It kind of seems like you're just making them up yourself tbh, but whatever your source, I kind of doubt it's more reliable than the UN.

The UN is not too reliable on things, it follows intergovernmental wishes, for goodness sake. If you ask them about anarchy, they'll probably say it's the worst idea ever. It's better than monogovernment source, but there are great differences in the influence governments have. I think even the UN still says that America is the third biggest country by area, and if they don't, they only stopped recently.

Just don't say that the UN is a reliability pillar.

What about now?

Your picture does not load.

I actually think guns are really awesome in concept.

I strongly disagree. I think if forceful propellant based projectiles were never made, we could be living in a much more peaceful and happy world. And the folk who love their guns, well, you can't love something that has never been.

The argument is for more sensible gun restrictions, not outright abolishment.

This discussion should be closed then. Pretty much everyone here agrees that there should be improved gun laws, owners should take safety courses, training, etc.

The entire argument has been over whether privately owned guns should be banned completely or not.

...

Anti-Gun advocate: "We should ban guns, they are harmful for society!"

Pro-Gun advocate: "It's a waste of time, banning things doesn't work."

You really should read that article on the Straw Man fallacy. It would do you some good.

I strongly disagree. I think if forceful propellant based projectiles were never made, we could be living in a much more peaceful and happy world. And the folk who love their guns, well, you can't love something that has never been.

Note that I said 'in concept'. The bow and arrow is also very cool in concept. It has nothing to do with violence, more to do with the physics and engineering of it, as well as just the ability to propel an object accurately over a long distance. Rockets are also cool in concept. Sure they can carry nukes, but they can also carry Voyager probes and the like.

Okay then in reality the discussion should be at what level do gun restrictions violate the Second Amendment and prevent armed citizens from defending themselves against government tyranny. My answer to that would be gun laws are currently useless because the unconstitutional standing military the US has created over the last 50 years can probably destroy any constitutionally valid rebellion against Federal Government Rule. There was a reason America isn't supposed to have a standing military. We lost our country when Ike warned us about the Military-industrial complex and we ignored him.

Ike, the only conservative president I remotely liked.

Note that I said 'in concept'. The bow and arrow is also very cool in concept. It has nothing to do with violence, more to do with the physics and engineering of it, as well as just the ability to propel an object accurately over a long distance. Rockets are also cool in concept. Sure they can carry nukes, but they can also carry Voyager probes and the like.

'in concept' the stretching torture machine is great; if you need to stretch something that can fit in the clasps.

This is what I call a real weapon:





Now, European and American guns:




No wonder why your nations are so weak against terrorism.

Silly Goys.