I prefer the right to not NEED a gun, over the right to have one. Adding more guns to the world doesn't reduce the number of shootings. If it did, we'd have no shootings. The more guns out there, the more guns are used.

Should we get rid of guns? Nah - the ship sailed on that over a hundred years ago.

Should we require more accountability AND consequences for people who choose to disobey the law? Absolutely. Should we have more enforceable controls over who gets to have a gun legally, and who doesn't? Yup.

Why, when criminals will just get guns anyway?

Here's why. If a criminal shoots someone with a gun they were authorized to have, then the criminal is subject to X, Y, and Z penalties.

If he shot someone with a gun he was NOT authorized to have, then the criminal is subject to X, Y, and Z penalties AND subject to A, B, and C penalties for having a gun they were not authorized to have.

The rest of everything SaraW posts can be summed up in this latest line in her post:

In other words - she profits off of people who are afraid, and off people who prey on people who are afraid.

Or people who just want to protect their family. Why is that a bad thing if they are responsible people?

Interesting choice of words. Why are you afraid of law abiding citizens? I teach responsible gun owners who want to be safe and proficient. That seems to intimidate you. Those who opt for the non-lethal product are still motivated by self defense. It is also an excellent choice for those who have arthritic hands and can't manipulate a firearm.

The first step might be to enforce the laws we already have in place and prosecute those who violate our laws. We should each write our representatives to remind them of that.

This is an ultra political topic but for some reason TOV has allowed it to continue.

Because of this I am going to post some facts that should make you all realize that the right to bear arms was created during a much different time than the present.

When the second amendment was passed, the U.S. had no standing army and needed private citizens to join a militia to defend the country. Not only this, but pioneers had to deal with the hazards of hostile Natives, wild animals, and unknown threats in the wilderness.

Today we not only have a huge standing army but a well-funded and organized police force.

The facts are that there are 100 million more guns in the U.S. than people and that's a dated statistic and I suspect the number today is even greater. Just based on those stats, we have by far more guns in our nation than any other in the world. We also have, as of 5 years ago, second highest number of firearms-related deaths of any nation, only Brazil topping us. The only other nations with a greater percentage of firearms-related deaths are all in Central or South America, and it would not surprise me if we have climbed in the rankings. No other nation has so many mass murder shootings.

Also, if you review the numbers of comparable nations in Europe or Asia with strict gun control like England or Japan, the number of firearms-related deaths are shockingly low. Australia, for example, had a rash of mass shootings in the 1990s and implemented strict gun control and the mass shootings virtually stopped.

For instance in the UK, the majority of police don't even carry a firearm; they carry those bobby sticks. And in the UK, shooting deaths by police average between 50-60 / year. In the U.S., the number is more than a 1,000. With all those guns out there, the police are going to reach for their guns often and quickly, and often shooting rashly for fear of their lives. So, it is more likely that in most circumstances, having a gun puts your life in greater danger, especially if you interact with police. How many times have you heard of people telling police they had a gun and reach to get their ID or registration and get shot?

The facts are blatantly obvious and to say that more guns are needed is patently insane. The only people who sell guns to people for protection are only fooling themselves and their customers.

Sure, there are some people who do need guns for their profession or some legitimate purpose, but those are people who are trained and licensed to use them.

Did you hear about the man in Utah who was being arrested and while the police were doing so, his four-year-old took the gun that was in the car and started shooting at the police? He said he did it, so his Dad could get away and do what he wanted to do.

Wake up, people, we don't need guns to protect us; they're killing machines not life protectors.

I agree with everything you said, and you left out that when the constitution was written we had just finished a brutal war with a tyrant. And there were still a LOT of "loyalists" that didn't like that we left England. The new government needed to be sure it would not loose to local loyalists the fight it just won again England. That plus your point they didn't have (and didn't want to pay for) a standing army.

BUT.

There ARE over 400 million guns in circulation. Those will not magically disappear.

So, rather that repeat over and over that guns are the problem and not the solution, we need instead to find common ground for a way to solve our problem - mass shootings, school shootings, etc, etc, etc.

If we can't need to find a way to LIVE with them.

Most people posting here, don't offer solutions, just "justifications" for wanting or not wanting guns. A few have posted suggestions. Most ignore that and just continue to repeat the dog whistles that just lead to arguments.

I have posted many times my proposed solutions. I don't want to post them again since so many complain that I repeat myself too much.

This topic was not political until your post so kindly don't do that again and stay on topic. If you didn't take the time to read the report, now two of them, on the Uvalde response, you don't have anything to contribute.

