Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

We all would

straightUp Loc: California

Hi arch... good question. The way I see it, there are two things that can be regulated to "control" the level of safety. The guns or the people. Since I am more concerned about a government that tracks it's citizens than I am about the selection of guns on the legal market, I prefer we regulate the guns.

For me the guideline is simple... Kill capacity. I don't imagine we can seriously END gun violence. But I think we can reduce it, maybe not the number of attacks but certainly the number of casualties per attack, by just limiting the kill capacity of firearms available on the legal market.

I think that line is worth the trade off because I think most gun owners are probably fine with their low-capacity weapons. It's only the collectors, dealers and "bad asses" that get shafted by this approach.

So, in your scenario, it would not be illegal to pass your gun to your son, so long as it's a legal weapon.

straightUp Loc: California

Cool, then you know better than to lump us all in the same bag.


Yeah, I'm not saying that isn't happening, but I'm not seeing it. It's hard for me not to assume that's an alarmist narrative.


I think the ban on semi-automatics is the result of people who just wanted to ban semi-automatics. You could say those demanding a ban on ALL guns have gained ground as a result, but I don't think they would get the same boost for banning all firearms.

As for the parallel you keep bringing up with animal activists... yeah, extremists are everywhere. In reality, not ALL animal activists or gun control advocates are fanatics. However, encouraging the notion that they ARE helps to discredit their movements in the eyes of the public.


Yes, like the NRA.

Rose42

No, its not that simple. The seed was planted and its taken root.



The people running the movements know what they’re doing. Just because they’re fanatics or whatever you want to call them doesn’t mean they’re stupid. Just the opposite. Most are easily lulled and manipulated. After all who doesn’t want to save lives or help animals?



And Everytown

straightUp Loc: California

I think in this case, you're the one making this more simple than it is. I am suggesting that any ground the extremists gained from the bans on semi-automatics are a result of efforts by others who don't share the same end-goal. You seem to be suggesting it's all just one big plan.

Have a little more faith in people Rose... Not everyone is an extremist, but if you fall for extremist narratives that pound independent media, you're not going to see that.


I never said they were stupid, but I AM saying they are vastly outnumbered by moderate voters. I believe this is the case on both sides of the partisan divide. Not just the hyperVegans on the left but the neoNazis on the right too. The advantages they have in the media (extreme stories sell) simply do not reflect the reality of their disadvantages in the ballot.


Maybe, maybe not... From what I've seen so far, Everytown seems focused on opposing the NRA on current ballot measures which I largely support. Also, I don't see any mention anywhere in their literature that suggests anything more ambitious such as an overturn of the second amendment or the disarming of America, nor do I see the same kind of fabricated smear campaigns that I see coming from the NRA on a regular basis.

Trust me, if the extremists that you seem so convinced are taking the left by storm ever got to the point of seriously challenging the second amendment I would join their opponents. We can't let the extremist control the way WE behave through their vendoring of excessive fear and "slippery-slope" paranoia. Stop listening to them and be free to make your own rational decisions!

Rose42

I'm not suggesting it. I'm stating it.



I'm not falling for anything nor did I suggest everyone is an extremist. The vast majority just want to peacefully live their lives. The vast majority is also fairly easily swayed by experts in propaganda and that is easily seen on OPP from both the left and the right. In my younger and much dumber years to my shame I was part of the animal rights movement - not to be confused with animal welfare. This was before social media and before most people knew they even existed. I heard firsthand their tactics and rhetoric. The ones who would like all guns banned operate the same way. Appeals to emotion are highly effective.



And yet, unneeded restrictive laws keep passing despite those moderate voters. Laws that in reality achieve next to nothing but advance the agenda of those in charge.



You will never see in any literature a call for banning guns. That would work against them and they know it.

People see what they want to see. The NRA has evolved into a bit of a monster. They need to return to their roots. As for those who want to ban higher capacity magazines, your comment "It's only the collectors, dealers and "bad asses" that get shafted by this approach." - is a reflection of just how effective propaganda is. I'm no zealot, collector, dealer or "bad ass" and know no one else with these magazines that are any of those. The vast majority who own these do nothing wrong. And the majority of gun deaths are not caused by high powered rifles with large capacity magazines.

