Many more people are killed senselessly every day by motorized vehicles than by guns. Since the government also provides numerous ways to transport the citizenry, wouldn't it make more sense to enact a mandatory buy-back/confiscation program for these murderous instruments first - thus TRULY maximizing nanny-state life-saving efforts? Beja Martinez hails from peace-and-liberty-loving Texas and owns NUMEROUS guns - and motorized vehicles - and has every intention of continuing to do so.

I appreciate your peaceful vision for the world and your personal decision not to own firearms. But I believe we do have the right to own guns; for our own personal protection, hunting, and to guard against tyranny if necessary. Guns aren't the problem. People lawfully owning guns aren't making our culture more violent and uncaring. There are so many other things that are destroying our once polite society. I've never heard such foul language in public. I've never seen such rudeness from people in general. People are becoming more and more self-centered. People are losing a sense of community and belonging. Is this stemming from a breakdown of the traditional family? Is it our religion losing ground in this perverse modern culture? Is it because people are so mobile that they don't set down roots or even bother to meet their neighbors? Is it overpopulation that seems to cheapen life? Is it the violent, sarcastic content in movies and on TV? How many murders does one have to see on TV to become desensitized? How many life-like video game killings does it take?
We certainly shouldn't be funding a buyback program with billions we don't even have. The erosion of our standard of living due to an overblown government and the Fed's devaluation of our money is a huge part of the problem. How much kinder and gentler would our society be if most families could be supported by one paycheck- freeing women to nurture their families and communities back to health.

You have every right to own as many guns you wish to own as per the LAWS on the books and and we have the right to NOT OWN, even when all Gun Ownners pose a danger to us.

We are not saying that by giving up Guns, we will solve all the problems you mention that have to do with EVOLUTION of: Time, Nature, People, Things, Countries --World -- The Entire Universe - It is Almighty's Plan. However - Guns are EVIL and like any other Evil, if we reduce it or eliminate it - We will be better off than what we find ourselves in.

The buyback money we talking about is peanuts compared to what you will get in return - Gunless America on a new path to Pacifism & Non-violence - Noone will believe it, but it is possible - Nothing is Impossible if there is a will to do what is right and disarming is the Right thing to do for countries and people worldwide. Pacifism will change for better what you call: self-centeredness, rudeness, foul language, uncaring and all such attitude, which has embedded in American Culture since it has seen too much of violence from inception onwards. Adding more guns and Evil to that culture only makes it worse; taking away guns and the attached evil is one factor in reversing this silly trend..

The mentally ill people have lived in the world for over 10,000 years – the only difference is that they did not have assault weapons that shoot 4-6 rounds per second and can kill 26 people in less than 3 minutes. We are not scared of anyone and least of all of your assault weapons we presume you own.

Perhaps you have not heard that the Pen is mightier than the Sword and even an assault weapon for that matter. Further Nonviolence of Gandhi proved mightier than the mightiest Power then - Great Britain in its heyday.

Give up your guns and feel the power of Pacifism!!!

Welcome to the World of People who do not own guns and refuse to own one. It is surprising that as a non-gun owner you have inverted logic to champion the cause of gun owners. Do they need guns that shoot 4-6 rounds per second and kill 26 people within 3 minutes? In the essay, we have mentioned the need to check mental records before letting people buy guns; however, the problem here is the mother owned guns legally and was mentally stable, but her son you may call mentally disturbed had access to them when he should not have. If there were no guns, the mental issue will be irrelevant as would be some bad guy stealing them. Guns are evil and more of them or bigger guns add to already cumulative evil from 300 million guns.

Getting rid of guns is the right thing to do even if one has to stand on their head(cranial rectal inversion) to do so.

There are many fallacies in this post. I will address two.

First, the idea that weapons in the hands of citizens are useless: ".....millions of assault weapons will prove little (or nothing) in front of the might of the military...." is clearly wrong. Look at northern Ireland, the "Tribal areas" of Pakistan, various places in Africa, the Palestinians, insurgent groups in central Asia. It is very clear that weapons are at minimum a tool of leverage for political purposes. Being disarmed is a distinct disadvantage, and having a "powerful military" does not trump those insurgents and their weapons. Weapons have been used to free people from tyrants the world over in many, many cases. To say that we have arrived at a point where these struggles will no longer occur, or that the US government will never get out of control is just foolish.

Second, the question has been asked many times what might have happened if Ghandi had been up against Hitler's Germany, or Mao's China rather than Great Britain. Ghandi was successful because he called the British to account on their own moral underpinnings. If Ghandi had been practicing his pacifism against a more ruthless and determined adversary, I suspect he would simply have disappeared, along with enough of his followers for the rulers to make their point. This has happened in history repeatedly, and cannot be ignored.

Weapons are not evil. They are tools. Sometimes they are necessary.

