Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[waitforufo]

The first amendment means I'm free to call you an idiot for believing in the second, without you killing me.

And in my world belief is just an extension of religion.

 

You may believe you have the right to bear arms but how is that different to religion?

I have no problem with your first two sentences. Proves you can't make a logical argument, but I'm okay with that.

With regard to your third sentence, my right to bear arms ins guaranteed by the constitution. We have gone over this for hundreds of posts. Please pay attention.

 

 

But there are plenty of regulations and restrictions on the second amendment:

Assault weapons bans

High capacity magazine bans

Gun bans for domestic violence offenders

Permits required for concealed carry

Gun free school zones

Automatic weapons ban

Gun free zones in airports and public buildings

etc

 

So to say that any limit on second amendment rights is unconstitutional would seem to fly in the face of current legislature.

Yet to be challenged regulations.

 

Initially, courts held that literacy tests weren't necessarily unconstitutional. Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressed this sentiment, although it did overturn the "grandfather clause" which basically exempted caucasians from testing. However this was insufficient to prevent ethnic discrimination, which is why the Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned (literacy) tests in "covered jurisdictions" that were specific targets of the legislation.

 

Regardless I would recommend that the test and study material are available in all major languages.

Thank you. Great information. What would you have them study that is not provided with every firearm and easily found on the internet.

http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

[MonDie]

Thank you. Great information. What would you have them study that is not provided with every firearm and easily found on the internet.

http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

I'm guessing you know more than I regarding safe handling. It could also contain statistical information about how most accidents occur; circumstances that may trigger violence or suicidality in oneself or family; effective coping; and how to recognize psychological disturbances like mania, depression, psychosis, and dissociation.

Recognizing self-inflicted wounds (e.g. cuts on the non-dominant arm).

 

We could vary the material by locality, with a nice checkerboard pattern, and compare results to see what works.

[iNow]

Can psychological evaluation still work if the patient is motivated to feign sanity?

Effectiveness of this particular proposal may be limited in various ways, but it will be coupled (if done smartly and intelligently) with other approaches in parallel.

.

But there are plenty of regulations and restrictions on the second amendment:

Assault weapons bans

High capacity magazine bans

Gun bans for domestic violence offenders

Permits required for concealed carry

Gun free school zones

Automatic weapons ban

Gun free zones in airports and public buildings

etc

 

So to say that any limit on second amendment rights is unconstitutional would seem to fly in the face of current legislature.

And reality itself, a point I've been trying to drive home throughout this thread, but not as effectively as you've just done. Thanks.

[moth]

I get the impression that most people have no problem with legal restrictions on real world militia's (any well-armed mob).

Some people just have a problem with legal restrictions on their own imaginary militias.

[dimreepr]

I have no problem with your first two sentences. Proves you can't make a logical argument, but I'm okay with that.

With regard to your third sentence, my right to bear arms ins guaranteed by the constitution. We have gone over this for hundreds of posts. Please pay attention.

 

 

The problem is this isn’t a logical argument, it’s a compassionate one.

 

Compassion for the future fatalities and injuries against the childish/selfish demands to maintain a system that allows unfettered access to the cause of so much misery.

 

Any nation that views compassion as a threat will ultimately create the type of nation they fear the most.

[iNow]

With regard to biometric locks, I have never seen one for sale. <snip> So where are they? You might as well propose that people can only own phasors set permanently to stun.

Yes, you of course highlight here a fatal flaw in my position. Clearly, private companies would NEVER be able to scale up to meet an immediate market demand created by a government regulation. That's simply not how business works. Just. Would. Not. Happen. Good point. Really well argued. [/sarcasm]

 

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/biometric-gun-lock-has-fingerprint-scanner-140505.htm

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/sentinl-gun-lock/

 

It is my understanding that the primary group interested in effective biometric weapons locks are the police. The police don't want their weapons used against themselves or the public. The police represent one of the largest firearms markets world wide.

Right, so this just means the demand is EVEN HIGHER than I previously thought. Not sure why you think this helps your position given it seems instead only to help mine. Make it a requirement and you can bet that 10+ companies would have one on the market within 2-6 months.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmAv2Xm0VnA

Edited September 16, 2015 by iNow

[MonDie]

Will watch it.

