"Guns Don't Kill People, People with Guns Kill People"

[Bull]

So it was said. That is an absurd play on words. A gun was used to kill a human being: a teenager, a child, a man, many children, many high school students, many college students, many party goers, and now 5 police. All by guns in the hands of a person, But killed by a gun. And yet, our Speaker of the House refuses to allow a vote on common sense gun control legislation. Hey congress you represent more than the leadership of an organization (NRA) that has its collective head stuck in the sand or some other less dignified orifice.

It may be time for another sit in in the House of Representatives.

America needs a leader in the mold of Martin Luther King to lead us back to civility, and sanity.

[Atlantis]

Most weeks I hear on the news over here 'Mass shooting in USA'. Something needs to be done in order to stop even more innocent people being killed unnecessarily.

[Flapjack]

But the NRA pay them so they will vote that way. This is why we must get money out of politics.

[Leprous]

And the gun nuts will come charging in saying they need guns to defend themselves. Yeah no.

[PlasmaHam]

And the gun nuts will come charging in saying they need guns to defend themselves. Yeah no.

It is funny that the majority of mass killings happen in gun free zones. Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, all events are at places where guns are either legally banned or banned in practice.

So, do you want to put all guns away from private citizens and depend on the police for protection? But wait, most of you are saying that the police are the ones killing people. Most of you don't trust the police, so why should they be the only ones with guns?

[Leprous]

It is funny that the majority of mass killings happen in gun free zones. Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, all events are at places where guns are either legally banned or banned in practice.

So, do you want to put all guns away from private citizens and depend on the police for protection? But wait, most of you are saying that the police are the ones killing people. Most of you don't trust the police, so why should they be the only ones with guns?

I never said the police shouldn't be trusted and I never said they kill most people. I never stated this.

Now, if people don't have guns to shoot people with, then why do you need them?

[PlasmaHam]

I never said the police shouldn't be trusted and I never said they kill most people. I never stated this.

Now, if people don't have guns to shoot people with, then why do you need them?

Making something illegal has never worked to stop it. Prohibition, War on Drugs, all the other instances of banning something has only resulted in smuggling and gang wars. Making guns illegal will just make it so only the bad guys would have guns.

[Leprous]

Making something illegal has never worked to stop it. Prohibition, War on Drugs, all the other instances of banning something has only resulted in smuggling and gang wars. Making guns illegal will just make it so only the bad guys would have guns.

What I find weird is that it does work in Europe. Perhaps your country and its people are a part of the problem? Just what I'm thinking.

[Just JT]

Something is telling me that Billy didn't intend for this to be another gun debate.

[PlasmaHam]

What I find weird is that it does work in Europe. Perhaps your country and its people are a part of the problem? Just what I'm thinking.

I know a guy that lives in Europe. In his town, despite strict gun laws, robberies involving guns are very common. No one can legally defend themselves, so the guy with the illegal gun has no opposition.

People are the problem, you are right. Yet everyone thinks taking away guns are going to fix all those people. Australia had decreased violence involving guns when they banned guns, yet every other form of violence rose. We need to teach people to respect again.

[Leprous]

I know a guy that lives in Europe. In his town, despite strict gun laws, robberies involving guns are very common. No one can legally defend themselves, so the guy with the illegal gun has no opposition.

People are the problem, you are right. Yet everyone thinks taking away guns are going to fix all those people. Australia had decreased violence involving guns when they banned guns, yet every other form of violence rose. We need to teach people to respect again.

You can't teach a mentally disabled psychopath to respect someone he hates, you simply can't.

As someone who lives in Europe I can tell you that in pretty much all countries here gun robberies are not a common thing in cities happening every few days.

People are the problem, but so are the guns. They both need to be dealt with.

[Professional Russian]

but guns don't kill people. I cleaned all mine the other day and not one of them even tried to kill me...not even assaulted me...not even my "assault rifles" assaulted me..it's fucking amazing right? I'm so fucking lucky to be alive. I should get on my knees and thank the Lord for letting me live through such a dangerous job. it takes a sick human mind to kill a person. the gun is just a tool just like a knife or car is.everyone wants to blame the gun when it's not the gun. an inanimate object can'tell kill people

[AustinKGB]

Well what would your propose in the United States? Licensed firearms (in the hands of their owners) make up a statistically insignificant share of weapons used to kill. Most guns used to kill people are 1) handguns 2) stolen/obtained illegally, and 3) used by criminal organizations and gangs. If you removed three cities (Detroit, Chicago and LA) America would be 26th for gun violence. Lawful gun owners are not the issue. The media makes it sound easy to get a gun (and, while I think it would be a good idea to make it a bit more difficult (especially for a new owner without a track record or for someone known to the police)), there are no "loop holes" or other nonsense they commonly repeat.

The "Gun Show Loophole"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEihkjKNhN8

These "common sense" gun laws need to be defined whenever you talk about them- using a buzzword is not helpful. I wouldn't mind seeing some extra license requirements added in order to obtain a weapon capable of firing a higher calibre of ammunition in high volumes, or better screening programs.

[lliam]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8b/d2/7e/8bd27e84f857136a1fe6501eea79e3e8.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BHskXJ4v--/uwxvlq3fa1ht8st1zhdk.jpg

[ClaraWho]

An individual has never managed to kill on the scale we now see.

The reason for this change? Guns and bombs.

Why is owning C4 not as easy as owning a gun? If it were in the constitution would you be happy to allow an individual, without any background checks, on the no-fly list for suspected terrorism... To purchase 40kg of military grade plastic explosives?

No? Then you get the argument.

'We need guns for self-defence'.

Name me a gun rampage in the US that has been ended by a civilian with a gun.

It's armed, trained police that end mass shootings or terrorist attacks, not you playing Rambo.

Because decent, innocent people don't carry assault rifles to a club to dance. They don't bring them to school and keep them beside their lunchbox. They don't bring them to watch a movie.

These scum target 'soft-targets', not places where people are on guard or afraid of being attacked. And what sort of 3rd world would we live if that were the case.

The same people you won't let sit on a plane, you are happy to give an assault rifle. And then you can't understand why you have insanely high gun violence compared to countries that have strict gun laws (for example the UK which I'm happy to discuss if you want a good example).

~ Clara

[PlasmaHam]

'We need guns for self-defence'.

Name me a gun rampage in the US that has been ended by a civilian with a gun.


~ Clara

There are very few, because the man is dead before the mass killings can start.

