God damned crazy motherfuckers.

[Turbo Ghost]

You mentioned a shift in how Americans view firearm ownership. I agree. The best example I've seen (which google has failed to find for me) was a cartoon in Hustler magazine. It was a two-panel, then and now cartoon. On the left it showed a frontier setting with several kids off to school in the morning with a slightly older boy carrying his long-rifle. The caption was "They'll be ok. Johnny's got his gun." The right panel showed a school massacre with the caption "Oh my god! Johnny's got a gun!".
We've gotten away from the idea that a gun is a tool to be used in many ways. We can procure food. We can have fun with targets. We can defend ourselves and if necessary others and in extreme examples our nation. Today's generation and probably the last few were not raised with guns and have no respect or understanding of them and only see them as dangerous weapons and they use them as such.
No one needs weapons like that you say? (not you, the general anti-gun lobby) That depends on what the situation. If I were in the L.A. riots several years back, considering I'm white for a white boy, I would want as much firepower as possible to protect myself. I would not be out looking for trouble. I would be barricaded in my home. If you want to get into the need for things being the only reason to have them then perhaps we should look at our bikes. My KLR has 35RWHP and will cruise the highways just fine and on a really good day, it will hit around 100mph. So, obviously there's no reason for anymore HP than that. They should ban these crazy power-monsters! It's too much! What if they point it at a schoolyard! They could kill dozens of children with one of those! Etc.
The 2nd amendment was created to make sure we remained a free society. Free from the oppression of any invading force AND the oppression of our own government should it turn corrupt. (even moreso than it is now) A "well-regulated militia" is US! That's US not U.S.! There was no standing army back then. It was any man woman or child that could hold a gun to protect themselves and those that couldn't or wouldn't.
I have owned many guns over the years since I was about 10 and started shooting when I was about 6. I have never pointed a gun towards any human for ANY reason in that time and hope I never need to do so. If I'm pointing a gun at a human, they have done something terribly wrong. None of the guns I've owned have been military style weapons. They're nice and I like them but, never had any desire to own any. I can accomplish whatever I need with what I have. There are those who feel they need those weapons and I have no problem with that.
As you mentioned, the problems run much deeper than guns and I agree. There are many problems. More guns aren't necessarily the solution but, fewer guns is just as much a problem.

[Turbo Ghost]

Paul,
My reply wasn't aimed at you. You responded while I was typing my novel.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Turbo Ghost

Paul,
My reply wasn't aimed at you. You responded while I was typing my novel.

NP,

Didn't think you were responding to me.

[Papa_Complex]

Turbo Ghost,

Everyone brings out the motorcycle comparison and it's a completely invalid one. A motorcycle, of whatever type, has as it's primary purpose for being the transportation of a person. The primary function of a firearm is to project a bullet at sufficient velocity to kill. Comparisons like that are a big reason why I say that Americans MUST change their view of firearms.

Fewer guns is as much of a problem? Sorry, but I can't agree. Just who is training and regulating the 'militia'?

[pauldun170]

...

[Turbo Ghost]

They are different but, when it comes to wants and needs, the comparison is valid especially when in a life or death situation you will want more power from both your bike and your gun.
Who's training the militia (us)? That's the exact problem I refered to earlier. Generations before us were actually trained by those in the know and those skills were passed down from parent to child but, over the last several generations, that skill and respect has disappeared. Even here in the South it's waning terribly. When I was young, after school there would be a mass of youths heading into the woods to hunt squirrels. There would literally be dozens of us within a mile or less. No one ever got hurt or even hinted at hurting anyone. We were taught by our parents how to handle guns and the responsibility that goes along with the potential of a gun.
I personally was amazed at how much pressure and responsibility I felt once I received my carry permit. It is entirely possible I may be someone's (or my own) last line of defense in a bad situation. Before I could carry, I always felt responsible for the care of others if needed but, I feel it more so now.
I actually feel a bit guilty for not actually carrying yet. I'm usually the most calm and level-headed in any situation. Nothing rattles me. (titties don't count) and I've always been able to talk my way out of every bad situation I've encountered and I believe I will be able to continue that tradition. However, IF I can't, I do have another option. I hope it never comes to that and it probably won't but, ya never know.

So, how exactly ARE we supposed to change our view of firearms? What are we supposed to be thinking? How should we view them?

[Turbo Ghost]

Paul,
That's funny. "It's funny cause it's true!": Homer Simpson

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Turbo Ghost,

Everyone brings out the motorcycle comparison and it's a completely invalid one. A motorcycle, of whatever type, has as it's primary purpose for being the transportation of a person. The primary function of a firearm is to project a bullet at sufficient velocity to kill. Comparisons like that are a big reason why I say that Americans MUST change their view of firearms.

How is the primary purpose of an object relevant in regards to the number of deaths it causes? Or, to frame the question differently, what makes the thousands of deaths by motor vehicles more acceptable than the thousands of deaths by firearms?

Nobody is really talking about doing away with assault rifles, or any other types of firearms. The discussion is about disallowing their private ownership. I think that makes the question of all types of motor vehicles a valid question. If you aim to reduce the number of deaths attributed to firearms by restricting their possession and operation to professional organizations (police, security guards, etc.), then where is the push to restrict the possession and operation of motor vehicles to professional organizations (taxis, busses)? By the numbers, motor vehicles are far more deadly machines. Disallowing their private ownership would go a long way toward reducing those fatalities. Is convenience of transportation really worth a life?

[RACER X]

Sad how all the news agencys keep referring to an AR as the weapon used to kill all the kids, fact is that he used handguns, the ar was still in the car

We need to ban assault weapons, though handguns killed more people in Chicago!
Who am I?

[Papa_Complex]

How should they be viewed? For a start people should stop using euphemisms when talking about them. They're weapons. Firearms is almost as good a word to use, but ultimately the only word that fully applies is weapon.

Second, stop making comparisons to things that simply don't apply. The only thing that possibly ties a motorcycle to a firearm are the words, "I want." By that metric you could just as easily tie a motorcycle to a baby. The logical fallacy is obvious in the second, so why not the first?

Thirdly, require an accredited training course (either hunting or defence) for firearm ownership. Accreditation would be performed by government, but training and testing would be performed by trained civilians. This would satisfy the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, helping to instill proper reverence and practise in firearm owners.

Fourth and last, have a NATIONAL firearms strategy. This mishmash of State laws is ridiculous. You're one country. Something this important shouldn't be dealt with on a virtual ad hoc basis.