[Tslat]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/new-york-daily-news-mocks-republican-politicians-for-blocking-action-on-gun-control/news-story/65e3d571970cb18f3c7344cb17e32d9e

Yes, i do want to start a debate here
Coming from an australian standpoint, we have a pretty solid background in anti firearms.

Given that roughly 30 people die to firearms every day in the US alone, what reasons are possibly worth this "right"?

[Allpone]

http://i.imgur.com/J1PWKic.gif

[schuminator85]

Anti-gun laws do not work and will never work, evil people will always be a part of this world and they will always have access to them.  You taking guns away from those who are trained and proficient is ridiculous to say the least.  If more trained civilians where to carry than mass shooting like those that happened in Paris and now San Bernadino would have never happened if someone would have stepped up and took action. Stricter gun laws do NOT work and if you don't believe me check out Chicago or even California's gun restrictions.

[Clay]

I have been around guns since a very young age and enjoy the sporting aspect of guns.  (hunting, clay pigeons, ect...)
Also the more laws you make forbidding something the more underground it goes.
This is about all I will say about this online, in text.

[Tslat]

Anti-gun laws do not work and will never work, evil people will always be a part of this world and they will always have access to them.  You taking guns away from those who are trained and proficient is ridiculous to say the least.  If more trained civilians where to carry than mass shooting like those that happened in Paris and now San Bernadino would have never happened if someone would have stepped up and took action. Stricter gun laws do NOT work and if you don't believe me check out Chicago or even California's gun restrictions.

So if anti gun laws dont work, how do you believe stats like this?
http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

Are you justifying the deaths of 11,000 people a year as "acceptable loss, since we cant do anything about it"?

Obviously the us is a country of its own.
But i find it hard to believe that gun laws dont work when the statistics say that just about every country with stricter ones have less problems

[Toa Mata Nui 9]

Anti-gun laws do not work and will never work, evil people will always be a part of this world and they will always have access to them.  You taking guns away from those who are trained and proficient is ridiculous to say the least.  If more trained civilians where to carry than mass shooting like those that happened in Paris and now San Bernadino would have never happened if someone would have stepped up and took action. Stricter gun laws do NOT work and if you don't believe me check out Chicago or even California's gun restrictions.

So if anti gun laws dont wotk, how do you believe stats lime this?
http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

Are you justifying the deaths of 11,000 people a year as "acceptable loss, since we cant do anything about it"?

Obviously the us is a country of its own.
But i find it hard to believe that gun laws dont work when the statistics say that just about every country with stricter ones have less problems

So then let me guess: you're with the crowd that says, "OMG! GUNS KILL PEOPLE! WE GOTTA BAN GUNS NOW!"

    If so, then let me tell you this: "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people."  The objects/things/items that people use to kill people has changed over time; the simple fact of people killing people has remained the one constant.

[Tslat]

I like your jump to conclusions, but no.
I'm of the mind that something needs to be done.

So far, the statistics show that just about every country with much tigher gun control has significantly less gun homicides
I'm all open to other solutions, but so far there's been nothing suitable presented

Your argument of "people kill people" is arguably the same as "ohwell, that seems like a reasonable amount of people to kill so we can keep our guns"

[Woodsy1995]

The ridiculousness of the argument "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" still perplexes me, If you believe that that is a valid argument to keep Guns around and freely available shall we then also assume that you are going to support the act to allow bombs into airports, and that we should also stop checking sweets for razor blades on halloween.

Just because something happens only when reacted by Human interaction, DOES NOT mean that you cannot put laws in place to restrict the ease of access to bare arms. I am all for Gun sport, much as Clay said. But when sport is used to murder... Its time to stop playing

[Clay]

I like your jump to conclusions, but no.
I'm of the mind that something needs to be done.
So far, the statistics show that just about every country with much tigher gun control has significantly less gun homicides
I'm all open to other solutions, but so far there's been nothing suitable presented

Your argument of "people kill people" is arguably the same as "ohwell, that seems like a reasonable amount of people to kill so we can keep our guns"

Yes,Something needs to be done. The Question is; are more laws or making them harder for "good guys" to purchase the answer?
That being said I don't have a better solution.

Statistics...... you know better.
I want to see more data (not really, i couldn't care less but for the sake of arguing.) from other countries that have a similar population size before I say "they are doing it right, lets do what they do".