[Flapjack]

There are very few, because the man is dead before the mass killings can start.
Any stats to back that up?

Gun control won't stop all mass shootings but it will bring the number down. It's like after 9/11 saying we don't need better security on planes because planes don't kill people, people kill people or saying it won't stop every terrorist attack so why bother?

[Judean Zealot]

but guns don't kill people. I cleaned all mine the other day and not one of them even tried to kill me...not even assaulted me...not even my "assault rifles" assaulted me..it's fucking amazing right? I'm so fucking lucky to be alive. I should get on my knees and thank the Lord for letting me live through such a dangerous job. it takes a sick human mind to kill a person. the gun is just a tool just like a knife or car is.everyone wants to blame the gun when it's not the gun. an inanimate object can'tell kill people

I'll grant you all that, but it's quite frankly irrelevant. The issue here isn't stopping sick people from trying to murder others, the issue is to limit the damage when they do. One doesn't hear of a stabbing attack that kills 40.

[Professional Russian]

I'll grant you all that, but it's quite frankly irrelevant. The issue here isn't stopping sick people from trying to murder others, the issue is to limit the damage when they do. One doesn't hear of a stabbing attack that kills 40.

stabbing at a school a county over from mine kill4 and injured 7 or 8 more. we need better mental health care and for that to show up on background checks.

[Leprous]

There are very few, because the man is dead before the mass killings can start.

So you're saying the shooter is already dead before a civilian can kill him? Assuming the cops already killed the guy doesn't this show you don't need the guns? Aha!

[mattsmith48]

It is funny that the majority of mass killings happen in gun free zones. Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, all events are at places where guns are either legally banned or banned in practice.

So, do you want to put all guns away from private citizens and depend on the police for protection? But wait, most of you are saying that the police are the ones killing people. Most of you don't trust the police, so why should they be the only ones with guns?

How is mass shootings funny?

Why not ban guns its not like your gonna shoot the police? About stop hiring racist maniacs as cops, and the ones that kill people about puting them in jail or atlease fire them?

[Professional Russian]

I'd like to make my views on the2nd amendment and gun rights clear since I never really think I did. yes I support universal background checks. no fly list no guns for you. also I thing a, if not previously done, a psych exam should be done and added to your record to show up on future background checks. as for assault weapons? I fully support them. why? quitem simple. when a populace is disarmed it is very easy for a government take over. look at nazi Germany, Stalin Era russia,, and im sure there's more I can't think of. now people will argue that that can happen in the U.S. but it can. it can happen anywhere whether you want to accept it or not. as for why weapons bans don't work? there so so so many illegal guns coming into this country it's not even funny. almost anybody can get their hands on illegal guns. and with that comes a simple problem. while it isn't portrayed in the news too often it does happen, guns do save lives. concealed carry license holders do defend them and if you take guns away from from CCW holders then then the bad guys will get there guns illegally and crime will shoot up becausethey have the upper hand. like Charlie daniels says
Now they're tryin' to take my guns away
And that would be just fine
"If you take em away from the criminals first
I'll gladly give ya mine"..except my hunting rifles ill never give those up gotta put food on the table. anyways the flaw in that line for (what this world needs) is a few more redneck by Charlie daniels band is that you really never can take the guns from criminals(and while old Charlie probably meant that I'm specifying it) becausr they'll always have a back street gun dealer selling them morevery. thats why people that talk about the UK and Australia can't compare them to the US because of all the illegal gun trade we have. It just cant be compared at all. feel free to argue any of tjat...no guarantees ill respond to it

[Stronk Serb]

What I find weird is that it does work in Europe. Perhaps your country and its people are a part of the problem? Just what I'm thinking.

Okay, first of all, guns aren't banned in Europe. Also Europe is a broad term since there are many nations there. Slovakia has pretty lax gun laws and there is far less gun violence, in Switzerland you can own assault rifles and gun crime is also pretty low. In most of not all European countries you can own firearms, types vary but you can. The difference is we have psychological and psychiatric exams, the police inquires with the neighbors, you need to get gun training. I mean, Serbia approximately (an estimate by experts) has enough weapons both legal and illegal to arm every second citizen, do we have shootouts every day? No. It's more of a lax examination before selling guns and the violent culture of the US that is causing the problem. First one can be solved by having extensive psychiatric and psychologicak exams, the second... just play Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny and other classics on TV before evening news and have the kids play with other kids.

[Leprous]

Okay, first of all, guns aren't banned in Europe. Also Europe is a broad term since there are many nations there. Slovakia has pretty lax gun laws and there is far less gun violence, in Switzerland you can own assault rifles and gun crime is also pretty low. In most of not all European countries you can own firearms, types vary but you can. The difference is we have psychological and psychiatric exams, the police inquires with the neighbors, you need to get gun training. I mean, Serbia approximately (an estimate by experts) has enough weapons both legal and illegal to arm every second citizen, do we have shootouts every day? No. It's more of a lax examination before selling guns and the violent culture of the US that is causing the problem. First one can be solved by having extensive psychiatric and psychologicak exams, the second... just play Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny and other classics on TV before evening news and have the kids play with other kids.

Well, that doesn't give a valid reason to actually own one. Also, in 2014 aprox 25% of the Swiss population owned a firearm. Which is less than in the surrounding countries. Automatic weapons are also banned there so yeah.

Also they own these guns because most men there had to serve in the military. I've said this before, they have the guns but they are not allowed to own armi-issued ammo.

[Stronk Serb]

Well, that doesn't give a valid reason to actually own one. Also, in 2014 aprox 25% of the Swiss population owned a firearm. Which is less than in the surrounding countries. Automatic weapons are also banned there so yeah.

Also they own these guns because most men there had to serve in the military. I've said this before, they have the guns but they are not allowed to own armi-issued ammo.

Still, Europe has far les gun crime overall because of tight mental health checks and police inquiring with your neighbors and such as to how you behave. Also semi-automatic weapons here are banned, so are automatic weapons.

[Leprous]

Still, Europe has far les gun crime overall because of tight mental health checks and police inquiring with your neighbors and such as to how you behave. Also semi-automatic weapons here are banned, so are automatic weapons.

Technicly hunting rifles are semi-automatic aswell right? So they aren't banned right?