You want to reduce gun deaths? It takes much more effort to address underlying causes than it does to ban something. People opt for the path of least resistance.

straightUp Loc: California

I don't see the difference other than a heightened sense of passion.


So, you're saying the vast majority is easily swayed but not you. I didn't know I was conversing with such an exceptional person. ;)


I'm not sure why you keep bringing the animal rights movement into this. It sounds like you ran into some extremists there. Maybe you should open a new thread and talk about that? Saying that gun-control advocates operate the same way is pretty meaningless to me. Like I've already said, you can find extremists everywhere and they ALL operate the same way… They ALL appeal to emotions and that includes extremists in the gun-lobby. That doesn't necessarily put them in charge of every movement they inhabit.

I suggest you pay less attention to the extremists that seem to get you so riled up and pay more attention to the legal process.


This is where I ask you for an example of an "unneeded restrictive law" because what you are "stating" sounds like BS to me. If you can provide an example maybe you can prove me wrong.


If they are indeed conspiring then yes, but they wouldn't need to conspire if the movement was on the same page. So the idea that they have to hide their true intentions only supports my position that the movement itself is not controlled by those you claim to be conspiring. Logic doesn't seem to be on your side here, Rose.



I agree.


Yes, that would be good.


So, you're telling me that you know people with high capacity magazines who are not collectors or "bad asses"? (keep in mind I put "bad-asses" in quotes because I am referring to people who THINK they are bad-asses). I dunno, I find this hard to believe Rose but I'll give you a chance to explain WHY any of those people you know possess high-capacity magazines (that are not government-issued) if not for any of the reasons I've already suggested.


I never suggested they did. You don't have to be a criminal to be a collector, a dealer or someone who fancies himself a "bad-ass". But putting high-capacity magazines on the market WILL increase the chances of greater casualties from gun-violence. That's just math, Rose. It's just math.


I never said that either. I'm just saying high capacity magazines will increase the odds of more people getting killed. Please try to pay attention to what I am saying instead of racing ahead to what you think I am saying.


Yes.


Which is precisely why I want the government to focus on banning things… BECAUSE it takes less effort… I'm not asking the government to dive into massive efforts to fix our deep-rooted sociological problems. I just want the government to do the simple things that a government is capable of doing.

I'm well aware that addressing the underlying causes would take a lot more effort, reaching deep into our culture and our psychology and I don't think the government is the best option for that. But I don't have much confidence that anyone else can fix our deep-rooted sociological problems either.

But I do think it's an ignorant cop-out when the gun-lobby says the government shouldn't take any action if they can't fix the underlying causes. No one can fix those problems Rose, so yes the government should at least do what they can to minimize the effects.

Rose42

[quote=straightUp]


Its amusing you think I exclude myself. Everyone is susceptible to it and that includes you.



You are naive.

Because the two movements operate the same way. People have become softened to increasing restrictions on freedoms.



I’m not ‘riled up’. Good job though in trying to marginalize what someone says by suggesting they are riled up. You’ve done that before. Truth is you are not more reasonable or logical and you are not cognizant of whats going on.



Clinton’s ‘assault’ weapon ban did basically nothing



This is where your reasoning falls apart. There is indeed an agenda to get rid of as many guns as possible. They count on people not believing it could be real. Logic says they will use any subterfuge to make it happen. These people are not the everyday American. Why is it you believe the worst of Trump even if its circumstatial yet are unable to envision that this is not really about saving lives. No regulation will ever be enough. Not for long.



What you just said is an example of propaganda working. Yes there are plenty of people who have these magazines that don’t think they’re ‘bad asses’. I find that as ridiculous as lumping all democrats or all republicans together.



They are already on the market. 25 and 30 round magazines are easy to find.

Do you even know what types of guns are used in most murders and suicides?



Paying attention goes both ways.

