Topic: American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Guns (Read 462 times)

Alright, I agree with you on that (see? ). We better cool down, or we're both gonna get kicked out. This is not helpful.
We both tried to prove our points, and we both failed. I'm not gonna reply to your post, cause it's too long. I'll just post a few articles I think can illustrate mine:

From the "Heritage Foundation" (an American Republican think tank, meant to help policymakers:

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The "Index of Economic Freedom" rankings for 2021. 2022 numbers aren't in yet. In here, the top ten countries in the world are: Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Ireland, Taiwan, UK, Estonia, Canada and Denmark. The US is #20.

US News, "Best Countries in the World":

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-rankings

#1 Canada, #2 Japan, #3 Germany, #4 Switzerland, #5 Australia, #6 US.

World Population Review. Countries with the highest human development index:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/best-countries-to-live-in

#1Norway, #2 Ireland, #3 Switzerland, #4 Iceland, #5 Hong Kong, #6 Germany, #7 Sweden, #8 Netherlands, #9 Australia, #10 Denmark. #17 US.

And I could go on and on. All those surveys are originated in the US. It doesn't matter, and it's not the purpose of my posts anyway. I lived in the US, and loved it. It may not be the best country in the world, but it's a great country indeed, definitely much better than mine.

The whole "second amendment" thing is not about people's rights, and it's definitely not about freedom. It's (like most everything in the world) about money. The US is the biggest market for firearms in the world, and the NRA is one of the biggest lobbies in Washington, and all  they care about is their bottom line. That's why they politicized the issued, and that's why they oppose (and will keep opposing) any gun related law, ever.
It doesn't matter anyway. Sooner or later, firearms WILL get regulated. What's sad is all the people that are gonna have to die before that happens.

Either way, to answer your question: I'm into cryptocurrency because I've been unemployed since April 2020, and (despite actively hunting for jobs daily) I've been unable to get one. One of the biggest problems my country has is a very high unemployment rate, and, honestly, I'm sick of it.

In any case, I accept your apology, and let me extend you mine. We were both out of line. If you want to come to my country, I'll be happy to welcome you. Give me a few months so I can get back on my feet. In any case, the COVID lockdown is not as harsh as last year, but it's still in effect.
Just don't expect it to be nearly as pretty as the US is...

Oh, I forgot. Sorry. Merry Christmas (or Xmas, as it says on a thread I've been evading lately) to you too, and to everybody.

I might slightly agree with you here two years ago before the COVID lockdowns. Now you have to say for 14 days at hotel if you travel outside of Canada. So I would not say that all of Canada is free the same could be said of the US presently too but at least we have important fragments of our constitution left and they aren't moving as fast against the people as whole as Trudeau has.

Mandatory hotel quarantine measures for travelers to come into effect Feb. 22

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/mandatory-hotel-quarantine-measures-for-travellers-to-come-into-effect-feb-22-1.5306556


Trudeau is certainly popular:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/yLJjGBg0HI5n/

CANADA GOING TYRANNICAL! 2ND "TOTAL" LOCKDOWN; ISOLATION CAMPS FOR "REFUSERS"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Y5GqWOOPOtHs/


UN Trucks seen between Canada and US

Once they're done with North America they move down South to take you out too:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/MWDBuX6Ps2qv/



Again same thing above as I said about Canada in this post. At one point these countries may have had differing or better liberties in select areas but not anymore due COVID restrictions. In fact, Australia has devolved into a prison colony again due to the measures:


Australian Politician Quarantine camps

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RS2P1VWO4gfF/

HIDDEN CAMERA FOOTAGE OF FORCED INTERNMENT CAMPS IN AUSTRALIA

https://www.bitchute.com/video/5XgbAmMnTAvi/

THIS IS THE GOLD STANDARD OF QUARENTINE... | AUSTRALIA RIGHT NOW - "SEND HELP"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/laav0RBKLilD/


The UK/Britain isn't much better:


THE NEW UK PRISON-QUARANTINE CAMPS

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4LdqYhV8JVxo/

HEATHROW AIRPORT QUARANTINE HOTEL (UK FEMA CAMP)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/7HK5pqE3xkUj/


Nor the US but at least I can have my guns that the media and liberal politicians don't want me to have:

DEATHLY QUARANTINE CAMPS UK/AUS/CAN/USA

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RbDrVH2ca85N/

CORONALERT!! FEDS TO BRING INFECTED PEOPLE TO ALABAMA FEMA (CAMP)...UH.. FACILITY

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bN3UsCf0bA0/


I said that already that the Military Junta helped kick them out in the early 1800s and back then you could get by on just melee weapons.



So why are you into Crypto again? And why are you on this forum? I'm in it because it is a hedge against inflation and I can make profits trading and such 24-7 with no shutdowns where the big bankers can make back room deals.


I'll private message a bit after I'm done sending this post you but you need to define "prove it"?



Is this what you mean by "prove it" that something befell you or your friends/family concerning firearms?



No I was too lazy earlier to find this post but are you also Shogun?



I could not agree more. Take Venezuela as an example. They thought Socialism was the cure to the ails they had in the country's economic equality then when the government took control of all industries they collapsed as they lost the capitalists that ran these major industries better than the government could. 

I'm done calling you names and insulting you but this seems to be a topic that has ignited both of us as individuals. I apologize for this as it probably hurt my point I was trying to make to you about tyranny and why I think they US needs guns. It is easier to kill people than control them now you realize this right? You could have argued that even with a second amendment the government typically has better weapons to genocide their own people, right? But yet they still fear our voice (most of all) and our ability to use firearms responsibly as a people in our own self-defense.

Either way you won't change my mind nor will I seem to change yours but have a Merry Christmas or a Happy Holiday if you don't celebrate that.

And again, you stepped on your own BS and (unwillingly, I bet) let us know about your real motives. So it's all about "having the last word" for you...
By the way, I didn't misquote you. In fact, I didn't quote you at all. Maybe you should learn your own language, before trying to use someone else's.


Ha ha, the United States ("America" is a continent) is FAR from the freest country anywhere, let alone the whole Earth. Maybe you should stop staring at your belly button for just a second, and realize there are other countries out there. In fact, you don't even have to look far: take a good look at Canada, you're bound to learn a thing or two. No guarantees you'd like what you learn though.


