No, this video is basically saying that guns don't kill people. People blame the guns, not the people. A Little over 32,000 people died in 2013 from automobile related accidents. Should we restrict people from owning cars too? There are responsible car owners and the ones that drive recklessly. Should all car owners be reprimanded for the actions of one? No. Just because some lunatic uses his gun irresponsible does not mean I should be punished. As soon as the government tries to take away our guns is the day people should rebel. Here is another video by him relating to gun control.

I'm always smiling when I see this comparison people make between guns and cars, or even food. Sure, people die in car accident. But there's a little, tiny difference between the two. A car wasn't meant to kill someone else. A gun is. It's the whole point of the object. To end the life of someone else by using high velocity projectiles, just like its ancestor the cannon, and before it the bow, and before it the slingshot. A gun is built to KILL. Not a car. Nor food. So this comparison can't even stand one second in a debate about gun control, because it doesn't make sense. Something that was invented to end the life of someone else should be controlled by one way or another.

I'm always smiling when I see this comparison people make between guns and cars, or even food. Sure, people die in car accident. But there's a little, tiny difference between the two. A car wasn't meant to kill someone else. A gun is. It's the whole point of the object. To end the life of someone else by using high velocity projectiles, just like its ancestor the cannon, and before it the bow, and before it the slingshot. A gun is built to KILL. Not a car. Nor food. So this comparison can't even stand one second in a debate about gun control, because it doesn't make sense. Something that was invented to end the life of someone else should be controlled by one way or another.

I'd prefer to have a weapon to defend myself with rather than to be unarmed when some psycho starts shooting everywhere. Illegal guns would be like illegal drugs. All over the place.

All you people saying gun control would help. Tell me since when do criminals follow laws? Gun control would only take away guns from the good guys not the bad ones. It would also help the Mexican cartel.

All you people saying gun control would help. Tell me since when do criminals follow laws? Gun control would only take away guns from the good guys not the bad ones. It would also help the Mexican cartel.

Yeah, because it's well known that the random civilian is the one fighting the drug cartels or killing the ones shooting crowds like in Oregon, right. Gun controll WILL help. Just look at the mass shooting rates in coutries where guns are controlled. It just baffles me that you're all ignoring that point when it's the most blatant.

This guy is just being facetious as an only counter-argument to all what people said. And that's certainly not going to make his point worth listening. Meanwhile, 45 mass shootings since the beginning of the year is all I've to say on my end.

Except there's no international, or for that matter, national standard for the definition of a "mass shooting". These shootings such as Oregon, SPREE shootings, happen infrequently, while anti-firearm propaganda groups will take any shooting with more than one victim, and lump them into one problem they CLAIM can only be solved with this one solution to ban firearms. Take this site for example:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

Take a look at the cites. Lounge shootings. Nightclub shootings. Murder-suicides. These aren't unprovoked, random acts of violence. These are mostly revenge killings, personal incidents, and a lot of ,what appears to be, gang related. These situations can NOT be solved with a be-all-end-all solution such as gun control, because these incidents would have carried out, firearms or not. Take China, for instance. They have an  incredibly high rate of stabbings, which has been getting worse in certain professions. It's even been reported on most recently by our media outlets: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/07/22/chinese-doctors-to-disgruntled-patients-please-stop-stabbing-us/ There was even a large massacre last year, in which 29 people were stabbed to death. That's almost as high as the Virginia Tech Massacre which occured in 2007. Men with knives killed about as many people as someone with a gun did. People can kill with anything, and those with the desire to kill, will. The largest massacre, the Bath School Massacre, was committed using a series of bombs. These deaths are NOT the problem child spawned by lax gun control, but by many more problems that we find within all societies (China, as per the article, as one such example). Problems such as poverty, mental illness, even something basic, such as human emotions.

Branding every single incident the problem of gun control is a cop out of dealing with the root of the issues, and a lot of politicians don't want to because the solutions to these problems are too costly or time consuming. Just as McKinnion said, Oregon cut Mental Illness spending recently. That creates more problems than it solves, because people like this shooter, who need that treatment early on, won't get it, and WILL cause problems later on in his life.

