Gun ownership thread #2323344

[McGunnin]

thats the point, they dont want you to defend yourself.

Right. Because if the U.S. military, or even the police, decided to come after me, a couple 9mm's and a hunting rifle would totally save me. Also, strict gun laws do in fact result in less gun crime, so you're much less likely to be shot by a criminal with the gun laws than you are without.

The right to own and operate firearms has nothing to do with personal safety. People are much, much safer without guns.

I know that european countries allow citizen to own low powered, single shot weapons that are completely ineffective for self defense, so they are completely irrelevant.

I'm sure you're intimately familiar with the gun control laws of every single nation in Europe. Although by the way you speak you seem to be unaware that Europe consists of many different countries all with their own, differing laws.

Oh, and one last thing: did you know the second amendment was intended to allow local militias to equip themselves? The intent was not to allow nutty fanaticals with delusions of fending off an army from their front porch to stockpile weapons they have no real need or use for.

You are just plain wrong, wrong on so many levels and full of such stupidity and ignorance that I am not going to waste my time responding to, and destroying, every single comment you have made.

Rather than daring me to destroy just take about 10 minutes on google with a open mind and do your own research.

 

[cronicler]

Dont Double Post!
(And now personal opinions)
Anyway to the meat of this debate;
The first thing you should remember is the guns purpose; a civilian will not need some types of guns. A submachine gun is a good example for this.

There are 2 sides to gun ownership and it is basically based on where you live. If you live in a rural or semi rural area, there will be times you will need guns up to and including long-guns. And frankly a person who has been taught/drilled gun safety is much more reliable than any machette/axe/club wielding idiot.
The first rule is pretty simple, if you are pulling your gun, blood WILL be sprayed and you will either be hurt and in shitcreek, or you will be in shitcreek.

However there is another side to this debate. A lot of people are living in Heavy population, Metropolis areas and in such envirolments letting people own anything heavier than handguns is really not an option unless they hunt or practice in a gun club semi-regularly. Even then those long-arms should be secured in residence (High speed bullet penetration of targets and walls is a very serious issue.)

Shotguns with special loads can be used in such envirolments too but long-arm in an apartment... well i dont think it is a good idea.

For the handguns; actually i feel for a handgun the placement of the shot outweighs the sheer stopping power. Yes a .44 or smilar heavy bullet is likely to put your target into bullet-shock but that bullet will probably go thru a few walls before it stops. I belive a fragmenting medium caliber pistol round is the best bet for a gun in the house (in a high density population area.)

-A pistol has an effective range about 5-10 meters (on the hands of a non-crack shooter average person under stress) However you need to be in close combat or very close to be able to use Mace/Pepper Spray/Stabbing Tazer
(I havent seen any reliable gun-tazer in Turkey so i can't comment on it)

 

[DammitBoy]

its impossible to argue with db since he is trolling for so long now thats all he can do anymore. hes like a fanatic minus the cause

see? SEE?

Horst quit being such a nazi. I'm not trolling on this topic and you damn well know it.

I realize you can explain this topic over and over, but you can't make sheep understand it and that's really the difference here.

Those of us who are independent and refuse to be lead by a collar cannot fathom why so many wish to be sheep.

I'll never trust the safety of myself or my family or even my property to the government - which is at least going to be 15 minutes too late to be of any help.

Those that do, deserve what they get.

 

[McGunnin]

its impossible to argue with db since he is trolling for so long now thats all he can do anymore. hes like a fanatic minus the cause

see? SEE?

Horst quit being such a nazi. I'm not trolling on this topic and you damn well know it.

I realize you can explain this topic over and over, but you can't make sheep understand it and that's really the difference here.

Those of us who are independent and refuse to be lead by a collar cannot fathom why so many wish to be sheep.

I'll never trust the safety of myself or my family or even my property to the government - which is at least going to be 15 minutes too late to be of any help.

Those that do, deserve what they get.

