This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I don't disagree. by debo

The biggest issue with guns is the number of readily available guns, legal or illegal, and the culture surrounding guns. That's an issue that can't be changed with an overnight solution, which is why gun supporters like to say gun control laws won't solve anything. You need to take a long term approach that results in reduced gun sales, which over time will decrease the availability of guns.

I'm talking about placing limits on the types and number (tied to type) of guns one can own, with grandfather clauses so no one thinks the government is coming after their guns. Of course, such limitations are a direct attack on the bottom line of gun producers, so we're not likely to see it happen.