[Professional Russian]

Technicly hunting rifles are semi-automatic aswell right? So they aren't banned right?

depends. in the US some states don't allow semi automatic rifles to be used for hunting. like here in Pennsylvania we can't use them but down in West Virginia you can. theres some states that are even shotgun only. all dependant on the state

[Stronk Serb]

Technicly hunting rifles are semi-automatic aswell right? So they aren't banned right?

Depends on the rifle. Bolt-action rifles are the same as lever action rifles as in you insert a new round into the chamber by flipping the bolt or lever. Any rifle that has an automatic feed into the magazine, as in a new round gets fed automatically after discharging the previous one is illegal. Handguns are legal regardless of type.

[mattsmith48]

depends. in the US some states don't allow semi automatic rifles to be used for hunting. like here in Pennsylvania we can't use them but down in West Virginia you can. theres some states that are even shotgun only. all dependant on the state

What state only allows people to hunt with a shootgun and why would you hunt with a shootgun seems kinda dangerous, irresponsible, and overkill.

[Professional Russian]

What state only allows people to hunt with a shootgun and why would you hunt with a shootgun seems kinda dangerous, irresponsible, and overkill.

states that are really flat because of shotgun shells won't travel as far as a bullet out of a rifle. and its not really over nor dangerous and irresponsible. a savor slug makes a nice clean kill and does travel to far because of its weight making it ideal for like deer hunting on flat ground. I've used my 12 gauge with a rifled barrel on it as a brush gun before while I was pushing deer.

[rioo]

maybe it's time to learn basic Taekwondo. How?

[mattsmith48]

states that are really flat because of shotgun shells won't travel as far as a bullet out of a rifle. and its not really over nor dangerous and irresponsible. a savor slug makes a nice clean kill and does travel to far because of its weight making it ideal for like deer hunting on flat ground. I've used my 12 gauge with a rifled barrel on it as a brush gun before while I was pushing deer.

Can you name those states? how far shotguns bullets travel?

[Professional Russian]

Can you name those states? how far shotguns bullets travel?

oh fuck id have to go get the game book and specifications. some only allow sabots for clean kills some allow buck shot some don't it's different for each state. sabots slugs loose velocity and accuracy around 150 yards. as soon as you pull the trigger that 300,350, or 400 grain projectile is loosing velocity fast and its falling at a fast rate because of the weight. birdshot and buck shot? fuck that's not good over 30 yards. little bbs don't like to go to far.

[sqishy]

What about the suggestion of preserving some gun culture by keeping the guns, but getting rid of the ammunition?

I do not see how the majority of guns are helpful or necessary at all in keeping 'dangerous people' away, so say the advocates for guns all the way.

[Professional Russian]

What about the suggestion of preserving some gun culture by keeping the guns, but getting rid of the ammunition?

I do not see how the majority of guns are helpful or necessary at all in keeping 'dangerous people' away, so say the advocates for guns all the way.

then what the fucks the use of a gun wth no ammo? you do know we like to take them out and use them right?

[sqishy]

then what the fucks the use of a gun wth no ammo? you do know we like to take them out and use them right?

Then we're back to the original argument on why you need such a huge variety and number of guns in the first place.

[Professional Russian]

Then we're back to the original argument on why you need such a huge variety and number of guns in the first place.

torn between actually between giving you a viable argument or not....fuck. need em all cause this merica land or free because of the brave and without guns wed be nowhere. if you look carefully you'll see every part of US history some how shape or form includes guns

[sqishy]

torn between actually between giving you a viable argument or not....fuck. need em all cause this merica land or free because of the brave and without guns wed be nowhere. if you look carefully you'll see every part of US history some how shape or form includes guns

It does yes... accompanied by many deaths.

Land of the mass shootings!

[DriveAlive]

Can you name those states? how far shotguns bullets travel?

Shotguns are nothing like you see in the movies or video games. They have a very limited range and do not punch massive holes through things.

[mattsmith48]

Shotguns are nothing like you see in the movies or video games. They have a very limited range and do not punch massive holes through things.

Using them for hunting still seem excessive

[DriveAlive]

Using them for hunting still seem excessive

Not at all! A shotgun is really the only way to hunt birds. When hunting deer or other game with one, you can choose different types of ammunition (one of the benefits of using a shotgun) so that it is not under or over powered.

[mattsmith48]

Not at all! A shotgun is really the only way to hunt birds. When hunting deer or other game with one, you can choose different types of ammunition (one of the benefits of using a shotgun) so that it is not under or over powered.

you just said shootguns have limited range so why would it be the best option to kill birds? If you miss your ammunitions will fall back and could hurt or kill something else

[Professional Russian]

It does yes... accompanied by many deaths.

Land of the mass shootings!
those mass shootings aren't shit. if you look it more people are killed in GUN FREE ZONES then these fucking mass shootings and fucking riots and shit. guns aren't the problem. dumbass especially are. if it was up to me id shoot alot of people. if you're deemed not fit for function in society or not fit for a gun you'd be shot. yes I honestly believe we need a real life purge so get all the criminals and fucked up people out of society. eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, that's the way i see it im a simple....wise words from Charlie daniels right there
Using them for hunting still seem excessive

dude i hunt deer with a 7mm magnum. a shotgun aint got shit on that. shot guns are rather weak guns looking at it. they're better for close up then hunting ranges that's why they're usually used for bird hunting instead of deer and bear.

[Professional Russian]

you just said shootguns have limited range so why would it be the best option to kill birds? If you miss your ammunitions will fall back and could hurt or kill something else

the bBs are so small it's a neglectable effect because they really can't hurt much of anything being so small at such a slow velocity

[sqishy]

those mass shootings aren't shit. if you look it more people are killed in GUN FREE ZONES then these fucking mass shootings and fucking riots and shit. guns aren't the problem. dumbass especially are.

Where did you get this information from?


if it was up to me id shoot alot of people. if you're deemed not fit for function in society or not fit for a gun you'd be shot.


This is a new viewpoint I haven't seen before. Do go on.

So if you can't shoot, you will be shot.

Why?

[Professional Russian]

Where did you get this information from?




This is a new viewpoint I haven't seen before. Do go on.

So if you can't shoot, you will be shot.

Why?

the gun free zones thing? I don't have exact numbers ive been too lazy to look it up but look at the big cities that are gun free. chicago, Philadelphia, new York. fucking filled with shootings and crime. Gang violence and drug wars. theres bigger issues than these fucking one off mass shootings that's just what the media makes to be. no its not if you can't shoot. it's, atleast in my mind, and big conjunction of shit that if you're not mentally stable and violent tendencys you shouldn't be around. should be disposed of properly

[mattsmith48]

the bBs are so small it's a neglectable effect because they really can't hurt much of anything being so small at such a slow velocity

If they cant hurt anything why try to hunt birds with them?

