Motivational wrote You care about your rights to have a firearm (which, having a hunting rifle would still give you) too much to consider banning or even further restricting firearms.

When I said this, I did not actually mean the right to bear arms. I meant that if you take guns away, then you take away a lot of people's defense. Like that 52 year old women, a gun was her defense. I do not know here personally, but a majority of older people are not going to stand a chance against a couple of gang bangers who might want to break her house when it comes to a fist fight. Her guns gave her a better defense than her fist. Don't say that she should have pepper spray, I have given reasons as for why a gun is better.

As for having multiple guns? What about having multiple guns all through out the house. That is one of the most logical reasons for having multiple guns. You do not want to go run through your house and try to get a gun before your robber gets in.

The rest of your reply was completely opinionated and I especially love how you didn't include my quote where I said "A country without guns if safer and the statistics prove it", following by a side by side comparison between the USA and Japan and showing that Japan was an all round safer country. Because there's literally no counter to that. Yes, I saw that 002 tried but him and I have had that argument before and he still hasn't learnt from the last time he used Switzerland as an example.

I did not respond to that comment because I do not want to argue about it, there are many things to look at, and nobody is going to win that argument. If you want to see reasons as for guns, look at some of my comments before this.

As I said, you're providing no facts or statistics, just your opinion compared to mine which we can't really argue about because our opinions are meaningless without statistics to back them up.

I have given multiple facts. Here are a few examples... Guns have been used to stop millions of crimes, Australia has a higher rape rate than the U.S., etc. And you either ignore those facts, or try to make a bs excuse for why the fact is wrong. I go off of the statistics, not "unreported rapes" We will never know how many unreported rapes there are. But if you do not report, how are we supposed to know.

It's strange how you're so anti-abortion too, considering that you're all for your rights to bear firearms but not woman's rights to decide what happens to their child, that's pretty contradicting.

I am not going to get into the abortion things, we have already discussed this.

Continuous wrote Here is a example of what is not logical... "but why the hell, does a fifty two year old need a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle for?" That is one of the most retarded things that I have heard on this forum.

Yet again, you've misunderstood another one of my points.

What is there to misunderstand? You just do not want people to be able to defend themselves.

I have no problem with the woman owning a pistol and for arguments sake, a semi-automatic rifle but why does she need both? Is she planning on going downstairs if her house is being robbed with a pistol in one hand and an assault rifle in the other? I highly doubt.

As I have said, people might want multiple guns for various reasons such as... Not having to run through out the house to get to a gun. She will probably not gun through the house Rambo style.

The simple point is that if she only had a pistol then that school massacre might not have happened and she'd still be just as likely to defend a home robbery as if she had the rifle.

That is completely retarded. The man would still have the pistol, he could have still done the shooting.

It makes no sense for an elderly woman to be carrying a big assault rifle downstairs that fires at a similar rate to her pistol and at someone who isn't going to wearing body armour, thus the larger bullet size is irrelevant. The pistol is smaller, easier to aim, cheaper, weighs less, and the key factor in defending her home is that the robber will likely run when they hear he firing her weapon. There's absolutely no need for her to have a semi-automatic rifle and her having that rifle, caused 20+ children and herself to die.

Again what does age have to do with this? Age is just a number, I know some older people who are much more fit than some kids that go to my school. There was a kid in my elementary school who weight about 2-300 pounds.

A assault rifle? Really? This is all falling into place. The "high capacity magazines" and the "assault rifle". Not every rifle is big, i know that the majority of them are bigger than a pistol, but it is all preference. I actually prefer a rifle over a pistol. And you do not know who is breaking into your house. Considering the woman was living in a million dollar house, there are many people who would break in to that. The intruder(s) could be anyone such as a crack head junkie just looking to make a little bit of money, all the way up to a skilled group of individuals that do have body armor and have no intention of robbing her, they would just want to get rid of all witnesses so they just kill her. Body armor is not that expensive when you take into account how much your life is worth. I do not and have not robbed people, but if I was going to, then I would want to take the precautions to protect my self. And larger bullet sizes do matter, maybe you have to shoot through the walls, maybe their just happens to be a bed or something in your way that a smaller caliber gun would not shoot through.

A pistol is subjective. I prefer a rifle because It is easier to aim, not the pistol. Unless you have a extended magazine, a rifle like a ar-15 is going to hold more ammo. The pistol is cheaper and might weigh less, but if my life is on the line, I want the best possible tools to help me protect my self.

