Since the OKC bombing, an effort was made to regulate and more easily track the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer. Also, companies have attempted to make the fertilizer less explosive. Regulation seems to have made a difference; or perhaps semi-automatic weapons are just much more easier to acquire.

"Paddock had 1,600 rounds of ammunition in his car, along with fertilizer that can be used to make explosives and 50 pounds of Tannerite , a substance used in explosive rifle targets...."

...an effort was made...
...have attempted to make...

If someone wants it, they will find it.

I never said it was impossible to get. It's regulated, but it's commercially available.

I never said it was impossible to get. It's regulated, but it's commercially available.

But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right? You think if military weapons were banned, they would be impossible to get? Doubtful.

The key words here were ALL DEBATE ASIDE, and the application isn't hypothetical. It was used during WW1. Many were killed or at least severely disabled from the gas.

We are talking about trying to prevent crimes on civilians peoples, not war. So unless you can name an instance where this has been used on a crowd of innocent civilians in this country, it's hypothetical. People poison their spouses with anti-freeze, but that doesn't happen on a large-scale often (well, ever) so there isn't debate about it.

But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right?

This notion makes the anti gun-control people seem deranged - not one person, not even crazy man Obama, suggested any proposed measure should completely eliminate our problems with guns. it is to reduce them, and make it more difficult to commit mass murder. if the anti gun-control crowd wants to help their cause, they should demonstrate a greater understanding of the issue.

But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right?

This notion makes the anti gun-control people seem deranged - not one person, not even crazy man Obama, suggested any proposed measure should completely eliminate our problems with guns. it is to reduce them, and make it more difficult to commit mass murder. if the anti gun-control crowd wants to help their cause, they should demonstrate a greater understanding of the issue.

What is one's ideal number to reduce 300 million guns to?

But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right?

This notion makes the anti gun-control people seem deranged - not one person, not even crazy man Obama, suggested any proposed measure should completely eliminate our problems with guns. it is to reduce them, and make it more difficult to commit mass murder. if the anti gun-control crowd wants to help their cause, they should demonstrate a greater understanding of the issue.

The big question is "How do they plan to reduce the number of guns in circulation?"

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind

Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?

The big question is "How do they plan to reduce the number of guns in circulation?"

AND, to what level do they reduce the amount? Will only having 100 million guns reduce mass shootings?
The Vegas Shooter had 23 guns, Colorado shooter had 4 guns. 27 guns is roughly .000000076% of all firearms in the United States. Two shootings happened using 1 billionth of a percent of total guns in our Nation. For any significant effect, you would almost have to somehow remove every gun in the country, not likely to happen.

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind

Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?

100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see

You said EVERYONE who owns a gun other than for hunting or collecting. Explain THAT with no rhetoric.

You would have to be even more of a dumbass than some of these posts imply to not think those that have already committed the crimes are viloent DuHHH.

My neighbor doesn't hunt, doesn't collect historic guns but owns a pistol. So he is violent?. Explain please.

The big question is "How do they plan to reduce the number of guns in circulation?"

AND, to what level do they reduce the amount? Will only having 100 million guns reduce mass shootings?
The Vegas Shooter had 23 guns, Colorado shooter had 4 guns. 27 guns is roughly .000000076% of all firearms in the United States. Two shootings happened using 1 billionth of a percent of total guns in our Nation. For any significant effect, you would almost have to somehow remove every gun in the country, not likely to happen.

So............ what is your answer to reduce these kinds of deadly events? Saying how not to fix it does not fix it.

But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right?

This notion makes the anti gun-control people seem deranged - not one person, not even crazy man Obama, suggested any proposed measure should completely eliminate our problems with guns. it is to reduce them, and make it more difficult to commit mass murder. if the anti gun-control crowd wants to help their cause, they should demonstrate a greater understanding of the issue.

Exactly. My younger brother suggested to me that he is feeling less liberal after seeing college aged protesters in Berkeley marching with fake "menstrual blood" smeared all over their faces to protest Trump's anti-women policies. He gets why they are protesting, but he feels that makes the whole side of the argument look stupid.

When someone says we should try to figure out a way to greatly reduce the ease with which mass murderers carry out mass murder, and gun-nuts scream about destroying the constitution, it is a similar spectacle.

