Gun Control Debates

[stephen426]

I know that most anti-gun people will never be swayed, but I believe intelligent and respectful dialogue goes a long way. These debates always pop up after every horrific and senseless mass shooting. I know as responsible gun owners, we would love nothing more than to see an end to these tragedies, but at the same time, we do not want senseless legislation that would have no effect on crime while taking away our rights.

There was actually a pretty fair article written in the New York Times that was posted by a friend of a friend. Here is a link to the article:

Here was my reply to the post:

Thanks for the article Paul. It was actually pretty fairly written. Let's look at some of the suggestions and discuss them further. I'm going to use multiple replies so it is easier to see the links I am referring to. I want my sources available so you can determine whether or not they are biased or verifiable. The idea is to debate this intelligently and to figure out how to come up with ideas the make sense and are effective in actually reducing gun violence.

1. There are almost as many gun in the US as there are people. Only 6 states require some sort of registration.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/.../gu.../registration/

The only guns that are required to be registered federally are those covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which includes fully automatic weapons (machine guns), short barreled shotguns and rifles, and silencers. Those weapons must be registered with the BATF. Eight states actually have laws preventing the registration of firearms (other than NFA weapons).

So with that said, how would the government enforce gun registration? Most gun owners I know are staunchly against gun registration as it may be used for the purposes of gun confiscation at a later time.

That is where the car analogy falls short. Guns are much smaller than cars and are easily concealed. If your registration sticker is expired, you can get pulled over for it.

With a concealed weapon, no one will know you are armed unless applying aggressive stop and frisk tactics (which totally violates the 4th and 14th Amendment).

Also, the article stated that guns kill about as many people as cars. It later went on to clarify that roughly 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. There were approximately 3,500 deaths attributed to guns classified as other (just over 10%) that are probably attributed to accidental shootings. That makes me question what category the 996 fatal police shootings fall under (justifiable homicides)? It also showed that there were 589 deaths associated with self defense shootings (1.6%).

The article puts that figure right next to 456 deaths from mass shootings (1.2%), which makes the self defense look small. My issue with that is many self defense situations are deescalated without ever having to fire a shot. Also, how many self defense shootings do not result in death?

That is a lot to start on so I will work on the next part in a separate reply.

I had a busy weekend so he replied: Also the article never makes the argument that guns kill about as many people as guns do. I don't think you read the article above carefully. So there is nothing to debate here.

My reply was:
Sorry for the delayed response. The article compared guns to cars. Cars are registered and have license plates so that the owners can be held accountable. If you run a red light, blow through a toll, or speed, a traffic cam will take your picture and hold you accountable. If your car is stolen, it is registered so a run of the VIN number can easily show it was stolen and who the rightful owner is.

For a lot of the ideas proposed by the article to work, registration is key:

Background checks - All new guns are sold through FFLs (Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers). The 22% cited by the article deals with private transfers (either legal or illegal). This may be the "gun show loophole" or the illegal "black market" sale. The point is that background checks are unenforceable unless you can PROVE who owned it to begin with and REQUIRE transfer documentation to the new owner (which could go through a FFL).

As for background checks:
Virginia Tech - Seung-Hui Cho: Underwent court-ordered psychiatric evaluation yet passed the background check and the required 30 days wait period in between gun purchases
Sandy Hook - Adam Lanza: Killed his mother and stole the guns she legally owned
San Bernardino - Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik: Guns were legally transferred from a friend who bought them legally. This is despite California's very strict gun laws.
Pulse Night Club - Omar Mateen: Had a G License which is required for armed security guards
Mandalay Bay Hotel Las Vegas - Stephen Paddock: Purchased his guns legally and cleared NICS background checks multiple times.
First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs - Devin Kelley: Should NOT have passed federal background checks, but the US Air Force failed to report his crimes to the NICS and he bought his weapons legally

I could go on, but I think you get the point here.

Protection Orders - There is a section in the NICS form that asks if anyone has a protective order against you. If the answer is yes, the dealer MAY NOT sell you a gun. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics . That is already law.

