= new reply since forum marked as read
If you keep dismissing the ideas that won't work, they'll run out of ideas....
Heh, if only....
Oh Diogenes, I'm sure you'll also find an honest man among our politicians as well.
"...severely restrict..." >> Yeah, that'll happen!
"...fewer guns..." >> No matter what fraction of what is now sold, 1/2, 1/10... how does selling even 1 more gun reduce the 280,000,000 now in private hands in the US? (more on this below under bogus logic)
"...making the rich a lot richer..." >> Anything that doesn't make opportunity level is hurtful in any sense. 
"...bogus logic..." >> That's me believing that someone who sees "fewer guns" as a solution to anything stopping their campaign of control anywhere along the spectrum where more guns are sold. 
No matter which days I missed in math class I know that as long as guns continue to be sold, the number in public hands will increase which the controllers say they are against. Therefore, they're lying. They want to confiscate guns.
"...Terrah watch list..." I bet Ted Kennedy is still on the list and he's dead.
Government is not the answer to every problem. Unless you believe that most people are selfish, antisocial, murdering thieves, the best hope for society is the liberty and respect we now have and any thing that will encourage and expand them. This permits each of us the fulfillment that comes from mutual respect and our individual pursuits for both singular and collective happiness. To quote Robert L Humphrey: "Wherever I walk, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there. Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend. Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there.... It's a better life!"
If you do believe that most people are selfish, antisocial, murdering thieves, your best course is probably to get a gun; take careful aim into your mouth and...
To quote Lord Acton: "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end."
Government is never a solution, only a compromise.
That is some AMAZING mind-reading you got going on there!
Another breathtakingly spin-filled post from a gun-religionist! They never end.
Who cares if he hates the NRA, it's the same argument. Your "point" about him not using the NRA "argument" since he hates the NRA is pure insanity - but then gun-religionists need every logical fallacy they can think of in their worship!
You are the only one proclaiming it's existance 
that feel like they need one. Yet, all they seem to do is go around the country writing Stand Your Ground laws for states (yeah count is now at 25 and most likely growing).
I dont care if people own guns, my grandfather did, and I have it locked up down my basement. He fought in WWI.
My father had it before I did, he fought in WWII. I have never shot anything over a BBgun and that is fine with me. Guns do not interest me in the least. I have better things to do with my money.
BUT your right to own guns stops the second an innocent person gets shot, killed, or worse. Do you need a gun? I dont know, but what I do know is there a too many of them in this country for what they should be used for. And on that note why do people need semi automatic weapons and worse?
Zimmerman is standing behind that NRA sponsored law. Another individual THOUGHT the law would protect him in Texas. WHen people get pissed off now a days the guns come out. Nobody fights anymore. They go straight for their iron. Its pathetic.
So NRA, what about it. Florida has over 900K licensed carriers, AND the "justifiable homicides" have TRIPLED in the last 7 years.
Like I stated before, I DO NOT know the answers. BUT, I do know what the NRA is doing, is ONLY making it worse AND causing MORE questions.
Careful fella, you might lose your Gungeon membership for this 
Why should you give way to "some sociopath"? First off, that seems like a pretty ego-driven argument to me. Maybe I'm just perceiving it badly, but it does seem like your argument there is "Why should I be the one to back off?" The answer I would give to that is that no matter how much it pokes your ego to back off, your ego isn't worth a human life. if some derp-eyed motherfucker is losing his shit and it's just you and him, back off. If he's committed to coming after you, hey, his own fault for what happens next, right?
Of course there ARE situations where backing off just isn't possible, or is itself unreasonable - say your derp-eyed motherfucker is menacing a pack of kids and you're the only capable person around? You don't say "Good luck kids!" you address the problem. However these are more often situational considerations rather than subjects that need complete changes to the laws on the books.