[sqishy]

the gun free zones thing? I don't have exact numbers ive been too lazy to look it up but look at the big cities that are gun free. chicago, Philadelphia, new York. fucking filled with shootings and crime. Gang violence and drug wars. theres bigger issues than these fucking one off mass shootings that's just what the media makes to be. no its not if you can't shoot. it's, atleast in my mind, and big conjunction of shit that if you're not mentally stable and violent tendencys you shouldn't be around. should be disposed of properly

It would be much easier for both of us if we went to the numbers on the actual state of affairs, rather than arguments on what sounds like it should be the case, just because it is reasonable in the argument.

Also, why do you want to shoot those you just mentioned?

[DriveAlive]

If they cant hurt anything why try to hunt birds with them?

Well of course the pellets can kill a bird within a limited range, but beyond that they are ineffective. You would never be hunting in an area in which your missed shots could potentially kill someone else.

[Professional Russian]

If they cant hurt anything why try to hunt birds with them?
i meant after you shoot on the way down they don't get enough velocity to hurt anything
It would be much easier for both of us if we went to the numbers on the actual state of affairs, rather than arguments on what sounds like it should be the case, just because it is reasonable in the argument.

Also, why do you want to shoot those you just mentioned?

i would get the numbers but in all honesty i just really don't get that into debates anymore. I just wanted to come stir up some shit like in the old days when I first joined. we both know nothings really going to change. at all

[sqishy]

i would get the numbers but in all honesty i just really don't get that into debates anymore. I just wanted to come sturdy up some shit like in the old days when I first joined. we both know nothings really going to change. at all

Right.

[mattsmith48]

Well of course the pellets can kill a bird within a limited range, but beyond that they are ineffective. You would never be hunting in an area in which your missed shots could potentially kill someone else.

Well I dont hunt I preffer to get my food the regular people way, buying it at the grocery store, how can you be 100% sure when you hunt if you miss you wont hurt or kill someone or something you arent supose to kill

[DriveAlive]

Well I dont hunt I preffer to get my food the regular people way, buying it at the grocery store, how can you be 100% sure when you hunt if you miss you wont hurt or kill someone or something you arent supose to kill
I do not take shots that could possibly lead to accidentally killing someone. You do not hunt by populated areas, nor do you shoot if there is someone down range of you. Proper hunting safety is a must, but I do not see how that is applicable to whether or not using a shotgun is logical for hunting.

[Professional Russian]

Well I dont hunt I preffer to get my food the regular people way, buying it at the grocery store, how can you be 100% sure when you hunt if you miss you wont hurt or kill someone or something you arent supose to kill

im seriously about to photo copy my game book and posting it on here so you can see just how regulated it is. I can't just walk out into my back yard and start shooting deer. you have to be 250 yards away frkm.and inhabited building. can't hunt with any centerfire under .22 calIberia. can't use semi aitomatica(except shotguns) can't use buckshot, must use sabots slugs in shot gun) never shoot over a hill. never shoot towards a building. never shoot straight up into the air(unless bird hunting with shotgun) and theres so so many more. this isn't running around shooting shit. it's highly regulated to keep people safe.

[Jar_Hop]

I really hate it when someone says this. Guns were made for one purpose: to kill.

[Professional Russian]

I really hate it when someone says this. Guns were made for one purpose: to kill.

people kill people. guns are just another tool utilized to do it. god made people. Samuel colt made theme equal. I mean shit i carry 3 or more knives everyday, does that make me a killer to? because those absolutely no need for 3 or more knives per day

[Drewboyy]

The reason guns were put in such a prominent place in the Bill of Rights was not because they liked to hunt, but if the government ever tried to become oppressive the people can protect themselves.

[Jar_Hop]

Okay but when the Bill of Rights was implemented they did not have automatic weapons, they had rifles that took 10 minutes to load and shoot.

[Professional Russian]

Okay but when the Bill of Rights was implemented they did not have automatic weapons, they had rifles that took 10 minutes to load and shoot.

actually they did have "automatic" weapons back then and they knew as technology got better so would the weapons.

[mattsmith48]

actually they did have "automatic" weapons back then and they knew as technology got better so would the weapons.

It doesnt mean it was the right thing to put in there or its a good thing to keep it or just change it so possible terrorist, criminals and crazy people cant legally buy any

[Professional Russian]

It doesnt mean it was the right thing to put in there or its a good thing to keep it or just change it so possible terrorist, criminals and crazy people cant legally buy any

well maybe if the FBI did their job that wouldn't happen. I read an article from the new York times, I think, that the FBI neglected to put in something like half the felonies committed and mental health shit last year. I'll find the article when I get time to. we have laws and regulations in place to prevent that from happening but the government isn't enforcing their own laws. plus if you take the 2nd what about 1st? 3rd? 4th? 5th? what about the other amendments? they'll take those next. the government will strip you of your rights and the right bear arms is always the first because that's what can stop them.

[mattsmith48]

well maybe if the FBI did their job that wouldn't happen. I read an article from the new York times, I think, that the FBI neglected to put in something like half the felonies committed and mental health shit last year. I'll find the article when I get time to. we have laws and regulations in place to prevent that from happening but the government isn't enforcing their own laws. plus if you take the 2nd what about 1st? 3rd? 4th? 5th? what about the other amendments? they'll take those next. the government will strip you of your rights and the right bear arms is always the first because that's what can stop them.

Well from what i ear over the news the 4th amendment is constently violated and it doesnt seem to be any outrage about that. the 8th amendment says no cruel and unsual punishments but the death penalty is legal and your sending millions of small non violant drug offences in jail for long sentences or for life, plus the hole racist cop killing black people thing. All amendments are either basic common sence or human rights except the 2nd and people would still be able to live with out it.

they'll take those next. the government will strip you of your rights and the right bear arms is always the first because that's what can stop them.
Yes thats why all those countries with strick gun controls laws are run by tyrants and dictators who takes all the peoples rights, coutries like England, Finland, Japan, France, Australia...

[Professional Russian]

Well from what i ear over the news the 4th amendment is constently violated and it doesnt seem to be any outrage about that. the 8th amendment says no cruel and unsual punishments but the death penalty is legal and your sending millions of small non violant drug offences in jail for long sentences or for life, plus the hole racist cop killing black people thing. All amendments are either basic common sence or human rights except the 2nd and people would still be able to live with out it.


