Gun control advocates are NOT trying to ban guns. That is paranioa at best, rationalization at worst.

Instead of waiting, you can easily do your own research if you really have a sincere interest in learning more. If you're not interested in doing this,why should I take what you say seriously?

@MST3K Yes, gun control advocates ARE trying to ban guns. ALL advocates, banning ALL guns - Noooooo, but SOME want to ban ALL, and ALL want to ban SOME (in some shape or form - either types of guns, or limits to who can own). Now I support responsible gun ownership, but like I said, I have yet to see any legislation proposed that would have stopped ANY of the mass shootings. And I haven't waited for someone to tell me - I am just waiting for someone to tell me how it would prevent most of these occurrences.

universal background checks - how will this stop mass shootings? It will just make private sales criminal unless the government sticks their nose into the process (and really all the government wants is the sales tax revenue anyway - lets be honest)

waiting periods to buy guns - and how will this stop a mass shooting after the waiting period?

safe storage initiatives - that goes into responsible gun ownership, but then again, these people who have been shooting up schools and movie theaters were typically the registered owners. Or they were family members in the home that know the combo or where the key was. So really just a way for the government to place the blame at someone else's feet and criminalize /fine them.

red flag laws - so now someone who doens't like me can make a false report against me and I am guilty until proven innocent - all in the name of safety before freedom.

Finally - why don't you not evade the original point and address "Cars (11.4 in 2017) kill just as many people per 100k than guns (11.96 in 2016), as well as typically do more physical damage to the human body than guns, so we should also ban cars!"

Because a whole lot of people purposefully go out & kill with their cars, yeah.....you fathead!

@AnneWimsey Does it matter if it's intentional or unintentional? Dead is dead. Also, driving distracted is a purposeful act, be it texting or eating while driving....so "yeah". I don't think killing a family with a gun, or killing them b/c someone was texting or eating a Big Mac in their car distracted makes much difference to the dead family either way. Same statistics...and same results...lots of dead people for no good reason, except driving a car is not a Constitutional right and would be much easier to pass national legislation to stop needless deaths.

@AnneWimsey So you're saying you're less dead if it's intentional vice unintentional? Or are you saying that it's ok to kill someone thru negligence, but not ok to kill them with purpose? Please explain to me how being dead in one case is so much better than being dead in another.

Also....you need to stop with the fucking personal attacks. You know god damn well I am making a reasonable argument...and even if not, I am not attacking you personally for your beliefs. So cut the shit please and engage me with intellectual dialogue, not name calling.

@jondspen I worked in a shipyard amongst 20,000 men for 13 years, calling someone a "fathead" becase the term fits, of fool is a long way from the garbage language you are using....
Killing is never okay, but an ACCIDENT is a long, long way from loading up, hunting, and gunning down innocent children, churchgoers, and others., and you know it.
No wonder you are resorting to profanity.......

@AnneWimsey Farthead, No powers of reasoning, "deny common sense, logic, and human feeling" - let's not pretend you just made one off the cuff remark. You refused to address my point, and resorted to MULTIPLE personal attacks via insults and character defamation.

Now so killing is not ok. Good, we are getting somewhere. Now tell me why driving distracted on purpose is an accident and not negligence - IMO just as bad as taking a gun to someone? Most wrecks are caused by texting or eating or doing some other crap while driving a huge metal machine down the highway at extreme speeds. BTW....you remember just a few weeks back the white supremacist was convicted of running over that women in Virginia. So again - same statics of death, same outcome for the dead, except the gun statics also includes suicide and accident deaths (accidental discharge that results in self-injury). So driving could be argued as being MORE dangerous to the public, is a privilege not a Constitutional right, and as such would be easy to pass legislation that could curb this number - if you're really so interested in a quick and easier way to save lives.

@jondspen because of intent, period.
And the term is "fathead", you fool...I leave bodily functions out of my discourse, finding them quite juvenile.

@AnneWimsey Oh, so if I indented to kill you that's bad, but if I kill you via negligence, no big deal. LOL....ok....I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

@jondspen try that theory on the judge & jury.........