I'm having the same exact discussion right now at a much bigger and more diverse forum and it's going fine. My moderate views on gun control look absolutely reactionary conservative in the climate of the GTXF.
Who the problem here is relative. You see me as a problem because you (come across as) holding a radical view about a explicit Constitutional right. Carlo's above post is right on the mark. I'm interested in finding solutions within that framework. You seem to be interested in ignoring the constitution and demonizing legal gun owners.
I'm not trolling at all. This is where the discussion went off the rails:
That's an absurd statement. 86 people were killed and 458 people were injured in Nice, France last year by a truck used as a weapon. The Charlottesville Riots peaked with an extremist driving a Dodge Challenger into a crowd killing a woman. It's prolific enough that there is a Wikipedia page documenting the instances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack
So I own a gun, which you characterize as a killing machine. Meanwhile you happily own a car that, when used in the manner for which it was designed, absolutely can and does kill people. So often that every jurisdiction in the country has a vehicular manslaughter code.
Yet I'm the bad guy here for taking offense? A gun is designed to send a projectile to a point or area target at some distance. As with any kind of tool what is done with it is up to the person wielding it. Of all the ammo sold in the United States in a given year how many rounds do you think are fired at people? I'm betting the ratio is incredibly low. To characterize all guns as killing machines is intellectually dishonest and when called on it you began having fits.
I can't get satisfaction here, as you put it, because the question is too difficult for this or any forum to tackle. It's an emotionally charged subject and those that speak the loudest about it tend to have the lowest information; thoughts and prayers.
I'm a legal gun owner that recognizes the obvious problem that proximity to guns contributes to gun violence. I believe that can be reduced over the course of a few generations through market restrictions, grandfather clauses, and attrition. In the absence of a 2A repeal, which I would support, that's the best I could hope for. In the meantime if we treat the cause of the violence (mental illness, poverty, ending the 'War on Drugs', recreational drug legalization, undereducation, etc) we can reduce gun violence in our time. But I'm not willing to demonize law abiding gun owners who are exercising their constitutionally protected right.
I enter these discussions because I find it interesting from a policy and constitutional perspective. My position as expressed above is too conservative for this board, but if you divorce yourself from the emotion for thirty seconds you'll see that it's a very practical and moderate position.
I'd love to talk to you (all, not just Cam) about it with the understanding that it's for our own enlightenment; nothing we say in either direction will make a bit of difference to anyone that can effect meaningful change. My position on a great many things over the last 15 or so years has changed, in large part thanks to the diverse opinions I encounter on this and other forums (UBI, for instance, is a complete 180 for me).
I am sorry that I upset you Cam, I didn't think your characterization of firearms and by extension the motives of their owners was fair. I argue in a very flippant and conversational style and don't always consider that it may not, in text, be taken as I am trying to express it. If we're going to have hard feelings about it I'd rather just stick to cars, video games, and art and leave the policy debates for other venues.