Comments by "Nanofuture87" (@Nanofuture87) on "Mass Shooting Survivors vs NRA Members | Middle Ground" video.

  1. And others with knives, bats, fists, etc.
    161
  2.  @ArdernMate   Self defense is a human right. Property is a human right. Liberty is a human right. Restricting the liberty of someone to purchase or create property useful for self defense is clearly a violation of human rights.
    54
  3. There's nothing more selfish than the belief that you have the power to control how other people live their lives.
    38
  4.  @ArdernMate  The Bill of Rights doesn't grant people rights, it recognizes rights that people already had. As for life threatening environment... that's everywhere. There is no country on this planet where violent crime does not exist. The United States has healthcare and everyone has the right to seek healthcare. There is a clear difference between a negative right like the right to keep and bear arms and a positive right like the right to receive healthcare. The former doesn't require any coercion while the latter does (no one is going around saying that the right to keep and bear arms means that the government has to buy people guns).
    28
  5.  @billnye69  Yes, it is. I have the liberty to own a gun if I so choose. You lack the authority to impose your will to tell me that I can't.
    27
  6.  @billnye69  I only have a right to point a gun at your face if you are attacking me, in which case yes, my right to defend myself supercedes your right to live. People without guns will happily send people with guns, like police, to impose their will onto others.
    25
  7. This wasn't pro gun vs anti gun.
    21
  8.  @billnye69  Desiring liberty is a fault? Okay.
    18
  9.  @billnye69  That's your prerogative, but some of us refuse to be helpless and roll over for criminals.
    15
  10. There's a difference between feeling safe and having the ability to actually defend yourself. It's easy to feel safe if you just close your eyes and pretend there are no dangers in this world.
    8
  11.  @cal7589  Many of your fellow Australians cannot make the same claim. Facebook posts promoting protesting deemed "incitement", the protests themselves deemed violations of health orders. Truly dystopian stuff.
    6
  12.  @erinanderson3580  I've seen videos of just how "respectful" police are for civil rights in Australia, so...
    6
  13.  @erinanderson3580  Well that's kind of the point, now isn't it? If people are engaging in civil rights that the state has determined are to be infringed upon and the police go along with suppressing those rights...
    6
  14. It is. Why do you think there are shooting sports?
    6
  15.  @TychoKingdom  The idea that every aspect of life and every product or possession should be regulated is some dystopian nonsense. It's really the other way around: most aspects of life aren't and shouldn't be regulated, they are just normal interactions with other consenting individuals that the government gets no say in.
    5
  16.  @wthisgoingon__4300  Nope.
    5
  17.  @nataliag6885  You are ultimately responsible for your own protection. At the end of the day, any systems from society are just supplements, not replacements. It is only reasonable to not trust them, and any system that actually had the power to keep you perfectly protected would be the system that you should trust least of all.
    5
  18. Yes, the Australian government very much cares about your safety. So much so that they'll arresting you for posting on Facebook to support protests about how very very safe they've been keeping you during the pandemic, as well as arresting you for protesting itself of course. For your safety.
    5
  19.  @cal7589  You know who still has guns in Australia? The police.
    5
  20. Communication when the 1st amendment was written: letters sent by rider on horseback. You're talking about people who engaged in an armed revolution against their government. They knew what they were doing.
    5
  21. Guns are literally how we gained our independence. As for defending ourselves, what do the people protecting your politicians use to defend them, strong language?
    5
  22.  @heyitshailey225  Thank goodness I'm not Australian, and plenty of your fellow countrymen don't seem to agree with your assessment.
    5
  23. The population has come together in the agreement that guns should not be banned. It's certainly true that there is a divide over gun control measures, but the notion of banning guns altogether is deeply unpopular.
    4
  24. "Messaging that supports the rights of African Americans is disrespectful" K
    4
  25. I mean, yeah, it does. You have the liberty to buy a gun or not buy a gun as you so choose.
    4
  26.  @simr4nn  You are setting off a small, controlled explosion and testing your skill at hitting a target. Yes, it is fun.
    4
  27. Owning a weapon for protection is normal. Some people learn martial arts to turn their body into a weapon, some people keep a baseball bat next to their bed, some people carry knives, and some people own firearms. Wanting to have the means to defend yourself is normal.
    4
  28. It sounds like you are the one who is brainwashed. Guns are used for good frequently.
    4
  29. Murder is wrong. Killing can be morally justified.
    4
  30. Automatic weapons have been banned since 1986 and are very rarely used in crimes.
    4
  31. Stephen Willeford with the Sutherland Springs church shooting.
    4
  32. You're free to your opinion, but as a Canadian you have no say in US law.
    4
  33.  @harrisonkey698  Machine guns were banned decades ago, but I do think that law is wrong, yes.
    4
  34. I suspect Americans have a more coherent position than you do.
    4
  35. ...and now the police are arresting hundreds of people for protesting the continuing lockdowns.
    4
  36.  @heyitshailey225  I'm saying that Australia has descended into authoritarianism and the citizenry is effectively helpless against it.
    4
  37. Yeah, your government keeps you so very safe. It tells you when you leave your home, how far you can go, what you can do, and even what you can say. Better not disobey. It's for your own safety.
    4
  38. If you are trying to start a civil war.
    4
  39. Yes, the brainwashing of anti-gunners often goes deep. Imagine thinking a woman deciding to take her own self defense seriously is insanity.
    4
  40. Sweden also has twice the rape per capita than the US. Fun stuff.
    3
  41.  @julestm4877   It sounds like you are simply biased against firearm ownership, even when used defensively. To me, the simple fact that they can be used in such a way is more than sufficient to justify their ownership, as if one needs justification to own objects.
    3
  42. 1. If I'm at home, my gun isn't in a safe. It's out and ready. 2. If you have children or others around where you can't have guns out and ready, they make quick access safes that can be opened in seconds.
    3
  43. There are still shootings, including mass shootings, in Australia. We have this crazy idea in the US that citizens should be able to protect themselves.
    3
  44. Whatever you might think about the NRA leadership and spokespeople, regular NRA members aren't lobbyists.
    3
  45. Sure, so they could learn what not to do.
    3
  46.  @Princessbuttercupish  More like not forcibly confiscate legally owned property from law abiding citizens and reduce them to helpless sheep.
    3
  47.  @fayzalathifazahra9376  I'm fairly certain criminals exist in every country.
    3
  48.  @lukemacdermid2246  Because having government appointed "professionals" with the power to decide if you're a threat and lock you away even though you haven't committed any crime is dystopian.
    3
  49. It is always interesting how many Europeans and Australians find their way into videos like this.
    3
  50. Why shouldn't I have a gun for safety?
    3
  51. If you lose someone to a car accident, do you stop supporting people being able to own cars?
    3
  52.  @blackbird163  People do need guns for their personal security. Having a job isn't going to help you if you get murdered or sexually assaulted.
    3
  53. So teachers should just be helpless victims?
    3
  54. I'm not an NRA member, but semi-automatic rifles are very useful for home defense. More fundamentally, the whole point is to have firepower to enable the citizenry to be able to function as militia.
    3
  55. Because we can observe that the goal is to make them effectively illegal.
    3
  56. You are not safe not owning a gun, just living in naive ignorance. Criminals and tyrants do not care if you "live decently." They do not think to themselves "Oh, that's a decent person, I won't rob them."
    3
  57. Let me know when governments get rid of their guns.
    3
  58.  @nataliag6885  You don't have to trust the system in order to look out for others and looking out for others doesn't require sacrificing yourself. Systems are fundamentally composed of people and people are imperfect, both in terms of ability and in terms of motive. People do not suddenly become angels when they are elected into office or hired as police officers.
    3
  59. They don't sell guns at the supermarket in the US.
    3
  60. I'm sorry, but no. First of all, "well regulated" in context basically means able to perform its function properly. A well regulated militia needs to be well trained, well organized, and well armed. Second, it is specifically the right of the people, not the right of the militia. Like all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is an individual right. Rights fundamentally belong to individuals.
    3
  61. Really? I always find that the anti-gun crowd relies on emotional manipulation and deception instead of logical argument.
    3
  62. If no one was allowed a gun, then the physically strong can just have their way with the physically weak.
    3
  63. "no one complains about 'their rights'" Because they don't have them in a country where the Prime Minister can simply declare that the lawfully acquired property of many Canadians is now illegal.
    3
  64. It is though.
    3
  65. Pistols are used in crimes and suicides significantly more than ARs.
    3
  66. In the context of the 18th century, well regulated basically means functioning properly. A well regulated militia is one that is well trained, well organized, and well armed. An unarmed militia would be basically useless, so it's of vital importance that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
    3
  67. American history. Personal firearms have been important since settler days.
    3
  68. I wouldn't consider an AR-15 to be a big gun.
    3
  69.  @justincousins-lee5264  The versions being sold to civilians were specifically made to be sold to civilians after the military versions were banned, so no.
    3
  70.  @MsAdlinaMeirosa  No, the odds that you will ever actually need to defend yourself at all are quite low. They aren't zero though, nowhere in the world are they zero, so why wouldn't you want to be prepared?
    3
  71. It's not about fear, it's about being prepared.
    3
  72. Automatic weapons were effectively banned back in 1986.
    3
  73. It's objectively true that there is someone out to attack you. Ignoring that reality doesn't make it go away.
    3
  74.  @jacksonv6933  I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. There are measures that can be taken to reduce the incidence of mass shootings, but not at the expense of liberty.
    3
  75.  @ScreenHackTV  Yes, I know people walk around with guns in the US. I'm one of them. To us, the rest of the world is the joke for allowing themselves to be rendered helpless by their governments.
    3
  76. @You just lost the game You don't need a vehicle to travel, but it sure does make it easier.
    3
  77. The priority should be making students actually safe. Feeling safe is not the same as being safe.
    3
  78. The National Rifle Association. It's a group that advocates for gun rights and teaches firearm safety and marksmanship.
    2
  79. Yes, with rights come duties, hence why murder is already a crime. Someone merely owning a firearm doesn't violate your right to life in any way. On the other hand, strict gun regulation does violate the right to liberty of innocent people. The one with the messed up mentality is you.
    2
  80.  @oscarlandgren411  Okay, if you want to ignore the statistics then how about some basic human rights and common sense? Who is better able to defend themselves against attackers: someone with a gun or someone without a gun?
    2
  81. I would think that as a woman you would want to be armed in case a guy who has over a hundred pounds of muscle over you doesn't take no for an answer.
    2
  82. Because we've totally never heard that argument before.
    2
  83.  @WinchesterProds0  Crime has been in decline in the US since the '90s even as the number of guns owned has risen. Strange that.
    2
  84. We prefer it that way. The US was founded by weirdos for weirdos.
    2
  85. It's not about being Rambo. It's not about going around looking for trouble or taking out bad guys. It's just about not being helpless if trouble finds you.
    2
  86. Shouting people are dying isn't enough to justify the violation of the rights of the people, no.
    2
  87.  @harukaaoi169  Are you an adult or a child? You are ultimately the one responsible for yourself. You are responsible for your own safety and well-being and you are responsible for your mistakes.
    2
  88. That's false. Australia does have mass shootings and gun violence.
    2
  89.  @leahrucks238  False. Australia had a mass shooting in Darwin just last year.
    2
  90.  @leahrucks238  June 4, 2019. In Darwin. There was another one in Melbourne on April 14, 2019.
    2
  91. Because guns are the most effective tools for protecting yourself.
    2
  92. Cool, ban knives, then ban baseball bats, then ban exercise. Make everyone weak and helpless.
    2
  93.  @Princessbuttercupish  There's nothing more selfish than seeking to control the lives of others, to force them to live the way you think they should live. Violating the rights of innocent people because of the actions of criminals is fundamentally wrong. It's unjust, it's authoritarian, it's monstrous.
    2
  94.  @Princessbuttercupish  Where do you want to start? The licensing? The categories? The mandatory "buyback"? The particular details of your authoritarianism aren't terribly relevant, but we can talk about them if you like.
    2
  95.  @Princessbuttercupish  Easy. We still have a relatively liberty-oriented culture and have managed to resist the manipulations of authoritarians better, which has been especially visible over the past year. Liberty is inherently dangerous. A perfectly safe society would require complete totalitarian control over all aspects of life. You and I clearly have different ideas of what makes a society "better." Whether gun control "works" or not isn't relevant, it's inherently unjust. Speech control might "work", locking people in their homes might "work", but they are wrong in and of themselves.
    2
  96. It goes all the way back to when the colonists used guns to defend their property, further reinforced by the revolution and then the expansion westward. Guns are part of our culture, symbols of liberty and self reliance. Gun rights supporters don't have to do anything.
