Gun Control

[BoyNextDoor]

Here is how James Holmes expressed his constitutional rights.

When police apprehended James Holmes outside the Century Aurora 16 theater Friday morning he was carrying:

– An AR-15 assault rifle
– A Remington 12-gauge 870 shotgun
– Two 40-caliber Glock handguns

Holmes had purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet from BulkAmmo.com. BulkAmmo.com describes itself as an online retailer "offering only the best deals to the most serious shooters for bulk handgun ammo, bulk rifle ammo, bulk shotgun ammo, and bulk rimfire ammo." 6 orders of 1,000 rounds. He also purchased two tear gas canisters and body armor.

He purchased his four guns at area gun shops, the first of which, a Glock, he acquired in May at Gander Mountain, a national chain of outdoor retailers. Six days later, he went to a local Bass Pro Shops to purchase a shotgun. Between the two stores, over the next two months, he would also buy the AR-15 and the Remington.

The AR-15 assault rifle is the largest gun Holmes used, though it’s a gun widely distributed by many manufacturers and available at many sporting-goods stores. He is thought to have purchased and used an aftermarket high-capacity magazine for the assault rifle, a clip capable of launching 50 to 60 roundsa minute. This, too, was legal – a prior ban on such magazines, under the federal assault weapon ban, expired in 2004.

 

[Sean Renaud]

More like for small disasters. But oh well, we manage to do a decent job dragging you clowns into the real world. Just not as good as we would like.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

We did outlaw alcohol once. The price turned out to be way to high. As it is with drugs but we're slow learners on that. Probably because it disproportionately effects minorities. I'd be happy to take steps to "outlaw" obesity. I don't think any headway would be made but I'd entertain conversations on that. Outlawing swimming pools would be asinine. By the by I have no political masters.

While I know you were being outlandish with your 10k times the lives. Drowning averages around 3k lives per year and that's not just swimming pools. That's all drowning. So if I eliminated liquids from the United States entirely preventing every single drowning death I'd still in an average year be below what would happen if half of shooting deaths were removed.

The 2nd amendment has been chipped at here and there for over a century, no real reason to think it won't continue down the line. We'll never change your sacred piece of paper. We'll just ignore it.

That's the big problem with politicians, they pick and choose which laws they want to follow. If you don't like a part of the Constitution, it was designed so you can try to amend it but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to ignore it.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Given all the irrelevant BS in this thread I thought to add some:

Thirty eight virgins are killed in bus crash on their way to dance festival where King of Swaziland picks one of thousands of topless women and girls as his new wife

 

[snugglestruggle]

Pointy sticks

"You people" on the left are scarier than ISIS. Ya don't own guns, don't know jack about them ,probably never shot one, in other words clueless. All you know is what you see on TV , then ya run around like chicken little screaming how "we have to close the gun loopholes" or some other BS.

People that want to kill will always find a way. Gun, knife, car, bomb , it doesn't matter.

One of the worst things President Reagan ever did was cut funding for Mental health treatment in this country, which is part of the problem (along with stupidity and Hollywood glamorizing gunplay) with shootings and homeless btw.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's the big problem with politicians, they pick and choose which laws they want to follow. If you don't like a part of the Constitution, it was designed so you can try to amend it but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to ignore it.

It's not a problem with politicians. It's a fact of human kind. Amending the Constitution is simply too difficult to happen in the real world and as a result we've boxed ourselves into a corner where ignoring it is the only pragmatic option.

The real move would be simply once every 'x' years to scrap it and start over. Or at least have a simple majority vote on each part of it instead of the current laws.

Given all the irrelevant BS in this thread I thought to add some:

Thirty eight virgins are killed in bus crash on their way to dance festival where King of Swaziland picks one of thousands of topless women and girls as his new wife

One fish, two fish
red fish, blue fish.

Congrats, you've packed more wisdom into this post than most of your time on lit combined.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Here is how James Holmes expressed his constitutional rights.

When police apprehended James Holmes outside the Century Aurora 16 theater Friday morning he was carrying:

– An AR-15 assault rifle
– A Remington 12-gauge 870 shotgun
– Two 40-caliber Glock handguns

Holmes had purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet from BulkAmmo.com. BulkAmmo.com describes itself as an online retailer "offering only the best deals to the most serious shooters for bulk handgun ammo, bulk rifle ammo, bulk shotgun ammo, and bulk rimfire ammo." 6 orders of 1,000 rounds. He also purchased two tear gas canisters and body armor.

