I can tell you that it is very much real. But being that you don't care about what I have to say anyhow, I doubt you are going to be able to take my word for it, or even if I procured such a study.

I would like to know how you are so sure about criminals getting guns no matter what. Because it isn't true. These background checks are what would keep the guns out of the hands of others.

I don't think people should carry guns around with them.
The fact is that the mere presence of a weapon increases the chances of a deadly encounter. Think about road rage. It might end in a fistfight or a death, but think about if all those people had guns on them and what they would do.
It's naive to think the way you do.

 Varies. Some states you can get a carry permit. Most states you can't. Training courses and other things are mandated by different states I think.

it varies. Some states give you a hangun or rifle on the spot. The restrictions on these kinds of purchases is what has everyone up in arms and broncos you would do well to understand that this is where we're coming from. We don't care if you have your guns.
But it puts us at risk if your states just let anyone walk up and buy one.

Plus, carrying a gun around with you is ridiculous. I won't argue that point because it is an opinion. But its seriously stone-age man.

I said I believed you!  No need to get all defensive ;)

I view it as an analogy kinda.  If criminals are able to get other contraband such as illegal drugs, then I don't see what would stop them from illegally acquiring guns.

My opinion is that in public places concealed carry should be allowed.  You forget in your argument that the vast, vast majority of the public is responsible enough to own and operate a gun without hurting anyone.  It's just the inevitable, rare situations where people get hurt inadvertently that makes people think of the dangers of guns.  And in most situations, simply showing a criminal that you have a gun is enough; the safety lock could be on, or it could not be loaded, but the criminal doesn't know that and they're not likely to take any chances.

Plus, wouldn't the same fears exist for cars?  Cars are more deadly than guns and yet virtually everyone owns one and puts themselves on roads where they are way, way more likely to have a deadly encounter.

I don't see what's so good about having a 09/12/2001 mindset. We were only united in our shock, despair, and lust for revenge. And look where those got us.

Honestly, who knows what the true motives are for that site but I think it is good to remember how we all felt on 9/12 if for nothing else than simply so we don't let our guard down and let another 9/11 happen again.

@broncos it is much easier to kill someone with a gun, that much is certain. Allowing people to carry guns on the street is, problematic, to say the least. That's like saying, hey we don't need to put a warning label on microwaves because who is going to put an animal in there?
You have to think about those people who might forget to put the safety on. People who simply tuck it in their wasteband, dropping guns on the ground, a kid grabbing one while your not paying attention... the list goes on and on.

You have a lot of faith in the intelligence of people. If people were given the same privelages in the city as they do in the suburbs there would be even more violent gun related deaths.

Plus, like I said earlier, people buy these guns at gun shows with no background check. Convicted felons can get out of jail, go to one (which happen quite often mind you) and pick up a gun. It is common practice.

Personally, I think most people are just to emotional to have guns on a large scale. It seems like a good deterrent but I could easily see people demanding satisfaction, lol.

The people who lost on election night aren't in office.  The people who are in office actually won on election night and as such they do in fact have the right to form an opinion and vote based on that.  Like any person there are things they are willing to compromise and things they are not.  Why should they stop representing their districts and the people they serve because other states shifted their position? 

@gun control,

It's really very simple to me.  Screening for mental health problems or violent crime convictions is fine, but much beyond that and you're violating the 2nd amendment.  If some people think that is a problem then propose a constitutional amendment to change or abolish the 2nd to whatever effect that you can get three fourths of state legistlatures (or state conventions) to agree to.

The simple fact is that the 2nd amendment states pretty plainly that we have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.  The language is extremely explicit, and despite that people try to cloud the issue with a bunch of irrelevant non-sense about what harm guns are capable of. 

Well guess what, nobody is arguing that they are dangerous weapons... yes guns are good at killing people, they are designed to inflict damage at the whim of their wielder.  In the hands of the wrong people they can cause a lot of harm, particularly someone who is well trained and dedicated to his actions.  Stating this makes a good case for guns as effective weapons (and well trained soldiers as well).  This does not make a case for stripping a constitutionally protected right from the vast majority of people who do not abuse their rights. 

Your entire argument is to allow the minority to dictate through irrational and/or radical actions (that are illegal and already have laws to address those issues).  Your argument is that somehow the threat of this irrational minority is sufficient reason to deprive the majority who do not abuse the 2nd amendment.

The stats don't even back up the idea that gun control would matter (Source: Department of Justice):

What's more interesting is the way those weapons used in crimes were obtained:

In the report they were lumping the Retail, Pawn, Flea, and Gun show numbers together as one source (legitimate) and the Friends/Family & Street/Illegal together as another (illegitimate). The retail purchases of these criminals dropped from the last report which was 20.8% indicating that the folks who were stilling getting their weapon from a legitimate source started getting smarter and ~40% of them had found "an alternative acquisition methodology". These numbers get even worse for repeat offenders who are more likely to acquire the weapon through illegitimate means (only 11% purchase from legit retail).

Furthermore the data shows that when it comes to conventional semi-auto weapons only 16.5% are actually purchased through legitimate retail vendors.

These numbers very clearly indicate that taking away legal gun owners guns or prohobitively limiting their access to them would do very little to curb violent gun crimes because violent gun crimes are performed in the vast majority of cases with weapons that were never pruchased via a legitimate source.  Unless the more recent numbers show a dramatic reversal of these trends it looks like the problem is the illegal guns and further laws would have very little impact on the people it is intended to impact while having a large impact on the law abiding citizens.

Gun shows is your contention huh?  Sorry but the study I linked to above says only 0.8% of the people incarcerated actually purchased their weapon from a gun show.  Gun shows don't appear to be a very big problem compared to truly illegal sources.  Not quite so common =P

edit: PS - Just for the record I don't actually have a problem with background checks at a gun show (in favor actually), I'm just saying that it's not the big source of weapons for criminals you seem to think it is.