America. It happens

It's still the same thing.

Instead of a shootout, it's a defensive shootout.

Although I don't agree with gun control because it won't do anything, we got Mexico right underneath us and it won't take long for guns to get here. If people really want to kill, they'll do it. I heard bombs aren't hard to make and smuggle.

That is the logic for it.

But it's fucking retarded to give every person in a school full of KIDS guns. If this happens, and eventually some shitty teacher whose wife fucked soe other guy a few days ago snaps and shoots up his class I will be fucking done.

I think I can trust our teacher's just as much as we do our police.

No one worries police will have a bad day and go crazy, this is a silly argument.

And if he wanted to do harm he could bring a gun to school regardless of any law.

One more point, guns are already allowed to be carried by trained school faculty, how many Texas school shootings do you know about? Texas has some of the highest gun concentration in the US, so by a pro-gun control person's logic we should see all kinds of shootings in Texas.

I don't think it will happen every week. But I really think it will happen eventually.

I just think there needs to be better laws for guns, not simple 'take away the guns' or 'give everyone a gun' These are lazy and non-productive 'solutions'.

Allowing guns in responsible hands is a good start, and a great deterrent.
Feel free to try and find school shootings in Texas below are some helpful links.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_primary_schools
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_secondary_schools
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_post-secondary_schools

Texas is considered 7th most gun friendly state, and yet has a very low murder rate and about non existent school shootings history.

The laws in place need better enforcement, and harsher penalties. Magazine limits should not exist, and gun free zones need to go.

Honestly, speaking from a non-american point of view, why don't you just make the gun laws and whatever more strict? Less access to guns, less shootouts?

I don't think that would work. Mexico makes it too easy to just get a gun and smuggle it in.
And then you just have the people who really, REALLY want people dead with the guns.

Well, it would greatly reduce the amount of kids that find a gun in their home and bring it to school, won't it? It's a start

RUN NOW, ITS NOT SAFE!

the comments are filled with /k/razy fuckers

Any country which requires a teacher to carrying a gun to school, is just fuckin doomed.

you're such a fucking gay faggot !! GAAY!!!!

It's still a bad idea

That's still dumb. Fighting with fire when it could easily be "put out".

you realise the only places with mass shootings are the places guns arent allowed

so guns are allowed in elementary schools? this is new to me

I misinterpreted, I thought you meant state wide.

Connecticut is one of the states with the strictest gun control laws
Norway has strict gun control, but that didn't stop Brevick from shooting 77 kids now did it?

why do we need guns though?

We don't need more guns. We need to focus on the real problem. The people that are responsible for all these mass shootings were mentally unstable. We need to provide them with better care and insure that those who are mentally unfit can't access weapons, which is already a law. Take care of these people, give them options other than living in a dark cold world where they feel alone and want to lash out at people. Go after the root of the problem, that which we don't see instead of what we do see.

It's like a weed. You see the plant part of it, but you don't see the root. Pulling out the plant part makes it seem like it goes away, but it will grow back. If you pull it out by the root than you don't have the weed anymore.

also, need to help the disenfranchised. We need to make sure there is no more poverty, so there is no more reason for crime, but instead of doing that, tyler perry makes millions of dollars a year for shitty movies. America needs to get its shit together.

Black people need to get their shit together when it comes to Tyler Perry. But yes, I agree with you about the crime and poverty statement

yeah, the tyler perry thing came to my mind earlier today. it was a random thing i just needed to say.

Norway is one of the most safest, livable and successful countries on Earth.
If basically anyone could get access to guns in Norway, there would be more shootings similar to Brevick's.

So you don't allow mentally unfit people to get a hold of them, and sorry mate, but try sharing a border with Mexico.

And no, people act as though getting guns in the US is easy. But it isn't

Get this; more guns, more shootings.
Guns tend to shoot.
People aren't psychics, and seeding out the lunatics is close to impossible. Some people even have underlying mental conditions that are undetectable until they explode in a mushroom cloud of dead students.
Lessening the access of guns from the potentially mentally disturbed and unpredictable public is what I am talking about. Perhaps an alternative to firearms would be ranged tazers; so no one can possibly get fatally wounded, and people would be able to defend themselves by neutralizing criminals with these tazers.

There are 100 million gun owners in America (legal) that don't shoot people. You act as though a few mentally unfit people going crazy is rational enough to punish law abiding citizens.

