People Guns are not the problem. Organized Terrorism is! I rather have more citizens harmed then not.

yes, arm all Americans

2nd ammendment
fuck yeah 'MERICA

Obama is the devil, the librals and democrats are gay. give more guns.

FUCK YEAH!


*meanwhile every week toddlers get killed from gunshots*

*Republicans




*Conservatives




*Rednecks




*Incest

Guns are not the problem?
They play a big part. Mass shooters use them.

Organised terrorism plays a part in the "problem."

Also, what is the problem...
Mass shootings?
Death in general?
Election Day?

Also, you want more citizens harmed than not.
So you want more than half of the U.S. harmed by attack(s).
How about no.

"More gun laws or America"
What?

Edited 12/8/2015 01:19:53

Things that likely have directly killed more people than Armed Civilians:

McDonald's
Police
US Drone Strikes
Big Pharma

The issue here is not guns, the issue is human want to be deceitful, and abuse and kill other human beings.

Big Pharma

So right!! Screw the medical-pharmaceutical industry.


Proceeds to study Pharmacy.

Things that likely have directly killed more people than Armed Civilians:

McDonald's
Police
US Drone Strikes
Big Pharma

I doubt all of these, can you get source?

Things that likely have directly killed more people than Armed Civilians:

Okay, so McDonalds was basically a tool to say Diabates/Heart Disease. These stats are all in the year 2015.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Total Gun Deaths in 2015 - 12,370
Subtract Accidental Shooting - 10,595
Subtract Defensive Use - 9,445

Subtract Officer Involved Incidents - 5,371
Officer Involved Incidents - 4,074

Sure, you win. Aggressive shooters kill more people than Police Officers, barely.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Heart Disease Deaths - 2,596,993
Aggressive Shooters - 5,371

http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html

Big Pharma Deaths: 44 A Day * 365 = 16060 Per Year
Aggressive Shooters - 5,371

I couldn't find any credible, accurate sources for Drone Strikes (Wikipedia), but I kinda doubt that it is lower than 5,371, but probably not if you count the amount since 9/11 (In which isn't fair, because we are counting aggressive shooters for 2015). Anyway, this number is likely to rise soon, not above 5,371, but maybe into the thousands because of the US Strikes on Syria.

Edited 12/8/2015 03:06:37

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
If guns are illegal there will still be gun murders because the murderer doesn't give a shit about what the law says.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Total Gun Deaths in 2015 - 12,370
Subtract Accidental Shooting - 10,595
Subtract Defensive Use - 9,445

Subtract Officer Involved Incidents - 5,371
Officer Involved Incidents - 4,074

Sure, you win. Aggressive shooters kill more people than Police Officers, barely.

Why are you subtracting accidental shooting? And even if you are, that's still 30%< more - not barely.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Heart Disease Deaths - 2,596,993
Aggressive Shooters - 5,371

Well, the point I was making is MacDonalds kills noone. Furthermore, this doesn't further your point about humans wanting to kill other humans.

http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html

Big Pharma Deaths: 44 A Day * 365 = 16060 Per Year
Aggressive Shooters - 5,371

Same here.

I couldn't find any credible, accurate sources for Drone Strikes (Wikipedia), but I kinda doubt that it is lower than 5,371, but probably not if you count the amount since 9/11 (In which isn't fair, because we are counting aggressive shooters for 2015). Anyway, this number is likely to rise soon, not above 5,371, but maybe into the thousands because of the US Strikes on Syria.

I doubt it's more than 1500. Other warfare is a much more convenient way of doing things - airstrikes are different from UAMLs.

@Nanaimo
Don't forget cops would have guns.

omg, guns are not the problem.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
If guns are illegal there will still be gun murders because the murderer doesn't give a shit about what the law says.[\quote]

if we let the government take little pieces of our freedom at a time soon u wont be able to cross state lines without cops strip searching you and worse for the convicted criminals that did miner offensives.

we dont need more laws, we need more strong citizens that know how to handle shit like shootouts. u know why? bcuz its a war a war on ur rights.

Edited 12/8/2015 17:32:21

Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates

u guys see in the news that cops kill innocent people. u dont restrict there laws. In fact ur given police more rights to take away rights.

Cops are not perfect. When they need to make a decision at the pull of a trigger, they might misjudge the situation.

Also, use proper grammar WARLORD.

Cops are not perfect

Could not have said it better myself. The question is what we do about it. BAN COPS??? No obviously not. Look the second amendment is very clear about this issue.

Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A) Purpose of this amendment - secure the military means for which the citizenry can rebel against their federal government. A civilian population without firearms would have absolutely no way to combat government tyranny.

B) "well regulated militia" - This does not mean the federal government has permission to regulate guns. The entity they indicate should regulate the militia of private citizens are the states, since by definition it is an extra-political organization. If the federal government were to regulate or control a militia it would be synonymous to a standing army, which the framers were completely against. State laws that regulate firearms are legal. Federal laws that regulate firearms are unconstitutional.

C) "Bear arms". Since no precise definition of arms is explained we must give benefit of the doubt to the right of the citizen. Historians often argue that the Constitution was a living document (looked to the future). Since this is the argument, we must assume that the framers understood technological advance and were content with the citizenry being able to buy and keep any type of gun (automatic, semi-automatic, hand held, military grade, etc).

D) "Shall not be infringed". This is self-explanatory. No federal law can be created that restricts the purchase or freedom of movement of guns. This means that any regulations that target specific types of guns are illegal. This also means that laws that prevent free citizens from carrying guns in public or private places is unconstitutional.

^Great, I am looking forward to the nuke/bio/chemical guns. According to the wonderful constitution I am allowed to have them :)

Not if the state you live in bans them ;)


See there are rules and regulations. I completely agree with background checks and not giving guns to the mentally unstable. I also agree with sensible restrictions on the types of gun possessions. The only thing I'm trying to say is that the federal government can't do it. Only the states have the constitutional and legal authority to regulate guns. Is there something so radical or crazy in that??