Gun Control

[SacredWarrior]

As an American, sadly gun control is one of the many topics people often talk about with little to no compromise or education.

Personally, I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment for many reasons. People have the right to defend themselves how they see fit, the government has proven itself to be incompetent, no one has the right to determine what others may or may not have, and there are far better solutions to the problem that's honestly not even a big deal to begin with.

1. Gun safety and training should be mandatory for all who wish to own guns. This is more common sense than anything. All kinds of guns and ammunition should be available. You don't get special treatment just because you're military or police. You're human just like the rest of us and flawed like the rest of us.
   
2. Violent criminals and the mentally unstable shouldn't be able to own guns either. Seeing as how over half of all gun deaths in America are suicides, the main issue is lack of mental health treatment, not guns.
3. Non-emancipated minors shouldn't have guns unless they're under adult supervision and/or have permission from a parent or guardian.
   
4. Gun free zones shouldn't exist. Most of the prolific mass shootings in not just the U.S. but in the world took place in gun free zones which means that they don't work nor help.
   
5. Places with strict gun control often have the worst crime. California has very strict (and stupid) gun laws but yet many mass shootings have taken place there. Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Memphis (my city), New York, etc are a prime example of this point.
6. Criminals will get guns anyway regardless of gun control and can easily kill you with any other weapon/method. The biggest massacres in world history weren't even committed with guns. The 9/11 attacks, the Bath School Massacre, just to name a few prove this.
7. You're far more likely to die from many other things in America such as heart disease, car accidents, drug/alcohol consumption, medical errors, etc.

TL;DR I'm against gun control but I obviously think that everyone shouldn't have a gun and there should be regulations in place to prevent that. Our 2nd Amendment above all others should be heavily enforced and never infringed upon because we need it to enforce our other amendments.

 

[~Nemo~]

Gun free zones shouldn't exist. Most of the prolific mass shootings in not just the U.S. but in the world took place in gun free zones which means that they don't work nor help.

I will share I don't agree with this. We shouldn't be looking at this as "Oh, muh free zones don't work, let's take them away" because of the location of many mass shootings of the years. That's like saying even if there are smoke-free areas and people smoke over there, we might as well not have them. No.

Gun free areas are needed and should be kept. Are you wanting schools, banks, parks, etc; to not be gun-free zones anymore? I don't get this logic. Having them or not having them doesn't change the mass shootings in the past or the unknown ones of the future. Changing zones doesn't change people's mentality and taking them away is pointless.

You're far more likely to die from many other things in America such as heart disease, car accidents, drug/alcohol consumption, medical errors, etc.

True but this pertains to the topic at hand how? Unless we now have car accident free zones I don't know about. I mean, the number of death tolls are higher but these are things that deal with personal health and safety, save car accidents depending on the severity. Guns on the other hand, comes with the whole public safety thing. That's why we have gun free zones in the first place.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Are you wanting schools, banks, parks, etc; to not be gun-free zones anymore? I don't get this logic. Having them or not having them doesn't change the mass shootings in the past or the unknown ones of the future. Changing zones doesn't change people's mentality and taking them away is pointless.

Law enforcement and military? They are people too and they shouldn't have to abide by those rules for obvious reasons. As someone who grew up seeing cops in my local schools (armed cops at that), they can be pretty damn useful/helpful if someone does decide to commit a massacre while I'm around. Criminals are quite lazy and there's no way on God's green Earth that they'd ever go to a place that has a lot of armed people since they'll easily be shot if they try anything crazy. Some mass shootings (like Fort Hood) could've been prevented or ended prematurely if everyone (or most people) had been armed at the time. Sure it's a long shot but it's still a shot. Especially since when the amount of fatalities in mass shootings is much lower when stopped by armed civilians compared to law enforcement.

 

[~Nemo~]

Law enforcement and military? They are people too and they shouldn't have to abide by those rules for obvious reasons. As someone who grew up seeing cops in my local schools (armed cops at that), they can be pretty damn useful/helpful if someone does decide to commit a massacre while I'm around. Criminals are quite lazy and there's no way on God's green Earth that they'd ever go to a place that has a lot of armed people since they'll easily be shot if they try anything crazy.

