2 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

You know, I've already mentioned that in another thread before, but a Constitution can be changed. In France, our first Constitution was written in 1791. As of today, we are at the fifth version of it, and it is often discussed to look all over it again to modify it and make a sixth version of it. Through all those changes of version, things were modified to fit better the society in which that new version was written, to offer a stable political situation for citizens, as well as better, more fitting rights for them.

 

Laws aren't engraved in marble. They can be modified. A constitution can be modified. Laws can be tweaked, updated, enhanced, erased depending on the context in which they are applied compared to the context in which they were written. Clinging to the constitution like this while automatically refusing to change anything about it is both stubborn and stupid. You (as in, american citizens) don't refuse it because it wouldn't make sense, you refuse it simply because you don't want it modified, even if it would make sense to do it. It's beyond me.

 

 

 

Okay okay okay, hold on there. There's plenty of evidence that less legal gun owners equals more crime? Really? Are you sure about that? Because, if we want evidence, let's talk real, concrete situations and facts. Here are a few numbers I gathered by searching a bit on the internet.

 

France:

Murder: 1.2 case per 100,000 inhabitants

Rape: 18 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Burglary: 373 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

 

US:

Murder: 4.88 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Rape: 38.6 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Burglary: 491 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

 

 

I could have included robbery, vehicle theft, etc, but, as you can guess, results are of an identical caliber.

 

So. France? Guns need a permit with people going through very thorough check, and said guns are allowed for only for those permit owners, and ONLY in their house. Carrying a gun in the streets is strictly prohibited. US? Very laxist guns laws and controls. And surprisingly enough, crime rates are inferior in France compared to the US. Incredible, right? Or maybe, not so much. 

 

You know, you actually remind me of what Trump often says. "Americans feel". Feel. That's the key word. But feels aren't facts. You can feel safe, even if you aren't, you can feel threatened, even if you aren't. You can feel like climate change isn't real, even if it actually is. Feels are subjective, on the opposite of objective, and therefore shouldn't ever be referred to when trying to solve a concrete issue. Feels, aren't facts. A president isn't elected to please the population, he's elected to try and make the country a better place for its citizens. If that means going against the opinion of the majority to actually accomplish something for their own good, then it should be done. And that includes hurting people's feelings now and then (something Trump usually is so prone to do).

 

Laws can be modified, yes, but should they be modified? Most Americans think not on the grand scheme of things. We're in favor of what I've listed several times above, but practically no one supports a ban on handguns, and less than half support restrictions on assault weapons. Like I said, we actually value our Constitution and the founding fathers' original intent. They were very clear on the 2nd amendment and what it means. This is why, again, the Supreme Court has upheld that it protects our right to personally own (certain) firearms and that right CANNOT be infringed. 

 

You're comparing one country to a completely different country. That, therefore, renders your entire argument invalid for the simple reason that it doesn't make any logical sense to make that comparison. It's like comparing an apple to an orange. If that were a valid argument, guns would have been banned quite some time ago because obviously crimes committed with guns are going to be lower in countries that don't have a rich history of gun ownership. I challenge you to compare a city in the US with strict gun laws to a city with loose gun laws. 

 

In France, less guns clearly equals less crime. That's not the case in the United States. Why? Because we're a totally different country. When you compare the United States to France, you're setting France as the standard of measure (Kind of forcing that definition of measure here but hopefully you get the point). "Well since this is how it is in France, it should be that way in the United States." That is an argument that I will truly never understand because it's illogical in nature. You have to expand your capacity of thinking to a larger scale and realize that practically everything is different.  Different culture, different mindset of the people, different history, different laws, different law enforcement agencies and response times, different demographics and geographics, it's not comparable. "Since something works here, it's going to work there." No, that's not how it works. 

I’m curious how many more “deadliest shootings in US history” need to happen before something is done. 

 

Liferally anything. JUST DO SOMETHING. PEOPLE ARE DYING. 

So... you don't have a solution, but demand action. Literally anything, you say?