He purchased his four guns at area gun shops, the first of which, a Glock, he acquired in May at Gander Mountain, a national chain of outdoor retailers. Six days later, he went to a local Bass Pro Shops to purchase a shotgun. Between the two stores, over the next two months, he would also buy the AR-15 and the Remington.

The AR-15 assault rifle is the largest gun Holmes used, though it’s a gun widely distributed by many manufacturers and available at many sporting-goods stores. He is thought to have purchased and used an aftermarket high-capacity magazine for the assault rifle, a clip capable of launching 50 to 60 roundsa minute. This, too, was legal – a prior ban on such magazines, under the federal assault weapon ban, expired in 2004.

1,000 rounds of 9mm ammo weighs around 48lbs. 6,000 rounds would weigh 288 lbs.

I know a guy that works at a gun store. He can and has denied purchases from people that seemed unbalanced or were talking crazy. That being said, if Holmes was acting "normal" there would have been nothing preventing him from legally acquiring those weapons (unless something came up on the background check).

One of the reasons why Holmes chose the Aurora 16 was that it was the only cinema near him that had signs stating the guns were not allowed on the property.

I've purchased 4,000 rounds from bulkammo.com, that doesn't make me a sociopath. When I go to the range, I go through 100-200 rounds at a time. It's just cheaper to buy in bulk. There's no way I could carry 200lbs of ammo around all at once.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Here is how James Holmes expressed his constitutional rights.

When police apprehended James Holmes outside the Century Aurora 16 theater Friday morning he was carrying:

– An AR-15 assault rifle
– A Remington 12-gauge 870 shotgun
– Two 40-caliber Glock handguns

Holmes had purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet from BulkAmmo.com. BulkAmmo.com describes itself as an online retailer "offering only the best deals to the most serious shooters for bulk handgun ammo, bulk rifle ammo, bulk shotgun ammo, and bulk rimfire ammo." 6 orders of 1,000 rounds. He also purchased two tear gas canisters and body armor.

He purchased his four guns at area gun shops, the first of which, a Glock, he acquired in May at Gander Mountain, a national chain of outdoor retailers. Six days later, he went to a local Bass Pro Shops to purchase a shotgun. Between the two stores, over the next two months, he would also buy the AR-15 and the Remington.

The AR-15 assault rifle is the largest gun Holmes used, though it’s a gun widely distributed by many manufacturers and available at many sporting-goods stores. He is thought to have purchased and used an aftermarket high-capacity magazine for the assault rifle, a clip capable of launching 50 to 60 roundsa minute. This, too, was legal – a prior ban on such magazines, under the federal assault weapon ban, expired in 2004.

You can take comfort in that he was most likely hosed by Gander Mountain and Bass Pro Shops. It's called a Magazine not a clip and it doesn't launch anything .

 

[BoyNextDoor]

All I did was state a few facts about how James Holmes was able to express his 2nd Amendment Rights over the course of around 60 days, in 2012.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

It's not a problem with politicians. It's a fact of human kind. Amending the Constitution is simply too difficult to happen in the real world and as a result we've boxed ourselves into a corner where ignoring it is the only pragmatic option.

It's difficult to amend for a reason (mainly because of guys like you), but it's not impossible. It was amended four times in the 20th century.

So suck it up and try to do it legally.

 

[Sean Renaud]

1,000 rounds of 9mm ammo weighs around 48lbs. 6,000 rounds would weigh 288 lbs.

I know a guy that works at a gun store. He can and has denied purchases from people that seemed unbalanced or were talking crazy. That being said, if Holmes was acting "normal" there would have been nothing preventing him from legally acquiring those weapons (unless something came up on the background check).

One of the reasons why Holmes chose the Aurora 16 was that it was the only cinema near him that had signs stating the guns were not allowed on the property.

I've purchased 4,000 rounds from bulkammo.com, that doesn't make me a sociopath. When I go to the range, I go through 100-200 rounds at a time. It's just cheaper to buy in bulk. There's no way I could carry 200lbs of ammo around all at once.

