Gun rights.

[Gamma Male]

Curiously enough, I've seen very few discussions in here over gun rights even though there are a lot of radical right wingers and left wingers. So, I thought I'd start a thread.


In an ideal world, civilian ownership of guns would be illegal. But sadly in America that's not possible. So while I recognize that the vast majority of antigun laws in America are completely ineffective since they only apply to people who buy guns legally, and most criminals buy guns illegally, I do thinl there need to be some restrictions. Here's what I would do.

Get rid of all the gun free zones. They're completely pointless. Unless you have metal detectors and security checkpoints at every door, they're not going to accomplish anything. And as much as some liberals hate hearing this, a lot of shootings could be stopped if there were more responsible gun owners.

Enact much harsher penalties for anyone found buying, owning, or selling a gun illegally.

Make trade shows and other places where just anyone can walk up and buy a gun illegal.

End the drug war. Though it sounds unrelated, this is one of the biggest causes of gun violence.

That's all I can think of for now. Please keep in mind that if you use the 2nd amendments as a reason for not regulating guns you have to back up and justify the 2nd amendment itself.

[Horatio Nelson]

I really like those ideas.

It always makes me mad when people who lost a loved one in a shooting or something similar get up on camera and spew anti-gun bullshit. Banning all guns is such a stupid idea. You disarm all of the law abiding citizens and make them much easier prey for house burglars, muggers, and the like.

But! I do agree that a lot of people that own weapons have 0 respect for them. I think a safety class should be mandatory before being able to purchase a weapon.

Just my 2 cents.

[Gamma Male]

I really like those ideas.

It always makes me mad when people who lost a loved one in a shooting or something similar get up on camera and spew anti-gun bullshit. Banning all guns is such a stupid idea. You disarm all of the law abiding citizens and make them much easier prey for house burglars, muggers, and the like.

But! I do agree that a lot of people that own weapons have 0 respect for them. I think a safety class should be mandatory before being able to purchase a weapon.

Just my 2 cents.

Yeah. Really the only way strict antiguns laws would work good is if you just banned all of them outright. But that simply isn't realistic for America. We need to do more to fix the root causes of gun violence like poverty, the drug war, gangs, and poor treatment of the mentally disabled, instead of just trying to put a band-aid on it all with pointless small scale antigun laws. We have yo be smart about it. I support antigun laws, but only the ones that actually work.

[Typhlosion]

Civilians having access to guns may be a problem, but the access to guns that criminals have is completely out of scale. And in this case, I'd rather hand a gun for every citizen to fend themselves off with that a defenceless citizen.

You're going to solve small problems where the gun was only an available instrument and not necessarily the one choice. Who wants a gun will get a gun, period.

I'm king of my castle.

[phuckphace]

I think the feasibility of gun rights depends on the country and its demographics. I would argue that generous gun rights are in fact possible and feasible in the US, while they might not be the best idea elsewhere. all I can say is that having lived here all my life, I have certainly seen the advantages of people being allowed to use a firearm to defend themselves. I don't think you even have to be a gun nut to appreciate the peace of mind you'll have from being able to keep a very deadly "panic-button" within reach that can neutralize the would-be assailant before he can stop you. especially because a lot of American cities increasingly tend to resemble war zones, and these near-bankrupt cities aren't paying their cops.

the safest societies are small and closely knit, which I imagine is still somewhat true for most European countries that have stricter gun laws. America is huge and isolated, and so we're still pretty Old West.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

When I read debates about gun rights, I honestly wonder why I bother trying to convince myself that the world is safe place. -_-
Anyway, I believe the best route is to tighten up gun laws just a little. Make military grade weapons illegal to posess without a permit.
In a perfect world, all guns could be confiscated, and that would be that, but unless, somebody goes back in time, and makes it so that the gun were never invented, we're going to have to live with guns.

[Harry Smith]

I really like those ideas.

It always makes me mad when people who lost a loved one in a shooting or something similar get up on camera and spew anti-gun bullshit. Banning all guns is such a stupid idea. You disarm all of the law abiding citizens and make them much easier prey for house burglars, muggers, and the like.

But! I do agree that a lot of people that own weapons have 0 respect for them. I think a safety class should be mandatory before being able to purchase a weapon.

Just my 2 cents.

In all fairness what do you expect if there loved ones just got killed by a legally owned gun, I mean it's pretty inconsiderate to blame victims families for going on TV and expressing their views.

The whole argument that it takes away guns/makes it easier for criminals is pretty weak, as I always say-do you think that an M249 support weapon should be legal?

In the UK we banned all firearms, and made it where you needed a water tight license to get one (6 month police check, mental test, storage, classes, etc) and guess what. After 1997 Britain didn't experience a crime wave where pistol wielding baddies pillaged the land. It's just a myth thrown up by the NRA that we need guns to keep up safe when we quite clearly don't


the safest societies are small and closely knit, which I imagine is still somewhat true for most European countries that have stricter gun laws. America is huge and isolated, and so we're still pretty Old West.

I think for Rural areas they can be a need for Firearm ownership, albeit this should be done on a licensing system with very strict restrictions

Who wants a gun will get a gun, period.

[/I][/U]

Why do we make Nuclear bombs legal? Who wants a bomb will get a bomb, I think it's safer to give everyone a Nuclear bomb so then everybody will be safe, oh wait

[Miserabilia]

Good ideas.
Ofcoures he best idea is you know not being able to own guns legaly but you mentioned this okay :lol:
But yes for the USA of now these are good solutions to alot of things.

[Sir Suomi]

In all fairness what do you expect if there loved ones just got killed by a legally owned gun, I mean it's pretty inconsiderate to blame victims families for going on TV and expressing their views.

The whole argument that it takes away guns/makes it easier for criminals is pretty weak, as I always say-do you think that an M249 support weapon should be legal?

In the UK we banned all firearms, and made it where you needed a water tight license to get one (6 month police check, mental test, storage, classes, etc) and guess what. After 1997 Britain didn't experience a crime wave where pistol wielding baddies pillaged the land. It's just a myth thrown up by the NRA that we need guns to keep up safe when we quite clearly don't



I think for Rural areas they can be a need for Firearm ownership, albeit this should be done on a licensing system with very strict restrictions



Why do we make Nuclear bombs legal? Who wants a bomb will get a bomb, I think it's safer to give everyone a Nuclear bomb so then everybody will be safe, oh wait

i. You're missing the point. When someone is murdered, the blame should be upon the murderer, not the inanimate object that was used in the incident.

ii. You really are dense. Most people who advocate for gun rights don't want everything legal, we're not brain-dead, unlike what you'd like to think. Just like I cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater, there are times when we need to limit our amendments, but at the same time, neither are we forsaking them.

iii. The UK has more violent crimes per capita compared to the United States, so don't even try and go there.

iv. You realize there is restrictions on who can buy a gun, right? Not everyone can just go out and buy a rifle. Here's a list of some of the factors that would exclude you from firearm purchase:


Anyone who has been previously convicted of such a crime
A fugitive
User of any controlled substance
Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or deemed mentally defective
An illegal alien
Anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from the military
Anyone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship
Anyone who currently has a restraining order against him or her from an intimate partner or child of said partner
Anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor


v. You're argument is so ridiculous, I'm not even going to address that.

[Vlerchan]

The UK has more violent crimes per capita compared to the United States, so don't even try and go there.
The UK also has an entirely different definition of what constitutes a 'violent crime', and it's a lot broader than the US definition, so that's a completely moot point.

[Gamma Male]

In all fairness what do you expect if there loved ones just got killed by a legally owned gun, I mean it's pretty inconsiderate to blame victims families for going on TV and expressing their views.

The whole argument that it takes away guns/makes it easier for criminals is pretty weak, as I always say-do you think that an M249 support weapon should be legal?

In the UK we banned all firearms, and made it where you needed a water tight license to get one (6 month police check, mental test, storage, classes, etc) and guess what. After 1997 Britain didn't experience a crime wave where pistol wielding baddies pillaged the land. It's just a myth thrown up by the NRA that we need guns to keep up safe when we quite clearly don't



I think for Rural areas they can be a need for Firearm ownership, albeit this should be done on a licensing system with very strict restrictions



Why do we make Nuclear bombs legal? Who wants a bomb will get a bomb, I think it's safer to give everyone a Nuclear bomb so then everybody will be safe, oh wait
I would agree with a stricter license system, but in America banning guns outright(sadly) just isn't feasible. At least not anytime soon.

[Sir Suomi]

I would agree with a stricter license system, but in America banning guns outright(sadly) just isn't feasible. At least not anytime soon.

That's why the Feds are buying up all the 9mm, 7.62 mm, and 5.56 mm ammunition.

[Harry Smith]

I would agree with a stricter license system, but in America banning guns outright(sadly) just isn't feasible. At least not anytime soon.

The UK also has an entirely different definition of what constitutes a 'violent crime', and it's a lot broader than the US definition, so that's a completely moot point.

i. You're missing the point. When someone is murdered, the blame should be upon the murderer, not the inanimate object that was used in the incident.

ii. You really are dense. Most people who advocate for gun rights don't want everything legal, we're not brain-dead, unlike what you'd like to think. Just like I cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater, there are times when we need to limit our amendments, but at the same time, neither are we forsaking them.

iii. The UK has more violent crimes per capita compared to the United States, so don't even try and go there.

iv. You realize there is restrictions on who can buy a gun, right? Not everyone can just go out and buy a rifle. Here's a list of some of the factors that would exclude you from firearm purchase:


Anyone who has been previously convicted of such a crime
A fugitive
User of any controlled substance
Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or deemed mentally defective
An illegal alien
Anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from the military
Anyone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship
Anyone who currently has a restraining order against him or her from an intimate partner or child of said partner
Anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor


v. You're argument is so ridiculous, I'm not even going to address that.

Which one was Adam Lanza?

The nuclear bomb argument isn't ridiculous, it simply disagrees with you. And as Vlerchan said your point about the UK is simply wrong, wrong and wrong. The laws on gun control are so lax, guns flood onto the market meaning if you can't get one you simply drive 200 miles and pick it up without having to go threw much red tape. The graph speaks for itself but as always the pro gunners swallow the bullshit by the NRA, and can't seem to see how the blinded they are, I'm still waiting for the laughable claim that these guns help protect you from an oppressive government

but I'll ask again-do you support people having nuclear weapons?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/gun-own-rates-oecd.jpg

[Miserabilia]

v. You're argument is so ridiculous, I'm not even going to address that.

I feel like that's not the reason you're not adressing it.
It's a pretty valid argument as counter argument to the "guns for safety" argument, or "the gun is not the killer", etc.

[Sir Suomi]

Which one was Adam Lanza?

The nuclear bomb argument isn't ridiculous, it simply disagrees with you. And as Vlerchan said your point about the UK is simply wrong, wrong and wrong. The laws on gun control are so lax, guns flood onto the market meaning if you can't get one you simply drive 200 miles and pick it up without having to go threw much red tape. The graph speaks for itself but as always the pro gunners swallow the bullshit by the NRA, and can't seem to see how the blinded they are, I'm still waiting for the laughable claim that these guns help protect you from an oppressive government

but I'll ask again-do you support people having nuclear weapons?

image (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/gun-own-rates-oecd.jpg)

i. He did not purchase the firearms. He stole them from his mother, after he killed her. His own goddamn mother. If that doesn't show you what his mental state was, then you've got issues.

ii. We're talking about firearms here, not nuclear weapons. The right to bear arms is in our constitution, not the right to weapons of mass destruction. That's like asking why isn't everyone allowed to purchase an Apache helicopter since everyone can purchase a regular civilian model helicopter. That's why I didn't address your argument, since it's downright insane.

iii. Look at the Bundy Ranch incident. If that doesn't show you the power of armed civilians, I don't know what else does.

iv. Funny, I've got graphs too
http://www.storyleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/chicago-handgun-murders.png

[Harry Smith]

I would agree with a stricter license system, but in America banning guns outright(sadly) just isn't feasible. At least not anytime soon.

The UK also has an entirely different definition of what constitutes a 'violent crime', and it's a lot broader than the US definition, so that's a completely moot point.

i. He did not purchase the firearms. He stole them from his mother, after he killed her. His own goddamn mother. If that doesn't show you what his mental state was, then you've got issues.

ii. We're talking about firearms here, not nuclear weapons. The right to bear arms is in our constitution, not the right to weapons of mass destruction. That's like asking why isn't everyone allowed to purchase an Apache helicopter since everyone can purchase a regular civilian model helicopter. That's why I didn't address your argument, since it's downright insane.

iii. Look at the Bundy Ranch incident. If that doesn't show you the power of armed civilians, I don't know what else does.

iv. Funny, I've got graphs too
image (http://www.storyleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/chicago-handgun-murders.png)

However in Britain if I killed my mum I wouldn't be able to grab her assault rifle-do you accept that? Are you simply going to ignore the parts of the debate that disagree with you? Does the graph I provide show that the US has a unique gun problem?

You've just put up a graph that proves my point- a point you ignored. I'll re-post it again, just in case you missed it... The laws on gun control are so lax, guns flood onto the market meaning if you can't get one you simply drive 200 miles and pick it up without having to go threw much red tape. Most significantly, it is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.

Oh please-you don't want to try and throw the big government defeated by peasant militia stuff, if guns could help stop big bad federal government then why didn't the US rise up when Bush stole the election in 2000? It's because oppression doesn't come with a big red badge. Why didn't the gun owners do anything when Kennedy bought the election in 1960? Or when Bush passed the patriot act?

I don't believe the US constitution says that citizens should be able to have handguns, why's that because it was written 200 years ago.

Do you believe that Nukes should be available in the same way that guns are?

[Lovelife090994]

Well, Chicago has some of the heaviest gun laws yet the worst crimes. People die there just going to the park. Basically regulate the illegally obtained guns since not every gun owner misuses guns. I do not see every gun owner as bad and I think that any single woman living alone in a downtown needs one.

In all fairness what do you expect if there loved ones just got killed by a legally owned gun, I mean it's pretty inconsiderate to blame victims families for going on TV and expressing their views.

The whole argument that it takes away guns/makes it easier for criminals is pretty weak, as I always say-do you think that an M249 support weapon should be legal?

In the UK we banned all firearms, and made it where you needed a water tight license to get one (6 month police check, mental test, storage, classes, etc) and guess what. After 1997 Britain didn't experience a crime wave where pistol wielding baddies pillaged the land. It's just a myth thrown up by the NRA that we need guns to keep up safe when we quite clearly don't

Britain has considerably less people than the US and the history of guns in the UK is not as strong as the US.

I think for Rural areas they can be a need for Firearm ownership, albeit this should be done on a licensing system with very strict restrictions



Why do we make Nuclear bombs legal? Who wants a bomb will get a bomb, I think it's safer to give everyone a Nuclear bomb so then everybody will be safe, oh wait

Nuclear bombs and guns are totally different. Honestly is everyone with a gun dangerous to you? No seriously, I want to know that answer without any fluff added. The UK has less than a 1/3 of the USA's population, and the USA is one of the largest informal militias in the world. We protect ourselves from criminals and many stories show how lives are saved from guns owned by law-abiding citizens.