All you have to do is look at the differences of the quality of life between social/communist nations and free nations.

I like a lot of European's but man, it is unbelievable how brain washed they have become.

 

[cronicler]

DB, MG you need to remember the little fact that most of Europe is safe if we are to go by generic US standarts. Yes you might still be mugged /ganged upon if you are sleeping on your feet but for the most part you can just go low-threat mode while you are in the country-side. And speaking as a Euro-Rail(er) i (and my 2 pals) had less time spent camping out in the street than being invited to someones spare room just with a 35 cl of raki (a fermented Ouzo or Sake like drink made mainly of Anise) Yes you can still hit trouble but i found my trip somewhat safe and the general feeling was trusting...

In US guns are a deterrant. In Central/Western Eu, you dont really need much besides your fists unless you are going solo into every red-light district. (Eastern Eu is more violent i think. havent been to Ex-Iron Curtain except Balkans personally. Dont even make me start on Balkans or Russia...)

 

[McGunnin]

DB, MG you need to remember the little fact that most of Europe is safe if we are to go by generic US standarts. Yes you might still be mugged /ganged upon if you are sleeping on your feet but for the most part you can just go low-threat mode while you are in the country-side. And speaking as a Euro-Rail(er) i (and my 2 pals) had less time spent camping out in the street than being invited to someones spare room just with a 35 cl of raki (a fermented Ouzo or Sake like drink made mainly of Anise) Yes you can still hit trouble but i found my trip somewhat safe and the general feeling was trusting...

In US guns are a deterrant. In Central/Western Eu, you dont really need much besides your fists unless you are going solo into every red-light district. (Eastern Eu is more violent i think. havent been to Ex-Iron Curtain except Balkans personally. Dont even make me start on Balkans or Russia...)

Except for the fact EU has a higher murder rate over all than the US.

 

[Alphadrop]

It does? Where is the evidence?

 

[DammitBoy]

I think we're done here. horst, collect samples, then meet me back in the lab for debriefing.

This thread is about owning guns. I posted a list of great reasons to own guns.

It's a shame you couldn't stop jacking off to furry porn long enough to mount even a feeble response to the points I brought forth in my post.

ps - debriefing horst probably belongs in some other kinda thread, maybe a nambla thread?

 

[Tagaziel]

ps - debriefing horst probably belongs in some other kinda thread, maybe a nambla thread?

DO share your experiences with us, DB.

 

[Blakut]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Map-world-murder-rate.svg
This is what Wikipedia tells me about murder rates.

In my country guns are illegal. This doesn't mean that criminals have guns. They don't really, guns are rare even among them. Only the mafia has some guns, but what mobster doesn't? If a criminal has a gun and uses it, he's kinda caught, because the cops will be looking for him like he's the most wanted, so that's a big deterrent.

I'd love to own a gun, i read about them all the time, but the law won't let me. What bothers me is that politicians and rich people can have guns too and i can't.
Sure, if they gave guns to people like in the states, the population of my country would be halved over night. Which is not such a bad thing, come to think of it.

I can't imagine living in a country where everyone has a gun. The idea that every guy on the street can have a revolver in his pocket seems pretty scary to me. Sounds like anyone can shoot everyone.
If i'll go to the state i'll probably wear some body armor or something. Where i live, pepper spray is enough of a weapon to be safe.

 

[DammitBoy]

Gotta love England. First they outlaw hunks of metal that do bad things (guns).

Now, they are talking about outlawing other hunks of metal that do bad things (knives).

Next on the list? Maybe bicycles or skateboards...

 

[Hoxie]

Man, people wonder why some other countries have so many more people, it's because they usually live to be older than 30, they don't have morons blasting each other left and right because they wore the wrong color hat or the wrong style of shoes.

 

[DammitBoy]

ps - debriefing horst probably belongs in some other kinda thread, maybe a nambla thread?

DO share your experiences with us, DB.

