Poll trend on Handgun possession

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Note that the question is asking simply if private citizens should be allowed to carry handguns. That's currently legal in Canada, in most of Europe including France, (UK = the exception, not the rule) and I'm pretty sure it's legal in Australia. There's nothing radical or unusual about the US allowing private handgun ownership.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's nothing radical or unusual about the US allowing private handgun ownership.

Yeah, there is.

So what about France and Canada?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, it most certianly isnt legal to carry handguns in Australia.

But as far as I'm concerned the two ideas are linked anyway. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Er, that article says it IS legal to own handguns in Australia, just only ones below a certain size.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, it most certianly isnt legal to carry handguns in Australia.

But as far as I'm concerned the two ideas are linked anyway. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Er, that article says it IS legal to own handguns in Australia, just only ones below a certain size.

Own them yes, but not to carry them around.

Yeah, ownership is all that I'm referring to, since that's what the poll's about. It's not legal to carry them in every state either. It is Minnesota but only about 1% of the population does so based on the permits issued to do so, so there isn't quite an obsession here either that people are talking about.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It seems that the people who are paranoid about people owning guns (and these are the same people who call those that want to keep guns paranoid about them) are scared of them because they don't own them and others do.

The UK banned handguns, so now most crimes are likely to be committed with knives, doesn't change a thing.

Hey, you're free to think what you want, but the United States still has by far the highest murder rate per capita in the entire Western world.  Something's obviously wrong there.

The murder rate with a firearm per capita in the United States is 28 times what it is in the United Kingdom.  For all the talk I hear of "banning firearms means that only criminals will have them", I sure don't see evidence of that.

OK, let's say the US banned all guns and required their confiscation. How many law enforcement officers are going to get killed by NRA members? Probably more than people killed by guns per year. You really think the gun nuts will peacefully surrender their guns? You know what the phrase "from my cold dead hands" means? Banning guns would cause A LOT more problems in the US than it would solve.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The murder rate with a firearm per capita in the United States is 28 times what it is in the United Kingdom.  For all the talk I hear of "banning firearms means that only criminals will have them", I sure don't see evidence of that.

I think this issue is far too complex to state that guns (or a lack thereof) will either contribute to or decrease gun violence. Hell, look at various locations in the United States. New York City and DC both have strict gun laws. The former is one of the safest cities in the United States, while the latter is one of the most dangerous. Obviously, other factors, such as socio-economic status and poverty levels, contribute to this disparity.

So why does the United States have such a high gun violence rate in comparison to other developed nations? I don't know. Maybe it's the gun culture here. Maybe there's something pervasively wrong with American society. But to say that the relaxation or tightening of gun laws will solely reduce or increase gun violence rates in the United States is naive.

Exactly.

You can't solve the US's gun problems through legislation.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is why I would be completely unelectable if I decided to become a politician.

Glad you finally admit that. Maybe you'll soon also realize your fast food tax idea is not popular and opposing it does not mean one eats tons of fast food.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is why I would be completely unelectable if I decided to become a politician.

Glad you finally admit that. Maybe you'll soon also realize your fast food tax idea is not popular and opposing it does not mean one eats tons of fast food.

i dont care.  it isnt like i want to run for office.

Yes, but you have in the past referred to your views on guns as "normal" and have acted like I'm some sort of nut for opposing your fast food tax idea which has not been implemented anywhere in the world and assume the only reason anyone can oppose is they must eat tons of Big Macs.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The type of governments Ghandi and MLK were fighting can not be compared to a true tyrannical government, like the Stalinist Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and all the brutal dictatorial regimes in the world today, like Burma and whatnot.