Most of your comments have been made on assumptions and misinformation. Yes, you had some statistics too. The truth is that you should be prepared for anything.

What if the intruder is a crackhead? You do not know how they will react. Your normal person would probably run at the sight of a gun, but that is not always going to happen.

I have gave multiple examples of why you would want multiple guns and why you would want semi auto guns. The gun may have been what killed her, but it was her son who made the gun do it.

Sorry that I took a long time to reply, I just do not want to waste my time on a argument that neither of us will benefit from.

And you have been making these statements " This is the exact reason that we're not getting anywhere with this argument, nor are we going to get anywhere. "

You are not changing your view either. You do not know what my life is like, and you need to stop assuming things. In 2013, Americans were more likely to die from a car, rather than a gun. And that is using the generous number that includes suicides. I would rather take my chances with someone shooting me. Then have the government take away a good amount of peoples defense. Im the one that actually has to live in America, I am the one taking the risk. So why don't you just sit back and calm down? You have no say so. These guns do not affect you. If I want to take that risk, then let me.

I would also like to clarify one thing as far as rape is concerned. In the US, rape is a very touchy issue in that basically all a girl has to do is cry rape and it goes on the books. For example, a guy and a girl get drunk at a party and have sex. If the girl wakes up in the morning and doesn't feel right about it, all she does is goes to the cops and says the guy took advantage of her while she was drunk and it is officially a rape.

The rape statistics are BS in the US. Yeah they're on the books as cases, but when you look at all the crap excuses for why they want to call it rape it's just sad.

Continuous wrote When I said this, I did not actually mean the right to bear arms. I meant that if you take guns away, then you take away a lot of people's defense. Like that 52 year old women, a gun was her defense. I do not know here personally, but a majority of older people are not going to stand a chance against a couple of gang bangers who might want to break her house when it comes to a fist fight. Her guns gave her a better defense than her fist. Don't say that she should have pepper spray, I have given reasons as for why a gun is better.

I didn't say she should have pepper spray? Pepper spray is only effective in a rape situation where the attacker is unarmed and all you need is to stun them for a short amount of time and run.

The gun wasn't her defence either, quite the contrary actually. The gun was the main cause of her death besides her son who used the gun to kill over twenty children, including himself.

Continuous wrote As for having multiple guns? What about having multiple guns all through out the house. That is one of the most logical reasons for having multiple guns. You do not want to go run through your house and try to get a gun before your robber gets in.

If you're going to get robbed, it's going to happen when you're in your bedroom and at night. Nobody is going to try and rob someone in broad daylight with nearby houses watching and traffic going by. Having a gun in each room is just ridiculous and a complete safety hazard for both children and the robber, who's going to be searching through your house for items and might accidentally stumble onto your firearm.

Statistically, there's far more chance of you shooting yourself with your gun than a robber.

Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year. When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious.

Continuous wrote I did not respond to that comment because I do not want to argue about it, there are many things to look at, and nobody is going to win that argument. If you want to see reasons as for guns, look at some of my comments before this.

There's no arguing. Japan is safer than the USA in every single statistic. That's not an argument.

Continuous wrote I have given multiple facts. Here are a few examples... Guns have been used to stop millions of crimes,Australia has a higher rape rate than the U.S., etc. And you either ignore those facts, or try to make a bs excuse for why the fact is wrong. I go off of the statistics, not "unreported rapes" We will never know how many unreported rapes there are. But if you do not report, how are we supposed to know.

Continuous wrote Guns have been used to stop millions of crimes,

For even crime that's been stopped with a firearm, there's probably been about ten that actually succeeded. You can't seriously believe that firearms are effective at stopping crimes when you have the worst crime statistics for any country in the world. Japan has no firearms, yet beats you in every single important crime related statistic. Are guns good for defending rape? That's strange how Japan have no guns and have 66 times less rapes annually than America. That's 6600% less rapes annually. Those numbers are ridiculous;

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but saying "guns have been used to stop millions of crimes" is not a statistic or a fact. A fact is something that's proven to be true, meaning that you actually have to prove it with a legitimate source.

And no, Australia hasn't got a higher rape rate than America. It has a higher rape per capita rate. This is mainly due to public spending, number of police officers and population difference as I've pointed out below.

Continuous wrote you either ignore those facts, or try to make a bs excuse for why the fact is wrong

Okay, let's see my BS excuse.

