Seriously?

The year is 2015

The British? The original European colonizers of the U.S., were denied basic human rights in their own colonies?

Nothing that I can see. This is not the Wild West anymore. Oh right 2015 even!

When was Istanbul, ever, part of the wild west?

We are talking about America and just because I'm not currently there doesn't matter.

There are many Americans who live safely without guns.

You could've had Billy the Turkey? Ankara Crockett and Ali Wanye if it was though? Ha ha

Keep enjoying your guns like it's 1900..most of us Americans just want to live a normal life without your guns going off and accidentally killing someone. Cowards need guns, criminals need guns, psychos need guns.. normal law abiding, intelligent, and non-violent Americans don't need guns.

The bolded sentence, your words, imply that you're either in the U.S., or
you're referring to the location you chose on your profile.

Istanbul has it's own violent, bloody history. And, it's modern, current days, seem to be filled with sectarian and ethnic violence as well.

The U.S. has it's share of violence.
But, it's usually initialized, by lazy thugs trying to steal something that doesn't belong to them. Simply because, they feel "entitled".

There are looney tunes people the world over, who should never be allowed to possess ANYTHING, that can be used as a weapon.

Again, irresponsible driving causes more deaths and disfigurements within the U.S., than all intentional, AND, all misuse of guns.

Personally I'd support laws that ban the ownership of guns, or atleast easily concealed small arms...

But that's only in an ideal world where the police are competent enough to find a way to make sure literally no one but the enforcers of law have access to a fire arm.



But no, the prohibition has shown us that the police really really suck at their job. There is no way the police or any force in the world can possibly uphold such a law.



(I have nothing against alcohol and I don't exactly support the prohibitions movement btw, but how badly it backfired tells you a LOT about the competence of law enforcement and the police)

The problem is that supporting a ban means you support better armed criminals leaving the law abiding defenseless. Just because criminals use guns to commit crimes doesn't I shouldn't be able to defend myself. Banning guns because we have police is like banning fire extinguishers because we have fire fighters.

That's what I meant with my comparison to prohibition and my mockery of the police.

The police suck, it's not just an America thing, it's universal.


I'd support a ban on gun ownership if we have a force that is competent enough to enforce it. But criminals will find a way to get them and there's nothing law enforcement can do to stop them. Just like how mobsters are able to brew their own or import alcohol during the Prohibition.

Which shows your ability to be reasonable. Taking away a right from the law abiding does nothing but make something illegal. Criminals don't care about laws. That's why we call them criminals.

I believe there are people in unsafe areas, who are not cowards but may keep a gun for protection of some sort,, and there are SANE people who are physically weaker like seniors who also keep a gun for protection

I do believe all those you mentioned need guns too,, but the need for a gun isn't an automatic testament to sanity

however, a history of insanity, paranoia and impulsiveness is a terrible combination to allow someone to carry something that even a monkey could use in the blink of an eye to kill someone


I do believe the regulations are important and should be upheld and enforced more fervently,, offenders should be dealt with the way we deal with 'drug dealers',,,,,,At least people taking drugs have chosen to,,,, people killed by guns,,, not so much

Could a monkey really kill someone? In theory, yes. Realistically, it's highly unlikely for reasons that involve the monkey's lack of coordination. I would refer you to a zoologist who can explain better than I can. More regulations on who can and can't have them, however, only serves to make it more difficult for a law abiding citizen to attain a firearm for defensive purposes while doing nothing to restrict the ability of criminals to get them. Criminals already don't care about laws pertaining to murder, robbery, assault, or whatever else they may use the firearms for, so why is it reasonable to believe that they will care about the laws pertaining to acquiring firearms? Joe Criminal is going to steal or acquire his firearm from someone selling them illegally. Adam Lanza, for example, killed his mother before stealing her firearms, and committed several other felonies before shooting up Sandy Hook Elementary School. How would restricting the rights of the law abiding have prevented any of that? Or any other crime committed with firearms?

Let me ask you a dumb question. If someone paid you $5000 to survive in a room with 5 monkeys and 5 loaded guns for a week (you would not be allowed to interact with the monkeys or their guns, would you take the job?

if you don't care for the monkey scenario

than we can replace it with child,, no problem
any CHILD,,(and they do it 'accidentally' so no argument about whether its possible, beyond just theory)


I know plenty of 'law abiding' citizens who had no problem getting the license

more regulation makes it harder for the 'criminal' to hide behind a law,,, from the point that they have the gun in their hands,,ILLEGALLY


I am not interested in restricting anyone except those without the capacity to handle the tool with the focus and respect it requires,,,

If the child gets ahold of the firearm, that is negligence on the part of the gun owner. No one handles my firearms unless I personally hand them to the person, and I don't hand them to just anyone. And your premise that law abiding citizens have no problem attaining a license (licensing is nothing more than the government taking away a right and selling it back to you, but that's another debate) is true in shall issue states. In may issue states, it's completely different. The states with the easiest access to firearms have the least gun violence. Those with the most restrictive laws have the most gun violence, so I disagree with your premise about the effectiveness of the laws. And the laws also won't stop the idiots from being negligent. Instead of placing restrictions on the Second Amendment, let's instead lock away those who use firearms in the commission of a crime away for life without parole.

I made no argument about the 'effectiveness' of laws

there is countless debate and figures on both sides concerning where and why there is more or less violence

This is going in circles...

Who is or isn't a criminal completely changes as the law themselves changes. And even if laws don't change, completely normal and stable people have a tendency to snap.


All I mentioned is that gun control laws, while ideal, are impossible to support because of how incompetent law enforcement is. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. I'm saying that it's pointless to ban the ownership of guns because of how useless the police are at enforcing such a law if it comes about.

I also agree that its silly to 'ban',,, but not to do better at regulating

op...one thing I believe is Zimmerman is a abusive person... got away with murder because of the stand your ground law ... and lied through the whole case on video they had of him... my thing was... he was told to stand down ...do not get out of the truck and if he had done that ... Trayvon would still be alive ... turns out he is a pretty big bully and does not know how to follow the law ... and agree with misH...