Bo-Sox
I think you missed my point.
I asked whether you would be encouraging children in your care to purchase/use a gun, will you encourage your children to buy a gun?
At some stage the gun-toting culture will change, I'm pretty sure of that.
It happened with cigarettes, with gus-gazzler cars, it will happen with taxes on the rich, people and attitudes will change from generation to generation.
I was wondering whether teenagers in the USA are ready to give up the gun or maybe it could take another 20, 30, 40, 50 years.

Ghug is simply a narrow minded fool again, and wrong.

I hate wiki as a source, but here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun

First 4 paragraphs telling me about a gun...and I still can't see where it's sole intended purpose is to kill. It is a device, no different than a knife. I didn't read beyond paragraph 4 because I was bored...

So your next line of attack will be "but the gun was originally designed to kill..." As was, I will argue, the first knife.

Shall we ban knives, becuase their purpose is to kill? They are primarily used to slice flesh open, be it that delicious cow I love to eat, or the flesh of my spouse should I decide to go on a killing rampage and start in my home.

"Intended purpose" is not inherent to the object...it is defined by the user.

Hmmm...here ghug...suck on this and give us your wisdom: From the Bible itself: "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, .." EEE GADS!! The Bible itself tells us it is a weapon, as it compares itself to a SWORD, which, I can make the argument is absolutely a killing weapon, more-so than a fire-arm. Therefore, we truly need to ban the Bible...RIGHT?

Were I to take the time, it would be very easy to prove that it is words themselves that are the most dangerous weapons of all. Through words we can crush the soul of the weak-minded and bring them under subjugation and cause them to act against their conscience, and for that matter, even against their self-interests.

Words cause man to kill other men...we call it war, but what it war but government regulated murder and mayhem, right? Usually conducted over property rights and greed.

Words, it can be argued...will be argued by many...are the reason this evil person commited all these murders...words are the things that made him feel alienated, words are the things that glorified that mass murderers he emulated....words are the things that were used to teach him how to use a firearm,...hell, words are the things that were used to teach one man after another, to pass the knowledge of firearms from one generation to the next such that some peasant ina factory somewhere could manufacture that gun and ship it to the evil soul about which such furor has errupted.

So if you want to stop murder, if you want to save just one more life...shut the fuck up.

So

BAN LANGUAGE! SAVE THE WORLD!!

I feared this debate would get messy, we are now getting quotes from the Bible.
Krellin did the debate have to get this ugly ......

"A gun is a weapon designed to discharge a projectile."
"A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings"
From your wikipedia article and its first link. Can you read?

"Shall we ban knives, becuase their purpose is to kill? They are primarily used to slice flesh open, be it that delicious cow I love to eat, or the flesh of my spouse should I decide to go on a killing rampage and start in my home."
I'm a vegetarian, and I use knives all of the time. The need to cut things is a common one in all parts of life. Can you say the same about the need to project a piece of metal at high speeds into something?

"Hmmm...here ghug...suck on this and give us your wisdom: From the Bible itself: "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, .." EEE GADS!! The Bible itself tells us it is a weapon, as it compares itself to a SWORD, which, I can make the argument is absolutely a killing weapon, more-so than a fire-arm. Therefore, we truly need to ban the Bible...RIGHT?"
I really don't know where to start with this, it is an awful argument. Last time I checked, saying that something is sharp does not equate to saying that something is a weapon, but even ignoring that, words are powerful in an entirely different way. Anything that says "the pen is mightier than the sword" or any variation thereupon is saying that there are simpler and calmer ways of solving problems than mindless violence.

What you're missing here is that I agree with you that this man's mental illness and lack of treatment and witnessing of media glorification and everything else are terrible, but this wouldn't have been nearly as devastating if he hadn't had access to the powerful killing machines that he did.

@F4 - You say American.movies are all like that stating.in simplistic terms that no American movies are comedies or kids films or what not and implying that only American.movies are that way. Big holiday box office movies: Skyfall - fits the exact description you give. Problem.is it is British. OOPS! Other big holiday movies of years past - The Santa Clause, E.T., numerous romantic.comedies all made in the US. OOPS!

I suggest yoi reevaluate your analysis as it leaks.worse than a submarine with screendoors.

Nigee. I think Iread there is more gun owners today than there was in 1960 % wise. I will see if Ican find that article when Iget home

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png

Stressed, I've linked this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/) to you about three times now. Have you bothered to read it?

How much do you guys want to bet that this kid was on SSRI medication? From what I have read thus far, he is described as "deeply troubled." Further, it appears that the existing gun laws worked, to an extents, as he was twice rejected while trying to purchase guns. The guns that were used in the shooting were allegedly owned and registered to his mother.

