I grew up right outside of chicago. . The gangs go out of state or to gun shows to pick up guns, all places that don't regulate. Believe me, it's not hard to know where they get sh-t because they non-stop talk how cool they are. My best friends when i was a kid shot someone.

Don't believe me, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-07-22/news/9607220184_1_estrada-chest-thursday-night-round-lake-beach

Also the kid that did the movie theater shooting, Bought all his guns at a shop. He also wasn't allowed on campus cause of what he was telling his councelor. He was a loner and never would have got guns if the councelor had a way to flag his background check.

It won't be perfect but hey if you want perfect than  why try anything at all. Anything you do is not going to be perfect but you can make it better.

Drinking and driving deaths has went way down because we regulate it better with stiffer laws. I can't stand this logic people use. Well people will still get it, Yea but most that do mass shooting are loners and don't have connections. The laws are as such that the councelor that was seeing the kid that did the school shooting couldn't even ask if they had a gun in the house. If she was able to ask and tell the lady to lock it up or move the gun, than maybe that kid wouldn't have been able to get it.

IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE, THEN IT IS WORTH IT. Simple.

If you are not a bad person or a person with problems that might indicate that you might be a threat to others. What do you have to worry about? nothing, So the regulation won't affect law abiding citizens.

You're telling me that my opinion isn't grounded when it's reflective off your own statistics.

Yet your opinion is grounded, despite your opinion being different from your arguement.

There is no reason to encourage safe, non gun crazy nations to pick up arms. However restricting guns could help prevent homicides, because often times homicides are committed with a stolen gun which was at one point purchased legally.

A) Again, you failed to post an arguement. Is that statistic higher or lower then other countries? I'm extremely doubtful that 88% is the highest rate, and that that rate belongs to the USA.

B) Yea, that's just wrong, homicide rates (as you have shown) do not correlated with gun bans (homicides don't go up). However the homicide rate spiked in the 1930's, when Alcohol was banned. Banning alcohol has a negative effect, guns do not.

C) BS, This "fact" you speak of is your own opinion.

D) No it isn't if you bothered to read my post. You're response up to this point has just been random thoughts, not at all related to my comment? Why bother quoting me, if you're not going to say anything related to what you're quoting?

As for you're point on Japan, now you're just speaking jiberish. First of all, you're making a theoretical situation, with theoretical results, which Most non-Americans, or at least non-gun nuts would immediatly see just being silly. This is clearly your own opinion, not fact, and you're presenting it as if it's a grounded reason why to make more countries have guns. If you gave everyone in Japan a gun, criminals wouldn't stab people anymore, but they would shoot more people, more easily.

Just this logic is insane. Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Germany, among other countries, have the best economies in the world. Why are you trying to change their system, to mimic the inferior US system? Even if guns aren't the issue, you're arguement should be that USA should mimic Japans Education System, not have Japan mimic USA's gun policy and "See what happens."

I'm not going to continue debating with you. Whenever I introduce an arguement, you fail to counter. You still haven't defended against yourself for my claim of you being a hypocrite, and you clearly have a preconcieved view on weapons. You want more people to have more guns, when the evidence you have shown tells us that there is no benefit for a populationto carry or not to carry weapons.

As you have shown, countless times getting rid of guns, doesn't make things "less safe." It makes no difference in safety. Stop arguing a different point from your own statistics shown before. Stop being a hypocrite.

Every sate is different, but this is the general consensus.

O.J. Simpson won in the criminal court, but lost in the civil trial.

The reason for this is because generally criminal charges are laid when the defended is believed to be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" where civil courts only need you to "likely" be guilty.

Ok... at this point it's very obvious you clearly don't understand statistics in the slightetst. The theoretical was supposed to show you how when making comparisons between different socities people DO NOT use pure rank number to prove rank difference, they use change in statistics.

One more hyopthetical though, just in case you aren't being intentionally obtuse.  Say we're both private tutors.   I Get a straight B Student.  After my tutoring.  He remains a Straight B Student. 

You get a straight D Student.  After your tutroing he becomes a straight C Student.

According to all the logic you have laid out in this thread.   I am the better tutor then you.  My student gets straight B's.

If you REALLY can't see why your logic is flawed now.   There really is no hope for you.

B)  OJ Simpson was found innocent because it was the start of DNA Evidence and the time and nobody knew how much of a slam dunk DNA was.

Additionally there had been a recent race riot and a bit more or a race gap then usual at the time... and the main cop was a racist.  (A lot Black people cheered OJ's releaese)  Also the fact that the gloves "didn't fit" and nobody thought to explain that leather shrinks when wet.

If the same trial was held today, he'd be found guilty.

"Ok... at this point it's very obvious you clearly don't understand statistics in the slightetst."

This is my impression of you because your opinion is vastly different from what your stats show.

How is your student anology relevent? This is you again, totally ignoring my arguements and arguing with yourself....and then calling me ignorant. Well I guess when you ignore what everyone else says and listen to that little voice in your head which keeps reminding you "Guns are great, sqrew the stats, all I gotta prove is that they aren't bad, and then push for them", then everyone is ignorant to you.



As for OJ, I understand there is A LOT more complexitivity to the case then what I mentioned.

I was just using it as an example, at the time they couldn't prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (DNA testing wasn't a full proven science yet). So he got let off criminally, but still lost civilly, when the bulk of the evidence suggested his guilt.

It's interesting how you say that all Canadians agree with your stance...