    2
  97. Yes really. All law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, including Black Americans living in the inner city.
    2
  98.  @jfhfhfhhhdjfhf563  Both are true and go hand in hand. You have the right to defend yourself and your community.
    2
  99. Correct. What is right and what is common are not always the same.
    2
  100. Yes, I have. Have you ever heard of guys with over a hundred pounds of muscle over you that can't feel pain because they're high on drugs? There's also no rule that only one criminal attacks you at a time. There's a reason the military and police don't just fight bare handed.
    2
  101. Except that's not what's going on. It's not like guns are readily available in most countries and people simply don't feel a need for them. Instead governments prohibit people from even making that choice.
    2
  102. Not being concerned about your rights is how you lose them, which we've been observing to happen in countries like Australia.
    2
  103.  @beekay700  Seizure of legally acquired firearms by your government for instance. More recently you have police actions against anti-lockdown protestors, as well as the lockdown measures themselves. You also don't actually have freedom of speech. Those are just some things off the top of my head.
    2
  104.  @beekay700  Sacrificing liberty for safety is literally how authoritarians operate. You don't have a right to be safe. You have a right to be free.
    2
  105.  @4ntoCatch  Last I checked, murder was still illegal.
    2
  106.  @4ntoCatch  The tools used for committing murder are also useful for legal activities. You don't ban guns because they can be misused just like you don't ban knives because they can be misused.
    2
  107.  @christianschneeberger2736  Yes, it says that we take individual liberty pretty seriously.
    2
  108. That does not follow.
    2
  109.  @lukemacdermid2246  Should we also say that people with certain mental health issues cannot speak? Vote? Own knives? If someone is mentally ill to the point where you are talking about restricting their rights, why are you allowing them to roam freely at all? Who makes the determination as to which mental health issues disqualify you? Who makes the diagnosis?
    2
  110.  @thatcanadianguy6966  They're both rights, and speaking and voting absolutely can hurt people. Dangerous ideas and terrible politicians cause far more death and destruction than any lone gunman could ever hope to achieve.
    2
  111.  @thatcanadianguy6966  Not if that lone vote is the deciding one. A vote can be the difference between war and peace. What starts as the mad ravings of a single person can grow into genocide.
    2
  112. Self defense and because they're fun.
    2
  113. It is though.
    2
  114.  @jugsbugs5076  Everyone agreed to participate in the discussion.
    2
  115.  @jugsbugs5076  If you can't handle a comment like that, you shouldn't participate in a discussion like this. The reality is that shooting a gun is fun. That's going to come up in discussions about them.
    2
  116.  @jugsbugs5076  Obviously it's a matter of opinion, but there are physiological reasons why it is fun (releases hormones similar to when you go on a rollercoaster). The whole point of the program is to discuss opinions, so if you aren't ready to hear opinions like that then you shouldn't be participating.
    2
  117. You haven't gotten out much then.
    2
  118. There are no qualifications to have rights, you simply have them. We don't make sure people know what they're talking about before we "let" them have free speech.
    2
  119.  @blackbird163  A car doesn't necessarily mean you'll have work either. Nothing in life is guaranteed, all you can do is try to be prepared. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a gun when faced with a violent criminal than not have a gun.
    2
  120.  @setitheredcap2677  Why does anyone "need" the right to free speech? You have the right to own firearms because you have both the right to property and the right to defend yourself.
    2
  121.  @streetpotato5574  Students that are adults should be able to access guns. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of adults to protect children.
    2
  122. Right, because no one ever gets victimized in Europe. It just doesn't happen. The number of people I hear say this is truly amazing, as if guns can't be used against criminals who don't have guns.
    2
  123. You're of course perfectly at liberty to not associate with anyone you don't want to associate with, though most people end up being around people who are carrying concealed without even realizing it.
    2
  124. I dunno about you, but I've never had a background check for buying lollies and chocolates. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the first amendment thing. Threatening someone with a firearm because they looked at you funny is a crime.
    2
  125. As an American I don't understand how Australians aren't demanding their guns back after the government crackdown over COVID.
    2
  126.  @bethyboo9463  The fact is that there are women who feel safer because they have guns. There are women who have guns exactly because they were victimized, and the assailant doesn't need a gun. If you're 90 pounds soaking wet and 250 pounds of muscle is coming at you... what exactly do you intend to do?
    2
  127. It's not on you to decide what other people "need." Either you recognize that human beings have the right to keep and bear arms or you don't.
    2
  128.  @foop2954   You can question, but you aren't entitled to an answer. You can not want something, but you don't have the authority to impose that want.
    2
  129.  @vashatilindsay7156  Have you considered that some people might just like having guns because they like guns? Jay Leno has over a hundred cars. Is he trying to prove a point or does he just really like cars?
    2
  130. You don't need a license to own a car. Driver's licenses are for driving on public roads. Similarly, most states have licenses / permits for carrying a gun in public.
    2
  131. Let me know when governments around the world get rid of their guns.
    2
  132.  @sandralantau7395  Submachine guns were banned along with all other automatic weapons back in 1986.
    2
  133. You don't need to prove that you can drive before getting a car. Driver's licenses are only required for driving on public roads, not to own a car.
    2
  134. ​ @antibullshit  Vehicle registration is handled at the state level, not the federal level, hence why you have to get a new registration if you move to a new state. Driver's licenses are also handled at the state level rather than at the federal level. If you really want to go with the car and driving analogy, then the federal government would require that all states recognize carry licenses issued by other states instead of the patchwork of state agreements that exist today.
    2
  135. We aren't some monolithic entity. Most gun owners use their guns safely if they even use them at all.
    2
  136. Guns are better for protection. There's a reason police and private security forces use them.
    2
  137. Yeah, you can get married, vote, and go off to war, but you can't have a drink or smoke. It's definitely wrong.
    2
  138. Enjoy living as a helpless sheep.
    2
  139. Yes, they are defending their civil rights. What's sick is the authoritarian attitude of people like you.
    2
  140.  @4ntoCatch  Yes, and shooting kids is illegal. Using the actions of criminals as justification to violate the rights of innocent people who have done nothing wrong is authoritarian.
    2
  141. As an American, the mindset of Europeans who have allowed themselves to be rendered basically totally dependant upon the state is baffling.
    2
  142.  @rhonasleath7394  The right to keep and bear arms is not dependant upon the state. The purpose of government is merely to secure rights. Europeans however have outsourced their personal responsibilities to the point where they have been reduced to essentially children under the parental government.
    2
  143.  @BoldOne8760  Nope. We still have rights in the state of nature.
    2
  144. Sweden has mass shootings. Example: 3 killed and 4 injured in Malmö, Scania in 2018.
    2
  145. Brazil has more firearm related deaths total and more firearm related homicides per capita than the US. We have such "poor" gun control because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    2
  146.  @laraadhmann9961  Perhaps it will not surprise you then to learn that firearm related homicides are not uniformly spread across the US. They are disproportionately in poor areas with low social mobility, including areas that have relatively strict gun control laws. As for Brazil, you guys tried implementing stricter gun control including confiscation of firearms possessed for self-defense and bans on carrying handguns in public, yet in the long run the death toll increased. Your current President doesn't seem to share your view, instead favoring relaxing gun laws. Regardless of the statistics though, as the old adage goes: I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    2
  147. How do you intend to do that?
    2
  148.  @elzbelz   Yet here you are, commenting on a video not about your country.
    2
  149.  @elzbelz  I just find it amusing, this bizarre obsession people seem to have with the US.
    2
  150.  @elzbelz  Why though? Why are you watching videos about the US? Why do you feel the need to comment on them when it's "not rlly" your problem?
    2
  151. Quick question: what would you do if someone broke into your home right at this very moment intending to do you harm?
    2
  152. Iceland also has a population of 357 thousand people with a density of 3.5 people per square kilometer. There are more people in individual US cities.
    2
  153. 1. Shotguns are used for hunting. It's called "buckshot" and "birdshot" for a reason. 2. Of course you bring a gun to a knife fight. Why would you not? We aren't talking a duel where you are supposed to fight on equal terms, we are talking about defending yourself against a violent criminal. I want things to be as unfair as possible in my advantage.
    2
  154. They're analogous. People will work on their guns like they do with cars and talk about different models and such.
    2
  155. Yeah, imagine being attached to an idea like freedom. How weird, right?
    2
  156.  @falloncousins653  If you value safety over liberty, then you are authoritarian. Owning a gun doesn't make you free, but having the liberty to own a gun should you so choose makes you more free. There's nothing wrong with owning a gun, and the idea that you are going to decide for other people what the "wrong" thing is again reveals your authoritarian mindset.
    2
  157. Authoritarianism isn't the answer.
    2
  158. Because you are restricting the liberty of innocent people.
    2
  159. Military assault weapons have been effectively banned for civilians since 1986.
    2
  160.  @extremeresponsibility  Well there is the inherent threat that the military represents, but more fundamentally I fail to see on what basis the government has any special authority to give weaponry to the military beyond what civilians can have.
    2
  161.  @erinanderson3580  Authoritarianism is always "for your safety." That's the cry of tyrants: give up your liberty and they'll take care of you, control your life so you don't have to worry about anything. You have to say no to that sort of thinking. It's not about whether or not you own a gun, it's about whether or not you get to make the choice about whether or not you own a gun. Who decides how you live your life? You or the state? Unjust laws are supposed to be disobeyed. Governments don't have the authority to violate human rights.
    2
  162.  @ratofvengence  "We had the balls to take covid seriously, and as a result we have less than a FIFTIETH the US covid death rate." Your government had "the balls" to severely restrict civil liberties and most Australians revealed that they were sheep by going along with it. Pathetic. "We still lead the US in EVERY freedom index" I know that you're incapable of making new arguments and can only mindlessly spout on about freedom indices as though they are authoritative, but that's going to help you even less now. The most recent human freedom index published was in 2020 using data from 2018, before Australia went insane. If indices still claim that Australians had more freedom for 2020 - 2021 data, then there is something deeply wrong with the methodology because there is no way that people who couldn't even leave their own homes to visit their families were more free than I was. "No we didn't. We temporarily took on restrictions for the benefit of all." That's what "giving up liberty" means you authoritarian goofball. "No, arrests for inciting people to break the law. you have this in the US too." Where having it be against the law to protest is authoritarian. Incitement to commit acts which cannot justly be considered crimes is also not justly a crime. There again, we are talking about freedom of speech here, something which Australia doesn't understand. "Oh no! Questions! The tyranny!" Police showing up at people's doors and going around in public confronting people to intimidate them and create a chilling effect is a sign of tyranny, yes. "It's not." It is. "The vast majority are conditioned enough to see why it was necessary" Ftfy "We have our normal freedoms back" That you think your "freedoms" are things that are given and taken by the government when "necessary" is your problem. "And we STILL lead the US in EVERY freedom index" We'll see about that.
    2
  163. There is licensing to carry a gun.
    2
  164. Guns are the most effective weapons to defend yourself with. There's a reason security forces use them.
    2
  165.  @arm.n_8419  The irony here is that you seem to be on the side of the southern racists who pushed for gun control in the first place in order to keep freed slaves from being able to defend themselves against hate groups like the KKK. Black movements have worked hard to protect their gun rights.
    2
  166. Because criminals and tyrants exist in this world.
    2
  167. It's a legal move to escape New York and reincorporate in Texas.
    2
  168. Not when the one you are causing injury to is a violent criminal.
    2
  169. So you recommend pacifism? Victims of crimes should just take it?
    2
  170. Rifles are generally more effective than handguns, yet most gun owners don't walk around with rifles either. Lifestyle and comfort are considerations when deciding what sort of precautions you take. That's not hypocrisy.
    2
  171. Or the UK which now has an epidemic of assault, rape, and burglary.
    2
  172.  @Charles-fc9gi  They instituted strict gun control laws (and laws against even non-lethal tools like pepper spray). Now people are helpless and get victimized at a high rate.
    2
  173. The right to keep and bear arms is exactly that: a right. It is not a privilege, and making it one allows for government abuse of power.
    2
  174. Not feeling the need to be able to defend yourself just shows the naivete that is prevalent in many people. The fact of the matter is that violent criminals exist in every country. Every single one of them. The idea that you couldn't be attacked is just an illusion.
    2
  175. Tell that to all the people who have used guns to defend themselves and others.
    2
  176. Because you can defend yourself with guns.
    2
  177. Or knife owners or blunt instrument owners or anyone with hands and feet.
    2
  178. This isn't "pro gun vs anti gun"
    2
  179. Gun registries lead to confiscation. No thanks.
    2
  180. Human rights are kinda primal things.
    2
  181. Cool, I don't want you living in the US either. You stay over there and I'll stay over here and we can both get what we want.
