Originally Posted by chuckpedrey (Post 2099639)

American was founded on a Christian ethnic. It is the Christian Bible that the founding fathers based their lives on.

Originally Posted by Johnsocat (Post 2099662)

And when/if our government becomes truly tyrannical, have fun defending yourself with your five round clips and muzzle loaders....

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2099571)

And that country would be overrun and taken over by men with guns. Majority of women are motherly and can not do what has to be done for protection of All. Now I agree for few cold blooded killers, but most are what we think of—- moms, nice, warm, and nurturing.

Originally Posted by jebartle (Post 2099667)

LOCK ALL SCHOOL DOORS, one door entrance with metal detector, I don't care how much it costs, these are our children that need to be protected. Cost, the obnoxious amount spent on campaign funds, that we all ignore, can go toward this.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099645)

Sorry

You left out my saying in my post that you were retired to provide ID, etc. In other words sates define who CAN NOT buy a gun, but many place no requirements other than things that mean you are NOT being allowed.

My post referenced Texas requirements for gun purchase as an example of one of the many you requested. And you left out/ignored the numerous testing, training and demonstrations of competency I listed, which does show it is much "harder" to get a gun than a drivers license, which is exactly what you asked for and then ignored.

As to proving many states, I used a state which is pertinent to THIS conversation as an example - Texas, I will leave it up to you to find the others that have more requirements.

Hint: I don't know of a single state that doesn't require some testing to obtain a drivers license - competency, vision, etc. - I know some states that require competency testing to buy a gun, but I don't think all do. All states require some kind of testing to prove driving knowledge (some will accept other states license as proof). So, I feel safe in suggesting it will not be hard to find that proof. I often get PMs complaining about too many references/links and too long posts. So, have fun, and if you go to the trouble to check all states and find no others or even fewer than half, I would be very interested. (But I am sure that will not happen).

I agree root cause is vital and in complex situations can take a long time to determine.

Many of the companies I worked for has issues with production lines that would cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour to shut down and so that was NOT an option unless lives were at risk. It is possible to find and implement temporary "work arounds" or patches on live systems.

Are you suggesting we do nothing and just accept the death toll that is growing almost weekly for the past twenty years until we can determine with some level of certainty the root cause? I hope not.

And let me close this post bye saying thank you for the civil discourse and pertinent comments and questions. If more would do this we could make progress. It is possible, and you sir are proof.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2099292)

"Let's return to the 1950s when guns were for hunting game and NOT HUNTING PEOPLE !!!!!!!"

The ethics and values of the 1950s were what prevented people then from what they are doing now. Guns were just as available then. Actually much more so: if you were over 18, in Minnesota at least, you could buy a gun. Or guns. My dad had a collection of well over 50 when he died. But if we EVER had school shootings back then, we certainly didn't hear about it.

We don't have a gun problem. We have a people problem. Fix the PEOPLE and forget about demonizing guns: it is just a convenient way to avoid facing the real issues.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2099671)

Interestingly, the fastest demographic buying firearms are women. Additionally, women make up a higher percentage seeking professional training in handling firearms. As a certified firearms instructor I am seeing this pattern. More women are also getting into the competitive shooting sports and I think that's great. I mentioned previously I'm the co-founder of the US Womens Shooting Academy. I've taken a woman who had never shot a handgun and after 7 lessons she was pulling from the holster in under a second and hitting a target at 21 feet. I will also note she didn't break a nail!

Originally Posted by The Chipster (Post 2099297)

Our national addiction to guns, including assault rifles, is like a broken record. I am sick of the washed out debates and countless massacres, while congress does absolutely nothing. We all know what is the ONLY way this will change . . . elect a particular political party in enough numbers that will control Congress and finally bring sanity to this heartbroken country. Period.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099300)

My solution is to manufacture only single shot or bolt action rifles and pistols for civilian use starting soon. Then Police can MELT down all semi-autos that they pick up in criminal hands. Also, Police could buy back semi-autos. Eventually, all weapons would be single shot or bolt action. It WOULD take a long time to get ALL semi-autos off the street. But, if you got 10% out of circulation in 5 years, it should lead to a 10% drop in mass murders. At least, that IS A WORKABLE SOLUTION. And it would take ZERO guns away from law abiding citizens, thus 2nd amendment protection.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099653)

Uh, yes hypocritical, since we are told repeatedly in every one of these conversations that ALL OF THE murders of children take place in "gun free zones" - so, being gun free obviously will not stop shooters that want to shoot.