Wait, this is a trick right? Isn't it against the rules to reveal all those pm's you sent me asking to gargle my cum?

Very clever mod-boy, but you won't trick me into getting banned.

---

Have you taken the time to review the great reasons to own guns I posted yet? Still waiting for you to actually post on topic...

 

[SuAside]

No, that quote is bullshit. Sorry for being direct, but that quote has no place in modern 21st century society

what? M.A.D. didn't protect your ass the last 30 years?

fuck off, seriously. you have no fucking clue. yes, the world is evolving, but no, it's not a place you want to be unprepared in. you've lived sheltered all your life and really don't realise what it takes...

the quote still has a very clear place in our world.

And I don't think you actually grasp the reasoning here - people who have real need can get a permit; those who don't have a significantly harder time getting one and usually get LTL tools, which are just as, if not more effective.

you have to know you're in danger in your reasoning, dumbass.

[spoiler:2d445c8f38]A CRIMINAL USUALLY DOESN'T ANNOUNCE HIMSELF.[/spoiler:2d445c8f38]

because, you know, if they did, they'd all be sitting in jail.

as for the LTL tools being more effective, allow me to laugh in your ignorant face. you do realise why cops don't carry LTL as their primary weapons right? why nearly no army even has it in their standard equipment?

Assuming that the criminal is a moron and attacks head on or behaves conspicuously that is.

a majority of muggers do ask for money first, you know... a fair share of the burglaries are 'hot' meaning the people are in their home as they get burgled.

just to name 2 examples. seriously, use your brain.

Limiting proliferation of firearms isn't retardation.

and why exactly is regulated proliferation bad?

strict firearm legislation in the UK and Australia caused an explosion in crime. easing up firearms laws in Belgium had no negative effect.

while that doesn't mean this will always be the case, it does clearly show that limiting proliferation CAN INDEED BE BAD.

Anyone can have a bad day and become a danger to society. Besides:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4755143.stm

As an example of what "gun culture" potentially leads to.

lol
[spoiler:2d445c8f38]Switzerland still has less murders than you do, while all reservists (about 1 per family) own a fully automatic firearm and where sport shooting is national sport.[/spoiler:2d445c8f38]

you also realise that the same family murders happen without guns, right? not so long ago a mother called her kids into a room one by one and slit their throats. she then sliced her wrists. i'd prefer to be shot in the friggin' head than have my throat cut, seriously. weapons are tools, so are many other things. limiting firearms won't limit murders. hell, in quite some cases it does the exact opposite.

EDIT: Found the picture that illustrates the point:

and what point is that? the guy likes his Sig 552. so what?

some people take family pictures with their goddamn electric trains, this guy does with his gun. so fucking what?

Ah yes, the famous "gun nut" civil manner of speaking.

irrelevant to the subject.

There is a difference between a cop and a civilian, and it's very basic. A cop is a cop, and it's in his job description to get into situation most civilians don't get into, usually not once in their lives.

Please come up with a more valid comparison, Sue.

I think we've also covered this in our discussion with Yamu.

why does a person carry a concealed weapon? because a cop is kinda heavy to carry inside your pocket...

when are you going to realise that cops usually aren't there when you need them? criminals that make a habbit if doing their thing around cops usually don't last long...

EDIT: Wait... .50 caliber sniper rifles are available for purchase in the United States?

sure. why wouldn't they be?


@cronicler:

a 9x19mm FMJ from a Glock pistol penetrates walls better than a 5.56x45mm FMJ from an M16. that's no bullshit.

and any person with decent firearms training can fire easily up to 50m with a pistol. it pretty much never happens irl however, because at that range, you usually don't need to defend yourself in such a way.

I like a lot of European's but man, it is unbelievable how brain washed they have become.

dont generalise...