Yeah, and you're a clear example of the "good education" some Americans have.
But let's talk about my country. We've had, since the 1920's (that is, BEFORE WWII, for you, self proclaimed history buff), many military governments. And do you know what all those governments have in common? WE KICKED THEM ALL OUT, NO WEAPONS NEEDED. How does that feel for YOU? Maybe you should concentrate more on growing a pair, so you can keep your own government in check.
And yeah, our current VP is much more corrupt than you could ever imagine. How does that prove your point?
And BTW, inflation as of late (say, the last 30 years or so), has been pretty mild compared to historical records, so there go your "BTC and crypto" theory.
And just for the record: it doesn't feel like anything to have somebody without a clue talking about my country. It's actually kinda funny to read your ignorant BS about it. But you keep calling me names... while hiding behind a keyboard, half a world away. I renew my invitation to come say it to my face, if you can ever find a pair of balls to go with your mouth. I guess that clearly proves my point about you  being a pussy, doesn't it?


So you keep saying, and you keep running your mouth... from afar. But I still don't see you coming here to prove it. I can't go back to the US (if I wanted), otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, with or without guns.
So you need guns to control the British King, don't you? You should've called us, we kicked them out TWICE (in 1806 and 1807) without guns. And, in fact, if you had a brain you could learn from the British, Canadians, Australians, and other countries that have managed to become some of the BEST COUNTRIES ON EARTH, while under their rule.
Incidentally, I was born in Argentina, and lived in the US for almost 13 years, and yeah, I've seen first hand, MANY TIMES, UNFORTUNATELY, the real power of your second amendment.

So, what the hell are you arguing about? The "poster above" talking about keeping guns off the hands of lunatics was ME! The problem with your "system" is that, once the damage is done, IT'S DONE, you can't take it back.
BTW, yeah, English is my second language, but I can read it and write it just fine. In fact, if you had just ONE working brain cell, you might realize I've been replying to you in English from the start. But then again, that may be a bit too complicated for you, isn't it?

You summoned me? Aww and I was going to let you have the last word but you just had to bring up my username and misquote me. I'm trying to enlighten you as to how America has remained the freest country on Earth and a model for modern westernized government(pre-COVID???). I see you removed what you said about your country's "constitution" being a carbon copy of the United States. That is certainly partially true as your leaders took out what rights that they did not want you to have so they can control you better.

So you've been going on and on about how you know so much better than native born Americans  that have a good education of their bill of rights and constitution. I've decided to talk about your country to see how that feels for you. Argentina has been under so many military Juntas between WWII to the 1980s that I bet if the people had guns that would have only lasted between 5-10 years instead. Inflation of your local fiat currency has been rough pre-COVID, I've read and perhaps this is why you are into BTC and crypto in general (perhaps this is where we agree upon?). Your current VP is just as corrupt as our former VP now president Biden is. So how does it feel to have someone outside your country talk a bit down on it like they know something better about it? Doesn't feel too good does it punk?

As for my second amendment, I don't need it if I'm going one on one with you (fair fight/dual). I need it for the potential of an out of control government that was initially the British King and in your context General Arturo Rawson/Peron or hell even further back the King of Spain's viceroy. I guess it doesn't have any meaning to you besides what the hyped up media tell you to feel and because you were born in Argentina so you know not of the power of the second amendment. I agree with the poster above about mental health being an issue with firearms and who should be able to hold them and agree with locking them up from a minor or those that would do unjust harm instead of using them for self-defense. You just don't get it or don't want to get it. I think it is you that cannot read English as it seems to be your second language so I'll post this in Spanish as well so you can read it.  



¿Me convocaste? Aww e iba a dejar que tuvieras la última palabra, pero solo tenías que abrir mi nombre de usuario y citarme mal. Estoy tratando de iluminarlos sobre cómo Estados Unidos se ha mantenido como el país más libre de la Tierra y un modelo para el gobierno occidentalizado moderno (¿pre-COVID ). Veo que eliminó lo que dijo acerca de que la "constitución" de su país es una copia al carbón de los Estados Unidos. Eso es ciertamente parcialmente cierto, ya que sus líderes eliminaron los derechos que no querían que usted tuviera para poder controlarlo mejor.

Así que ha estado hablando y hablando sobre cómo sabe mucho mejor que los estadounidenses nativos que tienen una buena educación sobre su declaración de derechos y constitución. Decidí hablar sobre tu país para ver cómo te sientes. Argentina ha estado bajo tantas Juntas militares entre la Segunda Guerra Mundial y la década de 1980 que apuesto a que si la gente tuviera armas que solo habrían durado entre 5 y 10 años. La inflación de su moneda fiduciaria local ha sido aproximada antes de COVID, lo he leído y quizás es por eso que está en BTC y las criptomonedas en general (¿quizás aquí es donde estamos de acuerdo?). Su actual vicepresidente es tan corrupto como nuestro ex vicepresidente ahora presidente Biden. Entonces, ¿cómo se siente tener a alguien fuera de su país hablando un poco como si supiera algo mejor al respecto? No se siente muy bien, ¿verdad punk?

En cuanto a mi segunda enmienda, no la necesito si voy uno a uno contigo (pelea justa / dual). Lo necesito por el potencial de un gobierno fuera de control que fue inicialmente el rey británico y en su contexto el general Arturo Rawson / Perón o el infierno aún más atrás, el virrey del rey de España. Supongo que no tiene ningún significado para ti, además de lo que los medios publicitados te dicen que sientas y porque naciste en Argentina, así que no conoces el poder de la segunda enmienda. Estoy de acuerdo con el cartel de arriba acerca de que la salud mental es un problema con las armas de fuego y quién debería poder sostenerlas y estoy de acuerdo con encerrarlas a menores o aquellos que harían un daño injusto en lugar de usarlas en defensa propia. Simplemente no lo entiendes o no quieres obtenerlo. Si no puede leer esto, lea entre líneas lo que perciba en inglés.

And THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM...!
Why don't we go a step further, and say you're unwilling to forfeit your rights to make a quick buck just because somebody may die because of it?
Isn't that what drug dealers say? At least they're more honest...
But how about forfeiting some lunatic's right to slaughter a room full of kids, just so you can make that quick buck. Are you willing to forfeit that?
I mean, as far as I know, the move was always to limit gun ownership to those that are qualified for it. Aren't you?

But, hey, in his endless ranting, cmg777 actually did say something useful (I'm sure it was completely unintended, though): your kind are "unwilling to forfeit your rights" because you're pussies. You're terrified at the sole idea of having to face another human being without having the perceived advantage of a weapon strapped to your body. 

I'm unwilling to forefit my rights because of what I'm capable of doing. And no matter what you do, guns will remain on the street. You just wish to create a world where armed criminals are more certain that their potential victims are unarmed – or, alternatively, one where the police state is so vast that the government can stop its citizens from owning an object that weighs less than one pound. A tall order for an organization that can't even keep black tar heroin out of maximum security prisons.

