"gun related deaths" heh? You have no understanding of firearms, calling you clueless would be an understatement.

Why post misleading (by omission) stats. The number is in the high 30k usually and over 50% are suicides. How many firearm deaths are from scary so called assault rifles? 4%. In NY state in 2011 there were almost 800 gun murders. The number with any type of rifle? 5. That's 5 from any type, including bolt action deer hunting rifles.

Maybe instead of watching Jon Stewart butchering the 2nd amendment, you should read up on it and learn it.

Michael, I dare you to make less sense.

We don't let people have heroin. Know why? They might kill themselves. Guns might not only kill the owner, they could (and do) kill family members, innocent bystanders, murder victims, and more.

How about YOU pay some attention to that "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment that gun nuts seem to happilyi gloss over in their foamy-mouthed "defense" of the second-amendment, and deal with real issues.

Guns do kill people. Every single day. More than 800 gun deaths since Newtown. 800. This is acceptable to you?

Why does every discussion need to be made into name calling and putting each other down (on both sides)?

Ben clearly doesn't understand settled constitutional law. The Supreme court has ruled on the 2nd amendment and it extends to the individual right to have firearms. The Dec ruling from the federal 7th circuit court of appeals specifically touches on the right of the individual to carry firearms on their person. It struck down the Illinois law banning the carry of a concealed firearm, and gave Illinois a short window to write a concealed carry law. When it does in the next few months, all 50 states will have concealed carry laws.

Are gun death ok? Sure. When a women shoots the person trying to rape or rob her. When the persons home is invaded and a person defends their family. When a cop stops an armed robbery. So at times a death by firearm is fine. Seeing that nearly 70% of gun deaths are criminals shooting other criminals, it's not as if the average person is in danger.

Ben Jackson - "We don't let people have heroin. Know why? They might kill themselves."

So we have no issue with heroin in this country. The gov't made it illegal and we have no people using heroin, no violence as a result of the heroin distribution and usage, etc.

We have laws against cocaine, so that isn't an issue. There certainly isn't a problem with drugs pouring over the borders. We do have large federal agencies dedicated to stopping those drugs, the DEA, FBI, CIA, etc. So there is no issue with cocaine since it's illegal.

Marijuana is illegal at the federal level and in nearly every state. So the gov't made it illegal so I'm sure 40% of high school students have not tried it. They couldn't, it's illegal so there is no access for anyone to it.

I really cannot believe you made such a comical statement. You do not understand the subject at all. You do not understand the Constitution, you do not know anything about the abilities of firearms, you do not know the court decisions. You should move on and stop embarrassing yourself further.

Hey, guess what? The gov't made murder a crime too. I guess that never happens either? I'm sure a few more laws can get everyone to never step outside the gov't parameters.

Ben Jackson - "Guns do kill people. Every single day. More than 800 gun deaths since Newtown. 800. This is acceptable to you?"

There are more babies aborted per day than 800. There are over 900 abortions per day, or 3.3 million per year. Do you really care about life? You favor making abortion illegal, right? Is the ending of 3.3 million lives per year acceptable to you?

Most liberals put at least some thought and reasoning into an argument. You don't bother with any.

Listen, Michael -

I'm not going to get into a the personal insult/shouting match you seem hell-bent on starting. I shouldn't have responded at all that way in my first post, and I won't dignify the insults here. I will, however, correct you.

To claim that the 2nd amendment is settled law is preposterous. If it were, there would not be the myriad court cases brought against the gun lobby and the continued push from intelligent, caring, forward thinking individuals - both gun owners and non-gun owners, for responsible and smart laws to reduce the number and capabilities of weapons available to individuals. Those tasked wtih protecting the public at the most intimate level - the local chiefs of police - nearly unanimously urge these controls because they know they will improve safety.

You have completely fabricated statistics in your answers. "70% of gun deaths are criminals shooting other criminals?" First, show a study (peer-reviewed, academic) that correlates to this. Second, if a victim has a criminal record they are ok to be shot at? This is your vision of responsible gun ownership?

"40% of high school students have tried marijuana?" Again, peer-reviewed, objective academic study, please. You are missing the point - drugs, since they are illegal, can be the target of significant public safety efforts. Guns simply are not - and that's because of the NRA crazies who refuse common-sense restrictions.