DB, MG you need to remember the little fact that most of Europe is safe if we are to go by generic US standarts. Yes you might still be mugged /ganged upon if you are sleeping on your feet but for the most part you can just go low-threat mode while you are in the country-side. And speaking as a Euro-Rail(er) i (and my 2 pals) had less time spent camping out in the street than being invited to someones spare room just with a 35 cl of raki (a fermented Ouzo or Sake like drink made mainly of Anise) Yes you can still hit trouble but i found my trip somewhat safe and the general feeling was trusting...

In US guns are a deterrant. In Central/Western Eu, you dont really need much besides your fists unless you are going solo into every red-light district. (Eastern Eu is more violent i think. havent been to Ex-Iron Curtain except Balkans personally. Dont even make me start on Balkans or Russia...)

as if gunownership revolves solely around concealed carry and protection...

This is what Wikipedia tells me about murder rates.

do note that these kind of graphs usually also include suicides with weapons.

 

[Tagaziel]

what? M.A.D. didn't protect your ass the last 30 years?

fuck off, seriously. you have no fucking clue. yes, the world is evolving, but no, it's not a place you want to be unprepared in. you've lived sheltered all your life and really don't realise what it takes...

the quote still has a very clear place in our world.

No, actually, it doesn't. Name me how does it apply to the modern world?

And sorry, I'm not paranoidal. And imagine that I know what it takes. A firearm is definitely not one of things that are essential.

you have to know you're in danger in your reasoning, dumbass.

[spoiler:d3b795d97b]A CRIMINAL USUALLY DOESN'T ANNOUNCE HIMSELF.[/spoiler:d3b795d97b]

because, you know, if they did, they'd all be sitting in jail.

So how is a firearm going to make you more aware?

as for the LTL tools being more effective, allow me to laugh in your ignorant face. you do realise why cops don't carry LTL as their primary weapons right? why nearly no army even has it in their standard equipment?

Let's see, because the police and the army do things civilians don't?

a majority of muggers do ask for money first, you know... a fair share of the burglaries are 'hot' meaning the people are in their home as they get burgled.

"Fair" doesn't equal "most".

and why exactly is regulated proliferation bad?

strict firearm legislation in the UK and Australia caused an explosion in crime. easing up firearms laws in Belgium had no negative effect.

while that doesn't mean this will always be the case, it does clearly show that limiting proliferation CAN INDEED BE BAD.

Or maybe it's because that's beause UK has a high rate of immigration, with many immigrants unqualified, inevitably causing many of them to turn to crime?

This is not something guns can fix - progressive policies can.

lol
[spoiler:d3b795d97b]Switzerland still has less murders than you do, while all reservists (about 1 per family) own a fully automatic firearm and where sport shooting is national sport.[/spoiler:d3b795d97b]

you also realise that the same family murders happen without guns, right? not so long ago a mother called her kids into a room one by one and slit their throats. she then sliced her wrists. i'd prefer to be shot in the friggin' head than have my throat cut, seriously. weapons are tools, so are many other things. limiting firearms won't limit murders. hell, in quite some cases it does the exact opposite.

Did it occur to you that Switzerland is significantly smaller and more developed than Poland, and that there is a significantly different military system there?

You don't seem to grasp the point that guns escalate existing problems. It's kind of like putting a can of petrol next to a powder keg.

and what point is that? the guy likes his Sig 552. so what?

some people take family pictures with their goddamn electric trains, this guy does with his gun. so fucking what?

Somehow, I knew that you're going to miss where the gun barrel ends - right at the wife's cheek.

irrelevant to the subject.

Relevant, because resorting to insults is a sign of failing argumentation.

why does a person carry a concealed weapon? because a cop is kinda heavy to carry inside your pocket...

See, that's propaganda.

when are you going to realise that cops usually aren't there when you need them? criminals that make a habbit if doing their thing around cops usually don't last long...

As someone said, Europe is pretty safe. Where do you live, by the way? Judging by your posts, you live somewhere in the middle of Baghdad, and have to kill a few hundred insurgents during your daily trip to your workplace, in addition to fending off hordes of armed mutated freaks wanting your wallet.

sure. why wouldn't they be?