Ban Under 21 (year old) - All of the shooters above, with the exception of Adam Lanza, were older than 21. People younger than 21 may only buy long arms (rifles and shotguns). I am for treating "assault rifles" (which have much more fire power) like handguns and raising the age to 21. I would also have no issues with requiring a "cooling period" on all guns (currently only required for handguns in most states). I don't believe it would have made a difference in any of the shootings listed above.

Safe Storage - Already a law, but pretty much unenforceable. Trigger locks are already required to be included with new gun purchases and some guns even have built in locks, but the use of safes and gun locks cannot be practically enforced. You can lock people up for failing to secure weapons from children AFTER the fact, but unless you are going from home to home (pretty much impossible without registration), it is not possible to enforce this law.

Straw Purchases - Already illegal. This is a question on the NICS form 4473, but it requires that the buyer/transferee answer honestly. Without registration, the original buyer can just claim they were buying it for themselves and then sell/transfer it to another person.

Ammunition Checks - Completely impractical and would not solve anything. Someone who is legally allowed to buy a gun would also legally be allowed to buy ammunition for that gun. If a criminal was able to obtain a gun illegally (through illegal transfer or theft), they could do the same for ammo. Ammo has no serial number and cannot be practically traced, even though law makers tried to create some kind of required tracking.

End Immunity (for Gun Manufacturers) - Completely unfair to gun makers since they cannot control how their products are used. How about suing car manufacturers for accidents since they can go over the speed limit? What about requiring breathalyzers in all cars? This has been suggested as a way to bankrupt gun manufacturers. What about the 350 million guns already here, many of which will last for many, many years if properly cared for?

Ban on Bump Stocks - Even the NRA is fine with this as it can make a semi-automatic firearm fire at nearly the same rate as automatic weapons. It is illegal to change a semi-automatic sear to a full-auto sear (making it fully automatic) so why allow bump stocks? Good luck finding them all and confiscating them though. Only the law abiding would turn them in.

Research Smart Guns - This doesn't resolve the problem of the 350 million guns already in the US, or the fact that the shooters above (with the exception of Adam Lanza) legally owned the guns and would have had the full ability to use them. Requiring a retrofit would cost billions of dollars and could not be done without affecting the reliability of the gun. Speaking of reliability, ask any officer if they would feel comfortable trusting their life on a device that required batteries and had to work ALL the time. Most quality guns are VERY reliable with good ammunition. Anything that would make them less reliable would face extreme resistance.

As for the increase in states that issue concealed weapons permits, statistics show that crime decreases. You may argue against those statistics, but concealed weapons holders must pass background checks and cannot pass if they have criminal backgrounds (assuming it is properly reported to the NICS. Criminals do not care about getting carry permits and unless the police have a right to illegally search or frisk anyone at random, guns will be carried illegally.

Let's circle back to gun registration. Without registration, most of the suggestions given by the author of the article are unenforceable. Gun registration would be met with extreme resistance since it could set up a gun grab. Even if law-abiding citizens did register guns, what about the criminals who are the ones committing the crimes? Would registration have stopped any of the shootings I listed?

Where does that leave us and how do we prevent more senseless tragedies without trashing the rights of law-abiding citizens. I am very open to discussion and debate, and honestly hope to never see another mass shooting. I know hoping won't do anything, so I am open to discussion.

[Longhorn1986]

Excellent, well thought out letter, Stephen!

[Skans]

While I disagree with some of what the OP says, particularly regarding bump stocks, rate of fire and cooling period comments, when I debate, I let people know that I've already drawn a bright red line in the sand. No more laws. We have enough laws. In fact, we have two that I would like to have repealed: the '89 import ban and the Hughes Amendment.

Every left-wing gun grabber that I've debated with repeats the mantra that they are taught "we are not for taking away anyone's guns, just for sensible gun laws", then immediately follow up with that they want Assault weapons banned, large capacity magazines outlawed and confiscated, etc.

