There will always be young hot-headed assholes out there. Unfortunately, in these times, there are a lot of them in the US and their number grows day by day.

The Founding Fathers had a reason for writing the 2nd amendment and it has nothing to do with gunplay by kids or jealous husbands or wives.

It was and it is still all about a tyrannical government out of step with the people, a majority that thinks might makes right.

I’m willing to take my chances in the cities of America. When you’re out on any night, any where — walk the walk, be aware.

Welcome to America, Porter. I’m glad you are ok.

First I have to ask how you intend to create this world? We can’t even being to keep drugs out of the country. How do we keep criminals from getting their guns the same way they get their drugs? What about all the guns already here? What about guns that would remain here for police and military?

Next I have to ask what sort of chance you think she has? I’m a 6′3″ 26 year old man. I’m certainly able to easily overpower most women, let alone frail old women. Why should those that are older, or disabled, or weaker than me have to hope that I’m just a good guy that wouldn’t ever hurt them? How could you feel morally justified in leaving them to my mercy and not allowing them an equalizer so they really do have a chance?

I respond thusly: 1) you haven’t argued from a logical position, and everyone else has. You have argued from an emotional position, and you’re right - you can’t win a logical argument that way. 2) You have totally failed to point out any fallacies. You’ve simply disagreed, which is not the same thing. 3) You’re right, as long as you pursue the line of argument that you pursue, you WILL always fail to convince someone to change. 4) We HAVE come to our own enlightenment in this, and yours is the position which is dismally uninformed. 5) You ARE right about one thing, and that is that growth and change ARE the individual’s responsibility, which is why I started out in life holding the same views as you, and then one day woke up, changed, and grew up.

It is typically lefty condescension to assume that supporters of the 2nd Amendment are uninformed, unenlightened, immature, and in need of change. In fact, that condescension is so powerful that it bars its holders from doing any research about the 2nd Amendment, or examining the framers’ original intent - INCLUDING HOW IT PROTECTS YOUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT IN PUBLIC ABOUT REVOKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS, YOU IGNORANT PUTZ!!! There, now I feel better.

So you lost the argument, and rather than either admit you were wrong, or come up with a more valid argument, you quit. You just quit. Dude, that is really weak sauce.

You haven’t addressed a single point anyone has made. You’ve been refuted time and again, and THIS is how you concede?

I just wanted to say that “Ready on the Right” did not say that gun control causes genocide. He/she specifically said that some of the gun control laws had been in place for decades prior to the actual genocidal regimes. What he/she was trying to imply is that gun control makes it far easier for genocidal regimes to pursue their policies, since the public is less likely to be capable of mounting an effective uprising.

I would like to echo the sentiments of prince wally in saying it’s a shame you weren’t armed. Although it may not have helped the poor kid who got shot while fleeing, if members of the crowd of witnesses to this event had been armed, everyone would have been safer from the gangbanger who was wandering around yelling epithets while continuing to brandish his gun after the event. If a large enough proportion of the crowd had been armed - ie, as in a culture of self-reliance where self-defense is lauded - then he may not have risked the crime in the first place.

Gangsters with guns have advantage only when normal people forsake guns. By their nature guns are equalizing, civilizing devices, as they require some training but little physical strength and fitness to utilize effectively. A few young, fit gangsters have nothing over a crowd (regardless it’s composition) that is armed.

Finally, it’s pretty clear that you’re trustworthy with weaponry. That’s one of the big tragedies of the anti-gun movement. The people who promote gun control are often deeply ethical, trustworthy people of exactly the type that those promoting gun rights WANT to see armed.

We aren’t children. We can be trusted with means of self-defense. Personally, if you remove guns, as a weak nerd you remove my only plausible method of self-defense. I don’t have the strength or training to engage in effective melee. I’m not strong enough to use a bow or crossbow.

As a deeply ethical person, I will not use a gun to kill random strangers. The same is true for the rest of the public. The people who will use guns to kill are using the gun as a tool for an illegal act. They will have little compunction against using an illegal tool when they already intend an illegal act.

You mention that other nations do “just fine” without guns, even though commenter Noah points out that they actually have high violent crime rates. Other nations may infantilize their populations and expose them to violent crime by banning guns, but we don’t have to. We need not bow to peer pressure amongst nations. The appeal to popularity is insufficient. If all of your friends jumped off of a bridge, would you do it?

And it doesn’t take much more than a drill and a hammer to make a (horribly inefficient and ugly) simple gun.

“If you’re comfortable with the government protecting you, fine.”

If he is, it’s outright fantasy. The Supreme Court has upheld that the police have NO(as in none, zero, zip, zilch) responsibility to protect ANYONE. When the government says we are on our own, I refuse to look to the government for help.

Ok - how do you propose we roll up our sleeves and do this?
There are some damned fine manufacturing facilities in Austria, Czech, Brazil, Germany… etc. If we shut down every US company we still need to shut those down. It seems to me that if we were to do that we’d have to first deny those countries their sovereignty - invade. Something which I doubt you seriously propose. Even if you did, it’d be pretty hard without guns.

If you’re comfortable with the government protecting you, fine. But you seem like you’re smart enough to understand this: I don’t place any faith in anyone to prevent bad things happening to me and my family but me, and I don’t see how anything you’ve said should put me at ease.

If you come for my guns, you are sending me a message that my wife’s and daughter’s safety is less important to you than the safety of street thugs who, as you show in your original blog, you have nothing but contempt for anyway.

Surely you can see that I don’t share your viewpoint. I’ll continue to protect myself and my family in the best possible way, and not rely on the highway tax collectors to do it for me.

That’s a grown-up argument all right.

Try this one:

“It’s too bad you didn’t have the means to protect yourself from the violent felons on the street, if they would have turned their attentions to you. The world benefits from self-reliant citizens”

or

“It’s too bad you didn’t take this unfortunate incident as a learning opportunity. Bad things can happen to good(benefit of the doubt) people. The world benefits when day-dreaming gun-banners wake up and realize that there is an entire world out there that doesn’t conform to the fantasy rules they have set for themselves.”

Logical Fallacy. (Argument from Personal Incredulity)”

Valid facts are a logical fallacy? Interesting interpretation of reality.

“How’s the UK doing since banning handguns in 1997? 40% increase in criminal use of handguns in the first two years after the ban.

Logical Fallacy (Confusing association with causation)”

You keep using those words. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.

“You have no proof that any change in law caused those numbers you speak of. However I challenge you to show me the per capita handgun murder rate in places like the U.K or Japan .vs. The United States. I don’t have time right now to look up that data (at work) but do I really need to? I think we know what those numbers will show.”

Logical Fallacy(Arguing from numbers pulled from your nether regions)

Another break from reality?

The UK banned guns, violent crime went up.
Canada banned most guns, violent crime went up.
Australia banned most guns, violent crime went up.

Every place that has tried banning guns has been rewarded with higher rates of violent crime. Verifiable data is NOT a logical fallacy.