So what about the three machetes I own? They are intended for clearing brush and small trees, but I'm fairly certain my 11 year old could swing one with enough force to kill. Of the three only the one that stays in my truck even has a sheath. A lot of people have been killed with machetes.
When machetes become responsible for even 50% of homicides in America, I'll be happy to look into ways to prevent death by machete.
But let's look at those gun deaths. How many of them are committed with illegal weapons? You are still twice as likely to be gunned down in Chicago than in Afghanistan. It is all but impossible to get legal permission to carry in Chicago. In other words, the gun laws that we have are not being enforced to stop the majority of shooting deaths. It's a bit like ignoring immigration law and then complaining about how many illegal immigrants we have. The laws are on the books but are not being enforced.
But a city wide law has no teeth when another city nearby allows what the first bans. That's why a NATIONAL law is necessary.
BTW I didn't say you were on the left. Reread my post, I said "those on the left". I don't know you well enough to know where you stand yet.
I wasn't trying to accuse you, I was simply saying that on this issue, I suppose I would fall to the left. I actually believe I fall more to the middle, because I support stricter gun control, but not outright bans of all guns.
Here's the deal about most gun owners. Most gun owners don't keep their guns for personal defense. Or, rather, they don't keep them SOLELY for personal defense. Take Alex Jones on Piers Morgan from a while back. He stated he had something like 50+ guns, is that correct? What man needs 50+ guns to protect from a home invader? None. And if the government wanted Alex Jones dead, all the legally obtainable guns in the world wouldn't protect from a missile delivered by a predator drone. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most gun owners like to point out that so many homicides in America are the result of gang violence?
The fact is many, if not most, gun owners collect guns as a hobby, a toy for enjoyment. They love to hunt with them, they love to shoot them at the firing range while BS'ing with their buddies, they love to show them off, etc. It's enjoyable for them, just as collecting technology (computers, TV, etc.) is for me. And there is NOTHING wrong with making guns a hobby. I have ZERO problem with that. It's not a hobby I would ever pursue, but neither is Beanie Babies, and those were mega popular for a while.
Can a gun be used in self-defense? Yes. Is part of the reason some people own a gun for self-defense? Yes. But are guns owned for far more than just self-defense? Absolutely. However, gun supporters cannot admit this. Once gun owners admit part of their brick wall defense of guns is about enjoyment, it makes their argument against banning certain types of guns impossible.
All of this is to explain where I stand on gun control. I'm in the middle. I don't mind allowing guns which are less likely to commit murder. I don't mind guns whose value exists far more on the recreational side than the shooting people side. But I also think it's silly to see what an incredible problem we have with gun deaths and think nothing should be done to curtail part of the problem. Banning certain types of guns and/or magazines is BY FAR the most logical approach. "Item A contributes to X amount of problems a year, so let's remove Item A". This is an INCREDIBLY logical step to take, and is one we take every day with all sorts of problems.
Anyways, you never asked, but that's where I stand. In what I consider to be the middle.
I'm listening to the radio right now, they are talking about 15,000 felony fugitives who tried to buy guns last year and Obama's justice department only prosecuted 44 of them. It was brought up in the gun law debate by Cruz. Why do we need to take guns away from legal owners again? Because it is quite clear who is doing the killing, and it isn't the large population of legal owners. I've suggested on this site several times that if we really wanted to put a dent in gun crime we should be going door to door in poor neighborhoods and taking guns away from males under 25. Nobody seems to want to touch that. But if the government (and indeed the clueless liberals) are OK with violating the rights of legal gun owners then they should have no problem violating those of poor gang members.
I have no problem with a crackdown on gang activity. The problem with this is the only way to crack down on gang activity is to pour money into these areas, and most of the same people who are against gun control are also fiscal conservatives.
When you start to look at all of these things together it becomes quickly apparent that "saving the children" is not the intent at all.
I'm curious as to how many those on the left have argued with you about wanting to crack down on gang violence.
And yet the media still lies about Sandy Hook, we hear from them and from many on the anti side about the Bushmaster rifle that was used. It's not true. There were 4 pistols used, no rifle. There was video of the shooter's trunk being opened by police and a round being cleared from a rifle that was NOT a Bushmaster or any other kind of "assault weapon".
I know this is a popular misconception amongst gun supporters, but it has been confirmed by the Connecticut state police it was an "assault rifle" which was used.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva]The shooter used the Bushmaster .223 to murder 20 children and six adults inside the school; he used a handgun to take his own life inside the school. No other weapons were used in this crime. This case remains under investigation.
[/FONT]http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284
In this case, the only media who has lied has been the gun media.
Beyond that there is a money issue. Is the government looking to buy these weapons back? They are not cheap.
This is ALWAYS the hardest part about my gun control plan, how to legally get back the guns which already exist with a government that is already spending more than it brings in.
I don't have the answer to this right now.
Are we supposed to just hand over thousands of dollars of personal property just to see if murder rates will drop?
This is certainly a very fair and very reasonable question. Which is why I think the first step is banning the purchase of future guns, to avoid escalating the cost of a future buyback program.
Would it be OK if government officials came to your house and said "There are a lot of people being killed by cars, so we're going to take yours so we can see if that will help". I don't think that's much of a stretch.
The government has already mandated that all, or at least some, cars which are manufactured must meet certain MPG limits. It's not any different than the government saying any gun you buy tomorrow cannot hold more than X number of rounds.
By the way, I do appreciate a quality and mature discussion on this, even though we are in disagreement.