 

Many computer components are using manufacturer-signed firmware with a special key set by the manufacturer. In theory you can't update the firmware -- and in this case, the biometric "password" -- without the manufacturer key, although hackers are always finding crafty work-arounds.

There's also forms of read-only memory that can't be rewritten, in which case they'll probably replace the authentication mechanism rather than waste the entire gun.

Edited September 16, 2015 by MonDie

[waitforufo]

Yes, you of course highlight here a fatal flaw in my position. Clearly, private companies would NEVER be able to scale up to meet an immediate market demand created by a government regulation. That's simply not how business works. Just. Would. Not. Happen. Good point. Really well argued. [/sarcasm]

 

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/biometric-gun-lock-has-fingerprint-scanner-140505.htm

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/sentinl-gun-lock/

 

Right, so this just means the demand is EVEN HIGHER than I previously thought. Not sure why you think this helps your position given it seems instead only to help mine. Make it a requirement and you can bet that 10+ companies would have one on the market within 2-6 months.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmAv2Xm0VnA

Forgive me. I misunderstood what you meant by biometric locks. I assumed incorrectly that you were referring to biometric safety mechanisms integrated into the firearm. So when you pull the trigger they wont shoot. It is the biometric safety that police have been looking for. Not the lock you show above.

I wonder if that lock will come with a warning like this one from Master Lock.

 

DO NOT USE THIS LOCK ON A LOADED GUN!

Attempts to use on a loaded gun may result in an

accidental discharge. A loaded gun must always be

regarded as dangerous. If the lock becomes damaged in

any way do not attempt to use on your firearm - refer to

guarantee information for replacement.

Before attempting to use, carefully read all of the following

instructions along with the firearms safety tips.

IMPORTANT: We do not guarantee that this product will

lock all firearms. It will block access to many guns when

properly attached. Some lever action rifles, firearms

without trigger guard surrounding the triggers, guns with

extra light or extra wide triggers or guns with trigger

shoes or extensions may not be able to be effectively

locked with this gun lock. NO GUN LOCK CAN OFFER

COMPLETE PROTECTION AGAINST THE

ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL MISUSE OF

FIREARMS. Keep guns unloaded and out of children's

reach. Master Lock Company is not responsible for

incidental or consequential damages.

Edited September 16, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

Forgive me. I misunderstood what you meant by biometric locks. I assumed incorrectly that you were referring to biometric safety mechanisms integrated into the firearm. So when you pull the trigger they wont shoot. It is the biometric safety that police have been looking for. Not the lock you show above.

I wonder if that lock will come with a warning like this one from Master Lock.

 

DO NOT USE THIS LOCK ON A LOADED GUN!

Attempts to use on a loaded gun may result in an

accidental discharge. A loaded gun must always be

regarded as dangerous. If the lock becomes damaged in

any way do not attempt to use on your firearm - refer to

guarantee information for replacement.

Before attempting to use, carefully read all of the following

instructions along with the firearms safety tips.

IMPORTANT: We do not guarantee that this product will

lock all firearms. It will block access to many guns when

properly attached. Some lever action rifles, firearms

without trigger guard surrounding the triggers, guns with

extra light or extra wide triggers or guns with trigger

shoes or extensions may not be able to be effectively

locked with this gun lock. NO GUN LOCK CAN OFFER

COMPLETE PROTECTION AGAINST THE

ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL MISUSE OF

FIREARMS. Keep guns unloaded and out of children's

reach. Master Lock Company is not responsible for

incidental or consequential damages.

OK, say it only works nine times out of ten.

If it reduces the toll to 2 kids a day would you consider that a failure?

[waitforufo]

OK, say it only works nine times out of ten.

If it reduces the toll to 2 kids a day would you consider that a failure?

For some they might be a feel good thing to do but do they really reduced deaths?

