I view the situation exactly the same. Could you please explain with child-words so I can understand what is so murky about this logic?

WTF point are you trying to make? Crime is down because there are more guns? Just come out and say it instead of trying to beat around the bush.

I've used handguns a lot but don't have any kills. I must be doing it wrong.

I don't consider you compensating for your 'issues' a purpose. You feeling like a big boy at the range takes a back seat to innocent peoples' lives.

You can't wish or legislate the existence of guns away. We tried that, it didn't work especially well. Loosening guns laws hasn't increased crime.

My point is clear. Your argument about crime and gun availability isn't strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

Gun control was on the rise until the early 90s. It's been increasingly easy to get a gun since then early 90s.

Your argument about crime and total guns isn't that strong either since it's the same gun owners buying more death machines instead of an increase in percentage of households owning guns.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_firearms

Just because politicians are too scared to vote their conscience instead of doing whatever it takes to get re-elected. It doesn't mean the debate is lost. Polls indicated that 90% of all people were for more comprehensive background checks, and that couldn't get passed. That just shows our elected representative aren't doing their ****ing jobs.

Gun nuts are single issue ******s who have managed to block common sense reform. Conceded, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

JFC you are dense. Your point is clear as mud and I made no argument whatsoever about crime and gun availability.

Once again you won't state directly what your point is.

When you ask the public if they want 'universal background checks' to buy guns and don't explain what you mean, you get some stupid results. If you ask what the policy actually is, 'do you want a private citizen's to use a background check to transfer a gun in any way?' poll numbers will drop. How do you think the question will poll if it required the check for a friend to borrow your gun on a hunting trip? Or if the check cost a 100 dollars?

Using the term universal background check in a poll is a complete failure. The policy simply did not have that kind of support. This should be fairly obvious. Politicians doing whatever it takes to get re-elected would vote FOR the policy, not against it.

o rly?

Except the more damage simply isn't happening, over and over again.

.

lol ikes.

If your point is there is less crime because there are more guns, just say so.

5 mounties shot, 3 killed. Flags have been at half mast across the country since it happened. Public mourning across the country. A sad event that will never be forgotten. The last time something like this happened was 9 years ago in Mayerthorpe Alberta when 4 mounties were murdered. Also a well-known tragic event for Canadians. Police are rarely murdered here compared to the States, it's a very big deal. Vegas eh. I've been there a couple times, great times, but a sketchy town. I'm not surprised.

lol my point is clearly stated, you just don't like it.

So much this.

Where? I must have missed that post. Can you quote it for me?

I'll state what my point is:

Crime is dropping due to societal reasons that have nothing to do with gun availability. Since crime overall is dropping, gun crimes are dropping as well. However, someone is going to do more damage when they do commit a crime if they have a gun than they are going to do without one.

I think we can all agree that you can do more damage with a stick than a gun. You, however, seem to be arguing for the reduction of gun availability even though gun availability restriction levels aren't affecting crime levels.