You say you want to restrict something so the odds of more people getting killed are reduced. Using that logic then cars should be manufactured to go no faster than 55, people should get their teeth pulled so they never get cavities, appendixes and tonsils should be removed ‘just in case’ and so on. While we’re at it may as well ban all sharp instruments too. And don’t forget alcohol and drugs....oh wait. That doesn’t work.



I never said government was the answer to any of this. And once people see banning either doesn’t work and/or they want to reduce deaths even more then more regulations will follow.



You don’t have to go all that deep. Social media, the breakdown of the family, the victim mentality, absentee parents, moral relativism...



Its no more an ignorant cop out than the anti-gun lobbies proposing solutions when they don’t even know what the problem is.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Who is behind the establishment of a world government, what they call; their New World Order.

I post this because it covers the CFR in total. I hope others will copy and save for future reference.
Every one that cares, and wants to know what America is up against; should copy, save, and share with others:
URL for Roster of CFR/Trilateral Commission Members is below

Hillary Clinton spills the beans at the inauguration of the new office for Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, D.C. Some have said it was simply a slip of the tongue but whatever the perception is Clinton frankly revealed who's running the show in these United States:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2T-5Pd3oYY
Dick Cheney; Director at CIA:
https://youtu.be/XOAk-7F1EVU

Zionist control of CFR: http://www.rense.com/general48/captiv.htm

Some Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Facts
The 3,000 seats of the CFR quickly filled with members of America's elite. Today, CFR members occupy key positions in government, the mass media, financial institutions, multinational corporations, the military, and the national security apparatus.
Since its inception, the CFR has served as an intermediary between high finance, big oil, corporate elitists and the U.S. government. The executive branch changes hands between Republican and Democratic administrations, but cabinet seats are always held by CFR members. It has been said by political commentators on the left and on the right that if you want to know what U.S. foreign policy will be next year, you should read Foreign Affairs this year.
The CFR's claim that "The Council has no affiliation with the U.S. government" is laughable. The justification for that statement is that funding comes from member dues, subscriptions to its Corporate Program, foundation grants, and so forth. All this really means is that the U.S. government does not exert any control over the CFR via the purse strings.
Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members, beginning with CFR founding member Allen Dulles. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.
Almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by CFR members. President Clinton, himself a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, employs almost one hundred CFR members in his administration. Presidents come and go, but the CFR's power--and agenda--always remains.
The CFR's Shroud of Secrecy - On its web page, the CFR boasts that its magazine, Foreign Affairs, "is acclaimed for its analysis of recent international developments and for its forecasts of emerging trends." It's not much of a challenge to do so, though, when you play a part in determining what those emerging trends will be.
So are they predicting trends or creating them? The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who has earnestly reflected on the matter.
The CFR fancies itself to represent a diverse range cultural and political interests, but its members are predominantly wealthy males, and their policies reflect their elitist biases. The CFR attempts to maintain the charade of diversity via its Non-Attribution Rule, which allows members to engage in "a free, frank, and open exchange of ideas" without fear of having any of their statements attributed in public. The flip side of this, obviously, is a dark cloud of secrecy which envelopes the CFR's activities.
CFR meetings are usually held in secret and are restricted to members and very select guests. All members are free to express themselves at meetings unrestrained, because the Non-Attribution Rule guarantees that "others will not attribute or characterize their statements in public media forums or knowingly transmit them to persons who will," according to the Council on Foreign Relations' 1992 Annual Report.
The report goes on to forbid any meeting participant "to publish a speaker's statement in attributed form in any newspaper; to repeat it on television or radio, or on a speaker's platform, or in a classroom; or to go beyond a memo of limited circulation."
The end result is that the only information the public has on the CFR is the information they release for public consumption, which should send up red flags for anyone who understands the immense effect that CFR directives have on America's foreign policy. The public knows what the CFR wants the public to know about the CFR, and nothing more. There is one hole in the fog of secrecy, however: a book entitled Tragedy and Hope, written by an "insider" named Dr. Carroll Quigley, mentor of Bill Clinton.
Google: “Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral, Commission, Bilderberg Group”________________________________________
A few more notables in Both Parties Serving Bilderberger’s CFR/TC/BB AGENDA:
*********Source: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall1.htm#d *********

