No..because i have guns:ak47:




:thumbsup

nah im from OZ and to be honest I think public opinion wold be hugely against any sort of laxing of gun laws. At the moment we are cruising (relatively) through the financial crisis on the backs of China buying all of our resources and are in the middle of a mining boom because of this.

I hope that given our support and sending of troops in every major US deployment since WW2 that if China decides to get nasty on us the US will be there to help us out :winkwink:

we are reasonably friendly with China and have a mutually beneficial relationship but if it came to that in future then ill welcome all the guns you guys can bbring :thumbsup

I'm a gun owner.

I love guns, knives, swords, and anything else I can legally get my hands on.

I've never shot or stabbed anyone. I'm also a responsible gun owner, and always keep my guns stored safely.

I'm not the only one either, there are many people just like me.

But not all of us are responsible and/or stable.

This presents a problem; You now have a lot of guns "on the street" which are owned by unstable and/or irresponsible people.

I'd say out of these two, the bigger problem lies with the irresponsible gun owners who do not safely store their guns.

Usually these people are also the ones who brag to friends about their collection, and then wonder why a few weeks later their house was been broken into, and their whole arsenal stolen.

Now you have guns on the black market, and in the hands of murderers and thieves.

The second problem is that certain states have gun laws that aren't tough enough to prevent unstable people to legally buy guns.

I think that Seung-Hui Cho's ability to get his hands on the guns that killed 32 people would be a good example of this.

I believe that incidents such as Columbine, Virginia tech, and all these other mass shootings would have been avoided if there weren't so many guns available.

One thing that you must take into consideration when discussion gun vs non-gun violence is the power that one gains when handling a gun.

A knife, bat, or car, when in the wrong hands, can be used as a deadly weapon, but none of these have the power of a gun.

When a gun is in someones hand they have the power to kill almost anyone within a few seconds.

This knowledge alone can really change the action that someone takes; especially when that person is unstable.

Why do you think that it is unlawful for someone to drink while carrying a gun?

Still...Guns have been used to kill, but they have also been used by civillians to save their own lives, and the lives of others.

I'm seeing a lot of people, in this thread, arguing about the complete abolition of the second amendment.

While this maybe the ultimate goal of anti-gun groups; it is not their argument.

They are fighting for stricter gun laws. Laws that will make it harder for people to get their hands on guns which can cause large amounts of carnage, and laws which further regulate the sale of ammunition.

Of course, these ideas are what gun advocates believe will lead to the total abolition of the second amendment.

So perhaps you all can argue these type of points instead, i.e. What's wrong with regulating the sale of handgun ammunition, by forcing each sale over 100 rounds to be documented and maintained, as in California's failed AB 962?

tl;dr - I don't think many people would have the balls to go into a school, and attempt to kill everyone there if they didn't have a gun, and the ones who did wouldn't be able to kill dozens of people before getting the shit beat out of them.

And in case you can't tell...I'm pro 2nd amendment, but I acknowledge the possibility that many of these mass murders wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for the ease of obtaining guns.