AngelWhat wrote

we still have right to bear arms and always will. im in florida and once im 21 im getting a license to carry. ima put it this way.. my life isnt gonna end because of some robbery etc. im going to fight!

The thing is if your society had no guns would that criminal in a robbery have the confidence to go through with this without that sort of aid. If he did he would be equipped with the likes of a knife and therefore although still dangerous gives you the defender a greater chance to overcome your attacker or escape him.

celtic240497 wrote

r00t wrote
- Criminals by definition break the law and banning guns will not stop people from having them. All law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law and therefore would not own guns. Sick and twisted, isn't it?
- Fear != danger. The fact that people don't feel safer in the presence of those who are legally carrying weapons is illogical.
- Who do we call when we need bad guys with guns put down? Good guys with guns.
- Shootings take place in "gun-free" zones because shooters view them as easy targets. Again, criminals by definition break the law.
- An armed society is a polite society.
- Your analogy makes no sense.

1. I did not once say that it would stop crime.
2.You said "who do we call......Good guys with guns". You miss the point that a society without guns would not require "good guys with guns" to stop "Bad guys with guns" as guns become more difficult to find, for your average criminal.
3. You say that "an armed society is a polite society". Nobody said that people had to be armed with guns though.
4. My analogy makes perfect sense as I am giving you an example of using an old and ultimately out of date view that people follow with your constitution stupid.

The fact you believe that people should be able to obtain guns with the ease that the US allows is plain stupidity. No society will be free of crime but you can aid the suppression of it by removing the likes of guns.

1. What's the point of getting rid of guns if not to lower the crime rate? They can be used for recreation, sport, and hunting as well. I didn't say it would stop crime, but all you've said you're in favor of so far is making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. How anyone could think legal gun ownership is a bad thing is beyond me.

2. You're missing the point. Guns are used to stop crime, even in places like the UK that don't allow gun ownership. You can't expect the hundreds of millions of registered guns in the US to simply disappear. Banning them would make them no more difficult to obtain.

3. Why not? Should we not have the right to protect ourselves? This is reality, not some anti-gun fantasy.

4. The 2nd amendment is not out of date. The goal is to give citizens the power to overthrow the government. This has served us well and will continue to do so.

5. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country as well as the highest crime rate. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if Chicago's laws applied to the entire country.

r00t wrote

celtic240497 wrote

r00t wrote
- Criminals by definition break the law and banning guns will not stop people from having them. All law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law and therefore would not own guns. Sick and twisted, isn't it?
- Fear != danger. The fact that people don't feel safer in the presence of those who are legally carrying weapons is illogical.
- Who do we call when we need bad guys with guns put down? Good guys with guns.
- Shootings take place in "gun-free" zones because shooters view them as easy targets. Again, criminals by definition break the law.
- An armed society is a polite society.
- Your analogy makes no sense.

1. I did not once say that it would stop crime.
2.You said "who do we call......Good guys with guns". You miss the point that a society without guns would not require "good guys with guns" to stop "Bad guys with guns" as guns become more difficult to find, for your average criminal.
3. You say that "an armed society is a polite society". Nobody said that people had to be armed with guns though.
4. My analogy makes perfect sense as I am giving you an example of using an old and ultimately out of date view that people follow with your constitution stupid.

The fact you believe that people should be able to obtain guns with the ease that the US allows is plain stupidity. No society will be free of crime but you can aid the suppression of it by removing the likes of guns.

1. What's the point of getting rid of guns if not to lower the crime rate? They can be used for recreation, sport, and hunting as well. I didn't say it would stop crime, but all you've said you're in favor of so far is making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. How anyone could think legal gun ownership is a bad thing is beyond me.

2. You're missing the point. Guns are used to stop crime, even in places like the UK that don't allow gun ownership. You can't expect the hundreds of millions of registered guns in the US to simply disappear. Banning them would make them no more difficult to obtain.

3. Why not? Should we not have the right to protect ourselves? This is reality, not some anti-gun fantasy.

4. The 2nd amendment is not out of date. The goal is to give citizens the power to overthrow the government. This has served us well and will continue to do so.

5. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country as well as the highest crime rate. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if Chicago's laws applied to the entire country.