[Harry Smith]

Well, Chicago has some of the heaviest gun laws yet the worst crimes. People die there just going to the park. Basically regulate the illegally obtained guns since not every gun owner misuses guns. I do not see every gun owner as bad and I think that any single woman living alone in a downtown needs one.



Nuclear bombs and guns are totally different. Honestly is everyone with a gun dangerous to you? No seriously, I want to know that answer without any fluff added. The UK has less than a 1/3 of the USA's population, and the USA is one of the largest informal militias in the world. We protect ourselves from criminals and many stories show how lives are saved from guns owned by law-abiding citizens.

Did you really not read what I just said about Chicago? You even quoted it

It's a strawman pulled up by the pro-gun lobby-the problem isn't Chicago. The problem is that guns can continue to flow into Chicago because it's not an island

Most significantly, it is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.

Is everyone with a nuclear bomb dangerous to you? And no I don't think every gun owner is dangerous-I do think the US model is dangerous

I also don't count stories as good evidence in a debate-however something that does is that. Evidence wise you have stories-I have factual proof that this self defence myth is complete bullshit

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

[Typhlosion]

Why do we make Nuclear bombs legal? Who wants a bomb will get a bomb, I think it's safer to give everyone a Nuclear bomb so then everybody will be safe, oh wait
I don't think that any drug cartel currently possesses a nuclear bomb. Please correct me on this one.

One is self defense, another is global politics.

[Lovelife090994]

Did you really not read what I just said about Chicago? You even quoted it

It's a strawman pulled up by the pro-gun lobby-the problem isn't Chicago. The problem is that guns can continue to flow into Chicago because it's not an island



Is everyone with a nuclear bomb dangerous to you? And no I don't think every gun owner is dangerous-I do think the US model is dangerous

I also don't count stories as good evidence in a debate-however something that does is that. Evidence wise you have stories-I have factual proof that this self defence myth is complete bullshit

You realize Chicago is a city right? And guns are so terrible? So why am I a man who grew up around guns am still alive and yet to own a gun? And you are comparing the threat of World Nuclear War to guns? Pathetic.

[Harry Smith]

I don't think that any drug cartel currently possesses a nuclear bomb. Please correct me on this one.

One is self defense, another is global politics.

If they visit Belarus I'm sure they could, or stuff a briefcase full of radioactive stuff

You realize Chicago is a city right? And guns are so terrible? So why am I a man who grew up around guns am still alive and yet to own a gun? And you are comparing the threat of World Nuclear War to guns? Pathetic.

Chicago has tight gun laws-you claimed this shows that gun laws don't work due to the high levels of crime where as I was stating that it was because guns can simply be brought into Chicago bypassing any of the city's laws-if you want the laymans version of that-you need Federal Gun laws not local ones

-just because you've survived guns doesn't make widespread public ownership good.

If you actually read what I said you'd see that I'm not opposed to guns-I just think you need to have regulation. I'm going to be edgy and say yes Guns are a bigger threat to the US

Now before I go to sleep I'm going to clarify my position of nuclear weapons, I've been using a technique called Reductio ad Absurdum-I don't think that Nuclear weapons should be in public ownership-I was trying to highlight the irony and the link between the pro gun arguments, and by right associated that with Nuclear weapons. For example the argument
-If everyone haves one we're safe, could be applied to Nuclear weapons. I was simply trying to appeal to the argument that your presenting, and to show that it's largely wrong. I'm aware that's failed as the majority of you seem to think I'm advocating public ownership of nuclear weapons where in fact I'm trying to show the hypocritical nature of the pro-gun argument by drawing out the reasons for opposition to nuclear weapons.

And if you want to know what is pathetic that only a handful of pro-gun people can actually see the problems that the US faces, it's clear as day but the gun lobby just close their eyes and wait until the next school massacre. The funniest thing about this debate is that the gun lobby raise the usual debates of Self Defense and Tyranny yet both these have been proved to be incorrect

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/gun-own-rates-oecd.jpg

[Lovelife090994]

If they visit Belarus I'm sure they could, or stuff a briefcase full of radioactive stuff



Chicago has tight gun laws-you claimed this shows that gun laws don't work due to the high levels of crime where as I was stating that it was because guns can simply be brought into Chicago bypassing any of the city's laws-if you want the laymans version of that-you need Federal Gun laws not local ones

-just because you've survived guns doesn't make widespread public ownership good.

If you actually read what I said you'd see that I'm not opposed to guns-I just think you need to have regulation. I'm going to be edgy and say yes Guns are a bigger threat to the US

Now before I go to sleep I'm going to clarify my position of nuclear weapons, I've been using a technique called Reductio ad Absurdum-I don't think that Nuclear weapons should be in public ownership-I was trying to highlight the irony and the link between the pro gun arguments, and by right associated that with Nuclear weapons. For example the argument
-If everyone haves one we're safe, could be applied to Nuclear weapons. I was simply trying to appeal to the argument that your presenting, and to show that it's largely wrong. I'm aware that's failed as the majority of you seem to think I'm advocating public ownership of nuclear weapons where in fact I'm trying to show the hypocritical nature of the pro-gun argument by drawing out the reasons for opposition to nuclear weapons.

And if you want to know what is pathetic that only a handful of pro-gun people can actually see the problems that the US faces, it's clear as day but the gun lobby just close their eyes and wait until the next school massacre. The funniest thing about this debate is that the gun lobby raise the usual debates of Self Defense and Tyranny yet both these have been proved to be incorrect

image (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/gun-own-rates-oecd.jpg)

Pardon my French mon frère but I speak English and would gladly rather see you avoid those Latin jargon-based colloquialisms on me. Now, come hither to reason so that I may elucidate your reasoning and pick with that brain, oui? I will not ignore the corruption in my country. Living on Earth has corruption in it of itself. However, I will also say that many lives are saved by law-abiding families having guns in the home safely stowed away. Is there gun violence? Of course, but you also have domestic violence, knife violence, rocks used as weapons, military weapons used inappropriately, and poisons found in medicines used to kill.

Do we ban all of this too? No, we do not because the acts of few do not speak for the acts of many. I would love to play link-and-click with you, but if you can't already tell by my rather nonchalant demeanor right now I'd rather skip the fluff and get to the meat. I'm taking what you said with a grain of salt. Nuclear weapons can wipe out a whole city in a matter of seconds, and guns are weapons that like all are misused. The difference is how nuclear weapons; just one could spark a volley to wipe all life from this Earth. A single gunshot can start a war but that will not extinguish all life on the planet. Now I'll make this as monosyllabic as possible. Redo your research, learn a thing or two about the UK's crime because you guys have a lot of it, be sure to be clearer and concise, give me a reason why guns should be banned nationwide, and tell me why you disagree with the US 2nd amendment which is not going anywhere. Oh and the reason America has so many guns is because we can have them as protection. Notice we have a constitution. Also we are the world's largest informal militia and some places have it where guns are needed like rural neighborhoods. Oh and one more thing, my family owns guns and we have the registration and papers. Do you think us bad too?

[Miserabilia]

Now, come hither to reason so that I may elucidate your reasoning and pick with that brain, oui? I will not ignore the corruption in my country. Living on Earth has corruption in it of itself. However, I will also say that many lives are saved by law-abiding families having guns in the home safely stowed away. [1] Is there gun violence? Of course, but you also have domestic violence, knife violence, rocks used as weapons, military weapons used inappropriately, and poisons found in medicines used to kill.



[1]"How much of that difference should be chalked up to the presence of guns? Well, gun-rights advocates often argue that there's no point taking away people's guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife. In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

Then there's the related argument that people have a right to defend themselves against aggressors carrying firearms, and that if you criminalise gun ownership, only criminals will have guns (which is perhaps what Ice-T was getting at). That may be valid in the abstract. In practice, 0.8% of victims of gun violence say they responded to their attackers by either using or threatening to use a gun. Not much of a risk for the criminal, it seems. Perhaps that was because too few Americans own guns or carry them on their persons to have a substantial effect, but it's hard to imagine driving those numbers up much higher; Americans already own twice as many guns per person as any other nation. How many more Americans would need to carry weapons in public in order to create a serious criminal deterrent? Five times as many? Ten? Is this even possible, let alone desirable?

None of this should be particularly surprising. We know that overall, firearm deaths are lower in states with stricter gun-control laws. More recently, we've learned that the expiration of America's assault-weapons ban was responsible for a substantial portion of the subsequent increase in gun deaths in northern Mexico. It's really not terribly shocking that making it harder to get your hands on machines designed to kill people results in fewer people being killed. But we've worked very hard over the past few decades to convince ourselves otherwise."

-http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control




Do we ban all of this too? No, we do not because the acts of few do not speak for the acts of many. I would love to play link-and-click with you, but if you can't already tell by my rather nonchalant demeanor right now I'd rather skip the fluff and get to the meat. I'm taking what you said with a grain of salt. Nuclear weapons can wipe out a whole city in a matter of seconds, and guns are weapons that like all are misused.[2] The difference is how nuclear weapons; just one could spark a volley to wipe all life from this Earth. A single gunshot can start a war but that will not extinguish all life on the planet. [3] Now I'll make this as monosyllabic as possible. Redo your research, learn a thing or two about the UK's crime because you guys have a lot of it, be sure to be clearer and concise, give me a reason why guns should be banned nationwide, [4] and tell me why you disagree with the US 2nd amendment which is not going anywhere. Oh and the reason America has so many guns is because we can have them as protection.[5] Notice we have a constitution. Also we are the world's largest informal militia and some places have it where guns are needed like rural neighborhoods. Oh and one more thing, my family owns guns and we have the registration and papers. Do you think us bad too?

Nuclear weapons can wipe out a whole city in a matter of seconds, and guns are weapons that like all are misused.

There is only one point in guns, which is to shoot and kill, or shoot and injure. It's what they're invented for, what they're made for, and what they're used for. The only misuse for guns is when someone conciders them sport.

[3]: Irrelevant.
THe size or destruction of the example weapon doesn't matter, it's just to show that that pro gun argument does not make sense.
If that would be a legitimate argument, you could see it making sense with nuclear weapons too.

[4]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

[5]: More people die by guns than people who have their lives saved by them. Saying guns should be kept for protection only causes more deaths. THink off all the non violent gun related accidents, like accidental shooting or kids finding them.
Think of all the kids who's parents have a gun for protection which the kid uses to kill his entire school.

[Harry Smith]

Redo your research,

I don't speak Latin either, however that doesn't make the argument or the technique any less valid. Ignorance doesn't make your argument better.

I've done research, and it proves very clearly that the US has the highest rates of gun violence in the world. I think the Graph's been linked about 5 times, but I'll put it again to show you. I really want you to focus on these two points, look at the numbers provided by Cheese-the evidence shows that the US needs to do something about it's guns

1)You claim guns help with self defense-A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5

2)The us doesn't have a problem-the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

And no I don't think all gun owners are dangerous, and yes I have used a gun before, and yes I'm british. As I've said before I simply believe that restrictions on guns should be water tight rather than simply giving them to whoever. The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms and ''The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".[

[Lovelife090994]

I don't speak Latin either, however that doesn't make the argument or the technique any less valid. Ignorance doesn't make your argument better.

I've done research, and it proves very clearly that the US has the highest rates of gun violence in the world. I think the Graph's been linked about 5 times, but I'll put it again to show you. I really want you to focus on these two points, look at the numbers provided by Cheese-the evidence shows that the US needs to do something about it's guns

1)You claim guns help with self defense-A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5

2)The us doesn't have a problem-the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

And no I don't think all gun owners are dangerous, and yes I have used a gun before, and yes I'm british. As I've said before I simply believe that restrictions on guns should be water tight rather than simply giving them to whoever. The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms and ''The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".[

Anyone who has a gun legally should be allowed to have it to protect their families. Your numbers are skewed, your logic is flawed, your bias is showing, and you're obviously inert to anything factual on the law-abiding gun owners. I have stated time and time again that yes we need regulation, but the US is huge! Also, areas with high crime tend to have strict gun laws so obviously strict gun laws are not always the answer. And no I do not support government black suits barging into to my home and questioning me about my carefully stowed and accounted for handgun or rifle. Now, please redo your research. Whenever throwing numbers which can be false, give a citation. I'd rather see where you are pulling this. I do not support a nationwide ban of guns on all citizens, but I do know how hard it can be to get a gun in America. It is more than walking into a shop and picking the biggest or smallest gun on the wall without papers. Or are you ignoring all of this? I don't care if you are or aren't British. I care whether or not you seek to change another countries laws and tear up it's constitution. Sorry, if this offends you; I am usually brutally honest and blunt.

[Harry Smith]

Your numbers are skewed (1), your logic is flawed (2), your bias is showing (3)

(1) No there not-but I'll happily give you the citation for the evidence

The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population-
Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway, “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries, 2003,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, published online ahead of print, June 2010

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
5Kellermann, Arthur L.MD, MPH, et al. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 45 (1998): 263-67

(2) You accuse my logic of being flawed, when your only response is to question my data. Your starting to demonstrate the clear signs of a weak article-you've made baseless claims without any evidence, I've provided evidence that disproves and you've then retreated claiming that all my data is wrong when it's clearly from Academic sources

(3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black I think it's safe to say that about 99% of the members on this board are biased-including you

(4) You make the usual tripe about strict guns laws working-I think it's the 5th time I've said it-you need Federal gun laws not state ones because this isn't west and East Germany. Your attempt at a weak brand of libertarism is laughable at best

[Vlerchan]

There's a rather obvious correlation between gun-ownership and the murder-rate:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jY4L06BPnU8/UQqnf7jGPfI/AAAAAAAAFJ4/tdJeYUD_6Gg/s400/Gun+Ownership+vs+Gun+Deaths+by+State.jpg
http://h2ndsg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p0SaT8tVdhTcr-3GrmfwwMIDjhG9wA9HVGGkPlSwxOOCqPYuS4phsrahXRjpo7wtJpgYwOj0LIElIuJxWdvMHvCVEFpr0R nPB/GunOwnership.jpg?psid=1

At the same time their a similar correlation between the murder-rate and the inequality in an area (GINI coefficient):

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Firearms-Murders-and-Inequality-bt-State-2011.png
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Gini-coefficient-and-urban-murder-rate.png
http://davald.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/murder-and-gini.png

I think we should be trying to tackle the inequality (and urban and rural poverty) as opposed to creating these good-intention fuelled gun-control laws: especially when you consider that most crimes are committed with handguns, and banning handguns in America is just unfeasible. Though I'm not so sure I'd be in favour of banning handguns anyway: there's still the correlation between concealed-carry permits and the violent crime rate that's needs to be accounted for (because apparently allowing people to carry their guns makes gun-ownership a more effective aid against crime):

http://www.ncpa.org/images/1030.gif
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/08/Chart1.jpg
http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Conceled-Carry-population-coverage-and-violent-crime.jpg

I am however cool with banning automatic weapons. Since they literally serve no purpose that I'm aware of - other than creating hard-ons for gun-nuts.

tl;dr: guns work with socialism.