People aren't psychics, but what we could do is draw more attention to the real problem; mentally unstable people. That kid in Newton snapped when he found out his mother wanted to send him away. He was unstable and she left them out, unlocked where he could get them. She failed in HER responsibility. But do you think that if that boy had more friends and people who cared for him that he would have done that? Or that they knew the VT shooter was insane and yet took no action? Same with Lockner in Tucson. These are people we know are mentally unwell and yet people have done NOTHING to help them.

Also the FBI reports that 75% of shootings are by repeat offenders, or people we know are criminals. We need to stop being so scared and address the real problem and where it's coming from. Gangs, the Mexican Cartel, criminals are the problem NOT THE CITIZEN. And as Jefferson said, I would rather live in unsafe liberty than safe tyranny.

We have many laws that makes sense now we have to enforce them. It's the apathetic nature of those in charge to take control and address the real problems that are wrong. There were still shootings in Canada, UK, Australia, Norway and several other countries. Switzerland is the second highest civilian population with guns, and yet they have the lowest crime rate.

Tazers aren't that accurate, and yes they provide a safer alternative, but what if you have multiple assailants at the same time? They only focus on one person and one person only. If there are two people then you're shit out of luck

A few mental people= a few more mass murderings.
And you can't expect everyone to be responsible with their firearms.
Helping mentally ill people individually is a completely different issue. Everyone has their own different problems and we can't help everyone. It's too widespread to prevent it.
What we can to, is remove the tools that let them kill people.
Criminals are basically citizens that have broken the law multiple times? And citizens can have mental problems?
From what Jefferson said, how is it tyranny to prevent the access of things that are only used to kill?
Of course you would say there were shootings in Canada, UK, Australia and Norway; but have you realized that these shootings rarely happen or don't happen as often as gun-bearing countries?
When I mentioned tazers, I didn't refer to the ones we have right now. I meant to say that they should be focusing on making weapons that neutralize, instead of fatally wounding people. If someone wants to defend themselves from criminals, they can do so, not by murdering them, but by 'stunning, immobilizing, neutralizing them' through tazering, or some kind of stun gun which people should be researching and manufacturing these weapons, so if these weapons had fallen into the wrong hands, the least the criminals could do is stun people in public, not wound or harm them.

You're not going to completely stop it. There are still shootings in countries with gun control. I talked to a guy from Denmark who says that there are still several shootings in his country every year. Canada has had similar shootings. Maybe not dozens, but still there are shootings.

Helping mentally ill people will help prevent them from wanting to go around killing people, so no it is not a completely different issue at all. Every single one of these people was mentally unstable, and people knew they were mentally unstable and did nothing.
"What we can do is remove the tools that allow them to kill people"
So you mean like knives? Baseball bats? Those kinds of things? Because believe it or not there are multiple ways to kill people. You think that someone like the Newton shooter might not have just grabbed a knife and started killing people with that if he couldn't find a gun? Don't be ridiculous

Guns can be used to kill or defend. In fact 70% of people who are shot AREN'T killed. So guns have a less killing rate than you think. And because he knew that guns were the only means the citizen had to defend himself against a military of a corrupt government.

There are far less mass shooting incidents in Switzerland who is the SECOND highest carriers of guns AND they train their people to use them. Yet they have the lowest crime rate. So no, you are absolutely wrong about that.

So you don't think people can use tazers to kill people? You remark about criminals is untrue. The law abiding citizen is who I was referring to. And you act as though criminals aren't going to get their hands on guns anyways. That's ridiculous

I didn't mean tazers, I said that they should manufacture a weapon much like a tazer, without the fatality. And law abiding citizens are capable of becoming mentally ill; or are already mentally ill, and may express this illness by violently acting out on society.
(Every criminal was a child once, most likely mistreated in their childhood. It's not usually their fault that they were born underprivileged or mentally ill.)

Okay, let me set thing straight; I know we can't completely stop it, that's a no-brainer. But we can make it better than it is.
Again, you have said "there are still shootings in countries with gun control." Guess what? Canada sits right on top of gun-bearing America.
And again, I must repeat- mass shootings occur way less often.
Also, I must say, the mentally ill are difficult to find and treat. Many of them come from the underprivileged areas of society and are hard to reach. There are hundreds of millions people mentally ill. Even people considered sane could have mental breakdowns at any given time.
Knives and bats? Another stupid argument. Have you forgotten my wager to let the public have access to weapons that stun and neutralize danger?
Knives and bats are melee weapons. Just like in games, they are never as effective as weapons and semi-automatic weapons. Guns are ranged, and hurl a chunk of searingly hot, poisonous lead at 896 m/s, which shooters are trained to aim, and pierce through vital organs at a shockingly far distance. Knives and bats far more easier to resist and escape. There are hundreds upon hundreds of instances where an individual manages to fight off a knife or some other melee weapon, escaping with only a few minor wounds; with guns, not so much.
Have you read my argument properly? I've said before that we should be using weapons that stun/immobilize instead of fatally wounding.
"Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world."