Almost to a man these whack jobs are on SSRI's and under intense psychiatric care. The nut from Colorado for sure was whacked out of his mind. One would think with the number of guns in the US that this sort of thing would happen far more frequently. But, it doesn't because the VAST majority of gun owners are responsible. It is the deadly cocktail of SSRI drugs and guns that is the overriding issue, and the one that nobody seems to want to talk about.

Stressed
Tell me this, will your young child be a gun owner when they grow up?
Does the society you live in necessitate armed lethal force at some stage?
What will you teach them about guns? Are they nice or nasty?

To be fair if I was a criminal in the States and knew that a house has some quality weaponry I think I would target the house for that reason, but then would I need to as it seems that arms are quite readily available without going to all that trouble.....

SSRIs? All i know about them indicates they are great for depression, but as far as i know Personality and Behaviour disorders are more likely diagnosis for this kind of behaviour - what is the recommended treatment?

I know SSRIs can cause huge mood swings, but my understanding is that they are much better than previous generations of anti-depressants. (though they may be over-prescribed.)

MichiganMan
Do you have any children/grand-children?
What is a good age to train them up on gun use?
Would you be proud to buy them their first gun?
When would you encourage them to use that gun?

I'm not sure that you can call people responsible gun owners just because they are not shooting somebody, maybe they just haven't found the right victim......
The fact that millions of gun owners have not resorted to armed conflict or violence against another human may point to the fact that they don't actually need them, does that sound fair??

@MIchigan, you've said that several times now. There is definitely a possibility that he was on SSRIs, and that the altered mental state they caused contributed to the shooting, but the fact remains that gun laws clearly didn't work. He was able to easily get his hands on a legally obtained gun despite even the government understanding that he shouldn't be allowed to carry one.

@Draug, I am not referring comedies or other romantic movies from the US of A, like little house on the prairie. You are right, maybe I had to be more specific....
But most series and movies fit the description I made. I do not recognize myself in the fact that I live in a submarine with screen doors. For your joke it would be more realistic to use port holes instead of screen doors....

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

read through this website and you'll get a pretty good picture of what kind of havoc SSRI's are causing in the world today.

@ghug, the laws worked as intended -- they kept a mentally unstable person from legally obtaining a firearm. The fact that his mother had legally obtained firearms and was irresponsible enough to allow her mentally unstable son to get his hands upon them is tragic. By taking his mother's guns, he was breaking the law, and therefore, the guns that he used were NOT legally obtained -- it analogous to a kid stealing booze from his parents. Again, the law worked EXACTLY as intended.

@nigee, I am a parent. I am not sure when I would begin my child's gun education, a lot depends upon the child's level of maturity. However, I will say that, in general, sooner is better than later. I never thought about whether or not I would be "proud" to buy my child her first gun, to be honest. My stance is that guns are tools, albeit dangerous ones. I think that children need to be taught that dangerous tools are to be respected, and treated with extreme care. But, they are still just tools, and they have a purpose. Again, so much depends upon the maturity level of the child. The one thing I know for certain is that making them a "mystery" can create dangerous situations. Kids a curious, and if you let them be curious, while educating them, there is less chance of accidents.

That's the point, the laws worked, but failed to accomplish the intended purpose because they were inadequate.

No, they failed because of his mother's negligence. We have laws prohibiting people under 21 from obtaining alcohol, and yet underage people do actually get their hands upon booze all the time. Kids under 16 (in most states) aren't allowed to operate a motor vehicle, yet we all know that kids get a hold of their parent's cars and joy ride. Cars cause FAR MORE fatalities, and yet you're not advocating tougher "car laws." Now, throw alcohol into the drivers of cars (underage or not) and things get even worse.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Unless, that is, you're advocating a complete and total ban on ALL controlled substances and items. In which case, you're going to once again hand billions upon billions over to organized criminal cartels.

Again, cars have an actual purpose, guns only exist to be weapons. His mother's negligence was strictly legal under current gun laws, whereas any parental negligence with regards to cars or alcohol is not.

I'm done with this unless someone has something new to say. At this point I'm just repeating myself to a bunch of people who have already made up their minds and don't care what I have to say.

Being a weapon isn't a purpose? I promise you if a 15 year old, unlicensed kid takes his parent's keys, kills someone while driving, after stealing booze from their liquor cabinet, they're going to be held LEGALLY liable. Your arguments are frankly shallow, and don't really address the reality of the situation.

Cars have a purpose *other than killing and injuring people* and thus there is a reason for their existence in our society. The same can not be said for guns.

