Gun control is losing control
There's no doubt many useful laws fall under the broad umbrella characterization of "gun-control". Those of you who think gun-control is only about laws are missing a lot. "Control" as a verb means: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command. You see in the opposite way the term "liberty" led to the ideals of "liberalism", the facts about "gun-control" have led to organizations like the SAF, the GOA and the NRA being in "control" of much of local, state and federal legislation regarding firearms. All of these organizations and numerous others that derive support from folks as localized as maybe a single county to as wide as those nationally popular have the rights of firearm owners as their core objectives. I've seen writings ranging from visceral hatred to sad laments attesting to these simple facts. These stories are all from pro-control sources.
What news stories often miss is the "control" (via influence of information) that everyday folks develop after reading about an event. This is the only "real control" available. The idea that law can actually equal gun-control is a myth. It's some anal retentive's OCD-like wet dream. But it's something that really doesn't address the issue.
Our government operates with authority derived from that of the people. When the people see abuses of that authority, they act accordingly. The brain-fart of an idea that was sent to the shitter by the decision in DC v Heller was such an abuse. The only real control available in the world is SELF-CONTROL. This is demonstrated year after year, day after day and minute by minute by looking at the record of assaults, incidents of domestic violence, accidents and criminal homicides. The rising wave of self-control that's been apparent over the last few decades is due in part to what you're doing right now, reading on the internet. The global rise of internet based information has tightened the sure and only real control of personal behavior available by making the feedback loop of 'dumb action' to 'logical consequence' to 'learn something' much shorter and more 'in-your-face'.
A private seller being able to actually run a background check on a buyer gives that person a tool and the ability to choose to assure that they're doing the right thing.
As it has been proven by campaigns for everything from designated drivers to safe sex, the individuals in society learn. We are rewarded by those who learn not just with wisdom from their votes during elections but from their day to day smarter choices. Eschewing road rage, giving up cigarettes, not texting while they drive and securing unattended firearms.
Most of this has resulted from people across the country learning and exercising self-control. More results occur faster through information and learning than by laws and enforcement. Don't misunderstand me. We have laws. We don't approve of selling guns to violent criminals and certain others where the risks for abuse of such a tool are high. We shouldn't permit guns to many of those people.
However, facts are facts, except when some useless buzzword factory spews forth "facts" fraught with inaccuracy, contradiction and bullshit. Here's an example:
Hammond was citing AR-15s, first developed for the Army, which are manufactured at the Palmetto State Armory. "I feel like that can be controlled a little bit more," she continued. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/south-carolina-democrats-love-their-guns-back-some-controls-n527071
The most effective means for control that generates the fastest effects is information. Once your news source is found to be unreliable and inaccurate, your cause losses traction and your message is lost. These articles aren't hard to find and this information is commonly available to anyone who's mastered google. If pro-control folk want to see results, learn. Just as gun owners have learned from all the news about kids shooting themselves and others, pro-control should learn as well.
The internet is a simple tool that anyone can use to learn. Firearms are simple tools that can save your life. Senator Kevin de Leon and number of others are also simple tools.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Good to know. 
Yes but shoes weren't 'designed to kill'. 
Yes but shoes weren't 'designed to kill'. Even these?
-- https://www.rt.com/usa/334174-gun-shaped-stiletto-tsa-airport/
...IMHO. 
Quite a shocker! When highly-credentialed bona-fide liberal criminologists refuse to sing the rancid party tune on gun restriction, they're branded as "NRA shills":
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Gun-Weapons-Violence-America/dp/0202303055/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992666&sr=1-1&keywords=james+wright+under+the+gun
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Firearms-Paperback/dp/0202305422/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992711&sr=1-1&keywords=james+wright+armed+and+considered+dangerous
http://www.amazon.com/Restricting-Handguns-Liberal-Skeptics-Speak/dp/0884270335/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992787&sr=1-1&keywords=restricting+handguns+the+liberal+skeptics+speak+out
http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992828&sr=1-2&keywords=targeting+guns+gary+kleck
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Gary-Kleck/dp/1573928836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992867&sr=1-1&keywords=kates+kleck
And when bona-fide liberals refuse to sing the rancid party tune on gun restriction, we're painted as Republicans. (No True Scotsman, anyone?) I mean, I could honestly state that I donated the maximum legal amount to President Obama's first GE campaign.......and have donated $750 to Bernie's campaign --- but I could be lying, of course.
