every child in the US needs an uzi. Have to help Darwin get back on track

Contrary to what your one article posts, I have read extensively the documents form the Magna Carta to the federalist papers. I am absolutely certain of the intentions of the founders of the USA.
You on the other hand are a second hand expert, instead of reading the bible for yourself you let your minister translate it for you and now you have a skewed version.

BTW, I am sorry that I had to use the most vile, heinous and fictitious documents in history (The Bible) to make a point about the fine documents that make up the U.S Constitution.....

Because it's none of your business; that's why. Clearly your children aren't allowed to shoot guns before they are 16, but you've got some nerve acting like this rule can be legitimately enforced against unwilling participants.

You are wrong and unnecessary. If guns aren't necessary, then why is there such a high demand for them? I don't know how you think anti-gun laws are supposed to be enforced.

Obviously guns kill -- that's the point. The "good answer" is "because I said so."

This is the only message from your answers to what I am going to answer. I am from a country where people even somewhat read other's messages before posting a reply.

"Haven't you guys heard about voting? And I don't mean just choosing between republicans and democrats. It's like voting between king and queen (and they are married, you know)."

I'm a Canadian and I have guns, several of them. I also have a high end gun safe mounted on concrete. My grandfather and father taught me to shoot pellet guns when I was 9, first .177 and then .22 calibers. They also taught me how to fish, how to track, how to ride a motorcycle, safe operation of a boat, etc.

At nearly 50yrs old now, I look back and appreciate being taught safe operation, handling, and storage at an early age. And that goes for all of the things they taught me.

There is no substitute for common sense and responsible ownership, be it a gun, a knife, a car, a boat, or whatever.

The real tragedy here is that anytime a fatal, completely avoidable accident involving a firearm occurs, it is used ad nauseum to fuel an agenda. This tragedy was the result of carelessness and complete irresponsibility. And you simply cannot regulate stupidity.

"If guns aren't necessary, then why is there such a high demand for them?" is exactly my point. There is high demand for guns in the US because of the incredible sales campaign going on, and most people don't even seem to realize it.

Lots of people buy guns because they are being SOLD. This is exactly my point. People are being SOLD guns with basic ideas like "There is crime on every corner, and you can be next", and "Protect your family", and "You're a patriot if you buy guns".

People are also being sold guns in other ways too. "You are NOT a patriot unless you buy guns", and that if you don't exercise your 2nd amendment rights, you will lose the 2nd amendment rights.

Every time there has been a mass shooting, the NRA swoops into town and holds a gun rally. Why? Because scared people buy guns. Some poor town just had a tragedy and some kids got killed and parents are scared, freaked out, and want revenge. So Wayne Lapierre (and before him Charlton Heston) walk in to your devastated town and say "Hey! Sorry for your loss blah blah blah, buy more guns, thank you and goodnight!"

The reason for all of my opinions is that clearly the current state of gun laws in the US do not seem to be working.

Wouldn't you say that there seems to be way too much gun crime in the US? Why do you think this is?

I'm not trying to fight or argue with you so don't take my tone the wrong way. I'm just wondering if a solution can ever be found.

Well.. there is crime all over the place. I'm sure a lot of people just buy guns to fit in or prove some point, but there are many more who just want to protect themselves. It doesn't matter what their reason is; it's still none of your business. You keep insisting that you get a "good reason." You aren't owed a good reason. You have no right to stand in between your neighbor and his personal preferences.

Sure, the NRA sucks; I'm not defending that stupid gun-hating organization (they support background checks).

What is the purpose of the gun laws? They always get pitched as a safety concern, but who's safety? It's the state's safety. The government doesn't want its tax-slaves to be able to defend themselves. It's funny; you think the pro-gun folk are drinking the kool-aid, but it's clearly your ilk that drank deeply.

No, I wouldn't. I much prefer the occasional shooting to a constant state of thievery and assault. The idiots in your gun-hating camp don't seem to realize that there are other crimes besides the gun-related kind. If you disarm your neighbors, they will be less capable to defend themselves against burglars and creeps. And if you think that's what the police are for, consider this: the supreme court ruled that the government has no obligation to protect you. The police are strictly law enforcers; not peace keepers. They look for violations; not victims. If they respond to a home invasion, it's not to save the victims; it's to arrest the criminals, and they can do that regardless of the victim's safety.

:helpme Exhibit A.

Exactly. You don't have a working brain, or else you would use it to formulate a proper rebuttal. Instead, you rely on group-think. Do you think my ideas will become magically falsified if enough users respond to your cry for "help?"

much the same story here, in canada. and definitely agree.

Yeah, I was taught to fire weapons when I was a kid too. But they didn't do it on a fucking machine gun, which very few nine year old kids can handle. I learned with a small .22.

