For the Pro Gun Control people. What is your goal?

I am serious.
Is it to prevent Conceal and Carry?
Is it to prevent assault rifle sales?
Or maybe it is to just prevent sales of guns to criminals?
Please list your ultimate goals for gun control and maybe we can have a legit discussion!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Veto the stupid GOP/NRA reciprocity bill

Make concealed permits "may issue"

Ban open carry of handguns

and the rest of the GOP/NRA douchebag agenda

yup

oh yeah make ALL guns sales subject to federal and state background checks - and keep a permanent data base of gun sales.

ban high capacity magazines

yup

oh yeah - force gun dealers to report multiple semi-auto long gun sales to the ATF

yup

Is there a magic number where there's just too many rounds in a magazine, so it magically becomes a threat to public safety that could have been avoided if it held one less cartridge? What is the number? How was that number determined?

If round count is the deciding factor in determining the lawfulness of magazine, couldn't the magazine capacity restriction then be overcome by simply carrying more magazines? If so, what does restricting magazine capacity accomplish?

Have you really thought about any of this, or this just another anti-gun sub-issue that provides you with a new avenue to attack lawful gun ownership?

If big bad manly toters can't defend themselves with 8 rounds then they are...

:rofl:

I carry a 1911 with 8-round stainless steel magazines. I do it because it's the finest handgun ever made, IMO, but I'd rather have one more round than what John Moses Browning designed. If I could get 9 or 10 round magazines that didn't stick out past the mag well lip, I would, but I can't.

I must ask again, why? What makes 8 the magic number? Do you have some research that supports your position, or is that an arbitrarily selected number?

The only one I have that would be 'ok' is a bolt-action from WWI, and a rifle from 1889.

I guess Garands would be ok, so there's that. Thanks for that modern bit of firearm technology you will graciously allow us.

I haven't carried my Colt .45 auto with its 8+1 capacity for years. It's just too damn heavy and uncomfortable to carry concealed in the warm temperatures in Florida. I know a fairly large number of people who carry concealed on a regular basis who chose compact handguns that have a magazine capacity of 8 or less. Only two people I know carry handguns with what you would define as being high capacity and both own their own business.

Perhaps those who carry in colder environments choose handguns with large magazines. Considering just how popular recent compact handguns such as the Ruger LCP have proven to be, I believe the majority of those who regularity carry concealed prefer the smaller handguns that hold fewer rounds.

...8 rounds?

...soon as you start practicing a state-approved religion, only have sex with state-approved partners in state-approved ways, only protest state-approved issues in a state-approved fashion and only expect all of your other rights to be exercised in a state-approved manner.

If you don't like firearms, don't have one. If you don't want to get shot, don't do anything to violate the rights of another. These are pretty simple concepts.

...6? I don't give a rat's ass about what number you pull out of yours. I just want to the reasoning behind that number.

Unfortunately for authoritarians like yourself, that liberal idea covers all rights, including the 2nd Amendment.

though they are loathe to admit it and talk about such things as "reasonable restrictions", their real goal is a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment..

That will stop police from attacking people with pepper spray and truncheons.

Don't believe me? Check out the video of armed Black Panthers in Houston where they openly exercised their Constitutional rights to rally in public while the cops stood by helplessly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNGUlxn7hf8

If right wingers can do this so can everyone else. The reason why Tea Baggers and their ilk get by peacefully is because they are armed. The OWS get attacked by cops and feds is because they are not. Use the same legal tactics as the right wingers do and OWS will be enjoying the same respect.

...not being pro-control, I have no idea but...


...some folks can't see through their feelings; I guess that's why it's called 'blind' hate.

"Waiting periods are only a step.
Registration is only a step.
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
--U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93
Obviously Mr. Biden hasn't read the Constitution lately.

Ban the damn things (guns). Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
-- Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

You asked what was the goal

Specifically, to ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of people whom are likely to use them for ill purposes, as well as ensure that people know how to use them safely so that they don't accidentally injure (or kill) themselves or others. I would also say that ownership of certain highly destructive weapons should be prohibited as well (i.e. weapons that are clearly excessive for basic protection/hunting purposes). To what extent this can or should be legislated by the government is debatable, of course, but there are certain things that I believe that we can all agree on in terms of ensuring the safety of all citizens while also ensuring the ability of people to retain firearms for protection/recreation IMHO.

n/t

and crimes with them are virtually non-existent. Are there any other weapons you want to restrict?

