What tbe people in the Movement are saying is that there are already ENOUGH laws on the books. Nothing more need be added. The Gun Show Loophole is no longer existant. What you are seeking has alreadybeen written. But unfortunatley no matter HOW many laws are written, criminals are still going to commit crimes. Until we start disposing of them in a more Permanent Manner, criminals will continue to flourish.

Foolish? As foolish as insisting that guns aren't dangerous? Pulleeeese.

Grow the hell up. I said you could expect better of me, and you can.

It seems you have a hard time dealing with factual things, such as the bumper sticker you quoted.

The bumper sticker presents more than just a simple fact. It presents an implication that the guns themselves are harmless.

When it comes to implications vs. inferences, Occam's razor applies. That is, the inference that requires the fewest number of assumptions based on the facts at hand is the most plausible.

WHEN did a gun EVER kill anyone by itself?

It's really that simple, Ace, stop trying to complicate it.

Just let me ask you this. Would you feel safer knowing that everyone else who is also carrying has been trained and is as responsible as you? Or, would you feel safer in the long run knowing that many/most of them might not be?

Somehow you think that we aquire our liscense, then commence waving firearms around, firing them wildly & irresponsibly once we enter public buildings. You are confusing us with criminals who carry ILLEGALLY . Legal status & required training are what makes the 2 different groups totally different from eachother.

The ones who worry me are the people who buy themselves a gun for "self protection" and never bother to get any credible training. They can't use their guns effectively, and if they don't store them properly, the guns can wind up in the wrong hands. Unlike a gun in the hands of a trained and responsible adult, those guns are disasters waiting to happen.

This whole thread is about conceal/carry laws. Legally permitted individuals have the training to carry, & they do. It seems the only ones who think it is a terrible idea are those who are anti-gun, & those who are criminals who prey on unarmed people.

By Jon Schmitz, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Richard Poplawski, the accused killer of three Pittsburgh police officers, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which is issued by the Allegheny County sheriff's office and involves what the sheriff's office calls an "extensive background investigation."

Must not have been that extensive a background check...mental problems, kicked out of Boot Camp...purchasing large amounts of firearms...etc...

Mental Health Gun Bill Has Hidden Problems
Posted July 26, 2007

The compromise bill would make veterans currently prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons eligible to once again possess guns. Under current law, an estimated 80,000 veterans are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons. This change to the original bill comes in the wake of recent government and private studies revealing that the number of veterans dealing with mental illness is at an all-time high, with many receiving inadequate care. A recent Department of Defense task force study found that the military mental health system lacks providers and is "woefully inadequate" to deal with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, a new study reports that male U.S. veterans are not only twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service, but are also 58 percent more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. A 2000 analysis by the New York Times of 100 "rampage killers" found that the majority (52 percent) had a military background and 47 percent of the killers had a history of mental health problems.

But you are comparing 2 different groups of gun owners.

That is a PRIVATE individual right as described by the 2nd amendment. It seems everyone forgets about that. Hmmm.

If too many people are being killed by negligent operation of cars, then we either have the political will to make the cars and driving regulations safer, or we don't. But if we don't, that doesn't mean we have no right to reduce other threats if the political will is there.

Cars in irresponsible hands kill hundreds of thousands MORE than guns ever will in the US...but we sure can't seem to even get more regular testing done on those over 65...can we? And they're one of the three most high accident causing groups. Followed quickly by teenage males and black women. Going to regulate ANY of those other than by higher insurance costs?? Unlikely.