I assume you can post where he stated that he choose Aurora 16 for that reason? Is Aurora that bad a neighborhood? I live in Fontana and have lived in LA. It's a safe assumption that a movie theater is filled with unarmed people at any given time sign or no. In fact MOST places are fairly safe to assume nobody is armed.

Of course you could carry 200lbs of ammo around. You wouldn't because why the fuck would you do that but assuming you're an adult male you should be able to carry that much if very unhappily. It would be counter productive however.

I don't care how much ammo someone does or doesn't have it's really only important if you're concerned they are about to go rogue against the government. Otherwise anything in excess of what they can comfortably carry on their person is just that. . .excess.

You can take comfort in that he was most likely hosed by Gander Mountain and Bass Pro Shops. It's called a Magazine not a clip and it doesn't launch anything .

Correct not that it really matters. The terms are largely interchangible for common folk by the way.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

All I did was state a few facts about how James Holmes was able to express his 2nd Amendment Rights over the course of around 60 days, in 2012.

Those are the same facts that millions of other Americans have done (minus the killing spree). What else do you want to get rid of to protect the children?

You could start with high school sports. Kids get killed and maimed each year from that.

You could also ban the murderous Peanut companies that kill children each year with anaphylactic shock.

Don't forget dogs. Children are maimed and killed each year as well.

 

[Queersetti]

http://gawker.com/as-many-as-20-students-were-injured-this-morning-during-1561249261

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...-convicted-mass-stabbing-150324094334622.html

http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-children-killed-in-australia-mass-stabbing/2565398.html

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...lestinian-of-mass-stabbing-in-Tel-Aviv-408237

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-australia-stabbing-20141218-story.html


From countries with and without guns.


I would that Humanity managed to kill each other for thousands of years in mass numbers only using knives and fists. Hell Most of the Martial Arts were based completely on the idea that the Government of the time banned the populace from owning weapons.


From the UK:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...n-ban-uk-urges-save-life-surrender-your-knife

Total death toll in incidents you cited: 39

Death total:Virginia Tech shootings: 32

 

[mark_j]

All I did was state a few facts about how James Holmes was able to express his 2nd Amendment Rights over the course of around 60 days, in 2012.

Exactly how many laws did he break prior to shooting up the theatre?

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Of course you could carry 200lbs of ammo around. You wouldn't because why the fuck would you do that but assuming you're an adult male you should be able to carry that much if very unhappily. It would be counter productive however.

That's a statement from someone that's never held or fired a gun.

It is difficult enough to hit a target just holding the gun. There are so many subtle variables that could dramatically affect your aim. It would be pretty much impossible to hit anything while carrying that much weight.

You are just talking out of your ass.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Correct not that it really matters. The terms are largely interchangible for common folk by the way.

One of the reasons the left almost always wins arguments is because they almost always control the language and that has to stop. When you let them set the table, frame the argument by the choice of words especially regarding guns , it's always an uphill battle. . It's why the republicans always start behind the 8 ball on any issue.

By way of example look at what trump is doing. He is controlling the conversation by setting the table.

 

[Sean Renaud]

One of the reasons the left almost always wins arguments is because they almost always control the language and that has to stop. When you let them set the table, frame the argument by the choice of words especially regarding guns , it's always an uphill battle. . It's why the republicans always start behind the 8 ball on any issue.

By way of example look at what trump is doing. He is controlling the conversation by setting the table.

The left wins arguments in this country? Aside from gays when?! Especially regarding guns there has been no substantial victories in a long while and REpublicans are rarely behind the 8 ball. Their willingness to march in line makes them a force to be reckoned with. Getting to libs to agree on anything is only slightly easier than herding cats.

Trump is just a celebrity doing what celebrities do but yes he is controlling the conversation.

However in this case your arguing details that make absolutely no difference in the argument at hand. If we're debating for example that Killer Whales are intelligent fish and keeping them in a fish tank is cruel pointing out that it's called a pool or aquarium and by the way whales are mammals not fish has no bearing of it it's cruel to keep them as we do. Likewise whether it's a clip or a magazine or a drum or a belt or suspenders and that the gun fires, launches, shoots, catapults, throws, spits or shits is irrelevant. This weapon can carry X amount of ammunition. It can fire X amount of ammunition per second. Is this appropriate for our society. Everything else is just minutiae brought up to distract from the actual point.

