I read up to page 37-ish or something and wow, what an argument! My 0.02€ now. In order for an argument to stand, the objectivity of the person behind it must be taken into account, so before I get into the argument a couple of things about me. I'm a social anarchist, 100% against capitalism, 100% against the state. I do not believe that violence solves anything when logic can be applied and prevail. Also I'm living in a country where guns are fully prohibited with huge penalties. At the same moment I'm living in a country where government oppression becomes worse day after day. The police is becoming militarized, their purpose is not to fight crime but to suppress people and at some point the shit will hit the fan. Counter-violence is NOT violence. If the state can use violence, the people should be able to react to it. One cannot be a pacifist if s/he has no weapon! Pacifism has to be an option, i.e. I have the means of violence and I choose not to use them, thus I'm a pacifist. If I don't have the means, that doesn't make me a pacifist as any other alternative is out of the question. Simple logic here. You guys (and girls) should be happy that you have a right that everyone should have, to have the means that allow you to be able to exercise the same force as the one by the government. If you lose it, then I'm sorry to say that you'll regret it soon after. And finally, regarding all the shootings that take place in your country, instead of trying to ban guns (effect) try to find the cause behind it. You got people that live under the poverty line, your health care is shit, income inequalities rise all the time etc. (cause). Solve that shit and then you'll see that the gun argument is totally irrelevant. The way things are discussed atm, is like trying to kill every mite by hand instead of spraying some neem oil on the plant! Greetings from Greece