Clint Eastwood black and white

I would have no problem with all gun owners registering with a local militia that was required to train at regular intervals to own a gun like the 2nd amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militia definition back then: every able bodied individual.

It's not an all or nothing proposal. Gun control does not equal ban all guns. It means have some reasonable regulation. People who support the right to own guns should want that, and many do.

I love that chair bit. It just keeps on giving.

When I see that chair, it reminds me of the dimocrats, and their work for the people during this most recent session of congress... empty. TDS-crazed Impeachment efforts have emptied them of the resources they needed to do their jobs.

This analogy fails the main reason we have no requirement like a drivers license as a prerequisite to owning a gun.

There are lots of ways to die by firearm other than being shot by a bad guy. Preventable accidents and suicide are far too common.

Can I get an amen?!

Gun control laws (more of them) will not stop a person from committing suicide.

Preventable accidents are, well... preventable. I doubt you can find any serious 2A advocate that doesn't believe in gun safety training, for those of all ages. I don't recall how young I was when I was taught gun safety, but it's so young that I don't recall ever not knowing about gun safety.

I always ask this question, and have never received any kind of serious answer... if a gun control advocate can explain to me how any (more) gun control laws would have prevented any of the tragic shootings, then I'd likely be in favor of that law. But they can't. I want specifics, because just telling me and the American public that certain restrictions will work, just won't justify throwing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution into the toilet.

So, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that those in favor of more gun control laws, just don't like guns, and want to take mine for that reason. That's not going to happen.

(my apologies to the person I stole this meme from... I couldn't find the original)

"any of the tragic shootings"

What I would say is that these tragic shootings generate lots of media coverage and create flash-points for discussion of gun control. However, they are not the real issue here. They constitute a small minority of gun deaths per year. The real issue is the thousands of people dying in small-scale shootings. We will probably never find a way to prevent a highly-motivated serial killer from accomplishing his sick and twisted ends through use of firearms (see: Norway and New Zealand). However, if we at least banned automatic weapons I believe the rates of those kinds of mass shootings would fall.

The issue is totally non-evil people like you and me who either: 1. Fire a gun accidentally while hunting, target-shooting, or otherwise; 2. Fail to properly secure our guns one day and allow the kids to get in and play with them; 3. Fall into the wrong crowd, get caught up in gang violence and the gun-centric lifestyle that entails; 4. Reach for the handgun in a moment of despair and blast our brains out because guns make committing suicide remarkably easy.

Turning back to countries like Norway and New Zealand: they have far lower rates of death from firearms from small-scale shootings. Because there are fewer firearms around. In the case of Japan, a large country of well over 130 million people, hardly anyone dies of guns. You might say: some or all of that can be attributed to "cultural differences." Well, then I'd say: what about the aspect of our culture which worships guns? That's a cultural issue too, and one that we can only change by talking about it.

No, I don't "just despise guns." I despise the carnage they inflict. Personally, I find that guns are gorgeous pieces of machinery to admire. I love a good gun-oriented action video game or movie.

But I shudder to hold a loaded one in my hand.

Thanks for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply. Here are my comments to the four points you listed:

1. Originally you said "preventable accidents", but this reply seems to shift that to "accidents", which can happen to the most safety-minded firearms users. I don't think this argument is all that persuasive, unless we're talking licensing firearms, and requiring passing a safety course. But, that's not how the 2A is worded.

2. Firearms proponents would say the odds of this happening to a responsible owner are pretty slim. The type of parent that would allow this to happen, would likely make other mistakes that could result in their children being in peril, imo.

3. I'm not sure what to say about this. It wouldn't happen to most adults, so if your concern is kids, then I would say that firearms are just a symptom of a far greater problem.

4. Yes, suicides with firearms are unfortunate. I don't think the "spur of the moment" argument will sway many, nor stand up in court.

Plus, don't most control proponents focus on handguns, and what they inaccurately describe as assault weapons? So, rifles and shotguns would not be restricted? If not, we'll still have firearm-related suicides.

If a person hates firearms, which I understand, then do what my parents would have done and remove yourself from that environment. Kids would not have the same option, so I would hope some intelligent and compassionate common sense parenting would come into play for that example.

I don't think we can ever realistically compare approaches taken by small countries like Norway and NZ with what may work in the US for similar issues. Is their per capita rate for violent crime that much lower? Probably is. What about removing just three places from US violent crime stats; Baltimore/DC, Chicago, NY. Would US stats compare more favorably to these smaller countries then? If so, we need to start in those US cities, and leave the rest of the country alone, imo.

Yes, guns are cultural. I don't think it's fair to say US culture "worships" guns. What we do worship is freedom, and firearms represent that freedom, and help to ensure our freedom. That's what the founders wanted. So you have that pesky 2nd amendment to deal with. Amend the Constitution and make firearms control efforts legal. Until then, the law is on the side of gun owners.

Automatic weapons have been banned for decades.. and virtually none of the mass shootings that have occurred this decade were done with automatics

I literally did not have enough space to point this out in my reply, so thanks for doing so.

I'm sure this well-intentioned, but factually ignorant individual believes AR-15's are automatic weapons.

What it does illustrate is that those on the side of this issue who want to ban most, if not all, firearms, clearly do not understand the types of laws currently on the books. They naively believe that somehow passing more laws to ban what's already banned, will have some kind of magical effect now, that the already existing laws don't have.

Yes, you're all having a field day over the fact that I omitted four letters and neglected to properly characterize an AR-15 as a "semi-"automatic, but that omission does not negate the fact that AR-15's have been used repeatedly in mass shootings and are far more firepower than any civilian should own. It a tool of war more akin to a bazooka than a tool of self-defense.

Conservatives who argue that such weapons are necessary to stave off the invasion of an entire team of heavily-armed burglars are in their own paranoid heads

AR-15s fire a far less powerful round than the average hunting rifle and semi-automatic weapons have been common in civilian ownership since the 50s and 60s. And the difference made by those four letters is huge. Automatics continually fire as long as you hold the trigger down, semi-automatic simply fires once per pull of the trigger - a common handgun is a semi-automatic weapon, many of which hold as many rounds in the magazine as the AR-15 in states with high capacity magazine bans. You trying to compare them to a bazooka simply shows you haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.

More gun nut-flexing. If you can give me a good reason for why you need an AR-15 for self-defense, or any other reason, I’m listening.

"Educating me on weapons so I'm not completely ignorant about the subject at hand is gun nut-flexing hur durr" And for the same reasons you need any other weapon. Home/self defense, hunting, recreational shooting, or militia service if that's your thing

None of those possible usages are important enough to justify permitting general ownership of a weapon of mass slaughter which has been used exactly that way multiple times, and it doesn’t matter how much you know about them.

The deadliest attack on US soil in recent history with the highest body count was carried out by nutters with box cutters.. should we outlaw them as well?

"However, if we at least banned automatic weapons I believe the rates of those kinds of mass shootings would fall."

Automatic weapons have already been banned. I certainly don't hope you mean semi-automatic weapons.

That's exactly what that means. An obvious part of the problem is that those who want to ban certain types of firearms, don't even know what it is they want to ban. How long did it take them to stop calling AR-15's assault rifles? They're so damn dumb, they probably believe the AR stands for assault rifle!

If you could get them to be honest, I bet they would admit they want to ban all firearms.

Now you're getting down to brass tacks and hard facts.

Indeed. For some strange reason you have to be more skillful with a car than you need to be with a gun.

In my state you need a FIOD card so that is in least part false. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/licensing-state-by-state/