This is literally happening already. Gun control in the UK worked so well that now there's a campaign for knife control.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/is-this-a-joke-british-police-push-for-ban-on-pointy-knives_112014

It's really sad over there:

http://surrenderyourknife.co.uk/

That's not funny.

Yep, it's sad.

I'd much rather have someone with a knife burst into a room with an intent to kill everyone than someone with a gun.

Then again, fuck logic, right?

I'd rather be the responsible one with the gun when someone burst in anywhere threatening to cause harm.

Hurry durr I need a gun because everyone has a gun. Seems to be working out well

Let me guess.. You've never been to Texas. It's OK to be scared. Guns aren't for everyone, just don't knock them until you fire one at a range.

I've been in the armed forces for 12 years and shot competitively for 5. Keep trying

Settle down.

Lol. Can't tell if stolen valour or an actual soldier who's anti gun?

I will say I have never before met the latter. I won't say it couldn't exist.

If he wants to kill u with a gun. He wi get a gun. If he wants to slice you up... Then he'll grab a knife.

Ban guns and you'll see Americans become fish in a pond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI

While I do not advocate violence, I would rather a bullet, than hand to hand combat.

I'm the victim this week of a large salmonella outbreak. At one point, a bullet might have felt humane!

Did you watch the video?

It is powerful. Hope others will watch as well.

In the LA riots, these shop owners protected hundreds of businesses and in so doing, thousands of lives! Families didn't lose jobs, product was still on the shelves.

The government sent in troops with no bullets!

They'll never be able to ban guns altogether. It will be very hard for them to even limit them any further. They will never get the votes from conservative Republicans from gun-states. Thankfully, the right to bear arms is expressly outlined in the Constitution.

People who profit from social problems don't want them solved, and it is they who will send you off on a false crusade to prevent that. Banning privately held firearms will not solve the problems of inequality or institutionalized violence and racism that are at the root of killings like that in question; I'd venture to say it would actually make them worse.

So why do other major countries have much lower homicide rates than USA ? Plenty of racism and violence in England, for example. But they have fewer guns, and much lower homicide rate.

That's why I used the word institutionalized; Americans are socially engineered toward racism and violence, whereas the British are socially engineered toward passivity. There are always exceptions, of course; not everyone is so easily influenced, but the people behind it deal in trends concerning millions of people, and centuries of time. Firearms are not the problem, and murder is usually just a symptom of what actually is.

Actually, Britain has higher rates of violence than USA. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

It's just that they don't have as many guns, so their homicide rate is about 1/5th of ours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

The Daily Mail? LOL

Can't refute with facts ? LOL

Would you rather be shot dead or maimed for life?

I think my best chance of "neither" is to get guns banned.

I wish you shit luck with that. .I think your best chance of neither is mandating a living minimum wage, a negative income tax, and creating economic growth by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and shifting from unsustainable factory farming to a regenerative agroecology.

Good luck avoiding either if you're volunteering to line up outside the residences of holdout gun owners after the ban to collect their firearms from their cold dead fingers.

For every person advocating a gun ban, I imagine a person dressed up in full riot gear lined up outside ready to die. If only you had such integrity. Instead I'm sure you'd send young, poor men and women to do the dirty work for you.

Oh, I don't think we'd do that kind of forced confiscation. If we banned guns, lots of law-abiding people would turn in their guns. Manufacturing and sales would stop. As criminals were arrested, guns seized from them would be destroyed. Criminals would find it harder to get guns as the supply of guns to steal dried up. Ex-wives and such would rat out gun owners. As gun owners died, sometimes their inheritors would turn in the guns instead of keeping them. It would take decades, maybe a century, but eventually we'd get 95-99% of the guns out of society.

Again, I wish you shit luck.

Guns are tools. Useful tools. The 2nd amendment isn't just for shits and giggles. WWII would have gone a lot differently if the American public weren't armed.

"God didn't make all men equal. Samuel Colt did."

Right, we won WW II because of revolvers under people's pillows.

