The debate "We should ban guns because terrorist will conti ue to use them" was started by
June 12, 2016, 6:18 pm.
By the way, dalton7532 is disagreeing with this statement.
29 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 74 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
rawblood posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 10 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 14 arguments, DemonLlama posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 14 arguments, historybuff posted 7 arguments, Bman192837465 posted 2 arguments, citizenzero posted 2 arguments, Dev posted 4 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 11 arguments, damez posted 2 arguments, Alex posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
rawblood, Sugandha, Daffa8799, Gandalf, StubSloth, NameWasTakn, AaronBur and 22 visitors agree.
dalton7532, SwaggerPoptart, Bodaciouslady16, DemonLlama, cmt11, MrShine, asiaphone12, ototoxic, Sad_Teddy_Bear, fadi, Bman192837465, citizenzero, Nemiroff, Freyja, jinxer53, AJKB, xaveragexjoesx, Dev, PoliticsAsUsual, damez, issaqow, AzelG, Godfather98, Thomas_Paine, Alex, sabrina, Yorkie, TheC16, moneybagboyz and 45 visitors disagree.
I never said don't include it. I'm asking you to not exclude all the other years.
so you want to not count that in the figures?
it may be the most recent, but it is just 1 figure and 1 figure doesn't make a trend.
2015 was also the date of "France's 9/11" which I'm sure sent their death toll well above their usual numbers. if every other year was significantly less than the US then the 2015 freak rate is irrelevant.
it was citing the previous year, so new info and updated info was used. it wasn't sone year 5 years ago
that shouldn't count. mass shootings require 4 deaths not counting the killer and targets should be indiscriminate, not specifically chosen (like rival gangs) but why does your link only look at one year, that's like me citing 2001 (9/11) to demonstrate America has tons of deaths.
this study tracked ownership vs deaths over 66 years.
your Washington post link counts a gang member killing 3 members of another gang a mass shooting. the other sources dont. so who is wrong?
there is no way France has had more casualties than the US, France is the size of a single state.
"So far in 2015, we?ve had 274 days and 294 mass shootings"
2015 was a bloody year in the US, can you provide some actual numbers to back up your claim?
yeah, France (no guns) has more causalities in 2015 then the US (guns) in the past couple years.
France has more causalities in 2015 from mass shootings then the US had.
which country with no gun control is large enough to compare with California alone?
of course the US will have more mass shootings. it's bigger, has more people, and isn't run that good
so which advanced country with strict gun control has more mass shootings than the US?
liberal plan- ban guns. then the terrorist say "no guns are legal, gotta follow the law, I guess I'll just stay home and watch TV."
I see flaws in that plan, like how terrorists somehow used guns in countries with strict gun laws.
your argument seems entirely based on the idea that it won't be 100% effective so we should do nothing. some criminals will still have access to guns. but they will be alot harder to get and there will be alot less gun attacks. if they are forced to use a knife instead of a gun then they will not be able to kill many people.
a good example happened in Canada. we still have hunting rifles and shotguns. a man attacked parliament with a bolt action rifle with a maximum magazine size of 5. he managed to kill one person and only because he was behind him. if he had been in America he could have bought a semi auto assault weapon and killed alot more people.
restricting access to weapons does not completely solve all problems. but it greatly reduces them.
and I never said I wanted to ban guns, but the claim that banning guns will do nothing is wrong. your just listening to your biased media and not actually considering the facts clearly.
do you support legalizing heroin? if someone really wants to get it, they will, and at most they'll only kill themselves.
aside from guns and dangerous chemicals (for bombs or poisons) there is no way a single person can kill that many people. the chemicals are already limited, regulated and monitored. that leaves only guns.
I'm not saying that...i'm saying no matter what you do, terrorist, criminals, etc will always find a way to be the way. Do this stuff all you want but banning guns will not solve a darn thing
so we should give up trying to minimize the damage? why not allow people to own grenades too!
Won't stop them for trying -_-
smuggling within the US is easy. smuggling into the US is much harder.
and yes, people will kill with other tools, but they won't be able to kill as many.
