Nice try, but I wrote it as I intended. There are those (citizens and government alike) who believe taking guns away will solve the crime problem. They cite the uk a lot of times when they bring it up. Also...why would you think more laws would stop criminals...who break the laws we currently have?

Yeah and there are those who think mass genocide is reasonable, doesn't make them right. And thank god they arnt in power. What your saying is just not the case. It's not happening. I'll say it again, ITS NOT HAPPENING

More laws would make it harder for potential criminals to get guns before they started to break the law. It's also worth noting that if it became harder for just anyone to get a gun in the first place, pricing of illegal ones on the street might go up (as the scarcity of guns among those who'd do wrong with them would fuel value) in the long term, and that would further shrink the pool of people capable of simply buying a gun on the street and shooting someone with it because some wouldn't be able to afford it. As far as the issue of violent and lethal crime, I don't really care or see the point either way but I'll let you tell me which you'd prefer to be attacked with if you were an unarmed, average citizen between a gun and a blunt object or knife. The primary difference is that one category can potentially be defended against with an improvised weapon from the environment or sufficient physical strength, as well as forcing the attacker to be within a defensible range. The other has a significant range advantage to bare hands, has significantly higher lethality even in the hands of an amateur so long as the shot hits, and shoots projectiles that hit hard enough to shatter bones; unless you're a trained soldier with nerves of steel, you're probably going to crumple or lose the ability to fight back after one shot. And if you could take a gunshot and fight back you could easily take down a guy with a blunt weapon with less physical harm to yourself.

First...they are criminals, they don't charge more because the rest of us have a harder time getting a gun. Your an idiot if you think any law is going to stop someone who already breaks the law. It's kinda like gun free zones, ever wonder why most shooting are in gun free zones? It's because the person or persons know they won't get shot at. Second...I would rather have a gun...because just pulling one out makes most criminals run. I don't arm myself because I can...I arm myself because society has decided we should be victims, and criminals have gotten more violent due to this. Ever watched one of the knockout game videos? Those criminals attack innocent people who are usually unarmed. Our society is glorifying criminals and condemning those who take a stand against them. Damn right I would rather be armed.

Uhh, let's see: First - you clearly decided not to take a second and consider what I said. Did you take an economics class in school? Do you know how supply and demand work? You don't seem like an idiot lacking knowledge of basic economic concepts, so you should be able to guess what happens in the long term if we make the illegal market the only way for these people to buy guns and then proceed to crack down on it. Exclusivity is an inflator when it comes to valuation of goods because it forces all the demand into one place, and just because this is a black market doesn't mean it isn't a market overall. If we then took steps over time to hinder or throttle that market (far more plausible than Trump's plan of throttling Mexico if we're talking candidates who would be against these kinds of gun laws), prices would go up because not only is it then the only option for many people, it's suffering from reduced supply. When a random criminal in a poor neighborhood has to work harder to afford a gun from that illegal source, the number of people who need to buy illegally who actually get a gun goes down. Second - you seem to have misinterpreted my question. I'm not asking which weapon you'd prefer to have, and I frankly don't care because the fact that we're having this discussion gives that away. I was asking which one you'd rather be threatened with as an average person who isn't wielding a gun. If you'd rather be held at gunpoint than knifepoint, you're crazy enough that I suppose background checks would indeed prevent you from buying a gun. Even assuming we allowed you to have a weapon for self-defense in the question, if you have common sense the answer should still be that you'd prefer being attacked by someone without a gun because then you can safely pull yours on them. If someone points a gun at you, you're not going to be an action hero no matter how much you want to delude yourself. You're going to sit still and do what they want because if you reach for that gun, they'll pick up on the threat as you draw it and shoot you where you stand. Just ask the guy who had his gun stolen at gunpoint a few years ago. The majority of proposed measures against gun violence are completely benign to any law-abiding citizen with the proper disposition to avoid shooting someone in a rage. There are some radical ones, yes, but you should have some faith in the shitty Congress promoted by people with views, apparently like your own from how adamant you are about this, that focus on stopping progress looking at which side it comes from rather than how good it is for the country. Those don't stand a chance of becoming law. If you feel threatened by the idea of a vendor trying to make sure you won't kill people before handing you a deadly weapon (Guns are weapons. Lethal tools designed for the sole purpose of killing. They aren't created for protection, they protect by killing. You can think what you want but if you don't understand that fact then giving you one is like handing a running chainsaw to a toddler), then you shouldn't have one in the first place for the safety of everyone around you.