Of course they're dodging facts. It's an emotional issue, for them - people are taking away their teddy bears. And their steel penises.

I'm guessing I'll get down-voted, but none of this changes the fact that the constitution guarantees the right to gun ownership. It's not really up to the government to figure out if they make us safer.

The 2nd amendment issue is sticky. I think it's common sense for people to have to pass a gun safety course, not unlike a driving test, to cut down on carelessness and the lack of gun training that leads to accidents like parents shooting their own children. But at the same time, because it's a constitutional right, unlike driving, you can't put a roadblock like a gun safety course in between someone owning a firearm. The problem is lack of training. I'd wager pretty highly that these gun accidents are happening in metro areas, not in places where people grow up with firearms and learn to respect them. The right to defend yourself is a human right.

This is all getting so tired. Obviously owning a gun makes you more likely to die (or kill) in a gun related incident, just as owning a car makes you more likely to die (or kill) in a car accident. But what doesn't come up in these discussions is that the second amendment (as in number two behind FREE SPEECH) was created to allow citizens to arm themselves in the event that their govt becomes oppressive. It has nothing to do with hunting or collecting. And it certainly does nothing to encourage people to go cray cray and commit a mass shooting. Guns should be liscensed and registered to their owners just like cars, because both are potentially lethal. But I don't see anyone voting to restrict how many or what type of cars you can own. Cars kill WAY more people than guns in this country, so what's really going on here? Read your history folks.

The people who talk about the Constitution like it was a holy book also seem to forget the second word of the phrase "Second Amendment". As in, it wasn't even in the original constitution. If we need another amendment to repeal it and ban guns, then let's get on with doing that.

Own all the guns that are built with 16th century technology you want. Keep that in the constitution. And remember it's all in the context of a WELL REGULATED militia, not an individual with a desire to collect or use guns for any other reason whatsoever - individual self-defense included.

Anything that is built with modern technology, however, and heck - I'll generously round up to the nearest century on this one, so current to technology available in 1800 - should be restricted proportionately to its capability for destruction of human life. Which is the only thing guns are designed to do, kill living things. That's it. And I think we've had seriously more than enough examples of what those tools are capable of.

All anti gun Americans who won't stop till we've put them all in a burn pile to make the world safer. Do everyone a favor, organize a church, make some signs and start protesting in front of gun stores and shows so you can look like all those anti planned parenthood folks. Then get on your ten speed and go fight to melt all the cars down while you're at it you'd probably have a better chance. As a democrat it amazes me how close minded this argument has become and that the same behavior we chastise right wing evangelicals for (as we should) is the same behavior we're adopting for gun control. I support Obama's bg check executive order but I will never support this my way or the highway attitude on anything political reasonable solutions are way more sound.

Aurelius:

Cars and Guns kill about 33-35k people each. The numbers are pretty similar.