Let's see: because it's a national security threat? You're handing out anti-materiel rifles to people not qualified to operate them.

I assume you won't understand the point.

 

[Blakut]

It takes a lot of guts to kill someone. With a gun, i think it's simpler. In my country, where guns are illegal almost for everyone, neighborhood gangs fight with swords. The death rate of innocent bystanders is zero in those cases, and the people who die from sword fights are a few, because it takes a lot of guts to chop someones head off with a sword.

In the country side people use bare hands, scythes, hayforks, axes or knives to atack each other. Many attacks involve large amounts of alcohol being consumed, then people arguing about stupid things. Who can do more damage, a drunk with a gun or a drunk with knife? These cases rarely end up with deaths, most of the time people get wounded. Just because you have to strike someone a lot with a knife to kill him right away (of course, you might get lucky and cut an artery or something).

It is true that guns are just tools. But they are tools that facilitate killing. Knives, axes, they all have their separate uses, of course.

I'm not against giving guns to people, i just think that not everyone should have them.

 

[SuAside]

No, actually, it doesn't. Name me how does it apply to the modern world?

And sorry, I'm not paranoidal.

no, you're just blatantly and obnoxiously naive it seems...

And imagine that I know what it takes. A firearm is definitely not one of things that are essential.

i never said a firearm is essential to own, did i?

but it's also not essential for you to own a car, a home, etc.

So how is a firearm going to make you more aware?

it doesn't and i never said it did. it just gives you more options when you have to defend yourself.

Let's see, because the police and the army do things civilians don't?

cops are there to serve and protect (mostly). why wouldn't a civilian be able to protect others as well?

"Fair" doesn't equal "most".

your point being? if gun ownership saves one more life than it costs, it was worth it.

Or maybe it's because that's beause UK has a high rate of immigration, with many immigrants unqualified, inevitably causing many of them to turn to crime?

This is not something guns can fix - progressive policies can.

like that guy that shot a burglar (his 3rd that month) and sits now in jail for manslaughter, right? currently being sued by the accomplice who was shot but only wounded?

sorry sport, but if all people defended their house in the way that poor dude did, there'd be a lot less home invasions...

Did it occur to you that Switzerland is significantly smaller and more developed than Poland, and that there is a significantly different military system there?

You don't seem to grasp the point that guns escalate existing problems. It's kind of like putting a can of petrol next to a powder keg.

and now you get to explain to me, why the fuck me owning a gun would escalate ANY problem.

go ahead. try.

Somehow, I knew that you're going to miss where the gun barrel ends - right at the wife's cheek.

yeah, i'm sure he's posing with a loaded weapon.

also, his finger aint nowhere near the trigger.

not to mention you've got a depth perception problem. maybe because furfags can only see 2D?

irrelevant to the subject.

Relevant, because resorting to insults is a sign of failing argumentation.

bullocks. insults do not magically remove points made or arguments given.

it only makes a discussion less respectful.

See, that's propaganda.

it's also true. wouldn't you like to have a cop by your side all the time? i'd gladly drive the speed limit for this benefit.

As someone said, Europe is pretty safe. Where do you live, by the way? Judging by your posts, you live somewhere in the middle of Baghdad, and have to kill a few hundred insurgents during your daily trip to your workplace, in addition to fending off hordes of armed mutated freaks wanting your wallet.

haha, how could you fucking miss the fact that:
1) i own no guns for the purpose of self-defense.
2) i would likely never concealed carry a gun even if i was allowed to.

as for where i live, it's Belgium. and i usually walk to work through some of the shittiest parts of Antwerp (when i come with the train). and i've never felt unsafe enough to consider doing otherwise.

Let's see: because it's a national security threat? You're handing out anti-materiel rifles to people not qualified to operate them.

