Bang Sticks

[The Kingmaker]

Being a leftist socialist Bernite idiot (in the eyes of the NRA, presumably) I don't see the need for guns. I don't see where the desire comes from either.
All i see is people made paranoid by yheir news anchors about things that won't affect them causing the knee jerk of getting a gun to defend yourself.
I see some people who hunt animals legally and don't want that taken away, fair

But I also see some idiots.
Like really guys.

[FeedDaKingdom]

ummm......the only time i saw a real gun directly with my eyes is airport security checkpoint guards.
Virtual guns, those are good
Actual guns, no idea

[Juice Box]

I don't think people should take away guns. That's unnecessary. Y'all should just get stricter gun laws, improve legal conditions involving guns while lessen possible acts of illegal gun activity.

[FastAndBlast]

U know take away guns is abaaaaaaaad idea
Example:
Customer: hey I want 2 machine guns and a pistol.
Service: oh, that would be $2000 dollars, and do u want a grenade for 100 more dollars?
Customer: Yes, I heard u have the best grenades in town!

Baaaaaaaaad idea

[The Kingmaker]

I didn't say take away guns (although that is the logical next step that worked in Australia and other areas) but making them harder to aquire with actual mental health checks and background checks seems wholly arguable.

Then, if anything ever happens over this, having the government buy back guns would be ideal to reduce guns in circulation, but that would have to be in the future.

[FastAndBlast]

I meant takeaway guns
Like Thai food takeaway

[Manijure]

At least for the US, gun violence is a serious and tragic problem (e.g. Pulse nightclub in Orlando), and I feel that politics is getting in the way of finding and implementing a viable solution. The way I see it, and what the president and many other politicians are trying to push, is that guns in general should not be banned. I'm not talking about handguns or single-shot hunting rifles. I'm talking about assault weapons, guns that can spray down tens of people in seconds.

I understand the point of the Second Amendment, and I value it, but assault weapons are not necessary to defend yourself. They really only serve a purpose in the military to clear out enemy war zones effectively. And yes, I know and have consistently heard that killers can acquire guns whether or not gun control legislation is passed, and I get it. But if it makes it harder for them to do so, then it's still a step in the right direction. No one needs a semi-automatic rifle to take down an intruder in your home or hunt animals in the wild. That's what handguns and single-shot hunting rifles are for. This isn't compromising the Second Amendment as the NRA would want you to believe.

If we cannot agree on that, then at least we should agree with better mental health and background checks, as Kingmaker said. The fact that the Orlando shooter, despite his erratic behavior and frequent run-ins with the FBI, managed to acquire an assault weapon only goes to show that this gun registration system needs to get fixed ASAP. There were so many red flags, yet he succeeded in doing what he wanted: instilling terror in the name of ISIS and planting more seeds of Islamophobia.

I just hope we learn from this and work together to find a better solution instead of fighting amongst ourselves and letting history repeat itself. If we can accomplish that, ISIS loses, and the goodness of humanity wins.

[Zonoro13]

You do realize assault rifles have been banned since the 80s? The term "assault weapon" is based on fear-mongering and misinformation.

Of the thousands of gun-related deaths that happen every year in the USA, about 250 come from rifles of all types. Of these, the majority come from hunting rifles. Almost none come from "assault weapons". The vast majority of gun violence comes from handguns.

I support background checks, which are already in place in much of the US. I do not support infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, including rifles.

[The Kingmaker]

The thing I like about Bear Arms is that you can hug people, but if they anger you then you can claw them in the back /s

That's fine Zonoro. The main thing I dislike that sours this debate is when those in favour of retaining the Second Amendment just done want any kind of change at all. I'm fine for you to beleive in and actively defend your constitution and way of life, good on you, but if you cannot see the irony in trying to prevent change to an "amendment" then the debate just cannot move on

[Zonoro13]

The thing I like about Bear Arms is that you can hug people, but if they anger you then you can claw them in the back /s

That's fine Zonoro. The main thing I dislike that sours this debate is when those in favour of retaining the Second Amendment just done want any kind of change at all. I'm fine for you to beleive in and actively defend your constitution and way of life, good on you, but if you cannot see the irony in trying to prevent change to an "amendment" then the debate just cannot move on

I appreciate your respect.

I do think the amendment was made for a very good reason. I don't think we should restrict any kind of freedom (owning firearms is a form of freedom) when there is little reason to believe that it would make a positive difference.

[warbot1000]

Stricter gun laws would keep most people happy and supposedly make America safer.

[Zonoro13]

Stricter gun laws would keep most people happy and supposedly make America safer.

A huge part of the US would riot. They love their guns. And I don't think it would make America safer.

[AerisDraco]

Why wouldn't it though?
Just a question...

[Juice Box]

It'll definitely make the US safer, and thinking it won't is idiotic. Numbers don't lie. Look at the number of gun-related violence in the US and compare it to pretty much any other country.

You don't need to take away guns. Just make them harder to get, and make sure the people who get them aren't psychopathic.

Sure, it'll likely be violent at first, but it's a negligible price to pay in the long run.

Though to be honest, if gun violence continues even after you get stricter gun laws, then more focus should be put on the people instead of the peoples' guns. Really says more about a normal American than a normal gun.

[Zonoro13]

Look at Britain, which has little gun violence compared to America. It has very high knife violence rates. There will always be weapons.

I do support background checks and better mental health treatment in the US, but I doubt these will be effective. Firstly, background checks are already in place for the majority of gun purchases, and secondly, the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

To deny a mentally ill person the right to have a gun, you have to respect their right to due process and bring evidence before a judge. Then, if the judge rules that they should not be allowed a gun, then that would come up in a background check. This is fair, but I doubt it would be very effective, as I said above.

[RZRider]

Look, banning guns completely is stupid. I personally think that the founding fathers made the second amendment for a reason. That being said nobody needs bullet proof vest puncturing rounds or heavy weapons unless they want to hurt someone. I think you should be able to protect yourself with a gun like you can now and hunt with a gun like you can now. I pretty much agree with zonoro

[Sinque Productions]

In case everyone forgets, the second amendment said guns are allowed for a militia, which we no longer have.

If you want to get a gun, there should be some serious paperwork and background checks.

And in all honesty, basically nobody should need a gun. "Oh I need to defend myself from robbers!" You just gave the robber your gun by buying a gun. "I need to be part of a street gang and shoot other gangs!" Get a life.

[Juice Box]

And in all honesty, basically nobody should need a gun. "Oh I need to defend myself from robbers!" You just gave the robber your gun by buying a gun.

Not necessarily. Most gun cases actually involve people who attained a gun illegally.

To be honest, though, I'm not even so much for the notion that guns should be allowed because they keep you safe. That notion is silly--yeah, a gun can protect you. So can a dog. So can locks. So can your neighbors the moment they see a hooded man go inside your house. Heck, my family lives in a sketchy asf. neighborhood and we go by without a single gun in the house.

Guns should not be allowed because they "keep you safe." They should be allowed just because why the hell not if you know you're giving it to someone who can handle it? Military is full of armed people, but that doesn't mean one of them will just up and shoot everyone because he has a gun.

[FastAndBlast]

And besides its not like u can really easily shoot a gun at someone. It takes a lot of will power to kill some other person, so u might as well not use a gun to defend your self.

[RZRider]

Most people would protect their familly and do the right thing. My parents always said that if someone threatens your life and you don't have any other option to kill him, then and only then should you do it. That is the right thing to do. But a gun can also disable the person, instead of flat on killing him, like a shot in the knee.