[Tslat]

China has no known major cases of gun crime and has ~1.4b people
India has a rate of roughly 0.26 firearm homicides per 100,000 people. (their population is ~1.3b)
The U.S has a rate of just under 3 firearm homicides per 100,000 people (pop. ~300m).

If you compared india and the US alone, the US has almost 45x as much firearm homicides per person.

Indonesia has no known firearm issues, and is known to have extreme firearm control laws. (Though they do have major drug trafficking issues). Pop. ~250m

Brazil has firearm homicide rate of roughly 18!!! per 100,000 people. (pop. ~200m)
That makes Brazil sound crazy, right?
Well think again. Brazil's gun laws work in the exact same way as the US's -- The citizens have a "right" to bear arms. Add on top of this a huge amount of corrupt police, and government officials, and you have the sum

[Allpone]

Should we also ban cars and alcohol ? Also I'v looked a bit at the numbers more guns more death by guns your right and it adds up but the moment the countries that put those gun laws into place there crime rate went way up in almost every area and much larger picture Americans the pro gun Americans simply believe it's a freedom , freedom to protect themselves , freedom to defend them selves against foreign and domestic it has been said to invade the United States would be suicide there would be a gun behind every blade of grass I would like our enemy's to continue to think that there are things in this world killing more people each and every day more than guns but no one wants to attack those cars , drunk driving, abortion , abortion is a larger ginacide than the holocaust but that's legal what a joke 

[Allpone]

Taking a second look at Australia , crime rates went up after the ban, homicide rates shot up as well then balanced back out to the same numbers fluctuating each year some better than others so ya homicide by guns went down but over all the ban changed nothing except what the weapon of choice became

[Allpone]

And a third look at a different study completely revokes everything I just said lol , you can find "facts" to back any side you want to take

[Tslat]

Correct.

The difference is, balancing the positive and negative facts.
The trick is to not look for facts related to the issue.

All my information comes from places that aren't talking about the issue itself, they're merely presenting the statistics gathered

If you pull facts from a place that's arguing about the topic, they're inevitably going to take one side or the other, skewing the information

And to answer your question, I'd have no problem with a ban on Alcohol either tbh. It's regularly rated as the most dangerous drug currently in rotation

[Clay]

And to answer your question, I'd have no problem with a ban on Alcohol either tbh. It's regularly rated as the most dangerous drug currently in rotation

Look at what happened in the US when we banned alcohol, it went underground and even more people where killed because of it being illegal.  Making something illegal takes things out of the control of the government and into the control of "criminals"  . How big is the underground market for guns in Europe ? I would bet HUGE compared the the underground gun market in the US. So who has more control over guns?

Making something illegal doesnt work. If you made soda illegal and people still wanted it they would find a way to get it. Enter "black market". You then make everyone selling soda a criminal, filling our jails with soda pushing thugs. (thats another issue for another topic) No, you are not going to kill someone over a soda but if a crime organization has a shipment of $1mil worth of soda coming into town someone will want to take it by any means necessary, including kill the people guarding it.

[Tslat]

This topic isn't about alcohol though. I'm aware of that sort of thing.

The problem is, we're at a point where something needs to be done.
Saying "I don't know what to do" isn't a good enough excuse to do nothing, which is exactly what seems to be happening right now

My main issue is what seems to be a blind grab by the American public on a sentence that was written ~240 years ago.
Times have changed

[Toa Mata Nui 9]

I like your jump to conclusions, but no.
I'm of the mind that something needs to be done.

So far, the statistics show that just about every country with much tigher gun control has significantly less gun homicides
I'm all open to other solutions, but so far there's been nothing suitable presented

Your argument of "people kill people" is arguably the same as "ohwell, that seems like a reasonable amount of people to kill so we can keep our guns"

Arguably by your standards, maybe. But if you say that "guns kill people" simply because that is a means by which people die, or that "bullets kill people" because they are technically the objects that killed those people, you would also have to say that "toilets kill people," "fast-food kills people," "cars kill people," and "showers and bathtubs kill people." Also, lets no forget that "weather kills people," so we should probably ban weather too, you know.

The ridiculousness of the argument "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" still perplexes me, If you believe that that is a valid argument to keep Guns around and freely available shall we then also assume that you are going to support the act to allow bombs into airports, and that we should also stop checking sweets for razor blades on halloween.

