seat belts have been in cars since at least the 1950s, but were not included as mandatory devices until the late 1970s. and it was not until the mid-1980s that it began to be a requirement to wear them at all times while driving, under penalty of law. as a result, fewer and fewer people die every year in car crashes. how is that not due to regulation? you can't tell me people are *more* knowledgeable about driving than they were 20 years ago? anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate there are still people out there who don't know how to drive

in all seriousness though, it took federal legislation to make cars safer for everyone. with enough guns to provide one to almost every single US citizen in circulation right now, it's time for federal legislation to make guns less deadly for everyone.



and anyone who modifies their weapon in such a way, then uses it to either commit a crime or in self defense can be punished accordingly. people modify their cars all the time, but they still have to pass a safety inspection before they can drive on public streets. in addition, there is no need for having the ability to fire that much ammo at one time unless you are in a war zone. as someone who has admitted being in active military duty, i'm sure you of all people commenting here know how true that is. so, until such time as the US government calls upon its state militias to overthrow the invading foreign army, having the ability to kill in large quantities without reloading is something that we can do without. consider that jared loughner was only brought down because he had to reload. how many fewer people would have been shot if he was forced to reload after 5 instead of 30?



not really sure what it is you were expecting? i think we both agree that some kind of training should be part of owning a gun, the question is who pays for it and should it be mandatory. mandatory is better, and preferably *before* taking possession of the gun, because at least you know for sure that the person who is buying the gun is versed in the basics of safety and use before they have a chance to use it.




i know you're not an idiot, but i felt i had to elaborate the point anyway, because you seem to insist that a gun's only purpose is self-defense. even above, you relegate hunting and games to lesser pursuits that you have no need for. yes, a gun *can* be effective at self-defense, but i'm still not convinced it is *necessary*.

also, yes i think it is paranoid for gun owners like yourself to say they *need* a gun for protection. the idea that we all live in such a dangerous world that we have to protect ourselves at all costs is more in line with hollywood than reality. there are very few places where i believe a gun is absolutely needed for protection, but it seems the vast majority of people using this self-defense claim do not live in such places. i'm not going to pretend i know where you live, but if you are in an area which is so prone to violence and crime that a gun is your only means of deterrence, then by all means you can have your gun for defense. but if you only have a gun so you can *feel* protected, then you do not truly need it, and the idea that you are going to protect yourself is nothing more than a fantasy designed to justify your gun ownership. there are plenty of other alternatives which are just as lethal as you say.



for individual ownership, yes i agree completely. for public safety, we need stricter laws and we need a federal government willing to pass those laws for the public good. things seem to be changing since sandy hook, but we've still got a long way to go...