[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The "burden of proof" is not on anyone. This isn't a court, it is a website.

If you are wanting to change laws, and that is your intent with an argument, then yes, the burden of proof is indeed on you regardless of medium.

Moreover, I never said that all guns should be illegal. I believe hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal, although they should be regulated like handguns (i.e., background check, waiting period). I believe that many other weapons (e.g., semi-automatic rifles that cab readily be turned into fully automatic weapons and .50 cal sniper rifles) should be illegal.

I owe you an apology sir. I thought you were arguing to get rid of all guns. I misunderstood your intent, and points. Fact is, your above comment is right on the money with my thoughts as well. Although a sniper rifle would come in handy when shooting a deer.

There are many reasons why I believe firearms should be subject to heavy regulation.

With the exception of the above mentioned regulations, which I do not consider to be "heavy", what are you referring to?

First, I believe the NRA and many gun enthusiasts are reading the Second Amendment far too liberally. The Second Amendment was intended to enable the public to protect themselves from government abuses. If you believe (a) you need firearms in case you need to wage war on our government OR (b) a glock is going to stop the 10th Mountain Division, you should probably see your doctor because you are obviously not taking all of your lithium.

Agreed. Although, the 2nd amendment's intent wasn't solely to protect from government abuse. Personal protection was a main staple.

Second, many gun enthusiasts believe that gun control advocates are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there are out there in the cold world. However, I think those people are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there who simply lack the maturity to responsibly handle firearms. If you need to take a written examination and a driving test to operate a vehicle that is indispensible, why do you not need to do anything to purchase an object that is specifically designed to kill, wound, or intimidate? Moroever, the notion that we should respond to the gun problem by proliferating guns seems quite strange.

Well, my gun has only been fired at a gun range. Thankfully there has been no need to use it in my home...although the 1 time someone did try to break in I was waiting around the corner of my french doors with the gun cocked and ready. Lucky for him he couldn't get through my locks, as it is 100% legal here to kill an intruder. That being said, when you drive a vehicle you are a human / mechanical bullet. You do this every day, all the time, and in multiple directions. You also drive this bullet amongst a ton of other bullets. People that own guns do not use them often (minus gun range where there are a lot of regulations). So I do not see the need to make people take classes etc to use a gun. It doesn't take that much intelligence to use a gun, you point and shoot. A car / laws of the road are much more complex. So we disagree on this point, but it's not like it's anything important anyway.

Third, the "average Joe" cannot be compared to our nation's military. Our men and women in uniform spend countless hours training to use firearms. So, that analogy is totally inappropriate IMO. But, since you think the two are analogous, do you then believe that members of the public should be able to go to the local Walmart and buy M1-A2 tanks, F-22 Raptors, stingers, claymores, etc? After all, many criminals have automatic weapons, so should the average Joe be able to "one up" them?

You make a good point, however, I was under the impression you wanted to outlaw guns thus my comparison, since I now see that is not your intent, it makes this point moot.

Fourth, I do not believe guns pass a cost benefit test. We could go on and on citing statistics from various groups that have a vested interest in proving or disproving the utility and cost of firearms. I don't care to do so.

I don't recall talking about the cost benefit...unsure of what triggered this response from you.

All in all, we are on a similar page. Again, I apologize for the confusion.