Just because something happens only when reacted by Human interaction, DOES NOT mean that you cannot put laws in place to restrict the ease of access to bare arms. I am all for Gun sport, much as Clay said. But when sport is used to murder... Its time to stop playing

Explosives in airports is one of those "no-brainer, red-alert, sirens-going-off" kind-of deals. You obviously don't allow explosives anywhere but a war-zone, military base or camp, demolition site, or other secure location; guns can be used safely for recreational purposes... explosives, not so much -- with the exception of fireworks, of course.

No offense, but as for potentially harmful candy, why are you taking candy from strangers to begin with?? I thought that was one of the first things people were taught at a young age, not to take candy from strangers? And honestly, razor blades? I'd be more worried about being poisoned to be honest: there's not many candies that you can't clearly see a razor blade in when looking at it clearly in the light of day. For that matter, it'd probably be wise not to even try to eat the stuff before you can get the chance to carefully examine it in the first place.

China has no known major cases of gun crime and has ~1.4b people
India has a rate of roughly 0.26 firearm homicides per 100,000 people. (their population is ~1.3b)
The U.S has a rate of just under 3 firearm homicides per 100,000 people (pop. ~300m).

If you compared india and the US alone, the US has almost 45x as much firearm homicides per person.

Indonesia has no known firearm issues, and is known to have extreme firearm control laws. (Though they do have major drug trafficking issues). Pop. ~250m

Brazil has firearm homicide rate of roughly 18!!! per 100,000 people. (pop. ~200m)
That makes Brazil sound crazy, right?
Well think again. Brazil's gun laws work in the exact same way as the US's -- The citizens have a "right" to bear arms. Add on top of this a huge amount of corrupt police, and government officials, and you have the sum

Ok, so:
A.) You have to look outside the confines of whether or not guns are permitted legally. There is a lot more going on than just that one thing. Geographic location, politics, inter-country relations, overall well-being of a country (politically, economically, etc...), standard of living of that country and its surrounding countries, education level for that country and surrounding countries, governmental system of that and surrounding countries (or lack thereof ) -- the list goes on and on even further for quite a ways, but I think you get the point.
B.) Those stats can be manipulated, and the same goes for any statistics. Statistics can be created out of thin air with no real basis for those statistics. So, with that said, let me remind you of some things that can't be manipulated nearly as easily: common sense, and logic. In my opinion, those two combined can best [false] statistics any day.

...
If you pull facts from a place that's arguing about the topic, they're inevitably going to take one side or the other, skewing the information

And to answer your question, I'd have no problem with a ban on Alcohol either tbh. It's regularly rated as the most dangerous drug currently in rotation

A.) Not necessarily, but definitely in more than 9 times out of 10, [there is] no doubt that is the case. However, unless you were to provide a link to where you got said information from, I still won't trust a majority of the statistics provided for gun bans, and even with a proper link to the proper pages where you actually got said information from, I still may not trust it. Depending upon the sources, I might distrust the statistics provided even more so than I did before, but at least I would know where you got said statistics/information from.
B.)  Remember what happened during prohibition, anyone?

[Tslat]

Did you just argue against your own point there? Lol
You're the one that said people kill people, not me

Of course every country is different, which is why saying "i want to know about other countries first" can be a logical problem. Unfortunately we don't have an infinite amount of countries to compare to, so naturally there will be differences

Of course you will distrust stats against your argument, that's the nature of western civilisation. Its an issue that prevents a lot of progress, but not one that is ever likely to be resolved

And yeah, what about prohibition? Like alpone said, even crime rates went up in australia temporarily when the gun ban took place here. People will rebel. No one likes their toys being taken from them. But it takes patience and perseverence to make it work
Gun crime in australia is far less of an issue now because of it, regardless of the immediate backlash

[Woodsy1995]

Alot of sweets on halloween are laced with razor blades...

I do agree with Clay on the Alcohol thing, it is not a good thing but it would be foolish to ban it, But then I am also on the standpoint that they should legalize marijuana, Even though i Have and never will get into Drugs the idea of banning things like these just doesn't work, With that being said Guns are a complete different ballpark. America has one of the biggest distribution of arms in the entire world. With that they send the guns all across the world to all sorts of different wars, if Guns are used in wars to kill, then they should not be something that someone easily has access to...

I am however of a bias mind being bought up in England, we are not shown guns at an early age, however they are still at ease of access for us. For example if we go, hunting, to the ranges, and you can even apply for a gun license in which every person in the country who owns a gun should have detailing their personal details, the issue date, a picture of them and every possible way to track them down should their be a shooting.