Other comparable countries do just fine with far lower rates of gun ownership. They don't fall to tyrannical govts or murderous hordes because of it. We should ban guns.

Google "a gun behind every blade of grass."

Japan didn't invade the mainland because they were afraid of our armed populace. Other countries have done terribly despite banning or restricting gun ownership. Look at Mexico and Venezuala.

We already have a tyrannical government. Taking guns away from responsible citizens doesn't protect you.

Yeah, I've heard that Japan thing before, and I think it's nonsense. They missed taking out our aircraft carriers, and they would have been fighting at the end of a very long supply-chain. And if they'd invaded, what would they have gotten, land ? They needed oil and other resources.

Yes, when a country has major problems such as war or a nutty dictator, results are going to be bad even if the gun laws are good.

Taking guns away reduces my chances of being murdered.

California is full of oil fields. Think it's nonsense all you like. The Chinese certainly don't take Japanese threats lightly. Neither did Truman.

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe you should move to Britain.

The Japanese would have taken and fortified Baja Mexico after they had taken out the carriers.

then it would have been game over for the American war effort, the Japanese would have dominated the Americas from the Baja super base/fort.

So you're saying our civilian guns WOULDN'T have stopped them.

It is much easier to stop someone with a homemade melee weapon than with a gun.

Look at countries other than the US, gun crime is much lower and say in Britain only about 5% of police officers are trained with firearms

Less are trained in the US, all still have them though :)

Sadly true probably

I have much more respect for UK cops than US ones. Even my dad (when he was in texas for about 6 weeks had bad experiences twice I think)

It is much easier to stop someone with a homemade melee weapon than with a gun.

Unless they have a gun.

Did you read?

I said "easier to stop someone with a homemade weapon than with a gun". "easier" means that if they have a homemade weapon it is easier to stop them "than" it is to stop someone with a gun

I apparently misread.

It could be argued that improvised melee weapons are more effective against home invaders for most people, considering a lack of firearms training by the majority of homeowners.

That's what I thought you were saying. No need to be crass about it.

Guns are simple to use. In a fairly close space but you have the initiative then you would be pretty likely to hit them.

Melee weapons also can be fought off with strength or technique and is a much more personal way to drive someone off

Lmao. Have you never shot a gun? This is how effective they if you've never trained yourself to use them properly.

I have shot a gun. They are basic weapons which require little skill to use unlike a melee weapon. Hence why they were adopted by armies quickly

Have you ever cleaned a gun? Armies receive training. Even the bare bones militias. Orangutans can use spears. Chimpanzees can use cudgels. Only trained humans can use firearms with any degree of efficiency

If people keep a gun in their drawer, don't use it often then cleaning won't be an issue.

It is also far easier to stop someone who has a melee weapon

True, true. But if you're going on a killing rampage, you'd have to train so regularly that cleaning guns would be necessary. Ask any regular shooter, accuracy is a learned skill. That's one of the most odd elements of many of these mass shootings the media perpetuates: many of the shooters shouldn't have had the skills necessary to achieve the results they did.

Maybe I'm wrong about that point though. Maybe 1st person shooters really do help.

How do we know that they didn't have the skill?

I know nothing, John Snow.

I only vaguely recall some of these shooters having only gone out and bought guns shortly before the shooting (I think Virginia tech) or having been denied access to gun ranges(pretty sure that was the Aurora theatre.)

I also vaguely recall experienced shooters suggesting the accuracy rates of these shooters would have been unattainable given the biographical knowledge of their histories with firearms.

Others have attributed the anomalous accuracies and mortality rates to the "fish in a bucket" theory.

*Jon (sorry I'm picky about game of thrones lol)

Hmm well I suppose the first few kills are guaranteed, you choose the range etc, after that though I suppose some people would be cornered and hope for mercy.

Is there figures for shots fired compared with kills?

Hodor?

I think so. Supposedly the Aurora gunman was firing 50 rounds per minute into a packed theatre. I don't think he had a fully auto gun though and many reports alleged a second gunman.

