I cannot stand this argument "oh this guy used a gun to kill those people so let's take away guns". Let me refresh common knowledge. It's not the guns fault, it's the people who use it. Let me go to another argument. What if one of those people had a gun to shoot the guy that was killing everyone? A lot less deaths would've taken place, right?

Let's look at a couple numbers here. 32k people are killed with the use of a firearms each year. Each year, 20k people use a gun to commit suicide. Now that leaves us with 12k potentially innocent people dying from shootings. 2k of those shootings are gang related violence, not really "innocent" people, but who's to say who is innocent? Ok, so 10k people die every year from guns that shouldn't. There are 318.9 million people that live here. 10k is 0.00313577924114% of the population. That is not a big enough number to justify taking away firearms.

Let's get away from that number though since clearly firearms are to blame. 32,675 people died in car accidents in 2014. Should we take away vehicles? There are so many things that people die from in bigger numbers than firearms, should we illegalize all of them? Look how well illegalizing drugs has worked out for us.

According to the Trackers data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870. We know that gang violence roughly accounts for what? 15% of that? That's about 56 of those shootings. Let's say that the others where all the bad people shooting up schools of innocent children and such. That's 316 mass shootings. We look at a lot of these shootings it is 1 person doing it. Let's jump the number to say that from the 316 mass shootings, 1k people where shooters. So 0.00031357792411414236% of the US population are mass shooters. That means 1 person out of every 318,900 people are "mass shooters". 1 out of every 318,900, should that 1 person being an idiot account for guns being taken away for the next 318,900 people behind them? NO.



At the end of the day, firearms are self defense. Firearms allow me to put dinner on the table for my family. If everyone had a gun, I would say without a doubt that the amount of people dead in these shootings would be minuscule. If I seen someone open fire and I had a gun, I'm shooting. It's me or you and my life is already in danger so I may as well take you out. Also, here's a fun fact. 71% of these shootings take place in gun-free zones. Tell me again how taking away guns will reduce violence. If I want you dead I'd kill you with my vehicle, a shovel, hell I can buy tannerite from Wal-mart.






I'll leave this here:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Maybe we should stop worrying about guns and try to change the people using them...

Motivational wrote I don't live in the USA, they can do whatever the hell they want over there when it comes to their gun laws so long as it doesn't affect me.

Of course they should change gun laws anyway. There's only ever been one school shooting in the UK ever and there was 142 in America between 2013-2015 alone. Clearly something isn't right.

Well.... The US has 318.9 million people and the UK has 64.1 million people... Less people = less problems.

3PT wrote I used to think that restricting guns would be for the better but after having a mass shooting (Orlando) happen so close to where I live, I start to see otherwise. Think about it, a person with evil intent will not give a damn about laws and restrictions. They will do whatever it is they will do. Guns are good for protection and if you take away law abiding citizen's weapons, then you leave them at the mercy of the criminal. I can't really pick a side on this matter because each has it's pros and cons. However, I do believe there is a solid "middle ground" if that makes any sense. There is absolutely no reason why a citizen would need an assault weapon such as an AR-15 as "protection", a pistol (or shotgun for home defense) should be enough. But if lawmakers take away the people's right to own weapons, then they're left defenseless.

So what should be done? Security in heavily populated places should be increased. At the nightclub, there was only one off-duty officer and unarmed bouncers. Same thing in the case of the Plaza Live shooting, shitty security. Additional security could have made all the difference in both situations. Secondly, purchasing a gun has to have more extensive procedures including background checks. The shooter easily purchased the weapons he used despite being investigated by the FBI TWICE. Implementing these changes could prevent more of these situations.

I strongly disagree with the "assault weapon" idea. A shotgun and a pistol are both better for home defense, yes, but read you 2nd amendment very carefully. We the people are supposed to be able to make a well-regulated militia to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. The government has these types of rifles so should the people. Should they be as easy to get as they are? No. We have 2 AR 15's, one chambered in 7.62x39, the other being a .300 blackout, along with an AK-47 also chambered in 7.62x39. It doesn't make us bad people, it doesn't make us shooters or murderers. I bought mine just because it's funner and more economical to shoot at the range. These guns are also legal hunting rifles.

