------

NO. The problem is that the average person can be put in situations where they can be careless or desperate or violent. When you put a gun in the hands of that average person, it makes that situation fatal.

I totally agree - perfectly normal people are subject to become frustrated, angry, violent, suicidal, etc. etc.

Saying it's just "crazies" is well... just crazy.

Marc

A person who becomes frustrated, angry, or desperate doesn't need a gun to become violent.  

Most of the murders we are reading about or seeing in the news are not the result of the average person having a terrible day, week, month, or whatever time period you want to suggest, and succumbing to stress by killing someone.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that no person can safely own any type of gun (for any purpose) because anybody could be placed in a situation that turns them desperate enough to shoot another person.  

I think that's going to far and veering into paranoia.  The vast majority of gun owners will never be a threat to anyone. 

I think we need reasonable gun control measures to eliminate the highest risks by taking assault rifles off the streets, eliminating high capacity magazines, increasing penalties on people who modify fire arms, and making it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to gain access to them.  That's just at the federal level.  States and municipalities should be able to impose additional restrictions as needed to address the particular needs of their communities, so it doesn't have to be a one size fits all approach.  

This is about Sandy Hook & Mandalay Bay and Columbine, et al.  This is about overproduction of firearms that allow them to get in the wrong hands and midday shoot ups in Chicago. This is about a government that sanctions the sale and proliferation of completely unnecessary possession by its "citizens" of assault weapons.  Weapons of mass destruction.  

If we concentrate on the average citizen who snaps, we will lose the narrative on the true problem.  Indeed the average person under the wrong circumstance is capable of extraordinary malice.  That can't be stopped; otherwise we would be speaking of banning kitchen knives as well.  

Guns are created for one reason and one reason only...to kill. The fact that a firearm can be purchased to kill in masse is not only reprehensible, but anathema to the spirit of our rights as individuals in our country.  There are monsters among us. Armed monsters with the ability to take down a village; with but a pull of the trigger.

That being said, I see no need for any gun whatsoever, but the toothpaste is already out of the tube.  This problem must be dealt with first and foremost by banning production of all assault weapons for public use.  Private sale from individual to individual must become a felony.  And here is the best part.  Hand guns can now be manufactured from 3D printers.  Where do we go from here?  I certainly have no idea.  Do we enforce true psychological profiles on the individual who wishes to purchase an assault weapon or any other gun?  That could be a very slippery slope.  Not just for the purchase of guns, but for other individual life choices.

The only real solution is the very opposed fear the NRA professes..."they are coming for our guns".  Which, unless we decide to live in a military state may be the only true solution.  This problem can only be minimized through legislation and enforcement of new laws. It can not be eliminated and that is the real problem. 

You hit the nail on the head here: "the ability to take down a village; with but a pull of the trigger"!!  Every liberty has responsibilities and some degree of reasonable restrictions to prevent abuse and anarchy.  

Some people often use the old reductio ad absurdum "if your neighbor wanted a tank or nuclear missile, is THAT right protected the 2nd Amendment?" - I just don't know why it's so difficult to accept that certain firearms are essentially weapons of mass destruction and have NO business being in private hands.

Marc

——-

Focusing on the Columbines, avoids talking about the 20,000+ suicides by gun per year and the over million women who have been threatened, injured, or killed with a gun by a domestic partner. 

I had a friend who was shot and murdered by her husband. It wasn’t a premeditated thing. He wouldn’t have grabbed a knife instead and stabbed her. That kitchen knife argument doesn’t fly with me. She’d still be alive if there hadn’t been a gun in the house. The judge in the case said the same thing, and it was an all too common happenstance from his perspective. 

There’s a cultural attitude toward guns in the US that needs to change. Americans don’t look at them as tools for protection; they look at them as tools to settle disputes, solve problems, and assert dominance.  

I think they are part of a different discussion that may involve gun control, but also involves many other issues. 

"Americans don’t look at them as tools for protection; they look at them as tools to settle disputes, solve problems, and assert dominance."

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think you're making a huge generalization, and one that is false in most instances. I know many gun owners, and they don't fit this description.    

What we have here is no argument or dispute.  Columbine and Sandy Hook are not exceptions, they are the rule!  Children.  Sweet children. Focusing on Columbine...those that had no say?  Four and Five year olds gunned down by the most vile of humans, is no comparison.  I grieve for yur friend.  Truly.  It is abhorrent.  But, you framed the argument that she would be alive today, were it not for a gun.  She partnered with a truly troubled human.  Truly, truly troubled.  

You posited an argument that can't be fought reasonably.  I present children; you have an adult friend, who I truly feel quite regretful for.  But to compare the two instances as equal?  To propel 4 year olds playing with blocks at lunch time, to that of an adult is counter productive.

My point.  To take the entire aggregate of violence against the mass catastrophe diminishes the argument against guns.  I pity the person who perishes unnecessarily by a firearm.  My pain is 10, 20,100 fold when it is a mass killing.

Suicide?  That is a deep ditch.  Are you going to blame guns or the media or just the general despair?  And in case you randomly read my post I HATE GUNS!  Your issue is a systemic issue, for which guns become shorthand.  These folks wallowing in despair and I truly pity them, would take their life regardless.  Sorry. True.

I get it it and agree.  All guns are bad. But, Jeebus..you presented an argument which I state again can't be fought.  Your friend died and dammit I am saddened and pissed for her.  But to apply equability to Columbine and Sandy Hook is just using a terrible experience of yours to prove a point that is not commensurate with mine of mass shootings.

I apologize if I offended you.

PS-30 years ago, At the age of 10, my cousin was stabbed to death 100 plus times by her brother.  Violence, will always seek the lowest common denominator.  Or highest, your call.