They can always just illegaly smuggle them inside the US. If they can't kill other people one way they'll find another like i said.
so if a man wants a nuclear weapon badly enough he'll build one right? so obviously everyone should be allowed to have them. just because enforcement might be difficult does not mean that everyone should be allowed to have them.
if a man wants a gun bad enuf hell build one .theres no stopping that if a man wants to shoot a man no stopping that but we should work on our mental worth of the reality around us eg the will to kill is what im saying
what is a mindset vs material problem?
there are physical limitations to what 1 man can accomplish depending on the tools he has access to
its a mind set not a material problem
no. 5 lost lives and 50 is vastly different. about 45 extra people who could still be alive different.
it would be very difficult for someone to kill 50 people with a machete, and the chance that many will survive is also high.
50 kills or not they are still kills. A machete could almost easily kill a whole bunch of people in a club.
yes. bombs are illegal and the materials are tracked and would be bombers are jailed before anyone builds a bomb.
when was the last bombing in the US? vs gun attacks?
without guns they'll use knives. try getting 50 kills with a switchblade, or even a sword lol.
and no, I have not heard of many suicide bombings in the United states.
You know that if they can't use guns that will not stop them from being terrorist? Ever heard of sucide bombers?
"by those who may legally own"
according to your argument, we all have the right to legally own. so barring a few criminal exceptions, let's underestimate at 90% of the people can be armed in public.
is that correct?
you're right. which is why national rules are crucial. banning guns in one state or city won't work because or it is so easy to cross state lines and buy guns there. only with strong national regulations can the issue be dealt with.
By those who may legally own, but restrictions vary state to state
we are all innocent until proven guilty.
how do you determine who is allowed to carry guns?
The right isnt trying to arbitrarily arm people, we just don't want the innocent to be stripped off their arms.
neither side is passive on this issue, no one wants the status quo. the left wants fewer guns in fewer hands, and the right wants more guns in more hands (both to varying degrees).
may I ask how is it determined who is allowed to carry?
But i also must ask what law am i pushing for? I feel my side is the more passive in this debate.
I dont understand what you intend to say. Without a doubt if everyone was armed, there would be more guns and bullets. I far prefer that to the massacres currently experienced.
As i said with concealed carries, they dont know who is armed and therefore the altercation is usually brief.
"you being everyone in the vicinity?
how many guns?
how many bullets?"
how can such important questions be completely ignored? this isn't small nuance. how can you push for these laws when you won't even explore their consequences.
I agree, guns should not be banned, ownership should be a right subject to a background check. I also agree having some armed people in public is good. however allowing everyone to carry in public is going to far, and you run into issues like the one you all seem to refuse to address!
not if they send soldiers from Western States to kill in the eastern statws, Northern soldiers to fight in the southern states, etc.
there is enough hatred and division in this country to allow "brother" to kill "brother"
I agree. one hundred percent and it's most certainly a possibility but this means actively and knowingly killing your own friends and family. t
except that idea is now rediculous. if the military sides with the government then anyone rising against the government would die. no matter how many ar15s you own a drone strike is going to kill you.
if the military sides against the government, then the population being armed doesn't matter.
the US has created the best equipped military in the world. the populace has no hope of defeating it if it were necessary. so letting people die every single day for the false hope of defeating tyranny is rediculous.
I would agree with you if there was such a thing as a perfect world. unfortunately we live in a little place called reality. the 2ndamendment and right to bear arms is not because we fear an uprising from the deer we hunt. it was put there solely for protection from our government. most of the founding fathers have been quoted saying the .same
you being everyone in the vicinity?
how many guns?
how many bullets?
What about the cartel
You return fire
how does your scenario in the situation I mentioned play out, rogue american?
the difference between weed and an ar15 is you can't grow an ar15 in your back yard. growing weed requires very little know how and no specialized equipment.
making guns requires training. it requires specialized machinery. it is alot easier to trace who made a gun then who grew weed.
the truth is there are no guns produced illegally. they are all made by big gun companies and sold by crooked gun shops looking to make a profit. the law protects their right to make shady deals.
for example am obvious gang member comes in with his mother. he picks out a combat shotgun ands hands her the money. legally the owner should refuse to sell the same way a liquor store has to refuse to sell to someone who is obviously going to give it to minors. but alot if gun shops don't care. a sale is a sale. if you crack down hard on gun shops with a few new laws and actually enforced them, you could cut down illegal guns by a huge amount.
