Why I Don't Think Gun-Control Is The Solution

[Anonymous]

Hey everyone.

I'm going to start by saying that yes, this is a very controversial topic, and I know people are going to disagree with me, and that's perfectly okay. We're all entitled to our own opinion here, but I do ask that you try to keep the comment section relatively civil.

Now that everything is out of the way, I'm going to share some reasons why I don't think it should happen in America.

1) The second amendment protects our other rights

The future is very unpredictable. Without the second amendment, and us having the right to bear arms, what exactly is going to stop the Government from taking away our other rights, such as freedom of speech? Nothing. The second amendment gives us the legal right to protect our constitution and freedom if we were ever under a tyrant government. At that point, you could riot and protest all you want, but there is absolutely nothing you could do to protect your freedom anymore.

2) Guns will still be obtained illegally

Many drugs are illegal, yet thousands (hell, probably millions) of people still somehow have them in their possession. That's because of drug dealers. If somebody really wants to hurt another person, they're going to get a gun whether it's legal or not. I could easily see gun dealers becoming a thing, and not to mention they could go through the black market too. Criminals don't give a single damn about laws, and a sign that says 'No guns' isn't going to stop them. It might stop the law-abiding citizen that could've stopped the criminal, though.

Look at certain countries (Mexico, Brazil, etc) that while it's not illegal, they have strict gun laws, yet they also continue to have high crime rates. Mankind is violent. Controlling guns isn't going to stop that, it'll just make people get more creative in how they obtain a firearm.

3) America isn't going to happily hand over their guns

Want to start a war between the people and the government? Try to take away the people's guns. People are protective of their rights, they're not going to hand them over without a fight. A fight between the states, people, and government. I could see a civil war breaking out VERY easily if gun-control was enforced, and I could also see that hurting our nation quite badly.

4) Guns are the solution to a bigger problem

I've used this analogy before, and some of my friends on here might recognize me because of that, but I want to include it anyway. We have a lot of crime in America, that's not secret. Crime is a spreading virus, and guns are the solution We The People have found to that virus. Perhaps it's not an ideal one, but what else are we supposed to do? Relying on the police isn't the solution; it takes far too long for them to respond to a call, and if you're in a dangerous situation, a gun is going to be the solution to possibly save your life.

Guns aren't the main issue, people are, so focus on the bigger problem here, which is mental illness and lack of observation in many cases.

I think deeper background checks and mental evaluations could be a good thing to implement, but full on gun-control? No way.

While we might not need guns yet, we certainly should keep the right to have them in case of a tyrant government in the future. That's simply what it comes down to, protection of our rights and from a dangerous government. Having the right to protect myself and my family isn't something I ever intend to give up, and I hope millions of other legal gun-owning Americans would stand up for their right to freedom if ever necessary.

[whatamievendoing117]

Old but gold:
Let's do some math using CDC numbers.
32,000 gun deaths last year.
-60% are suicide - 19,200
-3% are accidents - 960
-4% are justified - 1,280 (thousands of instances of firearm self defense occur annually, most go unreported)
-33% are homicides - 10,560
-but 80% of homicides are gang related - 8,448

That leaves 1,712 people in a country with a population of 325,000,000+ people. You have a 0.00003% chance of death by a firearm, but if you're not part of a gang, don't commit a crime or don't plan on committing one, you actually have a 0.000005% chance of death by firearm in America.

Guns aren't the problem.

[GunLover]

BRAVO!

[Kiran04]

Pretty much my thoughts on gun control. Is it any coincidence that the cities in the US with the tightest gun regulations have the highest murder rates? Criminals don't obey laws. That's the reality that foils all gun control schemes. If I want a gun to commit a crime, what does one more crime matter? It doesn't.

And in the grand scheme of things, when private citizens go rogue they kill dozens. When governments go rogue, they kill MILLIONS. And governments always start going rogue by banning guns.

[DublinRollerGirl]

Until mental health is addressed and people get the help they need, shooting will never stop. What I read is that a ton of women are killed every year by their ex, a boyfriend, or during abuse/fights by a family member. Restraining orders don't do anything if someone is really intent on killing you. In fact, one woman was in a restaurant with a friend and her ex, who was a police officer came in and shot them both dead. If she would have had a gun she could at least have had a chance But it's no good having only a butter knife at a gun fight..

[Anonymous]

I live in the UK and we've a serious crime problem here mostly because victims can't protect themselves. Home invasions, gang rape, robbery, stabbings etc. We have more cctv than any other country but it fails to protect anyone, police can't even protect themselves.

[whatamievendoing117]

Isn't it odd that it's like that after gun confiscation. You should look at the graphs based around it it's quite eye-opening to see the spike in violent stabbings. It's almost like only law abiding citizens care about this or something.

[Opinion Owner]

@whatamievendoing117 we were never big on guns as there used to be a Bobby on every corner but now we have fewer police and more cameras. Criminals are given free reign. The police now exist to punish law abiding citizens for misdemeanors that they can charge fines for. A lot of crimes are ignored because the perpetrators are non-white and they are afraid of being called racist.

[whatamievendoing117]

makes you wonder what the people in charge think all this stuff is supposed to ultimately do. George Washington may not be a part of your history but in light of all this his words should shake the Earth, because he already knew about this day;
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reigns of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Honorable mention from Yukio Mishima, "A nation must ravage itself before foreigners can ravage it, a man must despise himself before others can despise him."