Guns can be dangerous. Guns can kill. That can be said of everything in existence. But they're used to provide food for families, because not everyone lives in suburbia near a supermarket. They're used for recreation, because shooting a gun IS a rush, it IS fun, and no one can deny it, even the anti-gunners. And they're used for self defense, because there ARE people out there who wish to do harm to you, simply because you're an opportunistic target for them, or you represent something they fear, or envy, or just plain loathe. Guns simply, are a tool, just like any other tool. They have many purposes, just like other tools, and to blame them for the actions of a human being, is plain wrong.

Edited October 5, 201510 yr by Policefreak55

Guns can be dangerous. Guns can kill. That can be said of everything in existence. But they're used to provide food for families, because not everyone lives in suburbia near a supermarket. They're used for recreation, because shooting a gun IS a rush, it IS fun, and no one can deny it, even the anti-gunners. And they're used for self defense, because there ARE people out there who wish to do harm to you, simply because you're an opportunistic target for them, or you represent something they fear, or envy, or just plain loathe. Guns simply, are a tool, just like any other tool. They have many purposes, just like other tools, and to blame them for the actions of a human being, is plain wrong.

Guns can't be dangerous. They ARE dangerous. They don't provide food for familes, work and money do. Hunting is a whole different subject and has nothing to do here. And I perfectly can say that shooting a gun IS NOT fun. I don't see what is fun in training myself to aim to kill someone and end his life, and having fun at it. That's being as psycho as the ones shooting people in public places. Guns are not a tool, they don't have many purposes, they are WEAPONS. Something that was built with the only purpose of ending the life of someone else.

With gun control, the guy would need to find a weapon dealer, which would mean he has plenty of occasions to get caught by the police already. Same if he gets controlled and has no permit for the gun he's carrying. Plenty of occasions to stop the guy before he even gets there to start his massacre. Which means even more chances to save innocent lives.

Allowing everyone and anyone to have a gun without control is allowing those psychos to get a gun to shoot people in schools and agreeing with it.

Allowing everyone and anyone to have a gun without control is allowing those psychos to get a gun to shoot people in schools and agreeing with it.

I have to disagree with this, because I used to be like you, really. I thought that banning guns will help and stop this kind of shit. It doesn't. Just yesterday 2 people were shot in Gothenburg. With guns. And Sweden has extremely strict gun laws, and we get shootings a lot. 

And I don't think anyone here wants to give guns to deranged psychos. That's just not right man, and it's not what anyone is saying here. I do believe that there should be rigerious testing before getting a gun and more security around guns. People who wants to shoot a gun to kill people, will find a gun to kill people. It's sadly the truth in the criminal world. 

Guns can't be dangerous. They ARE dangerous. They don't provide food for familes, work and money do. Hunting is a whole different subject and has nothing to do here. And I perfectly can say that shooting a gun IS NOT fun. I don't see what is fun in training myself to aim to kill someone and end his life, and having fun at it. That's being as psycho as the ones shooting people in public places. Guns are not a tool, they don't have many purposes, they are WEAPONS. Something that was built with the only purpose of ending the life of someone else.

With gun control, the guy would need to find a weapon dealer, which would mean he has plenty of occasions to get caught by the police already. Same if he gets controlled and has no permit for the gun he's carrying. Plenty of occasions to stop the guy before he even gets there to start his massacre. Which means even more chances to save innocent lives.

Allowing everyone and anyone to have a gun without control is allowing those psychos to get a gun to shoot people in schools and agreeing with it.

Guns are only as dangerous as the person and their intents.

