That's why, save for one case, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.

That's why school shootings have become a thing in this country, schools are "gun free" zones so criminals know that no one will be able to stop them.

Even the movie theater shooting in Colorado could have ended differently.  In the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time the story is the same; Killers go where victims can't defend themselves.

Speaking about mass shootings, I'd say it has more to do with people's minds than with gun freedom. Mass shootings really are an American thing (yes they do happen elsewhere yes but please name any other civilized country where they're that common)

 

So, if I knew that a lunatic with a daddy's gun could rush in my university and start shooting people, I'd rather had a gun myself. Banning guns wouldn't stop that: as it was mentioned before, it could be a knife, a razor blade, whatever. Gun ban will only leave me alone standing there like an idiot looking at this maniac cutting people and hearing sirens wailing in distance. 

pretty sure if i'm in there way of stealing my shit...they would kill me lol, and again, if you're all for letting people steal your shit, by all means, let em have it. But, that speaks true colors about someone's character. Just for the record, you don't need a gun to kill people buddy. Pretty sure in England, Japan, and China they have mass stabbings and shit all the time. Not often, but it still happens and goes to show you don't need a gun to cause mass destruction.

Yeah, because people barging into your house with a gun are obviously there to kill you, and not just to scare you out to rob you. And then you'd play the hero with your gun, taking the chance -you- would get killed just to feel better with your big weapon? That's a bit silly IMO.

 

Besides, if you are so convinced that guns help people fighting crime, please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?

 

Speaking about mass shootings, I'd say it has more to do with people's minds than with gun freedom. Mass shootings really are an American thing (yes they do happen elsewhere yes but please name any other civilized country where they're that common)

 

So, if I knew that a lunatic with a daddy's gun could rush in my university and start shooting people, I'd rather had a gun myself. Banning guns wouldn't stop that: as it was mentioned before, it could be a knife, a razor blade, whatever. Gun ban will only leave me alone standing there like an idiot looking at this maniac cutting people and hearing sirens wailing in distance. 

 

Now that's an argument I like to see. Why? Because it actually can work the other way around. Right now, guns are allowed, right? Did shootouts got prevented or got stopped because someone shot the guy? As far as I've heard in the news, it's always the police that either manage to control the guy or to get him down, never a civilian. All is said.

 

Well to be honest I wasn't specifically refering to the UK, since I am totally not interested in that country, so I wouldn't take the risk to compare the US to the UK on this. I was mostly talking on a general basis compared to where I live. Besides paybacks with guns we have now and then (like, 4 or 5 times a year, probably 10 at most in the whole country, 70 million inhabitants), people don't fear to be shot, mostly because it is -forbidden- to carry a gun in public places.

 

EDIT:

 

I just found a website comparing stats on crime rate and all, comparing the US to France. Here are the results: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

 

I think it talks for itself.

 

 

Oh I see. That's funny because you originally said, "please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?"

 

I did just that. The UK is exactly what you asked for, another country where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily. But because the statistics for that country disagree with your opinion, you now choose to dismiss those statistics? Ok.

 

As for the France vs US comparison, I'm curious how credible the sources for those numbers are, since the website indicates that some of the numbers are polls of people's opinions.

 

If the statistics related to violence are in fact recorded statistics, then I'm curious about the differences between how France and the US enforce their laws and punish criminals. I personally believe the US is far too lenient on criminals and if we increased enforcement with more harsh penalties, we would see a drop in crime rates.

 

Either way, the comparison between France and the US does not prove your point that countries with more gun restrictions have less crime, because a direct correlation cannot be made consistently when you take into account that some countries with more gun restrictions actually do have more crime. It only goes to show that there are other factors that influence crime, such as a society's moral values, criminal justice, and social and economic policies that also influence crime. This is the point that many supporters of the second amendment are trying to make, so in a way, you are helping to prove that it is not just guns that are a problem.

Now that's an argument I like to see. Why? Because it actually can work the other way around. Right now, guns are allowed, right? Did shootouts got prevented or got stopped because someone shot the guy? As far as I've heard in the news, it's always the police that either manage to control the guy or to get him down, never a civilian. All is said.

you'd be surprised, but most times the shooter commits suicide, and police only do a movie-like siege. 

 

There were cases when a member of the public with a gun stopped a shooting. I even remember one, which happened on the courthouse stairs, when the gunman was aiming for his wife and son and a citizen shot him in the back, saving the kid's life. Well, it ended bad for the citizen, unfortunately. 

