I am absolutely sure it's because you make a completely incoherent or illogical point, pat yourself on the back about it, thinking you're awesome, and convince yourself that you have made a perfect, indefensible argument, while the rest of us are either trying to figure out what the heel your talking about, or are frantically trying to point out your logic errors, which you refuse to recognize. I mean, you absolutely *insist* that correlation = causation, that law breakers follow laws, etc.

Yes, we have, and you made just as much sense before. Learn to logic.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

I'm not assuming anything, nor am I rereading what you wrote.  Sorry.  I'm on the freedom side of the fence, you're on the "trust government to take care of you and thugs not to hurt you" fence.

Please correct me then.  That's what I've derived so far from your posts.

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

I suggest you stop spewing garbage.  I've read all your posts.

M

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this?  Cars are stolen regularly and used for crime.  Should we ban cars too?

Your solution is to punish the innocent for the crimes and carelessness of others.

You have adequately answered this, it seems.  Your position is not a general principle as it is predicated on the nature and stability of the government in question.

Can you be specific?  What nature, what government?  What do you imagine that I am not considering in the way you deem proper?

No, I don't really pretend that I know anything at all about Syria or what they (by this I think you are meaning the government) should do.  I've never been there, though I may have friends that have.  Since it was brought up though it raises the questions above out of curiosity and whether your outlook is generalizable, or if it is constrained to the rights of a particular population, USAians.

All I can see about Syria is what reaches us through the filters of mediated information.  Internet, News, and the like.  So I don't really have any knowledge on the matter.

But there do seem to be some here who know all about what other folks should be doing, and have a penchant for advocating enforcing control regimes on them in order to make them conform with their world view of "the way things ought to be".  I am curious as to how that applies in the case of the Syrian people's relationship to their government.

One of our most famous American Syrians, Steve Jobs, was said at times to be pretty authoritarian, so maybe they are more amenable to your authoritarian outlook than the typical American?  Perhaps you would enjoy engaging them in a dialog about how they should not have any weapons unless they have a badge or a uniform and are paid by their authorities to point their weapons at whom their authorities choose?

Anyhow, I looked it up just now.  It looks like you would do pretty well there.  They seem to be moving toward the UN goal of disarming their people.
http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?CoI=188&pos=1000

Do you recommend that Syria do a better job of gun control?  Making sure that no one there (except the government, military, police) has anything that could be considered a weapon?

And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates?

But when an armed intruder is in your house threating you, throwing your gun out the window so that no one is accidentally shot is bad form.

So is Maryland.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Doesn't work in Japan, crime's still perpetrated there with guns. Point me to a place where "gun control" has ever worked and I'll need a GPR to find anyone there, because IT'S A FUCKING MASS GRAVE.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.