[Harry Smith]

There's a rather obvious correlation between gun-ownership and the murder-rate:

image (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jY4L06BPnU8/UQqnf7jGPfI/AAAAAAAAFJ4/tdJeYUD_6Gg/s400/Gun+Ownership+vs+Gun+Deaths+by+State.jpg)
image (http://h2ndsg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p0SaT8tVdhTcr-3GrmfwwMIDjhG9wA9HVGGkPlSwxOOCqPYuS4phsrahXRjpo7wtJpgYwOj0LIElIuJxWdvMHvCVEFpr0R nPB/GunOwnership.jpg?psid=1)

At the same time their a similar correlation between the murder-rate and the inequality in an area (GINI coefficient):

image (http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Firearms-Murders-and-Inequality-bt-State-2011.png)
image (http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Gini-coefficient-and-urban-murder-rate.png)
image (http://davald.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/murder-and-gini.png)

I think we should be trying to tackle the inequality (and urban and rural poverty) as opposed to creating these good-intention fuelled gun-control laws: especially when you consider that most crimes are committed with handguns, and banning handguns in America is just unfeasible. Though I'm not so sure I'd be in favour of banning handguns anyway: there's still the correlation between concealed-carry permits and the violent crime rate that's needs to be accounted for (because apparently allowing people to carry their guns makes gun-ownership a more effective aid against crime):

image (http://www.ncpa.org/images/1030.gif)
image (http://cdn.pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/08/Chart1.jpg)
image (http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Conceled-Carry-population-coverage-and-violent-crime.jpg)

I am however cool with banning automatic weapons. Since they literally serve no purpose that I'm aware of - other than creating hard-ons for gun-nuts.

tl;dr: guns work with socialism.

That's pretty much catch 22 for the gun lobby in America-it would be interesting what they'd rather have-Socialism free America or Gun free America, any idea which one they'd chose?

[Gamma Male]

As vierchan said, I think we should be doing more to tackle the root causes of gun violence and less passing pointless good intentioned laws to try to stop people from getting guns.

If we ended the war on drugs, raised the minimum wage, and started giving out free socialist healthcare and education I'm willing to be that that would do more to lessen gun violence than any anti gun law.

[Lovelife090994]

That's pretty much catch 22 for the gun lobby in America-it would be interesting what they'd rather have-Socialism free America or Gun free America, any idea which one they'd chose?

I choose socialism-free. This is a republic, not a communist state.

(1) No there not-but I'll happily give you the citation for the evidence

The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population-
Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway, “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries, 2003,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, published online ahead of print, June 2010

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
5Kellermann, Arthur L.MD, MPH, et al. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 45 (1998): 263-67

(2) You accuse my logic of being flawed, when your only response is to question my data. Your starting to demonstrate the clear signs of a weak article-you've made baseless claims without any evidence, I've provided evidence that disproves and you've then retreated claiming that all my data is wrong when it's clearly from Academic sources

(3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black I think it's safe to say that about 99% of the members on this board are biased-including you

(4) You make the usual tripe about strict guns laws working-I think it's the 5th time I've said it-you need Federal gun laws not state ones because this isn't west and East Germany. Your attempt at a weak brand of libertarism is laughable at best

Yeah, and so you're anti-gun? Good luck demonizing the item and not the criminal.

As vierchan said, I think we should be doing more to tackle the root causes of gun violence and less passing pointless good intentioned laws to try to stop people from getting guns.

If we ended the war on drugs, raised the minimum wage, and started giving out free socialist healthcare and education I'm willing to be that that would do more to lessen gun violence than any anti gun law.

I do not like the idea of socialism or any -ism but I do think we need to stop blaming the inanimate object and start getting these criminals. Minimum wage is high enough. If that is raised then someone has to pay for it. Americans' taxes are high as is and if they raise and if the services that minimum wage goes to get more pay then those services' prices would increase exponentially. Plus, we have more pressing matters; education and the pay of teachers for one issue.

[Gamma Male]

I choose socialism-free. This is a republic, not a communist state.

You mock something you don't understand. Communism and Socialism are not the same things.

I do not like the idea of socialism or any -ism but I do think we need to stop blaming the inanimate object and start getting these criminals. Minimum wage is high enough. 1 If that is raised then someone has to pay for it.2 Americans' taxes are high as is and if they raise and if the services that minimum wage goes to get more pay then those services' prices would increase exponentially3. Plus, we have more pressing matters; education and the pay of teachers for one issue.

1Minimum wage will be high enough when families can live off of it without having to take 3 jobs, beg for food, and go on welfare.
2This is a lie put forth by republicans. The majority of minimum wage jobs are service jobs that cannot be exported. These corporations like McDonalds make more than enough money to pay their employees higher wages.
3 Minimum wage is a very pressing issue. Aren't you republicans always talking about how lazy poor people are and how you wish you didn't have to pay for their expenses? Maybe if they got paid a fair wage they wouldn't need government support.

Do you realize how much additional revenue we would have if we legalized and taxed drugs and prostitution? A lot. I mean, A LOT.

nn

[Vlerchan]

I choose socialism-free. This is a republic, not a communist state.
A communist state can't exist by definition.

I do not like the idea of socialism or any -ism but I do think we need to stop blaming the inanimate object and start getting these criminals.
I suggested creating a setting in which these people don't become criminals in the first place.

Minimum wage is high enough.
It's people like you who have resulted in a situation like this developing in the US:

http://acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/growth-in-income-inequality1.jpg
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif
http://shitcentralbankerssay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/avg-income-percentile.png

2 Americans' taxes are high as is and if they raise and if the services that minimum wage goes to get more pay then those services' prices would increase exponentially
Both of these claims are bullshit (particularly as regarding taxation: see above graphs).

Walmart, for example, made profits of 15.6 billion (http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/snapshots/2255.html) this year. You don't think they could spread those profits a bit more equitably across their workforce (and thus not raise prices) instead of you needing to put your money up instead? (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html)

[Lovelife090994]

You mock something you don't understand. Communism and Socialism are not the same things.



1Minimum wage will be high enough when families can live off of it without having to take 3 jobs, beg for food, and go on welfare.
2This is a lie put forth by republicans. The majority of minimum wage jobs are service jobs that cannot be exported. These corporations like McDonalds make more than enough money to pay their employees higher wages.
3 Minimum wage is a very pressing issue. Aren't you republicans always talking about how lazy poor people are and how you wish you didn't have to pay for their expenses? Maybe if they got paid a fair wage they wouldn't need government support.

Do you realize how much additional revenue we would have if we legalized and taxed drugs and prostitution? A lot. I mean, A LOT.

nn

A communist state can't exist by definition.


I suggested creating a setting in which these people don't become criminals in the first place.


It's people like you who have resulted in a situation like this developing in the US:

image (http://acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/growth-in-income-inequality1.jpg)
image (http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif)
image (http://shitcentralbankerssay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/avg-income-percentile.png)


Both of these claims are bullshit (particularly as regarding taxation: see above graphs).

Walmart, for example, made profits of 15.6 billion (http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/snapshots/2255.html) this year. You don't think they could spread those profits a bit more equitably across their workforce (and thus not raise prices) instead of you needing to put your money up instead? (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html)

These are service jobs! They weren't meant to be lived off of. If you want pay then get a job that will pay. If you want to have less crime, then stamp out the criminals and rehabilitate. And I'm the problem? See that's where people like you are wrong for blaming everyone for your own problems. Just work and get an education and actually do something with your life!

[Miserabilia]

These are service jobs! They weren't meant to be lived off of. If you want pay then get a job that will pay. If you want to have less crime, then stamp out the criminals and rehabilitate. And I'm the problem? See that's where people like you are wrong for blaming everyone for your own problems. Just work and get an education and actually do something with your life!

Not only is this irrelevant to gun controll, it's also leaning towards insulting and plain generalizing.
Just saying.
Could you provide solid arguments for your standpoint on gun controll?

[Lovelife090994]

Not only is this irrelevant to gun controll, it's also leaning towards insulting and plain generalizing.
Just saying.
Could you provide solid arguments for your standpoint on gun controll?

I did as I do every time. Apparently no one here reads or listens!

[Miserabilia]

I did as I do every time. Apparently no one here reads or listens!

*solid arguments.

[Lovelife090994]

*solid arguments.

What more can I give you?

[Gamma Male]

These are service jobs! They weren't meant to be lived off of. If you want pay then get a job that will pay. If you want to have less crime, then stamp out the criminals and rehabilitate. And I'm the problem? See that's where people like you are wrong for blaming everyone for your own problems. Just work and get an education and actually do something with your life!

This mindset that poor people are just lazy slacker leeches who need to get off their asses is wrong, and quite frankly, insulting. Service jobs weren't meant to be lived off of? Then what the fuck were they meant to do?

Not everyone can afford a college education. Not everyone is smart enough to earn a scholarship. For a lot of people, service jobs are their only option. And when they can't afford to make a decent living off of their jobs, they turn to crime. Social inequality is the single biggest cause of gun violence. Wanna know the best way to prevent gun misuse? Fix social inequality.

And you idea that if we just took ell the criminals and locked them all away gun violence would end is just laughable.

[Miserabilia]

What more can I give you?

Some solid arguments. So far I have yet to see an argument that is not false or debunked otherwise.
What reasoning do you have to make guns legal, besides "self defence" and "guns don't kill people do", etc?
Some fresh arguments.
Because I feel like this is getting extremely repetitive.

[Lovelife090994]

This mindset that poor people are just lazy slacker leeches who need to get off their asses is wrong, and quite frankly, insulting. Service jobs weren't meant to be lived off of? Then what the fuck were they meant to do?

Not everyone can afford a college education. Not everyone is smart enough to earn a scholarship. For a lot of people, service jobs are their only option. And when they can't afford to make a decent living off of their jobs, they turn to crime. Social inequality is the single biggest cause of gun violence. Wanna know the best way to prevent gun misuse? Fix social inequality.

And you idea that if we just took ell the criminals and locked them all away gun violence would end is just laughable.

Some solid arguments. So far I have yet to see an argument that is not false or debunked otherwise.
What reasoning do you have to make guns legal, besides "self defence" and "guns don't kill people do", etc?
Some fresh arguments.
Because I feel like this is getting extremely repetitive.

I admit I may not be the best with words but I gave my reasons. I know some can't help being poor. I know they need help. But we can't help everyone. We just can't. This world is cold and dark and has no love in it at all. And besides I feel guns should be regulated but that you should be able to own one if you wish. Service jobs are to bring services. And what is wrong with wanting all to have better? I am being general here. Give the people what they need... okay of course you can't please everyone, but at least help some people.

[Miserabilia]

I admit I may not be the best with words but I gave my reasons. I know some can't help being poor. I know they need help. But we can't help everyone. We just can't. This world is cold and dark and has no love in it at all. And besides I feel guns should be regulated but that you should be able to own one if you wish. Service jobs are to bring services. And what is wrong with wanting all to have better? I am being general here. Give the people what they need... okay of course you can't please everyone, but at least help some people.

But we can't help everyone. We just can't.
even though it's off the point I feel I should adress hits;
theoreticaly we could help everyone.
Ofcourse in practice we can never achieve this-
but that doens't mean we shouldn't TRY.

And besides I feel guns should be regulated but that you should be able to own one if you wish.
That doens't really solve hte problems that come with guns.

[Lovelife090994]

even though it's off the point I feel I should adress hits;
theoreticaly we could help everyone.
Ofcourse in practice we can never achieve this-
but that doens't mean we shouldn't TRY.


That doens't really solve hte problems that come with guns.

Then crack down on illegal weapons. I want to help everyone too, but literally we can't help everyone in need.

[Stronk Serb]

I admit I may not be the best with words but I gave my reasons. I know some can't help being poor. I know they need help. But we can't help everyone. We just can't. This world is cold and dark and has no love in it at all. And besides I feel guns should be regulated but that you should be able to own one if you wish. Service jobs are to bring services. And what is wrong with wanting all to have better? I am being general here. Give the people what they need... okay of course you can't please everyone, but at least help some people.

By introducing socialist policies just in education and healthcare, you can drastically lower the crime rate.

[Lovelife090994]

By introducing socialist policies just in education and healthcare, you can drastically lower the crime rate.

And what countries actually are socialist, again?

[Miserabilia]

And what countries actually are socialist, again?

A democratic country "is" not socialist or whatever other political side; it may have political parties representing socialism that get a lot of support.
Though I'm not completely sure and correct me if I'm wrong I beleive scandinavian countries have most votes in socialism, but like I said I'm not sure, gonna have to look that up.

[Lovelife090994]

A democratic country "is" not socialist or whatever other political side; it may have political parties representing socialism that get a lot of support.
Though I'm not completely sure and correct me if I'm wrong I beleive scandinavian countries have most votes in socialism, but like I said I'm not sure, gonna have to look that up.

I'll look it up in a minute myself. I still think guns should not be outlawed.

[Gamma Male]

I admit I may not be the best with words but I gave my reasons. I know some can't help being poor. I know they need help. But we can't help everyone. We just can't. This world is cold and dark and has no love in it at all. And besides I feel guns should be regulated but that you should be able to own one if you wish. Service jobs are to bring services. And what is wrong with wanting all to have better? I am being general here. Give the people what they need... okay of course you can't please everyone, but at least help some people.

I'm just going to end this debate. You've failed to respond to any of my arguments with something other than meaningless rhetoric. I'll leave you with a meme that explains my position pretty well. Oh, and in the future I'll try to avoid debates with you. You honestly seem like a very nice person, but the way you debate is incredibly frustrating. I hope there's no hard feelings.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ba97b_sCUAAs91I.jpg

[Lovelife090994]

I'm just going to end this debate. You've failed to respond to any of my arguments with something other than meaningless rhetoric. I'll leave you with a meme that explains my position pretty well. Oh, and in the future I'll try to avoid debates with you. You honestly seem like a very nice person, but the way you debate is incredibly frustrating. I hope there's no hard feelings.

image (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ba97b_sCUAAs91I.jpg)

Then explain this. Why is socialism so hated? Capitalism allows you to do better. I like it. And I guess I am nice sometimes, but lately I feel out of my mind, even now I do. Something snapped the other day to be honest.

[Gamma Male]

Then explain this. Why is socialism so hated? Capitalism allows you to do better. I like it. And I guess I am nice sometimes, but lately I feel out of my mind, even now I do. Something snapped the other day to be honest.

Socialism is not communism. You can still get rich, go off and make something of yourself, be successful, have a four car garage....whatever. You just have to do it all without exploiting poor people. It's hated(in america) because of brainwashing. I have never, and I mean never, seen anyone from a country with socialist policies complain about having free healthcare or education.

