Gun control will be even more difficult in the future.

Is the guy complaining about it not from America? If so, it seems to be typical these non-Americans want to complain about things they don't understand. I want to be able to own guns if I want to.

Dazarobbo, I am disappoint. There's a range of stances to take on gun control aside from the two positions, we have guns and we don't have guns, that you've picked. The Second Amendment is there for a reason. So that every able bodied man, woman and child can rise up in defense of the nation against a foreign invader or a government gone corrupt. It's there for home defense against thieves and criminals or even wild animals. It's there for people to hunt and live of what they kill. There's a legitimate need. The only debatable stance that can be taken is how far we want regulation to go. Felons and the mentally ill should not have access to guns. A background check should be performed for ALL sales, be you a vendor or a private seller. Information over who is a felon and/or mentally ill should be added to the database for the background system at a far higher rate than it currently happens.

Wait I'm confused. If someone were to pick "for", would that mean "for" promoting the right to keep and bear Arms, or "for" promoting the statement "the right to bear arms is a freedom too far", and vice versa with "against"? Also, [quote]“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.. they make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.” ~ Thomas Jefferson[/quote] I like this quote. It's a nice quote.

This thread should be limited to Americans only.. I am pro-gun. Guns are not scary..Anti-gun people are..

I'm all for stronger and more background checks. Is it a bit of a hassle? Sure - but even if it only stops a handful of the wrong people from getting a gun, it is better than nothing.

I do not agree that firearms need to be banned. If the laws that are already in place are better enforced, along with stricter background checks and making mental health facilities more readily available, gun violence can be significantly decreased.

[quote]The Gun is Civilization – Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act. So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.[/quote]

I like how the fool Dazarobbo still hasn't clarified his poll and that means I still can not vote because he wasn't concise. Good job!

Anyone that isn't a resident in the US should have no opinion on the matter because it doesn't concern them. States with more guns and more lenient gun laws have lower gun-crime rates than states with strict laws. That's just a fact in the US. As for implementing a gun ban, that's completely impossible in the US. There are hundreds of millions of guns legally owned in the US. Those guns are used in a nearly non-existent amount of crimes. The guns used in the vast majority of crimes were bought off the black market or stolen by criminals, who already can't legally own a gun. If you want to get rid of gun crimes, get more funding for the ATF so they can apprehend and charge gun traffickers, and work on the mental healthcare in this country so people that are mentally disturbed can be located and treated properly. Suicides count in the gun-related death statistics. Gang violence counts in the gun-related death statistics. Responsible gun owners aren't part of those statistics.

Yeap. No civilian needs a gun of any kind. Simple.

If it's for stricter regulations, I'm for it. If it's for banning, I'm against it.

I'm for less gangs, better education, and better safety. I'm not for taking people's right to defend themselves away