If anything the amount of guns you have should be restricted, as should the amount of ammo available at a single time. i'm personally against gun, but am willing to compromise. Although that NRA guy is a nut

so Bill clinton, and pretty much every democratic politician is nuts too? because suggesting police officers be at schools isnt a new or controversial idea, until now that is. but thats only because the NRA proposed an idea, that pretty much everybody supported in the first place. Bill Clinton suggested this a decade ago.

an even more reasonable and cost effective idea, would be to actually allow teachers not have to shed their rights at the school doors, and allow them to protect themselves, and their students.

remind me again, how having a police officer at a school is nuts?

anyway, how is me having 4 guns any more deadly than me having 1. can i somehow kill 4 timez as manyz people with 4 gunz! as oppossed to 1 gun. What if a guy had 50 gunzz, he could kill like a gazzilion peoplez!!! if i wanted to kill a bunch of people, i wouldnt use a dozens of guns because i cant use them all, I can only use 1 at a time. i would use a max 2 guns, a pistol and a carbine.

and what kind of limit would you put on ammo? because 99% of homocides involving guns, only have one victim, so that means 1 bullet is needed. would you limit it to 10, 100, 1000. how is that going to work. a bad guy only needs 1. but with this, not thought out proposal of yours, you would only harm people like me, who use hundreds of bullets at a time when I go to the range. So unless you want to make my range time suck by limiting me to a bullet or 2, and make purchases an awful and frequent experience, by not allowing me to buy in bulk like i do know, i have like 5000 rounds of ammuntion stored up. im not planning on using that to kill 5000 people.

I lived in Iceland for 3 years when i was a kid, What i told you was the truth and again, just because they settled is some places don't mean they tried to come to America and settle there. Which just isn't true. They did discover it first, and the Indians did not over populate America, over farm and die of their own diseases.  So your post was a big waist of time on your part. Nice try tho. At least make a connection to what i was trying to say, instead of going off on a tangent about their language and the settlement of Iceland which we already know happened.

If anything, you're argument has a major lack of logic. Cars are in everyday use, all the time and all over the US. Of course more accidental deaths are going to be caused by cars. If everyone that owned a gun had to empty a magazine/clip of ammo everyday for every gun that they owned and in a open access/public environment, then you might have a point. As it is, most people don't have to shoot their gun in this manner just to get by in their daily lives.

If all the guns in the US were to magically disappear, you would probably suffer a little in terms of the economy. If cars got taken out of America, you'd be fucked because cars are far more essential both socially and economically than guns.

The car comparison really is a pathetic one. The argument also assumes that since we can't eliminate all avoidable deaths, that we should never take any measures to decrease avoidable deaths, which is quite frankly, silly in the extreme.

And you didn't actually disprove anything I said. Restrictions for driving a car are more strict. If you want to legally drive a car on public roads (it's primary use), you need to take a written and practical test. If you want a gun for self-defence (normally cited as its primary use) do you need to take a written or practical test to prove your proficiency and responsibility in its use?

Like I said originally, I don't think outright banning guns would work anyway, but the arguments from the pro-gun crowd can be so faulty.

Anyway, I'm going to read sc94597 reply/post. He actually provided some useful information rather than rhetoric.

actually millions of gun owners shoot their guns every day, millions more, use there guns buy carrying it around on their person everyday. my point was to spotlight how stupid the claim of "guns sole purpose is to kill" first of all thats untrue, 2nd it kills a lot less thn things thats apparent purpose is not to kill.

also in order to carry o a gun in public, yes you do need to take a test to prove you competency in its use and handling.

Lastly owning guns is a RIGHT! driving cars is not.

the lack of logic and lack of knowledge on the gun topic of the anti-constition, anti-self defense croud is humous if not sad.

Ah yes. Protect us FROM the people who protect us. That makes sense. Protect us FROM our sons and fathers in uniform, whom I'm sure we'll all be ready to kill the moment they get that order from Uncle Sam to start oppressing us.

Guns are tools. They are tools to be used for hunting, and for providing the citizens a means of defense from invaders or insurrectionists. There's a reason why the second ammendment also says "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.". Last I checked, most gun owners aren't in well regulated militias.

Except history isn't a cemented thing and we find out new things all the time. There were links provided, read them and become more critical. Nobody's saying that it DID happen, just that it might've happened. 

Yep because historically people were protected and not kiled by their country's militaries, oh wait 260 million people died last century at the whims of their governments....  As for the well regulated militia business, the founders believed ALL people (well men at least) are part of the militia, just read their works and it is quite clear. 

in b4 ban

This has to be....one of the whackiest pro-gun/anti car things I have ever read.