Yes thats why all those countries with strick gun controls laws are run by tyrants and dictators who takes all the peoples rights, coutries like England, Finland, Japan, France, Australia...

oh don't even fucking say cops are racist. those cops didn't shoot for no reason. and also when a black cop shoots a white guys theres never anyone screaming racist. this countries going to hell in a handbasket and you can't take the citizens constitutional right to defend themselves from threats foreign and demestic especially now. how many times do i need to fucking say you need people control not gun controld. guns don't do anything wrong. hell they save lives and put food on the table for some people.

[mattsmith48]

oh don't even fucking say cops are racist. those cops didn't shoot for no reason.

Your right its the black guy who got shot fault hes the one who was deliberately walking around while being black.

and also when a black cop shoots a white guys theres never anyone screaming racist.

Because theres isnt a problem of unarm white guys being shot by police every fucking day

this countries going to hell in a handbasket and you can't take the citizens constitutional right to defend themselves from threats foreign and demestic especially now.

Your country is going to hell because your electing stupid people who base all their policies on their faith to run it. You dont need to buy a gun to defend your self against foreign threats theres the millitary for that if you absolutely want to defend against it just join the military.

how many times do i need to fucking say you need people control not gun controld. guns don't do anything wrong. hell they save lives and put food on the table for some people.

Yeah your right theres never anyone who used a gun to hurt someone, and its just a coincidence that in countries where theres gun control theres less gun violence and less people being killed by guns.

In what case other than using your gun to rob a store for food those a gun put food on the table? And name one case in which having a gun saved lives?

[Professional Russian]

Your right its the black guy who got shot fault hes the one who was deliberately walking around while being black.



Because theres isnt a problem of unarm white guys being shot by police every fucking day



Your country is going to hell because your electing stupid people who base all their policies on their faith to run it. You dont need to buy a gun to defend your self against foreign threats theres the millitary for that if you absolutely want to defend against it just join the military.



Yeah your right theres never anyone who used a gun to hurt someone, and its just a coincidence that in countries where theres gun control theres less gun violence and less people being killed by guns.

In what case other than using your gun to rob a store for food those a gun put food on the table? And name one case in which having a gun saved lives?

dude you know how many concealed carry people repel attackers? I just read an article of a 13 year old who shot the robbing his house while he was home alone. the American rifleman has a whole section dedicated to it. here it is: www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen/ also you know there's people who hunt to put food on the table right? banning guns, for the millionth time, won't fix the problem. restraining people from getting them will. you Canadians and English and other foreign countries don't get it. you think banning guns will fix it. the problems deeper than that alot deeper. it goes into mental health, drugs, gangs, and illegal trade. go read up on it first or live here awhile maybe you'll understand then

[Vlerchan]

I have stated before that I am in favour of fining arms manufacturers for the deaths that their fire-arms cause. This will act as a sort of pigouvian taxation and allow the market to reflect the true social costs of arms.

I am also against the sale and possession of assault-type weapons and modifications that render arms with similar capabilities - as well as open-carry legislation and all other legislation that promotes a culture of the normalisation of firearms, particularly amongst our youth.

Yet everyone thinks taking away guns are going to fix all those people.
I don't.

But I do believe that a general reduction in gun access will result in a decrease in the number of fatally-violent incidents that occur per capita as reflected in studied I have linked a number of times at this stage.

the gun is just a tool just like a knife or car is.everyone wants to blame the gun when it's not the gun. an inanimate object can'tell kill people
If guns don't facilitate greater ease in the murder of others (and they probably do), they certainly allow for a greater scope for the escalation of situation that might otherwise have passed without fatalities. This is more than reflected in the fact that higher levels of gun-possession in an area are associated with higher levels of murder but not associated with higher levels of crime such as burglary or robbery (the impact is, in fact, roughly neutral).

I also ave no idea why gun-advocates also prefer to pretend that those seeking greater control figure their guns are animate. We don't.

[...] look at nazi Germany, Stalin Era russia [...]
The first was built on the popular mandate of the German people, and the second was built on the backs of a revolution of the masses (with guns).

I'm also in no denial that the United States government could engage in acts of tyranny against it's own populace, it did so in the 30s - re: the internment of Japanese immigrants, but I have argued prior that in a state with the same degree of institutional constraints as the United States, odds are this will not occur without significant popular ascent.

bad guys will get there guns illegally and crime will shoot up becausethey have the upper hand.
Please provide verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

Most guns used to kill people are 1) handguns 2) stolen/obtained illegally, and 3) used by criminal organizations and gangs.
It's worth nothing that the number of stolen and otherwise illegally-obtained guns roaming around, is probably contingent on the gun-densities in a given area. For sure, the genie can't be put back into the bottle, but a general reduction in gun densities has the likelihood of reducing the numbers that fall into the hands of the wrong sorts of people through illicit means.

Okay, first of all, guns aren't banned in Europe.
I figure that there is too many uncontrolled variables that aren't going to be accounted for to make broad comparisons between the United States and Europe useful here. Europe, most importantly though, doesn't have a culture that normalises the possession and use of guns, and nor does it have a quasi-permanent underclass. I have never heard out psychological exams, or cartoons were better though.

[mattsmith48]

dude you know how many concealed carry people repel attackers? I just read an article of a 13 year old who shot the robbing his house while he was home alone. the American rifleman has a whole section dedicated to it. here it is: www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen/

1. Leaving a 13 year old home alone with access to a gun is extremely stupid and irresponsible from the parents and their kid should be taken away from them.
2. the kid having a gun didnt save lives he shot the guy his live isnt saved try again.



also you know there's people who hunt to put food on the table right?

Because you can only hunt with guns, theres no other way to kill animals than with gun

banning guns, for the millionth time, won't fix the problem. restraining people from getting them will. you Canadians and English and other foreign countries don't get it. you think banning guns will fix it. the problems deeper than that alot deeper. it goes into mental health, drugs, gangs, and illegal trade. go read up on it first or live here awhile maybe you'll understand then

Yes because other countries dont problems with mental health, drugs, gangs, and illegal trade, again why in countries where theres gun control theres less gun violence and less people being killed by guns but in US, why what works in every other country wouldnt work again in US?