I stand firm and don't give much to the Antis in the way of more laws. I switch the debate to show how Americans do love their guns and are willing to decimate a political party that tries to mess with our 2nd Amendment rights. I let the Antis with whom I am debating know that I am now a Single Issue voter and will only vote for someone who is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and gun owner's rights.

[BarryLee]

I generally try to limit my discussion to simply making sure people actually understand the law and how guns function. There is a lot of misinformation out there and sometimes simply giving people the facts can help.

[OzeanJaeger]

It's not just guns. I oppose taking any of our rights away. It's just that the guns are the ultimate check on government power, and if you take those away we only have two choices. Allow our rights to be stolen, or be murdered. The 2nd amendment is what gives us the third option...to fight. THAT is why it was written with stronger language than the other ten in the Bill of rights, with both a justification attached, and instead of "violated", or "abridged", they are not even allowed to pass a law "infringing" (meaning even at the fringes of the right) on our right to keep and bear arms.

We've already been betrayed by SCOTUS before most of us were born. It is up to us to regain the rights we've already lost, and it had been going our way. I won't give an inch, because they have ALWAYS tried to take a mile. MOLON LABE! Come and try to take them!

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

I generally try to limit my discussion to simply making sure people actually understand the law and how guns function. There is a lot of misinformation out there and sometimes simply giving people the facts can help.

This. I never try to debate people who "know" they're right about something -- it's a losing proposition, not least because their certainty comes out of emotional investment and wanting to believe there are easy answers. There's a good bit of research showing that fact-based arguments just make true believers dig in their heels.

I do, though, spend a fair amount of time talking with people in the middle, the ones who've been taught that guns are bad but haven't thought about it much. I never debate, but I do try to educate.

[ATN082268]

If the gun control topic comes up, I usually address it in three ways:

1. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the individual right to bear arms.

2. I ask how does owning a firearm interfere with your rights?

3. How does gun control policy "x" achieve specifically defined "y" result?

[rickyrick]

It’s pointless to even attempt these days. Might get you into some hot water.

[Louca]

I did not answer the poll, because in each choice a reason or comment is also given. Unless I can agree to everything a the poll choice, I can't vote for it.

I would have liked to see poll categories of: "Always", "Almost Always", "Sometimes", Almost Never", and "Never."

With those categories, I would have voted "Almost Never."

[rickyrick]

If you aren’t willing to have any compromises with the person that you are debating, then the debate was pointless from the beginning.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

If you aren’t willing to have any compromises with the person that you are debating, then the debate was pointless from the beginning.

True. That could be my number 4: O.K. the anti-gun side gets "x" and the pro-gun side gets what exactly?

[Aguila Blanca]

I answered "It depends" but, like Louca, if one of the choices had been "Almost never," that would have been my vote. Some people cannot be reasoned with, and there's nothing to be gained by attempting to hold a logical discourse with such people.

Rickyrick has a point ... sort of:

Originally Posted by Rickyrick

If you aren’t willing to have any compromises with the person that you are debating, then the debate was pointless from the beginning.

I say "sort of" because for almost fifty years (since the GCA of 1968) we (the pro-2A, pro-gun) side have been gradually giving ground to the anti-gun forces. We have conceded considerable ground to them, but in that time what have they conceded to us? NOTHING! Compromise entails each side being willing to give up something, in order to arrive at a "compromise" that both sides can agree to live with. In the gun control debate, the anti-gun side won't give up anything except to begin with an unreasonable demand and then temporarily settle for a slightly less unreasonable demand ... but they're never willing to stop there, which is what the spirit of true compromise is about. Instead, they regard each incremental victory as just that .. an increment, another step along their path toward their end game, which is the elimination of the Second Amendment and the end of private firearms ownership in the United States.

Remember Law Dog?

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.ru/2013/01/a-repost.html

[doofus47]

I think I'm starting to gravitate to a new tack on discussing gun control.
I think I'm going to ask "why does gun control matter?" The answer will probably be some flavor of "we will all be safer." My reply will then be some flavor of 'Well thusfar gun control in no country has made anyone 100% safer. Wouldn't you be better off buying a gun and training and carrying it? Then you would be safer than relying on not meeting an armed assailant while unarmed and helpless?"

