Common sense gun laws are good, like that law from VA (though mental health is kinda broad, what if you were just OCD and got over it? Or went through a rough time but got over it?)

But when you get into gun laws that are extreme ie. no concealed carry AT ALL in states and cities, thats when the trouble starts.

I don't agree with banning concealed weapons either, but these laws they mentioned sound good

I don't think any law that keeps a gun off the streets can be too extreme. But that's just me. I think Life is sacred applies to everyone's life

If you have to go to driving school and get lessons and write an exam to drive a car then the same must apply for guns. Only those who can vote and drink should own one and the application process must be rigorous, it will never happen but it might make a difference

We're all shocked over here (I'm German), MTV even changed his programme for the victims The thing is, the guy had the gun from his father. You have to have a license for a gun over here and there's nothing they could tighten more. Just a sad, sad story

Stephley, life is sacred, and that applies to everyone, so why shouldn't people like me, who live in sketchy neighborhoods (never rent without walking down the street at night, ladies!) have a little hand gun to protect their own lives, should push come to shove?
That said, I think that the laws suggested here are good. There's no way a 15 year old is mature enough to privately own a gun, in my opinion.

That's a good idea nya

There are plenty of gun laws that can be too extreme. Theres a reason that there are so many shootings at schools, churches, the mall... all GUN FREE zones. Sitting ducks. Its tragic and sickening and the people to blame are the attacker and the people who would rather stick to ideology than facts.

I would personally like to be able to protect myself with my own gun should some nutjob come walking down the street shooting anything that moves. But that's just me.

"Stephley, life is sacred, and that applies to everyone, so why shouldn't people like me, who live in sketchy neighborhoods (never rent without walking down the street at night, ladies!) have a little hand gun to protect their own lives, should push come to shove?"

Chat: you're saying that society should trust people to carry weapons 'just in case' AND trust that the majority of people will use those weapons responsibly - carefully assessing the actual danger posed to them, their chances of escape without using the weapon, etc. and not allow personal fear, animosity or prejudice influence their decision to use the weapon and possibly take the life of another human being?

Considering what we know already about people, their tempers, hurt feelings, prejudices and impulses, I say 'no' - and even a "little" handgun kills.

Life is sacred, but if it's between me and the person attacking me? I'm going to use everything at my disposal to take the person attacking me down. Yes, I would rather injure an attacker enough so they are down, but sometimes it doesn't work that way.

nya - if you are a proper gun owner (in other words licensed), you do have to take a test and pay a fine (in MS it's $150) for your license just to carry a gun. Yes, you can buy/own a gun without a license which I think should be changed. I think you should have to show proof of licensure when buying a gun in addition to waiting laws.

Also, I know kids go hunting with thier dads all the time (at least around here). I think any kid that is going to shoot a gun should have to take a class and be given a junior license (or certificate). And if the game warden or cops catch a kid hunting without the license, then the parents get fined. I don't think a kid should be allowed to own a gun either. But I think that would fall under parental responsibility.

Steph I absolutely can support it. You only bring up right to life when it comes to terrorists and criminals. Yet when it comes to innocent babies, you have no problem with them dying by the droves. Life is isn't so sacred there.

And Steph could you provide some statistics to support your claim that gun owners cannot recognize the correct situations in which to use their weapons?

Everyone has free will to make choices. If someone is chooses to assult me and endanger my life, I should be able to defend myself.

"Yes, you can buy/own a gun without a license which I think should be changed. I think you should have to show proof of licensure when buying a gun in addition to waiting laws."

I agree! Even in New York, where the gun laws are crazy strict, you can walk into a sporting store and buy a shotgun with nothing! Its crazy! It makes no sense, because only pistols kill but shotguns don't? I really don't get that.

darn spelling. assault

"Steph I absolutely can support it. You only bring up right to life when it comes to terrorists and criminals. Yet when it comes to innocent babies, you have no problem with them dying by the droves. Life is isn't so sacred there."

Again, you are being outrageous and cruel and cannot support your claim that I have no problem with babies dying by the droves. Again, disagree but stop attacking, please.

As for your question about gun owners not recognizing the correct situations in which to use their weapons I would point to Germany today, Alabama yesterday, the murder by gun rate and the accidental death by gun rate.

I admit it puzzles me when people have no problem with abortion but don't want people to be able to defend themselves with guns because life is sacred.

Many more people will die via automobiles today than died in the situations in Alabama or Germany.

The gun laws mentioned in the article seem reasonable to ensure safety.

I don't recall ever reading Stephley advocate the death of innocent babies.

Never said advocate.

It is a repeated personal attack. I have always said I support a woman's right to choose: comments and insults based on your deductions are uncalled for.

I could fill the thread with statistics, or are you unaware that guns are used in murders daily in this country? Even one murder conviction supports the notion that not all gun owners can be trusted to make rational judgments about using their weapons.

To get you started, here's from the U.S. Dept of Justice:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 7
Murder Victims by Weapon, 2002-2006

Weapons 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total 14,263 14,465 14,210 14,965 14,990
Total firearms: 9,528 9,659 9,385 10,158 10,177
Handguns 7,294 7,745 7,286 7,565 7,795
Rifles 488 392 403 445 436
Shotguns 486 454 507 522 481
Other guns 75 76 117 138 107
Firearms, type not stated;
1,185 992 1,072 1,488 1,358

I doubt there is anybody who believes all gun owners can be trusted. But I don't like to take away Constitutional rights (and what I believe is a absolutely necessary liberty) until after somebody has abused that right to harm or attempt to harm another individual.

