Here's the problem - in one breath, your side says 'nobody wants to take your guns'. In another breath, your side talks about how you want to ban lots of guns and limit magazine capacity (never mind that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns). A rational person like myself looks at that and believes you are lying about the former, not the latter.
Lie #2 - I don't have a side. And bonus lie, a rational person would understand that something needs to be done to stop these needless deaths instead of just whining about a tracking device designed to locate or recover your stolen weapon before a criminal uses it - that's what we all want, right? Guns out of the hands of criminals before they kill people? That's the essence of "reasonable".
Your 'nobody wants to ban guns' schtick would be more credible if you weren't arguing for bans on guns and ammunition Lie #1. You didn't ask, you said. And also you can't find anywhere I ever said I was for or against a ban on anything. You are making poo up.
No it's not. It could be used for that reason just like any information can be used for nefarious purposes, but you are factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest by trying to make this sound like some kind of incontrovertible fact instead of the NRAs membership drive advertisement. Just who the hell do you think is going to go and "confiscate" guns anyways? It's completely idiotic to believe this, and paranoid delusional to boot. Grow up and join adult society where we understand things like the best interests of society and compromise.
I don't think you actually understand the problem these folks have with the way their own tax dollars are being used against them. Or really care. The "justice" they are dishing out sucks, but it really has nothing to do with the one specific case, that was just the last bit of spark. I think that you must understand this but don't really care to get into the actual problem, which is WHY these things are happening, and will continue to happen.
Sure, but if it had not happened, we would not be talking about it. Swept under the rug once more. This may provide you with an answer as to why. After Ferguson I saw all these MLK references on FB about how he got things done peacefully. Well guess what? Nothing has been done via peaceful methods. No poo most people want no looting or problems. But if you don't want that, then help deal with the actual problem, which all those nice MLK posters are not that interested in doing - the change part aint gonna happen, but lets keep up with the "peaceful" part, ok?
Ah, I see you've already gone from accusing me of wanting to ban all guns and ammo to just banning "assault weapons" and round capacity and trying to make it the same. You suck at this. Keep trying though. This right here is the problem. You just think everyone who sees gun violence as a problem way overdue to be addressed is in it for the primary purpose of not letting you have fun. When the EPA comes out with emissions laws, mandatory fuel mileage numbers, safety additions, etc. classic car people hate those as well, but they make due and still have fun, they just don't ruin the world doing it quite as much as they used to, and they for the most part understand the why.
Maybe something will change; maybe this time we will manage to act. But it's difficult to be anything but pessimistic, and when I think about why that is, my mind goes back again to Virginia Tech and 2007, when the New Yorker's Adam Gopnik wrote what is, to me, the single most powerful paragraph I have read on the subject. Many things have been written and will continue to be written on America's gun ownership rate (the highest in the world), its gun violence (the worst in the developed world), and the political and social forces that keep this from changing. What Gopnik captured was not just the horrific costs of gun violence or the frustrating politics of gun control, but the special sort of anguish that we inflict on ourselves in the United States by forbidding any meaningful conversation around the tragedies that unfold over and over again. There is an unwritten American rule that the aftermath of a mass shooting is the wrong time to talk about gun control. Even Obama's comments on the subject in June, while urgent and even angry, carefully avoided mentioning gun control directly. As Gopnik wrote, this logic would be recognized as absurd if applied to anything else: "the aftermath of a terrorist attack is the wrong time to talk about security, the aftermath of a death from lung cancer is the wrong time to talk about smoking and the tobacco industry, and the aftermath of a car crash is the wrong time to talk about seat belts." Gopnik ended his piece with a call to ban handguns — a political nonstarter in 2007 and, in 2015, something that would be unimaginable to even discuss. That fact itself, that his concluding line has become more politically unthinkable rather than less, seems to drive home his point: that mass shootings will continue in America, and that Americans will refuse to seriously debate whether our culture of gun ownership is worth the costs. "There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun," he wrote. "At some point, that simple truth will register. Until it does, phones will ring for dead children, and parents will be told not to ask why."