In my mind we might have reached a tipping point where either blanket gun control restrictions becomes the norm in the HOPE of reducing violence OR we take defense back into our own hands recognizing that the probability of the average person being in a self-defense scenario is not large. If you can carpool to beat an oil embargo or save the planet from the buildup of carbon gases, then you can consider carrying a firearm to defend yourself/others in some type of dangerous situation.

Honestly, it's time to point out the similarities: if you think that riding a bike to work will reduce the carbon emissions of your city, fine. Without a doubt, it is true. If you can do this little bit, than you can also carry 1.5 lbs of equipment to defend yourself and others, if required. Take back your planet/take back your peace of mind: it should be all one mindset to me.

[TracerTesterman]

This was written after Sandy Hook, and is still the best Gun Control Article I've ever read.

This is the article I pass on to gun owners and any open minded moderates/democrats/or unknowing conservatives. Written by a famous author, who was a gun instructor, a 'Merchant of Death' (Owned a Gun Store that dealt with NFA guns), and fellow gun forum moderator.

I think it got several million hits at the time, and I've yet to see anything better or easier to read and understand.

An Opinion on Gun Control

[T. O'Heir]

"...as responsible gun owners..." Most of 'em will stop listening as soon as you say that. They're not interested in logic. Most of 'em think there should be one law for you and another, far less restrictive law, for them.
"...gun deaths..." That and "gun violence" are anti-firearm media hack invented terms. Both attribute life and sentience to an inanimate object.
"...3,500 deaths attributed to guns..." Ditto. Inanimate objects are incapable of doing anything.
"...Cars are registered and have license plates so that the owners can..." Pay taxes and get their property back in the event they become the victim of a crime. Firearms, also property, are registered, in some places, to assign blame on the owners for that property. The 'car analogy' is also a media hack invention.
A traffic cam cause you to get a ticket even if your car was stolen or you were not driving it.
"...preventing the registration of firearms..." What do you think all those ATF required forms do? They were able to know who had purchased a .223 calibre rifle when those criminals were shooting up the DC area in 2002, because of those forms. That's defacto registration required by unelected civil servants making law by regulation with no legislation.
"...how do we prevent more senseless tragedies..." WE are not responsible for causing or preventing anything.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Until we learn how to stop demonizing each other, nothing is going to change.

[Rangerrich99]

I have to admit, these days I have mostly given up on having this conversation with gun control people. Lately what I've begun to do is refer them to this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ceasefire

I haven't had a single one tell me they've seen it before, but 99% of them to date choose to ignore it, going back to the ban all guns mantra. Which is when I bow out of the conversation. Exactly one person researched Operation: Ceasefire and came back to me and was very positive about it. One. YMMV of course.

[kmw1954]

It all depends on who I'm talking with. If one wants to debate that is fine I can do that. If one just wants to talk talking points then I don't have time or patience. Sorry not going to argue with myself.

[JohnKSa]

It depends on the circumstances and on the person.

When I do, I typically don't take the common approaches because they're the ones that people have most likely heard and have answers for.

So I don't like to argue against the premise that the value added from gun ownership isn't worth the cost in innocent lives from the people who are murdered with guns ever year. Instead I point out that our society tolerates other far deadlier things that have no value at all beyond recreation and that cost many more lives each year than gun crimes do. Things like alcohol and tobacco. Why should I have to prove guns are useful before I can buy and use them when people are allowed to buy and use alcohol and tobacco even though they have no real utility at all and kill far more people each year than are murdered in gun crimes?

I don't like to argue about the value/uselessness of universal background checks in preventing crime or point out that they're unenforceable without registration. Instead I point out that the federal government shouldn't have any business regulating private transactions that don't cross state boundaries but that if individual states want to do so, that might be a different matter.