The big question is "How do they plan to reduce the number of guns in circulation?"

AND, to what level do they reduce the amount? Will only having 100 million guns reduce mass shootings?
The Vegas Shooter had 23 guns, Colorado shooter had 4 guns. 27 guns is roughly .000000076% of all firearms in the United States. Two shootings happened using 1 billionth of a percent of total guns in our Nation. For any significant effect, you would almost have to somehow remove every gun in the country, not likely to happen.

You are talking about a couple of events as if there are no other shootings going on. There are murders by gun daily all over the country. The entire problem needs to be addressed.

Anyone else notice how the pro-gun arguments are always based on cherry picked facts while the majority of events are ignored?

What is one's ideal number to reduce 300 million guns to?

I wasn't clear - I was saying it's about reducing the number of problems associated with gun ownership, meaning accidental deaths, and deranged lunatics going into a store and purchasing an AR-15. It's never been about "stopping them all". It just shouldn't be so damn easy - you should have to demonstrate competency first before buying. I can't imagine why anyone would be against that.

1200 people die every day from tobacco related disease ....

In all seriousness, what is your point?

dead is dead the method matters not you want to save lives then do it !

Are you suggesting we update laws on both guns and smoking?

Rydethewind, are you against people having to demonstrate complete responsible operation of a firearm before exercising their 2nd amendment rights? And what purpose do the psychological evaluations serve used by our police on recruits before hire?

[Edited on 10/5/2017 by BoytonBrother]

I am for responsible gun ownership, no law can be passed to stop criminals that is their nature , I am not for blaming everyone who did not do like all the liberals do as soon as their is a shooting they blame all the people who did not do it and want to pass laws that punish them not the sick bastard that did the deed I have asked on here many many time tell me a LAW that would have stopped this sick SOB tell me !

In complete answer to your question are you in favor of people taking a physiological test before they can exercise their 1st amendment rights? or a test to see if they understand history enough before they can talk about gun ownership?

when you answer my questions, i'll answer yours.

1200 people die every day from tobacco related disease ....

In all seriousness, what is your point?

dead is dead the method matters not you want to save lives then do it !

Are you suggesting we update laws on both guns and smoking?

Rydethewind, are you against people having to demonstrate complete responsible operation of a firearm before exercising their 2nd amendment rights? And what purpose do the psychological evaluations serve used by our police on recruits before hire?

[Edited on 10/5/2017 by BoytonBrother]

I am for responsible gun ownership, no law can be passed to stop criminals that is their nature , I am not for blaming everyone who did not do like all the liberals do as soon as their is a shooting they blame all the people who did not do it and want to pass laws that punish them not the sick bastard that did the deed I have asked on here many many time tell me a LAW that would have stopped this sick SOB tell me !

In complete answer to your question are you in favor of people taking a physiological test before they can exercise their 1st amendment rights? or a test to see if they understand history enough before they can talk about gun ownership?

The guy bought over 43 guns. Most of them he bought in the past year. Are you OK with that?

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind

Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?

100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see

How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind

Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?

100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see

How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.

Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.

The key words here were ALL DEBATE ASIDE, and the application isn't hypothetical. It was used during WW1. Many were killed or at least severely disabled from the gas.

We are talking about trying to prevent crimes on civilians peoples, not war. So unless you can name an instance where this has been used on a crowd of innocent civilians in this country, it's hypothetical. People poison their spouses with anti-freeze, but that doesn't happen on a large-scale often (well, ever) so there isn't debate about it.

Think subway attack in Japan. Get the picture?

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind

Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?

100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see

How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.

Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.

Who had unfettered access to firearms? Besides, the statement was that "100% of the shooting are by those who own (possess) firearms." Not semantics,or cherry picking, just showing that GoldTops' statement was wrong.

So, that makes your statement wrong, too.

What is one's ideal number to reduce 300 million guns to?

I wasn't clear - I was saying it's about reducing the number of problems associated with gun ownership, meaning accidental deaths, and deranged lunatics going into a store and purchasing an AR-15. It's never been about "stopping them all". It just shouldn't be so damn easy - you should have to demonstrate competency first before buying. I can't imagine why anyone would be against that.

I am, for the same facts i gave you earlier. Several of your points could not occur before you purchased the firearm as stated in my response.