Bush Sr. - CFR,B (R)
Bush Jr? Cabinet CFR (R)
Both Clintons - CFR,TC,BB (D)
Jimmy Carter - CFR,TC (D)
Obama & Biden - CFR (D)
Dick Cheney - CFR,TC (R)
Eric Holder - CFR (D)
Haley Barbour - CFR (R)
Newt Gingrich - CFR (R)
Mitch McConnell - CFR (R)
Rick Perry - BB,2007 (D&R)
John Kerry - CFR (D)
John McCain - CFR (R)
Zbig Brzezinski - TC, BB (D)
Heny Kissinger BB,CFR,TC (R) Paul Volker- CFR,TC,BB (D) Alan Greenspan CFR,TC,BB
Ben Bernanke - BB
Tim Geithner - CFR,TC BB
David Rockefeller CFR,TC,BB
George Soros - CFR,BB (D)
Albert Gore, Jr. CFR,TC (D)
Donald Rumsfeld CFR ,BB(R)
Jacob “Jack” Lew CFR (D)
Robert Gates BB,CFR,TC (D
Leon Panetta CFR (D)
Lee Hamilton CFR,TC (R)
Robert Reich CFR (D)
Condoleezza Rice CFR (R)
Susan Rice CFR (D)
Ted Cruz (wife) CFR (R)
Donna Shalala CFR/TC (D)
Donald Brennan CFR (D)
Benjamin Netanyahu CFR’88


THE MEDIA:
George Will - CFR,TC (R)
George Stephanopoulos
CFR, BB (D)
William Kristol BB (R)
William Buckley Jr. CFR,BB (R)
Mika Brzezinski CFR/11 (D)

Tom Brokaw CFR
James Traub - NY Times CFR
Andrea Mitchell CFR (D)
FOX owner
Rupert Murdock – CFR, BB
FOX SPINNERS
John Bolton CFR (R)
Charles Krauthammer CFR (R)
Doug Schoen CFR
Washington Post owner
Katherine Graham CFR,TC,BB
CNBC Spinnner:
Larry Kudlow CFR/88

CNN Spinner:
David Richmond Gergen
BB/CFR/TC/92 (D)
Robert B. Reich CFR (D)
Brian Williams - CFR
In the News:
Haley Barbour CFR (D)
Eric Holder CFR (D)
Larry Summers CFR, BB
Janet Yellen CFR (D)
Chuck Hagel CFR (D)
Sylvia Burwell CFR/11 (D)
Jeh Johnson CFR (D)
Ashton Carter CFR/92 (D)

More Politicians:

Fred Thompson CFR (R)
Charles B. Rangel CFR (D)
Barney Frank CFR (D)

Richard Newton Gardner CFR/RS/TC/84
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D) CFR/92
Sandra Day O'Connor (R) CFR/92
Robert Strange McNamara CFR/BB/TC/84 (R&D)

Warren Christopher CFR (D)
Madeleine Albright CFR (D)
Samuel Richard ("Sandy") Berger CFR/BB (R)


Michael Froman CFR (D)
Military
General David Petraeus CFR,
International Bankers - James Wolfensohn Paul Wolfowitz, Alan Greenspan, Tim Geithner CFR,TC,BB
Michael V. Hayden CFR CIA/NSA

Obama’s Executive Cabinet members:


Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden CFR/88

Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham BB/CFR/RS/TC –
See Hillary’s speeches at CFR meeting on You tube


Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner BB/CFR/TC/09
NOW: Jacob “Jack” Lew CFR

Department of Defense
Secretary Leon E. Panetta CFR
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel CFR

Department of Justice
Attorney General; Eric Holder CFR

Newbees:
Ashton Carter CFR/92
Jeh Charles Johnson CFR

Pentagon Senior Counsel CFR

Director, CIA/ DHS Secretary
Jeh Charles Johnson CFR

Sylvia Mathews Burwell CFR/11


More positions filled with CFR:


Department of Commerce
Secretary John E. Bryson CFR/TC/88

Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric K. Shinseki CFR


Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Janet A. Napolitano CFR
Florida Representative and DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. CFR

