[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[Big Jim P]

Thus disarming the law-abiding.

Not at all, I never said total ban.

Besides, do you want shotguns and rifles, or pistols and revolvers?

Me personally? I am going to buy all but the shotguns (not a fan, but I am not going to pass up a good deal should one come my way) guaranteed. Several of each in fact.

[Aelex]

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

[Llamalandia]

Then maybe the ban should be directed more towards concealable handguns?

Please define "concealable." Plus handguns are also extremely popular with law abiding citizens and have a number of uses, they also represent a much higher percentage of homicides. Out right banning them I am against but treating them more strictly, as many states do, is perfectly acceptable.

you see the big problem Big Jim P has generally isn't new smarter gun laws, such as opening up NICS, better information for NICS, etc. It is they come without promises to repeal older stupider laws. Really if you want Big Jim P to agree with you, give him something in return.

Yes the definition of concealable could be pretty broad actually. Reminds me of this video about baggy pants being used to hide fifteen guns it's freaking hilarious especially when u see what he pulls out at the end!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epeo8Pfm1xM

[Llamalandia]

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

Umm...just how exactly how many shootings do you believe happen in the usa every year? The reality is a lot of it is gang related anyway. And frankly it is still an incredibly small number relative to our population. The mass shooting events you refer to are likewise fairly anomalous, the serious headline grabbing shootings are few and far between even in gun crazed America.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

Ignoring all of the other stupidity in that post, do you know what the average police response time is in the US? And do you know what it is in densely populated areas?

[Big Jim P]

Then maybe the ban should be directed more towards concealable handguns?

Please define "concealable." Plus handguns are also extremely popular with law abiding citizens and have a number of uses, they also represent a much higher percentage of homicides. Out right banning them I am against but treating them more strictly, as many states do, is perfectly acceptable.

you see the big problem Big Jim P has generally isn't new smarter gun laws, such as opening up NICS, better information for NICS, etc. It is they come without promises to repeal older stupider laws. Really if you want Big Jim P to agree with you, give him something in return.

I have no problem with gun laws that specifically target the criminal use of guns, so long as it does not affect the rights of the law-abiding. Unfortunately, every gun control proposal I have seen has the exact opposite effect. Teh only thing I see as doing that would be doubling or tripling (or whatever it takes) sentences with no plea bargaining or chance of parole for crimes involving guns. That puts the burden exactly where it belongs: on the criminal, WITHOUT affecting the lawful uses of guns.

Opening the NCIS to everyone and encouraging it's use is a good idea. Making such use mandatory is not. Personally, I would not sell (in a private transaction) if I had any doubts without one, but I should not be forced to.

Repealing old, stupid and ineffective gun control laws is a good idea, independent of whether or not new laws are enacted.

I think I am beyond agreeing with the GCAs on "compromise" gun laws, even if they were not the one-way street the GCAs insist on. The law-abiding gun owners have been burned too may times and the GCAs have directly lied about the numbers and actual scope of the "gun problem" for me to ever trust them. many gun owners feel the same way.

[Kelinfort]

Not at all, I never said total ban.

Besides, do you want shotguns and rifles, or pistols and revolvers?

Me personally? I am going to buy all but the shotguns (not a fan, but I am not going to pass up a good deal should one come my way) guaranteed. Several of each in fact.

Why not shotguns?

[Llamalandia]

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

Actually the phrase you're looking for is Wild West justice I think.

That aside, I fail to see how it is logical to ban something that millions of people find joy in, merely on the grounds that a small minority of people are killed by thing every year. Kids die and are paralyzed by trampolines every year as well but we don't ban those either despite the fact that they don't really serve any purpose beyond recreation and sport. It certainly falls short of being logical under even simple utilitarianism.

[Gauthier]

The case being you specifically shouting down enforced background checks as the first step towards gun confiscation.

Prosecution rests.

We already have enforced background checks. Part of one of the "compromises" where the GCMs gave up nothing in return.

And clearly they stopped John Russell Houser from buying a handgun legally at an Alabama pawn shop before he decided Lafayette cinema needed more excitement.

[Big Jim P]

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

I am not the one blind to reality.