Probably would have been less of a problem if the common people could have defended themselves better.  Probably in that case the CIA and their 'School of The Americas' guys would have chosen different methods, and the methods may not have resulted in the abuse of the populations than were ultimately realized.  Or not.  Hard to know.

cmg777: as usual, I won't reply to your rants. But there are a few points I wish to clear up (learning to read could help).

I never said a word (or inferred) about leaving on January 6^th.. I don't really know what led you to believe that.
I don't kiss up to anybody. Not to liberals, nor republicans, nor any politician of any political party anywhere in the world. I simply stay away from politics, and (unlike you) don't let anybody tell me what to think.
And just to make it very clear: liberals didn't kick me out, Americans did.

Don't worry about "my mandate". I never thought for a second you'd be man enough to put your money where your mouth is.

I was never a US citizen.

13 years, and I know plenty about your constitution, as mine is a carbon copy of it.

Jair Bolsonaro. And there's no need to rig any election against him. Very much like your beloved former president Turd, he is his own worst enemy.

Maybe you should pick up a history book or two. Total tyranny already happened in Latin America. Many times, actually.

Well said and there is this documentary about a guy (or I think he posted that video on Facebook) who got constantly bullied in school. One day he drives home with a bus and three guys from his school follow him to his house, keep bullying him. He goes into his own house at the age of 11 or so, tries to get the gun of his father in order to shoot the three guys. He can't open the cupboard where the gun is locked. Minutes later he cools down and the three guys in front of his house are gone. The quintessence is as he himself says: if the cupboard had been open back at the time, the availability of that gun would have turned him into a murderer on that day at the age of 11. Today he has a happy life and will never forget the situation he was emotionally in back then and what his life would have turned into if on that day the cupboard wasn't locked. Availability is an issue when it comes weapons, regardless of the circumstances. It can always turn into a bad situation, much worse than if nobody around in a certain situation had a single gun.

I thought you were inferring that you left after January 6th but seems you've been gone from this country a long time and are already out of touch. I just can't believe you still kiss up to the liberals that kicked you out of here, talk about Stockholm syndrome. So I'm redacting coward because you didn't leave voluntarily but you're still SMUG with your persona. You can hold your breath by following your mask mandate bullshit 15000 miles away.... So you've been gone 8 long years you should have nothing to say about Trump and Biden as you are no longer a citizen here. You only lived here 10 years and learned nothing about our constitution. The US was free before Central and South American nations broke free from Spanish imperial rule. The Japanese never wanted to invade the US because every citizen would be like a blade of grass to them as they all had guns. Flash forward to today and China may as well have a beachhead on the whole west coast states as they're all against guns there and their politicians would welcome a Chinese invasion. Bottom line I'm trying to tell you is: if the US loses or redacts the second amendment then what will happen the US will get taken over by the UN and those that want a one world government. If they can't rig the election against Bolsonairo they'll pull some COVID shit and say that he represents some bullshit danger and kick him from office and then they'll start to implement their total tyranny in South America and the world and you'll do nothing and you'll own nothing but you'll be HAPPY .

Wow, I wouldn't even try to answer to all the drivel you just spewed. Incidentally, I did notice you were very careful NOT to answer anything I said.
But there are a few things I will answer:

I left the US on March 27^th., 2013. OBAMA kicked me off, not Turd.
As an American you need your guns to make you feel like a man, because without them you're nothing. It's not about protection from oppression: the french revolution happened with farm implements. If you had the BALLS to face life like a man, you wouldn't need any piece of equipment to make you feel like one.
But I'm a "coward", right? I mean, being you don't have the balls to say it straight, even when you're hiding behind a keyboard, I will. I'd actually LOVE for you to come and say it right to my face. Then again, considering you don't even have the courage to say it when you're over 15000 miles away, I'm not holding my breath. Then again, if at some point you happen to come across a pair of balls you can use, the invite is standing.
See the real beauty of America? What, little girls enslaved and molested by their fathers? No thank you, the "land of the inbred" is not for me. At least in the cities there's still some semblance of law and order.

By the way, you can reply to me all you want. Come and talk to me face to face, "man". I can't go back to the US, or I'd be boarding a plane right now, but unlike your country, mine welcomes everybody, so you can come here.
But you can't carry a weapon here. I doubt you'd feel safe without one, considering "some bad man can hurt you".

Buy a shotgun
https://youtu.be/F-mztxHgYQo?t=22

When did you leave America? Was it on January 6th? Shouldn't it be Biden utopia and you'd want to stay? You can see and so can I. As an American I need my second amendment right to defend myself against the technocratic corporate government that is about to enslave the whole world. It doesn't matter what race you are they want you DEAD. Did you read the Georgia guidestones? Now that is racism against the whole human race how do you expect that 500 Million people on earth number to happen huh? You to die that is what! This isn't about Trump, Biden but about liberty and the tree wants to be watered in the blood of patriots, cowards and traitors alike. I'd say you are in the middle category but I give you this you see what is coming but you can't avoid it unless you buy an island or move to somewhere so remote they can't track you. They'll just move you to the cities like Peru did to their people. You seem to like the big cities bitching about the whole country yet never got away from the big smug cities to see the real beauty of America. Well hope you are happy because you'll see that you are like the priest that did nothing in WWII:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pretty soon you'll turn into Australia where they have COVID detention centers where the government can just take you away because guess why? You have no weapons to defend yourself so what does it matter right? The police will protect you more like those in power... The military will protect you same thing. Bashing Trump for social credit will get you nowhere. I wonder if he was just the good cop in this whole madness that is present day. He gave the US 3 good years then turned his back on all of us so fuck him!!! And fuck Biden too because he is corrupt as fuck probably just as much if not more than your politicians down there so I see why you fled but you can't escape this engineered storm by the corporate elite no one can. You can only fight back to expose it.

Mental issues, law abiding citizens or not, having weapons of war, be it heavy or light on the streets is no way of being safe or maintaining law and order. Even a police man with a gun, aside from the danger and fear he or she posses, there is also the danger of someone snatching it and committing some vice with it. Though you might be sane, there is no telling yo what your emotions in times of anger can drive you to and the damage that can be caused in few minutes of anger. People change, even a law abiding citizen or the mentally stable individuals. Guns on the street, isn't safety!

