How do you explain the British then? Home of James Bond. Don't like having their cops carry guns, because they tend to kill innocent people when they do.

You are, you know, writing to a film professional. The fact that you don't go to other sorts of films does not mean that they aren't the largest hits. Many top films are quite empty of gun violence.

By your logic, you have no right to free speech unless you can justify it as beneficial to the state.

No. It is the second amendment that is written to justify its purpose as its benefit to the state. Nowhere else in the constitution is there any mention of an inalienable right to carry firearms, and any such thing would be in contravention of the civil rights of the potential victims.

Yes, the US takes casualties, mainly from IEDs. But the U.S. military is limiting gun access to its own troops outside of combat situations because they are much too prone to inflict violence upon each other. Most military bases already prohibit anyone but MPs from routinely carrying weapons.

Your rights, yes, are the mutual agreement of the society you live in. There is a libertarian notion of living independently from society and enforcing your rights with your own firearm. But this is a romantic notion far from reality. Murder rates per locality back then were close to those of today, but with 1/100 the population. The net effect of firearms where there was no effective civil justice was that more innocent people were killed.

I don't think you've justified at all that the right to bear arms is a net positive. You've just said there are a lot of them. I don't object to your defending yourself - but I would not have a firearm on either side of the exchange. Their defensive function is not a social benefit if removing them from most people's hands would in general remove the reason for using them defensively. The net result would be more survivors. And we can do something about criminals who are armed. Most criminals are well-known to the police before they commit murder. We can disarm them when they first enter the criminal justice system, and keep doing it.

I spend a good deal of time in places where police do not routinely carry guns. They are fine places to live. One thing that I notice is that the police are in general nicer there.There's none of the "you are alive only by my forbearance" attitude that cops have here. They do have gangs with guns, but the gangs have to make their own ammunition and it doesn't work well. The gangs are hacking starters pistols into firearms, and those don't work well either. Most people whom they shoot survive. I'd be quite happy if we could get that far here.

With all due respect I am sure that people can put together a pseudo-statistical argument like yours while being driven by illogic and emotion.

Sure, plenty of people have a nervous breakdown or something once, but far fewer people go on shooting sprees.

Yes, but there is no shortage of murder and suicide among people not thought to be mentally ill - except for that moment.

And thank goodness for Obamacare, which will get help to more people.

Have you not noticed you live in the United States of America, as opposed to the American colony of Britain?

Proponents of gun ownership as a deterrent to tyranny seem not to have noticed that things have changed since then. Tyrants and their armies, today, need never place themselves in range of your bullets to win.

Hand-held firearms are no longer an equalizing tool in warfare. Only in personal conflict.

And thus, firearm ownership no longer is justified by the second amendment. Owners don't constitute a well-armed militia and don't contribute to the security of the state.

American popular taste in film, violent as it may be, doesn't translate to American taste in daily life. Most people do not want violence around them. Film is by definition escapist. And despite its management in film, sex is still quite popular :-)

Americans odd taste in film wouldn't keep us from achieving a handgun ban.

If you look at the list of Canada massacres, the very worst there is with a weapon obtained legally which nobody should have had the right to own.

I don't really buy the health checkup argument, because a lot of gun violence is done by the "temporarily insane". Mental health is no absolute, the most stable people have their moments. I'd prefer that they not be lethal moments.

Despite our discussion here, patience has just run out. Something will change.

I stopped thinking about your opinion as worth discussing after "gynocentric".

How can someone who is such an advocate for freedom

Did you miss the part about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I have the right to not be shot dead, and so did 20 kids today. That's the kind of freedom I advocate for.

Actually, I don't believe I will have to do a thing. Others will do it for me. And you should definitely not count on the power of the right-wing. That time is done.

There's someone sending multiple mod points long after the discussion started. Their purpose is to hide this and other anti-gun discussion. Of course it could be anyone, but I know that there are many PR companies that hold multiple moderation accounts on web sites that perform moderation. I can just imagine who they work for.

So, we can't protect kids because we'd be overrun by elk if we did. And besides, we need that duck stamp too badly.

Somehow I am finding these unconvincing. Ecological management could still take place without the gun holder. Probably at a lower overall cost to society.

You would disarm every law abiding citizen

Yeah!

open the way for tyranny

I hope you can detect my sarcasm when I say how well I sleep at night knowing that YOU are out there protecting me from tyranny with your gun. First, you can't do it. Governments have bigger weapons than you. Second, nobody wants you to do it. Indeed, lots of us live in fear that you'll decide that now's the time and start shooting up people.

I, for one, would kill anyone who tries to take away my right of self-defense, and I am hardly alone in this stance. Your proposal would be civil war. I dare you to bring it.

We don't want to take it from your cold dead fingers. You might die of thirst or starve to death, of your own will, while resisting. Would that be such a great cost to society if we could, by doing that, protect a few dozen kids from being the random victims of another gun-holder?