[Opinion Owner]

@whatamievendoing117 guns are mostly not a thing because of all the revolts, uprisings, civil wars etc that we've had over the last thousand or so years. You guys have only had one revolution and one civil war.
Also because monarchs and lords owned most lands hunting wasn't a thing for common people. I guess that's why so many Europeans flocked to the United States as there was such great opportunities for land, wealth and espicially food.

[whatamievendoing117]

Perhaps that want it back in a new and different kind of way. Except with more machines replacing industry and people unsympathetic to the homegrown. I think the politics people trip over today is entirely used by the top not for a single thing involving those politics other than the results they're hoping will happen when our economy finally gives us the biggest reality check this generation has and will ever see. This might be too scary for a relationship-site LOL.

The most maddening thing about it tbh is the fact people brought it to this level not because of any legitimacy but simply because everyone's a babbling fool. Myself included. People babble so much that they could unironically be their own opposition, in the respect that they are simply ensuring whatever it is they're talking about and actually have other merits in their argument other than doing the thing they're apparently concerned about. I used to be able to say "Murica" to that but in the past 9 years Europe has completely followed suit in their pursuit to be America 2.0 under Merkel's Fourth Reich.

[JimRSmith]

I'm not American, and we have strict gun control in the UK.

Has this prevented illegal gun crime? No.

Has it prevented terrorists from employing firearms? Largely yes, they tend to use explosives instead.

I think your idea of deeper background checks and mental evaluations would achieve 95% (or more) of what gun control proponents are seeking to achieve.

[Nadim171]

That's the reason muslims chose the UK to do their attacks. They know it'll be harder in the US because at least 1/10 carries a gun

[JimRSmith]

@Nadim171 I've wondered this, too, but I don't ever remember a terrorist attack in the US, where the perpetrator was taken down by an armed civilian? If it has happened, hopefully somebody can tell us.

[Oram52]

@Nadim171 Terrorists chose UK because of involvement in Middle east. UK is best country in Europe in dealing with terrorism because UK had dealt with IRA before and was prepared.

How exactly are guns going to stop bombs in a concert? or a van ploughing into pedestrians.

Special police units do carry guns. Metropolitan police was asked if police should carry guns. 84% of them replied negative in carrying guns.

[Nadim171]

With all due respect to the British people, the UK is nothing but a shithole now. They don't attack it because it fights terrorism, they attack the Brits because their country is full of muslims.
Muslims are actually colonizing the UK in an indirect way. London is full of muslims, sadiq Khan Is a terrorist

[Oram52]

@Nadim171 Oh right conspiracy theorist. You've actually been to UK? UK is 14th in terms of HDI right after US. Is 7th largest economy in the world. Only 2.8% of the population is Mislum. What proof do you have Mayor being a terrorist and what does someone's religion got to do with them being a Mayor, in a secular democracy?

[Nadim171]

That's the problem with Islam. As much as I hate what Muhammed did as much as I amit how clever he was.
Islam is not a religion. But the cleverest and most destructive ideology ever created. Muslim population is growing in the UK. They create child rape gangs. The government is on their side. The queen is way too old to realise what's happening. It's sad to see that a kingdom that was once ruled by great kings like Richard the lionheart is now ruled by terrorists.
Sediq was the reason Tommy Robinson was in jail, the one who created the trump balloon and so on.
You can call me racist partner I know you would but you can't cuz I'm Egyptian myself. Islam is not a race, there is white and black and Asian muslims. Criticizing satanism is not racist

[DanoMR98]

@Nadim171

Sorry fundie, but Islam is a religion. No ifs, ands or buts about it. All religions are 'ideologies' by the way, and no amount of rhetorical horseshit about Islam not being a religion is going to put distance between Christianity and Islam in the minds of any thinking people.

Tommy Robinson is a reactionary by the way, and while he should not have been jailed, the right has deserved all the deplatforming they got -- including Tommy.

[Nadim171]

Islam = ISIS
ISIS = Islam

We once defended England from Islam almost 1000 years ago in the crusades, many died to defend Europe and we will not let anyone destroy it no matter if we're called racists or nazis or islamophobes we don't care anymore, DEUS VULT

[DanoMR98]

@Nadim171 You spent most of that time sacking other European cities in the south and the Balkans, and spreading Christianity by way of the sword (just like the Muslim invaders) in the Nordic countries. Many a European were killed and sacked by crusaders, but nice revisionism there.

[Nadim171]

This was only defense. The heathens started the war since the fall of Rome

[DanoMR98]

@Nadim171 That's bullshit and you know it. Christianity was spread by violence and muder. That's how it was done wherever the "heathens/heretics" lived, be it in your own continent of Europe, the natives of the Americas and Australia, the black slaves they brought over to the states, the list goes on.

Why do you choose to apologize for these people and what they did? Nadim, nobody is making you defend them. You have no reason to have to defend their atrocities, so why would you? Where are the moderate Christians who are supposed to be against this kind of thing? Maybe there's no such thing as moderate Christians.

[Nadim171]

When talking about Christianity you should judge it buy what jesus and the prophets did not what people did. And even thoug the Arab slave trade was famous by the time. The black slaves were sold by other black tribes.

