Done.

Done, had to start over once

Done

done

drwho, the important difference between these forms of government is not whether it is a powerful government. It matters who holds that power. If it is a government of the people, democracy, then there is a better chance of having a fair government.

I would suggest that this is a good reason to ensure that more citizens have access to vote and to get money out of politics. (Unless you don

The last line was supposed to say, in parenthesis, Unless you don't trust the people. In that case you probably don't like the concept of democracy.

Heads up (in case this isn't old news) but all the user names and passwords for this site have been leaked online. You should change your passwords and ensure they are not used elsewhere (as the leak will happen again as the passwords are stored in plain text

lk, there is an important difference between the causes of death you cited. The purpose of alcohol is to preserve food, to serve as a beverage (with good and bad effects to those who imbibe), and sometimes to sterilize for medical or health purposes. The purpose of a car is transportation. While both result in large numbers of deaths, that is not their purpose. And I suspect we agree that those who endanger others through use of alcohol and cars should be stopped when possible.

The purpose of a firearm is to kill. It can also be used in controlled circumstances as entertainment (a shooting range) or to hunt. The last one, hunting, does not require large rounds of ammunition or automatic firing (unless one is hunting a deer that is carrying).

Every gun owner I know supports banning large magazines and automatic weapons. The NRA has convinced its lackeys in the legislature to never vote against such bans. There seems to be a disconnect between real gun owners and the lobbyists for weapons manufacturers (known as the NRA).

two points Peng, first, automatic weapons are already banned. You cannot buy, legal on the market an automatice fire arm of any kind. period. second, "the purpose of firearms is to kill", that is incorrect by your following list of "purposes", the one you left off which is the most important IMO is 'defending and protecting your family, your homestead and your property".

IMO, there has yet to be ONE PERSON on this BOARD, address the issue which is at the heart of the matter in regard to mass killing events...that is nut jobs and more recently terrorist. Until someone can ensure a nut job is not going to show up in my neighborhood, I will keep my guns loaded. until someone can ensure my daughter will be safe going to a midnight movie in Erie Colo, then I will argue for nearly any method or means or laws to keep her safe. Here is what I KNOW, laws and law enforcement, legislative initiatives DO NOT ENSURE Safety OR protection. Can you show me this is not the case? No. YOu can argue something about "reasonable" safety, or "likely NOT to happen", but that, to me, is pablum. You are stating definitely that changing laws is the answer. That is absolutely wrong. Why? because it doesn't address the source of the problem and that is NOT the gun, the magazine size, the rapidity of the firing mechanism, the grain or weight....none of these are the issue...and you know that...the source of the problem is PEOPLE...NOT LAWS.

lk, the self defense argument is interesting. The efficacy is dubious.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/\nfirearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defens\ne-gun-use-2/

I am not interested in debating the non-issue here. And you know guns are NOT the issue. But, let me ask you rather than assuming you do. Waht is the CAUSE or the source of these events...guns or lunatics?

It is an simple mutually exclusive answer...one or the other.

lk, can you eliminate nut jobs? Of course not. No matter what side of this debate you are arguing, it is likely that you find some on the other side to be nut jobs. Those nut jobs would naturally disagree.

What has been shown, and Phil has discussed this, is that Australia has shown that reducing the number of guns results in a safer society.

He argued 100000 guns removed...out of 14,000,000!!!!!!!

that is your solution???

who turned in those guns...the nuts or law abiding citizens...

:)

It is not mutually exclusive. Lunatics can cause damage without guns or more damage with guns. Improving mental health care is a good start. Reducing guns is a good start. Doing both would be better.

ok, lets go with the reducing guns. I all gun sales were banned going forward, how many would be in circulation in the US?

if all...

lk, if sales are banned (not what I suggested) then there are zero guns in legal circulation. If you are asking how many guns are extant in the US then I think I've read that to be approximately a quarter of a billion.

What I am suggesting is a bit different. You brought up cars and deaths that result. To drive a car requires a license. Let's do something similar for guns. Safety courses and a couple of tests, theory (written) and practice (demonstration on a controlled range) ... kind of like cars.

And buyback programs. No one taking guns from those who legally own them. Giving people opportunities to reduce their armories.

Peng said: ...zero guns in legal circulation..." Hold on, banning sales does NOT mean there are zero guns in circulation, it means there are NO SALES. That means no sales and the existing supply in the U is approx 300,000,000. No what?

now what?

Try reading what I wrote again.

For a balanced discussion, see the first six minutes (roughly) of http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks\n-las-vegas-tragedy-trump-tillerson-tensions/

To drive a car does not REQUIRE a license. It requires a driver and a working vehicle. To drive a car legally requires a license.

Many DUI drivers do not have a license and yet still drive.

Are you suggesting that we should stop issuing driver licenses?

Here's an actual Iron Sudoku Post: Am slowly making progress through the archives, with only 1 April 2006 through 31 October 2015 left to complete (chuckle) ...

Peng said "try reading what I wrote again"...you wrote automatic weapons should be illegal - they are. you wrote . Reducing guns is a good start. Doing both would be better. Ok. there are 300,000,000 guns in the US today - let's say no more sales (sales are illegal) so 'reducing the number" is a 'start'...what's the number? What level are you good with? THEN, how will this impact the result you desire which is nut jobs with guns??? I would really like to have an answer for this...because I think it is dubious to connect the two.