Not at all. I'd rather live in a country where my kids have a chance to survive a school day.
I'd rather live in a country where my countrymen care more about life than about their toys or their political agenda, or  their bank account.
I lived in the US for almost 13 years, mostly in Miami, but also in Orlando (Fl), Jacksonville (Fl), Charlotte (NC) and Fairfax (Va), and loved, pretty much, every minute.
Ever since, HATE happened. I'm not gonna say I didn't find any racists while I was living there.
I did find a few.
But fortunately they were VERY FEW, and seemed to be unarmed. Most of them were dealt with peacefully, by means of a less than nice reply or two, with a small few calling for more physical methods, and a couple needing me to get really serious about it, one with a small folding knife and the other one with a machete.
Luckily enough, neither of them were armed, or at least neither felt the need to use their arms.
That was in the UNITED States of America.
Today, in the DIVIDED States of America, where people invade the Congress because their "man" lost an election, I would've probably have to be armed myself, and would've probably have to have used my weapon more than once.
Now, that may not seem important to you, but it's unacceptable to me.

It sounds funny when the government nuture people that might eventually get vexed for a reason not too meaningful only to get into his closet and come out with a rifle, shoots at you and claims that "it was just outta provocation'' 
 What's the main motive of legalising firearms to the citizens?
Yeah, I know you will say it is best for self defense but in a we'll secured country like America with sophisticated weaponry, why would they be lead into a huge insurgency that's beyond control?
 These is just an indirect way of being dumb seriously.
The disadvantages are much more risky than the advantages if it even has one ..........
Trojane ❣️

It sounds as though you'd rather live in a country where only the government and the criminals are armed. Fortunately, you are perfectly within your rights to live that way.

Yeah, sure. For the average human being, a gun is a firearm from the very moment it gets off the factory. Maybe you should look up "firearm" in a dictionary, to clear out your doubts.

The FACT that you'd get arrested immediately upon the authorities even suspecting you own a bomb or any illegal firearm (including, but by no means limited to the ones I mentioned above, and you carefully avoided), clearly shows you're nowhere near as free as you think you are. The FACT that you need to keep it under wraps only strengthens my point.

But if you wanna talk about freedom (or lack thereof), let me tell you a bit about it: I actually MADE explosives at home when I was 14. Nothing much, just black powder and nitrocellulose. and I almost killed my dad (and set the house on fire) with the nitrocellulose. Yet the cops didn't show at my doorstep, even when I bought both the nitric and sulfuric acids at a pharmacy, and there was a non-negligible amount of red smoke (and a very rank, irritating smell with it) coming from my house. Try that in the US.

By the way: you can keep avoiding the subject all you want. The good thing about this thread is, if ONE person with a brain reads it, there's gonna be one more person using that brain to try and talk some sense to the rest of you. If not, nothing bad can  ever happen that hasn't happened already.

Gyfts: they don't perform eyesight, hearing, psychological and drugs tests for the driving license in the US?
BTW: a few "incidents"? Really?
I guess 9/11 would be an "incident" for you then, wouldn't it? Or maybe not, because the aggressors were not Americans?
When you drive a car you assume risks. So you do when you breathe. LIFE is dangerous. But there's a tiny bit of a difference between risking for something to go wrong and getting into a room full of people, armed to the teeth, and opening fire on them just because you can. I don't see how some bozo slaughtering kids in a school can be called an "incident", or compared at all with something that happens beyond your control.

What medical test? They take your blood or something just to get a drivers license and register all your biometrics? Surprised California hasn't tried to do that with gun owners yet.

To an extent, when driving, you also incur the risk of death to no fault of your own. You incur the risk of getting killed by some moron that drives like they're blind too. But, there is no call to ban vehicles when thousands either die or get severely injured by cars, it just happens to be a side effect of driving. And so in a country with hundreds of millions of guns, you'd expect a few violent incidents.

^^^ You don't have clue as to what you are talking about. For the average human being, a gun isn't a firearm if he owns it and does no harm or damage with it. It's his private property.

Nobody knows about the bomb in the basement until he tells people. It's only when he starts telling folks in public terms that it becomes a bomb. Other than that, it's only his private property.

You're missing a whole lot of what freedom is about, and most of the people who are brought to court for firearms do as well. Only when they let themselves be pushed into being the person on the indictment do they lose their high status of man or woman... except if they have done harm or damage with their property.

BADEcker: oh, absolutely! let me elaborate your points above:

1. An atom bomb is also private property, and people are not allowed to own one. Same with a brick of cocaine, or heroin, or crystal meth. But let's go back to firearms: a Barrett .50 BMG is also private property, yet people in the US are not allowed to own one. Same with an m-134 mini gun, or an m-61 Vulcan, or a GAU-8. I'd say your "private property" theory is full of bullet holes.

2. Are they? I seem to remember an episode (several, actually, albeit this one was the biggest one), when people rose against the government and were unceremoniously massacred. Google "American Civil War", if you don't know what I'm talking about. or you can also search for "May Day Riots", or the Davidian sect. I don't remember any FBI agents turning against the government then...

Not everybody who owns a gun practices with it. In fact, you'd be surprised to learn how many don't even know how to load one. And no, again, the numbers are a clear indicator of the huge number of gun owners that don't have a clue how to handle them.
In any case, that's beside the point. The argument is about people that are NOT QUALIFIED TO OWN OR BEAR A FIREARM, not about those that don't practice with them.

Again,  your statements only show you don't have a clue what you're talking about. There are a lot of countries in the world in which people have a better quality of life (including a lot more freedom) than the US. In fact, if you take the time to google it, you will see a LOT of statistics about it (most of them originated in the US, curiously), and in NONE OF THEM is the US the best (or even between the top 5) country to live in.
What's painful to see is not the "freedom" owning guns afford you, but the fact (which keeps being carefully ignored by your crowd), that Americans care so little about their countrymen's lives. It's YOUR KIDS that keep being slaughtered, and you don't give a damn.

The point of guns isn't guns. It's two other things, at least in the US:
1. That the people can own private property. And since this property includes guns that are dangerous, the people can own very powerful private property. This = freedom;
2. That the people are the government. When the people rise up righteously with their guns in a big way against the "government," even the military will turn to help them.

People who take the time to practice a little with their guns that they own, absolutely DO understand the risks of being free. They understand the risk that someone might use his gun incorrectly on them. And they understand that this is part of the greater good for remaining free.

The cowards who don't want people to have guns should move out of the USA. They could try China, or maybe Afghanistan. Because it's the guns of freedom of the gun-owners that is giving them the luxury of being free without guns.

In fact, it is the gun freedom of America that is keeping the world free. How? Because governments of the world see freedom in America because of guns, and don't oppress their own people any more than so much... for fear that their people will see American freedom, and revolt with guns. The French people are on the border of doing this in some ways. Just push them a little too hard, and they'll get fed up and find some guns somewhere.

