The Gun debate sandbox

Keep trying to work that line - just shows how bankrupt your argument really is.

Will a simple Brady check for a stranger on the street suffice to make them your next baby sitter?

PERSONAL responsibility is what actually does the most good, rather than government legislation.

you'd accomplish more good by legislating sprinkler systems to cover every square inch of America to "reduce" fire risk.

It's just a cost/benefit game.

According to the US Census Bureau, there were 55.5 million kids enrolled in school, grades 1-12, in 2012. Of that number, 565 were killed by guns (in any context!) in that year. That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun (anywhere, in any context) in 2012.

However, those odds are for being killed by a gun at ANY point in the year 2012, yet kids are in school a small fraction of the total hours in a year, certainly less than 1/3 of the time. But the stated odds are not for being gun-killed AT school. The odds are far lower when contemplating ONLY at-school hours. Even non-complex thinking about this yields something like 1 in 294,690 for the odds of a kid being killed by a gun AT school in 2012. More sophisticated analysis would produce even longer odds, all things considered.

It's a culture war, pure and simple. I don't like the neurotic and alarmist end-of-days argumentation of the pro-gun side, nor do I like the smarmy, mealy-mouthed elitist rhetoric of the anti-gun side. I guess my redneck roots peep through every once in a while, trapping me in the middle.

Legislation should go where it does the most good, be it sprinkler systems, anti-cigs-in-the-home laws

The idea that there should be "no murder," or "no murder of kids," or some such ideal is pragmatically unattainable.

We settle for what makes sense.

The idea that there should be "no murder," or "no murder of kids," or some such ideal is pragmatically unattainable.

Also that it would be OK if some of them were his own children, since the statistical triviality factor renders all other factors irrelevant.

Indeed, our congress-critters are expending significant national resources on this issue right now,

And we are so quick to straw-man positions that we find threatening or disagreeable.

Does it make sense to sell killing machines capable of slaughtering dozens of people in minutes to ANY non felon, as long as they pass the cursory Brady check?

Ah, yes, but why would a gun shop take any personal responsibility to make sure their products are being sold to responsible parties and risk their profits?

The Makers of the Constitution saw far into the future.

do you THINK for one second, that more legislation-redundant for the most will have any bearing on those ill sickos outside the law?

the gun stores are being swamped upon by citizens of CONN to buy ,,,,GUNS, Guns of ALL TYPES.

"When you clamp down where basically everything is restricted, it feels like you're infringing on Second Amendment rights," Shari Reilly, a Connecticut gun owner, told NBC News. She said she depends on the larger magazines to protect her family.

"I don't train for someone who is breaking into my house. If I miss, am I stuck because you limit me to seven rounds or 10 rounds?" she added.

There is legislation being introduced in many a state that will make a semi auto shotgun illegal..

Imagine the USA without the 2nd, 4th, 1st and 10th?

Gun control is completely consistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And President Obama is on target with the great American tradition of proposing gun control laws for Congressional approval as well as by issuing executive orders on gun control.

The only opinion that matters here is the Supreme Court’s opinion. And the high court has ruled, several times, that the president, the Congress, state and local government all have the power to regulate guns. The Court reaffirmed this interpretation as recently as 2008 in the landmark case, District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged this in his opinion to Heller. He wrote that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

To be crystal clear: President Obama has the legal authority to enact gun safety measures through executive order. That is not a matter of opinion. It is a statement of fact. And there is historical precedent.

ALL decisions would be left to the FED cluster f*ck we call our govt. Sounds cooooool eh?