You can hunt with a bow, and you can hunt with a crossbow, people did it for quite some time before guns were invented, so, noone would be interfering with peoples right to hunt.   Self-defense?  Well...I would argue that if people were so concerned with self defense, every single gun owner would learn some form of martial art...because you will run out of bullets at some point.  I'm not privy to the statistics, but I'm going to go ahead and guess most people who buy a gun with the sole purpose of self-defense, think it's a cureall, and personally I think that's a mistake.  You're not always going to have your gun ready, ammo isn't limitless, you will have to reload sometime etc...  Not everyone who carries is a marksman, nor are they trained to shoot under extreme circumstances (stress, adrenaline etc...)...

This site is not located in the US, if I'm not mistaken (England?), so I think it's rather fair to assume that many folks from Europe and abroad will bring comparisons to Europe as they aren't....Americans (And may never have been to America so have little understanding of it, other than what the news shows them).  Outside of this site, there are a number of individuals in the US who do make the comparisons, however, I think pointing out the differences is the way to go.  Why wouldn't such things work in the US, why is it different, how can we address those differences to create better policy that would help this issue.  Understand what I'm saying here?  I'm not saying believe what others say 100%, but, provide your critique on their message, and listen to their response.   If an argument cannot withstand critique, it's not a very good argument, afterall.  However, maybe, if we allow full and open debate on this, maybe we start making some headway.

Please don't think that I actually have all the answers here either, it's why I'm open to having the discussion.  Because I don't.  I just see what we're doing, and it's clearly not having an effect on anything but driving a wedge between Americans and pushing us further apart.  That's not productive, and if anything, does harm to the country as a whole.

Mexico technically is dangerous, however, it's the US' thirst for drugs that's made it that way.  So, the US can't cause the problems in Mexico, and then just say we need guns cause of Mexico!  I find that to be a poor argument.

That is a ridiculous argument. I never said that people can't hunt at all. Just that they can't hunt with guns. It is like saying that a ban of cars would not infringe on my right to freely transport myself because I can walk to anywhere I want to go, or ride a horse.  Rights can be separated into parts. Alright, that doesn't make it any less of an intrusion on one's right to self-defence.

Alright, and the critique was given. Firstly: it is untrue to say that mass shootings don't happen in Europe, they do. Charlie Hebdo is a recent example. Secondly, there is no conclusive correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. There have only been slight correlations in all studies, concluding either way. Socio-economics and diversity of population are much stronger factors. Thirdly, due to different socio-politics and different border relations, a one-size fits all, "U.S should ban guns" does not work. For starters, the number of guns in circulation, in the U.S, outnumber the number of guns in Europe and also the population of Americans (and this is despite Europe having twice the population.) Furthermore, there are considerably more people capable of producing weapons. A black market in the U.S would be very strong, and by limiting the ability of moral and lawful Americans from owning weapons you are creating an environment in which they are vulnerable to the use of force by others. If any country is comparable to the U.S in terms of gun-ownership it would be Mexico, as both countries face similar sources of crime. Mexico, contrast to the U.S, has very strict weapon regulations, nevertheless the crime rate in Mexico vastly exceeds that of the U.S (not because they ban guns, but despite the fact.) So there are a plethora of other issues an caustations that we need to address before gun ownership.

The biggest solution to this problem, as I had mentioned earlier, is the decriminalization of drugs (all drugs.) The U.S crime-rate and prison population would be halved, and the violent crime rate would have a significant decrease as well (as drug cartels have less power.) After this occurs, then we can possibly compare the U.S to Western Europe.

It's not really an argument, it's a statement of fact.  Guns are not a requirement for hunting, which was a direct critique upon your assertion that somehow it was, making arguments and then moving the goalposts isn't exactly the best way to discuss these things.  I'm not really sure the comparison to cars/horses is apt, while a bullet travels far, far faster than an arrow or bolt, in terms of how quickly it puts down an animal, you're not talking the difference between a car going from point A to point B, and a horse going from point A to point B.  Once you pull the trigger/release the arrow, in human terms, you're still field dressing a dead animal w/in the next 5 minutes (provided aim/accuracy etc...)

Yes, the critique was given, and that's how this debate needs to happen (which is me saying Good job).  A freeflow exchange of ideas, solutions etc...  not shutting down discussion or taking topics completely off the table.  The person who said mass shootings don't happen in Europe was clearly wrong, and I've never made that claim.  I also never said banning guns alone will fix this issue, so, sorry but I'm not really going to continue that line of thought.  It's nothing I've said, nor alluded to in any of my posts.