That's just common sense. They are the ones who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the greater public so there's no point to even hold them to the same standard as civilians. It's their job. It's what they are hired to do, no?

Especially since when the amount of fatalities in mass shootings is much lower when stopped by armed civilians compared to law enforcement.

Sure but what about events where fatalities shouldn't even be in the picture, mind you with law enforcement around? What about peaceful protests that turned out badly when either side is armed, riots breaking out against the law enforcement itself? Gun control goes beyond just mass shootings and people aiming for areas that are gun-free zones. Violence breaks out all the time, everywhere for whatever reason, leaving our very streets unsafe. Guns make it easier for people to kill people and with America having not only the highest gun ownership by far, it has the highest amount of gun deaths out of developed countries and if we want to take all countries, we ranked behind only Brazil, Columbia, Mexico, and Venezuela.
For reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
So maybe instead of taking away gun-free zones. We should regulate guns themselves.

 

[SacredWarrior]

America having not only the highest gun ownership by far, it has the highest amount of gun deaths out of developed countries

The vast majority of gun deaths in America are suicides. So violence isn't the problem. You also didn't control for population (America has over 300 million people) and you didn't distinguish homicides from self-defense either. The gun deaths are proportionate to America because of how many people we have. We're supposed to have that many deaths. Canada and Switzerland also have very prolific firearm ownership but have far less gun deaths than we do as a result. Population and cultural differences play a part in that. Also the majority of gun homicides in America are gang-related which defeats the purpose of gun control which is nothing but victim disarmament.

So maybe instead of taking away gun-free zones. We should regulate guns themselves.

That never works. Criminals and the filthy rich will still get guns illegally or have banned weaponry. America thinks it can regulate drugs but anyone with a brain can see how easy it is to get drugs and the current epidemic we're having with drug overdoses and addiction. America tried regulating and banning alcohol but that obviously failed as well. Instead of banning and regulating things, we should train, educate, and treat the real problems like mental illness.

Violence breaks out all the time, everywhere for whatever reason, leaving our very streets unsafe.

Actually the violent crime rate in not only America but the western world in general has been dropping steadily since the 90s despite firearm ownership increasing. Why do you think the #1 cause of death of America is heart disease and not gun violence like people think it is?

Guns make it easier for people to kill people

So do hands, knives, airplanes, and bombs. Should they be regulated and banned as well? Especially since the latter three has killed more people in massacres than guns?

 

[Goldmarble]

...and bombs. Should they be regulated and banned as well? Especially since the latter three has killed more people in massacres than guns?

Would like to point out that bombs/explosives are in fact, regulated.
See: https://www.atf.gov/explosives/docs...ves-laws-and-regulations-atf-p-54007/download

Airplanes are regulated as well, in case you hadn't noticed. The most you can do, as an untrained idiot off the street, legally, is fly an ultralight:

According to federal regulations, a powered ultralight is an aircraft that weighs less than 254 pounds, carries a maximum 5 gal. of gas, doesn't fly faster than 63 mph and seats only one person. You can legally fly it without a pilot's license, without training -- without any qualifications at all.

Technically in the US, you can fly an ultralight without any education, at any age. You could jump into one at 8 years old, and legally fly, solo.

Anything heavier, more complex? You much have a license, to achieve which, you must have training.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Would like to point out that bombs/explosives are in fact, regulated.

But people can still get them illegally thanks to the black market. The regulations didn't prevent things like the Boston bombings after all.

Even with regulations in place, tragedies will still happen no matter what.

 

[Goldmarble]

...All I was saying, was that they are regulated, when your previous post, inferred that they were not.

 

[SacredWarrior]

...All I was saying, was that they are regulated, when your previous post, inferred that they were not.

If I did say that, then I apologize There's no way in hell some average Joe should have explosives without being trained and educated first

 

[Goldmarble]

I think you are reading what I am writing, and are making up insinuations that are not there.