 

What about making murder illegal? I really wish they would do that. Think of the lives that would be saved. If only...

 

Seriously... who needs to do 'literally anything'? I assume you mean the government?

 

What should they do? I'm not joking here... you said "literally anything", so what does that mean? Are you talking about making laws to prevent this from happening? What would these new laws involve? What limits should be considered, if any, to prevent people from dying? You offer nothing productive beyond signaling to everyone that you think it is wrong that nothing has been done, yet offer zero suggestions as to what could be done. Would it be hyperbolic for me to say that all guns should be stripped from the populace? What about all knives have to be dull and non-pointy? Cars can't go faster than people can evade them? All items that can be hefted and bashed into someones head should be destroyed?

 

Yes, it is obvious I'm talking hyperbole... but other than signalling your virtuous and indignant fury, you offer nothing. Feeling better?

31 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

So... you don't have a solution, but demand action. Literally anything, you say?

 

What about making murder illegal? I really wish they would do that. Think of the lives that would be saved. If only...

 

Seriously... who needs to do 'literally anything'? I assume you mean the government?

 

What should they do? I'm not joking here... you said "literally anything", so what does that mean? Are you talking about making laws to prevent this from happening? What would these new laws involve? What limits should be considered, if any, to prevent people from dying? You offer nothing productive beyond signaling to everyone that you think it is wrong that nothing has been done, yet offer zero suggestions as to what could be done. Would it be hyperbolic for me to say that all guns should be stripped from the populace? What about all knives have to be dull and non-pointy? Cars can't go faster than people can evade them? All items that can be hefted and bashed into someones head should be destroyed?

 

Yes, it is obvious I'm talking hyperbole... but other than signalling your virtuous and indignant fury, you offer nothing. Feeling better?

 

And all this back and forth about guns is achieving what? Nothing. While everyone is arguing "hurdur it's my right" or "hurdur guns are bad" PEOPLE. ARE. DYING. It isn't my job to have a solution. What kind of country is this that we can't even protect us FROM OURSELVES? Also, the recent epidemic is mass SHOOTINGS. I'm not sure where murder by car or knife comes in to play. Sure, people will still die. But something needs to be done about guns.

Frankly I find it concerning that many people don't seem to care about human life. Rights don't matter when you're 6 feet under.

Guns are inanimate objects. Are they used to do terrible things? Yes. Are they the problem? No.

 

My problem with your statement is that you offer nothing besides demands, wishful thinking, and virtue signaling. Believing that "THE GOVERNMENT" should protect you, yet there is no easy solution is inane and frankly, childish.

 

I, personally, am not offering solutions to this dreadful dilemma because I have none. I see no solution that will not infringe upon the freedoms that make us what we are. The reason why I am posting here is to try and demonstrate that our rights matter and our freedom matters and to try and stop, or at least curb, posts that demand action yet offer no viable solution. To state opinions that are contrary to the ones that show a total disregard and disrespect to our freedoms and rights. I am the counter-weight to what I see as an awful, dreadful, and scary attitude that pervades the less critical thinkers of today.

 

Yes... it is an epidemic of mass shootings. Yes, it is terrible. Yes, I wish it wasn't so. No, I do not see value in attacking our president (for this, anyways). No, I don't see value in demanding action without an even hypothetical suggestion of what that action would look like. Absurd cries and demands for action of a government enforced solution while covering your eyes and ears is like covering your head with your blanket when you hear a noise...

 

I'm curious. Your location is New York, you are flying the Canadian flag, yet you say that we can't protect 'us from ourselves'... are you a visiting Canadian or a Canada loving New Yorker? I'm thinking the former, but the latter is still possible. Especially with the state of Canada and the viewpoint of most New Yorkers.

1 minute ago, Narcissus said:

I'm curious. Your location is New York, you are flying the Canadian flag, yet you say that we can't protect 'us from ourselves'... are you a visiting Canadian or a Canada loving New Yorker? I'm thinking the former, but the latter is still possible. Especially with the state of Canada and the viewpoint of most New Yorkers.