It gets a little surreal when a state like Florida has SYG laws on the books... but nonlethal use of a firearm for self-defense is still a criminal act. illicit discharge, or unlawful brandishing? Yeah that makes sense.
Also, in the immortal rhetoric of your fellow gungeoneers; show me someone who believes any form of self-defense is unreasonable. Please. Back up the statement, 'cause that sounds like BS.
With regards to burden of proof; no. The burden of proof has always been on the prosecutor. Always. You just fired off another of those talking points that just sounds so good when you hear it, but when you think about it... Just no. That's flat out NOT how our system works. The Prosecutor has to prove that the defendant did not attempt a reasonable retreat, it's never been up to the defendant to prove that they did - of course they can present their testimony and evidence to demonstrate such, but the burden of proof has always fallen on the prosecution.
And yes, actually, some of those sevenfold increases in not guilty verdicts probably are people getting away with murder (so to speak; murder being a legal term and yadda yadda) After all people are found not guilty when self-defense isn't even on the table. I don't think I need to mention the OJ trial in any detail, right? 'course not.
You're then falling back on your false assumption that the burden of proof is falling on the defendant... This seems to be the crux of your argument and it's just not true. SYG laws aren't removing any burden from defendants; they're simply adding more to prosecutors. Which again, is fine if your goal is to see an increase in legal homicide.
WRONG. Just like the other rights I still have regardless of the few who abuse them. What a load...
AND the "justifiable homicides" have TRIPLED in the last 7 years.
Florida's murder rate is now less than a third of what it was when it peaked in 1973. Nope, you don't know the answers. You aren't even asking the right questions.
but he might well find that it doesn't apply in this case as it appears he started the confrontation.
The media is pushing the idea that "Stand Your Ground" laws give a person a license to kill. If you believe everything that you hear on TV or read in the newspapers, you are a fool. As you mentioned, there's one such fool in Texas who was just convicted of murder.
Texas man convicted in stand-your-ground case
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-14/texas-stand-your-ground/55592380/1
You asked why a person needs a semi-auto weapon and I would suggest the decision on which to own is merely a personal preference. I own both revolvers and semi-auto pistols. I carry a revolver for self defense because I trust its reliability more than a semi-auto. I use my semi-auto handguns more for target shooting.
You feel that:
WHen people get pissed off now a days the guns come out. Nobody fights anymore. They go straight for their iron. Its pathetic.
I will point out that over 800,000 people in Florida have Concealed Weapons Permits and firearms are extremely common in this state. Admittedly we do have gun violence in the Sun Shine State but in reality many areas and cities in this nation with far stricter gun laws have as high or a higher rate of violent crimes caused by firearms.
If you visit the FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) homepage you will notice a graphic that says the level of crime in Florida is at a 41 year low. http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/home.aspx
FBI Releases 2011 Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report
San Diego, Oceanside, and Escondido Experience Decreases in Violent Crime Rates
FBI San Diego June 13, 2012
According to the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report released Monday, June 11, 2012, the nation experienced a 4.0 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes and a 0.8 percent decline in the number of property crimes in 2011 when compared to data from 2010. The report is based on information the FBI gathered from 14,009 law enforcement agencies that submitted six to 12 comparable months of data for both 2010 and 2011.
Violent Crime
In 2011, all four of the violent crime offense categories—murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault—declined nationwide when compared with data from 2010. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter declined 1.9 percent, while forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault each declined 4.0 percent.
Violent crime declined in all city groups. Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 saw the largest decrease (5.2 percent) in violent crime. Violent crime decreased 6.6 percent in metropolitan counties and 4.7 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
http://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2012/fbi-releases-2011-preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report
Crime nationwide has been falling for years.
Crime in the United States
Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.
In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
I am not suggesting that civilian firearm ownership caused this drop in crime as there are far too many factors in the equation. But since 1968, the number of firearms in civilian hands has increased dramatically and during this same period of time, semi-auto firearms became popular.
