have a car to travel. A gun death is preventable!” But one can argue that drownings or car accidents are preventable as well. Do you NEED a pool? Will your life be dramatically altered for the worse if you cannot go for a swim on a hot day? I highly doubt it. A car certainly makes traveling convenient but one can use public transporation, or a bike, or horse and buggy. Now, I ask you, would your life be dramatically altered for the worse if a man breaks into your home with a knife intent on raping you? I think so. In fact, I think that might definitely necesitate the need for a gun, unless you think that you'd be able to reason with him (which, judging by your post here is highly unlikely). My right to own a gun does not take a backseat to your fear that your kid might blow their face off. If your kid blows their face off, that's no ones fault but yours for leaving it out where they can get it.

But, I’m not just going to posture on probabilities... let’s use facts, shall we? This is something harsh gun control advocates, hate. It’s easy to demand more gun control when you can flash pictures of the innocent children who lost their lives. Instead of acknowledging that these tragedies are really anomalies, (the media is partly to blame for this) folks use it to further the liberal agenda to “ban” guns as if that were some magic eraser for senseless violence. The idea that we are DOING something, ANYTHING, to solve the problem and the false sense of security that creates is somehow comforting to people.

These recent tragedies have two things in common: they were committed by a mentally unstable individuals with no regard for law or human life and they occurred in "no gun zones".

The victims of these shootings, being law-abiding citizens, did not bring their firearms on the premises. So, ideally, these "no gun zones" should have been safe, right? Now, imagine how the damage could have been mitigated had just ONE other person, in all of these scenarios, had been armed. If the security guard at Sandy Hook had been armed, (because really, what good is an un-armed security guard anyway?) and well-trained, the shooter might never have made it inside in the first place. In the chance that he did, it’s not impossible to imagine that if the principal, who’s reported to have confronted the shooter, had been armed, she very likely would have been able to stop him. The body count would have been two (the guard and the shooter) instead of 28. Instead, she was armed with… a pencil…?

There is also the fact that the people that committed these atrocities were mentally unstable. Their intent was to cause harm. They did not value of human life, nor did they value the law. This is an undeniable statement of fact. While part of me can sympathize with the thought that if they had never been able to access guns, they may never have gone on these sprees. But, it’s more likely that instead, they would have just used a different method to achieve their goal of destruction.

If guns suddenly cease to be (lets’ play pretend) there are other options available to those who intend to kill. Using Sandy Hook again… the school at the time of the shooting was on lockdown and had fairly reasonable security procedures already in place to prevent unauthorized access to the building. It would have been just as feasible for the shooter to chain all the doors shut from the outside, undetected, and set fire to the building, or built a bomb. I assure you that would have resulted in a much higher body count. The Batman movie shooter rigged his apartment to explode. If he’d not been able to get to the weapons he used in his spree, it’s not illogical to think he could easily have just set similar bombs to explode in the theatre, instead.

If people were more willing to talk about the cause of the violence, not the method, I think we’d get a lot further in solving the problem. It’s easy to say “if there are no guns, there’d be no shootings” but that logic only exists in a world where unicorns shit rainbows. In that make-believe world, only the strong (and criminally aggressive) really do survive. Most gun owners, like myself, hope that we’ll never have to use them. While, I do not think that my gun is a magic shield against violence, I have no doubt in my ability to handle it if necessary. As one of my instructors said once, “That unmistakeable “click” of a gun being cocked, may be the only thing it takes to send a criminal fleeing away from you instead of toward you. However, if you point it, you better intend to shoot it. If you find yourself in a situation where all that is standing between you and your survival is your trigger finger on your gun, don’t hesitate. Shoot to kill. One second’s hesitation is all it takes for your gun to become his gun.”
If you don’t think you’d be able to pull the trigger, then gun ownership is not for you, WTF. However, harbor no illusion, the criminal isn’t hesitating. If he gets a gun, he will use it. I say, why not level the playing field?

Someone else here posted this a while back but it's worth reposting.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

IMHO, the assault weapon is the one that can shoot multiple rounds per minute.

So, nothing that shoot more than once every 31 seconds? You do realise a six shooter revolver, which no gun control nuts constied a semi auto (EVEN THOUGH IT IS) can fire all six bullets in less than 20 seconds, right?

