I'm not anti gun. Fail!

Yet your government with the vast support of its people wants to ban Iran from acquiring nuclear power.

As always it comes down to this:
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi - what's legitimate for Zeus is not legitimate for oxen.

Not our current Executive.

Besides, your point is 'apples and bowling balls.'

What is your opinion on this breaking news??

Unless the gun comes from the Fast & Furious program. Then all of a sudden it's all about the gun.

Here you go again with that same old analogy -- guns don't kill people, people kill people nonsense.

Based on your "thought" there should be no regulation of any dangerous weapons. I.e., it wasn't the hand-held rocket launcher
that brought down the passenger plane, it was the man who pulled the trigger so why regulate rocket launchers?

Same for hand grenades. Same for flame throwers. Same for machine guns.

NO ONE is talking about banning ALL guns and ammo. People do want limits on certain type weapons and ammo and high capacity magazines -- which does not ban ALL guns.

My I suggest that you come back and write something original as opposed to writing what the NRA vomits up to support and justify the killing of innocent people.

You can't connect the dots?

Guess.

LMAO

I'd argue that you and him are opposite sides of the same coin, because I haven't seen anyone in the NRA try to "justify the killing of innocent people." 

You say pretty much the same thing in every thread.  What is your solution to these things?  The type of gun being used hasn't been revealed, but what if it turns out to be a revolver?   Guns that hold a single bullet?  Only allow starter guns?

Is it? Bear with me. Gun advocates always argue that more and better weaponry would make everyone safer - equality of arms with the other side, the thugs and criminals. Mutual deterrence.

The US government even follows that doctrine when it arms friendly regimes like Saudi Arabia to keep unfriendly regimes (like Iran) in check.

Yet it also works hard to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear power - because it considers Iran a nation run by leaders that are too unstable, too unfit to be entrusted with nukes (unlike the islamist regime in Saudi Arabia).

The same people that use this argument however also fight against regulations that would keep unstable, unfit people from acquiring firearms in the domestic sphere. A logic that is quite sound when it comes to international politics (keeping weaponry out of the hands of certain unstable people) suddenly becomes an assault on civil rights when applied in domestic politics.

What's the harm in having people pass a test to get their gun license, to make sure that they are mentally and physically able to wield such a powerful and deadly tool properly? Those that want to wield it professionally, like LEO, have to pass such tests too, after all.

I read in the OP linked article that it was a shotgun.

^This

. .   .     :   .    :  .  : :   :: ...    . . . . . ..... . . . . .

Firstly, I'm not an NRA member, never have been. Secondly, my thoughts are purely my own, always have been.

I don't follow any one group or believe some organization has all the answers much less the government which has screwed up just about everything they touch. Quite simply, I've never been one to toe the mark. Nice try but you fail.... again.

Banning anything won't work. You need evidence..... drug use is illegal, speeding is illegal, killing is illegal, nearly everything is illegal anymore and if it isn't already it soon will be thanks to folks like you who are never happy and use kneejerk reactions to go after others you politically oppose or simply don't like for whatever reason.

The fact that you have to pass a test to get your license - which is what gun regulation proponents favor - should tell you that even though it's apples and oranges to compare a gun (a tool designed for the sole purpose to hurt/kill humans/animals) to a car (a tool designed to get you from a to b) - treating guns to the same low requirement that it takes to operate a car would already be a vast improvement.

How many people get into a car with the express purpose of mowing down as many pedestrians as possible?

In case you haven't been paying attention, gun regulation proponents are currently engaged in meetings with Walmart, Dick's Sporting Goods, other gun retailers, the NRA, and others, to possibly prohibit certain weapons, ammunition, and magazines. There is significantly more discussion amongst the gun regulators that matter about these things and Executive Orders that would circumvent Congress, (if necessary), than discussions about "licensing".

Don't know, but I know for a fact I don't have my guns to go on a killing spree either.

If a person is dead, they are dead. If they are an innocent victim of a drunk-driver related car accident, they are just as dead as if purposely shot. While a drunk may not  enter their car with the intention of killing people, as you pointed out, they still do.

The intentions of the killers may differ but the result is the same. Also, if one intends to kill people, they will...regardless of their methodology or instrument (tool) of death.

How can we as a society ban guns, circumvent Congress and the Constitution, and pretend it's to save lives, yet turn a blind eye toward repeat-offender drunk drivers...and not take their cars or alcohol away?

There's 300+ million guns in this country. Some estimates are as high as 400 million. That's one gun for every man, woman and child in this country. If guns were the problem, we'd all be dead.

From what I remember only about 1.200 of the ~18.000 non-suicide gun-related deaths in the US are accidents (i.E. people discharging their loaded weapon while cleaning it). That's about 6 % - in 94 % of fatalities caused by guns, people used them intentionally for that purpose.

I've removed suicides from the equation, lot's of people are attempting those with guns *and* with cars (or by jumping in front of a train, electrocuting themselves etc.).

Let's look at cars. Almost all of the non-suicide car fatalities are accidents. I doubt that "murder by car" even approaches a hundred cases per year. They do not appear in the top 10 of most common murder tools:
http://www.top10stop.com/lifestyle/top- … er-weapons

Comparing cars, a tool designed to transport people, to guns, a tool designed to kill people, is nonsensical. That's why it's so bizarre that driving cars is far more regulated than shooting guns. Anyone can get a gun with no test but you actually have to pass a theoretical and practical test to be allowed to drive a car.

Cops have to pass lots of mental and physical tests to be generously allowed to carry their little handgun while every Joe Shmoe can carry as many semi-automatics as he wants with no test required. That too, makes no sense at all.

Do you need a Semi-automatic with 100 ammo magazine to defend your home or go hunting? No you don't. People still defended their homes successfully when these weapons were banned from 1994 to 2004, a ban that saved lives as it was harder to kill masses of people in a few minutes with regular firearms. A handgun is probably even the better tool to defend yourself in a home invasion, as it's easier and quicker to handle and operate in close quarters and proximity to a possible assailant.

You don't need those semi-automatic assault weapons for self defense. You don't need them for hunting.

What does that leave? To defend yourself against the US government? I doubt they're much use against an Apache or F 22, so that can't be it either.

What do you need them for?

There is a complete gun ban in the UK, right? How many gun related deaths were there last year in the UK?