I didn't compare bolt-actions to guns like an AR-15, but semi-auto is semi-auto is semi-auto. So, do you also lump in semi-automatic hunting rifles with your ban? Because they function every bit as an AR-15. There's no way Grandpa Hugh is going to give up his semi-auto hunting rifle, and even the gun-fearing public are reticent to touch Grandpa's hunting rifle (And, to be clear, hunting misses the point entirely, but that's a whole other discussion). There's a reason the politicians go after and villianize these so-called assault-weapons or "black rifles" as gun rights people call them -- its because its easy to make the argument you're making: They look like military guns, therefore they must perform like military guns, therefore they should not be in the hands of the public.

As I have said, long guns of any type are used in only a very small amount of crimes. The AR-15 in less than half a percent, despite being the single-most popular firearm in the country. If it were such a dangerous gun so ideal for commiting crimes, it'd show up in police evidence lockers far more than it does. Again, I think that both sides actually are willing to work together to reduce gun violence, but the gun-control folks need to stop shopping 'solutions' that look like they're doing something important, but don't actually do much besides make it difficult for the law abiding to go about their business, and likewise, gun supporters need to back down a bit from the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile rhetoric." (pro-tip: gun control folks, stop feeding into that by proposing stupid things).

And yet the irony of that entire post is that I am not anti-gun. Simply stating that all guns not be treated equal got at least two people in this forum up in arms (so to speak) over how I plan to ban all guns, and splitting hairs over what is or isn't an assault rifle/weapon/hunting rifle.

Unless you plan to drive a commercial vehicle like a semi truck that's not really true in the sense that there's really no additional regulation around most other types of vehicles. To drive a large RV or motorcycle you need a special endorsement, but its basically a few hours training to make sure you have a basic level of competency and is a cheap, rubber-stamp sort of deal. There is no special license needed to trade your '89 civic in for a 200mph super-car.

That's cause a '89 civic doesn't cause more damage than a 200mph super car in a crash. Try to drive a dump truck or big-rig with your auto license and see how it goes. Same with aviation licenses, they are even more costly (in time and money) and more stringent. In everywhere else, greater levels of potential danger require greater levels of skill, time, and scrutiny; whether the potential danger is intentional or accidental.

If you know your constitutional history, you'll know that the amendments are not an enumeration of rights granted by government to the people. Rather, the constitution was a document that gave power from the people to the government they were giving birth to. The amendments -- indeed, why they're "amendments" at all, and not in the main body of the document -- are the clauses added by the states to make it explicit what the people *were not giving up* -- the states would not sign on until those amendments were included. This was in large part because the early government distrusted standing armies (which is why the third amendment talks about the quartering of troops), but also because they recognized the natural right of a person to defend them-self against an aggressor of any kind, and in doing so would need access to equal or greater means of inflicting harm.

At what point do you draw the line? Do we give people unfettered access to machine guns? Explosives? Tanks, I mean they're costly but I'm sure a few celebs and mobsters could afford one? Aircraft? Biological weapons? Chemical? Nuclear? Obviously this is the 'slippery slope' argument and I'm certain you aren't condoning nuclear weapons access. But your argument that 'in doing so would need access to equal or greater means of inflicting harm' implies that anything the government has access to, so should the citizens. You've presented a continuum.

Just about everytime someone else suggests a criteria (and for the record I did not) pro-gun activists shoot it down using 'give an inch take a mile' type arguments (and always followed by 'but the bad guys will have it and now we won't', but that's so ridiculous I'm not even gonna bother with that argument). So at what point do you personally draw the line? What is your criteria? What is reasonable for a person to own without any regulations, what is reasonable with regulations, and what is just unreasonable?

You're implying there are reasonably usable stats on how many crimes are stopped due to guns. Could you please share those statistics? I don't know where to find them.

The only place I know of is the Violence Policy Center (vpc.org) that puts out studies based off the Bureau of Justice Statistics (bjs.gov) data.