More guns may not equal less crime, but more guns does not cause more crime.
it's pretty clear that Logical is saying people should be well-armed. There's not a word about freedom of choice in that post, and since you have failed to explain how the hell you figure that (I presume you just thought throwing the word 'choice' in there would shut me up? Good librul, whozzagudlibrul have a biscuit!"
I'm forced to conclude that you're just pretty much full of it on that.
I use quotations around "criminals" here because it's developed into a sort of vague term in gun culture. Sometimes it's shorthand for violent criminals. Other times it literally means all criminals. Often it's used as a synonym for "boogeyman" and there's no shiortage of peopel who get labeled "criminals" by people who think those persons just plain need to be shot.
It's sort of like how "liberal" is used in other right-wing forums on the internet. And yes, I quotation-mark "liberal" when i'm talking to those yokels, too.
As for what's wrong with being armed against criminals? I dunno, do you encounter so many in your daily life that you just can't imagine leaving your home unarmed? I suppose there's nothing wrong with it, but it does seem weird and paranoid. I mean there's nothing wrong with wrapping tinfoil around your head to keep the CIA from listening to your thoughts either, but people are going to give you odd looks when you're wearing it while sniffing cantaloupes at the produce section, y'know?
Just exchange the terms, though; the point still stands
Are Canada's gun laws effective? Here are some figures from the Canadian Firearms Centre:
• There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
• For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
• For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
• For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
• For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.
Thank you for asking.
Gun Control Laws in Canada
Dateline: 3/5/2000
In his Jan. 27, 2000 State of the Union Address, President Clinton proposed a law requiring the licensing of all American handgun owners.
"Now, specifically, I propose a plan to ensure that all new handgun buyers must first have a photo license from their state showing they passed the Brady background check and a gun safety course, before they get the gun." -- President Clinton, 1/27/2000
The proposal was immediately opposed by American firearms owners, dealers, and manufacturers, as well as many members of the U.S. Congress.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500a.htm
More recent statistics published on: 2/23/2012 are on this page http://www.statisticbrain.com/national-rifle-association-nra-statistics/ state that in 2010 there were 300 million firearms in the U.S., 100 million of which are handguns.
Comparing crime statistics from nation to nation is a fools game but I will admit that I also often play that game in posts that I make.
Homicide rates
Murder most foul
Oct 6th 2011, 13:18 by The Economist online
A global picture of homicide rates
IT IS famously tricky to compare crime statistics across frontiers. Murder figures are the best of the bunch because the offense is usually reported. According to the first global study on homicide by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, most of the world’s 468,000 intentional homicides in 2010 were in Africa (36%) and the Americas (31%), where the murder rate was 15-16 per 100,000 people, more than twice the global average of 6.9 per 100,000. Homicide in most parts of the world has been falling since 1995, but it has risen recently in Central America and the Caribbean. (There are no reliable data for Africa.) The study suggests two broad trends. The first is a link between development and crime. Countries with low scores on the United Nations Development Programme’s human-development index tend to have high murder rates and vice versa. But exceptions to this reveal a second trend. Organised crime, drug trafficking, violent gang culture and the prevalence of firearms are also correlated with higher murder rates, even in relatively developed countries. Honduras and El Salvador, which have the highest and second-highest murder rates in the world (82 per 100,000 and 66 per 100,000 respectively), are the prime examples of this. One worrying final thought: sudden dips in economic performance have also been known to increase the homicide rate, usually with a lag.
One driver for firearm violence is the illegal trafficking of drugs. The violent crime rate in Canada is increasing because of this problem.
Drug war on another border: Canada
Mexico's crackdown puts the squeeze on cocaine dealers in British Columbia. Up here, as the violence grows, bodies pile up.
By Kim MurphyJune 30, 2009
Reporting from Abbotsford, Canada—
The latest mayhem started at the end of March, when 21-year-old Sean Murphy, a popular former high school hockey player, drove into a withering blast of gunfire near Bateman Park. He was probably dead before his car coasted to a stop in the weeds.