[DanoMR98]

@Nadim171
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household."

Christendom has a history of these things which shouldn't be ignored. Nadim, in my country, people accused of witchcraft were hanged and thrown into the ocean in the old days. This was for one reason: Christendom demanded it. So next time someone tells you "Christianity is the religion of peace", think about what I've told you in this thread. Because now, you know better.

[Nadim171]

This world with no war or violence will never exist. That's how the world is. If you're not armed to make sure you're safe someone will kill you. The bible may offend you by telling you the truth but it will never comfort you with a lie

[Nadim171]

I personally totally support the crusades

[DanoMR98]

@Nadim171

But Jesus didn't say "yeah violence sucks, but it happens". He said he came to bring the sword. That's not the same thing.

[lumos]

I believe mental health should be taken more seriously. There has to be mental health checkups for every single buyer. Once before purchase, and after purchase every other year or so. If the gun owner seeks out any form of therapy, authorities should be alerted and make another checkup, to see if there’s any reason to temporarily confiscate the gun (s). Legally giving out guns to every person who has the cash for it is absolutely insane. So many tragedies could potentially have been prevented if sellers did background checks. And yes, of course people might still be able to obtain the guns illegally, but at least the government would do everything they can to prevent it, instead of shrugging their shoulders and urging everyone to ”pray for the victims and their families”.

[Anonymous]

Yes Yes Yes!
Wow! Well said!

It's difficult to argue this on paper. Just visit the middle east. There's a country with a dictatorship for a government. How would you feel if your factory worker father was tortured for protesting that he had not received a paycheck in 17 months? How would you feel if you or your sister were raped for joining a SILENT civil rights protest? If people had access to guns, I'd like to see those rapists, torturers, and anyone responsible for such inhuman behavior walking happily around town. They would have to spend all of their illegal money on personal security, or military. Or they would have to stop being a**holes. Or else they would be overthrown.
I agree with the opinion that says some of the shootings are staged to motivate people to want gun control.
The quote from George Washington was also very good.
I agree completely with 1 and 2.
Also that background checks should be done. Apparently they're not being done at all.
Why are guns able to find their way into schools in the first place? Can't they afford security? What if drugs and other dangerous things and people also find their way into schools?
Just because some lousy parents can't keep dangerous stuff from their kids, doesn't mean we need gun control.
Agree with the example that says cars shouldn't be banned because of some careless drivers.
How about we ban alcohol because it increases the risk of accidents and violence? And remember that the greatest gangs and smuggling and black markets were created when there actually was a ban on alcohol some years back?
There are LOTS of good things that can be used as a double edged sword if fallen into the wrong hands. That doesn't mean we should eradicate all of those things. It's a very lame EXCUSE.
I also liked the opinion that says if someone wants to do mass killings, there are plenty of ingredients around in regular life. Or the opposite in very complex areas, oh wait, the last time they stole 5 military planes to do it! Maybe we should disarm the entire military too.
There was a good opinion saying the police are only arresting ordinary citizens to collect fines for minor offences instead of dealing with major crime.
I guess these are the parts of the discussion that I liked.
But the most important one was from the owner "so focus on the bigger problem here, which is mental illness and lack of observation". The same society that thinks it's ok to pressure you and drive you crazy, gets upset when you finally lose it and fight back. What goes around, comes around. When are they going to get the message?
If you don't treat others the way you would like to be treated, those others will eventually give up. Never take hope away from human beings.

[NalleBabyBoysss]

Okey 1. (The second amendment protects our other rights) No the second amendment doesn't give say you should have guns it says (A well regulated militia) therefore the constitution as a whole, including the amendments, must be viewed through the lens of the time to be understood. And a militia is an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers. So it doesn't give any persons the right to bear arms.
2. (Guns will still be obtained illegally) Yes i agree but check other countries that had 1 gun or 2 per persons, when they sought gun-control the death-by-firearms went down to way more than half in just the first year and kept going down year after year! I know the US has more guns & there will always be gun-deaths but saying it's pointless to regulate guns because of that without mentioning that IF we had gun-control we would not have, say 30 000 gun-related deaths in a year but 3000 and 10 years later 300 per year cause that's statistics.
3. (America isn't going to happily hand over their guns) Well i thought we were talking about gun control? No one is asking people with guns to hand them over (maybe for AR-15 and assault rifles but people don't need those to hunt & if the government came, then no weapons you own today would make a difference trust me) So no one is trying to take away your guns! But making sure people that are mentally unstable or on the terrorist watch list can't buy guns is not unreasonable! (and that's what the NRA and some republicans have tried and been successful in passing)
4. (Guns are the solution to a bigger problem) Hell no guns is not the answer, you said let's be civil and discuss but look at statistics girl. If a shooter came into anywhere you are and you had a gun than you would with like a 50% outcome kill any random person or your self if you tried using it and if the gunman or your self don't kill you than the cops will when they show up, how the f are they not going to shoot anyone with a gun if they get a call that someone with a gun is shooting up say mc donalds. What i do agree with you on is that if you have a gun at your home you are less likely to get hurt from others but there's a higher chance for you, your spouse and kids to be hurt than if there were no gun in the house at all.