Now that's an argument I like to see. Why? Because it actually can work the other way around. Right now, guns are allowed, right? Did shootouts got prevented or got stopped because someone shot the guy? As far as I've heard in the news, it's always the police that either manage to control the guy or to get him down, never a civilian. All is said.

 

No, guns are not allowed in the places where mass shootings have occurred. That's the point we've all been trying to make.

 

Schools are gun free zones, and no one is allowed to carry a firearm there. So yes, it is always the police that manage to control the suspect and not a civilian because the good, law abiding citizens who COULD have stopped a tragedy are not allowed to have their firearms.

 

There are several incidents of good, law abiding citizens using their lawfully concealed weapons to save lives in this country, but it doesn't usually make the news because the only person to be hurt or killed is the criminal.

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by johnclark1102

Thank you johnclark! Couldn't have said it better.

No, guns are not allowed in the places where mass shootings have occurred. That's the point we've all been trying to make.

 

Schools are gun free zones, and no one is allowed to carry a firearm there. So yes, it is always the police that manage to control the suspect and not a civilian because the good, law abiding citizens who COULD have stopped a tragedy are not allowed to have their firearms.

 

There are several incidents of good, law abiding citizens using their lawfully concealed weapons to save lives in this country, but it doesn't usually make the news because the only person to be hurt or killed is the criminal.

 

Oh I see. That's funny because you originally said, "please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?"

 

I did just that. The UK is exactly what you asked for, another country where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily. But because the statistics for that country disagree with your opinion, you now choose to dismiss those statistics? Ok.

 

 

Sheesh dude, you need to stop taking things out of context. Did I -ever- mention UK, even only once? No I didn't. I don't know what you all have to keep talking about UK, but here is some news, UK isn't the only place guns are banned. So, did I choose to dismiss those statistics? No, since I wasn't even talking about them.

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by Hystery

Sheesh dude, you need to stop taking things out of context. Did I -ever- mentioned UK, even only once? No I didn't. I don't know what you all have to keep talking about UK, but here is some news, UK isn't the only place guns are banned. So, did I choose to dismiss those statistics? No, since I wasn't even talking about them.

 

I didn't take anything out of context. You proposed that countries where citizens cannot buy guns as easily as the United States have lower crime rates. That statement is untrue, because the UK is an example of a country where citizens cannot buy guns as easily as the United States, and yet has a higher crime rate.

 

Again, you said,

 

please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?

 

 

While you did not specifically mention the UK, the UK fits the description of a country where a citizen can't buy a gun so easily, which is exactly what you asked for.

 

 

Regardless of country comparisons, a firearm itself is only a very small part of the problem related to acts of "gun violence" and other crimes. The bigger factors are cultural and moral values, and social and economic factors.

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by johnclark1102

.

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 20169 yr by Steele1925

We threw everything we had at the Vietnamese. This included large numbers of troops, tanks, AAA, flamethrowers, helicopters (still new at the time), Agent Orange bio weaponry, napalm, high tech assault rifles, new high tech military boats, top secret stealth jet bombers (stolen Nazi tech), and we even tried the "Shock and Awe" technique which is different from today's version. The old version meant ruthlessly killing anyone who wasn't in U.S. military uniform (now banned by the U.N.), we took out entire cities and villages.

 

But they withstood it all, and they were nothing more than farmers with AK47's and for 6 months they had outdated artillery courtesy of the Russians. Guerrilla warfare has stood the test of time. As George Washington had once said "No matter how powerful the Army, no matter the numbers in which they hold, they can never defeat an armed united populous defending their homes and way of life."

 

To be honest, I think that Vietnam war (just like Afghanistan war) was a failure because soldiers had no knowledge of the environment, while natives had a perfect knowledge of it. For Vietnam, they knew the jungle, how to fight in it, how to hide and ambush in it, just like the same in Afghanistan with the large mountains and caves network. Though, if your government ever became "tyranical",  they would still know their own country and how to fight in it, so... you get my point.

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by Hystery

I find it pretty sad that more people die from vehicle accidents than from guns and no one seems to care about that, not even the general public. Heck, I saw a report recently that indicated that more people die from heart disease alone than from gun related incidents, and yet no one in this country seems to be on the bandwagon of reforming our ridiculous food industry and getting away from the garbage we call food.

 

 

You're right that crime is and always has been the issue. But, I don't carry a gun because it makes me feel safe. I carry a gun because I have the right to do so, and it's smart to be prepared for the crime problem that exists in this country.

