You're hurting the innocent people who rely on weapons to defend themeselves from aggression. The old women who own a cornerstore and protect themselves with their shotguns, and the mothers who must hide in a closet as men try to get at them and their children and only have a measly pistol that couldn't kill a fly to defend herself and her children. You are also preventing a free people to defend themselves against the tyrannies of their governments, and you're restricting the liberties of individuals as well as their protery rights. 

fixed.

you will find that high crime areas are almost always high liberal or more acurately progressive areas

I'm glad this post wasn't able to slide by.

Britain a nation with strict gun control laws has a much higher rate of violent crimes per capita than the US. Gun control laws rarely work because a black market is established and criminals gain access to them easier than people can access guns for self defense. Prohibition on alcohol in the US lead to the rise shy grog and the success of gangsters like Al Capone. Prohibition does not work and leads to black markets. Where there is a demand a supply will be established regardless of its legality.

Funny how people keep saying how gun controls prevent random peaceful citizens from owning guns in order to defend themselves against other humans, like that desire is a common thing; yet, I never met someone in Canada who ever had the desire to own a gun for that purpose or need to own one in order to feel secure.

Are your communities that more dangerous or, assuming the danger is about the same, do you just generally feel less secure and are more prone to fear ?

What other user stated before it's quite true, I mean, some of us certainly can't understand the need to own a gun, therefore people from the US shoud be the ones pushing for this debate.

However, I do find the political scene quite fucked up, I see that there will be no proper debate if the lobbyist have that power to shut up pretty much everybody.

Additionally, I do find funny the argument of certain people here, so, the US is a safe place to live as long as you have a gun to protect your property and your loved ones. Wtf, isn't the police there rather competent, or what?

In the cities the police don't have much control unless it's a city that has really strict regulations (i.e New York City - essentially a police-state) and even then there is high crime. In the rural areas response time can be up to 10-20 minutes. Furthermore, police can be part of the problem. Their job is to enforce the law, that's it. This has been concluded in many court cases. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/governmental-entities-and-officers/riss-v-new-york/

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/primary-sources/lynch-v-nc-dept-justice-1989

"Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

Ultimately, the second amendment is there to leave room for the possibility of violent overthrowing of tyrannical governments. 

It's not that law enforcement is incompetent (which all is worldwide to a degree), but you have too many people, far too spread out to effectively protect and serve. People want to have the ability to defend themselves against those who would hurt them. That doesn't mean you live in fear (I know I have never feared for my safety even in rougher areas), but it can be seen an insurance that if someone bad were to come, you could defend yourself.