It is real easy to talk tough over the internet I suppose. So much for an intelligent conversation when the other party involved resorts to childish, trite remarks. According to your train of thought, why don't you condemn or ban fast food? Heart disease is the number one killer in the US. Fuck all the people killed by fast food yeah?

The difference there is that eating fast food is something we do to ourselves. We are the ones who receive the most harm from our own choice to eat fast food in excess. Gun violence, on the other hand, allows one to very easily make choices that harm others without harming oneself. Furthermore, the nature of the harm is quick and devastating - a little bit of gun violence does significantly more damage than a little bit of fast food. Fast food takes a long time to kill someone.

What about smoking? Smoking can be attributed to 17x the amount of deaths compared to guns. Please ban cigarettes.

I would love it if that happened - besides the second-hand smoke issue, I can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke, personally, and my grandmother died of lung cancer due to a smoking habit. Smoking is right on the line between fast food and gun violence. Like fast food, the harm is slow to act and doing it a few times won't kill you, but like gun violence, it can affect more than just yourself. The last point is the breaking point - by smoking near others you are actively harming them in the same way that you are harming yourself.

On the other hand, it IS possible to segregate smokers away from others so the smoke doesn't affect others, and others can (usually) move away from the smokers, so the problems they cause are avoidable. A case could be made for not banning tobacco on those grounds, but that doesn't work for guns. One cannot escape a bullet once it is fired at you.

And of course, to state the obvious, neither fast food nor tobacco smoke can be used as a weapon to kill people.

Comparing banning of fast food to the banning of weapons "For health and safety" doesn't really feel like an apples-to-apples kind of comparison. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone dying due to a violent drive-by big-macing... I have however seen people harmed due to distracted drivers who were too busy trying to deal with their food to pay attention to actually driving. (Self driving cars and banning of human drivers on public roads really can't come soon enough.)

And there are a lot of people out there who want to establish social policies to make the overly unhealthy food more expensive while making healthier stuff easier to access. However long term self destructive life choices tend to be internal to the person making the choice with limited direct impact on others. Sure, there is a strain on health care services and such, but that in and of itself is an indirect impact on others.

Arent most places non smoking these days anyways? Plus there's pretty heavy taxation on smoking on top of that if I'm not wrong.

The difference there is that eating fast food is something we do to ourselves. We are the ones who receive the most harm from our own choice to eat fast food in excess. Gun violence, on the other hand, allows one to very easily make choices that harm others without harming oneself. Furthermore, the nature of the harm is quick and devastating - a little bit of gun violence does significantly more damage than a little bit of fast food. Fast food takes a long time to kill someone.

Comparing banning of fast food to the banning of weapons "For health and safety" doesn't really feel like an apples-to-apples kind of comparison. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone dying due to a violent drive-by big-macing... I have however seen people harmed due to distracted drivers who were too busy trying to deal with their food to pay attention to actually driving. (Self driving cars and banning of human drivers on public roads really can't come soon enough.)

As delicious as a drive-by big-maccing sounds...

You cant get away with that argument. The whole idea revolves around the unnecessary loss of life, not how that life is lost. Gun's are scary to people, not big macs, so people rally to ban guns. But big macs kill more than guns. It could be easily argued that guns are healthy for a populous. Among many things, they teach responsibility which is a terrifying idea to most people these days.

The argument that people kill themselves with big macs, so its a choice which makes it ok(and doesn't harm anyone else) just doesn't stand. Of the entire tally of gun related deaths, suicide accounts for 63%(according to CDC statistics), and homicide does not even fill up the missing 37%. Suicide is a choice right? They are only harming themselves which makes it ok by your logic.

Not a single person has brought forth a tangible argument during this discussion about a good reason to ban guns other than on an emotional/opinionated level. Just like other countries have their embedded values and beliefs, guns are just a part of American culture. The more people fight that, the more turmoil it will bring.

Gun's are scary to people, not big macs, so people rally to ban guns.

Yes, guns ARE scary. One bullet could kill me. One big mac probably won't. The degree of harm DOES matter. Not all of us think of things in black and white terms.

