No, obviously sarcasm doesn't show well when written...

Oh, so do you agree that civilians can live without guns, just like they do outside US?

I haven't read your discussion, but the nuclear weapon analogy is poor. In one case you have guns, which can be used for defence without harming a third party. In the other instance you have nuclear weapons which ALWAYS harm third parties. In an ideal world no government or individuals would have (or rather be able to use) nuclear weapons, because the very nature of the weapon prevents it from targetting aggressors, and itself initiates aggression. So a person who uses or intends to use a nuclear weapon is a criminal, because if he uses a nuclear weapon he is harming non-aggressive persons, and if he intends to use a nuclear weapon he is threatening non aggressive persons with force, even if his main intent was to use it on aggressive persons. 

thats not what i said.

i was just wondering how you would go about insuring they dont have guns.

if you could guarantee me that nobody in all of the US to include civilians, military, police, government, and criminals, and erase all knowledge of how to make a firearm, i would support a complete ban on firearms. relunctently though, becuase i love collecting and shooting them

This is possibly the biggest oxymoron I've seen typed in some time, you take the gun away you still have a psychopath, my good mr Dragon246 a psychopath can kill you with a sock if the sock tells him it would be a good idea to do so.

I thought Mexico (and most of south america actually) had a crime and gang problem of the scale seen today because of America's "war on drugs". The fact that they are criminalised makes the drugs trade extremely profitable while the stupid law means only gangs will do it because they don't care much for the law. The amount of money in drugs only empowers gangs and makes life for ordinary people more dangerous. This was actually proven by the failure of prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. As soon as alcohol became legal in America again back then, the mafia got considerably weaker as it lost a major revenue source. The same logic would apply to drugs i think. So it doesn't make much sense when you blame Mexico's gang problems completely on gun control. Nothing is that simple

The point i get from this is if the psycho doesn't have a gun. He may kill people still, but there will be less casualties than with a gun. It takes longer to strangle someone to death with a sock than to mow a whole crowd down with an AA12 or a M249 for example .  

Pretty sure this guy in question here in Santa Barbara killed 1 with a car , 3 with a knife and then shot 2 others and himself. Killers gonna kill, with anything, only thing we need more control over is people who are making videos online about how they want to kill people, cos he was doing that and then he killed people.

does the irony of your statement elude you? 

if you believe what you are saying, just replace "drugs" or "alcohol" with "guns"

Sorry, my comment wasn't meant to imply that that's the only reason Mexico has a high crime rate.