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.

OK, so what's the purpose of using a gun? Usually, if you use a gun, it's to kill, incapacitate or maim something. If you own a gun, it's usually to stop someone from doing one of the above to you, by doing the same to them first. Or they're used to hunt... which is essentially killing, right?

What else does it do?

And don't most gun owners keep their gun (for self-defence) in the house?

I don't need to use the term "clips" properly to read a graph or chart that shows that the United States has a far higher violent crime rate then most other countries with better gun control laws or conscription (keep in mind I saaid most, not all, as I'm sure some exceptions exist).

The problem is that there is always a "middle ground" It reminds me of Zeno's paradox and how one might seemingly never reach their destination if they keep moving half the distance they moved before, but essentially the sum of the limit of each adds up to a finite number. So with each "compromise" we get closer and closer to that nanny state, and it only remains a nanny state when it's benevolent, otherwise it turns totalitarian. No thank you! I value freedom very much, and invidual liberties are very important for living a "good life" albeit not necessarily a totally safe one. However; these idealisms always lead to dissapointment and often ruin (substantiated by history.) Hence, when it comes to individual liberties there is no compromise which deals with the state's involvement. Compromise must be within the society, which is a separate and distinct entity from the state and which has a different origin and different values. The state is meant to protect our liberties as long as they don't intrude upon the liberties and freedoms of others. Hence, lawful citizens should be able to own what they want. There ARE other solutions, and it is clear with the diversity found among the various states in the U.S, in which many have many guns but few homicides. 

The thing about the "nanny state" argument is that if you live in a society where the citizens can't be trusted to govern themselves voluntarily, and manage to prevent mentally unstable people from getting guns, then the state will have to increasingly babysit the citizens and act like a nanny, for their safety.  Complaining about a "nanny state" and trying to win an argument, doesn't address people's concerns, and does nothing to reduce the shootings, or getting people concerned about them.

Also, I have to ask about the "gun-free school" initiative, and if people here thimnk that parents want to send their kids to schools where there are armed individuals about, and kids can bring their own guns to school.

Guns can also be used in recreational and sport activities or as a collection (engineering or historical significance.) The responsibilities with owning a gun can also be a means to teach discipline, which is why most boy scouts learn to use guns very young. These are all secondary purposes, but purposes nevertheless. If we are all to be selfless in the matter, then we she get rid of cars that have only aesthetic features that might have secondary harmful effects, any car that is a certain age, because they're dangerous and not build with the best safety measures, or any car that goes faster than 80 mph should be rid of, because in the United States we don't have any speed limits faster than that and if somebody is drunk they might go that fast and kill themselves. If we only owned what we needed then many products in the world wouldn't exist. Hence, why it's a riduclous question to ask, "why do you need it?" when referring to private ownership of something. Hence, outright bans of certain weapons at all shouldn't be the legislature, because those who show they are responsible enough to not harm others have the right to own private property regardless of purpose. 

By the way, something I learned today. With $5 somebody can make a wooden han!dgun! That's awesome and scary! With $100 they can make an automatic weapon. That's mostly scary!  So those are reasons enough for why prohibition would be a problem. Of course, you're not arguing for prohibition, but I just want to bring up this information anyway.