In most democratic nations particularly in Europe and all over the world anyway, for example when presidential/general elections occur you have a vast choice of candidates, most of the time up to 20 candidates, it is not as much as in the US where you have only 2 strong party blocks and 2-3 ghost parties, that never had any chance anyway, this has been this way since the 19th century.

+1. This is actually a great and important point Koala that often gets overlooked in the US. We really need electoral reform in this country...its the only way to get rid of the gridlock and force the majority party to work with other ideological groups. If we had multiparty system of government like in France or Germany or UK you would see both the major parties lose more than half their support. The GOP would faction off into the fiscal conservatives, libertarians, war-hawks, social conservatives etc. The democrats would faction off into the social democrats, the moderate centrists, and the progressives. I actually think this is pretty much the only thing from European government that should be imported in the US.

Wee Tory, naebdy wunts tae reid yer barnies, 'cus naebdy can unnerstaun' em, rite?

I agree with Conservative.

I'm glad someone does XD

Whether you are from Europe or the USA or Uganda, it doesn't make a difference to the argument. Nowhere in the OP does it mention the USA, guns are a worldwide problem (or freedom depending on your viewpoint).
There are good arguments supporting and disproving whether gun control increases or reduces homicide rates. It is hard to get a conclusive conclusion of the effect, especially since how almost all sources are biased. It does however, create fear which is unique to gun legal countries.
The part of the US constitution which states 'citizens have the freedom to own guns' is completely irrelevant. As I said earlier, guns are a worldwide problem. All other countries aren't restricted by this. However, it is irrelevant for a much more conclusive reason: it states it is only relevant to militia, which don't exist anymore. Gun control does not restrict your freedom any more than cannabis being illegal.
I have the counterproductive belief that guns should both be legal and completely eradicated from the face of the Earth. People should have the freedom to do anything, but not the tools to commit murder, blackmail or suicide.

Correct, the U.S. constitution does say the guns are mainly Relevant for your protection ( such as a militia ) but it also says you have the freedom to own firearms. " the part in the constitution where it says you have the freedom to own firearms doesn't matter " are you fucking Kidding me? Are any of you people hearing yourself?. So let me get this straight, I'm assuming your a democratic, so Its ok to murder babies no Matter what stage of development but Its bad for a private citizen to own a firearm mainly for protection?. Also, liberals love to point to the constitution and say legalizing gay marriage is constitutional and in fact it is totally in line with the constitution and that's why I support it but liberals can't pick and choose what part they want to follow. The fact is that legalizing gay marriage is just as constitutional as the average citizen having the right to own a firearm

And I agree, one day I truly hope private gun ownership will go down but making it illegal as a dumb ass idea because you will only make it worse

conservative, if you would understand the concept of democracy, my response would have made sense to you ....
btw you cant compare drugs or prohibition with guns. that is simply bullshit. everyone can easily make alcohol or grow canabis or coca plants. but building a gun is something entirely different (excluding the possibility to print a gun, which requires expensive equipment). for this and several other reasons it is not compareable with gun restrictions.

another question, you may have the right to own guns. do you also have the right to use them? and if so, under which circumstances?

at least pls give some proof about your 'facts'... or finally watch the statistics posted earlier on, some of them already refute some of your assumptions...

Edited 1/8/2016 22:10:38

My believe is you only Have the right to kill another human being if they are about to do it to you or someone else. Look, I see why people want guns made illegal but it won't stop the problem. If you truly believe in Classic liberalism ( also known as true liberty or libertarianism ) then you must acknowledge the fact that people have the right to own weapons for self defense. Yes, I can compare drugs and probation to Guns. Why? Well getting a gun is just as easy as getting weed and in fact in some cases easier. You can buy or sell guns illegally on the internet or simply steal them. Gun shops illegally sell weapons a lot as well. Drugs are just as easy to get as a gun. I am a firm believer in the idea that the gun doesn't kill you, it's the person. We need to go to the root of the problem. Even if guns were totally eliminated people would just fine another way to kill other people. We need to start helping and improving our generations instead of denying citizens the right to defend themselves just because other stupid idiots don't respect life.

Edited 1/8/2016 22:34:41

I'm sorry but the images at the start of these post are misleading and poor statistics. If you have the time, read through some of this: https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

If not, the gist is that things like careless driving that result in accidental death, or pushing someone who suffers a head injury and dies etc count as homicide in the UK, where the US definition is only for willful murder. So actually you are 4.03 more likely to be deliberately murdered in the US than in the UK. And I can tell you (not from looking myself!) that guns are difficult to get, and only organised gangs own them illegally.

With regards to the 3 images at the start of the thread, here's what I have to say:
1) When you did/do science at school/uni/(maybe even work), you have a dependent variable, an independent variable, and anything else that could matter is controlled. If you outlaw handguns, but there is tension in society due to immigration, or if there is an increase in terrorism, then the experiment isn't fair. In the real world there are so many different factors affecting homicide rates that this is completely useless. A scatter graph comparing homicide rates and gun ownership rates by country could be more useful, although I doubt you'll find one that links higher gun ownership with lower homicide rates. Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
UK is 0.23, US, 10.64, or just over 46 times greater.

2) You got this from pinterest... I'm not going to dispute the stats, seeing as I can't. I don't know where they got them from... but the third point about how quickly civilians stop rampages... they're the ones who start them. Sure a gun rampage in the UK would be quite bad, there is potential for a lot of people to die, perhaps as many as in Paris. But gun rampages don't happen in the UK. If someone is mentally unstable, depressed, they will seldom manage to kill anyone unless they are very clever or determined. In the US little kids kill their classmates. Also your police force are at times utterly shocking. They go for their guns at the first sign of danger, and kill innocents. It's unclear, but I'm guessing the 11% error rate refers to this... and that's what gets counted as an error.

3) This is just awful. If I took the 4 countries that had the greatest population (China, India, US, Indonesia) and put them up against the 4 countries which have the highest intentional homicide rates I could say that countries with more people have less murders per 100,000 people. That's not a trend, it's a coincidence.

My opinion is that automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned in the US, including pistols. Hunters shouldn't care. Target shooters shouldn't care. Those wanting to defend their homes don't need a sniper rifles and M16s. Massacring people with a bolt action rifle will be much harder, and not being allowed handguns means criminals can't hide their weapons. Training your police in how to arrest people rather than just shooting them might be a good idea too.

Olivave no offense but I stopped reading after you linked a WordPress blog.

Well if you looked at the link instead of making judgements about the site (warlight is quite a nerdy game, so would it be fair if I said you were a fat 30 year old virgin? You probably aren't), you would see that this guy goes into a lot of depth, and clearly knows what he's talking about.

Edited 1/15/2016 20:07:14

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
This is a direct quote from the US constitution
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. it doesnt say that all people should have guns, it says a well regulated militia should have guns. quite frankly most gun owning people are not part of a well regulated militia

so conservative what your saying is that the USA is better cause it is opresing the majority instead of the minority

chuck norris,
There are Two clauses in the 2nd amendment.
1. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Of course, starting a discussion on semantics will Lead to more confusion (misplaced commas).

lol chuck norris you do realize that a well regulated militia is not equivalent to a standing army right? A militia is made of up of free citizens not contractually or institutionally bound to the federal government.

Lol Chuck just got crushed XD I guess it's true that judo isn't everything XD

lol chuck norris you do realize that a well regulated militia is not equivalent to a standing army right? A militia is made of up of free citizens not contractually or institutionally bound to the federal government.
i never said they werent a militia im saying they are not well regulated

you're* oppression* learn to spell you illiterate socialist cuckold.
grammar nazi, the argument for those who know they are losing