Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

[Donald Trump]

People like Crooked Clinton are on a path to take away peoples rights, American peoples rights, YOUR rights! They want to take guns, they want to take small guns, big guns, medium sized guns until they've completely disarmed the population. 

 

I object to this, guns are already demonized in liberal parts of the country. This is disgusting, this allows drug dealers and rapists to come right across the border. Can people defend themselves against these kind of people? Of course not! This is the goal of Obama and people like Clinton, they want this, they don't care about you. As the establishment and people like Clinton sit in their fancy houses, they allow peoples guns to be confiscated from them and for Mexican drug dealers to shoot people and Muslim terrorists to commit attacks on people like in Orlando.

 

This needs to stop.

 

I propose that guns be made mandatory. From the age of 11, I propose each child is given a gun and given classes in school on how to handle and use the gun. From there on we can put forward the idea and make it so that EVERYONE in America, has access to a gun to defend themselves, from people who'd do them harm.

 

Criminals, worried that they'd get someone shooting back will stop their crimes. Terrorists won't be able to perform their attacks as easily and America will very much become a much safer place. People like Clinton try to take them from you? Then the America people can stand up and put an end to her reign of terror. 

[PackAnimal]

Are you actually the real trump? You sound like him

[Milord]

What?! ban guns don't give them to stupid and crazy psychos=No school shootings.

[Frank Todd]

 

 

Criminals, worried that they'd get someone shooting back will stop their crimes. Terrorists won't be able to perform their attacks as easily and America will very much become a much safer place. People like Clinton try to take them from you? Then the America people can stand up and put an end to her reign of terror. 

 

Yeeaahh, idk where you get your source of info from, but giving a bunch of untrained people guns to shoot at other !@#$ with guns leads to the damaging of those without guns (or the ones who don't want them).

[PackAnimal]

People with no guns (like UK) dont get shot, if something kicks off, such as a gang fight, the worst that happens is a stabbing. In 'Murica if everyone has guns then people will get shot and therefore die. It takes one guy a couple of seconds to empty a pistol cartridge into a crowd, killing 6-8 people. Even if everyone had a gun the wouldn't be able to shot the attacker until he'd killed many people

[WISD0MTREE]

Disclaimer: I don't agree with OP. 
 

What?! ban guns don't give them to stupid and crazy psychos=No school shootings.

Something needs to be done to help prevent school shootings, but restricting guns isn’t it. Did you know that the worse school mass killing in U.S. history, the Bath school massacre, wasn’t done with guns at all, but with a pickup truck full of explosives? 38 kids and 6 adults were murdered. Let’s not fool ourselves, and let’s not lose focus, the guns are not the primary root cause here. It’s sick, twisted, evil people who are hell-bent on doing harm.
 

People with no guns (like UK) dont get shot, if something kicks off, such as a gang fight, the worst that happens is a stabbing. In 'Murica if everyone has guns then people will get shot and therefore die. It takes one guy a couple of seconds to empty a pistol cartridge into a crowd, killing 6-8 people. Even if everyone had a gun the wouldn't be able to shot the attacker until he'd killed many people

Not this again. I need to find a way to make this fit in my signature. 
 

 

Yeeaahh, idk where you get your source of info from, but giving a bunch of untrained people guns to shoot at other !@#$ with guns leads to the damaging of those without guns (or the ones who don't want them).

While OP is stupid, most states require a certain amount of training before you can get your concealed carry permit. Let's play with some numbers now. 
 
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/
11.1 million CC permit holders
 
(Warning: Below link is a PDF.)
FBI Active Shooter Study 2000-2013
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7hdib8vHOAhXBKyYKHUwoCzIQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Ffile-repository%2Factive-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGeZ-z-W1DIBCrFizVuoxH0LRnu9g&sig2=kv30c655Z2n-T-EE5X8kMw

• In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents,24 3 off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted.
• In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=US
321,000,000 million people in the US. 
 
I had a hard time finding numbers, but most sources tend to place the number of police at 1,000,000 in the US. 
 