These things are always so obfuscated they probably don't even have a place in this discussion. :P

50 rounds a minute is a lot, no way he could be accurate, does sound like an amateur tbh

Also for a theatre you are shooting down lanes

You are right we are going too deep

Lol. Abort! Abort!

I'm ready for the all gun owners to stand up to tyranny any time now.

It won't get to that point as long as we have decent guns.

I must be imagining all the tyranny then.

It won't happen in the US. As I said, we have way too many guns, real good ones too.

you're right. there probably won't ever be a gun fight of organized civilians vs the state. not because the state fears the gun owners but because civilians are complacent in the face of oppression.

Ok

Best argument ever. Americans will never revolt because their guns are too pretty.

Yeah, people in countries such as Canada, England, Australia are just under the heels of horrible tyrants all the time, because they don't have enough guns.

You will go to jail in Europe for saying things.

Good thing we don't have any stupid laws in USA.

Yes, I think those Holocaust-denier laws in France and Germany are wrong.

Good thing we don't have any stupid laws in USA

We were talking about other "developed" countries.

Yes, I think those Holocaust-denier laws in France and Germany are wrong.

From here it looks barbaric. I have hard time processing it.

Those laws weren't imposed on them by a "tyrant", and there's a lot of history in that area (WW II, remember ?). I wouldn't say a law against saying certain things is "barbaric", just misguided.

Those laws weren't imposed on them by a "tyrant",

We had slavery that would fit right there

and there's a lot of history in that area (WW II, remember ?).

Yep.

I wouldn't say a law against saying certain things is "barbaric", just misguided.

We disagree on this one. Putting people in jail for what they said is barbaric to me.

Yeah, our civilian guns didn't stop slavery, did they ? They were used to keep down the slaves.

Our guns also did nothing to stop the Bush administration from weakening some of our key Constitutional protections after 9/11, did they ? Did nothing to stop Bush from starting two decade-long losing wars, cutting taxes for the rich, adding trillions to the national debt.

Guns never do anything by themselves. They are inanimate objects.

Yup. Humans get angry, drunk, drugged, stupid, criminal from time to time. Some are crazy or borderline crazy. People's brains change over time, or under various influences, and the male brain in teenaged years is volatile. Very hard to predict or control what ANY person will do.

These problems have always been with us, and all countries have them. What's different about USA, is that the USA is FLOODED with guns, so angry or crazy or stupid or criminal people can do as much damage as possible.

We should ban guns.

Guns are mostly a problem where they are restricted. Look at Vermont, NY looks like bunch of savages with no guns and so much gun violence. You wonder if they have bathrooms.

So, no, thanks. We'll be fine.

It's misleading to point to one city or state inside USA. We have no internal border controls. Strict law in DC or Chicago is useless because guns can come in from Virginia.

No, I think we could cut our homicide rate by 5x or 6x if we banned guns. Percent of households owning guns has been declining in last few decades. Eventually we'll outvote the gun owners and get guns banned.

It's misleading to point to one city or state inside USA.

It's not.

We have no internal border controls.

Neither does Vermont.

Strict law in DC or Chicago is useless because guns can come in from Virginia.

It's not Virginia's fault if the savages in DC or Chicago want to kill people. Civilized folks in places like Vermont are doing just fine with access to those guns.

Maybe they should secede if they don't like it :)

No, I think we could cut our homicide rate by 5x or 6x if we banned guns.

There's no reason to believe that.

Percent of households owning guns has been declining in last few decades. Eventually we'll outvote the gun owners and get guns banned.

I wouldn't bother dreaming about a scenario that's very unlikely to happen and won't do any good.

The future is full of guns. Kids have been moving from video games to real guns. It's too late now. Women are starting shooting sports. /r/guns past 200k subscribers ages ago. Courts are hanging places like DC by the balls for infringing on people's rights.

Future doesn't look like a great place for the anti civil-rights people.