In fact, I do. I'm not a US citizen, but I lived in the US for almost 13 years.
The problem is most criminals and lunatics do not have a criminal record, and no test is performed to ascertain if they're actually qualified to own firearms. In that way, it's A LOT less restrictive than a drivers license.


That's the law in your state. But in most US states it's not like that. And  all tweakers are dangerous, and most of them don't have a record. In any case, I mentioned tweakers as an example of people that should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm, but they're not the only example, by any means.


Not in any country. In Argentina you can buy "hot" firearms from the cops.
The difference you keep carefully avoiding is that those which, for any reason, get a "hot" gun in a country where gun ownership and carry is restricted, are automatically risking to be arrested  because of it, while in the US they wouldn't get a second look. In fact, they even risk getting arrested if they bought their gun legally, and are carrying it without a permit.  


No, I wouldn't. To get a driver's license you need to go through medical exams (which incidentally you don't need to get a gun in the  US), and there are laws against "driving under the influence" or "driving while intoxicated". So while driving you're always assuming the risk to get pulled over, especially if you're driving erratically, while that doesn't happen if you're carrying.

BTW, I'm not anti gun. In fact, I used to own one until not long ago.
What I am is anti BS, and, like you said, anti mindless brainwashing. You (and anybody else) can keep avoiding the data for as long as you want, but that doesn't change the facts that have already been stated to death in this thread.
What is upsetting is that non Americans, and people living outside the US actually care more about the lives of your own people than you do.

It's much easier to kill a bunch of people with a car, but it isn't so easy to assassinate just one person covertly and get away with it. For that you need a gun.

How many 25-year sleepers are in Trump's group, but are complete Dems? How about in Biden's, who are Reps? How many of these sleepers have access to guns and their leader at the same time.?

Sounds like you don't know much about the U.S. or it's gun laws.  I'm a U.S. citizen with a dozen guns as is common in my area of rural West coast.  Just like everyone else I've had to pass background checks to buy the guns I have other than some old rifles I got from deceased family members.  If one has a criminal record, it comes up on the background check and the seller won't sell.  In this way it is more restricted then a driver's license.

In my U.S. state, and many others, it is a constitutional right to own a gun if one has no criminal record (and only a tiny fraction of 'dangerous tweakers' are in this category) and carry it, but it is NOT a right to conceal.  Therefore you do see people doing open carry, but it's not very common except during hunting season.  One has to jump through more hoops to conceal.  I actually think it would be good policy to ensure that a person buying a gun understands the conditions under which it can be used via a checklist or something, but it's not really that big a problem.

If I had a criminal record and wanted a gun, I'd to what criminals in any country do: buy one on the street.  Where I'm at now it is fairly easy to get homemade guns, though I've got the money to buy real ones.  Again, here in a non-US country there is no problem getting a gun if one has a clean record, and if there is some reason, a concealed carry is not problem.  What is great about my current English speaking SE Asian locale is that if someone has hopped over your fence in the middle of the night and they get shot, they are definitely in the wrong and things don't even go to court.  They can be killed or crippled at one's discretion whereas in the U.S. with their idiotic policies of coddling the criminals it's probably less hassle to shoot to kill.

BTW, would you say that 'any tweaker can drive around in a car, and the law itself protects him, right until the moment right up until he decides to tip the steering wheel a few degrees and kill someone'?  It's a lot more common and a lot easier to kill someone with a car than it is with a gun.  Seems to me that there is something deeper going on with guns than most anti-gun people want to talk about.  For many it's probably mindless brainwashing and political tribalism, but for others who are sophisticated enough to have an agenda that they understand, it seems to go deeper.

Oh, I do understand that concept very well. I also understand a few other concepts as well:

1. There's a big difference between "having" a gun, and "using" a gun.
2. In a country where almost anybody can "own and bear arms", so do most criminals, or criminal wannabes.
3. In a country that forbids guns, anybody who owns a gun is automatically a criminal. In the best of cases, that puts guns off the hands of the most violent members of society, or at least gives the police more tools to do their job.
4. There are over 180 countries in the world (yeah, big surprise: the US is not the only one) in which guns are either forbidden or otherwise regulated, and the US keep ranking higher in homicides and other crimes than most of them. Like it or not, numbers don't lie.

Now you're making drama. No country in the world (that I know of) denies its citizens the right to self protection. The difference is that in the US any tweaker can walk around armed to the teeth, and the law itself protects him, right until the moment he starts killing people.
Then again, nobody is talking about banning guns. Even most US states today only allow for concealed carry (which shows a lot more concern about "form" than "substance"). What some people are asking is that gun ownership be allowed for qualified individuals, pretty much the same as car driving. So far, despite all the drama and the cheap rhetoric, I haven't seen one valid argument against that.

The dude said 'has a chance'.  I guess you don't really understand the concept of 'a chance', not to mention how there is a difference between having a means of self-protection vs. having the right to have a means of self-protection.

With no right to self-protection it will be open-season on people who are suddenly known for sure to be victimizable.  Blood-bath.  But for a significant fraction of the people who want gun control, a blood-bath is not a bug; it's a feature.  It's a means of 'transfer of wealth', and helps with the problem of too many people who are hurting the earth.  Mainly the gun control people are state who understand (correctly) that without self-protection, the peeps will be driven into the waiting arms of the state for protection.

Of course. That's why in the US there are NO CASES of rape, muggings or homicides, especially of girls and the elderly.
Sorry, you can use all the rhetoric you want, but reality doesn't help you.

The agenda of the one-worlders is to get rid of guns so that people can be controlled easier. So, they provoke gun deaths in countries that have lots of gun freedom, just to make it look bad for them regarding their guns.


A 250-pound muscle-man can easily mug, rape, and murder a 90-pound teen or granny. But if the 90-pounder has a gun, she has a chance... even if the 250-pounder has a gun as well.

Oh, no! Not at all. You should, however, obediently trust all the BS the NRA and breitbart choose to feed you, god forbid anybody would actually think you may have a brain, after all.
But, BTW, is that the best you can do? there are about 180 countries in the world, and all you can do is come up with 3 totalitarian countries (2 of them lead by fanatics) to prove your point?
Here. I'll provide you a list of countries where guns are forbidden or otherwise regulated. Take your pick: Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Germany, Finland, UK, Poland, Czech Republic, Japan, Greenland, Ireland, France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Portugal, Uruguay, Turkey, Ecuador, Argentina, and a LOOOOONG list of countries. You're welcome.