I assume you won't understand the point.

and now you get to show me how often these evil "anti-materiel rifles" (which is a bullshit term btw) are used in crime.

go ahead, kid. do your worst.

i'll tell you: a dildo is used more often in crime than an anti-material rifle is.

Many attacks involve large amounts of alcohol being consumed, then people arguing about stupid things. Who can do more damage, a drunk with a gun or a drunk with knife?

i'm going to suggest something insane here, but, how about regulating the (partial) source of the problem better?

seems to me like you fellows have an alcohol problem, not a weapon problem.

These cases rarely end up with deaths, most of the time people get wounded. Just because you have to strike someone a lot with a knife to kill him right away (of course, you might get lucky and cut an artery or something).

haha, no.

seriously, knives are a lot more dangerous than you seem to think...

It is true that guns are just tools. But they are tools that facilitate killing. Knives, axes, they all have their separate uses, of course.

guns have seperate uses, ye know. just sayin'.

I'm not against giving guns to people, i just think that not everyone should have them.

never said everyone should have guns.

 

[Tagaziel]

no, you're just blatantly and obnoxiously naive it seems...

More like, free from paranoia.

i never said a firearm is essential to own, did i?

but it's also not essential for you to own a car, a home, etc.

That's what you continue to imply.

Also, tools useful in everyday life =/= tools designed to maim and kill.

it doesn't and i never said it did. it just gives you more options when you have to defend yourself.

No, the question was "How does it make you more aware?"

It doesn't. So if someone got raped by someone they didn't notice, whether or not they owned a firearm is irrelevant.

cops are there to serve and protect (mostly). why wouldn't a civilian be able to protect others as well?

Because a civilian is that - a civilian.

your point being? if gun ownership saves one more life than it costs, it was worth it.

No.

like that guy that shot a burglar (his 3rd that month) and sits now in jail for manslaughter, right? currently being sued by the accomplice who was shot but only wounded?

sorry sport, but if all people defended their house in the way that poor dude did, there'd be a lot less home invasions...

How about you quote actual statistics for once, instead of twisting facts and words?

Also, isolated incident =/= general rule.

and now you get to explain to me, why the fuck me owning a gun would escalate ANY problem.

go ahead. try.

I take it you haven't read the article I linked to earlier. Won't bother restating my point.

yeah, i'm sure he's posing with a loaded weapon.

also, his finger aint nowhere near the trigger.

not to mention you've got a depth perception problem. maybe because furfags can only see 2D?

Ah, I knew you'd miss the point.

The point was, the presence of firearms in a household in Switzerland escalates existing familial problems.

bullocks. insults do not magically remove points made or arguments given.

it only makes a discussion less respectful.

I am respectful. Why can't you be?

it's also true. wouldn't you like to have a cop by your side all the time? i'd gladly drive the speed limit for this benefit.

You're operating on the assumption that you somehow need a cop by your side at all time.

haha, how could you fucking miss the fact that:
1) i own no guns for the purpose of self-defense.
2) i would likely never concealed carry a gun even if i was allowed to.

as for where i live, it's Belgium. and i usually walk to work through some of the shittiest parts of Antwerp (when i come with the train). and i've never felt unsafe enough to consider doing otherwise.

Then why are you rabidly attacking me for supporting limiting firearms proliferation?

No, seriously - you don't own a weapon, yet you claim to know everything on the subject. You wouldn't carry a weapon, yet you rabidly type in that it's the apex of personal protection.

and now you get to show me how often these evil "anti-materiel rifles" (which is a bullshit term btw) are used in crime.

go ahead, kid. do your worst.

i'll tell you: a dildo is used more often in crime than an anti-material rifle is.

If you don't grasp the concept of ".50 caliber military grade sniper rifle capable of damaging lightly armoured targets in civilian hands", I won't bother restating it to you.

I really find it funny that you behave like an American extreme right-wing gun nut, yet don't own a firearm nor want to own one. Hypocritical much?