Of the entire tally of gun related deaths, suicide accounts for 63%(according to CDC statistics), and homicide does not even fill up the missing 37%. Suicide is a choice right? They are only harming themselves which makes it ok by your logic.

Actually, I am not opposed to suicide, in principle, even if I don't encourage it. I believe one should have the right to end one's own life at a time of one's choosing. I support "doctor assisted suicide" and the right to a dignified death. I have never said otherwise and I'm not sure why you're pretending that I have.

On the other hand, I also am not opposed to putting railings on the side of bridges to make jumping off them harder. Similarly, banning guns would make suicide harder to accomplish. Banning guns may not prevent suicide, but it may encourage people who otherwise might be able to pick themselves up and carry on not to end their life unnecessarily.

Not a single person has brought forth a tangible argument during this discussion about a good reason to ban guns other than on an emotional/opinionated level. Just like other countries have their embedded values and beliefs, guns are just a part of American culture. The more people fight that, the more turmoil it will bring.

And not a single thing you've said so far proves that my argument "does not stand." Asserting that I'm wrong is not a proof.

Of the entire tally of gun related deaths, suicide accounts for 63%(according to CDC statistics), and homicide does not even fill up the missing 37%.

So your logic is that because 63% of people kill themselves its ok for the other percentage, whatever that might be, to be killed by someone else?

As that's what it seems to be to me... never mind that 'collateral damage' consists of children and people just wanting to have a good time... but then we know that's the case, because in the wake of Sandy Hook instead of the USA sitting down and having an adult conversation about weapons the response was 'not the fault of guns!', 'teachers should be armed' and 'Kevlar for school children!' - as someone in the UK, looking on at those serious suggestions, all I can think is 'fuck me America, you NEVER go full retard'.

So, as I said a page ago, nothing changed.
Children died in their class room and America shrugged its collective shoulders and got on with it - 'it' including making a buck off the shooting of children of course.

The fact that people were honestly suggesting that teachers should be armed that children should be wearing Kevlar is, in my eyes, proof the USA is not a civilised country.

In civilised countries you don't have weapons. Your teachers aren't armed and you don't send your kids to school in body armour.

You know where you do?
War torn states.

Congrats... the USA is basically one level above that... and with recent tensions I'm kind of sat over here wondering if the "it will be fixed" rhetoric of Trump will be enough to finally push things over the edge in to the shooting war...

And lets be honest; that's what you all want anyway?
The chance to be like the wild west!
The law of the gun!
Be a hero!
Stop a bad guy!

Maybe one day you'll grow up and stop playing with guns... until then, the rest of the civilised world will look on at yet another mass shooting as it happens and shake our heads sadly as once again, the only western country where it happens declares there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Moderator hat back on.

The political discussion is encouraged.

This is a good topic at its core, and it has mostly stayed on topic and civil. Seriously, good job on that. I know it is hard to have political discussions about people's beliefs and viewpoints while remaining civil, and though I've wanted to jump in at times with my political views I'm intentionally staying out so I can help with moderation.

Please keep up the civic discourse.

Unfortunately a few of the recent replies are moving away from the underlying political issues. The site's policy on personal attacks is still in effect, insults and personal attacks are not tolerated. Stay on track of the political issues so the discussion can remain open.

Thank you.

Moderator hat off.

Gun's are scary to people, not big macs, so people rally to ban guns.

Yes, guns ARE scary. One bullet could kill me. One big mac probably won't. The degree of harm DOES matter. Not all of us think of things in black and white terms.

Of the entire tally of gun related deaths, suicide accounts for 63%(according to CDC statistics), and homicide does not even fill up the missing 37%. Suicide is a choice right? They are only harming themselves which makes it ok by your logic.

Actually, I am not opposed to suicide, in principle, even if I don't encourage it. I believe one should have the right to end one's own life at a time of one's choosing. I support "doctor assisted suicide" and the right to a dignified death. I have never said otherwise and I'm not sure why you're pretending that I have.