We can make it better than it is by helping the mentally unstable people before they snap.

The US has a population of 311 million. Canada is a tenth of that. Texas has a larger population than Australia. NZ is only 5 million. Norway is also 5 million, and sweden is 9 million. The UK is 60 million, and though it's easier for them to guard their borders than for us they still have an incredibly high violent crime rate, the worse in Europe.
Statistically these shootings happen about even everywhere. Canada addresses the mentally unstable better than the US, but guess what? They're still just as bad. And another thing, people aren't trying to smuggle them into Canada.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/18/canada-gun-laws-mass-shootings-semi-automatic_n_2325843.html
ca.news.yahoo.com/guns-notorious-canadian-mass-shootings-still-not-prohib ited-234352117.html

The mentally ill are difficult to find and treat?!? LMFAO THEY KNEW THE NEWTON SHOOTER WAS MENTALLY UNSTABLE! They knew the VT shooter was unstable. The Arora shooter. They knew these people needed help and did NOTHING

Oh and since I'm actually trained both in gun and knife use, there are advantages that knives have over gun. Another stupid argument? Clearly you've done NO research on this at all
www.top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-most-common-murder-weapons
http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/06/the_risk_from_guns.html

Really there are these "instances?" Give me the link.

And so there are millions of gun carrying, well trained military people and Switzerland and they don't have nearly as bad instances with guns as their counterparts? Shocking

Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden, etc. these countries do have a violent crime rate; but this is mostly comprised of the use of melee weapons, in which most cases the victim would come out of hospital alive.
Again, why do you think everyone can see into other people's minds if they were mentally unstable, and all have the time to help them?
You can still agree that a gun can kill much more efficiently than a knife.
(And the Newton gunner had easy access to guns.)
There were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms. And 40 homicides involving firearms, out of the 53 cases of homicide in Switzerland.
I think I make it pretty clear that comparing melee weapons to guns is a bit stupid; considering the statistics.
I don't need to give a link for those "instances" you just need to learn more about how the mind works; and how under certain circumstances, the brain just can't take it and shits on everything. James Holmes, the guy who shot up the cinema in Colorado, he was seen as a perfectly normal guy, but he had a mental breakdown after problems in his life. Other people wouldn't know of his personal problems and couldn't help him. It's not like they could of foreseen him on a killing spree?

Have you forgotten? "There were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms. And 40 homicides involving firearms, out of the 53 cases of homicide in Switzerland. "
Ammo for a weapon? You only need a bullet or two, to pierce through their skull and decimate the brain.
You ignorantly protect the knives despite the death toll on firearms.
If there were no firearms involved in 8,583 of the 12,664 murders in the US, 8,583 people would of been alive today, and only 4082 would've died that year.
Stop strongly protecting barbarianism and death.
You say it is difficult to protect America with its high population? Then why pick on China which has 4x the population of America. IF everyone in China had access to guns, more mass shoots would occur because certain people want to kill and guns tend to kill quite efficiently.
I'll refute the rest tomorrow.

Take a shot to the head with a baseball bat and tell me how you chances of getting out alive are. Or taking a knife to a gut. Knives are in fact DEADLIER than guns. They don't jam, they don't need ammo and they are also more likely to kill you than guns are. People just don't use them as much because guns (like you ignorantly displayed) because guns are believed to be easier

James Holmes?
"Some of Holmes' acquaintances suspected prior to the shooting that Holmes suffered from mental illness and could be dangerous. Two weeks before the shooting, he sent a text message asking a graduate student if they had heard of the disorder dysphoric mania, and warning the student to stay away from him "because I am bad news."'
- "Before Gunfire, Hints of 'Bad News'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 13, 2012.

Yeah the US has more deaths. Welcome to a country that his almost HALF the population of the ENTIRE continent of Europe. And yet the US STILL has a lower statistic of people killed by guns per capita than UK or Canada.