There are no studies on drug use. The gov't made it illegal so it now ceases to exist.

Local police heads and officiers are not necessarily in favor of gun control measures like an "assault weapons" ban or magazine limits. I know plenty of cops and they do not favor any of these measures. Including Natick, Framingham, and state police. The feeling towards it is much lower in the south, midwest and west. You do not know these people, maybe you should talk to them.

You don't even know a stock from a receiver. So why bother spouting ideas when you don't even know the subject you are trying to address. We had a scary rifle ban for 10 years and it did not do a thing. There are fewer mass shootings in recent decades than in prior decades. There will be no ban of rifles and there will be no restrictions on magazines. So the issue is moot.

Read this and learn. The firearms area is the most regulated industry in the country. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books right now. Another few are only going to affect law abiding people. http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns

Skk-

I should have been clearer. I was not trying to say that all nra members are crazy. I meant the organization itself, which would rather create a database of the mentally ill than of gun owners, and refuses to admit the hypocrisy of that position.

Michael, i'll thank you to cease to comment here. Your inability to refrain from crazed, unfounded, and hilariously inaccurate insults not only serves to prove my points, but has no place here. Move along.

@ Michael, Those comments are just as bad. To say someone doesn't care about lives or the kids is unfair as is unhinged. also these are the type of coments that cause issues. Hell, I am not the patch moderator and at the end of the day you are both afforded your opinion on each other. again I made my views known. While I agree with points on both sides I also disagree stongly with banning things just because horrible event happens. I tend to think if there had been an armed person at the school it wouldn't have been as bad. I am for citizens being able to defend themselves. and yes I read the "liberals want all guns banned comment" also. It is what is it. There are extreme people in every population. I try to use reason and be realistic when making a decision. While I know guns don't do anything by themselves, i also know the government isn't going to attack the people. So again, Have agreat night. I alredy got more involved than I wanted to.

Hi there! I just deleted several comments on this thread that were inappropriate and violated the Patch terms of use. Please do not call each other names and stick to the topic at hand, which is guns.

@ Ben Jackson
I undestand. Have a great night. I see valid points on your side as well. While I don't think law abiding citizens should suffer because of horrible acts of a mentally unstable individual. I also see the NRA as wanting to make money so they are going to fight any legisation that will cut into that money. BUT, every group looks out for itself that isn't a new idea. the oil industry, the auto industry, etc all do it. Like I said to Michael, Have a great night.

I'm placing this comment under this thread as it seems to be the worst under this blog post. Any more off-topic shots at other commenters or personal attacks and I will close comments on this blog. If everyone would like to continue to discuss this issue in a civil manner, then please go ahead and do so as I think some of the comments brought a lot of interesting things to the table; however, I have seen a couple of insults that are without any basis from other comments on this post and are so out-of-line that this has to stop now. This is the only, and final, warning.

Alex Jones is not taken seriously by gun owners.

But with the tyranny part for the reason for the 2nd amendment. Remember how oppressive England was to the US before the declaration of independence and that is where the 2nd has it's beginning. Do I fear the gov't at this moment? No. But could a gov't become a tyranny 50 years from now? Who knows. The 2nd was a major issue to the founding fathers and it is not something that should be messed with.

Clearly, you did not heed half of your instructor's advice.

Piers Morgan is as much an idiot as Alex Jones. Morgan is obsessed with gun control but doesn't understand one thing about the issue nor the US Constitution. He is fixated with "assault rifles" which is a completely made up term. There is no "assault rifle", the firearms they are talking about are modern style rifles. The ammo most often is a .223 round which is a varmint round for shooting rabbits, coyotyes, prairie dogs, etc. It is a small round which is inexpensive so people use those for target shooting. He's fine with "hunting" rifles though. But if a round can take down a moose, bear or deer, it'd take you down in a nano second. There are many reports from Iraq from the US military using a similar round as a .223 and hitting a person 4 times in the chest and not terminating the person. They could still walk or run.