    2
  182.  @phantomdaze2599  No, I'm actually quite calm about it. If you don't like American ideals then I don't want you living in America. You stay over there, I'll stay over here, and we can both get what we want.
    2
  183.  @phantomdaze2599  And I want people to be free, to have their individual rights secure. "Solutions" which reduce liberty are invalid.
    2
  184. Yes, why do you suppose there are shooting sports?
    2
  185. No one was forced to participate.
    2
  186. Hence why you lock your guns up when they aren't under your direct control.
    2
  187. Black Americans are the fastest growing group of gun owners.
    2
  188.  @justincousins-lee5264  An intermediate caliber rifle. The standard AR-15 is chambered in .223 / 5.56.
    2
  189.  @chantalmorgenstern7675  The only variable that you can truly control is yourself. I can know that I have a gun to defend myself with. I can't know when or how someone might attempt to victimize me.
    2
  190.  @kunpunko  Literally an authoritarian mindset.
    2
  191. That's like saying a country is a mess if you feel the need to have a fire extinguisher or first aid kit. The mindset of helplessness people in other countries have is baffling to me.
    2
  192. What? You guys had a mass shooting this year. An extremist shot up some shisha bars and killed nine people.
    2
  193. Still upset about the Revolutionary War I see.
    2
  194. And there shouldn't be pain and suffering and crime, but there is.
    2
  195. Citizens who lawfully carry guns are on average more law abiding than police officers. My experience as someone who carries a gun myself is that it makes people less aggressive because the consequences of getting into a confrontation can be so serious. You'll never meet friendlier people than you will at a gun range.
    2
  196. I'd rather not be helpless, thanks. What people do need to understand is that buying a gun is just the first step. You have to train and practice and be responsible.
    2
  197. No. First, it's not just gun threats that you might need to defend against. A gun is a handy thing to have for, say, a 100 pound woman who has to defend herself against a 250 pound man. Second, it's not possible to actually take guns out of the equation. Are you going to take all the guns away from government agents? Are you going to monitor everyone in the country perfectly to prevent the import or construction of illegal firearms?
    2
  198. Firearms are observably used by people to successfully defend themselves and others. The "natural advantage" of the attacker can be overcome by situational awareness and preparation.
    2
  199.  @BalkanBoy19  Even on the low end, you see numbers like 60,000 defensive gun uses. Frankly, just the fact that it is possible is sufficient. No, you don't have to walk with your hand on the gun at all times. You do have to view every person as a potential threat, because they are. This doesn't mean that you are constantly on edge. It means that you scan people and determine how likely they are to be a threat based on knowledge and intuition. You can think of it like an alert system. When you are outside, you should always be on "yellow" alert. When you see a suspicious person or situation, then you go to "red" alert. As for the attacker hiding somewhere, again, situational awareness. You need to be aware of blind spots and ways you can be ambushed. Have a flashlight. Be cautious going around corners. Stay sharp when going to your car. You are fundamentally responsible for your own safety. Take that responsibility seriously.
    2
  200. It's part of our culture that developed from self defense of property and general individualism. Human beings have the right to defend themselves and the government has no just authority to take that right away.
    2
  201. Yeah, instead you're being arrested for expressing support of protests trying to end the oppressive lockdowns. Real great.
    2
  202. You're setting off a small explosion and engaging in an activity where you can measure improvement in your skill and compete with others. It's fun in the way any sport is fun and in the way going on something like a rollercoaster is fun.
    2
  203. Tasers are notoriously ineffective, especially the civilian models. Pepper spray is the superior non-lethal option, but the simple truth is that lethal options are sometimes necessary.
    2
  204.  @tatianacardozo1199  Extreme government overreach. Government suppression of speech and protest, government bans on travel, government quarantine camps, etc. Dystopian nightmare.
    2
  205.  @tatianacardozo1199  National gun registries allow for government control over who has guns and knowledge of what guns they have. With no fear of the citizens, governments are free to do whatever they want to them.
    2
  206.  @tatianacardozo1199  Laughter is a common defense mechanism to cope when you have no rational response.
    2
  207. No, because there are things other than guns to protect yourself from.
    2
  208. Okey dokey. You tell a woman who weighs 100 pounds soaking wet or a person with a physical handicap to "use their fists" against 250 pounds of pure muscle high on drugs that make them unable to feel pain. See how that goes.
    2
  209. In a sense you're right considering that the NRA is corrupt and hasn't properly fought against gun control.
    2
  210. ​ @lynnevetter  It's the right of the people. A militia must be well armed in order to be well regulated. What sort of arms would a modern day militia need? It seems obvious that they would need things like assault rifles, machine guns, and anti-tank weaponry. Muskets aren't going to do the trick in 21st century warfare. It also plainly says that you cannot put regulations in place: shall not be infringed.
    2
  211.  @ScreenHackTV  If you go by the definition of mass shooting that the US media uses, Australia still has mass shootings. Rare to be sure, but they happen.
    2
  212.  @ScreenHackTV  I go to sleep at night just fine without being worried about getting shot the next day. Mass shootings are statistically improbable events, even in the US, with school children more likely to get killed from school bus related accidents than from getting shot.
    2
  213. You are always ultimately responsible for your own well being. Government is just a supplement, not a replacement.
    2
  214. I suspect that this is a misleading statistic which ignores that people buying guns for protection are often doing so because they are legitimately at greater risk of being killed.
    2
  215. Looking at some of the things that have been going on in Germany, I'm glad that I'm American.
    2
  216. Because that would be a violation of rights. Would you be okay with requiring testing before someone was allowed to speak? How about to vote?
    2
  217. Why don't you think any of them had them? Concealed carry is a thing.
    2
  218.  @orsolazane4291  Stopping new sales would just mean that you'd end up with gun ownership concentrating with the wealthy as prices rise while those who are poor are left unarmed and defenseless. Not that you actually could accomplish that either.
    2
  219. Because self defense is a fundamental human right. What's disgusting is how many people in other countries have allowed themselves to become helpless sheep.
    2
  220.  @Marte_H  Free access to guns empowers you to be responsible for your own safety instead of being helplessly dependent upon the state, and there are more important things in life than being safe. The government has no just authority to decide for you whether or not you own a gun.
    2
  221.  @ratofvengence  Yep. I know that you're an authoritarian, but you can't control reality.
    2
  222.  @ratofvengence  Now you're just projecting.
    2
  223.  @ratofvengence  If you want to troll, you really should come up with something better. It's going to take a lot more for an authoritarian, especially a powerless one from another country, to get under my skin.
    2
  224.  @doodlewizrrd7929  That's only part of it. The right to keep and bear arms predates the revolution and has to do with the inherent right to defend yourself and your property. That hasn't changed, only shifted from who the primary threats are that you need to defend yourself against.
    1
  225.  @doodlewizrrd7929  Criminals and tyrants.
    1
  226.  @doodlewizrrd7929  Well you need to distinguish between a right and a privilege. Think about the right to free speech. Are there restrictions to it? Certainly, but those restrictions are based around directly causing harm. The right to keep and bear arms has similar restrictions (you can't just go around waving a gun at people for example). That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is having the government determine what sort of things you can say or who can speak in the first place. That would reduce speech to a privilege. Similarly, the government deciding what sort of firearms you can own and who can own them reduces that right to a privilege.
    1
  227.  @doodlewizrrd7929  Requiring an evaluation implies that the government has the authority to determine who can and can't exercise a right, but it doesn't. That's kind of the point. The thing to do about police shooting an innocent black man because he is armed is to fix the police, not disarm the black man. Mandatory body cams, civilian oversight in police departments, and ending qualified immunity would be good steps.
    1
  228. It depends on what you consider to be a "problem." The number of deaths caused by mass shootings are basically statistical anomalies relative to other causes of death in the US.
    1
  229. It is though.
    1
  230. The first amendment was written back when the fastest way to send information was by rider on horseback. Should we reevaluate freedom of speech?
    1
  231.  @oscarlandgren411  Guns are used defensively much more often than they are used offensively, sometimes lethal force actually is needed to defend yourself, and the right to keep and bear arms is exactly that.
    1
  232. Let people build more psychiatric hospitals so that people can actually get the treatment they need instead of being given some pills and sent on their way?
    1
  233. It sounds like the sensible solution is to improve the security in vulnerable locations rather than infringing on the rights of innocent people.
    1
  234.  @sbiiine  That's my point. They put up street barriers instead of banning trucks.
    1
  235. Are you not familiar with the concept of concealed carry?
    1
  236.  @jackcarroll6801  So you want people to just be helpless when a gunman walks in and starts shooting people?
    1
  237.  @jackcarroll6801  Shooting a would be shooter seems like a solution to me. I agree that we should solve the issue of gun violence, but in the meantime students and teachers shouldn't just be helpless sitting ducks.
    1
  238.  @jackcarroll6801  That's why teachers who carry a gun should train, just like everyone else who carries a gun.
    1
  239.  @jackcarroll6801  Yes, that's correct, which is why you train so that it's more muscle memory than actual thought. People fundamentally have the right to defend themselves and defending children is a good thing. I'm not saying that teachers should be forced to carry guns, but they should have that option.
    1
  240. You think advocating civil rights for African Americans is disgusting? Okey dokey.
    1
  241.  @makendestewart  Then you agree with the likes of the KKK that pushed for gun control to keep the freed slaves disarmed and helpless?
    1
  242. It's quite something how often you'll get called an emotionless sociopath for not wanting your natural rights violated.
    1
  243. You can either fathom individual liberty or you can't.
    1
  244. Gee, it's almost like medicine isn't the only safety related thing out there.
    1
  245.  @julestm4877  How is it not correct when it's a documented fact that people use firearms to defend themselves?
    1
  246. Just goes to show how thoroughly you've been conditioned if you can't even comprehend it.
    1
  247.  @Calcius  Because pepper spray and tasers aren't always effective. There's a reason militaries, police forces, and security details use guns rather than just pepper spray and tasers. Citizens in other countries can and do get victimized.
    1
  248. Wouldn't be a very fair fight, America has way more of them.
    1
  249.  @harukaaoi169  We've seen the things European collectivism has wrought. I'll take individualism any day. Oh, and police don't spontaneously arrive when you call them. It takes time.
    1
  250.  @harukaaoi169  There's no such thing as free healthcare, and I was thinking more along the lines of the ever so wonderful collectivist ideologies that emerged from Europe and killed millions while trampling on even more.
    1
  251.  @harukaaoi169  Why I think what? That collectivism ideologies like socialism and fascism developed in Europe? Because they did. That universal healthcare isn't free? Because it's not, it's paid for through taxation which is the coercive taking of property. As for why healthcare is so expensive in the US, it's because we have a nightmarish mixed system with both private and public elements instead of just being private. Plus we are effectively subsidizing European healthcare systems with our research and development.
    1
  252.  @harukaaoi169  Yeah, it's called self defense. If someone is threatening you with serious harm, you have the right to stop them by any means necessary.
    1
  253.  @harukaaoi169  You shouldn't teach them that they are nice toys. You should instead teach them about firearm safety and about how they should never touch a gun without adult supervision.
    1
  254. The police still have guns. The military still has guns. Criminals still exist whether they have guns or not. It's not about "feeling" safe.
    1
  255. The mass Canadian gun registration program got scrapped after it went way over budget. The US also has national gun registration for certain restricted firearms.
    1
  256. Gun control is a violation of rights. Yes, murder is also a violation and we should take steps to prevent it, but violating the rights of innocent people isn't one of those steps.
    1
  257.  @mads494  "It's not a violation of your rights to regulate guns." Yes, it is. The government lacks the authority to do as you say. I don't care what you are doing in Canada.
    1
  258. Automatic weapons have been banned since 1986.
    1
  259. They already made a pro gun vs anti gun video.
    1
  260. A sense of self-sufficiency, individual responsibility, and liberty combined with a history that makes the gun culturally significant. That's what. You say non-Americans don't need guns, but whenever I see someone who is victimized in any country I wonder if they might have been able to save themselves if they had been armed.
    1
  261. "feels like you are saying 'I need a gun because they have a gun.'" No. People without guns can victimize you just fine and guns work against people without guns just fine. Quoting statistics does nothing for the individual who was rendered helpless and subsequently victimized. Human rights are not subject to statistics and governments cannot exercise authority they do not justly have.
    1
  262.  @alexojideagu  That's totally irrelevant to what I said.