So if we talk about banning guns all together im all for it but that's not what anyone is asking! Like 95% of all those who are scared and want gun control is asking for stricter regulations so we don't give psychos or terrorist guns! (and like i said maybe AR-15 cause if any gun lover gave a good reason for having them sure keep em but they can't) So saying gun control is not worth working for when almost all gun lovers WANT more regulations them self is plain stupid.

[BeautifulMind59]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's the entire second amendment. Don't just take the parts you like.

[Physics-Man]

Gun control doesn't work in sizable countries with an enormous population. Look at Mexico and Brazil for example; they have multiple times the homicide rate than the United States. Afew smaller countries also have this problem like El Salvador.

But I do agree that it generally does seem to work in smaller sovereign states such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, and the UK specifically because their relative smaller population and area makes gun control far easier to implement.

In Australia's case, although gun crime greatly decreased after heavy restrictions were imposed crime in general actually increased. It's pretty interesting.

Furthermore, in the case of the United States, many of the top 25 safest states have extremely loose gun laws such as Utah, Virginia, Montana, Maine, and New Hampshire. Meanwhile, California, which has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation is only SLIGHTLY safer than Texas in gun crime, that of which has extremely loose gun laws.

While we're talking about safety, why not talk about how these mass shootings have only become prevalent in the last couple of decades, and before this there was few mass shootings? How about how there's about how there's about as many guns I'm America as there are people, but most of us are still alive? How about how edged and blunt weapons and alcohol consumption and it's consequences have killed and maimed multiple times as many people as firearms have? And yet there are hardly any severe restrictions on them? What about cars? Etc. Democrats should really focus on issues that matter.

But wait, where did I get all this info from?

www.amazon.com/.../ref=mp_s_a_1_1

www.amazon.com/.../ref=mp_s_a_1_2

[Physics-Man]

If the links don't work:

The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies by John Lott Jr.

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, 3rd edition by John Lott Jr.

[WhiteSteve]

I don’t like guns at all, but I don’t like laws and having to answer to a government even more, so I guess guns win. Guns exist, and you can’t ban tangible items that exist, that’s ludicrous that one human or group of humans can tell any other individual or group of humans what is or isn’t acceptable. I’ve never understood registering guns in the first place. Like the only reason I would have a gun is to kill someone, and whether I killed them in self-defense or cold blood, I don’t want any of the accompanying drama where I’m expected to explain myself to some supposed “authority” comprised of living, breathing humans no more superior than I. Like in all cases, I’d kill you, leave the body somewhere it won’t be found in my lifetime, and go whistling on my way like nothing happened. I can’t imagine someone thinking differently and “clearing” their kill with “authorities”, lmao. So I mean, I don’t like that we’ve invented guns, they cheat natural selection. If you aren’t strong enough to defend yourself vs attackers, you likely weren’t meant to survive biologically. So by no means am I pro-gun, but I’m just not into myself or anyone else being regulated with any type of rules, natural earth doesn’t plan for that nonsense.

[loveslongnails]

I believe you need read deeper into the basis and background of the 2nd amendment. Start here, then do some of your own research:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
"Gun control" does NOT take away the right for individual citizens to bear arms. It puts certain restrictions and regulations on the process, and the 2nd amendment people act like that's unconstitutional. It's not. It's no different than the "right to free speech". You don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater if there isn't one. There are limits on your rights. Background checks for everyone or denying guns to mentally unstable people is neither unreasonable, nor unconstitutional. While you may have other valid points of discussion, your understanding of the 2nd amendment is not only lacking and has nothing to do with the issue of crime UNLESS you interpret as "anyone has the right to get, and own, a gun". And that, is not true.

[GunLover]

You are mistaking *Free Speech* and a *Call to Action* Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not protected under free speech because it is a call to action and will cause people to trample and kill each other. There is difference. I'm allowed to say "Hey I don't like that Muslim guy over there because he is Muslim" That is protected under free speech, but I'm not allowed to tell somebody "Hey you see that Muslim guy over there, he just beat up a kid, you should go beat him up" That is not protected under the first amendment that's why you can be an accessory to murder. Also nobody thinks Background Checks are unconstitutional, I don't know where you're getting that from.

[loveslongnails]

@GunLover @GunLover I get the background check objections from past gun enthusiast rhetoric, like Gun Owners of America, and the NRA. They have published opinions that background checks of any kind can, and do, lead to confiscation and data bases of gun owners. They've said this "abridges their rights" to bear arms, therefore, unconstitutional. I appreciate your pointing out the long discussed basis of free speech vs call to action, but amongst the general public, this is not well understood. (Looked at in depth, there have been theses, papers and books written on the subject). Since this is GAG, I used that because it's the most commonly thought of example when talking about "free speech". Albeit, it has nothing to do with "hate speech". We are in agreement regarding your example. In fact, that might even be construed as inciting a riot.

[GunLover]

The NRA doesn't want to take away background checks, they just don't believe they should be expanded anymore because background checks are already very strict and uncompromising. You're a felon (denied) You beat your wife (denied) You're mentally unstable (denied) etc. Gun Owners of America and the NRA believe that we should instead focus on other things rather than background checks. Because making backgrounds checks more strict is gonna be useless. I would like to go back to your main point where you said Gun control doesn't take away the right for people to carry guns. Because even though that may not be what you want many Democratic and SJW's want to take guns, they just don't want people to have them, so I don't know how you can say that Gun Control does not take away the right for people to carry guns when you can see politicians say they should've taken rifles away.