[Harry Smith]

Then explain this. Why is socialism so hated? Capitalism allows you to do better. I like it. And I guess I am nice sometimes, but lately I feel out of my mind, even now I do. Something snapped the other day to be honest.

Yeah sure

Socialism is not communism. You can still get rich, go off and make something of yourself, be successful, have a four car garage....whatever. You just have to do it all without exploiting poor people. It's hated(in america) because of brainwashing. I have never, and I mean never, seen anyone from a country with socialist policies complain about having free healthcare or education.

'We don't mind people getting filthy risk, as long as they pay their taxes'', that's what Peter Mandleson said, and whilst it's extremely right wing for socialism I think it pretty much sums up the socialism that exists in Europe, and for me at least has worked



Yeah, and so you're anti-gun? Good luck demonizing the item and not the criminal.

Nice debate there, I believe you claimed the numbers I provided where false. Do you withdraw that claim? I love how your argument has basically been reduced to pretty much nothing

[Lovelife090994]

Yeah sure



'We don't mind people getting filthy risk, as long as they pay their taxes'', that's what Peter Mandleson said, and whilst it's extremely right wing for socialism I think it pretty much sums up the socialism that exists in Europe, and for me at least has worked



Nice debate there, I believe you claimed the numbers I provided where false. Do you withdraw that claim? I love how your argument has basically been reduced to pretty much nothing

I love how you are saying basically nothing.

Socialism is not communism. You can still get rich, go off and make something of yourself, be successful, have a four car garage....whatever. You just have to do it all without exploiting poor people. It's hated(in america) because of brainwashing. I have never, and I mean never, seen anyone from a country with socialist policies complain about having free healthcare or education.

I'm still skeptical. it takes a whole lot to change my views. I think I'll stick to independent and label less.

[Stronk Serb]

And what countries actually are socialist, again?

Look up Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If it were not for the meddlings of the western powers, we would still be thriving, not a bunch of ruined states. About those policies, have people go to college for free, but they must take special tests to get in. The colleges/universities will be government subsidized. About healthcare, make it gpvernment subsidized too, all citizens and immigrant workers will pay a small percent of their salary and get all possible healthcare needs covered.

[Lovelife090994]

Look up Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If it were not for the meddlings of the western powers, we would still be thriving, not a bunch of ruined states. About those policies, have people go to college for free, but they must take special tests to get in. The colleges/universities will be government subsidized. About healthcare, make it gpvernment subsidized too, all citizens and immigrant workers will pay a small percent of their salary and get all possible healthcare needs covered.

What about those who aren't the tops of their class? What does this income tax go too? Wasn't Yugoslavia separated?

[Stronk Serb]

What about those who aren't the tops of their class? What does this income tax go too? Wasn't Yugoslavia separated?

Let's see, they have been a lazy bum even though they could have got into college. It's their problem. Yeah, Yugoslavia was separated, partially due to foreign meddling, partially due to corrupt leaders who have been sent back in by those same powers.

[Harry Smith]

I love how you are saying basically nothing.



I'm still skeptical. it takes a whole lot to change my views. I think I'll stick to independent and label less.

You claimed the numbers I provided were false- do you withdraw this claim?

[Lovelife090994]

You claimed the numbers I provided were false- do you withdraw this claim?

I withdraw nothing. I say things when I say them. I am not withdrawing anything from you.

[Harry Smith]

I withdraw nothing. I say things when I say them. I am not withdrawing anything from you.

But what you stated was clearly wrong, do you now accept that the numbers were correct? I provided the citation you asked for

[Lovelife090994]

But what you stated was clearly wrong, do you now accept that the numbers were correct? I provided the citation you asked for

What are you talking about? You never proved or gave anything. I am not wrong. You are not right.

[StUnicorn]

I do in fact use the second amendment to reinforce my side of this debate. All citizens have to right to bear arms. I want to use me weapons to hunt and also as personal protection. Neither of these are bad things and all Americans should be able to do these things. Another point is that if you take away gun rights, the only people left with guns will be those who get them illegally, and the average citizen will be much less prepared. Right now my family has around 10 guns and just as many crossbows, all of which we use for hunting and protection. Lastly, how would revoking gun rights be enforced, would they go to every home and take our weapons? Or would they expect us to turn our guns in to them, which most Americans will simply say no to? If it's the latter, then the nation will have either millions of guns being transported in cars, causing many to be stolen/fire/owners to murder/or other, or it will cause a rebellion. Sorry for the bad ordering, this is my opinion.

[Lovelife090994]

I do in fact use the second amendment to reinforce my side of this debate. All citizens have to right to bear arms. I want to use me weapons to hunt and also as personal protection. Neither of these are bad things and all Americans should be able to do these things. Another point is that if you take away gun rights, the only people left with guns will be those who get them illegally, and the average citizen will be much less prepared. Right now my family has around 10 guns and just as many crossbows, all of which we use for hunting and protection. Lastly, how would revoking gun rights be enforced, would they go to every home and take our weapons? Or would they expect us to turn our guns in to them, which most Americans will simply say no to? If it's the latter, then the nation will have either millions of guns being transported in cars, causing many to be stolen/fire/owners to murder/or other, or it will cause a rebellion. Sorry for the bad ordering, this is my opinion.

This may be an opinion but it is true. You can own a gun and or hunt without being a killer. You can have crossbows and have them legally. When you make things illegal, it only causes smuggling.

[Harry Smith]

What are you talking about? You never proved or gave anything. I am not wrong. You are not right.

It's really hard to debate with someone who doesn't really understand what's going on, I mean you contradict yourself after nearly every post, you don't use any evidence to back up your arguments, and when you start losing you fall back into repeating yourself and claiming that everyone else is wrong. If you're going to debate try using evidence. You made these claims earlier on in the thread

1)You claimed guns help with self defense-A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense. The fact that they are 22 times higher shows that the self defense argument is outweighed by the fact that more people die violenty-TLDR: A gun may save 1 life in self defense but it costs 22 through accidents and Agression

2)The us doesn't have a problem-the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population. This shows that the US clearly has a problem with gun violence despite what the gun lobby say.

Now this part may be hard for for you to understand as you struggled last time, but the numbers I provided above are all correct and have been taken from Academic papers. In the thread you claimed they were wrong- Your numbers are skewed,

Do you withdraw the claim that the numbers I provided our false as I've backed them up with Academic papers

I do in fact use the second amendment to reinforce my side of this debate. All citizens have to right to bear arms. I want to use me weapons to hunt and also as personal protection. Neither of these are bad things and all Americans should be able to do these things. Another point is that if you take away gun rights, the only people left with guns will be those who get them illegally, and the average citizen will be much less prepared. Right now my family has around 10 guns and just as many crossbows, all of which we use for hunting and protection. Lastly, how would revoking gun rights be enforced, would they go to every home and take our weapons? Or would they expect us to turn our guns in to them, which most Americans will simply say no to? If it's the latter, then the nation will have either millions of guns being transported in cars, causing many to be stolen/fire/owners to murder/or other, or it will cause a rebellion. Sorry for the bad ordering, this is my opinion.


The second amendment can be repealed by Congress, so it's really not as water tight as you think. Laws that were passed 200 years ago don't tend to often be of the highest standard-I mean do you think we should also follow what the founding fathers though about slavery, rape or property rights? No. Times change and so should the laws. I mean you say 'all citizens have the right to bear arms'' Do you think that convicted murders should be allowed guns?

No,just don't try that old cliched I need by guns for self defense argument because its quite clearly not true-we banned handguns here in 1998, and we have less firearm related deaths and less violent murders committed which shows that the US doesn't have the answer. The numbers I presented above show that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used to kill/injure etc than it is to be used in self defense 22 more times, 22!

I don't understand how Americans claim 'our guns help self defense' when you clearly have the highest rates of gun violence in the world-that shows that the self defense myth isn't true because if it was America should have much lower crime rates

Tbh it doesn't matter how the laws would work-the US have been putting restrictions on guns for the last 80 years which shows that it's possible for the AFT to do there job and regulate firearms.

[Vlerchan]

When you make things illegal, it only causes smuggling.
Literally nobody in this thread has suggested making all guns illegal.

I do in fact use the second amendment to reinforce my side of this debate. All citizens have to right to bear arms.
State the second amendment.

[Lovelife090994]

It's really hard to debate with someone who doesn't really understand what's going on, I mean you contradict yourself after nearly every post, you don't use any evidence to back up your arguments, and when you start losing you fall back into repeating yourself and claiming that everyone else is wrong. If you're going to debate try using evidence. You made these claims earlier on in the thread

1)You claimed guns help with self defense-A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense. The fact that they are 22 times higher shows that the self defense argument is outweighed by the fact that more people die violenty-TLDR: A gun may save 1 life in self defense but it costs 22 through accidents and Agression

2)The us doesn't have a problem-the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population. This shows that the US clearly has a problem with gun violence despite what the gun lobby say.

Now this part may be hard for for you to understand as you struggled last time, but the numbers I provided above are all correct and have been taken from Academic papers. In the thread you claimed they were wrong-

Do you withdraw the claim that the numbers I provided our false as I've backed them up with Academic papers




The second amendment can be repealed by Congress, so it's really not as water tight as you think. Laws that were passed 200 years ago don't tend to often be of the highest standard-I mean do you think we should also follow what the founding fathers though about slavery, rape or property rights? No. Times change and so should the laws. I mean you say 'all citizens have the right to bear arms'' Do you think that convicted murders should be allowed guns?

No,just don't try that old cliched I need by guns for self defense argument because its quite clearly not true-we banned handguns here in 1998, and we have less firearm related deaths and less violent murders committed which shows that the US doesn't have the answer. The numbers I presented above show that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used to kill/injure etc than it is to be used in self defense 22 more times, 22!

I don't understand how Americans claim 'our guns help self defense' when you clearly have the highest rates of gun violence in the world-that shows that the self defense myth isn't true because if it was America should have much lower crime rates

Tbh it doesn't matter how the laws would work-the US have been putting restrictions on guns for the last 80 years which shows that it's possible for the AFT to do there job and regulate firearms.

Thanks for proving you are crazy. You want to repeal one the of the most important amendments in the US Bill of Rights? Well, then you'll have to go through the Supreme Court. The day you ban guns is the day Americans get a little unruly.

[Cygnus]

Thanks for proving you are crazy. You want to repeal one the of the most important amendments in the US Bill of Rights? Well, then you'll have to go through the Supreme Court. The day you ban guns is the day Americans get a little unruly.

Firstly, don't go around claiming people are X or Y because they are just expressing views. Second, laws and justice don't always align, especially not in this case, just because it is an amendment from a long time ago doesn't mean it's just nor does it mean it has to be kept forever. Plus banning guns will get people from the US in order, not unruly.

I find South Korea to manage this problem very well, guns are only and exclusively used by the army, want self defense? Tae Kwon Do.

[Lovelife090994]

Firstly, don't go around claiming people are X or Y because they are just expressing views. Second, laws and justice don't always align, especially not in this case, just because it is an amendment from a long time ago doesn't mean it's just nor does it mean it has to be kept forever. Plus banning guns will get people from the US in order, not unruly.

I find South Korea to manage this problem very well, guns are only and exclusively used by the army, want self defense? Tae Kwon Do.

Um hello. People hunt. People own guns legally. Why would you ban them? Ban knives too then for the trouble people do with them. Hit the criminal not the tool.

[Sir Suomi]

I find South Korea to manage this problem very well, guns are only and exclusively used by the army, want self defense? Tae Kwon Do.

i. So I can no longer hunt deer with my .270 rifle anymore? Dang. I suppose nothing bad will happen... Except an explosion of deer population, which leads to increased car collisions and an overcrowded, starving, and disease stricken deer population. Also, there goes fowl hunting. And vermin. And just about everything else. Very smart.

ii. Oh hell, why we're at it, let's remove the first amendment, and make it to where you can no longer protest against the government, that way there is no more unrest in our population.

iii. Also, instead of being able to shoot that knife wielding thug 10 feet away from you, let's let him get in close, and try to use some fighting technique that is hard to master.

[Cygnus]

Um hello. People hunt. People own guns legally. Why would you ban them? Ban knives too then for the trouble people do with them. Hit the criminal not the tool.
People own guns legally. That's the problem right there. And sure let's ban knifes or start training people to use knifes, either works and is not a coward's way like guns are.
i. So I can no longer hunt deer with my .270 rifle anymore? Dang. I suppose nothing bad will happen... Except an explosion of deer population, which leads to increased car collisions and an overcrowded, starving, and disease stricken deer population. Also, there goes fowl hunting. And vermin. And just about everything else. Very smart.

ii. Oh hell, why we're at it, let's remove the first amendment, and make it to where you can no longer protest against the government, that way there is no more unrest in our population.

iii. Also, instead of being able to shoot that knife wielding thug 10 feet away from you, let's let him get in close, and try to use some fighting technique that is hard to master.
Funny thing is that's exactly what I'm saying, not the first amendment part because we're talking about the second amendment and not the first one, but sure.

[Gamma Male]

i. So I can no longer hunt deer with my .270 rifle anymore? Dang. I suppose nothing bad will happen... Except an explosion of deer population, which leads to increased car collisions and an overcrowded, starving, and disease stricken deer population. Also, there goes fowl hunting. And vermin. And just about everything else. Very smart.
Bullshit. Animals were getting along just fine for billions of years before humans got here.

Unlike what some people might believe, hunting is not an effective method to manage and conserve wildlife. When left alone, nature is very capable of keeping a good balance. Natural predators kill of the sickest and weakest animals. And in cases of overpopulation, starvation and disease are nature's (unfortunate) way of removing the weakest and bringing back a good balance.

Hunters don't try to kill only the weaker animals. They often kill the strongest and healthiest animals. They prefer the bucks with the largest rack. The weaker and genetically inferior bucks are left to propagate the species, weakening the overall health of the herd. Killing of a large number of mature males also creates a disproportionate ratio of females to males, impacting the social structure of a herd.

[Sir Suomi]

Funny thing is that's exactly what I'm saying, not the first amendment part because we're talking about the second amendment and not the first one, but sure.

I said that as a smart ass way of saying that if we start throwing away one amendment, what's going to stop them from throwing away the others?

Bullshit. Animals were getting along just fine for billions of years before humans got here.

Unlike what some people might believe, hunting is not an effective method to manage and conserve wildlife. When left alone, nature is very capable of keeping a good balance. Natural predators kill of the sickest and weakest animals. And in cases of overpopulation, starvation and disease are nature's (unfortunate) way of removing the weakest and bringing back a good balance.

Hunters don't try to kill only the weaker animals. They often kill the strongest and healthiest animals. They prefer the bucks with the largest rack. The weaker and genetically inferior bucks are left to propagate the species, weakening the overall health of the herd. Killing of a large number of mature males also creates a disproportionate ratio of females to males, impacting the social structure of a herd.

Bullshit.