 

Do you keep smoke detectors in your house because it makes you feel safe from fires? Maybe we should do something about all the houses that catch fire every year.

 

Do you keep a spare tire in your car because it makes you feel safe from getting stranded with a flat tire? Maybe we should do something about the causes of flat tires.

 

Do you wear your seat belt because it makes you feel safe from being hurt or killed in a car accident? Maybe we should do something about the incompetent drivers on the road.

 

The point is, we all have fire detectors and spare tires  and seat belts and various other safety precautions in our lives, not because we expect or are afraid that something bad will happen to us, but because we want to be prepared for the possibility that it could. That's why I choose to carry a firearm, because I could be a victim of a crime.

 

 

 

This, 1,000 times over. It's the old, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra. 

 

 

 

If a criminal barges into your house, you don't know what they want or what they will do. And yes, I'd personally rather take the chance to defend myself and my family than to take the chance of being executed, watching my wife or daughters be raped, or any of the other heinous things criminals have been known to do. Whether you do something or do nothing, there is a chance you would get killed, and I'd rather have a fighting chance than no chance at all if things go that way.

 

 

It isn't. 

 

The UK is frequently used as the model country for gun control, but statistics show that the UK has some of the highest violent crime rates in the world. The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa according to several news reports.

 

Based on a crime study conducted a few years ago, the UK had 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, where the US had only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

 

The same study also showed that following the UK's firearms restriction legislation in 1997, the number of recorded violent crime increased by 77%. Criminals are cowards who look for weak, defenseless victims. They look for women, they look for people walking alone. They use the element of surprise and attack at night and where you feel safe like your home or the parking lot of your work place. They break into your car and your house when they know no one is home or around to stop them. When criminals know you are unarmed and defenseless, they will attack.

 

That's why, save for one case, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.

That's why school shootings have become a thing in this country, schools are "gun free" zones so criminals know that no one will be able to stop them.

Even the movie theater shooting in Colorado could have ended differently.  In the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time the story is the same; Killers go where victims can't defend themselves.

 

What!!!! 

 

Our cars are safer than ever before thus traffic fatalities have decreased, and the Government spends alot more money and time  on traffic enforcement and keeping us safe on the road  than they do on gun control. And in many states including mine its illegal to text and drive so yea.

 

As for heart disease, the Government cant tell people what to eat if they want to eat McDonalds every day that is their choice and their right to do so. And dieing of heart disease because you ate junk food your entire life is entirely your fault and you cant even compare that innocent people dieing everyday because someone killed them with a gun.

 

And i will go back to lobbyists again do you think Mcdonalds wants you to eat healthy?????? Hell no they want you to eat their cheap processed soduim laced food. So thats why the Government isn't doing more to curb our increasing rate of Obesity in the US. 

What!!!! 

 

Our cars are safer than ever before thus traffic fatalities have decreased, and the Government spends alot more money and time  on traffic enforcement and keeping us safe on the road  than they do on gun control. And in many states including mine its illegal to text and drive so yea.

 

As for heart disease, the Government cant tell people what to eat if they want to eat McDonalds every day that is their choice and their right to do so. And dieing of heart disease because you ate junk food your entire life is entirely your fault and you cant even compare that innocent people dieing everyday because someone killed them with a gun.

 

And i will go back to lobbyists again do you think Mcdonalds wants you to eat healthy?????? Hell no they want you to eat their cheap processed soduim laced food. So thats why the Government isn't doing more to curb our increasing rate of Obesity in the US. 

 

Yes, cars are safer than ever, but traffic fatalities are still more lethal every year than firearms because the people driving the cars are idiots.  In 2011, there were 11,068 firearm deaths ruled as a homicide. By comparison, in 2011 there were 32,479 motor vehicle deaths. For later comparison, 600,000 people die every year from heart disease.

 

A lot more "innocent" people die every day in car accidents than do from firearms, but no one is trying to do legislate driver reform. If it were up to me, I'd structure our driver licensing system like pilot's certificates are structured. You'd have to get a base level of training from an authorized instructor, then pass a practical driving test to earn your license, then go back every 2 years to take the test again to keep your license. You'd also need additional training and specific licenses to operate vehicles over certain weights or horsepower ratings, at night, and in inclement weather. Penalties for traffic violations would be a lot more steep too.

 

But what do I know, I only fly commercial airplanes for a living and have first had experience on the quality of training pilots receive and the end result of an almost 0 fatality rate for commercial aviation in this country over the last decade and want to pass that level of safety on to our roads. But it isn't up to me to make those laws.