Root's true. He has influenced me in believing in his fair share.

r00t wrote

celtic240497 wrote

r00t wrote
- Criminals by definition break the law and banning guns will not stop people from having them. All law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law and therefore would not own guns. Sick and twisted, isn't it?
- Fear != danger. The fact that people don't feel safer in the presence of those who are legally carrying weapons is illogical.
- Who do we call when we need bad guys with guns put down? Good guys with guns.
- Shootings take place in "gun-free" zones because shooters view them as easy targets. Again, criminals by definition break the law.
- An armed society is a polite society.
- Your analogy makes no sense.

1. I did not once say that it would stop crime.
2.You said "who do we call......Good guys with guns". You miss the point that a society without guns would not require "good guys with guns" to stop "Bad guys with guns" as guns become more difficult to find, for your average criminal.
3. You say that "an armed society is a polite society". Nobody said that people had to be armed with guns though.
4. My analogy makes perfect sense as I am giving you an example of using an old and ultimately out of date view that people follow with your constitution stupid.

The fact you believe that people should be able to obtain guns with the ease that the US allows is plain stupidity. No society will be free of crime but you can aid the suppression of it by removing the likes of guns.

1. What's the point of getting rid of guns if not to lower the crime rate? They can be used for recreation, sport, and hunting as well. I didn't say it would stop crime, but all you've said you're in favor of so far is making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. How anyone could think legal gun ownership is a bad thing is beyond me.

2. You're missing the point. Guns are used to stop crime, even in places like the UK that don't allow gun ownership. You can't expect the hundreds of millions of registered guns in the US to simply disappear. Banning them would make them no more difficult to obtain.

3. Why not? Should we not have the right to protect ourselves? This is reality, not some anti-gun fantasy.

4. The 2nd amendment is not out of date. The goal is to give citizens the power to overthrow the government. This has served us well and will continue to do so.

5. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country as well as the highest crime rate. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if Chicago's laws applied to the entire country.

1.But it will quite clearly lower crime. You said you get confidence in knowing that there is someone with a gun to protect you, well I'm sure people thinking of committing a crime gain confidence if they have a weapon as powerful as a firearm.

2. At most our police are armed with a taser(although very rare). The only forces with firearms really are the airport security. If you can honestly tell me that you would feel more safe standing between a criminal with a handgun and a police officer with a handgun than a criminal with a knife and a police officer armed with just a baton then there is something wrong because I can tell you which situation I would rather be in.

3. I don't have a gun and I can protect myself. I know that if somebody broke into my house that he won't have a gun and will at most have a melee weapon which in my house I obviously will have plenty of things that I can grab and use against the criminal.

4. Hate to tell you but it is out of date as times change and I can assure you has since that was written.

5. Compare your crime rates with other countries who don't have guns and I can guarantee you that theirs is better.

You also said that you can't expect all guns that are registered to disappear. Well if they are indeed registered then a nation wide operation of going from premise to premise and obtaining these guns isn't unrealistic. It would take time but nobody said it wouldn't. The real challenge is obtaining the unregistered fire arms which lets face it would have it's benefits as progress is made.

celtic240497 wrote

Click to View Content

r00t wrote

celtic240497 wrote

r00t wrote
- Criminals by definition break the law and banning guns will not stop people from having them. All law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law and therefore would not own guns. Sick and twisted, isn't it?
- Fear != danger. The fact that people don't feel safer in the presence of those who are legally carrying weapons is illogical.
- Who do we call when we need bad guys with guns put down? Good guys with guns.
- Shootings take place in "gun-free" zones because shooters view them as easy targets. Again, criminals by definition break the law.
- An armed society is a polite society.
- Your analogy makes no sense.

1. I did not once say that it would stop crime.
2.You said "who do we call......Good guys with guns". You miss the point that a society without guns would not require "good guys with guns" to stop "Bad guys with guns" as guns become more difficult to find, for your average criminal.
3. You say that "an armed society is a polite society". Nobody said that people had to be armed with guns though.
4. My analogy makes perfect sense as I am giving you an example of using an old and ultimately out of date view that people follow with your constitution stupid.

The fact you believe that people should be able to obtain guns with the ease that the US allows is plain stupidity. No society will be free of crime but you can aid the suppression of it by removing the likes of guns.