I'll give you an personal example: Last year, here in Nebraska, we had a disease epidemic that killed an unimaginable amount of deer. You couldn't drive near a wooden area or a river without seeing dead deer laying around. I personally saw it when I went hunting. And you want to know why it hit the deer so hard? It was due to the fact that our deer population had increased dramatically over the past few years. Now after the epidemic, along with the droughts, our deer population has gone to a reasonable number.

And another example: I recently started hunting on a farmer's land as of last year, along with 4 hunters, where we coordinate when we each go hunting, that way we all had our chances for deer. The reason the farmer opened up his land was due to the fact he'd hit 2 deer within a month and a half along the roads near his property. Now, after two seasons of successful hunts, which all together took 9 does and 3 bucks, the farmer has had no issues with deer running around, and I'm still seeing quite large and healthy deer on his property.

You sir, are an informed ass. Not every hunter who hunts deer goes straight for bucks. I personally have killed more does than bucks, a 6-3 ratio as of now. The trophy hunters you see on TV are retarded "hunters" who pay a few grand to go on a deer farm and shoot a feed-fed deer, which is about as hard as shooting cattle grazing in a field.

If you also had any hunting knowledge, you'd know that most large specimen of deer, a.k.a "Monsters", will never come out until after sundown, even during the Rut. There is a reason they've survived to the point of getting that big.

[Horatio Nelson]

I said that as a smart ass way of saying that if we start throwing away one amendment, what's going to stop them from throwing away the others?



Bullshit.

I'll give you an personal example: Last year, here in Nebraska, we had a disease epidemic that killed an unimaginable amount of deer. You couldn't drive near a wooden area or a river without seeing dead deer laying around. I personally saw it when I went hunting. And you want to know why it hit the deer so hard? It was due to the fact that our deer population had increased dramatically over the past few years. Now after the epidemic, along with the droughts, our deer population has gone to a reasonable number.

And another example: I recently started hunting on a farmer's land as of last year, along with 4 hunters, where we coordinate when we each go hunting, that way we all had our chances for deer. The reason the farmer opened up his land was due to the fact he'd hit 2 deer within a month and a half along the roads near his property. Now, after two seasons of successful hunts, which all together took 9 does and 3 bucks, the farmer has had no issues with deer running around, and I'm still seeing quite large and healthy deer on his property.

You sir, are an informed ass. Not every hunter who hunts deer goes straight for bucks. I personally have killed more does than bucks, a 6-3 ratio as of now. The trophy hunters you see on TV are retarded "hunters" who pay a few grand to go on a deer farm and shoot a feed-fed deer, which is about as hard as shooting cattle grazing in a field.

If you also had any hunting knowledge, you'd know that most large specimen of deer, a.k.a "Monsters", will never come out until after sundown, even during the Rut. There is a reason they've survived to the point of getting that big.

Finally, someone who thinks the same way I do.

I really don't have anything to add, other than the fact that I agree 110%.

[Lovelife090994]

i. So I can no longer hunt deer with my .270 rifle anymore? Dang. I suppose nothing bad will happen... Except an explosion of deer population, which leads to increased car collisions and an overcrowded, starving, and disease stricken deer population. Also, there goes fowl hunting. And vermin. And just about everything else. Very smart.

ii. Oh hell, why we're at it, let's remove the first amendment, and make it to where you can no longer protest against the government, that way there is no more unrest in our population.

iii. Also, instead of being able to shoot that knife wielding thug 10 feet away from you, let's let him get in close, and try to use some fighting technique that is hard to master.

I agree.

People own guns legally. That's the problem right there. And sure let's ban knifes or start training people to use knifes, either works and is not a coward's way like guns are.

Funny thing is that's exactly what I'm saying, not the first amendment part because we're talking about the second amendment and not the first one, but sure.

Cygnus, I think you mean well but it isn't coming out well. If you repeal an amendment of the Bill of Rights then the constitution is useless and that says the government can repeal all of our rights! This is a gun, it does nothing without the actions of few. Most who own guns legally are law-abiding else they wouldn't have a gun. Get your head up and see. You do not have to like guns. But don't spread hoplophobia.

Finally, someone who thinks the same way I do.

I really don't have anything to add, other than the fact that I agree 110%.

I said that as a smart ass way of saying that if we start throwing away one amendment, what's going to stop them from throwing away the others?



Bullshit.

I'll give you an personal example: Last year, here in Nebraska, we had a disease epidemic that killed an unimaginable amount of deer. You couldn't drive near a wooden area or a river without seeing dead deer laying around. I personally saw it when I went hunting. And you want to know why it hit the deer so hard? It was due to the fact that our deer population had increased dramatically over the past few years. Now after the epidemic, along with the droughts, our deer population has gone to a reasonable number.

And another example: I recently started hunting on a farmer's land as of last year, along with 4 hunters, where we coordinate when we each go hunting, that way we all had our chances for deer. The reason the farmer opened up his land was due to the fact he'd hit 2 deer within a month and a half along the roads near his property. Now, after two seasons of successful hunts, which all together took 9 does and 3 bucks, the farmer has had no issues with deer running around, and I'm still seeing quite large and healthy deer on his property.

You sir, are an informed ass. Not every hunter who hunts deer goes straight for bucks. I personally have killed more does than bucks, a 6-3 ratio as of now. The trophy hunters you see on TV are retarded "hunters" who pay a few grand to go on a deer farm and shoot a feed-fed deer, which is about as hard as shooting cattle grazing in a field.

If you also had any hunting knowledge, you'd know that most large specimen of deer, a.k.a "Monsters", will never come out until after sundown, even during the Rut. There is a reason they've survived to the point of getting that big.

I agree 150% When the government can repeal an amendment like the first from the Bill of Rights then when will it end? Also, some hunters are tasked to keep certain invasive species at bay.

[Cygnus]

Cygnus, I think you mean well but it isn't coming out well. If you repeal an amendment of the Bill of Rights then the constitution is useless and that says the government can repeal all of our rights! This is a gun, it does nothing without the actions of few. Most who own guns legally are law-abiding else they wouldn't have a gun. Get your head up and see. You do not have to like guns. But don't spread hoplophobia.

Let them do it then, before rights come duty and if you can't handle the duty that comes before a right then you don't deserve the right, and so far the US has proved to not deserve the right by not being able to fulfill a duty. Wether it is coming out well or not is none of my concern, that my point is made is my concern.

[Horatio Nelson]

Let them do it then, before rights come duty and if you can't handle the duty that comes before a right then you don't deserve the right, and so far the US has proved to not deserve the right by not being able to fulfill a duty. Wether it is coming out well or not is none of my concern, that my point is made is my concern.

What is that "duty"?

The government is not a monarchy or a dictatorship. It was created by the people for the people.

[Cygnus]

What is that "duty"?

The government is not a monarchy or a dictatorship. It was created by the people for the people.

Well if I have the right to own guns then my duty for having that right is to not go guns out and blazing and murdering because yes or shooting to kill violating article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights. The US has failed.

[Horatio Nelson]

Well if I have the right to own guns then my duty for having that right is to not go guns out and blazing and murdering because yes or shooting to kill violating article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights. The US has failed.


"Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

I believe all U.S citizens have these rights. So how have they failed?

[Gamma Male]

I said that as a smart ass way of saying that if we start throwing away one amendment, what's going to stop them from throwing away the others?



Bullshit.

I'll give you an personal example: Last year, here in Nebraska, we had a disease epidemic that killed an unimaginable amount of deer. You couldn't drive near a wooden area or a river without seeing dead deer laying around. I personally saw it when I went hunting. And you want to know why it hit the deer so hard? It was due to the fact that our deer population had increased dramatically over the past few years. Now after the epidemic, along with the droughts, our deer population has gone to a reasonable number.

And another example: I recently started hunting on a farmer's land as of last year, along with 4 hunters, where we coordinate when we each go hunting, that way we all had our chances for deer. The reason the farmer opened up his land was due to the fact he'd hit 2 deer within a month and a half along the roads near his property. Now, after two seasons of successful hunts, which all together took 9 does and 3 bucks, the farmer has had no issues with deer running around, and I'm still seeing quite large and healthy deer on his property.

You sir, are an informed ass. Not every hunter who hunts deer goes straight for bucks. I personally have killed more does than bucks, a 6-3 ratio as of now. The trophy hunters you see on TV are retarded "hunters" who pay a few grand to go on a deer farm and shoot a feed-fed deer, which is about as hard as shooting cattle grazing in a field.

If you also had any hunting knowledge, you'd know that most large specimen of deer, a.k.a "Monsters", will never come out until after sundown, even during the Rut. There is a reason they've survived to the point of getting that big.

Double bullshit. Hunting increases the deer population, it doesn't decrease it.
http://m.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Hunting-has-increased-deer-population-not-643259.php
And vehicular accidents can be decreased by proper safety measures and lighting of problem areas.

[Horatio Nelson]

Double bullshit. Hunting increases the deer population, it doesn't decrease it.
http://m.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Hunting-has-increased-deer-population-not-643259.php
And vehicular accidents can be decreased by proper safety measures and lighting of problem areas.

That article didn't really help your argument. Hunters don't want a barely scraping by deer population, (or any wildlife for that matter). That's why we give our hard earned dollars to pro-hunting/conservation organizations because we love wildlife.

[Gamma Male]

That article didn't really help your argument. Hunters don't want a barely scraping by deer population, (or any wildlife for that matter). That's why we give our hard earned dollars to pro-hunting/conservation organizations because we love wildlife.

Stopping hunting wouldn't cause them to "barely scape by". It might throw things out of balance at first, but eventually nature would take it's course and the deer population would stabilize.

[Horatio Nelson]

Stopping hunting wouldn't cause them to "barely scape by". It might throw things out of balance at first, but eventually nature would take it's course and the deer population would stabilize.

That's not what I meant.

What I meant was people who hunt don't do so in excess. You stay within the approved limits to keep everything going.

[Gamma Male]

That's not what I meant.

What I meant was people who hunt don't do so in excess. You stay within the approved limits to keep everything going.

That isn't necessary. We don't need to hunt animals at all. We can, but we don't need to. George Patterson said that guns were necessary to control deer populations, but this isn't true.

[Lovelife090994]

That isn't necessary. We don't need to hunt animals at all. We can, but we don't need to. George Patterson said that guns were necessary to control deer populations, but this isn't true.

You do know that some species are invasive right? in some cases if populations of animals grow too large it can cause trouble to humans.

[Stronk Serb]

You do know that some species are invasive right? in some cases if populations of animals grow too large it can cause trouble to humans.

The answer is not to give everyone a gun, but to tighten gun laws on a federal level. Not ban all guns, but make them harder to get legally for unstable people. Here it works that way and our 6 million population experiences a few homicides a year, where a small percent was commited with firearms, and even smaller percent with legal firearms.

[Harry Smith]

i. So I can no longer hunt deer with my .270 rifle anymore? Dang. I suppose nothing bad will happen... Except an explosion of deer population, which leads to increased car collisions and an overcrowded, starving, and disease stricken deer population. Also, there goes fowl hunting. And vermin. And just about everything else. Very smart.

ii. Oh hell, why we're at it, let's remove the first amendment, and make it to where you can no longer protest against the government, that way there is no more unrest in our population.

iii. Also, instead of being able to shoot that knife wielding thug 10 feet away from you, let's let him get in close, and try to use some fighting technique that is hard to master.

License, License,License. Do you really think the US is the only country in the world with a rural population?

Do you think the US has a gun problem?

Thanks for proving you are crazy. You want to repeal one the of the most important amendments in the US Bill of Rights? Well, then you'll have to go through the Supreme Court. The day you ban guns is the day Americans get a little unruly.

I'm crazy, coming from the person who A)Didn't know what Socialism was B) Fails to put a coherent view across pages C)Fails to read a thread. If you want to sling insults at least do it well.

Now read my lips-I never said I'd ban all guns. Never. I said there should be a strict licensing system (like that in the UK) to ensure that gun ownership is controlled-that means having each one registered, locked away, checked by the police etc. Read my lips-no ban on guns.

Now I know it's very hard for you to do but can you actually debate the issues rather than throwing insults around.

I'm still waiting for your response on the idea that guns can be used in self defense since I proved it 100% wrong

[Lovelife090994]

License, License,License. Do you really think the US is the only country in the world with a rural population?

Do you think the US has a gun problem?



I'm crazy, coming from the person who A)Didn't know what Socialism was B) Fails to put a coherent view across pages C)Fails to read a thread. If you want to sling insults at least do it well.

Now read my lips-I never said I'd ban all guns. Never. I said there should be a strict licensing system (like that in the UK) to ensure that gun ownership is controlled-that means having each one registered, locked away, checked by the police etc. Read my lips-no ban on guns.

Now I know it's very hard for you to do but can you actually debate the issues rather than throwing insults around.

I'm still waiting for your response on the idea that guns can be used in self defense since I proved it 100% wrong

Now what you said is an insult, not a claim. I may be crazy. In fact if I am then let me be the craziest man you've ever met. Now, to what you said, I saw tah! You weren't saying any of this earlier. Quit playing chameleon! The minute I expose something with you, you play coy!

[Harry Smith]

Now what you said is an insult, not a claim. I may be crazy. In fact if I am then let me be the craziest man you've ever met. Now, to what you said, I saw tah! You weren't saying any of this earlier. Quit playing chameleon! The minute I expose something with you, you play coy!

I've made it clear from page 1 that the US should have a UK style gun ownership system.It's not my fault you haven't read half the thread. Both these were posted at least a day ago which shows I've had a pretty consistent view, the only thing you've exposed is that you don't read the threads


I think for Rural areas they can be a need for Firearm ownership, albeit this should be done on a licensing system with very strict restrictions



If you actually read what I said you'd see that I'm not opposed to guns-I just think you need to have regulation.

[CosmicNoodle]

I've put off answering this for days but it just keeps popping g back up to the top of "new posts" so I have no option but to do so or it will drive me insane...er than I am...

I think there's shoiushoiuld be stricter laws on who can own them, for instance, if you have a criminal record of assault, thieft, so on and so fourth. Then no gun for you.

If you have a potential dageruous mental illnesss, no gun.

As far as I can see just those two thongs would massively reduce gun crime, also, MUCH harsher punishments for people found carrying weapons illegally. Not just a fine, or a short sentence, more like very long sentences with HUGE fines.

[Lovelife090994]

I've made it clear from page 1 that the US should have a UK style gun ownership system.It's not my fault you haven't read half the thread. Both these were posted at least a day ago which shows I've had a pretty consistent view, the only thing you've exposed is that you don't read the threads

You do realize that the USA and UK are two different places with two different sets of rights, people, customs, problems, and ideals right? The USA have a population that is near triple that of the UK. The USA has a Bill of Rights with a 2nd amendment for legal gun-ownership. I don't think we need black suit thugs barging in every month checking whether or not we are killers.

