DivineHustle

Come on man, let's be real here. What do you think the black market makes most of its money? I also encourage you to look up the literal definition of a black market. It is exactly: 1. The illegal business of buying or selling currency or goods banned by a government or subject to governmental control, such as price controls or rationing. 2. A place where such illegal business is carried on. In the example that you provided with the car parts, in a black market, people would attempt to purchase otherwise illegal car parts and modifications. Considering the fact that crime is on the rise in the US, I'd say those statistics are probably about the same, if not worse.

A majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, statistically speaking. I'd enjoy seeing you and those with the same mindset debate with Thomas Jefferson, a shame he's gone.

But if you restrict guns, they'll obtain them regardless through the black market that Hystery and I discussed. Which at that point, you've taken guns from the law abiding citizens and now the criminals are still obtaining them. (Also note that Thomas Jefferson did not actually make this quote, but he included it into his writing).

No, I'm saying that you don't need to carry a gun. You're free to do whatever you please. You have no right to tell me what I can and can't carry, and that's the bottom line.

Not allowing Americans to carry weapons for self-defense is the implication of an outright ban, because they can't be used for anything other than recreation... You don't need to carry a gun, but you have no right to tell me what I need to carry. If you want to remain unarmed, you have every right to do so, but I'm going to carry, and I do carry, and there's nothing that anyone can do about it.

That's not how black market sales work. The idea behind a black market is for customers to be able to purchase items that have been outlawed. If the government has decided to ban something, the black market will sell the item and make a huge profit, since it's not available for purchase legally anywhere else. Naturally, if something is made legal, sales within the black market will shrink, not grow. Why would I purchase something black market if I can purchase it legally through the state? This is the concept that most of these purchasers of illegal items have, which is why black markets lose money when the government legalizes different things. Alcohol, marijuana, and guns are all mutual to the same concept. Just look at the prohibition and how successful that was. Their use isn't relevant at all. I'm a devout supporter of law enforcement. I trust and respect them, and I appreciate the work they do to keep us safe. But I've never heard anyone in their right mind state that they are 100% dependent on law enforcement and completely trust them to ensure their safety 100% of the time. A lot of people are rudely awakened that way when they need the police and see that they aren't there to help like they thought they'd be. That may not be the case in France or Europe but in the US a lot of people can't rely on the police to keep them safe because they'd be dead. Try visiting impoverished neighborhoods in Baltimore and Detroit and ask them how much they rely on the police to keep them safe. The neighborhoods where police response times are slow and careless, and "snitching" makes you and your family a target. The neighborhoods where the police mistreat the people of lower income and barely work to actively conduct investigations into different crimes. I challenge you to come to Baltimore, walk around at night in an alley (and get mugged because you WILL, especially if you're white) and then call the police. Then you'll see the response time I'm talking about, and you'll see the carelessness of the officer that arrives. Tell me how assured you feel that the perp will be found. Report the results back here.

That is a terrible idea that'd never work or be allowed to work. Most Americans wouldn't stand for it, nor most politicians. Intelligence isn't exactly relevant when it comes to something as simple as the 2nd amendment because it's so clearly written. Most Americans actually see the value of the Constitution, and that doesn't (shouldn't) require any level of intelligence, just some basic knowledge of American fundamentals and history. Most Americans aren't even against banning assault weapons, and that's something that I didn't know. What you describe will never happen because it won't solve anything, and most Americans see that (thankfully).

I'm for certain that there are cases where people have been accidentally killed and injured by knives. It's also clear that people don't know how to handle their cars in comparison to guns considering that more people die from car accidents than guns in the US. It's why Approximately 5% of Americans feel that gun control is the most important political topic, because it isn't. The black market will always have material regardless of the law. Strict gun laws actually strengthen the black market. I can't purchase a gun legally, so I'm going to go Black market and purchase one that way. The same concept is applied to Marijuana in the US, and guns are no different. While people think that these laws are making them safer, they're aiding in the growth of underground markets which in turn arm these terrorists to begin with. You can't rely on law enforcement to do everything for you. They're here to protect you, but the level of faith you have in them is a bit concerning. It's almost like a blind trust, that calling the police will solve all problems.

It would appear that a growing majority of Americans disagree, and so do I. Americans want stricter gun laws because it's too easy for criminals to obtain weapons at this point, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Americans support an outright ban on owning weapons altogether. I feel the same way to an extent. Americans don't believe that stricter gun laws would reduce mass shootings. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gallup-only-2-americans-name-gunsgun-control-among-nations-most-important http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx?g_source=Gun+control&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

I'm for certain that there are more than just one case like this. The same can happen with a knife. A knife or a car can be handled badly, and end up cutting a family member or a friend. A new driver can hit the wrong pedal and kill people. Accidents happen, and they happen with guns too. It doesn't seem too difficult for these terrorists to get into Europe with AK-47's, so there's clearly a flaw somewhere. What happens when there is a robbery in an area where the nearest police officer is 30 minutes away? What happens if no one is able to get to a phone to notify the police? What if the intention of the suspect is to kill people? What if there isn't anywhere to run? Maybe then someone with a weapon jumping in at a good time and shooting the criminal could save countless lives? Maybe this case where a man carrying a weapon saved an officer's life?