So, 11,000,000 (rounded down for easy math) million people in the US stopped 3.1% of all shootings, while 309,000,000 stopped 13.1% of all shootings. 
 
Forgive me if my math is wrong. I worked late today. 
3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings. 
96.3% of the population stopped 13.1% of all shootings. 
 
Which looks more effective? 

Edited September 3, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Frank Todd]

Disclaimer: I don't agree with OP. 

 

Something needs to be done to help prevent school shootings, but restricting guns isn’t it. Did you know that the worse school mass killing in U.S. history, the Bath school massacre, wasn’t done with guns at all, but with a pickup truck full of explosives? 38 kids and 6 adults were murdered. Let’s not fool ourselves, and let’s not lose focus, the guns are not the primary root cause here. It’s sick, twisted, evil people who are hell-bent on doing harm.

 

Not this again. I need to find a way to make this fit in my signature. 

 

 

While OP is stupid, most states require a certain amount of training before you can get your concealed carry permit. Let's play with some numbers now. 

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/

11.1 million CC permit holders

 

(Warning: Below link is a PDF.)

FBI Active Shooter Study 2000-2013

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7hdib8vHOAhXBKyYKHUwoCzIQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Ffile-repository%2Factive-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGeZ-z-W1DIBCrFizVuoxH0LRnu9g&sig2=kv30c655Z2n-T-EE5X8kMw

• In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents,24 3 off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted.
• In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=US

321,000,000 million people in the US. 

 

I had a hard time finding numbers, but most sources tend to place the number of police at 1,000,000 in the US. 

 

So, 11,000,000 (rounded down for easy math) million people in the US stopped 3.1% of all shootings, while 309,000,000 stopped 13.1% of all shootings. 

 

Forgive me if my math is wrong. I worked late today. 

3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings. 

96.3% of the population stopped 13.1% of all shootings. 

 

Which looks more effective? 

Eh, but does everyone having guns really make anyone else safe? Human beings are prone to using the most powerful item in their possession if it makes a particular option less strenuous (not saying that killing someone doesn't cause stress). Plus what about rifles and what not? Most states don't require a license nor training to purchase rifles/carbines/shotguns from frigin Wal-marts, hell you can pick them up at any pawn shop.

 

And lemme tell you that I have met a vast majority (OP might be one as well) of people who think that owning a rifle entitles them to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

Guns were made in the effort of waging war, and then adapted to hunting (even though bows proved to be more effective, but again I defer to my "humans use the easiest route"). Meh. Guns are an iffy subject considering if you live in america, everyone and their grandmother has a massive erection for them.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

That's a very stupid analysis, but I will defeat you using the same method you used (for fun):

 

- In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

- In 45 (28.1%) of the 160 incidents, law enforcement and the shooter exchanged gunfire. Of those 45 incidents, the shooter was killed at the scene in 21, killed at another location in 4, wounded in 9, committed suicide in 9, and surrendered in 2.

 

- 11,000,000 people in the US have concealed carry permit.

- 1,000,000 people in the US are policemen

 

- 3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings. 3.1/3.5 = 0.89

- 0.3% of the population stopped 28.1% of all shootings. 28.1/0.3 = 93.7

 

93.7/0.89 = 105 -> Police are 105 times more effective.

 

We should get your guns and give them to the police. gg wp no re

[WISD0MTREE]

Disclaimer: I do not support OP. 

 

Eh, but does everyone having guns really make anyone else safe? Human beings are prone to using the most powerful item in their possession if it makes a particular option less strenuous (not saying that killing someone doesn't cause stress). Plus what about rifles and what not? Most states don't require a license nor training to purchase rifles/carbines/shotguns from frigin Wal-marts, hell you can pick them up at any pawn shop.

And lemme tell you that I have met a vast majority (OP might be one as well) of people who think that owning a rifle entitles them to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

Guns were made in the effort of waging war, and then adapted to hunting (even though bows proved to be more effective, but again I defer to my "humans use the easiest route"). Meh. Guns are an iffy subject considering if you live in america, everyone and their grandmother has a massive erection for them.