[DriveAlive]

1. Leaving a 13 year old home alone with access to a gun is extremely stupid and irresponsible from the parents and their kid should be taken away from them.
2. the kid having a gun didnt save lives he shot the guy his live isnt saved try again.





Because you can only hunt with guns, theres no other way to kill animals than with gun



Yes because other countries dont problems with mental health, drugs, gangs, and illegal trade, again why in countries where theres gun control theres less gun violence and less people being killed by guns but in US, why what works in every other country wouldnt work again in US?
Not all children are responsible to be left alone with a firearm. In fact, a large majority are not and there are laws regarding this. However, this child was old enough under the law and if he was responsible enough, then I do not see anything wrong. Also, the life he saved was his own. That is far more important than the robber.

I hunt a lot with a bow, but that is nowhere near as effective on larger game as a gun, nor is it practical to hunt birds with one.

[Professional Russian]

1. Leaving a 13 year old home alone with access to a gun is extremely stupid and irresponsible from the parents and their kid should be taken away from them.
2. the kid having a gun didnt save lives he shot the guy his live isnt saved try again.





Because you can only hunt with guns, theres no other way to kill animals than with gun



Yes because other countries dont problems with mental health, drugs, gangs, and illegal trade, again why in countries where theres gun control theres less gun violence and less people being killed by guns but in US, why what works in every other country wouldnt work again in US?

no that kid should not be taken away from his fucking parents. if you can fucking handle and fuck respect the fire arm and know how properly use more power to you. that kid killed someone who broke into his house and may have possibly killed him. threat asssesment is necessary and this kid had it and did what he needed. an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. if it was up to id make prisons shooting gallery's. if you're in there for some serious crime you don't deserve to live. yes you can hunt with a bow but fuck i could go mass killing with my bow too. holy fuck youre never gonna get it are you? WE HAVE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of illegal guns here and coming everyday for sale to anyone and everyone. you cannot ban guns for that reason becausr then you'll be taking them away from the law abiding citizens and putting them in the hands of criminals.

[Vlerchan]

Would someone mind linking me to the actual article that describes the actions of this kid? I followed professionalrussian's link but it sent me to a main page.

The fact that a kid used a gun to kill an intruder is also no argument for a policy of looser gun control and wider gun ownership. The argument that if people weren't able to access guns like at the moment then crime would spike has been quite regularly debunked.

---

These are actual statistical analysis.

Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can
explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative
to nongun homicides since 1993.

https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

Here's the famous Duggan (2003) paper which discusses the decline experienced since the 1990s.

Using county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun prevalence as between +0.1 and + 0.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates.

http://www18.georgetown.edu/data/people/ludwigj/publication-18264.pdf

Here's a more sophisticated analysis than the one Duggan engaged in, which returns the same results.

On the contrary, evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm. Public health stakeholders should consider the outcomes associated with private firearm ownership.

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf

This is a more recent one that is notable because it is brave enough to control for race, though not intra-racial differences (like Scotch-Irish densities being a notable determinant.)

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3389404&postcount=34

[DriveAlive]

Would someone mind linking me to the actual article that describes the actions of this kid? I followed professionalrussian's link but it sent me to a main page.

The fact that a kid used a gun to kill an intruder is also no argument for a policy of looser gun control and wider gun ownership. The argument that if people weren't able to access guns like at the moment then crime would spike has been quite regularly debunked.

---

These are actual statistical analysis.

Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can
explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative
to nongun homicides since 1993.

https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

Here's the famous Duggan (2003) paper which discusses the decline experienced since the 1990s.

Using county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun prevalence as between +0.1 and + 0.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates.

http://www18.georgetown.edu/data/people/ludwigj/publication-18264.pdf

Here's a more sophisticated analysis than the one Duggan engaged in, which returns the same results.

On the contrary, evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm. Public health stakeholders should consider the outcomes associated with private firearm ownership.

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf

This is a more recent one that is notable because it is brave enough to control for race, though not intra-racial differences (like Scotch-Irish densities being a notable determinant.)

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3389404&postcount=34

Except for Chicago, of course.

[Vlerchan]

Except for Chicago, of course.
I'm not sure what point you believe you're making here.

Whatever impact guns have on armed crime in Chicago is dominates by other factors, prominently the persistent impoverishment and the resulting quasi-permanent underclass that contributes to much of its actual crime. Is there an actual robust statistical model and it's contribution to the literature being discussed here - in which case I would appreciate it was linked - or is this just a casual observation of events?

[mattsmith48]

Not all children are responsible to be left alone with a firearm. In fact, a large majority are not and there are laws regarding this. However, this child was old enough under the law and if he was responsible enough, then I do not see anything wrong. Also, the life he saved was his own. That is far more important than the robber.

I hunt a lot with a bow, but that is nowhere near as effective on larger game as a gun, nor is it practical to hunt birds with one.

Teenagers or children shouldnt be able to have a gun or have access to one. If you have a gun for whatever reason and you also have kids your gun and ammunition should be lock separately and the parents should be the only ones who are able to unlock it. I dont give a shit if the kid is responsible enough he still should have access to a gun, if you have a 13 year old if you think hes responsible enough would you give him the keys of the car, would you let him drink, smoke, or gamble? Does are less dangerous things than a gun.

Its not because the guy just broke into the kids house, he was most likely just trying to steal something, he didnt deserve to die for that. the kid calls the cops and get the fuck out of there. The robber takes what he came for gets out he gets caught and spend between 6 months and 6 years in jail depending on what he did. See no one as to die. the kids live wasnt more important than the robber both lives were as important then the other, its not because one guy made a small bad choice that his live is less important or that he deserves to die, he did something wrong and theres a penalty for that after he gets out of jail he payed his debt to society hes good to go, free to live a regular live.

[Professional Russian]

Teenagers or children shouldnt be able to have a gun or have access to one. If you have a gun for whatever reason and you also have kids your gun and ammunition should be lock separately and the parents should be the only ones who are able to unlock it. I dont give a shit if the kid is responsible enough he still should have access to a gun, if you have a 13 year old if you think hes responsible enough would you give him the keys of the car, would you let him drink, smoke, or gamble? Does are less dangerous things than a gun.