United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Ambassador Susan Rice CFR
White House Chief of Staff
Bill Daley CFR
Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack CFR

Hillary Clinton spills the beans at the inauguration of the new office for Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, D.C. Some have said it was simply a slip of the tongue but whatever the perception is Clinton frankly revealed who's running the show in these United States:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2T-5Pd3oYY

Dick Cheney; Director at CIA:
https://youtu.be/XOAk-7F1EVU

Ron Paul explains the Council on Foreign Relations and the New World Order (~8 minutes)
https://youtu.be/Q4L7GKSfsDQ

***************************>

"The New World Order (NWO) will be built...an end run on national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault" – Richard Gardener, in Foreign Affairs (CFR) publication, April 1974
For their agenda - Google: “Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages” > Then open
Trilateral Commission entry.
"Actions at the multinational level will be required; if the process of international relocation of industries is to be achieved in an organized fashion." - TC Report #23, 1982

That is why we were put under NAFTA, GATT, WTO, (NAU?) etc
The TPP being the latest move by our NWO care takers.
There was/is an agenda to deindustrialize America; and it was pretty much put in place by both political parties.

promilitary

Seriously??? Why wouldn't you want an armed teacher or a well-trained military man on premises
to protect these kids? I'm sure most if not all schools had a dad who is ex-military who would be glad
to step up. What plan do YOU have for protecting them?

promilitary

Not fooled at all. I've listened to the liberal politicians....Diane Feinstein stated openly that if she could
she would confiscate ALL guns from private citizens......guess she's never read the Second Amendment.
I've heard the liberal politicians tout gun registration. In EVERY country that imposed gun registration
it led to gun confiscation.....i.e. Germany under Hitler and Russian under Stalin. Feinstein even said
that military veterans are a danger society.

promilitary

And that's fine. I'm not going to say the NRA has no redeeming qualities. But that doesn't change the fact that they are also interfering with the will of the vast majority of American people that would also like a little sanity when it comes to regulating products.

If the "vast majority" of the American people wanted more regulation, it would've been done a long
time ago....there are only 5.2 million of us NRA members....they should be able to outvote us don't
you think?

straightUp Loc: California

First of all, you said the vast majority IS easily swayed. That's not the same thing as saying we are all susceptible to being swayed. Of course everyone is susceptible but that doesn't mean everyone falls for it. Otherwise why would you say the "vast majority"?

Secondly, I was joking.


Just so you know, not everyone here can brush off direct personal insults like I can. So, you might want to keep that in mind.


I'll just repeat my statement... "you can find extremists everywhere and they ALL operate the same way…" And yes, people do soften on restricted freedoms when it suits their political ends, which is why extreme conservatives want to tell gay people they can't marry who they want.


Well, you sounded pretty riled up about those animal activists Rose. Maybe you're just being defensive, like those people who scream "I am NOT ANGRY!!!" lol

Seriously though... the point I was making is that one can get a better gauge on reality by paying attention to the actual laws that confine us instead of the whirlwind of baseless accusations and half-baked assumptions that seem to permeate the media. Your arguments are carbon copies of what I've been reading in the media for years and I have yet to see you mention any specific laws.

While I am sure there is *some* truth to what you are saying, I think the reality of our laws is enough assurance that we don't really have to get so riled up about it. ;)


And how do you know that Rose? How do you measure something that's been prevented? How do you know for sure that you would have had an accident on main street if you took the side street instead? The answer is you can't. We are not experts on things that don't happen which is why we can't tell if more people would have died if there wasn't a ban on assault weapons.

So we have to fall back on our ability to ascertain risk, just like the insurance industry bases it's rates on perceived risk. They don't KNOW that 16-year old Henry or his 50-year old mom will get into an accident but they've come to the conclusion that in general 16-year old boys are a higher risk than 50-year old moms so they adjust rates accordingly.

We can be fairly sure that a ban on assault weapons will decrease the risk of mass murder just by the fact that assault weapons, by design make the shooting of more people in less time easier.