 

I am in New York. The 'Canada' location is an inside joke within the staff team. As for the rest, you are probably right. There may not be a solution. Except for the fact that this epidemic is fairly unique to the US (not saying shootings are not happening elsewhere, but elsewhere is not getting a new "deadliest shooting" every month). Clearly something is wrong here. Clearly there is something we can do. What that solution is, I don't know, no one seems to know, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to do something about it.

1 hour ago, willpv23 said:

I’m curious how many more “deadliest shootings in US history” need to happen before something is done. 

 

Liferally anything. JUST DO SOMETHING. PEOPLE ARE DYING. 

 

I've read something funny on Twitter.

 

"It took only one shoe bombing, and now we all take off our shoes to take the plane. Meanwhile, how many mass shootings and we do nothing about it?"

 

Sums up the whole thing to me.

17 minutes ago, willpv23 said:

 

I am in New York. The 'Canada' location is an inside joke within the staff team. As for the rest, you are probably right. There may not be a solution. Except for the fact that this epidemic is fairly unique to the US (not saying shootings are not happening elsewhere, but elsewhere is not getting a new "deadliest shooting" every month). Clearly something is wrong here. Clearly there is something we can do. What that solution is, I don't know, no one seems to know, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to do something about it.

 

Ahhh, gotcha. I noticed it and was wondering (the Canadian flag). Anyways...

 

You confused me. You say that this epidemic is unique to the US. I agree that it is more prevalent here, although I don't know that I would call it an epidemic (above was mostly tongue-in-cheek to make my point). It is more prevalent here as we have a constitution that protects our right to own firearms. We have almost as many firearms as we do citizens (this is arguable as the real numbers are likely quite higher than our population) so, admittedly, there is greater access to firearms here. Is that your contention? There are too many guns and we need to disarm the people to create a safer environment?

 

Anyways, you say that you don't know the solution... noone seems to know... yet just before that you state that "clearly there is something we can do". That is what confused me. What is so clear that noone seems to know? The fact is, short of disarming the nation and violating one of the two basic ideals that make us who we are... I don't see anything that we clearly can do. So, again, is that your stance? Disarm and trash our 2nd amendment protections?

 

11 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I've read something funny on Twitter.

 

"It took only one shoe bombing, and now we all take off our shoes to take the plane. Meanwhile, how many mass shootings and we do nothing about it?"

 

Sums up the whole thing to me.

 

Flying isn't a constitutional right. Wearing shoes isn't a constitutional right. Owning firearms is a constitutional right.

 

('sing')"One of these things isn't like the other... one of these things, doesn't belong"('/sing')

 

I've read something funny on Twitter.

 

"Why did the chicken cross the road? The weight of a stone on the Moon is less than on the Earth."

 

Sums up the whole thing to me.

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by Narcissus

13 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

Flying isn't a constitutional right. Wearing shoes isn't a constitutional right. Owning firearms is a constitutional right.

 

('sing')"One of these things isn't like the other... one of these things, doesn't belong"('/sing')

 

I've read something funny on Twitter.

 

"Why did the chicken cross the road? The weight of a stone on the Moon is less than on the Earth."

 

Sums up the whole thing to me.

 

Freedom of travel is a universal right for every human being. Wearing shoes is a universal must-have if you don't want to hurt your feet. Owning firearms is an absolutely non-necessary right that leads to literally nothing other than dead people, because that's what guns are made for: they are made to kill people in the most efficient way possible. Your argument is non-sensical, and your way to try and belittle other people's arguments doesn't help proving your own point. Shoving your head in the sand like an ostrisch about problems that are related to firearms isn't going to solve anything either.

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by Hystery

3 hours ago, willpv23 said:

I’m curious how many more “deadliest shootings in US history” need to happen before something is done. 

 

Liferally anything. JUST DO SOMETHING. PEOPLE ARE DYING. 