You and those that believe like you hear that statement (Guns don't kill people. People kill people.) and totally miss the point. [...] If I am intent on murder, do you really think that my inability to access a gun will stop me from committing murder?

It sure did stop the guy who tried to murder me for my money and my cell phone three weeks ago (you may have read on here that I was typing 1-finger-elbow). I was admittedly incredibly lucky (in addition to having done a lot of martial arts when I was younger, and in addition to being foolish enough to brawl someone armed with a knife) to get out with two mostly superficial cuts, and super lucky that none of them severed a nerve or an artery. Indeed, I probably did a lot more of permanent damage to him than he did to me (I could type almost normally again -- with little discomfort -- two days later, but I'm pretty sure he still cannot walk). But the point is, if he had had a gun, I'd be dead. It's not that easy to kill someone with a knife, but it's quite easy with a gun. That's what guns are made for, after all.

Without such an instrument of instant death in your hands, it is a lot more difficult, and your risk of getting hurt himself is a lot higher, too. So yeah, guns do kill people.

We will not solve anything by banning a tool.

It seems you didn't read my post carefully. While I am against guns, I am realistic enough to understand that banning guns does not solve the problem. Yeah, I would prefer to live in a world without guns, but this isn't going to happen.

Which is why I'm getting a license (and which is why I'm against the ban, better let everybody have a gun). That way, when the whole country goes down, then at least I'm not the only sucker without a gun.

Criminals have guns anyway, and they will always have them because they don't care about the law. The only "good" that the law does is that it prevents lawful people from shooting back at criminals (who, for example, enter a high speed train with an assault rifle and start shooting). Thing is, you can of course be lucky and get out alive when criminals are armed and you are not, but chances are rather that you don't. Chances are somewhat better if you can shoot back.

Plus, the possibility of being double-tapped on the spot by the next passenger is much more of a deterrent to going on a shooting spree than -- in the very worst case, if you're caught at all -- spend 15 years in a super luxury social-democratic prison. A prison where you have more luxury than the average worker can afford, and for certain more luxury than you have in a lot of places in this world.

But yeah, murderers have human rights, too -- which includes stuff like free internet access and a TV in your cell, and of course getting a university grade paid from tax payer's money. Just so you can more efficiently abuse the system afterwards for "your rights".

Like in the case of Gäfgen, another one of these... people who should never see the light of day again. Kidnapped that boy and killed him, caught getting the ransom and confessed, but didn't want to reveal where the child was or what happened to it. Police was admittedly somewhat direct with threats but did not actuall harm him (and it's not like there was the faintest doubt about him being guilty). Went to jail in 2004, got a legal degree from my tax money, sued the police, filed bankruptcy in 2006 and is officially "free of debt" as of 2012, and will be released in 2019. Isn't it just great.

But those examples are ridiculous compared to the thousands of ISIS that we are hauling into the country now. While the vice chancellor admitted that it's rather 800k than the 400k that he previously admitted to, in reality it's probably over a million (clandestines, that is -- not ISIS). Now assume that only 1% are ISIS, that's 10,000. This is going to be a really "fun" future soon when someone enters a train with an assault rifle or starts decapitating a few random people in the street twice per week.

I'm sitting here, reading this and all I can see is:

American: "but if we don't have guns the bad mans will murder and kill us and take all our stuffs!"

As someone who lives in the UK, where legal ownership of guns is highly restricted, all I can say is "Wut?".

That massively paranoid fear wracked position makes absolutely no sense to me - frankly if your country is that bad that thus really is a fear you suffer from.. shit.. you are beyond hope.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, everytime there is a discussion about change, people jump on this type of argument.

"If we abolish death penality, everybody will go around killing and raping people!!!"

"If we allow gay mariage, the institution of family will be destroyed and every second male and their parents will be turning gay!!!"

"If we legalize marihuana, everyone will be high as shit all day and the economy will collapse!!!"

Its really somewhat between funny and sad to see how I'm sitting here in austria in my own home and don't have to worry despite not having a gun, in fact I feel more safe since its near impossible that there will be a mass shooting in my university.