1. What's the point of getting rid of guns if not to lower the crime rate? They can be used for recreation, sport, and hunting as well. I didn't say it would stop crime, but all you've said you're in favor of so far is making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. How anyone could think legal gun ownership is a bad thing is beyond me.

2. You're missing the point. Guns are used to stop crime, even in places like the UK that don't allow gun ownership. You can't expect the hundreds of millions of registered guns in the US to simply disappear. Banning them would make them no more difficult to obtain.

3. Why not? Should we not have the right to protect ourselves? This is reality, not some anti-gun fantasy.

4. The 2nd amendment is not out of date. The goal is to give citizens the power to overthrow the government. This has served us well and will continue to do so.

5. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country as well as the highest crime rate. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if Chicago's laws applied to the entire country.

1.But it will quite clearly lower crime. You said you get confidence in knowing that there is someone with a gun to protect you, well I'm sure people thinking of committing a crime gain confidence if they have a weapon as powerful as a firearm.

2. At most our police are armed with a taser(although very rare). The only forces with firearms really are the airport security. If you can honestly tell me that you would feel more safe standing between a criminal with a handgun and a police officer with a handgun than a criminal with a knife and a police officer armed with just a baton then there is something wrong because I can tell you which situation I would rather be in.

3. I don't have a gun and I can protect myself. I know that if somebody broke into my house that he won't have a gun and will at most have a melee weapon which in my house I obviously will have plenty of things that I can grab and use against the criminal.

4. Hate to tell you but it is out of date as times change and I can assure you has since that was written.

5. Compare your crime rates with other countries who don't have guns and I can guarantee you that theirs is better.

You also said that you can't expect all guns that are registered to disappear. Well if they are indeed registered then a nation wide operation of going from premise to premise and obtaining these guns isn't unrealistic. It would take time but nobody said it wouldn't. The real challenge is obtaining the unregistered fire arms which lets face it would have it's benefits as progress is made.

1. It has been proven that more restrictive firearms laws do not decrease violent crime. See Chicago. Once again, laws cannot and will not get rid of illegally-owned firearms.

2. So instead of using guns, you suggest we use alternative deadly weapons like knives and blunt objects? This is illogical. You put an absurd twist on my words to suit your argument. In an environment where law-abiding citizens are carrying firearms, yes, I feel safer.

3. So if a man comes in to your house with a bat, you wouldn't wish you had a gun? Once again, guns have always been a part of culture in the US and criminals have access to them all over the world. Australia is a great example of what happens when you take guns from law-abiding citizens when criminals already have and use guns.

4. If you can't provide a reason, there's no argument.

5. You can't compare rates of violent crime and assume that the differences are the result of guns alone. It's like people who make anti-gun arguments have to find statistics that don't actually exist to support what they are saying.

6. I didn't say anything about unregistered guns. A seizure of the nation's guns would not work and potentially result in secession and/or revolt if it were attempted.

r00t wrote

celtic240497 wrote

Click to View Content

r00t wrote

celtic240497 wrote

r00t wrote
- Criminals by definition break the law and banning guns will not stop people from having them. All law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law and therefore would not own guns. Sick and twisted, isn't it?
- Fear != danger. The fact that people don't feel safer in the presence of those who are legally carrying weapons is illogical.
- Who do we call when we need bad guys with guns put down? Good guys with guns.
- Shootings take place in "gun-free" zones because shooters view them as easy targets. Again, criminals by definition break the law.
- An armed society is a polite society.
- Your analogy makes no sense.

1. I did not once say that it would stop crime.
2.You said "who do we call......Good guys with guns". You miss the point that a society without guns would not require "good guys with guns" to stop "Bad guys with guns" as guns become more difficult to find, for your average criminal.
3. You say that "an armed society is a polite society". Nobody said that people had to be armed with guns though.
4. My analogy makes perfect sense as I am giving you an example of using an old and ultimately out of date view that people follow with your constitution stupid.

The fact you believe that people should be able to obtain guns with the ease that the US allows is plain stupidity. No society will be free of crime but you can aid the suppression of it by removing the likes of guns.