 

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-02-25/news/0002280626_1_committed-with-guns-accidental-gun-gun-locks

 

 

 

My recent research examining juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides for all 50 states from 1977 to 1996 found that safe-storage laws had no impact on either type of death. However, they did render law-abiding citizens less able to defend themselves against crime. The 15 states that adopted safe-storage laws during this period faced over 300 more murders and 3,860 more rapes per year. Burglaries also increased dramatically.

Here is an idea. How about mandatory firearms safety training in public schools to teach kids to avoid firearms and tell an adult. The NRA has a program.

 

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

[MonDie]

For some they might be a feel good thing to do but do they really reduced deaths?

 

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-02-25/news/0002280626_1_committed-with-guns-accidental-gun-gun-locks

 

 

Here is an idea. How about mandatory firearms safety training in public schools to teach kids to avoid firearms and tell an adult. The NRA has a program.

 

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

I found John Lott's research on ResearchGate, where it may or may not be peer-reviewed, but I can't find the journal it was published in. In fact I can't find any of his research on NIH.gov

 

Safe Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime

 

He previously published another conservative paper critizing the inverse abortion-crime link. It's in the Wiley Online Library.

 

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-Of-Wedlock Births

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

The majority of those who cling to the 2nd amendment are often those most critical of every other amendment, especially when it comes to terrorism or religion.

 

They maintain a position of "not even up for discussion", yet insist immigrants must learn to speak English, denounce their religion or impose their beliefs upon others (ie) gay marriage, abortion etc. (1st amendment), no burkas or hijab in public (1st amendment) searched without warrant (4th amendment), detained without speedy trial (6th amendment), denied process of law (5th amendment), tax revolt (16th amendment) To them, those are up for discussion, challenge, change. They expect other religions or races to repudiate bad actors, yet defend child mortality with archaic interpretations of law or ideology that have nothing to do with the actions of irresponsible gun owners or mentally deranged individuals.

 

Self centered hypocrites, to the egregious degree they'd willingly trade childhood mortality for two hundred year old frontier justice.

 

Not to mention the ridiculous "Why should you be worried if you have nothing to hide" attitude of the Patriot Act and the NSA's policies.

 

Those screaming the loudest about threats from abroad claim the government is not doing enough to "keep them safe", yet take every opportunity to derail any discussion toward reducing real deaths of real children, who are real citizens. It's entitlement of the highest order, yet when it comes to any other entitlement they'll deride welfare as enabling, reproductive rights as murder, immigrants as criminals or heath care as one step away from gulag imprisonment.

 

Hanging a gun on nails above one's door for easy access is not freedom. It's imprisonment in one's own home. It's living life in paranoia, fear, aggression and very often manifested by indoctrination or hatred towards another group. I cannot count the times I've heard "I'll blow that n-----'s head off if they try to break in here." from gun toting racists. Don't tell me they don't exist because they do, in great numbers.

 

Most illegal guns were once legal. Likewise, knock off imported guns get paid for with US dollars. Like anything else, refuse to pay then the item goes off the market. Fall over yourselves to buy weapons, they'll produce more and the problem only increases.

 

More guns, more death. Period.

[Acme]

Gun locks that fit in the trigger guard like the Master 90 shown above are a poor choice. The padlock that came with my gun has a long shank that goes through the receiver and down the magazine shaft. In a locked condition the gun can't even be loaded. As I noted earlier, my gun also has an internal lock which renders it unusable even if it is loaded and a round chambered. Also as I noted earlier, this feature is required by law in some states and I think a federal law of the same kind is a good idea. Granted this only secures new guns, but it's a step in the direction of sensibility.

 

Having any lock on a gun with the expectation that you can access it [quickly] when needed is a fool's illusion. If your aim is to have a gun for protection then it needs to be on your person, and even then it's no guarantee you'll get to use it at all, let alone effectively. If the gun is not on your person it should be secured in such a way that no one can get it or use it without considerable trouble, if at all.

[waitforufo]

The majority of those who cling to the 2nd amendment are often those most critical of every other amendment, especially when it comes to terrorism or religion.

