Imagine that an AR-15 was not used in the Santa Fe shooting

@BizSuitStacy The facts are, the AR-15 discussion is just another deflection of the actual issue at hand. Guns fire bullets, bullets kill people, Saturday Night Special or automatic weapon.

@Graylight so do knives, clubs, hands/feet, explosives...the list of things people kill one another with us long.

@BizSuitStacy They do, but the gun is unique in that it is built for One Singular purpose - the destruction of life. And none of the weapons you mention have the same efficiency, the rapidity or capacity to kill as a gun. Take away bullets and 73k people per year live.

Take away guns and bullets and all of the things that go boom....and the tyrant with the biggest army is your new leader

@Notanymore exactly.

@Notanymore Yes, because our Taureses and Remingtons are what's keeping a nationwide government with nuclear capability and bases in every state from overtaking us.

No....but it's the same concept....I don't care to debate this, but the best deterrent to an attack is the possibility of a counter attack.

That being said, I'll admit that I carry a firearm myself. I've never considered pointing it at someone. The odds of me ever using it to hurt or threaten someone are bear no existent where I live. However, how easy would it be for criminals to take advantage of civilians if they didn't have the means to defend themselves? For an answer, look at the crime rates in gun free zones.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.

@Notanymore More guns equals more shootings. Owning a gun means higher chances of it being used on you. These are researched, conclusive facts.

More guns, more death. Simply ask any other Western nation on the planet.

@Graylight hmmm...firearm homicides are down 50% in the US since 1993, and gun ownership has doubled since then.

This is a simple fact the gun control crowd continues to ignore.

@Graylight do you really believe that guns are more lethal and efficient killers than explosives?

How about asking London? Or Paris? I'm well aware that those aren't nations....but considering the murder rates and terrorist attacks.... maybe it's criminals that cause crime?


Now ask me where I live....


I'll be happy to answer...a beautiful little town in Appalachia with a negligent crime rate, in an area far from major cities and gun free zones. Now come here and walk into every house that you would be welcome (we're very friendly so I'd say you'll get a lot of tours) you'll notice that mist of these houses have a gun cabinet, some of which are still old school glass door cabinets. Even more households have multiple guns put away in safes closets and drawers.

Your facts are wrong, more guns does not mean more gun violence. Statistics can sway anyone looking for that answer.

@BizSuitStacy we should definitely outlaw bombs.....look what people have been doing with them.

@Notanymore But we're not just talking stats. It's about a plethora of peer-reviewed scientific research.

Yes, culture, climate and region all play a role. Criminals do cause the crime - except that less than half of all US guns deaths are ruled homicides. London has a questionably high murder rate (it was measured over a whopping 2-month period), but England had fewer than 600 gun deaths last year. We had 75,000. Even adjusting for population, that's a huge difference.

Guns kill; this is a silly point to debate. They kill more than knives, which took 1,600 lives in the same year (2016).

600 gun deaths is way too many gun deaths in a place where her loyal subjects aren't allowed to have a gun for defense. Seems like someone was taken advantage of.

On the other hand.... could we please stop the foolish debate between us? I'm sure I sound to you as obtuse as you sound to me and we won't agree. I'd rather not alienate someone that I don't know over such a moot point.

@Notanymore The country has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. Uncontested.

And while 600 deaths is a lot, it's far, far fewer than the US. Incidentally, the reason behind that rate is that people who live in England may indeed own a firearm; they simply have very stringent licensing laws.

The problem with this debate is that it's not academic; this is an issue that needs to be dealt with under the umbrella of compromise.

Actually this is an issue that needs to be treated like religion. Don't argue over it ever. We will both always have a counter argument regardless...we have entirely different ideological viewpoints you and I. I'd much rather have a friend who I disagree with than someone that can't stand me because of my way of seeing things.

I'd be more than happy to debate something that can have a compromise.

@Notanymore Fair enough.

