You have failed to show that you comprehend the arguments brought forth again and again in this thread.

You have yet to present a coherent argument yourself.

You don't even understand what the conversation is about.

A real slippery slope. First they take away(*) the guns, then they will take away the bombs. Where will this madness end?

(*) and by "take away" I mean "institute some reasonable regulations"

The thread was started on the threat of the gov't taking away peoples guns was it not?

You can throw all the anecdotal evidence you want on why guns are not safe and present a danger. You still aren't ever going to over turn the 2nd Amendment. The SC time and time again sides with me.

If overall deaths decrease by a large degree increased stabbings and bombings would be an acceptable trade off, I think.

It's ok if you can't defend your position, just quit trying to say how guns are needed "because of reasons".

I bet if all those shootings were changed to stabbings, the mortality rate would drop drastically.

And bombings are so rare that tripling the rate would still be statistically insignificant.

We already had an epidemic of bombings. In 1972 there were over a thousand bombings a year. The biggest and deadliest were made with dynamite, which was easily bought over the counter or easily stolen from construction sites. The government was embarrassed and enacted laws that prohibited buying dynamite over the counter and required storing dynamite in ways that made it harder to steal.

And the amount of dynamite used in bombings dropped to non existent.

I'm going to assume that you weren't in NJ then, or that you were 14 a very long time ago, or both. Otherwise, I can't imagine you'd possibly need to hunt for sustenance.

As far as feeling manly, you in particular might not needs guns for that purpose, but it clearly is an issue with many hardcore 2A supporters. And there are plenty who are fully convinced that they're going to need to stave off a home invasion or government takeover imminently.

I'm sure you'll be able to show where other countries with reasonable gun control have had skyrocketing stabbings and bombings since they instituted the gun control measures. Start with Australia. Aaaaaaaand... go!

No no, see its you and your "I've never had a problem using my gun safely" that is anecdotal evidence. We've all presented actual real evidence that shows having a gun in your home makes you statistically less safe and more likely to be a victim of violence than if a gun isn't in your home.

You do understand the difference between scientific and anecdotal don't you?

About 90% backed some heavy restrictions right after Sandy Hook. So maybe like thirty people on the republican side alone want totally unrestricted 2a.

It isn't essential.

Maybe you're at the far right of the curve. Maybe your x axis isn't long enough and you'll shoot your wife during an argument or kill your kid coming home late etc eventually. Well never find out until its too late.

x axis is +50 kids have moved out of the house and I don't settle arguements or disagreements with violence. I came close to killing someone with my hands 30 years ago and I haven't hit anyone since (except a swat on the behind or a slap on the hand when the kids were young).

To me it is.

Both true, it's still nice to have the ability and means to be able to do so if I'm put in that position again.

I understand what your saying. I also realize that if you are raised and taught what a gun is used for and it's purpose you are less likely to be that victim.

Gotta love the corner rara backed himself into. When he said "some neighborhoods you need note than a shotgun or revolver" I think it was obvious he meant violent urban Chicago south side like neighborhoods. But he followed it up with saying that in rural areas the cops are 30 minutes away. And there's really no way to reconcile those two arguments.

There's that anecdotal evidence again. If you are sure that being raised and taught what a gun is lowers your chances of gun violence in the home when owning a gun, I am sure you should have no trouble finding actual evidence to back that up.

The problem is that you are falling onto the ole "Good guy with a gun" fallacy. Even if I grant your premise that people who are raised around guns and taught how to use them are less likely to commit gun violence, that is really only true until it isnt. Otherwise how do you square the circle of the guy who grows up around guns and learns to respect them and then kills his wife with one in a fit of rage? We know these things happen, at what point do these people go from good guys with a gun to bad guys with a gun? The second the trigger is pulled?

And if you had a gun with you at the time, you might have killed them. People aren't rational in the heat of the moment and a gun increases the violence possible. The majority of people in this country don't own a gun. I think they still have plenty of "liberty". Zombie apocalypse, understandable. Maybe it should be a requirement to own a gun you have to have some sort of training or take a safety class.

The answer to that is obviously yes Phil. Many mass shooters are "responsible gun owners" the day before.

I'm not Phil, but yes this is exactly my point.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/uncl...yI5Bk.facebook

Merry Christmas! May all your two year olds ever be shot in the face. Joy to the world.

There are several countries with gun bans etc that have violent crimes and bad guys and stuff like that.

Do you understand what stats and evidence are? The claim was that instituting gun control would lead to a large increase in stabbing and bombing deaths, and my challenge was that if that were true, there must be some evidence and stats that show that there were significant increases in stabbing and bombing deaths after gun control legislation passed in other countries.

Get it?

That looks like a case of copycating. Bombings still exist in this world w/o dynamite sticks. If somehow guns disappeared in the us bombings would become a legit security threat.

How do nations with gun bans still manage to have high violent crime like Britain Mexico and France. The US already has high violent crime without guns. Its only logical stabbings and stuff would replace gun crime. Are you going to eliminate all guns just to see a 3% drop in violent crime. How do you plan on using gun control on gang bangers who make up like 99.9% of gun deaths?

Show your work man. You don't get to just say "x will certainly happen" without showing instances where x currently happens