    1
  263.  @alexojideagu  My point is that it isn't. Governments have no just authority to impose gun control.
    1
  264.  @alexojideagu  The function of government is to secure the rights of the people and to that end governments only have powers delegated to them by the people. People cannot delegate powers that they do not have. You do not have the power to decide whether or not your neighbor has a firearm, therefore neither does the government. As far as car tests and licenses go, that only extends to the sense that roads are "government property" and thus governments are able to set requirements for their use. Notably, governments don't have the power to tell you whether or not you can actually buy a car or drive on private property. Licenses are for driving on "public property" only.
    1
  265.  @alexojideagu  That governments around the world have unjust laws does not somehow negate the truth that they are unjust. A commonly believed falsehood is still false and does not become fact. The second amendment really isn't all that vague if you understand the political philosophy of the ones who wrote it, but even if it were it wouldn't really matter. Human rights do not come from the government and governments do not have just authority to violate human rights. Any agent of the government which violates the rights which you have by your nature is in the wrong and people are justified in resisting such authoritarianism.
    1
  266. It's almost like our culture and founding principles are different or something. Also, there's no such thing as free healthcare.
    1
  267.  @ABC-re6dx  No it doesn't. There is no such thing as free healthcare. Doctors are being paid and supplies are being purchased. You are definitely paying for your healthcare.
    1
  268.  @ABC-re6dx  No, it's not free. It's being paid for through taxes.
    1
  269.  @ABC-re6dx  It's not free when people are paying. What's going on is that people are being forced to pay for the healthcare of others.
    1
  270.  @sharas3180  If you wish to donate to charity, that's your business. Forcing people to give to others is theft.
    1
  271.  @sharas3180  If I steal your car and use part of the proceeds to buy you some groceries, is it no longer theft?
    1
  272.  @sharas3180  Government doesn't magic value into existence, and theft is still theft. If it's really so great that everyone would want to agree to this arrangement, then make it optional.
    1
  273.  @sharas3180  Yes, optional would be that people willing to pay taxes for the universal healthcare system would and people who would rather have private healthcare could. If universal healthcare is really so great, then this shouldn't be a problem. Yes, I complain about theft. Theft is wrong, it's as simple as that, and there are very real downsides to universal healthcare systems.
    1
  274.  @sharas3180  Yes taxation is theft. That you acknowledge your system can only operate by forcing people into it says it all. Mutually consenting transactions aren't theft. It is true that healthcare prices in the US are absurd, but that's from government interference.
    1
  275. And then look at what the Australian government did to the citizens over COVID.
    1
  276.  @kane3077  "Black Guns Matter" was created to educate Black Americans on their Second Amendment rights.
    1
  277.  @kane3077  Your sarcasm doesn't change what the group is for. There are similar other groups out there (there's a NAAGA chapter near me for example), but more rights advocacy is always good.
    1
  278.  @kane3077  You said that it's disrespectful.
    1
  279.  @kane3077  The name isn't disrespectful either.
    1
  280. Shall not be infringed. The government literally lacks the authority to enact gun control.
    1
  281. You probably shouldn't take a comedian seriously. Anyway, multiple attackers are definitely a thing that happens and even single attackers don't always stop with one shot. What I think is necessary or sufficient for my self defense is for me to decide, not anyone else.
    1
  282. There's a substantial difference between feeling safe and protected and having the ability to actually protect yourself.
    1
  283. Some of those bad people wear badges and are given guns by the state.
    1
  284. You also need guns for protection against people who don't have guns, but there's always going to be people with guns unless you manage to get the government to disarm.
    1
  285. Supreme Court and historical reality say otherwise.
    1
  286.  @agitated-agitater  Yes, have you?
    1
  287.  @agitated-agitater  Well regulated essentially means functioning properly. A well regulated militia is a militia that is well organized, well trained, and well armed. You seem to have missed the actual operative clause though: 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. Who are the people? When the Constitution refers to the people everywhere else, who is it referring to?
    1
  288.  @agitated-agitater  No. The people refers to everyone, just like it does everywhere else in the Constitution. If only the militia had the right to keep and bear arms, it would read something like this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's not what it says though. There is a natural division between the prefatory clause and the operative clause.
    1
  289.  @agitated-agitater  The concepts aren't 'different' as in unrelated concepts, it is simply that the prefatory clause does not create some of restriction on the operative clause. In order for the people to form into well regulated militia, the people must have arms. More fundamentally though, it's helpful to understand classical liberal philosophy. Rights belong to individuals. They are not emergent properties of collectives. Governments derive their powers from the people. In order for the militia or any government force to have the power to keep and bear arms, there must fundamentally exist a right for individual people to keep and bear arms from which it is derived. You also need to understand that the Bill of Rights is not granting rights to anyone. It is merely recognizing rights that people already have and restricting the government from violating them.
    1
  290.  @agitated-agitater  I appreciate your civility; it's a welcome change from how these sorts of YouTube discussions tend to go. I think that laws restricting gun rights, or any other rights, to certain individuals is fundamentally wrong. If you are free to live in society, then you should be free from having any of your rights violated. That is not to say that anyone should be able to own anything, but the restrictions which should exist aren't really based on pragmatism beyond how things actually function in reality. An example would be weapons of mass destruction, which I would argue shouldn't be owned by anyone: governments included.
    1
  291.  @agitated-agitater  Well there are multiple issues there. First, the laws and enforcement around domestic violence are problematic to the point where people who did not actually commit domestic violence end up with domestic violence on their record anyway. If someone is truly so violent that there is a legitimate threat that they would murder another, then simply denying them a firearm isn't going to solve the problem. Second, our domestic policy should not be determined by the internal affairs of other countries, but even so the Mexican cartels have access to firearms beyond simply purchasing them from stores in the manner that civilians do. Many firearms reach them through corrupt Mexican government officials and even through botched US government operations. Third, the 14th Amendment prohibits the government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process. It does not grant the government any additional powers to actually do these things. An individual person can be deprived of liberty if they commit a crime after due process (e.g. imprisoned), for instance, but the government could not pass a law restricting liberty to only certain people (literally the purpose of the Amendment). If anything, the 14th Amendment strengthens the right to keep and bear arms by extending the prohibition against violation by the federal government to state governments as well.
    1
  292.  @agitated-agitater  That's not implied, no. It just means that the prohibition stated in the 14th amendment only extends to cases without due process. The granting of power for the government to restrict life, liberty, and property with due process lies elsewhere and it is not carte blanche for any sort of restrictions that one might imagine. That is in essence what you are arguing though, or does the restriction end at some point? Without expiration, what is being advocated is the permanent loss of liberty because you believe someone is a danger. I wouldn't say that the loss of one's property and ability to legally defend themselves with firearms due to a false charge of domestic violence would be the last thing they care about. It isn't difficult to imagine the threats that such an individual might have above and beyond the threats that each of us normally has.
    1
  293.  @agitated-agitater  It's not flawed. If I state that you cannot hit me with a baseball bat, it does not imply that you can hit me with objects that are not baseball bats. Not believing a claim to be true does not imply that you believe a claim to be false. Utilitarian arguments lead to some pretty dystopian outcomes when carried to their conclusions. Rights serve as side constraints to actions that we can even consider undertaking.
    1
  294.  @agitated-agitater   How is a strawman? I'm illustrating the logic involved. Yes, I already acknowledged that the government does have the legal authority to deprive people of life, liberty, and property in some circumstances after due process. My disagreement is with your claim that this authority stems from the 14th Amendment, which is actually a restriction on government power. It's not a utilitarian approach, though I would agree with you that the system is far too focused on retribution instead of on restitution like it should be. Our system presumes innocence and requires due process exactly because it isn't utilitarian: it is considered preferable for guilty people to go free than for innocent people to be imprisoned, regardless of the harm that this may end up causing.
    1
  295.  @agitated-agitater  Laws are opposite with regard to individuals and governments. Individuals have the liberty to do whatever they wish unless there exists a law restricting the action in question. Governments on the other hand only have the powers granted to them by the people. If you want to say that the system as it currently exists is seriously messed up, then I would readily agree with you. People are in prison for actions which cannot justifiably be considered crimes, let alone crimes necessitating imprisonment. All drugs should be legalized and the criminal justice system needs a serious overhaul to deal with the various perverse incentives that have developed over the years.
    1
  296.  @Princessbuttercupish  In short: the ends do not justify the means.
    1
  297.  @ratofvengence  You really aren't capable of an original thought, are you? Just repeating the same thing for years even after getting deconstructed.
    1
  298.  @ratofvengence  Alright, let me ask you this: did you support government measures in response to Covid such as lockdowns, curfews, travel restrictions, mandates, etc.?
    1
  299.  @ratofvengence  Yes, and I opposed the actions that caused deaths like having nursing homes take in Covid positive residents. Now then, I've answered your question, now you answer mine. Did you or did you not support the government measures which restrict the liberty of your fellow human beings in the name of public safety?
    1
  300. They usually don't. The "gun free zones" that are actually effective are the ones with checkpoints and metal detectors and security personnel. That's a small minority of places. Most of the time there is literally nothing stopping someone from bringing a gun in and going on a murder spree unopposed. Police don't magically appear out of thin air.
    1
  301. You shoot the would-be mass shooter.
    1
  302. The reality is that school shootings are statistical anomalies. You're more likely to die from using the school bus than to be shot.
    1
  303. Some of the most pro-gun people I've ever seen are first generation immigrants from other countries. They know what it's like to be a subject instead of a citizen.
    1
  304. Times have changed, but the right to keep and bear arms has not. It's not a privilege based on unrest (though 2020 has seen more than its fair share) or current technology. It's a right, a thing we as human beings have just as human beings. You can call it archaic if you like, but it exists nonetheless and it's not going away. It is actually interesting to see the evolution of this though. First people were able to express their right to keep and bear arms in the state of nature, then governments came along and restricted the right to the nobility, then the right was restored to everyone, and now they're trying to restrict it back to the "new nobility."
    1
  305.  @christianschneeberger2736  Clearly you don't know that it's a right, because you don't treat it as one. That you can vote, get married, buy a rifle, and join the military before you can drink a beer is its own ridiculous issue that just shows how inconsistent laws are. The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to hunting and is explicitly not the reason it was enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I want one because (a) they're fun, (b) criminals exist, and (c) wannabe tyrants exist.
    1
  306.  @christianschneeberger2736  a) Overpowered according to who? They're less "powerful" than what the military and police use, so if anything they're underpowered. b) You're free to have that opinion, but it's irrelevant namecalling. c) Again, it's not about hunting. d) The claim that no one feels that way is simply false. People in countries with strict gun control laws do get victimized, and I have heard from people in these countries who wish they could carry a firearm to defend themselves. Criminals can harm you without using a gun. e) An armed citizenry is one of those measures, the final and ultimate check on an out of control military or government when the other checks and balances fail.
    1
  307.  @christianschneeberger2736  You might be being facetious, but there actually is a case to be made that citizens should be able to have rocket launchers. They can own cannons after all.
    1
  308.  @lukemacdermid2246  "Don't worry about the government spying on you, it's not a problem if you have nothing to hide."
    1
  309. False. Violent crime has decreased even as the number of guns has increased.
    1
  310. Other countries have shown us exactly what happens after gun registration. Canada is the latest example.
    1
  311. People do get victimized in Europe. Also, are your politicians protected by security with guns or are they unarmed?
    1
  312. Except that's false. Criminals don't follow regulations, that's why they're criminals. Countries with strict gun control laws still have gun crime.
    1
  313.  @sharas3180  Fewer, not zero, and several European countries make up for it in other violent crimes.
    1
  314. There are no toddlers or any other children in my home, so I just keep mine loaded and ready when I'm home. As for people with children, however, there are these things called quick access safes. You store your loaded gun in them, children can't open them, but you can open them in seconds.
    1
  315. What doesn't make sense about it? The right to keep and bear arms applies to all Americans, including African Americans.
    1
  316.  Gary Winthorp  All people must be equal under the law. Everyone has the same rights under the law regardless of race and everyone is held responsible for their actions regardless of race.
    1
  317. Yes. I would rather live in a world where everyone is aware of their surroundings than the current one where most people are totally oblivious sheep.
    1
  318. Guns have been a key part of American culture since before the US was even a country. They are strongly associated with liberty and self reliance.
    1
  319. It's multipurpose and derives from the right of self defense, where that self defense extends towards the government if need be. That hasn't changed.
    1
  320.  @BoldOne8760  And why should the people have the power to overthrow the government?
    1
  321.  @BoldOne8760  And why do people have the right to overthrow tyrannical government?
