that was the problem. The first paragraph refers to a "study" done by a Dr. Kellerman that fare well during peer review and was, quite frankly, debunked. I'm not a fan of tax money being used by some ER doc to turn out crap. What sucks even more, I have to buy the study from a private organization.
Criminologists funded by their universities and DoJ still do studies and the shills go to the Joyce Foundation. There is no ban on research, simply a ban on lobbying by CDC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=471057&mesg_id=472900
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

yeah, something like that. Studies are still done, there is a ban on lobbying by the CDC.

advocacy and promotion is not research.

Funded by federal research dollars?

I don't think so. But give it a "shot".

looks like they are looking for researchers, see solicitations.
http://nij.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/pubs_db.aspx
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/solicitations.htm
https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/sl001048.pdf

I recommend the Jame Wright study.

Only studies involving the criminal justice system and law-enforcement vis a vis criminality.

Shall we not also look at the edipemiology of legal gun ownership in our nation, as we do for other potential health risks?

Why is that area of legitimate research no longer funded?

therefore I doubt using similar research methods should be used. Also, the law does not ban research, it only bans advocacy and promoting. That said, they should be researching instead of bitching. IOW, I frankly don't think it is legitimate research. As pointed out by another gun control advocate above.

and I'm not talking about swimming pools, or viruses.

Perhaps you misunderstand the nature and purpose of epidemological research. It is research into any substantial public health threat, not just viruses and the like.

But I hope you already knew that, but I have my doubts that you favor open and honest research into any and all areas of scientific epidemiological research if it might shine a bad light upon your rights to own whatever guns you and your friends in the gun lobby want to own. That's a pretty immature, biased, basically unscientific stance, in my opinion.

The nature of sound scientific research has no ultimate goal to "promote" one side or another in a debate. Somehow, I fear both you and the Congress of the USA, have lost sight of that when it comes to gun ownership, fearing the results before they are found. If we did that, limited research for fear of the results on any other topic of research, cigarette smoking, influenza, drunk driving, washing hands in hospitals, etc., how much more of a nation of unhealthy fools we would look like these days.

but guns as a public health threat only due to accidents, fewer than swimming pools, or suicide, which is a mental health problem. Any other negative use of guns is criminal. In this regard, swimming pools and guns are the same.

I am all for open and honest research. I just pointed out that Kellermann et al was not doing that. Of course, not all of that open and honest research goes the way you think. The criminologists, even though they personally don't like guns, basically agree with me more than you. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

and only tenuously. Pools are designed for fun and have many rules to prevent harm, guns are designed to harm, and have no other use. When was the last time someone stole a pool and killed someone with it? How many criminal uses of pools are there annually?

There is also this line "or suicide, which is a mental health problem" while half true, if you break down the numbers a vast majority of successful suicides are committed with firearms. People who try it with other means are either saved, or don't do enough of it and they survive, and often don't try it again. Guns are also very easy, many people who get suicidal can't go through with it due to the effort, but with a gun it's one click and you're done.

"Guns are fun (I have fun with mine, how about you?) and have very specific rules to prevent harm " Guns can be fun, I'm sure all those people killed with them had a blast.

"ever hear of competitive target shooting? " where people shoot at human shaped targets in order to hit vital spots better?

"Logistically, you have a point, pools are difficult to steal, but do you claim that NO ONE has ever been killed in a pool? Care to wager?" I did not claim no one has been killed in a pool, but to say that even one person murdered with a pool equals the same threat that guns pose is, at best, laughable.

I bet it doesn't say what you think it says.

one which you happily make even more blurry.

you give a tone of opinion based "facts" (only if they use pills and call the hotline. That is the key difference. People who shoot or hang themselves are serious and do not wish to be saved.) You have any backup for that? Maybe if some of those who shot themselves had taken pills instead they would have called a hotline afterwards. You then say "SIGSW makes up the plurality or majority in US" which is what we are talking about.

"most of them are used in a harmless manner. Went to the range all the lanes were occupied with people firing tens of thousands of rounds with no one harmed. "

Do you deny that guns are designed for anything but harm? What kind of targets are popular at the range? I'm gonna wager that it's humanoid targets, that's what I've seen the most of. Why were they shooting? how many of them keep guns for "home defense?" How many of them were shooting their home defense guns in order to be better shots when shooting at an actual person?

"A friend of my brother's in high school could have used one of several guns, but chose to drink battery acid instead."

