Ask yourself this, who do you want to uphold the law in your country - the Police force (committed, trained experts in this stuff), or Joe Public? You seem to be advocating some sort of Anarchy.

It's not anarchy, but it's the natural right of every man to defend his own life, family, and property.

Can you really say that most/all/any of the people who own guns in the US are correctly and properly trained in both the usage of the weapon and have the mental faculties or training to cope with making the right choice when deciding wether or not to kill someone?

It's not rocket science learning how to operate a gun. However, of course there will be people who can't handle a gun a safely or make the best decisions, but it's a guaranteed right for anyone to own a weapon here unless they abuse that right. People make bad decisions in all aspects of life. That's why we have hobos, drug addicts, and theives, which is also why Joe Average needs a piece to protect his shit.

The divisions here aren't so much about guns as they are about a wider philosophy. Gun rights are all about empowering individuals and giving individuals basic rights. The other side is all about empowering an elite few to rule over and protect the rest. I bet 90% of all the anti-gun people here also want higher taxes, bigger government, and ideally a socialist system of goverment. On the other hand, like Thoreau, I feel that the government that governs least is the best government.

Do you think that the thief WANTS to break into your house?

What, are most theives being forced against their will to rob someone?

They obviously feel that it's worth the risk for whatever reason.

That's their choice.

You are the one pointing a gun at them, you are the one deciding if they live or die. You have the choice.

It's the criminal's choice to commit a crime. It's the criminal's choice to put up a fight when someone tries to stop them. It's my right to fight back, to the death if necessary, rather than be a victim. By your logic, it was the Allies' fault that WWII occured. After all, it was the US's choice to fight back. It was the NL's and Britain's and France's choices to fight the germans (well maybe not france). They should have just given the Axis what they wanted and everything would have been ok. No war, but no justice either.

Would you say that a police officer has the right to kill if attacked? If so, then what is the difference between a man with a badge and Carl the fucking brick layer? Oh yeah, the cop is properly trained on how to operate the gun. I forgot the average person is too dumb to figure out how to work a slide, trigger, and safety.

There are laws against misusing firearms, just as there are laws on everything else. Laws don't stop dishonest people. Outlawing guns only disarms the law-abiding citizens. Let me put it this way........ Let's say 1% of the population consists of criminals. Let's also say that being armed with a gun makes a person ten times more "powerful". Let's also say that the ratio of the "power" of honest people to the "power" of dishonest people is a direct correlation to a crime rate. If guns are banned, then that 99% honest will be disarmed. Let's say the 1% criminals remains armed, making them ten times as strong. So the "power ratio" will be 99:10. Let's say the criminals are mostly disarmed as well. the power ratio will then be 99:1. Now, let's say everyone and their mama is armed to the teeth. The ratio will be 999:10, or simplified to 99:1. Obviously, the objective is to arm as many honest people as possible and disarm as many criminals as possible, so the ratio can get closer to 999:1. More guns equals less crime.

I'm going off on wild tangents, but I'm tired. I doubt anyone managed to read this far and stay awake, and if you did, you probably skipped the middle to just read the last few sentences, you bastard.

you were the one showing off your Uzi's in another thread as well

It's not an Uzi, although I would like one.