Its not because the guy just broke into the kids house, he was most likely just trying to steal something, he didnt deserve to die for that. the kid calls the cops and get the fuck out of there. The robber takes what he came for gets out he gets caught and spend between 6 months and 6 years in jail depending on what he did. See no one as to die. the kids live wasnt more important than the robber both lives were as important then the other, its not because one guy made a small bad choice that his live is less important or that he deserves to die, he did something wrong and theres a penalty for that after he gets out of jail he payed his debt to society hes good to go, free to live a regular live.

ive been shooting, cleaning, building, and generally handling guns since the age of somewhere around 5 or 6. do you think i should be taken away from my parents for that? no. I learned the ins the outs the safety protocols and to respect the gun and i, nor anyone else around me, has been hurt by a gun. through the hunting, target shooting, and general fun we've had with them no one's gotten hurt to the slightest degree. age doesn't mean shit. it's all about maturity and how you were raised. I think every school should teach proper firearms safety and to respect them instead of teach us to cower in fear of them. the world's gotta stop being a bunch of pussys and grow a set of balls. how do you know that robber wasn't a repeat offender? how do you know it wasn't armed robbery? there's alot of variables in this and Pennsylvania state law states if you feel your, or a loved ones, life is in danger or you feel there's a threat of bodily harm you are allowed to use deadly force. so if im laying here and someone breaks in my house, by law, I am allowed to unload all 11 .40s i have in my pistol into the guy and get off Scott free. I don't know if he was packing or not. I don't know if he had intentions of harming me or my parents. I don't know what his intentions were and that will hold up in a court of law. you can't say that that kid wasn't in danger because you don't know. in this case it's a matter of perception and situational awareness and I think the kid was justified in what he did.

[mattsmith48]

no that kid should not be taken away from his fucking parents. if you can fucking handle and fuck respect the fire arm and know how properly use more power to you. that kid killed someone who broke into his house and may have possibly killed him. threat asssesment is necessary and this kid had it and did what he needed. an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. if it was up to id make prisons shooting gallery's. if you're in there for some serious crime you don't deserve to live. yes you can hunt with a bow but fuck i could go mass killing with my bow too. holy fuck youre never gonna get it are you?

Read this you should like it
Teenagers or children shouldnt be able to have a gun or have access to one. If you have a gun for whatever reason and you also have kids your gun and ammunition should be lock separately and the parents should be the only ones who are able to unlock it. I dont give a shit if the kid is responsible enough he still should have access to a gun, if you have a 13 year old if you think hes responsible enough would you give him the keys of the car, would you let him drink, smoke, or gamble? Does are less dangerous things than a gun.

Its not because the guy just broke into the kids house, he was most likely just trying to steal something, he didnt deserve to die for that. the kid calls the cops and get the fuck out of there. The robber takes what he came for gets out he gets caught and spend between 6 months and 6 years in jail depending on what he did. See no one as to die. the kids live wasnt more important than the robber both lives were as important then the other, its not because one guy made a small bad choice that his live is less important or that he deserves to die, he did something wrong and theres a penalty for that after he gets out of jail he payed his debt to society hes good to go, free to live a regular live.

Also if your gonna swear atlease do it correctly ''fuck respect the fire arm'' doesnt make any sence.

That being said you just said a few post ago that you dont want goverment to take rights promise by the constitution away from citizen, the 8th amendment (thats 6 below the only one you really care about) protect US citizen from ''cruel and unusual punishment'' the shooting prisoners thing kinda violates this right.

WE HAVE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of illegal guns here and coming everyday for sale to anyone and everyone. you cannot ban guns for that reason becausr then you'll be taking them away from the law abiding citizens and putting them in the hands of criminals.

So why is cocaine illegal? its alot less dangerous than a gun its pretty easy to buy. By cocaine being illegal your taking cocaine away from the law abiding citizens and putting them in the hands of criminals who sell it to children.

[Professional Russian]

Read this you should like it


Also if your gonna swear atlease do it correctly ''fuck respect the fire arm'' doesnt make any sence.

That being said you just said a few post ago that you dont want goverment to take rights promise by the constitution away from citizen, the 8th amendment (thats 6 below the only one you really care about) protect US citizen from ''cruel and unusual punishment'' the shooting prisoners thing kinda violates this right.



So why is cocaine illegal? its alot less dangerous than a gun its pretty easy to buy. By cocaine being illegal your taking cocaine away from the law abiding citizens and putting them in the hands of criminals who sell it to children.

read my last post pls and thnxs

[mattsmith48]

ive been shooting, cleaning, building, and generally handling guns since the age of somewhere around 5 or 6. do you think i should be taken away from my parents for that? no.

Yes

I learned the ins the outs the safety protocols and to respect the gun and i, nor anyone else around me, has been hurt by a gun. through the hunting, target shooting, and general fun we've had with them no one's gotten hurt to the slightest degree.

Very irresponsible from your parents you should have been taken away.

age doesn't mean shit. it's all about maturity and how you were raised.

Again why not do it for everything else, let 12 year old drive, let 10 year old drink, let 8 year old into the casino, let 6 year old smoke and watch porn?

I think every school should teach proper firearms safety and to respect them instead of teach us to cower in fear of them. the world's gotta stop being a bunch of pussys and grow a set of balls.

Dont you think you guys already have enough school shooting with out people intentionally bring guns into schools to give to children.

how do you know that robber wasn't a repeat offender? how do you know it wasn't armed robbery? there's alot of variables in this

I didnt say to try to talk him out of robbing your house I said call the cops and get the fuck out of there. And who gives a fuck if hes a repeat offender it doesnt give you more the right to kill him.

and Pennsylvania state law states if you feel your, or a loved ones, life is in danger or you feel there's a threat of bodily harm you are allowed to use deadly force. so if im laying here and someone breaks in my house, by law, I am allowed to unload all 11 .40s i have in my pistol into the guy and get off Scott free.

And you wonder why your country is going to hell!? When regular people are legally allowed to commit cold-blooded murderer without any conciquences.

I don't know if he was packing or not. I don't know if he had intentions of harming me or my parents. I don't know what his intentions were and that will hold up in a court of law. you can't say that that kid wasn't in danger because you don't know. in this case it's a matter of perception and situational awareness and I think the kid was justified in what he did.

Well you dont know if that kid was in danger because he murder the guy and until you can prove your in danger its still murder btw if the robber has a gun he probably got it legally so if you have gun control you dont have to worry he might have a gun because he couldnt buy one. if your still scare of people breaking into your home just get a dog will do the same job (with out the murder part) and its alot safer for children to play with a dog then a gun. You said earlier the world's gotta stop being a bunch of pussys and grow a set of balls. ... the ones that should ''stop being pussys and grow a set of balls.'' are the ones who are to scare to stay home alone with out having a gun.