You said this in relation to someone saying that guns make it easier for people to kill people. :

So do hands, knives, airplanes, and bombs. Should they be regulated and banned as well? Especially since the latter three has killed more people in massacres than guns?

The use of "Should" implies, to me, that you believed they were not already regulated.

I made my post, simply to point out that explosives, and aircraft, are regulated.

That is it.
I was not insinuating that you thought these things should not be unregulated.
I am not saying that I think these things should be unregulated. I am not saying they should be regulated more. I am just stating, that they are regulated.
My words have no hidden meanings, there is nothing to read into them for.

 

[Nilum]

Gun safety and training should be mandatory for all who wish to own guns. This is more common sense than anything. All kinds of guns and ammunition should be available. You don't get special treatment just because you're military or police. You're human just like the rest of us and flawed like the rest of us.

Tiered licencing, just like driver's licences. This...

1. Allows easier dissemination between types of gun owners--sport, hunting, collectors, so forth.
2. Allows greater levels of funding for a semi-independent commission to handle the statistics on guns and gun violence.
3. Enforces training classes and tests for licences. Just like driving a car.
4. Will slowly allow the capacity to weed out the mentality of "self-defense" purchases. (The types of people who think the world is out to get them and that a gun will solve the problem are exactly the kinds of people who should not own a gun.)
5. Guns should be legally purchasable. The ammo should be kept outside of one's personal home, and can be picked up at a general distributor for use in hunting, target shooting, or so forth. This allows collectors to collect guns without then having the capacity to start a civil war in their basement.

Violent criminals and the mentally unstable shouldn't be able to own guns either. Seeing as how over half of all gun deaths in America are suicides, the main issue is lack of mental health treatment, not guns.

Requires accurate and permanent criminal records as well as accurate and permanent health records accessible via public database. Presents issues in terms of privacy rights, but could be managed, and I agree in most cases.

Non-emancipated minors shouldn't have guns unless they're under adult supervision and/or have permission from a parent or guardian.

Minors should not have legal access to firearms period. If you can't legally ingest alcohol or drive a car, or get married, you're not ready for a gun. Exceptions should be made for farmers who need to teach their children about firearms at a young age due to the lives they lead, along with other special exemptions that can be acquired via licencing.

Gun free zones shouldn't exist. Most of the prolific mass shootings in not just the U.S. but in the world took place in gun free zones which means that they don't work nor help.

Gun free zones don't need to exist if guns aren't allowed out in public in the first place.

Places with strict gun control often have the worst crime. California has very strict (and stupid) gun laws but yet many mass shootings have taken place there. Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Memphis (my city), New York, etc are a prime example of this point.

Oh boiii.

#1: California, Detroit, Chicago, Memphis, and New York are all...

• Highly populated. (Seriously, California has a higher population than my entire country in a much smaller space.)
• Suffer from systemic poverty and ghettos which creates violent crime culture.
• Exist in a country where a person can drive for a few hours to a neighbouring jurisdiction with non-existent gun control to get their guns. Like in many mass shootings.

For contrast, it's better to compare other countries with gun control, like Canada. And, I quote...

“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population), although it is higher than several other peer countries. While Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is similar to those in Ireland and Switzerland, it is significantly higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population),” states StatsCan’s findings, which do not include Quebec figures.

Source.

Criminals will get guns anyway regardless of gun control and can easily kill you with any other weapon/method. The biggest massacres in world history weren't even committed with guns. The 9/11 attacks, the Bath School Massacre, just to name a few prove this.

The 9/11 attacks were a terrorist attack, guns wouldn't have stopped that. Air Marshals have stopped exactly zero attacks. I've never heard of a man with a gun on a plane that ever made a situation better.

The Bath School Massacre was committed with explosives, which are regulated, and was conducted in 1927--almost a hundred years ago when the laws were far more relaxed.

Just because some criminals will get their hands on guns doesn't mean we should suddenly stop trying to control and track the flow of firearms. Just as in the same way that some criminals will get away with murder doesn't mean we should suddenly stop investigating murders. At the very least putting in the effort can catch people who are suicidal and train the comically inept so the number of accidental deaths via firearms can drop. Because this is absurd.