Just giving an example of the kind of weapons I think most people shouldn't have.

Given that crimes with legally owned automatic weapons are virtually non-existent, it doesn't seem to be much of a problem, does it?

Are they necessary for self-protection and/or hunting or any other legitimate purpose? :shrug: Only the police and/or army should have those kind of weapons IMHO.

that there are roughly 250,000 legally owned automatic weapons in circulation in the U.S. right now, and there have been only a handful of incidents involving such weapons, both before and after the National Firearms Act was put on the books about 80 years ago?

Why would you want to ban something that is not now nor ever has been a problem? Why would you expect others to justify a need to exercise a right? Is simply having the right not sufficient for you? If it isn't, then what you are really saying is that you don't respect the right and wish for it to be a privilege. I find that highly offensive, as liberalism is an ideology that supports broad freedom, and that sentiment is clearly not liberal.

For the most part only the police and army do have those kind of weapons

Registered.
Taxed.
Tracked.
Surpise inspections.
Full paper background checks. (not NICS)
New ones completely banned since 1986.

So, given you have to open your life to inspection to the BATFE to acquire one, pay a $200 charge for the priviledge, inform the BATFE where it is, submit to inspection, and pay upwards of $14,000 for a $600 M-16, why oh why are automatic weapons even an issue on your mind?

why do you want the police to have them?

Why is it okay for the police to "load for bear" but not the rest of us lowly peons without our knighthoods from the local lord?

though they may need them in the case of a situation involving some well-armed criminals. Probably not necessary for routine police work but more like for SWAT teams. :shrug:

have automatic weapons. Your police department may vary.

Sure are.

They are great tools for armed revolt - regardless of which side you're on.

Yes, the use of force to remove a government is a legitimate purpose.

If it involves any further infringement on my RKBA..you can forget about it.

Isn't this what the NRA claims to want too?

I would think that everybody should agree that there are certain people whom shouldn't be allowed to have guns (people convicted of certain crimes) and that everybody should ensure that they are locked up around kids and that they have some minimum degree of training or knowledge before using guns (to protect themselves and others). :shrug:

I don't like guns and never plan to own any but I'm not naive enough to think that banning guns here in America is practical and/or desirable and, frankly, I don't really care if somebody wants to have one for self-defense or recreation but I just don't believe that guns belong in everybody's hands nor do I believe they need to be brought everywhere in public either.

Which Civil Rights should be invalid in which locations...


Wait, haven't we tried that before? :shrug:

What the fuck does "clearly excessive for basic protection/hunting purposes" mean?

fire power. I suppose I'm on the same side as Ronald Reagan there. It's more of a Bogeyman than anything. Get some people laying awake at night afraid that the guvmint's gonna git their guns!

Keeps the people running the NRA in the big money and helps Republicans.

to get a gun. Stolen, etc.

extra clips and everything on short notice that way. That's the kind of weapons no one really needs for hunting or likely to be carrying in legal self defense anyway.

I would prefer another weapon for self-defense than what I use for turkey.

An "assault rifle" is a fully-automatic weapon used by most major military forces; an "assault weapon" is a term of art to describe weapons which look like assault rifles, but can only fire semi-automatically. This latter group functions essentially like other semi-automatic rifles used for over a century; they just look like military arms (I have a 106-yr-old rifle few have ever been interested in banning, but it doesn't look scary).

BTW, the semi-auto "assault weapon" is rapidly becoming the weapon of choice in hunting due to its ergonomics and lessened recoil, compared with, say, "traditional" hunting rifles made with walnut and blue steel. Some 5 years ago, it was estimated that some 16,000,000 "assault weapons" were now owned by the civilian population. That number may be closer to 20,000,000. Note also that semi-auto "assault weapons" would not be considered suitable for military use: lack of fire power. The number of semi-auto pistols (you refer to these as "automatic") in civilian hands probably dwarfs the "assault weapons" number.