Guns are absolutely tools, and have MANY different purposes. For people who live in rural areas, they are their sole source of sustenance. There are still people who don't, or choose, not to have access to structured civilization, or can't financially. For these people, game is the only feasible access to food they have. Hunting has every right to be included in a conversation about firearms, because game is a very important topic when it comes to human survival. They are also very essential in crop survival. Firearms are used for pest control, because varmints will destroy crops intended for others. This not only destroys food, but income as well. I will take a moment to use an anecdote. I met this kind old woman, 102 years old. She ran a farm nearby, and had been having pest problems, as groundhogs had been destroying her potential harvest. Because of her old age, there was nothing she could do, so a few of us had volunteered to help secure her harvest and remove them. Without that help, her crop would have been significantly destroyed, and her diminished income would have put her in a financial strain. This is a service that is absolutely vital to the survival of all farms' harvests. And of course, they are used for recreation, just like archery, which was another invention designed for warfare that has been transformed by modern society. There are many national shooting sports that people compete in, and they are very popular among people People who do not intend to kill anyone, they simply love shooting. As they say, you can not speak about something until you have tried it for yourself. I can tell you have never used a firearm before, and convincing yourself that because you are shooting a gun you are training to kill someone, is a very narrow minded view (unfortunately one that many share). Simply because one uses a firearm, does not make them psycho. Simply enjoying the sporting of it and the rush, does not make them psycho, because that is the body's natural reaction to adrenaline and dopamine releases. It is what that person is doing, or using a weapon for, that potentially makes them psycho.

Gun control just doesn't work that way, thankfully, because people have civil liberties and personal freedom. There is a place and a need for law, but to overstretch the limits and impositions on a people invites a very dystopic and authoritarian future. What you described, already happens, and people still are able to obtain illegally purchased firearms. Identifying the people most at risk of doing harm, and preventing them from obtaining it, while allowing those legally allowed to do so the ability, is what saves innocent lives, and protects rights and freedoms.

We don't allow anyone and everyone to own guns, that's why we have the NICS and 4473s, and we don't support psychotics either, but that was a nice straw man.

Guns are only as dangerous as the person and their intents.

Guns are absolutely tools, and have MANY different purposes. For people who live in rural areas, they are their sole source of sustenance. There are still people who don't, or choose, not to have access to structured civilization, or can't financially. For these people, game is the only feasible access to food they have. Hunting has every right to be included in a conversation about firearms, because game is a very important topic when it comes to human survival.

No, hunting has nothing to do with the conversation. We have gun control here, and people still have the right to hunt animals, so it's completely unrelated to the matter of KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. I doubt you eat human meat, do you. So no, nothing to do with the conversation and it's not an argument for gun control because guns used for hunting could be exempt of that control like they are here.

No, hunting has nothing to do with the conversation. We have gun control here, and people still have the right to hunt animals, so it's completely unrelated to the matter of KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. I doubt you eat human meat, do you. So no, nothing to do with the conversation and it's not an argument for gun control because guns used for hunting could be exempt of that control like they are here.

Hystery, just leave it, I wouldn't bother arguing, these people are convinced that guns are necessary, so let them keep their guns. If more shootings happen c'est la vie, except for those who die... At least they're "defending their second amendments" against the MUSLIMS and the tyrannical government! Yeah, pity that innocent people get caught in the crossfire. I wish natural selection would happen faster and all you gun nuts would just accidentally shoot yourselves.

Edited October 6, 201510 yr by SeaHawk14

Playing a UK based devil's advocate, we used to have the right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in common law which, whilst not a constitution, is essentially similar. It was decided however that due to the use of weapons for reasons other than what the right was intended for (self-defence, defence of land and property etc.) was a sufficient enough issue that better control was needed, and so gun control started happening, the earliest example being in 1903, the Pistols Act to be precise.

Now I'd ask you guys, what was the initial reasoning behind the second amendment? As far as I understand, it was put in place for the same reason as above, and also to ensure the country had a well armed militia. Now I ask you these questions as well, why does one of the most powerful nations in the world still need an armed militia? Why is it not enough for the law enforcement agencies, who are now far more able to respond to incidents, to be armed for the protection of the nations citizens? Why is the answer to gun crime to increase the quantity of guns that can be legally brought?

I know that the mentality in the US is that you should be able to defend yourself from a gun-wielding maniac, but if that gun-wielding maniac wasn't able to legally purchase a weapon in the first place, would they even known where to go to buy an illegal one? And if they did, what is so wrong with leaving it for the authorities to deal with?