[loveslongnails]

@GunLover Before you turn this into a Dem and SJW vs Repubs, this should be something of a unified concern. I do NOT believe that all any weaponry should be available to the general public. That doesn't make me an SJW, a horribly condescending term when the truth is everyone should be "for" social justice, and justice period. Also, the NRA has always advocated for the least restrictive checks and laws they could get passed, and will continue to do so. It's only the passage of time and evolution, if you will, of gun violence in America, that has brought the laws to their current state. Back to the amendment. It's "funny" how people who will disregard the context and historical intent, or refuse to consider time, place and intent, when interpreting not just the 2nd amendment, but the Constitution as a whole. I do not, and would not, support any legislation that attempted to force me to give up my guns or means of protection against crime. But I also can't support the right to own ANY weapon, just because it's available currently. Thanks for responding and your thoughts.

[GunLover]

But it is a SJW and Dem vs Repubs. If you look at the news that's all it is. Also no not everybody should be an SJW, that would cause our earth to explode. And yes the NRA does advocate for less restrictive backgrounds checks. Have you gone through a background check to buy a gun. I will suggest for you to buy a gun, any stupid little pistol or rifle. See how the process works and then give it back to the gun shop so they would store it for you. You can then see how restrictive and overly burden the background check system is. It's compared to putting 3 padlocks on your gym locker where you put your gym clothes. It's too much. But it should be there. And no, nobody disregards the context and historical intent. In fact the Founding Fathers knew this would be an issue in the future, they're not stupid they know things advance. So what you need to do is look at some historical pieces of evidence that supports today's gun laws. Back then there were rapid firing "assault rifles" back when the constitution was written. So they knew that guns would get better. If you don't believe me look these up "girandoni air rifle" "Puckle gun" "Belton flintlock" and "the pepper box revovler" as you can see there were rifles that can be compared to today's guns. Also a private ship captain sent a letter to James Madison asking if he was allowed to own cannons under the 2nd amendment, and he replied of course. So as you can see looking at the context and historical intent the founding father's would support gun ownership to this very day.

[loveslongnails]

@GunLover I disagree. YES, most people disregard the context or examining the intent and regurgitate only the words. Your argument is full of logical fallacies and straw men that have nothing to do finding a solution to gun violence issues or clarifying the "right" to have them. The fact that a puckle gun EXISTED as a prototype in 1717 and the 2nd amendment ratified in 1791, is not "proof" that the founders of that document would support bump stocks or rifles with more kill power. You keep referring this back to "gun ownership", but that's what the debate is about. Your misunderstanding of "social justice" is what causes your dichotomous view, as if social justice is a BAD thing. Take the word social out, and it doesn't change a thing. If everyone had an eye towards doing the "just" thing, it would KEEP the world from exploding, not help it along. Portraying anyone who fights for justice as some sort of Democratic "freak" is completely ass backwards. Associating a political party with it is also wrong, because it immediately implies that Republicans don't care about justice at all, or doing the "right thing". Sadly, there's a lot of evidence to support that throughout the Boehner/McConnell leadership years, but they don't see it that way, despite much evidence to the contrary. In conclusion, if a private ship captain then could own a cannon, should I as a private boat owner have access to hand held surface to air missiles, which I currently can not? The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned that... did it "infringe" on your rights too?
I appreciate your input, but we're at odds over some basic things and picking at straws on the remainder. I haven't bought a gun in some time, but my girlfriend will be very soon and I'll see what the process is like at that time. Thanks and be well.

[GunLover]

Alright sorry for the late response but you're wrong here. You only mentioned the puckle gun, but you didn't mention any of the other guns that I brought up that were invented after the 2nd amendment. Also you say I used a straw man argument. When I read my reply I don't see it anywhere. Where did I use a straw man I mostly just analogies, with the gym locker. Next the thing that is wrong with Social Justice is that they look for justice where there is none needed. There is no gender wage gap, so why fight for it. There aren't kkk members holding black people back to this day, so why fight for it. There is no Patriarchy, so why fight for it. All of their arguments are for things that don't exist or aren't important, such as the AC being sexist in work offices... And yes SJWS are on the democratic party, you don't see any SJW's on the Republican Side because they don't support us. And yes Republicans do like "JUSTICE" no "Social Justice" Second, the reason why you can't have missiles on your ship as a private captain is because you don't need it, second they are expensive, and third you don't have the license for them. But if you really really wanted them badly then you can ask the government for a license and a right to have missiles as long as you have a good reason and money for it. Also the The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned sawed off shotguns and implemented higher taxes for guns...

[loveslongnails]

@GunLover "There is no gender wage gap, so why fight for it. " Not according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and just about any other organization that has charted this. Where do you come up with full pay equality relating to gender in the USA? While it may vary "somewhat" by occupation and location, the best stat I saw was 88% overall with the median around 82-83%.