Just out of curiosity, where are you from? 

 

The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

 

OP is just a troll, in case you haven't seen some of his other posts. 

 

Here in America, every citizen is guaranteed an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, combined with a 158 year old Supreme Court edict that the government and it's agents have no duty to protect citizens from harm, which was famously reaffirmed in 1981 holding that the state is only responsible for citizens when a special relationship exists, like custody. In order for the people to have meaningful access to life and liberty, they must be able to do so unrestricted by fear of bodily harm, death, or subjugation. This either requires that the people are supported through affirmation legislation that supports the people in efforts of self preservation and also maintains their ability to access tools to that end, or requires the state to take full responsibility for the people, with penalties for failure. It also requires that the people be okay with that. Lack of confidence leads to subversion which endangers the public safety. 

Arms are absolutely integral to self preservation - it was a cornerstone of our countries belief in human rights. It means that a 95 pound woman has the ability to fight off a 210 pound assailant, that a 13 year old girl can keep her 7 year old brother safe from two robbers, it keeps the LGBT community from being bashed, and it maintains the ability for everyone to vote. The Second Amendment is there for all of us. It does not care about color, creed, sexuality, religion (or the lack thereof), your wealth, health, class, or home. It doesn't choose sides. Why would you want to take that freedom away? 

 

That's a very stupid analysis, but I will defeat you using the same method you used (for fun):

 

- In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

- In 45 (28.1%) of the 160 incidents, law enforcement and the shooter exchanged gunfire. Of those 45 incidents, the shooter was killed at the scene in 21, killed at another location in 4, wounded in 9, committed suicide in 9, and surrendered in 2.

 

- 11,000,000 people in the US have concealed carry permit.

- 1,000,000 people in the US are policemen

 

- 3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings. 3.1/3.5 = 0.89

- 0.3% of the population stopped 28.1% of all shootings. 28.1/0.3 = 93.7

 

93.7/0.89 = 105 -> Police are 105 times more effective.

 

We should get your guns and give them to the police. gg wp no re

Wow, glad to see you read the entire report. 

 

As expected, therefore, many incidents ended before police arrived. Of the 160 incidents, at least 107 (66.9%) ended before police arrived. 

 

Oh, and you should take into account that 90% of shootings have been in gun free zones. So 3.5% of the population took down 3.1% of all shootings in only 10% of all areas. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Have fun. :^)

 

And in response to your last sentence, how are you going do that? There are at least 350 million guns in the United States. There are more guns than people. What is your plan to round them up? Will you be able to round up 50 percent? 10 percent? 10 percent is still 35 million guns. Who’s going to pay for all that? 

Edited September 3, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Frank Todd]

Disclaimer: I do not support OP. 

 

Just out of curiosity, where are you from? 

 

The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

 

OP is just a troll, in case you haven't seen some of his other posts. 

I lived in Florida before (like the deep south swampland portion, and now I live in Idaho.

 

And I gotcha on the OP, he RP's Trump for gods sake.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Wow, glad to see you read the entire report. 

 

 

Oh, and you should take into account that 90% of shootings have been in gun free zones. So 3.5% of the population took down 3.1% of all shootings in only 10% of all areas. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Have fun. :^)

 

And in response to your last sentence, how are you going do that? There are at least 350 million guns in the United States. There are more guns than people. What is your plan to round them up? Will you be able to round up 50 percent? 10 percent? 10 percent is still 35 million guns. Who’s going to pay for all that? 

 

Zero reading comprehension, does not merit a reply.

[Milord]

Disclaimer: I don't agree with OP. 

 

 

Something needs to be done to help prevent school shootings, but restricting guns isn’t it. Did you know that the worse school mass killing in U.S. history, the Bath school massacre, wasn’t done with guns at all, but with a pickup truck full of explosives? 38 kids and 6 adults were murdered. Let’s not fool ourselves, and let’s not lose focus, the guns are not the primary root cause here. It’s sick, twisted, evil people who are hell-bent on doing harm.