Would you rather be Australia and have 6% more rapes per 100,000 people than the USA or be America and have 5700% more gun murders per 100,000 people? If you're actually attempting to legitimately argue that then you're an absolute idiot. The reason more people are raped per 100,000 in Australia is because of three main reasons:

America has 10% more police officers per 100,000 people, 25 times the public spending money and a far smaller population.

America also has the highest number of rapes committed annually for any country in the world. So it's extremely hypocritical for you to be trying to use rape statistics against Australia when you've got the worst amount of rapes in the world.

The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported.

If you still don't see why it's stupid to argue about rape statistics when only 16% of them in America are actually reported then I'm very worried.

Continuous wrote We will never know how many unreported rapes there are.

The United States Department of Justice has probably got it's statistics wrong then, right? They probably just made that number up because it would be funny.

Continuous wrote What is there to misunderstand? You just do not want people to be able to defend themselves.

Motivational wrote I have absolutely no problem with people like 002 owning guns legitimately, or Glock who carries his guns for self defence in his job. It doesn't bother me at all.

Are you actually reading what I'm posting? I've mentioned on about three or four different posts that I have absolutely no problem with guns when they're in the rights hands but being able to own an assault rifle and pistol in an insecure place when you've got a son with Asperger's syndrome who's described as "fidgety" and "deeply troubled" by his friends and family members isn't safe. There's a serious, serious problem with the system of background and mental checks if this woman was able to legally purchase firearms.

You might think that what I said above is too strict and saying that you shouldn't be able to keep guns in the open with children who have Asperger's syndrome is wrong. If so then you definitely don't understand how Asperger's works or what it does. It causes the person to not understand when someone is joking or being serious, or the difference between right and wrong. I have a cousin with Asperger's and he was really strange as a kid. He'd always stamp on insects and punch me in the arm whenever he saw me, not knowing that what he was doing was wrong. I haven't seen him for years so I don't know how he's doing now but he was not normal in any sense.

Motivational wrote The simple point is that if she only had a pistol then that school massacre might not have happened and she'd still be just as likely to defend a home robbery as if she had the rifle.

Continuous wrote That is completely retarded. The man would still have the pistol, he could have still done the shooting.

If you look really closely and I mean put your zoom to 1000%, you might notice that I said it "might not have happened". I didn't at any point say the shooting wouldn't happen or it couldn't happen with only the handgun. What's "completely retarded" is that you misread my post and posted a completely straw-manned reply.

Upon research, The police found "numerous weapons as well as ammunition" in Adam Lanzar's home, This suggested she had even more weapons than I thought which is crazy.

Continuous wrote Again what does age have to do with this? Age is just a number.

002 wrote Pistols are very difficult to control, especially if you have bad wrists like a lot of older folk do.

Feels bad when you're arguing with two pro gun supporters and they both post completely different and contradicting statements, one saying that being older doesn't make a difference and the other saying that lots of older folk have bad wrists.

I'm not even going to go into the science of the human body and how it deteriorates overtime and as you grow older, your bones get weaker and your immune system weakens and so on. Trying to say age is just a number is "completely retarded" as you would say.

Continuous wrote A assault rifle? Really? This is all falling into place. The "high capacity magazines" and the "assault rifle". Not every rifle is big.

Continuous wrote Most of your comments have been made on assumptions and misinformation. Yes, you had some statistics too. The truth is that you should be prepared for anything.

Continuous wrote Most of your comments have been made on assumptions and misinformation

Continuous wrote Not every rifle is big

Continuous wrote a rifle like a ar-15 is going to hold more ammo.

You do know what the woman we're talking about is the mother of the kid who did the Sandy Hook shooting? So we know the weapons she had. She did not have an ar-15 and I never said that every rifle is big, which they generally are.

A rifle is a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder

Sub machine guns are sometimes fired from the hip, rifles are designed for longer rangers and they're generally heavier weapons as opposed to pistols and other small weapons. They fire them from the shoulder because it's more accurate and they're heavier and have bigger recoil than smaller guns.

And what the hell, why is the woman going to go downstairs if her house is being invaded by men with body armour and guns? Are you actually being serious here? Her first concern would be to ensure that her disabled son and her are both safe and to ring the police. This isn't COD, you don't go downstairs and win one vs three gunfights in real life without being injured or killed in the process.

Continuous wrote Sorry that I took a long time to reply, I just do not want to waste my time on a argument that neither of us will benefit from..