I don't like to talk about the use of firearms for self-defense or defense against tyranny because that makes anti-gunners' eyes glaze over. Instead I talk about why one person or group would try to disarm another person or group (there's only one reason--because they believe the group to be disarmed is a danger to themselves and/or others) and what that says about both groups and about how each group will view the other group as a result. It can be a real eye opener for an anti-gunner to realize that the policies they are espousing amount to treating the entire population like children, mental incompetents or criminals and how those who do own guns will obviously feel about such policies.

[44 AMP]

I commend you on the effort you obviously put into your post. It is pretty well thought out, however, you made some technical errors in terminology, and stated some opinions I disagree with. I'll cover them point by point, and explain where, and why I think you were wrong.

First, the first link you provided took me to this article, "What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer"

Is this the article you intended to link to? Because nothing in it mentions cars or some of the other points you mention in your post. Is it possible the link takes us to a different article than the one you intended??

(and, FYI, the linked article I saw is neither well balanced, nor accurate in my opinion)

alright, here we go...

The only guns that are required to be registered federally are those covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934,

True, but not fully accurate. ALL firearms are "registered" with the US govt by their manufacturers, BEFORE any sale, and in fact, before they are even fully finished. The receiver (the serial #'d part) is registered with the govt by the maker when they put the serial # on it. It is registered as either a handgun, rifle, shotgun, or "other". (the "other" category applies to recievers that are not assembled into firearms at the factory, and can be finished as either handguns or rifles) It is not an "end user /private owner" type of registration, but it is registration. Imported firearms or receivers are also registered with the Fed gov, by the importers.

Also, the article stated that guns kill about as many people as cars.

Again, nothing in the article the link too me to mentioned anything about this, so I wonder if we got "bait and switch" from the New York Times.

As for background checks:....I could go on, but I think you get the point here.

The point being that background checks do not, cannot, and will not stop anyone who's first crime is mass murder. EVEN IF the system worked PERFECTLY, it does not address, and cannot stop people who have not broken any laws until they start shooting people.

The trickiest part is those killers who had some kind of record in the system regarding mental issues. The issue here is the difference in perception between what people THINK the law does, and what it actually does. The law regarding mental illness and becoming a prohibited person barred from firearms ownership because of mental illness is quite clear.

Many people think the law bans people who are mentally ill from buying a gun. It does, BUT ONLY after they are adjudicated mentally incompetent, by a court, in a hearing where both sides get to present their cases. Doctors and mental health professionals may advise the court, but they don't get to make the decision, only the court does. SO, if a person is under some degree of care or treatment for "mental illness" it is NOT an automatic bar to firearms ownership.

It may not seem like this is the best idea, but the system is set up to protect our rights. Everyone's rights. "Committed for evaluation" does NOT meet the legal standard to deny anyone's rights. Until/unless there is evidence enough to go to a court and have them judge a person's mental condition under the law, and through due process, to determine if they are a prohibited person, they have ALL the rights the rest of us do. The system isn't perfect, but its the best one we have, with the least risk to the rights of the innocent.

Ban Under 21 (year old) - All of the shooters above, with the exception of Adam Lanza, were older than 21. People younger than 21 may only buy long arms (rifles and shotguns). I am for treating "assault rifles" (which have much more fire power) like handguns and raising the age to 21.

This one actually made me smile, because I would LOVE it if assault rifles were treated like handguns, with the only real restriction being 21 years old to buy.

And that is because of your error in terminology. You are correct, about the age limits in Federal law, 18 to buy a long gun, 21 to buy a handgun, from an FFL dealer. Some states have their own age limits about private purchases that apply as well. In some states an 18 year old can legally purchase a used handgun, in a private sale, providing all other legal requirements are met.

Now, back to your error in terminology, its the term "assault rifle". It's a very common error, because the anti gun people crafted their term "assault weapon" deliberately to confuse people.

Actual assault rifles (as defined by the shooting community and military experts) are legally machine guns under US law, and have been regulated under the NFA 34 since their creation. A little history is needed to understand the terms properly.

