I edited the first message. And yes a criminal could buy a gun (on the black market). A would be criminal (as in doesn't yet have a criminal record) could also buy a hunting rifle and get it registered.

Well a lot of the statistics within the USA show that restrictions on guns actually increase violent crime. But those studies were of Washington... so it might be a special case. One way or another I really don't understand your reasoning. If making guns illegal DID reduce the numbers of shootings wouldn't you take a country where you had less a chance of encountering a shooting, over one where you would have a gun but could certainly still be shot and killed.

It's like... would you refuse to live in Canada if your only other option was Iraq (cited here as the most dangerous country on earth http://listverse.com/2008/04/08/top-...aces-on-earth/)?

You're exactly right. You're indoctrinated.
A lot of Americans are too, on the other side of the fence. I don't deny that. I'm speaking to a common sense, logical issue.
Just because you can't have fireworks without a permit, or start fires in your back yard, or carry around a machete... does that make it impossible for people to do so?
Obviously not, but see, that analogy you used doesn't quite work well with something a bit more important like being able to save your own life by meeting force proportionally to defend yourself.

It's not about a government protecting people from themselves. It's about a government PREVENTING people from properly defending themselves. Even if it's not a huge problem, it's a problem if it happens one single time. It does not require you to feel like your rights are or aren't violated.
But I bet if your family was that one single time, you may feel a little differently.

Out of sight, out of mind.. I guess...

1. I have a pretty low chance of being involved in a shooting (at this moment in time). That does absolutely nothing for the possibility of being involved in one and escaping with good odds.

2. I spent a year in Iraq while in the Army and I can honestly say that I would prefer living there than in Canada.
(Again, you've used a horrible comparison for this, but I figure I would be humorous about it. hehe)

i'll try to respond as carefully as I can so as not to be accused again as trolling. but before you read my every posts, please be reminded that these are my honest to goodness opinions on the current subject matter. so respect is demanded. here we go:

this is an unrealistic reasoning. first, the fact that he's a psycho suggests that he is obviously mentally unstable and anyone as such should be confined in a mental health-care facility. the only type of person that maybe able to do this is a 'sane' individual with a grudge or a convincing motivation for him to shoot someone say due to anger, or jealousy or moeny or any other human emotion that may result for that person to pull that trigger to another person.

second, safety and protection of every individual is a basic human right, yes. but owning a gun unfortunately is not. that's why we have the police or security officers to serve that purpose. that is their main function. i personally believe that those who should be allowed to carry a gun are those who are obliged to protect the people rather than protecting oneself.

third, this makes me assume that those who never experienced or are exposed almost close to everyday crimes or violent incidents tend to be more eager to hold a gun. while i, myself, living in a country where crime rates aren't getting any lesser than a day before or has not experienced reading the newspaper without someone reporting somebody has been shot dead, would rather not let anyone possess a gun. truely, i can safely assume here, those who live in conflict longs for peace and those who live in peace longs for conflict.

fourth, there is not a specific measurement whether a civilian is a responsible gun-owner. no, not one. rich, poor, black, white, oriental, male, females, young, old, christians, muslims, not any of these criterias assure of a person who can ascertain restraint ones they carry a gun. there is always that possiblity they're going to use that gun to shoot someone and for a reason of 'self defense' to me, is not justification enough to shoot/kill someone. that's why i stick to my principle that only those who are 'required' to protect and serve the people must hold guns.

lastly, see? it's not because you want to feel safe why you really wanted a gun, it's because of the word 'fun'. imagine how many people out there think of it that way. gun=fun. and you don't know the different variations. for your fun=gun range shooting sessions, for some fun=hunting animals shooting guns, for some fun=scaring an enemy with your gun, and sadly, majority have fun=self defense so i can shoot anyone who i think is threatening my life. even a big, black man that looks like he came out of prison feels like threatening my life so i can shoot him.....

so having said all these things, YES we can carry guns, if we're the police.

Well if I were going to make decisions based on worst case scenarios, I suppose I might have a lot of different stances. I don't have a definitive right or wrong answer to the question of gun control.

But let me put it this way, and you tell me if it's unfair. Should people be allowed the bring weapons onto an airplane? What if there was a hijacker? The rules against bringing dangerous objects onto the plane wouldn't be a 100% guarantee that it wouldn't happen. If everyone was allowed to have a gun, maybe someone could stop the hijacker. It would also make it a lot easier to hijack a plane though wouldn't it? And let's say your family was on the plane... but then what about all those other people on the plane. Is it really just about you and your right to defend you and your family? Or does the safety of all the other people come into the equation too?

how did the hijacker got into the plane with a gun undetected in the first place? the more it would be dangerous if you let all plane passengers carry a gun.

Ok.


This is unrealistic reasoning. First, the fact that I presented a hypothetical situation that you are responding to in this way suggests that you are an idiot. Even Neapolitan had better trolls than this.

Wow. That's all I can say. If you are curious as to what I mean, you will never, ever understand my explanation.

Well, I only spent 2 years in a combat zone during the Iraq war. But before, and after that, I've held the same opinion. Not sure what else I can say about this.

The measurement of a responsible gun-owner has nothing to do with race, religion, or gender. I never said it was. The measurement is based on your track-record as a responsible adult in general. I don't expect you to grasp that concept. Especially when you hand off your and your family's safety responsibility to complete strangers who hold a job and are often very bad at it. Criminally, in many cases.

Nah, I just like shooting. I've done it since I was a child. Target shooting, that is. It's just an interest, and it doesn't have anything to do with killing people. But I like to know that if there's a guy trying to kill me, I have a chance at pulling through still breathing.

Anyway, I don't really expect you to understand (or decide to maturely comment on) what I've posted here... but just to let you know, if it smells vaguely of troll, I delete on sight. So if you know you're just living a million miles elsewhere in terms of common sense and human perception, don't bother, as I don't want you to feel like I'm censoring you...

It's hypothetical Virgin...
Obviously it's possible for someone to get onto a plane with the capacity to perform a violent high-jacking since it's happened in the past. So whether the hi-jacker has a gun isn't really as important as the question of everyone else having a gun...

ok. i'm convinced that this discussion is getting nowhere.
i tried to present my valid opinion and you respond with sarcasm and abrupt, hasty, unthought ridicule.
you don't deserve my presence.
i'm just gonna quitely walk away from this thread.

Again with the bad comparisons. :banghead:
I'm talking about having a gun in your home, or other personal domain. If a business or other owned entity does not want guns on its premises, an individual can choose not to go there.
In cases where a public service is provided by a private company, it's ultimately up to that company to decide its rules. It can be anything from no shoes, shirt, service... to no nuclear devices. These are terms of agreement. But an individual should not be expected to negotiate terms of agreement regarding the safety of his own family in his own house.