Pragmatism. We know that there are members who view the right to bear arms as a natural/god given right and we know there are members who want a ban on all privately owned arms and there are people who have differing opinions in between. What I want to know from the two extremes, (or near extremes) is what will make you change your mind?

I suspect that if the government started stealing children from their beds in the dead of night that gun-control proponents would start wanting to own guns, and I imagine that if a whole generation of our kids were wiped out by gun wielding loons that even the staunchest pro-gun lobbyist would want stricter control. What I want to know is where are your own limits, when do we have to shelve our beliefs for a more pragmatic policy?

"I suspect that if the government started stealing children from their beds in the dead of night "

The government already does that.

When the statistics start to show that crime is higher in areas with more guns then areas without guns, and no I don't mean the homicide rate.

When those beliefs infringe of the inherent rights of others labelled as equal to you in society. Unfortunately, that line isn't so cut and dry.

"if a whole generation of our kids were wiped out by gun wielding loons that even the staunchest pro-gun lobbyist would want stricter control"

If you mean a single family generation, I can count a number of times where that has happened.

The specific right being (debatably) infringed upon by pro-gun advocates is the right to life obviously.

Nothing will ever make me want to ban all guns. Ever. Even though the 2nd amedment has nothing to do with Hunting and Sportsmanship, that is part of my culture and childhood, and of millions of Americans.

Also, as Fasces said, when the Stats even remotely prove it out.

@y2k - No, the right to life is not being infringed on. That would require an assumption that every person fighting for the right to bear arms is intent upon taking another person's life and that is simply not true. I don't own a gun. I don't want to. But I see no reason to ban my neighbors from having them when they are perfectly responsible citizens and I take comfort in knowing that they will be there for me should someone try shit in our neighborhood.

I fail to see the distinction between this thread and a gun control debate.
That said, I tend to be pretty far to the left on this topic. I fail to see firearms as necessary, and believe that, even in the hands of trained responsible gunowners, they're more than 10 times as likely to be used in domestic violence than in home defense.

That said, just because I don't see their necessity doesn't mean I would deny others the right to have them. I believe in magazine limits, federal licensing and registration, and mandatory annual safety tests/inspections for licensees.

What would change my mind about those requirements? A refusal of a US regime to follow constitutionally-established electoral succession, combined with suspension of habeas corpus and a directed campaign of violence by the government against the citizenry.

It's been weeks now since the little kids were slaughtered in their classroom and anyway why should anyone tell you what to do if you're an American, Kings of the World. If anyone tells you what to do, just invade them.
Guns are good for jobs and good for war and hunting and shit ..... that's a win win win win situation. God Bless America.

C'mon, Nigee. Be reasonable, at least with those of us Americans who mostly agree with you.

@Draug: you're right, the right to life here is not being infringed on. Its importance is definitely downgraded by your viewpoint though. Many like you believe that the right of a responsible citizen to own *overpowered* weapons outweighs the right to live free from their presence. I don't.

Maniac,

I wanna know when you're going to stop asking questions?!? :))

@hecks - "even in the hands of trained responsible gunowners, they're more than 10 times as likely to be used in domestic violence than in home defense."

Citation please? I call bullshit on this unless you have evidence to support this claim.

"Maniac,

I wanna know when you're going to stop asking questions?!? :)) "

When we smarten up and stop fighting each other on cue.

Y2k,

Show me where that right of which you speak is enumerated or codified please. Anti-gun folk always speak about rights that just flat out don't do not exist.

@Draugnar,

I can show you stats on how much more often firearms are used for domestic violence than home defense, but those stats are not broken down by amount of training, nor by my own arbitrary definition of "responsible", which is why, if you'll note, I prefaced that statement with "I believe".

@y2k - Who said anything about overpowered weapons. I believe in reasonable gun control. I do not believe we need full automatic weapons in our homes. I do not believe we need hollow point or full metal jacket rounds in our homes. I do believe anyone who does not have a criminal record and is not found to be mentally deficient should be forbidden from owning a simple hand gun or shotgun or even a rifle. I believe we could put limits on the magazine size of semi automatics and that we should have licensing regulations and insurance regulations. So you see, you don't knwo what I believe and are assuming I believe in carte blanche weaponry when I believe nothing of the sort.

The whole point is that the right doesn't really exist in US law right now in the way I describe it, but I think it should, as do many.

Ok Draug, so you sound more moderate than other pro-gun advocates. I also agree that handguns, rifles, and shotguns are cool for law-abiding citizens to own.

@hecks - so show me those stats that you do have. I doubt they even reach the 10 fold level to which you claim responsible ownership would still result in. And if the source of the stats doesn't include official police reports where the homeowner scared off the would be intruder, then they are incomplete. Likewise, those stats won't include the number of houses that were cased but when the would be intruder saw a gun case through the window, decided to skip that house and move onto the next. You can't prove a negative so therefore you can't prove that the mere presence of a gun on the premises didn't discourage a would be intruder.

but many more in the US believe you are wrong,. and really, only the people who reside in teh US have a say. There is a way to get rid of the 2nd amendment, and the process should start soon if you want to get rid of them, since it takes a long time to go thru the entire process.

@Draug,
If memory serves, it was actually 18-fold, not 10-fold, but I'll find the stats and get back to you. Also, I said more likely to be *used in* domestic violence than in home defense. Would you prefer that I said *fired in* domestic violence than in home defense? If so, I'm willing to amend my statement, as I don't think that diminishes its efficacy.

@ Draug,
"so show me those stats that you do have. I doubt they even reach the 10 fold level to which you claim responsible ownership would still result in."

My apologies, it's 12-fold, not 10-fold.

Saltzman LE, Mercy JA, O'Carroll PW, Rosenberg ML, Rhodes PH. Weapon
involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 1992;267(22):3043-3047.

(And, if you're interested, here's the document from which I borrowed that citation. http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf)

12 fold as of now. You said 10 fold assuming responsible owners only. Now, I accept that you said you believe, but is it not reasonable to expect a much greater percentage reduction than that when guns are more strictly monitored and registered without an outright ban on all weapons? I fully believe the Brady Bill assault weapon ban should be reinstituted. I also believe there is more that can and shoudl be done without it violating the 2nd amendment. But I also believe that doing those things would have a significant impact on the stats, not just a simple reduction of your numbers to 10 to 1.

@Draug
I'm not arguing for a ban on all weapons. If you read above, you'll note that I said although I don't accept their necessity, I would not argue for an outright ban on all firearms. I have said I would look for a reduction in magazine capacity, federal registration of weapons and licensing of owners, and mandatory safety tests (refresher courses, essentially, with demonstrated proficiency). But not an outright ban. On this, it sounds like we may agree.

Mapu asked us not to turn this into a gun rights debate, it took us 45 minutes and 7 posts to turn it into a gun debate thread

Liberals assume conservatives want uzi machine guns publically available, and conservatives assume liberals want to take away pocket knives.