You are suggesting the two go hand in hand (we can either have the right to own guns or the right to not get shot). 99.99% of gunowners don't shoot somebody with them.

Your answer still isn't providing any sort of actual reasoning where the one or two number comes from as a reasonable amount of guns to own.

If your only reasoning is the right to not get shot, we should also make it so each person can only own 1 knife. Also we should limit everybody to 1 bat. 1 golf club.

See what I'm doing here, all of these items are ultimately designed for something else, but have absolutely been used to beat the living crap out of another human. So because humans have the right to not get beat up, we need to limit ownership of these items.

You can't look at every other country and say because it's a priviledge there to own guns it should be here as well. We aren't those countries.

Does the US have more fun casualties? Absolutely. But let's keep in mind that we are talking about 5 murders per 100,000 people.

Wow did you really just compare a gun to a golf club?

Dude, you can beat the crap out of someone with anything.  Literally anything.  Guitar, water bottle, anything.  But guns are on a whole other level, guns are far more dangerous.  I can't believe I even have to explain this.

99.99% of car drivers don't commit vehicular manslaughter, but we still recognize that cars can be dangerous and need to be regulated. And you need a car, the argument for needing a gun is a lot more abstract. 

The difference between knives, bats, and golf clubs is in the lethality. Same reason I don't think people should be allowed to have tanks or bombs (without strict regulation). 

What exactly are guns designed for if not killing? If all we want to do is protect ourselves then why do we need to use lethal means? 

Well they are designed to shoot a projectile a long distance.

That certainly can kill, but what is accomplished with this projectile is ultimately up to the user. The majority of my shooting is into a target at a range. It is fun and enjoyable for me.

All of my guns have been purchased for range shooting and/or hunting deer/small game. None have been purchased to kill human beings. Just like my golf clubs weren't purchased for that...but they could absolutely do harm if I rampaged with them. Numerous people were stabbed in a mall by me with somebody who only had a knife.

Nobody has given me a valid answer yet regarding why 1-2 guns. It's as if you are saying it should be zero, but you know that this stands zero chance of passing (because it's a meaningless number and will just anger half of Americans), therefore you just want to pass something, anything at all, that will at least start to get the number down to zero. Having 1-2 guns per American will largely do...nothing to prevent these mass shootings, as many of them are occurring with 1-2 guns anyways.

Look, I'm not saying mass shootings aren't a problem. They are absolutely disgusting, and I'm quite frankly sick of hearing about them. I just don't think limiting people to 1-2 guns will do much of anything to prevent it.

I do think there is some validity in making our background checks more all-encompassing (so all sales have to do a check etc), but this isn't the brunt part of what you are suggesting.

I also couldn't care less if clips were limited to say 5-10 rounds. Leisure range shooting and hunting can easily still be accomplished with this. Once again, however, this doesn't flat out restrict the amount of guns somebody can own with no apparent logic where that number comes from.

They absolutely are more dangerous. So are cars. You know, how people drive into a group of people and kill a bunch just to...kill a bunch of people.

Something being inherently dangerous doesn't mean limiting the number of those things you can own will accomplish anything (if you still allow 1 to be owned). That's the point.

The majority of mass shootings would still occur with 1 gun.

That being said, your mindset either needs to be to completely ban all guns, or to have other solutions (such as just broader background checks, storage requirements, clip restrictions).

Nope you are still not correct in this point.  Its up to each state whether they want to enforce federal laws or not and this has already gone to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court has ruled in Printz v United States that local law enforcement are not obligated to enforce federal firearms laws.

Each state has different laws on what they support and not support as far as firearms laws because its more a state issue then a federal one.  There is nothing stopping any state from tracking who owns what guns and what type.

No a registred gun database is needed because it will make sure that guns from any seller just doesn't pop up in anyone's hands.  Whether you are a private owner or a store.  Just like you cannot just sell your car without registering it to another person the same should be done with guns.  Why should something as deadly as a gun not be tracked.  You want the privilege of owning a gun, you should also be responsible for making sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands.

Oh, the Freudian slip!

OT - as for gun laws, mind you that there's an Overton window that can be moved here. Most Americans do support bans on automatic weapons. Start there, and move your way up as it proves necessary. Laws are inherently reactive.

Pretty much the above. Automatic weapons aren't needed for hunting animals, or even range shooting.

Further, large clip sizes are completely unnecessary.

Look, I'm not saying we couldn't use some stricter gun laws, I'm just completely and totally against putting a number restriction on how many guns you can own.

Are there even any other instances where our government has done anything like this? Like could they also then say you can only own 1 house, 1 car, 5 grills. I'm just curious the legal precedent of saying you may only own X number of these.

4 dead in southern California after a stabbing rampage.

Those 4 might beg to differ regarding the lethality argument used earlier when discussing guns vs knives.

We have a lot larger problem than guns that is leading to all of this. I'm not even close to knowledgeable enough about it all to know what specifically is the issue, but it certainly seems to be more prevalent in the US than elsewhere. And it absolutely is not limited to just shootings.

Don't you think this kind of appeal to emotion might feel somewhat hypocritical, after dismissing the US's homicide rate as being relatively low?