Summations Only

If you act like idiots, we're going to point it out.

And?

You be sure to do that. But in this case, we aren't.
What you will never hear, because our news agencies (and yours) tend to shy away from good news, is the number of crimes that are prevented by gun owners.
News agencies like to point out the dangers of having guns, so you hear all those stories.
It can't be coincidence that I, personally, know three people who've fended off a criminal with their handgun ... two who did so just by showing said gun to the criminal.
If I know of three ... how many others are out there that go unreported?Edited by mikechell, : No reason given.

Perhaps you can provide some reference to these numbers?

Oh when did the Nazi's invade Britain? Armed civilians would have been cut down like wheat by the Germans. They would have been no more than a minor nuisance to the heavily armed and highly trained German army.

Oh a conspiracy? I assume you have some sort of evidence for this assertion. Or are you going to rely on evidence by anecdote?

Ah the old anecdotal evidence ploy. Put that against the hard data of the number of children killed by guns and a skeptic should see the weaknesss of one vs the strength of the other. and the old worn out false liberal media conspiracy canard: why doesn't Faux Noise report it - trumpet it - as it would be their golden plum kind of story. Were these real criminal threats or just the fervid imagination of the gun bearer? How many innocent people are shot by gun totters that perceive they are criminals when they aren't? come to mind? Were they life threatening situations that meant a gun was necessary, or did the gun carrier just bully them with it? I choose my words carefully: I have been mugged, lost a couple dollars and live to tell the tale - would a gun have helped? No. And how many of those are fantasies - like the old woman who shot innocent bystanders because she was convinced they were going to rob her.Look at the "accuracy" of eye witness reports ... that is what you have with your anecdotal evidence, isn't it?How many times will George ZImmerman flaunt his prejudicial behavior before it becomes indefensible to gun affectionados?For every case you can find of anecdotal crime being stopped by a gun, you can likely find 10 cases of wrongful death by gun, and that is the critical point: the cost benefit is not on the side of gun holders.Enjoy.

You are aware this is a debating site, right ?

The bogeyman isn't invented. The high levels of gun ownership are there. The passion for guns is evidenced in the NRA's every pronouncement. It's a passion which can't face questioning its cost. Innocent lives are being lost, regularly, to guns. They wouldn't be if gun ownership were controlled to the same degree as in other western democracies. Those lives are the price of gun ownership. There is no fantasy.And every equivalency you put up is a false equivalency. Not one belt, car or bottle of booze is designed to kill someone. A gun has no other purpose.

I've never met a power mad dictator, hell bent on world domination, but I'm willing to bet you a goodly number of beers that no dictator has ever, or will ever, think "I will smash the world's most powerful army - I will shoot every one of their warplanes from the sky - I will sink their pretty battleships and aircraft carriers - and I will laugh in the face of the world's greatest nuclear arsenal !!! Mwaah hah hah !!! Hold on...what's that Igor ? You say they all carry pistols too ??? Noooooooo !!!!!"(oh, and by the time anyone ever got anywhere near actually invading you, you'd have plenty of time to arm yourselves to the teeth if you fancied it. So hand 'em in till then. Job's a good'un.)

No one's saying that most guns are used by children to kill themselves or others, or that there aren't instances where gun owners protect themselves against criminals. However, this study demonstrates that guns fired in the home in the USA are much more likely to be used in suicides or homicides than in justifiable self-defense.

Yes, conservatives do rue the days. That is why they are conservative, because conservatives react to fear more than liberals.https://www.psychologytoday.com/...ig-fear-brain-study-findsThey also are less open to ambiguity, and do not tolerate conflict (people with different opinions for example) than liberalsStudy finds left-wing brain, right-wing brainThat's why you are so totally wrong about everything you ever say.

Your arguments are so silly they don't even deserve the attention required to address them. Not to mention that we've had so many of these threads and we've gone over these same things you're bringing up so many times already.I believe it was ringo who compared guns to foreskins: you don't miss them if you've never had them.Likewise, just because you've lost yours doesn't mean everyone needs circumcising.You cannot even comprehend living in a society where people value gun ownership; and this limited perspective is evident in your simplified caricaturization of the issue.

Boy you really told him. You also showed you have no argument. But boy, you sure told him.

It's all well and good to say, "let's just outlaw guns." However, it's unrealistic.
1) With the "love affair" we have with guns, there are just too many out there.
2) Even if the government outlawed them, no one would willingly give them up.
3) At this moment, starting next month (7/15/2015), the American Government is starting a military joint exercise called "Jade-Helm-15". In several States, they have closed Walmart Stores and are using the space to amass military equipment. The premise of the exercise is to prepare the military for "urban set up and combat." There are currently trains of box cars with shackles on the inside, traveling across America.
4) One of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves if the government gets to thinking it's a dictatorship. If someone comes to take my guns, I will not let them in the house. As has been Quoted before, "They can have my guns, when they pry them from my cold, dead hands."