******************************

oops. My bad.

And Chris - I'm still LOL at you "ticked off squirrel".... that's great.

@mld-woody said:

Polite because being shitty or violent to everyone around you will be a short lived endeavor. I could deal with that. But again I don't fear guns at all and try not to be cunty to people in my day to day existence.

@calfoxwc said:

I was referring to constitutional carry (concealed carry without a permit so long as you can legally own a firearm). Ex: Alaska, Vermont, Arizona

No, these accidental gun deaths are not the purpose of a gun, I realize that. But it was designed, at its heart, to harm others.

WSS

Sure, I guess it is my opinion that more guns is not a solution to our violence problem.

I'm also not calling to take away the guns from Cals farm, or the ones he walks around with on it, FYI.

Pools are designed to drown people?

Muslims? Well you guys are just too dangerous but you are free to choose whatever religion the government deems acceptable. So now we still have freedom of religion. Goodnight my dear subjects.

Tune in tomorrow for more of my decrees tailored to make this a better world. Its for your own good.

WSS

@diehardbrownsfan said:

They're all gone now. Hunted out of existence by poachers looking for werewolf rugs to adorn their front rooms and witch doctors who believe werewolf blood is capable of curing cancer and making you more virile.

@gftchris said:

I saw a film about an American werewolf in London?

"The type of person who's going to go through the process of getting a concealed-carry permit is not the kind of person you have to worry about," he says. "They're law-abiding citizens who have a lot to lose if they make a mistake."

I'm inclined to agree. The trouble is, when something is widely available, it's a lot easier for the 'wrong' people to get their hands on it. For example, I suspect there's an age restriction on in weed in Colorado? But my guess (it's just a guess, of course) is that it's now a lot easier for kids to get their hands on weed than it has been previously.

So, we have three basic threats that need to be addressed:

1) Animal attacks

2) People attacks in the wilderness

3) People attacks in built up areas - ie, killing sprees in cinemas etc.

Clearly, I'm not in the best position to talk about animal attacks. I grew up in the country but we were mostly surrounded by cows and horses. So I ask you people better informed - is there a non-lethal way to deal with/deter generic animals? Clearly, trying to fend off a bear with a knife isn't going to cut it, but what about things like tazers, 'bear-spray' (though that sounds like you need to get quite close) or a very loud foghorn? Just spitballing, I really have no idea. Flare guns?

I'm very much of the opinion still that no guns is ideal, but not necessarily workable. So, starting with the assumption of no lethal guns, what could you carry to stop an animal attack, or a person attack? If there's absolutely no feasible solution, then you'd have to consider allowing people to carry guns, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Of course, then you'd have to start thinking about gun safety and the kind of things already discussed in this topic.

Swimming pools are designed to drown people. @@

Here is a very good, honest article about the issue:

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-debate-price-armed-america-more-dangerous-america-143503185.html

Oh, and Logic, btw, it isn't "more states are ".... it's literally every single state in the Unitied States has ccw now.

The last hold out state was Illinois. Which is weird.... I didn't think Hawaii had that...

B. So you are against taking away rights, merely constraining the ones you don't agree with?

WSS

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Wow, so much content. You add so much to the board. Good job...

@westside-steve said:

They do?

Also, I am not talking about removing peoples rights exactly. It is more about limiting the extent of them, which is already a thing. You cant yell fire in a crowded theater and claim freedom of speech. I am not trying to take away everyones guns. But at the same time I am trying to limit them because they arent a swimming pool or a car, they are weapons meant to injure or kill others. I do not believe the right to bear arms means the right to own whatever weapon you want, with the ability to take it wherever you want, while making it completely easy to get. Making the process to own a gun more thorough is not removing any rights. Limiting the types of firearms that can be owned do not limit any rights. Keeping them out of some public places do not limit rights.

If the purpose of the right to bear arms was so the people could protect themselves against a tyrannical govt, that is completely out of date. No amount of amateur marksmen are going to stop the military. The founding fathers had no idea what innovations the future would bring. Like I have said before, I dont believe the constitution is some holy, infallible document that has all of the answers and can not be changed.