You literally just said that you're using rape statistics and 002 is just after making a post saying that rape statistics are bullshit and the majority of them either didn't happen or weren't reported. Yes, this argument is completely pointless. Countries without guns are statistically safer than countries with guns except for Switzerland which I successfully proved is an exception due to the ridiculously misleading gun ownership statistics. They own guns but they have no ammunition for them which clearly makes them useless.

Continuous wrote You are not changing your view either. You do not know what my life is like, and you need to stop assuming things.

Of course I'm not changing my views, I've gave you statistic after statistic, fact after fact and you're still not listening. How clearer can it be than, here's the three highest crime countries in the world, oh look they all have barely any gun control and when you compare them to countries like Japan, China etc that do have gun control, the results are shocking.

At no point did I bring your life into this, except saying that you're seventeen which is clear from your idea that a fifty year old woman is going to go downstairs and have a shootout with "a skilled group of individuals that do have body armour and have no intention of robbing her, they would just want to get rid of all witnesses so they just kill her." If this was real-life and there had been assassins hired to kill her then she would die, it's that simple.

Continuous wrote and you need to stop assuming things

What from this post am I assuming? Everything that I've said has either been my opinion or a fact/statistics. You're the one assuming that assassins with machine guns are going to rob an old woman and that she should be ready for whatever happens. It's very hypocritical for you to say that I'm assuming things.

Continuous wrote Im the one that actually has to live in America, I am the one taking the risk. So why don't you just sit back and calm down? You have no say so. These guns do not affect you. If I want to take that risk, then let me.

Read the title of this rant and how this argument between us started. I have no problem with you having RPGs and sniper rifles if you want in America but don't say that gun control doesn't effect gun statistics. I'm sorry but Australia's statistics before and after their banning of guns, as well as the most dangerous countries in the world being pro guns and my Japan vs America statistics prove this otherwise. This isn't an opinion vs opinion debate. Either provide some statistics to prove that countries with guns are safer or stop replying with just your opinion. I'm sorry but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and on their own they're worth nothing.

This will probably be my last post on this thread unless you can use statistics and facts properly to present a decent argument about gun crimes and gun control, like the topic suggests.

Motivational wrote I didn't say she should have pepper spray? Pepper spray is only effective in a rape situation where the attacker is unarmed and all you need is to stun them for a short amount of time and run.

That is not always going to work out like that. As I said, they could be wearing glasses, or you could just miss with your spray.

The gun wasn't her defence either, quite the contrary actually. The gun was the main cause of her death besides her son who used the gun to kill over twenty children, including himself.

In that particular situation yes. But she could not have stopped the situation. As you or some one said earlier... If someone wants your dead, then you are going to most likely be dead.

If you're going to get robbed, it's going to happen when you're in your bedroom and at night. Nobody is going to try and rob someone in broad daylight with nearby houses watching and traffic going by.

During the day, most people are at work. And there is this...

"Instead, 65% of burglaries occur between 6am and 6pm. Most burglars do not want to risk encountering someone so they will try your home when you're most likely to be at work. The most common hours for a burglary to occur are between 10am-3pm. Common misconceptions about break-ins aid the burglar."

But I have seen some sites say different things, So I am not really going to argue about this one.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Having a gun in each room is just ridiculous and a complete safety hazard for both children and the robber, who's going to be searching through your house for items and might accidentally stumble onto your firearm.

Again, you are assuming things. I do not plan on having kids. If you have kids, then teach them to shoot and have them learn about guns. I learned at a young age that you have to treat guns with respect and they are not to be messed around with. I would hope that my guns are a safety hazard for robbers. When they decide to break into some one else's house, they deserve nothing other than some lead. Sure, they might steal them, but you can have simple locks on them. Not exactly a full blown safe, but something that is going to provide some safety.

Statistically, there's far more chance of you shooting yourself with your gun than a robber.

Can you share a link to these statistics? In most cases, you can prevent shooting your self (keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction, or just not having it loaded). But sometimes, things happen. So I do not believe this.

Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year. When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious.

Oh, you mean intentional shootings. Sure people commit suicide. While your statement is correct, you are twisting the truth.

You can't seriously believe that firearms are effective at stopping crimes when you have the worst crime statistics for any country in the world.

Guns are very effective at stopping crimes. You can end almost any situation with a gun. A robbery, attempted rape, attempted killing.