2ndPart:
3. You say “weapons are at minimum a tool of leverage for political purposes” – has 300 million guns owned privately done anything to political gridlock in DC? Can the military weapons that can annihilate the World hundred times over provide that political leverage you feel so sure of?
4. Weapons are not tools just as they are not flowers. Even tools are not flowers, which exude freshness, love, peace and happiness because that is the essence of flowers. Tools on the other hand help with a task at home or at work; the task of the Guns is to kill 90% of the time when operated and big guns kill big time, we have seen that many times over. The more we manufacture and acquire these devilish machines, the more wickedness we add to the already cumulative evil from 300 million guns.
5. Gandhi, Hitler and Mao are dead and therefore we can only imagine their faceoff against each other, as you have, because you are not quite aware of the power of pacifism in my humble opinion. Even the fictional DEVIL (with much greater powers than Hitler and Mao together) can be made to kneel before PACIFISM and simply melt.

I meant:
Even the fictional DEVIL (with much greater EVILNESS than Hitler and Mao together) can be made to kneel before PACIFISM and simply melt.

Good piece, but lacks facts. You need to do both - Control/Eliminate Guns/Evil and help/fix people who have mental issues or prevent them from doing harm. The persons you mention(Reid etc) do not form even .00000001% of over 7 Billion in the world; 99.999999% are good in nature even if they belong to Middle Eastern countries or backward/tribal areas of the World.

Yes it is eternal human struggle to fight evil. We may be able to agree with you somewhat on your premise that a Gun is a Tool.

Fundamentally, a Tool is a machine that helps with a task at home or work. Today’s drills for example pack lot of torque to help with many tasks, but by nature – they make it easy to do a task. A Gun is a “killing machine” or a Special Tool that by nature kills. Bigger guns of today are Big-Killing-Machines; a Very-Special-Tool that must not be allowed in the hands of a private citizen, whether stable or not.

BTW, if a TANK (Monstrous-Killing-Machine or THE TOOL) was on sale in the market – there will be people you call STABLE (I view them INSANE) ready to buy and park them in their backyard! Big Guns should not be available – PERIOD.

We Hope VP-Biden will take something from these messages and put in his new gun control legislation text and also Sen. Feinstein, who will once again introduce and fight for assault weapons ban law.

WE MUST GET RID OF ANY ENTITY THAT BY NATURE IS EVIL.

The times of forefathers were different, there was very little protection offered by Govt. Agencies. People provided their own protection with the barrel of a gun in those lawless days.

Today the laws are VERY STIFF and Law Enforcement is the best there is to PROTECT YOU and 300 million others like you; they are not there to abuse you with their lawful power that has zero probability of becoming tyrannous. The Police is governed by the same stiff laws.

UK has the same experience as Australia with Gun Control; the police in UK DO NOT carry Guns – they carry Batons!

You keep citing 1930s or culture of over 200 years. We are in 21st Century with the most effective Law Enforcement to protect you and 300 million others like you; they are VERY CAPABLE of kicking doors LAWFULLY and seizing UNLAWFUL guns. They (Police, ATF, FBI, etc.) have to follow LAW just you and us or they will be prosecuted to the hilt and they are when they commit atrocities once in a while.

Corruption is evil just as killing with guns is and all other evils – WE MUST REDUCE THEM OR BETTER STILL – ELIMINATE THEM AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

Let’s AGREE TO DISAGREE

I have read the debate above and with a few exceptions it became quite civil, it seems because Dave and Nita's responses took it in that direction. What I have a problem with is the premise that Donald starts with - that we need guns to protect us from our government, our police and maybe even from our military. I don't see the logic behind this premise and it seems to be a belief that is shared by a particular pro-gun/anti-gun regulation population. I strat from the premise that government, law enforcement, our military are there to help us. No one is perfect and people do abuse their authority, but the good heavily outweighs the bad. We only hear about the bad. This group also seems to be in favor of increasing the number of guns on the streets by arming teachers and other educational professionals and posting armed guards in our schools. I suppose, if that's not enough considering all the places that we have had recent mass shootings, we should also add shopping malls and houses of worship to that list. It's notable that law enforcement is generally against this concept because it makes it harder for them to do their jobs and harder to identify who the bad guy is. I can't imagine that any responsible gun owner would feel justified knowing that their action in such a situation could have caused the death of innocent victims or law enforcement officers.

Glad to get support from anti-gun folks.

We have seen many funerals of police officers when one is too many, having laid their lives to protect you, me and 300 million; same is true for military personnel. The Law enforcement is to enforce current Laws and if they are amended by majority vote in favor of NO BIG GUNS for private citizens, then, they will be enforced to make the task of protection of 300 million lot easier. In fact - the Law should be NO GUNS for private citizens(with few exceptions) but that won't happen in my lifetime.

NRA talks of mentally disturbed folks are at fault, not Guns. In fact, NRA is retarded since their existence depends on Evil & More Evil manufactured, sold any which way, and aquired. Mentally challenged are a nature's disorder, guns are man-made disorder. Luckily we can depend on our Law Enforcement to fix that man-made disorder.