Cars kill far more people then guns because far more people rely on cars then guns then guns for everyday use.

Most people don't use guns to go to work, or catch a movie, or go shopping. They use guns either for killing things, attempting to kill things or (most commonly, I imagine) target practice.

Guns and cars...aren't even comparable, and as assault/homicide devices, cars are far less versatile and far more unweildy then pretty much any other implement of death you could choose. Sure, you can kill someone with a car, but you better hope they don't....I don't know, jump out of the way, run into a building or an alley or any of the numerous other places where a car just can't go. Cars can kill, sure, but they aren't really the most effective means of mass murder. You cite that "guns only kill a quarter of the people that guns do", but there is one key thing you are leaving out: the vast majority of those deaths are vehicle ACCIDENTS. People aren't using cars to rob convenience stores. They aren't using them to mowdown people in movie theatres or Sikh temples. They aren't using them in mass vehicular homicides. Hell, go ahead, look them up. I just did, and I couldn't even find statistics for how many people a year a purposefully killed by cars, because its just not a common means of murder. It happens, sure, but guns are still the preferred weapon because they are just better at murder then cars are. Indeed, the same can be said for most weapons. Knives? I looked up mass knifings, and the thing that kept coming up was a serious of mass knifings in China, committed mostly against children. The highest death toll from these knifings? Eight. Thats on the lean side for a US mass killing.

Bombs are about the only other weapon aside from guns that are seriously effective at mass murder, but even they have their issues. You can't hold up a convienience store with a bomb. Utilizing bombs effectively in murder, especially if you have certain targets in mind, requires forethought and planning. You either have to be able to plant the bombs ahead of time where you know people will gather, or you have to go in like a suicide bomber and blow yourself up once your content with the number of people around you. In other words, you can't go on a rampage across an area ala Virginia Tech and Sandyhook.

In the end though, I see people say "well if they didn't use guns, they'd just use something else", I can't help but think....then why don't they use something else? Why don't we have people using cars to commit mass murder? Why don't we have anyone choosing knives to commit mass murder instead? I mean, knives are FAR more common then guns. I don't have a gun, but I have several knives I could use to attempt a mass killing in my kitchen. Then there's bombs, which you can download blue prints of on the internet and build using items that can be legally bought. Yet we haven't been getting very many reports of mass bombings either, despite the fact that, unlike guns or cars, bombs could actually be pretty effective, if used right.

Time and time again though, the weapon of choice has been guns, and I think the answer why is pretty simple: guns are far more versatile and far more deadly then any other weapon. Get a gun with a large enough clip and you can drop a dozen people without even needing to stop to reload. You aren't limited to a certain blast radius, you aren't forced to blow yourself up. You aren't limited to a road or parking lot. You can do it in doors, out doors, and you've got plenty of range. There's a reason the phrase "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" exists. It's because the world isn't an anime, and guns trump knives, and indeed most weapons, every single time.

Lastly, owning a gun isn't a right, its a priveledge. One that should only be granted to responsible, sane citizens like you and me. There are certain people who aren't allowed to drive. There are also certain people who shouldn't own guns. Like the psychos who have been shooting up malls, schools, sikh temples and movie theatres over the last year. There are also certain guns that we just shouldn't own, such as assault weapons and thirty round clips.

Last I checked, America historically hasn't been a dictatorship that rounded up and exterminated millions of its own people. It wasn't guns that prevented that. It was this little thing called "democracy" where we generally vote against people who do these things.

And last I checked, liberal gun laws haven't actually stopped big government from "oppressing" the populace. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 was an armed rebellion against the new government that ended the moment 13,000 militia men from several states arrived to put an end to it. Native Americans owning guns didn't stop us from oppressing them, taking their land, and sending them to reservations.

And today, if our government really wanted to commit mass murder against us, right now, they could. Owning assault rifles won't stop them. They have fighter jets. They have bombers. They have tanks. They have attack helicopters. They have bombs capable of destroying underground bunkers. They have drones capable of delivering death from the sky to wherever they choose. They are technologically much more advanced and strategically are much more organized. 

But, again, all of that is a moot point. We aren't going to be installing any dictators any time soon. At the moment, this notion is little more then right wing paranoia meant to combat any discussion about common sense gun control legislation.

And also, while your talking about history, keep this in mind: when the founders said we have a right to bear arms, they didn't have a concept of automatic weapons, hand guns, or 30 round clips. Personally, I'm all for muskets and bayonets being legal.