I feel like i'm repeating myself but I just read a point earlier that
"Anti-gun laws do not work and will never work, evil people will always be a part of this world and they will always have access to them.  You taking guns away from those who are trained and proficient is ridiculous to say the least.  If more trained civilians where to carry than mass shooting like those that happened in Paris and now San Bernadino would have never happened if someone would have stepped up and took action. Stricter gun laws do NOT work and if you don't believe me check out Chicago or even California's gun restrictions."
but then my argument would be that the civilians of Paris for sure and especially here in England do not want war, Just because they face their guns at us we will be strong and preach peace, Anger and resentment Flows through this world and people will always fight... Until someone puts down their arms and Says "no more" What have we learned from these attacks if not that Violence can and will never resolve a problem of violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahQmF4fjtc8

[Toa Mata Nui 9]

Did you just argue against your own point there? Lol
You're the one that said people kill people, not me

Of course every country is different, which is why saying "i want to know about other countries first" can be a logical problem. Unfortunately we don't have an infinite amount of countries to compare to, so naturally there will be differences

Of course you will distrust stats against your argument, that's the nature of western civilisation. Its an issue that prevents a lot of progress, but not one that is ever likely to be resolved

And yeah, what about prohibition? Like alpone said, even crime rates went up in australia temporarily when the gun ban took place here. People will rebel. No one likes their toys being taken from them. But it takes patience and perseverence to make it work
Gun crime in australia is far less of an issue now because of it, regardless of the immediate backlash

I believe I was referring to you basically saying that firearms (i.e. guns) kill people when you first started this thread, which does not equate to arguing against my own point, last time I checked:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/new-york-daily-news-mocks-republican-politicians-for-blocking-action-on-gun-control/news-story/65e3d571970cb18f3c7344cb17e32d9e
...
Given that roughly 30 people die to firearms every day in the US alone, what reasons are possibly worth this "right"?

You don't need an infinite amount of countries for comparison's sake. All you need is a lot of facts that are proven -- and can be proven as being --  truth-full (emphasis on the literality of the definition presented by the also quite literal definition of pun), some -- again -- common sense, logic, and reasoning and deduction skills, etc., and lots and lots of proven-true-to-the-extent-that-they-are-truly-applicable statistics from proven-trustworthy sources, proven to have absolutely no bias, time and time again, etc. THAT is why ouy cannot seem to figure out a solution, and why no one else can reach a consensus on a working solution, either. There is too much bias, too many false statistics, too few trustworthy sources available to statistically arrive at little-to-none, if any, solutions applicable anywhere. THAT is why people either suggest gun bans or support conceal-carry firearms, but nothing much else.

Yeah, so they decreased the amount of people killed by violent guns shooting people. Whoop-de-doo.
I seem to remember that there is a lot of -- what is it called again? Oh yeah. -- outback country in Australia.
Did taking away the guns result in more people dying to things like -- oh, I don't know -- maybe poisonous snakes, crocodiles, etc. showing up at their doorstep or in their backyard, or maybe just people dying to those things just walking around -- for whatever reason (maybe they were "hunting wabbit"?) -- with maybe a bow and arrows, bowie knife, or maybe a machete or some other weapons with which to protect themselves should something happen?
Which would keep you alive better against things like that, or better yet, which would you rather have -- assuming it is a life-or-death scenario -- a bow and arrow -- which is not exactly the most wieldy weapon at very close range -- or a small firearm, which could be fired quicker and more accurately at say, a distance of about 3 to 5 metres?

Alot of sweets on halloween are laced with razor blades...

...

I feel like i'm repeating myself but I just read a point earlier that
"Anti-gun laws do not work and will never work, evil people will always be a part of this world and they will always have access to them.  You taking guns away from those who are trained and proficient is ridiculous to say the least.  If more trained civilians where to carry than mass shooting like those that happened in Paris and now San Bernadino would have never happened if someone would have stepped up and took action. Stricter gun laws do NOT work and if you don't believe me check out Chicago or even California's gun restrictions."
but then my argument would be that the civilians of Paris for sure and especially here in England do not want war, Just because they face their guns at us we will be strong and preach peace, Anger and resentment Flows through this world and people will always fight... Until someone puts down their arms and Says "no more" What have we learned from these attacks if not that Violence can and will never resolve a problem of violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahQmF4fjtc8

Ok, listen, bub.
Carrying a concealed firearm is not in and of itself violence nor a violent act in any way. It only becomes violence when it is used for such.
Also note that everyone registered with a concealed-carry firearm permit to [legally] carry a concealed firearm is, like I just said, REGISTERED, and may be tracked down more easily if they suddenly take out their handgun or whatever at a mall and start shooting people.
With that said, it is far more likely to be those who do not have a permit that go around terrorizing folk and yelling "Holy Heath bars! Give me all your chocolates!"  or whatever.