Even if guns are illegal terrorists will find them. Just like weed is illegal in most places but people still use it. The only thing that happens is people that want to protect themselves have no gun. With this being said I see no reason someone needs an AR-15 to protect themselves from a criminal. I understand that we have a right to bear arms but they did not have the kinds of weapons we do when the 2nd Amendment was written. We have to improve the laws but we can't just ban all guns. There needs to be a middle ground. It's hard to watch these things on the news and imagine a world where the victims of these shootings could maybe still be alive if tighter gun control laws were in act. Sadly I don't think this problem can be solved with just a law. Instead of debating guns we have to debate terrorism. If we ban guns they might just start stabbing people or just illegally buy guns. Only difference is the victims will have never had a chance to defend themselves with a gun. This problem needs to be attacked at the source. I read something a long time ago that stuck with me. We don't blame cars for drunk drivers so why blame guns for violent people. That is all I have to say. Thank you for reading.
we are talking about a shooter situation. if they are so rare then what is the point of carry? if they are relevant, then let's discuss what happens.
and distinguishing people becomes much harder in a mall or a club. lots of strangers.
just aim for the dark skinned guy in the hoody right? boy, being black will get a whole lot more dangerous in certain parts of the country.
But the vast majority of conceal carry cases end instantly. The firefight you insist on is rare and overly dramatic
You dont think people could distinguish between coworkers and the guy shooting at you
all those conceal carry people pull their guns to defend themselves and then no one knows who the bad guy is any more and a blood bath follows.
yall are missing the point. they aren't going for a murder rampage, they are just shopping, working, whatever, and a shooter walks in.
what happens in a room full of conceal carry people when a gun man starts shooting?
Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean they'll go on mass killings from a confrontation buff.
Conceal carry members arent bloodthirsty shooters. Its supposed to be concealed with heavy discretion. I again believe you have an over-fantasized opinion of what concealed carry and open carry is. They arent looking to kill--it isnt a desire for violence that people have them.
Most carry shootings end quickly with the shooter apprehended/shot because they arent expecting it. Sometimes there are shootouts, but its not a shooting gallery of 100s of people.
if everyone was armed that is exactly what armed confrontations would become. it wouldn't be one guy with a gun. it would dozens if people exchanging fire. because as soon as everyone pulls a gun how do you tell who the bad guy is?
How do you plan on enforcing laws keeping guns out of the hands of people you dont want if nothing is enforceable? And you argue from a fantastic view that every armed confrontation is the OK corral.
and how to you plan on enforcing the separation of guns and alcohol?
banning guns from places that serve alcohol? I don't think that's supported by your nut job leaders who want to make sure even suspected terrorists have access to guns.
or do you plan on just trusting "responsible gun owners" when practically everyone is a gun owner. lmao.
forget alcohol. let's say San Bernardino where they were at some company function or at work, no alcohol.
if someone starts shooting and there are 30 armed people around them, how many innocent people will be killed by stray bullets and friendly fire when 31 guns and hundreds of bullets start flying through the air?
And furthermore its not like drinking and carrying are lawfully entwined. You arent supposed to drink.
Im sorry ill just add this. Obviously things need to be to certain degrees regulated, but the problem is that progressives drive to the extreme because their agenda is to perfect man. This wont happen, and thats what republicans fear: the implementation of policy that reflects a perfect man within an imperfect society.
I should clarify. No republican in there right mind is saying everyone should have a gun.
But nonetheless, the scenario you are defending was the bloodiest shooting ever in US history.
Everyone in good favor to carry can and own a gun. Im not saying lift all regulations.
Does that happen right now. Why is that not happening right nle
I never said mandated...
but if every person is allowed to carry then many will, so if half that club was armed, how would that scenario play out?
it's what you want? why won't you consider it?
but if ever person was armed? alot of people are really dumb. alot if people get angry over stupid things. like road rage for example. or a bar fight. if all of these people had easily accessible guns when they got that angry then there would be blood baths constantly. not that you don't already have shootings every single day. there would be way more.
Nobody is that extreme to have a mandated gun policy. If you want one, you should have one if you are still in good standing to receive on. But you act as if people are retarded. I have no training, but I can shoot straight and keep my nose clean. I dont need to know how to breach buildings, etc.
no guessed as how the fully armed nightclub scenario will play out?
a fully armed public has been the Republican and NRA wet dream for a while now. don't tell me yall never really thought through exactly what that would mean?
do you not even want to analyze the consequences of this hard line right wing stance?