"I promise you if a 15 year old, unlicensed kid takes his parent's keys, kills someone while driving, after stealing booze from their liquor cabinet, they're going to be held LEGALLY liable." Not only is your pronoun usage unclear, but this point is entirely irrelevant. I said that parental negligence in regards to cars or alcohol is illegal, and thus both the parents and the children are held accountable. Try reading what I say and then responding clearly.

Before you admonish me for being unclear, why don't YOU try to convey your thoughts clearly.

Self-defense isn't a worthy purpose? Hunting wild game isn't a worthy purpose? Target shooting isn't a worthy purpose?

I agree that cars, as a conveyance, seemingly have a greater purpose than guns, they're a fairly new invention -- in relation to firearms -- and cause FAR MORE fatalities than guns. Further, cars pollute the environment, maybe we should ban them as well.

"Before you admonish me for being unclear, why don't YOU try to convey your thoughts clearly."
Do you have a problem with the clarity of something I said, or are you just saying that to draw attention away to the meaningless point you just tried to make?

"Self-defense isn't a worthy purpose?"
There are nonlethal methods of self defense, and generally self-defense weapons just lead to escalation of methodology from the aggressors.

"Hunting wild game isn't a worthy purpose?"
Not since we domesticated animals 10,000 years ago.

"Target shooting isn't a worthy purpose?"
No.

"they're a fairly new invention -- in relation to firearms --" completely irrelevant.

The fact is that we are NOT discussing cars. If you would like to argue for the banning of cars, go and create your own thread. I'll happily agree with you. Otherwise, understand that you are comparing apples and oranges and focus instead on the issue at hand.

You said: "Again, cars have an actual purpose, guns only exist to be weapons"

To which I replied: "Being a weapon isn't a purpose?"

You then replied with an amended statement: "Cars have a purpose *other than killing and injuring people* and thus there is a reason for their existence in our society."

I was saying that your original statement was unclear, as evidenced by the fact that you felt the need amend it.

As to self defense, yes, there are non-lethal means of self-defense. But, when met with lethal force, why shouldn't the assailed be able to to respond in kind? Escalation of methodology from the aggressors? Ok, if you say so. Basically what you're advocating is victimhood. Which is your right to choose, but you should not have the right to make that decision for everyone else.

"I was saying that your original statement was unclear, as evidenced by the fact that you felt the need amend it."
You should have been more *clear* about that to which you were referring. I had already stated in this thread and others what I meant there, and was just briefly summing it up. Apologies if you were unable to comprehend.

"Which is your right to choose, but you should not have the right to make that decision for everyone else."
Of course I don't have the right to choose for everybody. I do have the right to argue for change though, unless you don't approve of free speech. The parents of those children didn't have the right to choose whether or not Adam Lanza could have a gun, and I personally think that that is wrong.

Of course I approve of free speech, and I respect your right to argue for change. However, your idea of "change" -- from what I've gathered from your statements in here -- involves infringing upon the rights of others to defend themselves and others from deadly force. As I said in the other thread, the right to self-defense has been codified for time immemorial.

I'm going to point out that you're ignoring all of my arguments. Please respond to them, even if just to concede.

People can defend with things other than guns. Sure, guns might be slightly "better" (more deadly) at it, but there are other options. I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill anyone else for a reason other than actual attempted murder, and the percentage of gun deaths and injuries that come from those situations is extremely low, so in that way it's not worth it. If self-defense were the only use for guns, you would be right, but it isn't so you are wrong.

For those of you that say guns are only for killing people, I invite you to my home for a month or two, free of charge, I pay the airfare, and will feed you.

Bears, coyotes, now red wolves, feral hogs (by the 1000s) Bobcats, and other interesting predators roam these mountains, and LOVE a nice meal of sheep from time to time, and in the case of bears and wolves, have taken a child or two in the past here.

I use that gun for protecting my livestock, a portion of MY income, and I also hunt quite a bit (and yes, I eat all I kill, and hang nothing on my wall), and even though I do not 'need' the meat, tehre are lots here in Appalachia who do need their guns for food, and they use it exactly for that.

So, the 'guns are only for killing people arguement' is 100% false and lame, and shows quite a bit of ignorance, and maybe even a touch of bigotry.

and ghug, at the end of the day, the 2nd amendment is still in place, and has been ruled on by the USSC more than once, and they agree with MM.

Nigee.. first off, cigarettes and gas guzzling cars are as prevalent as they've ever been. Saying they aren't is an outright lie - propaganda for the most part. Second of all, who are you arguing with? I don't want guns to be handed out like toys. Like Britain, you need to be licensed to get a gun. All I said was that I plan to get that license. How does that make me pro-gun? It **is** a constitutional right. It's written. It never says semi-automatic in that paragraph.