Thanks for your reasonable response. I offer this possible area of discussion: Making the National Instant Background Check System universal. This would involve serious questions of federalism, information storage and retrieval, security, cost, etc. But there is considerable sympathy among pro-2A folks here for this change. The topic has been discussed at length over the years.

(w/out a special permit) right?

That was the premier "Assault Rifle" in its day (1830)...

Nothing greater than a matchlock can be allowed! AND NO POWDER!! That is the dangerous bang stuff.

If it is needed :sarcasm:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

PS I do have 2 matchlocks in my collection.

Hard to have a productive discussion with that kind of a start.

They're not as explicit in admitting their goals these days, though...they know it doesn't sell.

"As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns."

But back in 1976, then-chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields stated:

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

Throw in a ban on "assault weapons", and I think you get the primary goals of those dedicated to gun control.

yet some here are scared to death of them.

The Brady Bunch are actually a source of humor...but they're also useful to illustrate what the authoritarians gun control agenda is really all about..

Throw in the Heller decision and the sunset of the "assault weapons" ban, and everything's been going the pro-gun way for the last 15 years.

Should we keep an eye on the gun-control crowd? Sure. As for being "scared to death" of them, though...

:rofl:

Nobody brings them up as much as the pro gunnies.

What's the pretty map about anyway - the 2012 political picture? :rofl:

What's the pretty map about anyway - the 2012 political picture?

Freedom is on the march!

Because it is in everyones best interest, that through highlighting their lies, dishonesty, and veiled goals, that they stay that way.

Regardless of what the second amendment says, people do night have the right to own a firearm because they're just going to go out and kill someone. The second amendment is a lie, pure and simple.

Firearms only belong in the hands of the police and the military and nobody else. They and only they are the only ones who can be trained responsibly enough to use them wisely and in out defense.

So firearms should be taken away from the civilian populace. period.

That's the goal.

And when a progressive president realizes that goal is the day America will be safe from the irrational people.

He could very well be.

I fully believe that guns only lead to irrational violence.

So yes, I'm very serious.

Aaeeeeeoooucghhnnprsstttttwwy

:9

Earlier you made exceptions for the police and military.

You know, the people who will eventually be ordered by an irrational or power-hungry politician to crush our dissent when they continue to deprive us of our rights.

And then we will not have anything to fight back with.

What?

I am going to call into question your definition of "rational" at this point.

Just don't think for one moment your stated opinion is rooted in fact or reality.

and he got one.

I don't agree with it, but the honesty is vastly preferable to the snark of hypocrites who try to pay lip service to the second.

enforcers. They haven't read much history, apparently, to learn unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. Often the gov. and the enforcers become extremely hostile toward a meek populace. Maybe one day, but mankind IMO has a long way to go on the road of social development. Funny, once I was against firearms for citizens, but more and more I'm in favor ... I can see why some feel the need to be protected.

We do not have true "Freedom of Assembly", nor "Freedom of Speech".

make their use illegal and watch them disappear from our streets? Got it.

Any time they want, are the only people you want to have guns? Along with the same military that is frequently accused of being homophobic?

If states actually put effort into training civilians to carry guns responsibility (more so than now, which is needed to get a gun license), would you feel better about that?

Do we really need one gun for every man, woman and child in this country?

I have no problem with people having hunting rifles, a handgun for protection while taking the daily receipts to the bank, classic collectibles and objects of design beauty, or just that gun to shoot targets in the backyard. But it's gotten out of hand, and our culture is awash in firearms. I think the goal should be to tone that down considerably.

The U.S. is by far the largest arms exporter on the planet. This attitude does not affect just us, and it's not just with guns as personal property. We export death on a huge scale, because our culture just LOVES death and killing. I think the goal should be to tone down that attitude, and, you know, try to get along with ourselves and the rest of the people on this planet a little bit better. Try to solve our problems rationally without resorting to the default of violent force.

Got a problem with that?

Got a cite for that?

Do we really need one gun for every man, woman and child in this country?

If the gun is being used lawfully what is the issue?

