I'm coming out of the closet for Milo Yiannopoulos....

[Joe in PNG]

This is very true. Many people who mistakenly claim that firearms solely exist for hunting, recreation, and maybe self-defense are deficient in their knowledge of history. It is remarkable how many of the wonderful liberal democratic nations now used to be autocratic, militarily ruled states. It is also remarkable how many peaceful democratic nations can quickly become autocratic, militarily ruled states. The idea that it cannot happen in the US is normalcy bias. Furthermore, pointing to how the armed US is democratic and relatively peaceful doesn't mean that an unarmed US would be the same.

Ponder how just many countries in the past century that either became dictatorships, or were conquered by dictatorships, or were run as dictatorships by colonial powers.

[DeathRay]

But wait, I thought you agreed that the second amendment was a bulwark against tyranny? How is it going to work with controls on ammo?

As long as the cops and army are similarly limited, I see no problem. England and Australia seem to be pretty peaceful and democratic.

[Peally]

Serious question: why exactly are you here?

[nalesq]

If what you are saying is that the violent use of weapons could be curbed by a focus on other issues, I would be more tahn happy for Republicans (if we want to divvy up blame based on party) to put forward a program that dealt with those underlying symptoms in a convincing way, showing how this would curb gun crimes and especially mass shootings. So far, I have heard nothing.

"Ordinary" violent crime committed with firearms and the one-off lone nut job mass murder spree are totally different issues. Others have already pointed out that DOJ stats show the former has actually diminished steadily and significantly in the last 20 years or so, just as firearms in the hands of private citizens has increased significantly, and the vast majority of the types of firearms used in these crimes are not what even gun prohibitionists would categorize as "assault weapons." It's therefore disingenuous to continue to use "ordinary" violent crime as an example of Why We Need To Do Something Dramatic About Guns.

And incidentally, the most obvious way to reduce ordinary violent crime seems to be aggressive policing and stiff penalties for convicted offenders, particularly with repeat customers, neither policies of which seem to be in vogue anymore with the current zeitgeist.

[Eyesquared]

As long as the cops and army are similarly limited, I see no problem. England and Australia seem to be pretty peaceful and democratic.

Except the cops and army in England and Australia are not similarly limited to their civilian populace. If they were, they would not be very good at anything (some cops here would argue that by and large, their cops aren't). In the end you are simply hoping that democracy and peace prevail, and are throwing away the deterrent nature of firearms ownership.

[Joe in PNG]

However, in 1940-41, England was just a few miles from not being democratic, and was certainly not peaceful. The homeguard had to drill with broomsticks, as there weren't enough guns to go around.
In 1942, Australia likewise was pretty dang close to no longer being peaceful and democratic. Lots of Diggers were pretty much tossed right into the hell of the Kokoda Treck with almost no training at all.
And let's not forget all the peaceful and democratic countries who just got in the way of Germany twice within the past century.

[Chris Rhines]

Too much ink has been spilled in the debate over "regulation" for me to add something new. The fact remains that, regulated or not, guns are so prolific that anyone who wants one for purposes of mischief can get one easily. That is why my argument is focused on the ammunition, which cannot be obtained or replenished so easily, if we put our minds to it.

This would do nothing to inconvenience rampage killers (who are generally planning to die at the end of their rampage, and hence have no issues with spending money like water) or professional criminals (who, as a rule, don't do protracted gunfights.)

It would do a good job of chilling the competitors, trainers, and high-volume recreational shooters (such as myself) who make up the backbone of the gun culture, with the added bonus of making it more expensive to bring new shooters into the sport.

I hope that this demonstrates why I have no interest in having a "conversation" with you or your allies. You just can't seem to be honest about what you want, or why you want it.

[shane45]

Your "drunk driver" comparison puts the focus on the wrong element. It is not the alcohol that kills, it is the vehicle. We then must ask: what use the vehicle? The vehicle exists to move people. Since it serves a purpose we cannot live without, we do not eliminate the vehicle, we try to reduce the opportunities for it to be misused. When we try (and fail) to outlaw alcohol, we then come to terms with the fact that where there is alcohol, there will be car accidents.

Now take guns: What use guns? To kill people. We know that to try and outlaw guns would be a failed endeavor, so again, we must find a way to allow guns to be owned for their intended purpose of killing people at the right times while reducing their misuse to the fewest possible opportunities.

I would argue that our "gun culture" is structured for the maximum use of guns to kill people at the wrong times. That is the reason for this debate.

This entirely ignores those saved by firearms. Additionally there is a reason that the media went silent after Obama had the CDC investigate the number of deaths from "assault weapons". It was because the evidence was that the percentage was so insignificantly small it didn't support any negative position. Suicide accounts for roughly half of all gun deaths. Do you think that statistic would change if a suicide pill was readily available? I DO!

And Im sorry but although many politicians and votors think they decide 2nd amendment rights and in fact do get away with illegally infringing on said rights at times, this is incorrect. One only needs to look at states whose laws are overturned because of the incorporation of the second to see this in action.

[jc000]

Serious question: why exactly are you here?

Because he / she / it keeps being fed?

I guess some people enjoy the debate. I certainly wouldn't want to see an increase in people coming here with no interest in guns other than enjoying the attention that their ill-informed mental masturbation brings them.

It's really a waste to engage with people like this. I'd say the lines have been pretty well drawn in the sand at this point. Our ideas will be strong enough to continue to live on, or they will not.

I have no interest in discussing "ammunition taxes" or anything of that nature. My right to defend myself is not up for debate.

[DeathRay]

However, in 1940-41, England was just a few miles from not being democratic, and was certainly not peaceful. The homeguard had to drill with broomsticks, as there weren't enough guns to go around.

Broomsticks or boomsticks... neither matters much against tanks!

Hey, it's been a great chat, but it is now officially eating into my day. Thank you all for your courteous discourse. Let's pick this up after the next mega-shooting in the Fall!