 

 

Not this again. I need to find a way to make this fit in my signature. 

 

 

 

While OP is stupid, most states require a certain amount of training before you can get your concealed carry permit. Let's play with some numbers now. 

 http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/

11.1 million CC permit holders

 

(Warning: Below link is a PDF.)

FBI Active Shooter Study 2000-2013https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7hdib8vHOAhXBKyYKHUwoCzIQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Ffile-repository%2Factive-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGeZ-z-W1DIBCrFizVuoxH0LRnu9g&sig2=kv30c655Z2n-T-EE5X8kMw

 

• In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents,24 3 off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted.
• In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=US

321,000,000 million people in the US. 

 

I had a hard time finding numbers, but most sources tend to place the number of police at 1,000,000 in the US. 

 

So, 11,000,000 (rounded down for easy math) million people in the US stopped 3.1% of all shootings, while 309,000,000 stopped 13.1% of all shootings. 

 

Forgive me if my math is wrong. I worked late today. 

3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings. 

96.3% of the population stopped 13.1% of all shootings. 

 

Which looks more effective?

Then tell me why in countries with restricted gun ownership don't have school shootings, and the example you presented wasn't a shooting at all it was a explosion detonation in a school

[WISD0MTREE]

Then tell me why in countries with restricted gun ownership don't have school shootings, and the example you presented wasn't a shooting at all it was a explosion detonation in a school

I posted an explosion because it was the most deadly school massacre in American history. It didn't involve a gun, did it? A psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer.

 

Of all of the things that could possibly contribute to people going crazy and shooting up schools-the society we live in and lack of compassion and morality, the violence demonstrated in video games and in movies, rap songs, the pharmaceuticals a lot of these kids are on, the lack of respect for human life, and so much more. Of all the things you want to leap to in order to solve the problem, you choose to pick a fundamental Constitutional right? Can’t we talk about all the other low-hanging fruit before we start an attack on an essential civil liberty? Could you have picked anything more controversial? 

 

Zero reading comprehension, does not merit a reply.

et tu. Re-read my post. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

et tu. Re-read my post. 

 

Doesn't work like that.

 

- You proposed a method to determine efficiency. It was a stupid method, but it was a method. Using this method you showed conceal carry permit people were 5 times more efficient than non-CC people.

- Using the same method to determine efficiency, I showed that the law enforcement people are 105 times more efficient than CC people.

 

At this point you have two options.

 

1) Admit your method was stupid.

2) Admit defeat.

 

Take your pick.

[Milord]

I posted an explosion because it was the most deadly school massacre in American history. It didn't involve a gun, did it? A psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer.

 

Of all of the things that could possibly contribute to people going crazy and shooting up schools-the society we live in and lack of compassion and morality, the violence demonstrated in video games and in movies, rap songs, the pharmaceuticals a lot of these kids are on, the lack of respect for human life, and so much more. Of all the things you want to leap to in order to solve the problem, you choose to pick a fundamental Constitutional right? Can’t we talk about all the other low-hanging fruit before we start an attack on an essential civil liberty? Could you have picked anything more controversial?

 

 

et tu. Re-read my post.

 

Here we don't let crazy people own guns ,and we don't kill kids who are in school(there are no school shootings), are you saying its an American thing and shouldn't be stopped, we have rap , violent video games.

Just because its in a constitution ,doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.Especially one that was made in 1700…

Edited September 3, 2016 by Milord

[WISD0MTREE]

 

Doesn't work like that.

 

- You proposed a method to determine efficiency. It was a stupid method, but it was a method. Using this method you showed conceal carry permit people were 5 times more efficient than non-CC people.

- Using the same method to determine efficiency, I showed that the law enforcement people are 105 times more efficient than CC people.

 

At this point you have two options.

 

1) Admit your method was stupid.

2) Admit defeat.

 

Take your pick.

Doesn't work like that. 

 

-You used my method to determine efficiency. 

-You missed a vital part in your stats, making them flawed. 

 

At this point, you have two options. 

