Riley24

I would love to see another vote done today. I'm seeing a lot of reports that people are regretting their vote to leave. A lot of people are angry at the establishment and elite in their country, and that is true for both the United States and the UK. This is a reminder that anger at the political system has to be founded on clear policy objectives. Also, I'll leave you with this excellent tweet from Edward Snowden:

There are a bunch of them already available on the website.

Ha, nice try. If we're talking about where criminals get their guns, and you say a huge number of them are stolen, how do you then say that the solution is for more people to get guns? Then more of them would be stolen, and more of them would end up in the hands of criminals. Then people buy more guns, and more of them get stolen....well, you see where this is going. Guess who's profits then skyrocket? Studies show that you're actually less safe with a gun than without. Turns out the more time you spend around things that shoot, the more likely you are to get shot. If you hate it, don't do it! Well, oops I replied. I'm here because I enjoy discussing this issue, you clearly don't. Good day to you.

And that's supposed to be an argument for arming the populace...? If anything, that proves that there's too many guns being distributed to the populace, who is clearly incapable of responsibly owning that many firearms. Also, believing "CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS GET THEIR HANDS ON GUNS!" is pretty convenient, because it means you don't have to even try to solve the problem. People will always do a lot of things, should we not have any laws at all? Why is it you think we have laws in the first place? You only apply that mentality to this issue, because you like guns and don't even want to talk about gun control.

How so? No one is talking about banning guns. Law abiding citizens that can pass background checks wouldn't have any issue. We don't expect 100% effectiveness from any of our programs or laws, why would you expect it from gun laws? And its simply not true that criminals will "ALWAYS" find a way to get their hands on guns. Guns don't appear in their hands out of thin air, they come from things like straw purchases and private sales, for example. How would a law banning unchecked private sales NOT prevent some criminals from getting guns? But you're simply not getting it. You're arguing against laws that make it harder for criminals to get guns, you're not advocating for officer safety. You're advocating for inaction because "hey, gun control won't stop every criminal from getting a gun". Also, you're putting a lot of trust in armed civilians with no standard for safety training or anything of the sort. With our crazy high numbers of accidental deaths, maybe rethink that blind trust...

Which is incredibly difficult, especially compared to how easy it is to drive across state lines with a trunk full of guns. Its impossible to completely eliminate the possibility of smuggling, no matter how good a country's border security is. But products become more expensive as it gets harder and harder to smuggle them. Its not inconceivable that many criminals simply wouldn't be able to afford the few guns that are being smuggled in. We don't expect 100% effectiveness from any other program. but yet for some reason, that standard is applied to gun control by conservatives. We've let you turn the conversation into "well if it doesn't take EVERY gun out of the hands of criminals, then its not worth doing ANY gun control." That's preposterous, and completely counter-intuitive. It is absolutely true that with effective legislation, we could drastically reduce the numbers of guns that end up in the hands of criminals. And that's pushed back against because of ideology and lies that have been distributed by the very people that make billions in the gun industry. Its asinine and grossly corrupt. And I'm surprised that in a law enforcement-centered community, there are so many people that want to do nothing to ensure that police officers encounter less armed criminals. Blows my mind.

For the most part yes. Because its supported by evidence, not just unsubstantiated NRA one liners. Are YOU saying that gun laws outside of Chicago has nothing to do with the crime in Chicago? Also, I'd like to direct you to these articles: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/the-social-trends-driving-american-gangs-and-gun-violence/273170/?single_page=true# http://prtl-sitea-maigs.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/gun_markets_aug06.pdf In short, there's an underground gun market where sellers bring guns into the city to sell to gang members, and crime actually rose after gun laws were loosened in the city. That's fact. Chicago is a city that's swimming in guns, its no wonder that so many people get shot. Its common sense. I've said it 100 times, if gun laws in neighboring communities were as tight as they were in Chicago, we would DRASTICALLY reduce the circulation of guns in the city. But if you'd like to completely ignore the facts about where criminals get their guns, be my guest. You've been fed the lie that "all we need is for good guys to shoot the bad guys and we'll be safe". Coincidentally, the people that told that lie are also the people that make a TON of money in the firearms industry. Its working brilliantly for them.

Because of the poverty in the inner cities. Areas outside of inner cities are generally populated by people of a higher socio-economic status, so they're less likely to join gangs and do violence.

So you won't recognize the facts that null your argument, so therefor I don't understand the 2nd Amendment? Okay.

Actually, I believe you're underthinking it. How many times have I explained to you that guns come from OUTSIDE the city limits of Chicago, where gun laws are looser? You just completely ignore that every time I take the time to explain it, and press on with the black and white argument of "well Chicago has a lot of shootings and they have gun control". That argument was a bullshit talking point made up by Fox News, it doesn't hold any water. Are you going to recognize that guns in inner cities come from places with looser gun control, or are we done here?

Totally different issue. There's psychos that buy assault rifles and gun down dozens of people, and then there's a high circulation of guns in inner cities. To point at Chicago and say "there, gun control doesn't work" is a bad argument to make. I can JUST as easily say "look at any other western country" and now we're making the same argument on opposite sides. Also, I don't think the murder of young men with assault rifles is in any way amusing. That's sick.