If anyone out there can give me a logical argument for owning a gun, I'll give the head of the NRA a blowjob on the lawn of the white house.

If it's self defense you're worried about, how about a deadbolt, floodlights, security system and large dog? All of which are guaranteed not to go off in your five year old's face. And if the criminals don't have guns, then you don't need a gun.

Locks can be picked, power lines can be cut, or there might be a black out, your dog an be posioned, shot, or decides he likes the intruders, and the cops are miles away.

So, when are you gonna give that blow job?

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns

Come on, people, you don't need a gun.

All you have to do is chant "Jesus" and the bad guys will run away.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/florida-women-frighten-off-intruder-chanting-jesus-014559212.html

IMHO, the assault weapon is the one that can shoot multiple rounds per minute.

from Wikipedia: "By the 18th century a very experienced soldier could load and fire [a flintlock musket] at a rate of four shots per minute."

...six shooter revolver, which no gun control nuts constied a semi auto(EVEN THOUGH IT IS)....

Isn't a semi-automatic a gun that recocks itself after each shot (generally using a slide or bolt type mechanism to harness the recoil energy)?

If so, a double-action revolver would not really fall into that category.

Just askin'.

If it's self defense you're worried about, how about a ... large dog ... guaranteed not to go off in your five year old's face.

Guaranteed? Except for those dogs that have gone off on some kid. See any "dog attacks kid" news story in the last ten years and the subsequent furor about banning dangerous dogs and jailing the owners.

And if the criminals don't have guns, then you don't need a gun.

The criminals do have guns. They get them illegally.

from a bumper sticker: "Gun Control is the belief that a 110-lb woman has the right to fist fight her 250-lb attacker."

'nuf said.

I think more felons should have guns. Felons like Martha Stewart.

I don't see how preventing Martha from hunting or home defense serves any safety interest for the country.

And the would be burglar is going to go to all that trouble to break into your home and wind up with a laptop and couple hundred in trinkets? Really?

You might go with the argument that a crack addict will do anything for a fix, but if he's a crack addict I doubt he'd be able to think that far ahead, and actually be able to do it if he did. And unless you happen to live in the middle of butt-fuck nowhere, as I do,the cops are not miles a-fucking-way, and if you do live in the middle of nowhere they go for easier pickings in the city! And I dare you to try and make my Husky like you, or even allow you to feed it.

And you still haven't touched the issue lujlp, of the criminals not having guns.

And yes, Conan, the criminals up here do get the guns illegally. Mostly from south of the border.

Also, I don't have the time to answer all the points everyone else made, but I will point out that in the last MONTH I've heard of three school shootings in a country with no gun control laws to speak of, versus 0 in a country with.

Just sayin....

WTF:

Actually, it isn't that you don't have time to answer the points provided, it's that you are utterly unable to actually do so.

And limiting the period for your example to a short duration is just dodging the question.

Here, from actual crime statistics (around the world) are 33 mass shooting incidents since 1996 (cherry picked to select for 4 or more total victims, not counting shooter):