I would suggest going after the black markets, far, far harder.  Like, 1 strike and severe penalties.  Severe.  And I agree with legalizing all drugs, that would solve several problems.  As it stands now, with the legalization of Marijuana (fully or medicinal), most cartels in Mexico have already shifted to harder drugs, as they cannot compete with the price or quality in the US, and the profit margins just aren't there.  I would suggest we already have the evidence we need to support decriminalizing all drugs and putting the billions/year into treatment, education etc...

No, we're just next to Russia and have the issues in Ukraine. Then there's Libya and the short hop across the Mediterranean sea to Italy, Greece and Turkey. Oh, let's not forget the border with Iraq and Syria, those two countries where we're fighting ISIS.

But no, we've got nothing on the US/Mexican border...

I take it you don't know much about hunting. Bow hunting is a much harder task than hunting with a gun. It takes a lot of skill, only the most experienced hunters put the time and effort to learn it. This is also true of using a car versus. using a horse and buggy. One is much simpler and more efficient than the other. And no, unless you made the ridiculous logical assumption that I thought, for example, that guns are the only means to do these things, I am not moving my goalpost. I said what I meant, you are conflicting with ones right to these things by limiting how they can do it.

Severe penalities haven't really worked with anything else to be honest. And with the age of the internet, 3d printing, and a more decentralized economy in general, black markets are harder to control, not easier. The best thing to do is to give everybody the same power over their lives that those through the black market achieve. I agree 100% on the drug issue. Certain countries in Europe, like Portugal, did this ten years ago. And they noticed great affects. If we are going to compare the U.S and Europe on gun control, we should do the same with regards to drug criminialization, which is much harsher and counterproductive in the U.S.

Most of Western Europe is not next to Russia. If you want to make that comparison, I might as well throw in all of Central and South America. The distances between England and Russia is something like 3,000 miles. Meanwhile the distance from Pennsylvania and Columbia is 2,500 miles. Alaska is closer to much of Russia. ;) 

Anyway, I would argue that drug cartels are more responsible for criminal activity in the U.S than the Ukrainian civil war in most of Europe outside of Ukraine.

Your assumptions would be misplaced, and this isn't about me anymore than it's about you (which is why I'm not trying to attack your intelligence or experience, in any way...I would hope you would afford me the same courtesy).  It's about what's best for the Country.  Individuals find that quite often legislation is enacted/amended that doesn't specifically address their grievances, or impacts their lives in ways that aren't always beneficial.  That's called living in a society.  Give and take.  As far as hunting is concerned, the skill involved is irrelevant, there are alternatives to guns (That's not good enough for you, I understand that...it's how I feel though, so you know, it is what it is).  You also didn't address that it takes even MORE skill, to shoot straight under fire, to manage adrenaline and stress etc...  so there's that.   Deer, don't shoot back.

Again, I don't have all the answers, but I'm not entirely sure I believe that just arming everyone is the solution.  It also ignores several of the other issues I presented.  Remember, Adam Lanza killed his mother and took her guns, which were locked up.  So, even the black market solution isn't a cureall (just like I don't think arming everyone is a cureall either).  This is a complex issue, that requires more than just one fix.

Regardless, no matter that we disagree on certain points, this, what you and I have just done here, is what America needs most of all.  The ability to talk to each other, without flipping our shit, and just attacking each other.  I think the lack of ability to discuss these topics is a bigger threat to the country than anything else, frankly.

Using that logic I could easily say that New York isn't exactly next to Mexico either, but has its fair share of crime. Or that the bible belt shouldn't really count as part of the US stats as the culture is so different to the coastal states.

Europe is Europe, and the US is the US. Throughout history, and today geographically, it is far more vulnerable to violence from neighbouring states. Where do you think a large portion of terrorists come from? 

The border with Mexico doesn't really compare considering this is the same country where many go for Spring Break (don't see that happening in Ukraine, Libya, Iraq or Syria at the present time).

So now we come full circle to the topic at hand, because you're right, in most of Europe criminal activity isn't anywhere near as bad the gun crime/homicides you get via the Cartels even with the more dangerous neighbouring countries as we haven't had the huge gun culture the US has had over the years. Less guns coming in, less going out.

The effects of drug prohibition and cartels travel all the way to New York, however. That's a empirical dataset. Can the same be true with regards to Ukraine's civil war and London?

"From neighboring states" is the key word here. A lot of crime isn't commited by de jure states though, but by smaller organizations.

The question is how does the border affect crime rates. It isn't about where one will vacation to. The crime rates of the U.S are more influenced by Mexico's situation, than European countries with regards to Librya, Iraq, or Syria.

It has very little do do with "gun culture" and much more to do with power differences between those involved in the drug trade. Cartels are worst in "gun controlled" Mexico than they are in the U.S, for example.