 

[kbate]

All I did was state a few facts about how James Holmes was able to express his 2nd Amendment Rights over the course of around 60 days, in 2012.

actually, he expressed his freedom of speech by extreme means.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

Something not having a peaceful purpose is actually a fairly good reason why people shouldn't be able to own one.

However ultimately the decision is made by society if the freedom is worth the loss of security that comes with it. It's really as simple as that.

Also fireworks are for entertainment, that is a peaceful use. They aren't even designed as weapons and while dangerous most of them make poor weapons. I

Machetes actually have use for clearing growth. They are, strictly speaking poor weapons.

Unless martial arts were used the multiplier (which is not the proper term here) is still stupid. You wouldn't ban golf clubs or baseball bats because someone was beat to death with a tree branch. Stupid argument. And again as the FBI points out it's sufficiently rare and even if it weren't I'm not sure how you'd ban martial arts to begin with. Some things are truly impossible.

Limiting the tools available does deal with the individuals who are going to do various crimes. It's hard to go on a rampage with something that you can't get in the first place.

Of course legalizing drugs would cut way down on crime and overnight. First buying, selling and possession of drugs are all crimes. Right then and there you've limited crime. Most average joes don't want to deal with criminals anyway. Assuming the price wasn't outrageous most people would go to Wal-Mart for their weed rather than Professor Stinkweed for obvious reasons.

How many criminals would go legit vs getting into other jobs is impossible to judge. WE could (and should) legalize prostitution. Eliminates that avenue. Contraband you'd have to list on a case by case basis. Some I don't think they'd make enough money to support a large number of criminals, some we could legalize.

Why wouldn't many of them in the case of drugs or prostitution go legit anyway? If I'm selling weed on the street corner today. Dodging cops, paying off whatever other criminals are in the area, carrying a weapon (possibly illegally if I've been convicted) to protect myself in the past and now the government says "Go forth, set up Shaggy and Scoobie's Doobie Snacks Shack" do you honestly think the average criminal is going to respond "man going legit is for bitches!" and change over to something new simply to remain in crime? Is that how you think things went at the end of prohibition that instead of the owners of Speakeasies opening bars that they decided to leave that to 'good' people and switched over to drugs and prostitution? Most criminals aren't criminals because they think it's fun. It's because it's is viewed (correctly or not) as the most productive thing they can do with their skill set and circumstances.

It of course wouldn't eliminate everything but it would be a huge step.

Again, allowing the populace to only own items with a peaceful purpose would have a terrible effect. Once an item is misused by some Hillbilly that dies saying, "Hey Y'all watch this." It's off the list of approved items.

We already have to have warnings on hot coffee. When are we going to require a sense of responsibility in life instead of banning everything you could poke an eye out with.

That kind of thinking is what leads to the 'Everybody gets a ribbon for showing up' thinking.

Fireworks still don't make the cut for peaceful purposes. Entertainment or not you can hurt yourself or burn your neighbors house down with them. It happens every year. Ban 'Em.

Machetes do clear growth, Yep. They also let you attack people fairly effectively. Look at tribal warfare or these links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...raphic-Vicious-machete-attack-cyber-cafe.html

http://nypost.com/2015/06/23/man-attacks-woman-in-bryant-park-with-machete/

http://abc7.com/news/man-loses-thumb-in-machete-attack-in-los-angeles/797637/

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/list/news/machete-attacks-pbc/mJBb/

I don't know what's in the water in South Florida but they have a hell of a lot of Machete attacks.


Your martial Arts analogy is highly flawed. Yes, if people are beating each other to death with their fists, banned better fighting techniques would be the way to go. Impossible or not.

Your argument for limiting access to something used to commit a crime. People won't commit it if they don't have the means. No, as I showed you they just move down the ladder to the next thing. No Guns? Let's use knives.


I agree that Prostitution should be legal but EXTREMELY regulated. I mean crazy, stupid, retardedly high regulated to protect the workers.


Do you think that a dealer making 5 bills a day slinging dope is going to quit that to go sell it at Walmart or the Scooby snack shack for minimum wage?

Don't be silly. They could do that now, easily. They don't. They aren't committed to the ideal of selling drugs. They are doing it for the quick easy cash.

Total death toll in incidents you cited: 39

Death total:Virginia Tech shootings: 32

I only listed a few examples, there are way more out there. Plus saying 'Well only a few people died this way." when trying to ban something else is a poor argument. People still died. Is it wrong or is it okay to kill someone with a knife.

