Yes. Selected countries. This is called “cherry picking”. :rolleyes:Now, select ALL nations and the USA falls right in the middle.
Nope. They mostly buy in the black market or steal them.
Uhh … yes? That seems self-evident.
It’s a circumstance I would oppose and fight to prevent, perhaps even leave the country if I lost. But it seems nothing more than a simple statement of fact. If the society doesn’t give you a way to enforce a right, then you don’t have that right. It’s not a right.
Sure, some laws are bad laws. And we should repeal the bad laws. I’ve been saying that throughout this thread.
People spontaneously bursting into flames. Zombies rising from the grave. Rivers turning into blood. The Earth crashing into the sun. Erections lasting for more than four hours.
Yes. I say that as someone proud to be American.
Cherry-picking? Did you note that a total of TWO (2) countries in ALL of Europe have a murder rate higher than the U.S.A.? T-W-O. With a T. Russia and Ukraine. The U.S. also has a higher murder rate than Israel, New Zealand, Australia, Canada. These countries are what adult thinkers call “the industrialized democracies.” South Korea, Taiwan, Hongkong, etc. etc. — all have lower murder rates than the U.S.A. Even countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Kenya, Kazakhstan, Somalia(!) have lower murder rates than the U.S.A. according to that Wiki page. Chile, Vietnam, Lebanon — countries striving to undo past problems — all have lower murder rates than the U.S. Cambodia? 1.84 murders per 100,000!
Oh! I get it! You don’t want to compare the U.S.A. with its “peers”, the industrialized democracies, or even countries like Lebanon or Vietnam. You want to compare it with banana republics, countries with especially weak or corrupt governance, and countries with severe on-going civil violence.
Congratulations to DrDeth’s America!! “We have fewer murders than Colombia, Iraq and Haiti.” Yay!!! (Or is it Booo! ? When we MAGA, will America be happily up there with Haiti and Chad?)
Europe? We are not in Europe, as perhaps you noticed. 
How about comparing the Americas? of the 50 some odd nations in the Americas, the USA has the 6th lowest murder rate. Are they all “banana republics”? That’s, err, umm, well, I’d call it “racist”, but…
But no, I compared all nations, nations which perhaps you and mr trump call “shiholes”.:dubious: But I don’t.
No cherry picking. All. Every single last one.
Ha. No worries. I understand you perfectly now.
Better go read Article 1, Section 8.
Yes, only Good Guys should have them, not the Bad Guys. Gotcha. Now how do we tell the difference?
You carry concealed, right? Try carrying open and see what happens.
Yet. There are multiple news stories every day about gun owners who killed for the first time. Why aren’t you going to be one?
Thereby rendering it useless. So why bother to carry it at all? For someone who *is *armed, seeing it anyway creates a risk to you.
You keep avoiding the issue: Does everyone else have the right to defend themselves from you?
I get that fine, but you’ve trapped yourself in a cycle of middle-excluding, and if that’s conscious then it’s merely evasion. The claim is only that fewer deadly weapons will result in fewer deaths. It isn’t binary.
What do you mean? Of course it matters.
That God granted the right doesn’t mean that the government can’t try to interfere with it. And sometimes it does. So yes, obviously it matters what the government says.
Regards,
Shodan
From the “God” of which religious sect did these rights come from?
Good to know. Here’s what the Founding Fathers *did *say:
*Suppress *insurrections. *Not *enable them.
Glad to help clear that up for ya.
Were the Founders expecting insurrections, or just covering all the bases?
Of course, and not just slaves and Indians. The main impetus for calling the Constitutional Convention was Shays’ Rebellion, which brought into focus the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation structure for responding to it. That was a loose group of white male rural types with guns who thought it would be better to resolve their grievances that way than via the still-nascent democratic system. Sound familiar at all?
Sounds like they had a valid complaint, though.
LOL, no bet. I believe you.
Another poster seemed to be strongly implying that.
It would, if true. How would you quantify “obsession”?
Shhhh. Don’t let the other gun nuts hear you say that.
Recently, an FBI agent was in a bar doing back flips and discharged his Glock prematurely. (Recall that a Glock has no safety.) I suggested that, assuming he had to bring his sweetheart along as drinking buddy — she’d get too lonely safe in the car’s glove compartment — it might be prudent to remove the round from the chamber before doing backflips. I am not a gun expert but it seemed like accidental firings might be a bigger risk than Osama bin Laden showing up and challenging FBI agent to a quick draw contest.
I was told in no uncertain terms that I was frightfully ignorant, and would never be admitted to the Gun Nuts Club. Nobody ever uncocks their Glock. A good shooter could take out two Arabs posing as bartenders in the time it would take to recock the Glock.
Bad Guys wear uniforms, good guys don’t 
I rarely carry. This is rural Alabama. I don’t think anyone would bat an eye if I were to open carry.
People commit homicide for the first time every day with no guns involved. Why aren’t you going to be one?
Well shit, it was your hypothetical.
I don’t believe in restricting others’ right to self defense. But, I disagree with your premise that mere possession of a weapon constitutes an active threat.
Fewer weapons may result in fewer deaths, or it may not. But how do you go about magicking away these weapons without massive violations of basic human rights?