While I DO agree their are some social system "wars" that are not worth waging, that hardly discounts the ones that ARE.
"ALL of their arguments are for things that don't exist " ALL of them huh? The "sweeping generalization" fallacy in action.
" or aren't important" .. obviously not to you, but it doesn't mean they're unimportant because you think they're not.
"Republicans do like "JUSTICE" no "Social Justice". What's really the difference between the two anyway? But more importantly, once again you are making this about Dems vs Repubs, and my defense of doing the right thing when it comes to justice is not party based because BOTH are guilty of ignoring justice. HOWEVER, that said, the Republican leadership couldn't care less about "justice" and has continually demonstrated this fact. And at THIS juncture, with a pathological liar (yes, he is ill because he can't stop and can't acknowledge his own actions) as POTUS, and the continued "look away" support by his party, justice gets shit on every day. Also, I seriously question your statement that an individual could get a license approved for surface to air missiles by somehow "establishing the need"?

I've enjoyed our more civil discussion, and thank you for your observations. They've caused me to do more research, which is always beneficial. I can not, however, align with very many of the premises you put forth on which you base your arguments. Some I've found to be readily, statistically unsound and refutable, while others I simply disagree with and can not find your evidence substantial enough to alter my beliefs. Thanks again.

[TripleAce]

damn you got everything backwards lol

1. the second amendment doesn't protect your rights... people without that second amendment can still own guns lol... you goof hahah... its just in america the government red tape that surrounds the gun ownership is weak af... cause you can walk in and walk out in less than 30 mins with a gun... no way hosay you can convince non Americans thats a good idea...

2. guns will be obtained illegally yes but mostly by top tier criminals and organized crime.. not your average dad at home... where his son accidentally fires the gun... you do realize the changes of protection yourself with a gun is lower than the change of someone accidentally firing the gun at home lol... silly goose

3. well they dont have a choice, hand it over or go to jail

4. crime is so high because criminal see america as the place to let their violent behaviour flourish... why would a criminal want to live in Sweden lol... they will try their best to get into america... guns pow pow right?
now compound that over years... ya no shit you got a lot of criminals 😂

[myTake Owner]

"cause you can walk in and walk out in less than 30 mins with a gun" Um, no, not even close. I've seen the process before. "the second amendment doesn't protect your rights." So exactly what are we supposed to use to defend our rights without a weapon if a tyrant government came into place? Many people want to ban guns entirely, you can't own a gun in that case. Not a silly goose, more of a reality goose.

"hand it over or go to jail"

Good luck arresting millions of pissed off armed people.

4. Sweden is currently under a lot of terrorist attacks so... I'm not sure they're a great example. What's your reasoning for Brazil's and Mexico's crime rate being so high with how strict their gun laws are then? Because they get them illegally, which is the same exact thing that'll happen in America.

[TripleAce]

1. yes its as easy as 30 mins... what do you mean, I can show you a youtube video right now of the process...30 mins in and out... no prb... and what do you mean govt tyranny... that already happens... and no one does shit... cause believe it no one can do shit... its all a false image to keep you guys shooting each other up

4. Europe is going to shit because of islam and muslims... something trump stopped right in their tracks! he banned all those stupid muslim countries from coming in

[TheLorde]

@TripleAce I appreciate the sentiment of the position you come from but if someone is willing to kill 20 children and their teacher like at Sandyhook whats to stop them from purchasing a gun illegally.

[TripleAce]

@TheLorde it’s only more so like that because of the gun culture. If you have a fun culture and guns are super easily accessible. Basically a right for anyone that’s 18 with no criminal record. It’s just walk in walk out after the federal check. And done

That type of environment will promote more crazy shooters to come out

[Kiran04]

No, you have it backwards.

1) The second amendment protects all other amendments. Laws have no teeth without force of arms to back them up. That has ALWAYS been true, and in this case, since the law protects private citizens from the government, it is private citizens that must have force of arms.

2) Guns can be obtained illegally by anyone who bothers to look. The fact that dad at home doesn't bother to look doesn't mean he can't. It just means he doesn't want to.

3) They do have a choice just as they did before the revolutionary war. The choice then was turn your guns on those sent to collect them.

4) Oh please, this argument isn't even trying. You have London where they have to ban knives because stab rates are so high, and that's long after banning guns. Nope nope nope. European countries are just as violent. They just try to hide it.

[TheLorde]

@TripleAce Im not sure you understand that if a criminal is going to kill someone they won't bat an eye at buying a gun on the black market.

[TripleAce]

@Kiran04

1. What? Do you live in an American bubble. Cause laws exist all around the world and you don’t need guns to enforce them. Don’t be ridiculous lol. Protect from the govt? Dude you have no chance against the govt. they are already corrupt and you guys can’t do a single thing about it. Snowden? You know his story. Did I ever see one American camp out the White House with their pistols to bring him back and to stop their spying lol no. Case closed!

2. Exactly. When you have a ton of people not willing to look for illegal guns. That means it working bud

3. Dude it’s not the past. Don’t think you can shoot military when they come for your baby rifles and pistols. You’ll simply get thrown in jail man lol

4. Right so they have to ban knives now. That means the gun ban worked! We don’t see guns anymore. Knives are far better than a gun. I rather have a person going wild with a knife than a gun. 3-4 guys can stop a dude with a knife. Not a gun. Cause it has distance and too much power

[TripleAce]

@TheLorde a lot of black market guns are just stolen legal guns

[DaDon72]

Ace. I went to a school where 15 year olds could buy a gun for $30. It's not just the top tier criminals. "Hand it over" policies have been in effect in some cities. Most guys took them as a choke because sometimes the departments would give reimbursement for turning in the guns. So after they got reimbursed, they'd go by another. Also, here in Illinois I have to wait 72 hours before a long gun or handgun purchase is turned over to me. This time frame I agree with because generally it takes an FFL about 24-36 hours to receive any details on the background check they just filed to the state police or sheriff's department.

