To be clear, we can't own assault rifles now. That right was already taken away. And that is against the actual purpose of the Second Amendment.

No, they don't care about guns being used to kill people. Only 323 people were killed with a rifle of any sort in 2011. Why are we banning anything having to do with a rifle?

Even if they are concerned with guns being used to kill people shouldn't we actually be concerned with people being killed and not with the method of killing.
If we are concerned with people being killed then that number serves as the valuation of the method.
So, look at this table and tell me what should be banned based upon the number of people it kills - this is only for murders mind you...

FBI crime data: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Handguns are the obvious target. Rifles are immaterial. But there is another correlation, arguments about random crap. In every instance the argument (not a felony) is the majority reason why someone was killed. No matter what they were killed with most people are killed in an argument. Guns are used because we have so many and once I've decided to kill someone why would I use a less efficient means? This does not mean that people will stop killing each other in arguments if they don't have guns. As tool users we will use the tools we have. Case in point is that more people are killed with hammers than with rifles - because most people don't have rifles.

So nothing we are discussing in the gun control debate will impact the main cause of homicide in this country - arguments.

Not huge numbers. See my reply to grandparent. Only 673 gangland related homicides out of 12000 total homicides in 2011. This number includes justifiable homicides which includes police homicides.

Even if you simply broke the numbers down by race you get -

Offenders:
white - 4,729
black - 5,486

Victims:
white - 5,825
black - 6,329

Again, these numbers include justifiable homicides.
Before posting numbers one really should check their numbers.

Actually gang activity only accounts for about 673 total murders out of 12,664 in 2011.

citation: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

And also, for clarity, only 17 of those murders occurred with a rifle - which is what is being attacked by the current round of gun bans.
Total rifle murders in 2011 was only 323.

Note that these numbers include justifiable homicides - self protection as well as those committed by law enforcement.

Your other statements are much more supportable but you are reading into things you've heard. If you go to the Home Office website for Great Britain you can check their numbers as well. If you really want to be taken seriously don't give conjecture, give actual numbers and cite your sources.

This is true. And there are lots of people that are not "fine to drive" when sober. But there's nothing we can do about that because it is perfectly legal for them to drive.

Thank you.

If we stop and think about things logically instead of emotionally we might come to some way to deal with this.

If you take away the "why" of the matter and simply correlate dead kids with use of a gun we can also make that correlation with other things/events. If we consider a lot of dead kids in a year to be bad and we consider the way to stop this is to ban the object and / or event causing it then we must either ban cars or prevent them from being able to back up. The number of children killed by cars and guns is about the same actually:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf
(I couldn't find a reputable source for child gun shot deaths but most of the anti-gun sites quote a figure around 3k without source - google it.)

If you don't think we should ban cars then you've obviously put a higher value on use of cars than on the life of a child. Accept it. You have.
You may respond, "but I've never run over a child. I'm a good driver."
Or you might say, "but our society has always used cars. It's part of our culture. I know other places don't rely on cars so much but we're American."
You might even say, "look at England. They have lots of cars and it's not a problem for them."
And that's pretty much the response of gun owners.

So... where does this leave us?

Like the parent post said, figure out why. The "why" is the only difference that matters.

Target shooting and hunting is not the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Self-protection is also not the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

A very famous and respected Aikido instructor once clarified the dichotomy and misinterpretation of Aikido for me. "I cannot choose to NOT hurt you without the ability to hurt you." Without that choice all of the choice belongs to the aggressor.

I agree with the other AC.

Just because you are not able to alter it don't assume it cannot be altered.

Actually, you can buy a laptop from some dealers like Xotic without an OS. And the prices are generally cheaper for better hardware... Asus, Sager, and Alienware.

I don't work for them. I'm just happy with my unmarked, ubermachine Sager.

22 years old does not count as having enough life experience to shake off that which was taught to them by their parents. Even if they did rebel against their parents they would still harbor certain preconceptions that would probably seem more real than their new hypotheses on life.

George Washington was a racist.
Freud was a racist.
John F. Kennedy was a racist.
I'm pretty certain that Einstein wouldn't want me marrying into his family.

Keep everyone in context.

The points being made were quite valid up until this comment:
"how is your prejudice against people because of the views they hold any different from the prejudice against people because of the colour of their skin? "

In fact, the only appropriate points of judgement are upon one's views and how one manifests them. Remember what "prejudice" means. It means to pre-judge. Once I actually know your views and/or witness your acts I am not pre-judging you. I am judging you. My thoughts on who you are have not been formed from a preconception but by an actual observation of your character.

That being said, we need to judge historical figures on a bell curve. Pretty much every human on the planet was racist (in loose interpretation and by current ideals) up until about 5 decades ago.

s/someone/somehow

Would it help if he were agnostic? Agnostic is the only really scientific position. I am deferring judgement lacking evidence. I, however, note the evidence does not support a sentient, rational entity, both limited and unlimited that takes a personal interest in the lives of those that yell, whisper, and/or genuflect in some indeterminably way pleasing to the entity. There are "gods" that fit the body of evidence but those gods are not the gods discussed by most religious believers. They tend to not like the gods that could exist given the evidence. Atheists don't like the concept either.

Agnostic, scientifically minded people don't have to push their beliefs. We only have the burden of trying to show you that you already believe them or else you could not function in life. Proper analysis of your world is a requirement to function day to day. But someone it is not applied to some book that a person was introduced to at the same age at which they were told about Santa Claus.

So how would you propose pointing out that the attack on Dawkins or Atheism was ad hominem? One can use presumptuous latin terms ;) or one can be direct and informal but much more clear. The critique of someone's method is not an ad hominem attack and I think you are making this mistake.

Saying "you're stupid and you're wrong" is an attack on the person.
Saying "your analysis method does not actually broach the subject" is not an attack on the person but an attack on the analysis method... although it may still imply the person is stupid. ;)

That is why it was not hypocritical.

Thanks for writing that. As a veteran of similar age (based upon what you wrote), I appreciate that some still understand freedom, free will, and moral obligations. My oath as an enlisted man was to uphold the Constitution and follow the orders of those appointed over me. As an officer my oath dropped the "orders of those appointed over me" part. Something tells me that's intentional.

I will always defend the Constitution as I have promised. At one time I did so with arms. I know do so with words, actions, and my vote.

Remember: Make sure you've got your papers with you at all times. Do not forget your duty to obey, comrade. Cheese will be handed out next Tuesday. ..."Wolverines!!!!!!!"