March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland 16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.
March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.
Oct. 1, 1997
Pearl, Miss. Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.
Dec. 1, 1997
West Paducah, Ky. Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.
March 24, 1998
Jonesboro, Ark. Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.
May 21, 1998
Springfield, Ore. Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.
April 20, 1999
Littleton, Colo. 14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.
May 20, 1999
Conyers, Ga. Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.
Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, Netherlands One teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.
March 5, 2001
Santee, Calif. Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.
March 22, 2001
Granite Hills, Calif. One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.
Feb. 19, 2002
Freising, Germany Two killed in Eching by a man at the factory from which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He also wounded another teacher before killing himself.
April 26, 2002
Erfurt, Germany 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman killed, ten wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, at the Johann Gutenberg secondary school. Steinhaeuser then killed himself.
April 14, 2003
New Orleans, La. One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.
Sept. 28, 2004
Carmen de Patagones, Argentina Three students killed and 6 wounded by a 15-year-old Argentininan student in a town 620 miles south of Buenos Aires.
March 21, 2005
Red Lake, Minn. Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion, then arrived at school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.
Sept. 13, 2006
Montreal, Canada Kimveer Gill, 25, opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon at Dawson College. Anastasia De Sousa, 18, died and more than a dozen students and faculty were wounded before Gill killed himself.
Oct. 3, 2006
Nickel Mines, Pa. 32-year-old Carl Charles Roberts IV entered the one-room West Nickel Mines Amish School and shot 10 schoolgirls, ranging in age from 6 to 13 years old, and then himself. Five of the girls and Roberts died.
April 16, 2007
Blacksburg, Va. A 23-year-old Virginia Tech student, Cho Seung-Hui, killed two in a dorm, then killed 30 more 2 hours later in a classroom building. His suicide brought the death toll to 33, making the shooting rampage the most deadly in U.S. history. Fifteen others were wounded.
Nov. 7, 2007
Tuusula, Finland An 18-year-old student in southern Finland shot and killed five boys, two girls, and the female principal at Jokela High School. At least 10 others were injured. The gunman shot himself and died from his wounds in the hospital.
Feb. 14, 2008
DeKalb, Illinois Gunman killed five students and then himself, and wounded 17 more when he opened fire on a classroom at Northern Illinois University. The gunman, Stephen P. Kazmierczak, was identified as a former graduate student at the university in 2007.
Sept. 23, 2008
Kauhajoki, Finland A 20-year-old male student shot and killed at least nine students and himself at a vocational college in Kauhajok, 330km (205 miles) north of the capital, Helsinki.
March 11, 2009
Winnenden, Germany Fifteen people were shot and killed at Albertville Technical High School in southwestern Germany by a 17-year-old boy who attended the same school.
April 30, 2009
Azerbaijan, Baku A Georgian citizen of Azerbaijani descent killed 12 students and staff at Azerbaijan State Oil Academy. Several others were wounded.
Feb. 12, 2010
Huntsville, Alabama During a meeting on campus, Amy Bishop, a biology professor, began shot her colleagues, killing three and wounding three others. A year earlier, Bishop had been denied tenure.
April 7, 2011
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil A 23-year-old former student returned to his public elementary school in Rio de Janeiro and began firing, killing 12 children and seriously wounding more than a dozen others, before shooting himself in the head. While Brazil has seen gang-related violence in urban areas, this was the worst school shooting the country has ever seen.
July 22, 2011
Tyrifjorden, Buskerud, Norway A gunman disguised as a policeman opened fire at a camp for young political activists on the island of Utoya. The gunman kills 68 campers, including personal friends of Prime Minister Stoltenberg. Police arrested Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old Norwegian who had been been linked to an anti-Islamic group.
Feb. 27, 2012
Chardon, Ohio At Chardon High School, a former classmate opened fire, killing three students and injuring six. Arrested shortly after the incident, the shooter said that he randomly picked students.
March 19, 2012
Toulouse, France Mohammed Merah, a French man of Algerian descent, shot and killed a rabbi, two of his children, and another child at a Jewish school. Police believe he had earlier shot and killed three paratroopers. Merah said he was a member of Al Qaeda and that he was seeking revenge for the killing of Palestinian children.
April 2, 2012
Oakland, Calif. One Goh, a 43-year-old former student at Oikos University, a Christian school populated by mostly Korean and Korean-Americans, opened fire on the campus, killing seven people and wounding several others.
July 20, 2012
Aurora, Colo. During a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises, a gunman opens fire on the crowded theater. At least 12 people are killed and 38 others are wounded. The suspect, James Holmes, set off a smoke device in the front of the theater before opening fire. Directly after the incident, Holmes, age 24, was arrested in a parking lot behind the theater.
August 5, 2012
Oak Creek, Wis. A gunman opens fire at a Sikh temple, killing six people and wounding three. Police shot and killed the suspect, Wade Michael Page, after the attack. Page, a neo-Nazi, served in the U.S. Army from 1992 to 1998.
December 14, 2012
Newtown, Conn. Adam Lanza, 20, killed 20 children and six others at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. He killed his mother, Nancy, at her home prior to the massacre at the school. Lanza committed suicide after the rampage. The shooting was the second deadliest in U.S. history, behind the 2007 shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute that claimed 32 people.

If you're attentive, you'll note that quite a few of those happened in other countries, many of which have *far* stricter gun control than the US.

Looks like it didn't help them.

And this list doesn't include events (like a couple of recent events in China, for example) where another weapon was used, like a knife.

Granted that more of them are in the US, but even then, a lot of those happened in states that have pretty strict gun control (e.g. California), and almost every one of the ones in the US took place in what are called (euphemistically) 'gun free zones.'