The issue might be more complex as a hole, but restricting guns or at least requiring proper training/registration will need to be one step to further it. You can also have weapons in austria by the way, but you just need a licence, are registered, and you are limited to certain types of weapons (which are not that "useful" in a mass shooting). Something like this is totally fine, but there is really no point arguing in the benefit of having more unlimited access to weapons - literally half the other world has more restrictive gun laws, what makes your country so special that you "need" (as some like to put it) own automatic rifles, when half the world is doing fine without it? (except "I want to"). As phantom said - if your security depends on having guns, your country is already f*cked beyond belive.

Since Laws/Legislation is part of what creates or forms a culture in a country, Whatever death-by-gun-crime rate exist in any country can be improved by stricter laws

Banning weapons of any sort can never eliminate crime but would significantly minimize it, At least statistics between countries verify that.

You are wrong, restrictions upon common people would catalyze smooth road for crime, as well as restrictions benefit the criminals and suspend victims. In my country law serves and protects criminals, and damages victims if they fight back. Baning weapons would also imply certain culture that benefits this. In my fucked up weapon-free country, there was a guy that got visited by two pig-like guys who drove knifes on him, threathening him to pay fee, mentioning family, he just shot one of them, and was sentenced for pure 15 years of jail room. You like? That is what weapon ban will imply and how it will behave. No single life will be speared be a weapon ban, so I do not see the actual point of the sunny people hope as well.

That massively paranoid fear wracked position makes absolutely no sense to me - frankly if your country is that bad that thus really is a fear you suffer from.. shit.. you are beyond hope.

(btw, while we are doing stories, a few years back walking home from a night out I got in a disagreement with someone who then went back in to their house and came out brandishing two knifes. I ran of course.. Wonder what the outcomes would have been if we could have guns?

Two weeks later, going out this time, I got beaten up by two guys due to how I look. Imagine if we both had guns, chances are I'd be dead or serving out a term for man slaughter.)

No, you wouldn't be dead, sometimes dudes just wanna fight. But gun legal ownership would put those dudes to the more ass-tight position before showing how strong guys they are. UK is a fucked up mate bulsh, I bet those guys go out every week as a group, having beaten up people every evening regulary. No one deals with it, or their mental health? Gun ownership also teaches people responsibility, instead of protecting and feeling pitty for mental condition of beating-someone-random-mate poor affected boy.

That massively paranoid fear wracked position makes absolutely no sense to me - frankly if your country is that bad that thus really is a fear you suffer from.. shit.. you are beyond hope.

(btw, while we are doing stories, a few years back walking home from a night out I got in a disagreement with someone who then went back in to their house and came out brandishing two knifes. I ran of course.. Wonder what the outcomes would have been if we could have guns?

Two weeks later, going out this time, I got beaten up by two guys due to how I look. Imagine if we both had guns, chances are I'd be dead or serving out a term for man slaughter.)

This above story

versus

This story

Worried that someone might be robbing me of my shed stuff (weedwacker, lawn mower, chainsaw etc), I grabbed my shotgun and went out to investigate it, while my girlfriend followed with a flashlight. When I got to the shed, I yelled if anyone could hear me, I have my gun, and unless they come out now, I'll shoot them on sight. A few second later, a guy in a hoodie kicked open the door, saw my gun, froze up, and dropped a hammer (Not one of mine, I think he brought it in case he had to break in). He then apologized, and I told him to run before I call the cops.

I think crimes prevented like this are extremely under-reported. In addition to this, violent crime rate has been falling since the 70's in the USA (http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/), so I think the reason for these instances flaring up in the media are solely for sensationalism.

its a no-brainer that @phantom's story justify a case for gun restrictions. If you still can't clearly see this then you're either blind , in denial and culturally biased

@conquestor didn't have to come out of his house and threatened the intruder, you just to call 911 from where you are.

Even If the intruder had broken into your home with a gun, will he give you the chance to run to where you safely kept your gun and load it?

Then lets say you had the time to reach your gun,and you got into a gun fight, how do you know you will come out of the gun battle alive?