You get the point.


Sorry for the heavy usage of dull, dark humor/sarcasm.

[Tslat]

No, removing firearms Didn't increase deaths to wildlife. At all. At any point.

I really don't understand your point there. You're saying the problem we can't come to an agreement is because there's a lack of "proven facts", but you yourself said above:

and even with a proper link to the proper pages where you actually got said information from, I still may not trust it. Depending upon the sources, I might distrust the statistics provided even more so than I did before, but at least I would know where you got said statistics/information from.

So the real problem is blissful ignorance from the people who refuse to agree.
There has been stats proven. There have been facts. The problem is people refusing to believe them, because they don't suit their own agenda

[schuminator85]

I think we are all opinionated and feel obliged to defend weapons and there uses, but statistically speaking gun violence in America has climbed exponentially.  The number of household that own guns has gone down, but the number of guns per owner has gone up.  What that means is Americans think they are cowboys lol.  But I think there should be more training for those who don't know how to use/ operate one and maybe the accidental homicides per year could go down? Maybe we enforce stricter purchasing laws.  But as long as there is evil in the world there will always be gun violence due to our human nature.

[Tslat]

Thats the kind of response ive been hoping for

I dont liv in your country so i cant say what the best course of action is.

Do you think perhaps a mandatory training course prior to being eligible to weapon ownership would help?

[schuminator85]

Absolutely Tslat, If all gun owners were trained and semi-proficient there would be less accidents and maybe could even stop a mass killing or two.

[Zito]

I'm getting really sick and tired of liberal assholes trying to take away my gun rights. I was born an American, and as such I have the Right to Bear Arms. It says it right there in the 2nd Amendment. THat's one of the core things that America was built on right there. Freedom. So tell me, what kind of freedom doesn't allow you to take advantage of a tool that has been around for centuries? People keep saying we need stricter gun laws. I completely disagree. What we need to do is EDUCATE people about guns. If everyone knew what they were and what they did, as well as how to use them, the world would be a much better place. As someone stated earlier in this thread, if more people had guns and knew how to use them, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. Imagine if everyone in these places that keep getting shot up had a gun and knew how to use it, what would happen? Well, I'll tell you. One of two things. Either people will be too afraid to go in and shot up the place; or people who do try to shoot up the place will be gunned down before they do anything or with minimal damage. As the president of the NRA once said "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

I'm very sorry if I offended anyone, but these are my views. If you disagree, let's discuss why.

[Tslat]

I very well see your views Zito, but my problem with that is they're based on something decided over 200 years ago by people in a very different situation.

The 2nd amendment was originally declared so that the American public could overthrow the government in cases of oppression. This is before a time of automatic weaponry, tanks, military vehicles, etc.
The 2nd amendment is no longer relevant, it's really quite that simple.

The problem with your second point is it's currently being proven wrong, time and time again. America's gun saturation is already sky high. People obviously aren't being deterred.
You really couldn't ensure a greater weapon saturation unless you actually enforced people to have weaponry.
It's just not working, and never will

[Toa Mata Nui 9]

Apparently, neither I nor Tslat have a very good understanding of things and how they work, in varying ways:

     I have trouble with how words work and best flow together into graceful, meaningful phrases and such with any sort of efficiency.
     Tslat has trouble with: understanding the paired logic and wisdom of those with a firm sense of such, even if they lived and died long before our time.

  (I did say I was not the best with words, did I not?)

[Tslat]

Implying one is short of intelligence is not a way to positively construct an argument, Toa.

