Good question.  First, as anyone who has been in the military will tell you, a rifle is the basic weapon.  A pistol has certain advantages, but even at short distances, rifles rule.  Second, pistols are quite difficult to hold properly and to use without training.  Third, in the US, the AR15 rifle style has actually became a preferred hunting weapon.  

That's all very much simplified and summarized, keep in mind.

Having said the above, we know that the "black rifle" - the AR15 - had it's initial surge in consumer popularity after the Clinton ban on "assault rifles".   And we know that each time Obama has tried to do something to promote bans, AR15/ammo/pistol sales surged.  It's gotten to the point to where gun stores say Obama is their best salesman.

You see, when you say "Why cant you just put down the weapons and be like other nations..?"....

What happens here is that people don't believe the politician who encourages them in that direction, and they do the exact opposite.  There are, by the way, a huge number of liberal Democrats with lots of guns.  It's not just conservative thinkers. 

This is utter nonsense.  Regardless of what the past history is the question is a current one, of a group intent on slaughtering entire peoples.  This is called genocide.  Do not say that people cannot be outraged, or that they cannot take up weapons against such barbarians.

Really, it does not matter if one ISIS group in one place is not terribly bad, a second one somewhere else is barbarians.  This is not complicated.

Actually, I think something was artificially created in this thread called "gun culture", then after it was created, all the "gun deaths" were capable of being blamed on "gun culture".

The argument is thus falsified, as the premise does not stand.

This is good advice. 

Sure.  Many, perhaps all.  Bullets are lethal, not guns.

22 cal snake loads, essentially a miniature shotgun shell, have likely never resulted in a fatality.

Rubber bullets are not lethal (although sometimes, rarely, they are)

The old shotgun shell loaded with rock salt is not lethal.

Blanks are not lethal.

Overall, about 13% of gunshot victims die.

This is some sick, twisted thinking, dude.

Let's step through it.

1. Gaza unguided rockets are shot into Israeli cities
2. Israeli develops a defensive system, Iron Dome against terrorist rockets
3.  Iron Dome defensive systems works reasonably well
4.  Israeli Iron Dome mft. markets system to other countries

All looks pretty straightforward to me.  You are reversing cause and effect to make a propaganda point.

ONE answer is the method of handling of mentally unstable people.  If a country put them in institutions, they would not be out running around on the streets.  And they would not be capable of killing, on the day in which they did not take their medicines.

In reality, there is no statistical relationship between areas with strong "gun culture" and the percentage of murders due to firearms.

http://stephenewright.com/fromthebluff/2010/12/13/some-interesting-statistics-on-murders-committed-with-guns-by-state/

There is absolutely zero new in this current round of nonsense, all this can be seen in the days of Arafat.  Media whores.

I tend to seriously dislike people who contrive situations or manufacture controversy with the intent of getting me or others to "pick a side."

That goes for the parties in these conflicts, as well as some of the people in these threads.

You know I sincerely do appreciate people from other parts of the world talking knowingly about how they don't need guns to feel safe and how they think somewhat condescendingly that they are better than Americans in this respect.  Transplant some of these guys to south Texas, Arizona or Chicago let's see how rapidly their attitudes change.  

There is no question for me that if a criminal or a nut job worried that some of the people in that restaurant, theater or whatever might be doing concealed carry, he would not do his evil deed.  Not at that place and time.   He is looking for an easy, safe for him hit.  

Most police departments in the US support concealed carry, and are straightforward about it's benefits to the society at large.  

If we have scientific or practical knowledge or guess work that the psychoactive drugs accelerate dangerous behavior including shootings, this needs to be seriously investigated.  It cannot be allowed to be ignored because of lobby and vested interests of psychiatrists (pill pushers, basically) and the pharmaceutical industries.  This is likely what we are beginning to face - serious money interests that would deflect issues with their products by agitating the anti-gun bandwagon.

That's pretty sorry, but that's the way it is.

On the other hand if as a society we accept that psychoactive drugs have great benefits for society and some 0.1 or 0.001% of users go wacko on them, so be it.  But for reasons of discussion, let me note that these rather odd cases of psychotic and delusional behavior, mass murders, do not seem to occur with heroin, crack, speed, marihuana, hashish, or other drugs taken for reasons of addiction or pleasure and for which we imprison people.

Do we have some space left in the jails or are they all full?

Oh, I don't know.


Who WINS?

In the classic of classics, Call of Duty Black Ops Zombies....

The Nazi Zombies always....always....win.....

Also, who do you get to play?

I'm just somehow not excited about playing a cop.

This is quite likely true because "gun nuts" of which I also would be one all have a palpable fear of the dangers of all parts of guns.  Often times learned the hard way.

The article doesn't actually say what you assert as fact.  It lists those ALLEGATIONS, then debunks them.

Cheers!

And Switzerland isn't right next to Mexico.  Any more brilliant comparisons?

Well, ya.  I'm not impressed by the science there at all.

More like a set of poor premises selected to create a desired conclusion.  For example, this statement:

The logical consequence of this blindingly obvious conclusion is that we should reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases which we pump into the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming.

...is false....

Let's restate the sentence without the puffery.

"We should reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to reduce global warming."

This sentence is better, as the elements which may be questioned are the "Should" and the cause/effect relation in the "reduce", as well as the existence/continued existence of  "global warming."

I don't have a problem with encouragement of training in firearms, for a variety of reasons.  Both for men and women and children of both sexes.  Could be taught in high school, for example.  

For example, Glocks are very popular, but do not have an external safety.  This means an ignorant person can easily pick one up and put his finger inside the trigger guard, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The issue that I see is that the Left in the US encourages fear about firearms, and encourages ignorance about them.  This is doubly dangerous.  

I do have a problem with the idea that as part of buying a gun, someone should be forced to go through some training course.  We already have such courses for people who wish concealed carry.  There are simply too many diverse uses and reasons for purchasing firearms to make training integral to the purchase.

For some reason though, the phrase has came to refer to use of guns.  Obviously, explosives and other means accomplish the same ends, and are fundamentally indiscriminate.

It's because "Deniers point out errors" that you need "Deniers", lol.  The very idea of "settled science" is totally anti scientific, and quite dangerous. 

It happens that "climate science", which isn't even really a good term, as it aggregates dozens of disciplines into a false generality, is where this drama is being played out.

RE Australia, yes I believe the continent could be Terraformed, over some period of time and after a huge amount of study and engineering.  The curious issue of the "Rabbit fence", NO SCIENTISTS predicted the divergent cloud formations.  Very interesting.