Reason to think we could cut our homicide rate by 5x or 6x if we banned guns: example of just about every other major country in the world. They don't even have complete bans, just much lower ownership than we do, and they get big benefits from it.

Switzerland!!! Also Scandinavia, and the forgotten gem Czech Republic says: We don't need that.

Yes, there are some outliers.

Outliers that disprove you unsubstantiated notions that guns cause gun violence.

Social decay causes all violence. If you want to end the violence, start by mandating living wages, instituting negative income taxes, and funding the replacement of vastly outdated civil services like roads and sewers with maglev trains and composting programs.

We're always going to have the crazy, and near-crazy, and fighting drunks, and druggies, and road-ragers, and wacky teenagers, and anger-management problems, and criminals, loose on our streets. Has been true throughout history, in every country. Sure, we should try to identify and treat or limit them. But why have society flooded with guns so these people can cause maximum damage ?

That attitude. You should change it. All those categories you listed, only exist in the number they do because of social decay. We don't need to treat them. We need to treat the system.

That statement. You should try to find some facts to support it. Many other countries, such as most in Europe, have the same kind of what you probably call "social decay" (less religion, more non-white people, more divorce, less marriage, more gays, higher unemployment, drugs, drinking, etc), yet they don't slaughter each other the way we do. We need to ban guns.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

No. We don't.

For the record, I love gays, drugs, and non-white people. The social decay I'm speaking of is poverty, hunger, and oppressive justice systems like the one in the USA that favors corporations over people, steals children from families, incarcerates individuals for victimless crime, persecutes people for self-medication, and otherwise sucks donkey Kong dick big time.

We don't need to ban guns.

Oh, I see, USA's homicide rate is higher because we have "poverty, hunger, and oppressive justice systems like the one in the USA that favors corporations over people" etc, and other countries don't ? No poverty or hunger or corporate power in Britain ? Our homicide rate is about 4.7x theirs.

The UK has twice the rate of robbery, three times the rate of rape, 35% more car theft, 327x the drug offenses, and five times the imbezzlement of American counterparts.

Explain why Norway has 1/10th the homicide rate of the US despite having the tenth highest gun ownership rate?

Better yet, explain why Serbia has 1/39th the rape as America despite being 2nd in gun ownership?

Even better yet, explain why Mexico has the 13x the murder rate of Serbia?

EXACTLY ! You're making MY point. UK has more violence, but less homicide. Why ? Guns ! We should ban guns.

Sure, there's not an exact correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Culture, race, wealth, isolation, war, there are many factors.

And now I know you fear death more than suffering.

The religion is strong with this one.

We shouldn't ban guns.

Huh ? Where did this death/suffering thing come from ?

You only care about homicide rates. You welcome higher overall violence as long as less people are dying.

No, it would be great if violence in general was lower. I was just showing that, even in a country where violence is higher, homicide rate can be 4.7x lower by restricting (not even banning) guns. We should work to reduce violence, as well as ban guns.

No.

Look at Mexico vs. America- murders per million people:

Mexico- 24 firearm mpmp and 218 mpmp total

USA- 33 firearm mpmp and 42 mp total

While 3/4 of murders in the USA are gun related and only 1/10 of murders in Mexico are gun related, Mexico still has 5x the murders of the USA despite the US having 6x the guns.

Guns are tools. They can save lives or end them. Banning them does absolutely nothing to address the real causes of the violence.

Address the real causes. Quit blaming inanimate objects for injustices perpetrated by sentient citizens.

Thanks.

Have you ever considered that the state keeps having this unproductive debate about taking guns away all the time, yet gun ownership has not declined? This kind of talk just increases sales of guns and expands the budgets of enforcement agencies to have even more advanced weapons. To me all this talk is about profits. Not gun rights or safety.

It's getting to the point of executive action. Either to ban assault rifles or a gun grab done in the middle of the night like a thief.