@Graylight I see you have your gun control talking points well rehearsed.

You write about 73K gun deaths in the US per year, then a few comments later, you post 75K per year. You want an academic debate? What is the source of this data? Because it's wrong. The topic here addresses firearm homicides. The numbers vary year over year, but per the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, the number of firearm homicides is approximately 9,000. Even if you add in suicides (a favorite gun grabber's tactic to inflate the numbers and change the scope of the topic) you get to 30K. Yet, you've managed to come up with an amount that 250% higher than reality. How can we have an academic discussion when you can't do basic math? Or was this a common core calculation?

Then there is the comment about research and peer reviews. For every peer reviewed bit of research suggesting gun control effectively reduces violence, there is counter research indicating otherwise. Peer reviews are meaningless when politics are involved. Take the classic Kellerman gun control study. This was the study that concluded that gun owners are more likely to be killed with their own guns. It's been thoroughly debunked. Kellermann ever admitted after the fact that key assumptions made that led to his conclusions were never verified. And who funds this research? Often the research is funded by groups who have a keen interest in the outcome, i.e. gun control groups. Not particularly objective.

Then you use the classic line about how this type of gun violence doesn't happen in other western nations. Of course, the tag line USED to be that this sort of gun violence doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. As it turns out, Brazil, Venezuela and Mexico have very stringent gun laws, yet all have more firearm homicides than the US. Not just a higher rate per capita...more gun murders total. In fact, the number of firearm homicides in Brazil annually exceeds all firearm deaths in the US (murders, suidices, accidents and justifiable shootings).

You also used the "your guns are no match for the military" argument. It's a ridiculous discussion on so many levels. The 2nd Amendment is there to prevent the government from infringing upon your right to defend yourself. Both military and law enforcement take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. The vast majority of whom take that to heart. Where do you suppose their loyalty lies if our gov't goes rogue?

But gun grabbers love to talk about how great things are in the UK. So what happened in the UK when the draconian guns laws were implemented after the Dublane massacre? Homicides increased 60%.

I can go on and on about this topic and run circles around your arguments.

Here's the bottom line:
(1) I find your position opposing guns repugnant because you focus on the efficiency of the tool instead of the behavior of the perpetrator. (2) Gun control advocates seem to have no sense of the consequences about the laws they want to see implemented. Never does it seem to cross the minds of the gun control advocate that the controls they wish implemented may do more harm than good. And sadly, when the laws do more harm than good as in the case of the UK, those facts are ignored in the name of pushing the agenda. (3) We have thousands of gun laws on the books already...so if these measures are such a failure, why in the Hell would you implement more of them? (4) Why should I have to comply to further restrictions on firearms, or even give them up, when I'm not a threat to society. I can guarantee that the criminal element will not comply.

Lastly...you speak of compromise. What a joke. When have gun control advocates ever given something up in the name of compromise? It's a one way street. Gun owners have to give up some of their rights to quiet the gun control crowd...THAT is the compromise...until the next shooting.

We will not give another inch.

@BizSuitStacy First, you should also note I often use the terms "roughly" or "it's estimated that." I also almost always provide objective sources. If I didn't here, it was because I was on the fly.

As for studies...You'll have to cite the specific Kellerman study because there's more than one, like the study concluding that gun ownership is a risk factor in homes or that suicides rise in proportion to gun access and ownership. Secondly - and this is important - peer review is crucial to any reputable study in any discipline, be it psychology, chemistry, earth science or sociological. Peer review is one way research is deemed publishable. So yes, it makes a big difference and it applies across the board. I'm not talking about USA Today or Gallup.

As for the rest, I'm not going through it point by point. The information - scientific, anecdotal, experiential - is out there for anyone to find.

It's you very last line - "We will not give another inch" - that makes any further debate moot. You don't want discussion, compromise or a solution here; you want to prove your point and block out any information that contradicts it.

