Or guns to every body.

If more guns meant more safety then America would already be the safest place in the world.

Less guns dont mean safer. Personally id feel better if every one had one and knew how to use it.

if more airbags meant more safety then cars would be the safest place in the world.

if more helmets meant more safety then motorcycles would be the safest place in the world.

if more parachutes meant more safety then falling to the earth from thousands of feet in the sky would be the safest place on earth.

if hazmat suits meant more safety then chemical plants would be the safest place in the world.

your statement is a logical fallacy.

Except everything you just said is true. You kind of just clowned yourself. The more people that wear helmets, the fewer casualties you see in motorcycle accidents. The more cars out on the road with airbags, the fewer fatalities in car crashes.

People say that the country would be safer if only more people had guns. The United States has more guns per capita than any country on earth. So according to you guys, this should be the safest place on earth right now.

Except everything you just said is true.

no it isnt:

you are safer not in a car than in the car.

you are safer not on the motorcycle.

you are safer not falling in the sky.

you are safer not around dangerous chemicals.

the more people that wear helmets, the fewer casualties you see in motorcycle accidents. The more cars out on the road with airbags, the fewer fatalities in car crashes.

and the more guns that law abiding citizens have, the safer we are.

People say that the country would be safer if only more people had guns. The United States has more guns per capita than any country on earth. So according to you guys, this should be the safest place on earth right now.

again, the logical fallacy. so you are saying it would be safer without guns. by that same logic it would be safer without airbags, helmets, parachutes, and hazmat suits.

the world is a dangerous place. the US would be dangerous with or without citizens being armed. terrorists will get guns anyways, and if somehow they cant, theyve already proven they will use trucks.

at least since we are armed we can protect ourselves. antigun legislation makes no sense because criminals dont follow the laws. its illegal to shoot someone, if they are willing to do that, they are willing to get a gun even if its against the law.

You guys have somehow come to believe that adding more guns to the equation makes everyone more safe. This is completely false.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0804-hemenway-defensive-gun-home-20150730-story.html

All you have to do is look at other countries and the amount of people killing each other.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0804-hemenway-defensive-gun-home-20150730-story.html

America has more guns per capita than any other country. And we are 7th highest in the murder rate. Right above fucking Venezuela, Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil, and South Africa. This is America and we are in the top 10 with these fuckin countries. It's a disgrace.

you still arent getting it.

helmets make motorcycles safer...not "the safest place". just safer.

similarly you act like if guns dont make america "the safest place" they shouldnt be here at all. and this is where you are wrong.

anyways. im not going to have this argument. its a bullshit distraction. the second amendment will stand strong, and if you dont like it, move somewhere else. we have better things to focus on.

Jesus Christ. We are talking about countries. We are comparing countries. Your stupid attempt at anologies make no sense. Let me explain this like you were 5.

There are many countries in the world. Out of all of them, we have the most guns per capita. So out of the entire world, we have the most guns.

You think that if only more people had guns, this place would be safer. So if we compare this place to every other place on earth, this should be the safest one, compared to all the other places who have fewer guns.

Do you understand yet bud?

I'm not your bud.

you will not convince me, the American people, our congress, our supreme court, or our president of your dumb ideas.

i am not even willing to waste my time debating this with you. it is not worth the respect of discussion. period.

Nice, you sound like a guy who just lost an argument. See ya around bud.

Nice, you sound like a guy who just lost an argument.

Wrong. as long as I have the right to bear, Im winning the argument.

That's hilarious. That's like if we were arguing about gay marriage or abortion I claimed I won an argument just because those things are legal.

the difference is you are trying to turn a crises into an opportunity to promote an agenda. disgusting. i will not allow you that victory by even allowing you to progress the debate. the debate is over its old. you lost. it ended. in 1776.

Man this is getting pathetic. Have a good one big guy.

I don't think that guy is turning a crisis into an agenda. That's what DNC/GOP does. The guy you replied to made reasonable comments about how adding more guns doesn't fix things.

I hate the concept of guns entirely but I also think there are better ways to tackle gun crime in a country that has so many guns, than taking guns away (you know, because the tyrannical gov can get violent).

For countries that don't have many guns, adding guns would ruin everything (don't fix what's not broken) and increase gun crime exponentially from almost none to an epidemic level.

But it seems the U.S. is the breeding ground for the NWO. New Babylon?

IMO, if we had a benevolant gov, we could have just had universal healthcare to reduce mental illness, police going after violent gangs, an education system that teaches ethics and logic, better psychological checks for gun customers, end the CIA (MKULTRA), get rid of the elites, nationalize the FED, etc.

But adding guns is not going to fix it. There are betters ways to reduce gun crime than adding or removing guns. Those two options are overly simplistic.

This is why economics isn't actually a "hard science" nor an award actually awarded by the Nobel committee.

You're using a singular static point to try and extrapolate and compare two vastly different civilizations.

Not to be the one that goes there but if you took out our top three most dangerous cities we'd be in the top ten. Aka democrat controlled for decades.

There's also the ~3.5% of the US pop committing ~50% of the crimes.

Correlation with guns isn't causation.

Check out who's actually doing the murders. Like 80-85% blacks and Hispanics, and it's mainly gang and drug related. As far as white Americans go we have about the same gun violence rates as Belgium. I'm busy now but they're FBI statistics so if you don't believe me take a look for yourself

More guns! I support this notion.

Why not both?

Yes. And shut down the CIA to pay for it!

If politicians really wanted to end (theft) they would give (free money to everybody).

if politicians really wanted to end (homelessness) they would give (free homes to everybody).

let me know when you come up with real solutions instead of elementary school class president "soda in ALL the water fountains" campaign promises.

Cut the military budget in half and you could probably do all that shit.

the world needs the US military to keep peace. maybe if the rest of the world would pay their share or do their share of the work, the we could pay for that other stuff too.

the world needs the US military to keep peace.

Right. The US has been on a peaceful mission to destabilize Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc... I'm sure we're in Afghanistan to bring them democracy, and it has nothing to do with the vast opium fields.

Would this have stopped the Vegas shooting?

Well no, most likely because the alphabet organizations were involved with it somehow like everything else

Nope sorry no money we gave it all to lockheed and mossad! And the underground bunker guys! Sorry!

Dude was rich af. Mental health care for dirt poor people is already common and accessible, for those be-homed people's at least.

I agree. Not just for mental illness but single payer would generally reduce the costs of healthcare over time (kicking out parasite big pharma and insurance companies unless they play by ethical rules) as well as remove the financial incentive to scam patients (secure decent paying government jobs for doctors/nurses would mean no conflict of interest, just honest diagnosis and treatments).

Another thing that would help stop these attacks is ending the CIA (because MKULTRA), nationalizing the FED and kicking out the parasite elite bankers, reforming political campaign finance (get money out of politics), etc.

Stopping aid to Israel would also help (because Mossad).

Or ban all those anti-anxiety meds that all these shooters seem to be on.

This is EXACTLY correct. Guns don't kill people, mental illness does.

the difference is you are trying to turn a crises into an opportunity to promote an agenda. disgusting. i will not allow you that victory by even allowing you to progress the debate. the debate is over its old. you lost. it ended. in 1776.

Cut the military budget in half and you could probably do all that shit.