A friend's grandfather lived to be 90 while smoking a pack a day his entire life,. therefore cigarettes are harmless. See how you sound? I love how you capped that off with implying that I'm the one bluring the lines.

The targets are round circles like say, the Olympics. I'm guessing you see most of these on TV?

Nope, what my friends bring home from the range.

So we agree that most suicides are caused by GSW in America. You still see no issue there? no wonder why that is? No allowing anyone to research something that may show that if we reduce the number of guns, we might reduce the number of deaths?

and I'm too cheap to buy the human looking ones. Most suicides in the US are GSW yes. As to your next question, we only have to look to Australia and Canada. When Canada passed their 1977 law and Australia passed the federal agreement (before then each state did it's own thing.) suicide by GSW did drop. The suicide rates did not drop. The law does not ban research, it only bans lobbying. If the CDC funds a study, I shouldn't have to pay some private corporation for a copy either.

Our idea of research, and the GOP idea of research are completely different. We start from an idea and see if it holds water, they stert with the water and find a pail to hold it. They think that if you find that "We reduce guns, violent crime goes down" that means we set out with the intent to prove that it will be that way, therefore any research that find it is in contempt of the rule. This goes for any research, not just gun violence (see climate studies, Vaccinations, etc) so no, you are wrong about that whole bit.

Actually the overall suicide rates did drop, and all evidence shows that lower access to firearms reduces overall suicide rates.

during that era, they were the GOP version. That is why the 43 times more likely study did not do well in peer review. Besides, treating mechanical devices as organisms is a fallacy in itself. They were poor quality and advocacy, not real science. The law only bans lobbying, it does not ban actual research. In 1987 National Institute for Justice under the DoJ hired sociologists James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi to review the research done up until then. They said it was crap.

At the American Society of Criminology's 1994 meeting, University of Illinois sociologist David Bordua and epidemiologist David Cowan called public health gun research

the good doc's betters who are professional criminologists none of whom are NRA shills. Steve Kangas wasn't one of them. He was an activist. His claims of "NRA shills" are less than accurate. Always go to the original source when possible.

I've had guns in my house since before I was born ... got my first BB gun at eight, my first .22 not long after. I passed that tradition on to my daughter -- who has been shooting since she was 12 (shotguns and handguns mostly). She recently got her first apartment and we installed the gun safe first thing. In all that time and with all those weapons, not I, nor any of my family members has been shot, near shot or had a negligent discharge.

I must either be A) World Class Lucky -- or -- B) know how firearms should be used safely.

Pick one

You are not a responsible gun owner and you are the reason gun control is needed. The fact that you have not been shot does not change the fact that only an extremely irresponsible person would give a gun to a child.

They let 12 year olds, with a minor's permit, buy rifle and shotgun ammo. If you live in a remote area, a kid as young as nine can get said permit.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/minor-mineur-eng.htm

I got my first one at eight. There must be a lot of irresponsible parents in Wyoming, Montana, Alberta, etc.

I oppose giving kids guns, whether a kid is given a gun in America, Canada, or as a child soldier in Somalia, giving kids guns is wrong. Anyone who gives kids guns is an irresponsible idiot no matter what country they live in and if it is not a crime it should be. Your parents obviously were bad parents as well if they let you have a gun when you were 8 years old.

You are right, there are a lot of bad parents out there but they are not the majority. The large majority of parents are not so damn stupid that they would give an 8 year old a gun.

But I feel the same about TV and video games in every room. It was part of the culture I grew up in. Of course they had a unique, but effective, way of teaching gun safety. It's not like I could just throw it over my shoulder and take off on my bike when I felt like it. It was used only under adult supervision. Would you feel the same way about a bow? If not, how is it different? Both are weapons that fire a projectile.

Guns kill and giving guns to kids is stupid, I am all for cultural diversity but we can have cultural diversity without arming little kids.

I would not give a child a bow either, but I would also not be so ignorant to suggest a bow is no different than a gun. Once bows become a weapon that claims thousands of lives a year like guns do I might change my position on them, but right now bows are used in crimes so rarely and guns are used in crimes so frequently that I really don't think they can be compared.

at a young age don't seem to be the ones shooting up malls or each other on streets, so I don't think you can compare my experiences or oneshooter's parenting to criminal misuse either.

