They came from an hour away with a thirst for loafage,

“I felt incredulous that people who are in uniform, on the job, and trusted with protecting the public could express so much contempt for women,” she said. “The misogyny is horrifyingly casual. How can such attitudes not affect their police work?

If the thing you’re enamored with is the use of a projectile to pursue a long-/longish- range target, then golf should give you as much or more satisfaction than sport-shooting. You can sell your guns and buy some decent clubs with some cash to spare.

Or at the NRA Convention, then we’d see how that “if somebody else would have been carrying guns, this wouldn’t have happened” argument works.

People who own guns who fall outside Greg’s sensible parameters fetishize/fantasize about taking someone’s life so easily, from a mechanical standpoint. That fantasy is probably subconscious for most, but there’s little doubt that trigger-happy policemen join the force at least partly with the perverse hope that…

I have fired handguns. They are disgusting machines. I understand that police and other such personnel need them because of the specific role they fill in an orderly society.

That’s right! It has nothing to do with access to a machine that is made for exactly one purpose - to kill people quickly and easily!

Why, we’d have mass battings *all the time,* to say nothing of the mass swordings.

This. It is always amazing to me in these mass shootings the contrast between the lives of the victims and the shooters. The victims always have bright futures, people who love them, hobbies, interests, talents, etc. The shooters are always lonely, angry, small-minded, frustrated people.

Despite what some say, the Constitution isn’t sacrosanct and the framers did make some mistakes in writing it. The wording of the 2nd Amendment was one of them, with perilous results.

The only way we might see something done on gun control is, if one of those gun nuts were to somehow get into one of the chambers while Congress or Senate were meeting, and kill a bunch of them.

Lowering the number of households with guns does not necessarily mean lowering the amount of gun ownership.

I wish I could star this over and over.

I respectfully disagree, Greg. America didn’t lose the war against guns. We haven’t even had the balls to start one.

I honestly feel sorry for the people that are so paranoid, terrified, and have so little self confidence that they must ABSOLUTELY carry a weapon.

You know, we humans have a system of emotions that evolved to get us through the hunter-gatherer era. It has not yet evolved to account for guns: objects that make it really easy to eliminate what our emotional systems wrongly tell us are threats to our existence.

Honestly, if they wanted to limit gun ownership to people in militias, the easiest workaround is to start creating civilian militias that you pay a membership to join. I imagine they’d do most of their advertising in gun shops, trade shows and magazines, and the people who want to own guns will all be members or this…

I’m all in favour of the Second Amendment, provided it applies only to guns that existed at the time the amendment was ratified. No centerfire ammunition, semi-auto, double-action revolver, none of that.

You don’t even get a percussion cap (invented in 1807), so good luck killin’ folks when it rains.

America’s first mistake in this war was bringing so many guns.

I love guns. I love to hunt. I love to go to the range for fun.

Nice list but I prefer my combination