Gun confiscation has started in NY and CA. Are you unaware of this or simply being obtuse?

Are you similarly unaware of the Armenian Genocide, Ukrainian Genocide, and the Cultural Revolution? The killing fields of the Khmer Rouge? Just curious.

In your belief that the natural assumption should be that being armed is the exception not the norm.

When you look at the laws through the lens of "guns are ubiquitous, how do we stop shootings" instead of "guns are rare and uncommon, how do we stop shootings" the important feature of the GCA which keeps it from being a felony for me to hand my wife a firearm makes more sense.

No. Wrong.

I'm willing to bet my gun cabinet is worth more than yours.

Just judging that off of the $10 Yahoo fantasy football pools you enter.

You do realize what will happen if Dema get back in control right? The blood wasnt even dry and Frankenstein was pushing for an AW ban

lol, as if the value of a person's firearms collection means jack ****.

lol, as if not spending real money on magic foosball means anything

LOL @ watching kneelball...

What does this have to do with people going to gun shows and selling to people without a background check?

Look up the word ubiquitous

Laugh so hard at "teach the teachers how to use a gun and lock in in their classroom"


Teachers didnt enter the education field to be Navy Seals. With their meager salaries and heavy workload, that would do more harm than good for the psyche of the teacher and the demeanor of school. Guess what?! teachers can snap too. What parent thinks this is a good idea (gun owners, of course). We cant even go a week without some teacher snorting coke, running off with teenagers, or banging their students.



Mental Health is not going to solve a "gun " issue. The weapon is the issue because it commands authority - it puts down some of the biggest,baddest creatures on the planet.

No one is worried about a 17 year old kid walking into a high school with brass knuckles on and swinging at everyone in sight. He might affect 1/2 people but those parents wont be burying their kids before they graduate high school.

Why don't you stop assuming things and actually have an open mind for debate, not just to win but maybe to learn? I genuinely did not know crime rose as a result of less guns, if stats can prove that then thats +1 for gun ownership. I'm just about exploring ideas and opinions without getting into a pissing contest, why not set bias aside for a moment.

I'm not surpised that there are more gun crimes where there are guns, personally thats obvious, I'm addressing the statement I see quite often that says "Well if you ban guns, bad people will just get it" - well obviously not, as I said, in the UK, even the terrorist has had to resort to vans and knives to commit terrorism. So that alone disproves that statement, there are far less gun crimes in gun free countries.

As for murder crime:

Murders with firearms per million
UK - 0.236
US - 32.57

Violent crime > Murder rate per million people
UK - 11.68
US - 42.01

Total crimes per 1000
UK - 109.96
US - 41.29


So calling a spade a spade here, it's kind of obvious that guns not only increase gun crime, but also murder rate. Total crime is higher in the UK, that could be related to guns or not, a bit more ambiguous as laws vary from country country. A street fight could certainly come under crime.


My main gripe isn't even a case of banning guns, I think it's too late for US, its too widespread. To me, it's more the illogical arguments for it:

1) Guns dont kill people, people do. No ****, phones don't phone people, people do - but it's damm hard to call someone without a phone!
2) Why dont we ban cars too, they kill people. I think it's important not to play dumb, cars have a purpose, its a vehicle, not a weapon with its sole purpose to kill something or someone. So intent is a huge part.
3) Bad people will still get a hold of guns. Sure, but it'll be far harder.
4) The way to prevent violence is by arming everyone so they can deter violence with violence. By that logic, lets arm every country in the world with nuclear weapons. In the real world, America is the police of nuclear, likewise, maybe guns should also be reserved for the police rather than a free for all.

TBH the biggest argument I can see for pro-gun is that its too late to ban guns in the US. The fact that its so widespread and you're right next to Mexico where they can easily smuggle people and drugs in, yet alone guns, makes it much harder to regulate than an island like UK. Therefore the idea of bad people will still find a way to get hold of a gun MAY hold true for the US despite how it turned out in Oz or UK.

Heaven forbid somebody learn to take responsibility for their own safety. I mean, geez, isn't that what the government is for? To take care of everything for us?

1. There are millions of teachers in the US. We hear about a couple ****ing their students every year. Hardly the same as "going off the rails and shooting their kids". By the way, any teacher that wants to murder their students can currently do so anytime they wish, because there's no one in the school to stop them.

2. That 17 year old kid can buy 20 gallons of gasoline and kill more students with fire than were killed with a gun yesterday. Not to mention what a student could do with a truck...

Guns don't increase the murder rate.

Switzerland and the Czech Republic have significantly higher gun ownership than the UK and a significantly lower per capita homicide rate.

God forbid you want to be like every other civilized country and not lead the world mass school shootings

Please quote where I said that.
You mean that small island as compared to asignificantlylarger nation with a thousands of miles long border to Mexicothat already has hundreds of millions of guns?Oh, and that has a Right to keep and bear arms protected from infringement by the Constitution?


So, where are the things I asked about in the post you just quoted?

I know you will ignore these facts once more, but why don't you take a look at Australia's violent crime rate before and after their sweeping gun bans...and look at the US violent crime rate compared to gun ownership.

Who was difference in population?

The kinds of people in Switzerland can handle it, the nut ****s in USA can't

banning guns is not the solution, banning gun free zone is, many more lifes would have been saved if not for the fukin gun free zone rule that is, he would have been taken out by the time 3/4 ppl is down

DO you even definition of the word "rate"?

The rate of gun ownership has gone down, and so has violent crime

This legitimately is always my argument when confronted with the thought of an outright "ban", we would literally create a black market for firearms coming from Mexico. Also it's not like all of the gun manufacturers in the states are just going to stop making guns, they will just go down to Mexico and distribute them to whomever can pay. Besides the fact that there are around 300 million guns already in circulation.

I didn't say population size , I said population.

The kinds of people in the country. The USA has too many homicidal nut ****s to handle this kind of gun access. Switzerland apparently doesn't

Yeah but a gun show is random individuals. A mass gathering. If you are selling it to your family, or someone wants to buy from a street source, its harder to find.

You mean to say it's easier to conduct business when people who have the same business to conduct meet at a specified time and place in order to conduct said business more efficiently? Who knew?

Here is part of why

this is where your bias as a gun owner shows....

then why dont more schools burn down?

Guns have prestige. Dont believe that? How many guns do you own?

No it's because gun ownership is down.

Areas with lower ownership have less violence

Neither side here is really going to convince the other. However, there are a bunch of us reading the thread (I guess, maybe it's just me) who don't have rigid views on the subject. This kind of sophistry (for me at least) is honestly not making your argument any more convincing. It avoids background checks with 2 disingenuous participants, it's a loophole in any common use of the word.

Anyway, to further my understanding, is it true that the seller using this law, loophole, whatever, has to pretend it's a not for profit sale? If that is true, is there any policing or penalty for someone who uses the law to make for profit sales? Does it get enforced? If not, would anyone here be against it being enforced? Also, what checks are used to ensure it really is a transaction between two people from the same state?

I'll probably get negged again for this, but so far my pretty mild contributions have only been negged from one side, also making it seem less like that side has a point.

Switzerland is a monoculture with a fraction of the base rate

Areas with lower gun ownership have less 'violence'? Let's see that citation, shall we?