Comparing the two. No it's not. Consider that I ALREADY SENT YOU THE LINK
http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm

Yes, yes people knew that this guy was mentally unfit. The kid in Newton's mother left the guns out, AND SHE KNEW that her own child was mentally unwell. It was her fault that she left them out. And you know that people can STILL mass murder people with knives right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/china.attacks/index.html

China has STRICT gun control and this man still killed more students than VT or in Newton. And actually killed and wounded more people in this one school than the entire Aurora shooting, including MORE DEATHS!

Now you forgot the one reason why they even installed this Amendment. To protect people from the government. Now stop calling any argument stupid when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about

Oh yeah lets just ban all guns in America right this moment.

Please think this through..........

I never said that :)

Why exactly should assault weapons be banned?
Assault rifles okay, but assault weapons?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
for clarification. It's all cosmetic.

Don't ask me, I'm impartial.

Damn faithless impartials...

"Pro-gun people deflect talk about guns by blaming Mortal Kombat"

wait.... what?

Yes, the NRA (Pro gun) usually deflects talks of gun control by trying to point fingers at the media, more specifically, violent videogames. Mortal Kombat is almost always mentioned.

>Gun Control
>points finger at MK
>MK is about fist fighting and magic (yeah, I know, Stryker)

Again: What?

It's because the game is gory. The logic behind it being violent videogames inspire shooters to go nuts. I think it's just as ridiculous as you do. It isn't just people trying to defend guns either. It's also people who just hate videogames.

On days such as these, I don't understand the order of the world...

i can count the rustiling on both hands

Are you sure its Pro-gun people who are bringing up Mortal Kombat? I thought the president was bringing that up in one of those executive orders, or at least violent games in general.

Yes, it's usually the (Pro Gun) who deflect talks of gun control by blaming the media for violence, more specifically, violent videogames. Mortal Kombat is almost always mentioned.

My jimmies have been adequately rustled....

i dont understand...

When something bad happens, people instantly blame obama lately

ah okay makes sense...thumb for the lol

Unfortunately the Founding Fathers didn't see fit to protect our rights to kinder surprises in the Constitution.

:(

Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment are "muskets" mentioned. Only "arms", and last time I checked, "MK-15s" and "high powered assault rifles" are arms.

no, the things attached to my upper torso are arms.

Actually they were protecting your right to protect yourself against a tyrannical government.

I'm pretty sure poutine, which is just gravy on fries isn't illegal
Kinder Surprise was made illegal because a few kids chocked to death on it. It was a stupid law put in place to protect stupid kids. I don't like it, but it doesn't mean chocolate or toys are prohibited
switch blades are legal/illegal depending on states. Also certain lengths, just like certain guns are banned depending on state laws
"The right for the citizen to bear arms shall not be infringed."
-2nd Amendment

"When the government is afraid of its people there is liberty, when people fear their government there is tyranny." - Jefferson

"Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither liberty or security" - Franklin

The right for the citizen to own arms is the right for the citizen to protect themselves from the government if the government should ever turn on them. Like when the revolution started, the first thing the British government wanted to do was take away the weapons so the colonials couldn't fight back. No way to defend yourself.
> America logic. Try common sense logic. Tell that to the 280 MILLION people killed in the last century by their own governments that they shouldn't have had guns

So you literally suggest I would be better off completely defenseless? And seriously you think they're sending in Apache's every time people get upset? Fuck dude that was just stupid

No it wouldn't. But since there are 100 million gun owners in the US and only 3 million people in the armed services (most of whom support the right to bear arms and would disobey any orders that told them to take guns or harm American citizens).

So what's YOUR suggestion? Just leave people completely vulnerable. So a rifle won't work on a helicopter, so what the fuck should I do? Your suggestion in this circumstance would leave me far worse out. I mean seriously did you even think before you replied? I WOULD BE WORSE OFF WITHOUT THE RIFLE!

Texas is 15th for violent crime and 26th for gun violence according to census data. But some of the highest on the lists are states with the least gun regulation.

yes tell us more of your statistics and census. lmao

Only pointing out some relevant statistics.

statistics are all practically irrelevant. they can be too easily swayed by biased people. it's like me saying 50 people died from slipping on a banana in a America last year, how many were accidents and how many were people thinking they were being cute. you don't know and you never will cause I'm not gonna tell you i want you to think banana's are dangerous to leave unattended in your kitchen.

