Only as long as she doesn't try to force them down anyone's throat.

I'm going to write this in bold to make sure you read it.

NOBODY IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS, JUST YOUR EASE OF PROCURING THEM!!!!!!
Guns make it easy to kill other people. That is a simple fact, and it's provable. That's what I work with, facts. And the facts show that countries with less access to guns have less murders. Now, in the countryside, sure, you don't have the kinds of stresses and poverty that we have in the city. But that doesn't prevent those guns from going into the city.

The same way that people drive to New Hampshire before 4th of July to buy fireworks and bring them to Boston, people drive to gun shows, buy them without any background check and then sell them to gangs in the city. Just because life is good for you doesn't mean it's our fault. Guns do in fact increase crime. I don't have the statistics  though they are available, but the mere presence of a gun increases chances of deadly incidentsthat would otherwise not be.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=presence+of+a+gun+increases+death&btnG=Search

NObody is saying you can't protect yourselves, but are you really so scared that you need to be able to get a gun within an hour's notice, putting thousands upon thousands of other people at risk by people who order guns off the internet?

Mafoo, that was pretty dumb. Your logic would lead someone to believe that a person could be completely pure, but once they get a gun, they decide to kill someone. Gun control is designed to make it harder for people with intent to get guns. And crimes in rural areas are harder to track anyways. If a gunshot goes off in a major city, you can bet that any of the houses in earshot will hear it. But rural areas? Not as likely.

Guns are not the reason people kill. That's like saying cake is why people eat. But cake is a good food, and guns are a damn good way of killing someone.

Cake is a damn good way of getting fat. Before you know it more than half your population will get fat. Oh wait....

Your point is moot and I refuse to believe your point unless you can find me a graph demonstrating a direct correlation between the production of cake and the average weight of Americans lol

What? That’s the exact opposite of my point. My point is people are going to kill or not kill regardless of a gun. A gun does not make one more or less likely to want to kill someone.

I have a 3000 pound object that goes over 100 miles an hour. If I wanted to kill someone, I sure as hell don’t need a gun.

The problem is what motivates people in this country to want to kill? Work towards getting rid of that, and forget about the guns.

I agree with this to a point.  Just removing guns is not alone going to fix the problem. I would argue that it is a part of the problem, but agree that it's not THE problem.   However, if you are going to say poverty, poor education and the drug trade are contributors to a high murder rate, couldn't you also concede that ease of access to guns is also possibly part of it? 

The question is, would the amount that it helps be worth taking away people's "right to bear arms"?, which is, admittedly, a frightfully hard question to answer.

Having said that, whoever pulled the stat earlier comparing the homicide rate in the USA with Europe (instead of North America versus Europe or America versus another country) did their argument an injustice.  A quick glance at the stats would show you that the only reason Europe's average is comparitively high is because of the exhorbitently high murder rates in Russia and relatively high murder rates in the former soviet states.  If you look a the homicide rate in central and western Europe it is less than a 1/3 of the US's rate.   Maybe i'm wrong, but surely it's can't be considered a good thing that the US has to compare itself to Eastern Europe and Russia for a favourable comparison, it wouldn't be done in any other argument so why here.

lol @ hsrob
I had the exact same argument about using moldova and lithuania and countries like that and I got this from mafoo lol

"So you want to cherry pick the countries with gun control that have low murder rates, and then say "look, get rid of the guns and murder will go down".

Sorry, it doesn't work that way."

Cherry picking is the most overused expression on this site and is often used by people who just want to make gross generalisations and gloss over the details (This is not directed specifically at you Mafoo).

This is not a situation of one or two countries belying the trend, it's dichotomy between east and western Europe. It would be analogous to me saying there are high levels of gun violence in all parts of the US. Lumping Iowa and Louisiana together, you wouldn't be wrong in saying that they have a high average homicide rate, but of course it's an oversimplification as it fails to acknowledge that Louisiana's homicide rate is about ten times higher than Iowa.  We can't argue that Iowa is the average but it shouldn't called cherry picking if someone points out that Iowa has in fact a very low homicide rate and that maybe it's a good thing that other states aspire to be as safe.

Do you think that if there are more restrictions put on gun ownership, that's going to keep guns out of criminals' hands?  Sort of by definition, criminals aren't going to bother following the rules to get guns, they are going to own them illegally.  So with too many gun laws you're only hurting the vast majority, the law-abiding citizens who want nothing but to protect themselves in case of a robbery or something similar.  And imagine if EVERY household in a country contained a gun - do you really think that would be a detriment, when robbers are more reluctant to rob/mug/etc?

PS I'm not advocating that every household have a gun, clearly that's not prudent or feasible, it's just meant to be a thought experiment.