There are 300,000,000 guns...is 150,000,000 a good start? How about cut it by a 2/3, so now automagically there are 100,000,000 guns. Now, the nut job population is approximately 1% of the pop so that means there are about 4,000,000 nuts, 1/2 are women so not the number is 2,000,000, 1/2 of those are harmless (they will hurt themselves only) so no you have 100,000,000 guns and 1,000,000 public threat nuts...is this the answer? :)

It's not the guns. Trust me. Anyone who is looking in this direction is afraid to look at the real problem. That's the truth. You are welcome to have the final word.

I will keep my gun & I WILL shoot nazis with it. Granted, these are not the same ones, but nazis nonetheless. They leveled my parents' places of birth, took away everything they owned & forced them into a 5 year mission, not to seek out new life & new civilization , but to learn how to kill, instead of being killed. Clearly, since I am here, my parents succeeded. And please don't call me a 'nut job' - there is a psychiatric definition now, it's called Transgenerational PTSD, mine is chronic & severe. Look it up, because most of us have this to some degree or other.

Thank you for making my point.

No problem, I agree with you.

helenkeller, I was not calling you or anyone else a 'nut job'. That wording I used to quote lk.

Slow for me. 18.

lk, I'm not suggesting that there is a magic number of guns that is okay. Perhaps there is but that would require studying and Congress forbade the CDC to continue looking at the data.

I threw out two ideas for discussion, obviously which you saw as easy target practice. But the fact remains that we have more murders of more than four people at a time than other countries. The fact remains that a huge number of my fellow veterans commit suicide and those who don't have access to guns are more likely to survive an attempted suicide. The fact, according to articles cited by the Harvard School of Public Health that I cited earlier, is that guns for home defense are more likely to be used to incite violence and not more likely to be effective in safeguarding one's home. The status quo is not good.

People don’t need guns to commit murder or suicide. The reason this discussion never ends is because there are people out there who think taking guns away will stop killing and it won’t.

Peng - no worries, I just wanted people to know that I was serious in what I said. I firmly believe there are some people who do not deserve free speech - like those guys that started

. . . WWII

Penguin, you talk a lot of sense and explain things well, particularly the purpose of guns - they are to kill. The impact of high powered weapons that the military use should never be in the hands of a civilian. They are not recreational, they are insanely powerful and deadly killing machines. International safety rules for guns cannot apply to them because of their range, power and uncontrollable fire.

Start

done

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstr\nact_id=1465114

Arguing that taking guns away will not stop killing is a canard. Of course it won't. Stopping killing entirely has never been the purpose of gun control. No one other than opponents of gun control say taking away guns will not stop killing. I have never heard a proponent of making guns harder to own say that it will stop killing. Humans kill. It is our nature. Making it more difficult for humans to kill each other or themselves is a public safety issue and should be treated as such.

The other argument I find ridiculous is knives kill people too. Are you going to make knives illegal? Well certain knives are illegal in some states. http://www.knifeup.com/knife-laws/

Also Nunchaka are illegal in some states. http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/n\nunchucks-and-the-law.html?version=2

What makes guns different? The misleading interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the NRA as a lobby arm for the Arms Industry.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstr\nact_id=1465114

Gun manufacturers have successfully lobbied to make them exempt from liability laws. They sell a known dangerous product, are allowed to sell a known dangerous product and cannot be sued if their dangerous product hurts someone. Sweet deal.

Tuco said, " Making it more difficult for humans to kill each other or themselves is a public safety issue and should be treated as such." OK, start with the big hitters: Tobacco and Alcohol

Many, many, many more people die from those two than guns.

Not to mention the untold billions of dollars in health care costs

If I hate anything, I literally detest cigarettes. I actually hate them

KnightTime. Alcohol and Tobacco are highly taxed, the tobacco industry had to pay billions in a settlement. Let the Gun Industry be regulated the same way.

No, - because the taxation is a sham

Of course it is.

After all the taxing and the settlements it is still the #1 killer in America, maybe the worlds

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282\n929.php

Comparing guns to tobacco and alchohol is like comparing driving a car to riding a bike. Dying by alchohol or tobacco takes years and you can quit either one. Being shot in the right spot is final.

So it only matters HOW a person dies, not IF they die?

But I will agree with you. Definitely less health care costs for a corpse than someone with COPD.

If a drunk hits me with his car, I die

We all die. Yes it matters how.

If a nut shoots me with a gun, I die. In both cases I am dead

Yet, NO ONE, but "religious" nut cases support prohibition

So we ramp up enforcement against drunk drivers and the rate of deaths by them decreases. Lets ramp up enforcement on illegal guns and make it harder to get them. Maybe the gun deaths will go down too.???

Lets make it more expensive to use tobacco and foster a culture where tobacco use is frowned upon and the use goes down. Maybe that would work for guns too?

Let's make the Gun Industry have to adhere to liability laws like any other manufacturer and/or have gun owners have to buy insurance like car owners have to buy insurance, home owners have to buy insurance, etc... At that point the insurance companies will make sure that it will be much safer for those who own a gun and those who do not.

Free market solution. I like it.

KnightTime your argument about tobacco and alcohol killing more people than those that are killed via guns is generally accepted. I believe it to be true. Unfortunately the agencies that gather and report these statistics do not report on this comparison. Because they are barred from gathering these numbers on gun deaths/injuries, health care costs by law. If they were not then we could reasonably compare say deaths by drowning to deaths by toddler deaths by gun, deaths by drunk drivers to deaths by abusive husbands using a gun, paraplegia caused by a faulty misfire of a defective firearm to paraplegia by other causes.

etc..

I see your point Tuco.

"...Lets ramp up enforcement on illegal guns..." Geeez, do you actually understand that the gun industry makes LEGAL guns??? INDIVIDUALS modify the lower to change the firing mech...wow!! Are you of the opinion gun mfg's are producing illegal weapons???? Seriously, that is a question.