On the other hand, I also am not opposed to putting railings on the side of bridges to make jumping off them harder. Similarly, banning guns would make suicide harder to accomplish. Banning guns may encourage - not prevent! - people who otherwise might be able to pick themselves up and carry on not to end their life unnecessarily.

Not a single person has brought forth a tangible argument during this discussion about a good reason to ban guns other than on an emotional/opinionated level. Just like other countries have their embedded values and beliefs, guns are just a part of American culture. The more people fight that, the more turmoil it will bring.

And not a single thing you've said so far proves that my argument "does not stand." Asserting that I'm wrong is not a proof.

Guns are not scary to me. To people who have never experienced one before, they are. Even minimal exposure, one day on the range, people will realize guns are not scary at all. They simply demand respect and safety awareness.

The point was not whether or not suicide is an acceptable behavior, I didn't even attempt to apply a stance on suicide to you, you misinterpreted. The point is that suicide is a decision to harm yourself just like eating a big-mac. I would reckon that the degree of harm really doesnt matter if they both end with the same result.

I am not trying to flame-bait or insult you. In-fact, I respect you. Your technical skill in this field is valuable and I look to people like you for answers when I have issues with my own programs. But no, whether I asserted, or silently stood by with out saying anything, you are not providing an argument that stands on any sort of foundation at all. I keep reading "me" and "I" in all of these responses, and as we know, all we have to go on are facts. The facts have been thoroughly dissected, and the anti-gunners points just don't add up.

@phantom

And what is so civilized about a country who takes away items from the populous because nobody can trust each other? I don't know where you read about sending children to school in Kevlar, which is obviously ridiculous, but you are using the tragic and deplorable event of Sandy Hook as a political crow bar to pry in new legislation, which is deplorable itself. You act as if no one noticed or cared about any shooting that has ever happened in the US, because if we did, we would just give up a way of life. Americans look at things differently than a European would. Americans are about the individual, not the collective. It is stated among every article in all of the founding papers of this country. America is a union of 50 states, not a collection of vassal states forced into treaty(except maybe Texas, gotta keep an eye on those folks...).

The point being that you cant change a way of life for an entire culture, because a few minority have attached a stigma to that aspect of our life.

The point was not whether or not suicide is an acceptable behavior, I didn't even attempt to apply a stance on suicide to you, you misinterpreted.

Are you sure? From the way you worded your post, it seemed like you were trying to argue under the assumption that people here are opposed to suicide - as conservatives, but not liberals, often are. :)

The point is that suicide is a decision to harm yourself just like eating a big-mac. I would reckon that the degree of harm really doesnt matter if they both end with the same result.

Are you actually claiming that getting shot and eating a big mac end in the same result? Because getting shot and eating one big mac do not end in the same result.

You're also not actually disproving my claim that the degree of harm does matter. You're just asserting that it doesn't - I want to know why it doesn't matter. You haven't demonstrated anything other than that you disagree with me.

In any case, this tangent on suicide is all irrelevant, because you've yet to address the point that guns aren't only used for self-harm, unlike fast food.

Going back a bit:

Just like other countries have their embedded values and beliefs, guns are just a part of American culture.

You're making it out like culture is an immutable artifact. It isn't. In fact, human civilization as a whole is now in a time of extremely rapid cultural change. Just because the United States has a culture of gun ownership now does not mean that it will always be so.

Culture can change - and we, as individuals within our respective cultures, have the ability to contribute to cultural change; to encourage it, or to discourage it. Some would argue that because we have the power to encourage cultural change toward a society that is less filled with ills, we have a moral responsibility to do so.

we have a moral responsibility to do so.

Who's morality do you suggest to represent? Morality is an opinion. I think it would be immoral to take a gun away from an old women, my mother for example, someone who's only purpose of having a gun is self defense and keeps it in her purse when she goes out. She couldn't stop an attacker with out it. Should she just be allowed to be mugged because the muggers life is supposedly more valuable than her purse?

Do less guns create less ills? You don't need a gun to break into a house or kill somebody, you don't need a gun to rape somebody, you don't need a gun to mug my mother, all you need is a sick mind. Guns are not a gateway tool to harm. Anything can be used to harm if the assailant is willing.