Playing a UK based devil's advocate, we used to have the right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in common law which, whilst not a constitution, is essentially similar. It was decided however that due to the use of weapons for reasons other than what the right was intended for (self-defence, defence of land and property etc.) was a sufficient enough issue that better control was needed, and so gun control started happening, the earliest example being in 1903, the Pistols Act to be precise.

Now I'd ask you guys, what was the initial reasoning behind the second amendment? As far as I understand, it was put in place for the same reason as above, and also to ensure the country had a well armed militia. Now I ask you these questions as well, why does one of the most powerful nations in the world still need an armed militia? Why is it not enough for the law enforcement agencies, who are now far more able to respond to incidents, to be armed for the protection of the nations citizens? Why is the answer to gun crime to increase the quantity of guns that can be legally brought?

I know that the mentality in the US is that you should be able to defend yourself from a gun-wielding maniac, but if that gun-wielding maniac wasn't able to legally purchase a weapon in the first place, would they even known where to go to buy an illegal one? And if they did, what is so wrong with leaving it for the authorities to deal with?

I agree! They're fighting fire with fire! There's too many guns around, we need more guns to fight the guns. I'm not opposed to the right to bear arms and such, it's just laughable when some peoples reasons are "To fight a tyrannical government", and "for the invasion of the muslims". It's no longer the case whereby the civil population needs to be armed in case of invasion, as it is in Switzerland. 

When I read someone saying 'I need a gun to defend myself against maniacs', I understand 'I don't trust my police department to protect my life and the life of my family so I'll do it myself'. Not very nice for the poor officers.

No, hunting has nothing to do with the conversation. We have gun control here, and people still have the right to hunt animals, so it's completely unrelated to the matter of KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. I doubt you eat human meat, do you. So no, nothing to do with the conversation and it's not an argument for gun control because guns used for hunting could be exempt of that control like they are here.

 What you're failing to recognize is that the United States of America consists of nearly 350 Million people, compared to the miniscule 66 or so odd Million people France has. That's 350 million potential gun users, or 350 million potential ways of something to go horribly wrong. What you also seem to not understand is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns are only as dangerous as the person who wields them, it's not the other way around. What's to say that a psychopath disguises himself to be a Hunter just to obtain a weapon and then go and kill someone? What does exempting Hunter's from any gun control going to do? By the way, how did all that gun control work for you guys in France when that Charlie Hebdo massacre went down? The world watched as your Police Officers were gunned down and unable to fight for their lives and potentially save the lives of many others. 

Let's fast forward to what this topic is about, the Oregon Massacre/shooting. First, let's get the foundation laid out for this shooter. First off, he was born in the U.K, moved to the United States at a young age, he was discharged from the Army in 2008 not even making it through Basic Training, and his Mother stated that he had a wide array of mental illness. He even graduated from a special needs school in Torrance California. He suffered from just as much behavioral issues as he did Mental issues. The person in question, Chris Harper-Mercer was an Anti-Government, Anti-Religion, obsessed with high profile killers and killings kind of guy. He specifically singled out Christian Students in UCC. One of the witnesses who survived the attack told Police that he would ask you if you were religious, then he would go on to say "Good, because you're a Christian you're going to see god in about 1 second" and then shoot them then and there. 

The problem isn't the guns themselves, it is the people who are obtaining them. Gun control won't stop a psychopath, like Chris Harper-Mercer who was hell-bent and obsessed with guns and anti everything from obtaining a weapon - clearly stated and cited by his own Mother,a mental patient through and through. It's easy to point fingers for a scapegoat, but apparently it's too hard to identify the real problem, the fact the kid was a mental case.

If someone who is anti anything and intends on killing people, they will find a way to kill people, regardless of gun control. Especially with all this anti-religion, anti-government, going around lately. It's only so concentrated in America because that is such a large focal point to cause huge shock value, not only because of how many people reside in America, but also because everyone sees America to be this huge invincible "big brother" sort of figure. 

