Done.

Done

even after some coloring tricks i needed 3 guesses

done

done--1 lucky guess

started with a guess...and was wrong...flipped it and done!

VisitorTod, they have a weird view that the right to carry a loaded semi automatic and not even have to get proper checks is more important than the lives of children, or anyone else for that matter. If their constitution was written today it would never allow this but they think that as it was written centuries ago it can't be changed. Bloody irresponsible if you ask me.

start

pause

start

done, 3rd guess

ding

Phil and VisitorTod the real reason, like everything else here is money. The majority of citizens in the U.S. would like stricter gun laws. However the gun lobby spends millions supporting mostly Republican candidates for Congress and those candidates toe the line, blocking any attempts at rational gun laws. Through gerrymandering and fear tactics these candidates are able to be elected and reelected. Hopefully the tide is turning here and if the expected midterm Democratic takeover of the House and possible takeover of the Senate, something can be done at last.

Also the 2nd Amendment as written 2 centuries ago was never intended to allow unrestricted gun ownership. That is an invention of the gun industry to monetize the amendment. For a very interesting read of what the true intent of the 2nd amendment was read here http://www.carltbogus.com/edmund-a-blog/72-th\ne-hidden-history-of-the-second-amendment-redu\nx

Once again the leftist bullies here are dancing on the graves of dead children to try to disarm us.

Wow, drwho. Your way of thinking must take a hefty amount of denial. I'd be impressed if I wasn't so deeply saddened by you.

Tod, you opened pandora's box when you opened your big mouth on this subject. It is not welcomed here by most of the participants. But if you and Phil and Tuco and several others who have not said anything this time are going to spout your poison, I will respond.

Is it really poison? To want an incredibly, inappropriately dangerous weapon banned from use by the general public? There is no need for guns in your society! Innocent people are dying, and it's awful. If it could buy back the life of every child who has been shot to death, would you ban them?

The "incredibly, inappropriately dangerous weapon" does not shot itself. In 1960 we had 500,000 people judged mentally unstable to the point where we institutionalized them. Today there are about 25,000 people in mental institutions while our population has doubles since then. Lets address the real problem, the shooter, not the gun.

The thing is, BOTH are the issue. Guns are the perfect weapon for what you might call an immature murderer, because they are long distance weapons. They don't require you to be up close and personal with your victim the way that other legal weapons do; they facilitate a lack of empathy. Must easier to stand remotely and pull a trigger than to stick a knife into somebody's chest. Lord knows I agree that your society needs better healthcare, because the state of it is frankly shameful for a nation with such wealth, but the fact is that guns are inherently linked to gun crime.

Also, you didn't answer my question. If it could buy back the life of every child who has been shot to death, would you ban them?

Your being an intellectual bully, implying I don't care if children die.

I'm actually just asking you a question. If your answer troubles you, that's not really my fault.

No, you're being an intellectual bully.

Your question is based on an imaginary premise too, so don't give me the "I'm just asking a question" routine.

If you say so. I can only hope the next slaughter doesn't include any of your relatives.

Me too, but we shoot back.

Disgusting.

Dr Who, I think you're being quite gracious to even use the word intellectual as a descriptive....

Well, intellectual is the correct adjective. It does not imply the quantity or quality of the activity, just the classification of it.

drwho, is your intellectual detector miscalibrated? You have applied the label "intellectual" to someone who wrote "the fact is that guns are inherently linked to gun crime." That's a tautology, isn't it? Not intellectual at all.

It's not even a very good tautology. While you cannot have gun violence with out them, having more of them does not necessarily correlate with more gun violence. In some places like inner city Chicago it does, in the suburbs not so much.

I don't believe anybody mentioned correlation specifically, but yeah you're right. The lack of school shootings in my country must be a crazy fluke; nothing to do with the lack of guns at all.

Hard to say without knowing what country you are from.

I think the people who are so keen on keeping guns out of school that they won't even allow armed guards have a lot to answer for.

Suffice to say it's a country where guns are heavily controlled, and where there is just one example of a school shooting. Since that event in 1996, gun control has been even tighter.

Most gun deaths (not counting suicide) in the US occur in cities with very strict gun control.

I'm sure you wouldn't lie, but I know you must be able to see that for people in those cities, free access to firearms is only a car ride away.

Okay, but the people in the suburbs don't even need a short car ride, and yet they don't have the murder problems that the inner cities have.

We've agreed there are more factors that go into these shootings. The fact is, though, that it's really hard to shoot somebody without a gun in your hand. I don't imagine my country has a much lower percentage of angry, sad, or alienated people than yours has; they just don't have the artillery available, so these massacres don't happen.

There are about 500 million guns in the world. So how are you going to keep guns out of the hands of someone with murderous intent? It doesn't work in Chicago because the suburbs are only a short drive away. Why would it work at all, unless you have a plan to get rid of all guns everywhere?