Sorry, I don't do conspiracy BS. If you have any proof whatsoever to substantiate your claims, show it. Otherwise, be as responsible as you claim to be, and stay silent.
In any case, it doesn't make a difference who provided the rifle. The fact that the law ALLOWED a lunatic to possess a rifle provided by anybody is the real problem here. Following your same line of thought, if a cop sees somebody carrying a rifle in one of the countries where they're regulated, it'd be his prerogative, and in fact HIS DUTY, to inquire about the legality of his situation, and eventually make an arrest. Meaning, in case you keep choosing to ignore reality, that Kennedy would probably have SURVIVED that day (your "deep state" BS notwithstanding).
By the way, YOUR PRESIDENT was killed in a country where everybody is "allowed to defend themselves". What happened? Didn't he have a right to "own and bear arms"? Why couldn't he "defend himself"?



Again, is that the best you can do? Show us ONE country, out of the list I provided above, that's being run by a tyrant. Just one.

Here's a bit of a statistic for you: Today, out of about 180 countries in the planet, there are TWO (Yemen and the US) that allow unrestricted access to firearms to their citizens. Yemen is in the middle of a civil war, and the US has the HIGHEST RATES OF FIREARM RELATED MURDERS OF ANY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, by more than 3 times (in the case of homicides) and almost twice (in the case of suicides), to Finland, that's in second place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

By the way, my source is Wikipedia. Not as reliable as breitbart, I know, but I do what I can...

This is a silly argument. You are allowed to have a mullet and wear skinny jeans in the US. Mullets and jeans are your only protection, they are the only things keeping the government from your door...
because in North Korea people CAN'T HAVE A MULLET OR WEAR SKINNY JEANS.

Wow I didn't know that I should just obediently trust that the government and all big corporations will be benevolent to me always and everything will be ok just like it is presently in North Korea, China and Afghanistan where people also CAN'T OWN GUNS .

The rifle by the way was provided by the US deep state operatives that wanted JFK dead and it wasn't some irate citizen as the guy who supposedly shot him hit the dust before they could fully question him. The deep state wanted JFK dead because he wouldn't play ball with them.

Here is a very modern example of when a government takes guns from their people:

Taliban in Afghan capital Kabul start collecting weapons from civilians

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taliban-afghan-capital-kabul-start-collecting-weapons-civilians-2021-08-16/

What will happen next is that the Taliban will simple continue the tradition of tyrants that have taken weapons and commit genocide to their enemies just like Hitler did with the Jews and other dissidents, the Bolsheviks and Stalin did with anyone loyal to the Czar, and Mao did to those with those aligned with Chiang Kai-shek. They killed them and these people had no means to defend themselves.

Solidifying my prior point about criminals still obtaining military grade arms regardless of them being illegal:

VIDEO: Mexican Soldiers Allegedly Sold Weapons to Drug Cartel

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2021/11/28/video-mexican-soldiers-allegedly-sold-weapons-to-drug-cartel/

We need our guns to block the threat of tyranny when we lose our first amendment rights to speak out.

It's a well known fact that criminals are everywhere, and they have no respect for the law. That's why they're criminals.
The difference is in a country that forbids its citizens to carry, ANYBODY packing is automatically breaking the law, which makes the cops' job a lot easier. In most of the US, they become criminals once they start shooting. THAT's my theory. YOUR OWN PRESIDENT (JFK) was slaughtered by an otherwise law  abiding citizen who "just happened" to be carrying a rifle nearby. Yet you guys don't learn.
Then again, AFAIK, nobody has ever talked about banning guns in the US. All that's being proposed is to run background checks on future gun owners, to decide if they're qualified to own a firearm. The US is the only country in the world that defends lunatics' right to kill its people.  

What about other countries outside of the US that have banned guns altogether and yet the criminals still get their hands on said guns or even grenades? What is your theory on that? Here is my own the criminals will get their guns through other means anyway regardless if the guns/weapons are banned or not. So it is better to have an armed populace that can defend itself rather than one that has to wait on the response time of the police to hopefully save them. In the latter case things usually don't end too well for the victim.

A non Gun control in the US is a risky policy that the US president should really look into, allowing citizens to move around with an unlicensed guns may result into an outlaw state where guns are used by criminals to harm others and can be traced.

Yep, that's nothing.
Then, of course, when you realize the US population is over 300 million people, those 3.5 people per 100000 become more than 10500, or over  3 times the people that died in 9/11/2001. That kinda makes it a problem, doesn't it?

Probably had nothing to do with this thread, but 'my family' got three more guns today so we have a selection in each of our house sites (or 'compounds' as they tend to be known here.)

I've had great luck getting women interested in guns by letting them fondle a tiny concealed carry piece like a Glock P42 (in this instance.)  Even hard-core Liberals like my family back in the U.S..  Fact of the matter is that women (rightly) feel somewhat more vulnerable than a large guy and they usually harbor a hidden desire to level the playing field a bit.  Everyone has undergone a ton of intensive government sponsored brainwashing geared toward demonizing firearms, but once she gets over the relatively small bump of being on the 'other side' it is relatively easy to just have a sensible attitude about them.  I find practicing a terrible bore, but it's kind of fun for people who don't have background experience with firearms and some women really get into it and become enthusiast.  Thankfully there is a range not far from us.  It's been on my to-do list to for the wife, kids, house help, etc, to make some trips down to the range and practice up.  When the new Glocks and shotgun comes in we'll do that.

A funny little aside about where I am at: concealed carry permits are temporarily revoked around election time.  I'd have to think that there are variances given for bodyguards and stuff, but I don't know because I try to stay out of politics.

Unless that someone has a gun, which they are very likely to have, and shoots or otherwise disables you first, which they're are more likely to do if they think you can have a gun.


I've been robbed at gunpoint. If I had a gun and tried to use it, I'd be likely dead or severely injured. Most people have no chance to succeed in self-defense against well-prepared attackers. Not something a gun/ammo seller would tell you though.

That's true, and it's the same concept. Don't imagine tyrannical government will do full scale (civil) war against its own citizen. But more of removing individual freedom and thus gaining more power over time. Gun is for protection, to protect life and property. If guns are removed, people then delegate the job to the government (aka police) thus more power for the government. The idea of a free state is limited power of government, hence carved on the constitution.

If we see from the history, the power grab occurs gradually. After removing rights to protect themselves, the government can just remove more rights, including rights to go outside, opt-out from vaccine, socialize, etc. For instance, I don't think what happened in Australia can happen in Texas.

This is a valid point. I can understand why someone living in a remote area with no prospect of immediate assistance might want to protect themselves.
We just don't have that in my cramped little country, where everyone is geographically close to everyone else. I travelled coast-to-coast across the US some years ago, and to someone from the UK, the sheer space is unbelievable.