I agree, that is a smoke screen that the NRA keeps blowing up. But it is true that funding for mental health services have been an easy target for cuts in recent years. In some areas - foster care, for example, mental health services have been a focus for improvement, but by and large, cuts and lack of services have become a problem. Anti-tax/anti-government political conservatives want to cut basic services, including educational services. Children with special needs and mental health issues need more services and evidence based quality services. If we want a healthy adult population with the ability to identify and treat people who need treatment, then we have to pay for that.
The fact remains that if big guns (big clips etc.) were illegal, people with mental health problems would not be able to get them.

The point is not that officials are bad. It is that there will always be bad people, and there some of those Bad Guys will be officials. Look at the US officials who end up in jail for a wide variety of crimes. It happens. The belief that we have somehow "progressed" beyond the need to defend ourselves from corrupt or malevolent officials simply ignores both history and human nature.

Only law abiding citizens will obey anti-gun laws. This leaves Bad Guys and officials with a monopoly on weapons. That is extremely unwise. Go ahead and disarm yourself, but don't try to disarm me.

This was the logic of our founders. It was good then. It's good now.

The logic of taking away all the guns is unworkable, unenforceable, and irrational. It is an idea that sounds good on paper, but has been shown throughout history to be extremely dangerous to its victims. It is one of those utopian dreams that ends in disaster.

....Note again the statistics from the post I noted from the UK. They banned guns, and gun crime ROSE for exactly the reasons I cite.

While I find it alarming that 40 percent of households in the USA are weaponized, I take heart that the majority remain gun-free. One thing that history teaches us is that the human condition is largely constant. There will always be a subset of our population that is willing to kill. It is time for us to make killing more, rather than less, difficult (this is also true of our propensity to kill each other using motor vehicles, but that is a different policy issue).

Long story short: we need to restore the strength of the 2nd amendment and properly regulate our citizen militias. I agree that the Australian approach is worth considering, but only if applied nationwide. Otherwise guns will flow over state borders like a flood of sewage.

I am surprised that you and others are arming to defend yourself from corrupt or malevolent government officials since we have not "progressed" beyond the culture of 1930s, leave alone 200 years ago.

You and all gun-lovers have all the right today to own as many guns you want to own as per the current law. When the anti-gun Law is put in place - the Law Enforcement will do their task of diasarming anyone with illegal arms, including you, if you possess ILLEGAL arms at that time. UK's experience is same as in Australia with anti-gun laws, which is their official position. We do not believe the article you cite.

I'm afraid that the madness here is not gun ownership, but the utter and complete faith in officials, once given complete power over other people.

The elimination of guns, even if it were possible, and I contend that it is not, would leave those without weapons as vulnerable to anyone who had weapons as the patrons of the theatre in Aurora, or the children in Connecticut.

History tells us, over, and over, and over again, that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applies to criminals, officials and tyrants both internal and external. The genius of the US constitution is that of divided, limited, enumerated power supervised by diligent and informed citizens. It is the Rule of Law, meaning the minimization of discretion on the part of all those with power. The people rule. They are not ruled.

Disarmed people are disempowered people. Ask the freed slaves in the late 19th century in the US. Read the Heller decision of the SCOTUS and its connection with this era.

Once conversation gets to the point where well sourced facts, such as that from the BBC about guns in the UK are simply not believed, there is little more that can be said because persuasion is ineffective on dogma.

I will end with one more shameless plug: http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/simple-logical-questions

You love to going back to old times when we keep reminding you that you are in the 21st Century - please wake up to the new age. All external tyrants have been vanquished and there are no internal tyrants nor can there be one, unless you want to imagine one.

You said it - PEOPLE RULE & IT IS THE RULE OF LAW, which is People's Law - via Congress who they elect to make new laws. All 300 million are RULED by those laws, including Law Enforcement. Should there be a new Law of NO GUNS - it will be enforced vigorously and swiftly, whether you like it or not.

LETS AGREE TO DISAGREE & END IT HERE. GOOD LUCK & GOD BLESS.

Many years ago, I met a young man who had recently come here from India. He had been an avid hunter there. We shared that passion and, over the years, have spent many happy days afield hunting deer, small game and waterfowl, and eating all that we killed. One night, not long after he married, a deranged man broke into his home through the front door. My friend grabbed one of his rifles, but, rather than shoot the man, he clubbed him over the head, breaking the gunstock in the process. Then, with the help of one of his dogs, he held the man until the sheriff arrived. He worked his way up from odd jobs to upper management of a large corporation. He made a wonderful Indian meal for my son and me the night before last. As we relaxed after dinner, surrounded by his children and grandchildren, and the trophies of many hunts mounted on the walls above us, he smiled and said "I have lived the American dream." Guns evil? He and I think not.