Are guns the answer? Seems there are no rules in the USA. A gun can be bought easier than a Big Mac!!! Can anyone explain?

I got a kick out of American posturing that guns are ingrained as part of their constitution. Actually, the right to bear arms is all about a milita being called up to defend the then young collection of states from aggression from overseas (Britiain for example). It however has been misused and abused as anyone has the right to keep, use and be 'protected' by a firearm.

But the rules are more about capitalism. Each has a right to make money. Guns represent big business. As does the after market crowd for ammunition, and related sales to increase the capacity, range, stopping power of these human suffering pieces of technology.

So, for some, guns are the answer. killing another over some petty mistake, transgression or insult seems to mean more than diplomacy and their own healthcare costs.

Firearms are my answer to scumbag criminals. So you really believe that over 20,000 gun control laws are no rules, how interesting.

Yes, it is easy to explain to someone other that a brain dead liberal sheep, someone has been feeding a whole LOT of male bovine feces. As I told you before we have over 20,000 gun control laws. NO! You cannot purchase a firearm easier than a Big Mac, but I must say you are easily lied to if you really believe such a lie.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm.

When I carry a firearm, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation, and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Are guns the answer for what? What is the question?

If you live on a farm in rural Montana, an Inuit community outside of Whitehorse, are an Olympic biathlete, work as an armored car driver, or a bush pilot in Alaska... yes... firearms are a pretty good answer to coyotes, getting food for the winter, competition shooting, going your job, surviving in case you crash, etc. Virtually a necessity.

That Canada has about half the number of firearms (per capita) as the US, but only a tenth the rate of firearm homicides, general gun crimes, etc. would indicate that it isn't necessary the number of firearms which determines harm, but the types, requirements, training, storage requirements, and general attitudes towards firearms. Other countries with high firearm ownership (including Isreal, Switzerland, etc.) also show general firearm crimes rates have little to do with firearm ownership.

Nor is it necessarily beneficial in a democracy to simply ban something from everyone because someone might misuse it. More people die from cars... yet we don't ban cars because some people are bad drivers, get into accidents, use them in crimes, etc. Likewise, knives, baseball bats, hammers, etc. We simply accept that tools and devices have a specific purpose and we try limiting access to those who can't be trusted with them (say driver's licenses) rather than ban everyone from having them. Even more than cars... the vast, vast majority of firearm owners in the US never have a problem.

The question then comes... in a democracy... how much do you wish to inconvenience everyone for a relatively minor saving in lives? Most societies already accept tens of thousands of deaths a year from cars. Maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths from fatty foods.

In the case of the US, they decided they wish firearm ownership to be a right in their constitution. This is then for Americans to decide if they still want that right. Most democracies don't prevent firearm ownership as limiting rights in democracies normally requires some great reason.

Really, then why did it take 3 hours to buy a simple .22 rifle for my last purchase? Wikipedia is a good source but is written by people who submit whatever they want; it is not "authoritative". It is as useful as a BLOG. You have to submit three hours of paperwork and ATF checks to buy a gun but a teenager hands you a Big Mac if you pay him to.

"Checked out my facts on Wikipedia, ..."

Well - THERE'S a credible authority.

Might behoove you to actually crosscheck your references on something other than an Internet-adjustable database.

I can assure you that the process of buying a gun from a dealer, while not complex, does involve several agencies.

The States with the lowest crime rates are those with "right to carry" laws. ... The police cannot prevent crime, they can only find the criminal and bring that person to justice - Only a well armed individual can prevent crime at the time at which it is being committed. ... You should note that the cities with the highest rates of gang violence are those with the strictest gun control laws.

There are plenty of rules. My Concealed fire arm permit class took two days. The background checks for it for NV and UT took almost 3 months. If I were to try to buy a gun the background checks would be extensive. The gun is not an answer, but it will defend me while someone is trying to come up with the question. I come from a family where we were taught to shoot and gun safety at an early age. None of my relatives has committed a gun crime, several are honorable veterans (myself included) and at least one is a cop. A large number of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns by people who would be denied the right to buy them.

Guns are things not an answer ,one plus one = two is an answer

Well, yeah. AmeriKKKans are stupid. We know that. What's your point?