Rather than get into a gun fight, its always better to raise your hands up and let the intruder take what they want and call 911 later. But if you had a gun you will be tempted to think you could gun-fight your way out of it... bad idea of deluded self defense - a really bad idea

The "just blame it on mental health" argument is silly too. Obviously there's more going on than just individual sick people - there's sick individuals worldwide.

The issue is a mentally-ill society, a mentally-ill culture. Everyone knows this - there's other countries with guns, other countries with mental illness, other countries with violent media, and personal freedoms, and massive inequality, etc... But no country has America's culture and societal world-views.
No one says it though, because any kind of criticism is unpatriotic, which is seditious/treasonous, which is the worst sin... Or because American elite are obsessed with the Thatcherite view that society doesn't exist, making discussions about it impossible to consider. A kind of newspeak thought limitation.

Watching US television is surreal - it's often completely and utterly insane. There's so much fear. It's off the charts! So much fear, and ignorant blame, and false divisions into overly simplistic dichotomies, and misplaced anger, and bigotry, and hatred, and above all else: constant doublespeak. When everyone around you is at this level of batshit insanity, constantly bombarding you with their hyperfear, then that becomes your own baseline for sanity.

Just chill the fuck out guys. Relax. Take a monthlong holiday.

The issue might be more complex as a hole, but restricting guns or at least requiring proper training/registration will need to be one step to further it. You can also have weapons in austria by the way, but you just need a licence, are registered, and you are limited to certain types of weapons (which are not that "useful" in a mass shooting). Something like this is totally fine, but there is really no point arguing in the benefit of having more unlimited access to weapons - literally half the other world has more restrictive gun laws, what makes your country so special that you "need" (as some like to put it) own automatic rifles, when half the world is doing fine without it? (except "I want to"). As phantom said - if your security depends on having guns, your country is already f*cked beyond belive.

I'm not sure people from outside the U.S., or even people inside it who don't understand guns, realize this, but: while it is technically legal to own an automatic firearm, you have to go through extensive background checks and acquire permits that cost tens of thousands of dollars. Guess how many legally obtained automatic firearms are ever used in crimes? For that matter, guess what percentage of legally obtained firearms of any type are used in crimes?

If you want to significantly reduce gun violence, legalize street drugs. Take the margin out of drugs that organized crime can demand due to their illegal status and the low-level thugs won't be killing each other over street-corners. I'm not sure what they'll be doing, but it won't be slinging weed if you can go down to CVS and get a pack of Marlboro wacky tobaccy.

@conquestor didn't have to come out of his house and threatened the intruder, you just to call 911 from where you are.
Even If the intruder had broken into your home with a gun, will he give you the chance to run to where you safely kept your gun and load it?
Then lets say you had the time to reach your gun,and you got into a gun fight, how do you know you will come out of the gun battle alive?

My girlfriend did call 911, they showed up 40~ minutes after the fact. Frankly, I live in a Black area and the cops are very overstretched. I keep my shotgun loaded and under my bed. I'll come out alive because I know my house's layout better.

If I'd have called 911 without a gun, and he went for my house after of my shed, I'd be huddled in the closet waiting for 30 minutes for police.

As for phantom's story, my girlfriend has some nerve damage. If she was in his position, she would have been knifed to death. Guns are great equalizers, really. They allow old ladies to fight back against thugs with knives, and allow individuals to stand a chance against a group of aggressors.

When I lived in a 95% White/Jewish 3% Asian neighborhood (Where I grew up), I was actually very anti-gun. Buying my first apartment in what was essentially a ghetto changed my mind very quickly. I've stopped someone from going through my car with my CC pistol before.

In fact, the reason I bought a gun was because someone 2 doors down had people try to kick in his door, when they failed, they shot at him through a window, then ran. 20 minutes later the cops showed up. A few days later, he was standing at a bus stop, and (probably) the same people killed him in a drive-by. Later I learned from a neighbor that he was ripping people off in drug deals, but I still bought a gun right after that.