We have the highest number of DGUs in the States. Check.
We don't "give" guns to anyone, let alone everyone. Damn, the stupidity of that one actually hurt.
Not really. Guns are used legitimately to defend against criminals unarmed, armed with knives, blunt objects etc. as well as those armed with guns.
The shootings you mention are rare. Try again.
Accidental deaths due to gunfire (all ages. stats are for 2011 or 2012): 500. Not only countable, but infinitesimal.
I am firmly in the 21st century and see the reality around me.
Logic? "Disarming the law-abiding makes them safer" shows a sever lack of both a grasp of and perception of reality, and has no basis in logic.
Real progress would be punishing the criminals and leaving the law-abiding alone.

The job of the police is not to defend anyone, just to enforce the law, and unless they are with you 24/7 they CANNOT defend you in any case. They can merely respond to the crime you are a victim of, and that response will be ten or more minutes in arriving (45 minutes where I live). Meanwhile, you are dead and the criminal long gone.

[Big Jim P]

Me personally? I am going to buy all but the shotguns (not a fan, but I am not going to pass up a good deal should one come my way) guaranteed. Several of each in fact.

Why not shotguns?

I just don't care for them. I prefer precision shooting.

[Sevvania]

Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
"Literally everyone" is not an accurate description of the number of gun owners in the United Stats.
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema?
Annually, such shootings account for fewer deaths than fists and feet.
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy"
This is more of a storage/education issue than an issue with a gun existing in the house. Tell kids that guns aren't toys. Keep guns out of reach of children. Do not leave guns loaded. It's really simple.
and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
"De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger, studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling." - Gun Politics in Australia, Wikipedia
tl;dr: If you want to prevent suicides, try implementing suicide prevention programs.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.
People are dying in greater numbers to things like knives than they are to rifles and shotguns. If you want real progress, handguns would be the best place to look.
And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill
You say this like there hasn't been a trend of excessive force by the police lately.

[Big Jim P]

We already have enforced background checks. Part of one of the "compromises" where the GCMs gave up nothing in return.

And clearly they stopped John Russell Houser from buying a handgun legally at an Alabama pawn shop before he decided Lafayette cinema needed more excitement.

We know they are ineffective, even when performed by FFLs. What makes you think requiring them for private transactions will work any better?

[Big Jim P]

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

Ignoring all of the other stupidity in that post, do you know what the average police response time is in the US? And do you know what it is in densely populated areas?

45 minutes on average where I live, and three of my neighbors sons are deputies.

[Big Jim P]

Please define "concealable." Plus handguns are also extremely popular with law abiding citizens and have a number of uses, they also represent a much higher percentage of homicides. Out right banning them I am against but treating them more strictly, as many states do, is perfectly acceptable.

you see the big problem Big Jim P has generally isn't new smarter gun laws, such as opening up NICS, better information for NICS, etc. It is they come without promises to repeal older stupider laws. Really if you want Big Jim P to agree with you, give him something in return.

Yes the definition of concealable could be pretty broad actually. Reminds me of this video about baggy pants being used to hide fifteen guns it's freaking hilarious especially when u see what he pulls out at the end!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epeo8Pfm1xM

Back in the 80s I saw a demonstration of a normally dressed man carrying 43 handguns.

[Washington Resistance Army]

45 minutes on average where I live, and three of my neighbors sons are deputies.

45 minutes? I could actually break in, kill you, go to your fridge, make myself a meal, eat it and leave before the cops show up. That's insane, and goes to show why being able to defend yourself is a good thing.

[Big Jim P]

45 minutes on average where I live, and three of my neighbors sons are deputies.

45 minutes? I could actually break in, kill you, go to your fridge, make myself a meal, eat it and leave before the cops show up. That's insane, and goes to show why being able to defend yourself is a good thing.

Indeed. That is why I always stay prepared to defend my self, my family and my home. All wise people stay so prepared.

[Gauthier]

And clearly they stopped John Russell Houser from buying a handgun legally at an Alabama pawn shop before he decided Lafayette cinema needed more excitement.

We know they are ineffective, even when performed by FFLs. What makes you think requiring them for private transactions will work any better?

It's awful convenient that giving up in the United States is the preferred option when it comes to tightening background checks. Then again I suppose your idea of a safe society is one bad word away from how Needful Things could have turned out.

[Dooom35796821595]

Yes the definition of concealable could be pretty broad actually. Reminds me of this video about baggy pants being used to hide fifteen guns it's freaking hilarious especially when u see what he pulls out at the end!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epeo8Pfm1xM

Back in the 80s I saw a demonstration of a normally dressed man carrying 43 handguns.