 

They maintain a position of "not even up for discussion", yet insist immigrants must learn to speak English, denounce their religion or impose their beliefs upon others (ie) gay marriage, abortion etc. (1st amendment), no burkas or hijab in public (1st amendment) searched without warrant (4th amendment), detained without speedy trial (6th amendment), denied process of law (5th amendment), tax revolt (16th amendment) To them, those are up for discussion, challenge, change. They expect other religions or races to repudiate bad actors, yet defend child mortality with archaic interpretations of law or ideology that have nothing to do with the actions of irresponsible gun owners or mentally deranged individuals.

 

Self centered hypocrites, to the egregious degree they'd willingly trade childhood mortality for two hundred year old frontier justice.

 

Not to mention the ridiculous "Why should you be worried if you have nothing to hide" attitude of the Patriot Act and the NSA's policies.

 

Those screaming the loudest about threats from abroad claim the government is not doing enough to "keep them safe", yet take every opportunity to derail any discussion toward reducing real deaths of real children, who are real citizens. It's entitlement of the highest order, yet when it comes to any other entitlement they'll deride welfare as enabling, reproductive rights as murder, immigrants as criminals or heath care as one step away from gulag imprisonment.

 

Hanging a gun on nails above one's door for easy access is not freedom. It's imprisonment in one's own home. It's living life in paranoia, fear, aggression and very often manifested by indoctrination or hatred towards another group. I cannot count the times I've heard "I'll blow that n-----'s head off if they try to break in here." from gun toting racists. Don't tell me they don't exist because they do, in great numbers.

 

Most illegal guns were once legal. Likewise, knock off imported guns get paid for with US dollars. Like anything else, refuse to pay then the item goes off the market. Fall over yourselves to buy weapons, they'll produce more and the problem only increases.

 

More guns, more death. Period.

Feel better now?

Gun locks that fit in the trigger guard like the Master 90 shown above are a poor choice. The padlock that came with my gun has a long shank that goes through the receiver and down the magazine shaft. In a locked condition the gun can't even be loaded. As I noted earlier, my gun also has an internal lock which renders it unusable even if it is loaded and a round chambered. Also as I noted earlier, this feature is required by law in some states and I think a federal law of the same kind is a good idea. Granted this only secures new guns, but it's a step in the direction of sensibility.

 

Having any lock on a gun with the expectation that you can access it [quickly] when needed is a fool's illusion. If your aim is to have a gun for protection then it needs to be on your person, and even then it's no guarantee you'll get to use it at all, let alone effectively. If the gun is not on your person it should be secured in such a way that no one can get it or use it without considerable trouble, if at all.

If a gun is to be used of self defense, a right recognized by the Supreme Court, it should be ready to use. Which means loaded. You know, for times when the police stop doing their job because they don't want to be the next national media pariah. So the gun locks you mention require the gun to be unloaded which diminishes there self defense effectiveness. The problem with trigger locks like the Identilock show above is that the lock touches or is near the trigger. Not a good idea if the gun is loaded. A lock on the gun is a better idea but likely requires a key which can be lost or unavailable at the time of need.

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Feel better now?

 

My health and demeanor are not at issue. However I'll thank you for demonstrating you'd rather dismiss or belittle others than debate issues objectively.

 

Actually, you've done well to show that your interpretation of the Constitution and intransigence to proactive actions are the underlying reasons why kids die. It's not the illegal immigrants or the terrorists kids need to worry about. It's the likes of radical gun advocates with chips on their shoulders who refuse to even address the issue beyond self interest or ideology and nothing more, by hiding behind a warped interpretation of an archaic law. Much the same way radicalized fundamentalists pervert their interpretation of the bible, q'ran or statutes in law to push their agendas upon others with indifference, violence and even death.

 

That's no broad statement pulled out of thin air either. Gun advocates turn a blind eye that statistically, the USA has the highest gun related death rate than anywhere else in the world, supported by hundreds if not thousands of credible scientists, statisticians and agencies around the planet.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls

[MonDie]

It didn't have to end like this...