Sorry, but as much as you may not want to admit it gun nuts have killed lots of people and many of them learned young.

the exception is not the rule.
So we are told, although I have no idea what the source was or that if it is accurate given the level of changes in reporting. Kind of the claim that the mother was a teacher, only to find out she wasn't. BTW, according to a friend of his mom's, Adam was an ethical vegan. Go figure.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/adam_lanza_was_a_vegan/

... under adult supervision, then automatically becomes Adam Lanza. No other contributing factors?

Interesting thought process you have there. Do you also believe (like Frederic Wertham) that comic books cause homosexuality? Or that explicit rap lyrics are responsible for rape?

My daughter also learned to, ride a bike, scuba dive, rock climb, drive a car and got her first experience flying a small plane under my tutelage. Are those also examples of bad parenting, or is it just the guns with which you take issue?

I never even heard such a stupid thing much less believe it, but the fact that you are trying to change the topic to gay comic books has convinced me that you are actually a satirist trying to mock the gun nuts. If that is the case then this could all be a big joke and you truly were not so dumb that you would give a child a gun, if that is the case then I apologize for calling you a bad parent. I will still call you a bad comedian though.

... specifically, the book "Seduction of the Innocent", in which the author, Dr Frederic Wertham, claimed exhaustive research (as in the OP), made the claim that comic books encouraged homosexuality in children. He wasn't just some nut either, his book was the impetus for years of congressional hearing on that subject. Many school bans on comics were created because of his "research" and the Comic Code that basically neutered comic artists for decades was a direct result of his "research".

You claim I'm changing the subject -- but, making outrageous claims of dangers based on spurious research is precisely the point of the OP.

You claim that a child learning to use a weapon responsibly under the supervision of an adult will lead directly to him becoming an Adam Lanza. How is that claim any less ridiculous than those espoused by Dr. Wertham?

You may not believe it but there is a LOT more evidence to suggest guns kill people than there is to suggest comic books turn kids gay. Keep trying to change the topic to gay comic books though, it is quite humorous to watch.

I never claimed that "a child learning to use a gun responsibly under the supervision of an adult will lead directly to him becoming Adam Lanza". First of all I never suggested that guns were the only factor in the creation of Adam Lanza, they were however what enabled him to kill 26 people. Second I never claimed that teaching a child to use a gun was responsible in fact I said the exact opposite.

It doesn't, I know that there were lots of factors in what caused Adam Lanza to kill and never suggested otherwise in the sentence you quoted or anywhere else. Guns were what enabled Lanza to kill and they are what enable many other gun nuts to kill. I never said all gun nuts kill either, but I will say that far too many of them do and that is why gun nuts should not be allowed to own guns.

True enough -- airplanes are what enabled Mohammed Atta and his cohorts to kill. An automobile is what enabled George Russell Weller to kill. Fertilizer and Diesel Fuel is what enabled Tim McVeigh to kill.

However, the fact that Lanza did or did not learn to shoot as a child isn't germane to the fact that he killed. If there was a connection between childhood firearms training and serial/mass murder then please cite the study.

I'm curious -- what, in your opinion, is a "Gun Nut" . Do you have a definition?

I can't cite studies that stupid NRA sponsored laws prevent from ever taking place, but I don't need to cite a study anyways because I never said that childhood gun training inevitably leads to mass murder. I said that Adam Lanza's mother took him to the gun range in response to another post which claimed that kids who are taught to shoot guns are not the ones who shoot up malls.

Guns are what enabled Lanza to kill, that is why I support gun control. Cars can also kill that is why I support a requirement that people take a test to get a driver's license. Bombs can also kill, that is why I support laws that prevent the McVeigh's of the world from getting bomb making materials.

As far as what a gun nut is, I think anyone who would give a kid guns is a gun nut. I would also say that anyone who thinks it is "self defense" to stalk and shoot a kid carrying iced tea and Skittles is also a gun nut. The way to determine whether or not someone is a gun nut is to actually require gun owners to take a licensing exam to prove they know about the harm mishandling a gun can cause and understand both what self defense is and more importantly what it is not.

... Adam Lanza, to my knowledge, never shot up a mall either.

You might be surprised to learn, but the NRA support precisely the kind of basic training on firearms handling that you espouse as a minimum qualification for handling a firearm. However, the pesky ol' Constitution prohibits requiring a person pass an exam to exercise their RKBA.

Just as literacy tests to determine minimum qualifications to vote were abused to exclude minorities and have been deemed illegal, a firearms license exam could be similarly abused to prohibit an otherwise eligible citizen from exercising their RKBA.