Please don't pervert the Constitution to your agenda. There are so many gun related quotes from the Founders of this country that simply refute your suggestions that this is a different world then "before."
When you have studies completed that dispute the anti-gun rhetoric, it's obvious that if we are to have a safe and free environment, then the threat of citizens, good citizens owning firearms should always be a deterrent to those wishing lethal mischief. Over a million deaths are prevented every year by "good guys" with guns. If that is not enough to convince, then facts and reality are just not considered in the gun ownership debate. I wonder how it feels to see your family slain as you helplessly stare in fear, wishing you had some means to stop the horror. Don't worry, because more and more folks are taking gun safety courses so that they can protect their own AND YOURS in such a situation. Remember, when seconds count a police officer is only minutes away. That said, if they have to worry about what you will say to the media and in court about their actions, they may hesitate when a decent, law abiding citizen might act in your behalf.
These are two totally different scenarios. One is protecting school children and the other is a good Samaritan being there(shopping mall) at the right time to protect YOU.
One requires a defense for the children and the other requires a hero to stand up against an immediate and terrible threat that would scare any logical/reasonable person.
You are NOT going to get rid of the guns in this country, so get over it and move on. There has ALWAYS been evil people in this world and always will. You can't stop it. All you can do is protect against mass damage and you cannot do that by restricting the freedoms of good citizens. You NEED good citizens to protect you from the evil doers.

I agree with you about never getting rid of guns - at least in our life time.

But, just because there have always been evil people, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to to alleviate the problem. There have always been bank robbers, but we found ways to reduce it.

And I disagree, rights of good citizens almost always take second place to rights of most citizens. We have stop signs, we have speed limits, we have no outdoor latrines, we pay taxes, and on and on. Absolute freedom is absolute anarchy. The US was a shining example of a system designed to protect the rights of the masses, while protecting the minority from the abuse of the majority. We glorified our diversity, and grew from a trivial nothing to the world power, based on our system.

Now we are witnessing our decline. Each of us has our own explanations. History will say why when we are gone.

What you say is refuted by the statistics showing the huge difference in the lack of deaths in countries with strict gun control laws and countries like the U.S. where there is a permissive attitude about gun ownership.

Because "they" (as a singular whole) are not responsible people. If "they" were responsible people, "they" would not be committing murders, mass shootings, and gun crime would not exist at all.

They - are the collective singular category of "people who possess firearms."

Within that singular category there are many sub-categories. Most folks fall into the subcategory of "responsible people." But even "responsible people" have accidents, make mistakes, have momentary lapses of judgment.

"Here lies Mary. Accidently shot to death by her husband, a responsible gun-owner. Woops."

You can't legislate common sense. But you can legislate common-sense laws that exist to protect the "responsible people" while giving punishment to "irresponsible people" more bite. Right now all that's happening is that people are being incentivized to buy guns. There is no nationwide mandatory licensing required - there isn't even required licensing in every state. You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to perform surgery. You need a license to give someone an eye exam. But in some states, you don't need a license to have a firearm.

There are no checks and balances, accepted nationally, on qualifications to own a device that was created to kill. That is its PRIMARY function: to kill. Kill bears, kill elephants, kill geese, kill burglars, kill criminals, kill victims - it's the "kill" that is the operative word here.

There should be nationwide checks and balances. If you don't qualify, then you can't legally possess a firearm. If you get caught using one illegally, then that charge gets tacked on to whatever crime you committed with the gun in the first place. Incentivize people to LEGALLY possess firearms, by giving more sting to punishments for people who do not.

I don't disagree with much of what you said, but, according to Politifact:

"The vast majority of crime that is gun related is committed by people who illegally are possessing that firearm."

I don't think that any law is going to eliminate accidents, mistakes, or momentary lapses in judgement. Also, if you accept that most people have a basic right to own a firearm, then any law you make needs to allow for reasonable accessibility to a firearm to maintain that right.

How about a law that holds the seller legally responsible for the use of a gun that is sold illegally. Combine that with mandatory universal background checks and you have a first step.

Gun shows, private sales, "buying for a friend" all contribute to people having guns that shouldn't. It will NOT stop all of them, it will NOT solve the problem, but maybe if we stopped arguing over the perfect solution and started taking steps in a direction to slow the problem we might make more progress than have been accomplished in decades of arguing over perfection.

How about we stay on the topic of this thread instead of derailing it. Consider starting another thread to continue your debate on the Second Amendment.

When people have a biased view like the gun seller, there is nothing that will change their mind. Common sense, statistics, even when 4-year-old start using guns -- having guns is the occasion for killing someone, whether it's stupidity or carelessness. The stats bear this out.