To truly understand somebody walk a mile in their shoes.

I have done this. I have thought about why guns are bad, they kill millions over the years, they cause wars, they enable the stupid to kill. But have you walked in my shoes? Go from having a gun your entire life then someone trying to take it away, don't say that's not what they are trying to do, because it inevitably ends that way. You end up with that gap of security with nothing to replace it with. Take it this way, you like that lock on your front door, it makes you feel safe ans secure. Now imagine being told to give it up, or being told you will neve be able to get another one. There will always be the gap that something should be there but it isn't. Not to mention the upsides. It has revolutionalized the world, sure it's had some downsides, but it helped us in many ways as well. It went from only royal armies having power, to the simple farmer with a gun having some power. Before countries' leaders could do as they please, but now they must think twice before doing the stuff they do.

It's somewhat alarming that your first intent is to simply kill the person. Calling the police and then assessing whether or not the robber is armed would be my first two actions.

Unless you're a charming Victorian lady, the robber probably won't let you approach a phone.

Guns don't need to be free, and they don't need to be banned. The records that keep them and the technology that makes them owner-friendly are the only things needing change. We live in a modern world, is it that hard to install touch sensors and shot sensors on guns?

Go from having a gun your entire life then someone trying to take it away, don't say that's not what they are trying to do, because it inevitably ends that way.

Again, find evidence before blurting out outlandish assertions. Even the most anti Gun politician in America doesn't want to outright ban them.

Take it this way, you like that lock on your front door, it makes you feel safe ans secure. Now imagine being told to give it up, or being told you will neve be able to get another one. There will always be the gap that something should be there but it isn't.

No one said we will have stricter gun laws without backup measures, such as strengthening the police. And yet again I will cite the example of Britain, which was de-gunned over half a century. Now the population is virulently anti-gun, and even safer than the States.

It went from only royal armies having power, to the simple farmer with a gun having some power. Before countries' leaders could do as they please, but now they must think twice before doing the stuff they do.

You think the government with the most powerful army in the world has actually considered your actions due to the guns you own? Ha, good one. All politicians care about public opinion, but only because of political image and gain, via pandering to the electorate, not your pistol.

How is that wrong?

He is saying that the law is outdated because guns have evolved...that is like saying the Right to Free Speech is outdated because the American-English language has evolved

I don't think anyone has proposed that.

Gun Buyback Program

If they make alcohol illegal and not weed then something is wrong

Um..they already did make alcohol illegal...it didn't end well...
And I'm not sure if you are aware..but weed isn't legal in our US. And even still in Colorado and the other states that claim to have it legal there...Federal law trumps them

He is saying that the law is outdated because guns have evolved...that is like saying the Right to Free Speech is outdated because the American-English language has evolved

No it isn't, it's a wasteful comparison. The English language evolving is not central to the right of Free Speech, because the idea that is central to the right of free speech is not linguistic structure.

Unless you're a charming Victorian lady, the robber probably won't let you approach a phone.

Well sure, if you chance upon them without noticing or if they break in right next to you. Generally though, most robberies happen when the person isn't home. If you come home while one is in progress it's probably somewhat obvious, as you might be hearing them move things or see the lights on or the door open or a broken window...etc.

Take it this way, you like that lock on your front door, it makes you feel safe ans secure. Now imagine being told to give it up, or being told you will neve be able to get another one.

Frankly, this is irrational.

-_-
Has anybody looked at my idea of adding sensors to the guns? You quoted my answer, Kasic, yet not the gist of the post.

Take it this way, you like that lock on your front door, it makes you feel safe ans secure. Now imagine being told to give it up, or being told you will neve be able to get another one.

A gun is not like a lock. It is not passive, it has to be in the hand to do anything. And if you need a weapon, there are no shortages of fine knives, swords, etc on the market. You do not need a gun, guns are a liability. What happens if you're jumped and your gun is taken? Not so smart now. Knives are easier to conceal.

Has anybody looked at my idea of adding sensors to the guns? You quoted my answer, Kasic, yet not the gist of the post.

In the future it would be a good idea, but tests in the UK so far aren't up to scratch.

It isn't really irrational. And he's got you there nic, our version of speech has changed as well as our guns, does that mean that our right of speech is limited only to letters, newspapers, and what we say outlowd and our right to online speech isn't protected? If you say no to that then you shouldn't say that about guns. Think I'm on a different page than pag though if so then :( if not then :). He still hurt my head on that oregon shooting.

And he's got you there nic, our version of speech has changed as well as our guns, does that mean that our right of speech is limited only to letters, newspapers, and what we say outlowd and our right to online speech isn't protected?

You missed my point. The central idea to the right to free speech is the freedom of expression, and that a man should be able to believe in what he wants to, so long as it does not breed hate and discrimination. This belief has not changed. The right to free speech was not enacted because a certain group of American forefathers spoke in a certain linguistic pattern.

On the other hand, the right to bear arms was grounded in the need to call up a citizen militia in times of war where the national army was not fully established. It was based on the technology of the time, where muskets were in use. Today, there is however no need of a citizen militia against foreign nations, nor are we using muskets, which are single shot, difficult to use guns. We instead have multiple round, rapid fire rifles, which has utterly changed the scale and dynamics of the situation.

Spelling it color instead of colour, however, has not affected the dynamics of free speech in any distinguishable way, other than the fun the Commonwealth world has at American laziness.