Again....But it's never the guns!

[Ryantology]

When a guy does exactly the same thing in China on the exact same day, using a knife rather than a gun, 22 people were wounded.

...and when a guy does the same thing in Oklahoma on the exact same day, using a common farming ammonium nitrate fertilizer rather than using a gun or a knife, 168 people were killed and another 800 were wounded....

If some crazed lunatic is determined to kill a massive amount of people, they're going to find a way, (at their local 'Tractor Supply' store), with or without the use of guns.

This argument is mindboggling. If a person wants to inflict mass casualties, a gun is not his only option. Therefore, guns should not be regulated?

[Creed of Heresy]

Of COURSE guns should be regulated, but not completely made unavailable for purchase for those who are responsible with them and have clear backgrounds. I can stop a guy with a gun if I have a gun myself, but not if I only have, say, a knife and this jackhole got his gun off the streets, ya know?

[Ryantology]

Sure, but that is not the argument he is making.

I have to say, though, you may stop a guy with a gun if you have one. You may also make things a great deal worse if you are not properly trained, which is why I would demand extensive, certified and periodically reinforced training to be mandatory for all gun owners of every type. Enact far stricter penalties for possession of illegal or unregistered firearms. Limit the number one may possess to something reasonable. Make it so that a conviction of any violent crime renders one forever ineligible to possess firearms, perhaps barring a legal appeal in special circumstances. The outcry from the gun lobby is that guns should not be made illegal for law-abiding citizens. I agree, and nothing I proposed above infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

[Kousbroek]

It doesn't matter. You said it was a stupid law to write and that civilians never should have had guns. If the government has guns, so should we. A people should always be able to protect itself from tyranny. The framers of the Constitution knew that better than anyone.

.... Lost case ...

[Kousbroek]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/...oting.html

Yep, really great idea to let people run around with guns ....

[orogenicman]

The gorilla in the room:

Despite the 2nd amendment, I have never believed that owning a gun is a natural right. As for the 2nd amendment, it was written when the most advanced weapon commonly available was a Pennsylvania long rifle, a one shot musket that typically takes between thirty seconds and a minute to load each round. I seriously doubt that our founders ever intended for or imagined that the average American would be allowed to own a Bushmaster assault rifle with a 30 round clip, and many other large caliber repeating guns. Banning hand guns alone could potentially cut the gun murder rate in half. Ban assault rifles and semi-automatics as well. Place restrictions on the number of guns an individual can own. Keep the rest if you truly feel the need to own a gun. But hey, that's just my own damned opinion.

[A Theist]

...and when a guy does the same thing in Oklahoma on the exact same day, using a common farming ammonium nitrate fertilizer rather than using a gun or a knife, 168 people were killed and another 800 were wounded....

If some crazed lunatic is determined to kill a massive amount of people, they're going to find a way, (at their local 'Tractor Supply' store), with or without the use of guns.

This argument is mindboggling. If a person wants to inflict mass casualties, a gun is not his only option. Therefore, guns should not be regulated?

Yeah,...a sarcastic response to the goof ball argument you were making for more gun regulation..."When a guy does exactly the same thing in China on the exact same day, using a knife rather than a gun, 22 people were wounded."...

Ohio's Gun and CCW Laws:

See Ohio's 'Carry Conceal Manual' (PDF)...http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-ccw-...ion-center

Ohio Gun and CCW Laws...http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Ohio-Gun-Laws

Ohio Constitution: 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

[TaraJo]

The government also has tanks and nuclear weapons. Should we have those, too?

What makes a tank dangerous, Tara? The guns. Furthermore, people can own tanks and do. And . . . the government is not supposed to have nuclear weapons. Try again.

Who says the government isn't supposed to have nuclear weapons? Is there some nuclear arms treaty I don't now about?

And anyway, to follow your logic it doesn't really matter if government is supposed to have nuclear weapons, it matters that the government actually does have nuclear weapons. Your example seemes to be stating that whatever force the government uses, we should be able to match. The government is able to use nuclear weapons; should we be able to match that?

The guns they had then were primitave muskets, not semi-automatic assault rifles. It's worth considering what the framers would have said if such destructive weapons existed then.

Oh, yes, primitive weapons that could set fire to towns and destroy them, tear through the sides of buildings and kill people just easily as your assault rifles. Pfft. Seriously, if you think a gun is any more destructive than gas, swords, cannons, etc., you are yet another victim of history lesson failure. The Civil War. Read about it.

Bullets start fires? Not likely, especially the primative pellets they used back then. Yes, you can do just as much damage with a gun as you can witha cannon which is why I also don't think the public needs to own military artillary. Would you argue that the military should be able to own artillary cannons? You can actually do more damage with a sword than a gun, largely because swords don't run out of bullets, but you don't see these mass shootings happening with swords (and if we did, I'd be calling on us to put regulations in place to regulate sword use).

The major technological advances between the revolutionary war and the civil war made guns even more destructive. They used rifles, not muskets. There's a huge difference between the two; after you fire with a musket, you had to turn the musket upside down, pour powder in the top, put another pellet in and stuff them. That took so long to do that it actually would have been faster to reload with a bow and arrow.