As we exist now, then yes, you are right. But this is the US, and we can do whatever we want if it's our priority - we can both agree on that. If we wanted to have a DMV-like organization where you can sign-up for classes, which include shooting demonstrations, we could do it. Anyone can buy whatever gun they want if they sign-up and pass. Make it a process so someone might spot a red flag. Don't trust the workers? We have hearings for that so you can challenge and get multiple opinions. It can be done if there were material gains for the people in power. But no, that comes from guns and ammunition sales. Money talks. The funny thing is that the NRA and the far-right wing politicians have successfully sold their base into believing it's about the 2nd amendment. How can anyone believe that?

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind

Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?

100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see

How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.

Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.

Who had unfettered access to firearms? Besides, the statement was that "100% of the shooting are by those who own (possess) firearms." Not semantics,or cherry picking, just showing that GoldTops' statement was wrong.

So, that makes your statement wrong, too.

First, you cannot follow conversations. I didn't make that claim. Second, his mother owned the guns and allowed him free access to them. And you like to parse every statement to make it look like guns are not a problem and you fail every time.

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind

Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?

100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see

How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.

Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.

Who had unfettered access to firearms? Besides, the statement was that "100% of the shooting are by those who own (possess) firearms." Not semantics,or cherry picking, just showing that GoldTops' statement was wrong.

So, that makes your statement wrong, too.

First, you cannot follow conversations. I didn't make that claim. Second, his mother owned the guns and allowed him free access to them. And you like to parse every statement to make it look like guns are not a problem and you fail every time.

You responded to my response to GoldTops's post. You said "Semantics and cherry picking again. he had unfettered access to the guns he used."

That makes you wrong since I did not use semantics. I showed that Goldtop had made a wrong statement.
I did not cherry pick since I used the two latest who did not own the weapons they used. That made Goldtops' statement "100% of the shooting are done by those who own(possess) guns" wrong.
Adam Lanza didn't own the guns he used, nor did the two who did the shooting at Columbine own the guns they used. His mother did not allow him free access to them.
So that makes you wrong on both counts and Goldtop wrong on his assumption.

Now, can YOU follow the conversation? It's all been quoted above, and re-quoted, and now re-quoted again, in order.
I would guess that makes your post an utter failure.

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind

Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?

100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see

How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.

Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.

Who had unfettered access to firearms? Besides, the statement was that "100% of the shooting are by those who own (possess) firearms." Not semantics,or cherry picking, just showing that GoldTops' statement was wrong.

So, that makes your statement wrong, too.

First, you cannot follow conversations. I didn't make that claim. Second, his mother owned the guns and allowed him free access to them. And you like to parse every statement to make it look like guns are not a problem and you fail every time.

You responded to my response to GoldTops's post. You said "Semantics and cherry picking again. he had unfettered access to the guns he used."

That makes you wrong since I did not use semantics. I showed that Goldtop had made a wrong statement.
I did not cherry pick since I used the two latest who did not own the weapons they used. That made Goldtops' statement "100% of the shooting are done by those who own(possess) guns" wrong.
Adam Lanza didn't own the guns he used, nor did the two who did the shooting at Columbine own the guns they used. His mother did not allow him free access to them.
So that makes you wrong on both counts and Goldtop wrong on his assumption.

Now, can YOU follow the conversation? It's all been quoted above, and re-quoted, and now re-quoted again, in order.
I would guess that makes your post an utter failure.

The two Columbine killers owned 2 9mm handguns and 2 12 gauge shotguns used in the attack. And these threads were about gun violence and what should be done about it until you came along steering every conversation away from the point.

"Adam Lanza didn't own the guns he used, nor did the two who did the shooting at Columbine own the guns they used. His mother did not allow him free access to them. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see how this helps your argument. Adam Lanza's mother took this freak out to the gun range for his breaks from playing video games (probably shooter games) in her house. He was clearly disturbed and antisocial, yet he knew where the guns were and how to access them and how to use them. It is hard for me to feel like she was a responsible owner doing all that she possibly could to protect local children. The whole situation was bad for their community and her, but she was not a completely innocent victim.

Another example of guns being everywhere making us safer, right?

I know, "But, but, but if the teachers had guns..."