Many statistic collecting organazations are non-biased and only after the truth. Believe me I know they can be wrong and shouldn't be used for as the sole basis and reasoning for something as serious as gun control. But without statistics we have no information to base executive decisions on, the country would be in complete chaos. What I think you're referring to is a biased media feeding you loaded information. But in no way, shape, or form are statistics, especially ones on the national level, irrelevant.

well no matter what statistics are we should not be infringing on Americans rights(gun free zones, bans, etc), I don't care if 99% of Americans voted to abolish the 2nd amendment i wouldn't follow it, this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. votes count on laws that don't pertain to our bill of rights. so in end my final thought is, don't infringe on rights, but make the background check system better without making it the peoples burden for to prove we deserve rights.

I think thats fair, but I would argue the relevancy of the second amendment in todays world.

no argument needed, it was written to stand true through the countries history. founding fathers could not have predicted what sick fucks we would become, and how lax our parenting would be in the future. guns don't need to change, the 2nd amendment needs to stand. people are what have to be looked at, we are what should change.

concealed*

Just a few weeks back there was a shooting at a theater here in Texas. It was stopped by someone with a conceiled handgun. Does the national news play that story or the countless others where responsible gun owners stop what could have been much worse? No :l

I love how you bring up one state. If you look at all states, it's evenly spread. Some states with low gun control have high gun crime and some have low, and states with high gun control are also split between low and high gun crime. Picking one state doesn't prove anything.

Too many convicts?

Give them a country!

most of american cities are pretty safe i can say from experience unlike you. you're taking an isolated incident that has been blown up by the media to justify your ignorance

Australia is listed top ten as most livable country. Actually, one of their cities reached first place as most livable in the world.
> Gun control.

most criminals sent to the colony were violent criminals

Yeah, nah. Most people were small time thieves stealing bread or cheese to feed their families. Most violent criminals would have been hanged.

Oh, really? Because he's right. The other guy is too. Violent criminals were hanged or killed, most convicts were mere thieves and beggars that had to turn to small crimes. Then I think after 7 years of labour and being a convict, they were granted land to do with as they please, that ended with houses being built and towns forming and the construction of a nation.

Im British and i actually agree with you. In your country; fuck not having a gun for protection. I own 3 shotguns however i do have correct licence for all 3. But i would feel safe without the gun in this country. Its just that to may cilvillians in america have guns so banning them wouldn't be the best idea.

"He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin

I realize that you didn't explicitly advocate the removal of guns, but I felt the impulse to reply as such.

I have an AR-15.....ASSAULT ROCK 15 GRAMS!!!!!

I need five because there are 5 men in my family who would fight if the need ever came. and the AR-15 is mainly just for fun.

slap a .308 upper on that AR and see how relevant it becomes

How many shootings have you stopped so far?

You know damn well the government doesn't use logic. It's a weapon of Muslims and black people.

nigga please

I realise what you were trying to do, but Muslims and logic? Really, dude? Actually, for that matter, religion and logic?

It was only a joke.

You know, that nullification of federal law is illegal right?

idk what would be wrong if some guns were banned at least assault rifles and why are you proud do guns really make you that happy because that's weird

P.S. Federal law overturns state law, you should know how your government works because state law doesn't over rule federal law no matter how hard Wyoming tries

exactly, it is not a federal law yet that you cannot have weapons, well atleast certain types, which is why we are making it a law that prevents that from happening which will either stop it or prolong the bill, and yes it makes me happy the 2nd amendment is a right that i feel needs protected like any other, guns are not the problem its people, if you blame death on a gun then you blame obesity on a spoon, its just a tool,
and anything can be used as a weapon.

It doesn't matter if your states law comes before the federal law, once the federal government passes the law it overturns the state law. It's the supremacy clause of the constitution.

Btw, i'm not saying whether or not i agree with your states law, i'm just saying that federal law overrides state law.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - the 2nd amendment, you see the second amendment doesn't refer to just people owning guns its mainly about the militias because it was a different time in our history, but if we are talking about the bill of rights i don't think the authors of it expected people to own assault rifles because they were alive when there wasn't any. so you see it was a different time, if we keep old ideologies we will die out with the ideology

PS i wouldn't blame the spoon on obesity because spoons can have different types of food some healthy some not, but guns have bullets and guns are made to kill things, generally

By militia it doesn't refer to a government military. How can a militia be necessary to the security of a FREE state if it is controlled by the very powers the writers of the Constitution feared would be the THREAT to that free state? If you really want to pick straws here, then we should be forming up state militias with military grade weaponry to prepare for possible govt overthrow.

and the militia is made of a group of citizens, its for the people. Again a weapon is a tool, you can fill the spoon with healthy food all you want but eventually you will choke.

it's funny because nobody lives in wyoming to shoot.

also federal law overrides state law.

see post 308

-Posting as anon
-Thinks people with different beliefs are retarded
-Thinks retardedness is a word

you must be so proud of yourself

Modern Technology does not work on school grounds.