 

Nothing will ever be done because too many Americans are crybabies about guns.  Apparently, in their mind, the countless lives that have been and will be lost still justify them clutching their "right" to own a gun.   How many more mothers need to lose sons, brothers need to lose sisters, daughters need to lose fathers, before we say enough is enough?

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

 

Freedom of travel is a universal right for every human being. Wearing shoes is a universal must-have if you don't want to hurt your feet. Owning firearms is an absolutely non-necessary right that leads to literally nothing other than dead people, because that's what guns are made for: they are made to kill people in the most efficient way possible. Your argument is non-sensical, and your way to try and belittle other people's arguments doesn't help proving your own point. Shoving your head in the sand like an ostrisch about problems that are related to firearms isn't going to solve anything either.

 

Freedom of travel is a universal right, I can agree to that within certain limitations. Freedom of flying, unfortunately, is not. Ever hear of the no-fly list? No court, no argument, no debate. Someone with power puts your name down and you can't fly. So... again, what I said was factual. Flying is not a universal right.

 

Not wearing shoes can hurt your feet, yes. That doesn't mean that wearing shoes is a universal right. Owning firearms and having the ability to defend yourself is, obviously, not a universal right. Don't take my word for it... ask some of the countries whose populations were disarmed. Yeah, I just made that statement.

 

Luckily, I never said universal right. I said constitutional right. There, my french friend, lies the difference. We, as Americans, believe that we have rights beyond what our government tells us we can have. Here, owning firearms is as important as another of our freedoms that many don't have: freedom of speech. So, again, what I said was factual and 100% correct. I'm sorry that you don't truly understand our rights and don't understand the ideal of an inherent right over a government given one.

 

To YOU, owning firearms is not a necessary right. Which is one of the cultural differences between what makes us different from you. To YOU, your way is better and my way is silly. To ME, our way is better and your way is silly. See the difference?

 

My argument isn't nonsensical, it is just alien to someone that has never had that freedom. As I stated in my first post: most people outside the US just can't understand. I also wasn't trying to belittle your argument... I was simply showing you how absurd your argument was by mimicry. Everything I said was true... I just copied your way of saying it. Funny how ugly things look different in a mirror, eh?

 

I've stated my beliefs on gun ownership. I've stated my beliefs on solutions. Just because I don't see disarmament as an option hardly qualifies as an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. Wanting to preserve a freedom, a right, against rhetoric against those rights is hardly ignoring what is around me. In fact, I would argue that it is the exact opposite. Far too long have those of my mindset been quiet and not stood up for what we believe because we were afraid to ruffle anyone's feathers. No more. Holding true to my beliefs is exactly what I am doing... the same as you.

 

1 minute ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Nothing will ever be done because too many Americans are crybabies about guns.  Apparently, in their mind, the countless lives that have been and will be lost still justify them clutching their "right" to own a gun.

 

Yes. Crybabies. We don't care about human life in the face of losing these guns! Ad hominem stacked with the standard guilt trip. Why refute anything I've said? No... far too easy. You, being the enlightened moderator that you are, instead revert to name calling and personal attacks. Someone said something you disagree with and did so in an intelligent manner?

 

No recourse left... ATTACK!

 

<clap>

I think it'd probably we useful if we could agree that the back and forth isn't going to achieve anything. 

 

I will ill reply back to this with my thoughts when I get the time, but for now let's refrain from name calling please. 

Just got off the phone with my mother... evidently she just watched a press conference on the shooting.

 

I didn't watch it, so this is all second hand information, but apparently the shooter was stopped in the middle of his spree by a nearby armed citizen. The armed citizen shot the murderer who then dropped his gun and fled the scene. I only wish he could have gotten there sooner and saved more lives. There was an 18 month old who was a victim, apparently.

 

It was hard to make out what she was saying as almost the whole conversation she was sobbing. She carries, by the way. She ardently defends our rights as well. She must be pretending to be sad and cry and grieve over the lost lives so that she can feel good about 'clutching' her guns.