Eugh, the 80s. An improvement on the 70s, but still terrible.
Now why would one need so many bad clothes handguns?

And that response time...terrible. If only there was a way to have different firearm laws in a city opposed to isolated areas.

[Omega America II]

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

Like other counties don't have that going on. You know people with firearms contribute to society, they do the polices job. Without it, we have to rely on the police, which takes a while to get somewhere, so you would be dead by the time they get there. Your ignorance has blinded you about how much we don't need them, you don't look at why we do need them.

[Paddy O Fernature]

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?
Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?
Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?
Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?
Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.
No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.
Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.
But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

Jesus fuck.. this was painful on several levels to read.

[Spirit of Hope]

We already have enforced background checks. Part of one of the "compromises" where the GCMs gave up nothing in return.

And clearly they stopped John Russell Houser from buying a handgun legally at an Alabama pawn shop before he decided Lafayette cinema needed more excitement.

Which has been noted on a number of occasions to be a failure of the system we already have in place. Either because police didn't confiscate the gun when he was involuntarily committed, or because his records were not added to NICS. Either way a failure in the current system, not because he slipped through a loop hole but because the system isn't being used correctly.

You know that "blood in the streets" argument has never once come to pass, right? You do know that the AWB had little to no effect on the homicide rate, right? You do know that firearms are often used successfully in self defense, and not all deaths are bad, right? You do know that so far every gun control measure to date have not done anything to reduce the number of criminally owned guns while rendering the law-abiding defenseless in the face of criminal predation, right?

I wouldn't go tossing around words like "stupid" if I were you.

Edit: Oh, and considering the first thing you will do in the face of criminal predation will be to call armed cops, i wouldn't go using the word "hypocrite" either.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?

We do and we need to address this. Better options besides arresting everyone, better post incarceration options, better economic possibilities, better mental health care, etc.

Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?

Guns aren't given out, and the nations that have removed guns have not seen major decreases in their homicide rates.

Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?

And every citizen who wants to defend themselves can also arm themselves. Defensive gun uses outnumber homicides between 3:1 to 100:1 depending on the study you look at. Law abiding citizens in fact have better access to guns.

Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?

There aren't that many active shooting events in the United States, and they represent a small portion of all homicides. They just get the most news media attention. A better option than removing guns, which leaves the homicidal individual, would be to remove the homicidal individual through better access to mental healthcare, attempts to remove the stigma of mental healthcare, etc.

Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.

Accidental deaths with guns are incredibly uncommon, less than 500 a year. And not all of those are children, from what I have seen a good number are hunting accidents involving adults and plain idiocy. Also removing guns does reduce suicides, but not by a huge amount.

No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.

I'm hardly stuck in the 17th century (well the 18th century since that is when the constitution was written), since I like computers and advances in medicine. Go vaccines! I just like to shoot things, mostly paper, metal and clay targets. but sometimes an elk or a deer. And 80 million people, with 300 million guns, like doing those same things and never break the law.

Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.

What basic logic? Statistics says 99% of gun owners never breach the law with there guns. To me basic logic says they should be allowed to keep those guns, since they never hurt anyone (besides some animals for food) with them.

But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

What real progress? And how am I holding it back? I mean i donate to medical research, I am an organ donor, donate blood, etc. Hardly holding back progress. Plus while guns are killing people they are also used by millions for enjoyment.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

Couple of problems here. First every gun owner I know would call the police, to bad the police are 5 minutes away and may not take you seriously, know where you are, or you may not be able to make the call.

Second police aren't trained to "deal with armed people without bloodshed," as seen by the fact that police kill armed and unarmed individuals all the time.

Third the "wild west" was most likely not as violent as people like to portray it.

[Omega America II]

And clearly they stopped John Russell Houser from buying a handgun legally at an Alabama pawn shop before he decided Lafayette cinema needed more excitement.

Which has been noted on a number of occasions to be a failure of the system we already have in place. Either because police didn't confiscate the gun when he was involuntarily committed, or because his records were not added to NICS. Either way a failure in the current system, not because he slipped through a loop hole but because the system isn't being used correctly.

Damn. You actually believe in what you say so much that it make you blind to reality.
Don't you see that the U.S have one of the highest number of homicide in all western world?