Funny how that works, these 'mad' gunmen were aware enough to generally and deliberately choose locations where they were sure there was no likely effective resistance.

Now, here's your homework assignment for today:

Without engaging in some kind of wishful thinking (like an improbable solution where all guns magically disappear), demonstrate how any solution you would implement would have actually prevented any of these.

And, you have to work with a starting point of the way things are now, in reality.

You have to accept the number of guns extant in society.

You have to accept that criminals (and mentally unbalanced people) are not going to follow any law you propose.

From that, demonstrate empirically and with unambiguous data, that any solution you would offer would reliably prevent something like the Newtown tragedy.

Guns aren't the problem. They don't shoot themselves. They don't telepathically take over the mind of the nearest human and make them shoot something.

Absent guns, those people so disposed will simply avail themselves of some other weapon.

Yes, I'm aware that I'm probably debating against an idiot, but sometimes that can be amusing.

Heh, wtf, you'se funny. In that uh'oh sort of way.
You've been presented with all the well explained reasoning to own weapons, but you're too cowardly to make good on your boast.

In most cities the average 911 call takes 15min to get police at your door... Unless you live in the bad parts. You may be on your own, then. Milwaukee sheriff just suggested in a PSA that you help him out by defending yourself. The moment that you NOTICE a problem and call 911 you still got 15 to wait. Whatcha doin if they're still in the house? Hoping they don't find you? Routine burglaries happen every day for a laptop and wallet, so your contention is utter bulshit... AND! even with the cops close by? How on earth does that happen, sparky? Wouldn't cops stop it?

Out in the sticks, the badguys will just shoot your dog, because they are called criminals FOR A REASON.
Your dog is there to WARN you, then you defend yourself.

It's so very sad that you cannot come up with logical arguments to prove your points, or you might convince someone, even if it's just yourself. Even you don't believe your own bull.
Heaven forfend you ever have a breakin... You may discover what it's like to be utterly defenseless.

It's too late, then. The thing you can guard against in advance, will utterly savage you. Ask anyone who has been burglerized. Especially if they were in the house too. Imagine how much worse to be raped, or beaten, or to have your kids there. The mark of intelligence is to prepare for the future, even if that future isn't totally probable.
It's ok, if you don't wanna. It is complicit of you to tell me I can't.

You talk of children and shootings, even though 50+ million of them went to school today. Didja outlaw the cars that sadly killed several of them?
If not, you have set up a steaming pile if straw man.

Frank posted a link to an article by Michael Z Williamson above. Here's a short bio - he's going to appear at DragonCon.

And yes, Conan, the criminals up here do get the guns illegally. Mostly from south of the border.

And if the criminals don't have guns, then you don't need a gun.

So. Which is it, WTF? The criminals don’t have guns or they do?
You can really argue a point against law-abiding citizens needing guns if you can’t even keep your own story straight.

And you still haven't touched the issue lujlp, of the criminals not having guns.

Actually, lujlp didn’t really need too. You just made that argument for us.

If you’re suggesting that by making new gun laws, the guns that criminals do have will suddenly disappear, I’ve got an ocean view property to sell you in Oklahoma. Do you think in this magical world that criminals will turn in their guns to the cops and say “Oh. I guess I’ll have to find another way to rob that old lady now.”
The government can’t even get drugs off the street. Do you really think they are gonna be able to get guns off the street? The only people that will have guns are the criminals. Oh, and the President’s Bodygaurds. And the government.

And unless you happen to live in the middle of butt-fuck nowhere, as I do,the cops are not miles a-fucking-way, and if you do live in the middle of nowhere they go for easier pickings in the city!

You’re assuming you’d even get the opportunity to call the cops at all. It’s more than likely you will, of course… AFTER you’ve been robbed, raped, beaten, whatever… and it would take them twice as long to get to you as it does me in a well-populated, fairly well-off area where crime is pretty low.

And I dare you to try and make my Husky like you, or even allow you to feed it.

I wouldn’t dare. I’d just shoot it.
Hell, I could even use a bow and arrow, as you suggested earlier, so that the gun shot wasn’t heard by you.