You're far more likely to die from many other things in America such as heart disease, car accidents, drug/alcohol consumption, medical errors, etc.

You're far more likely to die from cancer than aids, that doesn't mean we should stop researching a cure for aids. This sort of mentality is why your country's life expectancy has dropped for two years in a row.

I support gun control. Not gun bans--but control. Track who buys them, when and where, tax them, licence them, and keep a tight control over ammunition so that people need to go to a central location to acquire their ammo.

"But muh second amendment--" is flawed. First of all, do you really think you're going to stop the US government--which has drones, tanks, and cruise missiles--with a fucking rifle? Revolutions are won when the majority of people refuse to accept the machine they live in anymore. Soldiers are people too, they will stop firing on people when their own families turn against them and force them to turn on the government. The machine doesn't stop because of a gun, it stops because of the person behind it. Second of all, the amendment was written in back when fully automatic machine guns that could gun down entire classrooms of school children didn't exist. Third of all, the Constitution has been changed--twenty seven times. Clearly, that might mean that it's not a flawless sacrosanct document, and that it could stand to be updated to reflect modern problems instead of problems back in an era when muskets were handed to everyone to stop Indians from killing them.

Laws exist to set the tone of a civilization as much as they do to stop crime. I'm all for setting the tone that a gun is a privilege, that you earn, by being a responsible member of society. Murdersticks should not be an inherent right. Sorry.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Exist in a country where a person can drive for a few hours to a neighbouring jurisdiction with non-existent gun control to get their guns.

And those places have far less gun deaths for a reason. I brought up Switzerland earlier which has little gun control but yet almost no gun violence. Nearly all gun deaths there are suicides. Control for population also.

that doesn't mean we should stop researching a cure for aids.

There IS a cure. It just won't be used for obvious reasons.

Just because some criminals will get their hands on guns doesn't mean we should suddenly stop trying to control and track the flow of firearms. Just as in the same way that some criminals will get away with murder doesn't mean we should suddenly stop investigating murders. At the very least putting in the effort can catch people who are suicidal and train the comically inept so the number of accidental deaths via firearms can drop

If the government can't even keep a handle on drugs (America is literally facing an epidemic as we speak), how can they control firearms? They simply can't. Putting in the effort clearly isn't working. Or maybe it is since the violent crime rate in America has been dropping although firearm ownership has been increasing? Instead of trying to control guns, how about controlling mental illness and keeping violent criminals in prison instead of non-violent ones?

Laws exist to set the tone of a civilization as much as they do to stop crime.

Not all laws should be followed nor exist. They exist to control and dictate how people live their lives in most cases. The government keeps thinking that it's a victim when it's not. Do I REALLY have to bring up the horrendous laws that the U.S. government has?

Gun free zones don't need to exist if guns aren't allowed out in public in the first place.

So military and law enforcement shouldn't be armed at all times? People having guns in public isn't gonna harm anyone. In most cases, it can actually save a life if a violent crime happens. Especially since armed civilians can prevent more deaths than law enforcement in mass shootings.

https://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/Kleckarmed.pdf

I support gun control. Not gun bans--but control

If you give the government an inch, they'll run a whole marathon. Gun control ALWAYS leads to gun bans. You can't have one without the other. The U.S. government isn't exactly competent ya know.

The types of people who think the world is out to get them and that a gun will solve the problem are exactly the kinds of people who should not own a gun.

That's actually one of the best reasons to own a gun. A battered person afraid of an ex who doesn't get the concept of restraining order or someone who's being stalked in general should probably arm themselves. Especially since the response time of police in the U.S. is 15 minutes which is more than enough time for someone to kill you. There's a difference between wanting to defend yourself and paranoia. I damn sure will NOT be a victim to someone trying to rob me or rape me. They're getting their heads blown off.

a gun is a privilege, that you earn, by being a responsible member of society.

