No. There is a difference between 'dangerous' and a 'threat'. A car is dangerous because it can run you over but it is not a threat. It can be a threat if it's driven by a mad man.

Drugs are not 'dangerous' just sitting on a table with no-one to consume them. They become a threat when they are handed out to kids on the street.

Your views are biased against science in many ways. Atheists may have been more vocal lately spurred by technological innovation which filters the religious talk out of most mediums due to a blatant delusional realization when written in black and white. This does not mean they will be any different than the current religiously biased majority in power.

In a speech by Obama, he discussed how religion (argument also can be applied to science) can say anything it wants but we must place it in a logical and socially applicable context before we apply the rules to society. As with this ideology, scientific beliefs also must be properly re-worded before it can affect society. I oppose you because you seem to forget that science is based entirely on provable facts and is much more reliable than abstract words written in thousand-year old unverifiable books.

You had me until you started talking about Scientology which is a defamation of religion as it is simply a guise for a successful money making scheme.

Real religions, most which are peaceful and good, when taken upon by average and sane citizens overall improves the conditions of man as they dictate standards of moral judgment.

"Only criminals have guns" thats untrue because the authorities will always also have guns and have better training, tactics as well. If criminals choose to guns then they will also deal with the consequence eventually. Gun control's main purpose is to reduce OPPORTUNITY. Guns make it quicker, easier and less painful to end life. Statistically it is proven that the availability of guns increases the chance of purposeful and accidental death.

There is no reason law-abiding citizens need to defend themselves as they are untrained, do not have full knowledge of the law and eventually cause more harm than good by owning such weapons.

The odds are against criminals and even tho gun control may never be complete, it significantly reduces the likelihood of death by firearm by lessening the chances and increasing the difficulty to acquire firearms.

I don't understand why this is even necessary. Why should we put ANY faith at all in a civilian staged armed-offensive as the only resort to deal with corrupt governments?

That is plainly an anti-authoritarian, barbaric and paranoid state of society which has no faith in it's democratic and legal system. Civilians don't need to be military trained just-in-case-we-need-to-take-over-the-country. That is more of a problem where such small factions may start gang-based violence than any paranoid delusion of a menacing unjust government.

There is no need for every Bob and Mary to own a gun to ensure a peaceful future. Use your vote, use your rights for a free and peaceful future.

Individual biases should not affect a properly structured group of individuals. Obviously if there is no structure and the decisions are purely relied on a democratic-voting-like system then biases will dominate the decision making process however this is irrelevant for a structured mass as their ability to provide diverse and unique arguments assist the logical process more effectively than a single individual's wisdom which once again falls to pray of bias.

Two Societies of 200 random individuals, one with guns and one with no guns. The answer is obvious, a society without guns has less opportunity, risk and danger than a society with guns.

In a worldwide population of billions, many would have lived if opportunities to kill with guns had never arisen.

Most objects have the potential to be a threat. A knife sitting on a kitchen table may be harmless but in the hands of a thief it can be deadly. Guns have more potential to be dangerous than knives but simply being dangerous is not grounds for banning an object.

He is right, the problem with most issues today is that not enough questions are being asked. With a diverse population, greed and corruption does not go unpunished.

With appropriate standards, requirements and restrictions in place, a group can collectively express the numerous and varied points of views to direct a more logical goal than any single individual.

An individual capable of rising to the position of power within a group will generally direct the group towards more positive goals