Japan has no firearms, yet beats you in every single important crime related statistic. Are guns good for defending rape? That's strange how Japan have no guns and have 66 times less rapes annually than America. That's 6600% less rapes annually. Those numbers are ridiculous;

They do not have guns. It must be easier to stop people from getting guns when there is no guns there to begin with. America has guns, we have millions of guns.

But that is besides the point. It is the people who use the guns, that commit the crimes. The police do not arrest and charge a gun with murder because it shot and killed someone. They arrest and charge the person who used it.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but saying "guns have been used to stop millions of crimes" is not a statistic or a fact. A fact is something that's proven to be true, meaning that you actually have to prove it with a legitimate source.

Just because I did not provide a link to it, does not mean that it is not a statistic. Are you not able to look it up on your own?

If you are not capable of looking up the statistic for your self, then here is a link to my source....

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And no, Australia hasn't got a higher rape rate than America. It has a higher rape per capita rate.

I made a mistake, you are correct.

Okay, let's see my BS excuse.

Just above, you said that my statistic was false because I did not provide a link to my source. But I just did not think that I needed to provide a link. I thought that you were capable of looking it up on your own. I guess that I thought wrong.

America has 10% more police officers per 100,000 people, 25 times the public spending money and a far smaller population.

America has a much larger population, not smaller.

The United States Department of Justice has probably got it's statistics wrong then, right? They probably just made that number up because it would be funny.

No. Im sure that many things go unreported. But you can not use "he said, she said" types of situations as statistics. You should use proven statistics like you said earlier.

Continuous wrote What is there to misunderstand? You just do not want people to be able to defend themselves.

Motivational wrote I have absolutely no problem with people like 002 owning guns legitimately, or Glock who carries his guns for self defence in his job. It doesn't bother me at all.

Are you actually reading what I'm posting? I've mentioned on about three or four different posts that I have absolutely no problem with guns when they're in the rights hands but being able to own an assault rifle and pistol in an insecure place when you've got a son with Asperger's syndrome who's described as "fidgety" and "deeply troubled" by his friends and family members isn't safe. There's a serious, serious problem with the system of background and mental checks if this woman was able to legally purchase firearms.

I do not think that anything was wrong with the woman. It was the son who did the shooting. Im against banning guns. There should be some precautions taken when dealing with "troubled people". She should have taken precautions to make sure that the guns were somewhere that the son could not get them. But for someone like me, I do not plan to have kids, and do not plan on having a wife. There is no reason for me to have to lock up my guns. Unless Im going on vacation or something like that. Again this goes back to mental care help.

Upon research, The police found "numerous weapons as well as ammunition" in Adam Lanzar's home, This suggested she had even more weapons than I thought which is crazy.

Why is this crazy? Refer to what I said above. She could have taken precautions. But there was nothing wrong with her, it was here kid.

Feels bad when you're arguing with two pro gun supporters and they both post completely different and contradicting statements, one saying that being older doesn't make a difference and the other saying that lots of older folk have bad wrists.

We have different views. But both views are possible.

I'm not even going to go into the science of the human body and how it deteriorates overtime and as you grow older, your bones get weaker and your immune system weakens and so on. Trying to say age is just a number is "completely retarded" as you would say.

LOL. I already explained what I meant.

Sub machine guns are sometimes fired from the hip, rifles are designed for longer rangers and they're generally heavier weapons as opposed to pistols and other small weapons. They fire them from the shoulder because it's more accurate and they're heavier and have bigger recoil than smaller guns.

In most cases, this is true.

And what the hell, why is the woman going to go downstairs if her house is being invaded by men with body armour and guns? Are you actually being serious here? Her first concern would be to ensure that her disabled son and her are both safe and to ring the police. This isn't COD, you don't go downstairs and win one vs three gunfights in real life without being injured or killed in the process.

As you said, she should make sure that her and her son are safe. Then have her son call the police( but by the time they are there, the robbers will most likely be gone. Everybody views the situation differently. You might stay back and hide in the closet. But I care about my property, and I know my house layout better. I would have the upper hand in this situation. You seem to think "why is the woman going to go downstairs if her house is being invaded by men with body armour and guns?". I seem to think "why is her house being invaded in the first place". The idea that someone would break into someones elses house to me is worse than going and protecting my self and my property. For all I know, they could just be there to kill me. I kind of have the "I will get them, before they can get me" mentality when it comes to this stuff.

And many of the things that you have said earlier still apply... The robbers might just get scared when they see you with a gun or when you start shooting. And besides, you do not think right in these situations, you have a ton of adrenaline running through your body.

