LibertarianJLB comments

Sure...except I dont own and may never own a gun.

But youre right and I was wrong to make the argument that he could have done that....wait WTF! I didnt say that....at all. SO youre statement about the arguments of gun lovers as it pertains to something I nor anyone else said, is really weird. Its amazing that someone can create something from thin air like this and imagine that someone else said it- then form any negative opinion at all about the real person's imaginary argument. I mean just...WOW

Really? Most hate guns? Hmm...

You see this is another argument that makes things up to back their own feelings, and is made out of pure emotion.

"knowing that they had the freedom to wield a gun in the first place"- And yet they didnt have the freedom to take someones life, so you tell me why they would respond to one law and not another?

a vast majority of people don't own a gun, and never felt the need to and have lived happy safe lives. Which leads to the point that a gun is not necessary for the average citizen- This is an argument? Based on what evidence can you make the statement that because most people are safe and happy- it has anything to do with guns? If not what right do you have to tell the people that do use and enjoy them- providing happy and safe lives they can no longer enjoy that right?

Focus on some facts, but barring that, at least ask questions to help form your argument. This is really eye opening...to see just how many people need that fuzzy feeling of laws and rules to live their lives. Take a look around....laws and rules being broken everywhere....they dont keep you safe. They have in many cases made things far more dangerous...and again I will point to the war on drugs as a primary example of what I am talking about. Although I suppose you will point to the fact that youre not a drug addict as evidence for its success.

mmm hmm so we just make a deal that everyone can agree with then? No guns, then no knives, bats, HARPOON GUNS, forks, sporks, rocks, piano wire.....

Listen I agree lets create a Utopian society....although I disagree when you say its not very complicated. Because not only is it complicated....its F'n impossible. Back to the drawing board.

Thats right SmithinJapan, lets make a perfectly logical argument and turn it on its head...I suppose you are able to tell me that the gun is the deciding factor in whether or not someone will kill in the heat of the moment or in a planned out cold blooded style. Because somehow those evil guns have some sort of magical influence on otherwise sane people? Well if magic exists then why are you so sure a wet noodle isnt killing someone?

Oh that is right because you like to make things up in order to back your emotionally charged claims. Or you could point out where I said "wet noodle"...because otherwise you are using grade school debate tactics in order to make me look foolish (which as shown above I can do as well) and thus wrong.

You cant just toss out my logic because a wet noodle isnt a weapon, otherwise youre going to have to defend that a bear trap is really the weapon that talks people into killing.

I will however do you a favor and point out that the VAST majority of gun owners have never committed murder and never will. Also your argument it flawed in that a person with a violent past can not purchase a gun legally...this would skew the numbers...like all the way in your favor

Laws- and why stacking laws is never a solution-

Gun laws, at the center of every violent crime discussion involving a firearm, and yet the arguments made by either side (pro or against) never addresses the glaring problem with the debate. That is- HOW WOULD GUN LAWS MAKE AN IMPACT WHERE CURRENT LAWS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIMES FAIL? In other words why would a criminal be more likely to adhere to a ban on firearms than he is to murder. Forgetting for a second that a gun was used in this case, would it really matter how people were killed? What if instead his violent rampage was carried out with an SUV? Would we then seek to ban large vehicles because of their ability to kill more people? I could probably make the argument that this criminal would have turned to violence in order to obtain a firearm- because lets face reality here, there is no way to get rid of all firearms. Just as there is no way to get rid of drugs- and yet the failed drug war marches on with its 25-50 billion dollar budget. More people die enforcing and breaking those laws a year than the cumulative amount of deaths caused by illegal drugs...

No laws are not the answer. The fact is its hard to argue with a statement such as - more laws more violence. That is to say that growing violence could be in direct correlation to more laws being passed. The focus of everyone should be at the fact that government regulation is so very quick to act in stripping rights- while the true criminals, the ones that have cause a worldwide financial crisis have been given all the freedom and rights the money stolen from you could buy.