What needs to happen is to deal with the underlying problem causing the attacks in the first place.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

"You people" on the left are scarier than ISIS. Ya don't own guns, don't know jack about them ,probably never shot one, in other words clueless. All you know is what you see on TV , then ya run around like chicken little screaming how "we have to close the gun loopholes" or some other BS.

People that want to kill will always find a way. Gun, knife, car, bomb , it doesn't matter.

One of the worst things President Reagan ever did was cut funding for Mental health treatment in this country, which is part of the problem (along with stupidity and Hollywood glamorizing gunplay) with shootings and homeless btw.

You have zero clue what you're talking about other than the bit about Reagan cutting funding for mental health treatment. But then, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

There are many on the left that own firearms. I for one have owned firearms of one sort or another since my dad bought me my first rifle, a single shot .22 bolt action with a scope at the age of 8 years old. I could shoot the wings off of a fly at 200 yards with that little rifle. I carried a .45 and an M16 for three years in Germany while in the Army. I own, at the moment, 2 handguns, 4 rifles, and a shotgun. I have a valid concealed carry permit from Florida and carried my 9mm daily just in case when I lived down there.

So stow your histrionic bullshit.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That's a statement from someone that's never held or fired a gun.

It is difficult enough to hit a target just holding the gun. There are so many subtle variables that could dramatically affect your aim. It would be pretty much impossible to hit anything while carrying that much weight.

You are just talking out of your ass.

Speaking as someone who carried at LEAST 200lbs of ammo for an M60 while humping my ass through the forests in Germany. I can say without a doubt that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Those are the same facts that millions of other Americans have done (minus the killing spree). What else do you want to get rid of to protect the children?

You could start with high school sports. Kids get killed and maimed each year from that.

You could also ban the murderous Peanut companies that kill children each year with anaphylactic shock.

Don't forget dogs. Children are maimed and killed each year as well.

I have not said a word about getting rid of anything.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's a statement from someone that's never held or fired a gun.

It is difficult enough to hit a target just holding the gun. There are so many subtle variables that could dramatically affect your aim. It would be pretty much impossible to hit anything while carrying that much weight.

You are just talking out of your ass.

It's a statement from a United State Marine who got Expert twice in rifle and Sharpshooter in handgun. Oh and I fired plenty of guns as a Boy Scout. So sorry, you're simply dead wrong.

You said you couldn't carry that much ammunition, not that you couldn't shoot accurately with it. Though in the case that's apparently being discussed of the Aurora shootings you don't need to "hit anything" you just need to point and pull. I'm confident that if you took me into a crowded theater gave me a rifle and thirty rounds, blindfolded me, spun me around until I was about to puke and I was drunk I could still hit a few people just due to the fact that plastic and cushions won't stop bullets and the sheer density of humanity is going to give me good odds on hitting something fleshy.

Still my point remains, your average adult male can in fact carry 200lbs if he is inclined to do so. He may not be happy about the scenario or comfortable but he can do it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Again, allowing the populace to only own items with a peaceful purpose would have a terrible effect. Once an item is misused by some Hillbilly that dies saying, "Hey Y'all watch this." It's off the list of approved items.

Not in the real world that doesn't happen. Nearly everything under the sun has been used for violence and most of them aren't banned. That's just not how people role.

We already have to have warnings on hot coffee. When are we going to require a sense of responsibility in life instead of banning everything you could poke an eye out with.

Never. And if you actually bothered looking into the case on coffee that shit was insanely hot.

That kind of thinking is what leads to the 'Everybody gets a ribbon for showing up' thinking.

Oh no, the end of the world. Kids with ribbons. You know how you know the world is pretty goddamn awesome? We have time to cry about kids getting trophies.

Fireworks still don't make the cut for peaceful purposes. Entertainment or not you can hurt yourself or burn your neighbors house down with them. It happens every year. Ban 'Em.

Of course they would make the cut for peaceful purposes under any sane application of the law and current circumstances. If the safety vs security argument leans that way go for a ban. Many are banned in California and with good fucking reason. Our state is highly flammable and non-professionals especially in areas with heavy brush have no business setting off fireworks. Texas would probably be wise to follow suit. (Though both California and Texas share a border with Mexico and thus any ban we set is immediately undermined by a few hours drive depending on where precisely you live.)