Well, because there is a big difference between driving between a suburb and a city and travelling between countries. There are checkpoints; anti-smuggling measures - yes? That's how you can effectively enforce gun control over a nation. It works in my country; I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work in yours.

As for comparing the United States to other countries, we actually have a relatively low homicide rate, while at the same time we have a high rate of gun ownership.

We don't need to go to Scotland for our guns, we already have about 1/5th of the worlds guns here in the US. So gun control would only work if paired with gun confiscation. Believe me, that won't fly.

I believe it could work with a gradual phasing out. It couldn't happen overnight, but if guns were no longer offered for general sale and ammunition could only be purchased with a valid license, I think that could be a viable option. Plus, the government could offer incentives for turning in firearms. There are a lot of options.
Additionally, I'm not sure how your homicide rate of 4.9 per 100,000 compares to other first world countries/countries of equivalent development. For example, I live in a first world country of equal development, and the homicide rate is 0.92 per 100,000. The majority of nations in Europe and Australasia appear to have similarly lower rates.

DrWho - It isn't that people are concerned about dead children, they are only concerned about children killed in mass shootings. Per the leftist NY TImes 145 kids have been killed in mass school shootings in the US since Sandy Hook. No question - this is tragic. However over 4300 children have died in alcohol related accidents. Something never discussed in this forum. To the loony left and anti gun folks it only matters if a bullet kills a child.

The 4300 number comes from MADD

How many died in school bus accidents?

The drive to school (statistically) is fraught with much greater peril than being shot.

The fact is that people love to whine about guns because it is politically convenient.

I suppose to us, the difference is that school busses and alcohol aren't designed specifically to kill. But if you have strong views about how vehicles and alcohol should be managed, you should feel free to share them.

I just did. If you are truly concerned about children dying in America - then work to ban alcohol and tobacco.

But my guess is you are not concerned about that but only about taking away my guns

What do you use your guns for, if it's okay to ask? Ornaments, game hunting, other sports...etc?

I collect guns, shoot at a range almost every weekend and hunt during the applicable seasons.

Tod, why do you care about gun laws in the US when you don't live here?

See, I don't have a problem with that, and I don't believe many people would. Stricter control wouldn't have to infringe on your right to do those things.

Drwho, because it's heartbreaking to see what happens in your country.

Again, why do you care? We can take care of ourselves.

This keeps happening, so it doesn't really seem like you can.

No, actually on a per capita basis, the US is a pretty safe place except for about 2% of the counties that account for 51% of all homicides.

Ah, Drwho. I don't believe either of you are bad people, but I don't think we're going to agree on anything, are we? I learnt something from talking with you, which is good. Not enough to change my mind, but new information nonetheless.

It's late here, so I'm going to go to sleep. I guess I will always pity your country, though. This feels like a very avoidable problem that a lot of places don't have; that's all.

Actually, Crime Prevention Research Center keeps a list of mass public shootings around the world dating back to 1970. Of all shootings with 15 or more fatalities, the worst 20 happened outside the US (Muslims committed 18 of them). 22 of the worst 25, 40 of the worst 44 and 59 of the worst 66 mass public shootings occurred outside the US.

Once again the people who are against gun control in this forum or anywhere else are a small minority in this country. But they are vocal and they are backed up by a very powerful gun lobby. Less than 36% of the households in this country own at least 1 gun. Some of those 36% own multiple guns as many as 25 or more. This is not a problem if they are all responsible. The problem is the ease in which they are able to purchase them. No problem for a disturbed teenager to buy an AR15. What would stop that? Keeping it that easy so all his classmates could be armed? That would be the wet dream of the gun lobby. Or making it more difficult for ANYONE to purchase a firearm?

Show me how a disturbed teenager legally buys an AR-15 without his parents' approval.

Or any teenager.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/1\n5/florida-shooting-suspect-bought-gun-legally\n-authorities-say/340606002/

I believe being 18 is still a teenager

Well the law is treating him as an adult. Clearly he shouldn't have been. His friends and acquaintances saw warning signs, they even reported him to the FBI, but nothing was done.

How about metal detectors and armed guards at schools. It's working in Philadelphia.

how about less guns?

Shame nobody is listening to the victims, their friends and loved ones who every time want gun controls. There is an answer, use your vote and vote for a candidate that supports it publicly and if there isn't one, find one. Use social media and build momentum.

VisitorTod, no matter how much evidence you show the gun lovers that they could still legally own a firearm and use it at a range, they will still argue that you're trying to take their right to bear arms away from them.

I don't even have a problem with gun ranges storing AR15s for use at the range, just keep them off the bloody streets. Common sense people, its not hard. All lives matter, and drwho to suggest you arm everyone at the school will only end up with even more deaths. A fair minded society would want the person with a mental illness to get treatment and recover, not have to shoot them.

I agree, guns aren't the problem, it's the ability to have one outside a gun club, military base or law enforcement officer when on duty that is the problem. You must stop the ability for someone who is angry, hurt, upset, or temporarily unhinged in any way from having the ability to access the gun.