Sometimes 10 rounds isn't enough.

[Winbear]

There are also arguments based on research to the contrary. It may not be your intention to come across as belittling anyone who disagrees with YOUR opinion, but quite honestly that is how it seems. Does it not occur to you that they may be disagreeing with you and agreeing with his opinion because they already shared that, not because they are suck ups?

Excuse me, but the belittling started when somebody asserted that I would be reckless enough to endanger the lives of several innocent people and would rather see me dead because of it. Notice how I had a discussion with Atomicinchworm without belittling him? It's not the difference in opinion that bothers me, it's people who have to act condescending about it.

[Winbear]

Not having guns at all is the ONLY thing that would prevent more tragedies as a result from guns but I hardly think that's where anyone expects this to go and is unrealistic in our current society. If we're going to be honest here, there have been studies that can back up either side's argument so where does that leave the "burden of proof" other than that people are going to look more favorably on the "research" that backs up their opinion. What's that saying, people only ask for someone's else's opinion to verify what they already think?

No that's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that when you make claims like "the only losers are those killed by guns or their families" (paraphrasing) as if it is fact that more gun laws would have prevented these tragedies, you must show proof. An opinion is different. If I somehow misunderstood your claim to be a simply as opposed to claiming as a fact, I apologize.

[Moderator]

No that's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that when you make claims like "the only losers are those killed by guns or their families" (paraphrasing) as if it is fact that more gun laws would have prevented these tragedies, you must show proof. An opinion is different. If I somehow misunderstood your claim to be a simply as opposed to claiming as a fact, I apologize.

My point is that we seem to be losing sight of the fact that there are real victims with families who loved them and to be throwing out responses such as "that's why your side is losing" as though this is a competition with winners and losers is forgetting the humanity of the victims and perhaps we need to be reminded of that fact.

[atomicinchworm]

"Out of the 40000 people who were killed by guns last year, roughly 250 of them were justifiable homicides.

That is a very small percentage of a big problem that is being ignored. " Well, at least somebody has responded with something more then childish comments. Yes, crime is a problem in this country. There are lot factors that lead to crime. I have done years of research and I am not convinced that adding more laws to the 25,000 gun laws that we already have on the books is going to make a difference. Also, here is an interesting fact, a study that was conducted by Gary Kleck a criminologists who started off with an anti-gun bias, showed that 2.5 million people use guns in self-defense a year. In most cases people are able to defend themselves by brandishing their guns.

I think it is impossible to number how many people are saved by guns every year, but it is not impossible to number how many are killed.

By you own statistic most people who save themselves with guns every year, never even have to fire them. The risk of being shot is enough to head off a vast a majority of criminals or attacks. I fail to see why large clips are necessary for self defense or hunting. While there have been times where it doesn't matter on the size of clip, there have also been times where it has, where by-standers have been able to stop the shooter because he was in the middle of reloading clips.

I am of the opinion that lives are valueable, and if a clip limit and assault rifle ban and background check requirements save a single life, they are worth it.

[Winbear]

My point is that we seem to be losing sight of the fact that there are real victims with families who loved them and to be throwing out responses such as "that's why your side is losing" as though this is a competition with winners and losers is forgetting the humanity of the victims and perhaps we need to be reminded of that fact.

Okay, if that's what meant by your statement then I apologize.

[Sepia and Dust]

I am of the opinion that lives are valueable, and if a clip limit and assault rifle ban and background check requirements save a single life, they are worth it.

I see that same logic tossed about pretty often, but it's never very good logic.

There're lots of things we can do that will save a single life... we could ban cars, ban every sort of factory emission, ban that puffer fish that kill you if it's cooked wrong. We could allow police to detain us indefinitely, and it would cut down on murders; we could disallow religious or political meetings and it would cut down on the number of radical extremists; we could throw people into old-style asylums like Bedlam, and it would cut down on the number of crazy people.

[Winbear]

I think it is impossible to number how many people are saved by guns every year, but it is not impossible to number how many are killed." I though Kleck did it quite well.

"By you own statistic most people who save themselves with guns every year, never even have to fire them. The risk of being shot is enough to head off a vast a majority of criminals or attacks. I fail to see why large clips are necessary for self defense or hunting." Yes, in most cases that's true. However, they may still come a time when you have to deal with somebody who isn't easily deterred. Occasionally it does happen. Like I said before, when it does happen do you want a) a gun that holds the least amount of bullets b) a gun that holds one shot c) a gun that holds the most amount of bullets possible ?

I am of the opinion that lives are valueable, and if a clip limit and assault rifle ban and background check requirements save a single life, they are worth it.

I also think lives are valueable, but I don't believe that anything that you just proposed would make a difference. As I said before, in many of the shootings gunmen were able to reload or switch to other firearms with little to no difficulty. In the case of Virginia Tech the only thing the gunman had were ten rd magazines and that didn't seem to stop him at all. Also, we have background checks. All Federally Licensed Dealers are required to perform them. Criminals and psychos will always find ways to get around them. Not to sound rude or condescending, but do you even know what an "assault weapon" is exactly?

[atomicinchworm]

Ultimately though, cars are a requirement in this country, unless you live in a huge city with a good public transport system, eating Fugu is your choice as an adult. As to the rest, basic human rights are why the others aren't considered, and this is a country founded on freedom with regulation.

I'm not saying it is the only thing we should do, like increased access to mental health services, but guns are a problem. I think people should absolutely be able to own guns, but I have yet to see a statistic that will change my mind as to the need of large clips and assault rifles. Every other amendment is regulated, why should the 2nd not be? Why should background checks not be a basic requirement of gun sales?

The last sentence I stated wasn't particularly logical, but it is how I feel on the matter. The other way isn't working, maybe it is time to try something else?

[atomicinchworm]

Not to sound rude or condescending, but do you even know what an "assault weapon" is exactly?

They are weapons capable of selective fire, including semi-automatic (the trigger must be pulled for each shot and the gun automatically loads a new bullet) and burst (several shots fired at once) and fully automatic. The weapons capable of fully automatic fire are heavily regulated already. The biggest problem I have with them is the number of bullets at once they are capable of holding.

I noticed that I tend to lump "weapons" into "rifles" and for that I apologize.

[Out of Order]

Also proving my point of why your side is losing more and more ground every day.

Funny, I didn't believe that my post was displaying the "taking of sides."

It was more to the point of another saying ...................one that involves a dead horse.