And who gets to decide that? Not the damn government since they love to sentence people for non-violent, victimless crimes. Some of which are actually felonies for whatever reason. If you're gonna give the government unlimited power over you, make sure they're actually competent first. The U.S. government is one of the worst in the first world for a reason. Statistics prove this and Americans know it. THAT'S why a lot of us are against gun control. Because the government hasn't earned our trust and fails its citizens every day. Your government may be perfect but mine sure as hell isn't.

 

[Nilum]

There IS a cure. It just won't be used for obvious reasons.

I'm uh... I'm gonna need a citation on that one, doc.

 

[SacredWarrior]

I'm uh... I'm gonna need a citation on that one, doc.

Ok I'm kinda going all conspiracy theorist there honestly XD I don't put anything past the government My bad!

 

[~Nemo~]

If you give the government an inch, they'll run a whole marathon. Gun control ALWAYS leads to gun bans. You can't have one without the other. The U.S. government isn't exactly competent ya know.

No, gun control doesn't always lead to bans. The thing about the future is the multiple results any action can have. Now most of the time it can but come on.

 

[SacredWarrior]

No, gun control doesn't always lead to bans. The thing about the future is the multiple results any action can have. Now most of the time it can but come on.

That statement is mostly from my mistrust of the government. The U.S. government to be particular since that's the country I live in.

 

[Nilum]

Well, at least that was clarified. I'll respond to what I can, but I try to avoid political statements--moreso aim for facts.

I brought up Switzerland earlier which has little gun control

Actually, Switzerland has a ton of gun control compared to America. Here's a source on that, though it's not in English, so I'll translate a few points for you.

1. All army-issued rifles do not keep ammunition at home--it is kept at an emergency depot to be distributed in the event of an emergency.
2. You must acquire a criminal record copy no older than 3 months to acquire ammunition.
3. Armor-piercing rounds, projectiles containing an explosive or incendiary device, one or more floors to the release of substances, missiles or missile launchers or their ammunition, projectiles that transmit electric shocks, and handguns with a deformation effect are illegal.
4. Handguns are extremely restricted.
5. You cannot carry an armed weapon outside of the home, and can only fire out on a range or when hunting.
6. In order to purchase a firearm, you must also give...
   1. Family name.
   2. First name.
   3. Birth date.
   4. Residence address.
   5. The kind of weapon.
   6. Manufacturer or producer of the weapon.
   7. Label, caliber, weapon number, date and place of transfer.
   8. Type and number of official identification, including a licence to own the firearm no more than two years old.
7. Those without citizenship cannot own automatic or semi-automatic firearms. (Eg: Immigrants.)
8. Concealed carry is generally illegal, only issued under extreme circumstances.

Comparatively, Switzerland is a gun control paradise to the US.

So military and law enforcement shouldn't be armed at all times? People having guns in public isn't gonna harm anyone. In most cases, it can actually save a life if a violent crime happens. Especially since armed civilians can prevent more deaths than law enforcement in mass shootings.

https://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/Kleckarmed.pdf

#1: Source is politically biased.

#2: Even in its blatant political bias, it states on page 181...

This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed by victims.100 Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year,101 representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs. Therefore, the number of justifiable homicides cannot serve as even a rough index of life-saving gun uses. Since this comparison does not involve any measured benefit, it can shed no light on the benefits and costs of keeping guns in the home for protection.102

The majority of the study's materials should also be noted as personal interviews, which while useful in some instances, is infamously not a good indicator for the level of crime in a given area. False reports exist.

If you give the government an inch, they'll run a whole marathon. Gun control ALWAYS leads to gun bans. You can't have one without the other. The U.S. government isn't exactly competent ya know.

Not how this works.

That's actually one of the best reasons to own a gun. A battered person afraid of an ex who doesn't get the concept of restraining order or someone who's being stalked in general should probably arm themselves. Especially since the response time of police in the U.S. is 15 minutes which is more than enough time for someone to kill you. There's a difference between wanting to defend yourself and paranoia. I damn sure will NOT be a victim to someone trying to rob me or rape me. They're getting their heads blown off.

