"He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out"

[Honeycombe8]

49. A gun's purpose is not solely to kill a person. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I will never support the prevention of the masses from buying guns. The problem with democracy and a free society that inevitably some crazies are able, through their rights, to do terrible things. In order to prevent that, we'd have to have a locked down, autocratic society. I'd prefer the former.

There is a difference between guns and bombs, of course. Those are considered weapons of mass destruction, and there is no other purpose than the killing of people and destruction of property. I support the banning of glocks and machine guns, and the like, for that reason. (We can buy arsenic OTC, as far as I know. And radioactivity is everywhere, but we can't buy it in a certain form that is used to make weapons of mass destruction.)

You don't need a license to buy and own a gun. I don't know if you're aware of that, since you seem to want a "new" license for every gun. You only need a license to carry a concealed weapon, and to get that, you have to go through a special training course, which costs money. I think Zimmerman had a carry license. (But you don't need a carry license to carry a gun in view in your car.)

There are so many guns around in the country. Most of them never harm a person or are involved in a crime or murder. Gun control advocates are overly focused on it, I think, because of the way guns are used in big city areas of crime, like Chicago, Detroit, etc. But most of thecountry is not Chicago or Detroit. It's OomaLooma, GA, where everyone owns a gun, every man hunts, and no one gets murdered by those guns, although a criminal with a Saturday Night Special might murder someone. That is the reality that gets gun owners upset.

Maybe Chicacgo and Detroit and places with a high incidence of gun crimes can outllaw guns there?