What’s your problem with suicide? Do you think their souls are condemned to hell or something?
A 30 page police report is something that wouldn’t be very easy to fabricate. I’ll just accept that you believe me, but no amount of data points would change your opinion anyway. No drugs involved at my house I can assure you.
I would accept your proposal with the caveat that even the poorest person has the right to at least one child (hell, even the Chinese will give you that much). I don’t think it will eliminate poverty, but I think it will reduce the number of children in poverty. I also think we should have pre-school and day care programs for the poor so they can go out and work. Its unreasonable to expect young mothers to be able to care for their children and earn a living at the same time. Either stop bitching about supporting these unwed mothers or provide child care.
Background checks could still be processed. If you don’t pass the background check, the executor would have to sell the firearm and give the heir the proceeds.
I detect a theme. If only there was some way to eliminate the common denominator.
When criminals start making their own guns, *then *we’re screwed. But until then, they’re getting them through the results of the efforts by the gun lobby to make guns easily accessible to everyone. Throwing more guns into the system and then being surprised when the criminals get them, too, is pretty stupid.
Don’t get me wrong. I like guns. I’ve shot guns. I don’t currently have a weapon, but not because I’m afraid of them. However, I find the cries of “If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” to be very disingenuous. No, if we outlaw guns, we make it harder for outlaws to *get *guns.
The fewer guns there are, the harder they are to get. Seems like a simple concept to me.*
*Like I said, though- when criminals can easily make their own guns, we’re all pretty much screwed. The coming technological advances in 3D printing means that anyone will be able to have pretty much any device they want.
I guess that would be a start, but I think even the poorest person should get a job, and has no right at all to be raising a family they can’t afford to feed. Rather it’s a claim on my (and your) rights as we all have to work longer to pay for their kid. It’s not like our inner cities where violent crime is worst has a problem with too few people.
Good idea. Let’s do something about the criminals.
Of course we don’t want people shooting their child who came home unexpectedly and arrived in the middle of the night. You began your post with statistics about people actually breaking in and ended with “being afraid is not the same as being in danger” Once you’ve established that someone has broken in, either a home invasion such as the OP or a burglary, you can assume you and your family are in danger , even if a burgler is statistically more likely to flee. There’s no need to wait and find out if they are armed , with what, and how aggressive they are. first. So while I agree with your 1 and 2, I think the 3rd " you are at risk by their presence," is questionable. I think if you’ve established 1 and 2, then you might assume you’re at risk rather than find out the hard way.
Personally I’m okay with gun ownership coming with a mandatory gun safety course.
I’ve met a few gun owners who’s mental stability was questionable.
There’s a new movie coming out about poverty in America. I saw the two ladies behind it interviewed in the Daily Show. They mentioned one person they met who got a job working at a food bank, helping other poor people, but then , because of income, was not elligible for food stamps and was thrust right back into the barely scraping by situation she was trying to get out of.
Can we shoot them? 
The flip-side argument is usually “a liberal is a conservative who’s been arrested.”
Are these two sentences supposed to be related?
As for the first, in many states, there is a mandatory class complete with examination at the end, at least if you want to take your gun out of the house. But since the people who run the class have an interest (monetary or ideological, I don’t have to decide) in the gun culture, it’s unlikely to weed out those who shouldn’t have a gun. Every month or two I google to see if there are any more scandalous 100 percent pass rate concealed carry classes advertising on the internet, and I just found a new one:
Learning to kill people – can’t get more fun than that :smack:
In addition to the “shooting practical,” there is a written exam requiring a 70 percent pass rate. I can’t imagine any test being so easy that 100 percent of adults can legitimately get 70 percent plus on it.
I Just found a web discussion of this scandal:
This moderate anti thinks responsible gun owners should be more concerned about their ranks being joined by such certified sharp-shooters than by having to make do with a ten bullet magazine.
I am perfectly okay with people owning firearms. A vast majority of the firearms currently owned by Americans have none of the characteristics I described.
Confiscation is not an answer, but putting the cost of maintaining a public contract promising that your AR15 (or any other weapon I described) is not going to end up shooting up a bunch of children in a suburban elementary school or urban elementary school should be on you.
Then what did you mean when you said “An assault weapons ban should only be the start.”
What does that mean?
Yes, because the UK, France, and Germany have no issues with poverty, high rates of unemployment among young ghetto dwellers, or criminal gangs, or an illegal drug trade.
Is it just me, or is there something inherently contradictory in believing that banning assault weapons is an infringement on people’s liberty while believing the federal government should require women on welfare to “be on birth control” isn’t?
No, it’s just you. 
What gets me is the NRA’s attitude of no compromise that is most likely to push moderates into the full banning and confiscation camp. As it is, gun owners make up less than a third of Americans. If they give some they can protect the Second Amendment. All most of us are asking for is a little more responsibility.
Not really, because welfare is voluntary. Everyone is free to work. And if you don’t want to work, you probably should not be raising a family for which you require others to feed. Does that really seem wrong to you?
And would you mind answering my prior questions? I don’t want to make assumptions about your position.
One is in the Constitution and the other isn’t.
I mean, I agree with you personally. But you can make a case.
I think your citation is questionable.
Notice in particular the increase in guns owned by women and democrats. And for what it’s worth the recent gun grabber push is going to make this social liberal to vote republican for the first time in a long time.