You do know that guns are not modern tech right?

I just realize there is virtually nothing in the process of firing a gun that magic could prevent, except maybe the firing pin being struck successfully.

Why do I have red thumbs then?

Nice Doctor Who gif!

Well actually according to the books Hogwarts was founded in about 990 A.D. and the first firearms weren't invented till about 1100 A.D and even then they were basically cannons you could carry around. So guns today would definitely be considered very modern.

That shit happens here all of the time.
Just that the people here usually use baseball bats, knives or other instruments to kill their families instead of expensive guns.

oh so you change one word and it a better picture?

cool story to the max, bro

"lets NERF the world"- Joe Rogan
i don't mean to be an asshole but almost everyone can get there hands on an object to beat someone to death with. but not everyone can grab their assault rifles and kill 20 people in 1 min.

Also the proportion of how many people own guns to how many people are killed by guns is far greater then the proportion of how many people can beat people to death to how many people die from being beaten to death

It's a little bit easier to kill many people at a time with a gun than with your fists.

More people are killed in car accidents as well. And by cancer. And by heart disease. The argument that other things kill people more is a pointless one. Gun deaths still contribute to the overall total and that is what people are talking about. Your argument is like saying "We shouldn't try to cure AIDS because cancer kills more people."

no its not. more people are murdered by hands. and more people are stabbed to death than killed by rifles. that's looking at the facts with what weapon people choose to kill with. i'm comparing a weapon and a weapon. not saying to ban anything pointy...or hands... just saying that assault rifles aren't the problem.

They are A problem in a group of problems. A solution is being proposed to eliminate just one of the things that is killing people. It doesn't matter if it's the cause of the most deaths or the least, it's still a cause of deaths and therefore a cause for concern.

give the video a shot(pun maybe intended) because instead of looking at the tool(the gun) look at the problem areas and people an dhow to adjust correctly www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&list=FL04nkMMn2Giq7cjQR1O1DPg&index=4

i really do think it is pointless to compare countries. too many factors are different. but the main thing for me in the video, is the fact that we CAN boil it down to the problem areas and figure out how to adjust those areas properly. and like the statistics show. not violent crimes, but murders by firearms, "assault" rifles were only 3.5% of the cause.

Everyone has hands. Almost everyone has a knife of some kind. A small fraction of the population actually own assault rifles. (hint its not legal to own a true assault rifle so those people are criminals). Because of the presidency of frequency of use and distribution that data isn't even close to statistically viable.

You can legally own true assault rifles, they just have to be registered with the ATF. Plus they're hella expensive since they were barred from production in 1986.

True I really don't know what to possessed me to type that. I think my brain combined the no machine guns law and the partial ban on assault rifles that was from 1994-2004.

"We shouldn't try to cure AIDS because cancer kills more people."

That statement actually has merit to it. No institution has unlimited resources so attempting to tackle the larger problem and setting the other aside until more resources are available would be a wise decision. Especially when the institution has very limited resources.

I care deeply about the lives of others, however, past weapon bans have been shown to be extremely ineffective. Look at England, for example - after their gun ban, gun crime went down, but overall violent crime shot up. Look at them now, citizens aren't allowed to carry knives with blades more than 3" (or 7.62 cm for any non-empiricalists) unless you can back it up with a specific reason.

From what I've been able to find it looks like you're wrong. Violent crime seems to have increased exponentially, from 97 to 09 it's shot up 77%. So yeah that statement about violent crime dropping consistently in the UK doesn't seem too accurate.

Please cite your sources when making a claim like that. The official British Crime Survey states that overall violent crimes in Britain (Referring to England and Wales) is down 47 percent since it's peek in 1995, which seems to have a direct correlation to the Firearms (Amendment) Acts of 1997. The BCS has been critisized for it's capping off of a 5 crime limit committed on one person, but that is mostly expected to skew domestic violence and not other violent crimes.