GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Midwest Spy]

I have no problem with Six or Maggot or Jim or HarleyGuy having guns in their home for self-defense or hunting.

I have a problem with people who look at the Massacre at the elementary school and say, 'Fuck you. We're not changing anything.'

I understand what you're saying. I've read the thread and am not one who is confused in thinking that you ever suggested a full ban on private citizens owning guns.

As for your problem, I've read the posts and have only intepreted one as saying, "Fuck you. We're not changing anything." (I responded to that one.)

The suggestion that much better security and possibly arming teachers rather than restricting guns themselves is also reasonable. It's a valid point that criminally minded and violently-obsessed individuals are gonna still be driven to get guns no matter what, so those who are vulnerable to spree killings need to be proactively prepared to defend themselves.

Could banning assault-type firearms help too? Maybe, imo, to the extent that it could reduce the amount of fatalities for those spree killers who would only choose a gun as a weapon and who only give themselves a certain amount of time to hit as many targets as possible and then stop. But, that would matter only if the killer hadn't gotten their hands on an older assault-type rifle post-ban, of which there are plenty floating around.

I also understand the rationale that limiting new ownership of certain types of guns would make legitimate gun owners feel outmatched by criminals using illegal means to acquire higher gun power on the black market.

I don't think any of those suggestions and opinions signify a "go fuck yourselves" ideology.

Hair, to me gun control and addressing mental health issues are two separate issues.

I've had at least 3 members in here during this dabate basically say, 'No one's taking my guns. It's my right. Go fuck yourself.' (my interpretation).

I feel as though I've presented my thoughts in a very rational way. Not slung any mud (unless I've been hit by some) and have sincerely asked for an answer to a legitimate question, 'What's the need for semi-automatic weapons in our society?'

You attempted (above) to address it and I thank you. You basically said it's 'the idea that a home-owner will want to have them because they want to be as well-armed as criminals entering their home.'

I'm not going to diminish your opinion, but I will respectfully disagree.

As I stated earlier, these 'spree-killers' are different from hardened criminals. Usually loners, outcasts, mentally unstable, perhaps living in the basement with parents, or very isolated.

I don't believe they'll have the ability (at least not most) to use illegal means to obtain their weapons.

This is what I hope gun-owners and supporters take from this argument:

People advocating a ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are not OUT to take regular firearms from reasonable, responsible people.

We're trying to ensure that spree-killing with incredibly powerful, semi-automatic, high-capacity weapons becomes as hard as humanly possible to occur again.