I'm just waiting for a logical, sensible, accurate rebuttal to all of our claims in support of gun ownership.

 

It seems like every gun debate I ever have, both online and in person, turn out this way. The guys against gun ownership make claims, the guys in favor of gun ownership pull facts and numbers, then the guys against gun ownership either disappear, resort to ad hominem, or put a noticeable increase of sentiment into their statements without providing any sort of material evidence. Then they continue to say that gun owners are wrong even though all of their arguments have been dismissed at incorrect, invalid, or inaccurate.

1 hour ago, Kallus Rourke said:

How many more mothers need to lose sons, brothers need to lose sisters, daughters need to lose fathers, before we say enough is enough?

1

This argument is invalid because, statistically speaking, victims of crime are more likely to become gun owners. See the links I've posted earlier. Following this statistic, those same mothers, brothers, and daughters would be more so in favor of gun ownership than those that weren't involved with the shooting.

 

1 hour ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Nothing will ever be done because too many Americans are crybabies about guns.  Apparently, in their mind, the countless lives that have been and will be lost still justify them clutching their "right" to own a gun.   

 

Kinda diggin into the ad hominem there man.

37 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'm just waiting for a logical, sensible, accurate rebuttal to all of our claims in support of gun ownership.

 

It seems like every gun debate I ever have, both online and in person, turn out this way. The guys against gun ownership make claims, the guys in favor of gun ownership pull facts and numbers, then the guys against gun ownership either disappear, resort to ad hominem, or put a noticeable increase of sentiment into their statements without providing any sort of material evidence. Then they continue to say that gun owners are wrong even though all of their arguments have been dismissed at incorrect, invalid, or inaccurate.

 

I'm sorry, you might feel this way, but I feel the other way around.

 

You come in, claiming less guns = more crimes.

I come in, claiming that in my country, no guns = less crimes than a country with guns (and I said my country, but I could have quoted many others as well)

You come back, saying that this doesn't mean anything because countries are different, therefore dismissing any attempt at bringing numbers as hard evidences to you because of that.

 

How is anyone supposed to show you that less guns = less crimes, if all you say back to that is "yes, but no"? If all you say is "My country is different therefore it won't be like that"? How can you even be sure of that, since you haven't even tried at all? Your argument is baseless and supported by nothing but "americans feel this way". As I said before, feelings aren't facts. What would it cost you to actually TRY to lower the numbers of guns in circulation, and see what happens? And if things get worse, you simply get back to your guns. But you don't even wish to try. If that's not being stubborn just for nothing, I don't know what is.

 

More guns more guns more guns, that's the only solution that comes out from people supporting laxist gun laws. As if setting fire to more trees would put out the forest fire.

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by Hystery

Just now, Hystery said:

 

I'm sorry, you might feel this way, but I feel the other way around.

 

You come in, claiming less guns = more crimes.

I come in, claiming that in my country, no guns = less crimes than a country with guns (and I said my country, but I could have quoted many others as well)

You come back, saying that this doesn't mean anything because countries are different, therefore dismissing any attempt at bringing numbers to you because of that.

 

How is anyone supposed to show you that less guns = less crimes, if all you say back to that is "yes, but no"?

Your argument is baseless and supported by nothing but "americans feel this way". As I said before, feelings aren't facts. What would it cost you to actually TRY to lower the numbers of guns in circulation, and see what happens? And if things get worse, you simply get back to your guns. But you don't even wish to try. If that's not being stubborn just for nothing, I don't know what is.

7

I challenged you to get the numbers from two American cities with opposing gun laws and present the statistics here in support of your argument. Practically no one in the US cares about gun crime in other countries when compared to the US, as evidently noted by the increasing number of Americans that still continue to support gun ownership. The few Americans that agree with you are in the minority of this country. Most Americans do NOT feel the way that this handful of Americans here do. Once you bring us numbers relevant to the US, then we'll gladly debunk the argument as we always do and continue to prove why your suggested and implied restrictions won't work here.