That same night, Ryan Richards, 19, abruptly left a friend's house after getting a cellphone call. His body was found the next morning behind a rural produce store. The stab wounds on his hands told the tale of a furious fight for his life. The undertaker apologized to his family for not being able to conceal them.
***snip***
"Let's get serious. There is a gang war, and it's brutal. What we have seen are new rules of engagement for the gangsters," Vancouver's chief police constable, Jim Chu, told reporters in March.
***snip***
The Lower Mainland has become a playground for young up-and-coming gangsters, who speed around town in armor-plated Cadillac Escalades, Porsche SUVs and BMW sedans.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vancouver-gangs30-2009jun30,0,961295.story
Some Canadian Health Experts Have Noticed The Drug War and "Tough on Crime" Things Not Working So Well
Lucy Steigerwald | March 28, 2012
Portugal gets it; the president of Guatemala gets it; Now some Canadians are noticing that the whole be-like-the-U.S. and declare war on plants and people is not the best policy idea.
The chief medical officers of three Canadians provinces, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan have written a new paper for Open Medicine called "Improving community health and safety in Canada through evidence-based policies on illegal drugs." Its conclusions are a cautious version of the above; law and order harshness does nothing to sate appetites for drugs, marijuana in particular is not terribly bad for people, and U.S. policies are just awful so why emulate them?
***snip***
It's worth noting that Canada has a reputation for being looser about marijuana than the United States (and is certainly not known for quite the same level of draconian punishments doled out to users and sellers) but the level of support for legalization is almost exactly the same in both countries.
Here's hoping our friends to the North ignore the U.S.'s awful, inhumane example and skip over the 40 years of misery part and get right to the tentative talk of legalization. Maybe they'll get there faster than us.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/28/canadians-notice-drug-war-and-tough-on-c
There is no doubt that criminal gangs cause a high percentage of crime in the United States.
2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends
***snip***
Gang-Related Violent Crime
Gang-related crime and violence continues to rise. NGIC analysis indicates that gang members are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and much higher in others. Some jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Texas report that gangs are responsible for at least 90 percent of crime. A comparison of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 2009 violent crime data and 2010 NGIC gang data illustrates that regions experiencing the most violent crime—including southern California, Texas, and Florida—also have a substantial gang presence (see Figure 1 and Map 1). Street gangs are involved in a host of violent criminal activities, including assault, drug trafficking, extortion, firearms offenses, home invasion robberies, homicide, intimidation, shootings, and weapons trafficking. NDIC reporting indicates that gang control over drug distribution and disputes over drug territory has increased, which may be responsible for the increase in violence in many areas. Conflict between gangs, gang migration into rival gang territory, and the release of incarcerated gang members back into the community has also resulted in an increase in gang-related crime and violence in many jurisdictions, according to NGIC reporting.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment
Are Canada's gun laws effective and should we adopt similar laws? Since criminal drug gangs do not obey laws and can easily smuggle firearms into our nation, I would suggest that stronger gun laws would only effect honest citizens and do little to combat violence.
Far better would be to legalize some drugs such as marijuana in order to take some of the profit motive out of smuggling and dealing in such drugs. Our drug war was lost long ago and we are faced with a serious crime problem because of that failure. It's time to change our course and develop a more rational approach.
And once again, for the 1,436,336,434th time, the gun-relgionists use the "argument" that since laws are broken, we might as well do away with them!
Which gun-religionist will use that "argument" for the 1,436,336,435th time? A PRIZE AWAITS!!!!
...and science doesn't have a number for how many times anti-gun religionists misrepresent the posts of others...where did I say do away with the laws? Useless laws certainly. This particular law of nationwide gun registration is already preempted at the Federal level btw. Can't do away with a law that will never exist. Your prize? Maybe somebody will get you a library card...