And changing magazines is a worthless cause. It takes less than 2 seconds to change mags. CT has an "assault weapons" ban, so does CA, so does MA and each has had mass shootings. Chicago has a near complete ban on gun yet had over 500 gun murders last year. Washington DC had a near complete ban since the early 1980's like Chicago and was the murder capital of the country often. 70% of murders are gang and criminals shooting each other. The number of firearms has gone from 200 million to over 300 million since the early '90's yet firearm deaths are way down. It's not the gun, it's the evil person.

I agree

As SKK mentions, the founding fathers knew exactly what they were saying with the 2nd amendment. They rose up against England with great risk. Dispute would be settled in court, through representative gov't, etc. But under tyranny, that is all out the window.

Automatic? Specify the maker and models.

Yeah, how about some proof for your claim. Maybe a link?

Ryan - Ben, these other gun banners do not even know the first thing about a firearm. They don't understand the different calibers, they just go on emotions. That black modern rifle looks really scary. It could be a .22 cal or .308 and they don't know the different. They are scary looking so they are both dangerous and must be banned. What's more dangerous a small cal pistol with a 15 round mag or a .45 with a 7 round? They go on emotions with no knowledge of the subject.

Harry Reid has an A rating from the NRA. He won't even allow a vote on banning guns or magazines.

If you don't buy the 2nd as a protection against tyranny, you are not familiar with the document nor the extensive writings of the founding fathers. It is very clear and has always been clear.

So you are for banning so called assault weapons even though it will have no impact? That make zero sense. They don't even exist, it is a political cause, not sound policy. CT has one, so does MA, CA, etc and it limits legal owners, thats it. Modern rifles are used for self defense, sport shooting and hunting. They are used in less 1% of gun deaths. They are a non issue.

Watch this video. A .223 rifle is far from are deadly as most hunting rifles and shotguns. Rifles are not even used in many shooting deaths. In NY state in 2011, of nearly 800 gun deaths, only 5 were from a rifle of any type.

http://brainerddispatch.com/opinion/guest-columns/2013-01-10/duck-hunting-shotgun-more-dangerous-ar-15

Did you see the home invasion in GA last week where a mother protected her child and herself with a 6 round revolver? She hit the perp with 5 of the 6 rounds and he still managed to run away. Say there were 3 attackers, she would need more than the 10 rd mag gun grabbers want. Also, assault rifles are military automatic gun, no available for civilians. A modern sports rifle is use for self defense, target shooting and hunting. They are modular. You can use it as a .223 cal at the range for practice, the switch out a few parts so it fires larger cal bullets for deer hunting or other game. So people can have the practice with the gun they use for hunting. They shoot the .223 at the range rather than the larger bullets because the are less expensive. Why waste money for range shooting. You can buy AR's in MA. When was the last shooting with one? They are not used by criminals often. Va Tech shooter killed 34 adults, wounded 17 with two hand guns only. He had a dozen 10 round and 15 round magazines. Changing mags takes less than 2 seconds for anyone. It would not change a thing.

Why would someone need an AR? They know what they need. Why would someone need a .45 cal handgun over the mch smaller 9mm? I don't know their needs, nor does anyone. They need what they see fit and I am all for legal gun owners having the options available for thei needs.

"As for your not as deadly argument I am not looking at firepower but ability to fire fast and hold alot of ammunition."

Semi auto Handguns fire as fast and changing mags take less than 2 seconds so capacity is a non issue. A mass shooter will have several guns and as many mags as the want. One of the columbine shooters used a 10 round mag and fired nearly 100 rounds. He had many mags with him. The large mags actually saved people in CO, they jam often. It jammed and he gave up. Small mags rarely jam.

Address the mentally ill and illegal guns, not legal owners. You said it would do nothing to ban modern rifles. Why do it then. Address the problem, not legal gun owners.

Rather comical that Biden task force as gun runner AG eric holder on it and head of national police group Tom Nee (from boston) on it. Holder is head of agency that gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug gangs and Nee's kid was convicted for plotting a school massacre on the south shore.