I concede the point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

http://www.sipri.org/googlemaps/at_top_20_exp_map.html

or

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13415


"If the gun is being used lawfully what is the issue?"

Using guns has, in far too many instances, become the problem-solving tool of first-resort.
Like this, just the latest in a litany of examples:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/gun-toting-bicyclist-kill_n_1114188.html

"lawfully"

A lot of countries have about same percentage of gun owners, just fewer guns. They also own fewer DVD players, cars, TVs etc.

with there guns everywhere all the time bullshit

yup

The thugs you see in pictures are retainers for the local warlord, defacto authorities.

yup

those are the retainers of the local warlord and their vassals. The serfs, the vast majority of the people, do not. Since it is mostly the "authorities" that have guns, it is closer to your paradise than mine. A feudal society is closer to the Kochs' paradise, as long as they are one of the ones with the gold.

are terribly confused and ignorant.

yup

Our being "the largest arms exporter on the planet" includes vehicles, ships, missiles, bombs, artillery, explosives, technology, etc.
Meanwhile, Italy exports Beretta, Franchi, Benelli; the Nordic countries Tika and Sako, the Spanish several makes of firearms, Great Britain, several makes of shotguns, Brazil, Austria, Germany and other countries, several makes, and on and on. This is, BTW, a fact, not an "attitude." Furthermore, the vast majority of Americans do not have access to the "exported death" of military arms (including our own), and have no interest in acquiring them. You may think Americans "LOVE death and killing," that is your right, but I've seen too many tears from families who have to welcome their sons and daughters home (in a box) to believe that.

I agree that we should "...get along with ourselves and the rest of the people on this planet a little bit better." But you have somehow linked that to both the uses and numbers of guns, and that link is not established. When central African nations slaughter hundreds of thousands of each other (within the last 10 years) with machetes, when our own violent crime rate has fallen steadily over the last 15 years (even as we have become "awash" in guns), and when Russia establishes a murder rate far in excess of ours, even with strict gun-control, this mitigates against that link.

Guns are dangerous. That is their design, that is their purpose, to be dangerous. To shoot a piece of metal at high velocity, to damage or kill the target.

Don't give me this bullshit about proper training, safety procedures, design of the gun, whatever. That has nothing to do with the fact that guns are designed to kill at a distance, period. That is their primary purpose and they do and that with high efficiency and that is the primary problem here, the killing. With swords, knives, machetes, etc., you have to get up close and personal. That fact alone stops most people. Guns not so much. The effective range makes guns an impersonal weapon and therefore easier to shoot at someone at a distance. The human is less human at a distance, then when you can feel and smell them when looking them in the eyes when trying to plant a knife in their torso.

"But I only use my gun at the gun range", or "I only use my gun for target shooting". Good for you. But that is missing the point completely. They are still dangerous unto themselves, from being dropped, hang fires, ricochets, missed shots, 'cleaning', children of any age, any time the gun is discharged. No one can get around that without epoxying the chamber.

Guns, especially hand guns, since they are the major problem in the high rate of needless deaths in this country, need to be well regulated just like the Militia in the 2nd amendment the gun nutz try to ignore. Shall Issue permits is moronic. Or is the proper term around here 'moranic'?

Too many morans have guns and this is the root cause of the gun problem in the first place. Minimum regulations, so everyone can have some is not he answer.

Please note that the police are not charged by law with protecting you. They are only charged with investigating crimes, gathering evidence, apprehending suspects, and holding them for disposition before a magistrate. If you sue law enforcement organizations for not "protecting you," you will surely lose.

The vast majority of crimes occur without police intervention; no fault of law enforcement, they just can't be there. Surely you realize that.

nm

Guess we all just end up dead out in the sticks, huh?

With swords, knives, machetes, etc., you have to get up close and personal. That fact alone stops most people. Guns not so much. The effective range makes guns an impersonal weapon and therefore easier to shoot at someone at a distance. The human is less human at a distance, then when you can feel and smell them when looking them in the eyes when trying to plant a knife in their torso.