[TripleAce]

@DaDon72 ya I’m not saying only organized criminals buy illegals guns. Of course not
Most of the street thugs get their guns illegally. Of course you can buy guns at school for cheap

BUT again. Those people get diluted within the mess of guns across the nation. I mean why do you think the Vegas dude was even able to load his room with dozens of assault rifles and ammunition? —> because in Vegas Carry is legal so no one really bats an eye when they see a gun
Heck I’ve seen images of people walking in Walmart with a rifle. That shit ain’t normal

That’s an American problem!
So of course illegal users grow in numbers

The gun culture Plays a big role in the gun violence there. And that stems from the second amendment though

[DaDon72]

Open carry is pretty fucked up in my opinion. Nevada has some very poor laws I would agree including prostitution lol. I'd also like to point out that considering that if the media has reported correctly that Stephen Paddock only had semi-automatic rifles with a bump stock, then he was not in possession of an assault weapon by military standard. This is because an AR-15 or hand gun does not have selection fire capabilities past semi-automatic. So, it is not a machine gun or an "assault weapon".

[TripleAce]

@DaDon72 ya that’s a good point
Can you tell me why psychos don’t use full
Auto machine guns?

Why don’t we really see full auto murders other than mobsters

[DaDon72]

Because the ATF has basically removed them. You can still make one though. It's not that hard. All you'd have to do add a trigger brace and receiver extension.

[TheLorde]

@TripleAce it doesn't change the fact that they are held illegally by the offenders of these shootings.

[TripleAce]

@DaDon72 yup. So that worked? Removed the machine guns has worked? Seems like it has lol ahh interesting. So removing that gun to purchase has concluded in almost no full auto homocides. I wonder lol
Think pal

Also they didn’t remove it
Full autos require extensive checks by your local sheriff and various other legal matters. It’s also extremely expensive since they don’t design or sell new full autos. They only use the guns made before 1980 or something like that. Forgot the date

Essentially heavy govt red tape has prevented criminals from flocking to full autos. While they love the AR 15 since it’s a toy. It’s cheap. Easily found. Highly customizable.

More guns cause more gun violence. It’s simple

[Rei02]

You said well, gun control is not the solution, specially in a country where violence and wars are promoted, both inside and outside of the country.

Even though US wants to deny it, it is obvious that it is an armamentist country, meaning that in every chance and by disguise, they are encouraging their people on fighting "for their nation".

Also, there are usually news about people going crazy, getting a gun and start to shoot everyone who is in their way. And not only adults, but also kids and teenagers who lose a screw and do it in their school, and where do they get the guns?, there are many options.

I also remember an episode of Bojack Horseman, where if it wasn't for a gun, Diane would have been sexually assaulted. The politicians didn't want women to have guns, so Diane in an article put two options: or they put more security in the streets for women, or they put gun control, the idiots opted for gun control because it was easier for them.

[DaDon72]

Fun fact about background checks. They are already quite thorough and nothing slips by too often. People filing for divorces are prohibited from purchasing a gun during the filings. People that are also insubordinate on child support can't purchase either. A friend of mine was put on a mental health probation and was barred from purchasing any guns or ammo. However, he still was able to steal a gun and kill himself. He had full intent on suicide with a gun so nothing would stop him. Take a man's hammer away and he still finds a way to overcome

[Anonymous]

I'm not American. But I Think SOME people should be able to have guns. And those people should be at least 15 years old. Be well though go Classes of how and when they are allowed to use it. And it should not be any gun at any place. It's not like they should walk to school with guns. However I Believe People with lack of empathy should never be able to have a Gun. Same with impulsive People. And we should take therapy tests before being handed a Gun. I myself have ADD now all People with ADD are not impulsive but I am. So therefor I should not have it until I'm not impulsive anymore. That's my opinion. And ofcorse People are the Ones that kill not guns but guns help killing a lot and its easier to survive if someone tries to kill you by strangeling you or stabbing you. But gun can be great if you are in danger. It's the same with bombs but bombs are worth and more violent

[Kiran04]

At least 15? You can't even buy a gun here unless you're 18. And you shouldn't have to jump through hoops for gun ownership. The onus should be on the state to prove that you are not safe to have a gun. Not that you have to prove to the state why you are. Then the state will control virtually all guns by simply setting the standards too high or strenuous. Hell no. That defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment.

[Opinion Owner]

@Kiran04 but there are many young teens who get raped. And they can't (most of the time) not protect themself from gang members who rapes people or whatever. They should be able to protect themself when they walk out. And they can obviously not shoot at anybody at any time there should be clear rules

[Anonymous]

Guns are still the number 1 best way to avoid being murdered or raped.

[hellacray]

Yup that's what I'm saying. If the people want to do damage they will find a way whether it's illegal or not.

