Unpopular opinion - I'm pro gun; try to convince me why I shouldn't be.

You are 1.27 times more likely to be stabbed in the UK than in the US.
You are 35 times more likely to be shot dead, over 4 times more likely to be murdered, and 7 times more likely to be assulted with injury in the US than in the UK.
What was your point again?

Is restricting the access of such people to firearms a good idea or a bad idea?

Not before they go on the rampage. Most of the US's worst mass killings were committed by people with no, or only minor criminal records.

All the arguments used against strict gun controls in the US were used by the gun lobby in Australia in 1996, after the port Arthur massacre. The government went ahead and introduced strict controls and a compulsory buyback of existing guns anyway. Since then not one mass shooting and a drop in the murder rate. Even people who were vociferous opponents of the new laws at the time now admit that their arguments were flawed and based on emotion and self-interest rather than any logic or the need to deal with a problem.

Nothing to do with guns though.

Actually according to a report (2009) which had research gathered by numerous organisations such as the EU commission and the United Nations, the violent crime rate in the UK affected 2036 people per 100,000; in the USA it was 466

If ISIS want to inflict harm on people, if they find it harder to purchase a gun, they will inevitably find other ways (i.e. vehicles and knifes... sound familiar?). Unfortunately, it isnt going to stop them.

Ahhh, Australia. Every anti - gun liberal tells me about this. Well here you go...

While gun violence did go down, every other form of violence went up; how weird is that?!

What? It has everything to do with guns. If America had gun control they could be as safe as the UK.

Not really true though. When the actual figure for like-for-like crimes are compared, the US comes out as experiencing higher levels of crime in everything except knife crime, where the UK is slightly higher.
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

So because it is possible to circumvent controls there is no point in having them.
Do you take this approach to all legislation?

Firstly, would you rather be punched or shot?
Well, there you go!

Second, the rate of increase in other violent crime did not change after gun controls were introduced. It was increasing before and continued increasing at the same rate after. Introducing strict gun controls did not have an effect on the rate of increase in violent crime.

Lastly, rates of violent crime have been decreasing and are now lower than they were when guns were banned, but guns have not been reintroduced - how weird is that?!
Or maybe it isn't weird at all because there are some other factors involved?

It is a simple and demonstrable fact - fewer guns lead to fewer shootings. To argue against this is to deny reality. I can understand why American gun nuts with private arsenals are against gun control (as Jim Jeffries put it "I ****ing like guns! Don't take my guns!" ), but it is bewildering why anyone else would try to claim that reducing ownership of and access to guns will not reduce the number of shootings.
Truly bewildering. Perhaps you dream of moving to America and owning some guns? Maybe you have shares in Smith and Wesson? I really have no idea.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, and I will blame myself entirely for that. Yes, there need to be stricter regulations regarding who gets hold of one, but it's not the gun that creates the danger itself, it's the individual that makes the danger. So blaming the gun for the danger is simply nonsensical and utterly erroneous.

Blanket gun bans do not work... and Australia is a perfect example of that. As well as a huge surge in contact crime victimisation rates (btw Australia ranked the highest out of seventeen highly advanced, industrialized countries such as England, France, Spain etc.) That can be backed up by the study conducted by the Dutch ministry of justice in 2001 when talking about victimisation in 1999; 3 years after the gun ban.

Even in recent years, the gun ban has been rubbish at doing its actual job; getting guns off the street!! Between 2010-2015, there have been 37,000 gun licences handed out, a jump from 177,675 to 215,462 (Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023260/Australians-guns-37-000-licenses-issued-five-years-NSW-American-pop-culture-blame.html)

In states such as New South Wales, gun ownership has gone up by a tenth. (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gun-ownership-rises-10-per-cent-across-nsw-20150730-ginwzw.html) In 22 of the state's 600 postcodes, registered guns OUTNUMBERED people... sound pretty alarming, huh?

Apart from the fact that "there did not appear to have an increase in gun-related crime that related to the increase in licences" - Detective Superintendent Mick Plotecki. Maybe America needs to take some notes, but having guns doesn't necessarily mean more gun-related deaths.

Would I rather be stabbed or shot? Neither. And as we have proved that "more guns=more deaths" is not exactly true... well that argument is completely out the window.

And nah, despite what you may think, I'll stay in the UK for now. Don't get me wrong, I love this place, and just because the British law and I have a few disagreements doesn't mean I hate this place; not by any stretch of the imagination.

What? It has everything to do with guns. If America had gun control they could be as safe as the UK.

UK has had 1 mass shooting in the past 20 years. America has had 273+ mass shootings this year.

Switzerland had 1 mass shooting in the past 100 years.

- 3rd highest gun ownership in world.

Actually 2 in the past 20 years
Anyway, most of those guns are kept by those who did military service, and the gun laws are far tighter than those in the US. Guns are far harder to purchase in Switzerland.

According to wikipedia it's 1, but ok.

Why is it always that US gun laws (which differ massively by state btw) have to be the only way?