in a way i understand the american notion of owning a gun. but im opposed to what shallow nonsensical reason some people are making up to justify it

in all honesty i dont know what its like to live in the us.. maybe there really is a need to own a gun for your own protection..maybe that is the case. what i do know that we dont have a need in europe, to think that every jock here would have a gun.. i would also feel the need for protection

but what i really think is a abomination are people who carry them in public since concealed carry is prohibited in many states.. they get to openly carry them and i dont think that is necessary unless you are in a really really bad neighbourhood

some might say its for safety.. i can understand a gun at home.. more or less but guns in public i cant, it makes people around you feel uneasy because they have no idea whats going on in your head because they dont know you, its not like were in isreal where people in some areas are indeed under a constant thread

to me its just no part of being a civil soceity

and frankly i find it ..strange that just anyone who passes some background check can purchase a gun and do as he or she pleases ... around here you have to be over 21 and a member of either the huntsmen society ,the sport shooting organisation or the policeforce..otherwise its nigh impossible for any healthy sane person to aquite a gun..but like it said there is no need

What about this most recent German shooting? What about the Indian massacre? It's not like even banning guns is preventing this stuff from happening. Also, could you point out to, where in the story, that this gentleman passed the required background checks to obtain the weaponry to use in the attack?

Mise, drunk driving kills 35% more people as firearms do each year (less suicides). Second hand smoking kills 3x more non-smokers per year (innocents) than firearms do. You cannot say firearms are more dangerous, because they are  not, statistically. A car driven by an alcholic is far more dangerous than a citizen with a firearm. Same goes for a person with a cigarette.

And I can use the same logic of you not owning a gun effecting your life, as me saying not smoking or drinking has effected my life. If your responsible with alcohol, and follow the rules, deaths do not occur. Of course, if your irresponsible, bad things happen. The same goes for driving, smoking, and firearms. Yet again, one has far more legislation against it despite the fact that it does not cause more deaths than drunk driving or second hand smoke.

Here are the numbers, in case you wonder:

• 12,819 Gun related deaths in 2004, less gun-related suicides
• 50,000 Second hand smoke related deaths. Non-smokers, BTW.
• 16,919 Drunk Driving related deaths in 2004.

Now, how can you tell me that guns are 'worse' when fewer die vs. other items that kill more innocent people per year? Sure, the concept of firearms may be disconcerning to you but that doesn't mean it's statistically true.

Terislb, the reason that firearms are so near and dear to the American public has to due with the repressive government that was over our country in the early years of our formation. The founding fathers realized that any government can become tyrannical, and the only way to revolt against such a government is through a well-organized militia, and responsible US citizens. It is a huge burden on the American people to shoulder such a responsibility, but unlike other governments in the past 200-300 years, we would rather have the government fear the people, no matter how noble it is, than the people fear the government.

^Just because it doesn't prevent one or two incidents, doesn't mean it hasn't prevented 10.

You are correct. However, if you want to play that game, I'd love to ask you how many countries with armed populace(s) have seen their government impose a horrific, tyrannical government on themselves, and purged the armed populace. If you like, I can start with Mao, Lenin, and Hitler's purges of an unarmed populace.

Also, if Mr. Brown was able to suspend parliment and institute a dictatorship in England, what would you prefer to be? Armed, or unarmed?

Didn't we consider ourselves Westernized because we have stable enough countries not to worry about things like that?

He used an AK47.  So uhh... what are you talking about?

This is actually proof that gun laws are useless.

Anyone who wants a gun legal or illegal can get one.

Just like how peopel in the US don't have access to drugs do to all of our crack anti-drug laws?

 Fortunately, Mr. Brown doesn't have that kind of power, so it would never happen. That, and the fact that the Government/Parliament have no control over the police, so they wouldn't be able to enforce it.

And, don't hold me to this, but guns were a lot more easily accessible 30, 40-50 years ago, so the situations like Hitler were completely different - the UK's gun laws were very similar to that of the US's back during WWII, I see no reason why Germany would have been different. (Also, an interesting thing to note about the UK is that the gun laws only changed because the people forced the Government to, not because the Government forced the people).

ok are you suggesting that

a) said "tyrannical" regimes could have been avoided if people had guns?

b) you are comparing your own situation to that of a opressed citizen of said regime because someone wants to take your guns from you?

i can assure you it wasnt the lack of arms that kept those people in power.  after a long civil war in both russia and china ,and the chinese fight against japanese occupation.  there was surely no lack of em

as for germany there have been 42 attempts to assassinate hitler.. many of them included explosives.. i would say if one can get explosives.. one can also get a pistol or rifle...  there simply was no motivation to do so

so why did those people in china and russia fight the old regime of loyalists to the czar and of the natiolalists of chai kai sheck.. but not mao or stalin?

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.