This sort of guy can be compared to the guy  that went and shot people, then went on to say that "video games made it easier for me to aim and shoot" Inherently Media outlets ran with that and Video games became the scapegoat rather than identifying that either the kid was a complete and utter moron, or a basket case - the latter being true. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/convicted-murderer-says-video-games-made-killings-/1100-6430261/

If you're a healthy individual the thought of mowing down University/College students or going to kill a random family found via Google Maps won't ever cross your mind, if video games are telling you things to do, then you're a nut too far cracked. I guess with your logic though,that since Google Maps was used to kill that family of three that we should also have "Google Control" right? 

#GoogleKillsPeople

You're like every gun defender, you are getting facetious, which doesn't help at all proving your point. Besides, the only argument I read is 'Gun control won't reduce the chances of mass shooting because if someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a gun anyway'. Alright, that's your argument. Then how to do you explain that this kind of things does not happen as often in gun controlled countries than it does in the US? There's only two answers to that question. 1/ Guns are indeed the problem or 2/ USA hold a massive pool of crazy maniacs, more than in other civilized countries. One of them is less plausible than the other.

Alright, back on topic. Young people have died, it's tragic. Lets not agitate eachother more than needed. 

Inesiri just stated that 2 people were shot in his country which has strict gun control laws. Isn't it apparent that criminals don't follow laws?

Inesiri just stated that 2 people were shot in his country which has strict gun control laws. Isn't it apparent that criminals don't follow laws?

Isn't it apparent that 2 people is quite low compared to dozens of them every week? You're just willingly ignoring all the blatant arguments many people brought to the discussion, which is why a real debate about guns can't happen.

Inesiri just stated that 2 people were shot in his country which has strict gun control laws. Isn't it apparent that criminals don't follow laws?

Honestly not even comparable with numbers.

While I am a stronger supporter of the second amendment than most on here, the US isn't comparable to any country in terms of gun control, and a unique approach will have to be made for curbing gun violence.

Playing a UK based devil's advocate, we used to have the right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in common law which, whilst not a constitution, is essentially similar. It was decided however that due to the use of weapons for reasons other than what the right was intended for (self-defence, defence of land and property etc.) was a sufficient enough issue that better control was needed, and so gun control started happening, the earliest example being in 1903, the Pistols Act to be precise.

Now I'd ask you guys, what was the initial reasoning behind the second amendment? As far as I understand, it was put in place for the same reason as above, and also to ensure the country had a well armed militia.

Constitutional scholars had an overwhelming consensus that the wording of the 2nd amendment in the U.S. constitution did indeed point to the right to bear arms only technically being applicable to well organized militias, which would have been a good launching pad for better gun control. However, about 7 years ago, Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that left the law more open to interpretation which solidified peoples assumptions among many Americans that they have the right to carry whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want with whatever type of ammunition they want. Justice Scalia is one of many political figures who is driving (or trying to drive) the U.S. backwards. He's too extreme of a Republican for the position he's in. These gun crimes are a question that the U.S. has the answer to. And politicians actually can have the laws about weapon restrictions and better background checks changed for us, but the American people need to want it. And quite frankly; I don't think enough of us give a shit. That's the problem. They shrug their shoulders when they see news reports of a gun crime and say "oh well", then continue on with life as normal.

I am sick to death of the "guns don't kill people" propaganda or jokes circulated on Facebook or other social media outlets, I'm sick of the "mental health" excuse and I'm sick of the "it's my right" excuse. People have a right to f*cking live. How about that right? That's more important than some asshole who wants an AR15 because he thinks it's cool. There have been more than 1000 shootings since Sandy Hook in 2012. That's only three years back. Our president said it best. He said he can't do it alone, and that this problem does not exist in other civilized western nations. Our politicians may be avoiding this issue in order to get re-elected by appeasing gun owners, but they do so because they're the majority of the vote. If people with more common sense than ammunition turn out and vote, then legislation will have a chance at being passed.

This country's attitude needs to be changed in order for the politicians to change.

Edited October 9, 201510 yr by unr3al