So, I respectfully disagree with you. For the Organization that pushes for NO restrictions on carrying guns ANYWHERE, to NOT allow guns while they discuss GUNS ANYWHERE is the perfect example of hypocrisy. (BTW, I thought the NRA was pushing for guns in colleges - schools. Another example of gun anywhere except at our meeting.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe (Post 2099673)

Actually I did not leave out your quote, I missed it-big difference. If you normalize the two, then the difference between the two is as you indicated, one does have testing requirements (DL) and that purchasing a gun does not require training or testing.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099668)

And at the time it was argued it was possible for a militia to use muzzle loaders to take back a rogue government.

I expect AR15's against the new XM5 will be found lacking. I expect 9MM against a M1 Abrams will be found lacking. On and On.

Are you suggesting citizens should have Cruise missiles? Why not automatic weapons? Why not F35's? After all, if the constitution - specifically the 2nd amendment - wants to be sure the populous can take back a rogue government , then it would seem to follow the citizens should be allowed to be equally armed.

Let's look at Ukraine - are we sending them civilian weapons? No, we are depleting our military arsenal because they do not have enough weapons locally capable of defending against a modern military.

So, unless you want access to Cruise, M1 Abrams, F35's and more, your argument is some what lacking.

I will completely agree there are many places in the US where a person may need a weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones. I have NO problem with that, or them. I question the need of a citizen to have 1,000 to 5,000 weapons stashed in the survival bunker. I question the need for a private citizen to own and M1 Abrams.

Do you?

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2099311)

The 2nd Ammendment is not about hunting or home protection.
It's about the people having the means to resist a tyranical government.

All "semi-automatic" means is the next bullet is loaded after the last is shot. A revolver loads the next bullet by trigger squeeze (or thumb cocking) and anyone with any skill can achieve the same rate of fire as an AR15. Besides, shooting fast means less accuracy, so it's a wash.

As for the New Zealand and Australia argument, they didn't have many mass shooting before confiscation. Australia did force people into quarantine detention during covid. They could because they did not fear an armed populace.

And the reason gun ownership is up is because people fear a tyranical government. When Seattle allowed a group of Communist thugs to take over the city, people bought guns. When those same Communist thugs laid seige to a Federal Courthouse in Portland, people bought guns.

I'm all for personal choice. If you don't like guns, don't buy one.

Originally Posted by Johnsocat (Post 2099678)

We are unique in that our Constitution enumerates our right to bear Arms which "shall not be infringed" upon (which current laws actually do).
Other countries do not have our Constitution.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099668)

And at the time it was argued it was possible for a militia to use muzzle loaders to take back a rogue government.

I expect AR15's against the new XM5 will be found lacking. I expect 9MM against a M1 Abrams will be found lacking. On and On.

Are you suggesting citizens should have Cruise missiles? Why not automatic weapons? Why not F35's? After all, if the constitution - specifically the 2nd amendment - wants to be sure the populous can take back a rogue government , then it would seem to follow the citizens should be allowed to be equally armed.

Let's look at Ukraine - are we sending them civilian weapons? No, we are depleting our military arsenal because they do not have enough weapons locally capable of defending against a modern military.

So, unless you want access to Cruise, M1 Abrams, F35's and more, your argument is some what lacking.

I will completely agree there are many places in the US where a person may need a weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones. I have NO problem with that, or them. I question the need of a citizen to have 1,000 to 5,000 weapons stashed in the survival bunker. I question the need for a private citizen to own and M1 Abrams.

Do you?

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 2099666)

That is an insidiously wrong statement pushed by some of those of the Christian faith. This country was founded by a bunch of nearly agnostic men who wanted financial and political control over this territory. They had absolutely no disagreement with England over theological concerns and in fact were far LESS religious than the monarchy which claimed to derive its legitimacy from Jesus et al.

Jefferson removed all Jesus is God references from his Bible, actually cut those passages out with a knife. Our Constitution has exactly two references to religion and both strongly state that religious affiliation has no place in our governance.