ALL firearm purchases need background checks and that's something people don't understand. Yes in some states you can go to a gun show and buy one and leave with it without anyone wandering who you are, but you are supposed to go to a registered FFL to get the firearm transferred into your name.

One thing I do think needs to happen, yet won't solve very much, is a cool down period when buying an "assault firearm". This is where you wait 3 days or so before they will release the gun to you. Most murderers already have the gun so it's not going to solve much, but it's jut one extra step.

002 wrote

3PT wrote I used to think that restricting guns would be for the better but after having a mass shooting (Orlando) happen so close to where I live, I start to see otherwise. Think about it, a person with evil intent will not give a damn about laws and restrictions. They will do whatever it is they will do. Guns are good for protection and if you take away law abiding citizen's weapons, then you leave them at the mercy of the criminal. I can't really pick a side on this matter because each has it's pros and cons. However, I do believe there is a solid "middle ground" if that makes any sense. There is absolutely no reason why a citizen would need an assault weapon such as an AR-15 as "protection", a pistol (or shotgun for home defense) should be enough. But if lawmakers take away the people's right to own weapons, then they're left defenseless.

So what should be done? Security in heavily populated places should be increased. At the nightclub, there was only one off-duty officer and unarmed bouncers. Same thing in the case of the Plaza Live shooting, shitty security. Additional security could have made all the difference in both situations. Secondly, purchasing a gun has to have more extensive procedures including background checks. The shooter easily purchased the weapons he used despite being investigated by the FBI TWICE. Implementing these changes could prevent more of these situations.

I strongly disagree with the "assault weapon" idea. A shotgun and a pistol are both better for home defense, yes, but read you 2nd amendment very carefully. We the people are supposed to be able to make a well-regulated militia to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. The government has these types of rifles so should the people. Should they be as easy to get as they are? No. We have 2 AR 15's, one chambered in 7.62x39, the other being a .300 blackout, along with an AK-47 also chambered in 7.62x39. It doesn't make us bad people, it doesn't make us shooters or murderers. I bought mine just because it's funner and more economical to shoot at the range. These guns are also legal hunting rifles.

ALL firearm purchases need background checks and that's something people don't understand. Yes in some states you can go to a gun show and buy one and leave with it without anyone wandering who you are, but you are supposed to go to a registered FFL to get the firearm transferred into your name.

One thing I do think needs to happen, yet won't solve very much, is a cool down period when buying an "assault firearm". This is where you wait 3 days or so before they will release the gun to you. Most murderers already have the gun so it's not going to solve much, but it's jut one extra step.

I thought that you had to go through a whole lot of trouble to get any automatic rifle. Is that not true?

Continuous wrote

002 wrote

3PT wrote I used to think that restricting guns would be for the better but after having a mass shooting (Orlando) happen so close to where I live, I start to see otherwise. Think about it, a person with evil intent will not give a damn about laws and restrictions. They will do whatever it is they will do. Guns are good for protection and if you take away law abiding citizen's weapons, then you leave them at the mercy of the criminal. I can't really pick a side on this matter because each has it's pros and cons. However, I do believe there is a solid "middle ground" if that makes any sense. There is absolutely no reason why a citizen would need an assault weapon such as an AR-15 as "protection", a pistol (or shotgun for home defense) should be enough. But if lawmakers take away the people's right to own weapons, then they're left defenseless.

So what should be done? Security in heavily populated places should be increased. At the nightclub, there was only one off-duty officer and unarmed bouncers. Same thing in the case of the Plaza Live shooting, shitty security. Additional security could have made all the difference in both situations. Secondly, purchasing a gun has to have more extensive procedures including background checks. The shooter easily purchased the weapons he used despite being investigated by the FBI TWICE. Implementing these changes could prevent more of these situations.