In a perfect world, a DU administrator would pipe in here and point out that it would be highly unlikely for a Republican to donate to DU at the level that I have, while dealing with the mendacious smearmaster appropriately........but ours is hardly a perfect world. Ugliness that would result in an immediate sanction (or possible tombstone) in other forums are forgiven when they are directed at a "Gungeoneer".
As I've mentioned before, the San Diego Sheriff's Dept. has signaled that shall-issue is coming to California. In the past, it used to be necessary to demonstrate proficiency to both a firearms instructor, then the Sheriff in order to obtain a CCW permit. The requirement to demonstrate proficiency to the Sheriff has been dropped. Hmmmmm..........wonder why that is? 
It'll be a gas watching The Controllers hiss, foam and scream when this happens; predicting "blood in the streets" as they always do.
...from which you approached replying. Let me be clear, I always try to remember to use the thing if there is even a hint in what I write. There is none here. An honest thank you for replying because it does show that you are genuinely interested in the topic and expressing an opinion.
The basic purpose of my OP was to ask for accuracy in the discussion. With the sentence "I am sure that all the people who take a .223 round will feel the difference immediately." I understand you are saying that those shot by an AR-15 aren't any less shot. I agree. The person who said that, who was quoted in the linked article, was using the term "high-powered" in to justify an opinion that AR-15s are due some special regulation and consideration BECAUSE they are "high-powered".
The term "high-powered" refers to the ballistic energy inherent in the round for which the firearm is chambered. As an example, the .22LR is quite low at 277 Joules. The .223 used in many ARs is as high as 1807 Joules. The .338 Lapua Magnum used in various sniper rifles is over 6800 Joules. The .50 BMG is extremely high compared to these others exceeding 20,000 Joules. Most people consider the round used in many AK-47 style rifles, the 7.62x39mm, as intermediate power, nearly 2200 Joules. The .30-06 is higher at almost 3000 Joules.
With all these figures in mind arguing that anything acceptable for hunting deer is high powered that may be seen as justified. The energy figures I mentioned above have mostly to do with effective range and penetration. Since even the lowly .22 has been used effectively to kill, references to high-powered have no place. A .22 revolver was used to kill RFK.
What all this means is that the term "high powered" has no place at all in a discussion about gun-control. If I were an uninformed person, I may conclude that certain firearms might be safer if they can be characterized as "low powered". This would also be just as wrong unless BB guns are included in what we consider as "firearms".
And now, on to another issue.
Proliferation: a rapid and often excessive spread or increase.
Propaganda: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.
The "propaganda" I want to spread is about the discussion of gun-control and that Propaganda has no place in it. Your implication that what I wrote had any aspects of propaganda is what I call propaganda. Please tell us all how you justify using the that term at all. I think I deserve at least an answer. Repeating canned phrases without facts or logic that support those statements I suppose could be considered propaganda. You did that, not me.
Nothing I say here will increase gun sales anywhere. I can't imagine a more tenuous characterization of my remarks. I think maybe your reply tends to support everything I said in my OP.
I give thought to my posts here. I read what others say. I take time to research information. I'll read anything that anyone may say in reply here. That's out of my respect for other members, the group and admins and all those who use their time to engage in honest discussion.
it is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc. Oh, and there isn't even a correlation.
and there is no evidence that gun suicide rate had anything to do with the NFA since the number of gun owners remained the same, and the fact that the suicide rate wasn't affected. BTW, they only confiscated registered guns from licensed owners, which has nothing to do with the biker gangs that are buying smuggled guns or making their own automatic weapons.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
Investigations continue and lawsuits are pending.
If something illegal is being done by the business, I hope it is discovered and prosecuted quickly.