 

1) Admit that your post is stupid and post the actual numbers. 

2) Admit defeat. 

 

Take your pick. 

 

EDIT: The John Denver was delayed this time. Strange. 

 

Here we don't let crazy people own guns ,and we don't kill kids who are in school(there are no school shootings), are you saying its an American thing and shouldn't be stopped, we have rap , violent video games.

Just because its in a constitution ,doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.Especially one that was made in 1700…

All of these threads tend to have a reoccurring theme. As posted earlier ITT, a psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer. 

 

Just what has changed so much from then to now to make you think it’s no longer relevant? Do people no longer try to control other people? Are there no more wars? Do we no longer have the right to defend ourselves? 

Edited September 3, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Milord]

Doesn't work like that. 

 

-You used my method to determine efficiency. 

-You missed a vital part in your stats, making them flawed. 

 

At this point, you have two options. 

 

1) Admit that your post is stupid and post the actual numbers. 

2) Admit defeat. 

 

Take your pick. 

 

 

All of these threads tend to have a reoccurring theme. As posted earlier ITT, a psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer. 

 

Just what has changed so much from then to now to make you think it’s no longer relevant? Do people no longer try to control other people? Are there no more wars? Do we no longer have the right to defend ourselves?

 

First of all u can defend yourself with your fists and body like a real MAN (a little bit of humour doesn't hurt), also I didn't say it was gonna make people sane,just put some hard restrictions in it at least it won't solve all your problems but it will certainly help.

[Donald Trump]

First of all u can defend yourself with your fists and body like a real MAN (a little bit of humour doesn't hurt), also I didn't say it was gonna make people sane,just put some hard restrictions in it at least it won't solve all your problems but it will certainly help.

I'll probbaly get warned for this, but seriously, you're dumb as hell.

[WISD0MTREE]

First of all u can defend yourself with your fists and body

 

like a real MAN (a little bit of humour doesn't hurt),

 

also I didn't say it was gonna make people sane,just put some hard restrictions in it at least it won't solve all your problems but it will certainly help.

I suppose you’re right, when a 65-year-old grandma is accosted getting off a bus somewhere at night in a poor neighborhood in the dark by a towering 230-pound man, who is out for her money or intending on more nefarious goals, she’ll be able to easily fend him off with her fists and knitting needles. (From earlier ITT) Arms are absolutely integral to self preservation - it was a cornerstone of our countries belief in human rights. It means that a 95 pound woman has the ability to fight off a 210 pound assailant, that a 13 year old girl can keep her 7 year old brother safe from two robbers, it keeps the LGBT community from being bashed, and it maintains the ability for everyone to vote. The Second Amendment is there for all of us. It does not care about color, creed, sexuality, religion (or the lack thereof), your wealth, health, class, or home. It doesn't choose sides. Why would you want to take that freedom away?

 

When did body shaming become an acceptable practice? 

 

I’m open to listening, but honestly, every time I hear the phrase “restrictions,†it turns out to be anything BUT helpful restrictions.

Examples: prohibiting cosmetic features on weapons deemed "assault rifles†even though they don't have select fire. They’re just semi-automatic rifles. They’re not “assault rifles†because they have a military look. Changing their looks is not going to make them less deadly. Banning high-capacity magazines with the Sandy Hook kids standing behind you, acting like it's an anti-mass shooting bill, when it's just as practical for a crazy person to perform a mass shooting with a handgun and a backpack full of magazines, as happened Virginia Tech. Banning a specific type of handgun used in the Columbine shootings, when any number of other handguns could be used to wreak the same havok. By “restrictions†politicians mean totally stupid and utterly meaningless efforts. 

[Milord]

I'll probbaly get warned for this, but seriously, you're dumb as hell.

Ohh my feelings are hurt , I guess I have to go cry in the corner now, Half-man(I wanted to say another word but I am sure I would getban) please ,I don't know why you posted that without a coherent justification.

PS:I don't give a damm about what u think.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Milord

[SoS]

I posted an explosion because it was the most deadly school massacre in American history. It didn't involve a gun, did it? A psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer.