[Blazed_N_Stoned]

i have absolutely no interest in trying to act like i know what the best choice of action is from either side just want to put 2 things in here

1. I owned a gun for a while i sold it because i wasn't that much into the sport anymore i never threatened anyone with it the person i sold it to hasn't threatened anyone with it also i have a total of 16 guns in my house that aren't mine that have never been used to threaten anyone and have never hurt anyone so yes guns aren't the problem

2. the problem is how easy it is to obtain the guns when i purchased my first firearm it took all of 3 minutes and i was out the door with it and 80 shells i could've signed anybody's name on the paper i never once had to show ID to prove who i was anybody with criminal intent can go to the same store i went to and buy as much ammo and as many guns as they want and actually none of the guns in my area have been used for crime mostly it's hunters buying them people need to realize that both sides of the argument are right YES people have a right to bear arms and YES we need better regulation on how they get them you can argue either side all day the fact of the matter is it will never end because both sides are correct in their own way what needs to happen is a compromise from both sides so that everyone can agree on the matter one of my biggest concerns is how easy it was to purchase my firearm no i don't think it should be illegal for anyone to have but damn at least know who you're selling it to even people with mental disabilities have no problem buying firearms here and that's an issue

[Tslat]

Thanks for your contribution blazed

I agree too
The gun industry is a gigantic part of the us economy, and removing it would cause disastrous financial damages.
But it does need to be more tightly controlled
I do like the suggestion above about a mandatory training course or something prior to being allowed to purchase weapons, but I'm sure there's other ways to tackle this issue too

[Blazed_N_Stoned]

i didn't read everything on here but Tslat that training thing my god you are so right our POLICE only have to be accurate 70% of the time from like 10 yards away.... that's like training a 4 year old to hit the broad side of a barn it's absolutely insane that they are given weapons with that very MINIMAL amount of accuracy training

[Tslat]

I don't think the accuracy training is the problem, I think it's more about safe usage, when you're allowed to use it, proper storage procedures, etc..

A number of incidents seem to be from children just happening across a loaded parents' weapon and discharging it.
Others are accidental misfires

Even just the fact that there's a whole process to obtaining a firearm may be enough to put off people who aren't interested in owning it for a good reason, and just want it to cause problems.

Like you said yourself, it's unbelieveably easy to obtain them right now, it's disgusting (imo)

[Toa Mata Nui 9]

I'm not so good at arguing, but lots of the people here are, so I'll let them handle that aspect lol

[Woodsy1995]

I'm not so good at arguing, but lots of the people here are, so I'll let them handle that aspect lol

You butcher the word of a good debate, You insulted another person within the debate by targeting Tslat directly, you may not have meant to but from where I am sitting you told him he does not respect the four fathers decision to give people the right to bear arms.
When in face Tslat gave a valid argument as to why the amendment is outdated, why their needs to be a look at the perspective of modern day fire Arms, And actually condoned the original Right as it had a valid and Just cause.

I have many points on this argument which most may not agree with but the point of a healthy debate is to get all angle and perspectives, and as far as I can see you do not in anyway respect or even acknowledge our points. You seem to just be arguing your points over and over again and never actually giving a rebuttal.

That being said, I like the debate on the forums, it is good fun, I think we should make a folder somewhere for all of these...

Also my largest point on gun violence is that It happens too often for it to be overlooked, Something needs to change.

[Tslat]

This is the first topic for constructive arguments on these forums.

Previously we avoided them, but I decided I trust people enough to maintain maturity and keep the discussions civil.

If we end up doing more, I may create a sub-board for them

Consider this thread a test-thread, if you will.

[Zito]

You're right Woodsy, and that something is education.

I very well see your views Zito, but my problem with that is they're based on something decided over 200 years ago by people in a very different situation.

The 2nd amendment was originally declared so that the American public could overthrow the government in cases of oppression. This is before a time of automatic weaponry, tanks, military vehicles, etc.
The 2nd amendment is no longer relevant, it's really quite that simple.

The problem with your second point is it's currently being proven wrong, time and time again. America's gun saturation is already sky high. People obviously aren't being deterred.
You really couldn't ensure a greater weapon saturation unless you actually enforced people to have weaponry.
It's just not working, and never will

So what you're saying is that guns should be illegal so that only the people who don't obey the laws will have them, and then there will be absolutely nobody able to fight back when some idiotic terrorist decides to shoot up the next place? How does that make sense? I understand that you think the second amendment is outdated, and I see where you're coming from. At the same time, however, those rights were put in to place so that this country would be truly free, and as such they need to stay in place. As I stated above, if you take away the guns from law abiding citizens, that isn't going to stop the people who just don't care about the laws and intend to abuse guns, from getting them. I guarantee it. the problem with guns these days is there is no education. If we educate people about guns and what they do, and why, people will understand what they are and how to use them as a TOOL. Not a weapon. A TOOL. If people are educated, more people will have guns. If more people have guns, idiots will be less inclined to go on rampages, because they'll be too afraid to get shot as soon as they fire a shot. I know I'm repeating myself, but that seems to be what is needed to get the point across.

