Minorities do 90% of the killing in America. Whites have gone fro 90% to 49%...minorities have gone from 10% to 51%...THAT is the reason gun related deaths are rising.

Local militias are made to look like a bunch of KKK wackos.

You mean doing noting when minorities kill more and more each year? How many killings in the black parts of Chicago already this year?

And they ALSO specified...ARMS...meaning ALL weaponry. You miss the whole point of the 2nd amendment...WE the people are supposed to be the "Army". WE are supposed to be organized into local militias.

WHY do they let sub-humans buy/have guns? THEY do 90% of the killing. These 60 people are a holiday weekend of killing in Chicago's black areas.

You expected someone with a gun to be in his room with him?

Freedom is messy. That's the way it is. If you want the ultimate in security...stay home.

A couple of points regarding this thread:

How can we have an "intelligent conversation regarding guns" when it seems that at least half those involved know NOTHING about guns? Isn't "intelligence" supposed to be synonymous with knowledge?

Another point is that the gun related death rate has gone down to half of what it was in 1993 and yet the gun ownership in America has doubled. Figure that one out.

Also something to consider: OVER half the gun related deaths are suicides.

Already mentioned: What law would you have created that would have stopped any of the past mass shootings?

We do not have a program like the "Minority Report" movie. We cannot predict a crime and we cannot stop a crime before it happens based solely on a theory. In most cases, you cannot arrest a person until he commits a crime. A crazy can purchase a gun with the intent to commit a crime with it, and in most cases you cannot do a thing about it. Some folks seem to be perfectly stable for decades and then something just sets them off and they start a killing spree. That's life. Look at road rage as an example.

Sure, you can argue some of the points I made, but the reality is that you cannot eliminate crime. It is human nature. You can make deterrents or put obstacles in the way, but you cannot stop some crime from happening.

Of course, you can always drug everyone into submission. That might work. I think that the CIA had some study on that at one time.

When ever there is a mass shooting, the left jumps in there with the ban guns demand. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen. Thank goodness for the NRA.

No it hasn't...killing in America has never been higher...but it's MOSTLY happening in the inner city slums so it really doesn't affect us. Chicago, E St Louis, Memphis...they make new murder records every year. Violence has never been higher.

Bullsh!t...they're minority gangs shooting each other.

A complete banning of ALL firearms AND ammunition. A gun/ammunition "Rapture". But then, the next mass killing would be driving a loaded semi truck at 80mpg into that crowd...killing even more.

Sure we can...90% of violent crime is committed by minorities. Ban them.

These "white guys" who make the news when they snap...they're literally a drop in the bucket when it comes to killings in America. Similar to how people fear plane crashes and yet they're VERY uncommon...you SHOULD be fearing the quick drive to the store where deaths occur much more frequently. You SHOULD be fearing the minority majority...it IS much more deadly.

Intelligent Conversation is one-sided.
 

You have contributed some intelligent views to the "intelligent conversation" on gun control.

I agree that at least half of the people who jump into the discussion appear to know little or nothing about guns. Every time there is a major shooting incident there are cries that we must "do something," but in almost every case the proposed new measures would not have prevented the shooting. But, the logic of this fact escapes the emotional imperative to "do something."

Even more to the point, the recent incident has resulted in emotional calls for gun control laws that already exist. Other posts include statements about gun laws that are not true. It is frustrating to the point of exhaustion to try to keep up with the mis-information and correcting it.

When asked what specific new laws might be proposed that would have prevented the mass shooting under discussion, the "do something" proponents propose...........nothing. Because, as you point out, not all crime can be permitted; particularly by just passing more laws.

Carl in Tampa

.

How about a REAL answer?
 

I have taken the liberty of numbering your paragraphs to make it clear which area of your post I am responding to with each of my points.

1. Thank you for acknowledging that the points in my earlier post were valid. I strive for accuracy. Your reaction to the recent shooting, that we must "do something" is a common emotional response, but it ignores the fact that there is virtually no law that you can propose which would have stopped the shooting. If you have such a law in mind, please post it.

2. The level of firearms technology at the time of adoption of the Second Amendment is not relevant to the conversation unless you are proposing that we should be limited to possession of firearms of that era. Surely you know the courts and the legislature would never permit that.

3. There is a lot contained in paragraph three. First, it is immaterial how many cartridges were found at the scene. A person could make small purchases over a period of several years in order to build up a large supply.

Who knew about bump stocks? Well, several million Americans did. They are gun hobbyists, gunsmiths, police officers, gun show attendees, and just about anyone who has seen them demonstrated on youtube videos. Obama's Bureau of ATF also knew about them, and ruled that attaching them to rifles to make them fire at a rate approaching the rate of full automatic rifles, was LEGAL.

No, fully automatic weapons are not outlawed. They never have been. They are, however, very heavily regulated. Background checks on people who apply to purchase a Class III (automatic) firearm are extensive; storage rules for keeping them are stringent; the cost of the weapons is quite high; and there is a $200 tax stamp that must be purchased from the government before the sale is final.

4. There has been a call for an outright ban of bump stocks. This seems extreme since fully automatic weapons are not banned, and they only mimic those weapons. The NRA has called for bump stocks to be "regulated as a Class III item, just as fully automatic weapons are regulated."

How would you limit the amount of ammunition that an individual owns? You might limit the amount of ammunition that can be made in an over the counter purchase, but purchases can be made and ammo accumulated over several years.

5. Your point 5 is a bit vague. I'm not sure whether or not you blame the shooting on Colorado being an open carry state. If so, I don't see the relevance.

6. This point is nonsense. Trump did not "rescind Obama gun checks for the mentally ill." Obama's Social Security Administration unilaterally, without Congressional approval, declared that retired people receiving Social Security benefits, who had designated a surrogate to deal with Social Security regarding their financial issues, were ineligible to own firearms.

Congress passed a bill, and President Trump signed it into law, forbidding Social Security from their illegal violation of the Second Amendment.

7. I take your remark in #7 as a challenge to the saying that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, which is true.

Actually, it is quite commonplace that when an active shooter is confronted by the police, or other armed obstacle to his shooting, he usually takes his own life. That happened in this case. But, interestingly, it wasn't even a "good guy with a gun," it was just a "good guy."

The police in Las Vegas report that when an unarmed security guard approached the suite where the bad guy was located, the bad guy fired through the door, striking the security guard in the leg, and there was no further gunfire from the suite........ever. It is conjectured that the bad guy took his own life at that point.

I don't know about your Colorado Springs shootings, but if they were stopped by having the bad guy shot, the odds are that it was done by a good guy, either a civilian or a cop.

Now. Again. What law would you propose that would have prevented the shooting in Las Vegas?

Carl in Tampa

.

Good post. It's obvious by now that the left when faced with a crisis will immediately run in circles flapping their arms like chickens. They want action even if it does not produce solutions. To them, success is measured by laws they can pass, not whether or not they work or regardless of repercussions/cost. In this case, their answer is ban guns. Even when this action has resulted in MORE gun related deaths where such a law exists. You cannot have an "intelligent discussion" with those that are ruled by hysteria.

You don't understand..."laws" that are voted on...are FRONTS...facades...for the REAL "meat" that is hidden inside.

A "law" that should be a paragraph or a page at most...becomes 3,000 pages long. Why? Because everyone who helped in the campaign, the rich and powerful, are getting their payback. LOTS of people profit with EVERY "law" that is passed.