I strongly disagree with the "assault weapon" idea. A shotgun and a pistol are both better for home defense, yes, but read you 2nd amendment very carefully. We the people are supposed to be able to make a well-regulated militia to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. The government has these types of rifles so should the people. Should they be as easy to get as they are? No. We have 2 AR 15's, one chambered in 7.62x39, the other being a .300 blackout, along with an AK-47 also chambered in 7.62x39. It doesn't make us bad people, it doesn't make us shooters or murderers. I bought mine just because it's funner and more economical to shoot at the range. These guns are also legal hunting rifles.

ALL firearm purchases need background checks and that's something people don't understand. Yes in some states you can go to a gun show and buy one and leave with it without anyone wandering who you are, but you are supposed to go to a registered FFL to get the firearm transferred into your name.

One thing I do think needs to happen, yet won't solve very much, is a cool down period when buying an "assault firearm". This is where you wait 3 days or so before they will release the gun to you. Most murderers already have the gun so it's not going to solve much, but it's jut one extra step.

I thought that you had to go through a whole lot of trouble to get any automatic rifle. Is that not true?

Semi-auto no. We looked at a gun, said lets buy it and walked out the store with both the AR's and the AK in less than an hour (all different purchases months apart).

Full auto yes. You need all sorts of permits and training before you can even think of looking at one lol. I believe though I'm not sure, it is illegal to purchase one for recreational use. I know you can buy one for military use (not you and I buying but the government) or a range that lets you rent firearms to shoot on their property, or something along those lines. I know there are citizens that own fully auto weapons and they jump through all sorts of legal crap to be able to do so, but I'll tell you that I'd rather buy the 100 dollar piece on E-bay if I really felt the need for a full auto rifle.

Do people on this site not understand that strict gun laws will not do anything? Look at all the drugs that are banned and look at how big the market there is for them. If anything they should allow open carry to people in every state. Say 2 or 3 people had guns on them in that club they could have cut down the number of people that got hurt and died.

"GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, JUST LIKE SPOONS DON'T MAKE PEOPLE FAT. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! "

That's possibly the stupidest analogy I've ever heard. Spoons do good things, they allow people to eat healthy things and good food, as well as bad food.

If spoons were only used by fat people to eat junk food and they could use that food as a weapon to shoot innocent people around them and kill them, then yes. We could ban spoons. However that's clearly not the case.

A better anaolgy would be "KFC and Mcdonalds sell horrific food to people and are killing thousands of overweight children everyday, should we ban them? Because they, like guns serve no good purpose.

And don't say that guns serve a purpose, they really don't. A gun has no other purpose than to hurt or damage things. They were created for the purpose of killing and the majority of time that's what they're used for. If you want to do target practice, use an air rifle or something. Something that can't actually kill someone.


And to the people saying that if the people in the club had of been armed they could have killed the guy. This is not COD. He sprayed into a building of people who were using alcohol and not thinking straight. Most of them didn't even know what was going on.

Shall I mention that he was carrying a fully automatic assault rifle and a pistol? What are people going to do? Run at him through the main door that he's firing into with a 9mm pistol against an assault rifle? Good luck.

Great idea guys, let's have everyone holding a firearm. I wonder what will happen when someone gets drunk and into a fight? They'll reach for their gun instead of their fist and we'll be having massacres everyday.

002 wrote Well.... The US has 318.9 million people and the UK has 64.1 million people... Less people = less problems.

UK has 65 million people and has had one school shooting ever.

America has 320 Million people.

Let's do some basic maths here. 320/65 = 5

There should be only five school shootings in America ever. As I said, there were 142 in two years alone. There's clearly something wrong.

C4s wrote Do people on this site not understand that strict gun laws will not do anything? Look at all the drugs that are banned and look at how big the market there is for them. If anything they should allow open carry to people in every state. Say 2 or 3 people had guns on them in that club they could have cut down the number of people that got hurt and died.

It could've prevented some but also cause a-lot more shootings around the states with people having such easy access to them.

Motivational wrote I don't live in the USA, they can do whatever the hell they want over there when it comes to their gun laws so long as it doesn't affect me.

Of course they should change gun laws anyway. There's only ever been one school shooting in the UK ever and there was 142 in America between 2013-2015 alone. Clearly something isn't right.

142 school shootings? You must know everything about America, huh?