I'd argue that if a gun makes it easier, then it also makes it more likely. If your options are A) pull a trigger, or B) jump off a high building, then I'd suggest that if you remove the gun, there are people who might decide against the whole thing if the jump is the only choice.
Data (albeit from 2002) do suggest a strong correlation by state between suicide and gun prevalence. Appreciate there are many complicating factors though, and this isn't clear-cut.

But if someone decides to kill themselves, they'll end up doing it regardless of the method, most likely. Having a gun around makes it easier, probably makes it more efficient too. But that doesn't make guns the issue, just makes mental health the problem. The US doesn't give any mental health care help to anyone as far as I'm aware and if you do end up institutionalizing yourself, it's just an insane asylum where they hold you against your will. And today the solution to depression or mental illness is to pump as many drugs into the person as possible.

Banning guns may be easier then taking away the anti-depressants big pharma wants to pump into people.

If the meth-heads in my area knew they wouldn't have to face an armed homeowner, it would be carnage.  I can promise that.  Meth turns a person into a complete psychopathic animal, or at least a lot of the people who would be drawn towards it's use in the first place.

I don't have much patience for the typical gun nut who thinks they are going to stand their ground against the tyrannical government.  It's not the right tool for the job, and the govt are at least on the cusp of having/using weapons which most of these morons could not imagine.

No, the big 'threat' of a citizenry keeping and bearing arms is that the ability exists to have relative peace and safety WITHOUT a lot of 'help' and 'support' from the government.  The government (and the lefty idjuts) cannot stand this!

I did the calcs one time and my area had something like an average of 1.5 sheriffs deputies covering like 1200 square miles at any given time.  My area was a minimum of 1/2 hour away from a cop car starting immediately and traveling at full speed.  And again, confrontational crime was almost non-existent.  Most of it which was was domestic disputes, and these involve any tool which is handy meaning if someone doesn't have a gun they would substitute with an axe.  To the degree that a gun is an effective weapon it might serve to limit escalation to a degree.  In other words, they girl/guy might pick up a chunk of wood before he/she would pick up a shotgun were it available.  Would be an interesting study.

If the argument is about death, murder rate, accident, etc., for sure gun control is favorable. BUT, does gun control lower crime rate? For example, I've read somewhere that a robber will avoid house where its owner owns a gun. Also, without a gun, people can't defend themselves from tyrannical government, as @ammodotcom pointed out. The argument will be you give up your liberty for a false sense of security. Maybe it's not "false" but more of "temporary" because it's secure as long as your leaders have decent morality (which is unlikely in the long run). When or if Hitler 2.0 appears, I bet it won't be from the US. #NotTrump

Well, I suppose whether it is a problem or not is subjective.
Looking at that last chart, the total for the US would be around (3.5+6.5=) 10 per 100k population. If the US population is 300 million, that's 30,000 deaths from guns per year. To me that seems quite a lot.

Per 100,000.  Lol!  In other words, no problem.

When I lived in the U.S. I was in one of the most highly armed areas of the country (and I still own 8 or 10 guns there.)  It's would be unusual for a household to NOT have at least ne gun kicking around somewhere.  Very very unusual to hear of someone getting shot either accidentally or on purpose.  But for suicides, almost without exception the injured or killed 'victim' richly deserved what he got and had usually been terrorizing people for much of his miserable life.  Most of the time it was one dirt-bag tweaker shooting some other dirt-bag tweaker, but again, it was pretty unusual.  When it did happen I consider it a savings of tax money and there for an added efficiency to the social fabric.

There were a fair number of incidents of a homeowner protecting his/her family and property, but rarely were shots fired.  Most of the problems were with tweakers, and even being high on meth they still tried to avoid confrontations and did their (almost daily) property crimes only when they thought nobody was around.  But sometimes they made a mistake.

Yes, but you could use the willful ignorance argument in respect of the gun-free democracies of western Europe remaining stable and non-tyrannical over the course of the last 75 years.
And in any case, if the government wanted to forcefully subjugate the people, then a revolver or shotgun is not going to be much defence against the full weight of the US military.


They're also far less likely to shoot someone if they don't have a gun to shoot with.
I think the figures and charts I've presented suggest that violence - and in particular, deaths - would decline significantly if there were no guns (or at least far fewer guns).


But as I say, I'm not from the US, it's just an outsider's perspective.

There are absolutely no positive impacts of law-abiding citizens owning guns on crime rates.  Law-abiding citizens are not the ones committing crimes so they cannot have any positive impact on the crime rates.

So you can put your Rambo, protect my turf, wet dream to rest.

Gang culture is what drives the crime rates up.  Drug abuse and associated drug distribution are what drive the crime rates up.

The solution is to legalize illegal drugs and dismantle the gangs.  I mean go after them hard, military-style.  Take them out.

It does not matter if you own guns or not.  If you own them and use them to defend yourself, you will get into a lot of trouble, at least in Canada as we are not allowed to use guns for self-defense.  I owned guns for 30 years and using them for self-defense never crossed my mind.  It is not like I don't have the skills, I did PPC and IPSC for years.

I'm certainly what you claim. It's no coincidence whom I work for, however. I sought out Ammo.com because it aligns with my personal beliefs.

I appreciate your civility. As a pro-gun American I can only give you my own opinion on the matter.

The Second Amendment is a safeguard against government tryanny. It does not provide complete protection against government tyranny, as the American government continually demonstrates. But if the government were to start sending secret police to people's doors in the dead of night, they'd have a very hard time gathering enough volunteers because those people would know the barrel of a loaded firearm could be pointed at them through any closed door. If the government starts putting people in internment camps – like they did in WWII, on both sides – they'll have a much more difficult time doing so when those people are armed with semi-automatic rifles. I could go on, but the basic gist of it is that an armed populace is far harder to dominate than one which cannot fight back against its own military and police. Pretending that a government cannot turn tyrannical over the course of a few years is willful ignorance at best.

On the other hand, there is self-defense. I have a right to defend myself against anyone who means to do me immediate bodily harm. I am not some kind of action hero – in a fight against a man holding a knife, or two unarmed men, I'm nearly certainly done for. That's why I carry a revolver. And if someone breaks into my house in the dead of night, my chances of survival are much higher if I grab my shotgun as opposed to calling the police, who will take over 10 minutes to arrive at my home. If everyone in Manhattan carried a firearm for self-defense, instead of only criminals, I believe violence would decline. Criminals are far less likely to choose victims that are able to fight back.

There you have it!, foreign friend!

Yes, that's my point. Take away the guns, and the number of people killed by guns will drop.


