Just for the record, I'm thinking /b/ is perpetrating this, guys. There's a thread up on 4Chan right now. My first instinct is the correct one. Trolls.

Except it was a post about an incitement to violence, not about guns or guns rights. Infinite9 is the one who brought guns rights into this.

On the gun thing - one might think a deputy sheriff could handle one sensibly...

http://news.sky.com/story/1319472/deputy-sheriff-shoots-intruder-daughter

People are getting sick :l

You call me ignorant and yet you recite an appeal to probability that was dismantled time after time? Let me explain this to you so that even a hoplophobe, someone who is afraid of weapons, can understand:

The reason people and anonymous "experts" (if an expert doesn't have a name, then he/she is no expert) claim you are more likely to shoot somebody of your own household than an intruder is because they do not take into consideration the fact that intruders have retreated from the property because of the mere sight of a person with a gun.

http://m.onlineathens.com/local-news/2013-01-24/armed-wheelchair-bound-homeowner-thwarts-burglary-west-athens#gsc.tab=0

Of course if it was up to you, that wheelchair bound veteran would have been screwed just because of his physical disability.

As for people who would not have been killed if there was less availability of guns, let me remind you that criminal-suspects make up the bulk of gun-related deaths in the United States whether they were shot and killed by authorities, by other criminals as part of their gang rivalry, or by law-abiding citizens in defense.

http://www.wistv.com/story/15140008/female-motel-clerk-kills-robber

Of course if it was up to you, that female motel clerk would have been raped and possibly stabbed or slashed to death just for the sake of reducing the "gun homicide" number per year by one. So authoritarian gun laws would have saved one life in that circumstance: the life of a wanted sexual assailant and robber.

Also I find it amusing how the same people who complain about easy access to guns yet say nothing about that deliberately botched gun-tracking operation of the BATFE in which federal agents gave thousands of rifles, shotguns, and handguns along with countless rounds of ammunition to Mexican drug cartels in order to create a false flag against law-abiding gun owners and small gun shops in the United States. Speaking of Mexico, Mexico has far more rigid gun laws than the US and Canada and yet the drug cartels are well armed insurgencies with connections to corrupt military and police personnel who supply them with weapons and ammo not to mention the Zetas consist of former Mexican soldiers who defected and took whatever weapons, magazines, ammo, and bombs they could grab with them. Apparently making something illegal doesn't make it disappear.

By the way, if you want to see a coward, look at someone who throws the death of dead gangster into the same category as the death of an actual innocent person. Look at someone who is afraid of inanimate objects. Also, if you don't like the United States and feels it should be like other countries, there are plenty of airports for you to utilize.

Slow clap. Preach it, brother.

Citation needed. The reason why there are so many more people killed like that is that home invasions are relatively uncommon and guns never kill people when they aren't near people.

I'm really curious where your evidence that this is somehow common comes from. Also, I'm not afraid of guns, I'm just not one of those ignorant folks that pretends like a large quantity of guns is a good thing.

And BTW, any sane person is going to accept that probability as the other way of looking at it is completely nuts. Countries with reduced access to firearms do not have the kind of increased body count that you're implying.

Cherry picking. This is a relatively rare situation in most parts of the country. I'd like to see you provide some evidence that this is a common and why this necessitates making firearms easily available to everybody else.

Thousands, yes that's a big deal, but that's a drop in the bucket compared with the number of firearms that the NRA permits people to have through opposition to regulation.
More bullshit. It's pretty clear that you're a coward here. Firearms are rarely useful in modern American society. These corner cases and cherry picked examples are just that. Where as tens of thousands of people are killed by firearms every year and yet you don't seem to think there's anything wrong with that.

I'm not really sure why I'm even bothering, it's pretty clear that you're not capable of intellectual discourse. I might be snarky and cranky, but you can't honestly say that I'm not right. Whereas you're logic has more holes than a boatload of Swiss Cheese.

Seriously? You didn't notice the lack of actual substance in his argument? This is why we can't have nice things, one side is so ignorant of the topic that debate is futile.

I was using examples, not cherry picking. And it's funny how you claim that my argument has holes yet you forget that firearms are inanimate objects. The total number of people killed by them is ZERO in any place. Also, Department of Justice reports showed the statistics concerning firearms-related deaths including the deaths of criminals was below 10,000 in 2012 and 2013 while the number of private legal gun owners in the US is well over 85 million and let me remind you that many of those deaths involved smuggled weaponry. If guns really were the problem, wouldn't the gun-related death statistics be in the millions? Think about that.

Also, firearms are used frequently in modern American society whether for target practicing, hunting, or fending off thugs with the vast majority of cases resulting in the aggressors surrendering or fleeing because of the mere threat of getting shot.

Being wise isn't cowardice. Being informed is not cowardice. You on the other hand project and perpetuate hoplophobia. It is clear you lack proper logic. If you want the United States to be a better place, leave.

It just wasn't the substance you wanted to hear. That's the only ignorance going on here, pretending that opposing opinions are inherently ignorant or wrong.

lol the Dilemma, movies and games are cause of violence

Don't quote a whole piece of discussion just for the sake of writing a one-liner (or a two-short-sentencer) please, it's a bad habit that makes things harder to read than necessary.

For what it's worth, hedwards has previously expressed an opinion that shows not a fear of gun ownership, but at the same time asks for responsible ownership and also restricted access in order to prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of those who would do harm to others.

He and I have disagreed in the past but I think we agree on this one (if I understand past statements correctly): In the right hands, there is nothing inherently wrong with owning a firearm. The problem is that the huge number of firearms in the US (approaching 300 million individual pieces) means that a number of them will end up in the wrong hands, and will be used against the law-abiding citizenry - including, possibly, you and I. Whether it be criminal (robbery, etc.) or psychological (mass-shooting), there really isn't an effective mechanism to prevent access for those with other-than-lawful intentions.

There is, on the other hand, data that suggest that a large number of those killed or injured by firearms are themselves criminals, so one might conclude that it's a problem mostly confined to the law-breaking community. Cold comfort to the friends and family of the law-abiding victim.

Either way responsible ownership is key, and that includes doing what it takes to ensure that firearms do not end up in the hands of violent criminals.