I don't know about you however but I would say an elementary school shooting is just as bad or worse than a mall shooting so I really don't know hat your point is.

I really don't see how gun rights are the same thing as voting rights either, I don't seem to remember anyone being murdered with a ballot recently. There are all kinds of limits on gun ownership, many so obviously reasonable that not even the NRA dares to publically challenge them. Five year old children can not pack heat to their Kindergarten class, do you believe this violates the second amendment rights of children? If not then you agree that the Second Amendment is not an inalienable right, if you do on the other hand support concealed carry for five year olds then you are insane. Not one sane person on this planet truly believes everyone should be able to own a gun, my guess is not even you do.

If that is true -- you REALLY don't understand the consequences of voting. Perhaps you SHOULD take an exam before you vote.

Sure people have been voted in to office that did horrible things, but that is not a direct result of the ballot only an indirect result. Guns kill people directly, it is not the same thing at all.

That is what being a progressive is all about.

I would never seek to curtail your right to vote, speak, assemble freely, have a speedy trial, etc. I only ask you extend the same courtesy to those who hold the RKBA as sacred as any other that American's enjoy.

there are very few studies on guns

If you are giving kids guns however I would say you are a danger.

in all 50 states. They are in possession of them under either my, or my Loving Wife's supervision. Once they reach their majority the firearm is theirs, and that is legal.
You say I am a danger, how is that?

I am the type of loving father who built and gave each of my sons his own AR-15, for Christmas. All were 14years old and had been shooting 22 rimfire competition for 2-3 years.

My youngest competed in his first HighPower match last month. He shot it as a Junior shooter at 200yds. Had a great time and shot well enough to take 5th place of 20 shooters.
Both of my older sons(27 and 25) shoot in competition, my Loving Wife shoots condensed course(200yds)with her AR-15, I shoot a National Match M1 Grand across the board(200-300 and 500yds).
Shooting is a great sport for the whole family.

Giving guns to kids is just plain stupid and I am not going to pretend that putting your kids in danger like you are doing is in any way acceptable.

I don't have kids, but if I did I would not allow them to own a gun as long as they were living with me. Once they move out they can make their own decisions, but they would be taught as children just how deadly guns are and my hope is that would influence them to choose not to own a gun when they get older.

I respect your choice for you and your future kids, but learning how deadly they are if you do something unsafe and and irresponsible would result in the grounding of the century. Telling your kid how deadly guns are is one thing. It may or may not prevent them from picking a crime gun out of a dumpster out of curiosity. When your cop father figure shows you what his duty revolver (a .357 Magnum in that case) will do to a watermelon, it removes all doubt.

As in grounding six feet under for the rest of the century and beyond.

Don't worry, if I had kids I would make sure they knew the deadly power of a gun, I don't need to take them to the shooting range I am more than capable of informing them.

take it from someone who has kids, if they think you are spouting off shrill propaganda they will go test it for themselves. Kids have better critical thinking skills than adults give them credit for. Did you believe your parents when they told you "pot leads to heroin"? OK, that might be before your time. It didn't work.

If you look solely at the number of deaths then yes cars kill more than guns, cars also kill far more people than heroin does. Does that make heroin safer than cars? No, because the reason that heroin kills less people is because less people use it. People drive cars FAR more often than they shoot guns, if people did all shoot guns just as often as they drove I guarantee you the number of gun deaths would sky rocket.

Saying pot leads to heroin is a hell of a lot different than stating the fact that guns kill thousands of people a year in terrible ways, one statement has no evidence to back it up the other has volumes of evidence to back it up. It is the NRA that is pushing propaganda, not those who are honest enough to admit that guns kill.

I guess because that's a big problem.

In some alternate universe.

I could use a few new assault weapons.

Also if you get into that dumpster, you might find the door to Narnia.

I always appreciate parenting advice from people who have no children. They always have such a unique perspective on the topic. Like sex advice from a priest.

I was taught how to use guns safely before I was 10, and owned a shotgun and handgun by age 13.

Wake up, Bjorn. You live in profound fear of others' responsible and wise choices, and as a result demand the government force these more experienced folks conform to your fearful lifestyle.

And I will not apologize for criticizing the parenting skills of those dumb enough to give kids guns. You criticize me for living a fearful lifestyle, but at least I am not one of those paranoid morons who feels I need to be armed in order to go to the grocery store. I am not fearful because I am far less likely to be killed than a gun owner is, I simply want the killing of other innocents to stop.