The figures I shared were for homicides, which doesn't include suicide. So the high number of gun-related suicides are additional deaths; they dramatically increase the problem.


Yes, deprivation will increase all sorts of bad outcomes, gun deaths no doubt included. But people in bad situations who don't have guns, don't shoot themselves or others. I imagine - and this is just speculation - that one issue with gun violence is that it is easier because there is a degree of abstraction... I mean, with a knife, you have to physically stick it into someone, but a gun murder is more like pressing a button, the act can be separated more easily from the effect.


Yes, the US is a notable outlier.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country

I only look here because the gun ownership statistics by country varies so much with how the gun laws/regulations are, and so US at the top with the most gun ownership and firearms per capita. Though, some European countries also make the list. So consider that the US has the most number of gun and that statistically there would be more chances for someone to do something terrible with those guns.

Given most gun deaths are related to suicide, a self inflicted wound and individual decision, strike out those number of deaths. How many gun related homicides are you left with, and how does that compare to other countries. I imagine still a lot. Then begin to factor in confounds, like poverty or income level. I know India has a number of firearms floating around, but their poverty levels are even more than the US. So still, it's not entirely correct to create a causal factor between poverty and gun violence.

That's semantics, so let me fix that for you: in only 2 countries in the world their citizens have an unrestricted right to own and bear firearms, and in both of them a good percentage of people seem to think most problems can be solved with one.
Meanwhile, 95% of the world's population lead full, happy(ish) lives without having that right, and you don't hear or read about some bozo taking a firearm to a school and opening fire on kids because he can.
But then again, nobody is talking (as far as I know) about banning guns (which is the argument the pro-gun crowd has been pushing forever), but about allowing access to those that are qualified to use them, same way you do with cars, and many other things.
The whole "pro-gun" argument makes no sense whatsoever, but it's backed by a lot of money and a lot of lobbying power, and the results are clear. Lots of people are gonna keep on dying, and nobody's gonna give a damn about it. 

Am of the opinion that gun control should be enforced and at the same time the use of firearms by non trained individuals should be ban and any one that most own a gun will have to go through training and mental test. If possible the gin license should be renewable every year.

You are a representative of a website that sells ammunition for guns though, so this is to be expected.


I'm not American, and to an outsider the obsession with guns just looks bizarre. I appreciate that a lot of it is tied up in history, and claiming the continent, with dangerous wildlife (bears, etc.) and conflict with the native population... but how does any of this apply to the modern world? I can't see that "we should be free to own guns because we want to" is a particularly compelling reason. And I understand the second amendment, but again this is an anachronism, it's something that may have been valid in the US a couple of hundred years ago. Why would someone see this as important now, other than because "we want to have guns".... what other reason is there to have them? Why would someone who lives in, say, Manhattan need a gun? Other than to defend themselves against other people who have guns, which isn't really much of an argument.

Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely interested in the issue as someone who is looking at it from the outside.

The U.S. doesn't give its citizens any rights. Our Bill of Rights merely acknowledges that we're born with certain rights and prohibits the government from infringing them.

As far as gun control is concerned, I'm finally unequivocally against it. Reasonable measures sound reasonable to normal people. The "activists" who are really pushing for gun control are only going to be content when the only remaining armed Americans are employed by the government.

The whole problem with the "gun control argument" is that nobody is ever honest about it. Everybody minimizes each other's point, and don't even try to understand it.

Guns don't kill people. Guns are tools. True. But it's also true that only 2 countries in the world (the US and Yemen) give their citizens a "right to bear arms", and one of them has one of the highest rates of homicide by firearm in the world, while the other one is in the middle of a civil war.
Yeah, law abiding citizens carrying guns are (or can be) great. But the fact is that everyone is a law abiding citizen until they are proven to have broken the law (notice I didn't say "until they break the law"), and most mass shootings are carried by guys with no prior record.
Just to make things clear: I'm not against people carrying firearms. I'm against people treating me like I'm an idiot.
Gun control doesn't mean "banning guns": it means allowing those that can be sane and responsible enough to wield that kind of power to wield it legally, while at least attempting to keep others from getting access to them.

Certainly you have a valid argument with the quote below, but a frontier setting in the 1700s is somewhat different to a modern metropolis where millions of people live in close proximity to one another.


Maybe we shouldn't be selling guns to people with mental health problems? Just an idea.

Scenario: Someone with severe mental issues is waving a gun around in a public place, shooting at people.
You have two choices. Should you
A) Take the gun off them, or
B) Give them a voucher for a free psychological evaluation?




I don't think this is much of an argument. The data show a very jagged line indicative of very low values. You can't extrapolate a rising trend from this.


https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/UK-Firearm-Homicide-Rate.png

Besides which...

Gun-related homicides as a % of all homicides is much lower in England/Wales than in the US.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

And the overall homicide rate is also vastly lower in England/Wales than in the US.

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

Click here to listen to the podcast!

In this week's episode, Sam and Dave discuss the positive impacts of law-abiding citizens owning firearms. It’s no secret that mainstream press coverage of gun ownership in the United States tends to be in favor of gun control. Journalists focus on how many people are killed by guns, how many children get their hands on improperly stored firearms, and how many deranged individuals go on shooting sprees.
 
This anti-gun news bias is widespread among urban elites who have very little personal experience with guns and yet have no problem opining about the subject for influential newspapers like The New York Times or The Washington Post. Despite this bias, gun ownership has significant positive impacts on American society that often go unreported.
 
There is actually a sort of semi-official policy regarding this: “if it bleeds, it leads.” This means, in short, that the more death and destruction, the higher up on the news the story goes. Nothing moves units quite like tales of gun violence, so the media complies by wallpapering coverage of tragic events like mass shootings, despite the fact that such events are rare and comprise a small number of the total deaths in America.
 
What’s more, the media almost never reports on context when it comes to mass shootings, such as the well-documented connection between prescription antidepressants and shootings. Even when SSRIs are involved, there is a serious problem with mental healthcare in the United States, which has one of the lowest rates of involuntary commitment in the world. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to get someone who is clearly a danger to themselves and others locked away even for a short observation period.
 
Of course, other, more tangential causes like the breakdown of civil society and the destruction of the family are never even considered.
 
Before proceeding further, it is finally worth pointing out that despite any talk of “weapons of war on our streets” by politicians and the media, it is primarily the police who hold such “weapons of war.” The possession of heavy weapons by local, state and federal law enforcement is not an abstract or philosophical question: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alone offers a number of examples of the deadly consequences of a heavily armed police force.
 
You can read the full article American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Firearms at Ammo.com