The old report that “60% of gun-related injuries are self-inflicted, or inflicted by friendlies” are basically accidental shooting by people without the training and discipline you would associate with someone who kills for a living. Since that kind of proficiency is what a gun owner is after, he/she should also invest in studying firearms safety.
That’s a bit of a biased OP, isn’t it? As I understand it, a lot of Americans want firearms to prevent themselves being killed, hurt, or robbed.
How else you gonna keep the mooslims down!!?
Funnily enough, someone on my Facebook feed has posted a cartoon with the caption:
‘When two Muslims went on a shooting spree in gun-free California, we ended up with 14 dead Americans. When two Muslims went on a shooting spree at a cartoon event in gun-friendly Texas, all we got was two dead Muslims.’
Whoever actually wrote that needs to learn how to use a semi-colon. 
Absolutely. Whether owning a gun is a good idea isn’t something everyone can simply decide for themselves, as these things spew out bullets that can easily end up in other people.
Well, I’m glad you’ve decided that for the rest of us.
As soon as they make guns that can’t be used to shoot me, feel free to stock up.
Point it the other way.
Regards,
Shodan
People from the Hague (like the OP) need to concentrate on the real threat to humanity in their midst.
So, we’ve established a couple of things in this thread:
-the OP is from a culture different from the one s/he questions
-the OP has already formed an opinion
-That opinion won’t be changed regardless of facts or statistics
How unusual.
Remember, this is an international board and other countries have people who are wrong, too.
Do you trust cops and soldiers to carry guns and use them with appropriate restraint?
If so, would you be OK with other people owning guns if they went through the same sort of training on safety and rules of engagement?
I sense you’re not an American, but the short answer is legally owned (hand) guns are first and foremost for ‘defending yourself’. Yes, that may mean killing, and?
Criminally owned guns are first and foremost for getting what you want in the easiest way possible. Which may also include killing. All just common sense really…
Not entirely. That is part of the reason I have some of my own.
I assume you’re worried about being deliberately targeted, whereas the OP seems to be worried about getting caught in the crossfire:
I think that could a muzzle break rather than a flash hider. Under the NY SAFE act, I believe both are included in the list of banned features, but not under the 1994 AWB.
Remember, guns are not just tools for killing people.
They’re also useful for robbing Canadian visitors of all the cash they bring into the country, so we can finance our takeover of Alberta.
Your car, if you’re allowed to own one, can be used to kill people. How many people have you killed with yours?
Are you allowed to own/handle knives? Knives can be used to kill people. How many people have you killed with yours? According to your logic, it’s obvious that you intended to murder people when you purchased a knife.
There are many reasons why people’s names have ended up on the no-fly list. Some names are added by mistake. As I understand it, it’s very, very, difficult to remove someone’s name to correct the error. When they figure out how to make the no-fly list error-free, well, I doubt that will ever happen, but when they do, maybe then it could be used for other purposes.
The voters have spoken. Why do you hate the voters?