I agree an armed individual or 2 in that club would have been great, but how do you think it would have turned out if everyone in that club was armed with minimal training and no coordination. and let's not forget likely in varying degrees of drunk.
nuclear weapons don't get used every single day on innocent people. guns do. a deterrent is useful. but this deterrent is killing alot of people and there are a great many other checks built into the system to stop armed civilian violence from being necessary. at some point the cost of the deterrent is too high. how many people have to die before you will think the cost is too high?
When has a nuclear deterrent been used. It remains what it is, a deterrent.
And nemiroff: you need a gun in public in order to defend yourselves. Im not talking about the idiots lugging around ARs in public, but we need things like concealed carry.
a coup can be handled by owning guns without needing to carry them in public at all times.
but that deterrent, which has never once been used, is killing and injuring millions of people. at what point does that deterrent stop being worth it? how many dead people is that possible solution to a hypothetical problem worth?
I didn't say any of that. I said it is a deterrent alone to try to be tyrannical with millions of guns. Its that easy to end it all.
so you want millions of people to die needlessly because some day, someone might try to take power by force? are you so rediculously cold that you would make that trade? violent civilian action has never successfully gotten the government to do anything. in hundreds of years it has never happened. and yet you would condemn minions to die on the off chance it might happen some time in the future.
especially considering the American military is vastly more militarily capable than any Militia will ever be. so any attempt to use violence would be suicide.
Would it make you worry about leading a coup if you knew there were millions of guns that someone could assassinate you with?
Would these new regulations prevent 1 person from getting 1 gun. Thats all it takes. Disarm the population in hopes that he never gets it. But we saw in orlando what a single shooter can de uninterrupted, and it was devastating
criminals are not born, they are not a fact, they are created. there are better ways to deal with crime in the long run, but til then dalton is right. gun ownership should be legal.
however I'm still hoping to hear an argument for an armed public in public.
-Would you rather break into a house knowing the might have a gun or would you break into a house knowing they do not have a gun?
-If somebody broke into your house with a gun obtained on the black market or another weapon obtained legally and tried to kill your family, would you or would not want to have a gun to save your family?
-For these two reasons and many more are many reasons why we shouod not give up the right to own a good, and for these reasons is why more crime would occur because they know there is no guns.
the second amendment doesn't make sense any more. the need for a militia to defend against natives or the English has long since passed. people need to let go of their right to arm themselves to the teeth for the good of society and to save many, many lives. it is a small price to pay.
-We need to get guns out of the hand of the mentally ill and terrorist, not ban certain guns. Banning certain guns will not help terrorist killing people and the same goes for the mentally ill. I will agree on that.
-I will say out background checking system is failed. If a terrorist sympathizer is not charged, they will not show up on the record. That is a major flaw and allowed the shooting in orlando to happen.
-We need to enforce the laws we have and have better background checking system. They are good laws, and we need to improve and fix them. We would always have problems with any solution we choose.
How many people in orlando had guns
cars are registered, and highly regulated and policed. checkpoints and speed checks are frequent and you can be pulled over for even having a single broken light on your car.
cars are far less deadly then guns, and a lot more useful. I agree guns should be legal to own, and I do see the benefit of having an armed individual or 2 around. But do you really believe having everyone armed in public everyday will have any kind of positive result?
whatever. that wasn't a critical part of the argument anyway. they are both very dangerous. which one is more dangerous is not a critical part of the discussion.
Alright, but if a person knows how to load and shoot a semi automatic weapon then they can do the same with an automatic weapon. Many of them load and cock in the same type of manner. Assuming a semi automatic weapon is more dangerous in a novices hands is a ridiculous notion. I Suggest you go to your local shooting range and rent one in order to experience it for yourself. How can one come to the conclusion without ever experiencing it themselves
his point is that a novice with an automatic weapon will just hold the trigger and empty their weapon very fast. most of that will be wasted. either hitting the same person 20 times or just spray and praying and hitting nothing. a semi auto doesn't get out of control like that. you have to pull the trigger each and every time. if someone doesn't know how to use a gun properly then they will probably be very ineffective with an automatic weapon. obviously this is not true with someone who knows how to handle an automatic. so for someone who buys a gun and a few days later shoots up a public place, a semi auto is probably much more dangerous.
your tone isn't helpful. just because you can't understand someone's point doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about.
If we do not allow people on the FBI watchlist to get guns or mentally ill people, these mass killings would be irrelevant without guns.
The terrorist was on the FBI watch list twice but was taken off because of a PCT policy. During the Bush administration the guy would have still been on the watch list, red flags would have shown up when he tried to purchase a weapon (that's fact). He would have never gotten them in the first place, but with this administration it's PC. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it.