Seems kind of like semantics, unless its any less deadly than the AR-15..? Seems kind of offtopic, unless you'd like to make a point about the Orlando killing...also, whats up with conservatives weird obsession with Chicago? There are plenty of cities with high violent crime. It kind of seems like a talking point that's been funneled down from Fox News.

We'll never know. Just as we'll never know how many people would've survived if he couldn't get his hands on those guns. But in the grand scheme of things, the risks of arming that many business owners across the country far outweigh the likelihood of one of these attacks. It is actually that simple. The federal government is perfectly capable of implementing improved systems for federalized background checks on all legal gun sales, they just haven't because of gun manufacturer's influence on our democracy. I haven't suggested banning guns, or even implied it. But if laws made it tougher for criminals to buy guns in the country, would a certain number of them find them being sold by foreign smugglers? Maybe. But imagine how hard that would be, and how expensive and dangerous it would become for them. At the risk of sounding insulting, I'm not sure that you understand how laws work. Its not just "writing something down on a sheet of paper". Laws can drastically effect the way gun markets work in the country.They work because manufacturers, retailers, and law abiding citizens follow them. And when they do, they narrow avenues through which criminals get their guns. You also seem very confident in the prevalence of illegal guns, but have you ever thought about where they come from (apart from the few that are smuggled in)? Glock makes a gun legally at a factory, and sells it to a retailer. That retailer sells it to a person. If that person is a criminal, that criminal now has a gun. That gun can be sold privately hundreds of times, and now becomes an "illegal gun". But if that gun store sold it to a law-abiding citizen, that gun could be stolen. Boom, illegal gun. If its not stolen, that law abiding citizen (in a state like Florida for example) could simply sell it to someone else. Citizens can't exactly do background checks, so a certain number of those buyers will be criminals, and a certain number of them will sell it to criminals. Right now, we have hundreds of millions of guns flowing through circulation. Would tougher laws reduce the flow of guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals? Absolutely. Guns come from somewhere, they don't just magically appear in the hands of criminals. And I'm all for increasing mental health care, if that's what you mean by "Why do you continue to target the gun and not the person holding the gun?". And OK, lets say President Obama decides that all young men are FORCED to enlist for military service, but they get to keep their rifle afterwards (or however it works in Switzerland). You really think that goes over well? Or does the entire right wing FREAK out about King Obama sending all our kids to war? I think I know how that ends. And Switzerland's program wouldn't work here because of our selective service laws. If you then put a rifle in the home of that percentage of Americans, it ends VERY badly. You've now introduced hundreds of millions of high powered rifles into a population that is untrained and probably doesn't even want the rifle. Many people would get killed. Bad idea all around.

Hystery has already made a few of the points that I would have made in response to this, so I'll refer to his posts to spare space on this long post. Someone there did have a gun and killed the shooter, but only after 50 people were killed. Does that not prove that armed security is an ineffective solution? And is a small nightclub with deafening music, strobe lights, and hundreds of patrons really the kind of environment you want a shootout to occur in? Again, life is not as simple as "shoot the bad guys". Unless the guard was a skilled marksman, its almost likely that some of the casualties and wounded were struck by the guard's bullets. You've made two points that contradict each other: "Criminals do their crimes in Chicago because no one has guns, they don't want to shoot their victims, and they don't have to because no one has guns." "Chicago has a lot of shootings and homicides" If committing crime in Chicago is so easy, whats up with all the deadly shootings that you referenced before? Lets break it down point by point, so I can show you my argument in its full form. I will use Orlando as an example to stay on topic. Problem: Omar Mateen legally buys guns in Florida, even as an FBI terror suspect Solution: Stricter gun laws in Florida, with an emphasis on federal background checks in coordination with the FBI Problem: Omar Mateen travels to Georgia to buy a gun, since he can't get one in Florida Solution: Apply same improvements as done in Florida, and to every state across the country The goal, in my opinion, should be to make it as hard as possible for someone like Omar Mateen to get any kind of gun. Often times pro-gun people say things like "if they don't get there guns here, they'll get them over there" as if that is the end of the debate. But that logic ignores any possibility for preventing or limiting these attacks by making it harder to get guns. Maybe Omar Mateen can't get a gun legally anywhere, so he tries to get one illegally and gets himself arrested. Maybe in his lengthened search for firepower, he's flagged again by the FBI and is charged with conspiracy charges. Or maybe he can't get a gun, so he tries to build a bomb and accidentally blows himself up in his garage. Or his suicide vest doesn't work and he's tackled by his would-be victims. The liberal solution is to make life harder for people like Omar Mateen. Exactly. In the case of Chicago, there are a lot of gangs that deal with privately sold/blackmarket guns and drugs. The liberal solution to that problem is to cut the supply of guns to criminals through legislation, NOT to punish or infringe on responsible gun owners with no criminal history, mental illness, or tendency for violence. The clarity of that message is often lost through debate, just wanted to reiterate. I'm not sure that "look at this European country" is the road you want to go down...