However if you look at the entire picture.... not so much

""

We have far more people armed than the UK. Hence we have higher incidents of use of those guns. The idea that gun control will make people safer isn't true. How many of those on that chart would have liked to have the ability to defend themselves? Good try at deflection yourself though.

While I believe it is our given right to own a firearm, I don't think our founding fathers necessarily intended on us having semi-automatic rifles when they wrote the Declaration. I do think that stricter regulations are necessary, mainly in the online gun sale department.

https://electedface.com/article_full_view.php?ArtID=69

especially in the "online gun sale department"

Surely you can find more honest sources if what they are saying is correct.

Citizens were allowed to own the most advanced weaponry of the day - that's exactly what the Founding Fathers allowed.

Online gun sales are ALWAYS through a dealer and ALWAYS background checked.
What is wrong with that?

Lieutenant Worf > John Hancock (the old dead one, not Will Smith's superhero)

There is an on line petition one can sign there:

"Change: Sign Our Petition

To: Members of Congress

Region: The United States of America

Background: According to the FBI, in 2011, more police officers died in the line of duty than at any time since the terrorist attacks of 9/11: 72 officers lost their lives at the hands of criminals, a 25% increase from the year before. With 85% of the firearms recovered in New York City having come here from other states, illegal firearms are a growing issue.

Petition: We the undersigned urge Members of Congress Mandate a law prohibiting the purchase of guns and assault weapons over the internet."

The petition has nothing to do with the background given. This petition gives one the impression that any Joe Blow can buy a gun off the internet and have it shipped directly to them with no questions asked.

using the Family Research Council as a source about gays adopting kids or gay marriage.

Considering one has to go thru the same procedures to acquire the gun as one does when going to a gun shop and picking a gun from selection there. Meaning one still has to show I.D, fill out the questionnaire and go thru the background check.

internet from a US dealer

equating weapons designed for war with hunting rifles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks





All bought in Norway. He *did* purchase fertilizer over the internet, after setting up a fake farm company- from Poland.

and drove to Sweden to shop for cheaper ones, but found them even cheaper from the US. They went through Norwegian customs.
About the same time, I bought a couple of magazines for a Mauser Hsc from a Canadian supplier.
Mine is a .380 made in the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_HSc


If I committed a similar atrocity, would it be the fault of the German firearms industry, or a Canadian gun store that that exported the magazines?

If a customs inspector saw a package from a sporting goods or gun supply store, and the customs form saying in "rifle magazine", you don't think it wouldn't be opened?
You are thinking of a Norwegian hunting regulation that limits to three rounds. Hunting regulations are not the same as gun laws. Finland has hunting regulations requiring silencers in some areas, but you don't have to keep the silencer on once you leave that area. As I recall, he drove to Sweden looking for black market full autos (but not knowing the right people, he was out of luck) and found that he could buy US magazines cheaper than Norway or Sweden. According to the accounts I read, he priced the magazines in both countries.

I'm sure the idea of a semiautomatic firearm was much less difficult to comprehend than the internet. Perhaps you should log out and continue this discussion by quill and ink

If you look at percentage of households with firearms the last time the UN did the study:
Finland
US
Norway
Canada
Switzerland

Here are world murder rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


guns per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country


Show us the Atlantic piece. Every state has "at least one firearms law". Even Vermont has at least one. There are five federal laws that apply to all of the states.

....because no body even counts the dead in the most violent countries...

Not on list:

Somalia
Sudan
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Yemen
Congo/Zaire
Iraq
etc..

intelligent people reach different conclusions.

gun supporters say there is no evidence that gun proliferation adds to violent deaths and that gun control does not work anywhere. Every study that is brought forward to demonstrate the opposite is parsed down until something, anything, real or not can be identified to suggest discrediting the study. The strategy of the gun supporters is to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.

The same thing happened with smoking. For decades, arguments were used to dissociate smoking from being a health hazard.

It's now happening with climate change. With the hottest summer on record, lots of ice melting, and even a koch funded study suggesting that climate change is man made, it will not be possible to ignore this much longer.

The conclusions around the benefits of effective gun control, allowing law-abiding citizens to own a reaonable and appropriately powered firearms, and effective checks and balances are out there but still subject to fear, uncertainty and doubt. This will eventually change.

individuals defend them self or do you propose a victim submit to a criminal?

gun supporters say there is no evidence that gun proliferation adds to violent deaths and that gun control does not work anywhere.

First off, cite where this has been stated. Second, if you are referencing the comments in this group then you should know that most of us "gun supporters" speak to what works in the US.

Every study that is brought forward to demonstrate the opposite is parsed down until something, anything, real or not can be identified to suggest discrediting the study. The strategy of the gun supporters is to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.

What studies? I've seen nothing but fluff pieces posted that come from groups like Brady Campaign, VPC, and MAIG. Worthless. Even worse are those posted as evidence which turn out to be nothing more than opinion pieces. Try this study from the CDC on the effectiveness of gun laws in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab

The conclusions around the benefits of effective gun control, allowing law-abiding citizens to own a reaonable and appropriately powered firearms, and effective checks and balances are out there but still subject to fear, uncertainty and doubt. This will eventually change.

I've already posted one such study and many others reach similar conclusions. None of them are liked by those that advocate for strict gun-control laws because they can't be pointed to to instill fear and doubt. Technical ignorance and deliberate obfuscation are other hallmarks of gun-control groups. They do not care about the significant differences between a legally defined assault rifle and a civilian semi-automatic rifle. All they care about is looks and not function. The 1994 AWB proved that. Nothing but cosmetic issues were addressed by it and the pre-ban rifles functioned exactly the same as the post-ban rifles.

You repeatedly state things as facts that are actually not true. At some point, no matter how smart you think you are; Garbage In, Garbage Out starts to kick in.

Of course a nation with more guns will have more gun crime. In nations with fewer guns, those crimes are committed by other means. This is something I really want to understand. Why are gun deaths treated as more egregious than other wrongful deaths?