We do and we need to address this. Better options besides arresting everyone, better post incarceration options, better economic possibilities, better mental health care, etc.

Don't you see that giving guns to litteraly everyone make the black market of them even easier?

Guns aren't given out, and the nations that have removed guns have not seen major decreases in their homicide rates.

Don't you see that because of that the very criminal you want to defend yourself from are more likely to be armed?

And every citizen who wants to defend themselves can also arm themselves. Defensive gun uses outnumber homicides between 3:1 to 100:1 depending on the study you look at. Law abiding citizens in fact have better access to guns.

Don't you see all the shooting in Church, Schools, Offices or Cinema? All the little conflicts; affairs, divorces, inheritance, or just wroth bursts which would have resolved by themselves but which, because of the presence of gun escalated to become slaughter?

There aren't that many active shooting events in the United States, and they represent a small portion of all homicides. They just get the most news media attention. A better option than removing guns, which leaves the homicidal individual, would be to remove the homicidal individual through better access to mental healthcare, attempts to remove the stigma of mental healthcare, etc.

Or just the countless accident of kids playing with their parent's "toy" and depressed who because they have a simple tool to end their life with will just use it.

Accidental deaths with guns are incredibly uncommon, less than 500 a year. And not all of those are children, from what I have seen a good number are hunting accidents involving adults and plain idiocy. Also removing guns does reduce suicides, but not by a huge amount.

No, I doubt you see it. Because deep down, you still are stuck in the 17th century; no that I'm blaming you personaly too much, it's mostly because of your culture that you're like that.

I'm hardly stuck in the 17th century (well the 18th century since that is when the constitution was written), since I like computers and advances in medicine. Go vaccines! I just like to shoot things, mostly paper, metal and clay targets. but sometimes an elk or a deer. And 80 million people, with 300 million guns, like doing those same things and never break the law.

Because you don't want to understand simple and basic logic, which, normally, I would have respected. Because it's your right the to purposely stay in your ignorance.

What basic logic? Statistics says 99% of gun owners never breach the law with there guns. To me basic logic says they should be allowed to keep those guns, since they never hurt anyone (besides some animals for food) with them.

But in this case, by actively militing, you're retarding a real progress when in the mean time people are dying because of the weapons.

What real progress? And how am I holding it back? I mean i donate to medical research, I am an organ donor, donate blood, etc. Hardly holding back progress. Plus while guns are killing people they are also used by millions for enjoyment.

And please, enlighten me on how it is hypocrite or stupid than to call people who're actually trained to deal with armed people without bloodshed and whose jobs is to defend you, the law-abiding citizen, rather than just grab a gun and kill (or be killed) just so you could have get your Far-West justice?

Couple of problems here. First every gun owner I know would call the police, to bad the police are 5 minutes away and may not take you seriously, know where you are, or you may not be able to make the call.

Second police aren't trained to "deal with armed people without bloodshed," as seen by the fact that police kill armed and unarmed individuals all the time.

Third the "wild west" was most likely not as violent as people like to portray it.

Dam that guy just got rekt.

[Gauthier]

And clearly they stopped John Russell Houser from buying a handgun legally at an Alabama pawn shop before he decided Lafayette cinema needed more excitement.

Which has been noted on a number of occasions to be a failure of the system we already have in place. Either because police didn't confiscate the gun when he was involuntarily committed, or because his records were not added to NICS. Either way a failure in the current system, not because he slipped through a loop hole but because the system isn't being used correctly.

But of course the only true way to be safe is to give up on trying to make the system work and instead arm every human being possible with firearms just like in Needful Things.

And clearly they stopped John Russell Houser from buying a handgun legally at an Alabama pawn shop before he decided Lafayette cinema needed more excitement.

We know they are ineffective, even when performed by FFLs. What makes you think requiring them for private transactions will work any better?

[Big Jim P]

We know they are ineffective, even when performed by FFLs. What makes you think requiring them for private transactions will work any better?

It's awful convenient that giving up in the United States is the preferred option when it comes to tightening background checks. Then again I suppose your idea of a safe society is one bad word away from how Needful Things could have turned out.

*sniff, sniff* Yep, I smell the "blood in the streets" arguments again.

Please feel free to continue using that. Eventually it may happen and you will be able to say "I told you so".