The ethic of the founders was not rigid evangelical Christianity is was instead based on liberal ideology of natural rights as proposed by Locke and others. The founders were so against religious dogma determining United States governance that they made sure the Post Office, one of the few functions of the Federal Government at the time, operated on Sunday, you know the Christian day of rest and prayer on which you shall refrain from work and keep it holy, the Post Office functioned on Sunday the same as any other day of the week.

" In 1828, the Kentucky Senator Richard M. Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads and a devout Baptist, declared any federal attempt to give preference to the Christian Sabbath to be unconstitutional. The line between church and state when it came to Sunday mail delivery, he argued, "cannot be too strongly drawn." "

No, what has happened is that once again the real history of the US is being subverted by many who wish to believe that what they now hold true was held true in the 18th century.
Thomas Paine called Christianity a fable. Many were simply Deists, a religious belief that a God does exist but that he [or she] is not actively involved in our day to day life and that "human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs."

That was overwhelmingly the ethic of our founders and where it overlapped with the liberal Protestantism of the day, that was ok. Real history. You can look it up.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099683)

ALL RIGHTS have limits and can be regulated.

Do you believe you should be allowed to own Nukes, Cruise missiles and M1 Abrams? Why not? That would certainly fit not being infringed on.

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 2099681)

Why would anybody waste the time even thinking about an isolated case that no way in any way shape or form represents presence of ANY significance.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099331)

The point is to compare the US gun violence to other countries' gun violence. That's the important point.

Originally Posted by Djean1981 (Post 2099410)

It's cultural. No God in schools and no daddy at home. Social media and device addiction. This is the result. Narcissists willing to kill for attention..

Originally Posted by Johnsocat (Post 2099688)

We are not talking about nukes, cruise missiles and tanks... we are talking about guns...
Disregard my point with semantics because that solves the problem under discussion?

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099336)

Better to visualize a semi-automatic HIGH-VELOCITY man-KILLING rifle with a 30 round banana clip (which SHOULD be illegal) At minimum, the clip should be illegal.

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee (Post 2099690)

IT'S THE ASSAULT WEAPON STUPID! Nothing more/nothing less.

You can drone on all you like, but you cannot get away from the FACT that if the assault weapons were not available mass murders would be almost eliminated.

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 2099691)

WRONG! Comparing our country to others is comparing apples to pumpkin pie. It's about time that "some" people start looking at their own back yard instead of over the fence at other folks pastures.

We have a very large land mass.
We have a large population

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099668)

And at the time it was argued it was possible for a militia to use muzzle loaders to take back a rogue government.

I expect AR15's against the new XM5 will be found lacking. I expect 9MM against a M1 Abrams will be found lacking. On and On.

Are you suggesting citizens should have Cruise missiles? Why not automatic weapons? Why not F35's? After all, if the constitution - specifically the 2nd amendment - wants to be sure the populous can take back a rogue government , then it would seem to follow the citizens should be allowed to be equally armed.

Let's look at Ukraine - are we sending them civilian weapons? No, we are depleting our military arsenal because they do not have enough weapons locally capable of defending against a modern military.

So, unless you want access to Cruise, M1 Abrams, F35's and more, your argument is some what lacking.

I will completely agree there are many places in the US where a person may need a weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones. I have NO problem with that, or them. I question the need of a citizen to have 1,000 to 5,000 weapons stashed in the survival bunker. I question the need for a private citizen to own and M1 Abrams.

Do you?

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2099671)

Interestingly, the fastest demographic buying firearms are women. Additionally, women make up a higher percentage seeking professional training in handling firearms. As a certified firearms instructor I am seeing this pattern. More women are also getting into the competitive shooting sports and I think that's great. I mentioned previously I'm the co-founder of the US Womens Shooting Academy. I've taken a woman who had never shot a handgun and after 7 lessons she was pulling from the holster in under a second and hitting a target at 21 feet. I will also note she didn't break a nail!

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099650)

Sorry this is also a myth.

Many of the "founding fathers" were atheists. And the theists were often (mostly?) Puritans (Calvinist's and was based on the Holiness movement) that would never consider what we consider Christians to be Christians today. Women were little more than possessions, etc. Maybe you would like to start "testing" women charged with witch craft? They came here specifically to escape the Church of Englands persecution, and they could persecute anyone not toeing the line to their beliefs.