Did you see the video? I posted it afterwards.

Well, I guess that's a matter of personal decision. I for one wouldn't stand to get slaughtered.

Who's to say they have you in their sights first? It would all depend on their intentions. What if they miss their shot? What if they don't actually know how their weapon works, as evidenced by a lot of the Taliban in Afghanistan who have no idea how their weapon works? If the terrorist has his weapon jammed, does everyone just stand there and wait for him to fix it? You have a chance to draw and fire, as opposed to standing there and becoming another nasty statistic.

Maybe they weren't armed enough? If they were unarmed, people are dead. They were armed, people are dead. The system does not work because people are still dead. Which means that there's a flaw, a flaw that needs to be looked at. Would you rather be unarmed versus a terrorist, or armed? I'll take any weapon I can get if people are shooting at me with AK-47's, even if my weapons are practically useless in comparison. It's something, and I have the ability to protect myself at the very least.

I'm not a criminal so I can't tell you whether people would drive over an hour for a robbery, but I have no doubt that a significant number of them definitely would if the payout was worth it.

Firearms don't mean that everyone is 100% safe 100% of the time, but they increase the level of safety. It's fact that a criminal is less likely to commit a crime if there are armed people in the vicinity. My point is that there was a flaw in the system. Everyone claims that the European policing system is so glorious, as though there aren't any flaws. This is an example of a flaw in the system in Europe. Armed terrorists were able to slaughter people as police were forced to flee. That's not something that would happen in a perfect or flawless system. I guess it's a matter of opinion really, but I'd say it is better for them to be armed than unarmed. At least they had the opportunity to defend themselves and anyone in their immediate vicinity in a worst case scenario. As opposed to them being unarmed and totally helpless.

If I'm a criminal, am I going to break into a home where I know the owners are unarmed, or am I going to choose the home where I know the owner has guns? If I'm a criminal and I want to target an older lady walking alone at night, would her having a gun change the game? What happens if I decide to conduct a robbery on a local liquor store, and one of the customers inside pulls a gun from behind? What if someone breaks into my home, and I am a gun owner? What if their intention isn't to steal, but to kill me? Could a gun save my life? So are you saying that these officers being unarmed would have been more beneficial?

The facts literally say otherwise, not sure what to tell you. It's hard for me to agree with you when I am literally looking at numbers and statistics that prove everything you say as being 100% inaccurate and wrong. My point is that if they had been armed, could the situation have turned out differently?

So would you say that this was a job well done by law enforcement? Were these outstanding results?

So then, wouldn't the solution to that problem be to improve training? Just train them better and said officer won't unnecessarily shoot an unarmed person, right?

I'd say actual footage beats any source of writing out there.

I'd say because they're available. If I've got some sort of hardcore gripe with someone and I'm crazy, and there's a gun readily and easily accessible, I'm going to obtain it and solve my problem. If a gun is not available, I'm going to grab a knife or another similar tool and proceed the same. The crime will still happen, but the resources available to me will determine how exactly I go about committing the crime. According to the sources that I've read, the US has more crimes committed with guns than knives. Five years ago, a majority of gun related crimes were suicides, not murders. I doubt that fact has changed since then. The U.K. has a higher crime rate with knives altogether when compared to the US. We commit crime with guns, they commit crime with knives. Based on what I'm researching, there is little difference in frequency. It appears that the U.K. actually has more crime with knives than we do with guns. So following the logic that a minority of Americans have, the U.K. should look into banning knives. It won't solve the problem, but it's absolutely how the American way of life works; hence the whole 2nd amendment thing. It's the people causing problems, which is why Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates with the number of guns they have. It's the culture, not the gun. That's why a majority of Americans are against banning guns, but they do favor more gun control under certain circumstances. Most Americans see that it's not the gun that's the problem. Targeting the tool is naive. The criminals will just find another tool, as evidenced by the U.K. and their knife crimes. We need to target the sources of crime. Why would someone commit crime? Why did it get to that point? What's happening in their life to where they felt they needed to steal or kill? How can we prevent that? Just taking the tool won't solve the problem, it only hurts those that had no problem to begin with. I wonder why 64% of Americans believe that loosening state laws to allow more people to concealed carry would help prevent mass shootings. I understand what you're saying, but the statistics just aren't adding up to the statements that you've made so far.

Statistically speaking, the UK really isn't any better than the US with crime in general. The difference in culture does cause crime to vary, but both countries have their respective issues with crime. No country is better or more civilized than the other when you factor in the per capita statistics and the fact that the US is nearly five times larger than the UK in population. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

What about that case where French police were running away from terrorists as they sprayed down innocent civilians on a public street? Pepper spray would have been more effective? Two officers are injured, that's not a win in my book.

Citizens are protected (to an extent) by their first amendment rights to insult police officers without legal rebuttal, but aren't police officers also protected under the first amendment to respond freely? Of course, an officer responding to a verbally aggressive individual could escalate the situation and it can be considered unprofessional, but legally speaking, shouldn't they be allowed to respond?