To what you said in an earlier post about doing mass killing with a bow. if you go lets say to a college with a bow and you try to kill as many people you can your probably gonna hurt 1 person, 2 if your accurate, at worst 3 if your fast enough before someone tries to stop you, if you use a legally bought gun we saw a few weeks ago you can kill up to 50 people in a bar before someone the cops even show up

[DriveAlive]

Yes



Very irresponsible from your parents you should have been taken away.



Again why not do it for everything else, let 12 year old drive, let 10 year old drink, let 8 year old into the casino, let 6 year old smoke and watch porn?



Dont you think you guys already have enough school shooting with out people intentionally bring guns into schools to give to children.



I didnt say to try to talk him out of robbing your house I said call the cops and get the fuck out of there. And who gives a fuck if hes a repeat offender it doesnt give you more the right to kill him.



And you wonder why your country is going to hell!? When regular people are legally allowed to commit cold-blooded murderer without any conciquences.



Well you dont know if that kid was in danger because he murder the guy and until you can prove your in danger its still murder btw if the robber has a gun he probably got it legally so if you have gun control you dont have to worry he might have a gun because he couldnt buy one. if your still scare of people breaking into your home just get a dog will do the same job (with out the murder part) and its alot safer for children to play with a dog then a gun. You said earlier ... the ones that should ''stop being pussys and grow a set of balls.'' are the ones who are to scare to stay home alone with out having a gun.

To what you said in an earlier post about doing mass killing with a bow. if you go lets say to a college with a bow and you try to kill as many people you can your probably gonna hurt 1 person, 2 if your accurate, at worst 3 if your fast enough before someone tries to stop you, if you use a legally bought gun we saw a few weeks ago you can kill up to 50 people in a bar before someone the cops even show up

Or you could just get a truck.

[mattsmith48]

Or you could just get a truck.

Kinda too soon.

You can also hijack a plane and slam it into buildings if you want to kill alot of people but like with the truck it almost never happen but someone killing people with guns that happens everyday

[kev99]

I think every school should teach proper firearms safety and to respect them instead of teach us to cower in fear of them. the world's gotta stop being a bunch of pussys and grow a set of balls.
Well, fear of firearms sounds like a normal, sane behavior. They are machines whose primary purpose is actually, well, to kill. Ever heard about 'survival instinct'?

And people are being pussies because they want to live in a society that considers guns are dangerous when in widespread use? You realize that the Far West era with its duels eye-on-eye on main street ended a century ago, right?

I would be very, very worried if I had a neighbour owning a weapon and calling me a pussy just because I don't have any...

[Vlerchan]

I don't know if he was packing or not. I don't know if he had intentions of harming me or my parents. I don't know what his intentions were and that will hold up in a court of law. you can't say that that kid wasn't in danger because you don't know. in this case it's a matter of perception and situational awareness and I think the kid was justified in what he did.
I would appreciate if you could cite the actual statute in question.

You admit that there's a number of, I would say important, variables we can't be sure about when calculating the morality of the kid's actions. It seems like you're erring on the side of the person that took a life because he shot from a moral high ground. To emphasise, you're siding with the position that place's less legal scrutiny on the act of life-taking, and seriously undermines our negative rights.

Odds are the kid didn't consider the situation in full before shooting and attacked - not defended against: attacked - the intruder.

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Furthermore, like I said, generalisations from this incident - and, also, your personal experience - are invalid contributions.

[Professional Russian]

Yes



Very irresponsible from your parents you should have been taken away.



Again why not do it for everything else, let 12 year old drive, let 10 year old drink, let 8 year old into the casino, let 6 year old smoke and watch porn?



Dont you think you guys already have enough school shooting with out people intentionally bring guns into schools to give to

tell me why I should have been taken awayou from my parents. come on tell me. also like i was drive by like 10 or 11 i started drinking at 13(although that was a personal choice for bad reasons). and the point of having gun safety classes in school is because it will teach safety respect. 2 things you don't get anymore.

[sqishy]

Well, fear of firearms sounds like a normal, sane behavior. They are machines whose primary purpose is actually, well, to kill. Ever heard about 'survival instinct'?

And people are being pussies because they want to live in a society that considers guns are dangerous when in widespread use? You realize that the Far West era with its duels eye-on-eye on main street ended a century ago, right?

I would be very, very worried if I had a neighbour owning a weapon and calling me a pussy just because I don't have any...

Exactly on point.

One angle I take with those who are very much into gun culture, is that it has a double standard going on in the background. Very wide personal freedoms are granted by having firearms, with threatening the lives of others in order to keep your property and life safe. Yet, a stable society and economy is also wanted. I don't see how you can have both the mental drive and spirit of the Wild West, and yet have economic and technological prosperity that needs a good amount of social nurturing and stability within a set frame. They cannot coexist, not in any way that we know of anyway.

[BlackParadePixie]

'We need guns for self-defence'.

Name me a gun rampage in the US that has been ended by a civilian with a gun.

It's armed, trained police that end mass shootings or terrorist attacks, not you playing Rambo.

Sorry, but you're wrong...
Here's an example of it happening 12 times
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

It happens alot more than you think...

[jamie_n5]

I agree with you but the trouble is that they tend to go way overboard with there legislation. I think stricter background checks and banning sales to suspected terrorists and people on no fly lists and mentally unstable people would be fine. I also don't think normal citizens don't need assault type weapons. But like I said my worry is that the idiot democrats like Barak Oboma and Hillary Clinton would mess things up so bad and start an almost civil war in this country over gun laws. That is my concern and point of view.

[trackinglife]

I agree with you but the trouble is that they tend to go way overboard with there legislation. I think stricter background checks and banning sales to suspected terrorists and people on no fly lists and mentally unstable people would be fine. I also don't think normal citizens don't need assault type weapons. But like I said my worry is that the idiot democrats like Barak Oboma and Hillary Clinton would mess things up so bad and start an almost civil war in this country over gun laws. That is my concern and point of view.

People get put on no fly lists for no reason at all. And it can take quite some time for them to get their names removed. There have even been cases where they had to sue to get their names removed. Using the no fly list as a way of keeping guns out of peoples hands is a bad idea. It ignores due process and allows them to just prevent you buying guns just on a whim. Also lets not forget this is the same government that allowed the IRS to specifically target republicans for auditing. The idea that the government wouldn't abuse these laws is just wishful thinking.