 

And it is illegal to text and drive, it's illegal to speed, it's illegal to run red lights, it's illegal not to wear a seat belt, it's illegal to drink and drive, and yet people do all of those things on a daily basis and many times it leads to a fatal accident. Why do people think it will be any different with firearm legislation? It comes back to the, "if guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns" point.

 

And yes, the Government cannot tell people what to eat, but it can legislate the food production process to prohibit the garbage that some companies call food. But then the American public would cry foul about their cheeseburgers being a few dollars more expensive. People should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but when those choices are causing  more than half a billion people to die every year and our society doesn't care about that more than the mere thousands of innocent people killed by firearms or cars, then it's obvious that the problem is that people's priorities are off.

 

I'm all for common sense firearm legislation like background checks and mandatory training. But, let's remember that all the major high profile mass shootings that have happened lately were committed with firearms that the suspect ALREADY cannot obtain legally and had to steal. So, increasing firearm regulations would not have stopped any of those people, because they obtained their firearms illegally already.

 

A lot of people have said it before and it will be said again, criminals don't care about gun laws, and making more gun laws isn't going to help.

 

That's my opinion anyway, and one of the greatest things about this country is that everyone is allowed to have and express their own opinion, even if other people don't agree with it.

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by johnclark1102

 

Actually a lot of countries have a constitution, including mine, with a specific council that studies every law to make sure they do not violate it. We just don't have anything about guns. And if you decide to go on the "It's because we freed ourselves with guns and arms", I'd like to tell you that in my country, France, we had one of the bloodiest revolutions in Europe. Louis XIV, does it ring a bell to you? Guillotine on public place. And even with that bloody period of our era (1789), we learned to live -without- guns, because they aren't necessary. That, my friend, is the fact. But thanks for judging me and what I'm typing without knowing anything of me. And you talk about having no facts? Makes me laugh quite a bit.

 

 

As I stated in my reply, I was sharing my opinion on what your argument is. As you stated, your constitution doesn't say anything about weapons so your country doesn't have to worry about the government violating a 2nd amendment right that the people are entitled to. That's what you seem to not understand. It's like you're trying to say we just want guns and we want to be badasses and that's not what this debate is about. And yes, your country may not want the citizens armed and y'all might just be fine with it, but the American people would rather have the ability to defend themselves against any aggression foreign or domestic.

Yes, cars are safer than ever, but traffic fatalities are still more lethal every year than firearms because the people driving the cars are idiots.  In 2011, there were 11,068 firearm deaths ruled as a homicide. By comparison, in 2011 there were 32,479 motor vehicle deaths. For later comparison, 600,000 people die every year from heart disease.

 

A lot more "innocent" people die every day in car accidents than do from firearms, but no one is trying to do legislate driver reform. If it were up to me, I'd structure our driver licensing system like pilot's certificates are structured. You'd have to get a base level of training from an authorized instructor, then pass a practical driving test to earn your license, then go back every 2 years to take the test again to keep your license. You'd also need additional training and specific licenses to operate vehicles over certain weights or horsepower ratings, at night, and in inclement weather. Penalties for traffic violations would be a lot more steep too.

 

But what do I know, I only fly commercial airplanes for a living and have first had experience on the quality of training pilots receive and the end result of an almost 0 fatality rate for commercial aviation in this country over the last decade and want to pass that level of safety on to our roads. But it isn't up to me to make those laws.

 

And it is illegal to text and drive, it's illegal to speed, it's illegal to run red lights, it's illegal not to wear a seat belt, it's illegal to drink and drive, and yet people do all of those things on a daily basis and many times it leads to a fatal accident. Why do people think it will be any different with firearm legislation? It comes back to the, "if guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns" point.

 

And yes, the Government cannot tell people what to eat, but it can legislate the food production process to prohibit the garbage that some companies call food. But then the American public would cry foul about their cheeseburgers being a few dollars more expensive. People should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but when those choices are causing  more than half a billion people to die every year and our society doesn't care about that more than the mere thousands of innocent people killed by firearms or cars, then it's obvious that the problem is that people's priorities are off.

 

I'm all for common sense firearm legislation like background checks and mandatory training. But, let's remember that all the major high profile mass shootings that have happened lately were committed with firearms that the suspect ALREADY cannot obtain legally and had to steal. So, increasing firearm regulations would not have stopped any of those people, because they obtained their firearms illegally already.

 

A lot of people have said it before and it will be said again, criminals don't care about gun laws, and making more gun laws isn't going to help.