Also my largest point on gun violence is that It happens too often for it to be overlooked, Something needs to change.

You're right Woodsy, and that something is education.

[Tslat]

At the same time, however, those rights were put in to place so that this country would be truly free, and as such they need to stay in place.

This is a point so many pro-guns people make, and the fact is, it's outright wrong.

The amendment was put in place so that the american public would have the civil power to uprise against the government in the event that they began to take too much control. This was from a time before modernised militia, machinery, missiles, and any modern sociological practices.
That idea has long been outdated, and put simply; it just doesn't apply anymore.

It wasn't put in place for any war purposes, and it wasn't put in place to stop invasions.
Even if it were, it'd still be irellevant, because war has escalated far past the desperate need for foot soldiers.


No, I don't think banning guns is the solution. Not because it won't have any positive effect, but because any positive effect it does have would be far overshadowed by the economical burdens it would place on the country. The gun industry is one of the US's biggest economic benefactors. Removing it would cause way more problems than it'd solve.

The problem seems to be that ANY form of control that the government tries to impose is shot down by the american public, simply for the fact that "the amendment says so" -- when the 'amendment' has long been outdated, and it's beginning to become a problem

[Zito]

See, you're from another country Tslat, so you don't understand how important our rights are to us here in America. In America, our rights are what we live by. It's what differentiates us from all other countries. We are very patriotic, and we hold true to what this country was built on. Well, most of us do anyways.

It's not as simple as just getting rid of something that has been one of our core beliefs since this country was founded. The only reason that the whole gun control subject ever came up is because some liberal dumbshit (Excuse my language but that's who they obviously were,) decided that guns were the reason that people were getting killed. There is not a problem with guns in America. There is not a problem with guns anywhere in the world. The problem is the PEOPLE. If people would just get their heads out of their asses and stop blaming guns for all the shootings, then maybe we could all work together to figure out an actual solution. Instead, however, people are so focused on getting rid of guns that they forget about the real issues. The people using the guns to do harm to others. Guns are a tool. They are for sport for the most part, and self defense if needed. I just don't get why people don't understand that. You say that the amendment is the problem when it isn't. The people voicing concerns about guns are the problem, and need to wake up and look around.

[Tslat]

Calm yourself down and read replies properly before commenting.

The amendment isn't the problem. The people using it as an excuse are.
I also clearly said I don't think banning guns is a solution.

As for "rights"; as far as I'm concerned, you lose the right to a weapon when you use it wrongly. Rights are given, not implied.
Gun control does need to be implemented, because it has become a major problem. I don't care what country you're in, whether I live there or not, what "rights" you supposedly have, or how the issue seems on a small scale. Look at your country. There's almost-daily news of another shooting. That is not good.

Removing guns would solve the problem, but it'd cause a whole hell of other problems which would just be worse anyway.
Something like a training program or something maybe, I don't know.

Since you're from that country, you could try coming up with valid solutions instead of blindly firing anger at people that disagree. Solutions are what this thread is for, not fights.

[Zito]

I agree with you that people who abuse the right should lose it. I agree 100%. However, you're comments are completely unnecessary. I wasn't firing anger at you, I was stating facts about the gun discussion. I'm sorry you took it that way as that's not how I intended it. You're also wrong on the initial purpose of the amendment. Yes, it was put in place for that reason, but it was also put in place so that people could form militias and such to protect their country. Back then no country really had a gigantic military force like today. Militias were almost a necessity. There are several other reasons that I can't get in to now because I don't have time. Also, it's nowhere near almost-daily news of shootings. It's several weeks apart at least. That is still horrible don't get me wrong, but if you think about the statistics, ~330,000,000 people in America and there have been roughly 20 odd shootings in the past year or so. That's not really that bad in comparison. What I'm getting at here is that guns really are not the problem, and it's not that many people that take the right to bear arms and abuse it. One thing you said is what I believe is the answer. "Something like a training program or something maybe, I don't know." Training and education are the proper way to do things. I personally have been around guns since before I was even one year old, and I have no problems with them. When I was a kid I didn't go looking around the house for guns wondering what they were, because my father educated me. I knew exactly what they were and not to mess with them. Anyways, I have to go to work so I'll end this here.