    1
  322.  @BoldOne8760  Why is authoritarianism wrong? What do authoritarians do to people?
    1
  323. "Although not the same, I am a school shooting survivor" In what way are you different?
    1
  324. What? I think you are confusing mass shootings with shootings in general.
    1
  325. As long as you are not harming others, what does it matter if you own a firearm for selfish reasons? Human beings aren't robots that exist only to perform utilitarian functions.
    1
  326.  @Nate9-9   You might choose to not go outside and say whatever you believe, but does that mean that we should have speech control preventing you from doing so?
    1
  327.  @Nate9-9  There already are limitations on keeping and bearing arms analogous to the sort of limitations we put on speech. You cannot brandish guns at people and obviously shooting someone is a crime. That's the thing though: the action itself has to be causing harm. Merely purchasing a firearm causes harm to no one. Putting screening and accessibility restrictions on purchasing firearms would be like putting screening and accessibility restrictions on speech. It's authoritarian, plain and simple.
    1
  328.  @Nate9-9  Would I personally sell a gun to someone with a criminal history or depression? Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the individual. Do I think that it should be illegal for someone with depression or a criminal history to buy a gun? No. I wouldn't let anyone put signs in my yard for Biden or Trump, but that doesn't mean I think people couldn't put signs in yards for Biden or Trump. I understand the reasoning on the other side, I just wholly disagree with the sort of mindset that creates it. Oh, and I don't think everything with gun control is fine how it is. There are lots of gun control laws that need to be repealed.
    1
  329. You have to be 18 to purchase a long gun and 21 to purchase a handgun.
    1
  330.  @houselemuellan8756  It's almost like criminals don't follow laws. Imagine that.
    1
  331.  @sugawatte  Which is why we should educate people on proper gun storage and safety in general.
    1
  332. No. Sorry, but violating the rights of innocent people because of the actions of criminals is horrific authoritarianism.
    1
  333. He's the founder of black guns matter.
    1
  334. You can't effectively fight violence by rolling over and being a willing victim.
    1
  335. Banning all guns would be impossibly hard, doubly so if you actually tried to enforce it.
    1
  336.  @BigGuy223  They couldn't though.
    1
  337.  @BigGuy223  Oh, people try all the time, but the attempts are swiftly defeated. Confiscating all guns would first require a constitutional amendment, which doesn't have nearly the support it would need, and then they'd have to win the civil war that would almost certainly result.
    1
  338. There will always be people with guns and people without guns can still hurt you.
    1
  339. Pro gun vs anti gun is already a video.
    1
  340. Australia still has violence.
    1
  341. Just lots of assault and theft.
    1
  342.  @bethyboo9463  I dare you to use that sort of tone with someone who has been victimized.
    1
  343.  @bethyboo9463  Because the UK is perfect and never has any problems, right? Fortunately we are no longer colonists subject to English law, so your opinion really doesn't matter.
    1
  344. I could play anti-gun bingo with this post it's so full of manipulative rhetoric. It's simple: you either believe in liberty or you don't. Either restricting the constitutionally guaranteed rights of innocent people is okay or it isn't.
    1
  345. What's funny is that I know British people who wish you still had the US style right to keep and bear arms. You guys are the ones we originally got it from you know. It wasn't until the 20th century that your rights were systematically stripped away.
    1
  346. Tell that to a 100 pound woman or an elderly man being attacked by a 250 pound criminal.
    1
  347.  @maxbooty4486  None that are as effective and enable you to stay out of reach of your attacker.
    1
  348.  @maxbooty4486  The majority of the world is wrong then. Avoiding / deterring an encounter in the first place is always preferred, but if that all fails and you are actually being attacked then nothing is going to beat having a gun. Not martial arts, not pepper spray, not a taser.
    1
  349.  @maxbooty4486  Last time I checked, violent crime occurs in every country. It doesn't particularly matter if you get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death. You're still dead.
    1
  350.  @maxbooty4486  You don't need a vehicle to travel, but it sure makes it a lot easier.
    1
  351. You either believe in empowering the individual to enable them to defend themselves or you believe in rendering the individual helpless and relying upon the state to defend them.
    1
  352. What is an assault rifle?
    1
  353. The right to keep and bear arms goes well beyond protecting yourself against the mentally ill.
    1
  354.  @barbaraw1245  Thanks.
    1
  355. The massacre of bacteria by bacteriophages?
    1
  356. Nonviolent solutions are preferable, but sometimes violence is necessary. Free trade and diplomatic relations reduce the risk of war, but we still have militaries. You have to be able to defend yourself.
    1
  357. Because self defense is a right and you have a right to own property in general. If you mean the historical context, it stems from English common law which was particularly important for colonists and was reinforced by the American Revolution.
    1
  358. I don't want America to become like Australia, no. You speak as though governments have never murdered people who they knew were unarmed and helpless before.
    1
  359. The National Rifle Association. It's a group that advocates for gun rights and teaches firearm safety and marksmanship.
    1
  360. Do you think everyone who goes to a gun range is filled with despair? Do you think someone who scares off a criminal with a gun is bringing death?
    1
  361. It arguably is, but at the same time gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are just puppets for elites like Bloomberg trying to disarm the common citizen.
    1
  362. You can hope that all you like, but it's not true. Violent criminals exist and their victims aren't going to dissuade them through peaceful dialogue.
    1
  363. Why should we care at all about the opinions of others?
    1
  364. Just make sure you don't post messages that aren't government approved on Facebook or else you might get arrested.
    1
  365.  @ReGGiEbayer95  Were you not aware that the Australian government was arresting people over Facebook posts?
    1
  366. Cool. You stay over there, I'll stay over here, and we can both get what we want.
    1
  367. We do learn history. That's a big reason why we don't want the government to be the only thing with guns. Also, there is no such thing as a crime free society. Barring law abiding citizens from owning firearms just makes them that much less able to defend themselves from murderers, rapists, robbers, etc.
    1
  368.  @saskiabrennen5385  Which should take precedence: the rights of the individual or the overall safety of society as a collective? Reducing crime is of course a worthy goal, but it is a problem if the way you are achieving that is by reducing the ability of the individual to defend themselves. Victims become statistics, acceptable sacrifices made for the greater good or else used to show that more restrictions on the individual are needed. History shows us how hazardous this sort of thinking is and what it can lead to if left unchecked. I would say that people in the US, for the most part, are well aware that other developed nations have less gun violence. We just find the measures that you have taken to achieve it to be unacceptable.
    1
  369. If guns are really so bad, then get the military, police, and private security to give them up.
    1
  370. One of many reasons why carrying on your person is better than off-body carry.
    1
  371.  @falloncousins653  Obviously there is something wrong with shooting innocent people, but owning a gun does not mean that you are going to shoot innocent people any more than owning a knife means that you are going to stab innocent people. It's wrong of you to vilify liberty in the name of safety, to presume guilt instead of innocence, to turn rights into privileges. Authoritarianism is wrong. Period.
    1
  372. Joining the US military isn't a right.
    1
  373.  @happyzombiikitti  Well that's the difference. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right enumerated in the US Constitution. You can't deny rights to people based on speculation about mental health.
    1
  374. If the government needs automatic weapons, then so do the people.
    1
  375. Well the British trying to take our guns is what helped spark the American revolution. Guns are interesting. I own several guns. I know many people who own guns. Looking at the state of things today, taking away guns would be terrible, terrible idea.
    1
  376.  @alix9751  Yes, it's in my culture to be able to defend ourselves, as opposed to your culture which seems to value being helpless and rolling over for criminals.
    1
  377.  @alix9751  Like I said, helplessness. You sacrifice the individual for the collective, it's okay to you to let people just get rolled over by criminals so long as the overall crime rate is low. That's evil.
    1
  378.  @alix9751  Personal sacrifice is voluntary. Taking people's stuff by threat of force is theft and forcing them to be helpless is authoritarian. You do let people get rolled over by criminals. You even punish people who dare to defend themselves. Is it good to know non-lethal ways to defend yourself? Sure, but sometimes lethal force is required. Sometimes the only way to stop someone is to physically render them incapable of continuing to attack. You have a helpless society where victims are just statistics, acceptable sacrifices for the greater good.
    1
  379. It's cultural. Gun ownership has been tied to freedom and self-reliance since before the US even existed as an independent nation. As for making gun ownership equivalent to vehicle ownership, you don't need things like a driver's license to simply own a vehicle, they're needed for driving on public roads. Similarly, most states have licenses / permits for carrying a gun in public.
    1
  380.  @extremeresponsibility  And how often were you using semi-automatic AR-15s in the military?
    1
  381.  @extremeresponsibility  I'm going to take that as meaning that you were actually using selective fire rifles like the M4 or M16 and don't have a rational response. I'm of the opinion that the military has no right to possess weapons beyond what civilians can own, but if you're going to argue that civilians shouldn't have access to military weaponry then at least be honest about what the military is using.
    1
  382.  @extremeresponsibility  Semi-auto rifles are certainly useful for both home defense and for hunting, they're extremely popular for a reason, but the federal government is only supposed to have those powers granted to it by the Constitution if we're going by the idea that the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land.
    1
  383.  @nope6908  It's worrying that I need to be the one to inform you that basically any caliber suitable for self defense will go through walls. I can assure you that buckshot from a pump action shotgun will penetrate a wall. As for using such a thing, you certainly can, but I prefer being able to quickly take follow up shots. As much as we might like to hope that we would never miss in a self defense scenario, we definitely could.
    1
  384.  @nope6908  Jefferson thought there should be an armed rebellion at least every 20 years, so... yeah...
    1
  385. Yes, look at Australia and what happened to the citizens for the past year and a half.
    1
  386.  @erinanderson3580  The people of Australia gave up liberty and now we see where that leads, just like we saw in Venezuela and Germany.
    1
  387.  @erinanderson3580  I'm talking about the lockdowns, the curfews, the prohibition on travelling, the arrests for protesting, the arrests for even supporting protesting online, the police coming to people's homes and questioning them about protesting. It's dystopian.
    1
  388. No thanks, I'd rather not be rendered helpless.
    1
  389. Yes, then we learn the answer and reject it.
    1
  390. Yep, you can vote, get married, and be sent off to war at 18... but clearly you aren't mature enough to be able to handle a beer.
    1
  391. From our point of view, the rest of the world are the weirdos for just giving up their means of defending themselves.
    1
  392.  @ichkannechtallesauermathe634  Men with knives killed 29 people and injured over 130 others in China back in 2014 before they could be stopped by police.
    1
  393.  @ichkannechtallesauermathe634  The US isn't Europe nor do we want to be.
    1
  394.  @shamiltineo5291  What's illegal? There's no requirement that your attacker have a gun to legally exercise lethal force in self defense.
    1
  395.  @shamiltineo5291  I don't know what nonsensical place you live in, but that's certainly not the law where I am. Deadly force is justified if you reasonably believe that it's necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury or to stop a forcible felony. This is self defense we are talking about, not a duel, there's no notion of "fairness."
    1
  396. Seeing how the increased restrictions affect society is a big reason people oppose the restrictions. There's this odd idea that people who are pro-gun must just be unaware of how other countries do things, but it's the opposite. We know and we actively don't want America to be that way.
    1
  397. We don't live in 1700s Japan. It's kind of odd that you recognize forcibly suppressing the news would be "unfair" but then immediately suggest stealing from millions of innocent people instead. Violating the rights of innocent people because of the actions of a few criminals is unjust authoritarianism and has no place in a free society.
    1
  398.  @arm.n_8419  There are weapons that you can use in addition to guns (I personally carry pepper spray in addition to a pistol), but the harsh reality is that guns are used for a reason: they simply work better than other methods. A gun enables you to actually render an attacker physically incapable of attacking at a distance. Other things like bats and knives just don't do that.
    1
  399. While it is true that white males are the most likely to own guns, black and female (and black female) gun owners are by no means rare.
    1
  400. Why not? Guns move small pieces of metal very fast and trucks are large pieces of metal moving relatively slower but still fast compared to humans. Both have lawful uses and both can be misused. The person who gets killed from getting shot and the person who gets killed from getting hit by a truck are equally dead.
    1
  401.  @meelomilo23  The vast majority of times that guns are used to shoot things, it's just pieces of paper. Why don't accidental deaths count? People aren't somehow less dead just because it was due to an accident.
    1
  402. Cars equal car deaths. Knives equal knife deaths. Genitalia equals sexual assault. Saying that there would be no gun deaths without guns is a truism, not an argument.
    1
  403.  @zosoart  So what's the point of what you're saying?