No, there isn't. Violent crime has been dropping for some time now.

Directly form the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ensefigure.gif

It's a giant waste of time to discuss anything with you. You're fanatical and deranged. Anyone who thinks the NRA is a 'gun hating organization' and that gun safety laws are in place to protect the government from it's 'tax slaves' is the exact same person who shouldn't be allowed to have any guns. Let alone the arsenal I'm sure you possess.

In 2013, Guns killed 10,950 people (30 per day) in the United States : http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...n-control-push

There will always be accidents and violence, but its sad to realize that it is so high.

Of course, and there is nothing wrong with this. My point not that people should be allowed to buy guns. My points (there are just a few), (a) that the laws should be tougher, (b) tougher laws should not scare law abiding people, (c) The NRA is irresponsible, and (d) to realize that scared people buying guns makes more scared people buy more guns, which is exactly what gun companies and the NRA want.

It is my business here on a public forum where we are discussing an issue that affects both Americans like you and Canadians like me. It's my business if my neighbour was a criminal or psycho and is still allowed to own guns. It's my business if the gun range down the street lets a skinny kid fire an automatic weapon.


I support background checks. Why should a criminal in your neighbourhood be allowed to own a gun? What if he's on meds to control his temper? What if his Bi-Polar? What if he forgets to take his meds and start shooting up your house?


Wow. Man that is sad.... dude seriously. If thats really the way you think then there's no way we can continue this debate.

Allowed by whom? It's none of your business! You speak as though you have some authority to implement these arbitrary rules. You think it's a waste of time discussing anything with me? Compare our replies; I am using sound reasoning and you are trying to invoke an emotional response. It's a waste of time because you don't actually want to discuss the issue; you want to fit in with your peer group.

Sure, you can say what you like; if that's all you want then I don't care what dumb ideas you hold. But that's not the case. You want this to go beyond the forum. You want men with guns to lock your neighbor in a cage if he violates the arbitrary rules your group-think peers have concocted. Why should you care if a gun-range "down the street" lets a dumb kid fire a gun? How does that threaten your safety? It isn't your kid; it isn't your business. If your neighbor is a sketchy creep.. move! Or arm yourself; install video cameras and motion sensors. You aren't entitled to live in a world were these things aren't necessary. I know it's a stark contrast to the America-of-the-mind you wish existed but never has. The cold, hard reality has always been that nice things need protection, and only the owner of the thing can properly protect it. The state doesn't care about your stuff (except when it comes to confiscating it).

Why should he not be allowed is the better question. I mean, allowed by whom? Who is going to enforce your ideas? What if your crazy neighbor doesn't comply? I'd much rather everyone have guns (including the few nut-jobs) than only the state having guns (or boot-lickers like you).

What if someone illegally gets a gun? I mean if we're gonna throw around scary what-ifs, surely you can't leave out this one. The rules you want to impose are impotent; criminals don't follow rules (be definition!). What is worse: your crazy neighbor openly caries guns (you know the risk level) -- or, your seemingly normal neighbor secretly has an illegal cache of weapons (an unknown risk). But you don't consider things like this; it's called critical thinking, and your degenerate mind can't do it anymore. I mean that literally; your mind is physically altered to the point where you cannot rationally consider options.

30 out of 314,000,000

Mark, why dont you break that down into a ratio for us webmasters? We like ratios.

Because gun sales are up!

I've never seen an auto run-away, but have always treated any firearm like the worse can happen. I have a scar on my forehead from the scope of a 30.06 that I shot at the age of 12. Damn that thing kicked. I have had the breach of a 410 shot gun open on me during fire and burn my face a little. Can barely see either of these now.

I took a psychology in high school and spent a lot of time on child development, and backed up on this talking with my daughter who has a degree in anthropology that the years of 1 thru 7 are key in development of the personality of a child.

People that think to put limits on what can be taught to children are basically saying you can't do that to them. I was raised to believe there is nothing I can't do. How would you raise your child? Mine at 26 is a veteran and has seen a big chunk of the world, she has a degree and is genuinely happy. Can many 26 year olds feel like that is their case? She believes there is nothing she can't do, because those limits were never placed on her.

Anyone that believes that their child can't achieve big goals are limiting their kids and should walk to the other end of that firing range IMHO

Im sorry, I didn't realize we were talking with an expert. My deepest apologies.

I don't think anyone disagreed with you about teaching your child to read before pre-school. The absurdity came from your insinuation that you're a bad parent if your child doesn't know how to read at the age of 3. If your child shows an interest and wants to learn, by all means don't discourage it. However children learn at different paces. And no studies (to my knowledge) have shown that a child being proficient in reading before pre-school is any more advanced then a child learning to read during pre-school.

And again, good lord you are a rage filled individual.