 

That's my opinion anyway, and one of the greatest things about this country is that everyone is allowed to have and express their own opinion, even if other people don't agree with it.

 

We are getting off topic here, but what more do want the Government to do about traffic accidents? We have a plethora of statues regulating it entire Law Enforcement agencies devoted to enforcing traffic laws. Redlight cameras, speed cameras, radar guns. Aircraft that can track the speed of any car... etc. 

 

The fact of the matter is there are over 200 million cars on the roads in the US so of course there are going to be accidents its par for the course. And there is no way for the Government to catch every infraction and prevent every accident. As for DUI the penalties are already pretty stiff and there are checkpoints set up sometimes, but they are totally preventable when someone is intoxicated they arent thinking clearly and cant foresee the consequences of their actions and that they may kill someone or their self. But in that state of mind nothing can deter them from driving unless someone steps in.  

 

Pretty soon we wont even be in control of our own car so im sure that will drastically reduce traffic accidents. Will that make you happy? 

 

I do agree that getting a driver license should be much harder, the FL test is a joke can you drive around a parking lot  and park in a space??? Okay you passed!!!! 

 

But with the Government slashing budgets they are going backwards even closing some offices so that's not gonna happen. 

 

As for heart disease that is totally preventable, and there are no innocent victims here, so this is not even a valid comparison. And do you think any legislation trying to regulate what people should eat would pass?? Hell no we cant even get healthcare in this country which is sad. 

 

So if you want to reduce the number of people with heart disease, you need to address the root cause which is health insurance. Every citizen should get free healthcare from the Government imo so they can get preventative treatment to prevent heart disease from even being an issue. 

 

But that is way too progressive for America instead we got a compromise of Obama Care, so now im forced to pay for my own insurance or else i get fined What! How does that solve anything alot of people cant afford health insurance like me so now i still dont have  insurance and i have to pay a penalty because of it  just great.  

 

This topic isn't about what is the biggest killer its about Gun Control, and imo we arent doing enough to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Literally all we require is a 3 day waiting period on handguns and a 1 min call in background check. Are you kidding me! 

 

There are so many ways to circumvent the system its a joke. FL doesn't even require you to register your gun. There should be an agency that checks in with Convicted felons to ensure they don't have and cant obtain a firearm. Tougher penalties for felons found with a firearm and for those that get guns for felons and vendors that don't do their due diligence.   

 

Now can we get back on topic. 

.

Edited June 26, 20169 yr by Steele1925

We are getting off topic here, but what more do want the Government to do about traffic accidents? We have a plethora of statues regulating it entire Law Enforcement agencies devoted to enforcing traffic laws. Redlight cameras, speed cameras, radar guns. Aircraft that can track the speed of any car... etc. 

 

The fact of the matter is there are over 200 million cars on the roads in the US so of course there are going to be accidents its par for the course. And there is no way for the Government to catch every infraction and prevent every accident. 

 

This topic isn't about what is the biggest killer its about Gun Control, and imo we arent doing enough to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Literally all we require is a 3 day waiting period on handguns and a 1 min call in background check. Are you kidding me! 

 

There are so many ways to circumvent the system its a joke. There should be an agency that checks in with Convicted felons to ensure they don't have and cant obtain a firearm. Tougher penalties for felons found with a firearm and for those that get guns for felons and vendors that don't do their due diligence.   

 

Now can we get back on topic. 

 

We never got off topic in my opinion; my points about traffic accidents are related to my opinions on gun control.

 

A quick Google search shows that there are between 270-310 millions firearms in the United States. So, there are more guns than cars in this country, and yet cars cause more than twice as many deaths every year.

 

As you pointed out, there is huge government oversight and involvement in motor vehicle operation and trying to prevent traffic accidents, and yet we still lose 30,000+ people a year.

 

Why? Because the problem isn't the cars; the problem is the PEOPLE driving the cars.

 

The same way the problem with heart disease is the PEOPLE making poor choices about what they eat.

 

The same way the problem with gun violence in this country is the PEOPLE who choose to commit crimes with firearms.

 

I said it earlier in this thread, I'm all for reasonable firearm legislation, but I also have the sense to admit that no amount of legislation will stop mass shootings because it doesn't fix the problem; PEOPLE. No amount of background checks, or restrictions, or registries would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings in the news. All of these shootings were committed by people who already could not legally own a firearm under our current system, they broke the law to get the guns they used to commit their crimes; and no additional firearm legislation would have stopped them from doing that.

Edited October 28, 201411 yr by johnclark1102