That's what we like to call, in the vernacular, an ostrich.

@Graylight you wrote that you "often use the terms 'roughly' or 'it's estimated that.'" We clearly have a different definition of "roughly." You "over estimated" the mark by 250%. I call that a gross misrepresentation. You said it was done on the fly, however you did it twice, posting 73K gun deaths annually, then posting 75K gun deaths annually.

Then you wrote, "As for studies...You'll have to cite the specific Kellerman study because there's more than one, like the study concluding that gun ownership is a risk factor in homes or that suicides rise in proportion to gun access and ownership." Correct, there was more than one Kellerman study. The was whopping total of two. Once in 1986 about the guns in the home and the risk of suicide. Then another in 1993 about guns in the home and the risk of homicide. In both cases, the research was badly flawed and had more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. Multiple credible researchers have refuted Kellerman's work.

And then you did it. In the same breath you used to mention Kellerman's studies, you discuss the importance of peer reviews. "Secondly - and this is important - peer review is crucial to any reputable study in any discipline, be it psychology, chemistry, earth science or sociological. Peer review is one way research is deemed publishable. So yes, it makes a big difference and it applies across the board. I'm not talking about USA Today or Gallup."

So...peer review is critical to a reputable study. Are you aware Kellerman's studies were NEVER peer reviewed? In fact, Kellerman has refused to submit his data and analysis for anyone to review. LOL! You just stepped in your own pile of poo poo. Kellerman is nothing more than a paid shill of the gun control lobby. A liar for hire.

I honestly doubt you even knew who Kellerman was before getting into this debate.

You claim I don't want to engage in debates and discussions. What do you think we've been doing on this thread? Perhaps you just don't like it because I'm wiping the floor with you.

As for compromise...
Compromise is about giving and taking. As one gun control advocate so eloquently stated, "we'll ask for an inch, but we'll take a mile." As I said previously, the gun control advocates do not want compromise. They want us to give up our freedom in the name of security. The end result will be losing both. The 2A is not negotiable.

But just to make things interesting, I will offer a true compromise...

I am willing to concede all firearms transfers go through an FFL, and full background check. No more "gun show loop holes" Bill Clinton ranted about. Even private sale, transfers to friends, family, inheritance, etc. I'll even throw in process changes to harden the background check process so that law enforcement doesn't allow any more nuts to slip through the cracks.

In return, I want all restrictions on all semi-automatic firearms, including military style firearms commonly referred to as assault weapons permanently removed, including magazine capacity restrictions.

That's a compromise. We both give a little, we both get a little. What do you say?

@BizSuitStacy Statistics are arguable, as are their sources. You have yours, I have mine. I cited the number of firearm deaths and stated so. Homicides are not our greatest problem but I don't categorize gun deaths in order to justify them.

As for Kellerman's studies being peer reviewed, I never indicated they were, nor did I cite them. You sighted a Kellerman gun study, and I was commenting on that. Keep track.

To discussions on the Second Amendment, it is absolutely negotiable. As negotiable and open to interpretation as any amendment ever has been. Keeping in mind, of course, that the US Constitution is a framework for a fledgling nation - not the Bible or the collected words of an infallible God.

Whatever compromise you and full supporters of the Second Amendment desire, they remain impossible as long as you are not willing "to give an inch."

@Graylight but I offered a compromise. So what do you say?

@Graylight arrows kill people , cross bows kill people , knives kill people , bombs kill people , distracted driving kills people , abortions kill people , doctors kill people . Shit happens

@Graylight dont have to worry about the government right now , Trump’s got the ball !

@BizSuitStacy You did offer a compromise. I like your concessions but while background checks are a good start, they will not weed out those who commit crimes of passion or those who have never been in trouble with the law before. I would like to see more stringent requirements for both owning a firearm and regular training with that firearm. In return, though I don't understand the need for semi automatic weaponry, I'd be willing to weigh the pros and cons of that issue. You?