[Harry Smith]

You do realize that the USA and UK are two different places with two different sets of rights, people, customs, problems, and ideals right? The USA have a population that is near triple that of the UK. The USA has a Bill of Rights with a 2nd amendment for legal gun-ownership. I don't think we need black suit thugs barging in every month checking whether or not we are killers.

But you need black suit thugs to check what you've been searching on the internet? Or to make sure you don't have drugs? If you don't want a police state then leave the US-a codified gun law wouldn't make it any worse than it already is. It's almost as if you think the US is an open democracy.The government are already in involved in your home.

Okay-you have a larger population. You also have a larger budget/federal force meaning that by default it should not be as difficult. Your argument would be correct if the US had the same size economy as the UK but it doesn't.

It's not for legal gun ownership-it's for a well regulated Milita e.g National guard. This is what a Republican said, in fact a republican supreme court judge

one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

If you as you claim truly believe in the false version of the 2nd amendment do you believe that criminals should have access to guns?

[Lovelife090994]

But you need black suit thugs to check what you've been searching on the internet? Or to make sure you don't have drugs? If you don't want a police state then leave the US-a codified gun law wouldn't make it any worse than it already is. It's almost as if you think the US is an open democracy.The government are already in involved in your home.

Okay-you have a larger population. You also have a larger budget/federal force meaning that by default it should not be as difficult. Your argument would be correct if the US had the same size economy as the UK but it doesn't.

It's not for legal gun ownership-it's for a well regulated Milita e.g National guard. This is what a Republican said, in fact a republican supreme court judge



If you as you claim truly believe in the false version of the 2nd amendment do you believe that criminals should have access to guns?


I never said criminals should, hard heart. I said how we don't need things to be like the UK. Especially given how many UK-born people see themselves as superior to the US, clearly the way the UK is done creates the same flawed thinking many Americans have, superiority. I am well aware that the US watches everyone. But I don't think guns should be banned or that any amendment should become null and void.

[Harry Smith]

I never said criminals should, hard heart. I said how we don't need things to be like the UK. Especially given how many UK-born people see themselves as superior to the US, clearly the way the UK is done creates the same flawed thinking many Americans have, superiority. I am well aware that the US watches everyone. But I don't think guns should be banned or that any amendment should become null and void.

But surely-if you think that the 2nd Amendment is divine, then criminals should have access since it's their constitutional right?

Okay-you don't think guns should be banned-but you want limits on who can own them?

Just because I'm an egotistical pig doesn't mean everyone else from the UK is, the majority of people here don't really get that irked up about the US I'm just the minority.

I was wondering, could you have a look at the graph and tell me which country has the most gun related homicides?

http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg

[Lovelife090994]

But surely-if you think that the 2nd Amendment is divine, then criminals should have access since it's their constitutional right?

Okay-you don't think guns should be banned-but you want limits on who can own them?

Just because I'm an egotistical pig doesn't mean everyone else from the UK is, the majority of people here don't really get that irked up about the US I'm just the minority.

I was wondering, could you have a look at the graph and tell me which country has the most gun related homicides?

image (http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg)

Yeah, and the US has more people, more illegal immigrants, more illegal weapons, more mental cases. Clearly we need to revamp. I think we need more regulation, and no I don't see any amendment as divine, but essential.

[Miserabilia]

Yeah, and the US has more people, more illegal immigrants, more illegal weapons, more mental cases. Clearly we need to revamp. I think we need more regulation, and no I don't see any amendment as divine, but essential.

more people

This is a relative graph, amount per so many peopel.
Total amount of inhabitants is irrelevant. You should know this.

more illegal immigrants

Do you have anything to all to back this up?
Because I can't find conclusive evidence of this.

more illegal weapons

Here's an interesting graph, by the way.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Firearmsources.svg/516px-Firearmsources.svg.png

more mental cases.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/690/public/mental%20illness.jpg?itok=i-9-Up6i

why yes you do but I don't see how it's directly relevant

[Harry Smith]

Yeah, and the US has more people, more illegal immigrants, more illegal weapons, more mental cases. Clearly we need to revamp. I think we need more regulation, and no I don't see any amendment as divine, but essential.

It doesn't matter how many people are in the country because it's per 100,000 meaning that population doesn't matter so the point about population is wrong.

You can't blame gun crime on immigrants,mental cases or illegal guns.

1) It would be a pretty stupid illegal who'd engage in gun crime as that would lead to him getting deported wouldn't it? I know that some people like to blame immigrants but it's not there fault that the US has a gun problem. So you can't blame immigrants for the high level of gun crime

Data show immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born.
“ http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irb_june2010.pdf

2) Mental cases? Not everyone who has a mental illness is a mental case-I really don't understand this stigma against people with mental illness. Again you blame them for gun control but

very little evidence supports the notion that aggregate groups of persons with “mental illnesses” are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. Databases that track Us gun homicides find that only 3–5% crimes involve “mentally ill shooters” – http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/CARR/publications/LSE-CARR-Triggeringthedebate.pdf

3)Illegal guns aren't really a problem in the sense that there's a lack of federal ruling, as I've said before a gun may be illegal in Chicago but that means people simply smuggle them in from legally owned sources.

According to the 1991 Survey ofState Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun,9% had acquired it through theft, and28% had acquired it through an illegalmarket such as a drug dealer or fence

Lets have a quick look at the most high profile gun massacres

2014 Fort Hood-guns bought legally
2009 Fort Hood-guns bought legally
2013 Navy Yard-guns bought legally
2007 Virginia Tech-guns bought legally

[AbigailBM98]

i hate guns but they are 100% necessary to protect people from the scum that roam the streets attacking people. taking guns away gets rid of your last line of defence. its like banning helmets in a boxing bout - just downright stupid and dangerous. authorities need to do more to stop the dickheads who are committing these violent and deadly crimes.

[Harry Smith]

i hate guns but they are 100% necessary to protect people from the scum that roam the streets attacking people. taking guns away gets rid of your last line of defence. its like banning helmets in a boxing bout - just downright stupid and dangerous. authorities need to do more to stop the dickheads who are committing these violent and deadly crimes.

That's simply wrong. In the US a gun is 22 times more likely to be used to injure, kill etc rather than act in self defense. It's downright stupid and dangerous to think that guns help with self defense. For example having a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it 500% more likely for the woman to die

[Lovelife090994]

It doesn't matter how many people are in the country because it's per 100,000 meaning that population doesn't matter so the point about population is wrong.

You can't blame gun crime on immigrants,mental cases or illegal guns.

1) It would be a pretty stupid illegal who'd engage in gun crime as that would lead to him getting deported wouldn't it? I know that some people like to blame immigrants but it's not there fault that the US has a gun problem. So you can't blame immigrants for the high level of gun crime

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irb_june2010.pdf

2) Mental cases? Not everyone who has a mental illness is a mental case-I really don't understand this stigma against people with mental illness. Again you blame them for gun control but

http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/CARR/publications/LSE-CARR-Triggeringthedebate.pdf

3)Illegal guns aren't really a problem in the sense that there's a lack of federal ruling, as I've said before a gun may be illegal in Chicago but that means people simply smuggle them in from legally owned sources.



Lets have a quick look at the most high profile gun massacres

2014 Fort Hood-guns bought legally
2009 Fort Hood-guns bought legally
2013 Navy Yard-guns bought legally
2007 Virginia Tech-guns bought legally

Every major shooting was from a person with mental issues. Explain away that. Don't use hoplophobia for your claims.

[Harry Smith]

Every major shooting was from a person with mental issues. Explain away that. Don't use hoplophobia for your claims.

I'd also refer back to the numbers that I put up as well which stated. Looking at the stats it's only 3-5%...

very little evidence supports the notion that aggregate groups of persons with “mental illnesses” are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. Databases that track Us gun homicides find that only 3–5% crimes involve “mentally ill shooters” –

But sure you claim that 'every' major shooting involves mental issues but you're simply wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge No mental illness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege No mental illness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre No mental illness

[Lovelife090994]

I'd also refer back to the numbers that I put up as well which stated. Looking at the stats it's only 3-5%...



But sure you claim that 'every' major shooting involves mental issues but you're simply wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge No mental illness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege No mental illness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre No mental illness

Can you not use Wikipedia? And how come so many people who commit violent acts often have a history of mental issues?

[Sir Suomi]

I think there's shoiushoiuld be stricter laws on who can own them, for instance, if you have a criminal record of assault, thieft, so on and so fourth. Then no gun for you.

If you have a potential dageruous mental illnesss, no gun.

As far as I can see just those two thongs would massively reduce gun crime, also, MUCH harsher punishments for people found carrying weapons illegally. Not just a fine, or a short sentence, more like very long sentences with HUGE fines.

i. This is already been set in place.

ii. I agree.

iii. You are punished to a good degree if you're found with a firearm you do not legally posses.

[Harry Smith]

Can you not use Wikipedia? And how come so many people who commit violent acts often have a history of mental issues?

I'll use wikipedia, because the aim isn't too give information but to educate you in case you hadn't heard of those battles. You stated that every large gun attack was committed by people with mental illness and that is simply wrong, if your only objection is the nature of the source then you're not doing that well. Do you accept that you were wrong to state...


Every major shooting was from a person with mental issues

It's not so many people-it's 3-5% of crime. So you're also wrong to state that. So it's not so many in any case-it's 3-5% of people http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/CARR/publications/LSE-CARR-Triggeringthedebate.pdf


TBH this is about the 6th time you've come on this thread and made a claim which is simply wrong. I'm getting a bit concerned because in this debate you seem to be making a number of claims that aren't backed up-you've tried blaming immigrants, mental health victims and now you're blaming wikipedia
i. This is already been set in place.

ii. I agree.

iii. You are punished to a good degree if you're found with a firearm you do not legally posses.

In all fairness even I'll admit the US justice system seems pretty strict on firearms

Do you believe that ''Every major shooting was from a person with mental issues''?

[Sir Suomi]

Do you believe that ''Every major shooting was from a person with mental issues''?


Anyone who commits murder against an innocent civilian has issues, regardless if they're diagnosed or not. As someone that has grown up around guns, I've never once had the slightest urge to go on a mass shooting rampage. And for the vast majority of gun owners, they could say the same.

I think the real issue is the way the media portrays the shooter after an event. Seriously, the media will go through every aspect of his/her life, and everyone in the whole United States, sometimes even the world, knows his/her name. It makes someone who is already in a terrible mental condition think, "Well hey, I commit suicide, nobody will even notice, but if I go shoot up a school, everyone will know my name." I believe that the shooter should never be identified, with the exception of knowing when someones put a round through their demented brain. Erase them from the history book.

Another issue is that people these days are led into a violent cultural norm through different forms of media. Now, I'm not saying a regular 16 year old kid, like myself, should not be able to watch an action movie, or play a FPS if I want. However, if someone is already on the fence with a mental illness, or with young children, violence in the media should be restricted, which is something that is not done correctly.

[Lovelife090994]

I'll use wikipedia, because the aim isn't too give information but to educate you in case you hadn't heard of those battles. You stated that every large gun attack was committed by people with mental illness and that is simply wrong, if your only objection is the nature of the source then you're not doing that well. Do you accept that you were wrong to state...



It's not so many people-it's 3-5% of crime. So you're also wrong to state that. So it's not so many in any case-it's 3-5% of people http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/CARR/publications/LSE-CARR-Triggeringthedebate.pdf


TBH this is about the 6th time you've come on this thread and made a claim which is simply wrong. I'm getting a bit concerned because in this debate you seem to be making a number of claims that aren't backed up-you've tried blaming immigrants, mental health victims and now you're blaming wikipedia


In all fairness even I'll admit the US justice system seems pretty strict on firearms

Do you believe that ''Every major shooting was from a person with mental issues''?


First you call me wrong, second you look inert, third you seem to be on a pedestal, forth I'll knock you down to Earth, and fifth, you can't ignore the growing connection between violence and mental cases. We ignore too many strings. One being mental issues that have a long history of even more discrepancies. You fail to see how the US is already very strict when it comes to guns for law-abiding citizens already. We punish the criminals too.

[Harry Smith]

Anyone who commits murder against an innocent civilian has issues, regardless if they're diagnosed or not. As someone that has grown up around guns, I've never once had the slightest urge to go on a mass shooting rampage. And for the vast majority of gun owners, they could say the same.

I think the real issue is the way the media portrays the shooter after an event. Seriously, the media will go through every aspect of his/her life, and everyone in the whole United States, sometimes even the world, knows his/her name. It makes someone who is already in a terrible mental condition think, "Well hey, I commit suicide, nobody will even notice, but if I go shoot up a school, everyone will know my name." I believe that the shooter should never be identified, with the exception of knowing when someones put a round through their demented brain. Erase them from the history book.

Another issue is that people these days are led into a violent cultural norm through different forms of media. Now, I'm not saying a regular 16 year old kid, like myself, should not be able to watch an action movie, or play a FPS if I want. However, if someone is already on the fence with a mental illness, or with young children, violence in the media should be restricted, which is something that is not done correctly.

Putting a completely subjective and side view of the issue-can't you see that would be better if 'high risk' children didn't have such easy access to there parent's/friends/cousins firearms? I don't wanna get into the beef of the issue, it's just interesting that you bring it up about school kids. It's just surely wouldn't it be better for the student to only be able to access a knife/bat rather than an AR-15? (I don't advocate armed guards in schools either-they don't tend to do much considering they're often badly trained/not present etc.

, you can't ignore the growing connection between violence and mental cases.

What growing connection? You can't make stuff up. That statement has been proved false by the research I provided. Mental health only makes up 3-5% of violent crime-that's not growing/high if anything that's low http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpe...gthedebate.pdf

The numbers I've given, and that other members have provided show that you've been incorrect on nearly every single claim you've made. You claimed Socialism was communism, you claimed the US had extremely high taxes, you claimed immigrants caused gun rates, you claimed that all the graphs were wrong, you've now claimed that mental illness seems to be driving forward violence crime when in fact it only remains a fraction. I usually try to follow a debate all the way through but I don't see much point if you're going to ignore all the evidence given to you, ignore what people say on the thread and just make bland assumptions that haven't got any facts to back them up. As someone mentioned before it's getting frustrating to debate if the other person isn't engaging and just goes off into rhetoric

[CosmicNoodle]

i. This is already been set in place.

ii. I agree.

iii. You are punished to a good degree if you're found with a firearm you do not legally posses.

Ahh good, didn't know 2 was already in place. And the punishment isn't severe enough

[Southside]

Did you really not read what I just said about Chicago? You even quoted it

It's a strawman pulled up by the pro-gun lobby-the problem isn't Chicago. The problem is that guns can continue to flow into Chicago because it's not an island



Is everyone with a nuclear bomb dangerous to you? And no I don't think every gun owner is dangerous-I do think the US model is dangerous

I also don't count stories as good evidence in a debate-however something that does is that. Evidence wise you have stories-I have factual proof that this self defence myth is complete bullshit

Chicago is NOT AN ISLAND....Exactly this, Chicago is a poster child for why gun laws fail.

