11yo shots grandmother in Arizona

Lamby, When my guns are taken away. So are my freedoms. When my guns are taken away, I could very well lose my life, My family could lose their lives, and Tens, if not hundreds of thousands will lose their lives, due to how many crimes they stop per year. If my car was taken away, I'd just run a few miles, or take a bus.

I don't think that everyone is getting what I'm trying to say, unless if it's lamby and ParadoxicalQ. ~w~

This was done in 5 seconds of google. And the only gun control that will actual have any measure of effect will be a total banning of guns, which obviously isn't going to happen nor should it. I live in the state with some of the most stict gun laws in the country and yet Camden and Jersey City have been murder capitals of the USA for the past few years.

see leo, i understand that to own your guns is a principle, and if someone took them away that would be breaking that principle, but tangibly nothing would happen compared to if someone took your car

Oof i can provide you more links with more number of deaths from guns -_- The numbers provided there were substantially small! Moreover i have provided the FBI's annual statistics which is more than enough to prove my point about the large difference in the lethality of guns and knives.

Lamby - the problem with Europe or even Canadian gun laws is that they are very restrictive to begin with. The ignorance and pure draconian restrictions placed by those laws and policies are completely unnecessary and don't address the problems really. I'm gonna flip this over to abortions and maybe you'll get just how restricted gun owners feel in America with these "common sense" restrictions. Canada / European level gun restrictions would be like telling an abortion activist (or anybody pro choice really) that..... (for the sake of my below content this is for *consensual* cases (no rape/incest or life of mother threatened) You can have your abortions buuuuuut *nothing past six weeks - period no if ands or buts *you must have consent of the father of the child (the man who impregnated you) *background check *drug screening *Only one abortion may be performed every 5 years and no more than three ever * Abortions must be performed at very specific locations (and these locations are limited and scarce) Furthermore the people who want these levels of restrictions can't tell the difference between a woman's uterus or her uvula. My point being to the very uneducated and those who have no interest in guns or their rights Canadian gun laws seem very "reasonable" however once you learn about America's history, the benefits / functions of guns, and just how restrictive these laws are they are anything but reasonable and "compromising". For example a registry serves one main purpose - a precursor to confiscation Why does a regulatory body need such great latitude to tell anybody what they do or do not need for defense or what situations they will be presented with? By "liberal enough" you mean it isn't an outright ban and that through some measures guns are in the hands of civilians but much of anything past that is purely speculative, up for debate, and subject to change. In the same way that banning any abortion past 6 weeks and only having one approved abortion clinic per state and the things I've hypothetically listed above isn't an "abortion ban" but try floating that kind of policy around in America and see if feminists don't burn half of America to the ground overnight.

If you look further into those FBI stats, you'll see where most of those gun related deaths occur. And many of those who commit the crimes are felons, whom can't own a gun legally. Or like in Chicago, strict gun law statutes, and people still get guns. Gun Control doesn't stop people who want to get firearms, from actually getting them. Again, it boils down to a cultural dilemma.

im gonna stop you right there another non argument >w> you gun toters do not understand what guns are if abortion is illegal and i got pregnant, needed an abortion, id A. die because the cancer treatment i needed would have killed the kid so i just have to die from the cancer along with my baby or B. raise a child i never wanted nor could have and they will most likely end up part of the crime statistic and fill those private owned prisons to make some rich company richer you lose your gun? you uh just have no gun >w> once again not a 1 to one comparison its not an argument

Lamby your ignorance is showing - taking away someones gun can do way more harm than "just upsetting someone". Take away a woman's gun and what could happen? Maybe her abusive controlling ex boyfriend feels more compelled to violate that restraining order to harm or kill her. To say that owning a gun is 100% principle is completely ignorant and shows a willful lack of knowledge and education on the matter. Take away a person's conceal and carry permit and you can affect a lot of things. You take away one of the greatest weapons and equalizers of a good Samaritan, you allow public shootings to be even deadlier because instead of someone on premise the crazed gunman is now unopposed until law enforcement arrives (translation: more deaths). Take away the civilians guns and the government is free to impose whatever sanctions and violate any right because - what are the civilians going to do now? Hell the removal of civilian guns has been a precursor to genocide and killings of millions.