Besides there has been many stories about homemade bombs. So... If you're gonna van guns you might as well ban all the individual materials used to make them.

Which by the way I'm assuming you can just pick up at a general store.

[Kaneki05]

Agreed. I don't think we need gun control, i live in britian but dam you would be suprised about how many people have guns over here illegally.

It like it don't matter that there illegal i even know people who have guns and i can and could get one easy if i needed.

[Malik00]

I've honestly become more pro-gun over the past few months, because i keep hearing the argument about how women are so much weaker then men and whatnot and how they need protecting. Yet these same people want a flat ban on the one thing that could objectively level the playing field between genders.
So let me get this straight, you wanna complain about how as a woman you need special privileges in order to make up for the natural advantage men got, and at the same time you also want to get rid of what is essentially the ultimate equalizer?
I don't care how much bigger and stronger someone is over you, everyone is equal when staring down the business end of a 9mm, and nobody is fool enough to risk it not killing them instantly.

[Edanurus]

1 and 3 are pretty much the same thing. It's cultural but that's not really a good reason in this particular debate.

2 misses a fact. I live in the UK. I can legally obtain a shotgun or a hunting rifle but a handgun is out of the question. If I wanted to get a handgun I would have to pay a few hundred to borrow one with a few bullets. That makes it highly unlikely I'm going to be shot unless I do something that's worth it. Caught in crossfire isn't really a thing here. And being in possession of one makes carrying one a risk in the same place.

4. I don't understand how some of the American public think if they were in an armed conflict with their government they think they could win, wouldn't you just get bombed to hell?

[Partywithtom]

Yes bombing us to hell and destroying the entire infrastructure is something they would want to do.

How about the fact that the police, who would be allowed to carry guns if the public couldn't, have no legal obligation to protect us from harm. A guy could be pointing a gun at me with a cop standing their the cop doesn't have to do anything. I'm ultimately responsible for my own safety not the police.

[Edanurus]

Because gunning down the people is something they would do?

Well isn't that a problem with your law force? Here if they did that they're be an accessory to murder. I mean how many crimes are stopped with gun ownership? I'm not being pedantic here outside of the USA all we hear about is kids taking their parents guns and shooting up schools, but like carrying a knife here I'm not sure how it doesn't contribute to being safer.

I mean a legal firearm is only legal untill it's stolen. And how often are they actually used to defend. Or is it just an emotional thing that people feel safer with it?

[Kiran04]

Poorly equipped, lightly armed Iraqis gave the US army a hell of time during the Iraq war, and that was when the army could cut loose against a foreign enemy bringing tanks, aircraft, drones, and whatever else they could find to throw at them. Imagine a civil war where you can't just bomb cities, because our own civilians live there, fighting is confined to urban areas where bombs aren't even effective, tanks can't drive in major cities because they'd fall through the streets into the sewer systems or are too heavy for the highway overpasses, and nukes would just be silly. You'd be killing yourself. Now rifles seem a lot more dangerous.

[DaDon72]

@Kiran04 That's what I am saying!

[Edanurus]

@Kiran04 nah not even slightly, the biggest problem with iraq as the fact they held up in schools and hospitals. literally using children and the sick as meat shields. Look at the Blitz and see how effective bombs are in urban environments, I don't see how having guns makes you safer, if anything it makes you more of a target because they can say you're a threat. If my country tried the same they would be fighting people without weapons. and as such they would be monsters to the rest of the world. having guns doesn't protect you against the government tried the same they are literally gunning down the people, not a militia that they could then justify taking arms against.

[BigTank]

It's refreshing to see someone understand the difference between gun laws and rights. All gun laws are an infringement. And we're too far into the "future" for an all out, outright ban on weapons. Thanks to the internet, to ban them completely you'd have to ban the understanding of how they work and function, or else, like the should-be-famous P. A. Luty, people would just build guns in their garages out of hardware store parts.

[thatsjustme1]

I think only argument that works in favor pro gun people is that it would be much harder to control guns now since it has been part of the society for so long.

All the other arguments are bollocks lol.

Going up against the government seriously? If the government decides to screw people they are going to deploy military and highly trianed personnel. How citizens are going to fare against them?

Like it worked out really well with people going up against the government last time. It was a total disaster.

All the countries with stricter gun control are doing just fine.

[DaDon72]

Actually I'd say pretty well and the confederates could have won in several situations.

[thatsjustme1]

@DaDon72 They could have but that wouldn't have been a good thing. They were the bad guys so to say.

[DaDon72]

In there minds they were right and the good guys. The illusion of who is good or who is bad is in the eyes of the leaders in control. If Hitler one we would have known no other way of society.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I agree with you here.

Our government has the power to use nuclear weapons. Does someone seriously think a gun is going to stop you from a full-on government takeover?

[FatherJack]

It certainly does not stop criminal scrotes getting hold of firearms !! I live in the UK with it's de-facto ban on civilians having firearms , an innocent girl , Danielle Beccan , was shot dead very close to where I live in the autumn of 2004 , this was a stupid " turf war " the perpetrators were from a rival area. They were caught and sentenced to life imprisonment.

[Soteris]

That was 15 years ago, there are mass shootings every day in USA right now. This is the difference between having gun control and criminals obtaining guns illegally.

[Exterminatore]

Agreed. Nice take!