Actually the wild west wasn't all so wild because outlaws would be come notorious and then would be hung publicly. The system of peacekeeping they had was quite interesting. Most of the violence was actually racial. Those poor unlucky natives. http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

I'll stand with you

Making it harder to kill people means people will have to work harder to kill people

This is not a good argument against banning guns, OP.

Ban guns and you will see the formation of a terrifying black market for guns. Drug gangs will look like boy scouts in comparison to the folks ready to import and distribute firepower. And once that market is open, then you'll see an arms race. LEO's will stop whining about extended pistol mags once the RPGs start coming in.

It may be the case that guns are seldomly used for self defense. Ban them and there's going to be a desperate need. When a glock is worth $10k+ ambushes of LEO's will become commonplace. Police stations, national guard armories, private security firms, these will all become targets. We don't see IED usage in America. Ban guns and that will change fast.

Didnt the government ban something else? Pretty much engrained in American culture. Damn what was it? Oh Alcohol! That went well for them.

Perhaps.

But it's considerably more difficult to chop through a dozen people with a rake and a rusty trowel than a pistol or assault rifle.

Boston witnessed a very creative use of forks. Assholes will be assholes and kill people. It has always been that way.

Sure, I'm not disagreeing. But there's a difference between an asshole with a fork and an asshole with a precision killing instrument like an assault rifle or handgun

I understand, but the difference is not important when those aren't the only options that the asshole has.

Just like there's a difference between an asshole with a precision killing instrument and trained asshole with a precision killing implement.

I don't know what I'm getting at. I just think anti-gun sentiments are stupid. Why let the professionals have all the guns? Especially when they face boot camps designed to strip them of their compassion for human life?

Yeah, those people in other countries who don't have so many guns, or, heck, the non-gun-owners in our OWN country, are just always massacring each other with rakes and knives and scissors, etc.

Yeh. They are doing just that.

I ll take my chances against a maniac with a pair of scissors over a maniac with a gun any day.

Someone with a gun can kill a lot of people at range, quickly.

Someone with a knife, sword, fork, axe etc is going to have to chase people down the moment their ill intent is noticed.

It's much easier, both psychologically and physically, to shoot someone than it is to stab or bludgeon them.

Someone with a car can kill a lot of people quickly.

Shooting people isn't easy. It takes training or determination. Ever hear of fresh soldiers aiming high?

You can't sneak a car into a cinema, or a classroom.

But you can sneak a pressure cooker, a knife, a squirt gun full of acid.

Violent psychopaths cause this violence. Banning guns does nothing to deter them. Look at Britain's violent crime rate. A lack of guns doesn't make you safer. Across the world it's been shown healthy society makes you safer.

Will less people own guns in a healthy society? Almost certainly. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna call the police every time I have to shoot a varmint in my chicken coop.

It seems you anti-gun nuts prefer superficial solutions to real ones. Like banning meat before promoting agroecology. Or like banning cars before building maglev trains.

You want to stop the senseless violence? Create a society where the violence actually doesn't make sense. Build a world where loving thy neighbor comes before hating thy competition.

A pressure cooker alone isn't going to do diddly squat.

You need an explosive, like... Black powder - Which relates to guns... Whoopsies.

A knife comes back to my first point. So no point repeating.

A squirt gun full of acid? How are you going to acquire acid legally?

Violent psychopaths cause this violence. Banning guns does nothing to deter them

Yep, nothing will stop a psychopath causing harm with kitchen utensils. However, there are those a level below psychopaths that would be deterred from committing violent crimes if they didn't have guns.

Look at Britain's violent crime rate. A lack of guns doesn't make you safer.

It reduces the severity of the incidence. Knifes are extremely dangerous, but unlike bullets they don't fragment.

Similarly, getting into a fist-fight is also potentially deadly, but it tends not to be.

It seems you anti-gun nuts prefer superficial solutions to real ones.

The Daily Show - John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 1

You're suggesting homocidal individuals aren't really psycopaths.

I'm gonna just back away slowly...

Not all murderers are the same. Some are significantly more severe than others.