Machetes do clear growth, Yep. They also let you attack people fairly effectively. Look at tribal warfare or these links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...raphic-Vicious-machete-attack-cyber-cafe.html

http://nypost.com/2015/06/23/man-attacks-woman-in-bryant-park-with-machete/

http://abc7.com/news/man-loses-thumb-in-machete-attack-in-los-angeles/797637/

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/list/news/machete-attacks-pbc/mJBb/

I don't know what's in the water in South Florida but they have a hell of a lot of Machete attacks.

No need, that doesn't change the point. They are not used sufficiently frequently in murders to justify a ban. What part of safety vs security are you having a difficult time understanding?

I'm having a hard time finding concrete numbers on the number of attacks, I'm assuming you've found them?

Your martial Arts analogy is highly flawed. Yes, if people are beating each other to death with their fists, banned better fighting techniques would be the way to go. Impossible or not.

Only if the better fighting techniques are being used in the first place. And something that is impossible to enforce or legislate is never the way to go. I could ban baseball bats and golf clubs if I so desired. I could put absurd penalties on beating someone with a big stick but I can't ban big sticks. . .well I guess I could cut down every fucking tree but that sounds implausible. And certainly not cost effective vs just ignoring it.

However if Kung Fu Masters were running around killing people all the time you're damn skippy steps would be taken to ban martial arts. That's just not happening.

Your argument for limiting access to something used to commit a crime. People won't commit it if they don't have the means. No, as I showed you they just move down the ladder to the next thing. No Guns? Let's use knives.

Let them use knives. I'd be thrilled. Though you showed no such thing you just demanded that I accept what the rest of the world proves is utter horseshit. Knives and all those other things are simply less lethal than guns.

I agree that Prostitution should be legal but EXTREMELY regulated. I mean crazy, stupid, retardedly high regulated to protect the workers.

Without a concrete definition on what extremely regulated means that statement is pointless.

Do you think that a dealer making 5 bills a day slinging dope is going to quit that to go sell it at Walmart or the Scooby snack shack for minimum wage?

Who says he's going to go sell it at Walmart? If Colorado is any example they are going to set up shop for themselves and more money (since it's legal more people will use) and safer. Some of them will not of course but a good chunk of them will.

Don't be silly. They could do that now, easily. They don't. They aren't committed to the ideal of selling drugs. They are doing it for the quick easy cash.

No, they could not do that now and it would remain relatively quick and easy cash. Most of them do not live in places where they could set up shop today however and you know it.

I only listed a few examples, there are way more out there. Plus saying 'Well only a few people died this way." when trying to ban something else is a poor argument. People still died. Is it wrong or is it okay to kill someone with a knife.

What needs to happen is to deal with the underlying problem causing the attacks in the first place.

No it's not a poor argument. If only a few people are dying from something we can just sit back and ignore it without any real consequence. Numbers matter. Dealing with the underlying problems are nice though the weapons and the culture around them is at least part of the problem.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

If only a few people are dying from something we can just sit back and ignore it without any real consequence. Numbers matter. Dealing with the underlying problems are nice though the weapons and the culture around them is at least part of the problem.

At this point, I am just going to boil it down to one salient point. The posts are getting to long.

Number matter? Okay then. How many Millions of guns are there in private hands right in, let's say Missouri. Now I haven't pulled any number or news stories or anything about that state before I started this.

Now, I am going to go lowball it and guess Missouri has 5 million guns in it, registered and not.

The stats are: Population - 5,988,927 / Estimated gun ownership - 41.7% / Murders in 2010 - 419 and of those murders - Gun murders in 2010 - 321

May calculator couldn't even render how infinitesimal that percentage is. But it equals out to 7.0 murders / 5.4 gun murders per 100,000 people.

In contrast, in 2010 Missouri had 776 fatal car crashes, which resulted in 819 fatalities, 32% of which involved a drunk driver.

The total traffic-related fatality rate for Missouri was 13.66 fatalities per 100,000 people which was slightly higher than average in 2010.

Let's ban cars and booze in Missouri first before we ban the guns. We'll save more people that way. After all, numbers matter.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

http://vehicle-fatalities.findthedata.com/l/26/Missouri