Guns come in from everywhere, they are stolen, hidden for years. I remember it was this story on the news on how a gun was registered in the mid 80s, was reported stolen, and showed up in a murder just recently. Its too many guns to be tracked, people will still find a way to get them in illegally regardless of any restrictions or laws. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet people still smoke, harvest, and sell/buy large quantities of it. You have to take away the value of something.

Most of the shootings here are drug and gang related, I believe if they would decriminalize or legalize some of these drugs then the killings would decrease a bit. The fact that more people were killed in the streets of Chicago in the last few years than U.S. troops in Afghanistan is sickening.

You know the funniest part is that Chicago is a liberal, democratic powerhouse.

[Sir Suomi]

Putting a completely subjective and side view of the issue-can't you see that would be better if 'high risk' children didn't have such easy access to there parent's/friends/cousins firearms? I don't wanna get into the beef of the issue, it's just interesting that you bring it up about school kids. It's just surely wouldn't it be better for the student to only be able to access a knife/bat rather than an AR-15? (I don't advocate armed guards in schools either-they don't tend to do much considering they're often badly trained/not present etc.




That's the parent's/legal guardian's fault. A responsible firearm owner keeps his firearms locked in an appropriate container, with ammunition separated from the firearms, and with trigger locks on all firearms. Also, owner's of firearms should teach their children (Or children they are in custody of) proper firearm safety, handling, and most importantly, teach them that a firearm is a serious item, not to be played with, and treated with up-most respect.

On a side note, there'd be a great solution. Have schools hire veterans to act as guards for schools. It solves two problems, by provided highly trained and professional men that know multiple and effective methods of dealing with high-risk situations, and it also provides jobs for our veterans, which is something as citizens we owe them.

[Horatio Nelson]

That's the parent's/legal guardian's fault. A responsible firearm owner keeps his firearms locked in an appropriate container, with ammunition separated from the firearms, and with trigger locks on all firearms. Also, owner's of firearms should teach their children (Or children they are in custody of) proper firearm safety, handling, and most importantly, teach them that a firearm is a serious item, not to be played with, and treated with up-most respect.

On a side note, there'd be a great solution. Have schools hire veterans to act as guards for schools. It solves two problems, by provided highly trained and professional men that know multiple and effective methods of dealing with high-risk situations, and it also provides jobs for our veterans, which is something as citizens we owe them.

When do the polls open? 'Cause I'm voting!

But seriously, I totally agree dude.

[Gamma Male]

On a side note, there'd be a great solution. Have schools hire veterans to act as guards for schools. It solves two problems, by provided highly trained and professional men that know multiple and effective methods of dealing with high-risk situations, and it also provides jobs for our veterans, which is something as citizens we owe them.

This actually sounds like a really good idea. As long as they're given extensive mental testing and have regular check ups to ensure they don't have ptsd or some other such illness.

[Stronk Serb]

Chicago is NOT AN ISLAND....Exactly this, Chicago is a poster child for why gun laws fail.

Guns come in from everywhere, they are stolen, hidden for years. I remember it was this story on the news on how a gun was registered in the mid 80s, was reported stolen, and showed up in a murder just recently. Its too many guns to be tracked, people will still find a way to get them in illegally regardless of any restrictions or laws. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet people still smoke, harvest, and sell/buy large quantities of it. You have to take away the value of something.

Most of the shootings here are drug and gang related, I believe if they would decriminalize or legalize some of these drugs then the killings would decrease a bit. The fact that more people were killed in the streets of Chicago in the last few years than U.S. troops in Afghanistan is sickening.

You know the funniest part is that Chicago is a liberal, democratic powerhouse.

Tighten up gun laws on a federal level.

That's the parent's/legal guardian's fault. A responsible firearm owner keeps his firearms locked in an appropriate container, with ammunition separated from the firearms, and with trigger locks on all firearms. Also, owner's of firearms should teach their children (Or children they are in custody of) proper firearm safety, handling, and most importantly, teach them that a firearm is a serious item, not to be played with, and treated with up-most respect.

On a side note, there'd be a great solution. Have schools hire veterans to act as guards for schools. It solves two problems, by provided highly trained and professional men that know multiple and effective methods of dealing with high-risk situations, and it also provides jobs for our veterans, which is something as citizens we owe them.

Yeah, it's a great idea. They should get mental and other check-ups every few months ago. Just to ensure they don't have PTSD or a health condition after service.

[Harry Smith]

Chicago is NOT AN ISLAND....Exactly this, Chicago is a poster child for why gun laws fail.

Guns come in from everywhere, they are stolen, hidden for years. I remember it was this story on the news on how a gun was registered in the mid 80s, was reported stolen, and showed up in a murder just recently. Its too many guns to be tracked, people will still find a way to get them in illegally regardless of any restrictions or laws. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet people still smoke, harvest, and sell/buy large quantities of it. You have to take away the value of something.

Most of the shootings here are drug and gang related, I believe if they would decriminalize or legalize some of these drugs then the killings would decrease a bit. The fact that more people were killed in the streets of Chicago in the last few years than U.S. troops in Afghanistan is sickening.

You know the funniest part is that Chicago is a liberal, democratic powerhouse.

Ironic right?

That's the parent's/legal guardian's fault. A responsible firearm owner keeps his firearms locked in an appropriate container, with ammunition separated from the firearms, and with trigger locks on all firearms. Also, owner's of firearms should teach their children (Or children they are in custody of) proper firearm safety, handling, and most importantly, teach them that a firearm is a serious item, not to be played with, and treated with up-most respect.

On a side note, there'd be a great solution. Have schools hire veterans to act as guards for schools. It solves two problems, by provided highly trained and professional men that know multiple and effective methods of dealing with high-risk situations, and it also provides jobs for our veterans, which is something as citizens we owe them.

But surely even if there parent teaches them that only stops accidental discharge, it doesn't stop them from using them how they intended. I mean look at the recent examples like the Navy Yard shooting-even I'll admit that gun limits worked because the guy tried to buy a rifle out of state but they stopped him in the shop-however he was still able to buy a shotgun.

Basically the angle I'm getting at is that the only way to stop college/school shooting is to have a federal wide limit on ownership of guns. I don't think putting Veterans in schools armed to the teeth would help at all-I mean we know that armed guards don't stop massarces see Columbine and Fort Hood. Considering that a trained NYPD cop only hits 35% of his targets I doubt a veteran would fare much better, and if anything would serve as more of a risk to the school.

I know everybody loves a bit of Veteran loving but it's not a good idea at all, I mean can't you see how bad the problem is if you're having to put fucking guards in a school. A large part of the US seems to have a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome with there guns.

Lets have a look at Texas-population of 26 million compared to the UK with a population of 60 million

Texas since 1992 has had 29 major shootings http://www.stoptheshootings.org/state/TX

The UK has had one-after that we banned handguns. We haven't had a school massacre involving guns since, which one would you rather have?

Florida has a population 4 times smaller than the UK, but has had 21 shootings.

It's clear that the US has a problem with constant school shootings, it's clear that the US has a problem with gun violence and it's clear that that the problem doesn't get better by adding more guns.

The only other country in the world that see's firerarms as a human right is Yemen, and I doubt many Americans would see Yemen as a shining example of freedom and democracy

[Miserabilia]

That's the parent's/legal guardian's fault. A responsible firearm owner keeps his firearms locked in an appropriate container, with ammunition separated from the firearms, and with trigger locks on all firearms. Also, owner's of firearms should teach their children (Or children they are in custody of) proper firearm safety, handling, and most importantly, teach them that a firearm is a serious item, not to be played with, and treated with up-most respect. [1]

On a side note, there'd be a great solution. Have schools hire veterans to act as guards for schools. It solves two problems, by provided highly trained and professional men that know multiple and effective methods of dealing with high-risk situations, and it also provides jobs for our veterans, which is something as citizens we owe them. [2]

[1]: What "should" be dont does not matter at all. No matter what should be done, the fact is that people will do these things I they have guns.

[2]: Really? Soldiers guiding schools with guns makes them safer?

[Horatio Nelson]

Basically the angle I'm getting at is that the only way to stop college/school shooting is to have a federal wide limit on ownership of guns. I don't think putting Veterans in schools armed to the teeth would help at all-I mean we know that armed guards don't stop massarces see Columbine and Fort Hood. Considering that a trained NYPD cop only hits 35% of his targets I doubt a veteran would fare much better, and if anything would serve as more of a risk to the school.


Where did you get that statistic?

That graph you posted earlier on the percentage of weapons used by criminals and where they got them. People who let family/friends easy access to their weapons are not safe or responsible.


I think the solution isn't gun limiting. But rather intense and strict testing required before being able to purchase. Not just a few "click the box" questions and a show of I.D like it is now.

[Harry Smith]

Where did you get that statistic?

That graph you posted earlier on the percentage of weapons used by criminals and where they got them. People who let family/friends easy access to their weapons are not safe or responsible.


I think the solution isn't gun limiting. But rather intense and strict testing required before being able to purchase. Not just a few "click the box" questions and a show of I.D like it is now.

I didn't post that graph-on that point just because a gun is locked away doesn't make it safe so I'd argue that family are responible-my dad is responible to lock his car-however I simply pick up the keys and open it allowling me access to something I shouldn't have.

The solution is that you need a valid reason for each gun (self defense doesn't count) each gun must be securely stored, ammunition can be recorded, police visit every 6-12 months to ensure proper conditions along with the power of withdrawal by the government or police. TLDR:a valid reason must be needed apart from wanting to raise the table 6 inches

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

[Horatio Nelson]

I didn't post that graph-on that point just because a gun is locked away doesn't make it safe so I'd argue that family are responible-my dad is responible to lock his car-however I simply pick up the keys and open it allowling me access to something I shouldn't have.

The solution is that you need a valid reason for each gun (self defense doesn't count) each gun must be securely stored, ammunition can be recorded, police visit every 6-12 months to ensure proper conditions along with the power of withdrawal by the government or police. TLDR:a valid reason must be needed apart from wanting to raise the table 6 inches

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

Doh! Sorry. :P


But I totally agree.

You shouldn't own a gun. "Just because".

There should be at least some reason for it.

[Harry Smith]

Doh! Sorry. :P


But I totally agree.

You shouldn't own a gun. "Just because".

There should be at least some reason for it.

I understand people need them in a rural area, to hunt or to manage your property but you don't need 5 handguns, a shotgun and a rifle just to stop a couple of deers. Handguns really are the biggest issue for the US, because they're A) too easy to get B) Too cheap C) Too deadly

[Horatio Nelson]

I understand people need them in a rural area, to hunt or to manage your property but you don't need 5 handguns, a shotgun and a rifle just to stop a couple of deers. Handguns really are the biggest issue for the US, because they're A) too easy to get B) Too cheap C) Too deadly

Plus. Handguns have no other use than for killing people. That's the hard truth.

[Lovelife090994]

Plus. Handguns have no other use than for killing people. That's the hard truth.

And defending. Case and point, an armed man invades your home but you have a gun too. I think we know the homeowner can now protect his or her family.

[Harry Smith]

And defending. Case and point, an armed man invades your home but you have a gun too. I think we know the homeowner can now protect his or her family.

That's true yes, but in the grand scheme it simply is not true. I mean if the self defense argument was true then the US should have much lower levels of gun violence however it has the highest gun violence stats in the western world, and no you can't blame this on immigrants.

The numbers prove that your claim is wrong, pistols don't help defend the homeowner, they just make the home a lot more unsafe-I'd even argue that you don't have the right to kill someone if they enter your home. So yeah the little story about self defense may be nice but a gun in the home is more likely to increase suicides and murder, case and point

In houses with firearms present, the average homicide rate is 3 times higher than in houses without guns and the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher

http://www.vpc.org/press/1110gundeath.htm
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
Kellermann, Arthur L.MD, MPH, et al. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 45 (1998): 263-67
In all possible rubrics—self-defense, accidents and suicide—gun ownership is detrimental to the safety of those who live in a gun-owner’s household; this is not to say that there are not cases of people defending their homes with their guns, but it is undeniable that gun ownership opens people up to numerous other risks.

http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/uv_guns_v3.jpg?w=600

[Lovelife090994]

That's true yes, but in the grand scheme it simply is not true. I mean if the self defense argument was true then the US should have much lower levels of gun violence however it has the highest gun violence stats in the western world, and no you can't blame this on immigrants.

The numbers prove that your claim is wrong, pistols don't help defend the homeowner, they just make the home a lot more unsafe-I'd even argue that you don't have the right to kill someone if they enter your home. So yeah the little story about self defense may be nice but a gun in the home is more likely to increase suicides and murder, case and point



http://www.vpc.org/press/1110gundeath.htm

Kellermann, Arthur L.MD, MPH, et al. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 45 (1998): 263-67


image (http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/uv_guns_v3.jpg?w=600)

So we should only give terrorists and criminals guns and leave the citizens defenseless? Lovely. You know that is why people own guns. For defense, hunting, and as a souvenir or symbol of war. You can't deny people that. There is violence everywhere be it gun or not. The only difference is who reports it and how often. I'm pretty sure even the UK has it's share of violence even if it is not from guns. Look at Nigeria, strict gun laws. Hundreds were gunned down by Boko Haram and since no one could have a gun they were all gunned down by criminals who get their weapons illegally. What do you want? Everyone at the mercy of criminals.

[Stronk Serb]

So we should only give terrorists and criminals guns and leave the citizens defenseless? Lovely. You know that is why people own guns. For defense, hunting, and as a souvenir or symbol of war. You can't deny people that. There is violence everywhere be it gun or not. The only difference is who reports it and how often. I'm pretty sure even the UK has it's share of violence even if it is not from guns. Look at Nigeria, strict gun laws. Hundreds were gunned down by Boko Haram and since no one could have a gun they were all gunned down by criminals who get their weapons illegally. What do you want? Everyone at the mercy of criminals.

He didn't propose outright banning of guns . He just proposed tighter laws on a federal level and I would also propose stricter punishments for illegal gun owners.

[Harry Smith]

So we should only give terrorists and criminals guns and leave the citizens defenseless? Lovely. You know that is why people own guns. For defense, hunting, and as a souvenir or symbol of war. You can't deny people that. There is violence everywhere be it gun or not. The only difference is who reports it and how often. I'm pretty sure even the UK has it's share of violence even if it is not from guns. Look at Nigeria, strict gun laws. Hundreds were gunned down by Boko Haram and since no one could have a gun they were all gunned down by criminals who get their weapons illegally. What do you want? Everyone at the mercy of criminals.