I’ve got a story for you, WTF. A couple of weeks ago, I got a call from my home alarm company. My home alarm was going off. It was a potential break in. They asked me if I wanted them to send the police. Of course, I said yes. They asked me if I wanted to meet the police there. I said yes. Guess who got there first? If you said the police, you’d be wrong. I waited in my car, in my driveway, for a few more minutes until they Sheriffs dept showed up. I don’t blame the cops for this. They can only get there as fast as the cars they have will let them. It ended up being a false alarm, btw. (FYI, too many false alarms and the cops stop showing up or start fining you so home alarms systems aren’t exactly always ideal either.) Now, their response time was pretty good, all things considered, but had this been an actual robbery, or had I been home and someone had tried to break in, what do you propose I should have done, WTF?

Just last week, my husband saw two people lurking outside our window. Before he could press the alarm, they were gone. He suspects they were just two kids playing around but what if it had been a genuine threat? My husband is no slouch but it would have been two vs. one. He would have had to fend them off until the cops arrived. Un-armed, the odds of him winning that battle are slim. Are you suggesting that my husband should have become a victim in his own home should the two men outside had sinister purposes. When I’m not in rehearsals or working on a show, I spend many evenings home alone when my husband is at work. What if I had been home alone and the two men my husband saw were to come back? I’m certainly not going to try to leave; I’d be walking right to them as they are outside. Other than lock the doors, and keep the alarm armed, what else do you suggest that could prevent me from being attacked while I wait for the police to show up that doesn’t involve my gun? If you’ve got a reasonable, life-saving suggestion other than shooting the first one that sets foot over my threshold, I’m all ears.

wtf you asked why anyone needed a gun as opposed to a lock, a dog, lights, and an alarm system.

I pointed out that power is not permanant, dogs are not reliable due to the fact they can be killed, and locks can be picked

Until you can point out how to get around theses breakdown in your security plan I have defeated your line of reasoning

Ignoring the fact that I trounced your pissant ideas does not mean you were right, it means you are ignoring the fact that you were wrong

Here we have real life from the midwest just for wtf [and others with similar reasoning], showing a number of things... especially showing how a six shooter may be inadequate [criminals traveling in groups? who'da thunk it?] and what's your husky going to DO against a group of such fine lads?

and HUH, where were the police while this was happening?!? Oh, right, right.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW YET.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/crime-law/fairborn-police-investigate-shooting-on-victoria-a/nT8pZ/

Here we have real life from the midwest just for wtf (and others with similar reasoning), showing a number of things... especially showing how a six shooter may be inadequate (criminals traveling in groups? who'da thunk it?) and what's your husky going to DO against a group of such fine lads?

and HUH, where were the police while this was happening?!? Oh, right, right.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW YET.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/crime-law/fairborn-police-investigate-shooting-on-victoria-a/nT8pZ/

oops, doublepost, sorry. ;)

ha! Everybody just turned "WTF" into "wither the fantasy."

Sorry, Canuck, but, you've been slammed.

Not slammed enough. Note:

"Also, I don't have the time to answer all the points everyone else made, but I will point out that in the last MONTH I've heard of three school shootings in a country with no gun control laws to speak of, versus 0 in a country with."

This illustrates the level of ignorance attending such a viewpoint. If he is speaking of the USA, wtf simply does not know the law - and I gather from his commentary he doesn't know how he has been robbed by Canada's gun laws, either.

Ignorance. There's a reason it's an ugly word.

I guess Cuomo and DiFi will be going after high capacity quivers next.

Man killed with bow and arrow in NJ: http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2013/01/south_jersey_man_killed_with_b.html

Well the one I find interesting as hell is that if you google georgia school shooting the results come back with the shooter was taken into custody, with no real explanation.

But if you google georgia "school shooting armed security guard" you get this this as one of the top links.

The shooter was stopped by an off duty cop who works as an armed guard for the school.

But the initial stories are nine hours old and haven't been updated. Why not? Because this is outside the narrative that armed guards in schools is a bad idea? Or because an armed and trained person can't stop a bad guy with a gun? Or that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?

Essentially what happened is now this is minor incident not worthy of national attention because the school shooter was stopped by an armed person. But Sandy Hook was a mass shooting and the victims were unarmed. What if the principal had been carrying? Would it have been a mass shooting?

The gun control advocates never want to acknowledge that good guys (not cops) stop more shootings than ever are recorded.