And if you want Christian beliefs in government, lets start with feeding the poor, giving housing to the homeless, forgiving those that transgress against us, not killing our enemies. You know all those pesky things Jesus told us to do, but evangelicals don't want to do, and instead refer back to the old testament and repeatedly quote the "thous shall nots" and not Jesus saying "thou shalt.

And another point, would you clarifying which Bible you want to make law, and which interpretation of it? Since there are over 200 Christian denominations in the US alone, and over 45,000 in the world.

And does the Pope get a seat in the Christian White House? After all, there are 1.5 billion Catholics and only maybe a 1/2 million Protestants (divided up between 45,000 different interpretations.)

So, I am just. curious, is it YOUR religion you want made law?

Now, could we get back to guns being used to kill children in class rooms for the past 20 years?

"Christians" make up in total about 20% of the worlds population. Yet, some how the other 80% of the world's population are not murdering their children regularly in schools. There are always the occasional wacko dictator, or rebels, or whatever that kills children or others. But, Only in America do we appear to endorse muting children in schools regularly. I say appear, since we have had 20 years to do something about it, and so far we can't agree on anything. 20 years...

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 2099666)

That is an insidiously wrong statement pushed by some of those of the Christian faith. This country was founded by a bunch of nearly agnostic men who wanted financial and political control over this territory. They had absolutely no disagreement with England over theological concerns and in fact were far LESS religious than the monarchy which claimed to derive its legitimacy from Jesus et al.

Jefferson removed all Jesus is God references from his Bible, actually cut those passages out with a knife. Our Constitution has exactly two references to religion and both strongly state that religious affiliation has no place in our governance.

The ethic of the founders was not rigid evangelical Christianity is was instead based on liberal ideology of natural rights as proposed by Locke and others. The founders were so against religious dogma determining United States governance that they made sure the Post Office, one of the few functions of the Federal Government at the time, operated on Sunday, you know the Christian day of rest and prayer on which you shall refrain from work and keep it holy, the Post Office functioned on Sunday the same as any other day of the week.

" In 1828, the Kentucky Senator Richard M. Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads and a devout Baptist, declared any federal attempt to give preference to the Christian Sabbath to be unconstitutional. The line between church and state when it came to Sunday mail delivery, he argued, "cannot be too strongly drawn." "

No, what has happened is that once again the real history of the US is being subverted by many who wish to believe that what they now hold true was held true in the 18th century.
Thomas Paine called Christianity a fable. Many were simply Deists, a religious belief that a God does exist but that he [or she] is not actively involved in our day to day life and that "human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs."

That was overwhelmingly the ethic of our founders and where it overlapped with the liberal Protestantism of the day, that was ok. Real history. You can look it up.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099674)

Social tensions are MUCH greater today and also other tensions. Many people have reacted to this by stockpiling many rifles and pistols designed for WAR and to kill people ( you don't buy a 30-round clip to go deer hunting). This made the people feel safer, but mainly it made the Gun Manufacturers more PROFIT and wealth. So they put out propaganda advertisements in Gun magazines and the NRA journal to induce these people to buy MORE guns. In the last 2 years, civilian gun ownership went from a high of 300 million guns to a new high of 400 million guns.
.........More readily available guns equate to MORE gun deaths and crime. To understand how big and BAD the US situation has become - you just need to look at a chart comparison showing gun deaths per 100,000 citizens for ALL the world's countries. Ry far, the US has the MOST !

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099674)

Social tensions are MUCH greater today and also other tensions. Many people have reacted to this by stockpiling many rifles and pistols designed for WAR and to kill people ( you don't buy a 30-round clip to go deer hunting). This made the people feel safer, but mainly it made the Gun Manufacturers more PROFIT and wealth. So they put out propaganda advertisements in Gun magazines and the NRA journal to induce these people to buy MORE guns. In the last 2 years, civilian gun ownership went from a high of 300 million guns to a new high of 400 million guns.
.........More readily available guns equate to MORE gun deaths and crime. To understand how big and BAD the US situation has become - you just need to look at a chart comparison showing gun deaths per 100,000 citizens for ALL the world's countries. Ry far, the US has the MOST !

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2099706)

I don't think anyone makes a 30 round clip. Frankly, I don't know if any modern rifles even utilize a clip.

Ironically, when Democrats start chanting about gun control the demand for guns and ammo rises dramatically. Introduce a pandemic and force people to stay home for lockdowns created the huge surge in ammo sales along with millions of first time gun buyers entering the market.