Good point a crazy ass did that yesterday in Austria. Wait....what? This crazy shit does happen in other advanced countries?

We're doing fine here in Europe with out any firearms

Yes. You're just selling them to ISIS. Eastern Europe at least.

To be fair, Europe has many advantages socially compared to the U.S.

Healthcare access, a less overt racism perception (I know there are exceptions), and better educational access all help to prevent this kind of crime.

death by hammers out numbers death by rifles

And far more murders and crime. The President had the CDC conduct a study on guns, and they found that guns are (Conservatively) used anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 times daily in self-defense, far more than for crime.

I'd rather defend myself against a gardening tool than a gun rofl.

consider that a mugger or thief with a gun is content to just show off the gun to intimidate, a thief with a machete might cut or maim to make his/her point clear.

gardening tools make no noise, therefore people might be inclined to use them.

There has been an increase in knife and other sharp instruments for homicides in Australia where gun control is very strict.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

Despite that,

Australia murder rate falls to record low

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31329220

After all, it is vastly easier to kill somebody with a gun than a knife, scissors, landscaping tools, etc.

The murder rate in the US is dropping also.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

Despite more and more guns being sold every day.

Those guns are being sold to existing gun-owners. Doesn't matter much to the homicide rate when a guy who owns 6 guns buys 3 more. Fewer and fewer gun owners are buying more and more guns.

Substantiate that claim with a source if you please.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?smid=re-share&_r=0

Thank you. I still disagree with your tactics entirely.

What is your proposed solution ? I really want to hear other solutions from the pro-gun people. I've heard:

1- arm everyone

2- arm teachers / fortify schools

3- lock up all the crazy people

4- tighten the gun-control laws

I don't think any of those will work, so I go with:

5- ban private ownership of guns of all types, maybe except shotguns for home defense, if a total ban is not possible

Why each solution above won't work:

1- arm everyone: will greatly increase accidents, mistakes, suicides, stolen guns; will turn country into armed camps and fortifications everywhere; high cost. No other country has found it necessary to do this to keep its citizens from killing each other.

2- arm teachers / fortify schools: we've had shootings in schools, movie theaters, offices, post offices, stores, fast-food places, churches; going to arm workers in all of them ?

3- lock up all the crazy people: we're not willing to pay for it; people's brains are very difficult to analyze and control; going to lock up all the near-crazy, drunks, druggies, anger cases, road-ragers, loser teenagers who MIGHT go over the edge ? Other countries have plenty of crazy people, but don't have the slaughter we have.

4- tighten laws: okay, do it, but it won't stop the slaughter; I think the guns at Columbine and Newtown and Charleston, for example, were owned completely legally. Some 600,000 guns are stolen each year in USA.

5- ban guns: would work, but not politically possible at this time.

Any other solutions ?

Fuck I must be a broken record:

Fix society!

Mandatory living wages or a negative income tax would seriously reduce poverty. Poverty is the mother of crime. Raise employment levels with projects that rebuild/replace our crumbling and archaic infrastructures with modern, sustainable systems.

And for ducks sake fix our agricultural system. Factory monocultures of annuals are killing the planet's ecosystems while failing to feed our species.

You want to know my solution? Feed the poor goddamnit. It's not just me claiming there is a positive correlation between hunger and violence. There's entire books written on it.

All your options are completely nutters and ignore the root causes of the problems.

1. Guns don't feed people. Yes, hunting, I know. But seriously, all info indicates farming/foraging has provided in the bulk of calories in humanity's diet for millennia.

2. These shooting do have a habit of occurring in gun free zones... Almost as if the shooters had signs directing them to defenseless targets... Still doesn't feed anyone though.

3. You're joking. Look how well this strategy has worked for drug users. The war on guns is less stupid than the war on drugs... I'll give you that. However neither of them hits at the poverty and hunger that causes the destructive behaviors we're trying to stop. For profit prisons are modern day slavery. Fuckign disgusting and won't solve the problem. Will only create thousands more.