And what if her kid is downstairs? Is she going to stay up stairs and hope that the kid is okay? No, she is going to go downstairs and protect her kid.

Of course I'm not changing my views, I've gave you statistic after statistic, fact after fact and you're still not listening. How clearer can it be than, here's the three highest crime countries in the world, oh look they all have barely any gun control and when you compare them to countries like Japan, China etc that do have gun control, the results are shocking.

I have shown statistics and facts too. It is not as simple as just looking at a few statistics.

At no point did I bring your life into this, except saying that you're seventeen which is clear from your idea that a fifty year old woman is going to go downstairs and have a shootout with "a skilled group of individuals that do have body armour and have no intention of robbing her, they would just want to get rid of all witnesses so they just kill her." If this was real-life and there had been assassins hired to kill her then she would die, it's that simple.

Not true, anything can happen.

What from this post am I assuming? Everything that I've said has either been my opinion or a fact/statistics. You're the one assuming that assassins with machine guns are going to rob an old woman and that she should be ready for whatever happens. It's very hypocritical for you to say that I'm assuming things.

You assumed that the robber is not going to be wearing armor. You assume that she is not capable of protecting her self and that she should just wait for the police to come, you assumed that there is no reason for a "assualt rifle". And there are other things that you assumed. You assume that gun control is going to stop gun violence.

People do not need guns to commit crimes. And while they may be used to commit crimes, they are also used to stop crimes.

Continuous wrote Im the one that actually has to live in America, I am the one taking the risk. So why don't you just sit back and calm down? You have no say so. These guns do not affect you. If I want to take that risk, then let me.

Read the title of this rant and how this argument between us started. I have no problem with you having RPGs and sniper rifles if you want in America but don't say that gun control doesn't effect gun statistics. I'm sorry but Australia's statistics before and after their banning of guns, as well as the most dangerous countries in the world being pro guns and my Japan vs America statistics prove this otherwise. This isn't an opinion vs opinion debate. Either provide some statistics to prove that countries with guns are safer or stop replying with just your opinion. I'm sorry but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and on their own they're worth nothing.

Take a look at this... [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Banning guns might lead to less gun violence, but will probably not lead to less crime. As I said earlier, people will use other tools to commit crimes.

This will probably be my last post on this thread unless you can use statistics and facts properly to present a decent argument about gun crimes and gun control, like the topic suggests.

As I just said, banning guns might stop gun violence. I provided a link that will prove my point. But banning guns does not mean that crime will decrease.

And I know that I refereed to the sandy hook shooter as a kid, but that is just because he was the woman's kid. I know he is not a kid

The GOP is ruining your argument that it's mental health that is the problem.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

The majority of the people linked to this horrific firearm-related crimes shouldn't have even had a gun in the first place. Gun control is not the answer. As sad as these catastrophes are, restricting guns will not stop them from happening.

Granted, background checks and screening are absolutely necessary, but I'm right there with you. I feel ya dawg.

Tywin wrote The GOP is ruining your argument that it's mental health that is the problem.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And that does not make sense to me. As someone said, most crimes do not happen because someone has a mental problem. But in the case of most school shootings, like the sandy hook shooting. The man had a mental problem. He obviously does not need to have guns. I do not know what was going through their minds when they made this decision.

002 wrote

Click to View Content

The way that I have come to understand this issue is that they are legal to purchase in some states but not others.

Is that accurate?

If that is the case then what Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton say at the start of that video would be accurate, wouldn't it?

Or this:

002 wrote

SUPER X GIRAFFE wrote Just to make this clear: the gun show loophole refers to buying guns from non-FFL holding vendors at the show. For example, I do not have an FFL. Anyone that I sell a gun to during a gun show does not need a background check.

SUPER X GIRAFFE wrote He just approached vendors that had FFL's. I didn't help make the video but I'm assuming he actually got the answer he was looking for from a few vendors but just cut that out of the video. But the reason you can't call it a 'gun show loophole' is because it's not specific to gun shows. If you buy a gun from your friend who's selling his, you don't need a background check. But you do need a transfer of ownership so your name IS attached to the firearm but that does not require a background check. I was at a gun show in Pennsylvania a few weeks ago and there were a number of vendors offering 'cash and carry' and I verified they were not FFL holders

I saw lots of different comments like this that got hundreds of upvotes so I assume that they're correct. I was going to research what FFL meant but this guy seems to already know better than I do.