Except that the majority of people who purchase firearms for self-defence have no prior reason given as to why they feel as though someone is personally out to get them. Handing tens of thousands of schizophrenic, paranoid people firearms is how you wind up with situations where someone snaps and goes on a killing spree in spite of passing legal tests to acquire them. Not even Switzerland is chill with the idea of just throwing guns at people who feel scared enough to own them--as per their own laws.

The carrying of a gun for defensive purposes requires a carrying license, which will be granted only if the applicant is qualified to acquire guns; demonstrates a need for the weapon to protect himself, others, or property against existing dangers; and has passed an exam to test his required theoretical knowledge and practical skill.50] The theoretical exam tests knowledge of

• criminal provisions on violent crimes and self-defense, and necessity as a justification or excuse;
• federal and cantonal weapons law provisions;
• types of weapons and ammunition; and
• security measures and proper conduct when carrying weapons.51]

The practical examination tests the applicant’s skill in handling the weapon, including loading, unloading, operating the safety device, and shooting.52]
A carrying license permits the concealed carrying of a handgun.53] No carrying license is required for the transporting of an unloaded weapon for legitimate purposes, such as travel to and from the shooting range or hunting environment, as long as the ammunition is kept separate from the weapon.54]

And who gets to decide that? Not the damn government since they love to sentence people for non-violent, victimless crimes. Some of which are actually felonies for whatever reason. If you're gonna give the government unlimited power over you, make sure they're actually competent first. The U.S. government is one of the worst in the first world for a reason. Statistics prove this and Americans know it. THAT'S why a lot of us are against gun control. Because the government hasn't earned our trust and fails its citizens every day. Your government may be perfect but mine sure as hell isn't.

Who gets to decide that? The Democratic system--legislative, executive, and judicial. No different to owning a car, running a bar, or holding control over WMD's.

Part of the reason the American Government is a mess is because there is a large portion of the population that refuses to allow it to function properly in the first place. Plain jane fact. There's no NRA in Canada, which is why--in spite of gun control legislation I'd personally advocate for changing to a more liberal system--there isn't a large group of psychotic nutcases proclaiming that they'll go on a fucking killing spree if you take their guns away. (Thus ironically maybe proving why they shouldn't have their guns.)

 

[SacredWarrior]

Handing tens of thousands of schizophrenic, paranoid people firearms is how you wind up with situations where someone snaps and goes on a killing spree in spite of passing legal tests to acquire them.

If our mental health system wasn't so horrible, we wouldn't have these issues. Gotta fix that first.

Part of the reason the American Government is a mess is because there is a large portion of the population that refuses to allow it to function properly in the first place.

And the fact that people like me aren't taken into consideration and are ignored all the time. And shitty politicians. And the rich lobbying. And the corruption. And the racism. You get the point.

there isn't a large group of psychotic nutcases proclaiming that they'll go on a fucking killing spree if you take their guns away.

Aren't you kinda strawmanning here? I never cared for the NRA and find them pretty extreme myself ya know.

#1: Source is politically biased.

To be fair, you did use a source from CNN which is also biased politically. Most major news outlets do. That's why sources like the CDC are better for things like this.

Except that the majority of people who purchase firearms for self-defence have no prior reason given as to why they feel as though someone is personally out to get them.

Why should they need a reason? By that logic, someone shouldn't learn martial arts for self-defense either. Or have mace. Or have switchblades. I'm a 4'11 nerdy woman who probably couldn't even kick the average woman's ass. Guns are the equalizer for weak people like me who can't defend themselves if they're attacked. As long as they're responsible and actually competent, there's no issue. Not everyone has a peaceful mindset. Humans are evil these days. Just because there's no present danger doesn't mean it'll NEVER happen.

Always be prepared and ready for whatever may happen.

 

[Nilum]

If our mental health system wasn't so horrible, we wouldn't have these issues. Gotta fix that first.

And the fact that people like me aren't taken into consideration and are ignored all the time. And shitty politicians. And the rich lobbying. And the corruption. And the racism. You get the point.