 

 

I found two studies on pubmed regarding storage and mortality. The one on suicide is free to read.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9315767

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763337/

 

One more.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15701912

Edited September 17, 2015 by MonDie

[waitforufo]

I took another look at DC v. Heller.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

 

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. <snip>

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

 

Sorry people, no trigger locks. I seems simple to assume that would also apply to gun safes.

 

My health and demeanor are not at issue. However I'll thank you for demonstrating you'd rather dismiss or belittle others than debate issues objectively.

 

Actually, you've done well to show that your interpretation of the Constitution and intransigence to proactive actions are the underlying reasons why kids die. It's not the illegal immigrants or the terrorists kids need to worry about. It's the likes of radical gun advocates with chips on their shoulders who refuse to even address the issue beyond self interest or ideology and nothing more, by hiding behind a warped interpretation of an archaic law. Much the same way radicalized fundamentalists pervert their interpretation of the bible, q'ran or statutes in law to push their agendas upon others with indifference, violence and even death.

 

That's no broad statement pulled out of thin air either. Gun advocates turn a blind eye that statistically, the USA has the highest gun related death rate than anywhere else in the world, supported by hundreds if not thousands of credible scientists, statisticians and agencies around the planet.

You are a latecomer to the party, but your comments have all been covered. I live in a free state ruled by law. In the main I have simply been pointing out the law. The US Constitution protects my natural rights. One of which is the right to keep and bear arms. Spew your vitriol, all you like. I have the law on my side.

Edited September 16, 2015 by waitforufo

[Acme]

It didn't have to end like this...

...

One more.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15701912

From that one:

CONCLUSIONS:

 

The 4 practices of keeping a gun locked, unloaded, storing ammunition locked, and in a separate location are each associated with a protective effect and suggest a feasible strategy to reduce these types of injuries in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored.

Thumbs up.

I took another look at DC v. Heller.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

 

Sorry people, no trigger locks. I seems simple to assume that would also apply to gun safes.

No; that does not follow. IOW, it's a logical fallacy.

 

You are a latecomer to the party, but your comments have all been covered. I live in a free state ruled by law. In the main I have simply been pointing out the law. The US Constitution protects my natural rights. One of which is the right to keep and bear arms. Spew your vitriol, all you like. I have the law on my side.

What has also been covered is that laws are amendable and many of us have given reasonable arguments as to why many of the laws governing guns should be amended. Edited September 17, 2015 by Acme

[MonDie]

Here is a free-to-read one pertaining to the "only the criminals will have guns" argument.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730562/

Effects of Maryland's law banning Saturday night special handguns on crime guns

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

I have the law on my side.

 

Unless your the leader or member of a "well regulated militia" with legitimate standing, everything you've stated is ridiculous and meaningless.

 

Why don't you just man up and say your perception of guns, gun ownership and gun laws trump the lives and liberties of our kids instead of hiding behind this militia nonsense.

 

There are no militias. There are only gun nuts pretending to be. They are neither "well-regulated" nor wholly law abiding. Cliven Bundy was mentioned, as if he's something to be revered or respected example to uphold the law, when in fact they're lawless, self serving and outright dangerous to anyone outside their realm. They co-opted public land for their own selfish purposes, refused to pay taxes and threatened authority with violence and retribution. Only an idiot would view them as "well regulated".

 

"Well regulated" requires rigorous government involvement, not the absence of it as gun advocates and republicans would have it. That level of hypocrisy fails the argument before it even begins.

 

Meanwhile, how many kids died since my last post. Probably one or two, but hey... who cares? I do, that's who. A couple posters have proven in spades, they don't. What's worse, most often for reasons that have nothing to do with issue itself.

 

Every school shooting a boon for gun manufacturers clambering to stock up for heavy sales before the proverbially imagined "liberals" threaten to "take their guns" even though after hundreds of mass shootings and death, nobody has actually stepped up to amend the amendments. Proof positive, gun advocates are not rational insomuch as over reactionary and underhanded in their viewpoint.

[MonDie]

 

"Well regulated" requires rigorous government involvement, not the absence of it as gun advocates and republicans would have it. That level of hypocrisy fails the argument before it even begins.

 

Your posts mostly stink, but this is a great point.