I have not criticized the parenting skills of a single person who has not directly told me that they give guns to kids. I am not lashing out blindly, I am only criticizing those who have admitted to something that would make them a terrible parent.

He said she's been shooting them since she was 12.

I started shooting at age 10, always 100% under the supervision of my dad, who was an experienced military firearm instructor.

... is not the same as teaching a kid to shoot under adult supervision. But you knew that, right?

I'm not getting into the discussion about another's parenting skills, but clearly a lot of those who think they are experienced folks making responsible and wise choices are not.

wanting to be the next Kellermann to do easily discredited research and expect us to pay for it. Even Kellermann distanced himself from it.

To imply or insist they are is prejudice and a culture war approach.

That is glaringly obvious.

The extremist gun controllers, it seems, care more about their deeply imbedded need for moral validation and less about proffering serious solutions.

It isn't up to the "gun controllers" to proffer serious solutions. It's your hobby. It is your responsibility to proffer serious solutions.

You are saying how glaringly obvious it is that gun people are responsible. And yet the only gun voice out there that we hear is the NRA shouting for more guns. There is no reasonable gun organization forwarding a message of gun responsibility.

If gun owners want the rest of us to believe any of what you say about responsible gun owners, take responsibility. If gun owners as a group don't offer responsible solutions, you'll get the legislation you'll get, you won't like it and you'll have no one but yourselves to blame. And the rest of us aren't really going to care about your martyred cries of "prejudice and culture war."

Those who profess concerns should be first in line for serious solutions. And few have been forthcoming; most particularly calls for an assault weapons "ban," something even some controllers think is meaningless -- as meaningless as the frivolous hi-cap mag bans. You don't buy into that stuff, do you?

Since the culture war-types have chosen to ignore the proposals made by pro-2A folks here, favoring more extremism, I will REPEAT some:

1. Fed-funded program to beef up school security (not the NRA-on-steroids plan of Barbara Boxer)

2. Universal BG checks, FOIDS, or other plan

3. Fund the NICS system thoroughly

4. Hard sentences for gun crimes; harder for felons w/ guns (Obama may oppose this)

There are others. And have been repeatedly offered here. I would take it as a serious effort if controllers would at least define the problem (school massacres or general crime rates, for example).

Corrections: guns are not a hobby for most. And controllers are ethically and logically CHARGED with the duty of offering proposals if they see societal problems. Time they got off their collective moralistic ass and perform their duty.

You say your proposals have been repeatedly offered here. Who cares? So have mine. This is DU. This isn't the wider media, this isn't legislators, this isn't the lobbies that represent gun owners. I have yet to see a pro gun person in the wider media who says any of what you have proposed, and who says that the NRA doesn't represent them. So YOU all have an image problem. And that's not the fault of the people on the other side of the argument.

And you can rail all you want against me, and you can say you have made your point on DU a whole heck of a lot. And you can say that the gun control proponents are being really, really mean to you, but that isn't going to get your voice heard. The wider world sees the NRA as the voic of gun proponents. That's who is representing you. And that's the fault of responsible gun owners who have not offered an alternative.

And I know you don't want to believe guns are a hobby, but unless you are a cop or a soldier, they are.

In this society, everything which is not forbidden through due process of law is allowed.

The onus is on those that propose restrictions, and characterize them as solutions, to justify those restrictions, and sell them to the rest of us.

It matters not one whit, whos "hobby" it is.

"And yet the only gun voice out there that we hear is the NRA shouting for more guns."

Thats most likely because the "pro-restriction" folks, haven't bothered to remove the extremists from their midst - the gun banners.

If you want to talk about responsibility, its the responsibility of the "pro-restriction folks" to remove from their midst, and denounce the extremists and their agenda, from their own side of the issue - if they ever want to be taken seriously by those that outnumber them by a large margin on the other side of the issue.

effects of guns.

And I'll say it again: you haven't put up any responsible pro gun voices. You say that's because there are a lot of extremist gun control people out there, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Keep blaming people who are on the other side, and don't put up anything reasonable for your side, and see how far that gets you.

If you guys hide behind the NRA, which is an extremist group, and allow them to be the only voice out there for your side, you will get what you get. You can rail against me all you want, but the voice for your side is the NRA, which is a bunch of morons. So if there are no responsible gun laws proposed by responsible gun proponents, you will get what you get. Cry martyr all you want, but it will be your own fault.