I never said that, I know it's the standard response but I proved that your self defense claims are simply wrong. I actually wonder if you read what I say in this thread-I said this about 3 posts ago, you seem to have a slight issue with understanding what people are saying, and it's making the debate very hard

I understand people need them in a rural area, to hunt or to manage your property

Naturally the UK has violence, as does every country however this proves the problem is much worse in the US proving that your argument is wrong as gun violence is by it's nature much more deadly

In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

Please don't try to mention Nigeria, it just exposes how ill-informed you are. I'll put it in simple terms for you-Boko Haram have big powerful guns, e.g Assault Rifles and RPG''s- a 50 year old man with a pistol is not going to be able to stop an armed terrorist group, in fact I'm sure that Boko Haram would do very well in the US as they would in any country. If you believe that Nigeria needs more guns that you are deluded-you can't fight 200 terrorists with a double barrel shotgun. Boko Haram aren't petty criminals-they're an offshoot of Al-Qaeda who have been trained for the last 5 years with heavy weaponary. Please don't pretend that a civilan with pistol could defeat them-it's not call of duty The boko Haram argument is also defucnt because it's to do with geo-politcal factors-surely by your logic the American civil war should never of happened.

Your argument hinges on the fact that you think the US has a perfect situation as you can stop the criminals-who stopped Adam Lanza? Who stopped the columbine massarce? Who stopped the Virginia tech massarce? In each case it was suicide-not some heroic civilian with a gun, you claim to be a gun owner and you know that it's not as simple as picking up your gun and killing the baddie. Do you know how difficult it is to hit a moving target in a firefight-I know they make it look easy on TV

It's funny because you have the idea that high gun ownership in the US protects everyone from criminals when in fact it only makes the problem worse, your argument would be correct if the US had a lower homicide rate with guns than the UK/other countries but the fact that it's higher shows that there is a clear problem-I find it funny how you still haven't used a single piece of evidence to back up your argument. Look at the evidence, you're like the Captain of the ship with the water up to his neck claiming that the boat isn't sinking

This disproves your argument that guns help protect, in fact all the evidence proves you wrong because the US needs to have much lower homicide rates for you to be right. I live in a country with gun control and guess what-we're not at the mercy of gun wielding criminals. In fact we have a lower gun homicide rate proving you wrong

In houses with firearms present, the average homicide rate is 3 times higher than in houses without guns and the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher.

[Lovelife090994]

I never said that, I know it's the standard response but I proved that your self defense claims are simply wrong. I actually wonder if you read what I say in this thread-I said this about 3 posts ago, you seem to have a slight issue with understanding what people are saying, and it's making the debate very hard



Naturally the UK has violence, as does every country however this proves the problem is much worse in the US proving that your argument is wrong as gun violence is by it's nature much more deadly



Please don't try to mention Nigeria, it just exposes how ill-informed you are. I'll put it in simple terms for you-Boko Haram have big powerful guns, e.g Assault Rifles and RPG''s- a 50 year old man with a pistol is not going to be able to stop an armed terrorist group, in fact I'm sure that Boko Haram would do very well in the US as they would in any country. If you believe that Nigeria needs more guns that you are deluded-you can't fight 200 terrorists with a double barrel shotgun. Boko Haram aren't petty criminals-they're an offshoot of Al-Qaeda who have been trained for the last 5 years with heavy weaponary. Please don't pretend that a civilan with pistol could defeat them-it's not call of duty The boko Haram argument is also defucnt because it's to do with geo-politcal factors-surely by your logic the American civil war should never of happened.

Your argument hinges on the fact that you think the US has a perfect situation as you can stop the criminals-who stopped Adam Lanza? Who stopped the columbine massarce? Who stopped the Virginia tech massarce? In each case it was suicide-not some heroic civilian with a gun, you claim to be a gun owner and you know that it's not as simple as picking up your gun and killing the baddie. Do you know how difficult it is to hit a moving target in a firefight-I know they make it look easy on TV

It's funny because you have the idea that high gun ownership in the US protects everyone from criminals when in fact it only makes the problem worse, your argument would be correct if the US had a lower homicide rate with guns than the UK/other countries but the fact that it's higher shows that there is a clear problem-I find it funny how you still haven't used a single piece of evidence to back up your argument. Look at the evidence, you're like the Captain of the ship with the water up to his neck claiming that the boat isn't sinking

This disproves your argument that guns help protect, in fact all the evidence proves you wrong because the US needs to have much lower homicide rates for you to be right. I live in a country with gun control and guess what-we're not at the mercy of gun wielding criminals. In fact we have a lower gun homicide rate proving you wrong

Can you please stop with the jargon and actually be concise? I know the US has problems, but I'm telling you that not all of them are gun related. I know one man cannot fight terrorists alone but a group could. Don't tell me you support terrorists? Do you have any idea how much that hurt to read over three hundred people have been slaughtered? We need to stop illegally obtained guns whilst keeping the legal ones legal. Strict gun laws obviously don't help, and mass shooters are crazy. Whenever you are able to murder then you have an issue in the head. And ditch the personal attacks, self-hurt, I'm right you're wrong rhetoric, and blind-sightedness. This isn't about me or you! And no, I do not own guns, but I have been around them. My grandfather was in war and brought back many war rifles that my family protects as heirlooms, some are worth hundreds. I do not yet own my own gun, I couldn't since I'd be in college soon. However, I will see to own one when I can later which will be like four to five years from now. The acts of a murderer do not speak for everyone. Not everyone with a gun is a murderer or was the murderer.

[Harry Smith]

Can you please stop with the jargon and actually be concise? (1) I know the US has problems, but I'm telling you that not all of them are gun related. I know one man cannot fight terrorists alone but a group could. Don't tell me you support terrorists? (2) Do you have any idea how much that hurt to read over three hundred people have been slaughtered? We need to stop illegally obtained guns whilst keeping the legal ones legal. (3)Strict gun laws obviously don't help, and mass shooters are crazy (4) Whenever you are able to murder then you have an issue in the head. And ditch the personal attacks, self-hurt, I'm right you're wrong rhetoric, and blind-sightedness. This isn't about me or you! And no, I do not own guns, but I have been around them. My grandfather was in war and brought back many war rifles that my family protects as heirlooms, some are worth hundreds. I do not yet own my own gun, I couldn't since I'd be in college soon. However, I will see to own one when I can later which will be like four to five years from now. The acts of a murderer do not speak for everyone. Not everyone with a gun is a murderer or was the murderer.

If you wouldn't mind, could you answer these questions as you've been making a lot of false claims

1) Everyone else on the site seems to be able to understand what I say, can you give me an example of Jargon that you don't understand-I'm not even using technical language, I'm using pretty basic english, but I'll try and be clearer

2)I don't support terrorist groups, can you give an example from my post where I said I support terrorist groups? Quote please

3) You claim strict gun laws don't work-look at this graph again, which one is higher-UK or US
http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg

(4) we've already talked about this-not all mass shooters are crazy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/weaveraccount.html

[Lovelife090994]

If you wouldn't mind, could you answer these questions as you've been making a lot of false claims

1) Everyone else on the site seems to be able to understand what I say, can you give me an example of Jargon that you don't understand-I'm not even using technical language, I'm using pretty basic english, but I'll try and be clearer

2)I don't support terrorist groups, can you give an example from my post where I said I support terrorist groups? Quote please

3) You claim strict gun laws don't work-look at this graph again, which one is higher-UK or US
image (http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg)

(4) we've already talked about this-not all mass shooters are crazy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/weaveraccount.html

Look at many cities and states in America! Strict gun laws and yet they still have problems. Yes, there is something crazy with mass shooters. You can't tell me that any mass shooter is sane! You are insane if you mass murder. You keep asking for quotes as if you've forgot what you've implied.

[Harry Smith]

Look at many cities and states in America! Strict gun laws and yet they still have problems. Yes, there is something crazy with mass shooters. You can't tell me that any mass shooter is sane! You are insane if you mass murder. You keep asking for quotes as if you've forgot what you've implied.

I haven't forget, it's just there is no proof in what I wrote, can you please quote me where I've stated that I support terrorism, because I never once said that in this thread. You just march up and sprout stuff without any evidence,

Nowhere in this do I proclaim that I support Boko Harram or Terrorism, how the fuck is that supporting terrorism. I'm sick of you sprouting incorrect views without being able to back them up-there's no point debating if you don't use evidence. So according you you if I list the weapons that Boko Harram use I'm supporting them-this. I don't appreciate you saying that I support Boko Harram, and I'll make it nice and clear for you-I don't support Boko Harram, and I never have


Now we've moved on from your false accusations, let's go back to your other point. I'm wondering, when people post do you actually read what they say? It's just because people have already talked about the issue of states with high gun regulation yet you don't seem to understand it. You've said you have issues understanding what I'm saying

YOU NEED FEDERAL GUN LAWS BECAUSE STATE GUN LAWS DON'T WORK, PEOPLE CAN BUY A GUN IN TEXAS AND DRIVE TO CHICAGO WITHOUT BEING STOPPED.

http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/g15.jpg?w=600

Most significantly, it is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.

You can't tell me that any mass shooter is sane!

Yes I can, in order for a person to be considered insane they have to pass a test, the person at Ruby Ridge was not considered Insane, the experts know more than you about mental illness, so you're wrong to claim that-literally on everything single level-legal and clinical

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-mass-murderers-arent-mentally-ill-2012-12

[Lovelife090994]

I haven't forget, it's just there is no proof in what I wrote, can you please quote me where I've stated that I support terrorism, because I never once said that in this thread. You just march up and sprout stuff without any evidence,

Nowhere in this do I proclaim that I support Boko Harram or Terrorism, how the fuck is that supporting terrorism. I'm sick of you sprouting incorrect views without being able to back them up-there's no point debating if you don't use evidence. So according you you if I list the weapons that Boko Harram use I'm supporting them-this. I don't appreciate you saying that I support Boko Harram, and I'll make it nice and clear for you-I don't support Boko Harram, and I never have


Now we've moved on from your false accusations, let's go back to your other point. I'm wondering, when people post do you actually read what they say? It's just because people have already talked about the issue of states with high gun regulation yet you don't seem to understand it. You've said you have issues understanding what I'm saying

YOU NEED FEDERAL GUN LAWS BECAUSE STATE GUN LAWS DON'T WORK, PEOPLE CAN BUY A GUN IN TEXAS AND DRIVE TO CHICAGO WITHOUT BEING STOPPED.

image (http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/g15.jpg?w=600)


Yes I can, in order for a person to be considered insane they have to pass a test, the person at Ruby Ridge was not considered Insane, the experts know more than you about mental illness, so you're wrong to claim that-literally on everything single level-legal and clinical

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-mass-murderers-arent-mentally-ill-2012-12

I don't care if the person is not diagnosed or not. No mass murderer is right. In the head. None. No person with sense, emotion, and regard to life will murder as many people as possible.

[Vlerchan]

I don't care if the person is not diagnosed or not. No mass murderer is right. In the head. None. No person with sense, emotion, and regard to life will murder as many people as possible.
You'll find that most murders aren't committed by mass-murderers or serial killers.

[Harry Smith]

I don't care if the person is not diagnosed or not. No mass murderer is right. In the head. None. No person with sense, emotion, and regard to life will murder as many people as possible.

Who knows more about this-someone who's studied for 4 years at degree level or you? I'm sure it must be you, read this since you quite clearly have no idea about mental health (something you've demonstrated before)

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-mass-murderers-arent-mentally-ill-2012-12

It's also ironic that your advocating the use of nuclear weapons in another thread, who's supporting mass murders now?

[Lovelife090994]

Who knows more about this-someone who's studied for 4 years at degree level or you? I'm sure it must be you, read this since you quite clearly have no idea about mental health (something you've demonstrated before)

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-mass-murderers-arent-mentally-ill-2012-12

It's also ironic that your advocating the use of nuclear weapons in another thread, who's supporting mass murders now?

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't advocate anything other than love and faith. There is something wrong in the head with a murderer. What? You actually support murderers?

[Harry Smith]

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't advocate anything other than love and faith. There is something wrong in the head with a murderer. What? You actually support murderers?

I didn't say I support murders, I didn't say that anywhere. Could you even quote where I implied that because I'm struggling to see it, like I actually can't see anyway in which I'm supporting a murderer by linking to an article. Would it kill you to use some evidence rather than just making stuff up

I actually just give up with this, you ignore every single piece of evidence presented and just pretend that because you say it then it must be true. There's no point doing a debate if one side refuses to listen to any evidence, or refuses to present any evidence after making a claim. There's no point debating if you refuse to present evidence because it turns into a very boring mud slinging match. Your current template of making incorrect claims, calling people names and using blind rhetoric is rather frustrating to debate again, so yeah I give up

[Lovelife090994]

I didn't say I support murders, I didn't say that anywhere. Could you even quote where I implied that because I'm struggling to see it, like I actually can't see anyway in which I'm supporting a murderer by linking to an article. Would it kill you to use some evidence rather than just making stuff up

I actually just give up with this, you ignore every single piece of evidence presented and just pretend that because you say it then it must be true. There's no point doing a debate if one side refuses to listen to any evidence, or refuses to present any evidence after making a claim. There's no point debating if you refuse to present evidence because it turns into a very boring mud slinging match. Your current template of making incorrect claims, calling people names and using blind rhetoric is rather frustrating to debate again, so yeah I give up

All I want is an answer. A sane person isn't going to want to kill people. Now, true some mental impairments when medicated with no violent past shouldn't be a barrier to an American citizen seeking gun ownership. But, I must say that there needs to be a moderate set of laws.

[Gamma Male]

Honestly, why is mental health even an issue? The vast majority of gun related deaths aren't committed by insane mass murdering serial killers, but by impoverished druggies and muggers.

You wanna know the number one cause of gun violence? It isn't mental instability. It's poverty. End the war on drugs and fix income equality, and gun violence would be reduced drastically.

[Harry Smith]

All I want is an answer. A sane person isn't going to want to kill people. Now, true some mental impairments when medicated with no violent past shouldn't be a barrier to an American citizen seeking gun ownership. But, I must say that there needs to be a moderate set of laws.

Sigh-just click on this and read the words that appear on the screen. There's your answer

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-mass-murderers-arent-mentally-ill-2012-12

could not disagree more! Most serial killers are completely sane and many of them are NOT sociopaths. Sociopathy is not considered a mental disease -- it is a defect of character and upbringing.

Some serial killers (think BTK) are addicted to particular sexual kinks and will risk more and more to get sexual release. He stopped for years when he was too busy raising his kids, and when they moved out he got an empty-nest feeling and started taunting the police again.

Others are con men who kill for insurance money or robbery -- think Johnny Haigh, Bela Kiss or Marcel Petiot -- and start out killing to prevent anyone from testifying, but discover that they get such a rush from killing that they end up doing it for its own sake. More than a few serial rapists cross the line into serial murder the same way -- think Joseph Vacher or Fred West.

Most serial killers kill because they only feel good about themselves for a short time if they can completely overpower and annihilate someone. They are not mentally ill; they are just frikkin' pathetic.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/true-crime/1535601-can-mentally-sane-person-become-serial-2.html#ixzz33zcXQlAm

Honestly, why is mental health even an issue?

Because the gun lobby need someone to blame, before it was immigrants, then it was socialists. It's just whatever makes the table rise 6 inches for the right wing gun nuts