1. What's the point of getting rid of guns if not to lower the crime rate? They can be used for recreation, sport, and hunting as well. I didn't say it would stop crime, but all you've said you're in favor of so far is making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. How anyone could think legal gun ownership is a bad thing is beyond me.

2. You're missing the point. Guns are used to stop crime, even in places like the UK that don't allow gun ownership. You can't expect the hundreds of millions of registered guns in the US to simply disappear. Banning them would make them no more difficult to obtain.

3. Why not? Should we not have the right to protect ourselves? This is reality, not some anti-gun fantasy.

4. The 2nd amendment is not out of date. The goal is to give citizens the power to overthrow the government. This has served us well and will continue to do so.

5. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country as well as the highest crime rate. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if Chicago's laws applied to the entire country.

1.But it will quite clearly lower crime. You said you get confidence in knowing that there is someone with a gun to protect you, well I'm sure people thinking of committing a crime gain confidence if they have a weapon as powerful as a firearm.

2. At most our police are armed with a taser(although very rare). The only forces with firearms really are the airport security. If you can honestly tell me that you would feel more safe standing between a criminal with a handgun and a police officer with a handgun than a criminal with a knife and a police officer armed with just a baton then there is something wrong because I can tell you which situation I would rather be in.

3. I don't have a gun and I can protect myself. I know that if somebody broke into my house that he won't have a gun and will at most have a melee weapon which in my house I obviously will have plenty of things that I can grab and use against the criminal.

4. Hate to tell you but it is out of date as times change and I can assure you has since that was written.

5. Compare your crime rates with other countries who don't have guns and I can guarantee you that theirs is better.

You also said that you can't expect all guns that are registered to disappear. Well if they are indeed registered then a nation wide operation of going from premise to premise and obtaining these guns isn't unrealistic. It would take time but nobody said it wouldn't. The real challenge is obtaining the unregistered fire arms which lets face it would have it's benefits as progress is made.

1. It has been proven that more restrictive firearms laws do not decrease violent crime. See Chicago. Once again, laws cannot and will not get rid of illegally-owned firearms.

2. So instead of using guns, you suggest we use alternative deadly weapons like knives and blunt objects? This is illogical. You put an absurd twist on my words to suit your argument. In an environment where law-abiding citizens are carrying firearms, yes, I feel safer.

3. So if a man comes in to your house with a bat, you wouldn't wish you had a gun? Once again, guns have always been a part of culture in the US and criminals have access to them all over the world. Australia is a great example of what happens when you take guns from law-abiding citizens when criminals already have and use guns.

4. If you can't provide a reason, there's no argument.

5. You can't compare rates of violent crime and assume that the differences are the result of guns alone. It's like people who make anti-gun arguments have to find statistics that don't actually exist to support what they are saying.

6. I didn't say anything about unregistered guns. A seizure of the nation's guns would not work and potentially result in secession and/or revolt if it were attempted.

1. You said that restrictive gun laws don't prevent violent crime yet you also said that you can't compare violent crime rates and assume that the differences are guns alone. Therefore you say that having no guns makes no difference due to studies but you can't take the statistics from these studies seriously because it doesn't have alot to do with guns leaving you contradicting your own logic here. All you have done dismissed statistics against your arguments.

2. I didn't say people should switch to knives, I just said that your survival rates when confronted with a knife opposed to a gun is a bit higher.

3. But if I had a gun because it is legal for me to gain one then it is quite possible that this person has a gun also.

4. You dismiss me saying that it is out of date but I only need to ask you when it was created and that will give you your reason. If you are trying to say that there is no need to adapt and change as times goes on then you are basically saying that The US are a country which lacks the ability to move on and develop in the world, just waiting to be overtaken by everyone else.

5.Same as number 1 where you contradicted your own argument.


PS. couldn't be bothered watching the video

Yes we should and do have the right to bear arms. No government should be able to strip basic rights from citizens.

I understand that shootings do happen, but restricting the use of fire arms for everyone is wrong. I own about 9 guns, including pistols, shotguns, and highpower rifles. People who hunt or shoot for competition or hobby are not shooting up schools and are well educated on weapon safety.