I've had the misfortune of being placed in the position of having to shoot another human being and I can assure you that the experience was anything but impersonal. As a matter of fact I still have nightmares about it 20 years later

Or did you shoot them from a block or more away?
That is the point I am trying to make.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

yup

Look up the average distance for a defensive firearm use.

Hint: You can "see the whites of their eyes."

Edit: fixed spelling error

Too many morans have guns and this is the root cause of the gun problem in the first place. Minimum regulations, so everyone can have some is not he answer.

is most of the problem in places that have stricter laws? Do drug dealers and gangsters apply for CCWs? Most of our problem is them killing each other.

Murder rates in medieval Europe were several times higher than even the worst recorded American murder rates, despite man-portable firearms not being available yet. The genocides in Cambodia (at least 1.4 million murdered) and Rwanda (at least 800,000+ murdered) were overwhelmingly carried out using sharp tools like pickaxes, shovels and machetes. Just to compare, the Yugoslav Wars of 1991-1995 resulted in an estimated 125,000 dead including combatant personnel, and while admittedly ~2.7 people were also forcibly displaced, I think that's rather a glaring difference given that there was no shortage of firearms and ammunition in Yugoslavia.

Your assertions are merely so much conjecture with no basis in empirical fact.

Long distance lethal weapons have been around for thousands of years. Until the 19th century bows were in many ways superior to guns. Bows still enjoy some marked advantages over guns. For example bows are almost silent.

And that seems to be the only type of person that gets involved in this stupid argument.

Either people are screaming that the government should ban all firearms.

Or they're crying like little girls that the government is trying to ban all firearms.

Far as I'm concerned the government should not ban any firearms. Nor am I worried that they really want to.

I've been hearing this bullshit for 50 years and I own more guns than I did 50 years ago.

You're trying to move this discussion into a more sensible area and I applaud you for that.

But you're wasting your time. These threads always deteriorate into name calling and finger pointing.

"crying like little girls"

"hysterical people"

Is that what you are referring to?

and a waste of bandwidth.

I wouldn't mind being able to hide it, along with some other forums on DU, but whoever runs the place chooses not to have that option.

Guns kill people and are impolite to modern society...

;)

Do you want to be a sheep, a wolf or a sheepdog?

Think about it.

Grossman’s “Sheep, Sheepdogs and Wolves” was mainly directed at professional soldiers and police officers it was never intended to be a Raison d'être for concealed carry permit holders. It’s an analogy and like all analogies its flawed and you don’t have to take it too far to find the flaws.

Sheep are herd animals that are kept not out of the benevolent goodness of their owner’s heart but because they produce goods that benefit the owner and only the owner. Where do you think the term getting “fleeced” came from? Unproductive sheep are killed.

Sheepdogs are not part of the flock they are employed to impose the owner’s will on the sheep, by force if necessary. They guard the flock because it is of benefit to the owner and they have no qualms about herding the flock to a slaughterhouse if that is what the owner commands. Sheep dog is not an appellation I would care to have applied to me.

It has been my experience that those, in the permit holder community, who seek the title of sheepdog, tend to be authoritarians who use it as a means of self aggrandizement. They tend to derive their feelings of self worth from the position of quasi authority they assume their permit gives them. This is, of course, my opinion but I have also seen posters on gun boards state that our status as permit holders makes us defacto auxiliary police officers. As such I believe the sheepdog mythology is very, very dangerous to the gun owning community and I speak against it at every opportunity.

If so, I think you missed the moral of the story.

Of the CCHs I know, most people wouldn't have an idea that they are armed. They don't brag or brandish, and most are just regular guys and gals who feel it is their own duty to protect themselves, their families, and property. They aren't looking for trouble, but will deal with it if trouble comes their way. Somebody cuts them off or flips them off on the highway, they just live with it. Not any cowboys in the bunch.

Here is the last paragraph w/ appropriate emphasis

It has been my experience that those, in the permit holder community, who seek the title of sheepdog, tend to be authoritarians who use it as a means of self aggrandizement. They tend to derive their feelings of self worth from the position of quasi authority they assume their permit gives them. This is, of course, my opinion but I have also seen posters on gun boards state that our status as permit holders makes us de facto auxiliary police officers. As such I believe the sheepdog mythology is very, very dangerous to the gun owning community and I speak against it at every opportunity.