[waitforufo]

 

Unless your the leader or member of a "well regulated militia" with legitimate standing, everything you've stated is ridiculous and meaningless.

 

Why don't you just man up and say your perception of guns, gun ownership and gun laws trump the lives and liberties of our kids instead of hiding behind this militia nonsense.

 

There are no militias. There are only gun nuts pretending to be. They are neither "well-regulated" nor wholly law abiding. Cliven Bundy was mentioned, as if he's something to be revered or respected example to uphold the law, when in fact they're lawless, self serving and outright dangerous to anyone outside their realm. They co-opted public land for their own selfish purposes, refused to pay taxes and threatened authority with violence and retribution. Only an idiot would view them as "well regulated".

 

"Well regulated" requires rigorous government involvement, not the absence of it as gun advocates and republicans would have it. That level of hypocrisy fails the argument before it even begins.

 

Meanwhile, how many kids died since my last post. Probably one or two, but hey... who cares? I do, that's who. A couple posters have proven in spades, they don't. What's worse, most often for reasons that have nothing to do with issue itself.

 

Every school shooting a boon for gun manufacturers clambering to stock up for heavy sales before the proverbially imagined "liberals" threaten to "take their guns" even though after hundreds of mass shootings and death, nobody has actually stepped up to amend the amendments. Proof positive, gun advocates are not rational insomuch as over reactionary and underhanded in their viewpoint.

This is getting rather tiresome, but all i'm doing is explaining to you the US constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court. You may not like the US Constitution, or the rulings of the Supreme Court, but that really does not matter. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Your opinion may also be that the US Constitution and the current modern rulings of the Supreme Court don't make any logical sense, but again that doesn't matter either. You see there is no requirement that it make logical sense. What matters is what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court rules. You have to live with that just like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis does.

 

I think maybe your forgetting that the United States was founded by revolutionaries. People that picked up there own guns and went to war with one of the worlds greatest powers. They weren't cowardly loser wimps like Che Guevara. They were winners that tipped over the worlds order based on the principle of natural human rights. Personally I think we are all better off for it. While I'm sure you think I a bad person, I'm happy that our founders were smart enough to remember what made it all possible, armed citizens willing to tell there government to drop dead, and then making them dead. I'm also happy that the Supreme Court, with it's recent rulings, affirmed the founders judgement. I'm glad to see the system set up by the founders continues to function properly.

[Acme]

This is getting rather tiresome, but all i'm doing is explaining to you the US constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court. ...

In fact that is not all you are doing. For lack of a better term, I'd call your posting in this thread 'trolling'.

[waitforufo]

In fact that is not all you are doing. For lack of a better term, I'd call your posting in this thread 'trolling'.

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it wrong, or trolling. If all you want is a bunch of people agreeing with you, then you are on the wrong forum.

[iNow]

You may not like the US Constitution, or the rulings of the Supreme Court, but that really does not matter. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Your opinion may also be that the US Constitution and the current modern rulings of the Supreme Court don't make any logical sense, but again that doesn't matter either. You see there is no requirement that it make logical sense. What matters is what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court rules. You have to live with that just like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis does.

You are, of course, quite correct. I agree with you completely. Your point is valid, logical, and accurate. The challenge, though, is that we know some regulation and restriction is acceptable. We know that the situation can be improved. We know that there is a problem that must be addressed.

 

Unfortunately, we have otherwise intelligent people like yourself standing in the way of addressing it. We have a whole cabal of people who would rather argue on ideological abstractions and mental masturbations and unrealistic perceptions of the world around us than to argue that some deaths can and very much should be avoided, especially those of adolescents that are the direct result of unregulated firearms.

 

I would love to go shooting with you someday. I'd love to share a beer and some whiskey someday. I'd also love if you would become an ally in this understandable desire to reduce needless gun death while in parallel giving deference and protection of the liberties I suspect we equally cherish.

 

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it wrong, or trolling. If all you want is a bunch of people agreeing with you, then you are on the wrong forum.

 

Indeed. IMO, you are again here entirely correct. Edited September 17, 2015 by iNow