    1
  404. The survivors agreed to come to the discussion. Don't show up if you aren't ready to hear the arguments.
    1
  405. Protecting mass shootings isn't a mainstream opinion. Protecting gun ownership very much is. There's a reason mainstream politicians aren't running on repealing the Second Amendment: it would be wildly unpopular. Who cares what the 'global population' thinks? In the United States, the opinions of American citizens are what matter. Just because other people have opinions you don't like, it doesn't make them not mainstream. Tucker Carlson has the highest rated show in mainstream media for a reason.
    1
  406.  @nathanm4444  The US has never particularly cared what global opinion was. When it was founded most countries were still playing around with things like monarchs claiming to have some divine right to rule and aristocracy and suppression of speech and religion. People in other countries are perfectly free to believe what they will, but their opinions are irrelevant when it comes to US domestic policy.
    1
  407.  @nathanm4444  The goal isn't safety in the physical sense, though that does play a role so far as self defense goes, the goal is liberty. Are you familiar with the phrase "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"? We the people always retain the right to revolution if we find the government to be despotic. It's not a coincidence that authoritarian regimes invariably ban guns from the population or at least from their political opponents. It's not a coincidence that slaves were prohibited from owning firearms. When the citizenry has no check on the government's monopoly of force, what exactly are you going to do if that government becomes tyrannical?
    1
  408. Let's hope that doesn't backfire.
    1
  409. Let me know when you get guns away from the government and make criminals who don't have guns harmless, then we'll talk.
    1
  410. Civilian AR-15s specifically are not military grade and are semi-automatic only. Automatic weapons were banned back in 1986.
    1
  411.  @cedreondavis5417  Rifles, as well as shotguns, offer clear advantages over pistols for things like home defense, hunting, and resisting tyranny.
    1
  412.  @cedreondavis5417  1. No, that's simply not true. Getting hit by a bullet from a pistol and getting hit by a slug or buckshot from a shotgun are not equivalent. 2. Have you considered that one of the reasons why we aren't resisting any tyranny is exactly because we're armed in the first place?
    1
  413. There's a difference between wanting to put in the effort and changes to reduce mass shootings and wanting to ban / restrict guns.
    1
  414. If you don't have the ability to defend your freedom, how free are you really? If your government decided to go full authoritarian on you tomorrow or the military engaged in a coup, what would you do about it? Freedom is connected to having a gun because of the fundamental rights of self-defense and revolution.
    1
  415.  @freedomdividendnews5042  I did learn martial arts, but the unfortunate reality is that martial arts only get you so far, especially if you aren't an expert. Who would you bet on? A 100 pound woman who has taken some martial arts classes or a 250 pound man built of muscle? Now put a gun in her hand.
    1
  416.  @freedomdividendnews5042  I'm secure enough in my masculinity to admit that there are plenty of men out there much stronger than I am. Using guns doesn't "almost always" land you in jail, and in the sort of situation where I would use a gun I'd happily take jail over the alternative. As for where I can carry, I can carry a gun most places. Not being able to carry is the rare exception.
    1
  417.  @freedomdividendnews5042  I also carry pepper spray in addition to carrying a gun, but guns are more effective and appropriate in some situations. No, killing a bad guy does not make you the same as him. Defensive and aggressive force are not the same. If a criminal tries to kidnap your daughter to do who knows what to her, you shouldn't feel bad at all for shooting him.
    1
  418.  @freedomdividendnews5042    Would you condemn Jews who shot Nazis for trying to put them into gas chambers?
    1
  419.  @freedomdividendnews5042  So is that a yes? Your worldview is nonsensical. Self defense is a fundamental human right.
    1
  420.  @freedomdividendnews5042  Because weapons of mass destruction, by their very nature, violate the rights of innocent people when used. Because human rights are negative, not positive. Freedom of speech means that you can't be arrested for speaking your mind, it doesn't mean that others have to provide you with a platform.
    1
  421.  @freedomdividendnews5042  No. Are you sure you know what hypocrisy means? If you use a gun, or any other object including your fist for that matter, to hurt an innocent person, then that's a crime and you should be held accountable for your actions.
    1
  422. You are perfectly free to leave if you want to.
    1
  423. It's not just about "feeling", it's about being able to effectuate your safety. Someone with a gun actually has the potential to defend themselves. I can tell you from experience that merely declaring a place a "gun free zone" does not magically stop people from bringing guns into it.
    1
  424. Owning a gun isn't about "feeling" safe. It's about having the capability to defend yourself. "Feeling" safe doesn't mean you actually are safe. Violent criminals exist in every country and every victim rendered defenseless by the state is unforgivable.
    1
  425. More students are killed in school bus accidents each year than in shootings.
    1
  426.  @westhave  It's not about the 99%, it's about the 1%. That's why we get insurance, fire extinguishers, etc. The consequences of not being prepared for the rare event are catastrophic.
    1
  427.  @westhave  They're both tools that can save your life while being dangerous if used improperly.
    1
  428. "Well answer me this: because meth is sold underground, should it be allowed?" Yes. "I feel that people forget that guns are not the only way to protect one’s self." No, but they're more effective, as evidenced by the fact that politicians and the wealthy have armed security. "they live in majority white rural areas where everyone keeps to themselves." I live in a majority African American urban area. African Americans are the fastest growing group of gun owners. "I feel like people put themselves up on these pedestals that they’ll be able to play hero." It's not about playing a hero. It's just about not playing a victim.
    1
  429.  @Deerych  How so?
    1
  430.  @justAnEepyLilThing  Why even bother replying if that's what you're going to reply with?
    1
  431.  @justAnEepyLilThing  So you'll give replies without substance simply because it's your comment section. Okay. All of my points stand. Civilians observably use firearms to defend themselves. Civilians aren't soldiers, but they don't need to be soldiers either. They don't even need to be police. The objective of the civilian is simple: end the encounter, make the bad guy go away one way or another. They don't need to catch criminals, they don't need to secure locations, they don't need to go into enemy territory. Even simply brandishing a firearm is often sufficient to make the criminal decide they'd rather be somewhere else.
    1
  432.  @justAnEepyLilThing  And I've been explaining the problems with your initial comment. If I can spend a little time and have one less person pushing to violate the rights of innocent people, I will.
    1
  433. The US is 3.797 million square miles with over 320 million people, over 390 million firearms, and a culture where trying to take firearms away is basically equivalent to taking away freedom. I'm not saying there aren't things that could be done to reduce shootings, but there really is no way to stop them altogether.
    1
  434. The statistics say that guns are used defensively more often than they are used to commit homicide.
    1
  435.  @robtheeducator8230  The CDC shows defensive gun uses occur between 60 thousand and 2.5 million times per year depending on the study.
    1
  436.  @robtheeducator8230  It is use by victims.
    1
  437. Everyone should get training, but the idea of the government mandating it is an unacceptable road to go down.
    1
  438. It's almost like gun ownership is a fundamental part of US culture or something.
    1
  439. "How many people die from guns" 39,707 in 2019, including suicides. "How many people are saved due to guns" Guns are used defensively between 60,000 and 3 million times per year depending on the study. "Not owned by cops / military" If a cop can have a gun, then so can I.
    1
  440. Don't be obtuse. What exactly is a small woman or an old man supposed to do against a violent criminal in his prime? Put guns in their hands and his strength counts for a lot less
    1
  441.  @atlas2296  It doesn't though. Being super buff doesn't provide all that much advantage when using a firearm, especially when it comes to short duration events like a criminal encounter.
    1
  442. When the first amendment was written the fastest way to send information was by rider on horseback. They had no idea that the internet would be created. Does that mean there isn't anything wrong with speech regulations for electronic communication?
    1
  443. Except that guns are observably used in self defense. I'm not aware of many documented cases of kids using teddy bears to scare off the Boogeyman.
    1
  444. Ah yes, "anyone I disagree with is wrong and their speech is dangerous."
    1
  445.  Charlene Amee  Of course I know what a school shooting means, I was at Virginia Tech when Cho murdered 32 helpless people. However, the actions of criminals do not justify infringing on the rights of innocent people. School shootings are terrible things, but they are also rare things and there are things we can do about them besides gun control. Saying "agree with me or you're a bigot" is garbage.
    1
  446.  Charlene Amee  Who said anything about being apathetic? You can keep calling people bigoted if you like, but it won't make it true and it won't change minds.
    1
  447.  Charlene Amee  Yep. Meanwhile support for gun control has been dropping with everything that's been happening in 2020. Name calling just isn't going to cut it if you want to get people voting for gun control.
    1
  448.  Charlene Amee  I would say that calling people bigoted is name-calling.
    1
  449.  Charlene Amee  So calling people bigoted isn't name calling to you? Okay, I'll keep that in mind.
    1
  450.  Charlene Amee  Again, this idea that people who are against gun control are unsympathetic to mass shooting survivors is just a strawman that you've invented.
    1
  451.  Charlene Amee   It is actually, and of course I read what you wrote initially. I responded to it after all. This idea of "agree with me or else you're a bigot who is unsympathetic to mass shooting survivors" is irrational garbage. A non-argument. A false characterization. A strawman.
    1
  452.  Charlene Amee  Yep. Your false sense of moral superiority is disgusting.
    1
  453. Violating the rights of innocent people because of the actions of criminals is fundamentally unjust.
    1
  454.  @xaviersands999  Right, America, a country founded on the ideal of individual liberty.
    1
  455.  @xaviersands999  Yes, they owned slaves, a gross hypocrisy that was understood even at the time. The reality of America has never matched the ideal of America, but that doesn't make the ideal bad. The task is to be ever striving to move the reality closer to the ideal. Restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms is moving in the wrong direction.
    1
  456.  @xaviersands999  The US Constitution is the oldest surviving codified constitution in the world. Clearly something about it works. The principles contained within it remain true today as they did centuries ago. Human beings have natural rights which no government may justly infringe upon.
    1
  457.  @xaviersands999  Fairly easy response to that: the UN doesn't determine what human rights are any more than other governments do. The universal declaration of human rights is simply wrong.
    1
  458.  @xaviersands999  There's no such thing as a perfect country as there's no such thing as perfect humans.
    1
  459.  @xaviersands999  Uhhh... no? There's nothing about our ideals that assume perfection.
    1
  460. Have you ever been shooting?
    1
  461. Sorry, but you lack the authority to do any of that. You don't get to restrict my ability to defend myself or engage in peaceful activities just because you're worried about criminals.
    1
  462. ​ @Arg0naut0  If you don't have authority, what are you suggesting? That everyone just limit themselves of their own accord? No, you clearly want it to be a crime. You lack that authority as would anyone who you would vote for. And I responded to what you said about self-defense and recreation. You don't get to arbitrarily limit me. Address the actual causes of violence: things like black markets, mental health, and broken homes. End the war on drugs, stop restricting the building of mental health facilities, overhaul the education system, things of that sort.
    1
  463.  @Arg0naut0  Yes, limiting people to six-shot pistols, shotguns, and some sort of rifle is arbitrary. "Assault-style" weapons and "high capacity" magazines are arbitrary terms, just buzzwords that don't actually mean anything. You don't get to put limitations on the liberty of other people like that.
    1
  464.  @Arg0naut0  ​ They are the very definition of arbitrary. Six rounds are enough according to what? Just your personal opinion. If "assault-style" weapons and "high capacity" magazines have an actual meaning other than your arbitrary opinion, I'd love to hear it. You are literally talking about putting limitations on people. That's your entire proposal, which you then reiterate by saying limitations should be set.
    1
  465. If a criminal broke into your home right now at this very moment, what would you do?
    1
  466. There have been only three documented shootings with automatic weapons since they were banned in 1986 that I'm aware of. One was by a police officer and another was using an illegal conversion.
    1
  467. I find your comment to be offensive to freedom of speech and expression and liberty in general. You don't get to silence people because they disagree with you. You don't get to force people to express certain views. You don't get to have your way just because you say so.
    1
  468. That's false though. Guns are most often used for putting holes in pieces of paper.
    1
  469. Police work to investigate crime and catch criminals, but they aren't very good at actually protecting you for the simple fact that they can't be everywhere (and you wouldn't want them to be). The UK does need guns, it has 3 times more crime per 1000 people than the US. People are getting robbed all the time and there's nothing they can do about it.
    1
  470. Do you understand that we don't want to do both?
    1
  471.  @fran5237  The same reason we don't want speech control.
    1
  472.  @fran5237  I'm telling you the right to keep and bear arms is exactly that, just like the right to free speech.
    1
  473.  @fran5237  You have the right to defend yourself, both against common criminals and against would be tyrants. You have the right to own property. You have the general liberty to do as you will so long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. In short, the government lacks the authority to implement gun control and it would be a conflict of interests for it to have that authority as you might need to defend yourself against the government.