 

[DammitBoy]

If you don't grasp the concept of ".50 caliber military grade sniper rifle capable of damaging lightly armoured targets in civilian hands", I won't bother restating it to you.

You keep using the word 'civilian' like it's a dirty word, as if it indicates a lack of understanding, or an inability to perform well, or something that is to be looked down upon.

I don't think you have a concept of what the word implies.

ci·vil·ian (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, a citizen.
2. Not in the military.

Please note that nowhere does the definition mention an inability to reason, act properly, or behave responsibly...

 

[Ah-Teen]

There are only two legitimate reasons to own firearms. Self defense and to over throw an oppressive or corrupt government.

I am so sick and tired of fucking retards and their slanted, biased, ignorant viewpoint about my personal ownership of guns.

Your weak brain can only come up with two legitimate reasons to own firearms? Really? You're that stupid and unimaginative?

Fuck you.

I can think of a dozen reasons without firing off two neurons and every single one is legitimate. Especially since your opinion of what is and isn't legitimate doesn't count for jack shit.

What counts is that, in the USA, my right to own can't be infringed upon. I personally don't care what any third world country (or any resident moron of said country) has to say about it.

First I'll respond to DB. I listed two very broad things, self defense, and revolt.

First I asked why we need it?
Hunting - population control for animals and enjoyment
Sport shooting - enjoyment and practice
Self-defense - To preserve your own life and the life of others
Revolt - to overthrow corrupt and/or oppressive governments
(I did however leave one out and I'll put that one out aswell)
Insurgency against invasion - to fight off foreign armies.

Then I myself, "Out of those, which ones do I need to do."

We don't need to do it to survive.

We don't need to enjoy it.

I believe you do need to be able to defend yourself.

I believe you need to hold the threat of viable revolt over your government, to insure that if you can no longer alter policy by words, or a large portion of the population believes that they are being ignored. You can dismantle the old system and create a new one of the design of the majority, such as America was founded on.

(you could contend that that isn't usually the case, and I'd agree with you. It is however the viable case, otherwise it is bad. I point out the Russian revolution. The Czar needed to be overthrown and was. But a minority grabbed power and instituted a government not favored by the majority.

Or at least thats how I understand it happend.)

You also need to be able to defend yourself from an aggressive foreign power. (This one is kinda borderline because we can do that with a standing army)

DB, you're an example of a person who has not matured to the point of owning a firearm.

You've said earliar (three pages worth now I think) that we've matured as a species to a point where we don't need firearms anymore. But then you say to DB that he isn't mature enough to own a firearm.

So you must be mature enough to have it. But to have it would be immature?

Just because he's a moron who can't create a credible argument doesn't mean he can't be safe with a weapon. In fact I'd probably trust DB to safely handle a weapon more than I would you, because he has experience with it and cares about it. Because he does care about it and because he uses it, he probably has developed rituals in order to safely use his weapon.

Little things like keeping your finger off the trigger. Treating it like it's dangerous even when unloaded and on safety. Being aware of what he is shooting at and more importantly what is behind it.

That last one I deal with a lot when I take people out shooting who've never shot before because they don't think about it. One of my professors who I asked to shoot with me(cause he was anti gun actually), one of the smartest men I've ever met. Set up a target on the top of a mound, behind which was a small town within the range of the gun pointed up at 45 degrees. He didn't understand why I kept telling him to bring it down until I reminded him that bullets are effected by gravity.

He was not accustomed to the realities what a gun is. What it can and cannot do.

Thats primaraly is where I think most of your arguments are flawed. You know it kills people. But that isn't accurate. A person can choose kill some one with a gun. A person can also likewise choose not to kill some one with a gun.

The person is the critical factor. A car can be unsafe in the hands of an inexperienced driver or a driver with the intent to cause damage.

When I get time I'm going to go through all of your argments and trash them. For now, I've got work.