[Toa Mata Nui 9]

I'm not so good at arguing, but lots of the people here are, so I'll let them handle that aspect lol

I had forgot to mention that pretty much anyone other than myself could argue points better than I.

On that note, even though this may not explicitly be talking about guns in the conventional sense, I feel that a few good points are made in this video by Skallagrim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D37IIjXT0E&index=19&list=PLEKc8kCIPKmdrj3g_roKWtbCoNZkLjcPa

[I think that it also -- for the most part -- sums up how I feel about bans.]

[Woodsy1995]

http://uproxx.com/news/american-gun-violence-u-k-news/

[Tslat]

I hate talk shows where people interrupt, it's just downright rude, and makes you look like a dick.

That UK guy is annoying, and I don't support him

But I also don't like that the only reason the other guy could come up with is "That's just part of life"

[Woodsy1995]

Haha Jon Snow is a douche I agree, but the problem was that the other guy had nothing to stand on

[Flareside]

I will chime in as a gun owner and pro gun supporter. I agree education is a huge part of owning any type of fire arm. One thing I have not seen mentioned is the fact that a portion (I don't know how large) of gun crimes are being commited by firearms purchased illegally. I see so many people saying "create a law about this gun or that gun, Or that gun holds too many rounds" What I do not see is anyone looking at existing laws and says "hey lets fix these or better yet actually enforce them"
One of the base reasons for the right to bear arms (in history) is if you have someone in power who is taking your rights from you, they may think twice when they know you have a right to have a firearm you may choose to use against them. I know this is more based in history and has little relevance now but I believe it to still be a staple in why somepeople hold onto their gun rights.
I would like to see fewer gun crimes commited but right now no one in power truely wants to make changes they just want a podium to talk from to feel relevant. Another thing to look at is where these mass shootings took place, most of them are Zero Tolerance areas that prohibit guns at all. Look at who listens to that, it is the law abbiding citizens that do, not the criminals.
I know I can keep rambling but these are just the thoughts I had reading this thread. I think this is a great discussion and thank you all for your input as I enjoy learning new things as well as hearing about others points of view.

[Toa Mata Nui 9]

 You would almost think they want "gun violence" seeing as how They (the majority of them, aka corrupt officials/crooked politicians/Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, That Guy -- aka current president, -- etc) respond to it [almost?] always seems to make matters worse.
   Okay, Jeb Bush maybe not so much, not yet anyways, but they are [-- as it would seem to me --] in league with other corrupt politicians and government officials.

As a side note,
Gun violence is only violence carried out using guns; They make it out to be much more than that and much more frequent than it is, and will do so any opportunity they get.



P.S.:
After recent events I realize how important guns can be in protecting oneself against attackers armed with guns. I do however recognize non-lethal methods are preferable to guns, but should there be no other way out of a situation other than kill the armed attacker or be killed, looted, and robbed, I believe it may be best to own a sidearm to help protect yourself should that sort of situation arise.

I realize this means that if guns did not exist -- or the relative equivalent of that -- you would likely not need something like them to defend yourself in those situations, because said situations would be carried out with far less lethal weapons than guns. Thus those non-lethal weapons referred to earlier would be immensely more effective against those [evil] armed assailants.

However, In the US, removing all guns from the playing field would not be very effective, nor would it be much liked by the American people. I believe the solution to the guns debate is simple, but not an "all yes" or "all no" answer. It is different for different areas, and logically, must also be dealt with differently. That is why no one has come up with a "universal solution" -- there is none.

In the US, more educated people should own firearms, and the more educated the people who own them are, and the more responsible they are, the better.


Edit: I realize much of what I said here in the last edit to this message was not very original to this thread, as a great deal of similar statements could be found elsewhere within it, but I did not in any way, shape, or form intend to copy those statements.


Edit: Removed some uncertainties.
Edit: Removed some redundant irrelevancies.
       Added some more pertinent information.
Edit: Added some cushioning against legal charges against me should they be pursued for copying someone else within the confines of this thread.

[Tslat]

Just drop the "guns kill people " thing, seriously

You're the only person who has even mentioned it here, and it doesn't serve any relevant points

Perhaps the reason its "always" worse is because the public rejects any notion of anything so strongly without even giving it a try.