4. Still not addressing the causes of the violence. I might agree with gun licensing that accompanies a training program would cut back on accidents. But without addressing the poverty/hunger issue, it won't do any good against the intentional violence.

5. Guns don't kill people. Hungry, poor, angry people kill people. Usually the people they blame for their poverty, hunger, and anger.

Or my solution

1. Bring the poor out of poverty and feed everybody. I promise violent crime rates will plummet in a world with less to get angry about.

Sure, we should try to fix society. We try to do that constantly. But it sort of is impossible. We're always going to have the crazy, and near-crazy, and fighting drunks, and druggies, and road-ragers, and wacky teenagers, and anger-management problems, and criminals, loose on our streets. Sure, we should try to identify and treat or limit them. But why have society flooded with guns so these people can cause maximum damage ?

And other comparable countries have all of those societal ills (mental illness, drugs, violence, crime, poverty, etc), yet don't have the slaughter USA does.

Those first 4 solutions are things proposed by gun-guys, not by me. I agree with you that they're nonsense.

On #5: sure, guns BY THEMSELVES don't kill people. But they make it really easy for people to kill people. And countries with far fewer guns have far lower homicide rates than we do.

Why can't we fight poverty AND get rid of guns ? Doesn't have to be one or the other.

Keep copy pasting. Someone will report you for spam.

And look at Mexico you naive fool. Higher gun homicide rates despite only one licensed gun dealer in the whole country.

Fighting poverty is way more important than banning guns. Stop wasting your efforts on what you've already admitted is "politically impossible." Focus on the possibility of eliminating poverty.

Everyone's homicide rates are dropping, in major countries. But our rate consistently is 2x to 6x that of other major countries, because of our high gun-ownership.

Why do many states with high gun ownership have murder rates that are about the same as that of Western European countries?

You say, matter of factly, that the US high murder rate is because of high gun ownership when that clearly isn't the case when you look at it state by state.

Yeah, there are variations. And looking state by state or city by city is kind of useless because we don't have internal border controls in USA. Strict law in Chicago means nothing if guns can come in from Virginia.

How does that matter? States like New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine have hight rates of gun ownership and low murder and violent crime rates. The fact that guns can be transported around the country doesn't have anything to do with anything I said and I'm not sure why you brought that up.

They're just desperately trying to avoid logic.

anything to dance around the fact that its a certain 13 % minority in certain states and cities that account for over 50% of the violent crimes and murders but FACTS hurt feelings and arent fair whitey HAS to be at fault somehow NO MATTER WHAT

This is such dub argument, you think if that kid stood up in church with a gardening tool, the end result would've been 6 dead?

Boston.

I'm disagreeing mostly with the garden tool part.

I understand. I was just pointing out a better example.

Yep, look at how inmates continually find new ways to craft weapons in prison, they don't even have the resources that people outside do.

Hang on, let me just finish this rake based massacre….

The Daily Mail? LOL

Yeh. They are doing just that.

Yes. You're just selling them to ISIS. Eastern Europe at least.

To be fair, Europe has many advantages socially compared to the U.S.

Healthcare access, a less overt racism perception (I know there are exceptions), and better educational access all help to prevent this kind of crime.

Lmao. Have you never shot a gun? This is how effective they if you've never trained yourself to use them properly.

The UK has twice the rate of robbery, three times the rate of rape, 35% more car theft, 327x the drug offenses, and five times the imbezzlement of American counterparts.

Explain why Norway has 1/10th the homicide rate of the US despite having the tenth highest gun ownership rate?

Better yet, explain why Serbia has 1/39th the rape as America despite being 2nd in gun ownership?

Even better yet, explain why Mexico has the 13x the murder rate of Serbia?

Google "a gun behind every blade of grass."

Japan didn't invade the mainland because they were afraid of our armed populace. Other countries have done terribly despite banning or restricting gun ownership. Look at Mexico and Venezuala.

We already have a tyrannical government. Taking guns away from responsible citizens doesn't protect you.