Bombs can be made out of everyday material, what your thinking of is plastic explosives (C4). If you know anything about science you would understand that. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. Something tells me you were too young to remember Oklahoma City.
Alright Nemiroff, you've shown that you don't know anything about weaponry. I figured common since would take hold but I was mistaken. I can't believe I have to argue common since. An automatic weapon puts more lead in the air in a shorter time frame compared to a semi automatic weapon. So putting more bullets in the air in a shorter time frame increases the chance of causing more damage. It's common since, so it's you who fails cause you seem to know nothing of the matter at hand.
On a side note, I think it's funny some parts of the gay community are coming out and openly supporting Donald Trump. Go Trump
it's not that making them illegal won't help. it's that the gun lobby doesn't want checks done so they can continue to make money.
your argument that making guns illegal won't make them harder to get is rediculous. the reason that illegal guns are so easy to get is because of crooked gun stores.
no one is watching the gun stores. they sell to anyone who wants them. part of gun control needs to be a significant crack down on gun sales.
-When we have an attack like this, we should not go after a gun. We would go after the people behind the gun. Banning certain guns will not stop or slow down terrorist attacks.
-They will continue to come, and bombs are used to kill many every day in the middle east. France had the strictess gun laws, yet did that stop gun violence and mass killings? No, as guns went down other ways of killing went up, terrorist started using bigger and better bombs.
-Cars lead the world in accidental death, yet people complain about accidental gun deaths. It is completely ironic. Cars make it easier to kill people, and you can aquire one easier than a gun.
You are missing one fact. The overwhelming majority of gun crime is commited with a gun that was obtained illegally. Therefore, the logic you are using by restricting them is already invalid.
bombs can be far more deadly, but big blast bombs are not used because the materials are very hard to get because they are regulated and monitored.
and yes, people will always find a way to kill... but do you think 50 people could have died from a single attacker without a gun or a bomb? Guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns just make it very easy to kill a lot of people. and that's the thing many progun people CHOOSE to ignore.
also the biggest issue with guns is not the handful of badguys good guys may stop, but the multitude of altercations between ordinary guys that may turn deadly everyday across the country. Guns are used in domestic disputes, road rage incidents, and go hand in hand with alcohol.
in the hands of an amateur a fully automatic is far less deadly than a semi.
I explained why I feel so, and you didn't counter any of that.... fail.
-Guns are not the problem. It is the people who use them. If we restrict guns, other ways of killing will go up. It is only logic. When terrorist cannot get a handle of guns, they use bombs and they use them fairly easily.
-Terrorist and mentally ill people can get guns. Yes, we need to fix that, but banning certain types of guns will not help.
-Hillary says we need to restrict guns because there is senseless gun violence, but what she does not know is that overwhelmingly it was done with a weapon obtained illegally.
-Guns are used to protect families and yourself. Facts show banning alot of them them won't do anything. It is the people behind them that we need to adress not the guns.
ok so a semi automatic weapon is more dangerous than an automatic weapon, haha; WOW, I'm impressed. So gun control would prevent this from happening or curb it? Did Timothy McVeigh use guns? No, he didn't. People who want to cause harm will find a way regardless. So by your logic we keep ignoring that fact and say we need to stamp out guns instead of extremist. Sounds highly intelligent...
so there are other extremely dangerous weapons too, we should restrict those too. this isn't only s out assault rifles. any automatic weapons should be included in restricted weapons as well.
at least with a fully automatic the idiot might forget to aim and unload on just 1 target. semi automatics remind you to slow down and kill more people.
pointing out that bigger guns exist doesn't mean a high capacity semi automatic should be allowed in public.
What?? So what's your rebuttal to the argument?
those are both babies compared to a full on mini gun or a rocket propelled grenade.
how about we legalize everything less scary than nuclear warheads?