    1
  474.  @fran5237  Everyone is responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others. I've never harmed anyone with a gun. Punishing innocent people is fundamentally wrong.
    1
  475.  @fran5237  No, there is no such duty. The duty you have towards others is to not violate their rights, you don't have a duty to actively protect others. Of course, not having a duty to do something does not mean that you can't or shouldn't do it anyway. I'm all in favor of doing things to prevent tragedies, just so long as those things are not violating the rights of innocent people.
    1
  476.  @fran5237  For the different morals part, would you have a duty to jump in the way of a bullet to prevent someone else from getting shot? It would certainly be heroic if you did, but should you be punished if you didn't? Many people in countries with gun control get victimized, and I think it's telling that even in countries with strict gun control the politicians are protected by armed security. We'll never know the number of people who might have been able to protect themselves if they had been able to have a gun. Let me ask you: if someone were to break into your home with intent to cause you harm right at this very moment, what would you do? If the government became tyrannical and decided that you should be enslaved or exterminated, what would you do?
    1
  477. Shall not be infringed. Period. The government literally lacks the authority to impose any such requirement.
    1
  478. They aren't. Machine guns were banned back in 1986 and they are basically never used in crimes.
    1
  479.  @artichare1839   Most guns that people purchase to defend themselves are semi-automatics, where the energy from firing one round is used to load the next round and you just need to pull the trigger again to fire again. Pulling a trigger multiple times per second is very doable.
    1
  480. Except a lot of people become pro-gun because their friends and family were murdered after being rendered helpless by anti-gun policies.
    1
  481.  @Deerych  That's not really the explanation. The Spanish also built countries in the Americas via guns and violence and genocide of the natives, yet they don't have the same gun culture. The big difference with the English settlers in America was that they owned the land themselves and were allowed and even encouraged to defend that land with firearms whereas Spanish settlers didn't own the land and were forbidden to own firearms, instead relying on the military for defense. Firearms became connected with being self-sufficient and protecting your property. The American Revolution and western expansion only reinforced this connection while further associating firearms with liberty and patriotism.
    1
  482. A lot of people who hunt will donate the meat to the hungry.
    1
  483. Obama did try to pass gun control, he just didn't succeed. Biden also has an aggressively anti-gun platform. What do you think "taking everyone's guns" looks like? It's not just everything is fine one day and then the next police are being sent door to door. That's not how this works, it's a gradual progression to get registration and institute ever greater hurdles to make legal ownership next to impossible for the ordinary person. I'm not a NRA member, but there is very much a reason to oppose "greater background checks."
    1
  484. 2A was written in Revolutionary War times, not Civil War, and good amendments to the Constitution expand rights, they don't curtail them. There was one amendment that didn't follow that trend and it was a miserable failure: Prohibition. I would agree though that the wording is misleading: 2A doesn't give people a right, it recognizes a right that people already have.
    1
  485. While possible, there are NRA members and gun rights supporters in general who have experienced shootings. Some people believe in gun rights because they experienced a shooting.
    1
  486.  @francesca6105  Because often in shootings, victims find themselves unarmed because of gun control laws. You feel helpless, feel like you've been forced to be helpless by the law, that if only you had been allowed to be armed, to defend yourself and others, that you might have been able to do something about it.
    1
  487.  @francesca6105  Everyone should have a right to acquire a firearm for two reasons. First, self defense is a fundamental right necessary for all other rights. Second, people should be free to do as they will in general so long as they aren't violating the rights of others.
    1
  488.  @francesca6105  You don't need a car to get across the country, but it makes it easier. I want as much advantage as I can get over criminals. As far as I am concerned, if you threaten my life, you have forfeited yours.
    1
  489. People without guns can still victimize you.
    1
  490.  @chantalmorgenstern7675  Violent criminals for starters. Last I checked, they exist in every country on the planet. It's not about fear, it's about being prepared.
    1
  491. Why wouldn't you want the most effective tool possible? If you're put in a situation where you have to deal with a violent criminal, do you want to use your hands or would you rather have a gun?
    1
  492. And to protect yourself from people without guns.
    1
  493. It's an issue of definition really. Not to say that mass shootings aren't terrible, they are, but statistically they are rare events. Even according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, there were only 1,284 mass shooting deaths since 2009. To put that into perspective, 49,784 people died from influenza and pneumonia in the US in 2019 alone, with the top cause of death being heart disease with 659,041 deaths in 2019 according to the CDC.
    1
  494. This isn't pro-gun vs anti-gun, that's another video.
    1
  495. It's not about "feeling" safe, it's about having the ability to defend yourself.
    1
  496.  @TheHungryP0tat0z  And people with knives, acid, etc.
    1
  497. So... restricting the liberty of innocent people in order to save lives is sound reasoning to you?
    1
  498.  @liataglevelit9752  There's a big difference between a right and a privilege. Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to 'restrict' things like the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures if it saves lives? How about 'restrictions' on the right to free speech or to assemble?
    1
  499.  @arm.n_8419  You don't debate at all.
    1
  500. What is a "military grade gun?"
    1
  501.  @insidemonicasworld   They already banned those though. What you see for sale are versions designed specifically for the civilian market. Also, if you go by that reasoning, muskets were designed for military combat. Should we ban muskets?
    1
  502. The average police response time is around 10 minutes. You can be victimized in under 10 seconds. Do the math.
    1
  503. Shooting is fun. The act of firing a gun causes your body to release various hormones, kind of like when you go on a roller coaster.
    1
  504. Freedom is dangerous.
    1
  505. It started before the United States even existed as a separate nation, with colonists having firearms to defend their property as well as hunt.
    1
  506. Tell you what, when the government decides that it's safer without guns and disarms all government forces, I'll consider it.
    1
  507. US culture is unique. Imagine that.
    1
  508.  @jugsbugs5076  "Random invasions of property and privacy are good things"
    1
  509. If government has a reason to own something, citizens have a reason to own it as well.
    1
  510. People without guns can harm you.
    1
  511.  @idknaomi  You now face the opposite problem: you can't defend protect yourself at range. Having to come into direct physical contact with an attacker doesn't sound like having a better chance to me.
    1
  512. Guns greatly reduce the ability of the physically strong to simply overpower the physically weak.
    1
  513. If you're in the US, no. Gun free zones are the exception rather than the rule. I carry a gun when I go grocery shopping.
    1
  514. So if guns aren't how you are protected, does that you mean you support disarming the police and military?
    1
  515.  @katerinakilove1  Who gets to make the determination about what is necessity and what is luxury and why? Perhaps no one would need guns or militaries in utopia, but we don't live in utopia. In the real world governments and police and militaries are made up of human beings with all the potential for abusing power that human beings are capable of. If the military exists to fight fire with fire, what happens if they turn that fire against you?
    1
  516.  @katerinakilove1  You didn't really answer my question. Who makes the determination on what circumstances necessitate guns and under what circumstances guns are luxuries? You? Me? Someone else?
    1
  517.  @katerinakilove1  Common sense to me says that people without guns can victimize you and that guns are capable of stopping them. Why should governments have the authority to dictate that? If you ask me, every individual has the right to decide for themselves whether they need a gun or not. You make your choice for you and I'll make my choice for me. You don't get to make my choices and I don't get to make your choices.
    1
  518.  @katerinakilove1  I mean, you can say that, but you're observably wrong. Guns quite frequently prevent violence in "mundane" situations, violent attackers deciding they would rather be somewhere else after seeing that their victims are armed. The notion that your freedom to make choices stops when even the possibility of someone else's safety comes into place leads to absurd conclusions. Driving a car is a risky activity that can compromise the safety of other people. Should we reduce speed limits to around 30 kph to increase safety or should we outlaw driving altogether? Knives can compromise people's safety, so should we ban those? Baseball bats? Should we ban exercise so people can't be strong enough to harm others? You might always be sick and not know it, so should we quarantine everyone forever so you can't harm others?
    1
  519.  @katerinakilove1  Even if it were true that guns create more violence than they prevent, so what? The fact remains that they can be used to protect yourself. Why should my ability to decide how I defend myself be subject to what others are doing? Who cares what the "main use" of something is? The person killed by a vase is just as dead as the person killed by a gun.
    1
  520.  @katerinakilove1  Well we've come across another point of disagreement then, because that's not my goal. My goal is to increase individual liberty and free people from authoritarian control. Human beings fundamentally have the right of self defense and should be free to make their own risk assessments. No, I'm not going to ban every single object in the world as I don't want to ban guns. It's your reasoning that leads to absurd conclusions like that, not mine. Making saving lives your primary value leads to authoritarianism when consistently followed through as freedom is a risky thing.
    1
  521.  @katerinakilove1  Well all I can say is that, all else being equal, it is true by definition that the person who is free to own firearms is more free than the person who is not. That you don't recognize your chains or are even thankful for them is sadly a common sentiment. On the bright side, I do know that a liberty movement exists in Australia, so hopefully they can grow and change some minds over there.
    1
  522.  @katerinakilove1  Right, there is such a thing as just law. Human beings have natural rights which are immoral to violate: life, liberty, and property. Everyone has the right to defend themselves against those who would aggress against these rights, with deadly force if need be. I also hope that you lead a great life and never find yourself in a position where you need to defend yourself. Just think about the foundations of your beliefs, why you hold them, and whether you hold them consistently.
    1
  523. Neat. I got my first gun in a couple minutes.
    1
  524. I find it strange how Europeans feel the compulsion to try to tell Americans what to do. If we wanted to live in Europe, we would move to Europe.
    1
  525. That you don't have a feeling to protect yourself just reveals how lulled into helplessness you are.
    1
  526. Fortunately, only the opinions of people inside America are actually relevant to American policy.
    1
  527. Owning a gun is easy because self defense is a human right. Ranges usually do offer rental guns.
    1
  528. There's always risk with anything, but that doesn't give you the authority to infringe on the rights of others.
    1
  529. Neat, so what security measures are you taking to actually keep guns off of campus?
    1
  530. I tend to see anti gun people as control freaks who use emotion to try to strip away liberty from innocent people.
    1
  531.  @godmode3611  Of course there will be some pro gun people who base their case on emotion, but the anti gun side is rife with emotional manipulation and deception.
    1
  532.  @nkkenlken3220  The pro gun people show real life examples of why there shouldn't be gun restrictions, while the anti gun people either make up empty excuses to those examples or just ignore them.
    1
  533. Do you really need freedom of speech?
    1
  534.  @tamarar.130  I brought it up because they are both rights. Just as it is up to me to determine whether I want to speak using verbal communication, newspaper, or electronically, it is up to me to determine what sort of arms I keep and bear. A private citizen or business can certainly prohibit arms on their property, but the government lacks the authority to restrict guns just like it lacks the authority to restrict electronic speech. Now if I actually cause unjust harm to another person, whether it be with a gun or with my bare hands, then I can be held accountable for my actions. I have the right to voice my opinion on guns however I wish as long as I am not making a credible threat against you. Whether you feel the result of my opinions might "hurt your existence as a person" is irrelevant.
    1
  535. Citizens need guns for the same reason police do. We live in the communities with the very same criminals that police have to deal with.
    1
  536.  @foop2954  Singapore also lacks basic human rights.
    1
  537.  @foop2954  Yes, it does. Your rejection of reality doesn't change objective facts.
    1
  538.  @foop2954  There are these things called civil rights. You don't actually live freely. You lack privacy, real freedom of speech and assembly, and press to name a few things.
    1
  539.  @foop2954  "Slightly more." You're living in denial: you've effectively given them up for security. Singapore ranks 61st in personal freedom on the Human Freedom Index.
    1
  540. In a mutually agreed upon duel, yes.
    1
  541. You can have your ways in your country. We want our ways in ours, and here individual liberty is important.
    1
  542. Twenty-seven times, and firearms being more effective is kind of the point.
    1
  543.  @pamelasmith1924  Who gets to decide who you don't sell guns to?
    1
  544. It often isn't, no.
    1
  545.  @zosiakrasnopolska1338  It should be directly on your body instead. The odds of needing to have a gun are low, but the consequences of not having it when you need it are disastrous.
    1
  546.  @ilovebigtimerush  The first way to save yourself is situational awareness, not getting attacked in the first place. As for "simply breaking someone's nose", that's incredibly risky. If I believe an attacker is threatening my life, I'm not going to take chances. If drawing my firearm does not cause an immediate change in the attacker's behavior, I will defend myself.
