his is a straw man. Nobody argues against no guns at all. However, just like you could not drive a F1 outside of a racing track, you should not be permitted to use an M16 outside a military environment (military competitions included).>
Actually, quite a few people (Some being politicians.) have called for making guns illegal. Just do a Google and you'll immediately see groups who support it.
No, to me, it look a lot more like it is a question of how many US of A citizen are socialized than anything else. That socialization also impact on how the laws are made and how people see the ownership and use of such tools as legitimate in so many situations that would simply not be acceptable anywhere else.>
But you're missing that most of the gun crime is being done by criminals who have unlawfully obtained their guns.
If you genuinely beleive it is your "second amendement duty" to maintain a stockpile of weapons that will keep the governement in check in the event it would go bad (noble intention), you will have to get yourself some tactical weapons down the line (nukes and chemical weapons). I mean, if you can't rival with the governement's military power why go that route? You are either going to be uncompetitive with the possible evil Government, or things will get very ugly fast when everyone will want to remain competitive (specially if the weapons remains as easy to get because "second amendement"). >
Okay, first of all, this is ridiculous! Very few people with guns are actually stockpiling, and they're not doing it to keep the Government in check. Also, you don't have to hate or fear The Government to be a gun owner, there are plenty of average people and even Democrats who own guns. Also, the Second Amendment has been in place for CENTURIES, and guns have been LEGAL for centuries. I'll address your other point.
I'm using the tactical weapons in my example above in a half-joking way to underline just how ridiculous the that amendement appears to me in the context we are in today (my opinion). The spirit of that amendement is completely outdated or, if not, incredibly dangerous to maintain considering how we have evolved as a society and how far we travelled technologically since it was included in the constitution.>
You're only HALF-joking about people owning nuclear weapons? That's never been legal, and most people wouldn't want them or be able to get them if they tried. That is one reeeeeealllly bad comparison. And if you're against the Second Amendment, that's cool, but our courts and most politicians have been for it for a lot longer than you've been against it. Sorry!
Even if it is to protect yourself from thieves, adding a fire arm on top of the one the thief may carry will likely lessen your chances of getting home without injury. It is a considerable risk to pull a gun when another gun is already in play. Anger and fear mixed with survival instincts means your neo-cortex won't be the driving force and mistakes will be lethal.>
So if a thief holds a gun on you and you have a chance of protecting yourself, you shouldn't do it? Actually, THIS (And only this.) part makes sense.
Sure, you should not let anyone rape or murder you (nobody will ever argue such nonsense), but frankly, they can have my wallet without a fight if they are that stupid or desperate. Cops and insurances are there for the rest and if not, at least I did the best I could to remain alive and well.>
Yeah, the not rape or murder is the problem here, not if someone mugs you for a wallet.