If you follow the reasoning that there are other problems causing more deaths per year, then you're basically saying that you don't have to do anything about a cause of preventable deaths until all other problems that cause more deaths are solved. Even you must agree that this is a weird way of reasoning and just isn't right.

As for the gov't thing, you're saying an armed populace is a requirement for keeping the government in check. Europe is proof that this obviously isn't true in one direction and a bunch of African nations are proof of how this isn't true in the other direction as well. Like I've said, the US itself is a clear example of how this is bullshit because right now you're stuck with the worst and incompetent government in ages. Today people aren't controlled by guns and force anymore. It's through Internet and television/media.

I'm sticking with the theory that people genuinely are getting increasingly sick of hearing about mass (school) shootings and want something to be done about it. If that starts off with a blanket ban on private ownership of AR-15's and comparable weapons, then that's a reasonable starting point.

I'm stupid because I have a different opinion...

That certainly took an enormous amount of contemplation to form that thought.

No, you're stupid because you say and do stupid things.

I'm stupid because I have a different opinion...

BTW, mass shootings with AR-15s aren't happening "constantly" anywhere in the US. People are "constantly" dying to cancer, car accidents and heart disease to name a few.

154 people die in 5/6 years and we should penalize millions of law abiding citizens under the guise we're going to "save lives".

You see what we have here is another clear example of someone ignoring the context of the conversation to support an irrational position. This is typical of the morons pushing the AR-15 agenda. Hey dumb dumb, google how many people died in 5/6 years to guns in general. Then explain to why AR-15s are the target.

Idiot.

Wonder how gwamps would feel if his kid got shot to pieces.

I'm exchanging insults with someone who is incredibly biased and has no intention of having a discussion. How about fuck off if you don't like it. You're in no position to judge anyone.

The tag line, "It works in other countries" has been disputed by many and has also been proven ineffective in the actual country of America. America isn't "other countries". We have a different relationship and history with firearms. Never mind the FACT that guns aren't the problem. They are simply a means to an end. Look at London. People are the problem. But some idiots would rather penalize millions of law abiding citizens rather than deal the why/how a few criminals are causing the problem. Furthermore, we have a constitution (unlike other countries) that protects our right.

The other point you're trying to make is a matter of opinion. I agree there should be better regulation, but with no additional restriction on firearms. We will certainly save more lives keeping ALL guns out of the wrong people's hands instead of banning something that is responsible for less than 1% of gun deaths. But I digress. This isn't about saving lives...

You do understand AR is a blanket term for about 9000000 styles of rifle right? And you do understand thats not the only gun we're talking about getting rid of right? You understand theres still AKs and all kinds of stuff in the wild right? I have a buddy with a mac 10. He shouldnt have that. Its legal.

You simply don't get it, or are a country bumpkin with no sense, Either way, I really hope your kids never have to go through that shit. Because its clear you've never dealt with any kind of actual gun violence in your life. Either way, I'm done arguing with someone so ignorant and selfish.




Naw, he'd just wanna arm teachers or something equally stupid.

I'm absolutely in a position to judge. I haven't been calling you stupid and I have an opinion on the matter. As far as America isn't "Other countries" I honestly disagree. If any country deserves to be compared to the US it's Canada. We border your country, we're heavily influenced by your culture and are basically a mini united states with different laws on gun control. The points your making are rhetorical in nature and not factual in any way. Stricter gun laws in Canada work, that is a fact, not an opinion. Murder rates across the border are insanely higher than Canada's, that is also a fact. You have absolutely no need to carry weapons meant to murder other humans. You just want to because reasons and that's why in the end your government will take them away from you. Your constitution can be changed and it will eventually when you and people like you collectively get your heads out of your asses. Also, you state that it works in other countries has been disputed and proven ineffective but has it really or are you just making that up? Cause I think you're just making that up.

I re-read and I still don't know what question it is you're posing. My apologies for asking you to repeat whatever it is you think I'm dodging but I'll be happy to answer it.

The facts surrounding gun control laws in other countries aren't my opinion, they're facts and the stats don't lie. So please stop with the "my opinion" crap. Also, you're not making an argument about how it doesn't apply to the US, you're just stating it doesn't without any facts or data to back that up. That is an opinion and simply stating that doesn't negate the facts that gun control works in other countries.

If I may make an analogy here, the burden of proof really lies on you as we have evidence to support otherwise. It's a lot like religious folks claiming it's an atheists responsibility to prove god doesn't exist while showing no evidence god does exist. It simply doesn't work that way. You tell me to go do research but really it's you that needs to look at examples of how things work elsewhere. I'm not trying to make fun of you here, I'm just saying, you really need to stop and objectively look at your argument because it's really a case of burying your head in the sand.

Yeah you're correct that they're basically trying to babystep their way to actual gun control by targeting ar-15's and that style of weapon. You want proof it's actually going to make a difference but in America's case you just need to try it first and see the results. If it's a positive change I'd expect more types of weapons to be taken off the streets which is likely the end goal here.

That said, the US isn't special. You're not some special snowflake that'll devolve into chaos if they take your guns. Telling me the US is different and needs guns because of that difference is absolute horseshit. The U.S. is a country like any other country. The only thing special is the orange turd running it. I mean that in the worst possible way.

It has positive results last time they did the ban.

Not really, but the law also had a bunch of loopholes in it. A study in 2013 showed that it didn't reduce gun crimes.
http://www.uiw.edu/library/documents/re ... merica.pdf

Even though these everyday shootings rarely come up in the national debate about gun control, the evidence is actually strongest for stricter gun laws preventing the more common shootings, including suicides. In fact, the empirical evidence is weaker for the effect of gun control on the mass shootings that do draw national attention — largely because these tragedies are relatively rare and therefore more difficult to study.

A recent review of US-based studies by the RAND Corporation, for example, found no good evidence of gun-related policies affecting mass shootings, deeming the studies in this area “inconclusive.” But RAND did find evidence that some measures — background checks, child access prevention laws, minimum age requirements, and prohibitions associated with mental illness — are all together linked to reductions in injuries and deaths, including the more typical gun homicides and suicides.

The RAND review’s conclusions are backed by other research. A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to firearms can save lives. But those findings were for gun deaths broadly, with mass shootings rarely being the focus of the analyzed studies.

One could still infer from this evidence that stricter gun laws will reduce mass shooting deaths, but it’s an inference from the data, not a strong empirical finding. Meanwhile, the research indicates that stricter gun laws really could help prevent more shootings like that in Liberty City over the weekend — even though gun control is rarely brought up nationally after such events.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/10/17218878/liberty-city-miami-florida-shooting

Also in 2013, Koper reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He also concluded that the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates, but may have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004

They should be locked up at a gun range and you should need a license to be able to use one.