"I doubt there is anybody who believes all gun owners can be trusted. But I don't like to take away Constitutional rights (and what I believe is a absolutely necessary liberty) until after somebody has abused that right to harm or attempt to harm another individual."

Obviously Mich, I'd rather not wait until someone's wounded or dead to decide someone else shouldn't have had a gun. But that's just me.

So I suppose then you are vehemently against swimming pools and automobiles then right Steph? since they kill exponentially more people every year then firearms?

I'd rather not be wounded or dead because you decided I shouldn't have a gun, but were unable to keep guns out of the hands of the people we should actually be worried about. Gun restrictions have the greatest effect on people who actually follow the laws, and those obviously aren't the people we're most concerned with.

I think the root of disagreement on this issue is the demand for absolute rationalization by each side of the issue. So if you support the death penalty, it would seem rational to support abortion (and this is aside from particular ideologies or justifications..i.e. the life of a convicted criminal does not surmount to the life of a potential human being). The problem is that no one is truly rational, so I think it is reasonable to accept that people will have certain opinions about one issue, that may directly or indirectly contradict the opinions they have about another. That is just my take on the situation.

Well considering that the low end estimates of the number of gun owners in this country is 42 million and we use the 2006 stat of 14,990 homicides by firearms, that would mean that .00035% of gun owners are irresponsible!

Haus, is that an estimate of the number of people who own firearms legally or in general?

"I think the root of disagreement on this issue is the demand for absolute rationalization by each side of the issue. So if you support the death penalty, it would seem rational to support abortion (and this is aside from particular ideologies or justifications..i.e. the life of a convicted criminal does not surmount to the life of a potential human being)."

This just separated reason from rationality. That doesn't follow logically. Rationality is the state of being in accordance with reason. To say that one kind of killing is the exactly the same as all kinds of killing completely leaves the realm of reason.

So statistically, those 14,990 lives don't matter? Collateral damage?

Mich - Its tough to track down a number because right wingers will inflate it and say 80 million while other will deflate it. In my research I've seen that range that is considered "reasonable" is 42-56 million.

Some of the reason is that people don't like to admit they own them.

Oh okay, thanks Haus.

Steph - I never said that. Unless of course you're saying that those lives matter more than the 42,443 people who died in a car accident in 2001.

What was the gun statistic for 2001? Just so we're apple to apples... Its not in your list, so lets use 2002, that would 14,263.

So essentially 3 times as many people die by auto wreck and thats ok, as long as they weren't killed by a gun?

Well org, I'm not a philosopher but I tried my best. The point of my comment however, was simply to point out that most people contradict themselves at some point.

love - I totally agree!

Definitely agree with that.

Team, why on earth was my comment removed?

Look a lot of people don't like guns and thats understandable. They are serious weapons and need to be dealt with in a serious, educated, and cautious manner.

But why not just say you want gun control because guns scare you? Why not just be honest? Because the facts don't support banning guns. They just don't.

Are auto wrecks and shooting incidents equal? Do people use cars mainly as a means of self-defense?

Thats not what you're arguing steph. You're arguing the sancitity of life. You're arguing about saving lives.

But now you seems that argument goes nowhere in light of the statistics. So now your argument has changed, to which I ask you, are innocent babies and terrorists equal?

lovelie I find it strange that many of the people who are against abortion tend to support the death penalty. Most would be upset if anyone called them hypocrites.

and who would that most be blu?

"lovelie I find it strange that many of the people who are against abortion tend to support the death penalty. Most would be upset if anyone called them hypocrites."

Liliblu, if that makes them hypocrites, then why is it not hypocritical to be against the death penalty but in favor of abortion? Murderers and fetuses are not the same thing. Obviously...

Guns in and of themselves don't scare me.
I want gun control because people scare me and use guns to kill and harm other people.
Guns are different from knives because a knife has other practical uses that don't involve harming living beings.

"So essentially 3 times as many people die by auto wreck and thats ok, as long as they weren't killed by a gun?"
YOU raised the comparison Haus, not me.

Sheesh. Deep breaths and a chill pill.

sigh Blu I respect you trying to defend your friend. But read the comments. Steph is articulate, she knows how to state her case. And she has stated it time and time again. There is no way for any logical person reading words on a screen to interpret her feelings any differently then abortion is ok but killing criminals and terrorists is not.

"Guns in and of themselves don't scare me.
I want gun control because people scare me and use guns to kill and harm other people."

People scare me too, and I want to protect myself from them. And we're both intelligent enough to know that scary people are going to get their hands on guns regardless of what the law says. Why should I have to break the law to protect myself?

Steph - I brought up the comparison because YOU were preaching about the sancitity of life. I understand this argument is frustrating when you're on that side and you have so few facts to use, but don't get angry at me.

It seems now your argument is that guns are only used for killing. Which isn't true, many gun owners use them for sport. Would you like to make bows and arrows illegal as well?