It's dysfunctional, yes, but my point is that ripping away its power isn't going to help it. It can't combat corporations without the power to do so, same with lobbyists and so forth. That takes give and take, but this is getting off topic, so I'll put the pin back in that grenade.

Aren't you kinda strawmanning here? I never cared for the NRA and find them pretty extreme myself ya know.

lil' bit. Hyperbolic humour, but effectively the NRA is the reason why your gun laws are so hilariously bad in every conceivable way. Even Early America had gun control laws, such as who could buy guns, and why.

To be fair, you did use a source from CNN which is also biased politically. Most major news outlets do. That's why sources like the CDC are better for things like this.

I did, but I pointed out the bias. This is why I have a sliding scale of efficacy for citations--getting the definition on something, or a basic verifiable statistic (eg: X number of children killed by Y comes from the US Gov) I can use a news article. When I'm making an argument based entirely on numbers, such as the core of a logos argument, I go to research papers--preferably ones from peer reviewed journals, and not political mags.

It doesn't mean the information is necessarily wrong, but it does mean to be skeptical and not to be surprised if it is later corrected.

Why should they need a reason? By that logic, someone shouldn't learn martial arts for self-defense either. Or have mace. Or have switchblades. I'm a 4'11 nerdy woman who probably couldn't even kick the average woman's ass. Guns are the equalizer for weak people like me who can't defend themselves if they're attacked. As long as they're responsible and actually competent, there's no issue. Not everyone has a peaceful mindset. Humans are evil these days. Just because there's no present danger doesn't mean it'll NEVER happen.

Always be prepared and ready for whatever may happen.

A karate chop can't kill 50 at a concert in a few seconds of concentrated fire, and the concert goers can dogpile the karate chopper with no training and sheer numbers. Plus, karate has real world benefits to your physical health.

Mace doesn't generally result in fatalities like firearms do, and again, doesn't have nearly the range or multiple target efficacy.

Switchblades are regulated, but again, not as deadly as guns are.

As for "why should they need a reason?" It's because, in general, the world isn't out to get you. Nobody really cares about you. The vast majority of people will go about their lives distinctly not dead from murder--even in the United States. The fact that civilizations exist is proof enough that the majority of people are peaceful and do want to coexist--if simply for their own self-interest and benefit from the complexity of civilization.

The thought process of "I need a gun in case someone gets me" is toxic. It's paranoia at its finest--that someone will get you, sometime, even if statistically speaking the likelihood of that is next to none. Literally 1 in 10,000 at worst.

Plus, if someone gets the jump on you, you're dead no matter what you're carrying. Especially if they have a gun, since they can perform it outside of your visual radius and kill you before your brain is even capable of realizing what's happening. The gun won't save you from random violence--that's a fact of life, and an unavoidable one, that comes with living in a free society.

 

[SacredWarrior]

the world isn't out to get you. Nobody really cares about you. The vast majority of people will go about their lives distinctly not dead from murder--even in the United States. The fact that civilizations exist is proof enough that the majority of people are peaceful and do want to coexist--if simply for their own self-interest and benefit from the complexity of civilization.

The thought process of "I need a gun in case someone gets me" is toxic. It's paranoia at its finest--that someone will get you, sometime, even if statistically speaking the likelihood of that is next to none. Literally 1 in 10,000 at worst.

Then why are people constantly pressing for stricter gun laws with those odds? That's kinda paranoid in itself don't ya think? The thought process of "Less people should have guns because I'm scared of a mass shooting or some random Joe shooting me" is also toxic.

The gun won't save you from random violence--that's a fact of life, and an unavoidable one, that comes with living in a free society.

Laws and regulations won't save you either That was basically what I was trying to say all along. The mass shootings in America happen at a steady pace and very rarely at that. A gun by itself is simply an object and cannot harm anyone. Only when someone is using it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Therefore people are the problem, not guns. If anything, gun violence is nowhere near as bad in America as mass media hypes it up to be. It's actually decreased over the years and once you control for population, is very minuscule.

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

http://americangunfacts.com/