 

Of all of the things that could possibly contribute to people going crazy and shooting up schools-the society we live in and lack of compassion and morality, the violence demonstrated in video games and in movies, rap songs, the pharmaceuticals a lot of these kids are on, the lack of respect for human life, and so much more. Of all the things you want to leap to in order to solve the problem, you choose to pick a fundamental Constitutional right? Can’t we talk about all the other low-hanging fruit before we start an attack on an essential civil liberty? Could you have picked anything more controversial?

 

et tu. Re-read my post.

Guns were actually involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

-You missed a vital part in your stats, making them flawed.

 

Pray tell, what "vital part" in my stats did I miss?

[Milord]

I suppose you’re right, when a 65-year-old grandma is accosted getting off a bus somewhere at night in a poor neighborhood in the dark by a towering 230-pound man, who is out for her money or intending on more nefarious goals, she’ll be able to easily fend him off with her fists and knitting needles. (From earlier ITT) Arms are absolutely integral to self preservation - it was a cornerstone of our countries belief in human rights. It means that a 95 pound woman has the ability to fight off a 210 pound assailant, that a 13 year old girl can keep her 7 year old brother safe from two robbers, it keeps the LGBT community from being bashed, and it maintains the ability for everyone to vote. The Second Amendment is there for all of us. It does not care about color, creed, sexuality, religion (or the lack thereof), your wealth, health, class, or home. It doesn't choose sides. Why would you want to take that freedom away?

 

When did body shaming become an acceptable practice? 

 

I’m open to listening, but honestly, every time I hear the phrase “restrictions,†it turns out to be anything BUT helpful restrictions.

Examples: prohibiting cosmetic features on weapons deemed "assault rifles†even though they don't have select fire. They’re just semi-automatic rifles. They’re not “assault rifles†because they have a military look. Changing their looks is not going to make them less deadly. Banning high-capacity magazines with the Sandy Hook kids standing behind you, acting like it's an anti-mass shooting bill, when it's just as practical for a crazy person to perform a mass shooting with a handgun and a backpack full of magazines, as happened Virginia Tech. Banning a specific type of handgun used in the Columbine shootings, when any number of other handguns could be used to wreak the same havok. By “restrictions†politicians mean totally stupid and utterly meaningless efforts.

 

First I said the first part was a joke .

Second If u think a grandma with an AK 47 can defend herself from a group of robber u are wrong.

What if it was a kid in grannie's place , will kid have a gun or not?If so what if shots himself by accident.

Third how can a gun stop a terrorist or other tipes of bombings ,its literary almost impossible. How can a gun stop a Van from mowing a crowd even if u shoot the driver the van still carries on murdering people until it has no speed left,that would take some time.

 

Forth how do know that if everyone owns a gun as you would like it to be, they won't simply reign in anarchy cuz they know they simply can't be stoped by the police,they can do what they want, they would join a pack and rule in anarchy.How do you they won't start a coup with snipers and Kalashnikovs.Let me tell you what would likely happen if you give everyone guns:

White Racist(Black racist)man shoots black man.

The news talk all about it.

Black man shoots white man avenging the black man that died.

A group of white men grow tired of the situation and arm up in the hope of mass shooting a group of black men, and they do.

A group of Black men also grow tired of the situation and also arm up in hope to confront the group of white men, with their newly bought guns.

Congrats you just started a civil war.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

To be honest it's not something that should be argued over. If you don't like living around guns, don't buy them, or move to another country that doesn't have guns - globalisation has made that an option. As long as you have discernible skills, you can live just about anywhere. People in my country shit on American gun laws all the time, but I don't think guns make a major difference to homicides or any of that. I think that's a cultural problem.

 

If you like getting shot at, go to an unstable third world country and enjoy the guns - globalisation has made that an option. As long as you have discernible skills, you can live just about anywhere. 

[Callum]

I see no reason for Everyone to own weapons. 

 

But it wouldnt hurt if everyone was trained in how to use them.