For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

thats two countries you're comparing. how about the other 190?

Yes, on a national level, not extending to individual rights to bear whatever weapons you want.

its not in the public interest.

No developed nation has a higher homicide or gun homicide rate than the USA.

And frankly it's pointless to compare developing nations to developed nations. Sure, you could point out that Colombia and Mexico have drastically higher murder and firearms murder rates/100,000 people than the USA, but then they're both in the middle of a toxic war on drugs.

Yes, society is safer now.

no they meant individually. He said if someone is trying to shoot you it would be appropriate to fight back, not if someone is trying to nuke your country it would be appropriate to nuke them back

No its not! theres been a rise in gun crime since the handgun ban not before. Jeez haven't you been listening!

Switzerland has more guns per capita, and Czech republic has just as liberal gun laws allowing conceal carry. Finland has a high ownership rate and France has 32 guns per 100 people whereas here we only have 5 guns per 100 people. In mexico theres strict gun laws and citizens can't defend themselves against drug gangs

I would be affected by it.

has strict gun laws really worked in this country?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371371/Stockwell-shop-shooting-Girl-5-critical-condition-gunman-fires-indiscriminately.html

**** no they haven't, we need our right to bear arms now, how was anyone on this street meant to defend themselves? and how does making it harder for law abiding sports shooters like me prevent shootings like this? I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right

You're a bit dim, has anyone ever told you that?

I don't deny you your freedom to walk about waving guns about, and whether I wish to do it isn't relevant. Society denies you the opportunity to frighten, threaten or harm (whether intentionally or accidentally) other people with a device that has no practical purpose other than to do those things and be capable of concealment. The loss of sports pistol shooting is an unfortunate consequence but it is the public interest, on balance. Other, valid, uses of handguns are covered by statutory exceptions to the ban.

I ignored the rest of your post as I don't play parley with ad-hominem attacks.

If a tiny minority of people misuse their car and kill people, do you ban cars?
If a tiny minority of black people walk into a bar and kill people, do you ban all black people from bars?
If a tiny minority of factory owners pollute the water and kill people, do you ban all factories?
If a tiny minority of handgun owners misuse their guns and kill people, do you ban all handguns?
If a tiny minority of aeroplanes suffer malfunctions and kill people, do you ban all aeroplanes?
If a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, do you imprison all Muslims?

Erm, cars aren't designed purely to kill. Guns are. Smart, you're not.

If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a young woman wants a handgun on her possession as she feels safer with it (even if that feeling is incorrect, it is what she feels), she cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a person like me wants a handgun to shoot targets on private property and never to have it leave the private property, I cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, s/he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.

I ignored the rest of your post as I don't play parley with ad-hominem attacks. I'm glad to see that Good Bloke has managed to move away from simple name-calling, now do the same.

If a tiny minority of people misuse their car and kill people, do you ban cars?
If a tiny minority of black people walk into a bar and kill people, do you ban all black people from bars?
If a tiny minority of factory owners pollute the water and kill people, do you ban all factories?
If a tiny minority of handgun owners misuse their guns and kill people, do you ban all handguns?
If a tiny minority of aeroplanes suffer malfunctions and kill people, do you ban all aeroplanes?
If a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, do you imprison all Muslims?

Another example of a bigot - guns have other uses that being purely designed to kill.

Another example of a bigot - guns have other uses that being purely designed to kill.

I ignored the rest of your post as I don't play parley with ad-hominem attacks. I'm glad to see that Good Bloke has managed to move away from simple name-calling, now do the same.

If a tiny minority of people misuse their car and kill people, do you ban cars?
If a tiny minority of black people walk into a bar and kill people, do you ban all black people from bars?
If a tiny minority of factory owners pollute the water and kill people, do you ban all factories?
If a tiny minority of handgun owners misuse their guns and kill people, do you ban all handguns?
If a tiny minority of aeroplanes suffer malfunctions and kill people, do you ban all aeroplanes?
If a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, do you imprison all Muslims?

Yeah, they can tranquilize, stun, wind, maim, dismember, disembowel, eviscerate or explode a target, too!

Seriously? Get another hobby. If you want to play with guns, go paintballing.

If a tiny amount of people on the internets display flawed logic, do you block all IP addresses?