Now you again.

i wonder how many times i have run into the exact same debate.

end of story? that americans have a completly diffrent view on home protection.

hey, i dont have a problem with a rifle or a shotgun. why? they are big, and bulky. not something thats easy to conceal (alltho you could allways cut a shotgun down to size if you feel like it).

but i do have a problem with handguns and similar because they are made to be concealed (silly stuff like the desert eagle excluded).

and defending your home with a firearm? come on. unless your awake 24/7, or have a 50+ meter area around your house covered in motion sensors and maybe angry dogs your not likely to notice that they have broken in before they are in your bedroom. yep im going over the top here to make a point, watch the sparks fly.

and if they are showing up in the middle of the day then they are either so drugged up that they dont care, or aiming for a empty house. criminals are cowards, pure and simple.

and if anyone trys to guess, yep im european just like thom is. but im from a diffrent nation.

but all in all i dont have a problem with americans having liberal gun laws. just as long as they stay on their side of the atlantic ;)

Libertarian. Buzzword.

Interesting then, that I vote right-wing…

That’s typical left-wing right-wing rationale for you, privileging social control elistism over individual rights and freedom. You could just impose stricter licenses on firearms, or restricting their use locally on problem areas, but no, lets just ban them for the common good of society fatherland with gods blessing.

I’m a libertarian.

Exactly. Re-read my last post: “EXACTLY. What is easier– making mankind less stupid, or just prohibit guns altogether?

If someone shoots and kills a man, who do you blame; the person pulling the trigger, or the bullet? Obviously the shooter, right? Now, step two: what is easier to eradicate, the shooters, or the bullets?”

The right to bear arms is one of the founding principles of this country, and of course it’s also big business. I’m personally anti-gun, but hey if people want to go out and shoot people I’ll chalk it up to Darwinism. I say good riddance.

To obtain a a handgun in the states requires a vigorous background check now, as well as a mandated training program. Of course the black market is rampant, but I’m sure even in countries where firearms are prohibited by law it wouldn’t be too hard to obtain one if you knew where to look.

Michael Moore has been making movies since 1989. I’m sure you’ve heard of Roger and Me. I think he’s against the current administration from the beginning and painted as a leftist.

>Guns for ordinary civilians serve absolutely no purpeeose at all. >The only purpose is to kill and murder other human beings.

To Kill and Murder? I don’t own a gun or use a gun, but they can be used for hunting or defending yourself from people who break into your house.

A lesser purpose is to scare away intruders and wound, and yes kill those who are going to kill you.

I fired a handgun in my youth at a 2 liter bottle of water. I’m pretty sure my grandfather owns a gun and my grandmother on the other side. I don’t think either of them have actually used them to kill or maim anyone, nor has a child shot itself with either gun.

>But of course the most unbelievable fact is that the right to bear >arms is part of the… Constitution. A constitution that says it’s >ok >to murder and kill people (since that is the only purpose of firearms >in today’s world), that it is ok for untrained civilians, who >could be >mentally disturbed, lovesick, or whatever, to have weapons, just is >not a constitution to me.

My God, not the Constitution ! Did you ever think that over 200 years ago that this was needed to protect everyone from the British government?

Untrained civilians? Need I remind you there are licenses and permits for that very reason and that most people with guns know how to use them?

>why is America not safe?

Because Americas is bigger and more diverse than some tiny European country? If you weren’t so homogeneous I’m sure you would have more problems. It probably has to do with the failed drug war. I think people should be allowed to do all the drugs they want if they do so without harming others. Illegal drugs lead to illegal ways of getting money for them. I’m pretty sure we could have less crime with legal drugs.

We see what happens when guns go away. Criminals don’t care about the law anyway. If the Jews had guns, the Germans would have thought twice about trying to kill them all.

That is the ultimate purpose of guns, to protect yourself from the government, be it your own or another.

>… rocket propelled granades to kill deer

I’m pretty sure RPGs are illegal to own, so please check your facts before you post lies. If I’m wrong please feel free to mock me ;-)

Urban vs rural is a perfectly valid argument for guns, but a more valid reason is “because it is legal”

>So I guess what you’d in fact prefer, is anarchy? No government?

How about as less government as possible. I don’t like a nanny state telling me what I can or can’t do as long as it doesn’t harm others.

>The harder you make it to obtain a firearm, the less people will >own a firearm, the less people will shoot a firearm, the less people >get killed by firearms.

Don’t you mean the harder it is for normal law abiding citizens, it’s still easy for criminals to get them so more people are killed by criminals

>Even the most sane human being can easily fall into killing >someone, for instance, because of financial problems or love >sickness.

No not everyone is a killer I would never kill anyone for those reasons. There are plenty of Americans who go through their whole life with out becoming a murderer.

I wish there were no need for guns or drugs.

/not a gun owner