In the middle of WWII, some German weapons designers came up with a new concept, a rifle that used a cartridge less powerful than the standard infantry rifle round, but more powerful than the standard pistol round. This class of cartridge is known as an "intermediate" round, because it is in between the then standard rifle and pistol round for power.

And because the new round had less recoil than the full size round it could be controlled in full auto fire in a relatively light weight (compared to full size machine guns) rifle. The weapon was built to be "select fire", which means the shooter can select either safe, semi auto, or full auto, by means of a switch or button.

These are the defining features of the class, using an intermediate power round, and select fire. If it does BOTH of these, it is properly an assault rifle. If it doesn't do both, its not. A semi auto is NOT and cannot be an assault rifle, because it is semi auto, not select fire.

The term "assault rifle" is a direct translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr" This is the name Adolf Hitler gave the new design when he approved it in 1944. Gewehr is German for rifle, and Sturm is translated as "storm" either storm like a snowstorm, or storm in the military sense of storming or assaulting an objective. Other features of the weapon, such as detachable box magazine, straitline stock, separate pistol grip, etc., are common to many designs, but the defining features of an assault rifle are just the 2, intermediate cartridge and select fire.

Now, here's where the confusion sets in...
In the hysteria leading up to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, many terms were tried by the anti gunners and the media to describe the guns being used by some of the mass killers. The AK and the AR were the top of their hit list, because semi auto versions had been used in the murders.

The news called them "assault rifles" We said "no, they aren't they are semi auto only". Then the news began calling them "semi automatic assault rifles".

This proved to be too much of a mouthful to make an effective sound bite. Until one of them came up with the term "assault weapon". This term had several advantages for their arguments, because it was easily confused with assault rifle. They defined "assault weapon" in the 94 law. And the definition was any SEMIAUTOMATIC firearm (rifle, pistol, or shotgun) that had more than two of the features listed in the law. The listed features included pistol grips, detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding stocks, heat shields, bayonet lug, and some others.

NO assault rifles (not a single one) were covered under the Assault Weapons law, ONLY semi autos. But, since an assault weapon (as defined in the law) could be a rifle, people could, and do confuse a semi auto assault weapon that happens to be a rifle with the SELECT FIRE (legally a machine gun) assault rifle. Its a verbal trap deliberately crafted to confuse people, and it works really well until people understand that it is a trap.

On to other points...

The "cooling off" period is a name given to some states waiting period in order to buy a handgun. Its a very old PR "explanation" (going back well before 68 in some states) of why a waiting period was needed, based entirely on the idea that apparently the only reason anyone would buy a handgun was in a fit of rage so they could immediately go out and shoot someone with it, and if the law made them wait a few days, they would "cool off" and either forget about the purchase or at least not go shoot someone while still mad.

It was BS then, and its BS now. Somehow it is established in people's minds that people actually do go buy a gun, from an FFL dealer, just to shoot someone right now. Never made sense to me, especially when I already HAVE a gun...or I could just buy a long gun without any waiting period. OR I could buy a gun from some shady guy in an alley...after all, if I'm going to commit murder, why would I worry about other less important laws??

End Immunity (for Gun Manufacturers) -

Again, you basically got this right, but there is a difference between the perception of what is, and what really is, and its deliberately created by the anti gun media. There is NO protection for gun makers if they make a defective product. Exactly the same as the makers of every other thing, cars included. If you knowingly make & sell a defective product, you are liable under the law. Gun makers are exactly the same in this as everyone else.

But, that's not what the other side wants you to believe. They want you to believe that gun makers cannot be sued for any reason, and they point to the law that does protect gunmakers as "proof". The law that does protect gunmakers does NOT protect them if they make a defective product, it protects them from being sued just because they make guns.

The "protection" the anti's want removed from gun makers is the protection from harassment lawsuits claiming gunmakers are responsible for 3rd party misuse of their product, because the made the product.

People trying the exact same logic with any other consumer item are considered bat spit crazy to even think of it, but somehow that didn't stop them when it was guns that were involved, until a law specifically preventing it was passed.

Ban on Bump Stocks - Even the NRA is fine with this...