For example, the US government wants to ban the use of AR15 rifles because of a few shootings. BUT the AR15 is the most popular and owned weapon in the US. Thats about 3.75 MILLION AR15's in the US!!!

Now lets do the math! We'll say that there were about 10 major violent shootings with the AR15. And 3.75 million in circulation.
So 10/3,750,000 = .000002666 * 100 = .0002666% of people in the US with an AR15 went and murdered people.

To me, its obvious that people are blowing guns way out of proportion!

Sincerely, SillyPlatypuss, proud member of the NRA

(EDIT) P.S. In Arizona, people are allowed to carry a pistol on them. Their theory is that No one will attempt a shooting if everyone they try to shoot is likely to have a weapon of their own on them.

Arizona respects the right of law abiding citizens to openly carry a handgun. Any person 21 years of age or older, who is not prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license. Any person carrying without a license must acknowledge and comply with the demands of a law enforcement officer when asked if he/she is carrying a concealed deadly weapon, if the officer has initiated an "investigation" such as a traffic stop.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

SillyPlatypuss wrote Yes we should and do have the right to bear arms. No government should be able to strip basic rights from citizens.

I understand that shootings do happen, but restricting the use of fire arms for everyone is wrong. I own about 9 guns, including pistols, shotguns, and highpower rifles. People who hunt or shoot for competition or hobby are not shooting up schools and are well educated on weapon safety.

For example, the US government wants to ban the use of AR15 rifles because of a few shootings. BUT the AR15 is the most popular and owned weapon in the US. Thats about 3.75 MILLION AR15's in the US!!!

Now lets do the math! We'll say that there were about 10 violent shootings with the AR15. And 3.75 million in circulation.
So 10/3,750,000 = .000002666 * 100 = .0002666% of people in the US with an AR15 went and murdered people.

To me, its obvious that people are blowing guns way out of proportion!

Sincerely, SillyPlatypuss, proud member of the NRA

But is it really a basic right? There is so many countries where it isn't a basic right. As I was saying with r00t, the constitutional rights stand for a time long past and therefore has become out-dated.

Also say this randomly generated number of people who murdered others with an AR15 rifle was true, the fact you say only is an utter disgrace. You have practically went it was only so and so who have lost their lives but it's OK because there is a group of us who haven't killed. The fact is that without those guns these murders would not have happened. But here you go America this is your representative of an everyday citizen. One who doesn't care about all those people who have been killed in mass shootings as long as the percentage is small to look at.

celtic240497 wrote

r00t wrote

celtic240497 wrote

r00t wrote
- Criminals by definition break the law and banning guns will not stop people from having them. All law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law and therefore would not own guns. Sick and twisted, isn't it?
- Fear != danger. The fact that people don't feel safer in the presence of those who are legally carrying weapons is illogical.
- Who do we call when we need bad guys with guns put down? Good guys with guns.
- Shootings take place in "gun-free" zones because shooters view them as easy targets. Again, criminals by definition break the law.
- An armed society is a polite society.
- Your analogy makes no sense.

1. I did not once say that it would stop crime.
2.You said "who do we call......Good guys with guns". You miss the point that a society without guns would not require "good guys with guns" to stop "Bad guys with guns" as guns become more difficult to find, for your average criminal.
3. You say that "an armed society is a polite society". Nobody said that people had to be armed with guns though.
4. My analogy makes perfect sense as I am giving you an example of using an old and ultimately out of date view that people follow with your constitution stupid.

The fact you believe that people should be able to obtain guns with the ease that the US allows is plain stupidity. No society will be free of crime but you can aid the suppression of it by removing the likes of guns.

1. What's the point of getting rid of guns if not to lower the crime rate? They can be used for recreation, sport, and hunting as well. I didn't say it would stop crime, but all you've said you're in favor of so far is making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. How anyone could think legal gun ownership is a bad thing is beyond me.

2. You're missing the point. Guns are used to stop crime, even in places like the UK that don't allow gun ownership. You can't expect the hundreds of millions of registered guns in the US to simply disappear. Banning them would make them no more difficult to obtain.

3. Why not? Should we not have the right to protect ourselves? This is reality, not some anti-gun fantasy.

4. The 2nd amendment is not out of date. The goal is to give citizens the power to overthrow the government. This has served us well and will continue to do so.

5. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country as well as the highest crime rate. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if Chicago's laws applied to the entire country.

1.But it will quite clearly lower crime. You said you get confidence in knowing that there is someone with a gun to protect you, well I'm sure people thinking of committing a crime gain confidence if they have a weapon as powerful as a firearm.

2. At most our police are armed with a taser(although very rare). The only forces with firearms really are the airport security. If you can honestly tell me that you would feel more safe standing between a criminal with a handgun and a police officer with a handgun than a criminal with a knife and a police officer armed with just a baton then there is something wrong because I can tell you which situation I would rather be in.

3. I don't have a gun and I can protect myself. I know that if somebody broke into my house that he won't have a gun and will at most have a melee weapon which in my house I obviously will have plenty of things that I can grab and use against the criminal.

4. Hate to tell you but it is out of date as times change and I can assure you has since that was written.

5. Compare your crime rates with other countries who don't have guns and I can guarantee you that theirs is better.

You also said that you can't expect all guns that are registered to disappear. Well if they are indeed registered then a nation wide operation of going from premise to premise and obtaining these guns isn't unrealistic. It would take time but nobody said it wouldn't. The real challenge is obtaining the unregistered fire arms which lets face it would have it's benefits as progress is made.

1) That is false. Removing firearms will not decrease crime/violence/murder. Taken straight from an extremely credible study done by Harvard professors:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population). For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

2) I would like to be in the situation that makes it harder for criminals to get guns and easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain them. Instead on trying to stomp on every day citizens, the focus should be on illegal guns, not legal guns in the hands of peaceful citizens. I wouldnt mind being in any of those two listed scenarios involving the police officer, because the officerwould not be needed if a criminal entered my home; as long as i have my Mossberg, ill be ok.

3) You might be able to defend yourself against equal-class criminals.. But what about the criminals that pose more of a threat? What about the ones that are on drugs or bigger, are you really going to be able to defend yourself hand-to-hand? Why make it harder for you, the law abiding citizen, to defend yourself against those who wish to do you harm? I dont care how big you are or how high you are, nothing stopping a buckshot.

4) Times do change, but founding principals do not. The nation was founded on being able to go toe-to-toe against a corrupt government/military (foreign or domestic). 225 years have passed, and its still an extremely relevant document. People need to stop treating it like an ancient piece of worthless paper.

5)No, actually, our crime rates are lower. Significantly lower.

According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, down from 1,255 in 2003. In the U.S., the figure for 2010 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

celtic240497 wrote

SillyPlatypuss wrote Yes we should and do have the right to bear arms. No government should be able to strip basic rights from citizens.

I understand that shootings do happen, but restricting the use of fire arms for everyone is wrong. I own about 9 guns, including pistols, shotguns, and highpower rifles. People who hunt or shoot for competition or hobby are not shooting up schools and are well educated on weapon safety.

For example, the US government wants to ban the use of AR15 rifles because of a few shootings. BUT the AR15 is the most popular and owned weapon in the US. Thats about 3.75 MILLION AR15's in the US!!!

Now lets do the math! We'll say that there were about 10 violent shootings with the AR15. And 3.75 million in circulation.
So 10/3,750,000 = .000002666 * 100 = .0002666% of people in the US with an AR15 went and murdered people.

To me, its obvious that people are blowing guns way out of proportion!

Sincerely, SillyPlatypuss, proud member of the NRA

But is it really a basic right? There is so many countries where it isn't a basic right. As I was saying with r00t, the constitutional rights stand for a time long past and therefore has become out-dated.

Also say this randomly generated number of people who murdered others with an AR15 rifle was true, the fact you say only is an utter disgrace. You have practically went it was only so and so who have lost their lives but it's OK because there is a group of us who haven't killed. The fact is that without those guns these murders would not have happened. But here you go America this is your representative of an everyday citizen. One who doesn't care about all those people who have been killed in mass shootings as long as the percentage is small to look at.

The problem with you is that your not from the US. Guns are a significant part of our culture, something our country was founded on. Its simply something you cant comprehend. Your taught guns are evil, and wrapping your head around the fact that guns can be a tool used for defense and recreation instead of violence is something you cant fathom.