And if we're going to consider the civil war, let's take another look at things. The war was bloody and deadly because of a lack of hygenic practices. You got shot in the arm, they responded by cutting the arm off... and then they used the same saw, without cleaning it off, to cut the arm off the next guy. Scores after scores of people died from infection. While the guns were still dangerous, they still aren't nearly as destructive as the body count alone would indicate.

But if we're looking at the constitution, let's take a better look at the second amendment, shall we?

Haha. Yes, let's do.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let me put that into plain English. "Because militia is necessary to the security of this country, the right to bear arms will remain indefinitely." It does not say it has to be for militia.

Kinda disingenious of you to specifically exclude the phrase that I emphasized, isn't it? I think that's an important phrase because I don't, and never have, believed that we should just take everyone's guns away; I do believe that they should be 'well regulated,' just like the constitution references. While taking guns away would be unconstitutional, regulating those guns is totally kosher.

[The Grand Nudger]

As for the 2nd amendment, it was written when the most advanced weapon commonly available was a Pennsylvania long rifle, a one shot musket that typically takes between thirty seconds and a minute to load each round. I seriously doubt that our founders ever intended for or imagined that the average American would be allowed to own a Bushmaster assault rifle with a 30 round clip, and many other large caliber repeating guns. Banning hand guns alone could potentially cut the gun murder rate in half. Ban assault rifles and semi-automatics as well. Place restrictions on the number of guns an individual can own. Keep the rest if you truly feel the need to own a gun. But hey, that's just my own damned opinion.

Seen this one alot, and, respectfully, I'm going to have to throw a wrench in it. That Pennsylvania rifle was the most lethal and horrible personal weapon ever conceived of at that point. They intended that. Now, whether or not it was a good idea at all would be a different story (and an area where you and I disagree, clearly) - but lets not imagine that our founders didn't write in an amendment that - if it were written today- would include belt fed tripod mounted 50 caliber machine guns with nightvision and thermal. They were the founders of a nation, not sages or unfailingly wise oracles. There's a very strong current of attempting (from both sides) to paint ones own position as the position of our founders - as if that would lend our own positions any more weight in the here and now-. Well, it won't. What was or wasn't a good idea back then may or may not be a good idea today, and who did or did not agree with something then may or may not have had a very good reason for doing so. Perhaps they felt that John Q should have a gun because they had very recently been rebels, insurgents. Just throwing that our there.

Now, as for banning handguns. I don't think they should be banned, but we clearly need to -enforce the existing legislation regarding their procurement-. That's right......there's existing legislation. It's actually not bad, except that it really isn't enforced. Banning assault rifles and semi-autos? Why? Your own graph says "handgun" not "ak-47" or "semi-auto 22lr". Why place restrictions on the number of guns I can own? Am I more likely to commit a crime, or more likely to cause harm based on how many rifles there are in my cabinet? A restriction is already placed on the number of guns a convicted felon can own - precisely zero guns, btw. There are other federal gun laws in place, with regards to domestic violence - again zero, and a whole host of other conditions and situations....all being the sum total to the right of ownership of precisely zero guns -of any kind-. Folks...these laws already exist.....................

But while we're banning things, maybe we should ban optics? /sarcasm
We both have hobbies, and so long as I'm not shooting people, and you aren't spotting them and calculating my solution for me...neither of us needs the fed to ban our toys, rgr? Even if we were, why should our little urban sniper team lead to others toys being made illegal? People who commit crimes should have the weight of the law pressed on them, and those laws should be enforced (or why have them at all?). Simpy -enforcing- already existent laws might have the effect you desire, without the unpleasant side effect of criminalizing a law abiding citizens hobbies or freedom. Will enforcement of gun law eliminate gun crime, no, probably not. On the other hand, we're not really in the business of making it impossible to commit a crime (and this is what the idea of banning guns, or certain guns, amounts to), and there are very good reasons why we probably don't want to get into that business.

For humor, did you know that it's trivially easy to legally purchase a mortar? Easier than getting your hands on a handgun. Why don't we see more buildings getting shelled? Don't even get me started on illegally purchasing a mortar - or an rpg........

[orogenicman]

Seen this one alot, and, respectfully, I'm going to have to throw a wrench in it. That Pennsylvania rifle was the most lethal and horrible personal weapon ever conceived of at that point.

IF one was strong enough to wield it, and if the intended victim just stood there and didn't actually run away before one reloaded it. They were also very inaccurate, even at close range. But my point is that had they known that a gun cult (the NRA) would be spawned by their desire to protect our liberties, and that that gun cult would promote the notion of all 310 million people in this country owning a gun, and having access to some of the most lethal hand weapons ever made, and if they saw the modern statistics of gun-related deaths, I suspect that they would have reconsidered the wording of the 2nd amendment. That said, I realize that it is always a bit of a slippery slope to divine what the founders meant, or what they would do in our shoes. The fact remains that the numbers in my graph are undeniable, and so if we are to have any meaningful reduction in those numbers, it is my opinion that the only way that is going to happen is to enact and enforce strict gun laws in this country. And I believe that is only going to happen if the 2nd amendment is itself amended.