BTW you are aware that Grossman has pretty much been discredited right?

As far as permit holders, I don't know how many are sheepdogs, but one thing I find they have in common is they are they are A type personalities. They don't want to save the world, but they show no hesitation in protecting what is near and dear to them. Those I know don't seek trouble, but also do not run from it.

In Grossman being discredited, that may be so. There are those who disagree with him, and that is their right to do so.

Going to bookmark it for future reference. If you examine this analogy, as you point out, sheep are owned by someone, as is the sheepdog. So the question you have to ask of those using it is

"Who owns the sheep AND the sheepdog doing the guarding? More to the point, if you claim you are a sheepdog you are implying someone owns you. Who is your owner?"

The sheep have a difficult time telling wolves from sheepdogs.

It simply means that those that go unarmed have a hard time telling the intention of those that are armed, and so they treat them all as if they were the threat.

Edit: apparently I can neither spell nor proofread, today

Frankly, some of the weapons so many gun owners today are drawn to indicate a serious psychological issue. Similarly, those that believe that the threats to them are so serious that they need a gun or two everywhere they go, hi cap mags, fast draw holsters, etc., are just not living in the 21st century.

I would think anyone would be for all steps to prevent sales of guns to criminals or the unstable -- well, except too many gun owners want to be able to sell them to anyone in a back alley with a fist full of cash and no background check. I think all sales need to go through someone with a firearms license.

I also think we need to start taking steps to reduce the number of guns manufactured. I believe the day will come, as a poster suggested above, when government finally decides to take tough steps for the safety of society. I see no reason to keep pumping out more and more of the dang things so that the problem is millions of guns worse when that time comes.

I also believe that many of those who carry guns in public that post here are probably the most "decent" gun owners in our country. But, to allow them to strap a gun or two on every time they walk into a public park or restaurant also means we have to let bigoted TBaggers, right wing hate groups, the Loughners, etc., do the same. The latter are not so "decent."

We are in the midst of the public arming up -- and no reasonable person can see that as a plus to society, now or in the future.

More later.

When you show me your shrink credentials and show us in the DSM, wake me up.


Some are that real. Few, granted. Other than technology and population, how is the 21st century different than the 14th? That argument makes no sense.


We do, including the NRA even. Those back alley gun owners are also your drug connection.


Many of us do, question is how are you going to enforce that?


Why? The government is us, at least while we are still a democracy. How will it make society more safe? Why do all of the countries that have higher, even far higher murder rates also have stricter gun laws?


Same applies for speech or anything else.


As soon as the "reasonable people" argument comes up, more logical fallacies are sure to follow.

... re gun control or whatever.

impossible. So if criminals have them then honest citizens might as well also.

You cannot prevent gun sales. No party will even suggest that. You will never ban handgun sales so handguns will always be available to criminals because of the 100,000 thefts of handguns every year.

So if you cannot stop sales and cannot remove them from peoples homes your only choice is to allow people to carry them for defense.

Just one more thing if you please:

Our Founding Fathers did not intend to make weapons available to the citizenry to protect the public from criminals. They intended this right as protection from abusive government.

Having said, to what extent today, in your opinion, do citizens have this right to use against those same abuses?

Short of the military of course while they are in an active threat situation.

I imagine our troops would sleep sounder at night unarmed, serving the poor, than highly armed, and killing Muslims.

Confiscating law abiding peoples' guns doesn't work. Criminals get them on the black market, and there's the 2nd Amendment, of course.

CCW actually prevents crime. There are statistics to back this up. A lot of stupid people also have CCW - I saw an example of this in person. Doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to CCW, though.

What guns law-abiding people own, except for extreme military-grade weapons, are none of my or the government's business. Fully-automatic assault rifles, for instance, would almost never be used in crimes for many reasons (criminals mostly use hand guns).

I am for preventing gun crime and educating people about the dangers of owning guns in their home. People should know that owning a gun adds extra danger to their home - especially if they don't secure and lock them up properly. I am for disrupting the flow of illegal guns into the US, and passing laws to make it easier to track illegal guns.