My response wasn't emotional in the slightest, you were obviously confused, and I looked at clearing that confusion in a very straight forward manner.

Now why do I bring up vehicles? Well, unlike what you have said, we don't "need" them. It is without argument that aside from the massive number of deaths and other property loss they cause, they are destroying our world. We have vehicles and WANT vehicles because they make life easier.

Even with that said, the majority of deaths caused by vehicles aren't because they are being used properly, but because they are used improperly. Mainly with the consumption of alcohol or other inebriates. Why does this matter? Because it completely removes the entire "need vs want" aspect. It also reinforces the truth that it is the person and not the thing that is to blame.

Now I would love to address your "arsenal" statement. If you were actually involved with firearms you would know that those who collect them, tend to have only one or two that are their self defense weapons of choice. Typically a handgun for personal carry and a long gun for home defense. The rest are purchased as part of the sport! Yup, the sport! Like it or not shooting is a real sport.

Now, just like any other sport you need equipment! Does that golfer need 3 sets of clubs? Does that bowler need 4 bowling balls? Does that fisherman really need 15 rods and 20 reels? Maybe! It isn't up for you to decide or I, but the participant in that sport.

Guns are not created equally, you have certain guns for certain aspects of the sport. Just like with any sport.

You opened by insulting my reading comprehension. Maybe not emotional, but still pretty dickish.

You must not live somewhere like Los Angeles. It takes me over an hour and a half to get to work everyday. If I didn't have a car, my commute would probably be about 4 hours one way. A car is necessary, as our public transit system is broken in this country, ESPECIALLY the Los Angeles area. Comparing guns to cars would be just as nonsensical as comparing video games to cars. One is a method of transportation, the other is not. A gun does not alleviate a practical problem like a method of transportation. If you think that our system wouldn't crumble without cars, then I don't know what to say.

Yes, drunk driving happens. But because it happens we implement stricter laws and harsher penalties to try and help alleviate the problem. Which has been working over the past 15 years. Statistics still aren't ideal, but we have seen a decent reduction happening over the years that are great enough to be attributed to much more than a statistical anomaly.

Stricter regulations are needed. Not for the law abiding citizens, as you will still be able to obtain your weapons, but for those who do not abide by the law. To become angry about this would be as ridiculous as getting mad at a police checkpoint for drunk drivers because I OBEY THE LAW, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS. Laws that Reagan himself put into place (eg. the Mulford act prohibited citizens from carrying weapons on them, in their vehicle, and in public places) have now been repealed. It seems like a step backwards for the country. Unfortunately, with steps backwards, we have to crack down for a while as illegal guns are a major problem in this country and those carrying, distrubuting, and using illegal weapons are taking advantage of the leniant gun control laws in place.

I don't want to take anyones guns away. I own a weapon, and I hunt. But stricter regulations isn't taking away your liberty, it's just implementing policies in hope to create a safer future. That is what government does, the idea that government is not needed in issues like this is nonsensical in this day and age.

And the comparison to bowling balls and golf clubs... generally speaking those can't kill a large group of people very quickly and without giving that group a chance to combat them. You can clear a room if you know how to use a gun relatively quickly. Guns were originally made to kill, whether it was for hunting or war, that was their main purpose. Those who abide the law have nothing to fear as they will still be able to get their weapons. Reagan had much stricter gun control laws than Obama.

"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns." -Reagan

2 men engage in a fight. Neither has a gun because they are banned by law. No one gets shot. They both go home to their families.


Sounds like a terrifying world.

A rapist attacks a woman after dark. She doesn't have a handgun because they've been banned by law. She gets raped without any means of fighting back.

Sounds like a wonderful gun free world.

I too can make stupid hypothetical scenarios.

Uhm, what about a tazer? There are alternative weapons that are actually easier to use than guns for self defense haha. If you had a guy jump on you, it'd be easier to grab a small device and hit a button than to pull out and use a gun.

In fact, pretty sure most of those self defense courses for women recommend tazers, not guns.

You're right, that is stupid because guns aren't the only weapons out there.

If they have jumped on you, it is pretty much too late in almost every situation. You have a very small chance of actually fending them off at this point, by any means.

Illegal in many states, and can be stopped by a thick leather jacket or rubberized raincoats.

As I said in my post, it was a stupid hypothetical situation.

Tazers are illegal but guns aren't? Yeah... our current policies are perfect lol

Damn, rapists really plan ahead these days lol. Generally speaking, there's gonna be an area that's vulnerable as rapists don't tend to go out in some sort of full body armor lol. Self defense training for women and a tazer would be far more valuable than a gun ever would be, and decent parents would have their daughter take such a course.

AND in addition to all this, the woman would still be able to obtain a gun if she wanted one. Stricter regulations doesn't mean no guns for anybody. It just makes them harder to get and enforces stricter laws and harsher penalties on illegal firearms.

the US is also like 100+ times the size of the UK...

I felt so safe in the room full of fully armed civilians

said no one ever