    1
  547.  @ilovebigtimerush   I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say. I do not have mental health or substance abuse issues and someone having those issues isn't justification to surrender my life to them. As for them "using it against me", that's what training is for, to help prevent that from happening. That's no reason not to have the tool in the first place.
    1
  548.  @ilovebigtimerush   I take a gun everywhere that it is legal and practical to do so, as a gun that you don't have with you cannot be used to defend yourself. I carry it concealed so you likely wouldn't know that I have it, but even if you did, your feelings are frankly not my concern. If having law abiding citizens around who are armed makes you feel unsafe, that seems like an issue you should work on.
    1
  549.  @Deerych  The Gun Violence Archive is overly broad and misleading, look at the very definition: four or more people injured or killed. That means you can have mass shootings with zero deaths and includes things like inter-gang violence.
    1
  550.  @Deerych  What lie did I tell?
    1
  551. You don't have to prove it was self-defense, you just have to be able to reasonably claim that it was and then it's on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't. Most cases of actual self-defense don't even make it to trial.
    1
  552. There are crazy police out there too.
    1
  553. Because then the government will use it to infringe on people's rights. It is an individual's responsibility to seek proper training and face the consequences if they do not and make a terrible mistake. It is not the role of the government to mandate such things.
    1
  554.  @issecret1  It literally is not. What's "wrong" is that we value liberty.
    1
  555.  @patrickmason7466  That doesn't make sense. The rights of others means that I am held responsible for my actions if I violate them by using a firearm improperly. It doesn't mean you can coerce me into learning something.
    1
  556.  @patrickmason7466  Yes, you are held accountable after you commit a crime, not before you commit a crime. We'd be in a nightmarish dystopia if we went around compelling people to do things based on what they might do.
    1
  557.  @patrickmason7466  You are babbling nonsense. For example, trespassing is a crime. You are held accountable if you trespass on someone's property. That you could trespass doesn't mean that we have mandatory requirements for making people learn where property lines are or study how you can lawfully be on someone's property.
    1
  558.  @patrickmason7466  "the necessity for teachings of such laws to the public is not exactly the same for civilians" The reason being that civilians don't have any special exemption. "Use the example of ownership and use of a vehicle" There is no requirement to own a vehicle or to use it on private property. There is only a requirement if you want to be driving on public roads. Similarly, states have permits / licenses for carrying a firearm in public.
    1
  559.  @patrickmason7466  "There are still clear landmarks as well as signs that distinguish property from public and private" Yes, and? There is no requirement for people to go around reading all the signs. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. "the claim of exemption is nullified because there is no significant responsibility that someone is taking unless there are job requirements" What? "there are mandatory requirements to use a vehicle publicly that surpasses the simple process of driving that would present itself on private property unlike firearm use." How is it different other than how the requirements are different? You do things if you want to drive on public roads and you do things if you want to carry a firearm in public. You don't need to do those things to drive on private property or carry a firearm on private property. No offense, but I'm having a hard time following what you're even trying to say.
    1
  560.  @patrickmason7466  No, actually, I don't know what you're trying to say. Your train of thought doesn't make sense. I don't want to be mean, but is English not your first language?
    1
  561.  @patrickmason7466  Okay, I say that's wrong. Gun training is essential for proper and safe gun use, but you do not increase liberty by infringing upon liberty, you decrease it. Government mandates for doing something that is not inherently violating the rights of others is necessarily restricting freedom. You can say that the absence of regulation is cause for chaos, but complete order can only be accomplished through tyranny.
    1
  562.  @patrickmason7466  "You likely lose life, which is something that completely trumps the 'struggle' or 'infringement on liberty'" I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Loss of life is not a valid excuse to infringe on the liberty of innocent people. "The integration of mandatory gun training is not tyrannical order" I say it is. "As well as know how to use more accurately, precisely and appropriately." I agree that training is important, I said so right from the start and I always recommend that people get training. There is a big difference between something being beneficial and something being mandated.
    1
  563.  @patrickmason7466  "losing life significantly trumps any struggle found in the simple and non injury bound or non stressful practice of gun training" You can keep saying that if you like, but I simply don't agree with you. "such as why a law is created in the first place" Just laws are created to prohibit the violation of rights, not to prevent any conceivable violation. The difference is important. "Mandatory gun training in now way infringes on peoples rights or ability to get a gun" It clearly does, both in concept and in practice. You do not have to ask permission to exercise a right and it creates a barrier for those unable or unwilling to get the mandated training. "in no way would and in no situation would deny someone’s right" That's simply false. What if someone can't afford the training? What if the training is suspended because of, say, a global pandemic?
    1
  564. It's not the amendments themselves, it's the principle behind them. Free speech isn't valued because it's in the first amendment, the first amendment is valued because it includes free speech.
    1
  565.  @minovictor  Correct, we don't have the right to keep and bear arms just because some people said that we do. We do because of the general rights to liberty and property along with the rights to self defense and revolution that the people always retain.
    1
  566. You say that as though anti-gun people don't try to twist shooting victims' experiences into justifications to infringe upon the rights of innocent gun owners.
    1
  567. I've talked to people from plenty of other countries who share the US perspective on firearms, who wish that they weren't having their rights constantly infringed upon by either a nanny state or a more vicious authoritarian regime.
    1
  568.  @ninaaaaaaaa1229  Unless you discuss firearms with everyone you encounter, you can't know that.
    1
  569. Yeah... then look at what's going on in Canada, Australia, and Japan...
    1
  570.  @Vickorede  It's true that they are useful for that purpose, but that's not their only purpose. If someone with 100 pounds of muscle on you is coming at you while high on drugs, a gun is useful to have.
    1
  571. They already did that.
    1
  572. I've watched videos about Australians complaining about their guns being confiscated, so no, 'everyone' didn't agree.
    1
  573. You can't just "delete guns" and you can use guns to protect yourself from things other than guns.
    1
  574. "for no reason" It's not for no reason.
    1
  575.  @cass465  Because in America it's legal and in Europe it's illegal.
    1
  576.  @cass465  No. Other people also have knives and fists.
    1
  577. What's wrong is that the government lacks just authority to determine who should and should not have guns and we already observe such power being abused against people.
    1
  578. You can't buy fully automatic rifles in generic nationwide retail shops. As usual, anti-gunners don't know what they're talking about.
    1
  579.  @realready39   Target doesn't sell guns and submachine guns, like full auto rifles, are not going to be sold by any retail chain. Automatic weapons were banned back in 1986. The only ways to legally obtain one are to purchase an old one that was grandfathered in when the ban was enacted (which are federally registered and very expensive) or get special permission from the government (which the average person will not get).
    1
  580.  @realready39  As for that being the only thing to dismiss, what else is there really to say? If you think it's ignorant to value liberty and enjoy having the government imposing authoritarian measures on you, then that's your problem.
    1
  581. Guns are what would enable you to stop people from forcing you into conversion therapy or assaulting you.
    1
  582.  @Ilovevicfuentes09  If you wouldn't defend yourself to preserve your liberty, then that's your choice but you won't have liberty for long if enough people feel that way. There are fates worse than death.
    1
  583. @You just lost the game I'd still much rather have a gun even if the criminal doesn't. If the criminal brought a knife to a gun fight, so much the better for me. I'm not looking for a fair fight with criminals, I want it totally one-sided in my favor.
    1
  584. @You just lost the game Criminals usually aren't the brightest bunch. Besides, even if they show up to my home with a pistol (which is what they usually have if they have a gun), they'll still have brought a pistol to a rifle fight.
    1
  585. There are no car accidents if there are no cars.
    1
  586.  @uwuangel1998  No, but I can see that more people die in car accidents every year than there are firearm homicides.
    1
  587.  @nkkenlken3220  You don't need a car to get to work or other places. Plenty of people live just fine without having cars. The point is that it is fundamentally not up to you to make these decisions for other people.
    1
  588.  @nkkenlken3220  By that same token, people who live in rural areas need guns to deal with wild animals attacking them, their livestock, or damaging their property. Plenty of people without guns have been victimized such that they no longer can live a regular life.
    1
  589.  @nkkenlken3220  Wild pigs are known to charge and gore people to death. They are also invasive pests that you actually want dead rather than simply driven off. I wonder if you're actually aware of the rural environment in the United States.
    1
  590.  @nkkenlken3220  They and other pests are also killed by farmers themselves. Amusingly enough, an AR-15 is underpowered for a lot of wildlife you might encounter in the US. I sure wouldn't want to only have an AR-15 if facing a polar bear. You can live a normal life without owning a gun. You can live a normal life without owning a car. You can live a normal life without lots of things. It is up to each individual to decide if they should live a life without these things. It is their decision to make, not yours.
    1
  591. If you're carrying the firearm around your property or in the woods or something, then by all means load snake shot. If you're carrying the firearm for defense against humans, then just load an actual defensive round and follow the rules of firearm safety. There's enough that can go wrong in a defensive encounter already, the last thing you want is to fire snake shot at someone and then have a failure or get shot yourself.
    1
  592. True, Europeans could use lessons on both.
    1
  593. You can't tell someone who committed suicide that guns are fun: they're dead. Yes though, guns are fun and millions of Americans use them safely and responsibly. Having a teenager running their mouth at you isn't the threat that you seem to think that it is. What you have to realize is that every adult used to be a teenager.
    1
  594.  @yellowstarfish9342  How many mass shootings happen in gun stores compared to gun free zones?
    1
  595.  @yellowstarfish9342  In a gun store a high percentage of the people there, both employees and customers, are armed. If you try something you will pretty much immediately be stopped. On the other hand, people in gun free zones are, well, not armed. If you try something there, it can take a long time before security or police shows up to stop you.
    1
  596.  @yellowstarfish9342   There will always be a threat of a shooting. It's impossible for there not to be. Criminals are going to get guns as long as guns are available, there is no way to make guns readily available to law abiding citizens while also preventing criminals from getting them. As for guns at Walmart, what does that matter? What difference does it make where guns are sold?
    1
  597.  @yellowstarfish9342  In most first world countries guns aren't readily available period. Their solution to limiting guns available to criminals is to limit guns available to law abiding citizens, which isn't a solution that's going to happen in the US. Also, yes, you do have the threat of being shot regardless of the country. Even the countries with the strictest gun control laws still have gun violence.
    1
  598.  @yellowstarfish9342  I'm not sure what you are talking about then, because the US has a unique culture especially when it comes to guns. We view guns fundamentally differently than the Swiss do for instance. Whereas for them guns are viewed more collectively as part of an official militia against foreign enemies, for us they are viewed much more individually as defense against common criminals and our own government if need be.
    1
  599.  @yellowstarfish9342  It's still apples and oranges.
    1
  600.  @yellowstarfish9342  Yes really. US and Swiss gun cultures are dramatically different.
    1
  601.  @yellowstarfish9342  Yes, yes really, as I've already explained to you. Swiss style gun control would never be accepted in the US.
    1
  602.  @yellowstarfish9342  Criminals already get guns no problem, because it's no problem for them to break the law. You can get a long gun at the same age that you can vote or join the military. That you can't buy a handgun, drink alcohol, or smoke tobacco when you could literally be sent off to war is the joke.
    1
  603.  @yellowstarfish9342  It doesn't become "a lot harder" for them to get those guns. Criminals mostly get guns through theft and the black market which is fueled by straw purchasers and corrupt officials. The only way you lower the chances of criminals getting guns is by restricting law abiding citizens getting guns and taking their guns away, which the US is never going to go for. You can keep pointing at other countries all you like, but the US is not like those countries and we don't want to be like them.
    1
  604.  @yellowstarfish9342  Liberty is a risky thing. The way to deal with criminals is to deal with criminals, not to restrict the liberty of innocent people. The latter is the way of authoritarian rulers.
    1
  605.  @yellowstarfish9342  Lots of people are saying to take away guns from good, law abiding people and we observe that it's what happens in other countries. Regardless of your intent, the restrictions you put on guns are going to be used to infringe on people's liberty. You say mental illness for instance. Mental illness according to who?
    1
  606. Yes, it's crazy to think that you're going to take away over 390 million firearms from Americans.
    1
  607.  @orsolazane4291  Sure, it's a pretty trivial conclusion to say that easy access to guns enables a higher rate of violence using guns, like easy access to cars enables a higher rate of accidents with cars and easy access to unhealthy food enables a higher rate of heart disease, though there isn't a direct correlation between gun ownership rates and rates of violence using guns.
    1
  608.  @ratofvengence  We'll never know how many people have been victimized who might not have been if they hadn't been rendered helpless by the state and yes, people in nations with "effective" gun restrictions are more helplessly dependent upon the state than I am.
    1