I'm guessing you think an AR15 is a scary semi automatic weapon. You know an assault weapons ban would not ban from someone obtaining a fully automatic weapon such as a .30 cal machine gun, the machine gun would still be legal. Assault weapon sounds scary to the non gun owners
and bomb materials for a bomb if significant blast size are specific and monitored. so even if it is easy to make, doesn't make it easy to get away with.
when did somebody blame all gun owners?
no one is even agreeing with the "ban all guns" debate.
no one wants to ban guns outright.
this conspiracy theory that the nra fed you is just fantasy.
bombs are not difficult to make, they are actually pretty easy to make. They are illegal in civilian hands but yet are still used. Why is it an extremist doesn't represent all Muslims but the same guy represents all gun owners? You actually think banning guns will curb attacks? That's just a ridiculous notion. I own an assault weapon, am I going around shooting up places or causing violence? The answer is NO. Stop blaming these types of attacks on guns, it's the person pulling the trigger, how about we stamp out extremism and take a tough stance against it instead of using guns as a scapegoat. Just a thought from a practical stand point...
no need for war no need for guns
no need for taking anybodys life
bombs are difficult to make, why so you think most attacks don't involve them.
and if they notice someone buying bomb making materials, those people get arrested. that would be impossible if bombs were legal.
are you suggesting legalizing bombs?
or you could just stop letting civilians have military grade weapons. there is no reason a civilian needs an AR 15.
"If bombs are made illegal, terrorist won't be able to get them because it is dangerous and hard." Do you see how wrong your logic is? We can make good movements to stop these sorts of things, such as not allowing mentally ill people to get them and the same goes for people on the FBI watchlist.
we should learn a lesson from the orlando shootings
AR15s are overrated when it comes to mass shootings. Its just a 5.56, nothing special. If anything a pistol is easier to conceal.
I would bet you anything that the shooter in Orlando bought that gun in america. If no one can get an AR 15 then terrorists arent going to be able to get them into the country either. Illegally importing guns is difficult and dangerous. It is so much easier to just get someone without a criminal record to walk into a store and buy guns completely legally. There is no reason people need that kind of fire power.
what so the terrorists know they can kill us all with out a fight?
the problem is that there aren't enough rules controling who can buy guns and what kind of guns. for example no one needs an ar15. and no one checks on these gun shops. they need to be consistently inspected and if they don't have the proper paper work they should be fined heavily, say 10,000 for the first offense, 50,000 for second and after that is serious jail time. if selling to criminals isn't profitable, then they won't do it. if they can't prove that every single sale was legal then they shouldn't sell it, period. they aren't selling cup cakes. they are selling killing machines. they need to be properly licensed and only sold to people who can handle them.
That's the current law. Those illegal guns you referred to are sold illegally. Making another regulation wont fix it since that honor system is already being broken.
you are right, alot of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. but that doesn't mean they were imported from China and sold on the street. what that means is that some gun shop is selling American made, American sold weapons to people without asking any questions. if they had to actually check if they have a criminal record or are they a mental patient, then they wouldn't be able to sell them an ar15. since they really want to sell their products they just don't bother. illegal weapons doesn't mean what you think it does. if you created laws saying that anyone with a significant criminal record can't buy guns. and then actually forced gun shops to check. and actually followed up to make sure they were doing it, it would eliminate alot of illegal weapons.
of course the NRA would never allow that, because every escaped mental patient should have the right to as much fire power as they can afford right?
Did you miss me Nemiroff?
-People kill people. Guns do not kill people. If we ban or restrict guns, gun crime will go down, but other ways of killing will rise. People always forget that. Terrorist will use bombs instead. What are we going to do then? Are we going to ban bombs? Oh wait, we already did, but terrorist still use them and they do it quite easily. There are to many guns on the street illegally for banning or restricting them, harshly, to do anything. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with a firearm that was obtained illegally.
-If you are going to refer to terrorist attacks or mass shootings with guns that were obtained legally, terrorist will still use bombs and the one in orlando was on the FBI watchlist. Most mass killers are seriously mentally unstable and should have never been able to obtain a gun in the first place. The same goes with people on the FBI watchlist.
-People will always kill people no matter what laws and regulations are in place. For instance, in sweden a killer charged a school with a sword and killed 2, and terrorist killed 100+ with bombs in French attacks. The only difference is if we regulate guns it will only punish the law abiding citizens who use it for good purposes.
no outright ban. those never work.
there are very few people who advocate for an outright ban on all guns.
and guns have never been successfully used by citizens to protect their rights in North America in over 200 years. at some point the millions if people that die from them being so easily accessible outweigh the idea that they might be used some day to fight the government.
I was mostly directing this at people who do want to ban all of them.
-Guns are used to give rights and control back to the citizens, self defense, and to protect the ones you love.
no one is advocating a ban in guns. people advocate for restrictions on guns. no one outside the military needs to own an ar15.