Quote

If all you say is "My country is different therefore it won't be like that"? How can you even be sure of that, since you haven't even tried at all?

This would require a certain level of thinking, something that I cannot explain. This is something that you would have to do, friend. You need to expand your level of thinking (respectfully) and try to understand why comparing two different countries doesn't make any sense. In my mind, it's obvious why comparing two countries is illogical, but it may not be obvious to everyone else. This is why I say that you need to try and understand that on your own because I can't explain that for you because there's simply too much depth to it. I'd be writing an essay just to get the point across, and I'm not going to do that. We don't need to try it, we already know that the results won't be the same.

 

I will patiently and respectfully wait, and I will no longer respond to this topic until someone quotes me with numbers relevant to the US in favor of gun restrictions, or someone presents a new and valid argument.

 

19 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

There is a huge difference though.  Arguably, some 16 year olds driving a car are far more mature than most gun owners.  Look at it like this,  every day a car could plow onto the side walk and mow down tons of civilians.  This could happen in bigger cities, but it rarely does.  Yes, it happens, but not that often.  Hell, getting a driver's license is easier than getting a permit for a gun, yet people still rely on using guns.  Why is that?  We both know why, gun vs car gun is always more deadly, which is hilarious given what I just said.  You could easily run down 20 people in the time it takes to shoot your gun and reload it.  How many car attacks have there been?  How many people have actually used cars as a killing machine as opposed to guns?  Guns are the problem, not the ones who own them.  If people wanted to send a message they'd get a car, which is also easier to obtain, and mow down every pedestrian they can find.

Gun's are not the problem, it is the individual's that are the problem.  The actions of the few does not justify, nor will it ever justify the punishment of the many.

13 hours ago, Ben said:

It's came to the point with America where it's near impossible to think of a strategy that both sides would agree on which moves forward into a law that helps minimize the amount of weapons that are allowed to be obtained illegally. I hear a lot of things after terrorist attacks in Europe such as "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" and really, at this point it is shown to be incorrect.

It also confuses me when the goto argument for owning weapons is the 2nd amendment, because what you are doing is applying a right which first adopted as a law in England in the 1600's, surely editing or rewriting these laws to represent how the world has advanced in that time would make some form of sense.

On the subject of "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" this is true, but it depends on when and how it is implemented.  Take for example, my neighbor was being attacked on night by a evil man, I heard a noise and looked at my camera's and saw my neighbor on the ground getting his head kicked.  I immediately went outside and confronted this man with my pistol while my girlfriend had my AR-15.  He immediately stopped what he was doing.  The outcome of this conflict saved my neighbors life, resulting in him being blind in one eye, but as for the guy that this man, attacked 30 min's prior, may he rest in piece.

 

One other story I have is 8 people tried to jump me but regretted that move when I pulled out my gun.

3 hours ago, willpv23 said:

I’m curious how many more “deadliest shootings in US history” need to happen before something is done. 

 

Liferally anything. JUST DO SOMETHING. PEOPLE ARE DYING. 

The only true answer to this "DEMAND" that you are asking, is for people to take into account, there own personal responsibility.  I took up the decision to do what I have to do everyday to give me another chance to come home and see my family again.  The person that chose to try and take my life, cares little for his/her's.

58 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Nothing will ever be done because too many Americans are crybabies about guns.  Apparently, in their mind, the countless lives that have been and will be lost still justify them clutching their "right" to own a gun.   How many more mothers need to lose sons, brothers need to lose sisters, daughters need to lose fathers, before we say enough is enough?

We are not cry baby's Kallus.  Many of us understand that you should not make decisions based on emotions.  I have many guns and an entire combat load to go with my AR-15.  I carry a pistol with extra ammo, and IFAK, and a knife.  I have taken up the gauntlet more than once to save another persons life that was being attacked by a low life criminal that care's not of anyone else's life thus putting my life at risk.  I have grown up around crime and violence, good people and bad people, good cops and bad cops.  My rights will always, under no circumstance, trump your dead.  Stalin rounded up my people back in the day because they were of German decent, he enslaved them and worked them to death.  My Great Grandfather told me once "When people start to load others onto train's, then that is when you kill those people".   It is actions like these why many many Americans refuse to give in to gun reform and do not trust the Government to rule us.  We are "NOT" a Democracy, but we are a Constitutional Republic.  We have great perimeters put in place to ensure that "EVERY ONE"S" rights do  not get taken away.  