Dennis, I think your points are fine. I am not for bans just for the sake of bans because I question the impact they will have. On the other side of the coin as a person I don't see the need for an assault style rifle capable of holding 50 rounds of ammunition. I am all for better background checks, better mental health services, registration but I am not sure where I stand with liability insurence. It seems to make sense to me but I am just not sure yet. I understand guns kill people but I am a big proponent of making people accountable for their actions not just banning things. There are all sorts of things that kill (I know a a gun is designed for just that). There is also technology that we could use to make guns safer and all but stop stolen weapons from being used in killings but for some reason we don't do it. Just like there is technology that could almost do away with drunk driving but we don't do that either. I don't see an assault weapon ban really making a dent in crime but again as a person I see the reasoning. I am also not against it. I don't think it infringes on a persons rights they can still have hunting rifles and pistols. Just my thoughts. I really dislike seeing people make rude comments. I try to comment as if I was speaking with others in person.

First, lets get something straight. These are NOT "high powered weapons". Most so called "assault weapons" fire a .223 round which is not powerful. It is such a light round, it's called a varmint round. For shooting rabbits, praire dogs, and small game. It is illegal to use such a light round for deer hunting as it would not be a fatal shot.

The entire definition of a "assault weapon" is based on appearance and cosmetic features, not on lethality. http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/how-do-we-know-an-assault-weapon-ban-wou

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting and sports shooting, it is about the citizen's having arms in the event of a tyrannical gov't.

Because you feel people do not need them? Do you know what someone's threats in their life are? The woman Georgia last week had a 6 round revolver to fend off a home invader. She shot 6 times, hitting him 5 times and he still managed to run away. What if there were 2 or 3 or more assailants? She would have needed the extra shots.

And tell me how it would have made a difference in Newtown or anywhere else to ban "assault weapons" or 30 round mag's. The shooting at Va Tech involve two pistols and magazines of 10 and 15 rounds. He killed 34 and wounded 17 more. So tell me how banning a magazine that takes seconds to change or a rifle that is used in 1% of murders changes a thing?

Part 2.

So you don't know where technology is going so you want to ban a firearm that has been around for 50 years? AR style guns are not new and not new to civilian ownership. They have been around for many decades and they are used in less than 1% of gun murders. They simply are not an issue.

Forcing someone to have "liability insurance" is the same as a poll tax to vote. The 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right and you cannot place restrictions such as that on it. And again, tell me how that would stop murders? Murderers are committing the most serious crime so any law or burden you put in place will not affect them at all. It will attack legal gun owners and do nothing to prevent one death.

In NY state in 2011 there were 780 or so gun deaths. 5 of those involved ANY TYPE OF RIFLE. So every type of rifle, deer hunting, black powder, and modern sporting rifles were only 5. They are used in 1% of deaths. They are a smoke screen and not an issue.

And AR rifles are used for hunting by some. They are modular guns which are very versatile to shooters. People can own one gun for target shooting and with a few part changes use that same gun with a bigger round for deer hunting.

To SKK - I know you made an error when you said rifles capable of holding 50 rounds of ammo. The rifle doesn't hold anything except for the chambered round. The mag's do so the type of rifle firing doesn't matter. Many pistols will accept large mag's too.

The liability insurance is a tax on owning a gun. It is unconstitutional.

There is also no gun show loop hole. Almost sell at a gun show is a federal licensed dealer. They are are already required to run background checks. Private sales are not covered but they are mostly a father giving his son a shotgun for Christmas or for a birthday. This is a non issue that gun control people lie about.

As you said, ban's will not change a thing except for legal gun owners. We had an "assault weapons" ban from /94 to '04 and it did nothing to stop Columbine or any other shooting. There is a reason why the ban expired and it was not renewed. It did nothing and no one with reason claims it did anything.

You can make 30 round magazines on 3D printers. They made other gun parts for AR's too. Any CNC machine can make the parts. You can make a magazine in your garage if you have a very little ability.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312627/guns-dont-kill-people-3-d-printers-do-charles-c-w-cooke

Yes Michael I mispoke with the 50 round rifle wording. Yes I meant magazines! Please excuse me. I think you knew what I meant though correct?

How many high power weapons do the Taliban or Al Qeada have? They have RPG's but they mostly have IED's and small arms The Military is only a few million. The populous is much greater.

Pretty crazy of a topic. But there are plenty of ways to deal with a military with small arms. We are seeing it go on right now in Syria. That gov't is using planes, helicopter gunships tanks, etc. against their people and they are at a standstill. Yeah handguns and rifles are no going to beat a tank, helicopter, etc. But you use them in unconventional war and you use them to take control of the tanks and other assets.