I just think it is counter-intuitive to widen the spread of guns in an attempt to lower violence.

@westside-steve said:

I think we all know the answer to that .........

But seriously do you think then that society is improved by less and less rights? That is if the right to bear arms is not necessarily positive as you state?

WSS

@mld-woody said:

I hate that the word 'liberal' is attached to a group of people and ideas that focus on restricting things. It seems counter intuitive.

More states are going towards 'constitutional carry' (concealed carry without a permit so long as you can legally own a handgun). I think there is starting to be more backlash against politicians and people for gun control. I am sure it will swing back around and we will have more useless legislation (Clinton Assault Weapon Ban) but it goes back and forth.

Once the flood gates finally open for gay marriage, there will be no swinging back towards restricting gay rights. Which I am completely happy with.

They are for hunting. And self defense against animals, or other people also with a deadly weapon.

they are also used for signaling. Go look it up - three shots means "emergency help, I'm here".

guns are also for sport - target shooting. Every single state in the United States now has ccw laws allowing it.

Guess why that is?

You go drive some night across some 30 miles of lonely highway with nothing but woods.

When some sickos drive by, you tell them to leave you alone because the law says so,

and because they are not allowed to have guns.

But only do it in your imagination, or you could go missing forever. Now imagine you had a gun

and they back off, and drive way down the road as fast as they can.

Which outcome suits you?

Or go camping in a national forest and have a grizzly come after you. Would you like

a stick or a gun to defend yourself?

Sure, you'll choose the stick. I don't really care, but you gun control freaks need to grow up

and learn - maybe you don't drive, or camp, or go out after dark, or go hiking in your own woods,

but a whole lot of the rest of us do.

And "less guns in public places" REALLY? Freakin REALLY ? Kids keep getting murdered with guns

in GUN FREE ZONES. With no defense, it only takes one sicko to break the law and the sicko goes

on a deadly rampage.

Get it through that ignorant space - sickoes (sickos?) DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. GUN CONTROL

only works with LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

You lib kids need learn that your way should stay your way, and get the hell out of the rest of America's ways.

And the fight is for freedom. Guaranteed by our 2nd Amendment. You hate guns because you don't have

or want them.

Libs always try to force others to do only what the libs condone.

You can teach a kid to swim, but hypothermia

can kill the best swimmers. Severe cramps can kill the best swimmers. But you don't care about

kids who die, you just want to latch onto any political jab at those who have different interests

that yours.

You can't seriously misunderstand the approach to solving two different problems, (education about swimming and guns),

and then say the liberal glory utopia struggle is the same with gay marriage and gun control.

If anyone has a gun in their house, it should be required to have proper training for anyone in the house. It should also be in a secure place.

It seems like the comparison that wants to be made here is in the response to these two situations, drownings and accidental shootings. But I do not believe the situations themselves are comparable.

(yes, you can teach a kid to swim and they could still drown, but here teaching them to swim reduces the chances of a negative consequence much more).

Look, I am not trying to ban guns. That would never happen. No matter whether I think we would be better off or not, that isnt happening any time soon. I am for stricter gun control, less guns in public places, etc etc. And yes, obviously increased mental healthcare to help prevent these issues.

I just do not see the great god given right in fighting to protect a man made machine meant to kill other men. Yes, we have something about bearing arms in the constitution, but I do not consider that the end all be all really. I mean, it is there now, so it is valid. But we shouldn't base all of our public policy on documents over a century old. Times change. The founding fathers had no clue about cars, the internet, or how powerful guns would become. It is meant to be amended, a living document that changes over time.

I am never going to be super pro gun. I believe it is a very money driven stance. At the same time I am not going to try to ban all guns. If anything I would guess, over time, the public opinion is going to sway to more gun control. Like gay marriage worked its way in to the public. It will just take awhile. It is just an opinion though. I do not know how many young people are that passionate about it. As we grow older our fiscal views may become more conservative, but idk about social ones. More liberal views will just replace them.