Now the common argument coming from the gun lobby is that assault weapons do not account for most of the gun deaths in this country. But that has absolutely nothing to do with mitigating the risk of assault weapons. It's a distraction and nothing more. It's no different than saying we should NOT waste our time trying to cure cancer because the truth of the matter is that cancer is not the #1 cause of death in the US.


I didn't say there wasn't. Don't tell me my reasoning falls apart if you don't even know what I'm saying. So, I'm just going to repeat what I said...

"the idea that they have to hide their true intentions only supports my position that the movement itself is not controlled by those you claim to be conspiring

Does this sound like I am denying the agenda?


Logic also says that whatever subterfuge they use will have to actually work.


What exactly is an everyday American?


I'm not sure what you think the "worst of Trump" is but there is a LOT of evidence to suggest he should be impeached. BTW, circumstantial evidence doesn't mean "no" evidence. People are convicted of crimes on a daily basis on nothing more than circumstantial evidence which includes fingerprints and DNA tests. All circumstantial evidence means is that inference is required to tie the evidence to the crime and anyone who has watched a murder mystery knows that inferences can indeed be made with a sufficient body of circumstantial evidence.

On the other hand I have found no evidence whatsoever that people who want to ban ALL guns are driving the gun-control lobby.


You don't have to say you're a "bad-ass" to think you're a "bad-ass" and you don't have to act like a bad-ass to feel like one either. Look, I'm a white male and you aren't so maybe I was using a reference you don't actually understand but I can't take my gun to the rage without feeling a "little bit" like a bad-ass, even though I don't act like one. Again, maybe it's just a guy thing. Also, a few of my friends own assault weapons and when they show me, I can tell they do indeed feel a little "bad-ass". Same goes for motorcycles and even guitars. I guess the point of using this term is to indicate an enthusiasm for possessing something impressive that you might not actually have a real need for.

And did you forget that I also mentioned dealers and collectors? I don't know anyone who's only gun for any purpose is an assault weapon. The people I know that have these weapons also have a number of other guns, which makes them collectors.


Yes, I know. How else would it be a problem Rose?


Yes, I do but I'm not trying to stop people from killing themselves, nor do I want to ban handguns because they are also useful for protection against crime. Besides how many people can you kill with a handgun before anyone else can react? Yes, the use of hand guns results in more deaths in a given year, but that's across ALL incidents and seriously, you have to be retarded to think we can stop people from attacking each other.

But here's the thing... there isn't anything you can do with a military-grade weapon that you can't do with lower capacity weapons except to kill more people per second. So it makes sense to ban them. Leave the military-grade weapons for the military, who's job is to kill people.


Yes, but it makes less sense to ban all those things because they all have other uses that outweigh the risk. Assault weapons don't. Why do I have to explain that you?


Maybe... I'm not going to worry about that until it happens.


Yeah, so? Are you saying unless we can fix all the psychological problems in America we shouldn't even attempt to keep unnecessary weapons out of their reach? Since all humans eventually die, maybe there's no need to eat healthy either, right?

LOL - If there's one thing I can say without a doubt - it's that in the last 30 years the gun lobby has never found an argument that can't be utterly destroyed by a 5th grader.


The problem? What is THE problem Rose? That people kill each other? Is that the problem you think the gun-control advocates are trying to fix? LOL

You know better than that, so can we dispense with the childish arguments or do you just not have anything better?

straightUp Loc: California

So that's one Democrat... And in case you didn't know, not ALL liberals are in lock-step with each other. Not even all gun-control advocates, myself included, want to ban all guns. Just letting you know.


That's a very, very old argument and it's not even true. In Switzerland they register their guns and yet they have more guns per capita than we do here. Same for Norway. Dang, look at those bullet holes in your argument! LOL


Some of them are. Not sure what you're point is.

straightUp Loc: California

I'm not saying the NRA has no redeeming qualities either, but I agree they are interfering with the will of of the American people who say they want more gun regulation. Most recent polls (if you trust them) put those Americans in the 55% majority.


Well, "a long time ago" the people who cared about gun control made up a minority. But given the rise in mass murders in recent years that is changing. So, stay tuned.