The facts of the matter, is that those on the pro-control side of the issue with very few exceptions, are interested in controlling the guns themselves. generally, their efforts fall squarely into the "reduce availability" catagory. Whether its ammunition, magazines, or the guns themselves, this is where their efforts are largely directed.

They want to make it harder to get "X".

They generally make no effort to mitigate what happens when someone with ill intent gets "X", however.

That definitely calls their motives into question, whether you like it or not.

On top of that, those same people, in response to a terrible tragedy, foist their anti-gun wishlist on the American people. Their wish list contains almost nothing that would have mitigated the tragedy that they're using as justification for this. In addition to that, they talk about things like "weapons of war on our streets", which is an outright falsehood. Characterize so called assault weapons as "weapons that have one use - killing large numbers of people", yet remain silent when law enforcement call those very same rifles "patrol rifles", and DHS calls them "personal defense rifles".

That further calls their motives into question.

Theres no way to hide those things, and theres no wishing them away. They are what they are. Actions, even proposed actions, speak louder and are more telling than mere words. If you want people that give a shit about their rights where firearms are concerned to step up, the state of all that I mentioned above needs to change - drastically. Otherwise, what you're asking, is for people that give a shit about their rights where firearms are concerned, to add their weight to, and give legitimacy, to that which has none. Read that last sentence as many times as it takes, for you to understand the nature of this divide.

"If you guys hide behind the NRA, which is an extremist group, and allow them to be the only voice out there for your side, you will get what you get. You can rail against me all you want, but the voice for your side is the NRA, which is a bunch of morons. So if there are no responsible gun laws proposed by responsible gun proponents, you will get what you get. Cry martyr all you want, but it will be your own fault."

Yeah, we've been hearing that for I dunno...A decade and then some? How many states have passed concealed carry since that meme first started being thrown in our faces? More than you can count on two hands. Everything that can be done without the support of those who value their rights where firearms are concerned, has been done. The singular reason that folks like you, make these sorts of threats - "you will get what you get" - is because you need us. Need our support. What is truly laughable, is that you act and talk as if we aren't acutely aware of it.

As to the "extremist group" comments...I rather think that in the view of the people that like to throw that particular turd against the wall, hopeing it will stick, that anyone thats not interested in complete capitulation to that wish list I spoke of earlier, is an "extremist". Some posters here think any argument in favor of gun rights is "an nra talking point", and often characterize it as that, or worse.

If, by rejecting the words "reasonable" and "responsible" as defined by those whos wish list contains mostly things which are neither, and rejecting by extension, those wish list restrictions that would have no effect on tragedies such as sandy hook, that makes people "extremists", it may be time to start wearing it as a badge of honor.

has a reaction to gun deaths is just trying to trample your liberty. It's all about you and how you are a wronged party, and everyone is out to get you. Everyone else is being extremists, and soon all gun owners will be hunted down by mobs with torches and pitchforks.

Good luck with that.

Its not about me.

Its about pointing out and documenting the lies and hypocrisy, coming from the pro-more-restriction side of the issue.

Do you have a problem with that?

Calling semi-automatic firearms that look like military firearms but do not function like military firearms "weapons of war", is a the textbook definition of a lie, and intended by those who know better, to mislead those who don't.

Theres no spinning that, or personally attacking me in any way, or implying that it is a "reaction to gun deaths", that will make the lie true. A principled person from the pro-more-control side of the debate, might even question the validity and righteousness of their cause, if they have to lie/repeat things that are patently untrue in pursuit of it. You're free not to do that, and everyone else that notices is free to point it out for what it is.

"Everyone else is being extremists, and soon all gun owners will be hunted down by mobs with torches and pitchforks."

Yeah...like the poster in GD that called out for drone attacks on gun owners for example...Its people like that, and the fact that most of you on your side of the debate that haven't denounced and removed them from your presence in this issue, that prevents most people who value his/her rights where firearms are concerned from even sitting down at the table with you.

Your side is the side thats always preaching "reasonable" and "commonsense". Remove those from your side who are neither, before asking us to sit down with you. Assuming you disagree with them. If you don't, then hey, "you get what you get".

Again I say, good luck with that.

Back then that was about the age that many boys got their first real gun. I had previously gotten a BB gun at age seven for Christmas. I grew up on a small ranch. To go hunting all I had to do was step outside the door.