You wrote that just because states allow guns into bars that it doesn't mean people will do it. So I pointed out how illogical that statement was with an analogy to show how absurd you're being: just because we make murder legal doesn't mean people will do it can be justified by that same logic. Anyway, why would anyone pass a law to allow guns into bars unless some people desired to bring guns into bars?




So you're arguing that murder should be made legal?




Of course it's not mandatory. How can the government force you to buy guns and bring them some place? Being mandatory has nothing to do with it being a bad idea.




So?




So any time anyone can use something responsibly, then it shouldn't be made illegal? Yet you agreed that machine guns shouldn't be legal. Why not? You agreed nuclear weapons shouldn't be legal? Why not? How about grenades? Rocket launchers? My point is simply that if something can be abused seriously enough, it's a moot point whether others can use that something responsibly and that can't be a reason to justify making something legal. By your standard, nothing can be made illegal.




So let's look at your reason as to whether they counter the point of having training with a gun. If you buy a gun for protection, then you should have training. What would be the point of buying something for protection that you don't know how to use and you don't know how to keep yourself safe from?




Are you retarded? Police officers get training!




You obviously don't understand the concept of insurance.




Of course it CAN be made mandatory. Other countries have made it mandatory.




That's a non sequitur and completely irrelevant to the point I was making.




They are not so different that training wouldn't make one a more responsible gun owner.




Another non sequitur that's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.




You obviously have no idea how these things work.




That's unproven.




Wow. So you don't think there are things that are so dangerous that they should be outlawed? People can become addicted to heroine after only a few tries and people can overdose on heroine on their first try.




That's not amending anything. An Amendment is a very specific thing in American jurisprudence.




You were trying to make suicide less egregious by citing euthanasia.




Wrong. Less than 1% of intentional shootings are in self-defense:

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gun-suicide-murder-defense




It doesn't have to stop them altogether. If stricter gun laws reduced their number, that is something important right there.