No, actually that's not what the NRA said. They didn't say they were fine with a ban, they said the bump stock should be re-evaluated. A subtle, but important difference.

Research Smart Guns - This doesn't resolve the problem of the 350 million guns already in the US,...

You are entirely right about the potential problems with smart guns. The tech isn't nearly adequate to ensure reliability, yet, and may not be for some time to come. However, my main issue is with the phrasing you used, specifically
"the problem of the 350 million guns already..."

Saying it that way assumes all 350 million guns are a problem. It's straight out of the gun banner's phrasebook. Their goal, ban all guns. One potential avenue to do so is "smart guns". Sure, it seems like a good idea, guns that only work for their authorized users, but once you make that the legal requirement (and they don't care if the tech actually works, or not) they can then claim all non-smart guns to be "unsafe, because, after all, anyone can use them!!", so, that provides them the justification to ban all non-smart guns.

then to add to your paranoia, What about the possibility that there is a master override "kill switch" built into smart gun tech, and some future government might be able to turn off all the smart guns. ?? I don't see that as a desirable thing, especially when the bad guys are going to have guns that can't be "turned off".

Gun registration, meaning a list of who owns what, and where they live, etc., cannot stop anything. It only does two things, provides the govt with a list of who owns what, where, and provides a paper trail for investigators to follow AFTER a crime has been committed AND a gun recovered from the crime scene. The trail may, or may not include the person who actually committed the crime.

sorry for writing a book, but I felt you deserved a response to your effort in the OP. I hope I have given you some useful information and some things to think about.

Oh, one last point, are you aware that a prohibited person (convicted felon, etc,) cannot be legally charged with failing to register a gun? They can be charged with illegally possessing the gun, but cannot be charged with not registering the gun (or submitting to a background check for a gun) because that would violate their 5th Amendment rights.

[brian33x51]

Car analogies have been beat to death. I pretty much turn off anyone who tries that as the car market is a very unique one that usually doesn't properly apply to anything else.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It depends on the circumstances and on the person.

When I do, I typically don't take the common approaches because they're the ones that people have most likely heard and have answers for.

Having answers is one thing but knowing what they mean is quite another. If you ask an anti-gunner (or anyone else) to define terms he spouts off and he/she looks like a deer caught in headlights of a car, then they are just mindless drones who don't know what they are talking about. Even if you come at it with a different approach, there is a pretty good chance they will simply revert to their parrot like responses.

[spacemanspiff]

I will debate from time to time, but its a lot less frequent nowadays. The majority of the arguments are coming from those who are incapable of recognizing logic as they only communicate in emotional outbursts. Waste of breath trying to convince those types.

[stephen426]

Thanks for the well thought out response 44 AMP. I will be sure to use more care in my arguments. I tried to be methodical since many anti-gun people rely more on emotion than reason. I also made sure to post my links so that I was not accused of "making thing us". I know that the ultimate goal of the hard-core anti-gun crowd is an all out ban on gun, even if it comes to confiscation by force.

I don't bother wasting my time or my breath on the hard core anti-gun crowd, but I try to sway those who are open to dialogue. I honestly believe that none of us would be so crass in person if someone very close to us was a victim of these horrific tragedies. Son of Scuba Diver hit it on the head that [nothing will change unless we stop demonizing each other]. Besides, if we work together, there might be a way to figure out some way to reduce mass shootings other than arming everyone. I'm sure many of us take the responsibility of carrying a gun very seriously, but I'm sure all of us have also seen people who are very irresponsible and have no business owning a gun.

@TracerTesterman, thanks for posting that link. I will read all of it when I have time, but what I did read so far will certainly add some very good points.

[doofus47]

RangerRich99:

I have to admit, these days I have mostly given up on having this conversation with gun control people. Lately what I've begun to do is refer them to this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ceasefire

yeah, it was a game changer.
I don't have a built in default behavior to blame the previous admin for all the world's woes, but I thought I had read where federal funds for this program get cut under the previous administration?

Does anyone else remember the same?