 

And on a side note you said " How many more mothers need to lose sons, brothers need to lose sisters, daughters need to lose fathers, before we say enough is enough?"

 

No one ever says this when those same people go to war.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

On a side note of the ideology of the dark web and black marked.  That stuff is stupid and play's no role in how guns, drugs are gotten.  You can go any where and get a gun from any of these low life gang bangers, dope heads.  Its is not hard at all to acquire the things that you want.  

 

I have lived around this crap my whole life and I know how everything work's.  Politician's use the bodies of the dead to further there re election chances.  

 

I know that the 3 year old that was shot in a drive by up the street from my house, he was shot do to gang retaliation.  On the news the family said that they have no idea why this happed and that they are good people, but in reality they where all gangbangers and drug dealers and that the drivebye was retaliation.

 

This is a heated topic in my opinion.  I would not be alive if it was not for the gun.

 

 

It has been tried, in a way... I take it you didn't review any of the links provided earlier.

 

In our country, the ease of locally (and legally) obtaining a firearm are directly inverse to the local crime rate. The easier it is, the lower the crime rate. The more difficult, the higher.

 

This is just a small list, but look at some of the highest crime rate cities here and compare that with the rules and regulations to obtain a firearm: Detroit, New Orleans, Oakland, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.

 

So in a round-about way, your idea has been tried and has failed miserably. Our culture revolves around our freedoms, and it is difficult to explain to someone that either isn't from here or who doesn't understand what we have here... but the right to have firearms is not going away. Even if the stats were the opposite of what they are, we would not give up our right... I firmly believe that.

2 hours ago, Narcissus said:

Flying isn't a constitutional right. Wearing shoes isn't a constitutional right. Owning firearms is a constitutional right.

This sums up how silly it is to want to keep a constitution which was wrote when Americans where legally allowed to own slaves - the world is changing, and to rely on a constitution from so long ago in my eyes is just plain stupid. The way I see it,  I come from a country which has existed in a form since the 6th century, a country that at it's height was the largest empire in the history of the world, and even we was able to rewrite how our laws worked, so why can't America.

Here's the point: Mental illness is a big factor in most of these shootings. Even Trump admitted it. So WHY THE HELL do you decide to remove a law which bans the mentally ill buying guns? Either the gun was illegally bought or he just slipped through the net because he shouldn't have even been allowed to buy it (he was denied it under Texas law)

 

Times have changed since 1776. The government is not going to turn against the people any time soon. More to the point we're no longer  looking at bolt action single shot rifles but semi automatic assault style carbines that can carry 30 rounds.

 

You don't see mass shootings happening this frequent in say France for example. In the UK, the gun laws are very tight, and I support gun ownership, I love shooting, but is there really a need for a AR-15? Hunting can be done with a shotgun. Let's face it .The only "real" reason why people get AR-15s is because they like them. Self defense? Buy a 9mm handgun. America needs to sort out its health system and gun laws. It is ridiculous this is being allowed to happen in what is supposedly the most developed country in the world. 

 

Ironically in the UK and in the US actually, before these bans came into place, there was less gun crime...but then mental health was less recognised and stuff. There is more gun crime in the UK now then there was in 1996 when they banned handguns and yet 90% of the shootings that take place in the UK are committed by someone with a handgun. 

 

There is simply no need for this weaponry. At least make the magazine capacities lower.

 

It shouldn't be legal for the NRA to keep sponsoring lobbyists, which is the real reason gun control isn't happening. Let's face it. Trump couldn't care less about the 2nd amendment if the nation wasn't feeling so strong about it. It's the money.