zapatos

You mean this part... "Perhaps the problem will eventually get solved when the children who are at schools subject to these attacks grow up and vote in large enough numbers to make a difference" ...where we do nothing and leave it for the next generation? I didn't think you were serious. After criticizing my approach I assumed you had a solution that we could start now and involved us. Given the choice between my approach and your approach I think I'll continue to look for solutions myself and not wait for people who can't even vote yet.

Show me where I did this. Perhaps then I'll know what you are talking about.

I'm just a simple man. I usually work with direct answers to direct questions. Having to interpret the meaning behind your posts is often beyond me. I still have no idea what you are on about.

LOL! Of course! The answer was so simple and right in front of our faces the whole time! Problem Solved! Glad you are taking this so seriously John. You always add so much to these conversations.

Is every gun owner pious or just me? Am I hypocritical or deeply religious. Adding a little more context to your responses would be helpful.

No.

I know what pious means. I'm not sure what I said that makes you think I am or want to be a martyr, and especially how I want to be a martyr while keeping my guns.

Sorry I don't follow. Do you mean to say me personally? Or only if everyone refuses to give them up?

It looks to me as if just about all Canadian gun laws could potentially be implemented in the US. Our Constitution says we can have guns, but is mostly quiet after that. As long as the argument can be made with enough persuasion, I suspect we could have a system similar to yours. Agreed. But there are many more opinions on what should be done that aren't mentioned here. Some calling for outright bans. Thank you for your opinion.

The problem in part is that there are as many opinions on what level of gun control is appropriate as there are opinions on what God is really like. In addition, the fight for those who want gun control is an uphill battle. Guns are entrenched in the US, with the full and complete backing of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. They will never go away as long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, and I can foresee nothing in our lifetimes that will result in the 2nd Amendment being revoked.

Huh. Yet you've also told me "That has been the approach for decades...", indicating you think I am posting how to solve the problem, only I am doing it in a way you disagree with. I feel you are sending me mixed messages. My first reaction was to tell you to perform a physically impossible sexual act on yourself and leave it at that. But I'll add that I am calling it as I see it. I feel John's first response to me only reinforced my position. But if you prefer to see me as a whimpering victim, do so with my blessing.

As it turns out, Nikolas Cruz came to the attention of the local authorities many times before the shooting. Governor Rick Scott seems to be searching for a scapegoat and is a bit hypocritical IMO. Perhaps it is Rick who should resign as this happened on his watch. Thanks for tossing that softball John. As I said, it seems "I have to support it in a way that is deemed correct by others, to the extent deemed appropriate by others..." I'm not actually as much of a celebrity as you seem to think. I rather think that any movement I start would be people coming to my front door asking if they can buy my guns.

Your post in response to my statement "but that is not enough" seems to be saying that what is enough is nothing short of a ban on guns. Did I interpret your message correctly?

Not just in response to you MigL, but... It doesn't seem to be enough to support gun control. I have to support it in a way that is deemed correct by others, to the extent deemed appropriate by others, and I must have the proper attitude while I'm doing it. I've gone so far as to say "I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives." But that is not enough. As long as those guns are sitting in my gun safe or being fired at a piece of paper, I seem to be "causing unnecessary deaths". If my position doesn't correspond to the position of others I'm seen as intellectually dishonest or laughable, rather than as someone who may simply have a different perspective. The days of tolerance are long gone when fundamentally agreeing is not enough.

Yes, by all means minimize what I said to something superfluous, hilarious, and off topic, rather than trying to understand why I think your statements are counter productive in the larger debate. You and those like you would make great members of the Tea Party. You are eating your own. You can't even avoid alienating people like me who are in favor of gun control, simply because it is your way or the highway. How are things going to progress when you start this with the people who don't want gun control?

Okay, last time I'll make this point. IMO it is counter productive to make over the top statements, such as implying that gun owners have been brainwashed. As a gun owner, why would I be interested in negotiating with someone who is being intellectually dishonest by suggesting I've been brainwashed?

Can you expand on who you think is being brainwashed, and how that is occurring?

You stated my sentiment on guns applied equally to nuclear weapons. I in no way mischaracterized what you said.

I suspect that I will see a ban on bump stocks before you see your uncompromising gun regulation demands met, but knock yourself out. I'll stick with my way. This was my point earlier. If you are going to suggest I cannot feel one way about guns and another about nuclear weapons it is a non-starter. I will not debate with someone who makes such outrageous, over-the-top assertions. And good luck taking that approach with a gun nut who has the 2nd Amendment to fall back on.

I'm sure that if you asked them just before they accidentally backed over their child with their car and killed them, that people would give up their cars right now. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll keep my guns. Yes, I think that was brought up earlier in the thread.

I guess we quit trying. What's your point? That I shouldn't feel that way? You sound like you have given up and simply want to complain about the sorry state of the world rather than do something.

I suspect Raider wasn't implying the 10 yr olds had control of the guns and ammo like they do their play things. My son 'owned' some power tools at a young age but he didn't have access to them unsupervised until he was mature enough and trained enough to use them safely.

I like my guns and I want to keep them. I shouldn't have to give them up because some Rambo-wannabe can't control his testosterone. We should be able to find a compromise that allows me my guns while limiting risk to the public. On the other hand, who really gives a shit if I can't shoot at pieces of paper and tin cans on the weekend? I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives. I like to think that I'm not such a dick that I wouldn't give up my guns to save a kid's life. My big concern is not a slippery slope, it is that I fear we won't make any progress for meaningful reform if people won't take the time to understand those they are in opposition to, and who continue to use inflammatory, emotional, generalized and misinformed statements. Too often we hear people say "ban assault weapons" with no real thought or consensus on what that means exactly, or people scream "2nd Amendment!" as if that is supposed to mean any regulation is an infringement of their rights. I was 'accused' once on this site of being 'practical', and I think that is an apt description. I think everyone can agree on two things: The 2nd Amendment is here to stay for now, and no kids should die from firearms. So let's find things that a majority on both sides can get behind that recognize those two truths (e.g. Gun owner must have a secure location for their guns; Universal background checks....) and attack those issue in a unified manner. Save the really contentious issues for later and quit spinning our wheels with them. Let's get SOMETHING done that will save some lives, and build on that.

Hunters are generally allowed three shells in their shotgun when hunting fowl. It is a compromise between the difficulty of hitting a fast moving target, and conservation of the resource (fowl). That is why I said limiting a shotgun to one shell would be a difficult argument; it would eliminate a well thought out regulation that all parties agreed to and seems to work well.

I agree 100% with everything you say here, and would love to see a ban on bump stocks and large magazines (among other things), and a slew of regulations on everything from mandatory firearm training, to gun security requirements such as gun safes. I am very happy to admonish either side of the debate when they use arguments that cause a breakdown in meaningful communication and negotiation. The thing is, there are not many gun rights people here for me to admonish. Please don't consider me part of the 'gun lobby', unless you consider the gun lobby to be people who think there is a place in this country for reasonable use of firearms that does not put undo risk on the public.